60 Comments - Montrose - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:28 pm: Madigan is smart to take that public position, even if he doesn’t believe it. It makes him look like the grown-up. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:31 pm: I know it’s cliché, but… It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way. - Charles Dickens - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:33 pm: ==“I’m prepared to do a settlement today, if everybody were reasonable,” Madigan said.== Translation … “Everything would great if we just raise taxes” - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:34 pm: Madigan reminds me of a recent episode of Scandal where Olivia Pope’s minions are sent out to talk to the media and hammer home the talking point “dog whistle politics” (to the point that this is all one of them can say). Extreme/reasonable, Extreme/reasonable, Extreme/reasonable… - Former Hoosier - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:34 pm: I am very tired of the Gov’s negativity…it’s draining. He is negative about everything associated with our state. - AC - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:38 pm: ==Translation … “Everything would great if we just raise taxes”== I must’ve missed Rauner’s balanced budget proposal that didn’t rely in a tax increase or unconstitutional pension reductions in order to be balanced. Do you have a link to his balanced budget? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:44 pm: === “Everything would great if we just raise taxes”=== Rauner’s own alleged budget required a tax increase. Required. You’re welcome. To the Post, I gave my thoughts as to what the Democrats could do, short of letting Rauner off the hook of proposing his own budget. It’s risky, but puts front and center that Rauner’s point it’s about Democrats only wanting to raise taxes seem completely foolish, it points out Rauner’s budget failure, but also points out the choices ALL need to make, and what is the cost Rauner has put to the hostages, and what Democrats feel the worth is to state programs. You could do it with few words, couple charts, a list of hostages, a list of priorities, and Democrats could, being first, frame the discussion as to real monies, real priorities, and make absolutely clear, Rauner could never fund at sustainable levels Illinois Government that can be cut, given his source of revenue(s). I do the same for Republicans, but Rauner and the hostage-taking is driving that bus, and no one asked me to look beyond that for the GOP and the GOP GA, let alone Rauner. I hope. I’ve said it often, still do… I hope. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:48 pm: ==Rauner’s own alleged budget required a tax increase. Required== True, but just raising taxes without some reforms that will slow the rise of expenditures and/or increase economic activity which provides for organic revenue growth without increasing the rate of the taxes, will not solve the states structural deficit problem for future years. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:51 pm: AC- From Feb 18, 2015 http://www3.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=3&RecNum=13214 Actual proposed budget (had to dig for it): http://www.illinois.gov/gov/budget/Documents/Budget%20Book/Budget%20Book%20FY16/FY2016IllinoisOperatingBudgetBook.pdf - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:54 pm: ===True, but just raising taxes without some reforms that will slow the rise of expenditures and/or increase economic activity which provides for organic revenue growth without increasing the rate of the taxes, will not solve the states structural deficit problem for future years.=== One. Run-on. Sentence. No, “talking point”. - cb -, You can’t ask for reforms for a tax increase here. 1) Only works if Rauner’s budget didn’t require extra monies. 2) Can’t leverage a need as a want when both have the need. 3) Democrats aren’t asking for a tax increase as a reward, or at all. What’s tiring with Raunerite Talking Points aren’t their repeated use, it’s that Raunerites refuse to see the realities that make the points useless. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:56 pm: If everybody could come to the meeting with open minds it would help. But, Bruce Rauner took over the meeting, the location and agenda as soon as he agreed to participate. Same old, my way or the highway comments. Depressing. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:02 pm: Other states’ budgets (and past Illinois budgets) links: http://www.nasbo.org/resources/states-proposed-enacted-budgets#IL - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:02 pm: == You can’t ask for reforms for a tax increase here.== Yes you can it is called negotiations == 1) Only works if Rauner’s budget didn’t require extra monies.== No, that has nothing to do with negotiation - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:04 pm: “- cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:48 pm: ==Rauner’s own alleged budget required a tax increase. Required== True, but just raising taxes without some reforms that will slow the rise of expenditures and/or increase economic activity which provides for organic revenue growth without increasing the rate of the taxes, will not solve the states structural deficit problem for future years.” Nor will any aspect of the “turnaround agenda.” Please explain to me how term limits will solve our structural deficit…or workmen’s comp or redistricting reform or the general union busting, etc.? How many jobs will they create? How much economic activity will they create? If the gov had proposed a true economic turnaround agenda, maybe. This crap? No way. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:05 pm: === == You can’t ask for reforms for a tax increase here.== Yes you can it is called negotiations == 1) Only works if Rauner’s budget didn’t require extra monies.== No, that has nothing to do with negotiation=== Then Rauner needs to pass a budget. A required revenue source IS required. Rauner can’t fund his own budget, according to his own alleged budget-thingy. - cb -, please, keep up. - A guy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:05 pm: House Speaker Gene Kelly interrupted his upbeat dance routine today to quote Fred Rodgers about the state of the State. Oy. - Dilemma - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:09 pm: @AC ==True, but just raising taxes without some reforms that will slow the rise of expenditures and/or increase economic activity which provides for organic revenue growth without increasing the rate of the taxes, will not solve the states structural deficit problem for future years.== Can you point me to the specific structural reforms that are going to “increase economic activity” or “create organic revenue growth”? Every proposal has been tied to the misnomer “right to work” or other anti-union proposals. There has been no effort to demonstrate that RTW will increase economic activity or create organic revenue growth. Here is what happened to Oklahoma (warning PDF): http://www.epi.org/files/page/-/BriefingPaper300.pdf Essentially, every promise was left unfulfilled. Another study concluded: This paper updates and confirms the findings of Gould and Shierholz (2011). No matter how you slice the data, wages in RTW states are lower, on average, than wages in non-RTW states. As shown in great detail in Gould and Shierholz (2011), these results do not just apply to union members, but to all employees in a state. Where unions are strong, compensation increases even for workers not covered by any union contract, as nonunion employers face competitive pressure to match union standards. Likewise, when unions are weakened by RTW laws, all of a state’s workers feel the impact. http://www.epi.org/publication/right-to-work-states-have-lower-wages/ - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:10 pm: =Chicago Cynic= Union busting? So if unions are not granted a monopoly (with fair-share, prevailing wage etc..) it is considered union busting. How about competing for work (eg. capitalism) and if union work is better than they deserve the higher pay, but that is for the customer (local governments) to choose. - thunderspirit - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:13 pm: == No, that has nothing to do with negotiation == Of course it does. Had the Governor’s proposed budget not required additional revenue, he would have credibility in his claim that only the Democrats want to raise taxes. It didn’t. He doesn’t. And without credibility, there’s no negotiation to be had. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:14 pm: == cb -, please, keep up== I’m up to speed, I am not saying the Governor does not need revenue to meet his budget. He does. That is what the negotiations is about raising revenue and addressing the structural budget deficit that exists even with a revenue increase. Try to keep up OW I know it is more than one subject matter. Take your time. - Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:16 pm: At least somebody’s being upbeat. Downer Rauner is too busy holding hostages and trashing the state. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:17 pm: - cb - ===Had the Governor’s proposed budget not required additional revenue, he would have credibility in his claim that only the Democrats want to raise taxes. It didn’t. He doesn’t. And without credibility, there’s no negotiation to be had.=== This. If you can NOT see this, then you are NOT keeping up. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:18 pm: OW this might help you from Moody’s report “WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO DOWN - Persistent and growing structural imbalance that leads to reduced liquidity and growing payment backlog” - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:20 pm: ===Downer Rauner is too busy holding hostages and trashing the state.=== Didn’t Rauner also run… on being Illinois’ biggest cheerleader? Yikes, man. btw, - Norseman - thanks for the kind words on my response to Rep. Sullivan. Appreciate that. - burbanite - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:21 pm: Why is higher taxes a “give” to Democrats cb? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:22 pm: - cb - They made it clear instability in “today’s” state government was factor. Rauner owns the downgrades, Rauner has NO budget. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:23 pm: OW I saw the quote but disagree, that is the same as saying the Democrats have no credibility because they have ignored the structural imbalance in the State budget for years. That argument is ridiculous … let the negotiations begin. They need to realize that the Gov is not gong to get is entire Turnaround Agenda and the Dems are not going to get as big of a revenue increase they want, and then we can all just go home! - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:24 pm: ==They made it clear instability in “today’s” state government was factor.