* Kristen McQueary…
These are not “Rauner’s cuts.” They are called “consequences.” The hostility aimed at Rauner seems to suggest his budget cuts are motive driven. They’re not. They’re math driven.
Cuts to a program for autistic children are the consequence of an underfunded budget that the Democrats deliberately approved last year. They knowingly left Springfield with the state’s checkbook in the red. State agencies, including those that deal with vulnerable populations, would not have enough money to get through the fiscal year. Rather than staying in Springfield beyond their May 31 adjournment to figure out how to pass a balanced budget, lawmakers hit the campaign trail last year. They spent the summer and fall at political fundraisers and golf outings and receptions.
When Rauner won in November, they knew exactly what he would be facing.
And sure enough, Rauner is portrayed as the cruel Ebenezer Scrooge, picking on disabled children.
She’s right about the Democrats screwing up this fiscal year’s budget. It was a disaster.
However, the FY 15 deal with Rauner to close the budget gap fully funded programs like autism. He made the choice to cut them. Those cuts are now on him.
* And as I told subscribers last week, Rauner is now offering an olive branch to Democrats…
Rauner now says he wants to sweep more money from special funds in order to stave off at least some of the recent cuts — an option he says Democrats weren’t open to when they negotiated the original budget fix last month.
“We in our administration had actually advocated more sweeping and fewer cuts, and we said to them if they would consider looking at the sweeps again,” Rauner said Friday during a stop in tornado-ravaged Fairdale. “Some of those (special funds) could be swept and potentially some of the cuts could be restored, or some of the necessary cuts could be reduced in size.”
* But let’s get back to the Democratic budget that was passed last year. Remember when Fox Chicago’s Mike Flannery righteously slammed the Dems?…
“I can’t recall seeing as irresponsible budget as was just approved… You’d think that the whole General Assembly was on medical marijuana when they were passing this thing. It’s grotesquely out of balance… They emptied their whole dirty bag of tricks to make it look balanced.”
As we all know, the Democrats deliberately underfunded the budget to the tune of $1.6 billion. The governor’s proposed FY 16 budget, however, has a much bigger hole in it, including a $2.2 billion savings from pension reform even though there’s almost no way that the governor’s legislation will clear the courts during the upcoming fiscal year.
* Flannery put that to Rauner during his Fox Chicago Sunday show. The governor’s reply…
“We are recommending doing a constitutional referendum. So, we’ll change the language so we’re not in court for years. We’ll make it clear in the Constitution what we can and can’t change.
* From the Illinois Constitution…
AMENDMENTS BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY
(a) Amendments to this Constitution may be initiated in either house of the General Assembly. Amendments shall be read in full on three different days in each house and reproduced before the vote is taken on final passage. Amendments approved by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house shall be submitted to the electors at the general election next occurring at least six months after such legislative approval
Now, perhaps the governor could also call for a special general election this fall to take up the matter, but I’m not sure if the attorney general and the courts would agree with that. I’ve asked the AG’s people for their thoughts on this particular matter, and I’ll let you know what they say.
Obviously, if they wait until the next regularly scheduled general election, they can’t possibly draw down any savings this fiscal year. And even if they attempt to push through a special election, the courts could still hold up the pension reform law, meaning no savings this fiscal year.
- Anon - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:15 am:
Rauner is such a dope.
- JerryG - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:17 am:
As I understand it, even if a constitutional amendment changing the diminishment clause is passed, this will not change benefits employees have earned under the constitutional language when they began their employment, will it?
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:18 am:
Maybe the Gov. Sonny can get his rich friends to pony up the money for an extra general election. I’m sure the Dems would love having an early crack at the comptroller too.
Sheesh, get this guy off his script and he can’t think his way out of a paper bag.
- Get a Job! - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:20 am:
These cuts are absolutely on Rauner. He asked for (and received) $1.6M in sweeps/cuts to balance the FY15 budget. Remember, the $1.6M is his own staffs number…..the GA also gave him a $90 million Governor’s lump sum to distribute. Now he’s saying that if the Dems want these programs funded, they have to find out how to pay for them (additional sweeps). There’s no way to spin this, the Governor doesn’t deem these people/programs as a priority. They are, using his own term, non-essential expenditures.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:20 am:
Wait for it….wait for it….wait for it….
The current ‘ignorance’ of the financials is unbelievable. At some point, even a successful businessman like BR will succumb to the math problem. That’s when the variable political interests will weigh even more than today.
Good Luck Bruce.
- One of Three Puppets - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:21 am:
Yes, put an amendment to the voters about pensions. Please, let’s see in a presidential year every union household going to vote. This ensures that. So, Rauner is still Governor with maybe 38 House Repubs and maybe 15 Senate Repubs? Don’t worry about the party Governor. Make them walk the plank for you and make the party smaller.
- Arsenal - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:24 am:
“Cuts to a program for autistic children are the consequence of an underfunded budget that the Democrats deliberately approved last year.”
But what of the approval of $100 million in tax expenditures?
