* The Illinois Policy Institute’s partisan, histrionic take on yesterday’s House floor action…
A sham, a scam, a fraud, a joke–That’s how House republicans characterized budget bill amendments passed Thursday that restores social service programs being reduced or eliminated in the proposed 2016 fiscal year. House Speaker Michael Madigan originally offered up an amendment to House Bill 4141 that reflected the Governor’s proposed cuts to various social services programs. Republicans were blindsided and ended up largely voting present on the measure. […]
Some representatives in the minority said it’s like deja vu all over again where they’re being left out of the process but democrats said the process is where it needs to be–on the House floor racking up votes. Republican Representative Ed Sullivan said despite promises earlier this year to be open and transparent on budget issues, democrats are continuing the shutout republicans. […]
Sullivan said that the actions have broken the good will and spirit of cooperation between the two parties.
OK, the first round of House votes yesterday were on a bill with language taken directly from the governor’s own proposed budget on legislation sponsored by the House Republican Leader.
I don’t see the harm. Read on.
* The Republicans did have a better case about the other round of votes taken later in the day. Back to the Policy Institute…
Fifteen amendments were then added to the bill for votes, something republicans said circumvented the standard committee-to-floor process. Republican Representative Ron Sandack said this process isn’t open.
“Our time would be better spent in committee fully vetting appropriation bills, frankly, after a revenue number had been set. This isn’t, by the way, zero based budgeting. This isn’t top down budgeting. This isn’t bottom up budgeting. This is sham.” […]
Republicans don’t just have a problem with being left out, they also have a problem with how to pay for the restored cuts. As the amendments were being passed by majority democrats, Republican Sullivan asked Democrat Harris how the measures would be funded.
“We’ll have to cut in other areas, but we need to do it in a responsible way to cause the least harm to families, particularly those in vulnerable situations. And I think we’re gonna have to find new revenue,” Harris said.
“You’re gonna have to find new revenue,” Sullivan fired back. “You couldn’t do it in the fall so you passed a sham budget hoping that your governor would be reelected.”
Sullivan said he anticipates having to bail democrats out at the end of the budget year if they keep passing what republicans characterized as sham budget amendments. Republican Patti Bellock worried the budget amendments, without revenue to cover the bills, would increase the state’s backlog.
“When it comes to the end I don’t know where we’re going to have the funding for this. And again I brought up before about the unpaid bills. They’re not just out there. Those unpaid bills go to the providers, doctors, nursing homes, small business people.”
Even so, the House Dems wanted to send a message that those programs needed to be protected. And with the governor refusing to negotiate on tax hikes or pretty much anything else until he gets his “Turnaround Agenda” passed, the Dems wanted to respond. Again, it’s not a huge deal.
* Tribune…
House Republican leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs said Madigan was trying to get GOP lawmakers on the record to use the roll call votes in future campaign attack ads. “I do believe that what’s going on right now is form over substance. And it’s unfortunate. This is about mail pieces – trying to string people out,” Durkin said.
Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, countered that the cuts, which Rauner proposed months ago, are well-known and have been discussed at length. Indeed, Democrats spent the early months of spring session holding hearings across the state to publicize the governor’s plans.
“The question always with us is, what bills can get 60 votes in the House, 30 in the Senate,” Harris said. “I understand we have to make cuts somewhere, but we cannot balance the budget by cuts alone. We’re going to have to make some common-sense cuts, and we’re also going to have to agree to find some revenue sources.”
* Erickson…
Rauner spokesman Lance Trover called Wednesday’s maneuvering “political theater.”
“This is not the time for political stunts. Gov. Rauner stands ready to work with Democrats to pass real structural changes to our government and enact a balanced budget,” Trover said in an email.
OK, then get on with it.
* Now, let’s flash back for a moment to April 22, 2013…
(F)aced with bitter divisions over guns and state pensions, House Speaker Michael Madigan resorted to a rarely-used tactic that does the opposite. He has called weekly sessions to laboriously address each and every proposal on dealing with the two controversial issues, debating and voting on each amendment piece by piece.
