* Joliet Herald-News…
The Democrats’ $36.3 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins in July avoids about $5 billion in cuts Gov. Bruce Rauner has proposed. Madigan said the Legislature is committed to “work with the governor” to raise the funds needed to protect vulnerable residents.
Here’s the problem: Illinois residents aren’t interested in Democrats working with the Republican governor on ways to raise funds, which is a nicer way of saying, “Raise taxes.” […]
If Illinois residents wanted more of the same, they would have voted for Pat Quinn in November. They didn’t. They voted for Rauner, who promised smaller government and to run the state like a business.
We can’t trust lawmakers with more money. Last time we gave lawmakers more money after a shady, lame-duck vote to raise taxes, they didn’t use the money the way they promised.
Illinois needs to examine spending, not look at ways to find more money so it can spend more money.
OK, first of all, that $5 billion appears to include Rauner’s phony $2.2 billion in savings from shorting the pension funds. Most of the rest can’t be done without significant change to state statutes, like the nearly $800 million he would save by taking health insurance out of the collective bargaining process.
* Secondly, and more importantly, the governor has repeatedly said that he is quite willing to raise taxes if he gets his Turnaround Agenda passed. He offered a one-point income tax increase, which would yield $3.5 billion and take us up to 4.75 percent.
He’s also repeatedly floated the idea of a service tax, which would likely be used to fund a capital bill. The satellite TV tax is also apparently in the mix for that same purpose.
So, all the editorial boards cheering the governor for opposing a tax hike might want to keep in mind that he’s not actually with their program.
He also is saying that he doesn’t want to cut the budget…
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner told the leadership at the Hardin County Work Camp to prepare for imminent closure despite the fact that the prisoners provide food to local food banks, and cheap labor to local communities. […[
“I don’t want to cut,” Rauner said. “I don’t want to close facilities. I don’t want to do that at all. Madigan and Cullerton have caused this by their financial mismanagement and we’re going to fix it.”
* And thirdly, the governor’s original budget was pretty darned ham-handed, as Zorn explained recently…
Yes, he released a budget document in February. It contained controversial and, to some, alarming cuts to mass transit, higher education, local governments, human service and Medicaid as part of his effort to make up a roughly $6 billion anticipated shortfall in the fiscal year that begins July 1.
Zorn continued…
It’s hard enough when one side isn’t bringing to the table a tangential set of supposedly non-negotiable demands.
I won’t pretend here to catch the vapors over the very idea of a politician using leverage in one area to extract policy concessions in another, but really? Is Gov. Rauner really planning to hold our state’s most vulnerable citizens hostage until he’s able to check a few items off his broader agenda? Does he really think he has a popular mandate to try to impose dramatic cuts in programs and services if he doesn’t get his way on workers’ comp and property taxes?
Maybe so. But before you fit him for his white hat, you ought to find out what those cuts will look like. Or, since he’s unlikely to say, you ought to at least try to imagine.
* And speaking of white hats, Michael Miner penned a really funny take on the Tribune’s love for the governor…
Do you remember your first serious crush? You couldn’t think straight, and your tongue got so thick you could hardly get a sentence out without coughing and clearing your throat. It’s sort of the way the Tribune has sounded since it swooned over Bruce Rauner.
Heh.
More…
And if you’re not blushing and gasping in the throes of adolescent ardor, you’re blurting out besotted hyperboles.
“Mostly they want to scare you, then break you,” said the lovestruck editorial page on May 29, speaking directly to the governor. “You don’t seem fazed . . . . You come across as a patient man. . . . You also come across as a focused man. A governor who won’t flinch . . . . The crony-coddlers in Springfield—and their loyalists who live off state spending—finally have met someone they don’t frighten . . . . You, Governor, are free to keep calm and stand pat. How liberating to answer only to the voters who sent you.”
It was an editorial that might have ended, “Take me.”
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:10 am:
==they didn’t use the money the way they promised==
They only used it to help make the full pension payments. The horror. And now look where we are now that the tax increase expired.
==Illinois needs to examine spending, not look at ways to find more money so it can spend more money.==
Ok editorial writers. You figure out how to cut $6 billion. As soon as you do publish that list and then I’ll take your opinion seriously.
- pundent - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:12 am:
“Illinois needs to examine spending, not look at ways to find more money so it can spend more money.” This is the equivalent of a drive-by comment. If the Herald-News wants to add something to the discussion maybe they can offer up exactly what spending should be cut and how to square it with the constitutional and statutorily mandated spending requirements?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:18 am:
The Tribune Rauner romance is so endearing. How dare Zorn bring some reality into this fairy tale love. The Tribbies even offered up some sacrificial editorial staffers as homage to the Rauner recipe for prosperity. Maybe WGN can put together a made for TV movie documenting this heartfelt affair.