Rauner isn’t a helpless bystander here. He’s making deliberate choices. And yes, GA Dems and the people of Illinois should have known that this what they would get, but Rauner doesn’t get to escape personal responsibility just ’cause the things he’s doing are so predictable. It’s predictable when my puppy pees on the carpet, too. Doesn’t mean I don’t rub his nose in it.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:25 am:
===These are not “Rauner’s cuts.” They are called “consequences.” The hostility aimed at Rauner seems to suggest his budget cuts are motive driven. They’re not. They’re math driven.===
This @statehousechick is the same Dope complaining about Quinn’s decisions.
@statehousechick makes the Owl Sandack seem disinterested in Rauner’s agenda. The Rauner Cuts are exactly the same as the Edgar Budgets, or the Quinn Lump Sums.
I know, @statehousechick is really nice, and fun, and when she decided to use her talent, she could write something remotely objectively, I get it.
Any reporter, turned Editorial Board member, who paid attention, for about 13 minutes, would have realized budgets belong to governors. If…they were honest with themselves.
I guess @statehousechick’s memory, or retention, of covering Illinois politics or government, is easily forgotten, as long as she can pretend to “really understand” what us non-Raunernites mock.
“Governor Rauner is beyond the rules, even in owning cuts he made!”
Hey, @statehousechick, riddle me this;
If Rauner doesn’t own the cuts, and the cuts are Madigan and Cullerton’s, why not have a press conference, on a Tuesday morning, session day, and have Bruce announce them, personally? @statehousechick? Why wait until a holiday weekend, Good Friday to do the cuts, with no fanfare?
Because the blame is Rauner’s and he knows so, that’s why the Holiday weekend cuts.
I’m embarrassed for @statehousechick. Her “simple” answers just reinforce how much credibility is worth, and I guess in her case, not worth too much.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:30 am:
No matter where a Governor cuts there will be upset protesters. I am not convinced that he did a good job with this, but it is, indeed, the consequence of bad budgets for years.
What is disturbing is that even for a new Governor who was not a political insider, Rauner’s understanding of the Constitutional process for bills, budgets or Constitutional amendments is embarrassingly poor. Surely he has advisors who understand better. He will fail without knowing how the system works and will not be able to negotiate with the Dem. leaders.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:31 am:
Rauner isn’t governing. I’m not going to try and guess what it is he is doing, but I know governing, I know what governors do and what he has been doing is not what he is supposed to do as a governor.
Worse, he is preventing governing.
Anyone who wants to defend him by saying he didn’t create the problems we face is not seeing the severe damage he has caused since his inauguration.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:33 am:
McQueary’s failure to mention that Rauner urged the General Assembly not to extend the income tax rate is a rather glaring omission that undercuts the intellectual honesty of her article. Not that one expects intellectual honesty from the Trib’s editorial pages these days.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:35 am:
The Achilles heel of the GOP is that they were not able or capable of taking tough votes. That was true, so far they’ve moved in a direction to change that. More to come. Let’s see if they can continue to meet a new standard.
The Achilles heel of the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not. In many cases (not all or even a majority of cases) the impetus for creating and funding a program had little to do with achieving an objective and everything to do with pleasing a particular constituency. Bad policy at it’s worst. They just can’t acquire the moxie to get rid of them. Now it’s being done for them and it’s ugly. And some good stuff is being fire tested along with the bad stuff. A choice could have been made on a lot of these without going this far.
They fundamentally believe the Gov is going to wear the collar with enough people angry with him for cuts. That remains to be seen; both that perception and how many are truly angry vs. how many see this as a painful but necessary process.
I’m convinced there will be more revenue when the electorate demonstrates they’re willing to provide more for what they’re willing to provide it for. Both sides need to make a case.
- ZC - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:37 am:
I hate to say it, because I’m not a fan of his in general, but Rauner isn’t wrong about amending the Constitution to take out that pension language.
It’s not just the politicians, it’s -us-. We the people of IL have shown we’re incapable of enforcing our elected officials to live up to funding those guarantees - they kick the can down the road, and we reward them for it electorally, Republicans and Democrats alike, until the fiscal mess hits the fan.
True it won’t do anything to fix the short-term mess we’re in, as commentators have noted. But it has taken years to get into this mess. Why should we hold off taking years, to try and improve our governing document?
- Cassandra - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:40 am:
Those special funds appear to be bottomless.
- DuPage - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:41 am:
Rauner asked for the income tax rate to NOT be extended. His request was granted. He now does not want to admit that revenue really is needed.
- Mama - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:44 am:
++He will fail without knowing how the system works and will not be able to negotiate with the Dem. leaders. ++ He has $20M - that is how he plans to negotiate. He does not care about governing. He needs to brainwash people in order to get them to vote the way he wants them to vote - - this is why he is still ‘campaigning’.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:45 am:
Gee, Kristen thanks for the math lesson. Perhaps you could help with some other math story problems.
