102 Comments - Anon221 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:36 pm: Zorn- ” Let him write the bills — with no if-then conditions to link them…” Therein lies the heart of the matter. Rauner just can’t keep away from the poison pills and linked bills. - Dog - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:36 pm: At least it’s an idea, better then no idea or doing nothing - Anon221 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:36 pm: BTW- I voted agree. - Johnny Pyle Driver - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:37 pm: I dunno, I voted no because I don’t really see how Democrats “get” anything out of the supposed “compromise,” but on the other hand, neither does Rauner. The hostages get freed, so that’s good, but there’s still the issue of the masked gunman. It’s also tough to evaluate without knowing what that “compromise” budget looks like. Are Democrats wearing the noose for cuts AND taxes under such a scenario? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:38 pm: What if Speaker Madigan was governor… Sorry, couldn’t resist. Voted “Mostly Disagree” “Why?” If Madigan and Cullerton give in to this… plan… hammered out… Structured Roll Calls and passage is doing something. This? “Never mistake Activity for Achievement” - John Wooden. Dorm room thinking isn’t what’s needed. What’s needed is all Zorn thinks, but actual structured roll calls, votes, passage, and clean signatures. I don’t need to mistake “activity”… Voted “Mostly Disagree”… with a strong lean to follow through. - MSIX - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:40 pm: Mostly agree. It’s purely hypothetical anyway. It’ll never happen. But the idea is sound. My guess is that even if MJM sincerely offered this, The Bruce wouldn’t have the guts to agree lest his most cherished poison pills fail to pass. The Emperor doesn’t want to see. - Reality Check - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:40 pm: No deal is required. The governor is free to write and his leaders to introduce such clean bills as Zorn describes. They haven’t and they won’t. - Casual observer - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:42 pm: I agree with the concept but does my memory fail me? I thought the legislature voted on each of his proposals, individually, sans poison pills. He then vetoed each because they did not go “far enough”. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:45 pm: I mostly disagree because I don’t think Rauner would go for it. I mean, why would he? He knows plenty of Republicans won’t vote to eliminate prevailing wage, for example. Each of these as separate bills that Rauner drafts are doomed. Yes, the Democrats will be tagged for voting against term limits and non-partisan maps. That’ll hurt a bit politically. But Rauner must know that he’ll never get his Turnaround Agenda passed this way. There simply aren’t enough votes and he will look weak in the process of losing vote after vote. That is why his plan all along was a grand bargain, a back-room deal to put the right structured roll calls together to get what he wants. His agenda is bad for Illinois and everybody knows it. The only way it gets enacted is via some sort of shady deal-making. And that should tell you all you need to know about his so-called Turnaround Agenda. If it can’t stand on its own merits, he should stop pushing it on us. What part of “no” does he not understand? - UIC Guy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:46 pm: I voted ‘yes’ because I can’t see how it can hurt. On the other hand, I really doubt that it would help, as I can’t imagine that the Gov would go for it. Does Zorn really think he might? (Or did he just have column inches to fill?) - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:47 pm: Mostly disagree, as it’s hopelessly naive. Gov. Rauner isn’t interested in up-or-down votes on his agenda. Those are losers, and he knows it. He wants winning votes on his union-busting legislation, something that neither Cullerton or Madigan could provide if they wanted to. By the way, how many confirmed GOP votes are there in the GA for ending collective bargaining and prevailing wage? - Abe the Babe - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:49 pm: Mostly agree. But the problem is trust. If the votes come first then will Rauner follow through with a budget deal after his TA is mostly rejected? Or if the budget deal comes first will Rauner believe that the TA will be presented as he wishes? Even if magically a deal was hammered out to end this stalemate, a lack of trust from all involved could still torpedo the ship. We are far from a deal. - Johnny Pyle Driver - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:50 pm: I assume these things would all go down in flames, right? So why not include the poison pills and let the GOP pick their lot? The side with Rauner, there’s some good ads. They side with labor, everybody can see what losers the bills are - Kippax Blue - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:50 pm: Throw in a full vote for the graduated income tax, and we’re on the right track. - Aldyth - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:52 pm: I agreed. It’s a great idea, but I think it is unlikely that Rauner has enough insight into the situation to do anything but keep repeating the same ineffective actions and words we’ve seen. Usually, a person who is stuck in a hole