The new legislative “working groups” designed to hammer out compromises on Gov. Bruce Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda” finally began meeting in secret last week. At least one of them got a bit heated.
A working group tasked with writing ethics legislation hit a brick wall right off the bat when it came time to discuss Rauner term limits constitutional amendment. Two Democrats on the committee reportedly said there was plenty of time to deal with the amendment next year, since it couldn’t be placed onto the ballot until November of 2016.
Nope, said the administration representative, according to sources. The governor wants that amendment passed by the end of the spring legislative session. When he was met with stiff resistance, the administration official reportedly became agitated and more than implied that if the constitutional amendment isn’t passed by May 31st, then the governor would not support any revenue increases to patch next fiscal year’s massive $6 billion hole.
The Democrats were shocked. Would the governor really threaten to crash the entire government over a term limits bill?
Yep.
And that message was apparently sent to pretty much all of the working groups last week. Pass this stuff or deal with the horrific consequences of allowing the temporary income tax hike to partially expire.
The governor has repeatedly said that he fully intends to take advantage of the budget crisis in order to push his agenda through the General Assembly. And he has made no bones about what he wants. Term limits have been on his agenda since Day One of his campaign. So, the threat shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Still, there were some thunderstruck Democrats last week.
Every poll has shown that the public is wildly enthusiastic about term limits. But legislators? Not so much. There are sound policy arguments against the simplistic solution, including the danger that it would empower experienced lobbyists and staff even more than they already are. Still, the idea’s popularity means that if it’s put on the floor for a final vote, legislators will be placed in a highly uncomfortable position and many will have to vote for the thing - so they absolutely don’t want to be backed into that corner.
Not everything went horribly. The ethics working group, for instance, eventually decided to skip over term limits for now in order to prevent a meltdown. They plan to take up a proposal to codify one of the governor’s executive orders on state employee ethics, which is viewed as pretty much a no-brainer.
The working group will also tackle the governor’s “conflict of interest” legislation, which would, in part, ban direct campaign contributions to members of the executive branch from public employee unions that negotiate employment contracts. The proposal would also ban contributions from hospitals and nursing homes which receive Medicaid funds.
Surprisingly enough, legislative Democrats are open to those ideas. One reason is a bit on the crass side. The less money that unions like AFSCME can give to gubernatorial and other statewide candidates, the more money the unions will be able to contribute to legislative candidates. Plus, as we’ve seen time and time again, money pretty much always finds a way around statutory barricades. AFSCME, for instance, could simply give money to the Democratic Governors Association or the Democratic Party of Illinois or start its own “dark money” independent expenditure PAC.
And there’s apparently even room for compromise on the term limits amendment, insiders say. One reported Rauner fallback position is to apply the limits only to newly elected legislators, perhaps sometime down the road.
But even if they can reach an accord on all of the governor’s proposal, they will still have to deal with the horrendous budget deficit. One of the smartest people I know at the Statehouse took me aside the other day and confided he was alarmed about the coming problem.
The budget hole is estimated to be at least $6 billion. But, this person said, let’s just say that Rauner agrees to $3 billion in tax hikes along with $3 billion in cuts. How the heck does he get that turkey passed? The GA spent weeks fighting over a mere $26 million in cuts to this fiscal year’s budget. Who will vote to cut $3 billion? And what Democrat will vote to raise taxes by $3 billion when that means another $3 billion will have to be cut?
Tough times ahead.
- Arsenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:37 am:
Wait, so they went from, “We MUST tackle term limits now, I don’t care if it crashed the government!” to “Okay, let’s table term limits for now”? Is that right? ‘Cause it kinda seems like the worst of both worlds- you both look like a lunatic and a push-over.
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:40 am:
What exactly is Rauner’s next move if Democrats give him what he wants: an austerity budget with no additional revenue?
Rauner appears to have a decent opening game with a lot of offense: rapid development of his knights and bishops with aggressive attacks.
He wants to trade pieces and consolidate, but Democrats muck that offense up pretty easily by refusing to trade pieces and simply using their pawns to lock up the files and the board. That leaves Rauner’s rooks paralyzed, and as the recent debacle over the FY 15 budget shows, Rauner has no middle game, let alone and end game.
