By Mary Massingale   Illinois Statehouse News

SPRINGFIELD — On Monday, it was a constitutional amendment capping state spending. On Tuesday, it was an amendment requiring a super majority vote for any governmental body to increase pension benefits.

Sponsored by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, both measures were approved by committee, leading some to wonder at the sincerity of the speaker’s sudden call for fiscal restraint.

“It’s kind of like ‘Stop me before I legislate again,’” said Kent Redfield, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois-Springfield.

Madigan on Tuesday actually touched on that exact philosophy when telling lawmakers of the need to change the state constitution to require a three-fifths vote from the Legislature or any local government or school district when considering a pension increase. An “increase” is defined as an increase in the amount of a current benefit, an addition of a new benefit or an expansion of the category of eligible individuals.

“It’s just too easy for a member of the Legislature to vote ‘yes’ for the pension benefit increase because there is no price tag attached to the bill,” Madigan said. “The price comes later – as we are all finding out.”

Illinois has the worst unfunded pension liability in the nation, tallying $90 billion at last count. Lawmakers for years sweetened pension benefits, skipped payments, or made inadequate reimbursements. Even now, the Senate has yet to follow the House’s lead and approve a $4 billion borrowing plan to make this year’s pension payment.

Lawmakers last spring and last month approved slimmed-down pension benefits for new teachers, state university employees, state workers, judges, legislators, firefighters and police officers. But Madigan said he’s worked on his proposal for the past two years so the sins of the past aren’t repeated – especially after he’s left the Legislature.

“Certain representatives of those organizations have been telling people in casual conversations ‘We’re just going to wait it out until Madigan’ s out of there, and then we’re going to run bills to repeal all of it.’ That’s their attitude, and that’s what you’re looking at going forward,” he said. “And so this is designed to raise the bar. And simply say, ‘Look we now know, given the fiscal condition of the state pension systems and the local systems, that this is an extraordinary situation. This is not something that should be handled in the ordinary course. There ought to be a high bar to move these bills.”

Some lawmakers were doubtful of that bar. State Rep. Marlow Colvin, D-Chicago, wondered about the possible effect on collective bargaining. As one of the three Republicans voting against the measure, state Rep. Raymond Poe, R-Springfield, said he was concerned about the potential impact on annual “step” pay increases given to teachers according to their local contract.

“It seems to me this is one of those bills that’s going to affect local control,” Poe said. “They’re elected officials, and they ought to have that responsibility at the local (level). So, I’m going to vote 'no.'”

A lobbyist for a teachers’ union echoed Poe’s concerns, noting that 2005 legislation mandated a revenue stream for any pension increase.

“The tools for the Legislature to ensure that it doesn’t go down the road that it has in the past with a simple majority vote – they’re there. They’re currently there,” said Will Lovett of the Illinois Education Association. “We otherwise feel that the three-fifths is not required.”

While the three-fifths measure is being called too much, Madigan’s call for a constitutional amendment capping state spending is being labeled as too little. Dubbed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights – or TABOR – the measure ties increases in the state’s general funds spending to the average increase in per capita personal income during the previous five years.

The Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, issued an analysis calling for any such measure to encompass more designated state funds than the general funds, and for factors such as inflation and population to be tied to any spending increases.

It’s questionable whether all the talk will lead to action, since a constitutional amendment put forth by the Legislature must be approved by a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers before it can be put to the voters.

But Redfield said if successful, the two initiatives provide a win-win for Madigan. With the state facing a budget deficit estimated to reach $15 billion by next year, some fiscal restraint isn’t a bad idea – especially when coupled with reforms to Medicaid, workers’ compensation and education in the hopper.

And the measures provide political cover for Democrats when the inevitable tough vote comes around.

“They can say, ‘Now that we’ve reformed the system, it’s OK to vote for a tax increase,” he said.

Or the two proposals may just be part of Madigan being Madigan.

“I would not want to make a living trying to outguess the speaker,” Redfield said.