79 Comments - Juice - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:22 am: As a general principle I think it is ok to mix in some side deals. I just think the Governor made a miscalculation that he was going to have the upper hand with the mix of his list of demands and holding the budget hostage. Come July 15, the budget is much more of an executive problem than a legislative problem. - Any Mouse - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:23 am: You can’t separate where the money goes from policy. Where the money goes IS the policy. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:24 am: Voted “It’s Ok…” “Why?” If they are side deals not demands of one side, a “must” that coukd stall the whole process, absolutely think side deals are more than ok. What Rauner is doing, however, is requiring the “musts” befure even putting a reciprocal “give and take” to move the whole process forward. That’s negotiating. Rauner is holding hostage. Big difference. The QOTD, as described, it’s an easy “It’s ok…” Rauner just isn’t approaching it that way. - 1776 - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:25 am: Why do you think that Speakers and Senate Presidents have always kept the major issues on the table until the end of session? This is standard operating procedure. - Kevin Highland - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:26 am: Separately, but I’m sure that is a naive notion on my part. For the Leadership and Gov. it seems to be all about what you can do for “me”. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:26 am: Separately. Budgets are must-haves, everything else are wanna-haves. - The Deal Maker? - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:26 am: It seems to me that in our state, when there is a D majority in both houses and when you get an R gov, if they negotiate everything separately and the budget is first what is the incentive for the D to negotiate the other issues that the gov wants? Isn’t that the are doing all together is for bargaining power? Why would he give it up? - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:29 am: Reminds me of the Murphy’s law twist on the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. But seriously, budget time is when the most leverage is available, and both sides of an issue will use it judiciously to sweeten the deal for their interests. There is a limit to what’s practical though, and if you put too many ornaments on the tree, it all comes toppling down, with ornaments, pine needles, broken branches, and pretty lights all sitting in a jumbled up mess on the floor. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:29 am: It has to be OK in Illinois because of historical tendencies that go back a lot longer than the last several Governors. I agree with a comment above that cites the fact that Policy drives budgets. It’s not just OK here. It’s vital. For all sides. - walker - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:30 am: “should be”? In what world? My OK vote, is simply an acceptance that side deals have and will always be part of state budget negotiations. My criticism is reserved for those who falsely claim these are not side deals, but actually impact the numbers in the budget. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:32 am: ===Budgets are must-haves== History suggests otherwise here. In principle, you’re correct. In practice, the history of our legislature mocks that principle. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:32 am: I think keeping them separate is not possible. Budgets affect policies and vice versus. - Anon - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:33 am: It’s the only leverage the governor has and it would make no sense to give that up. - Anon. - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:34 am: It would definitely be ok, even if you could separate “budge matters” from “other policy issues”. Since you can’t, “side deals” are inevitably part of the process. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:34 am: Kinda lose that transparent thing with side deals - Chicago Hack - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:34 am: It’s OK but you need to have all sides understand and abide by the rules of the game. I think side deals can too easily sabotage any attempt at above-board budget negotiations. - OneMan - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:34 am: It’s ok… It seems to me the budget is leverage that can be used to get some other stuff done, why not use the leverage you have… Good luck getting folks to turn off the Rauner hate btw… - NIU Grad - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:34 am: A budget is not only a funding source, but a governing document which sets the priorities for the year. If you don’t set an agenda around a budget, it won’t be taken seriously. - Very Fed Up - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: Madigan is trying to make this about everything but what its about. He and fellow legislatures will stop at nothing to prevent voters from voting on term limits which is one of the items Rauner is tying the budget to. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: Whether it’s “shaking up Springfield” will be subject to future debate. One thing is absolutely clear now; it ain’t business as usual. - JS Mill - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: I said both are OK. What I have learned through collective bargaining is that everything costs money or saves money. Language=money some way some how. - archimedes - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: I can think of many times in negotiations on a union contract when one side or the other will talk about separating “financial issues” from other contract topics. Sometimes that is OK, but plenty of times you wanted to get credit in the financial settlement for a give in work rules or something. So I said it is OK to mix in side demands. But - you can never forget that you are negotiating. The minute one side draws a line in the sand the process breaks down. If you are there to win a concession, you are no longer negotiating - you are struggling for power and competing for top dog. You can’t forget that you have to live with everyone after the negotiations are complete and the new contract is in place. - PJ - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: I voted ’separately’ because, although I’d normally say mixing the two is perfectly fine, I can