Or, am I missing something?
- Arizona Bob - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:45 am:
Eventually it becomes time to pay the piper for decades of mismanagement and malfeasance in Springfield. Changing the state’s fiscal trajectory 15 years ago would’ve made this far less painful, but many of the same people in power today made the choice to keep spending like they had the money to keep the patronage workers campaigning for them and the fatcat contractors and unions keeping their campaign contributions coming. Now they’re going to have to deal with the problem. There’s no longer a way to ignore the pension disaster and keep up overfunding education at the state and local level. Spending per pupil in Illinois is 18% above the national level according to the NEA despite performance far below that which should be expected given that funding.
Those in the GA are going to start acting like adults who act responsibly in running the state, and it scares the bejesus out of them….
- Arizona Bob - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:49 am:
Question: If we had term limits, would it have been more likely that the GA would’ve acted responsibly to address overspending and pension bloating issues, rather than create a patronage and crony contractor cesspool that would keep them in power for decades? It seems it would be much easier to do the right thing if you weren’t making it a priority to make a career out of the GA, but given the “sock puppet” nature of many in the GA, perhaps it wouldn’t make a difference. Stooges can always be found for the right price in the many uncontested races.
- Ducky LaMoore - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:51 am:
I know I have said this a thousand times… but… Rauner himself told us all in the primary that “if we have to shut things down for awhile” he has no problem doing that.
- Smitty Irving - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:54 am:
Arizona Bob
Try 20 years, specifically Jim Edgar’s 1995 pension ramp-up law that, as Rich and Dan Rutherford noted, swallowed the entire “temporary” tax increase. And, for the record, when the law passed, as it was the 1990s, the GOP ran the Senate, not the
Dems.
- Cassandra - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:56 am:
I hope the committees, or Rauner, or both, will take another look at the special funds for budget relief next year, especially with respect to the size of the next income tax increase, if they ever agree on one. Or maybe that will come at the end of negotiations. Chicago Tonight had a segment on the funds recently.Points out how badly Illinois state government manages our money. I’d blame the legislature for that. Worth viewing, and not just if you are opposed to another income tax increase.
- Wordslinger - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:57 am:
AB, you’re absolutely right. In a matter of weeks, the Supremes will make very clear that the state will have to pay back the money it borrowed when it shorted the pension funds year after year to pay for operating expenses.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:58 am:
===When he was met with stiff resistance, the administration official reportedly became agitated and more than implied that if the constitutional amendment isn’t passed by May 31st, then the governor would not support any revenue increases to patch next fiscal year’s massive $6 billion hole.===
“Leverage”, “Crisis”…Yikes.
To the Post,
If the most transparent administration in Illinois’ history can’t even be honest on how they go about their business, what is the point of pretending Rauner cares about input.
He doesn’t care about input. That’s the whole point;
Edict, forced crisis brushing real challenges, leverage non-essential politics… to force the “dark” meetings into darker governing choices.
Rauner voters and supporters who voted for “change” and “shaking up”, or as the Dopey @statehousechick had in her Primary endorsement tweet… “simple, change”…
… you all have given up your voices. You have.
Your voices aren’t to be heard. Your disapproval… even approval… think on that…. your thoughts just aren’t imprortant to Bruce Rauner. He’s saying so.
I thought this would be “fun”;
Get agreement within all the groups, actually govern within the structured roll calls of 30 and 60… first.
Run all the bills, budget bills, and then make sure it’s Rauner who doesn’t double-cross these votes with a veto, or even a punishment veto for running these bills before “Agenda-Driven” bills even see the Floors of both chambers.
“Why?”
See if Rauner will “go” 67 for 67, making My Party take the maximum impact, and brunt of the “Rauner Budget Choices” before any “Agenda-Driven” bills get called.
Man, the theatre on that?
Can you see the Owl Sandack?
“Who is holding up the Agenda Bills?”
“Who is not allowing my boss, the Governor, not to get his votes?”
“Who is dictating how things work in the House and Senate?”
Even an Owl like Sandack knows, chambers are controlled by the majority. Just like budgets and choices in those budgets belong to governors.
