Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s most valuable lesson
Next Post: Red light cameras win by default
Posted in:
* I have no idea what this Wall Street Journal piece is supposed to mean…
Mr. Rauner faces perhaps the most daunting task of any governor in the country. Illinois has the nation’s worst credit rating, most insolvent pension system and barely any job growth. A Democratic state legislature can override his vetoes, and its chief power broker, House Speaker Michael Madigan, has every incentive to undermine the new governor given that Mr. Rauner’s likely Democratic challenger in 2018 will be the speaker’s daughter, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
First, Mr. Rauner will need to peel off enough Democrats to phase out the state’s 2011 “temporary” income and corporate tax hikes, which will begin to sunset at the end of this year. Democratic leaders want to force Mr. Rauner to break his campaign promise to roll back the tax increases and to sign onto a limited extension next year.
So the onus will be on Mr. Rauner to corral a dozen Democrats in the House and 10 in the Senate to support his tax plan. The good news is that the legislature includes a large faction of moderate Democrats who are fiscally conservative but culturally liberal. The bad news is that the legislators are in hock to Mr. Madigan, who’s also the chairman of the state Democratic Party.
Am I reading this wrong or does the WSJ really believe that the Democrats will unanimously pass a tax hike bill and then override a Rauner veto?
Also, what’s that about corralling a dozen Dems in the House and ten in the Senate “to support his tax plan”? What kind of math is that?
Maybe it’s because I woke up late today, but I just don’t get this at all and my brain really hurts.
A little help?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s most valuable lesson
Next Post: Red light cameras win by default
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It appears to me that the WSJ doesn’t understand that the income tax rolls back automatically on January 1, 2015, before Rauner takes office. If they mean Rauner will need Dems to take the rate below the scheduled 3.75%, that is correct - but why would they even discuss something that makes the budget gap worse?
Comment by cover Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:10 am
Other items on Rauner’s to-do list include “a farm bill, probably and Black Hills mine safety regulations” - are words we in New York generally attribute to midwestern states Illinois. And of course the entire political situation could be further complicated by Kanye West.
Comment by The Captain Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:11 am
===Mr. Rauner will need to peel off enough Democrats to phase out the state’s 2011 “temporary” income and corporate tax hikes===
He actually needs 0, since it will begin phasing out on its own January 1st…
===So the onus will be on Mr. Rauner to corral a dozen Democrats in the House and 10 in the Senate to support his tax plan.===
Which one is that?
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:11 am
They don’t understand Illinois. What a crock of baloney.
Rauner won’t have to worry about a ’sunset’. It’s going to happen. Now he’s got to either fill the massive hole, or propose and round up GOP votes to restore some of the tax increase.
He’s a big boy, wearing the big-boy Carhart now. It’s his time to shine.
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:12 am
===WSJ doesn’t understand that the income tax rolls back automatically on January 1, 2015===
Except…
=== which will begin to sunset at the end of this year===
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:12 am
Apparently, they don’t read Capitol Fax.
Such fools.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:12 am
Rauner needs to grab enough democrats to support his phase out plan versus the sunset written in the law. Not well written. It would assume republicans fully support a four year phase out versus the sunset in the law. Not a good assumption.
Comment by Archimedes Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:14 am
==A little help==
Sure, it simple. Just because someone is given a bi-line and a place to print it doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:14 am
I bet Madigan is looking in a mirror doing his best Clubber Lang imitation: “I predict…pain”
Comment by Nonplussed Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:14 am
Here’s the way I see it.. The WSJ has become the “Newspaper of Record” for the right-wing, business interest portion of the the Republican Party. For them, business is good, government is bad. Black and white, no gray.
Over the last 15 years or so, we’ve been partying like it’s 1899. Two Americas are ok with these folks because there are winner and losers. As it should be. If you don’t like your lot in life, change it.
So, Gov-Elect Rauner represents everything that could be, and D’s represent everything that is wrong.
So, they don’t do their homework on the Illinois political seen, and write drivel about Speaker Madigan (who’s no flaming liberal, btw) and the Gov-Elect who is the white knight.