If Bruce cuts $26 million in social service programs, then gives $100 million in corporate tax breaks, what kind of a chucklehead do you have to be to believe that the cuts are fiscally motivated?
Here’s another one:
Bruce has a $1.6 billion shortfall. Bruce cuts $26 million in social programs, representing 1.6 percent of that shortfall. What kind of hopeless shill do you have to be to believe that Illinois government is so hyper-efficient that the 1.6 percent could not be overcome without whacking Autistic kids?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:46 am:
As I understand it, even if a constitutional amendment changing the diminishment clause is passed, this will not change benefits employees have earned under the constitutional language when they began their employment, will it?
Since the state has already agreed it is a contractual agreement for retirees and current employees, the challenge would be to prove that necessity dictates a change to the contract. I think we are back to the “police powers” argument for diminishment of these, even with new or revised constitutional language.
- FLW - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:49 am:
All of McQueary’s criticisms of the Dems are on target, but the way she obsolves Rauner is laughable. As Rich alludes to, one of the single most dishonest budgetary gimmicks of recent memory is Rauner’s 2.2 billion in pension “savings.” And the Autism funding cut she alludes to ammounts to a 4 million dollar slash that Rauner unilaterally made. Four million is less than a rounding error in the state budget, they couldn’t have found something else? He picked the cut, he has to shoulder some of the blame, even if he’s correcting a problem he inherited.
- scott aster - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:50 am:
Mr Mike and his new committee is just another scam to divert attention from the big mess he has created over the past 20years. McQ is right and Mr Mike and Stevie Brown know it…but they should not worry most of the mopes and Jamokes stopped reading papers years ago. Soon there will be only one newspaper in Chicago….the one most of you guys don’t like.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:58 am:
The Chicago & Illinois media lack something that allows them to be effective watchdogs on whole budgets. They can be watchdogs on pieces of the budget that are bad decisions. But the whole budget? The existing corporate media is ineffective.
- Anon - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:58 am:
Kristen likes underdogs.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:00 am:
Guy, to buy your spin, you have to ignore all the budget cuts that were made during Quinn’s tenure.
If you have to make things up to make your point, it’s probably not worth making.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:01 am:
There’s also the issue that some combination of being financially dependent on 1%ers (who have decided to blame the middle class & poor for society’s problems instead of themselves) & internalizing the propaganda that Democrats are irresponsible about spending & GOP is responsible…
Much of the corporate media people are merely dolts who have climbed the ladder.
And with Ponce’s kids being in TV too, it’s pretty clear, climbing the ladder in corporate media is no more a meritocracy than the alderman’s kid getting a sweet government job.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:06 am:
BTW, all these media outlets that endorsed and shilled for Rauner against Quinn…
Have any of them asked Rauner how much waste he’s cut from State of Illinois spending?
Or were the claims about cutting waste just talking points to dupe the rubes?
Are people like Kristen McQueary the rubes? Or one of the hired guns to dupe the rubes?
- Clapton-Marley Overdrive - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:09 am:
Mr. Aster: Neither newspaper in Chicago is worth anything anymore, but the S-T is pulling a Lincoln Motor Company by adding the USA Today insert and replacing some honor boxes with new ones featuring the new livery. I thought September 1 would be the end but now I think they will get through ‘16. They must know something. Website is the worst one ever, still.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:10 am:
- If you have to make things up to make your point -
I’m pretty sure guy has to make things up just to complete a sentence.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:12 am:
ZC, how does allowing Gov & Illinois GA assembly to rip-off pensioners fix the problem of the Gov & Illinois GA to be irresponsible?
What fixes the problem is taxing the sale of options @ CBOT.
The problem is not that Illinois public employees have outrageously generous pensions. The problem is that a larger & larger amount of the wealth in Illinois is either shielded from taxation plus the politicians want to give big chunks of money to businesses in tax breaks.
The United States is a rich country.
Illinois is a rich state.
Chicago is a rich city.
A rich society can pay people the pensions they have coming.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:14 am:
Before Illinois amends the Illinois Constitution to cut pensions, the Constitution should be amended to allow a graduated income tax.
- ZC - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:22 am:
Carl,
I favor the package deal, personally. Take out the pension language, take out the flat tax language.
There should be no constitutional right, if you’re rich, not to be taxed on a progressive basis. There should also be no -constitutional- right to a perpetual 3% compounding COLA, for like 25+ years of retirement in some cases. To be sure, I have no objections to such a statute as a matter of law, if the taxpayers wish and the state can afford it, but the IL Constitution should not weigh in here.