The idea was to engage in deeper discussions early on, rebut concerns about a closed-door process and gauge where lawmakers were on even the smallest of aspects. Madigan and others point to success, including some movement on the pension issue.
But critics say the process was directionless, ate up time, and now appears to have evaporated as a strategy without moving Illinois that much closer to solutions. While Democrats say it was aimed at making lawmakers more accountable about where they stand on issues, Republicans fear it was aimed more at forcing them to make uncomfortable votes on sensitive issues, which could haunt them at election time. […]
“We had a good airing of both sides of the issue,” said Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesman. “All too often people, especially the minority party, will complain, ‘We don’t know this [debate or vote] is going to happen.’ You’ve got two pretty complex, somewhat emotionally charged, issues that seemed to lend itself to this sort of approach.”
But many Republicans, including House Minority Leader Tom Cross, disagree. They point to the lack of progress on the Legislature’s need to comply with a federal judge’s order to legalize the public possession of firearms by early June. Despite the deliberations, two opposing proposals to end the nation’s last ban on “concealed carry” were voted down last week.
In the end, despite all the early GOP screaming, they passed a pension bill and a concealed carry bill. And, as far as I can recall, none of those votes were used against the Republicans in the 2014 election.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:05 am:
The Speaker sent a message, the HGOP understood and voted “Present”.
Rep. Harris is On It;
“The question always with us is, what bills can get 60 votes in the House, 30 in the Senate,” Harris said. “I understand we have to make cuts somewhere, but we cannot balance the budget by cuts alone. We’re going to have to make some common-sense cuts, and we’re also going to have to agree to find some revenue sources.”===
That.
That’s the ball game, Governor’s Office.
That’s the end game, Governor Rauner.
It’s as though everyone but Sonny and his “buttons” don’t get that part.
- Wensicia - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:12 am:
==Gov. Rauner stands ready to work with Democrats to pass real structural changes to our government and enact a balanced budget.==
No, instead he wasted a trip to Chicago to tell the city council he was throwing the city under the bus.
- MickJ - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:13 am:
Groucho “A travesty of a mockery of a sham.”
The clowns at IPI finally found something they know about.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:14 am:
Chicken = cuts
Egg = revenue
Or vice versa. Cuts before revenue. It’s not more complicated than that. Doesn’t matter whether you run through the tape at 60/30 or skid into it. There is one very understandable policy out there. Elements of it are negotiable, but the policy is firm. Regardless of the theatre, the equation is in front of 118/59.
- Big Joe - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:17 am:
Well stated OW. Short, concise, and to the point. Now if anyone has questions about it, I feel sorry for them.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:17 am:
===Or vice versa. Cuts before revenue. It’s not more complicated than that.===
You can’t ever make a budget without first knowing your income. Period.
- Carhartt Representative - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:19 am:
Do the original press releases from IPI come tear-stained?
- Juice - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Lance, dude, you can’t call something a “political stunt” on the day your boss made “an historic” appearance before the Chicago City Council for no reason whatsoever beyond headline grabbing. It’s just poor form. Though I would agree with him that this is not the time for political stunts, I think we just have a disagreement on who exactly is performing the stunts.
- walker - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:22 am:
If Republicans cannot vote for Rauner’s proposed cuts to human services now, because it could be used against them politically, what changes later?
They always need the out of blaming Democrats, no matter what actually occurs. Hard to break old habits on both sides.
- Liberty - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:29 am:
Waa, waa, waa - that evil Madigan made us vote on our threats.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:34 am:
===Rich Miller - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:17 am:
===Or vice versa. Cuts before revenue. It’s not more complicated than that.===
You can’t ever make a budget without first knowing your income. Period.===
I guess that’s true, but it belies history here. Just pick a revenue number that is arguable on it’s best day. I’m not there, but I’m guessing they’re using some number (like last year’s adjusted for changes), aren’t they?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:35 am:
===I’m guessing they’re using some number (like last year’s adjusted for changes), aren’t they?===
They’re not even to that point. Nowhere near it.
