I’ve lost count of the number of legislative overtime sessions I’ve covered since I started writing in 1990. I think it’s eight, but I’m not sure.
What I do know is that every time there has been any impasse between the governor and the Illinois General Assembly, somebody somewhere always screams: “Lock them in a room and don’t let them out until they make a deal!”
Despite the obvious fact that doing such a thing would be a serious felony, I’ve watched countless politicians, columnists and plenty of other people who ought to know better advocate kidnapping government officials as an actual legislative solution.
One Chicago Tribune pundit even went so far as to suggest that House Speaker Michael Madigan be blindfolded and ushered into the governor’s office. Maybe it was a metaphor.
Look, I don’t blame people for being angry at their state government after months of impasse. I truly understand the rage at the people we elected to run our government who refuse even to talk to each other.
My first overtime session was in 1991 and it lasted about two weeks. I was completely miserable the whole time because I had never endured anything like that before.
But that overtime session was relatively brief (no matter how endless it felt), so nobody who relied on the government was affected that much. The same went for the following overtimes, when the basics often were taken care of with temporary, one-off budgets.
This time, though, real people are being hurt, including those who are least able to fend for themselves.
About a third of the state-funded providers of services for the homeless have shut down, according to the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. At the same time, most of the other nonprofit organizations are experiencing increased demand for services. There are dozens more problems just like that one. It’s only going to get worse.
So, yeah, I get the anger, particularly since the two sides really aren’t that far apart on the budget. When they finally get around to it, they could wrap it up in a matter of days.
Don’t believe me? Think the state is on the very precipice of fiscal death?
Well, a recent report by Moody’s Investors Service outlined a very doable solution to this year’s budget problems—a combination of an income tax hike that the governor could agree to and some modest cuts that even moderate Democrats could stomach.
The problem, of course, is that the Democrats will not accede to Gov. Bruce Rauner’s demand that a tax hike be accompanied by pro-business/anti-union economic reforms.
Neither side has moved closer to the other in months. I was so disgusted the other day that I actually found myself muttering about how they should be locked in a room together.
And then it hit me.
Remember in August when U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman threatened Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger with contempt of court because Munger hadn’t complied with the judge’s order to pay millions of dollars in bills for the severely disabled? That got everyone’s attention, and the bills started to be paid.
But one day, maybe soon, maybe in a few months, the state simply won’t have the money to pay those bills on time.
Maybe then, Coleman, a no-nonsense judge, could threaten to toss the governor and the four legislative leaders into the hoosegow until they come up with a freaking solution.
Do you think that would spark an interest in budget negotiations?
Please, Judge Coleman, your honor, ma’am, make this happen.
- Pawn - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:31 am:
indeed. How is this situation different from Kim Davis? She was jailed in contempt for not doing her job.
- burbanite - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:34 am:
Tying the anti-union stuff to the budget is extortion.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:39 am:
Throw’em in jail! No apples for Mike. No wine for Brucie. Then raise revenues how you see fit, Judge Coleman.
- DHSJim - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:42 am:
Neither side has any incentive to pass a budget right now. Rauner because the Dems won’t give in to his anti-union demands and the Dems because if they give in to the governor they would be committing political suicide. So yeah, maybe a court order is needed. The question would be is it legal?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:42 am:
===Maybe then, Coleman, a no-nonsense judge, could threaten to toss the governor and the four legislative leaders into the hoosegow until they come up with a freaking solution.===
Rauner, “In prison, dinner was always a big thing. We had an Apple course and then we had a meat or fish. The Speaker did the prep work. Heck, we all might be doing a year for contempt, so the Speaker had this wonderful system for doing the Apples. He used a razor, and he used to slice them so thin that he used to liquefy in the pan with just a little oil. It was a very good system.
Now, Durkin, he made the spaghetti sauce. I felt he used too many onions, but it was still a very good sauce.”
- John A Logan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:48 am:
Osewgo, that is probably the best comment I have ever read. take the rest of the day off, your not gonna top that.
