Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Today’s wrong number: 5

Friday, May 25, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Illinois Review raged yesterday against Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno for having “permitted (or urged)” five lame duck Republicans to vote for HB 5007, which allows Cook County to add 100,000 people to the Medicaid rolls without any cost to the state government…

HB 5007 - sponsored by State Senator Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Jeffrey Schoenberg (D-Evanston) passed in a 35 to 22 vote, with no questions or discussion on the Senate floor. And despite the fact that its passage did not require Republican votes, Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno permitted (or urged), five lame duck GOP Senators to cross over and vote with the Democrats.

The vote indicates how the Medicaid-Obamacare vote on SB 2840 is likely to go down. Shane Cultra, Tom Johnson, John O. Jones, John Millner and Suzi Schmidt broke ranks, damaged the GOP anti-tax brand, and possibly cost Republicans seats come November. None of them are on the ballot this year and therefore have no accountability to the voters.

Of course, Radogno’s deal did allow four Democrats in tough races to vote against the bill. Democrats Forby, Haine, Jacobs, and Sullivan got a pass thanks to Radogno and the five others.

Um, how, exactly did Radogno’s alleged deal allow “four Democrats in tough races to vote against the bill”? It takes 30 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. Five Republicans voted for it. The bill got 35 votes. If all five Republicans had voted against it, the bill would’ve still received 30 votes without those four Democrats. If anything, it showed how silly opposition was to this bill because people who aren’t running for reelection didn’t care about political threats over nothing.

And there wasn’t a single tax hike in that bill, so I’m not sure how it “damaged the GOP anti-tax brand,” or can see how it cost the GOP some seats. What’re the Democrats gonna do to a bunch of lame duckers anyway?

Take a breath, man.

18 Comments

- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:23 am:
Rich, I dunno, you may be wrong … did you carry the “7″, and move the remainder over to the “tens” columns … then, did you divide by 6?

I think if you redo your math, the IR makes a very strong case.

- factoid - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:23 am:
The only thing missing is that the Illinois Policy Institute did not get the jump on Illinois Review to provide an inaccurate analysis….the IPI must be sleeping in!

- too obvious - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:31 am:
Illinois Review going off halfcocked. Shocker.

- OneMan - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:44 am:
I think anti-tax was confused with anti-spend money on anyone or anything

- Mark Peysakhovich - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:06 am:
Over the last few years I have grown to really respect some of the conservatives under the dome, even though I may disagree with them on some stuff. But the type of BS coming from their “think-tank” institutions is what undermines conservatives’ credibility and cheapens their brand. It seems really to be all about snark in the face of desperation.

- Ahoy! - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:06 am:
I wish the Republicans were more interested in “good government” or sound public policy brand instead of the “anti-tax brand.”

Not that I’m for tax increases, but the Norquist’s and tea partiers of the world have me confused on what an actual tax increase even is anymore because of all their silly positions.

- mark walker - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:11 am:
Illinois Review attacks Radogno for “permitting” any GOP Senator to vote their conscience. Shows what they think of their own party’s elected representatives.

- wordslinger - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:26 am:
How dare members vote their own minds? If this keeps up, the GA could turn into a deliberative, legislative body, with all the consequences that entails.

- Team Sleep - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:35 am:
Even though I still believe this should be taken up during the veto session - after the Supreme Court rules on the PPACA - this is a pretty innocuous vote. If the exchanges are done correctly, most new enrollees won’t cost the feds or the states much money at all.

- George - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 11:24 am:
==If the exchanges are done correctly, most new enrollees won’t cost the feds or the states much money at all.==

This was a vote on the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid.

- Freeman - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 11:41 am:
Excellent question, @TeamSleep. Probably would have made more sense to pass it now but implement it after a ruling.

I’m not sure why they made the effective date immediately upon becoming law rather than January 1.

Changing those two or three words seems like a simple solution, almost too simple. There must have been some underlying cause.

That change would have spared any possible cost, confusion, time, pain and frustration in having to undo an expansion of this scope and tell up to 100,000 people “We were just kidding. Thanks for enrolling for a few months, but you’re not covered anymore.”

Perhaps there was some specific advantage to making it effective immediately instead of next year? Does anyone know?

- Team Sleep - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 12:32 pm:
George, you are correct. The point is still valid about the exchanges but I clearly goofed. Still - if the feds are paying for it and it costs the state money, are the House and Senate GOP members just supposed to vote against it on principle? It’s already part of the standing PPACA and Medicaid expansion could very well be a part of the law that is allowed to stay as a mandate. Don’t get me wrong: I know the federal costs would balloon. But it’s a wait-and-see approach with the Black Robed 9 and their clerks.

- Bakersfield - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
I would go comment on the IR’s page about the stupidity of their work here, but that would end my 15+ month embargo of the website and my life’s been a whole lot better since that embargo began. Oh, and this is coming from a Conservative.

- George - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
TS, taxpayers pay federal taxes, too.

http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4866

- Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 2:22 pm:
The bill had nothing to do with setting up insurance exchanges (surprise — Illinois Review had it wrong . . .). The ACA allows states to seek waivers to begin enrolling some folks into Medicaid who won’t technically become eligible for Medicaid until 2014. The catch is, the Feds will only match at normal rates (i.e., 50%), not the 100% that will kick in in 2014. Several states have taken advantage of this, including states with Republican Governors.

Illinois can’t afford to do this generally. But Cook County self funds the Medicaid program in Cook for the Cook County hospital system, so this could be done at no cost to the state. And it would save Cook County taxpayers. And it would provide health insurance to 100,000.

The only reason to oppose is blind ideological opposition to all things ACA, or a desire to stick to Cook County. (Or the fear that doing anything for Cook, even if it costs the state nothing, would be used against you in an election in a district full of Chicago-haters, which is apparently a lot of downstate.)

- Demoralized - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:03 pm:
Yes, George, thanks for linking to an Illinois Policy article with it’s non-partisan opinion to counter the Illinois Review. Sheesh.

- reformer - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 5:14 pm:
I wonder if IL Review will give Republicans any grief for voting for Casinopalooza II? The state GOP platform does oppose gambling expansion.

- George - Friday, May 25, 12 @ 5:34 pm:
==Yes, George, thanks for linking to an Illinois Policy article with it’s non-partisan opinion to counter the Illinois Review. Sheesh.==
Are they wrong?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.