Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Purvis responds - Thumbs down from Cullerton *** Koehler: Shut the schools down until we get a budget
Next Post: EDGE “fell through the cracks”
Posted in:
* Last week, a Chicago TV reporter referred to Gov. Bruce Rauner as “fiscally conservative.” This week, another Chicago reporter referred to Rauner as “a generally tightfisted fiscal conservative.”
The classic definition of a fiscal conservative…
Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reduction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets. In other words, fiscal conservatives are against the government expanding beyond its means through debt.
So, I ask you, what sort of “fiscal conservative” presides over this?…
Just sayin…
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:08 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Purvis responds - Thumbs down from Cullerton *** Koehler: Shut the schools down until we get a budget
Next Post: EDGE “fell through the cracks”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The kind who believes allowing state/municipal bankruptcy is the answer.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:11 pm
One that blames #TaxHikeMike for all the problems.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:14 pm
Or the sort who take over from 30 years of horrible government administration and gets blamed for it.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:14 pm
Anonymous at 12:14 was me……
Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:14 pm
“Or the sort who take over from 30 years of horrible government administration and gets blamed for it.”
-No need to go back 30 years. Go back to the beginning of Rauner’s term and compare the bill backlog. I think he can stand alone on the issue of horrible government administration.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:16 pm
Racoon, That $11B in bills isn’t on the last 30 years of any office, it’s on the last two years. Who is responsible for the last two years?
Comment by illini97 Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:17 pm
–So, I ask you, what sort of “fiscal conservative” presides over this?…–
One that can fool TV reporters, all the time.
It’s just embarrassing.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:17 pm
The one word answer is “hypocrite”.
Comment by illini Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:17 pm
12:16 was me
Comment by Ole' Nelson Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:18 pm
“Fiscal conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reduction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets.”
Rauner may want to operate in this way, but the realities of Illinois’ debt do not permit reduction of government spending, as it obviously needs to go toward the debt.
Comment by Saluki Matt Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:19 pm
==Or the sort who take over from 30 years of horrible government administration and gets blamed for it.==
Because he’s run up the score to 32 years, and counting.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:20 pm
===who take over from 30 years of horrible government administration and gets blamed for it===
Right.
Two years ago the appropriated bill payment cycle was under 30 days - the corporate standard. Today it’s about six months.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:21 pm
–Rauner may want to operate in this way, but the realities of Illinois’ debt do not permit reduction of government spending, as it obviously needs to go toward the debt.–
What in the world are you talking about? Be specific.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:23 pm
According to Moody’s, FY17 spending is up 12% from last year, while revenues are flat.
According to the Fiscal Futures Project, the FY17 budget is running a $13 billion deficit.
That’s a spending plan pushed and signed by the governor and passed by bipartisan structured roll calls in the GA.
That development has nothing to do with anything that happened the past 30 years. It’s the difference between one year of spending and one year of revenue.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:30 pm
1) That is a very large number
2) How can the elected officials think it’s fair they should be paid first with this type of backlog?
3) VAT is coming soon……..
Comment by Rocky Rosi Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:35 pm
A fiscal conservative that is dealing with an unmovable Speaker that led the state into the abyss and refuses to see that change is in order.
Comment by Arock Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:40 pm
==A fiscal conservative that is dealing with an unmovable Speaker that led the state into the abyss and refuses to see that change is in order.==
Did he think someone else was going to be Speaker when he ran?
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:41 pm
Arock
Rauner cannot wear the “fiscal conservative” suit. Fiscal conservatives set budgeting priorities to paper and honor contracts they have entered into.
Comment by illini97 Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:41 pm
The Governor should just:
(1) Implement a budget that is balanced with various tax increases,
(2) Implement the many “turn around” agenda items in conjunction with that budget; and
(3) implement a series of revenue increases (i.e. taxes and fees) that will balance the budget.
There, problem solved! I’m sure not a single person in this State will complain!
Oh wait . . . Rauner isn’t a dictator, he must work with two legislative chambers to do all of the above.
So, the only logical conclusion to the above is to blame only Rauner anyway?
And by the way . . . I thought the Comptroller’s office was looted, pilfered with files galore stolen, missing, hidden or locked away with no keys, computers, furniture or even *gasp* televisions! How did the new Comptroller manage to put that report together in spite of all that?
Oh wait . . .
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:42 pm
“A fiscal conservative that is dealing with an unmovable Speaker that led the state into the abyss and refuses to see that change is in order.”
