A pattern develops
Thursday, May 7, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This is good news for adjourning on time…
[Gov. Pat Quinn] still wants to raise the income tax and increase the personal exemption to shield low-income families from the increase, but he said he’s willing to negotiate on the personal exemption.
Just the other day, Quinn was refusing to negotiate on his proposal to triple the personal exemption to $6,000. While the personal exemption idea would be welcomed by familes with modest incomes, the resulting income tax hike has to be much higher to raise enough cash to help balance the budget.
* So, maybe Quinn will eventually back off any opposition he has to a temporary income tax hike as well…
The top Senate Democrat on Wednesday floated the idea of a temporary income tax increase as an alternative to Gov. Pat Quinn’s controversial plan to permanently raise the tax. […]
“If somebody says, ‘OK, I guess we need an income tax, but it ought to be temporary as we’ve done twice before in the last 30 years,’ that would be something that would be negotiable,” [Senate President John Cullerton] told a gathering of manufacturers and retailers. […]
Later asked about a temporary tax hike, Quinn said, “I really think we have to solve our problems. I don’t think it’s prudent to focus on the short term. … It’s better to roll up our sleeves and address the problem, once and for all.”
It’s always tough to get a read on a new governor, but I think I’m slowly figuring out how this one operates. Stake out a very tough position, adamantly refuse to compromise, then quickly move away from that position when opposition builds in order to cut a somewhat acceptable deal. He’s done this on ethics, he did it on personal exemptions and, as we already know, he backed away yesterday from his proposed 2 percent increase in state employee and teacher pension contributions…
Gov. Pat Quinn Wednesday dropped his proposal to have teachers, state workers and others pay more toward their public pension benefits.
And one can only wonder if his multi-billion dollar pension fund skim will survive…
A just-released report from the General Assembly’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability said that, under Quinn’s plan, the financial health of the pension systems actually would get worse over the next few years. The report called for a new, long-term payment plan to ensure that Illinois’ pension debt can be eliminated over time.
The big question, however, is how far Quinn can ultimately be moved from his original positions. We’ll know in a few weeks.
* Meanwhile, this spat got a lot of attention yesterday…
House Speaker Michael Madigan said the disagreement had reached the point where he had avoided talking to House Republican Leader Tom Cross concerning a construction plan.
“I have no ill will towards Tom Cross … but my experience with Tom Cross has not been too good,” Madigan said. “The best way I say it is, in the case of the construction program, when the rubber hits the road, he’s not going to be there.”
But Bethany Jaeger tells us what’s really going on…
While he hasn’t meet with Madigan, Cross said he has met with both Senate leaders and the governor and talked about revenue ideas. “The bottom line is we’re all talking,” Cross said. “And they’re, I think, fairly productive talks of narrowing down some revenue streams to raise about $1 billion. I think it’s all good.” He specifically mentioned conversations about the House’s idea to legalize video poker and to the Senate’s idea to privatize the Illinois Lottery.
* Related…
* Capitol rally protests budget cuts: The event named “Rally for the Common Good” was lobbying for Gov. Pat Quinn to restore the $78 million in cuts he proposed to human services programs.
* Cigarette tax phase-in proposed: The study suggests increasing the tax over four years, a quarter per year, to avoid a sticker shock to smokers. The study claims that this model would result in more revenue in the long run because people would be more likely to accept a gradual increase and continue buying cigarettes in Illinois.
* Quinn, legislative leaders spar at Business Day event: House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said he doesn’t know if an income tax increase or major construction program will get approved this spring. He’s working with House Democrats to prioritize spending because of the state’s severe budget problems. “This is uncharted territory for everybody in the legislature,” Madigan said.
* House speaker avoids meetings with GOP chief
* State Stays Stingy While Artists Reel from Recession
* Quinn puts $21.2 M toward state parks
- soccermom - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 9:57 am:
I’m not sure why Governor Quinn opposes a temporary increase in the income tax. It seems like that way, he doesn’t end up wearing the jacket for a tax hike while opponents nail him for it during the campaign — then roll in the extra cash after the election.
- anon - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 9:59 am:
I applaud the new Gov. He’s trying to do the right thing and also trying to balance the reality of the circus he finds himself in. Unlike the former Gov, he gives things a serious effort, is willing to put himself on the line to help the state. And unlike the former Gov, he knows when to hold them and when to fold them. Madigan, on the other hand, is showing is childlike behavior, again. Not speaking to Leaders Cross is unacceptable. Why the dems let this guy get away with so much abuse is a mystery to me.
- Excessively rabid - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:05 am:
Madigan is making it apparent that Blago and Jones weren’t the only ones responsible for the events of the past 6 years.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:13 am:
I would think a temporary income tax increase would be the way to go until a duly elected Governor could really analyze the budget and make necessary cuts. If cuts can’t be made, make the tax permanent. These problems didn’t occur overnight and won’t be fixed that way either.
Good job by Governor Quinn with the State Parks.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:14 am:
I found Madigan’s budget comments interesting.
Outside of education, it seems, everything else will be reexamined from a zero base, he said. Of course, zero-based budgeting is a fantasy, but it indicates to me that he has ideas about areas of government that could be whacked pretty hard.
One area in government where you can zero-out is personnel; eliminate the position, the expense goes to zero. Perhaps Madigan has his own fumigation ideas.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:15 am:
Edgar had a similar pattern in his first term, he tried to present things more moderately. It backfired. He said that he learned to ask for unreasonable requests, then modify them to where he had originally hoped they’d end up.
Quinn doesn’t have to do this. He has a state government filled with Democrats and has had decades flitting around their circles becoming acquainted with them. He followed Blagojevich, which allows him to present himself has an honest straight shooter and be accepted to a majority of voters.