- Formerpol - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:39 am:
Wasn’t Madigan’s stunt “partisan and histrionic”??
- JackD - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:43 am:
Isn’t all this really about forcing Democrats to vote for cuts and allowing Republicans to avoid voting for tax increases?
- ZC - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:46 am:
Last year’s adjusted for changes is huge … There was a 5% income tax at this point last year.
- Juvenal - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 11:54 am:
=== You can’t ever make a budget without first knowing your income. Period. ===
Not absolutely true. In fact, budgeting that begins with estimated revenue and then tries to figure out how to spend it is really a backward process.
Why?
Because it never leads to a reduction in spending.
ZBBers like Sandack and Sweeney know nothing about the zero-based budgeting process, which is why they think that in order to constrain spending and taxes you should start with current revenue, but all that does is lock current spending levels into place.
And then, instead of true ZBB that builds a budget from the ground up, you end up with a budget like Rauner’s, that begins with last year’s budget and then either makes cuts or increases. That’s not Zero Based Budgeting, that is a Zero Sum Budget, which is very different.
No, in reality in the public sector, the revenue and appropriations processes are concurrent and inform each other.
Appropriations is doing what it should be right now: setting priorities, just as you would for buying a house: What are you Must Haves, Like to Haves, Sure Would be Nice.
Then you see what you can actually afford.
You throw out your Sure Would Be Nice.
Do we really need a finished basement with a wet bar, 1/2 bath, and room for a pool table? Or would we rather keep that money in our pocket and use it to upgrade our summer vacation and add a winter getaway?
How about that guest bedroom we think we “have to have” for our inlaws? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to have them stay at a B&B when they come visit, and then we can get a house with a bigger yard that we will enjoy every week, instead of a guest bedroom we only use a few times a year.
Or maybe there are ways to increase “revenue”…like hey, we’d much rather have the house we want in the location that’s convenient than a third vehicle.
The great thing about a sound budget process is that too many folks end up buying a house the same way that Governor Rauner is trying to craft a budget: they look at what their neighbors have got and decides that is what they have to have even if what’s right for their neighbors isn’t exactly what’s right for them.
Speaking of which, Zorn has a great column out about how Minnesota is kicking not just IL’s butt but also IN and WI. Governor Dayton turned budget deficits into surpluses and jump started the economy by taxing the rich.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:12 pm:
===Because it never leads to a reduction in spending.===
Um, yes it does. It has over the past several years. While spending went up on pensions, Medicaid, prisons, etc., it had to go down on other items in order to meet those obligations and pare down the backlogged bills.
Three weeks to go means there is not enough time to do zero-based budgeting.
- Just saying... - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:18 pm:
Seriously, Rauner has a $20 million + slush fund that he’s going to use as political propaganda …he has 3rd party organizations (that he and his cronies are financing) to use for “informational and political” mailers,TV, grassroots, etc…
Come’on GOP stop whining about having to take tough votes and political theater. Rauner put you in this position with his own theatrics…so suck it up and do your job…Rauner has you back right???
- Rod - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:19 pm:
Even if the amendments had a theatrical nature to them as far as I can tell Rep Jack Franks voted yes on every one that was called for a vote. That indicates a profound disagreement with Governor Rauner’s proposal as it relates to Human Services.
It also may indicate that in Woodstock some of these prposed cuts are not playing well among constituents. Jack keeps his ear to the ground and the fact that a majority of the Woodstock council appeared to oppose the Governor’s Turnaround resolution. So if it had not been tabled in late April it would have likely been defeated. Rauner pulled about 65 percent of the McHenry County vote in the last election. If Rauner loses Rep Franks, in relation to a potential veto override situation he has maybe lost it all.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:25 pm:
Guy, believe it on not, fixing a budget hole that exceeds more than 20 percent of FY15 GRF is quite complicated, given the political dynamics.