Ever the victim. Who knew such a bidness genius could be so helpless.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:43 pm
So a fiscal conservative approves of not having a state budget and not paying the state’s bills.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Here is a fun game! Pick the item that does not go directly with the other two.
(1) Implement a budget that is balanced with various tax increases,
(2) Implement the many “turn around” agenda items in conjunction with that budget; and
(3) implement a series of revenue increases (i.e. taxes and fees) that will balance the budget.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Oh - Louis G Atsaves -, lol
===(1) Implement a budget that is balanced with various tax increases,
(2) Implement the many “turn around” agenda items in conjunction with that budget; and
(3) implement a series of revenue increases (i.e. taxes and fees) that will balance===
As an officer of the Court, these suggestions ARE fulfilling the constitutional requirements of Article VIII, Section 2, (a)
Are you denying this, Counselor?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:51 pm
But Madigan!
Comment by Southern_Dawg Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:51 pm
BR and JB Pritzker couldn’t pay this down to a manageable level…Illinois Spend and tax mentality has to end. Raise income taxes and cut spending get it over with. Won’t be pretty and a lot are going to suffer, but the economy in the once great state of Illinois won’t be back anytime soon to correct 2 decades of bad financial decisions.
Comment by the cardinal Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:55 pm
Spending cannot be cut until there is a budget.
Leader Lou Lang has stated publicly there will be no budget agreed to during Rauner’s term.
Rauner’s proposed budget was 3.5 billion less that the House Democrats budget that was rejected by the Senate.
OW please stop with the misdirection and admit the Democrats have no intention on agreeing to a budget.
The Speaker wants to recreate the past 7 “successful” budget negotiations that produced no balanced budget and continue with this madness.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 12:55 pm
==please stop with the misdirection and admit the Democrats have no intention on agreeing to a budget.==
And you please stop with the misdirection that the Governor has any intention of agreeing on a budget.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:11 pm
==Leader Lou Lang has stated publicly there will be no budget agreed to during Rauner’s term.==
Are you referring to this?
https://capitolfax.com/2016/05/18/its-certainly-a-possibility/
‘Cause you shouldn’t make a jump like that without stretching first.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:15 pm
@Lucky Pierre
If the democrats don’t want to pass a balanced budget, then why do they want to raise taxes?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:15 pm
===OW please stop with the misdirection and admit the Democrats have no intention on agreeing to a budget===
Keep up…
Rauner…
“…budget, with reforms…”
Rauner only wants a budget “with reforms”, or no budget.
Rauner has very specifically said so. Period.
Who is holding up what?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:16 pm
==Rauner’s proposed budget was 3.5 billion less ==
I think it’s been established that the Governor’s proposed budget was still wildly out of balance.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:16 pm
== Rauner’s proposed budget was 3.5 billion less that the House Democrats budget that was rejected by the Senate. ==
Actually, in round numbers, Rauner’s origional proposed budget had a $3.5B deficit and the Dem proposed budget had a $4.5B deficit. That’s only a difference of $1B.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:19 pm
This is the work of a venture capitalist fiscal conservative.
Comment by Winnin' Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:20 pm
“to correct 2 decades of bad financial decisions”
Cardinal, you are a little short on your time frame. Check out the pension funded ratio in 1970. That was closer to 5 decades ago.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:29 pm
–Rauner’s proposed budget was 3.5 billion less that the House Democrats budget that was rejected by the Senate.–
The governor’s original proposed FY17 budget had a deficit of $6.6 billion, according to GOMB. The governor then banked $3.1 billion in undisclosed “transformations,” fairy dust and unicorns to reduce that deficit to $3.5 billion, in his proposal.
Academic, though, isn’t it? The current FY17 budget that the governor and GA agreed to is $13 billion in the hole.
I hope the following links on the budget — with actual numbers and data — aren’t too “elitist” for you.
https://www.illinois.gov/gov/budget/capitalmarkets/Presentations/Society%20of%20Municipal%20Analysts%20April%202016%20Presentation.pdf
http://igpa.uillinois.edu/sites/igpa.uillinois.edu/files/reports/ExecSum_FF_First-You-Stop-Digging_113016.pdf
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:35 pm
Fairy Dust?? Unicorns??
You, sir, act as if we never realized Rauner’s projected $200,000,000 savings from the divestiture of the Thompson Center.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:53 pm
and when it’s all over, and you can’t bounce another check or buy another case of booze…you bust out the joint
Comment by Signal and Noise Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 1:59 pm
Signal and Noise -
“and when it’s all over, and you can’t bounce another check or buy another case of booze…you bust out the joint ”
Excellent movie quote. Well players sir, well played!