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:28 am:
@ Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:12 am:
=The problem is not that Illinois public employees have outrageously generous pensions. The problem is that a larger & larger amount of the wealth in Illinois is either shielded from taxation plus the politicians want to give big chunks of money to businesses in tax breaks.=
Totally agree! There is nothing intrinsic within the current pension system that is wrong, but with any pensions system it must be properly funded. The issue now is not a pension problem but rather a debt problem (unfunded pension liability) created by 50 plus years of underfunding the pension system and spending those pension dollars on other state services. The changes to the pension system in SB 1 do nothing to fix the real problem which is the debt. SB 1 would free up some dollars to apply towards the debt but the issue is the debt and the unworkable pension ramp payment. The key is to be a land of laws and pay the benefits that have been earned while re-financing the pension debt in fixed dollars over a 40 year period. Approx. 6 billion a year would do it and those dollars would become easier and easier to pay with inflation over the years. Revenue is the real issue that should be up for constitutional amendment — progressive tax system would go a long way in extracting from the economy the needed increase in revenue to keep pace with natural increases in cost. Also, as we have become a more service driven economy we need to tax services.
- Juice - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:37 am:
I really don’t think $6 billion would be enough to cover the cost considering that the total payment the state currently owes is over $7 billion and that doesn’t cover all of the unfunded liability.
- foster brooks - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:37 am:
According to Rnug changing the pension clause will only affect new hires..
- Juice - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:39 am:
And, of the $1.6 billion hole, $650 million of that was because the Governor didn’t wanted to do the inter-fund borrowing, he wanted to sweep the money. So it’s not like the revenue source changed at all the plug the gap, he just didn’t want to pay it back next year (which is an entirely reasonable position to have given the circumstances), but the gap he faced was under $1 billion.
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:43 am:
@
Juice - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:37 am:
=I really don’t think $6 billion would be enough to cover the cost considering that the total payment the state currently owes is over $7 billion and that doesn’t cover all of the unfunded liability. =
The 6 B. would be for the debt portion not the basic pension payment. The state would continue with the flat or regular pension payment and then re-finance the debt in fixed dollars. it would be like taking a 5 year balloon payment on your house and changing it to a 30 year fixed mortgage.
- foster brooks - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:45 am:
It will be interesting to see how they word that ammendment. …maybe something like. To keep your taxes low and to eliminate all state debt do you support amending the state constitution to eliminate the pension clause?
- Juice - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:47 am:
Got it, and am very supportive of the concept of leveling the payments to pay of the unfunded liability. (And it saves interest cost over the life of the debt as well). But of course before we were talking about having to find an extra billion to come up with the payment to accomplish that task, with the Governor’s math, we would be talking an addition four billion to make the payment. Not sure how the leadership would approach that conversation with the Governor.
- Upon Further Review - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:48 am:
I salute McQueary for her forthright honesty. Much of the blame belongs to the Speaker and the Senate President and their majorities. Rauner bears watching, but as McQueary noted he has been in office about three months. The legislative leaders have been kicking the can down the road for years and the day of reckoning is at hand.
The plan seems to be for Rauner to play the role of Richard B. Olgivie.
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:50 am:
The one common theme in every properly funded pension system, is they have made the actuarially required payment. There are three legs to the pension funding stool. 1. employee payments - made 100% of the time. 2. investment returns on the funds within the pension system — recovered very nicely from the previous great recession. 3. The employer contribution - a chronic failure over 50 plus years…actually began in 1917. If the state would have made their actuarially required pinion payment (they require local governments to do that) the SERS pension system would be approx. 70% funded. Not quite to the 80% funded level considered by many to be the definition of properly funded, but certainly not a crisis.
- facts are stubborn things - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:52 am:
@Juice - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:47 am:
= Not sure how the leadership would approach that conversation with the Governor. =
You have raised a very good point.
I believe once the ISC rules on SB1 the conversation will begin.
- MrJM - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:53 am:
Apparently McQueary’s math drives a motorcycle: The Illinois’ Cycle Rider Safety Training Program, which provides free lessons for motorcycle owners, would get an extra $633,000 under the 2016 budget. The program was allocated $11.2 million in 2015. Next year’s allocation would be $11.9 million.
https://capitolfax.com/2015/03/02/motorcycle-safety-spending-up-while-mass-transit-amtrak-and-dnr-cut/
– MrJM
- illinifan - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:54 am:
ZC it is not a COLA it is an AAI (automatic annual increase)and employees pay an extra .5 to 1% in their monthly retirement contribution to help fund the AAI. The state was also to contribute this same amount to help fund this benefit. Once again they did not make the base pension contribution as well as the AAI contribution. The AAI was never intended to be tied to the cost of living which is why it is not calculated using this formula. The AAI was first created by State law in 1969. Amendments to the formula for determining the amount of the AAI retirement benefit were also passed by the General Assembly in 1971, 1978, and 1989. The question needs to be if the additional contribution is sufficient to cover the cost. Also if the AAI is changed, what happens to the money I have contributed to help pay for this benefit? Since it is not a COLA it was designed different from a COLA so it is not indexed to inflation.
- HangingOn - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:04 am:
I have heard many workers, some since retired, that stated if the AAI was ended they would be filing a suit to get back all the money they were required to pay into it.
- MrJM - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:04 am:
“Rauner is portrayed as the cruel Ebenezer Scrooge, picking on disabled children.”
Say what you will about him, unlike Rauner and the autism programs, Scrooge didn’t slash funding for those who are badly off after he said he’d fund them.
