==If either Rauner or Madigan really cared about the ==hostages==, we would have had a temporary budget in place or a clean budget extension months ago.==
Madigan needs 71 votes to pass bills. He does not have 71 votes so…
Rauner never expected his child advocate wife would be upset by a massive failure to fund programs to help children, he never anticipated Madigan wouldn’t agree to gut collective bargaining, and he never anticipated Rich Miller would link to his own site where Rauner proposed cuts to childcare himself. It’s the kind of convoluted mind that would propose that the state loan money to entities the state owes money to, presumably secured by the money owed by the state. I’ll try to help by providing some profound wisdom. Child advocates advocate for children. Democrats advocate for their traditional base. Skilled journalists (outside certain editorial pages) can and will remember things that happened days, months, sometimes years ago.
Shouldn’t bring up the wife. Now every paper is going to be hounding her for a quote.
“So what exactly did you say to your husband for him to make a statement like that.”
I’m sure that’s just what she wants is to be put into the middle of his battle with Madigan. UGH
Even my Republican friends are getting tired of the games he is playing (yet several members of the GA that I know have cashed his $1000 checks as well as some other affiliated organizations ). They are feeling the heat from many of their constituents and are being very circumspect when talking about these issues. That $20 Million in the bank is the back page story to what is going on.
And to a few other comments - you are correct - if it were not for this site I would be far less informed about what is going on in our State. Local media does not even come close to what we learn here ( thanks to Rich, but also those who add to the discussion with their comments ).
just me or does there seem to be a semi-concerted trolling effort to try and dumb down or weaken the credibility of arguments being made on posts not so friendly to the Governor this past week? disinformation or misinformation, not just regular posts by people in support of the Governor. or maybe I’m just paranoid lol.
Speaking as someone who thinks the Democrats would gain politically by a great degree through the implementation of a progressive tax, I am utterly disappointed that you would make a personal attack like that.
It’s simple. A progressive tax is what the people of IL want. I don’t see why that gets ignored on here.
Even though I’m to the left of you, people are now name calling. All I want is for a solution to the impasse. Yet this sort of all in attack gives ammo to the Raunerites crowd you rightfully attack.
First time I’ve posted a comment. I’ve enjoyed reading all the comments on Capitol Fax. My question/comment: Didn’t Rauner hire a budget expert and then let her go even though there’s no budget? What did she accomplish for the $165,000 she was paid? I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m just trying to figure out how you can have a budget expert and no budget.
Norseman - It’s a definite strategy being employed by both sides of the aisle. If either side really wanted a budget we’d be much closer to an end. Madigan could get downstate GOP defectors in labor friendly districts to end the conflict and pass true tax reform.
I suppose that holding true to progressive principles would be too much to ask here, though.
=dumb down or weaken the credibility of arguments being made on posts not so friendly to the Governor this past week? disinformation or misinformation, not just regular posts by people in support of the Governor. or maybe I’m just paranoid lol.=
Who would have thought we would have looked upon posts from AZ Bob or A Guy as the Good Old Days?
I honestly do not know how anyone can accuse this site as being a “liberally biased” site - maybe they are looking at only a small portion of the posts and comments rather than looking at the past 4 or 5 years as I have.
I do comment when I have an opinion and feel that it might add to the discussion. And, yes - I tend to be more liberal for the most part, but I have been as critical of MJM and JC as I have been of BVR. I admit I have not had many good things to say about our Governor continuing his campaign mode for the past 6 months rather than concern himself about doing what he was elected to do!
We get more news and inside info on Illinois politics on this site than any other source I know of. For those detractors - take the time and effort to learn what is really going on in Illinois and don’t be small minded about what is a service to those of us who do pay attention and who do care.
You can look at actions. Funny how we ignore the property tax - the most regressive tax this state has. A progressive tax doesn’t even have to hurt the property tax law business in IL. They’re going to do just fine.
Give Rauner his freeze. That’s the “thanks for playing” item as the rest of the agenda goes down in flames. And it’s still a net loss as a progressive tax is implemented.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 5:27 pm:
@mama - though Speaker Madigan did suggest he could pass a budget without Governor Rauner’s support. I still do not believe that is possible. They do not like this partnership, but it is one they are stuck with.
We’ve got a wealthy Republican governor who campaign strongly against your idea, and you say you want a solution? Stick to the possible. Forget the pipe dreams. If they wouldn’t/couldn’t do it when Quinn was around, what makes you think they could or would do it now?
Bruce goes on tour saying everyone’s mad at him. Diana learns the Mansion View Inn doesn’t have room service or turn down service. Diana’s state employee gets the United Way survey for Diana. Lance tweets pictures of Bruce hugging people, “ck” and her manual crank laptop get kicked out of Starbucks for making too much noise. Comedy, 61 minutes.
