Senator Napoleon Harris: When the Times Are Tough, Some Aren't.

Frosh Senator Napoleon Harris: (When the times are tough, we find out who isn’t…)

Last time I talked to Senator Napoleon Harris, it was a return call that began with “I’m not afraid to tell you that I voted for SB35, because that was what I thought what was best.”  Newly-elected Senator Harris went on to explain his reasons that he voted for SB35 – the Biss Bill that would have capped cost-of-living, force 401k plans to new hires, increase employee contributions, etc.

Napoleon Harris is a celebrity in the Springfield Dome.  Harris was a linebacker in the NFL, and his job for the Oakland Raiders – Vikings - Chiefs was to tackle the guy with the ball.  Obviously, he did it well.  He was a successful player for eight years.

Then, Napoleon Harris turned his attention to politics at first on the state level; that is, after he dropped the quickly attempted jump to the Federal level.  When Jesse Jackson’s seat opened, frosh-Senator Harris was quick to leap into position to achieve that next level.  He was evidently swiftly advised to return to his state senate position and concede to Robin Kelly.  Perhaps this higher desire will play out for him later.

On the other hand, celebrity money has its perks too.  The Senator was able to provide the lion’s share of his monetary needs for running.  Like a Senator Jim Oberweis, Senator Harris was his own best supporter, providing well over $200,000 to assure his Senate seat.

Regarding SB35, Senator Harris told me that beyond being unafraid to defend his positive vote, the State of Illinois faced an enormous debt that needed to be addressed.  While we both agreed to that starting point, not much else seemed to align afterwards in our discussion.  For the new Senator, there was not time nor need for listening to questions regarding structural revenue deficits or alternative revenue streams; instead, his preferred action was to cut as much as possible from public sector employees’ pensions benefits.

For Senator Harris, this was not a matter of being Democratic or Republican; contrapuntally, he wanted to get as much money as possible to return Illinois to solvency.  To be fair, the Senator felt compelled to alleviate the pain those in lower economic levels needed.  I agreed, but unfortunately our paths diverged there.

If the funds were going to come from those public workers who already paid their share, Harris didn’t care.  For Senator Harris, that was just semantics.  “You all were able to enjoy the benefits of the money used to keep taxes low, so it’s your time to pay now.”  It’s hard to argue with logic like that.  Let’s see, you stole my money, used it to pay for a party to which I was invited, and now I must pay again for your party?  But, then again, a graduate of Northwestern, Harris sees things far beyond my simple image of thousands of people paying into a system that takes its matching money for other purposes.  Of course, when you are making $7 million a year, achieving the cap on social security occurs after making around four tackles or assists in the first game; what other humans scrimp and save for may not ring significant for Senator Harris, the celebrity (http://www.nysun.com/sports/linebacker-napoleon-harris-is-the-real-prize/44049/ ).

“I will tell you that I will vote yes for any bill that comes along to help correct the problem here in Illinois.” 

When I asked about Constitutional issues, the new Senator responded, “We make laws and people have to follow them.  If we make the law, it has to be followed and we need to make these laws.”  I asked if it would be possible for my associate and I to talk to the Senator about these important Constitutional issues and about the Pension Protection Clause. 

“I’m going on vacation,” he responded.  “I want to have some time with my wife and family.”

I took that as a “no.”

I take his latest vote of “NO VOTE” as a “no” also.  I am guessing that, even as a Democratic Senator, Napoleon Harris is not going to side with the fans in the stands, the middle class, those who haven’t the perks he does.  He’s a celebrity, and celebrities – like Senator Oberweis – are not subject to rules like Constitutions or errant referees.  On the other hand, a “NO VOTE?”  Sometimes votes require a real legislator to expose his or her true nature.  This is, according to Project Vote Smart, the same way Senator Harris reacted to the marriage equality vote. 

C’mon, Senator, where are you?  Have you become so tied to future desires that you can’t make the call? 

Voter: You Make the Call!