It’s drive-by reporting borne out of lazy talking points. The situation is much more fluid than that. They should have called you, Rich, in the first place.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:16 am
Rich, why don’t you email the editor and tell them their article doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by admin Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:16 am
Logic isn’t the basis for how things get done here and someone over there hasn’t done their homework. Lots of assumptions that add up to a bad conclusion of theory. Keep it in mind when you read about other states in this pub. For them, there’s NYC and the rest of us are collar states.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:17 am
Sounds like premature handicapping by WSJ. Once things calm down Rauner and Madigan will work together. Corralling Democrat’s is an other story.
I’m sure he will help Rahm on pensions. It’s been a while since we have had a Republican governor.
And my crystal ball is still a little cloudy.
The tax increase may just sunset.
Comment by Mokenavince Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:18 am
Why doesn’t someone ask the author, @AllysiaFinley?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:20 am
* seen = scene
Sorry
Comment by Try-4-Truth Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:20 am
It means that she is a reporter for a big-time publication and she wants to say in as many words as possible whether they make sense or not that Rauner is going to have a hard time governing.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:21 am
Rich, maybe it’s a left hand/right hand issue at the WSJ, where the opinion writers didn’t grasp that “sunset” means it’s already lower before the transition.
Comment by cover Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:23 am
Consider the confusion shared.
Who is there to ==corral== or ==peel off==? The tax hike automatically expires.
And is it not his own preference to ==phase out== the tax increase rather than allow it to expire?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:23 am
Most of it is backwards.
He doesn’t need anything for the tax increase to sunset. That’s already done.
He doesn’t have a budget plan, or a tax plan that matches it. If the WSJ writer is aware of one, please share it.
He doesn’t need Dems, he needs Republicans to extend or increase any taxes.
Having Madigan there is good news, not bad, for a Rauner plan on taxes, since he tends more conservative than many of his Dem caucus members.
Illinois government is very hard to fathom from the outside using labels and national assumptions.
Comment by walker Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:24 am
First of all this is an opinion piece, not a news article. Repeating the same old talking points, without doing any research.
I believe Bruce understands the financial issues in Illinois. He also is going to learn quickly that he is not a CEO, but now a politician. Hopefully he can cut deals and compromise. He doesnt get everything, neither does anyone else.
The Public Sector can learn alot from the Private Sector…and vice versa. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:24 am
Unless the WSJ means that Mr. Rauner will need to ==peel off== Dems in order to implement a gradual ==phase out== as opposed to a permanent extension at a more ==limited== rate? Unclear.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:26 am
I think this reporter believes either:
1.there will be dualing tax plans to keep the phase out from completing, and that Rauner needs to convince Democrats to support his instead of theirs.
or
2. Democrats will be obstructing any attempt Rauner makes to stretch out the sunset of the tax increase? Which also makes no sense.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:27 am
=== - Del Clinkton - Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:24 am:
First of all this is an opinion piece, not a news article. Repeating the same old talking points, without doing any research.
I believe Bruce understands the financial issues in Illinois. He also is going to learn quickly that he is not a CEO, but now a politician. Hopefully he can cut deals and compromise. He doesnt get everything, neither does anyone else.
The Public Sector can learn alot from the Private Sector…and vice versa. They are NOT mutually exclusive.=====
Not mutually exclusive, but vastly different. Different focus, different values, just different. It’s a big mistake to say that you can take the lessons from one and put into the over.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:28 am
Contemplate who owns WSJ ……
Comment by bored to zzzzzzzzz Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:29 am
It’s a WSJ opinion piece.
They’re not supposed to make sense.
Dog bites man.
Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:30 am
Rauner can have his “temporary” tax increase, it just has to be his. Dem’s have no incentive to move on this right now.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:32 am
bored to zzzzzzzzz : On the money.
Comment by Tobor Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:36 am
Also worthy of some head-scratching…
==a large faction of moderate Democrats who are fiscally conservative but culturally liberal===
huh, really? Other than a handful of suburban D’s who else would you put in this category? Downstate Dems are culturally liberal? The black caucus is fiscally conservative?