The theatrics of the Dems rolling out, with structured votes, the governing agreed bills, doing the people’s business, to make Sonny Corleone make another choice, where “… business will have to suffer…”
It’s one thing when the Four Tops and the Governor meet, I’m private, and hammer and shake governing out of a budget. It’s quite another when a sitting governor governs in the vacuum of secrecy, because leveraging and making choices in the daylight causes backlash… Rauner just doesn’t want to hear it.
“No, no, no! No more! Not this time, Consigliere! I want MORE secret meetin’s! More secret discussions! No more Madigan tricks! You give all them meetin’, you give ‘em one message - I want leverage. If not, it’s all-out war, we go to the mattresses. They better hand me my Agenda! If I don’t get all, I mean all, I want…Well then, the state and the lil people will have to suffer, all right? And listen, do me a favor, No more advice on how to patch things up, just help me win, please. All right?”
… says the man who is the compassionate governor.
Dangerous times…
- Skeptic - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 9:58 am:
ABob: I recall you yourself bemoaning the Lame Duck mentality (I apologize if I’m wrong.) It seems to me if you have term limits, you’re guaranteeing yourself a significant percentage of lame ducks every election. Is that better or worse than a “patronage and crony contractor cesspool?”
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:11 am:
=== He doesn’t care about input. That’s the whole point; ===
Which is why Republican McSweeney is complaining to the Northwest Herald about the need for a zero-based budget, in sharp contract to the Rauner approach.
- ZC - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:12 am:
ABob 9:49a
>> Question: If we had term limits, would it have been more likely that the GA would’ve acted responsibly to address overspending and pension bloating issues, rather than create a patronage and crony contractor cesspool that would keep them in power for decades?
I don’t see any particular reason to answer, “Yes.” I mean, the way you phrase that question suggests that if you oppose term limits, you must support overspending, patronage, and crony contractors. But leaving out the heavily-slanted language: no, not on the surface, I see no reason term limits would necessarily help.
- Norseman - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:12 am:
Willy, you’re on it as usual.
Good column Rich.
- Tommydanger - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:13 am:
I echo Skeptic’s remarks.
Seems to me you have less accountability if legislators do not have to answer to the voters for their votes because they are ‘termed.’
- Kippax Blue - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:15 am:
Juvenal– I like your chess analogy, but seem to believe a different method in play by the governor, as he seems to me to be leading with his queen rather than develop knights and bishops, using his power piece too early. I would suggest if he has an “opportunity” to grab a pawn early, such as the always tempting “b2″ pawn off captured by queen-leading players early in a match (such as insistance on term limits, for one), he will find out why that pawn is labeled “poison”. Just a thought…
- Wordslinger - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:16 am:
Meh, we all know the Rauner peeps can talk tough, but their actions tell a different story.
Their shake-em-up solution to the $1.6 billion shortfall in FY15 was $1.3 billion in new revenue. That’s 81 percent in new revenue, 19 percent in cuts.
And Rauner said he wanted to sweep more for new revenue, but the Dems wouldn’t go along.
Rauner couldn’t take the heat for $26 million in social service cuts. We’re supposed to believe he’s going to stand firm and wear the jacket for billions in cuts, including to education, to balance his phony baloney FY16 proposal?
I’d call that bluff.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:20 am:
I think Juvenal is on to something. Just call Rauner’s bluff. Pass an all cut, no revenue budget. If he signs it, he’s probably divorced.
- Ray del Camino - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:23 am:
Juvenal’s chess analogy was smart. Too smart. Rauner think’s he’s playing checkers.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:27 am:
The legwork you’ve done Rich is outstanding, and sorting it out in your above column is really great, both in sorting out what is going on, and shining a light on something that needs the light on it, for governing’s sake. Thanks.
Thanks, - Norseman -. I know you wouldn’t let me run the railroad the way Rauner’s running it. You care about Illinois too much.
- Salty - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:28 am:
I must say I never thought I would see the day where a republican governor (let all this republican governor) basically admits that Illinois needs more revenue. He is willing to give on tax hikes, more than on term limits, workers’ comp, and all his other issues.