- Big Joe - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:49 am:
Great post Willy. If only it could happen to the 4 leaders and Brucie.
- Casual observer - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:53 am:
For an Illinois Governor, a short stint in jail is called practice.
I do believe we need a statesman or stateswoman right now and maybe judge Coleman could fill that role.
- AC - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:54 am:
We’ve sent plenty of politicians to prison in Illinois and that hasn’t worked, so why not try governing from jail? Relying on the courts as heavily as we have means the only solution anyone can imagine involves more of the same. I’m not sure it’d work, but in the absence of any other suggestions, why not try it?
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:57 am:
What exactly is Rauner’s pro-business plan? Please explain.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:58 am:
“Coleman, a no nonsense judge” well, that is one description of her.
- A modest proposal - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:58 am:
When it comes to homeless shelters closing - I have a proposition…
Why start paying to help the homeless, can’t the homeless just eat other homeless. It really solves two problems at once. We start eliminating some homeless, and the other homeless get fed.
I think Jonathon Swift would advocate for this proposal.
PS. Thanks for using my “nickname” as your headline!
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:58 am:
Like one of the aliens hearing yodeling in the Mars Attacks movie, my head just exploded in my space helmet. The judiciary holding the executive and legislative in contempt and jailing. My God, that would be a show to watch. Who would even be called on to do the arrest? Regardless, I think a huge percentage of citizens of Illinois would get behind that. I would pay HUGE money to see them all in orange jumpsuits. My that was a delicious fantasy.
- Crispy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 10:59 am:
“… threaten to toss the governor and the four legislative leaders into the hoosegow until they come up with a freaking solution.”
This has been my secret dream for months now.
Clearly, the “no deal unless I get my way” approach violates the spirit of the state’s Constitution. Maybe it’ll take some wise legal mind figuring out where it violates the letter, as well, to get some movement.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:02 am:
Can the courts force the governor to raise taxes to pay Illinois’s bills & the state workers?
- Not quite a majority - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:02 am:
Anybody who thinks the Feds (namely DOJ) aren’t watching this little version of ‘Survivor’ are out of their you-know-what mind.
- Jaded - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:05 am:
If judges started throwing politicians in jail for not doing their job we’d have to build more prisons. Sounds like a jobs program to me.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:05 am:
Judge Coleman please, please put us out of our misery. Toss the lot of them in jail. Separation of powers be damned.
BTW - There is a veto threat for the stop-gap budget.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/792ca16763024e03bcb9ff0427a5131f/IL–Illinois-Budget-Rauner
- Anotherretiree - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:13 am:
I had the same thought but assumed it would be deemed crazy… We reach a point where a judicially mandated payment can’t be made, the judge calls the big three and says “I don’t have the authority to make you raise taxes or cut spending to achieve a balanced budget, that’s your duty”. But, now that you have failed in your constitutional duty to pass one, this has resulted in my order to pay “_____” not being obeyed, I find you in contempt of court. A nice cell is waiting for you downtown.”
- Anon. - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:18 am:
Oswego Willy, how can anyone think of food after reading something entitled “A Modest Proposal”? Oh, wait. Sometimes I’m not too swift.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Such a nice thought of the five leaders languishing in the lockup forced to talk to each other. However, Rauner would probably complain that the corrupt union guards were granting Madigan and Cullerton more frequent yard privileges.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:21 am:
Put the Governor in a separate cell and tell him that he will eat when he accepts having union prison service to give him his clothes, food and drink.
Perhaps he will then figure out why his “no unions or no budget” stand only causes suffering.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:24 am:
=== … particularly since the two sides really aren’t that far apart on the budget. ===
I would have agreed awhile ago, but I can’t help but wonder whether the burgeoning problem caused by the length of the impasse will result in a bigger budget clash when they finally get around to dealing with it.
- Crispy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:25 am:
@Not quite majority: Do tell. Please elaborate.
@VanillaMan: Brilliant solution–karma meets poetic justice.
- Downstate - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:30 am:
I see several references to “anti-union” positions in the comments. If someone wants to recalibrate the relationship between state government and unions, does that automatically make them “anti-union”?
