The Executive Committee of the Cook County Democratic Party will meet Wednesday to consider reversing its decision to slate Clerk of the Circuit Courts Dorothy Brown.
If the Executive Committee decides to no longer support Brown, it will need a full vote from all of the 80 members of the Central Committee, according to Manuel Galvan, a spokesperson for the Cook County Democratic Party.
Brown, who has held office for 15 years, is now facing a federal investigation, although she says the multiple published reports about it are just rumors. Cook County Democratic Party Chairman Joe Berrios told reporters Friday that Brown was questioned before the slating about whether she faced an investigation, and she told them no.
That last sentence right there is enough to revoke the slating. We’ll see.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether the government can force government workers to pay union fees to keep their jobs when the court issues its ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a lawsuit brought by a group of California public-school teachers.
Many groups and individuals want the court to listen to their views on this issue. Last month, 25 amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs, including an amicus brief from the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of three Illinois state workers who object to coerced union fees. And many people and groups will weigh in on the other side as well.
But there’s one person with an interest in this important case whose views Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan believes the court should not consider: Gov. Bruce Rauner, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of himself and a group of Illinois public-school employees who object to forced union fees.
After Rauner filed his brief, Madigan’s office took a most unusual action: It filed a letter with the Supreme Court insisting that Rauner had no authority to file a brief expressing his views on this issue without Madigan’s permission. The letter points to provisions of state law and state court decisions that say that only the attorney general may represent the state before the Supreme Court or represent the state or its officials in court cases in which the state “is the real party in interest.”
Madigan’s claim has some problems.
First, the idea that Rauner should have to go through Madigan to express his views on this issue is absurd. The governor is a citizen with First Amendment rights, and he is entitled to submit an amicus brief stating his views on the issue like anyone else. His brief made clear that it expressed his own views, not those of the state. And it’s well known that Rauner’s views on this issue – which favor workers’ freedom to choose whether to give money to a union – are the opposite of Madigan’s, whose campaigns have received substantial funding from government-worker unions that rely on coerced fees from government employees. In fact, as Rauner’s counsel pointed out in a response letter, Madigan has opposed Rauner on this very issue in more than one lawsuit.
The amicus brief is here. The AG’s initial response is here.
They’re absolutely correct that the “governor is a citizen with First Amendment rights, and he is entitled to submit an amicus brief stating his views on the issue like anyone else.”
I totally agree.
* But, as always, there’s an inconvenient fact that the Institute omitted. From the Solicitor General’s response about the governor’s state counsel, with emphasis added…
Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko claim that Governor Rauner submitted his amicus brief “in his individual capacity. ” But the brief makes no such claim, and its contentions do not relate to the interests of the Governor personally. In fact, both the brief and the letter explain that Governor Rauner’s interest in this matter derives from the fact that, as Governor, he oversees the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and supervises much of the State’s workforce. Moreover, it would be unlawful for Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko, while acting as state employees paid from public tax revenues, to represent Mr. Rauner in his individual capacity in any matter.
Notice that highlighted word? Do you think Illinois’ Solicitor General uses that word lightly - in a letter to the United States Supreme Court, no less?
Yikes.
* So, which is it? Are they perhaps breaking the law to write private briefs on state time, or are they representing the governor in his official capacity? It can’t be both, and the AG’s office says they can’t do the latter. Back to the Solicitor General…
Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009). The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation, the State’s Constitution and statutes, see 15 ILCS 205/1, et seq., make the Illinois Attorney General the voice of the State and its officials.
…Adding… We have some (I believe) deliberately obtuse commenters who are trying to muddy the waters. So, click here and read the governor’s counsel admit that they submitted the amicus brief for Rauner “in his individual capacity,” and reveal that he is “expressing his own views.”
* Just remember, a committee vote ain’t a floor vote. Tribune…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to double the homeowner exemption to blunt the impact of his proposed record property tax increase received initial approval from a House committee Tuesday, though it’s far from a done deal.
The measure, which would raise the exemption from $7,000 to $14,000 in the city, passed the panel 8-5 with all Democratic votes. Republicans and business groups opposed the plan, saying it unfairly placed the burden of the tax increase on businesses.
