|
More show business
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller * AP…
The Senate Democrats have filed formal override motions, so they may very well override some of those vetoes just for show and just because they can, but the House doesn’t have the votes to follow suit. Rep. Jack Franks voted against every appropriations bill and as of last week was standing firm on any override. So, unless the House Democrats can find some GOP votes (because if Franks stands firm, at least one or two other Dems will as well), then there will be no final overrides.
|
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:36 am:
If it makes the SDems feel better, and helps in their 2016 campaigns, 16+ months away, have at it I guess.
The one month budget AND the payments to state employees bill being sent back to them, I’ll watch that.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:14 am:
Many eyes will be on the new act playing on 200 E Capitol Ave.
- Not it - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:29 am:
How about meeting the challenge of this situation by passing a real budget instead of a temporary budget?
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:42 am:
==Choosing== and ==Owning==.
The perks of divided government.
- scott aster - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:45 am:
good for Jack….he live in a rep dist so he doesn’t need rouner coming around with all the $$$$ next year.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:46 am:
It has frequently been said that 71 is the magic number in the House.
That applies to both Rauner and Madigan.
If Madigan lacks the votes to get what he wants through the House, and Rauner lacks the votes to get what he wants through the House, they both need to compromise. My kids could have told them that months ago.
- X-prof - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:08 am:
Gov. Rauner called on the GA Dems. to use their super majority to pass a tax increase with a balanced budget and own it. The stage is set for the Dems. to pull a Jujutsu move on the revenue side that pairs a permanent income tax increase with balanced reductions in local sales and property taxes to address structural revenue shortfalls and provide tax relief to those that need and deserve it –– keep in mind that the top 1% pay an average of 4.6% of income to state and local taxes while the bottom 80% pay 10-13%.
As the governor said, “Crisis creates leverage.” Which side is smart enough to use it?
Here’s a rough sketch:
1. Increase the income tax to, say, 6 or 7%.
2. Cancel or mitigate the income-tax increase for low and middle-income tax payers and relieve the financial stress on local government:
• Pair the income tax increase with reductions in sales and property taxes to reduce or maintain the overall state and local tax burden for middle-income taxpayers.
• Fully fund per student K-12 education at mandated level in all districts, no strings attached.
• Make additional revenue sharing contingent on reductions in local sales and property taxes.
3. Add some level of corporate tax increase.
4. Agree to reasonable and fair workers comp reform.
The governor could point to the following wins as part of a compromise:
▪ Full funding of mandated K-12 education on a per-student basis (one of his good ideas)
▪ Reduction in sales and property taxes –– beyond the property tax freeze the governor proposed
▪ Some, but not all, of his workers comp. reform
▪ More control for local government –– the proposal uses incentives (more revenue sharing), rather than a decree from Springfield, to reduce local sales and property taxes
▪ Dems take the heat for the income tax increase.
Surprise! The last item could be a win for the Dems if they can communicate that this package provides overall tax relief or a small increase for most taxpayers while requiring the well off and the wealthy to shoulder more, but still far less than, their fair share of the tax burden. Adding a graduated income tax would make it even better, but that’s not a short-term option.
This proposal reduces financial stress on local governments and begins to address the disparity in education funding between rich and poor school districts. It does not place local government in a financial straight jacket, as does the governor’s proposal to reduce revenue sharing while simultaneously freezing property taxes.
Could something like this end the budget stand-off with actual good policy that still allows some face-saving for the governor? It requires neither a veto override nor a constitutional amendment. Admittedly, the means to revenue enhancement is likely opposite to what the governor has in mind, but he’d end up taking the political heat if he argues for a package that favors the wealthy over the middle class.
- Rod - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:28 am:
I agree with Rich about the importance of Rep Franks in the situation of a veto override vote. But the truth I suspect is that he takes the heat for a number of other conservative Democrats from swing districts and if he disappeared it is very possible another conservative Democrat would play the role he has in the legislature. While I don’t agree with Rep Franks on his stance relating revenue, he at least does not generally dodge the votes and goes on the record.
Democrats in the House are not a monolith, they represent a wide ideological spectrum from being so far left that they could be called social democrats to “pro-business” Democrats, or what might be called SPECs (Socially Progressive Economic Conservatives.
Speaker Madigan has in many situations been able to bring the radically diverse members of the Democrat House caucus into functional unity, but not on the taxation issue so far. Speaker Madigan is a pragmatist above all when it comes to governance.
The Democrats need desperately for there to materialize a few Republicans willing to consider revenue solutions outside the framework Governor Rauner has established. But I think our friend Willy has captured the intimidation factor the Governor has spread over the Republican caucus in the legislature in numerous posts. So here we sit.
- walker - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:41 am:
Rod 11:28 above: Correct on all points.
- Big Joe - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:45 am:
X Prof. has some really good suggestions. I doubt the bull-headed governor would agree with him. But I like what he suggests. Great post, Prof
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:55 am:
X-prof:
Never. Gonna. Work.
Even if he Democrats had a super-majority who supports more spending - they don’t - over-riding the Governor’s veto only authorizes the spending of money. You cannot force the governor to spend money, and we would be right where we are now: Rauner Republicans holding up funding for critical programs to try to force Democrats to vote for the Rauner agenda.
We wait.
- X-prof - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:20 pm:
Thanks, Big Joe.
@Juvenal. I favor cuts where warranted and within reason, but I think the state should fulfill its obligations, spend where it keeps the state competitive, and not pass the buck to local government. Balancing the budget can’t all come from cuts –– even Rauner’s draconian budget was billions of dollars short on funds. The state can no longer afford the well to do and wealthy paying such a small percentage of their income in state and local taxes.
Assuming legislation like this became law, with or without the governor’s approval, the funds would be there. This governor has shown little backbone not spending money when the political heat falls on him.
Once a budget becomes law, I don’t know exactly what powers the governor has to circumvent it. I don’t think those powers are unlimited; maybe someone more knowledgeable can provide answers. For example, if X dollars are allocated to funding the pension system, can the governor prevent that? In other cases, I suspect there are ways governors can drag their feet to implement the law and obstruct spending.
- X-prof - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 7:53 pm:
I should have made this point more clearly in my last post — the proposal does not imply more spending. It is, however, intended to generate more revenue. Rauner agrees we need that, even with spending cuts.