see that Rauner’s side demands are going to further complicate and extend what was already a very contentious budget process. - Deep South - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:36 am: Everyone in Illinois knows the budget is out of whack and I think to most people, these particular side issues are just noise. Get the budget done…let both sides somehow claim victory…and then move on to the other stuff. - D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:37 am: budget is budget is budget. Side deals only muddy the water unless, as in general negotiating strategy, they don’t cost the other party anything and are easy to give. But Brucie’s list are not side deals and shouldn’t be considered as such. - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:37 am: What Rauner wants isn’t just a side deal. It’s a complete change in how the state functions and how working people will be affected. No, this should be separated from the budget. Rauner needs to come up with numbers that make sense instead of trying to change the subject to his political agenda. - Carhartt Representative - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:39 am: I have no problem with occasional side deals. They’re like a spice on the stew that is the budget. That’s not what Rauner is doing. Holding the budget hostage over non-budget matters is wrong. - AJ_yooper - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:40 am: I voted OK to mix it up. When we negotiated union contracts, we often tried to keep all of the balls in the air (language and money issues) until we had a good meeting of the minds. When we got movement, we disposed of items quickly. If you save the big issues until all the smaller ones are done, there is no reason to give on anything and the crafty opponent got you. - Stones - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:42 am: In a perfect world the budget should be negotiated separately. Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:44 am: Voted “It’s ok…” Side demands/deals generally mean people on all sides can “win” something, for the greater good of getting a budget passed. In this particular instance, what Rauner is asking for right now (term limits, workers’ comp reform, redistricting, and unconstitutional pension reform) is unreasonable. But it isn’t totally unreasonable for Gov. Rauner to win at least one of his four planks (but not pension reform) in order to agree to a tax hike. - illinoised - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:45 am: Separately because “my way or the highway” is not a side deal, it is an edict. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:47 am: ===“my way or the highway” is not a side deal, it is an edict. === lol Some of y’all are either naive or ignorant or disingenuous. You really think that MJM hasn’t made side demands on budget deals? - Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:55 am: Guy, that’s quite a debate you’re having with yourself. On the one hand you cite historical precedent and how “vital” it is to mix up budget and policy matters, on the other hand you state Rauner’s doing so “ain’t business as usual.” You can drop your tranny switching gears like that. - Not quite a majority - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:56 am: Part of the reason we’re in the sad shape we are is that the budget has always had ’side deals’ that weren’t the budget. The way to ’shake things up in Springfield’ is to do the budget THEN talk about the issues stuff, not combine the two. But the politics has always been to hold the budget hostage to get the issues — gee, just like now. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:58 am: It’s all part of politics. Trading “apples and oranges” shouldn’t be a problem. - Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:05 pm: I voted OK. Politics is about negotiating and making deals, and pols are going to use whatever leverage they have in their favor. That’s reality. If Governor Rauner doesn’t act the way previous governors (seasoned politicians) did, that may complicate the process, but I’m sure Madigan will be happy to educate him. - Langhorne - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:06 pm: Its ok to connect the two, as long as getting a workable budget is paramount. W rauner, his agenda is paramount. Since that is totally unacceptable to the majority, its a guarantee of damaging gridlock. - Anon - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:15 pm: It’s OK because it’s impossible to create firewalls around the budget. There are all sorts of policy-related decisions that could impact the state’s economy that impacts the state’s revenue that impacts the state budget. In addition, legislators are going to have an “ask” for their vote for the budget. I wonder if Madigan is following his own advice regarding those non-budget issues? - Juvenal - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:16 pm: It seems this year that the budget didn’t need additional complications. - Earnest - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:16 pm: I voted OK. A budget has time pressures and lots of room for give and take on both the budget and other issues. If you leave your priorities out of the process they may never come back up on the radar. - late to the party - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:19 pm: I votes separately. I am no fan of this governor, but if he is saying that businesses and the rich are willing to agree to revenue (pay more in taxes) if the GA lowers the ‘cost’ of doing business in Illinois (workers comp reform, rtw), I don’t think they are unrelated. I disagree that those reforms will help, but again, not unrelated to a budget The term limits are completely unrelated and they have another year to hash that out. - vole - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:21 pm: Separate. Budgeting itself is a difficult negotiation over conflicting values. It should not be made any more difficult by an autocrat holding his Contract for Illinois over the heads of legislators as a weapon of extortion. Governors often decry the antics of congressmen. Some, however, have taken them as lesson plans. Rauner could have done better than taking Boehner and McConnell as role models. Doesn’t work in D.C. Won’t work here. - Harry - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:22 pm: It’s OK. Separating it from the current particulars as Rich said, I can’t think of a reason why not. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:24 pm: I voted that it’s OK to mix in side deals. Negotiating the budget is like negotiating for a new job. You haggle back and forth over salary and benefit demands, and at some point, each side hits its limit. Sometimes that forces one side to walk away, other times, including some side deal like a better job title, a nicer office, a week of extra vacation, is all that’s needed to seal the deal. Now in the old days, it wasn’t uncommon for one leader or another to ask a governor to hires some friends of the leader for administration jobs and the like. Heck, even rank and file members negotiate little stuff like that. It happened in Springfield and City Hall. Bottom line: nobody in politics negotiates in a vacuum. Everything is always on the table. Ground rules help, but even they are negotiable. - Anonin' - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:25 pm: Capt Fax what most don’t realize is there are zillions of “side deals”/adjustment/ rearrangements, etc. in every budget, every year. Word is GUMBY had the Ds bills on Friday and they made changes….let’s not get too overwrought In the past GUMBY staffers took care of their local churches/ causes, etc. Flick a decimal point here and there and a lot of magic occurs. same goes for the minority caucus staffs Keep than in mind as you listen whine about not being consulted..blah blah blah. - The Muse - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:29 pm: Voted that budgets should be negotiated on their own without any side deals. Arguing about which agencies and programs need funding is a task on its own and should be kept separate from divying up our revenue resources… Key word was “should” but let’s be real, using the threat of more or less revenue for certain pet programs in a legislator’s district is a nice sweetener to get them to vote yay or nay on an issue you care about. - Mama - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:31 pm: ++ - Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:26 am: Separately. Budgets are must-haves, everything else are wanna-haves.++ I voted separately for the same reasons as stated above. - anonlurker - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 12:36 pm: Voted separate. Terribly hard to wipe current events out of mind. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:04 pm: I voted separately. I have “non-budget” wish list reform items also but don’t think the budget should be held hostage because of them. We will do the state a great good if we first put it on more solid financial ground. - relocated - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:13 pm: Horse trading is tje essence of the legislative process. Sometimes you have to give to get. The problem we have here is the Governor thinks he holds more cards than he actually does. - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:20 pm: Mix is OK. Would I like everything to be negotiated in good faith on its merits? Of course. But this is Illinois. That’s NEVER going to happen. If the only real negotiating card the Governor or a leader has is the budget, then that’s part of the game. An no one understands the game better than Mr. Madigan. Spare me the whining. - Austin Blvd - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:25 pm: I voted Yes, but it is bad manners to try to leverage you position by refusing to offer a balanced budget and not offering language on your bills until the last week. Radogno is incorrect when she says ideas and discussion turn into bills. Rather, bills are introduced and amendments are made based on negotiations. Rauner is using bad manners to leverage his position. I’m sure the $34 million will not be used to explain those little nuances those in Sfld see. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:41 pm: Voted separate. But have to admit that I never thought about it before. Trying to keep Rauner out of the decision is impossible on this question, because of his actions. In prior years, side deals weren’t any big issue; this year, they are. - Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:46 pm: Well… it depends. If the governor wants to hold up the budget because he wants to cut some things, rearrange programs, reform programs it is perfectly acceptable. But, if the gov ain’t gonna sign a budget because Illinois ain’t a “right-to-work” state, that’s just foolishness and should be separate from budget talks. - Shemp - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:49 pm: OK. Policy drives price. Budget funds policy. - HL - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 1:59 pm: I would go even further on the separation of the budget from other issues. The Legislature should be forced at both the state and federal level to first enact a budget before any other legislative action is taken unless it is an emergency. The legislature has been here since January. The fiscal year ends June 30th. Why must action wait until the final hours only to be rushed through in a secretive up or down manner? And then when people actually read the damn thing they will discover they have been duped. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:07 pm: === Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:55 am: Guy, that’s quite a debate you’re having with yourself. On the one hand you cite historical precedent and how “vital” it is to mix up budget and policy matters, on the other hand you state Rauner’s doing so “ain’t business as usual.” You can drop your tranny switching gears like that.=== Different thoughts on different things. Try to keep up man. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:10 pm: What’s different this time Sling is that the Speaker isn’t holding all the cards and all the chips. Rauner is right when he says “he’s never had to deal with anyone like him”. He hasn’t. - zonz - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:14 pm: I see no problem with side deals, but big problem with brinksmanship over side deals. There is a big difference between bridging gaps with compromises and lumping them into resolution of the budget vs trying to broker big structural change by sidedeals. To me there is NO DOUBT a work-comp compromise could be a viable side deal with resolution of the FY16 BUDGET. …Not sure given the trend though. …Best chance is as a facesaving “get” for Rauner. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:17 pm: Ok. It’s been done, will be done. It’s just most of this guy’s agenda shouldn’t be done. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:19 pm: Guy, when has any speaker held all the cards? (I don’t understand the “hold all the chips” metaphor.). How would that be possible in a representative democracy? I seem to remember some long contentious sessions with Thompson and Edgar. Don’t let your man-crush get in the way of reality or an appreciation of history. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:34 pm: Gee Slinger, you’re really twisted up in the game here. All the Cards= Super majority All the Chips= The money The first is a bit tenuous (just a bit). The second is not his advantage anymore. Those long, contentious sessions with Thompson and Edgar were the start of what “ails us” today, aren’t they? Or did I misunderstand you in past wordscripture? Man-crush? Yeah, that’s it. - Sir Reel - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:35 pm: Separate It’s hard enough to pass a budget. Why make it harder? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:35 pm: OK, let’s move along, boys. Thanks. - Enviro - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:36 pm: Side deals designed to help raise the living standard of the middle class would be something to consider. But side deals that are meant to destroy unions and cause a race to the bottom for the people of Illinois are not worthy of being negotiated. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:42 pm: Guy, I’m really not following your wanderings. Maybe you could focus and fill us in on your first-hand knowledge and experience as to why Rauner is “right” when he says that others “never had to deal with anyone like him.” From your dealings with Rauner and other governors, what makes him so different? - dupage dan - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:42 pm: === Now, I want you to put your Rauner hate and your Madigan hate out of your collective minds and forget about this year’s fight for just one moment === === Rauner is holding hostage. Big difference === OW - your raunerhate is showing. To the post - Separately. Budgets are must-haves, everything else are wanna-haves (wordslinger) - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 2:56 pm: I voted “It’s OK to mix in side demands,” but I think those side demands have to be somewhat germane to the budget issue at hand. For example, if Congress were to cut a deal to extend a certain weapons program, but have a side deal to put in place new weapons procurement rules that apply to the future, I see that as an okay side deal. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:06 pm: Honestly i think they should go together. They are tied together anyway. Almist everything has a budget impact, it woukd be niave and short sighted to negotiate a budget seperate from side deals; those side deals impact the budget anyway - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:22 pm: The budget is for this year, right now. Rauner’s ideals won’t take effect for a couple of years at least, if they pass muster through the legal process. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:26 pm: ===From your dealings with Rauner and other governors, what makes him so different?=== At the risk of not moving along as directed by our host…First, it’s not others, it’s MJM who the Gov. directly stated has not had to deal with someone like him. No one else matters nearly as much. He has resources to sell his message directly to the voters over the heads of the GA. And he’s doing it. He wants them to feel the pressure from the only people who can truly affect a change; voters. The Speaker held the money club over their heads for decades. Now there’s an alternative for some and greater incentive for others. I don’t recall another Governor having that option available. Do you? - Sunshine - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:28 pm: Side deals are always in play, much like pork. It’s part of politics and may be distasteful, but necessary. - A guy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:30 pm: Sunshine, the problem is; the pork is the tasty part. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 3:38 pm: - dupage dan -, In the context of my post, it was a point of clarification. - DuPage - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 4:42 pm: After Rauner kind of double-crossed Madigan on the temporary budget fix, I would be surprised if Madigan will trust Rauner at all. A deal is only as good as the integrity of the people making the deal. - me too - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 6:28 pm: Since the dems need some major coin to compete, why don’t we throw the contract terms into the negotiations as well? See, it isn’t cool when the other side does it, is it? Playing chicken with the State’s finances for your own gain, isn’t cool at all. See the income tax rate, the easiest fix. - Ultimata - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 7:46 pm: Keep in mind that the state courts have already ruled that the legislature can’t mix unrelated things into the same bill. That means the budget bill and very aspects of Rauner’s business agenda have to be voted on separately. As we have already seen, Rauner’s agenda is very unpopular in the state legislature — two of his demands received zero votes when they were presented as bills in the state house — even members of his own political party weren’t brave enough to support him. Rauner is demanding two things here: 1) that the state legislature pass a balanced budget with Draconian cutbacks, especially in social services, and 2) that the state legislature pass all aspects of his pro-business agenda. Only then, would he consider a tax increase, and even then it would probably be a very regressive tax increase and quite small in size. And so, there doesn’t seem to be much to negotiate here. - Ugly Rumours - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 10:38 pm: In some places, it’s against the rules or illegal to attach non-budget items to a budget bill. I thought Illinois was one of them but I must be wrong. Bring on the millionaire tax. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 26, 15 @ 11:05 pm: Ugly Rumours, you’re taking this too literal. The side deal wouldn’t be attached to the budget bill - substantive language can’t be attached to budget bills. What we talking about is quid pro quo, the substantive for the budget. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.