On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the first day to legally circulate petitions for the 2006 Primary Election, the following letter appeared in the News-Gazette: (click on image for larger version)
This letter tells that State Representative Naomi Jakobsson and her political masters must think that her vote to raid employees' pensions for pork projects must have damaged her. How damaging? This letter, written by former State Rep. Helen Satterthwaite, is basically asking for voters to forgive her for this one vote because she's done such good job overall.
It's interesting that the letter was sent around the time petition circulation begins.
I wonder...
- if the Chicago Democrats who control Jakobsson have conducted a poll that demonstrates some weakness?
- if that weakness is most profound among Democratic voters?
- if this letter was sent to serve notice to those Democrats who might have been thinking about running against Jakobsson in a Primary?
I'm especially doubtful about Jakobsson having a Primary opponent, but I do find the timing and phrasing of this letter to be quite interesting. Even more so because Jakobsson and her supporters have always maintained that the pension raid wasn't really a raid, and that no one was upset about it, and certainly it wasn't going to cost her any votes. She even spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to send a mailing to constituents to try to claim that she fought against "attempts to raid" pensions.
I wonder if she regrets the pension raid vote now?
Apologies are nice, but they won't repay the money. If Jakobsson really regrets this vote, then she should refuse to vote for the second year of the raid next spring. Every University Employee, teacher and member of any other public pension system ought to watch her vote very carefully next spring. Actions speak louder than words and she does not have to vote for a budget next year that continues the raid.
In the past 3 years (under Blagojevich), the state has put almost as much into the pension fund ($13B) as was put into the fund during the previous 26 years of Republican governors ($16B). It's true that last year the legislature didn't follow the pension payment schedule it set for itself in '95, but it's also true that in the two previous years they put in significantly more than the '95 schedule called for.
When Anon 9:59 talks about repaying the money, s/he's implying that money was taken out of the pension fund. That's just not true. The state put a billion dollars into the pension fund last year.
Are people pissed off about the pension issue? Definitely. But that's like asking if senior citizens are pissed off about Republican attempts to take away their Social Security. They sure are, but as most Republicans will tell you, they've been misled by the other side. The same thing's happening with this pension issue -- Republicans are scaring public employees, just as they accuse Democrats of doing with Social Security.
All's fair in love and politics, I suppose.
Douglas, this is a ridiculous argument. This would be like saying "I've spent more on gas the last 3 years than I did the previous 10 years". You obviously know nothing about pension accounting. More was put in the last 3 years because of 2 reasons: 1. because of the pension payback plan passed by Jim Edgar. Where we are on the payment schedule has payments going up each year. 2. There was a an early retirement incentive for state employees that required a larger employer contribution.
What the Blago administration did was mortgage the future of the state's financial liability by putting on the books a large unfunded liability.
It is stupid to make an argument that "we put more money than the other guy did" when clearly this administration cheated by changing the legislative pension payment amount.
Naomi should loose sleep at night over this vote. She was willing to trade the future stability of the pension systems for funding mass transit in Chicago, cutting funds to the UI and increasing funding for Chicago State.
Way to go Naomi. I am glad you had your districts interest in mind when you voted. God help us if you hadn't of.
Right on the money.....How can NAOMI pass funding for such ridiculous issues as CHICAGO STATE, and CHICAGO mass transit. This goes to show she is in lock step with the DEMOCRATIC machine. Anybody that would pass herself off as a "friend of the little people", should be disgraced for her performance. You bet it's an issue when the cart out SATTERWHITE to do a, " I'm sorry" public relations scam.
Sorry Douglas, but I'm afraid you've got the facts wrong.
The $13 billion that you say the Democrats put into the pension system over the past three years includes $10 billion in bonded (borrowed) money.
That's like claiming you paid $5,500 to VISA when you actually took a $5,000 cash advance from your MasterCard and made a $5,500 payment to VISA.
But, actually, what the Democrats have done is far worse because the Governor's office backloaded the debt (payments on the principal are put off for years) Jakobsson, Blagojevich, Emil Jones and Mike Madigan, won't be paying the debt, that will fall to your children and grandchildren.
Although you said the state put in $1 billion last year, actually, it was $935 million, but I won't quibble over $65 million.
I will, however, point out that the state was supposed to put in $2.1 billion. Again, I don't know about you, but I don't think my bank would be very happy if, instead of making a car payment of $300/month, I decided that I'd rather just pay $120. "Gee, Mr. Banker, I paid you almost half of what I owe, you're pretty greedy to demand the whole thing aren't you?"
Is that a "raid?" I suppose if you just refuse to pay the money, it makes you a deadbeat. But when you use your power to change the law to say you don't owe the money, I think that pretty much qualifies as a "raid."
But, let's cut through all the garbage. The fact remains, next year Naomi Jacobsson can redeem herself simply by refusing to vote for a budget that continues the (insert your politically-preferred term for "raid" here). Apologies are only sincere if they are accompanied by a change in behavior. If Jacobsson doesn't change her behavior then public employees need to change their legislator.