33 Comments - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:49 am: Right - Republicans, both of them, are preventing this governor’s policies from becoming law. What he needs to do is avoid any bipartisanship and rule Illinois by decree. Blagojevich’s problems are not due to political pressure from Republicans - it is due to political pressure he brought upon himself. No more finger pointing - Madigan isn’t to blame, Republicans are not to blame, the President is not to blame, George Ryan is not to blame. You are the governor, empowered to make a difference - stop daydreaming about Ron Santo and Elvis and do your freaking job, OK? - Anonymous 1818 - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:58 am: Would House Republicans really vote for the FY08 budget knowing that they are enabling this delayed-implementation tax increase? (Oh, sorry, “revenue enhancement.”) Even if Democratic lawmakers were to jump on board the governor’s health care train for FY09, why would House Republicans let them off the hook for the current fiscal year? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:01 am: That’s an EXCELLENT point, Anon 1818. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:03 am: Because at that point the Rs become the obstructionists, shutting down the state by refusing to pass a budget that has nothing objectionable to them in it. - Jaded - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:42 am: Here is what the Governor does not get. It is not Madigan’s job to put votes on the Governor’s proposals, it is the Governor’s job. Every Governor for the past 30 years did it themselves. Sure the leaders helped, but the Governor’s had to work members, produce pork, make campaign commitments, and all sorts of other negotiating tactics to sell members on their big picture proposals. This guy is either incable, or unwilling (or both) to do that, so it will never happen. - one of the 35 - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:22 am: I agree with Vanilla Man’s comments and also offer the following rejoinder: Blagojevich seems to be emotionally unable to hear anyone who disagees with him. When someone has the audacity to differ with his opinion or proposed programs, he throws a temper tantrum which seems to paralyze him and render him incapable of functioning in a rational manner. This is still a republic and not a monarchy. He does not seem to understand this. - Garp - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:29 am: I couldn’t agree with the Gov more that putting this off till next year is the way to go. He needs to cut his losses-fund transportation now and drum up support for his other programs. I am not sure on the details but he is not going to pass anything like healthcare this year. Time to swallow his pride, admit he got thumped and live to fight another day. - Jaded - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:30 am: Anon 1818. This years budget could also be done without Republicans. Holbrook could release his motion to reconsider the House Budget, and the Senate Dems could put 36 votes on it. The Governor could save face with this year’s budget by saying he is getting what he wants next year. My biggest point is that I don’t think there are 60 votes in the House for his proposals. - Macbeth - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:32 am: I agree with one of 35. There seems to be an intellectual block somewhere in Blagojevich’s head. What’s interesting (to me, at least) is to wonder *why* this is happening with Blagojevich. Who filled his head with the idea that this sort of behavior is statesmanlike? Who are Blagojevich’s political mentors? He’s obviously taken someone’s — and I think it’s just a single person — advice to heart. Someone *told* him to act this way. And Blagojevich apparently sees this kind of odd behavior as the way forward. But again, I ask — forward to where? Where is Blagojevich going from here? - i d - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:38 pm: Perhaps his handlers should read the precepts of Gandhi to the governor in preparation for his trip to India and as an example of the spirit of cooperation that he could use to reach the current goal of passing a budget. - maybe? - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:39 pm: “Every Governor for the past 30 years did it themselves. Sure the leaders helped, but the Governor’s had to work members, produce pork, make campaign commitments, and all sorts of other negotiating tactics to sell members on their big picture proposals. This guy is either incable, or unwilling (or both) to do that, so it will never happen.” And that’s a bad thing. - maybe? - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:41 pm: ? - Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:45 pm: Blagojevich is doing exactly the opposite of what he should be doing–suggesting that Republicans be cut out of the process, rather than trying to work with them to achieve consensus. I don’t care much about what people say Blagojevich’s policies may be–the decision making process itself is as important as the so-called reforms that he proposes. I simply can not support such heavy-handed and plainly antidemocratic rule. In addition, why should the General Assembly allow Blagojevich to propose a budget anyway? Is there some sort of official mandate that says it is the Governor who is to propose a budget? Isn’t any Representative or Senator free to propose this? “What he needs to do is avoid any bipartisanship and rule Illinois by decree.” Bipartisan is only slightly better than partisan. What is truly needed are nonpartisan solutions. 