- walker - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:19 am:
Frustrating when the editorial boards like the Peoria JT support their opinions, which is their role and right, with false factual statements.
How can we expect the voters to be well informed when even editorial boards can’t get the facts straight?
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:23 am:
That Joliet edit is messed up. How can you get so much wrong and still print it?
I think it’s becoming clearer by the day that editorial board members in Illinois don’t read anything — and there certainly isnt any “editing” going on.
- In a Minute - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:23 am:
Rauner wants to change a system of state government that does a horrible job of most everything it tries to do including housing and rehabilitating convicts, and providing compassionate care for the developmentally disabled and neglected children, etc…The only thing state government appears competant at is ensuring that state workers get the compensation and benefits they want and that state retirees get benefits that will leave the pension funds insolvent in the not too distant future.
Madigan doesn’t want to change anything except impose some more taxes.
I think in the eyes of many people Rauner is wearing the white hat right now.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:24 am:
36 billion, cut 20% across the board, net 7.2 Billion. Next question. Could have elected Brady 4 years earlier and cut 10% but we didn’t suck it up.
There was never a point where Madigan was going to put a balanced budget on Rauner’s desk. He is not capable of doing it. The difference is Rod did not care as long as Rod made money. Quinn in the end thought he could trust Madigan or out move him. Rauner knows Madigan has stacked the deck, the players, and the rules and elected not to play in a rigged game.
I don’t want schools cut, I want a capital plan, I want funding for troubled kids and state facilities. But spending 10% more than you bring in perpetually will lead to insolvency.
I would hate to be the banker who loaned you people money for a house who believe you can perpetually spend 10-15% more than you make.
- walker - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:25 am:
Meant to say Joliet H-N above. sorry
- Juice - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:26 am:
Dear editorial writers, please answer the following.
Do you support taking a $2.2 billion pension holiday?
Do you support shorting group health bills by $800 million, increasing the State’s backlog of bills by that much?
Do you support cutting Medicaid by $1.5 billion, primarily by reducing payments to health care providers, not by reducing services or tightening up eligibility (although there is a little bit of that too)
Do you support cutting state support for public universities by $400 million?
Do you support cutting state revenue sharing with local governments by $600 million?
Do you support cutting state support for public transportation, including Metra, by over $100 million?
If you cannot unequivocally answer yes to every single question above, then please think before you write. (And that’s without even getting into the DHS bloodbath) Take care, and thank you for your consideration.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:28 am:
Yeah, there are “issues” being explored in those Tribbie edits, but they really don’t have anything to do with state government.
You can almost hear that heavy bass line when you read them.
- Truthteller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:28 am:
Rich is right. Rauner has said he doesn’t want to make big cuts in important programs and he’s willing to raise revenue. Dems say the same thing. Difference is Rauner wants to make it more difficult for injured workers to receive compensation and wants property taxes frozen, something local electedS can do now if they want.
It’s incumbent on Rauner to explain why these issues should be linked to the budget. Would the state be in a better position fiscally if Rauner got his way?
That’s a hard argument to make
- Anotherretiree - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:33 am:
They need to get a room and spare the rest of us…Curious how much of the 800 million in health care savings is from non Medicare retirees ?
- Carhartt Representative - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:35 am:
The problem is we want service like a state in the Northeast while taxing our wealthy like a state in the South and our poor like a state in the Rust Belt.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:36 am:
In a Minute…Governor Rauner said that the Illinois Supreme Court made a correct decision, and that anything he proposes will keep all the rights of the state retirees intact. This is not a change, and will require additional tax money from somewhere.
Both parties tried to alter the pension plans of the currently working, and have both been unsuccessful so far…I want to see how the Governor’s plan, if enacted and even with a constitutional amendment to implement it, would get the state off the hook for some of its unfunded liability. I am guessing it will chop off maybe 10-20% when all is said and done, which is not insignificant but will leave most of it needing to be refinanced with a different payment schedule and an income tax increase to fund it.
- pundent - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:39 am:
==Rauner wants to change a system of state government that does a horrible job of most everything it tries to do including housing and rehabilitating convicts, and providing compassionate care for the developmentally disabled and neglected children, etc.==
Nowhere has this every been stated as part of the turnaround agenda.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:39 am:
==36 billion, cut 20% across the board, net 7.2 Billion. Next question. ==
That’s a lazy way to cut a budget. And anybody that thinks you can cut that much money is full of it.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:40 am:
==- the Patriot - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:24 am:==
How do you cut 10 to 20 percent “across the board” and avoid violating collective bargaining contracts?
