I told my newsletter subscribers several weeks ago that, without a doubt, if Senate President John Cullerton caved in to House Speaker Michael Madigan on pension reform, Cullerton's legacy as Madigan's junior partner would be forever sealed.

The two men have battled for months over the proper way to proceed. Cullerton has said that the state Constitution requires that public workers and retirees be given a set of options before their pension benefits can be reduced. Madigan has said that idea doesn't save enough money, and he has looked for the most cost savings possible. With the pension system at $100 billion in unfunded liability and taxpayer costs rising by about a billion dollars a year, this has become the most important state fiscal issue of our time. It has to be resolved.

I ran into Madigan not long after I wrote that stuff about Cullerton's possible cave. "Rich, you're not helping," he said to me.

Pat Quinn has loved to hold Sunday press conferences for decades. The governor discovered a long time ago that newspapers were desperate for stories on Sundays, so a Sunday press conference pretty much guaranteed coverage in Monday's editions.

The problem, though, is that newspapers and other media outlets tend to send younger, less-experienced reporters to Sunday events. And sometimes those reporters miss something that others might catch.

For instance, two Sundays ago, Senate President John Cullerton said something pretty important that was completely ignored by the media.

One of the worst-kept secrets over the past few weeks is that House Republican Leader Tom Cross has been considering a run for Illinois attorney general.

Cross has reportedly been asked by Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka and U.S. Representative Aaron Schock to think about a bid in case Attorney General Lisa Madigan decides to run for governor or simply not run for anything.

A former county prosecutor, Cross has long considered a bid for the office. But as recently as a few weeks ago, Cross' people were denying that he would do it. Now, however, they are saying it's a possibility. The calls from top Republicans and some major GOP fundraisers have apparently helped focus his mind. "Any time you have so many people requesting that you consider something, you owe it to them to do some due diligence," explained one Cross backer last week.

Illinois Republican Party Chair Pat Brady resigned last week just as a new statewide poll showed big trouble for his political party's brand.

Brady had been under pressure to resign ever since the disastrous 2012 elections. The pressure increased publicly after Brady announced his support for a gay-marriage bill. Multiple attempts to oust Brady were unsuccessful.

The way forward is unclear, to say the least. Some party leaders have a list of more than 25 people to consider. This could easily turn out to be a total mess.

And this all comes at a particularly bad time for the GOP. A new Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll found that 52 percent of likely Illinois voters have a negative view of the Republican Party. Just 25 percent have a positive view, while 24 percent were neutral.

In yet another blow to the Illinois Republican Party, state Senator Matt Murphy (R-Palatine) has withdrawn his name from contention for the state-GOP-chair job.

And, no, it didn't have anything to do with Murphy being injured during the annual House-versus-Senate softball game last week.

Murphy was approached a month or so ago about taking the party job when the current chair, Pat Brady, eventually resigns.

Brady has been under fire all year for publicly supporting a gay-marriage bill, among other things. The Illinois Republican Party's platform specifically opposes gay marriage, so Brady was accused of being in flagrant conflict with the party's beliefs. Brady has said that he merely supported gay marriage as a private citizen, but the hard right in the GOP didn't buy that argument.

Murphy was initially open to the chair idea and seemed to be leaning toward taking it. He wanted assurances, though, that Brady would be allowed to resign on his own timetable.

A new statewide poll shows a majority of Illinoisans favors concealed carry. But an overwhelming majority in every area of the state also says it's okay with them if Chicago and Cook County police have additional authority over who gets to carry in their jurisdictions.

The Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll of 1,284 likely voters found that 52 percent say they approve of allowing concealed carry.

"Illinois lawmakers are debating proposed laws that would allow some citizens who are properly licensed to carry concealed firearms," respondents were told. "In general, do you approve or disapprove of allowing licensed citizens to carry loaded, concealed firearms?"

The poll, taken April 24, found that 46 percent disapprove and just 2 percent were neutral or had no opinion. The poll had a margin of error of 2.7 percent. Twenty-six percent of the numbers called were cell phones.

During the House floor debate over the National Rifle Association-backed concealed-carry bill last week, I was told by an intimate of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan that the speaker wanted to make sure the bill received no more than 64 votes. Because the bill preempts local-government home-rule powers, the bill required a three-fifths majority of 71 votes to pass.

The anti-gun forces had been demoralized the day before when their highly restrictive concealed-carry proposal received just 31 votes, so Madigan wanted to do the same to the NRA, I was told. The idea, the source said, was to show both sides that they couldn't pass their bills on their own and that they needed to get themselves to the bargaining table and work something out.

I've always believed that just because somebody claims to be a reformer, it doesn't mean the person has the right solutions.

Many years ago, an activist named Pat Quinn came up with an idea to change the Illinois Constitution. He used the petition process to get rid of a third of Illinois House members in one fell swoop. This, Quinn said, would save money and make legislators more responsive to their constituents.

In reality, all that did was allow a guy named Michael Madigan to more easily consolidate his power. And one way he consolidated that power was by spending lots more money. Quinn's plan backfired.

But even though this sort of thing has happened over and over again here, the media tends to give reformers a pass, almost no matter what.

So I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised when I read the major media's news reports of last week's Senate Executive Committee hearing. It wasn't at all like the meeting I attended.

Admittedly, I arrived a little late and had to leave for a meeting before it was over, but from what I saw, Illinois Gaming Board Chair Aaron Jaffe's years-old criticism of the General Assembly's gaming-expansion bills was exposed as hollow and not entirely fact-based. He badly stumbled through his testimony, couldn't directly answer questions, and - despite long-standing public criticisms, a notebook filled with thoughts, and a history as a state legislator himself - seemed woefully unprepared for the hearing.

You can always tell when somebody is losing an argument because they are constantly backtracking and recalibrating. And it's no different with gay marriage.

Back in January, for instance, newly elected state Senator Jim Oberweis (R-Sugar Grove) freely admitted that gay marriage was at the heart of his desire to oust state GOP Chair Pat Brady, who'd recently announced his support for a Senate bill to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I believe we have to have a meeting to ask Pat for an explanation, to modify his actions or get a new CEO," Oberweis told the Kane County Chronicle back then. "Our CEO has taken very open, public action contrary to the organization, and that's unacceptable."

Immediately, however, more-moderate GOP leaders pushed back hard against Oberweis, saying that ousting the party's chair over gay marriage would send absolutely the wrong message to the voting public, which was coming around fast to supporting the issue. Young people, in particular, counted themselves as strong supporters of the concept, so the old ways of staunchly advocating outdated policies would continue to stunt the party's potential growth.

As it turns out, Illinois House Democrats didn't need Republicans to put 30 votes on a significant pension-reform bill.

There's been worry for at least two years that the Democrats would have to rely heavily on Republicans to get anything out of the chamber and that maybe even 30 Republican votes - half the required 60-vote majority - wouldn't be enough to pass a pension-reform bill.

But 41 House Democrats voted for a bill this month that severely whacked retirees' annual cost-of-living increases. Just 25 Republicans voted for the bill - five votes fewer than they've repeatedly said they had for a significant pension-reform proposal.

The measure would cap annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) at $750 or 3 percent, whichever is less. That change has the impact of limiting COLAs to only the first $25,000 of annual pension income. Anyone who makes less than $25,000 would continue to receive compounded increases until the cap is hit.

The proposal also forces retirees to wait until they either are 67 years old or have been retired at least five years to receive their annual COLAs.

Pages