Seems like the simple solution would be to pass a budget and then work on social engineering proposals that will require real effort and convincing of the public.
Since Rauner loves bankruptcy, lets put describe this situation in a manner he can understand. When an entity cannot manage their finances, a judge presides over a bankruptcy action to get things back on track. Unfortunately, the Rauner administered Illinois is governmentally bankrupt so judges have been forced to take action. Until Rauner chooses to govern, the courts will be running most of Illinois.
It’s time for the Federal government to takeover the State of Illinois and appoint a trustee. When a state government refuses to govern, then it can no longer be considered a legitimate government. Let the trustee run the show until a budget is passed.
Mama, I don’t know but this is definitely an angle that remaining unpaid human service providers should investigate. I suspect they will need to find a federal hook to hang their lawsuit on.
The constitution explains its purpose and the State’s is: in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
We should just find one of those “Activist Judges” TM, to use that to justify drafting a temporary budget. Hey, we are operating under so many consent decrees, why not something like this?
Are all my comments being held? I mean there is a big delay. Just curious Rich.
- Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:26 am:
A couple of months ago I wondered if the Judges might end up with this. Sometime this year, a judicially ordered payment won’t be able to be made. That is a direct challenge to judicial authority. If I were that judge, I would start jailing for contempt of court. I’d start at the top and work down Rauner,Munger,Madigan,Cullerton,..etc
===”Sometime this year, a judicially ordered payment won’t be able to be made. That is a direct challenge to judicial authority. If I were that judge, I would start jailing for contempt of court.”===
Re the contracts issue — all contracts have a “subject to appropriation” clause in them that is making the filing of lawsuits tricky. Not saying it can’t happen. Just saying that it is more challenging than you might think.
Is there any greater protection that have a judge order your agency be funded?
This is going to be an important precedent later, and if I were running a state vendor, I’d be doing everything I can to get my agency on that listed.
It’s like super-duper protection.
- Judgment Day (On The Road) - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 11:47 am:
“It’s time for the Federal government to takeover the State of Illinois and appoint a trustee. When a state government refuses to govern, then it can no longer be considered a legitimate government. Let the trustee run the show until a budget is passed.”
————-
Lot more to that than you think. Honestly, just not going to happen.
First off, what you are pitching is just a different version of bankruptcy. Instead of the Bankruptcy Court appointing a Trustee, you would have something like a “Special Master” appointed, responsible to the Court.
How would you like to be the poor federal judge handed that one?
There would be lawsuits flying everywhere because the only real existing rules even remotely applicable to what you would be attempting to do would either be currently in (a) Bankruptcy law, or (b) Nothing.
And the federal courts aren’t going to get near any state revenue issues.
Honestly, it probably won’t be Illinois pushing this entire issue. It will likely be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico bringing this one to the forefront.
== Is there any greater protection that have a judge order your agency be funded? ==
Key distinction - the judges are not ordering agencies to be funded; they are ordering specific programs to be funded … programs that have existing consent decrees, programs tied to federal mandates, programs tied to federal funding, programs dictated by state statutes that do not explicitly exempt the program if funding is not appropriated (think State Fair, for example).
What is happening is the courts (instead of the Governor and the GA) are picking which programs are “worthy” of being funded strictly on a legal basis as opposed to a moral or compassionate basis. Kind of like what happens in a bankruptcy; there a judge decides who gets paid based on the legal strength of their claim.
You know, I may be on to something … Rauner HAS figured out how to take the State through bankruptcy without the State being allowed to go bankrupt under federal law. He is shedding some programs because they aren’t being funded, and those programs may not ever come back. The only difference is he can’t shed the existing debt. He is just deferring it; it will still have to be paid at some point.
This is an order to compel processing of Medicaid payments was entered to prevent violations of consent decrees. Parties had received notice and were in agreement as to the form of the order, defendants reserving objections to the substance of the order. Seems to be an enforcement of a July 24, 2015 order that was enforcing a consent decree entered on November 18, 2005. The plaintiff’s lawyers were awarded $4,445,000.00 attorneys fees in that proceeding.