– MrJM
- Juvenal - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:07 am:
Okay, so he doesn’t read newspapers, but apparently he never watched School House Rock as a kid either?
- Langhorne - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:08 am:
===The plan seems to be for Rauner to play the role of Richard B. Ogilvie.===
Pls warn me the next time your post is going to be that outrageous. I spit coffee on my ipad. Rauner and ogilvie are extreme opposites. Rauner wouldnt know an ogilvie style of governing if it bit off his ear. Does he even know who ogilvie was, or what he did? Ogilvie was an honorable man, and a builder. Rauner might agree to a small tax increase, only if dems agree to destroy unions, and cripple local governments.
- walker - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:19 am:
McQueary paints a picture that is uninformed by what actually happened. Equally uninformed readers might buy it.
If the cuts were simply “math-driven” as she states, then they would have already been reversed for the exact same reason.
The Dems shorted Rauner $1.6B in the budget, then restored $1.6B to him to spend this year. What “math” is McQueary talking about?
Obviously many other things are at play here.
- Shemp - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Is the Gov really this delusional? I appreciate his wanting to make hard choices, but the strategy of cut first, evaluate later is reckless and banking on Constitutional change is delusional. Maybe it has some bits of merit, but it is certainly not pragmatic to say the least.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:29 am:
===Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 10:00 am:
Guy, to buy your spin, you have to ignore all the budget cuts that were made during Quinn’s tenure.If you have to make things up to make your point, it’s probably not worth making.===
OR…your assessment is wrong. And I am suggesting it is. Every earmark for any reason has been defended year in, year out, no matter how bad our financial situation has been. What you constantly refer to as Spin, is a different perspective that yours. Does the Spin start or stop with you? Hard to tell.
- AnonymousOne - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:36 am:
The dumping on public employees/retirees in pension funds has to stop. Nothing wrong with pension system that the state putting it’s share in wouldn’t have fixed. Enough! But where has the idea of cuts PLUS increased revenue gone? I’ve seen cuts and decreased revenue.
- The Captain - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:37 am:
The FY15 budget was not balanced but this has been long known and was a campaign issue. Quinn campaigned on extending the temporary tax increase. Doing so would have solved or substantially relieved this budget issue, it was unpopular and it either cost him the election or significantly contributed to the reasons he lost. Rauner, on the other hand, campaigned vigorously against raising the revenue needed to fund this budget and said that he could fix the budget without new revenue. What we’re seeing now is his plan to fix it.
The unbalanced budget is fair game for criticism but to also suggest that this was thrown into Rauner’s lap and there was nothing he could do is a bit revisionist. He campaigned against the unpopular solutions that would have fixed this budget, instead these cuts are his preferred alternative. I don’t agree with this line of thinking that we’re supposed to let him off the hook for that.
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:38 am:
==Illinois needs to tax services.==
Isn’t taxing sale of options, a service tax?
Lots of 1%ers like the idea of taxing services as long as they think of it as taxing immigrants at nail salons, dry cleaners & immigrants who clean homes.
Let’s go after professionals who bill over $100/hour first.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:41 am:
===McQueary paints a picture that is uninformed by what actually happened. Equally uninformed readers might buy it.===
Well said, as usual Walker.
Kristin, just send your resume to Mike Z. I’m sure they’ll find a place for you. These public displays of affection are kind of gross.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 11:49 am:
– The Achilles heel with the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not.–
Guy, that’s what you made up. That’s your spin to make a point that is wrong on its face.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:01 pm:
===Every earmark for any reason has been defended year in, year out, no matter how bad our financial situation has been.===
Great team they have there. Rauner doesn’t read newspapers and A Guy can’t read a budget book.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:03 pm:
Except it isn’t Sling. Having been in the office of the House Majority Leader, Rep. Curry, I can recall several meetings (annually) where she stated, “When it’s time to cut spending or any program, one needs to realize that these programs exist because somebody here wanted them to”.
I’m not criticizing her. I actually applaud her honesty. I heard her say this on multiple occasions during drive downs to Springfield. These programs are seldom held to any level of accountability and in many cases were re-appropriated beyond the life of the member who proposed them, but yet another member became the sponsor of the existing and growing franchise.
If you don’t believe that’s true, we just can’t come to agreement and I will remain a spinster and you a paragon of virtue. That’s how we get where we are.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
First off, it’s Rep. Currie. Second, despite her contention, it is simply a fact that many programs were cut by the General Assembly despite an increase in the tax rate. Your BFF made the point repeatedly when he chastised Quinn for cutting K-12 education. Is your memory so poor you’ve forgotten that too?
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
Guy, you said Democrats can’t make cuts. That statement is blatantly false.