Also, this shows what he thinks employers care about most, and taxes is way down on that list. Doesn’t exactly jive with the message republicans have been saying over the last 4 years though.
- J - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:31 am:
What we have now is accountability only to party leadership, not the voters. That is why re-districting may cause members of the GA to pay more attention to the wishes of the electorate and be more effective than term limits. Yet term limits may help if lame ducks decide to do what is right in their minds rather than what the leaders demand. Then again perhaps I am being naive in hoping the leadership won’t find a way around re-districting and fighting it in courts forever plus co-opt term limited legislators with promises of state jobs.
- Phil - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:33 am:
The secrecy of the working groups is completely stupid. But this is typical of someone who is new to politics and government. Rauner has complained repeatedly in private about leaks to the media. Sorry, Bruce…all part of the game. One of the messy features of democracy. Get use to it.
- JS Mill - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:35 am:
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates-2015-03-11a.pdf
It appears that AB did some nice data “cherry picking of”. Go look at the full report. Illinois actually looks good versus the rest of the nation in most areas.
Fun facts from the NEA-
Illinois is dead last in the nation in school revenue from state sources (19.6% and declining), and second only to Washington D.C. (does DC even count?) in funding from local resources (66.1% and rising).
Illinois ranks 41st in per cap expenditures for state government and 27th when you look at per cap state AND local govt expenditures.
Illinois ranks 37th in state and local government expenditures per $1000 of personal income at $174. 38th you ask? Arizona at $173.
We rank No higher than 38th when it come to welfare spending or spending on health and hospitals.
Illinois is 8th in per cap spending on police but 41st in corrections.
While Illinois is the 5th wealthiest in terms of GDP we are 49th in State per capita spending on all education.
I could go on and on. Illinois may not be using it funds very well, but Illinois in a national context does not seem to have a spending problem. Illinois ranks 15th in per pupil spending.
- Arsenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:41 am:
“There’s no longer a way to ignore the pension disaster and keep up overfunding education at the state and local level.”
Apparently there is, as the Governor is proposing exactly that.
- walker - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:43 am:
Arizona Bob: Good questions.
Like some others, I don’t see much benefit in term limits on the issues of bad management and bad priorities in the use of taxpayer funds — in fact it could well make things worse. If they’re long enough, like 12 years, the impact might be minimal.
I have one for you: Why does Rauner support term limits for GA members, but not for himself? Why not for US Congress members?
- walker - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:45 am:
Outstanding reporting Rich.
No one but you could shine such a bright light on this issue right now.
- Norseman - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:45 am:
=== From McSweeny’s OpEd: Winston Churchill once said, “We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” ===
Was that right before the people voted him out of office because of the economic problems facing the country?
- Cassandra - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:47 am:
It certainly would be interesting to know how seriously the state agencies are taking these potential draconian cuts Rauner talks about. Some of the folks working there have been through a lot of budget debates year after year. Not all, I suspect, believe the wolf is really at the door.
- Now What? - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:52 am:
Great article, Rich. Thank you for your perspective. It certainly isn’t the first time a politician has chosen to “leverage a crisis,” but is this most brazen? Nixonian indeed.
- MrJM - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:55 am:
A majority of Illinois voters let Rauner take the entire state hostage.
And now they want to complain about his demands?
Dopes.
– MrJM
- Apocalypse Now - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:59 am:
=The governor has repeatedly said that he fully intends to take advantage of the budget crisis in order to push his agenda through the General Assembly=
Governor Rauner channeling President Obama.
- Federalist - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:02 am:
Well, I get to agree with Rauner on something. Term Limits. Twelve years in the GA (combined House and/or Senate is enough. Make the Governors office no more than two full terms.
Do something else in your life first, serve in the GA for a while, and then pass it on to others.
Oh, just like the pensions and health insurance let’s make this retroactive. If you already have twelve years by July 1, 2016 you are out of there.
Seems fair that is what the GA and Governor have tried to do for others. Surely they won’t mind if it is done to them
- MrJM - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:04 am:
Request: Please don’t feed the Obama trolls.
– MrJM
- Crispy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:07 am:
Some observations and questions:
Observations:
The chess and poker analogies are kind of comforting. Here’s hoping the governor’s bluff can be called successfully.
