* Steve Chapman complains about Bruce Rauner’s performance in yesterday’s Tribune editorial board meeting…
After promising big spending cuts through pension reform, he was asked how much his plan would save in the first year or two, and he couldn’t give even a rough number. If he had been in the Senate when Gov. Quinn proposed $1.3 billion in spending cuts, which required closing dozens of state prisons and mental health facilites, would he have voted for them? He refused to give a “yes” or a “no.”
Would he revoke the expansion of Medicaid the state undertook last year, as encouraged by the federal health care reform? “We have a Medicaid disaster,” Rauner replied, while declining to say he’d cancel this enlargement. Repeal same-sex marriage? He’d submit that to a voter referendum, and what he’d prefer is “not important.”
I’d like to think that if he became governor, Rauner would be fearless in tackling the state’s pressing problems. But on some of the toughest issues before us, he’s AWOL.
Except for that goofy minimum wage stumble, this is a guy who has mostly kept his eye on the fall election. Yes, he has to evade some things to avoid angering the GOP base, and he’s made his share of errors, but he is more focused on November than any of his Republican opponents, including…
Oy.
*** UPDATE *** Full quote…
“The number one issue I run into when I travel around to manufacturing plants particularly, when I ask them, ‘How’s it going?’ They say, ‘I can’t hire my people back.’ They say, ‘They’re enjoying — I’ll use — their unemployment insurance. And I can’t get them back to work.’ So we’ve gotta motivate people to get back into the workforce.”
In a phone interview after the debate, Brady would not say which manufacturers have said people enjoy their unemployment benefits and are not motivated to return to work.
Rutherford, in responding to the unemployment question at the debate, related the problem to Chicago’s gun violence. Dillard was cut off for time purposes without answering the question.
- Montrose - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 12:48 pm:
Wait. Brady is claiming that manufacturers can’t re-hire folks because they prefer living on unemployment? Really? Tell me I am reading that wrong.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
Bill, did you really? Why?
- Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:04 pm:
The point is that his “AWOL” Status on all 3 of these exTREMEly important relevant issues is altogether UNacceptable for someone who claims he could do it better than the other 4 could in the Governor’s Mansion! Republicans 1ST, before Primary Election Day, and the Illinois Public-at-Large in case you end up the GOP Nominee, have a RIGHT to DEMAND from the “Baron” specific, SUBstantive proposals for Budget Cuts, for how many billions and why, and just why he would plan on ignoring significant Federal A$$istance in monies for Illinois and just how that is somehow a wise and GOOD thing Bruce (?), AND what exactly IS your definitive view on Same Sex Marriage, already, for God’s sake–instead of trying to brush it all ASIDE somehow (as if YOU’RE too ABOVE it all to bother to answer the question!)!!
Taking Rauner’s “hands-off” approach, and his “I’ll just keep taking out my daily and nightly ‘Hammer’ while I spend MILLion$ on bashing Pat Quinn and my GOP Opponents on my TV Ads across the State since at least the latter 3 can’t afford to do it” is a wholly IRResponsible approach, the Voters KNOW it (News to You, Buddy!), and such dilly-dallying Garbage just won’t cut it!
The People deserve better– which means Rauner’s approach in only trying to eye November and avoid REAL, explicit/detailed answers to pertinent questions and thorough explanations of his positions on IMPORTant issues to all of us, such as those noted in the Post, is just SO blatantly arrogant, insulting to the Public/Electorate, and just WON’T cut it–no matter what hammer or saw Mr. Gazillionaire tries to claim he’s symbolically and riDICulously going to supposedly use to “shake things up” in our State Capitol!!!
Yeah, sure, Bruce–getting out your Salt Shaker and tossin’ it at Springfield–that just ought to change EVerything in Illinois Government…pfff!
- walker - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:07 pm:
Prize for stupidest comment, to Brady.
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
Here’s the short version of what I wrote earlier.
Dear Steve Chapman,
Have you considered the possibility that Bruce Rauner doesn’t have much to say about public policy b/c it’s not important to him?
Have you considered the possibility that Rauner has little to say about right and wrong b/c he lacks moral convictions himself?