- Norseman - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:14 pm:
Retirees and soon to be retirees, don’t kid yourself about the impact of an amendment to repeal the pension protection clause. If passed, there WILL be an effort to reduce benefits of retirees and current employees. Whether those benefits will still be protected as RNUG an others believe will be litigated once again. I’m sure the one percenters will argue that the repeal of the pension protection clause eliminates protection for all. We need to be prepared to oppose the amendment and to donate to the campaign to defeat it. Finally, join a retiree association and support their efforts to protect the pensions.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:16 pm:
===Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
Guy, you said Democrats can’t make cuts. That statement is blatantly false.===
3 step process for you:
1) go read what I wrote again.
2) Come up with a name.
3) make a better argument.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:21 pm:
===The Achilles heel of the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not.===
You wrote that. What are we missing?
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:23 pm:
Guy, here it is:
“The Achilles heel of the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not. ”
There is nothing to argue, those are your words.
- nona - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:23 pm:
=== “Cuts to a program for autistic children are the consequence of an underfunded budget that the Democrats deliberately approved last year.” ===
Rauner insisted the temporary income tax hike be allowed to expire. He got his way. Consequently, he shares some responsibility for the budget shortfall. He could’ve supported a partial extension of the biggest tax cut in state history, but he prefers to abolish the Autism program.
- nona - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:35 pm:
===The plan seems to be for Rauner to play the role of Richard B. Olgivie.===
Olgivie is ranked one of the ten best governors in state history because he recognized the chronic budget shortfall required a new source of revenue, so he initiated the state’s first income tax. When will Rauner recognize today’s chronic budget shortfall requires a new source of revenue, and what comparable new tax do you expect him to initiate?
- Politix - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:50 pm:
==“We in our administration had actually advocated more sweeping and fewer cuts, and we said to them if they would consider looking at the sweeps again,” Rauner said”"==
Woefully inarticulate. I’m kind of wondering how much the governor actually participates in internal budget discussions. He’s not performing to my expectations of a governor. Not by a long shot.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:57 pm:
Guy, you don’t understand what you wrote.
I can relate.
- Anyone Remember - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:03 pm:
While Ms. McQueary was factual, she needs to do like Paul Harvey and “tell the rest of the story.” This mess is multi-generational and bipartisan. To exclude Walker’s / Thompson’s / Blago’s underfunding or Edgar’s Pension Ramp-up is misleading by omission.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:30 pm:
===47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 12:21 pm:
===The Achilles heel of the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not.===
You wrote that. What are we missing?====
Nothing. This has been their problem.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:36 pm:
- Nothing. This has been their problem. -
Except that they made a lot of cuts under Quinn.
You’re ignoring reality.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:43 pm:
Comparing Rauner to Ogilvie is pretty trippy. Ogilivie was a rational problem solver, Rauner is a willfully ignorant, reactionary ideologue.
If you want another governor not to compare Rauner to, check out Bernie’s column on Big Jim’s legendary kegger at the mansion for union members, aka “citizens.”
Believe it or not, once upon a time there were GOP governors who weren’t misanthropic dilettantes dedicated to reducing citizens’ incomes, sticking it to the most vulnerable and pushing the fiscal crack of muni bankruptcy.
Those three goals are now the foundation of the bought-and-paid-for Illinois GOP.
- MrJM - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
“You’re ignoring reality.”
I think he’s aware of reality and gets a daily news briefing composite.
- MrJM
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
===If you want another governor not to compare Rauner to, check out Bernie’s column on Big Jim’s legendary kegger at the mansion for union members, aka “citizens.”===
Great read, enjoyed it very much.
It had me not “long for the good ole days”, but ponder how far off the rails the ILGOP is now, compared to Thompson, Edgar, and Ryan, and how their politics and political make up would work under Rauner’s view of the ILGOP now.
We’re a long way from Thompson, and the calendar isn’t the measuring stick.
- Upon Further Review - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 1:52 pm:
@Wordslinger:
As McQueary observed, Rauner has been governor for less than a third of one year. So it is premature to compare him to anyone, but if you are not aware of the rumors about using a Republican governor to do the heavy lifting and playing the fall guy in 2018 there is nothing that any of us can do to educate you.
When I was a youngster, Dick Olgivie signed my paychecks.
- ZC - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:03 pm:
illinifan,
>> Amendments to the formula for determining the amount of the AAI retirement benefit were also passed by the General Assembly in 1971, 1978, and 1989. The question needs to be if the additional contribution is sufficient to cover the cost. Also if the AAI is changed, what happens to the money I have contributed to help pay for this benefit? Since it is not a COLA it was designed different from a COLA so it is not indexed to inflation.
I’m not denying the state passed legislation to this effect. I wouldn’t be too worried, unless everything really goes to fiscal heck (which isn’t inconceivable - just unlikely), because I think the Supremes have been pretty clear, they’re not going to let the state welsh back on what’s already promised to current beneficiaries.
But in my opinion what was promised to some retirees, was too much, in retrospect, especially as Carl points out if we don’t have a progressive income tax to cover where the vast gains in income have been going of late, pretty much everywhere.
As for terminology, SB1 called it a COLA, so I’m assuming there’s some valid linguistic basis there. I didn’t say it need be pegged to inflation, to qualify for that label.