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 2:20 pm
That should be “played” …
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 2:20 pm
So what’s the End Game anyway? BR runs and wins or runs looses? MJM keeps majority even if its a smaller one. If BR comes up short next in line has HUGE deficits to overcome and few options to do so. Sorry State of affairs continues. Only losers are the schools, service providers, all citizens basically, the people of Illinois that don’t get state largesse in some fashion or form.
Comment by NorthSideNoMore Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 2:42 pm
LP-
Rauner was very specific in his interview the other day with ABCNews7-
Full budget- 4 reforms: more jobs, better schools, lower property taxes, term limits
Stopgap budget- 2 reforms: property tax freeze and term limits
It was at the 3:45 mark if you want to hear him state that. Sounds like he has preconditions to a budget of any kind. The kind of preconditions that are NOT line items in a state budget. There are leverage points only. So, we get to a situation where Rauner will, constitutionally once again, be required to submit a budget to the State legislature in just a few months. He could offer up an 18 month budget, but I’ll bet he sits on it and keeps spoutin’ the reformation lines. So, does the GA hand him K-12 funding outright again, because that is being shown to be the terror point. Could he survive that? Sure, this is his hobby. If, as Barickman said in the Central Illinois on the Record interview, that the R’s have stood up Rauner on some issues, will this threat grown their backbone? Or, will the promise of Rauner Bucks keep them silent and their fingers pointing at Madigan?
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 2:58 pm
RNUG House Dems passed a budget with a 7 billion dollar deficit with zero revenue proposals and zero reform proposals.
Since that time the leaders agreed to pass serious pension reform as a condition of more state money for CPS pensions that was promptly thrown in the trash can after the election.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 3:14 pm
- Lucky Pierre -
The Rauner signed stopgap was $8 billion out of whack for six whole months.
Eight is greater than seven.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 3:19 pm
You know that is not true 8 billion for the entire year
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 3:49 pm
I rest my case. Rauner is a fiscal liberal who does not believe in true capitalism.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 3:59 pm
===Youknow that is not true 8 billion for the entire year===
Nope.
That $8 billion hole Rauner signed (greater than $7 billion) ends funding at the end of the calendar year.
What about January 1st?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 3:59 pm
open mouth insert shoe leather OW it is the deficit for the entire year, not 6 months. All budgets are calculated for a full years spending.
Willfully ignorant
https://capitolfax.com/2016/07/15/8-billion-is-still-higher-than-7-billion/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 4:08 pm
===open mouth insert shoe leather OW it is the deficit for the entire year, not 6 months. All budgets are calculated for a full years spending.
Willfully ignorant===
Why then the need for another Stopgap?
The deficit will still be, beginning at $8 billion… today…
What about AFTER the next “stopgap” or budget?
Are you ignoring that.
I’m not ignorant of anything, I’m looking at the $8 billion as “today”, what about January 1st?
It’s like you keep forgetting why there’s a need for a stopgap, at a minimum, and that will be balanced and keep that deficit at $8 billion?
Show you work.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 4:13 pm
Which of Rauner’s magic beans could possibly fill an $8 billion dollar hole in six months?
The constitution specifically says the budget should be based on expected revenue for the fiscal year not some phantom turn around gains.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 4:13 pm
Our constitutional requirement of a balanced budget is apparently more of a guideline that a rule A Jack. How else would we have such over a 100 billion dollar deficit before Rauner was sworn in?
OW and others are perfectly happy to keep the status quo passing all these deficits on to future generations
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 4:55 pm
- Lucky Pierre -
What did Rauner sign, an $8 billion deficit of a stopgap.
I guess Rauner, again, IS the new status quo.
Oh, that’s $8 billion and growing…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 4:57 pm
Lucky. It is the season. Rauner is a complete failure(along with Madigan,Cullerton, and a bunch of past govs)when it comes to being a fiscal conservative. Spending money but not paying bills is not very responsible. His so called business reforms are more about changing the political landscape in Illinois rather than balancing a budget.
As you know, I am not advocating a tax increase until we have significant reductions in spending. Social services,K-12, higher ed are all going to have too suffer tremendously because past and present politicians AND state employees gave and received unsustainable promises.
When Rauner lays out a balanced budget with what I consider the proper blend, then maybe I will change his grade. Currently he gets an ‘F’.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 5:19 pm
Rauner would be more accurately called a nihilist.
Comment by Emily Booth Tuesday, Dec 20, 16 @ 9:35 pm