Counties also would be able to opt in to the tax exemption, though individual municipalities could not.
“This is a fine example of Chicago making its own rules and having their bad practice spread across the state,” said Michael Reever, a lobbyist for the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. […]
The legislation could receive a full vote on the House floor Tuesday, though it faces a tough hurdle. It will take 71 votes to pass, but Democrats have just 70 active members pending the appointment Tuesday evening of a replacement for Rep. Esther Golar of Chicago, who died last month. Forcing Republicans to vote on the matter puts them in the tricky position of being on the record voting either for or against tax relief, though they could also vote “present.”
During a hearing before the Revenue Committee in Springfield, Deputy Mayor Steve Koch, testifying for the city, suggested that Preckwinkle had dropped her opposition to the proposal on grounds that aging county computers could not be reprogrammed in a timely manner to handle it.
Preckwinkle’s “initial” statement to the Crain’s editorial board came before she had a chance to “talk with technical experts,” Koch told the committee. And in fact, the president now has “modified” her position, with the city having little doubt the technical tweaks can be made.
But Preckwinkle spokesman Frank Shuftan strongly disputes that.
Informed of Koch’s comments, Shuftan emailed me: “We have not modified our position. We sent the mayor a letter (on Oct. 16) expressing numerous concerns about his proposal. We did not receive a direct response, only a fact sheet and a copy of the bill.”
Despite repeated requests from a House committee, state education officials refused to appear at a Tuesday hearing to explain why the state’s superintendent of schools continues to receive an overly generous pension perk funded with taxpayer dollars.
“The state’s credit is being downgraded yet again, the governor’s handpicked comptroller has unilaterally decided to skip a statutorily mandated pension payment, and our tax dollars are being managed by a tangled web of court orders. The situation in Springfield is a full-blown financial crisis, but amid all this, taxpayers can’t even get a straight answer as to why officials within this administration are ignoring the clear intent of a state law meant specifically to save taxpayer dollars and rein in extravagant retirement perks,” said state Rep. Jack Franks, chair of the House State Government Administration Committee. “These decisions are too important to be made in a back room. The State Board of Education and this administration need to step out of the shadows and allow a real open discussion on their use of public funds.”
Under a 2010 state law that passed with strong support from Democrats and Republicans to rein in rising pension costs, state employees hired after December 31, 2010, are under a pension plan more modest than employees hired before that time. But the law hasn’t stopped the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) from giving state Superintendent of Education Tony Smith an additional yearly stipend, which translates into larger taxpayer-funded contributions toward a taxpayer-funded pension for Smith. The stipend is in addition to Smith’s $225,000 state salary, taxpayers paying the employee and employer portion of his family’s health care and life insurance, 35 vacation days each year plus sick time and a $500 per month auto allowance amongst other perks.
At a hearing of the State Government Administration Committee in July, Franks urged ISBE to renegotiate Smith’s contract to remove the pension stipend. When the board announced in September that they would not reconsider the contract, Franks requested Smith and Chairman James Meeks return to discuss the board’s management of taxpayer funds.
“Democrats and Republicans agreed that the creation of a Tier II pension plan was necessary to help save taxpayer dollars and was an appropriate benefit plan for new employees. That’s why it troubles me to see ISBE so blatantly ignore the cost-saving intentions behind the law,” Franks said. “Taxpayers deserve to know why the board continues to use our tax dollars to pay a perk that no other private or public sector employees receive.”
Hours after Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced a $250,000 gun buyback program on Monday, a downstate gun-rights advocate promised to come to Chicago to exploit it.
“We will be delighted to transact business once more with do-gooders in Chicago,” John Boch, executive director of Champaign-based Guns Save Life, said Monday.
Guns Save Life used Chicago’s 2012 gun buyback to embarrass city officials. That year, members said they turned in about 60 guns — some of them rusty and inoperable.
They received $100 MasterCard gift cards for each gun, which they used to buy ammunition for a National Rifle Association youth camp in Bloomington and bolt-action rifles to give away to campers.
Throughout history, oppressed peoples have used non-violent direct action and civil disobedience to win liberation. The Civil Rights movement in the U.S., under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the struggle for Indian independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi, come immediately to mind. Indeed, what Paul the Apostle called “a great cloud of witnesses” – too many to name here – has fought throughout the ages for justice for the oppressed and marginalized, despite great risk, persecution, and even death.