- illinifan - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:07 pm:
ZC….Thanks I agree, the Supremes won’t let the state welch on their obligations. As to the terminology, sometimes people who write legislation are not the most informed persons out there, so I don’t believe there was intent in labeling the AAI a COLA is SB1. I believe the like many don’t understand what it is. That is part of the reason we have problem.
- Skeptic - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:22 pm:
“so I don’t believe there was intent in labeling the AAI a COLA is SB1″ The text of the bill uses the term “Automatic Annual Increase” although the summaries use the term “COLA.”
- No Dem ever cut anything EVER - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:35 pm:
Guy, and I mean this with all due respect, are you really *that* stupid? Rich - it’s time to cull the trolls.
Quinn says Medicaid cuts were needed to prevent collapse
June 15, 2012|By Monique Garcia and Alissa Groeninger, Chicago Tribune reporters
Gov. Pat Quinn signed a series of bills into law Thursday aimed at saving the state’s troubled health care program for the poor through a combination of deep cuts and a $1-a-pack cigarette tax increase.
The moves are aimed at closing a $2.7 billion funding gap created by years of overspending, which had saddled the Medicaid program with so much debt that the Democratic governor said it was on the brink of collapse.
The new law calls for $1.6 billion in health care cuts, including the elimination of a discount prescription drug program for seniors and stricter eligibility requirements that will leave hundreds of thousands of people without health care coverage.
- Skeptic - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:48 pm:
A Guy: Geeez, YOUR GUY RAUNER even out-and-out accused Quinn of cutting education.
“I’m strongly a believer that we need to increase overall education funding.” He criticized Quinn for cutting education funding.” (From the Peoria Debate)
- BlameBruceRauner - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:17 pm:
Comparing Rauner to Scrooge is and insult to Scrooge. Scrooge actually learned from his lessons. Rauners too arrogant to take anything to heart. Bruce will be Bruce and isn’t going to change his tune, why should he? This is what happens when Bozos elect a Billionaire.
- Skeptic - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:35 pm:
“Scrooge actually learned from his lessons” Yeah, but he had to be visited by three ghosts and faced with the people’s callous indifference to his own death first.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:41 pm:
=== No Dem ever cut anything EVER - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 2:35 pm:
Guy, and I mean this with all due respect, are you really *that* stupid? Rich - it’s time to cull the trolls.====
Hate to see you when you’re being disrespectful. lol. Hey, I’ll make it easy for you. Make it a “QOTD” and I’ll abide by the results and cull myself. Whether one of a few dissenting voices here would be missed; I really don’t know. I’m not sure if I’ve ever suggested banning anyone except for the reasons stated in the rules. Certainly not because I disagreed with anyone.
If I were invited to leave, I’d leave. It’d just need to come from a more authoritative voice than yours…you know, with all due respect. Yikes.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:46 pm:
Guy:
Aside from the fact that apparently a few people got their Cheerios pee’d in this morning, I think the arguments against you (set aside the pee in the Cheerios angry factor) was that there have been cuts made by Democrats.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:49 pm:
===a few dissenting voices===
You wrote something that is demonstrably false and then you doubled down on it. That’s not dissent, it’s propaganda, and once again, it’s not even good propaganda.
I try not to comment on the stuff you write, because I can agree to disagree on the substance. It’s when the “facts” you cite are either wrong, or made up out of whole cloth, that provoke me to respond to you. I welcome dissenting voices, and there are plenty here on most subjects. But I’ll push back when I see questionable comments parading as informed dissent.
I, for one, don’t want you banned. I want you fact-checked.
- No Dem ever cut anything EVER - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:57 pm:
Guy, I don’t believe for a second that you honestly thought Democrats had never been responsible for a single cut. I think it was intentional misrepresentation, and frankly, there’s enough of that going around that we don’t need your voice added to it.
But, if you did honestly believe that, then it’s willful ignorance and you shouldn’t be allowed to comment on anything.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:11 pm:
Here’s what I believe going back to the original comment: GOPers have not been accustomed to making difficult votes (haven’t heard a peep on this observation)
Dems are not comfortable making decisions to cut programs/spending. They aren’t. That’s why this process is so difficult. Of course they’ve made some cuts. The kind almost nobody screams about. Two bold Dems also proposed Pension Reform and the Speaker worked hard to get enough votes to pass it. Lots of comments about that; very few supportive and just about 90% agreement here the ISC is going to kill it.
You tell me “No Dem ever…”, do you believe that it’s harder to take a tax increase vote for the Dems than to cut programs or services? Because I think very few of them sweat over raising taxes. So few, we can name them.
If GOP members secretly want more revenue in income tax and vote against it, is it so far-fetched to think some Dems aren’t relieved when the big bad Republican Governor comes along and cuts a program they get work up the nerve to cut?
I do believe the Democrats have voted for some cuts. Few. Definitely not the kind that get us to a balanced budget. We’re still not there and the cuts are very dramatic and painful. Like him or hate him, this Governor is willing to show people what kind of budget you get when you don’t spend more than you take in.
