Illinois governor cuts $1.4 billion from budget and gives 20% raises to his staff...

[posty 2,296]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_re_us/us_illinois_governor_raises

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has handed out raises — some of more than 20 percent — to his staff while proclaiming a message of "shared sacrifice" and planning spending cuts of $1.4 billion because the state is awash in debt.

 

The Democrat has given 43 salary increases averaging 11.4 percent to 35 staffers in the past 15 months, according to an Associated Press analysis of records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

They include a $24,000-a-year bump for the man promoted to shepherd the state through the fiscal storm. Budget Director David Vaught got a 20 percent raise to bring his pay to $144,000 in October when he moved to his new position from Quinn's staff, where he was a senior adviser.

 

Quinn said Tuesday the raises did not prevent him from making deep spending cuts in his office.

 

"Overall, the amount of money spent by taxpayers on the governor's office is significantly lower today than it was when I took office," he said at a Chicago news conference planned for him to sign legislation to speed up the processing of evidence in rape cases.

 

Quinn said he'd cut spending in the office by 25 percent since he took over 17 months ago. But staff members said spending was down 10 percent in the budget year that just ended, with plans for another 25 percent reduction this year.

 

Lawmakers, whom Quinn has asked to raise income taxes and borrow billions to meet its obligations for employee pensions reacted with skepticism and anger.

 

"It's insulting," said Rep. Jack Franks, a Woodstock Democrat who voted "no" on Quinn's proposal to borrow $3.7 billion for the pension payment that the House OK'd but Senate has not.

 

"It shows how out of touch he is with the real world, where businesses are freezing salaries and in some cases laying people off," Franks said.

 

Half of the raises are the result of promotion or a change in job title with an added workload, Quinn spokeswoman Marlena Jentz said.

 

But others were reported as "salary adjustments," such as a 10.4 percent bump in January for deputy budget director Gladyse Taylor, to $110,000, and a 7 percent jump in May 2009 to bring associate budget director Malcolm Weems' pay to $92,000.

 

They were based on "re-evaluated work output, additional duties and overall performance," Jentz said.

 

Weems now makes $110,000 after he was promoted in January to deputy director and chief of staff with a 19 percent raise.

 

Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, Quinn's opponent in the fall election, said the raises show Quinn "is incapable of solving our fiscal crisis."

 

"While working families are tightening their belts and doing more with less, Pat Quinn is doling out massive pay raises to his own staff — and we're paying for them," Brady said in a statement.

 

The budget Quinn signed last week for the fiscal year that began July 1 would borrow money and delay bill payments, along with cutting about $1.4 billion in spending. Quinn may have to come up with another $3.7 billion for pensions if legislators continue to deny him permission to borrow the money.

 

Sen. Michael Noland, an Elgin Democrat who opposes the pension borrowing plan despite heavy lobbying, said there might be circumstances where a raise is warranted for someone taking on significant new duties. But he encouraged the governor to follow his own call for shared sacrifice and "hold the line."

 

Employees "might be having to accept a little more responsibility, but generally speaking, the state of Illinois is not in a position to be issuing raises at this point," Noland said.

 

Along with cuts in the governor's office, Jentz said the budget office cut spending by 17 percent last year. Quinn's proposed spending plan had a 10 percent increase in the budget office this year, documents show.

 

"We have fewer people doing more, and that's what the public wants," Quinn said.

 

The other cuts were a 20 percent reduction in travel costs and 12 required unpaid furlough days per person, according to the governor's office. Quinn also claimed he'd reduced staff by 10 positions in the governor's office.

 

The overall payroll for the governor's staff and his budget office was slightly lower in May than last July — $123,000 less, or just under 2 percent, according to state payroll records. But other records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that dozens of employees reporting to the governor's office are paid by other agencies under Quinn's control.

 

And, payroll records show 124 employees in the governor's office and budget office in May, compared to 125 in July 2009 and 122 in February 2009, just after Quinn took office.

[Mungwater 588]

Typical Illinois politics, take care of your buddies.