Why the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico/State of Illinois contango is so interesting is that the two political parties will be on opposite sides in each case. The short take for each side is:
Republicans:
Puerto Rico: Don’t want bankruptcy options, want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee P.R. government
Illinois: Want bankruptcy options, don’t want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee government operations.
Democrats:
Puerto Rico: Want the equivalent of bankruptcy options, do not a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee P.R. government
Illinois: Do not want bankruptcy options, appear to want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee government operations.
But as we all know, the two situations are so vastly different….. depending upon your political perspective at the time…..
Yeah, right.
“When they say it’s not about the money, it’s ALWAYS about the money….”
- logic not emotion - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
Following copied from a post I made on December 7th about Family Case Management…
Programs that have a net savings to the state are not receiving funds. Let’s have everyone sit down and talk good fiscal management.
Program Accomplishments
Family Case Management has contributed to the overall reduction in the state’s infant mortality and has reduced expenditures for medical assistance during the first year of life. Program outcomes are more effective in the integrated system of Family Case Management and WIC. Recent statistics show:
The infant mortality rate is 50 to 70% lower
The rate of premature birth is 60 to 70% lower
Medicaid expenditures for health care in the first year of life are up to 50% lower
Participation in WIC and FCM saves Illinois an average of $200 million each year in Medicaid expenses
Bureau of Program & Performance Management
April 2015
JD, who among Republicans is suggesting a “bankruptcy option” for the State of Illinois? Who among Democrats is suggesting a “special master” option for the State of Illinois?
You’re making things up.
It would take quite a razzle-dazzle argument to convince a federal judge that the SOI is “bankrupt,” considering the state cut taxes last year.
A sovereign state with a flat 3.75% income tax rates walks into federal court and claims it has no option but bankruptcy? They’d be laughed out of court.
== So couldn’t those programs funded by judges be reduced in the budget process or they mandated by federal law? ==
That would be one of those “it depends” answers.
If it is mandated by federal law at a specific minimum level, the budget process couldn’t (legally) go below that level. If they did, back to (probably federal) court for a consent decree.
Some federal programs specify a minimum of $A for B target population (say under $10K income eligibility) but, if the State wanted to expand coverage to include B+ population (say under $18K income), the feds would optionally make the funding $A+ as long as the State put up $Y to match the B+ population increase. A judge would most likely require B population (under $10K) be served rather than B+ (under $18K).
If we are talking a program under a consent decree, it is likely that agreement already specifies the minimum required and the budget process couldn’t (legally) go below that level or it’s back to see the judge.
If we are talking a program that is not federal and not under a consent order that somehow got an order from a judge for funding, then the budget process could, most likely, go below what the judge ordered. The obvious one that comes to mind at the moment is the order requiring state employees get paid; the judge basically said “status quo” until a budget gets passed.
Like I said, it depends on the judge’s specific order or consent agreement.
- Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 1:06 pm:
“I have to destroy the village(State) in order to save it”
The Republicans focus on the needs of the top 1%, but let’s be generous, and say they support the top 10%. The Democrats, on the other hand, will not do anything to disadvantage union members who represent about 15% of Illinois workers. If you look at those numbers it becomes clear that no one seems to care much about the interests of the three-fourths of the public who belong to neither group. So long as this dynamic is maintained, there is little reason for the vast majority of Illinois voters to give much of a damn about the stalemate in Springfield. Whoever wins, they stand to lose.
Family Case Management and WIC programs save the state money through reduction of low and very low birth weight hospital stays, etc…. Local Health Departments deliver these services and are the front line of public health and safety in the state. Every local health department is struggling financially due to the budget impasse and withholding of state grant funds. The impasse will continue to erode their capabilities resulting in massive lay offs of public health professionals and reduction in services which protect the public thru prevention of disease, monitoring disease outbreaks and eliminating sources of disease. Let’s hope for a fair bipartisan budget soon so these critical social service agencies get paid for services provided since July 2015.