If that’s the case, then does someone that advocates higher taxes for business quickly become “anti-business”? And if someone is “anti-business”, doesn’t that naturally make them a socialist?
We throw around labels so quickly, that it’s tough to find any sort of common ground on these issues. And even tougher to find a solution.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:33 am:
We missed an opportunity at the state fair. Two dunk tanks, Rauner in one and Madigan in the other, $1 a ball. All revenues goes to the GRF. Whomever has the most money collected gets their say on the Turnaround Agenda.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:33 am:
Rich, I always find it fascinating when politicians do things that would get them fired in a business work place. Rauner, being a businessman, should understand this better than anybody. Of course, The Boss usually does whatever he wants.
But look, who of us in our jobs was able to just stop working until our coworkers did things our way? Who of us could say, “Yes, I know I’m being paid, but my personal principles are more important than the work you’ve assigned me?”
Any employer in their right mind would fire such a do-nothing so fast it would…
Oh wait. That assumes Illinois voters are in their right minds…
- illini - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:34 am:
Great post Rich! And mostly great comments as well.
This is a serious problem but I can not be optimistic about there being any kind of quick resolution with things being as they are now. BVR has to get off his one issue mantra and start considering the welfare of all of us who live in Illinois. MJM and JC need to be prepared to consider the same.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:35 am:
==If someone wants to recalibrate the relationship between state government and unions, does that automatically make them “anti-union”?==
No. But if they want to get rid of collective bargaining and create right to work zones it does make them anti-union.
- Anonin' - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:35 am:
Hey Capt Fax:
folks were made at state government before the impasse — o real change.
Now Team Bungle or as the WSj sez Rauner The Reformer have learned they got a mess and no one wants to help out.
Hey did you call Katrina a pundit cause it starts with the same letter as puke?
- DuPage Don - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:39 am:
Mike Connelly, we could use your quiet leadership right about now. Your legislative leadership is apparent to all. Thanks for getting HB 3593 passed into law. Limitations on perks and golden parachutes for community college executives is an important piece of legislation!
- Marty Funkhouser - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:48 am:
Anybody watch “Show Me a Hero” on HBO a few weeks ago? I was filled with joy at the idea of those intransigent, pandering politicians being tossed in the pokey and am similarly enthusiastic about Rich’s idea here.
- Keyrock - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:49 am:
I’m thinking the last episode of Seinfeld.
- Flynn's Mom - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:49 am:
OW, can you have a prison episode for your tv show?
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:50 am:
Betcha jail wouldn’t even work. Rauner would just love being the martyr.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:55 am:
- Flynn’s Mom -,
I’m out of pocket for the next hour, but I’ll see if HBO has a script laying around…
- Flynn's Mom - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 11:57 am:
Thanks OW. I’m thinking it might be a two hour special.
- thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 12:36 pm:
I do not think the “lock them in a room” crowd is suggesting kidnapping as much as a firm demand. What they fail to recognize is that, without an enforceable requirement, there is little chance such a demand would be met. Now, if there was a constitutional provision for a papal conclave that, if violated, cost the individual their leadership position (temporarily or permanently), that might be enforceable and actually accomplish something.
While we’re on the topic of unrealistic dreams…
- Judgment Day - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 12:49 pm:
IF it were to happen (really big “IF”), there has to equally calibrated pain for all the parties involved to get them to move.
The judiciary can’t be seen as picking winners and losers. Also, the judiciary will likely want to make it completely totally clear to ALL the parties involved that they never (like NEVER!) want to do this again - none of them.
As a guess, I would likely expect the judiciary to appoint some version of a ’special master’ within certain operational policies and guidelines.
Think as follows:
1) Implement a tax increase policy within the confines of the current state constitution (raising revenue) with the following provisions.
(a) Increased revenue can only be used to pay off current debts/unpaid bills.
(b) Some type of ’sunset’ provisions on the temporary tax increase as bills are paid down.
(c) No new legislation will be allowed which increase costs/legislative mandates while the ‘temporary’ tax increase is in effect.