 

My moms uncle was mayor of Chicago in the 40s same way then, same way now

[JTB 52]

Typical Illinois politics, take care of your buddies.

 

My moms uncle was mayor of Chicago in the 40s same way then, same way now

 

 

Was he black? Republican? Democrat? To lazy to google.

[Mungwater 588]

You need google to figure out if Illinois politics is corrupt?

[phillybear 364]

If the peasants can't afford bread, let them eat cake. :mad:

[JTB 52]

You need google to figure out if Illinois politics is corrupt?

 

 

Got it. your mom's uncle was a liberal nig!

[Mungwater 588]

Nah, he was a democrat and an immigrant, his name was Anton cermak, he was a very liberal dude until someone shot him in Miami while hanging with Roosevelt.

 

My moms family then went by great grandmothers name because of the mob

[JTB 52]

Nah, he was a democrat and an immigrant, his name was Anton cermak, he was a very liberal dude until someone shot him in Miami while hanging with Roosevelt.

 

My moms family then went by great grandmothers name because of the mob

 

Interesting. I'm sure he had children who had children.....hang wit em?

[shovelheadt 62]

The budget director for an entire state only makes 144K...after a huge bump? Surprising really.

[davebg 0]

The last couple of years has really seen a dramatic redistribution of wealth, but not necessarily between the rich and the poor, but rather between the public and private workforce.

 

Private employees are losing jobs, enduring salary freezes, facing reduced benefits and being forced to do the work of their laid-off former co-workers.

 

Meanwhile, public employees are making out like bandits. Government employees, in particular, are seeing an abundance of riches. Public unions are also reaping the rewards of years of "negotiating" phat deals during the boom times while refusing to make any sort of meaningful give-backs to match the sacrifices that everyone else is being forced to deal with in this economy.

 

This situation just cannot keep going. It is economically unfeasible. The costs associated with public employees is paid for by taxes on the salaries of private employees. If the private employees are making less money and losing their jobs, then that represents less tax revenue with which to pay the public sector.

 

For some reason, nobody wants to talk about this or deal with the reality of it all.

 

Here in NJ the gov played hardball with many public unions, including teachers. IMO he didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He wanted a 1 or 2 yr pay freeze and for workers to contribute 1-1.5% towards their benefits. Given what's been going on with the economy, those seemed like fair requests. Instead, the union opposed the changes and hundreds (thousands?) of teachers in NJ lost their jobs. Why? Because the union was more concerned about senior, tenured teachers getting their salaries as high as possible before they retired, as opposed to protecting the jobs of their less senior, untenured members. I guess if you're a union leader you don't have to worry about backlash from the people in your union who got screwed bc they just lost their jobs and are no longer in the union, which means they no longer have a say in the union (or how they were treated by said union.)

[parrot 789]

The last couple of years has really seen a dramatic redistribution of wealth, but not necessarily between the rich and the poor, but rather between the public and private workforce.

 

Private employees are losing jobs, enduring salary freezes, facing reduced benefits and being forced to do the work of their laid-off former co-workers.

 

Meanwhile, public employees are making out like bandits. Government employees, in particular, are seeing an abundance of riches. Public unions are also reaping the rewards of years of "negotiating" phat deals during the boom times while refusing to make any sort of meaningful give-backs to match the sacrifices that everyone else is being forced to deal with in this economy.

 

This situation just cannot keep going. It is economically unfeasible. The costs associated with public employees is paid for by taxes on the salaries of private employees. If the private employees are making less money and losing their jobs, then that represents less tax revenue with which to pay the public sector.

 

For some reason, nobody wants to talk about this or deal with the reality of it all.

 

Here in NJ the gov played hardball with many public unions, including teachers. IMO he didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He wanted a 1 or 2 yr pay freeze and for workers to contribute 1-1.5% towards their benefits. Given what's been going on with the economy, those seemed like fair requests. Instead, the union opposed the changes and hundreds (thousands?) of teachers in NJ lost their jobs. Why? Because the union was more concerned about senior, tenured teachers getting their salaries as high as possible before they retired, as opposed to protecting the jobs of their less senior, untenured members. I guess if you're a union leader you don't have to worry about backlash from the people in your union who got screwed bc they just lost their jobs and are no longer in the union, which means they no longer have a say in the union (or how they were treated by said union.)