As pointed out last week, a 50-50 split between cuts and revenue is a dog nobody can vote for and all cuts or all revenue is not possible,
So where’s the “not complicated” part?
Thisw Is the foreseeable result of Rauner’s “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and “Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem” campaign and the shallow, reckless hacks who pushed it.
- Norseman - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:26 pm:
For a “non-partisan” think tank the only thing IPI is good at is partisan rhetoric.
Getting from A to B will entail stops to God knows how many other points. We can only hope the number of points don’t get too large.
- Toure's Latte - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
The ILGA makes a good case the next superfluous unit of government to go should be the ILGA.
- RNUG - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
== Three weeks to go means there is not enough time to do zero-based budgeting. ==
But .. but … but … Rauner’s been working on his budget plan for over a year; he could have created a zero based budget during that time in order to find all the waste and abuse.
Seriously, FWIW, I’ve always thought the whole budgeting process from the agency side was just crazy …
- Bill White - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:33 pm:
Getting from Point A to Point B (i.e. passing a budget)
It seems to me that after June 1st it becomes significantly more difficult for Bruce Rauner to get from A to B, while the task facing Madigan and Cullerton remains essentially the same.
After all, isn’t the 71 / 36 needed for a budget passed in June or July the same as what is needed to over-ride a veto.
Getting 10 IL Dem state senators to vote for a budget acceptable to Bruce Rauner (20+10=30) in May would seem an easier task than getting 16 IL Dem state senators to vote for a budget acceptable to Bruce Rauner in June or July.
On the other hand, Bruce Rauner will need essentially 100% loyalty from the IL GOP House caucus to prevent a 3/5th majority from passing a budget he opposes.
Once state government shuts down - following a failure to pass a budget - and June becomes July becomes August and the petition window opens in September for the March 2016 primary - the pressure on individual GOP state reps to flip will only grow.
It seems to me that Bruce Rauner is going “all in” while holding a hand that requires drawing to fill an inside straight.
Okay, what am I missing?
- Austin Blvd - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:36 pm:
How can anyone complain about voting for a budget the Governor proposed and the House Republican leader introduced?
By their “present” votes, the GOP is acknowledging it was a dishonest budget from the get-go.
This is not the way a governor should govern.
So much for all that high-paid advice he’s getting.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
– There is one very understandable policy out there. Elements of if it are negotiable, but the policy is firm.–
What is that?
Or is that just one of your random word jumbles, not really meaning anything?
- Ginhouse Tommy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:11 pm:
If you step back and look at this, it’s Rauner’s fault. He knew or should have known how MJM is. He not only violated the trust of the Speaker but also the legislators. He will not get a free hand on his agenda because almost nobody trusts this guy including the media and he hasn’t been in office for 6 months. At some point Rauner has to realize, I hope, that budget negotiations have to start in earnest and stop playing childish games.
- Kankakee Jimmy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:12 pm:
“In the end, despite all the early GOP screaming, they passed a pension bill and a concealed carry bill. And, as far as I can recall, none of those votes were used against the Republicans in the 2014 election.”
Rich, if I recall correctly, the state Dem outfit used GOP pension votes in the oppo mail of my representative, Kate Cloonen, against Republican candidate Glenn Nixon. I know some people in town who saved those mail pieces, but I’ll have to go back and check. There may have been 5-7 individual pieces, but the common theme was “Glenn Nixon and his allies want to take your pension” and often included images of Nixon driving off in a convertible with precious pension dollars flying out the back. Humorous and politically understandable, but shameful since the bill had reached a bipartisan consensus.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:27 pm:
==WS: So where’s the “not complicated” part?===
Sling, the budget will be complicated. What’s NOT complicated is that one party wants to see cuts and a process that weighs them first, before one cent of new revenue is proposed.
New revenue would get Willy’s 30+/60+ votes today. now. within minutes.
Cuts are the sticking point. And the commitment to look at spending different than ever before.