Comment by Jimmy CrackCorn Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 11:51 am
Whaddya mean you don’t understand? The Dems have no incentive to keep successful people from leaving the State of Illinois as successful people are not their constituency. Therefore, they also have no incentive to make Rauner look good.
Comment by TheDopeFromHope Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:15 pm
MikeMacD for the score.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:23 pm
It’s like salsa from New York City–doesn’t make sense.
Comment by SamHall Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:38 pm
Try 4 Truth:
What are the exciting differences between the Private Sector and the Public Sector?
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:42 pm
Too bad no one got Rauner to say, read my lips no more taxes.
Comment by gesquire Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:42 pm
@the dope:
Please specifically describe the attributes of a what constitutes the make up of “successful people”?
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:47 pm
Just because it’s an opinion piece doesn’t mean that it’s okay to present factual errors. Lordy.
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:51 pm
No worries Rich. Rumors are the reporter uses a fork to eat “New York Style” Pizza. Get some rest.
Comment by Franklyspeaking Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 12:57 pm
@del It ain’t hard to understand. “Successful people” are those who try to make something of themselves, work hard, act responsibly, pay taxes, and contribute to society. They despise those who claim–falsely–that “you didn’t build it” or “businesses don’t create jobs.”
Comment by TheDopeFromHope Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 1:03 pm
==The Dems have no incentive to keep successful people from leaving the State of Illinois as successful people are not their constituency.==
So let me get this straight. All Democrats are unsuccessful. Is that what you just said? And here I was hoping the moronic partisan garbage would die down after the election. Guess I was wrong.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 1:32 pm
@thedopefromhope:
Interesting attributes. Thanx.
What person said “you didn’t build it”?
Seems to me he/she/it has made something of themselves, worked hard, acted responsibly, pays taxes, and contributes to society.
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 1:35 pm
As state above, it is an opinion piece written by someone with too much time on their hands, The writer rambled on and on not having any working knowledge of Ill. politics or any of the people/personalities involved. It’s different when you are under the dome. Don’t let it bother you Rich. The writer probably did double shots with a beer chaser for lunch.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 1:45 pm
@@ del, demoralized
It’s not hard to figure out who’s been running this state for the last 10 years. Nor is it hard to figure out what their policies have led to.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2014/04/30/illinois-wake-up-call-stagnation-spiral-encourages-people-to-leave/
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/still-leaving-illinois-an-exodus-of-people-and-money/
“When people leave, they take their income and their talent with them. In 2009 alone, Illinois lost residents who took with them a net of $1.5 billion in taxable income. From 1995 to 2009, Illinois lost out on a net of $26 billion in taxable income to out-migration.”
Comment by TheDopeFromHope Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 1:59 pm
Allysia Finley is a hack. She’s attempted to write about Illinois before and it’s always horrible.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 2:05 pm
===Can you please help me figure this out?====
After giving this some more thought….no.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 2:20 pm
@TheDope ““Successful people” are those who try to make something of themselves, work hard, act responsibly, pay taxes, and contribute to society.”
Huh. Who knew. I’m a Democrat, and all of the above, as are my friends and neighbors.
Your name is fitting. Dope.
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 2:35 pm
Rich, it’s not just you. I’ve got a headache from reading the article. the only things that are crystal clear is the author doesn’t know how to fact check or think logically.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 2:38 pm
It’s what happens when Rauner’s spin that he somehow will decrease Illinois taxes meets a lazy and/or incompetent reporter who works for a news company that doesn’t care about accuracy so long as Republicans look good in the end.
Comment by Father Time Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 6:50 pm
Rauner has a tax plan?
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 7:46 pm
The WSJ is the best newspaper in the United States. Even after Murdoch, they’re the goods. In their news pages, they know it’s mostly about money, rather that personalities.
Their editorial pages are different, to say the least, and always have been. Who knows what paper that crowd reads?
The great Robert Novak, straight out of Joliet, used to say when he was at the WSJ he’d write stories just to stick it to the edit pages. And that cat could do it, too, better than N-E–Ba-Dee.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 9:16 pm