(d) The ’special master’ (in effect the judiciary) would have final say over all labor agreements (and terms contained in those agreements) while the temporary tax increase is in effect.
(e) The ’special master’ (in effect the judiciary) would have final say on the operations of all departments and agencies of the state of Illinois.
And I’m sure there would be some more….
The above is what is called making the pain so great for all the parties involved that nobody will ever want to go there again.
Which would probably satisfy the courts just fine…..
- Formerpol - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 12:59 pm:
This Judge, like most Federal judges, does not have any experience or ability in budgeting. But a Federal Bankruptcy Judge does. That is the answer: Federal law trumps state law and a bankruptcy Judge has plenary powers to void contracts and hold off debt payments and require a plan by the creditors.
This is what is done for businesses in this situation.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:05 pm:
Fomerpol:
States can’t declare bankruptcy. So none of what you said matters.
- Judgment Day - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:06 pm:
There are no provisions for States to file for bankruptcy. None.
- Flynn's mom - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:07 pm:
JD @12:49….love it!
- Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:11 pm:
Wait i thought this was about eating the children of poor irish people…..
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:13 pm:
HBO - “Dad’s Home State” - Season 1, Episodes 56 & 57.
Part One - Bruce buys 100 cartons of cigarettes from prison commissary. Diana calls Arne Duncan to get Bruce into denied prison of Bruce’s choice, Diana’s state employee buys Carhartt jumpsuit for Bruce. Goldberg writes a letter to the judge, “ck” binge-watches “Orange Is the New Black”. Comedy, 61 minutes.
Part Two - Bruce loses “rock, paper, scissors” to Cullerton, gets bunk by the sink. Madigan and Durkin trade Bruce’s cigarettes for an iPod and hot pot, Cullerton puts extra starch in Bruce’s shirts during laundry duty. Comedy, 57 minutes.
- DuPage Grandma - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:15 pm:
Mama, basically Rauner wants 1) a property tax freeze including limits on collective bargaining, end of prevailing wage and the right for municipalities to go bankrupt. 2) workman’s comp reform including a causation clause to make it more difficult for workers to claim benefits. 3) term limits 4) fair map. I may have left some out. Here is a link http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/illinois-democrats-working-on-budget-independent-o/?page=all
- Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:19 pm:
To be clear the request to allow municipalities to go bankrupt is to stiff employee pensions, not to avoid paying bond holders….
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:19 pm:
I think it is a Lifetime version of Usual Suspects.
The Reality is that Rich may not be far off. When you consider any legal entity that is not able to meet its obligations the ramifications are dire. One option is bankruptcy. I don’t know that is an option for IL, although a reorganization would eliminate the pension problem.
If we go into some sore of receivorship because we are not meeting legal obligations. The Federal Court will likely appoint someone to effectively run the state.
Joking aside, analyzing the ramifications of abject failure by elected officials is not good.
This is why I propose the enema amendment to the constitution. With a certain number of signatures, like 8, a special election can be called to oust all state elected officials. Just flush the whole system and start over.
I have always feared recalls and term limits. But since there is not one elected official in the state competent to draft a balanced budget and generate enough support to at least make legislators take a vote on it. How much worse could it get.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:20 pm:
“Diana’s state employee sent out by Diana to pick up ordered Carhartt jumpsuit for Bruce.
- Judgment Day - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:25 pm:
“To be clear the request to allow municipalities to go bankrupt is to stiff employee pensions, not to avoid paying bond holders….”
————
Federal bankruptcy courts don’t care about the ‘intent’. What matters is what is presented in the competing reorganization plans submitted to the court.
That’s why bondholders and in particular the issuing entities (banks and bond houses) get so jumpy when municipal bankruptcy is brought up…..
- Judgment Day - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:34 pm:
“JD @12:49….love it!”
————
Personally, I think the odds of the above are increasing daily. It’s getting to the point where there’s no other way out of this mess.
But understand, IF it actually happens, it’s nobody’s fault, but it’s everybody’s fault.