- Property of IDOC - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 12:53 am:
“…sadly the courts cannot compel revenue…”
It’s also a shame they cannot compel morality, integrity, empathy, reasonableness, compromise, personal or professional ethics.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:27 am:
The Governor is not going to like this…
- IllinoisBoi - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:29 am:
Another hostage sprung by the courts…
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:30 am:
At this point, perhaps the Northern District should consolidate all the Illinois accounts under one master judge.
Somebody has to fill the vacuum and run the show.
- Dilemma - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:32 am:
Seems like the simple solution would be to pass a budget and then work on social engineering proposals that will require real effort and convincing of the public.
- Earnest - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:42 am:
Thank goodness for the courts this year. One fewer human service for Rauner’s sacrifice.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bcec73d19574f43e0b9ab00c1&id=1f8a3b784a&e=b68c506441
Interesting presentation by the DHS Secretary on this page. My favorite was the bullet point: Building Community Capacity /snark
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:45 am:
Since Rauner loves bankruptcy, lets put describe this situation in a manner he can understand. When an entity cannot manage their finances, a judge presides over a bankruptcy action to get things back on track. Unfortunately, the Rauner administered Illinois is governmentally bankrupt so judges have been forced to take action. Until Rauner chooses to govern, the courts will be running most of Illinois.
- SAP - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:48 am:
Feels like the budget has turned into a giant game of red rover.
- Mama - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:53 am:
Have the hospitals filed a lawsuit for payment yet?
- Mama - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:56 am:
Norseman, how many more lawsuits against IL have been filed for back payments?
- Menard guy - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 9:59 am:
It’s time for the Federal government to takeover the State of Illinois and appoint a trustee. When a state government refuses to govern, then it can no longer be considered a legitimate government. Let the trustee run the show until a budget is passed.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:01 am:
Mama, I don’t know but this is definitely an angle that remaining unpaid human service providers should investigate. I suspect they will need to find a federal hook to hang their lawsuit on.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:02 am:
Sue Rauner, and sue him daily. Otherwise nothing will get done. Rauner won’t govern.
- cdog - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:03 am:
Good for them.
Looking forward to hearing about more of the same.
Sure would be scary if the various levels of judicial appointments were influenced by the billionaires buying elections. /s
- Me too - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:06 am:
The constitution explains its purpose and the State’s is: in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people; maintain a representative and orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality; assure legal, social and economic justice; provide opportunity for the fullest development of the individual; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; and secure the blessings of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity - do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Illinois.
We should just find one of those “Activist Judges” TM, to use that to justify drafting a temporary budget. Hey, we are operating under so many consent decrees, why not something like this?
I’m only half joking, but I can’t say which half.
- illini - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:17 am:
I’ve lost track —–
How many times have the Courts had to step in to compel state funding to Social Services Agencies?
How many programs have already had to shut down, cut back on staff or curtail services?
How many families and/or individuals have been impacted?
What is the unfunded portion of monies owed by the state that would have kept these programs running?
Some help here please or point me in the right direction. Thanks
- Me too - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:23 am:
Are all my comments being held? I mean there is a big delay. Just curious Rich.
- Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:26 am:
A couple of months ago I wondered if the Judges might end up with this. Sometime this year, a judicially ordered payment won’t be able to be made. That is a direct challenge to judicial authority. If I were that judge, I would start jailing for contempt of court. I’d start at the top and work down Rauner,Munger,Madigan,Cullerton,..etc
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:37 am:
===”Sometime this year, a judicially ordered payment won’t be able to be made. That is a direct challenge to judicial authority. If I were that judge, I would start jailing for contempt of court.”===
They will continuing arguing while in jail!
- illini - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:38 am:
Help me with this ——–
How many times have the Courts had to compel the State to fund established programs?
How many Social Services organizations had to lay off staff, curtail services or close entire programs because of the impasse and lack of funding?
How many individuals have been laid off that formally worked for these agencies?
How many families and individuals are receiving less or no services as a result of the programs not being funded?
How much has been withheld that would have enabled these agencies and programs to continue functioning?
I know the total numbers will shock many of us. I should have been keeping track but did not keep a running tally.