Budget: complicated
Philosophy of how this Governor will proceed: not complicated.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:29 pm:
=== Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
– There is one very understandable policy out there. Elements of if it are negotiable, but the policy is firm.–
What is that?===
Cuts first. New revenue second. Clear enough?
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:33 pm:
Guy, that is not what the governor’s office has been saying. Sorry to break it to you, but he has spokesmen.
It’s clear that you continue to make things up.
- Juice - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:39 pm:
Guy, when has the Republican party as a whole ever demonstrated that they actually want cuts? Most of them opposed pension reform. Many of them opposed making changes to retiree health care. They opposed closing state facilities to the point that a majority of them in the Senate actually voted to fund a DJJ facility that had no kids left in it. They were against rate reductions for Medicaid providers and instead supporting just punting on over $2 billion of Medicaid bills. Saying that they are for cuts is quite a different thing than actually being able to support cuts. And yesterday’s “stunt” was a fine demonstration of that.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:46 pm:
==New revenue would get Willy’s 30+/60+ votes today. now. within minutes. ==
No, it would not. If the Gov won’t sign it, the 30/60 won’t vote for it. Same reason why the Republican’s won’t vote for their leaders budget; if it won’t pass, why vote for it?
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
===Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:33 pm:
Guy, that is not what the governor’s office has been saying. Sorry to break it to you, but he has spokesmen.
It’s clear that you continue to make things up.===
Sorry dude. This is what I’m reading. Including here. I think you read your own comments so much, you begin to believe that’s the entire media coverage.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:52 pm:
===No, it would not. If the Gov won’t sign it, the 30/60 won’t vote for it. Same reason why the Republican’s won’t vote for their leaders budget; if it won’t pass, why vote for it?===
This!
Exactly right. The structured roll calls also have in their “agreement” that the Governor signs.
Otherwise, no structured roll call, no 23 Dems, no 30, no 60… nothing.
- Joe M - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:52 pm:
==the first round of House votes yesterday were on a bill with language taken directly from the governor’s own proposed budget on legislation sponsored by the House Republican Leader==
Who is doing political grandstanding? Since none of the Republicans voted for theirs and the Governor’s bill, does that mean that theirs and the Governor’s ideas have just been political grandstanding - and that they never meant to push through any of the ideas in those bills? They are the ones wasting everyone’s time with ideas they know will not pass the 60 - 30 test.
- Obamas Puppy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 1:59 pm:
Maybe the Rauner flaks statement should have read “we stand ready to work behind closed doors as long as you are sworn to secrecy and promise to not acknowledge the existence of the forum in which we are discussing the problems you have”
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:04 pm:
Guy, you are making stuff up about the governor’s position.
He and his office have said no discussion of new revenue unless his turnaround agenda is passed.
That’s very different from “cuts first, revenue second” as you claimed the guvs position to be.
- Arsenal - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
“What’s NOT complicated is that one party wants to see cuts and a process that weighs them first, before one cent of new revenue is proposed.”
But the Guv’s office is sitting down with the legislature negotiating new revenue.
To say nothing of the fact that bifurcating those two issues is an exceptionally stupid way to write a budget…
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:13 pm:
===Sorry dude. This is what I’m reading. Including here.===
Sorry dude. You’re full of yogurt.
“Illinois’ fiscal crisis has been years in the making because career politicians were more interested in sweetheart deals with Springfield insiders than helping the taxpayers they were supposed to be working for. The structural reform addressed in the governor’s Turnaround Agenda will help free up resources to tackle our $6 billion deficit. New revenue cannot be discussed until we address the underlying structural issues that have landed us here in the first place.”
To help with your reading comprehension, what ck is referring to is not “cuts first” as you suggest. She is saying his UTurn Agenda must pass before he’ll consider raising revenue.