Also, putting in term limits won’t solve the “influence” problem. As one of the commenters on Rich’s Crain’s column pointed out, it hasn’t helped California.
Finally, thank goodness we haven’t had term limits to this point. People gripe (and gripe) about MJM and the rest of the Dems, but without them around to push back against the “Turnaround Agenda,” Illinois could already be well on its way to transforming into Wisconsin or Indiana.
Questions (no snark intended or implied):
What if the governor stands firm and carries out the threats to “take advantage of the crisis,” crashing state government along the way? At some point, is there a remedy during this session (legislative, judicial, whatever) to force him to compromise? What’s the likely end game? If everyone digs in, what will that look like for people outside the Statehouse?
Although, based on JS Mill’s numbers showing how low state funding already is for education and other key functions, maybe they won’t notice right away. (OK, that was maybe a little snarky. …)
- a drop in - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:13 am:
walker - can’t term limit u.s. congress members without u.s. constitutional amendment.
- walker - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Juvenal: Chess analogy excellent!
Rauner shouldn’t think that the GA Leaders will start trading pieces evenly, while they control the board and limit his movement.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:24 am:
===What if the governor stands firm and carries out the threats to “take advantage of the crisis,” crashing state government along the way?===
Governors own those decisions. The question to Rauner and his Crew is, “are you prepared if the legislature and the Unions, whose contract is up, call you on the bluff?”
The Unions can NOT strike. They need and require a lockout, and a passive-aggressive response to being denied going to work. It’s like the Smiddy debate debacle; if you get called on it, your response might be worse than the threat.
===At some point, is there a remedy during this session (legislative, judicial, whatever) to force him to compromise?===
Rauner’s conscious? Rauner realizing governing is about getting as much as you can while compromising enough to not leg your support and supporters down, and your adversaries buy into the governing process.
I haven’t seen Rauner, personally, buy into or believe that, but those in his Crew, with the initial FY2015 budget fix based the trust part of governing into their compromise to get Dem votes and the Dem leaders on board.
I hope.
===What’s the likely end game? If everyone digs in, what will that look like for people outside the Statehouse?===
With Rauner, personally, as a true believer… I have no idea what his end game is, or how he, personally, wants to get there in the governing of Illinois.
My hope is that his Crew enlightens Rauner on “…the best we can get…” governing approach. That’s my hope, but I don’t know.
- sal-says - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:25 am:
Apparently Raunner only GIVES ultimatems, not understanding the concept of negotiating, similar to our US congress. Sounds like Raunner needs a few courses: Civics 101, Government 100 & Governing 099.
- VanillaMan - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:31 am:
Great column Rich.
It is always a relief to get your viewpoint on these emotional issues.
Not paying our bills has caused a backlog that had been compounded by a troubled economy that just doesn’t seem to find a recovery. The retirement of a generation of workers, followed by smaller generations, has broken our social nets since there are fewer people with jobs to pay for the retiree’s benefits. Even without a pension plan theft over the past twenty years, we would be facing very difficult state economics.
Our current problems had a long incubation time, and the solutions will need even longer. Yet we have a governor who is almost 60 and itching to “fix” our problems before he is unable to benefit from those fixes. He represents a lot of pre-seniors unable to see a time when they are footnotes in Illinois history at best, yet demanding we sacrifice our ethics, moralities and traditions to accommodate them, not Illinois.
I support term limits. We don’t need to listen to 1980’s PolySci professors anymore. We have real world results to see that term limits brings governments more women in power, more minorities in power, with more diversity of careers, interests and backgrounds. Opponents of term limits need to rethink their priorities if they care about having our governments reflect our citizens, instead of them being tombs filled with old white lawyers. No government which has had term limits voted in by citizens, have had them overturned - only where citizens have been fooled by a corrupted legislature afraid of losing power.
Rauner doesn’t know what he is doing, but something decent could come out of his failed governorship, if we get something like term limits out of him.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:34 am:
In Arizona, we have term limits. There’s a progression pols go through, first as state reps then as state Senators. The positives for this include letting legislators who are of good character do the right thing for the state, rather than pandering to the special interests. the down side, of course, is that just as a rep or senator gets the hang of what’s going on and how programs work, they have to move on. I do have to say that having the limits tends to attract more “good government” types instead of political parasites, but maybe that’s just an Arizona-Illinois thing.