- Smitty Irving - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:43 am:
The editorial board of the Joliet Herald-News must be the farm team for the Tribune’s editorial board. The bigger the whopper, the faster the promotion to the bigs comes.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:44 am:
=== Next question.===
OK, what about judicial decrees (DCFS, IDOC, etc.), federal Medicaid mandates, constitutional requirements on bond payments, statutory requirements on pension payments?
Simple solutions are usually neither.
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:45 am:
It becomes clearer by the day that there are simply two completely different schools of thought on these matters.
The “scare” stuff, however melodramatic it sounds is patently true. Always has been.
Speaking for myself here (homage to Sling), I view my compact with this governor as this:
He improves the economy and practices over the long haul with important and key structural reforms. In return, I will accept a tax increase deemed reasonable enough to pay our bills.
Our agreement is that any more money that comes out of my family budget will not be wasted. I will just be one of millions of people making sacrifices for the common good.
- Juice - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:47 am:
In a minute, I agree the state does a terrible job of rehabilitating convicts, but how is slashing funding for mental health and slashing funding for substance abuse going to improve that system? The Governor has talked a good game, but 40% of people who receive substance abuse treatment from DHS are referred there by the criminal justice system, so cutting that programming is likely going to place more people in DOC custody, not fewer.
And on DD, you are also correct that the State does a poor job on that front, but eliminating respite services and additional supports for parents whose children are in community based settings while vowing to keep SODCs open is not going to provide better outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities, but is just going to continue our long sordid history of warehousing individuals who should be receiving care elsewhere.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:49 am:
==Rauner wants to change a system of state government that does a horrible job of most everything it tries to do including housing and rehabilitating convicts, and providing compassionate care for the developmentally disabled and neglected children, etc==
Not really; in fact, Governor Rauner’s public statements indicate that he is happy to perpetuate such a government and even raise taxes to pay for it, so long Madigan and Cullerton are brought low. Same as it ever was.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:58 am:
Guy, I don’t think “schools” and “thought” mean what you think they do. They’re not about just repeating meaningless buzz words like a parrot,
Could you give us an example of a governor who “improved the economy.” Do you really think that’s how the world works?
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:06 pm:
If Illinois voters truly wanted everything that Rauner said he wanted to do during the campaign (and a lot of things that Rauner never admitted he wanted to do), why did they elect so many Democrats to the legislature?
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm:
Rauner has said he is willing to raise taxes many times.
But the income tax increase, and deciding whether to extend it or not, played major roles in the 2010 and 2014 campaigns.
- Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:13 pm:
@Aldyth
=If Illinois voters truly wanted everything that Rauner said he wanted to do during the campaign (and a lot of things that Rauner never admitted he wanted to do), why did they elect so many Democrats to the legislature?=
1)Lousy candidate recruitment by the GOP,
2)unfair and poor candidate funding decisions by the HGOP and SGOP.
3) Lack of patronage and public employee base in the GOP to put boots on the ground.
It had little to do with a no tax increase policy for most GOP candidates.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:26 pm:
==- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 11:45 am:==
When did this “compact” arise?
- econ prof - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:27 pm:
He’s saying he “doesn’t want to cut the budget”, but he’s being forced to if we’re going to balance the budget.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:37 pm:
===but he’s being forced to if we’re going to balance the budget. ===
He didn’t go that far.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 12:57 pm:
Why is it that the same people who believe voters want what they want, but don’t want to pay for it - also the same people who believe that simple budget cuts will work?
It is like reading an argument between Chicago Cub fans and the Winnipeg Jets fans arguing over which team is better at basketball.
Pick your myth people - pick your party!
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:06 pm:
VM, I’ll have to go with the Winnepeg Jets on that one. It’s a genetic choice.
- SaxMan - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:08 pm:
Be glad you live in Illinois. New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Christie can skip pension payments. Rauner’s dream decision.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:12 pm:
New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Christie can skip pension payments.
That’s what Illinois did, without Supreme Court approval - for years and years.
IF New Jersey can figure out how to repay those funds before they are needed, THEN they won’t be in the same hole as we are today.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:28 pm:
A lousy candidate, not enough money, and not enough boots on the ground could just as easily explain why Pat Quinn lost.