Final words to OW, I’m on your side on Rauner. You may not believe it, but it is true. I see the wreckage up and personal every day and I am utterly angry at the toll it is creating. It breaks my heart. I do blame Rauner completely for that. He knows good and well what he’s doing.
I just disagree with strategy. It has been helpful to push the fight to this stage. But enough is enough.
Maybe cause most people, including Edgar, Thompson and Munger, think that Rauner is off his rocker and is disingenuous. And that he has taken Durkin and Radogno and their respective caucuses off the deepend with him.
Maybe everyone is liberal these days and you missed the train.
It’s hard to follow all the twists and turns in your comments. For the sake of this comment, I’ll assume you’re a political rookie and a recent reader of Cap Fax.
Hopefully, you now understand that the House Dem supermajority is in name only when it comes to politically hot issues. This is not the opinion of a few, but a well-accepted fact. Rauner’s folks know that, but like to keep up the obfuscation for political cover. Repeating the mantra that the Dems have a supermajority to vote a tax hike would make you a troll.
You advocate a progressive tax and say that’s what people want. Whether folks want it or not, the Illinois Constitution prohibits it. The Dems don’t have the votes to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change that. Repeating the comment that Dems can pass a progressive tax hike would make you a troll.
Saying that neither side wants a budget is wrong. Rauner wants a budget, but he says that he wants reform before agreeing to support some tax increase. Dems will not support anti-union provisions and some other parts of Rauner’s alleged reform agenda. I believe (but can accept arguments to the contrary) that Rauner wants and needs a tax increase because he doesn’t want to be blamed for the carnage required to reach a balanced budget without one. Rauner’s reform agenda will provide him and members of the GOP legis caucuses with political cover for those tax votes. That’s not to say Rauner doesn’t want or believe in his agenda, I’m just saying that he will not present another balanced budget bill or use his item/reduction veto powers in retaliation for Dem refusal to support his so-called reforms. To do so would mean that he would hold the jacket for massive cuts to a lot of politically popular programs.
So Hoopdee, saying things that aren’t possible legally or practically makes people seem like trolls.
I’m still waiting for the WGA to send a certified letter to Dave Bakke, or at least some acknowledgement.
Of course, you pitch this idea and say it’s based on true interpreted side stories, they ask you “got anything else?”
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 7:43 pm:
Rauner proposed the rule. I thought we were all on board with that.
But his February “savings”, “cuts”, whatever were not substantively the same as this emergency rule.
In February, he proposed increasing co-pays and time limiting the program for 5 years. That’s much more in line with the type of Welfare reform Bill Clinton supported in the 90’s.
Social programs should be a leg up, not a handout. Rauner basically wanted to turn the program into an “early child care assistance program.” Since working parents with young kids often have the most trouble (I am and was one) this makes sense. The State helps you figure things out for a while but when your kid turns 5 you should have stuff figured out on your own. That’s not heartless, it’s realistic. Can’t rely on the taxpayer forever.
Eligibility based on financial need would have stayed the same in February. Now, the Emergency Rule is because we have a CASH SHORTAGE and Rauner has no discretion on MOST of the spending. So he has to disqualify 90% of applicants from a program he supports.
Rich keeps saying “he proposed cuts to this program in February” as if that’s somehow a counter to the idea that he’s doing it now to manage the budget crisis. It isn’t because they aren’t the same.
False equivalency. Misleading.
I know Voices of Children spun it that way, but consider the source and what their stance would be on ANY cuts to this program, no matter how it came.
Kind of thought that was the case and good luck selling the concept and promo.
I know, that at times, I am a little slow and do not always catch the “snark” you, and a very few others, are so very good at. Yet you do make great points. If it is ever aired - I promise to subscribe.
Thanks for keeping some of the heavy comments and issues on the lighter side. Now that I know the whole story.
===In February, he proposed increasing co-pays and time limiting the program for 5 years. That’s much more in line with the type of Welfare reform Bill Clinton supported in the 90’s.===
Hmm. This sounds like a Rauner Press talking point…
===Eligibility based on financial need would have stayed the same in February. Now, the Emergency Rule is because we have a CASH SHORTAGE and Rauner has no discretion on MOST of the spending. So he has to disqualify 90% of applicants from a program he supports.===
But in February, I thought Rauner made it quite clear, this was a cut. Rauner chose the cut. Just because Rauner can’t get a budget, it doesn’t negate the February planning… does it?
Well, if Rauner is getting heat for, once again, dismantling social services for Prevailing Wage and Collective Bargaining, of course Rauner Press talking points need to have cover that Rauner desperately doesn’t want to own his choices, does he?