- DuPage - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:36 am:
@Ray del Camino 10:23 =Rauner thinks he’s playing checkers.=
Rauner says he never loses. If the game is going badly, he will say let’s take a break. When he gets up, exclaims “oops” as he tips over the board.
- Arizona Bob - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:41 am:
Smitty, I’m not trying to give Edgar and the GOP Senate a pass on this. Setting up a “back end loaded system” in Illinois politics, expecting future legislators to be more responsible in few decades and putting the burden on them to fix the problem is disingenuous at best at flat out dishonest at the worst. Does anyone really think that Edgar truly believed that the GA and Guv would address the problem a few decades later when he shirked dealing with it seriously in his time?
Of course back then he had a lot of Cellini and Kjellander mouths to feed….
- Rufus - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:47 am:
@walker — “Why not for US Congress members?”
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against term limits for Congress.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:51 am:
Which is why Ryan was thrown out of office soon after Edgar because he was apart of the broken system to begin with. The same party who was responsible for Rutan wants to flip things in their favor. Makes you scratch your head on where things are going.
- Norseman - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:55 am:
With our poor luck with governors, the term limit for them should be four years.
- Cosmosa - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:11 pm:
===- Norseman - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 11:55 am:
With our poor luck with governors, the term limit for them should be four years. ===
I dunno…that seems a bit harsh to me. They should only be sentenced 6 months for every year in office.
- sideline watcher - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:16 pm:
The thing no one talks about with term limits is that 1. This conversation is about Madigan not rank and file. The general assembly nearly completely turns over over 10 years. 2. The most powerful people in the building end up being long term staff and LOBBYISTS! They are the only ones with any institutional knowledge. 3. The reason no state has reversed them is because the public doesn’t understand that the unintended consequence is empowering the one group they hate more than politicians and that’s the high rolling lobbyists.
- relocated - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:20 pm:
Having worked in the general Assembly in various capacities for 25 years I cant be more against term limits. The public assumes that citizen legislators can comein and be immediately effective. The truth is there is a significant learning curve involving a significant amount of hand holding and coaching by staff and leadership. If the only significant institutional memoery resides in staff and lobbyists then power shifts toward special interests. if you want real change limit the terms of the speaker and sen president (and minority leaders).
- Norseman - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:26 pm:
Hat tip to Cosmosa.
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:27 pm:
“Bobby Fischer”
- How Ironic - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:28 pm:
If ‘term limits’ were so great, one would think corporations would be all over them.
“Every 8 years, we just fire folks arbitrarily, so that new workers can come in and take over. Doesn’t matter if they are productive and well loved by the company, it’s clients, and co workers”.
Yeah, does that make sense? If you don’t like the person, vote them out.
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 12:57 pm:
HI:
We do actually run government like a business, one of the most competitive businesses around: breakfast cereal.
There’s a lot of new products, but the market leaders have been around forever, and the most successful new entrants are direct descendants of successful lines.
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:02 pm:
Cheerios is far-and-away the #1 cereal in America, and I’d guess the average age of the Top 20 brands is around 40 years old.
- Juvenal - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:04 pm:
Walker -
Thanks.
Correct.
Governor’s play white, the legislature plays black, and lawmakers are highly skilled at controlling tempo.
- D - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:34 pm:
While we can talk about term limits, we should be focusing on taking the drawing of legislative districts out of the hands on the General Assembly. Once we remove the power to draw legilsative districts out of the hands of Leadership who go to great lengths to protect their members and their party, the concern about the need for term limits should go away.
- Jack Stephens - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:40 pm:
@D:
Agreed. And it needs to be done Nationally. Not just in Illinois. We should just make Legislative districts conform to,the US Geological Survey.
- D - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:42 pm:
Arizona Bob,
Illinois needs a change to its Constitution like Arizona had in 2000, when it remove redistricting from the hands of the Arizona legislature.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 1:45 pm:
===Agreed. And it needs to be done Nationally. Not just in Illinois.===
How will it be done, nationally?
