How Trump and Rauner are alike

 

February 27, 2016

Comments Email Print

Greg Hinz on Politics

 

Barack Obama Bruce Rauner David Axelrod Donald Trump Greg Hinz Michael Madigan Pat Brady Government and Politics Politics Greg Hinz on Politics More +

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Maybe it's the lack of snow, but February truly has been a through-the-looking-glass month. I mean, we have a "pro-education" governor who is OK with colleges closing their doors and students dropping out because state funding has been blocked; a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate that thinks pouting equals good government; and "reformer" Jesus "Chuy" Garcia climbing into a big political bed with the head of the Illinois Democratic Machine, Michael Madigan.

And one more: How does "President Donald Trump" sound to you, Chicago?

Admittedly, the method we use in this country to nominate and elect presidents is something Alice and the Mad Hatter could have cooked up—or should I say hookahed. Only in America does the government empower a bunch of little, generally unrepresentative states to winnow the field and then select the winner not by a popular vote, which would force the candidates to campaign everywhere, but by something called the Electoral College.

"Her eyes immediately met those of a large blue caterpillar . . . taking not the smallest notice of her or of anything else."

Still, the juggernaut that is Trump is in a category of its own. I've never seen so many pundits, insiders, strategists, reporters and other "experts" so gob-smacked. Which, I must admit, is thoroughly entertaining to much of America.

The rise of Trump and the parallel climb of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side of the political divide are clearly linked.

"While the economy has improved, incomes have lagged over a long period of time" and on average are no greater than they were in 1999, says David Axelrod, the Chicago strategist who more than anyone but the candidate himself made Barack Obama president. "This is fuel in (Trump's) tank." And Sanders', too, if you just pivot to the 1 percent and how well they're doing.

"Obviously there is a lot of fear and anger. But I think Trump has tapped into some anxieties that we weren't even aware were there," says David Yepsen, a longtime presidential campaign watcher who now heads the Paul Simon Institute of Public Policy at Southern Illinois University. "Race, gay marriage, the threat from abroad. America today is more of a stir-fry than a melting pot."

But there's more there.

Part of it, I suspect, is Obama's fault. Though Axelrod puts it down to hard-right conservatives upset that Congress won't "stand up to Obama," the Chicagoan who is president raised expectations through the roof when he first was elected in 2008, campaigning as a messianic sort who would soar above the clouds bringing bipartisan harmony, hope and change to all.

He couldn't deliver on all of that. Frankly, I doubt anyone could. The old social-issues divide remains. The continuing globalization of the world's economy—increasingly everyone everywhere competes with everyone else—has added heaps of new kindling atop that already burning pile.

Given such realities, it's not hard to explain why people will turn to crisp, simple answers and tough-talking, self-financed, little-understood Type A business titans who declare they know the formula to restore past glory.

No, I'm not talking about Gov. Bruce Rauner, though some similarities definitely exist. Rather, my target is Trump, and to a lesser degree Vermont's Bernie "I'll make everything free" Sanders.

I have no idea how all of this is going to play out in months to come.

Former Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady, a John Kasich fan, predicts "a revolt" in the GOP if Trump snags the nomination. "Trump started his campaign talking about (Mexican) rapists and murderers. . . . This is not what the party is about."

My suspicion is that the parties are realigning. Blue-collar folks, people who are more conservative on the social issues, are headed to the GOP. Upper-middle-class office workers are turning Democratic, joining Latinos and African-Americans who feel dissed by the other party.

What will life be like on the other side of the looking glass? Your guess is as good as mine. But it sure looks like we're about to join Alice there.

Above is from:  http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160227/ISSUE05/302279992/go-ask-alice-when-shes-10-feet-tall

An Illinois House committee Monday will begin hearings on a new approach for dealing with the state’s crushing pension debt.

• Pension buyout proposals to get first hearing on Monday

 

 

• By Doug Finke
  State Capitol Bureau

  The State Journal-Register

  By Doug Finke
  State Capitol Bureau

  Posted Feb. 27, 2016 at 10:00 PM

• |

  Purchase this Photo

  An Illinois House committee Monday will begin hearings on a new approach for dealing with the state's crushing pension debt. File/The State Journal-Register

• By Doug Finke
  State Capitol Bureau

  Posted Feb. 27, 2016 at 10:00 PM

• 

   

• By Doug Finke
  State Capitol Bureau

  Posted Feb. 27, 2016 at 10:00 PM

  An Illinois House committee Monday will begin hearings on a new approach for dealing with the state’s crushing pension debt.