Mr. Chapman, you seem to want to believe in Rauner because you want him to be your perfect rich guy savior.
But what if Rauner really is an arrogant guy who simply believes he deserves it?
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:32 pm:
Brady doesn’t have the judgment to be a good governor.
To deal with this deficiency, Brady has aggressively courted the constituency that doesn’t care if he has good judgment. They just want to know he shares their prejudices.
- Mokenavince - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:32 pm:
Since when and how is Medicaid a disaster? Oh I know when I’m on it and living large on unemployment. Master Bruce I’m pulling as hard as I can on my bootstraps.
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:35 pm:
Which of these items do not belong:
1. I can’t be bought,
2. Union bosses cannot control me,
3. The state is upside down
4. I can’t give a simple answer.
- Downstater - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 1:57 pm:
Brady needs to stay in his Senate seat, where he can do little harm.
- Nonplussed - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:04 pm:
I am surprised Brady didn’t channel his inner Ronald Reagan and call them “Welfare Queens”.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:08 pm:
“I can’t hire my people back”
So there are no other unemployed people willing to work at those jobs?
“We have a Medicaid disaster”
Nothing says today’s Republican Party like a super-rich guy who slams healthcare expansion to the poor, and another guy who portrays unemployed people as lazy.
- PoolGuy - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:08 pm:
I wish I could post a picture of the little engine that could, 3 times, next to a pic of the TGV
- ZC - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:09 pm:
Basically what Nyberg said.
It’s important to distinguish, between a) Republican candidates avoiding specifics because they don’t want to be tied down to unpopular decisions for electoral reasons; b) Republican candidates avoiding specifics because, in fact, they -have- no policies, and no clue what they’re going to do, when and if they actually “catch the car.”
Rauner avoiding saying what he’d do, in lieu of the income tax expiration, makes perfect political sense. But we have every right of course as citizens (and Rich isn’t implying anything different I know) to nail him for his inability to explain what he’d do in office.
I have this somewhat uneasy image of Rauner coming into office and telling Democrats, “I campaigned on this tax cut, and the people have spoken, so it’s going to happen.” And when they ask how to possibly fix the revenue shortage, he responds, “I didn’t campaign on that. You figure it out, and send me a proposal.”
The mere possibility of this scenario is why I still expect I’ll be voting Quinn next November.
- thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:10 pm:
Is it true that a company can offer to hire someone back, they can refuse, and they can continue to receive unemployment insurance (paid for in no small part by that company)? Seems like if you’ve been offered a job at a wage at least as much as your unemployment benefit (or maybe 80% or 100% of your pre-layoff wage) and you refuse it then you shouldn’t be allowed to draw that benefit anymore.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:10 pm:
Maybe that says more about Brady as a boss.
- a drop in - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:11 pm:
I’ve never used unenployment so I don’t know how it works but I was under the impression that if one was offered a job and turned it down, they lost their weekly benefits. Can anybody enlighten me on that?
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:12 pm:
Is Bill Brady talking to the guy who manufactures gas chambers for pets again? No wonder his workers don’t want to return.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
If this quote is as bad as it gets for Bill Brady, then I count that as a win.
- Joan P. - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:28 pm:
According to the IDES website, you can be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if you “refused suitable new employment”: http://www.ides.illinois.gov/page.aspx?item=904
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:31 pm:
Can we please get away from this nonsense that people enjoy being on unemployment or welfare or whatever other thing you want to stick in there.
- 4 percent - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:32 pm:
But IDES never disqualifies people… its a joke. I have a brother-in-law who’s on UI from a facility in Decatur. I’ve personally been with him when he’s received 3 calls from a temp agency offering him work in a mfg facility making $12-14 per hour. He’s turned everyone down because he says after taxes, fuel and other costs, its the same as UI.
- Illiana - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:33 pm:
Much like what “a drop in” stated, I had heard that if someone if offered work & turns it down, they lose their unemployment benefits.