Wow.
They must be gearing up for some major action.
* The pitch…
Inspired by this cloud of witnesses, Moral Mondays Illinois will hold its 9th mass demonstration and civil disobedience to demand that Illinois tax corporations and the rich to fix the budget deficit instead of making deadly cuts to Illinois’ most vulnerable people:
Moral Mondays Illinois Returns
Monday, November 2, 2015
10:30 am SHARP at the Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph St.
(At 10:45 we’ll march to an undisclosed location, so don’t be late.)
After a brief rally, we will march to a center of tremendous power and wealth where 50 of our sisters and brothers will put their bodies on the line in a civil disobedience designed to shut it down! We will demand that Illinois Governor Rauner and the legislature tax corporations and the rich so that the people may live and thrive.
While some Republicans have begun to criticize Gov. Bruce Rauner’s demands in the budget battle, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk isn’t among them.
Kirk has close political ties to Rauner, being a staunch supporter of his campaign and having several former aides now working in Rauner’s administration. Kirk says he’s heard concerns about the state defaulting on its debt due to the impasse, and says he’s tried to put those fears to rest by talking up Rauner.
“When I was in New York, I get a lot of people asking about when is Illinois going to default, and they were asking questions about an inevitability about some sort of financial collapse here,” Kirk said. “I wanted to make sure people that knew that we had a reformist governor, and if his reforms go through, we would have a much better financial shot.”
We’re not going to default, so he’s right about that part.
…Adding… Like I said, he does have a point. From comments…
To be fair, it was ironic seeing Madigan lecture Rauner about credit downgrades yesterday after supporting pension holidays, decades of borrowing, passing consecutive unbalanced budgets and years of downgrades.
There were also reports that one of [Gov. Bruce Rauner’s] top lieutenants—the person he picked to head the state’s comptroller’s office, Leslie Munger—had also broke with him and said that he should abandon the union issues and pass a budget.
Today, she said that that quote was misreported. She and another top GOP official came to the governor’s defense.
“I think there are solutions, but we need two sides talking,” Munger said. “But right now we don’t have two sides talking, and I would put more blame on the legislature because they started with a budget that was $4 billion overspent.”
Asked if Gov. Rauner should stop targeting unions during a news conference in Moline Friday, Ms. Munger, said, “I don’t think it’s productive, I think we’ve got to work together, personally.
“I don’t think it helps to pit people against one another, to be completely honest,” she said. “I believe we need to be all working together to solve the problems in Illinois.”
“The things that I support are things like (changes in) workers’ comp and tort reforms. I don’t know what impact that has on weakening any unions, honestly. It really is just helping our businesses be more competitive with neighboring states. And actually the union members I talk to are looking for good jobs in Illinois,” Munger said.
“With respect to property tax reform and holding those, I do believe there are ways to do that if people would get together and talk. There are ways that don’t impact unions at all,” she said. “We have hundreds of unfunded mandates in this state. We can give up on a lot of those. It would give our municipalities the flexibility they need to manage a freeze on property taxes instead and yet still make all their commitments.”
Later, Munger was asked directly about the union provisions that Rauner wants and Democrats in the legislature oppose.
“I’d like to see us focus on, like I spoke before, ways around that. I’d like to see us find a way to freeze property taxes. I think there are alternatives to do it,” she said.
During a town hall meeting in Decatur, Illinois’ Governor repeated his call for structural reforms and a balanced budget and also laid out a few details about how he wants to reform pensions. Governor Bruce Rauner said there must be changes to the pension system and said he has a constitutional fix. His idea includes a new deal moving forward.
“People can keep their old deal if they want but then their salary increases don’t go into the pension. Or they can have their salary increases count towards their pension if they get into a new deal.”
To encourage workers to enter a potential new tier, the Governor said there would be incentives offered. If the plan is passed by the General Assembly and implemented, Rauner said there would be big savings.
“And if we do that we can save $2 billion for you as taxpayers.”
The Governor said his administration has researched the proposal and said it is constitutional.