Would appreciate it if someone could help me out or point me to a source that would have the data.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:41 am:
“Unfortunately, the Rauner administered Illinois is governmentally bankrupt so judges have been forced to take action.”
And morally bankrupt as well.
- illini - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 10:50 am:
Sorry about the double posting - the first did not go through for some reason and I tried again. I apologize, but my questions remain.
- Pawn - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 11:03 am:
Sadly the courts cannot compel revenue.
Re the contracts issue — all contracts have a “subject to appropriation” clause in them that is making the filing of lawsuits tricky. Not saying it can’t happen. Just saying that it is more challenging than you might think.
- Anon - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 11:19 am:
Is there any greater protection that have a judge order your agency be funded?
This is going to be an important precedent later, and if I were running a state vendor, I’d be doing everything I can to get my agency on that listed.
It’s like super-duper protection.
- Judgment Day (On The Road) - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 11:47 am:
“It’s time for the Federal government to takeover the State of Illinois and appoint a trustee. When a state government refuses to govern, then it can no longer be considered a legitimate government. Let the trustee run the show until a budget is passed.”
————-
Lot more to that than you think. Honestly, just not going to happen.
First off, what you are pitching is just a different version of bankruptcy. Instead of the Bankruptcy Court appointing a Trustee, you would have something like a “Special Master” appointed, responsible to the Court.
How would you like to be the poor federal judge handed that one?
There would be lawsuits flying everywhere because the only real existing rules even remotely applicable to what you would be attempting to do would either be currently in (a) Bankruptcy law, or (b) Nothing.
And the federal courts aren’t going to get near any state revenue issues.
Honestly, it probably won’t be Illinois pushing this entire issue. It will likely be the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico bringing this one to the forefront.
That will be ‘interesting’…..
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 11:54 am:
== Is there any greater protection that have a judge order your agency be funded? ==
Key distinction - the judges are not ordering agencies to be funded; they are ordering specific programs to be funded … programs that have existing consent decrees, programs tied to federal mandates, programs tied to federal funding, programs dictated by state statutes that do not explicitly exempt the program if funding is not appropriated (think State Fair, for example).
What is happening is the courts (instead of the Governor and the GA) are picking which programs are “worthy” of being funded strictly on a legal basis as opposed to a moral or compassionate basis. Kind of like what happens in a bankruptcy; there a judge decides who gets paid based on the legal strength of their claim.
You know, I may be on to something … Rauner HAS figured out how to take the State through bankruptcy without the State being allowed to go bankrupt under federal law. He is shedding some programs because they aren’t being funded, and those programs may not ever come back. The only difference is he can’t shed the existing debt. He is just deferring it; it will still have to be paid at some point.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:09 pm:
This is an order to compel processing of Medicaid payments was entered to prevent violations of consent decrees. Parties had received notice and were in agreement as to the form of the order, defendants reserving objections to the substance of the order. Seems to be an enforcement of a July 24, 2015 order that was enforcing a consent decree entered on November 18, 2005. The plaintiff’s lawyers were awarded $4,445,000.00 attorneys fees in that proceeding.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:21 pm:
JD, comparisons between Puerto Rico and Illinois are as applicable as those between Chicago and Detroit.
“Can’t” deal with a situation and “don’t wanna” deal with a situation aren’t remotely similar.
The bipartisan Illinois Supreme Court made that clear in its unanimous decision on SB1.
- Liberty - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:32 pm:
RNUG- So couldn’t those programs funded by judges be reduced in the budget process or they mandated by federal law?
- Judgment Day (On The Road) - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
“JD, comparisons between Puerto Rico and Illinois are as applicable as those between Chicago and Detroit.”
—————
Actually they are, you just don’t see it.
There’s this little thing out there called the “Federal Supremacy” clause. Might want to look into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Why the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico/State of Illinois contango is so interesting is that the two political parties will be on opposite sides in each case. The short take for each side is:
Republicans:
Puerto Rico: Don’t want bankruptcy options, want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee P.R. government
Illinois: Want bankruptcy options, don’t want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee government operations.