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:37 pm:
And 12 crumby years…
- Emanuel Can't - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
More democrats in the legislature because they drew the map. Vote totals for all legislative races were 51-49…slight edge to Democrats. Pretty simple to see why the Dems oppose a non partisan legislative remap process.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:38 pm:
First, I agree with you guys, and the comment was snark. The point was Madigan can’t balance the budget so let’s not pretend there was an opportunity for Rauner to come to the table and negotiate. No white hats is spot on. Neither of these guys was going to come to the table in good faith.
Rich, our constitution has a balanced budget requirement. We have violated it for multiple years now. Madigan’s budget violates it now. So while asking about legal requirements is fair game for a journalist, the journalist should have called the government out for violating the Constitution. The BUDGET IS ILLEGAL!
Our government has decided which laws it wants to follow and which laws it can ignore to the detriment of the people. This is very dangerous. I see it every day. So the judicial decrees are meaningless if you are willing to violate the law. The very premise of the Madigan fiscal policy is that we do not have to follow the law. When your fiscal policy is the law does not apply, you can’t claim it does.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:41 pm:
===The BUDGET IS ILLEGAL!===
Yep. No argument. However, they did this before with George Ryan and let him make the cuts. It worked.
It’s a blatant violation of the constitution, but it’s not like they murdered somebody. No caps needed.
lol
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:55 pm:
==And 12 crumby years…==
Well, a “bad track record” goes into “lousy candidate”. And GA Republicans have been pretty useless for 12 years, too.
- Juice - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:56 pm:
Rich, I have to disagree. The constitution requires the Governor to introduce a balanced budget by saying “Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available…” For the GA, the constitution requires only that passed appropriations are less than estimated revenues. This leaves out nearly $4.5 billion of expenditures that are not appropriated from the general funds (debt service and transfers out). Not trying to defend passing an a completely out of whack budget, but for some reason the constitutional framers decided to use different words to describe each branch’s responsibility, so I would argue while terrible policy, they are strictly within their constitutional obligation.
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 1:59 pm:
Emanuel Can’t
And the total Congressional 2014 votes for House / Senate were GOP 51.2 / 51.7 Democratic 45.5 / 43.8. Which tells me the Illinois numbers are more than just the map.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 2:03 pm:
Agreed.
The question is if an when the budget gets to his desk will he do it. Madigan can’t force the Governor to spend money. The legislature funded Tamms, the Quinn closed it anyway. The Governor in our system gets the pen last because he has to actually spend most of the money. You can’t make him.
My real solution. 1% sales tax increase and or income tax increase to get out of red and pay pensions. (I would add 40 whacks with a cane for any elected official who votes to increase spending rather then pay the backlog).
Phase out pensions into 401k plans. Most businesses have figured out it is the only sustainable way. The first decade stinks, but this ain’t a party right now.
Rauner can save billions with reorganization. I deal with on very small aspect of the state and I could save them 15-20 million a year easy and provide better benefits because of the insane idiocy and inefficiency that goes on. The problem is this is a 35 billion dollar per year ship, you can’t turn a ship this big in one year.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
VM, the ISC also approved it, at least by omission, many years ago
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
===GA Republicans have been pretty useless for 12 years, too.===
No argument there brother.
- Pelonski - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 3:34 pm:
“Rauner can save billions with reorganization. I deal with on very small aspect of the state and I could save them 15-20 million a year easy and provide better benefits because of the insane idiocy and inefficiency that goes on.”
I’m not sure about “billions”, but I definitely agree that there are tens to hundreds of millions in annual savings or increased revenues available through greater work efficiencies. The problem is that Rauner has yet to institute a plan to start addressing those inefficiencies other than to take away union rights. That won’t address the major problems and in many ways could make things worse.
- Federalist - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 4:55 pm:
. Most of the rest can’t be done without significant change to state statutes, like the nearly $800 million he would save by taking health insurance out of the collective bargaining process.
Another cheap shot saying the budget mess is really a problem of state employees and only by targeting that group can the state be saved.
Typical trash!
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 6:20 pm:
== That’s what Illinois did, without Supreme Court approval - for years and years. ==
- VanillaMan -, actually the GA had approval of sorts from the IL SC. See IFT v Lindberg 1975
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 6:23 pm:
Adding … NJ is in the same pension funding mess as Illinois for some of the same reasons
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 9, 15 @ 6:33 pm:
FWIW, it was pointed out yesterday that Illinois’ current funding level of its pension liability is roughly the same as it was when the state Constitution was adopted 45 years ago.
Any late or missed checks during that time?
Any ups and downs in the world, nation, state, totally unrelated to pension liability?
Geez, this Death Spiral is taking forever!