 

Lots of generalizations in here. My wife is a public employee in a union and she sure as hell hasn't made out like a bandit or seen an abundance of riches. In fact she hasn't anything more than the most nominal of COL raises in years.

[heavy-set 39]

The last couple of years has really seen a dramatic redistribution of wealth, but not necessarily between the rich and the poor, but rather between the public and private workforce.

 

Private employees are losing jobs, enduring salary freezes, facing reduced benefits and being forced to do the work of their laid-off former co-workers.

 

Meanwhile, public employees are making out like bandits. Government employees, in particular, are seeing an abundance of riches. Public unions are also reaping the rewards of years of "negotiating" phat deals during the boom times while refusing to make any sort of meaningful give-backs to match the sacrifices that everyone else is being forced to deal with in this economy.

 

This situation just cannot keep going. It is economically unfeasible. The costs associated with public employees is paid for by taxes on the salaries of private employees. If the private employees are making less money and losing their jobs, then that represents less tax revenue with which to pay the public sector.

 

For some reason, nobody wants to talk about this or deal with the reality of it all.

 

Here in NJ the gov played hardball with many public unions, including teachers. IMO he didn't ask for anything unreasonable. He wanted a 1 or 2 yr pay freeze and for workers to contribute 1-1.5% towards their benefits. Given what's been going on with the economy, those seemed like fair requests. Instead, the union opposed the changes and hundreds (thousands?) of teachers in NJ lost their jobs. Why? Because the union was more concerned about senior, tenured teachers getting their salaries as high as possible before they retired, as opposed to protecting the jobs of their less senior, untenured members. I guess if you're a union leader you don't have to worry about backlash from the people in your union who got screwed bc they just lost their jobs and are no longer in the union, which means they no longer have a say in the union (or how they were treated by said union.)

Iam anti-union, but its tough to blame the workers. In lieu of higher wages, they accepted more time off, better health care, and retirement benfits. These benefit costs were pushed into the future, letting the politicians who negotiatied them off the hook. Now the bill is come due and we dont wanna pay?

[davebg 0]

Lots of generalizations in here. My wife is a public employee in a union and she sure as hell hasn't made out like a bandit or seen an abundance of riches. In fact she hasn't anything more than the most nominal of COL raises in years.

 

Well, here in the NY/NJ area we see CRAZY sh|t from all sorts of unions...particularly transit workers. Fockers sleeping on the job while they paid well and get sick benefits. Train conductors that make almost $250k/yr because of OT. Totally nuts.

 

NJ was facing an absurd deficit and the governor actually, you know, governed. He made the tough decisions and made some enemies along the way instead of running the state as though his only focus was his re-election in four years. The unions didn't want to negotiate. Instead, they protested. I actually saw one woman (a teacher) being interviewed at one such anti-gov rally and she had the nerve to complain that for the first time since she's been teaching she actually owed the state taxes. Totally focked up.

 

Even when the union leadership knows better, the union delegates still stir the masses up. In NY the teachers union recently came to an agreement with the city. The deal was done completely behind closed doors. Only the union leadership knew about it. They purposely kept the delegates in the schools out of the loop bc they know what everyone else does...the delegates are the militant nutjobs in the union. They are the ones who whip the members into a fury and they're the ones who don't want to ever give anything back. This is largely bc the union delegates are senior people who only want to keep their salaries as high as possible prior to retirement, which inflates their pension. These senior union delegates also fight tooth and nail to protect things like tenure, so that when there are layoffs they can't be made based upon merit, but rather on seniority.

 

I'm not saying this happens with all unions, but from where I'm sitting, it happens at many of them. IMO unions are an outdated idea that should be restricted to a few limited industries/occupations. For example, those coal miners in PA need unions to ensure that they operate under safe working conditions. School teachers? Train conductors? Notsomuch.