== Agreed, I was pointing out how to make it better not why there was a downgrade. - AC - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:24 pm: I’m familiar with the budget proposal from February that included unconstitutional pension savings, but the Illinois Supreme Court was clear on the legality of such attempts. That budget required a tax increase in order to balance, just like the Democrats budget did. - Me too - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:25 pm: cb you most certainly aren’t up to speed. Rauner needs a tax increase, therefore it isn’t something he can “give” democrats in exchange for something he wants. Also look at the comment above about rtw in Oklahoma. Wages fall, so you need more jobs to keep the same tax revenue. There aren’t going to be jobs flying in because the state is rtw. Also, unions have to bargain for all employees. You can’t allow some people to get the pay, bennies and work rules that’s a result of collective bargaining without paying for that bargaining. Lastly, rtw is not about giving workers choices, it is about bankrupting unions by forcing the to represent freeloaders, and if unions are broke, they can’t very well support democrats. It is about taking big money away from dems, while corporate money and rich donors give big money to republicans. - burbanite - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:26 pm: If you give me what I want, I will give you something you don’t want, but that we all need. That is not a negotiation. - AC - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:28 pm: Dilemma - all good points, I agree because I don’t want to see lower wages in Illinois and I don’t see how busting unions will help the budget. - Damfunny - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:29 pm: Hopefully, I’ll be moving out of Illinois very soon. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:31 pm: ===…Dems are not going to get as big of a revenue increase…=== For the 5,790 FIFTH time… Democrats do not want a tax increase, Rauner requires (needs) a tax increase. You are now a Troll. You can’t learn. Thanks for outing yourself. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:32 pm: ==Also look at the comment above about rtw in Oklahoma.== Seriously? Me too, you are quoting an EPI document which is an organization funded by unions. That would be like quoting the Cato Institute for the other side. Find some non-bias report and I will consider it. - AC - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:33 pm: ==if unions are not granted a monopoly (with fair-share, prevailing wage etc..) it is considered union busting== Certainly eliminatung fair share is damaging to unions due to the free rider problem. Eliminating prevailing wage would be a dream for low bid, often out of state, bidders on public works projects. - cb - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:35 pm: OW.. Both the Gov proposed and the Dem passed budget require a tax increase, So I think the Democrats “do” want a tax increase, if they didn’t they would have passed a balanced budget. - burbanite - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:42 pm: I represent a company that actually pays higher than union scale and gives greater benefits b/c they don’t want to be unionized and because of that, they haven’t been. It is not just union shops that benefit from the existence of unions. - Me too - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:43 pm: Ugh cb, a tax increase is going to happen no matter what. Therefore it can’t be traded for anything. It really is basic stuff. Nobody wants a tax increase, but one will happen. Using your logic the dems could tell Rauner that they’ll give him the tax increase he needs if he drops the turnaground agenda. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:46 pm: ===… dems could tell Rauner that they’ll give him the tax increase he needs if he drops the turnaground agenda.=== This is called “keeping up” and inderstanding the insanity versus the reality. Well done - Me too - - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:50 pm: – That is what the negotiations is about raising revenue and addressing the existing structural deficit that exists even with a revenue increase.– Says who? What negotiations? From all accounts fiscal matters have not been addressed at all. My compliments on the new meaningless buzz word phrase “organic economic growth.” Maybe that’ll sell tne Whole Foods crowd on whatever is being sold. - Tuesday's Pizza - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:52 pm: Damfunny- Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry? Please take cb with you. - burbanite - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:55 pm: Oh I like that Me too, that is the new answer! We will give you the tax increase to drop the turn around agenda! Perfect! - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:55 pm: –“I’m prepared to do a settlement today, if everybody were reasonable,” Madigan said.– Translation: I’m prepared to do a settlement today if everybody does what I want them to do. - Very Fed Up - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:56 pm: Not sure they realize how absurd they sound on each side. How many hours/days/weeks does it take to plan a meeting that should be happening daily until some middleground is found. - Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 3:58 pm: === I don’t see how busting unions will help the budget. === The one way I can see is that it will enable locals to reduce salaries and health insurance to help them make up for the state money the locals will no longer receive. - Mason born - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:02 pm: Good for MJM to be optimistic at least in public. He’s doing better than I can muster. At this point it’s hard to find any middle ground. The