* Our resident pension expert RNUG (who used to post under the longer name “Retired Non-Union Guy”) was dealing with some family health issues and didn’t comment until last night. Since many of you probably missed it, here, with some minor edits for things like spelling corrections, is his initial analysis…
All,
Rich tried to get me earlier but I’ve been dealing with a medical issue with an elderly mother-in-law.
I haven’t read any comments, but I did catch the story about the remarks in Decatur either yesterday or today. I just ignored it because it sounds like yet another more or less coercive choice going forward. Given the Pension Clause and the clear SB-1 ruling, unless it contains a complete “keep what you’ve got option”, it won’t pass Contract Law logic as consideration.
Yes, you could make such an offer along the lines of what Rauner suggested and bribe some people into taking cash and moving to a new tier and have it be legal, but it probably won’t be the existing “Tier 1″ people who take the deal. They will most likely say “thanks but no thanks, we’ll keep what we have” and the courts will back them up. In the past, the courts have mostly shot down any change (age, years of service) that, when applied to the formula, would have reduced a pension.
I get where Rauner is coming from. He thinks yet to be earned benefits can be modified; the courts have disagreed. Eric Madiar, when charged with finding a loophole in the Pension Clause, could only come up with the “consideration” possibility in contract law. But anyone who spends any time researching contract modification by consideration will find it has to be totally voluntary.
And, as it stands now, the threat of not having mythical future salary increases included in the pension calculation may not be much of a threat. Rauner wants to hold the unions to no raises; a lot of the Merit Comp people haven’t have a raise in 13 years. In the case of SERS retirees, the Final Average Compensation is based on the highest consecutive 48 months in the last 120 months (10 years) of service. So if you aren’t getting raises anyway, it won’t make a bit of difference.
Aside from union contracts, there is the little thing called “Civil Service” that protects almost all State employees, both union and Merit Comp
== Are we really going to go through this process again? ==
Sounds like it. The Rauner crew may want to be careful what they wish for. The last time the IL SC stopped short of ordering specific pension fund payments …
== It is going to take major backbone to deal with our pension mess in a fair, responsible and constitutional manner. ==
Fair - keep your contracted promise
Responsible - pay what is owed
Constitutional - “Tier 2″ was the reform
The only things left to do with the pensions are to (a) restructure the debt (longer ramp or borrow the $110B in the markets at lower than the assumed rates of return), (b) probably shift the normal pension cost on the local school districts AND (c) come up with revenue to pay off the debt.
== by constitutional amendment, almost anything would be constitutional, just extremely difficult to enact. ==
Even by constitutional amendment it wouldn’t get rid of the existing “pension contract” or the $110B debt owed to the pension funds. If you can’t get rid of the $110B (or a major portion of it), there is no reason to amend the constitution or “reform” pensions.
== Would you lend your money to this state? ==
Sure; they’ve never missed a bond or pension payment in about 100 years or so.
== Eric Zorn: Rich is right that this is far from a new idea. Eric Madiar, a lawyer who is Cullerton’s pension expert and widely considered an honest broker in these matters has looked carefully at the case law and thinks it can pass constitutional muster — I did a column on it recently http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-tough-choice-pension-reform-perspec-0909-20150908-column.html ==
I remember reading it and disagreeing with it.
== How about trying this: no overtime, unused sick days or vacation days gets to be applied toward retirement. ==
At best, maybe. See the various decisions that say (to paraphrase a bit) “enhancements granted by the legislature can’t be diminished once granted.”
== What Justice Burke was saying was that the state had options to meet the obligation. Taxes etc. she never suggested that there is an out or a way to legally diminish pensions. Read the opinion, it is quite clear in its inference. Raise revenue and pay the debt. ==
-Old and in the Way- is on it. The other thing in the decision was a veiled threat to revisit the “hands off on how it is funded” stance in the IFT decision.
As I said at 8:21pm, Rauner and company want to be very careful what they wish for. They could end up in a real world of hurt if the IL SC decides they’ve heard enough attempted end runs and orders actuarially based annual funding, but doesn’t (and they won’t) order a tax hike.