217-782-8066   or 708-893-0552

Speaker Madigan and Last Year's Prada: Threatening a Cost Shift

It’s Thursday and SB2404 will come up today in the Illinois Senate for a vote.  It will very likely pass.  Then, Madigan’s House supported SB1 will head full speed toward the Senate. SB2404, once passed in the Senate, will steam full throttle toward the House.  Each may be held hostage in committee, may be voted up or down, or may collide into a fusion of many parts to be sent to both chamber of the General Assembly.  Think chimera or, better, Frankenstein. 

Madigan is supporting his bill as the best fiscal solution for Illinois, and he “knows” the court will back his plan.  Cullerton says the Justices won’t, and he supports a union-supported bill plan that will pass through the courts even if it puts less pressure on the state’s workers to pay for the pension debts. 

Now suddenly, Speaker Madigan is trotting out last year’s creation: shifting the cost of pension costs to the local school districts.  Maybe the Speaker is being nostalgic?  Maybe he’s thinking of the time when he and Senate Leader John Cullerton were thick as, well, you know – really tight.  Maybe he’s trying to remind Republicans in the Senate that this cost-shift is a worse alternative to the SB1 he has sent them from the House?  Maybe the two of them will never have Paris.  But it would behoove all of us to recall the dangers of the shift of costs to local districts and how it worked when the two legislators were thick as…

"What we’ve suggested is that local districts have a little skin in the game when they hire teachers and administrators and set their salaries.  They should be required to set aside money into the pension system for their future retirees.”  Senate Leader John Cullerton (McQueary, Kristen.  Illinois schools may chip in…  NY Times.  19 February 2012).

“Unlike elected officials in Wisconsin and Indiana, we work with unions in Illinois.” – John Cullerton to Phil Kadner 16 February 2012).  

“Some Skin in the Game” (…or...Making local school districts pay for pension costs).

Idiom: While many credit sagacious investor Warren Buffet with the phrase “to have some skin in the game,” Mr. Buffet has strongly denied such attributions.  In essence, the idiomatic phrase means being personally, emotionally, or financially vulnerable to a possible venture and, therefore, connected to it at all levels of possible aftermaths.  According to William Safire, the Oxford English Dictionary explains the “skin game” was a card game in which each player has one card which he bets will not be the first to be matched by a card drawn from the deck; so dealer or player, all have equal chances of winning or losing

( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/opinion/17iht-edsafire.2839605.html ).

Sadly, in the case of the public pension system, it appears to be losers all around.  The concept of shifting responsibility for the teacher’s pension from the state of Illinois to local school districts has become increasingly popular in the last few months. 

The president of the senate, Mr. Cullerton, sees this transfer as an opportunity to force local districts to keep increasing costs of retirees and salary increases in check.  Costs for pensions per district would become an essential part of union contract negotiations (McQueary, Kristen). 

For Governor Quinn, the “rendezvous with reality” will also call for everyone’s sacrifice, including the local districts. 

Regarding teacher retirement benefits, the state could save nearly $1.5 billion; according to the Associated Press, Governor Quinn has given the nod to those who would seek such a shift in responsibilities (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/quinn-looks-to-shift-teacher-pension-funding-to-local-school/article_bed030a4-1a1d-56f9-bcd0-c2fedce38fa3.html). Such savings would allow the state of Illinois to continue making payments to reduce the unfunded liability, a result of years of pension holidays, to continue to provide and improve  human services, and to force local districts to enact new procedures for dealing with public unions. 

On the other hand, many Republicans and others  - including the Illinois Association of School Boards – figure the costs would be injurious to local taxpayers as well as the districts themselves.  Such requirements might bring “an additional  $800 million in contributions toward teacher pensions,” which coincidentally is the projected amount the state of Illinois will owe to the pension system this year - without their required payment to the unfunded liability (McQueary, Kristen). In short, it may be more than coincidental that this proposal will allow the debtor (the state) to pay simply the interest on past non-payments and not the current bill that is due for 2012.   