Gov. thinks he’s winning and will get his pound of flesh. MJM can not give Rauner what he wants even if he personally wanted to (not enough votes) and he doesn’t have the votes to cut Rauner out of the equation. At this point the situation absurdum will coninue until a real emergency the Gov. can’t duck occurs. I figure either IDOC having vendors cut them off or IDOT running out of salt and/or diesel during a snowstorm. This may be one year a 12″ white Christmas is a gift for all. - DuPage - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:02 pm: @cb 3:35 =Both the Gov proposed and the Dem passed budget require a tax increase= The Dems did not extend the 5% income tax rate per the request of Rauner. Rauner claimed he did not need the revenue to balance the budget. We are still waiting for Rauner to keep his word on that. Waiting, waiting, waiting…. - Johnny Q. Suburban - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:04 pm: “Ugh cb, a tax increase is going to happen no matter what. Therefore” True. But the size and shape of the tax increase will most certainly vary. On income? Services? Financial transaction? That’s, I imagine, is where the compromise eventually comes into play. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:09 pm: ==So if unions are not granted a monopoly (with fair-share, prevailing wage etc..)== I’d really like to know what “etc..” is standing in for, because fair share and prevailing wage sure don’t make a monopoly. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:09 pm: ===That’s, I imagine, is where the compromise eventually comes into play.=== Rauner and the Dems are weeks away from that discussion and only after the release of the hostages happens… - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:15 pm: Mason brings up good points. Anyone have any insight as to IDOTs preparation level for the winter? Has it been compromised by this “leverage opportunity?” Also, what about conditions at IDOC? Has this nonsense caused a deterioration in living/working conditions? Playing with powder kegs ain’t a good idea. - ottawa otter - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:24 pm: No, no new taxes, period! If we wanted increased taxes we would have kept Quinn. Unless, of course, Rauner politely asks for a tax increase, then, as a courtesy, the G.A. could consider it. The Republicans there could craft the bill, they are such a help. - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 4:26 pm: ==- Anon221 - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 2:51 pm:== The ask was for the balanced proposal. - Blue dog dem - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 5:15 pm: -MeToo@3;43-if nobody wants a tax increase, then why do one.? The Raun Man needs to come up with $2.2 billion more in cuts to balance the budget(to make up for lack of pension savings). To tack on to the …..nobody wants a tax increase, then the converse of that must be, “everybody wants services cut”. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 6:37 pm: You can’t claim to be locked in an epic struggle in one breath, as he has done multiple times, then claim to be reasonable in the next. That is like Don King hyping a fight while claiming he wants peace. - DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 7:01 pm: Rauner wants to eliminate the ability of public employees to bargain collectively for wages and benefits. What demand do the Democrats have that is equally unreasonable? - Anon221 - Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 7:04 pm: PC- true on the “balanced proposal”. At that time Rauner was touting his proposal as one that could be balanced. Since he hasn’t resubmitted another one, then he must still feel his is valid, even with the rulings. The ball, so to speak, is in his court. In the meantime, it would be interesting to contrast and compare what he had originally proposed to what he has done through Executive Orders, rule changes, and flat out terminations. You need the original to do that. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Oct 28, 15 @ 8:15 am: with or without a “turn around agenda” Illinois has had and still has a structural deficit. This needs addressed period. For Rauner to say I will talk about addressing the structural deficit, but only after I get my reforms (Trojan hoarse to destroy unions) is ridiculous — reforms are optional and a budget is required. This is like saying I will mow my yard and take my trash out, but only after my neighbor shuts up his barking dog. Now while negotiating on a budget it is fair game to throw reforms into the mix as part of the bargaining process but only if you are truly negotiating on tax rates, cuts etc. Example, I will accept a lower offer on my house but only if the buyer is pre approved and puts down earnest money. - Juvenal - Wednesday, Oct 28, 15 @ 9:02 am: Rich - I think Democrats will help the governor pass the tax increase he needs if he will drop his turnaround agenda. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Democrats passed not one but two pension reform bills and cut Medicaid by $1 billion to try to meet GOP demands and didn’t get a single GOP vote for revenue in return. You might think it is crazy, but I don’t recall a huge public outcry among the public when Republicans refused to support a Democratic effort to provide spending. In that sense, it seems that Democrats are being pretty generous by not demanding campaign finance reform, or a minimum wage hike, or a progressive income tax in exchange for helping the Republican governor pass his budget. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.