== Wordslinger: RNUG, they’re softening up the ground — again — to try and bank $2 billion in “savings” to the pension fund contribution. It’s just like the “savings” proposed in February. See, if you call it “savings,” that sounds so much better than the short-funding that was done in the past. The effect is the same — more unfunded liability — but you can spin it to the willfully gullible. ==
It’s a bit more than that. Aside from another attempt to bank fictitious savings, it’s also some cover to try to sneak smaller pension changes / diminishments through the GA while we are all distracted by the big attack.
We all need to keep a wary eye out for various “nose of the camel under the tent” provisions tacked onto needed bills; just another variation on the Rauner “poison pill” attempts on the union.
== Jessica: Madiar is obviously the guy to talk to about constitutionality of this, but there is case law that suggests this is constitutional. See Peters v. City of Spfld. (http://cgfa.ilga.gov/Upload/2008%20JANUARY%20Handbook%20of%20Illinois%20Pension%20Case%20Law.pdf). Court ruled that future salary increases are not constitutionally protected. The problem is it doesn’t save much and if you make the option for them to move to really unattractive, no one will take it. So it’s not an alternative to a tax increase to be able to amortize the debt. But if it’s enough face saving to let republicans vote for a tax increase, do this! ==
Jessica,
To split hairs (which the law does), the court ruled future increases are not protected. But my memory, without re-reading it, is that pension benefits do have to accrue for any future raises that do occur.
In other words, Rauner can not give raises, but if he does give raises, they have to be counted in the pension calculation. Rauner wants the raises to not count towards the pension unless you take a reduced pension. Not quite the same thing as Peters.
== What does Rauner do about TRS then? Since he (kind of) cannot control what a district pays teachers. ==
My assumption is he plans a “starve the beast” approach even though he is for more school spending. If the State were to transfer the “normal cost” of the pensions to the local districts at the same time the State caps property taxes, the money to pay the pensions would have to come from somewhere. At that point, the only obvious choice for the school district would be to cut out raises and lower their salary costs, either by firing some teaching staff or trying to impose salary cuts on all teaching staff. Such a move, if logically analyzed, might also drive more local school district consolidations in order to achieve an economy of scale and eliminate some duplication of management overhead … but I’m not going to hold my breath knowing the psychological investment small towns have in their schools / sports teams.
The reason for the new rules is the budget impasse between the Democratic-led General Assembly and Republican governor. This fiscal year began July 1, but a budget deal is still not in place. Rauner employed the new childcare provisions after the stalemate crossed into the new fiscal year. Rauner’s office called the rule changes responsible.
“One of the governor’s first actions in office was to save childcare from the deliberate underfunding by the Democratic majority in the last fiscal year. Now, the administration is taking steps to responsibly manage the state’s finances due to the $4 billion budget hole created by the legislature this year. The governor’s reforms will free up resources to help the most vulnerable and grow the economy,” said Catherine Kelly, spokesperson for Gov. Rauner.
True in part, but only in small part.
* I asked Emily Miller (no relation) at Voices for Illinois Children to respond…
Hi Rich-
I’ve seen the standard response the Governor’s office releases to defend his child care cuts in a few newspapers now. I think it’s important to deconstruct the statement because it contains so many misstatements and misrepresentation of fact that letting it stand on its own is a huge disservice to Illinois children and families.
Here goes:
“One of the governor’s first actions in office was to save childcare from the deliberate underfunding by the Democratic majority in the last fiscal year.”
Before Governor Rauner signed a bill to ensure the child care system remained solvent for FY15, in February of 2015 during his budget address he proposed $135 million in child care cuts. The “cost savings” were achieved by increasing co-pays, eliminating child care for all children over the age of five, and discontinuing all relative care.
So, both before and after the Governor “saved” child care by funding it for FY15, he actively tried to destroy it for FY16. Unfortunately for low and middle-income working families, he is currently succeeding.
“Now, the administration is taking steps to responsibly manage the state’s finances due to the $4 billion budget hole created by the legislature this year.”
When lawmakers allowed personal and corporate income taxes to roll back on January 1, 2015, Illinois lost between $5 billion and $6 billion in annual revenue - not $4 billion. That was a move encouraged by then-candidate Rauner.
Since then, both the governor and the General Assembly have failed to restore the revenue required to fully fund a year-long budget.