For the Rauner folks, the cuts are already implied, they’ve already happened. Go back and re-read his February budget address. And make a copy for Sandack and Durkin too.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:24 pm:
A guy:
With all due respect (and as Rich said) you can’t do a budget without knowing what you have to spend. This idea of cuts first, revenues later is asinine. It’s a package deal. I’ve been doing this for 18 years and I can tell you that not one time have I figured out a budget by doing the spending first and figuring out the revenue later. Stick to PR because you haven’t a clue about budgeting.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:28 pm:
==“This is not the time for political stunts.”==
I couldn’t agree more. Your first order of business should be to take your own advice and end this ridiculous “Turnaround Agenda” resolution crap and get on with doing something constructive.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Demo, I’ve worked on plenty of budgets, large and small. There are different ways to do them. I’ll grant you government budgets can be more involved than other kinds. Whether its asinine or not, this one is predicated on removing waste and fraud. You would contend there’s less than the Governor thinks. Fine.
Still, no cut to any service or agency is done here unless it’s virtually forced. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a program going away because it succeeded and we don’t need it anymore. Government always finds a place for every dollar appropriated and beyond. If it’s there; spend it. Beware of the Grim Sweeper!
This ain’t easy and I respect your experience and service. When it gets down to brass tacks, things will move a little quicker because there’s a new set of ground rules. Not the same that got us into this mess.
It’s funny but true on the PR side; I can tell you it’s always seemed a lot harder to sell a good budget than a bad one. That’s one of the measurements I’ll be looking at in the next few weeks. A bad one will be easy to explain. A good one, won’t.
Hope you’re doing well friend.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
==this one is predicated on removing waste and fraud. You would contend there’s less than the Governor thinks. Fine==
I’ve never contended there isn’t any. In fact, if somebody asked me I could point out a few things (and have done so unsolicited). I would contend, though, that the people hanging on “waste, fraud and abuse” as being the savior to the budget problem are barking up the wrong tree.
==Still, no cut to any service or agency is done here unless it’s virtually forced. ==
I don’t think doing that requires an exclusive “cut first, revenue later” approach. We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
==A bad one will be easy to explain. A good one, won’t.==
I’ll be looking to see who’s ticked off. If it’s everyone then I think it’s been a good day.
==Hope you’re doing well friend.==
Other than being cranky because my July vacation plans are going to be screwed I’m good. Ditto to you.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 3:20 pm:
– this one is dedicated on removing waste and fraud.–
You show any cut that Rauner has proposed as governor that he or his peeps have identified as “waste or fraud.”
You cannot, because they have not.
You are in your own world.
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 3:36 pm:
Word, isn’t there a working group on revenue?
- steve schnorf - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 3:39 pm:
Cuts will end up being a number they back into by seeing how much new revenue they can agree on, which could be a lot or could be none, depending on the progress on structural reforms
- Juice - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 4:02 pm:
Steve, I think we are now referring to Vegas in the past tense.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 4:23 pm:
Steve, I don’t know.
The last public words I saw from Rauner and Durkin were no new revenue for FY16, and then, from Rauner’s peeps, no discussion of new revenues until his non-budget social agenda was passed.
- A guy - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 4:32 pm:
=== Wordslinger - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 4:23 pm:
Steve, I don’t know.===
Wow, a miracle. 3 words I didn’t think you could string together.
Except you do know there’s been a working group on revenue.
- Skeptical - Thursday, May 7, 15 @ 4:58 pm:
=Rauner spokesman Lance Trover called Wednesday’s maneuvering “political theater.”=
OMG! The Rauner camp accusing the Dems of political theater? Well, I guess we could give them a pass on that since they are more adept at Theater of the Absurd.
- walker - Friday, May 8, 15 @ 9:34 am:
Steve: I get what you’re saying, but you know better than anyone, that even best case, Rauner’s proposed “structural reforms” will have minimal actual fiscal impact on 2016. Some might impact fiscal 2017 a bit.
RTW? Term Limits? Pension Restructure? Remapping Reform? Even with Rauner’s best case scenarios, (which are a stretch), they’d be lucky to produce significant fiscal benefits by 2020.
So it is a negotiation involving 2016 fiscal health, versus potential long-term structural benefits.