If Quinn wanted enough cash to get through this budget year, he didn’t have to stake out an extreme position to do it from. He is surrounded by political players with a record of getting just enough cash to kick every fiscal problem we face today, down the road. The fact that we are out of cash, and face an unprecedented deficit may be tougher than what we’ve endured over the past six years, but most of the political players are the same, and know the game.
The Governor has chosen to play hard ball, when he didn’t have to. By doing so, he is exasperating Illinoians who are tired of hard ball politics. He has to recognize how he has blown the honeymoon, instead of extending it.
- Bill - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:22 am:
==Not speaking to Leaders Cross is unacceptable.==
Why should Madigan listen to Cross? No one else does.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:24 am:
I was lucky enough to hear Tom Cross speak at an event that was packed with Republicans.
Regarding revenue for a capital plan, Cross said (and I’m paraphrasing here):
“The state probably has $60 billion in capital needs, but I think $25 to $30 billion is what we can realistically accomplish….
…There are several revenue streams that have been proposed, and I think they are all doable.”
If Cross really thinks the needs are that great, and the revenue streams are all ‘doable’, all he needs to do is stop playing games and spell out how many Republicans are willing to vote for each revenue plan.
26 House Republicans voted for Gov. Ryan’s Illinois FIRST tax increases, FYI. Including Tom Cross.
I understand their numbers have dwindled since then, but is there ANY reason Cross and the GOP can’t put atleast 20 votes on a capital plan?
If we’re going to have a capital plan, I think they have to.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:26 am:
P.S. Until Cross is ready to spell out how many votes Republicans are willing to put on a capital plan, I don’t think there is much for him and Madigan to talk about.
- Easy - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:27 am:
Cross’ caucus put votes on a capital bill last year. When the rubber hits the road, they’ve been there. Remember, it was Madigan who had Bradley kill the capital bill last year.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:33 am:
re: Developing pattern
Excellent analysis Rich, and I couldn’t agree more.
I wonder though, if its a very effective strategy?
If Quinn is going to end up compromising anyway, wouldn’t he be better off negotiating a compromise with Cullerton & Madigan beforehand, and then having the three of them walk out of the Governor’s Office together and declare victory?
Negotiating through the press rarely leads to a good result, most experts will tell you. And I think issuing ultimatums and then backing away makes him look weak.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:37 am:
In a state completely ran by the Democratic Party, the GOP leader doesn’t negotiate a budget, he grovels for table scraps.
How many votes will he come up with? As Bill correctly says, it doesn’t matter.
There is no money, certainly no money for any Illinoians that are not electing Democrats.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 10:42 am:
When it comes to tough votes on bills, the Democrats demand Republican participation. For everything else, they elbow the Republicans aside. If the Democrats feel that they have all the answers and need no GOP input, then they should bite the bullet and all vote for their “answers” when it comes to increasing revenue streams, cutting spending, ethics and other issues screaming out for resolution in Springfield right now.
Open transparent government would include open discussions with all members of the chamber. But “good heavens” we can’t have that now, can we?
Some rumors have circulated in the past about Cross perhaps seeking the governor position. Is that why Madigan refuses to talk to him?
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 11:17 am:
gents, good observations on the “pattern” and the effectiveness, or lack thereof, in doing business this way.
When I heard PQ say “there will be a two-tiered pension system” yesterday,” I thought “how long until that one gets put back on the shelf along with the contribution increase.”
Speaking of which, (and with apologies to my labor brethren who don’t like the company that uses this word a lot) it might be fun to set up a “Pat Quinn Rollback” box here on the blog, Rich, to keep track of how many positions or ultimatiums get rolled back after further consideration. At the very least, this would give Bill and AA’s tired eyes a respite from the blinkers on the right.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 12:01 pm:
Easy -
I must have missed that roll call…which vote was that, and how many House Republican’s voted for it?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
=== How many votes will he come up with? As Bill correctly says, it doesn’t matter. ===
=== When it comes to tough votes on bills, the Democrats demand Republican participation. ===
Actually, fellas, its the State Constitution that demands Republican participation.
Increasing state debt — which a capital plan does — requires a super-majority.
It would be helpful to the debate if Republicans would read the Constitution every once in awhile:
Article IX, Section 9(b):
(b) State debt for specific purposes may be incurred or the payment of State or other debt guaranteed in such amounts as may be provided either in a law passed by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly or in a law approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at the next general election following passage. Any law providing for the incurring or guaranteeing of debt shall set forth the specific purposes and the manner of repayment.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 12:25 pm:
Yellow Dog,
We can read the constitution. It’s the behavioral pattern that is amiss here.
You aren’t going to get that 3/5ths vote without talking to Republicans or by treating them contemptuously. I mean, “good heavens!”
- Easy - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 2:50 pm:
I’m confused. When have the Republicans voted against a capital plan? It’s a nice clip by the Speaker, just not rooted in any facts or historical precedent.
- Easy - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 2:57 pm:
YDD-
it was hb 2651. HGOP put 47 votes on it, HDEMS put 0. Hence, no capital bill.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 7, 09 @ 4:49 pm:
Easy -
Let’s get our facts straight.
The Majority of the House Republicans voted AGAINST funding Illinois FIRST.
And of the 47 votes HB 2651 received, only 26 came from Republicans, and I believe five of them are no longer in the General Assembly.
Given that the GOP struggled to get their caucus to support their OWN funding mechanism, I think you can understand why Democrats are skeptical about the GOP’s ability to pass a bipartisan bill.
HERE is the roll call.