Meanwhile, Republicans in the General Assembly realize what kind of pressure is being put on the local districts and the citizens who live within those school boundaries.   They foresee an increased burden on the local taxpayers and the school boards. “ ‘It could either be a property tax increase or depending on how they structure the deal they’re going to have to cut whatever those costs are within [the] school district,’ Rep. Ed Sullivan, R – Mundelein, said. ‘So you’re either going to lose teachers or have a massive property tax.’”  ( http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/illinois-republicans-against-shifting-pension-costs-to-school-districts/article_aa4db910-5cfe-11e1-b880-001a4bcf6878.html)  Such a deal might also be phased in through several years; thus, easing the immediate pain and immediate financial impact upon taxpayers.  Regardless, financial resources on the local district levels will become strained.  Perhaps there will be cuts to staff, increased class sizes, or loss of auxiliary programs - Theater Arts, Music, Creative Writing, to name a few.

Some truths are still evident.  School income – also wealth – is created by a combination of three elements:

1.      Property Wealth – This is the combined value of all the real estate in a school district, which in turn determines just how much money the local schools can generate from their property taxes.  According to Dick Ingram, head of TRS, Illinois is a state of financial extremes.

2.      Tax Effort – The total assessed value of real property must be multiplied by the school district tax rate to determine the amount of property taxes the district can receive.  Tax rates are subject to local referendums; therefore, taxpayers themselves decide whether or not to support their local schools and by how much.

3.      State Equalization Aid – The State of Illinois is supposed to provide equalization funds to compensate for the differences in local property wealth, but the dollars can never meet the vast gaps in differences.  District relying on state aid have far less than districts that can rely on wealthy property taxes (Illinois Association of School Boards. Playing fair with the children of Illinois. www.iasb.com) .

Need an example?

In south suburban Ford Heights, where the median annual household income is about $16,000 and the average home is worth $42,000, the local taxpayers give up property tax rates of 21.7 percent.  On the other hand, in Winnetka, where the average home is worth $1 million, and the annual household income is $207,955, the property tax rate is about 6%, according to statistics compiled by the Cook County clerk (Kadner, Phil. Pols pull bait and switch on teacher pensions, taxes.  Chicago Sun-Times.  12 February 2012). 

Here’s a real rendezvous with reality.

Shifting the costs of the state’s pension problems to local taxpayers would break the poor but only slightly distress the wealthy.  (Personally, while I can live with the latter, I find it unconscionable to do the former.) 

Augmenting that most unacceptable fact, Illinois (in 2006!) had the most inequitable education funding system in the country, with per pupil spending ranging from a high of almost $23,700 to a low of less than $4,500 (Center for Tax and Budget Accountability.  The current status of public education funding in Illinois. 2006).  And, today, while taxpayers in Schaumburg pay a composite tax of nearly 7.7%, those who struggle in poverty-ridden Robbins will pay property taxes ranging from 9 to 10.3%, with an income average at least one third that of Schaumburg. 

In the case of House Speaker Madigan, “skin in the game” means, basically, if you are a public employee, it’s your skin.  “The question is how to do that (solve the pension problem) within the confines of the state constitution, which says public employee pension benefits cannot be reduced once they are given.  Madigan outlined a potential trade-off.  ‘The question is for a person on a public job today, can we say to them “Everything you’ve earned up to today you keep, no change?” But…can we say to that person, “Starting tomorrow, it’s going to be a different deal.  It won’t be as rich.  The benefit level will not be as high, but we will save the stability and integrity of your pension system.’” (http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/quinn-asks-lawmakers-to-put-some-skin/80c6ffd8eea873ac52a4b9427d90ce9e)

So, either the public employees sacrifice or the local taxpayers sacrifice (of which the public employees are included again).  Meanwhile, companies in Illinois carry on calmly claiming their rights to tax loopholes and rebates.  While the governor nods to the idea of locals paying more, remember that big-box Illinois retailers receive back 1.75% of the sales tax revenue they collect from consumers on behalf of the state (Sachdev, Ameet & Cancino, Alejandra.  Tax giveaways under a microscope. Chicago Tribune.  4 March 2012).  And that’s just one small sampling.