Despite the lack of both appropriation authority and available funds, the executive branch has instructed providers of state services to continue to provide services at last year’s levels. In other cases, the state has failed to make good on payments for existing contracts. In all cases, outside of consent decrees and federal pass-through funds, zero state dollars are being spent on many critical state priorities, meaning that the state is paying with IOUs that are adding to our back-log of unpaid bills.
That is not a responsible way to conduct business, and that is why there is a budget hole.
“The governor’s reforms will free up resources to help the most vulnerable and grow the economy”
The Department of Human Services identified exactly zero economic benefits attributable to Governor Rauner’s child care cuts when it testified before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules this summer.
The administration gave no written financial justification for the child care cuts, and they failed to produce any numbers regarding the amount each of the cuts would “save.” Further, the administration admitted during the hearing that they did no research regarding the economic impact of the cuts on the community—a step that would have been taken if the real goal were economic development. Further, when asked what the impact of the cuts on families would be, the answer was delivered by the then-Director Linda Saterfield, who said the cuts are “devastating.” She has since been replaced by the administration.
In fact, the “most vulnerable” families in Illinois have been hit the hardest by the Governor’s child care cuts. As Voices has pointed out before, the Governor’s cuts mean that a single mom of one child entering the work force can only access child care assistance in Illinois if she makes less than 50% of the federal poverty level, or $664 per month ($8.25 per hour for 20 hours per week.) At least 15,000 children were denied child care by the end of September, based on historic data. Before the Rauner cuts, a single mom of one who earned up to 185% of the federal poverty level, or $2,456 per month (about $15 an hour working 40 hours per week), had access to child care assistance.
That means it makes more financial sense for parents to stay home with their child than to get a job that supports the family. That makes no economic sense at all.
* Rep. Jack Franks on Comptroller Leslie Munger’s decision not to make November’s state pension payment…
“It’s illegal,” said state Rep. Jack Franks, a Democrat from Marengo. “I helped draft the law. We have to pay this — there’s no discretion. So for her to knowingly not pay this, she’s violating the law.”
But as long as all the payments are made by the end of the fiscal year, delaying a payment is not illegal…
The comptroller’s office argued it wasn’t at odds with the law because the office wasn’t skipping payments all together — a past practice that largely contributed to the more than $100 billion in unfunded pension liability facing the state.
“Really the monthly payment is more of an internal matter. We’re not skipping payments, we’re merely delaying them,” said Munger spokesman Rich Carter.
“This is the worst position the state of Illinois has ever been in,” said former Gov. Jim Thompson, the state’s longest-serving governor from 1977 to 1991 and namesake of the state government building fellow Republican Rauner wants to put up for private auction.
“I agree that it’s going to take some difficult negotiations to solve this,” Thompson said in a phone interview with the Daily Herald. “That’s the responsibility of the governor and the legislature. They will have to do their jobs.” […]
However, he conceded, “running the government is not like running a business.”
“What I’m saying is both sides have to sit down and look at what they’ve requested. And if it’s clear the other side can’t deliver those, even if they wanted to, then they have to negotiate on the basis of what each side can deliver.”
That last sentence is just basic governance, but it seems far beyond the grasp of some folks, including Tribune editorial board members…
He had no role in creating the twin messes he’s trying to fix — the ruined state finances and the Illinois economy that reflects Springfield’s grave anti-employer biases. Rauner gets enough grief from Democrats who set Illinois on its disastrous course. He had to be surprised to read that a Republican who had supported him now wants him to surrender to what little the Democratic defenders of the status quo would accept.
What’s doable with those folks? Not enough to make Illinois prosper again.
Excuse me, but the state’s finances are currently in ruins, and the governor has played a very concrete role in today’s mess. He wasn’t sworn in yesterday.
And only extremist radicals would claim that two former Republican governors want Gov. Rauner to just give up and “surrender,” particularly since so many of the governor’s own economic “reform” demands are radical in and of themselves, despite the Tribune editorial page’s best and repeated efforts to skim over the troubling details.
…Adding… MrJM in comments…
Shorter Tribune editorial: Don’t stop the hurricane when the levies are about to break!