===We should just make Legislative districts conform to,the US Geological Survey.===
I was hoping they would use the officially recognized geometric shapes approve by World Mathamaticians Governing Counsel.
But I’m sentimental that way…
- Crispy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 2:07 pm:
Re redistricting: Didn’t Gov. Jan Brewer and her fellow Republicans in the Arizona legislature actually impeach the redistricting commission chair, Democrat Colleen Mathis, in 2011, basically because they thought the proposed map was too Dem-favorable? And wasn’t there a big legal fight, with the state supreme court overturning the impeachment? And isn’t Arizona, even now, suing to overturn the 2000 law and have the process turned back over to the state legislature?
In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court just heard arguments in March. Here’s the link:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/02/supreme-court-arizona-redistricting-case/24261009/
Not sure whose point this proves, but it does seem to show that it’s not so simple to get the politics out of redistricting.
- Chris - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 3:41 pm:
Bob:
“I do have to say that having the limits tends to attract more “good government” types instead of political parasites, but maybe that’s just an Arizona-Illinois thing.”
Sheriff Joe could be Exhibit A that it ain’t just an AZ-IL thing…
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 3:51 pm:
AB, you clearly don’t know squat about the history of the pension ramp law. First of all, Edgar was criticized for stealing an idea that Dawn Clark Netsch, God rest her soul, had proposed about a phased approach to reaching full funding. In fact, a 7-year ramp bill was signed into law in 1989 but never funded because the steps were too big and the law was unenforceable.
The 1994 law and its 50/15 ramp was a result of a lot of compromise and number crunching (I was there and did them) and passed with bipartisan support. It was working fine for the first ten years until it was ruined by the Blago/Filan pension holidays in FY 2006 and FY 2007 which caused a “reset” of the ramp followed by the FY 2009 economic collapse. The net effect was to create a short ramp from FY 10 to FY 16 of much higher than expected payments with huge annual increases. Beyond FY 16, the ramp levels off and the annual increases are more manageable.
When Edgar, and Ryan, left office, there was nothing to fix. Oh, and your obsession with pay spikes is also misguided, as they were reined in 10 years ago and had a negligible impact on the total pension liability, less than 1%.
Don’t bloviate about that of which you are clearly uninformed.
- kimocat - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 6:14 pm:
Thank you Arthur Anderson.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 6:14 pm:
Anybody taking bets that term limits will pass the G.A. this session? Ever? I didn’t think so.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 6:21 pm:
- AA -,
I wanted to wait till the dust cleared. Wow.
Well said. I’m always learning.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 8:06 pm:
Oh - Georg Sande -, didn’t we promise to stay off your lawn?
Other media outlets are covering this story with similar substantive facts. That said, I guess your pointless comment is lost on me.
- 134sparky - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 8:48 pm:
I would be ok with unions not being able to contribute as long as companies that would gain from this can not contribute either
- Property of IDOC - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:18 pm:
Can he really fire all of us….
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:18 pm:
Arthur Anderson:
The Securities and Exchange Commission had a very different view of the Edgar Ramp, calling the most significant factor to our pension under-funding.
Indeed, undefundI got our pensions each of ear was an inherent feature of the ramp, with the promise that we would underfund them a little less next year.
That was problem 1.
Problem Two was that during the budget boom that followed the end of the Edgar years and george Ryan’s term, we adhered to the ramp when instead we should have increased pension payments.
Problem Three was that when the economic downturn came in Rod’s first term, we told ourselves it was okay to skip pension payments because we had just “solved” the pension crisis, so one year wasn’t gonna hurt.
That said, because Rod and the GOP were firmly against new revenue, the choices were borrow from the pension system or slash critical programs. The end result was not only not surprising, but also not the worst possible public policy.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 4, 15 @ 10:19 pm:
Vanillaman:
Not sure where you get your data, but according to a WaPo story on term limits, there is no increase in candidate diversity and the lobbyists have take over.
- nitro xl muscle - Tuesday, May 19, 15 @ 9:33 pm:
This piece of writing gives clear idea designed for the
new viewers of blogging, that actually how to do blogging.