The Trib Calls Them Do-Nothings: That Makes Them True Statesmen

The Trib Calls them Do-Nothings: 

(That Makes Them True Illinois Statesmen)

For years now, the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago has run an ad in their favorite media outlet, the Chicago Tribune, threatening a head count on those in Springfield who stood in the way of the needed “reforms” to public sector workers’ benefits.  The ad was a full two pages of an empty-pocketed Abe Lincoln and a check list of the legislators.   Civic Committee leader Ty Fahner was the author, and the political intentions for legislators was purposely menacing. 

That was then.  SB512 and other corporatist plans failed to make it to the floor, mainly because of the bizarre proposals and actuarial gymnastics provided by Ty Fahner and his Sidley Austin accountants, as well as the worries of sensible members in the Pension Committee about the constitutionality of the proposed bill.  In fact, ironically, it was a conscientious then-Representative Daniel Biss who voted “no” and who was left in a room alone with Ty Fahner for nearly an hour after the committee’s vote to shelve SB512.  One wonders what exactly Fahner said to twist Representative-now-Senator Biss’ original concerns into his present-day loathing for the Illinois Constitution.

After the defeat of SB512, the blustering Fahner retreated from any blatant exercise of monetary influence and began his next strategy: to affect political will and sensibility by a gentler and kinder coercion via his multi-million dollar P.A.C. called We Mean Business.  

Perhaps Fahner’s new presence has worked.  Many legislators who first worried about the possible constitutional challenges facing SB512 did not hesitate to endorse Madigan’s amended SB1. 

My own Representative Monique Davis suddenly flipped to the Fahner/corporatist point of view.  Originally, Davis had stood alone against SB7, the bill that later generated the Chicago Teachers Unions marches and subsequent strike.  In fact, one of the legislators I talked to in 2011 characterized her as “Unique” Monique in a sinister tone of dripping in sarcasm.  But the old Monique is dead, and she ponied up to the recent Madigan demand just like the others now nicely haltered in his stable. 

Today, the Chicago Tribune ran the checklist for Ty Fahner, even though Fahner and the Civic Committee have decided to use money not so much for ink as for coercive influence.  But we can always count on the Trib to provide for the Civic Committee gratis.   

The Tribune’s editorial board chastised lawmakers who paused or voted against the Madigan amendments to SB1.  “Bottom Line: If your lawmaker voted ‘No,’ he or she voted to leave unsalvaged the miserable train wreck of state finances.”  The editorial board called them the “Do-Nothing Caucus.” 

Some of these “do-nothing” Representatives have already expressed their concerns and reasons for voting against the bill in emails and messages to constituents.  Some sight concerns about the constitutionality.  Others are distressed that there was no collaboration with the public sector unions in the development of Madigan’s/Nekritz’s draconian cuts.  Some have not informed us yet why they voted against the proposal, but they did so despite very heavy arm-twisting by both sides of the aisle (Rep. Cross & Rep. Madigan). 

The Tribune calls them gutless and wimpy.  I’m thinking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. 

Here is Glen Brown’s list of those who voted against Madigan’s cynical and mean-spirited bill.  Hope you can take the time to thank them for their stand.  You should.  This isn’t over yet, and as Marge Sucansky sagely pointed out, other bills may return in other forms to these legislators again at a later date.  Let’s express our appreciation.  

http://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2013/05/illinois-representatives-who-voted-to.html

Don't Be Nervous Says the Tribune: Convincing Words to Legislators

Convincing Words to Legislators  (Don’t Be Nervous says the Tribune)

Some years ago, colleagues and I used to assign short, creative essays to our students studying vocabulary words, which were grouped by category.  In some cases, we asked students to assume a “deranged but educated” persona and convince an unwary reader of the worthiness of an absurd position.  Letting under-12-year-olds use steroids for mini-football camps.  The benefits of having a nuclear waste dump in your town or village.  And so on.