===I know Voices of Children spun it that way, but consider the source===
I know flack talk “consider the source” is flack talk, lol
Let’s be quite clear;
===Rich keeps saying “he proposed cuts to this program in February” as if that’s somehow a counter to the idea that he’s doing it now to manage the budget crisis. It isn’t because they aren’t the same.===
Rauner wanted the cuts, but now that they hurt, if Rauner can blame it on the Democrats to get what he wanted in February, that’s the real spin.
I will say, you hit all your dot points, LOL
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 8:00 pm:
It’s disappointing that you continue to insinuate that because I support Rauner, I’m somehow working for him.
As I’ve told you before, I don’t support everything he’s proposing and I think he needs to change his negotiating strategy.
Keep the conspiracy theories out of it, stop making it about the person, and let’s elevate the conversation a bit. Lord knows the state house could use more substantive discourse and less personal attacks.
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 8:03 pm:
===But in February, I thought Rauner made it quite clear, this was a cut. Rauner chose the cut. Just because Rauner can’t get a budget, it doesn’t negate the February planning… does it?====
This is where you’re wrong.
They are different cuts.
One was a choice and he would have to defend it. Normal budgeting often means tough choices.
The other was a choice, but a choice in crisis. It was forced on him. It’s not the way he wanted to do it. Crisis budgeting often means impossible choices.
Again, February cut =/= emergency rule. Stop the false equivalency.
Whether you work for him or not isn’t the issue, and in fact, no one cares. A Guy should have told you that.
Blog comment sections, the good ones at least, are about conversations, and that’s what this is. You are free to start your own blog and respond (or not) to comments as you see fit. Some of us have been following this particular blog for many years, so think of it this way: you walked in the tavern in which I am a regular patron and humble guest, and you’re talking smack. Forgive me if I don’t let your BS go unchallenged, but I’ve paid my dues and I’m not going anywhere.
Frankly, I have no where else to go, and more importantly, no where else I’d rather be.
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 8:20 pm:
I fail to see how I am “talking smack” by pointing out that an emergency rule restricting eligibility based on financial need is substantively different from a proposed cut which changes the program in a completely different and, for most, more palatable way.
In fact I’ve done nothing but stick to the issue and politely explain my side, while be insulted in turn. I don’t care, but this is “when the pot is actually the kettle” as rich said.
And Willy, if you don’t recognize that the lack of legal appropriations limits options and forces bad choices on an executive, I really don’t know what to tell you.
Barack Obama has previously proposed Social Security savings by changing the COLA formula. Now imagine that there’s a federal government shut down and he’s unable to make all of his legally mandated payments.
In response, he issues an emergency EO that says they will continue making SS payments to seniors but not the disabled young. He has to do this because there simply isn’t enough cash to make all required payments.
For the record, I’ve been deleted as much or more than anybody here. The thing is, more often than not, I fully understand why my comment got deleted. The trick is not to cry about it and instead, do better next time.
And like any tavern, if Rich serves up a warm or flat beer, by all means, ask for another. But don’t complain that he doesn’t carry your new favorite IPA, because again, you just walked in here and if you don’t like what they’re serving, go find another place.
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 8:49 pm:
No, I quite like Rich’s work. His reporting is usually good, even when I disagree with the opinions attached. I also didn’t “just walk in.” I’ve been following the blog for about a year and a half and sporadically commenting.
I always do my best to follow the rules as I know them.
Trouble is, it seems like comments sometimes get deleted simply for disagreeing with an editorial position or for posting sourced facts which contradict part of the story.
I get that it’s his blog and he can delete every comment that doesn’t simply echo and congratulate him if he wants, but I don’t think this is that kind of place and, if it turns out to be, I’d gladly “find another tavern.”
So long as it’s a place where dissenting opinions are welcome and solid facts are accepted into the conversation even when they don’t fit the prevailing narrative, this is where I’d like to be.
Chicago20 I do go to the IPI Home Page, infrequently but fairly regularly, but have never commented on their Facebook page - you could very well be right.
This is one of the facts that I appreciate about this site - we can voice our opinion, comment on the foibles of our elected officials and their misguided ideas of governing including their dxxn dumb and misguided priorities and can still be heard as long as we are to the point of the post and do not engage in hypothetical facts and half truths.
Even SNARK is allowed, but at times I am not that good at detecting it and will not even attempt to retort.
Just FYI, I flashed Rich the secret liberal gang sign, he responded by itching his nose, which is totally NOT the answering sign. I persisted and flashed the sign again and again…he just gave me a weird and perplexed look and wandered away shaking his head….
I don’t think he’s part of the secret liberal society
Are you saying that the postings/comments are being edited/deleted to reflect a given political agenda? And, if so, what is that agenda?