  Under consideration will be plans that would allow workers at retirement to take pension benefits as a lump-sum cash payment and give up guaranteed pension payments for life.

  For some workers, this could mean a payout of hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time, proponents say, it would help reduce Illinois' crushing pension debt that now stands at $111 billion.

  “I’m trying to find a constitutional way to save the state a whole bunch of money,” said Rep. Mark Batinick, R-Plainfield, sponsor of one of the pension bills. “I call it a win-win scenario.”

  But it’s also a scenario that needs some scrutiny and raises a lot of questions that lawmakers want to see answered.

  “There’s a whole range of options and different ways to do this,” said Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, chair of the House Personnel and Pensions Committee, which will hold a hearing Monday. “We want to explore all of those options.”

  Nekritz, who helped author the pension reform plan that was ultimately struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court last year, said she believes the buyout plans would be found constitutional.

  “To my mind it is clearly constitutional because the choice is completely within the control of the annuitant,” she said. “If you don’t want to do it, don’t do it. We’re not changing your benefit. We’re offering you an additional benefit, frankly.”

  “Nothing here forces anyone to do anything,” agreed Rep. Mike Fortner, R-West Chicago.

  Present value

  Two versions of the buyout plan have been filed in the House. Batinick’s bill is House Bill 4427. Fortner has filed House Bill 5625. Both versions would allow people at retirement to take their pension benefit as a lump sum rather than receive continuing payments for as long as they live.

  The key for employees is the payout would be based on the present value of their pension benefits. In other words, it would be far more than just the payments the employees made into their retirement plans over the years.

  Under Batinick’s bill, a person about to retire could elect to get 75 percent of the net present value of their pension benefit as a lump sum payment.

  “It’s not based on what you contributed, it’s based on the state’s liability moving forward,” Batinick said. “It’s not a small amount of money.”

• • As an example, he said, a teacher about to retire at age 62 with a $60,000 annual benefit would have a net present value of nearly $800,000.

    He said the value of his plan to the employee is two-fold. Assuming the worker puts the lump sum payment into a retirement account, it can help reduce the federal tax liability on the pension benefit, he said. Also, money in a retirement plan can be willed to other family members in the event of the retiree’s death, while pension benefits cannot.

    “Pensioners don’t have access to basically what is their money,” Batinick said. “The money’s in a piggy bank. The state gives them an allowance for the rest of their life. There’s a lot of people that are concerned about the situation in the state and politicians fighting over what is their retirement money.”

    Batinick said a retiree would not have to take the entire amount as a lump sum. Rather, a person could take a certain amount as a lump sum and leave some in the retirement system to continue getting a monthly payment from the state, albeit at a reduced level.

    Depending on a final version of the buyout proposal, a retiree might have to forfeit some other benefit in order to get a partial buyout and still receive a pension. Nekritz said a possibility would be to give up compounded raises in retirement benefits and instead make them simple annual increases.

    Batinick said he will discuss in more detail Monday how the state would come up with the money to pay the lump sums that would be required under his plan. He said, though, that since the bill would be limited only to people who are actually at the point of retirement, the reduction in the state’s liabilities would help cover the cost.

    Insignificant impact?

    Fortner’s version of the legislation does not use money from the pension systems to make the lump sum payments. Instead, qualified vendors would make the payments to retirees and then receive the full pension benefits from the state pension funds that would have gone to the retirees. The vendors would decide how much of a retiree’s total lump sum to keep as an expense. The amount would have to be disclosed upfront to the retiree.

    Fortner said the advantage to the state is a reduction in its pension liabilities that would reduce the state’s annual pension payment. Reducing liabilities by 10 percent to 15 percent, Fortner said, could save hundreds of millions in pension payments.

    Acknowledging that Batinick will disagree with her, Nekritz said she thinks the buyout plan’s effect on either the state’s pension debt or annual pension contributions will be small.

    “It’s not going to have any significant impact on the unfunded liability or the contribution the state has to make to the pensions,” she said.

    And finding a source of money to pay for the lump sums could be an issue.

