Democrats plan to blame Illinois Gov. Rauner

There’s one thing that we should be able to agree on about the Illinois and Chicago financial crises: It’s not the fault of students wanting an education, poor people seeking medical care, drivers wanting decent roads, transit riders yearning for reliable service, battered children and women desperately needing help, the hungry looking for a nutritious diet and all the other beneficiaries truly dependent on the state and city.

But they’re the ones who are getting socked. A well-run government should be able to handle many of those legitimate, reasonable and competing demands, within budget. Illinois and Chicago are not.

Bruce Rauner (Chris Sweda / Chicago Tribune)

Bruce Rauner (Chris Sweda / Chicago Tribune)

Blame both political parties — Democrats for their years of running the city and state into the ground and Republicans who have acquiesced. And the suburban town and school boards, many Republican controlled, for caving into ruinous demands for pay and retirement benefits made by public employee unions.

As May ended, the Democratic-run legislature exhibited its incompetence again as it passed a budget $3 billion short of the revenues needed to cover expenditures.

As the Tribune recently noted, the Democratic strategy, now that Democrats refused to pass a balanced budget, will be to “force (Gov. Bruce) Rauner to wear the jacket for billions in budget cuts that would hit social service programs in the hopes that he’ll feel enough heat to eventually sign on to a tax increase …” As if the heartless governor, who didn’t bring on this crisis, is the one who is depriving the poor, elderly, young and others dependent on state aid and programs. How droll. What brass.

Mostly blame House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton (both Democrats) and their deep-pocket contributors, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and other public employee unions. Their incessant and greedy demands for more, more and more have forced government to borrow more, more and more to a point approaching bankruptcy.

Champions of the middle class, downtrodden and huddled masses? Hardly. These very Democrats are hypocritically robbing the schools, hospitals and social service providers of billions and billions of dollars that must instead go into pensions and debt service.

For example: An astonishing quarter of every dollar that Chicago earns from taxes, grants, fines and fees goes to pay for employee pensions, according to Marc Joffe, a bond market analyst and principal consultant at Public Sector Credit Solutions. On the state level, pension and interest payments gobble up 10 percent of all revenues, according to Joffe. Those billions could have gone a long way to help the most needy.

Normally, government borrows money to finance capital improvements, such as transit lines, bridges, hospitals and prisons — stuff that lasts at least as long as the life of the loan. But borrowing to pay for everyday expenses, as we do here, is like borrowing against your home to buy groceries. It eventually leads to catastrophe.

The unions will try to sell the idea that they aren’t responsible for the more than $100 billion that’s owed to the pension funds. They’ll argue that if the government had not raided the funds to pay for normal operations, we wouldn’t be facing this crisis.

In a way that’s true, but here’s the rub. First, the pensions are unreasonably generous; if they were more realistic, more reflective of what is normal in the private sector, we wouldn’t have had to put so much money in the funds to begin with.

Second, without those diversions, the state would have spent less on schools, health and other essential services. Teachers unions always complain that not enough money is being spent on schools; but without the diversions, the schools would have had received even less. Are the teachers saying that the money should have gone first to their pensions and not the schools?

The public employee unions act as if the fault lies elsewhere. But when the money was being diverted into operations instead of pensions, where were the union leaders? They were tossing union money (i.e., the members’ money) to those very same politicians, mostly Democrats, who were raiding the pension funds for other purposes. And passing inflated budgets that forced them to borrow.

Even this weekend, the Democrat-controlled Illinois legislature struck again by passing a bill that would reduce Chicago’s annual contributions to police and fire pensions and push back the date for full funding — to give the city time to figure out new ways to borrow money.

The beat goes on. And the governor who is trying to straighten out this mess gets blamed for making it worse.

This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune.

For information on my award-winning historical novel, “Madness: The War of 1812,” visit:

You can be notified whenever I add a new post to my blog. It’s easy. Type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.


Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    The public employee unions act as if the fault lies elsewhere. But when the money was being diverted into operations instead of pensions, where were the union leaders?

    Um, they were in court, asking the Illinois Supreme Court to require the state to properly fund the pensions, claiming that by underfunding them the state violated the IL Constitution by impairing the pensions. In IFT vs. Lindberg, in 1976, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the constitution did not require any particular level of funding, only fully paying benefits when they come due, and ruled against the union. Had the ISC not made this monumental error and ruled in favor of the union back then (as courts in other states such as New York have since done regarding funding), we would not be in the predicament we are today.

    The bottom line is that you cannot blame the unions for pension underfunding, because they did everything they could to keep it from happening. I think the blame belongs squarely on the voters of the state, who have regularly elected politicians that promised them lower taxes without cutting services (e.g. Rauner), and have regularly defeated politicians like Quinn who dared to tell the truth that you actually have to pay if you want decent services.

  • And why did the unions continue to support the politicians who diverted money from the pension funds? Why didn't the unions shift their campaign contributions to politicians who would have supported reform? Or was it because those politicians are the ones who correctly argued that pension benefits were too generous. The overly generous benefits are at the heart of the crisis

Leave a comment