I guess we might disagree about what are “sourced or solid facts” that don’t fit the “prevailing narrative” and that those would be something for me other commenters to call you out on.
I have always found that, what you categorize as dissenting opinions, are welcomed here.
And, I am fairly certain, will continue to be posted.
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 9:11 pm:
No I don’t think Rich is promoting a partisan agenda and you won’t see me claiming that in any of my posts.
Rather, I’m saying he’s a human being who has opinions that I sometimes disagree with. It’s not a partisan thing. That said, when I post a dissenting opinion with facts to back it up, I don’t think it should be deleted just for disagreeing (while again I understand that he CAN delete whatever he wants.)
For the record, I don’t consider myself a partisan either. I absolutely criticize the Republican party. If you asked me about specific R members of the GA, you’d hear a lot. If you asked me about national Republicans (which I know we don’t do here) you’d hear a lot more.
===Rather, I’m saying he’s a human being who has opinions that I sometimes disagree with. It’s not a partisan thing. That said, when I post a dissenting opinion with facts to back it up, I don’t think it should be deleted just for disagreeing (while again I understand that he CAN delete whatever he wants.)===
So what are you saying?
Rich is NOT partisan, but you hace opinions, Rich doesn’t like them, he censors you?
==The other was a choice, but a choice in crisis.==
Ha ha, yeah, a crisis he invited and prolongs. “Crises creates leverage” remember?
Rauner wanted to cut childcare programs. He couldn’t get it done one way, so he went another, and yeah, rules are different from statutes, so that necessitates that the exact nature of the cuts are different. But he’s lying to you when he says he didn’t want to do this. I mean, c’mon, 95% of the budget is being spent anyway, and he still has a line-item veto.
He isn’t so dumb that he would have taken a job that is as powerless as he wants you to believe.
FWIW, I’m pretty sure Rich has automatic filters that trap posts based on “offensive” words and phrases, plus some other criteria. This is fairly typical on “open but moderated” blogs. I’ve used similar blog tools myself, both to automatically moderate (by auto-substituting words) or just trapping a non-conforming post. BTW: auto-subbing either “BANNED” or some innocuous phrase can lead to amusing sentences in the resulting post.
Like others, I’ve been caught by the filters.
I’ve also had comments just disappear into never-never land. That’s a problem of the asynchronous communications protocol used by the Internet.
Thanks, but it’s the commenters like - 47th Ward - and - RNUG -, and I absolutely will not add any more because the community Rich has here is huge.
It’s also diverse, in its politics, experiences, professions and backgrounds. But what’s best, is that the community tries to patrol itself, and Rich prunes what needs to be pruned at the bud stage.
No place on the Internet covers and digs into Illinois politics like Rich’s place and speaking only for me, I’m glad I can hang around here, and can’t imagine hanging anyplace else.
I think - 47th Ward -’s “bar” analogy is the best way to see this place. Sometimes patrons don’t respect the bar. That usually doesn’t go over well. But, it’s a more than welcoming place, and the merits of the argument always win out. That’s the best part.
The “releasing of the hounds”, isn’t about the bar or the patrons. That will cause blowback. Rauner is causing his own blowback. That’s on Rauner, and no one else.
Willy@9:53 - I have gained more insights into Illinois politics in the past 5 years than I learned in the previous 40 ( from a lot of involvement ).
I’ll continue to hang around for as long as I can - and hopefully will still be able to make some relevant comments. Maybe this site is a little like “Cheers - Where Everybody Knows Your Name”. New patrons are ALWAYS welcome, but you have to respect the rules.
And you are absolutely right about the “blowback”.
- Southern Illinois Hoopdee-
I found your comments today ‘respectful’, and completely within the context of vocalizing an opinion and view you are entitled to have. I don’t recall a situation where that was not the case.
I appreciate your view, whether I agree with it or not, when it is presented constructively.
Thanks Willy - time for me to get off tonight! Back tomorrow.
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 10:40 pm:
I was trying to be respectful which may be why it was unclear.
Essentially I think comments get deleted when they challenge Rich’s assertions rather than challenging his narrative. And I don’t think it’s partisan or agenda drive. I think it’s simply not liking being challenged.
Hope I’m wrong and maybe the comment got nabbed for some technical or accidental reason.
Damn - I’m still here. This thread is not going anywhere else, in my opinion, any more this evening.
So, will Political Animal have a different handle tomorrow that will be promoting the same half truths and partisan polemics and bogus or questionable talking points that we have been subjected to this evening?
The commenters on this site will pick this out quickly!!!!!!!!!
- Political Animal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 11:02 pm:
No I’ve got the same handle I’ve had for over a year.
Not trying to be obnoxious here, so I’ll drop it and bow out. I look forward to future discussions focused on substance rather than blog meta or conspiracies about my motivations.