Unclear on the concept
Thursday, May 18, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Finke…
The Senate OK’d a $36.5 billion spending plan, but failed to approve a key bill needed to implement cuts contained in it. The Senate also did not vote on a controversial bill to raise taxes needed to balance the spending plan.
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said it will up to the Republicans to decide when they’re ready to vote for the budget bills.
“I was under the impression we had reached an agreement on the budget,” Cullerton said after the votes. “The issue is, why did the Republicans not vote for the budget?”
Republican senators, though, again said that negotiators from both parties are getting close to agreement on the remaining outstanding issues and more time is needed. They accused Cullerton of staging a “political show” with the votes Wednesday.
* From an analysis issued by Cullerton’s office yesterday…
Negotiations [with the Republicans] left a $475 million gap between spending and revenue. This [Democratic] plan closes it by means testing certain income tax breaks, adjusting the borrowing to pay old bills plan and making $60 million in additional reductions.
So, there was no agreement on the budget.
- Dude - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 9:42 am:
Did at least putting the bills out there and voting on them get us anywhere closer to a passable budget?
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 9:51 am:
Meh. Does anyone really think that if this actually passes in the Senate that Rauner won’t have it scuttled in the House? Not to mention how Madigan will want to screw around and make changes.
- walker - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:02 am:
Well they dragged the lumber, bricks, and a framework out to the build site. If it doesn’t happen, at least it will be clearer who stopped the project.
- Earnest - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:04 am:
Rauner is a true master. He destroyed the grand bargain and it looks like he’s going to win the messaging on it too. Politically, I think he’s in a stronger position with no budget as an issue against him rather than having to sign a responsible, balanced budget that everyone’s going to loathe. That’s the biggest part of the fiscal mess of Illinois–voters choose the candidate who offers no tax increases instead of someone who will do the hard things they hate in order to have a responsible, balanced budget.
- walker - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:09 am:
No matter what happens now, the balanced budget will pass or fail in the House, when the clock nears midnight the last day.
- Anon221 - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:18 am:
If the Republicans in the Senate think that by delaying critical votes as long as possible is what will box Madigan in, they should understand that their No and Present votes could come back to haunt them. Every day they delay adds millions onto the backs of their constituents.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:19 am:
“So there was no agreement on the budget”.
Nor will there be. Both sides are simply too entrenched in their ideologies, too beholden to their financial sponsors, and too desperate to hold onto power to ever consider any meaningful level of self-sacrifice for the common good. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s the Illinois way. This cannot be solved until the prisons open and the schools close, if then.
- Arock - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:21 am:
“instead of someone who will do the hard things they hate in order to have a responsible, balanced budget.” - Seeing that we have not had a responsible balanced budget for close to two decades I guess Madigan and his minions are failures and need to go. Can you say a pension and retiree healthcare debt of at least $180 billion.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:40 am:
==Did at least putting the bills out there and voting on them get us anywhere closer to a passable budget?==
You’re asking if wasting time voting on bills that were not agreed to, instead of spending that time meeting to work towards an agreement, was helpful?
- RNUG - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:53 am:
Hell, the could have just papered over than much with revenue smoke and magic beans. It’s not like there aren’t other questionable assumptions in the proposal.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 11:14 am:
===So, there was no agreement on the budget.===
Wait, are you saying that everything else in the $36.5 billion budget was negotiated to agreement except the final $475 million in spending cuts? That is the very definition of 99% agreement, and the Democrats closed the gap with cuts, so it’s not like the SGOPs object to more cuts.
If that’s not agreement, the SGOPs will never be satisfied.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 12:44 pm:
Are we supposed to believe after more than two years and all this damage a deal can’t be cut because of differences over $475 million?
That represents 1.3% of the $36.5B spending plan.
It’s simply not believable. It’s bad faith.
- RNUG - Thursday, May 18, 17 @ 10:26 pm:
== That represents 1.3% of the $36.5B spending plan. ==
- Word -, as I’m sure you remember, the whole ROI on the TA is supposed to he 1.4%.
If they can’t close that last 1.3%, then the last two and a half years have all been for … nothing!