Democrats:
Puerto Rico: Want the equivalent of bankruptcy options, do not a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee P.R. government
Illinois: Do not want bankruptcy options, appear to want a Special Master (Trustee) to oversee government operations.
But as we all know, the two situations are so vastly different….. depending upon your political perspective at the time…..
Yeah, right.
“When they say it’s not about the money, it’s ALWAYS about the money….”
- logic not emotion - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
Following copied from a post I made on December 7th about Family Case Management…
Programs that have a net savings to the state are not receiving funds. Let’s have everyone sit down and talk good fiscal management.
http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=77882
Program Accomplishments
Family Case Management has contributed to the overall reduction in the state’s infant mortality and has reduced expenditures for medical assistance during the first year of life. Program outcomes are more effective in the integrated system of Family Case Management and WIC. Recent statistics show:
The infant mortality rate is 50 to 70% lower
The rate of premature birth is 60 to 70% lower
Medicaid expenditures for health care in the first year of life are up to 50% lower
Participation in WIC and FCM saves Illinois an average of $200 million each year in Medicaid expenses
Bureau of Program & Performance Management
April 2015
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
JD, who among Republicans is suggesting a “bankruptcy option” for the State of Illinois? Who among Democrats is suggesting a “special master” option for the State of Illinois?
You’re making things up.
It would take quite a razzle-dazzle argument to convince a federal judge that the SOI is “bankrupt,” considering the state cut taxes last year.
A sovereign state with a flat 3.75% income tax rates walks into federal court and claims it has no option but bankruptcy? They’d be laughed out of court.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
== So couldn’t those programs funded by judges be reduced in the budget process or they mandated by federal law? ==
That would be one of those “it depends” answers.
If it is mandated by federal law at a specific minimum level, the budget process couldn’t (legally) go below that level. If they did, back to (probably federal) court for a consent decree.
Some federal programs specify a minimum of $A for B target population (say under $10K income eligibility) but, if the State wanted to expand coverage to include B+ population (say under $18K income), the feds would optionally make the funding $A+ as long as the State put up $Y to match the B+ population increase. A judge would most likely require B population (under $10K) be served rather than B+ (under $18K).
If we are talking a program under a consent decree, it is likely that agreement already specifies the minimum required and the budget process couldn’t (legally) go below that level or it’s back to see the judge.
If we are talking a program that is not federal and not under a consent order that somehow got an order from a judge for funding, then the budget process could, most likely, go below what the judge ordered. The obvious one that comes to mind at the moment is the order requiring state employees get paid; the judge basically said “status quo” until a budget gets passed.
Like I said, it depends on the judge’s specific order or consent agreement.
- Anotherretiree - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 1:06 pm:
“I have to destroy the village(State) in order to save it”
- striketoo - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 1:23 pm:
The Republicans focus on the needs of the top 1%, but let’s be generous, and say they support the top 10%. The Democrats, on the other hand, will not do anything to disadvantage union members who represent about 15% of Illinois workers. If you look at those numbers it becomes clear that no one seems to care much about the interests of the three-fourths of the public who belong to neither group. So long as this dynamic is maintained, there is little reason for the vast majority of Illinois voters to give much of a damn about the stalemate in Springfield. Whoever wins, they stand to lose.
- Wayne191 - Wednesday, Feb 10, 16 @ 1:36 pm:
Family Case Management and WIC programs save the state money through reduction of low and very low birth weight hospital stays, etc…. Local Health Departments deliver these services and are the front line of public health and safety in the state. Every local health department is struggling financially due to the budget impasse and withholding of state grant funds. The impasse will continue to erode their capabilities resulting in massive lay offs of public health professionals and reduction in services which protect the public thru prevention of disease, monitoring disease outbreaks and eliminating sources of disease. Let’s hope for a fair bipartisan budget soon so these critical social service agencies get paid for services provided since July 2015.
- Property of IDOC - Thursday, Feb 11, 16 @ 12:53 am:
“…sadly the courts cannot compel revenue…”
It’s also a shame they cannot compel morality, integrity, empathy, reasonableness, compromise, personal or professional ethics.