The closeout I could find suggests that if manufacturers really are telling him that then the person turning it down loses their unemployment the moment the employer offers them their jobs back.
http://jobsearch.about.com/od/unemploymentbenefits/qt/turn-down-job-unemployment.htm
- Bigtwich - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:44 pm:
IDES does disqualify people. I have been on both sides of those cases.
- Bigtwich - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
Of course somebody has to tell IDSE about the situation.
- IbendahlLuvsJBT - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:50 pm:
4 Percent: Those temp jobs would be unsuitable per IDES for your brother-in-law to accept, because the job must be not only suitable to the type of work he is qualified to do, but it also must not be cost prohibitive to perform.
- haverford - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 2:57 pm:
Just makes sense: if I could have 100% of my wages or 50% of my wages, I’ll take 50% every time.
- PoolGuy - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 3:05 pm:
I’ve been on unemployement twice in my life, and very close a third time. neither time was fun, the money I got didn’t pay the bills, and not working or being able to find a job was extremely depressing.
I’m hoping Brady was taken a little out of context and could clarify his response if asked again. Being unemployed is not like a long term paid vacation that’s fun.
- walker - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 3:07 pm:
Everyone’s got a “brother-in-law” or a “friend” with a story for either side of any issue. Easy to find an exception that “proves” your case.
And one bad actor seems to crowd out the hundreds who are good, in political spouting.
In general, this is not why manufacturers cannot fill jobs, or why people aren’t finding them.
Brady should know better than to listen to such nonsense, and not play that tune.
- D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 3:07 pm:
Obviously, Brady has never been on unemployment. What a patronizing fool. Rauner is just oblivious to any notion of anything except winning an election…a Republican Blago…a dog chasing a car w/ no idea what to do if he catches it and no integrity to disclose whatever ideas he really has, if any.
- OLD BRASS - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 3:14 pm:
Don’t forget the scam that is larger than unemployment insurance abuse. It is unemployment insurance abuse and working on the side for cash that together exceed your original income level. It goes on everyday and is unarguably a “raise” in the end for the abuser.
This is not “rocket surgery people!
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 3:51 pm:
“if I could have 100% of my wages or 50% of my wages, I’ll take 50% every time.”
I recently got disability pay that was half my regular pay. My bills and I couldn’t wait for me to get back to work. It’s no day in the park losing half of your earnings and watching your savings dwindle.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:04 pm:
@Old Brass:
That is a situation that is few and far between. Are you suggesting that it is rampant? I don’t think so. What Brady said is ridiculous. Nobody is happy to be receiving unemployment versus working. That’s just nonsense.
- Rod - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:04 pm:
Robert the Bruce the manufacturing of gas chambers for pets was beautiful. The truth is Mr. Brady in his travels around Illinois visiting manufacturing plants he talking to owners and managers. What worker would tell this guy, I always use up all my unemployment insurance before I look for work.
If Brady wasn’t a Republican and would talk with the workers and ask - have you ever been unemployed and received unemployment insurance and did it help you feed your family? He might have gotten a very different answer.
- countyline - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:06 pm:
You don’t have a right to collect unemployment and wait for the perfect opportunity…especially after an extended period of time. At that point, any job that pays more than unemployment you should be obligated to take.
- countyline - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:09 pm:
How naive can you be…nearly every person I know that has collected unemployment has abused it to one degree or another, and the answer I get is always “I’ve earned it”.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:12 pm:
==How naive can you be…nearly every person I know that has collected unemployment has abused it to one degree or another==
And I’m sure you dutifully reported it.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:14 pm:
=== How naive can you be…nearly every person I know that has collected unemployment has abused it to one degree or another ===
Maybe you need a better class of friends!
- haverford - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:18 pm:
I feel you, Grandson. It’s not a position anyone wants to be in. The vast, vast, vast majority of people want a job that lets them live with dignity, and use unemployment to bridge the gap when they lose their job for reasons beyond their control.
This is not brain science people”!