1. Partisan 2. Bipartisan 3. Multipartisan 4. Nonpartisan - Captain America - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:12 pm: Although I personally love the increase in education spending and the Governor’s health care proposal, many Democrats in the General Assembly do not - particularly the GRT necessary to fund the increased spending. I am definitely in favor of enchancing revenues and increasing expenditures as much as politically feasble this year because the Madigan budget is clearly inadequate. But realistically, I think the governor should shelve his major proposals until the next session. A major tax increase would be required to fund the Governor’s health nnd education proposals. Many legislators would be unwilling to support a major tax increase that would take effect right before an election. Had the governor not adamantly opposed an income tax and sales tax increase, he would have been able to achieve a substantial portion of his progammatic objectives. But his unwillingness to compromise, when it really counted before the May 31 deadline, killed his policy agenda. He could have had at least “half-a-loaf” but all he’s going to get is an empty plate now.It’s really a shame! After attacking and insulting legislators and vilifying Madigan for the last two months the Governor has alienated almost everyone with his irrational political behavior. As far as I can tell, the only one who has been mortally wounded by the Governor’s “slash and burn” tactics is the Governor himself. His credibilty is about as low as it can possbly go in the legislature. Senator Jones should be a casualty too. - Anon - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:39 pm: Squideshi asks, “Is there some sort of official mandate that says it is the Governor who is to propose a budget?” Yes. That said, there doesn’t seem to be any reason that others can’t also propose budgets. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:48 pm: “The Governor has suggested that it’s no longer important to address the needs of the 1.4 million Illinoisans without access to health care for another 10 months. I suggest that we give the governor another month before he begins to implement his ambitious proposal, so that he has adequate time to build the public support his program lacks if he wants to get it passed.” The problem with the latest talking points from the Gov’s press team is that its all inside baseball, and the insiders aren’t buying it. - Jaded - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:54 pm: Maybe?, Not sure what your question asks. If you mean the practices by previous governors to pass their initiatives were a bad thing and should not be continued, then that is certainly a valid point. If you mean “is it a bad thing” that he is not capable of garnering enough votes to pass his initiatives, then it depends if you agree with his initiatives. I do not, so I don’t think it is a bad thing. What is a bad thing is that he blames someone else (in this case Speaker Madigan) for HIS failures? That is my point. - Little Egypt - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:02 pm: I don’t think this insurance plan of Elvis’ is going anywhere this year and I’m skeptical if it will go for FY ‘09. Remember ‘08 is an election year and reps and senators are not going to want to face this as a campaign issue. Oh gosh am I saying this, but could Elvis and his cronies actually be thinking if they don’t get the insurance program rammed through this session, it is a dead horse for 2 more years, possibly more? Is he smart enough to think that far ahead? Plus, I can’t help but think time is running out for Elvis and that surely by ‘08 campaign, more indictments will come out. Then he will definitely be political toast for the ‘10 election. Just trying to get inside the head of a madman. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:14 pm: Steve is right. This is already a blue state, and people have short memories. If Tom Cross and Co. keep turning a thumbs down to budget ideas, Madigan could easily turn around and paint Cross and his top deputies as being more interested in making Dems and the governor look bad than passing a workable budget. Instead, no budget and continued “nays” could wind up making the HGOP vulnerable. This is especially true if Cross and the HRO have problems finding viable candidates in 2008. - He makes Ryan Look like a Saint - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:19 pm: a tax hike whether put in place this year or next year is still a tax hike. Adding free health care is a bad idea not only this year but next year and the next 10 years after. You can cut the Republicans out but then you give them ammo (in a large clip mind you) for a democrat backlash. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:21 pm: “1.4 million Illinoisans without access to health care” Lets stop pretending this is true. The figure being throw around includes everyone without health insurance. There have been many times when as a college student I didn’t have health insurance. There are many self employed individuals without health insurance. But does being without health insurance really mean having no access to health care? Of course not. We have a myriad of health services to provide to those unable, or unwilling to get health insurance. So lets stop pretending that those without health insurance have no access to health care. Especially when we are discussing Universal Health Care and so many people have fallen for this load of lies. If you have Universal Health Care, you are no better off than those of us currently depending on our health care system without health insurance. Instead of having an HMO regulated by governments and acting as liaisons and watchdogs for citizens, you have a government acting like an HMO, who doesn’t allow you any safeguards or freedoms at all. That is the way it works in Europe. If you get a diagnosis of cancer today and live in the UK, you will not get chemotherapy for almost ONE YEAR. According to the newest studies for the Scottish government, over 300,000 Scots have died waiting for health care since their Universal Health Care system had been enacted. Anyone thinking that Universal Health Care is some kind of answer needs to open their eyes and take a look at the disaster that is the health care systems in Western Europe. Even with homogenous, small populations within small countries, wealthy cities and growing economies over the past 60 years, they couldn’t make Universal Health Care work. Get real. There are no 1.4 million Illinoians without access to health care. Period. - Objective Dem - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:36 pm: My sense is Sen. Carol Ronen is both a true progressive and pragmatic. She should understand that the Gov’s budget and universal health care are not going to happen this year and his push/stubborness is alienating more than helping. Just look at the issue of the flyer at the Gay Pride parade for one example that directly impacted one of her state reps, Greg Harris. I think she can play an important role in getting the Governor to pull back on his budget and start working on a compromise. On the other side, I also think she is risking a challenge next time if she doesn’t stop her role as the Governor’s cheerleader which is not serving the state, her district, or the goal of