[Birdseed 1]

You need google to figure out if Illinois politics is corrupt?

 

No sh1t. We are currently getting ready to send our fourth Governor to prison in only the last 50 years.

 

BTW, one of them was Anton Cermak's son-in-law.

[davebg 0]

Iam anti-union, but its tough to blame the workers. In lieu of higher wages, they accepted more time off, better health care, and retirement benfits. These benefit costs were pushed into the future, letting the politicians who negotiatied them off the hook. Now the bill is come due and we dont wanna pay?

You make some valid points. I have a few of my own for you to consider.

 

Unions are supposed to represent ALL of their members, not just those senior members who have high salaries, pensions and tenure. In this economy all manner of businesses and organizations are having to spend less, including those that employ unionized workers. If there's a finite amount of money then there are only two options: compensate all your workers less or maintain compensation rates while laying off staff.

 

If unions were serious about representing all of their members, then there's really no decision to be made...you protect the jobs of the many.

 

Now, is it fair that these unions negotiated something with politicians who have ridden off into the sunset? No, but what would you have the current politicians in charge do? The state of NJ was facing an $11 BILLION deficit when Christie was elected Governor. Sure, he could have done as his predecessors did and played ball with the unions and, therefore, likely passed the costs further on down the line for some other politician to deal with. He didn't do that. He did what had to be done. It wasn't popular with many people and will definitely cost him just about any support he could have hoped to get from unions during the next election. However, he actually governed and has tried to address the problems that he inherited.

 

I think that many of us have come to the realization that we promised more than we could afford during the boom times. Now that we've recognized the problem, what do we do about it? Continue down the same failed path or actually try to change things?

[Voice_Of_Reason 0]

Lots of generalizations in here. My wife is a public employee in a union and she sure as hell hasn't made out like a bandit or seen an abundance of riches. In fact she hasn't anything more than the most nominal of COL raises in years.

Not only a lot of generalizations, but a lot of untruths too. Here in California, thousands of government employees are getting laid off, furloughed, and having to take cuts in benefits just to keep a job. My local governments are laying off people in droves. And COL were done away with 2 years ago.

[davebg 0]

Not only a lot of generalizations, but a lot of untruths too. Here in California, thousands of government employees are getting laid off, furloughed, and having to take cuts in benefits just to keep a job. My local governments are laying off people in droves. And COL were done away with 2 years ago.

Well, it's not quite so kosher in many other states. The OP showed how the governor in IL is cutting $1.4 billion (which means cuts to various areas that the state pays for) while giving phat raises to his staff.

 

We saw the Governor in NY try the same thing. One minute he's pushing furloughs on state workers and the next he's handing out major raises to his staff and cronies.

[Mungwater 588]

No sh1t. We are currently getting ready to send our fourth Governor to prison in only the last 50 years.

 

BTW, one of them was Anton Cermak's son-in-law.

 

yeah I know, if he wasn't killed he probably would be too, just because we are distantly related doesn't make him a saint, he was a typical Illinois dirtbag politician

[RLLD 3,455]

Rink

 

For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession. Now Illinois has shouldered to the fore, as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state’s bills and refuses to take the painful steps — cuts and tax increases — to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half the state’s budget.

 

Wow, Illinois is in pretty stark circumstances.....

[Birdseed 1]

We are fukked. Nearly a third of our budget goes to education. What politician is going to cut education?

[RLLD 3,455]

We are fukked. Nearly a third of our budget goes to education. What politician is going to cut education?

 

T&P's brother...

[davebg 0]

We are fukked. Nearly a third of our budget goes to education. What politician is going to cut education?

That's exactly what Gov Christie did. He cut millions from all corners of the budget, including education. It wasn't pretty or extremely popular, but it had to be done.

 

I admit, I did not vote for Christie. I did not like him during the campaign and, frankly, when he talked of making these huge cuts, I thought he was full of sh|t like any other politician. However, he's proven me wrong. I may not agree with all of his decisions, but I give him major credit for doing his job and trying to fix the mess of a budget that he inherited, as opposed to being a typical politician who's only looking out for his next re-election.