And as some will quickly point out, he’s still a long way away from an honestly balanced budget.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:16 pm:
Guy, your walkback is as false as your original statement.
Look at Medicaid cuts and tell us there was no screaming. There are many others.
What’s clear is you, like Rauner, don’t read much news or history and base your conclusions on ideology and imagination.
Best of luck with that.
- Buzzards - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:19 pm:
I think the very first comment says it all. It is what it is.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:21 pm:
==this Governor is willing to show people what kind of budget you get when you don’t spend more than you take in==
In fairness Pat Quinn did the same thing and the Republicans accused him of false hype.
- Requirement - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:26 pm:
You should have at least a high school diploma or GED to post here. 95 per cent of postings would not be allowed under that rule. Sorry. You all know who you are.
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:30 pm:
===47th Ward - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 3:49 pm:
===a few dissenting voices===
You wrote something that is demonstrably false and then you doubled down on it. That’s not dissent, it’s propaganda, and once again, it’s not even good propaganda.
I try not to comment on the stuff you write, because I can agree to disagree on the substance. It’s when the “facts” you cite are either wrong, or made up out of whole cloth, that provoke me to respond to you. I welcome dissenting voices, and there are plenty here on most subjects. But I’ll push back when I see questionable comments parading as informed dissent.
I, for one, don’t want you banned. I want you fact-checked.====
47, I really don’t think I propagandized or offered demonstrably false testimony. If I have an opinion you disagreed with, have at me. As for Fact Checking; it’s hard to imagine anyone being scrutinized more than I have been here (notwithstanding some certifiable crazies on both sides of issues) I’m not complaining. This is a place for the exchange of ideas. Even then, if you wear out a welcome, it may be time to go. I would still read, I just wouldn’t jump in. Honestly, that’s how I treat 90% of the blogs I visit (especially media blogs- talk about nuts!) This one is well moderated. That’s why I comment at all.
- MrJM - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:31 pm:
It’s just that simple.
– MrJM
- A guy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:33 pm:
I don’t accept your premise. It’s just that simple.
- We all have? - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 4:39 pm:
We all have a cross we have to bear. To the Democrats it is Durbin…..to the Republicans it s Rauner. Let’s put them in a two man car and let this “Demoralized” guy drive it. Why so many people think they have the answers defending someone just because they are either a “D” or an “R”. They should have a “S” category. That stands for stu…. Get it?
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:00 pm:
Guy, your defense is that you can’t read and don’t understand what you write.
Is it a gag, or is it just embarrassing?
- PoolGuy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:07 pm:
I’m starting to think A guy is just Rich messing with our heads
- Defensive? - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
The ones identified by criticism are the first to try and defend themselves and ridicule the person who identified them. Let me suggest trying to get a job (one with high school/GED requirement).
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:15 pm:
- Defensive? -,
Are you adding or stirring the pot? They’ll figure it out, or Rich will step in.
- Defensive? - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:16 pm:
Yes, you are one of them “pool guy”. What a tag line??? I rest my case!
- PoolGuy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:17 pm:
Huh?
- Defensive? - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:19 pm:
“They will figure it out?” Once again, I rest my case. Who is this Willy guy? I bet his first name is not Wilson.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:24 pm:
Oh - Defensive? -, Trolls face a tough fate here.
- On the run! - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:33 pm:
Hey Willy. This “Defensive” person has you on the run. I am beginning to question. Did you graduate from grade school and tell me your first name IS Wilson.?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:37 pm:
Do. Not. Feed. Trolls.
- Buzzards - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 5:44 pm:
What? You won’t even defend yourself Oswego Willy. I thought we were friends and strong Democrats. I think this person may be right. Stand up for the rest of us “D’s”. Wow!
- Joe Bidenopolous - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 6:33 pm:
Guy-
You wrote, “The Achilles heel of the Dems is that they can’t make a cut whether a program performs or not.”
That is demonstrably false, and your walk back was further propaganda. You are, of course, going to believe what you want to believe, that’s certainly your right. People once believed the earth was flat too. But if you had even a shred of integrity, you’d admit you were wrong. I, for one, don’t expect you to do that.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 8:22 pm:
===Hate to see you when you’re being disrespectful. lol. Hey, I’ll make it easy for you. Make it a “QOTD” and I’ll abide by the results and cull myself.===
- A Guy -, you don’t have to go all “Andy Kaufman / Saturday Night Live”.
No one is calling for your banishment. Nope. No one but you is suggesting an “Andy Kaufman”. Just take a breath.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 8:59 pm:
Guy, what’s your deal?
Just on this thread, you range from ignorant to shallow to unaware to dishonest.
Is it a bit? Are you the Lonely Guy just desperate for attention, in the worst way?
Some of us are trying to have a conversation here.
- New Era - Monday, Apr 20, 15 @ 9:07 pm:
Hang tough, Guy.
The D’s are very clearly having a really hard time adjusting to sharing the power they have enjoyed for too long and they are taking it out on you. Stand tall.