And - nobody’s going to ‘win’. Nobody. And that will include the public sector unions. There can be no winners.
IF this happens, this is bigger than just Illinois. The judiciary does not want to be dragged into every stinking budget fight happening from now to eternity. Therefore, all parties involved will have to suffer serious pain and agony.
IMO, get ready.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:44 pm:
===This is why I propose the enema amendment to the constitution. With a certain number of signatures, like 8, a special election can be called to oust all state elected officials. Just flush the whole system and start over.===
I think if you read the parameters of the dreded “R” word, indeed there is a provision very similar, and very, very non-partisan.
I also know I’d fight very hard to prevent the recall of any or all of the elected officials at this time, for these circumstances. Bruce Rauner, and all the others, wether we agree, disagree, see the damage that can’t be undone, democracy isn’t pretty or neat. It’s ugly, dirty, and at times hard to digest, but nothing so far warrants the “R” of any.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:45 pm:
I’d settle for Judge Coleman just forcing a special election for governor, and legislators. All of them. That would put all of them at risk, but especially our conman governor, who ran against Pat Quinn before, and hid his vendetta. He wouldn’t stand a chance at re-election now.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:46 pm:
States aren’t allowed to go bankrupt because they are sovereign entities. Municipalities and counties can: provided that a state law allows it. Right now Chicago isn’t allowed to file for bankruptcy because Illinois doesn’t allow a town that big to file.
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 1:50 pm:
Could we get the arrest and maybe a live cell camera on Pay Per View? That alone could make a dent in the budget deficit.
- Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 2:03 pm:
It’s doubtful that Judge Coleman could be the catalyst to a budget resolution. She can nibble around and enforce statutes and agreements, but forcing politicians to take budgetary and legislative action seems beyond her constitutional authority.
I wonder if the stalemate is due to a missing constituency. The poor and needy are well represented by the press and pols as are the government employees and retirees. The wealthy may not have equally visible advocates, but we know they’re calls get picked up by both Dems and Repubs.
The folks who don’t seem to have any advocates out are the not-so poor, not-so rich private sector workers who fund most everything. Maybe the pols are afraid to wake this group up.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 3:26 pm:
++HBO - “Dad’s Home State” - Season 1, Episodes 56 & 57.++
Willy, this is a good one, but 2 leaders are missing from this episode. Will they be in your next episode?
- Flynn's Mom - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 3:26 pm:
OMG OW, I’m laughing out loud.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 3:31 pm:
===… but 2 leaders are missing from this episode. Will they be in your next episode?===
I thought I was only missing Leader Radogno, for obvious reasons.
It’s a comedy-reality show, loosely scripted, so I can see many cameos in Season 2, as “Dad’s Home State” has been renewed for 3 more seasons.
Glad you liked it - Flynn’s Mom -.
- Gantt Chart - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 4:12 pm:
Why does this talk conjure up images of the special managers put in place to run the cities of Detroit and East St. Louis because the elected politicians had run their respective cities into the ground???
- Hedley Lamarr - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 4:54 pm:
Part of the blame lies with the editorial boards that endorsed him. They should have known better.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 5:01 pm:
Thanks for all the kind words on my Goodfellas riff. Appreciate it.
OW
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 6:15 pm:
I am beginning to wonder if we must accept a three state solution brokered by the UN and Jimmy Carter to find a solution to our broken government.
- Anon III - Tuesday, Sep 22, 15 @ 8:12 pm:
The inability of existing government structures to deal with the financial crisis will suggest ceding a certain amount of budgetary control to something like a financial control board for a period of time. Like the NY Municipal Assistance Corporation in the 1970s
Finally, there will be a Federal bail-out of Illinois, New Jersey, California, and some other states. When that happens, the Feds will impose financial conditions and pension restructuring as a condition for the bail-out.
- sal-says - Wednesday, Sep 23, 15 @ 9:03 am:
== What exactly is Rauner’s pro-business plan? Please explain. ==
Probably to get all of IL to the point where the oligarchy can buy what they want for about 3 cents on $1 value?