|
Get out your Madigan decoder rings
Thursday, Jan 12, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller * Petrella…
Voters overwhelmingly approved those ideas two years ago in non-binding referendums, yet Madigan hasn’t advanced either concept in bill form since then. He admitted he put those issues on the ballot to increase Democratic turnout (he also admitted it didn’t work out too well), but where’s the legislation? * Meanwhile, the Senate President has worked out a deal with his chamber’s Republicans that involves a minimum wage increase that’s a dollar an hour higher than Madigan’s referendum proposed. Maybe Madigan could follow his own advice and get on board with that one…
* Then again…
Cullerton is working on deals involving those issues. The collective bargaining stuff is basically just what the state has already allowed Chicago to do. And if Cullerton’s liberals (and he has lots of them) can go along with his workers’ comp reforms, then why shouldn’t Madigan also try to engage? * But about that “race to the bottom” remark…
|
- Amalia - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 11:45 am:
“Get out your Madigan decoder rings”
what a great headline.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 11:49 am:
So do the Madigan decoder rings come in a box of Madigan cereal?! I would guess that Madigan cereal is as bland as and tastes like cardboard - but it does contain plenty of fiber. To mix it up, though, Madigan cereal also has an apple-flavored version. If you collect enough Madigan cereal UPCs you can send them to his HQ for an official Madigan old man hat.
- Keyrock - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 11:54 am:
We know Madigan decoder rings don’t come in Rizzos cereal boxes. The Speaker is a loyal South Side Sox fan.
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 11:58 am:
I’m not sure how a surcharge tax would not be considered a progressive tax, so I’m guessing there are complications in the constitutional language that would need to be addressed.
He might also not want the surcharge, because he doesn’t want to have to pay it. They were after all political questions, not policy questions.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:09 pm:
Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine
- Arsenal - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
I feel like calling a bill for a Millionaire’s surcharge woulda been a pretty big FU to the Governor.
I mean, I want the policy AND a couple FUs to the Governor, but it’s worth considering.
- Rabid - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:19 pm:
Millionaire tax is leverage with immediate returns, term limits lack economic prosperity
- Anotheretiree - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:20 pm:
-Ahoy-
Surcharge definitely seems to violate the flat tax requirement. I think taxing retirement income with a $25,00 exclusion does also.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:28 pm:
Keep in mind the changes to collective bargaining that already exist on Chicago is the “flexibility” to decide what shall and shall not be collectively bargained over.
This the MAIN Rauner want
Unlike Chicago where there are powerful unions who could shut down the city in literally seconds, thus no administration would dare take something off the table, Madison county would strip wages and healthcare from collective bargaining in a second.
This would effectively destroy AFSCME in municipal and county Governments
It would also destroy the IFT in all but Chicago, oh wait it would totally destroy the IFT.
I totally want an end to all this. I have stated this as dispassionately as possible so it will post.
This will effectively destroy several unions in the state
That’s if it is what Rauner proposed in the Trib in 2015
It’s like Right to Work
Yes people could remain a part of the Union
But with RTW only those with probity would pay dues
Thousands would be effected
That’s not a small thing.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 12:36 pm:
If it would take a constitutional amendment, and the practice has been to wait for election years to do those, then shouldn’t we expect to see a proposal in 2018?
- Earnest - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 1:01 pm:
>Voters overwhelmingly approved those ideas two years ago in non-binding referendums, yet Madigan hasn’t advanced either concept in bill form since then.
These were both major disappointments for me. They are a reason I was feeling somewhat pessimistic about his op-ed discussed here yesterday. It would be nice if he let some of his members take the lead on the broader Democratic issues like these and others. If might help insulate them from the “Madigan” stuff as well if they could be seen as pushing issues within the party. And it would provide contrast with Rauner’s control over the Republicans in the House and Senate.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
Maybe Speaker Madigan is finally reading those copies of The Bond Buyer that are probably available at the Statehouse, especially those articles dealing with Chicago where his district is situated.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 1:16 pm:
=Be Sure to Drink Your Ovaltine=
Good stuff!
But, may I suggest something a little strong for the task at hand?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 1:51 pm:
The messaging needs to be consistent, clear, and continual.
Understandable shoukd usually be a “given”
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
“You can’t hold hands and sing together until the other side drops the meat cleaver”
Said by both Madigan and Rauner simultaneously..
- Rabid - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
My speaker will be giving my govenor a going away gift on election day. Millionaire tax kinda like the going away gift munger got
- Right Field - Thursday, Jan 12, 17 @ 4:28 pm:
Race to the bottom?
Good lord… We’re not there yet?
- the cardinal - Friday, Jan 13, 17 @ 7:52 am:
” Right Field “LOL supposedly New Mexico is futher behind in paying their bills than the once great State of Illinois.
Enough of the mixed signals…raise the income tax lower some part of the corporate tax borrow some to pay the backlog down…Pass a budget, move along nothing to see hear folks !?
- The Real Just Me - Friday, Jan 13, 17 @ 9:10 am:
Why is it a given that the Cullerton’s Senate “liberals” will vote for workers’ comp reform? I think it is much more likely that Cullerton’s Senate “conservatives” will vote for it, and since there reportedly are so few of Cullerton’s Senate “conservatives,” doesn’t that mean that every one of Radogno’s members will have to vote for it. Is that likely considering that the doctors don’t want this because it cuts too much and the business groups don’t want it because it cuts too little?