- wondering in Lake County - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:19 pm:
As an employer of low skilled workers, the UI abuse is rampant. So is the abuse of work comp. The work is boring and tedious, but pays 20% more than minimum wage. Not really sure how to fix it.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:26 pm:
I have a close friend who was fired from his job and now collects unemployment. He also makes money under the table in a fairly common way. He certainly wants to get full time work and is looking very hard. However, he is also not hurting financially. I could see some folks moving to the less legal job market as a way to address their situation and it could appear they are happy with just receiving their unemployment benefits. it would be interesting to know, if possible, how many of the folks who have given up looking for a job are actually working in a shadow economy to make ends meet.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 4:55 pm:
I think there needs to be a ‘none of the above’ option on the primary ballot.
- Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 5:27 pm:
Rod @ 4:04 pm is right! Brady’s problem is that he’s SO out of touch that he just can’t even reLATE to the “Average Joe” who might’ve been stuck going on Unemployment for awhile to get by–and hated every minute of it. He’s your prototype Republican “Management” type of guy (as a Business Owner himself, although as his business has faltered so much recently you’d think he could be even a LITle more considerate!) and is more than willing or prone to making such heartless remarks…!
But, again, as my earlier Comment accentuates, my feelings are that the RAUNER Omissions in dancing around and NOT providing definitive, detailed answers to questions of enormous import to us all before Election Day, is the far BIGger commenting piece for this Post.
- Oneman - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 5:32 pm:
You know Bill, I hear stupid stuff from people from time to time, the key is not to share it….
- UI 101 - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 5:47 pm:
Brady’s statement is a complete joke. If an employer offers to rehire a laid off employee and that worker doesn’t take the job, the employer picks up the phone and tells IDES that the worker is not “able and available” for work. Benefits will be cut off ASAP.
- UI 101 - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 5:49 pm:
And a worker with no dependents gets, like, 46% of prior wages (which they are taxed on). Real gold mine, that unemployment insurance.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:01 pm:
You IL liberals just don’t get the fact these programs are abused to a degree that is alarming. Collect and work for cash or just stay home and save on child care. People are like animals that are hand fed. They can no longer survive in the wild. We can not keep borrowing from the future to pay for this stuff.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:06 pm:
All I can say is that there’s “one” in every crowd.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:08 pm:
Oh and pssst…learn how to spell that one word that seems to trip up so many.
- mokenavince - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:21 pm:
Republicans have not won a debate since Lincoln.
Remember the Presidential debates/Trump, Cain, Romney.
They would all be better off if they shut-up.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:50 pm:
There’s not a lot of stuff I find really offensive but this is one of them, i.e., people don’t want to work because the lavish benefits of unemployment insurance are so great. Right wing hate-em-all logic at its best.
And please, could some of the new folks on this blog get a nickname? Too many anonymous folks.
- Liandro - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 6:51 pm:
UI is easy to abuse. Not worth it at all if you have mid- to high-paying skills or a family to feed. Often worth it if you are lower on the pay scale, especially if you have access to cash side jobs (like snow removal for a subcontractor, for example). Plenty of people use UI to wait for the “big” job offer, again especially if they can get cash on the side with their extra time.
- PoolGuy - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 7:11 pm:
well the people who are paying cash under the table are as much in the wrong and are avoiding taxes. let’s place the blame equally on both sides, not just those lazy people collecting UI.
- Classico - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 7:53 pm:
Holy cow, someone complained elsewhere on this site that it was being labeled a left-wing site. Only on a left-wing site would people be shocked and outraged that some people wouldn’t try as hard to find a job when you are handing them free checks for months and months. It’s called a dependency society and we continue to feed it.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 9:10 pm:
Illinois is bankrupt because of liberal ideas. Its easy to give away other peoples money. Emotional based thinking never yields results. Keep laughing at WI. They have a very large surplus again this year. So glad I moved my residency out of this sinking ship of a state.
Maybe WI can loan IL some money to pay for some more programs that yield no positive result.
- CollegeStudent - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 9:21 pm:
===Keep laughing at WI. They have a very large surplus again this year. ===
So Wisconsin either takes far more money than it needs from taxpayers or has crippled state services. Nice.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 4, 14 @ 10:19 pm:
–Keep laughing at WI. They have a very large surplus again this year.–
Lot higher progressive personal income tax rates, too. Is that what you’re advocating?