    “At the level at which we are funded, it would be challenging to take assets out of the pension systems to pay for this,” Nekritz said. “Is the state willing to bond the dollars to do this and does that make financial sense for us to do this?”

    Yet, she said the plan is worth exploring because “that’s one of those options we have left open to us.”

    At this point, no actuarial studies have been done to determine how the numbers would work out. The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability is working on some projections, but they are not completed yet.

    Nekritz said she anticipates several hearings will have to be held on the plans to bring in additional experts who can advise lawmakers about who is likely to participate in such a plan, how many people would participate and how it has worked in the private sector, where similar proposals have been used.

    “We’ve got a lot of homework to do here,” she said.

    -- Contact Doug Finke: doug.finke@sj-r.com, 788-1527, twitter.com/dougfinkesjr.

  • By Doug Finke
    State Capitol Bureau

    Above is from:  http://www.sj-r.com/news/20160227/pension-buyout-proposals-to-get-first-hearing-on-monday?Start=2

One Opinion:

For 98% of retirees, these options will be a bad deal, especially if you have a spouse you want to provide a pension to should you die early.

There are some cases I can think of where a retiree MIGHT consider it. If both spouses work for the State, I could see the one with the smaller pension possibly cashing out but remember there are tax implications if the cash is not rolled into a traditional IRA. Or a deathly ill currently single person with very short life expectancy who wanted to leave something to their kids. But even both of those scenarios have some risk of outliving the cash.

Either bill could be amended before passage, which might change things. If either bill is passed and you were to consider it, get the best PAID financial advice you can BEFORE you sign anything.

- RNUG

MercyRockford threatens to move $485M hospital project to Wisconsin

 

 

By Brian Leaf
Staff writer

Posted Feb. 29, 2016 at 2:52 PM
Updated at 3:22 PM

ROCKFORD — Javon R. Bea says he'll move MercyRockford Health System's $485 million hospital complex to Wisconsin if the city doesn't reduce $1.8 million in building permit fees by March 7.

The city contends it needs that amount to expand fire and EMS services to the hospital campus, near the junction of Interstate 90 and East Riverside Boulevard.

Bea sent a letter today to members of the Code & Regulation Committee. The committee tonight will review an annexation agreement between the city and MercyRockford for 262 acres where it proposes to build its campus.

"I appreciate everything the city staff, my team and the alderman (sic) have done to make this deal happen however the city's $1.8 million permit, review and inspection fees demand is a deal breaker for me," Bea said in the letter. "I will move this major medical campus to Wisconsin if we cannot find a compromise on this issues. I trust you will appreciate the larger economic impact of this project for Rockford and support my request."

A city memo accompanying the proposed annexation agreement said MercyRockford wanted a 50 percent reduction in the fee, an amount Bea confirmed in his letter.

Javon Bea letter to Rockford City Council

"Council members, I am requesting that you support my request to ensure fees will not exceed $900,000," Bea wrote. "I have informed city administration repeatedly that I will not agree to such an exorbitant fee structure."

Bea said that if compromise proves elusive, and the annexation agreement is not approved by the full council on March 7, MercyRockford will miss a scheduled commitment with its bond financing partner "and this will force us to consider an alternate location in Wisconsin."

The letter was copied to city officials and state Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, who is a member of the MercyRockford board of directors.

The city argues in a memo on the annexation agreement that MercyRockford's new campus will strain city services. The city proposes turning a fire maintenance facility at 2323 Sawyer Road into a fire station to meet increased demand for fire and ambulance services.

It would shift staff to Sawyer Road from Station 7, 4979 Falcon Road, near Chicago Rockford International Airport, where it previously had provided emergency aviation services that were outsourced by the airport board in 2013

We are confident that we will be able to recommission the Sawyer Road facility for approximately the same cost as the building permit fee that MercyRockford would have to pay under the agreement, which is estimated at approximately $1.8 million," said the memo to aldermen from City Administrator Jim Ryan, Legal Director Patrick Hayes, Community & Economic Development Director Todd Cagnoni and Interim Public Works Director Matt Vitner.

Tonight's meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. at Rockford City Hall, 425 E. State St.

Above is from:  http://www.rrstar.com/news/20160229/mercyrockford-threatens-to-move-485m-hospital-project-to-wisconsin/?Start=2