improved health care. She is established enought that a challenger won’t have much of a chance. But the odds increase the longer this budget fiasco goes on, the more she is aligned with the Governor,and the more the Democrats truly split into rival camps. - Rebel13 - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:02 pm: Quick question, does this 1.4 million figure being discussed include all residents, legal and illegal? - Bill - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:40 pm: The governor’s proposed Illinois Covered plan is not a European style single-payer Universal coverage plan. It utilizes private insurance companies and existing health care facilities. It provides affordable insurance at reasonable rates based on family incomne.Try to learn a little about what you are commenting on, OK? Get real, period! - He makes Ryan Look like a Saint - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 3:45 pm: Once we get UHC we will have about 10 million, everyone who DOESN’T have health care will move to Illinois ILLEGAL or LEGAL. My question is what is the state going to do to fund all the NEW residents of Illinois who move here STRICTLY for Health care? - Southern Right - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 4:35 pm: Bill, I have worked on and studied Illinois Covered since it was proposed. It is a horrible plan. It will not save 2 dollars for every dollar spent as has been suggested. It will kill the small group market in one year. Business will trade an ERISA violating 3% penalty and a 2.5% of income (5.5%) for their current 7-12% of payroll. Only BCBSIL will stay in the individual markets. No competition will inflate premiums, not decrease premiums. Allkids is failing. Less than a year into the program Doctors are leaving, networks that are too small to compete in the real world are being used to reduce Allkids costs. They are accepting already insured children. Not just uninsured. The Governor should mandate that all government employees children be only offered Allkids coverage. Next ask anyone from Tn,Ky,NY,NJ,Me,Or,Co,and Wa how their states progressive health plans have failed. That would end any discusion about Illinois Covered. It’s a substandard overpriced system designed to help pay hospitals. No one else wins. The proposed 3-4 billion will become 6 to 10 billion. The biggest problem is once the manure has left the horses rear, it’s hard to put it back. Leave it alone. No one in Illinois is qualified to run a plan this large. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 5:45 pm: You need to read the Illinois Covered plans. There is almost no detail on how it works, what it covers, what it pays, nor does it require family/spouse coverage. Our company spends almost 10% of salary on health care with 1/3 of our employees going through a spouse’s coverage. We would be over 15% if they were are with us. Illinois Covered assumes the employer will pay 80% of the cost. We could drop our insurance pay the 3% penalty, give each of our employees $1,500 they can use to buy their own coverage through IC, and watch our actual cost drop to about 6%. Duh! However, without the employer paying that 80%, where will the bucks come from to support the system. The 3% is simply not enough to sustain it. - Budget Watcher - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 5:49 pm: Southern Right is essentially right about the Illinois Covered and KidCare plans. Perhaps born of good intentions, but ill-conceived programs. I’ve found it interesting that the merits and flaws of the revenue plans were pretty thoroughly analyzed and sensationalized, but the healthcare proposal has never been given the same scrutiny. I guess without agreement on the revenue, Illinois Covered was never considered worthy of review. Still, it would be interesting to see a special session that deals with the glaring deficiencies with the Illinois Covered Plan. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 6:14 pm: I have believed for many years that some nexus between medicaid and employee group health would be good, though I don’t think I ever raised the issue with the unions. I had always thought along the lines of requiring any provider serving state employees to also accept medicaid, but the idea of putting state employee dependents into the medicaid based program might be just as good. I think you could level up, because I don’t think the unions would accept leveling down. - Budget Watcher - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 6:28 pm: SS, Any idea how much it would cost to pull the Medicaid population up? The feds would almost certainly offset their share of the increases for Medicaid by cracking down on assessment plans and intergovernmental transfers with Cook Co. That essentially leaves the state picking up the full costs of the increases. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 8:36 pm: Rich, I would like to volunteer to be in charge of the gov’s India trip travel arrangements. Any idea how best to go about it? - Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 4:32 am: Thanks anon for the constitutional reference. In regard to this “universal healthcare” business, as I said before, Blagojevich’s plan to keep bureaucratic, inefficient, big for-profit insurance companies at the forefront hardly deserves to be called universal healthcare. A single-payer system would be universal healthcare. Of course, such a proposal would jeopardize future campaign contributions from these corporations; and since politicians like Blagojevich are addicted to corporate cash, we have the pro-bureaucracy plan. - Disgusted - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 7:18 am: Universal health care is best left to the federal government. (I know, I know, they aren’t much better.) Instead of each state, including ours, struggling through making such a system work and have it cover you everywhere in the country, the feds can come up with one that does. As far as having state employees children be mandated to be a part of AllKids, if this program cannot attract doctors, why should more children be added to an inferior program? Wouldn’t it be better to bring the program up to acceptable levels and then add more children, rather than add more now when it isn’t working? It seems to me that the administration of this state, at all levels, has left their brains at home for the past 4 years, in a drawer in the desk of their full-time jobs. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.