We never realized we were grooming them for writing positions of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune.  And yet, today’s editorial “’Tough Vote’ on Pensions? Hardly” brings to mind those old assignments – and some of our struggling writers.

The editorial accuses the unions and the IEA website of hyperbole (actually the Trib accusing another of hyperbole is extreme irony, or is it hypocrisy).  And after, it pokes some mean-spirited fun: “Teachers: Grab your hazmat suits! And hurry, lest you disintegrate into molten ash!” 

More noteworthy, the writer worries about the hesitant lawmakers who “have reacted with nervous chatter about their forthcoming “tough vote.”  Illinois legislators are, after all, the intended if unwary audience for this piece.

“As is, Illinois won’t be able to pay the pensions its lawmakers promised.  Legislators need to rescue the system for the benefit of today’s and tomorrow’s retirees.  Sounds like a good thing.” 

But to an intelligent legislator it should sound like a mistruth. 

Illinois can easily afford to pay the normal costs for retirees.  It is the cost of debt for years of taking holidays and skipping appropriate payments that has led to the $100 billion shortfall that eats up more and more of the general revenue each year.  It is the adherence to the ramp that frustrates the problem.  And, even if the Tribune ridicules legislators who consider the vote a “tough” one, it may be because the politicians know that as well.  And even when Mr. Madigan blusters that at least four Illinois Supreme Court justices will agree with his proposal, legislators are wise to doubt it.  If they know the history, the justices will.  Maybe Madigan is just trying to make a “tough” vote easier?

Feel anxious, legislator?  You should.

The Trib’s best attempt at absurdity and convincing you comes quickly after: “Rather than focus on what’s being reduced, take a look at what’s being preserved.”

·      First, if you are over age 45, the new proposal will not force you to work any longer than before.  Who wouldn’t vote for that?

·      As for cost-of-living adjustments, older pensioners will see them “level-off.”  And no more compounded COLA’s but retirees will get an increase each year.  Level-off means less, especially when it comes to keeping up with inflation.  Furthermore, eliminating a compound COLA for a simple COLA, and justifying it with the promise of an “increase” each year is at best hollow in reasoning and morality.  And a legislator who has any familiarity with the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution they swore to uphold should be nervous.

·      Current teachers will have to pay up an additional 2 percent on top of 9.4 percent now paid to the state for retirement, etc.  Besides, the editor argues, nearly half of the districts pay some of that or all for the teachers.  Of course, this means that over half do not.  It also means that their district’s collective bargaining includes lesser pay for assistance with contributions.  But the Trib believes that having anything at all is a benefit, and it never believes in promises (aka contracts).

·      Teachers currently under age 44 would be required to work additional years before retiring.  The amount of extra time would be adjusted to age, more years for younger workers.  This is not an impairment or diminishment, argues the Trib, just a change in working conditions.  “…young workers have a decade or more to begin preparing for the change.” 

·      Finally, the Trib presents nervous lawmakers something to assuage their guilt/worry/hesitation: a contractual obligation that the unions have wanted for years, one that requires pension payments become a priority.  Feel better now?  Of course, the Trib argues as a beacon of the Civic Committee that such a clause is too much and too dangerous, but don’t believe the unions were present during the development of this destructive blueprint.  They were not, even if the Trib cleverly suggests they were: The unions fought hard to include this provision in what is now Madigan’s plan.” 

Still not convinced, Representative?  Still worried?

The Trib tells its teacher audience that we should be happy.  We could soon be saddled with 401k’s, or get less with Social Security. Or get nothing at all.

“The Trib says, “Do the right thing for the state – for teachers, for state workers (sic)other government employees, yes, taxpayers too – and pass pension reform.”

After all, this short list of what’s being preserved, not reduced, is comforting?  You think you’re nervous?  You should feel the vibrations of hundreds of thousands of people who are really nervous.