will realise that they should quit digging it deeper. - Citizen Jane - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:52 pm: Add… Open Primaries in Illinois… Let’s get it all out on the table. - TominChicago - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:52 pm: Rauner knows that he only gets what he wants by holding the budget hostage. He would never agree to this, even with up down votes on term limits and map making. - The Captain - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:53 pm: With all due respect to Zorn the issue isn’t the method of compromise it’s that neither side is ready to work with the other. I find his suggestions imperfect but within reason, just like I have so many others. It doesn’t matter though, the Governor won’t work on a budget until his prerequisites are met and the Dems aren’t going to vote for his agenda so it can’t pass and we’ve been stuck in an almost yearlong quagmire. - Harvest76 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:55 pm: Agreed, but there is no way rauner is going to allow his ideas to stand alone for a vote. He needs the cover of the legislature to carry his water. He needs to be able to blame someone if it goes bad. Plus, I really don’t think the budget is his main concern. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:58 pm: I recommended precisely this idea months ago. he doesn’t have the votes. period. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:59 pm: This is never going to happen. - Sir Reel - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 12:59 pm: Disagree With the exception of workers comp and perhaps tort reform, Rauner’s agenda makes little economic sense. His ideas are more about hurting the Democratic party. Why compromise on your party’s future? As others have said, let Rauner introduce bills and call votes. The maybe he’ll learn to count. - HBO Special - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:01 pm: I voted “Mostly Disagree.” Rauner needs to make the case that his “Turnaround Agenda” is good public policy before anyone should commit to a vote on it. Redistricting Reform and Term Limits sound good until the public figures out that they mostly benefit the interests of wealthy “establishment” Republicans who can simply use vast cash campaign resources to elect novice legislators and skew results by manipulating districts. - Rasselas - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:03 pm: In think several of you are misunderstanding Zorn’s point. He is not proposing this as a way of getting all the bills (budget and turnaround) passed. He’s saying - we’ll put ours on the table, you put yours. Let’s see what passes, with the Governor agreeing to sign whatever passes. What Zorn is probably anticipating is that the budget passes, the turnaround agenda mostly fails, and everybody walks away with either a ‘win’ or a rollcall to campaign on. What he’s missing is that a tax increase will never pass that way - the Republicans and Democratic targets will vote no. The only way a tax increase passes is with a structured roll call (the last three times under a Republican Governor were passed that way). And that will probably never happen without other things mixed in as a deal. - Southern Dawg - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:04 pm: Up or down floor votes on his turn around items?? If so simple, why are we 9 months without a budget? Rauner could have easily done this on day one and not held the state hostage to get what he wants. Moreover, the House has voted 13 times on a property tax freeze. Every Republican has voted against it every time. Why? Because Rauner wanted included in that legislation language that shattered unions and outlawed prevailing wage. Rauner has yet– one time– to introduce a clean bill on any of his turn around items. If it’s because of a lack of floor votes on single item bills that we don’t have a budget, it’s entirely because Rauner doesn’t want his items singularly debated or voted on. Where the heck has Zorn been? - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:05 pm: for this to work you would need trust, and rauner has built non of that. - South of Sherman - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:06 pm: I mostly agree. None of those eight votes would be as politically damaging as the vote that will have to be taken on the budget (and revenue hikes). But that vote will have to be taken. So let’s get that done, and then let the majority vote down every other misguided idea. Rauner is going to throw massive amounts of money against Dem lawmakers for the budget/revenue vote, regardless of what happens to the TA. So if you’re going to have a target on your back anyway, we should at least get a budget out of the deal. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:06 pm: plus the turn around agenda is a sound good Trojan hoarse and MJM knows it. - Me too - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:06 pm: Make the offer… Why not? Itwouldn’t be accepted. The gov only gets union busting, his only real goal, by holding hostages or threatening legislators. - Southern Dawg - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:06 pm: My comment got ated! - 414 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:07 pm: @Jane, we have open primaries in IL. I vote mostly agree just because it’s better than what’s happening now. But I don’t think Rauner would go along with this arrangement. He wants “Turnaround” items voted on and approved before a budget deal. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:08 pm: noting happens until after the general election. You are not going to get any votes on new revenue until after that. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:08 pm: I voted mostly agree — because I agree with the idea. I don’t think it’s feasible and I don’t think the governor would do it. If he wanted to introduce bills for his “turnaround agenda” he could have done it. If he wanted to propose budget cuts he could have done it. But, treating the Governor’s mansion like a command chair and making demands is what he’s doing. “If you cut the budget, I’ll let you raise taxes.” Like, really? So — I agree with the plan but I think it’s a fantasy. But I don’t disagree with the fantasy. - burbanite - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:08 pm: I mostly agreed but just b/c I am being an optimist. Will never happen. They can’t say anything that does not include the words “structural reforms” or “reforms”. The Gov and his people are incapable of it. I think to a limited extent this has already been tried, but the Gov is not open to learning on the job, b/c he knows better than everybody. So, since I mostly agreed, they should throw it out there, Governor we will agree to work out budgetS with you (would be nice to have one for 16 & 17) and upon them passing will vote on this specific turnaround legislation as soon as the budget is passed. Balls in Gov’s court then. - zonz - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:09 pm: I disagreed. Let Rauner put this on the table WITH the text of his bills. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:09 pm: Zorn is mostly on point. It is the best compromise idea offered by anyone so far. Others who mostly disagree are welcome to offer their compromise suggestions. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:09 pm: also, keep in mind that rauner tweaked the lion when he ran a primary opponent against MJM and spent about a million bucks in MJM’s district against him. - Will Caskey - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:11 pm: I mean. Look I get that the HDem stunt bills are ridiculous stunts; honestly I haven’t seen a dumber legislative session in the 30+ states I’ve worked in over my career than this last one. And I also get that term limits is one of those terrible ideas, like “low taxes,” that will always poll extremely well. Having said that, let’s keep it 100 here: there’s a reason the (admittedly ridiculous, dumb, counterproductive) stunt votes draw present/no votes from HReps. The vast majority of Rauner’s agenda is Republican in a very cartoonish, nationalized sense and doesn’t observe the inherently geographical party divisions in Illinois. The problem isn’t inability to compromise. It’s that the GA has a lousy job (raise taxes to stabilize the budget) and Rauner is countering it with even lousier policy proposals. - Austin Blvd - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:13 pm: The challenge to this approach…is that Madigan typically negotiates by introducing a proposal. It would be tough for him to get the Weenie Caucus on board with enough votes. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:14 pm: –It is the best compromise idea offered by anyone so far. Others who mostly disagree are welcome to offer their compromise suggestions.– Again, the governor doesn’t want “votes” on his non-budget agenda, he wants them “enacted” before he will negotiate on a budget. Do you see the difference? The absurdity is that some people consider it a legitimate use of power to zero out higher education and break contracts with social service providers in pursuit of a reactionary agenda. It the same as saying, “if I don’t get my way, higher ed and social services are not worth having.” - Eyes Rolling - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:14 pm: I mostly disagree, because all of Rauner’s proposals have ‘gotchas’ in them. His term limit proposal, for instance, changes the number of state senators and state reps AND raises the threshold for overriding a veto. Great idea for a governor, no? And I sure trust the Independent Map Amendment group to come up with a better redisctricting plan than Rauner. In fact, I don’t trust Rauner at all. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:15 pm: HBO Special- “Rauner needs to make the case that his “Turnaround Agenda” is good public policy before anyone should commit to a vote on it.” ***** Rauner thinks he’s already done that when he was elected! Although, he’s still campaignin’. /s And, now, it’s just us… http://www.sj-r.com/news/20160323/pennsylvania-impasse-ends-after-governor-relents-illinois-now-only-state-without-budget - Eugene - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:16 pm: This idea reflects a misunderstanding of the situation on several levels. But the bottom line is, Rauner isn’t going to lose these votes and just say, Oh, well, I tried”. Rauner’s game plan is to use the budget hostages to force Democrats to support his key agenda items - all of which revolve around union busting. Anything less than muscling through his anti-union agenda is unacceptable to him. He’d rather wait for the November elections. - offer - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:18 pm: I don’t get it. Hasn’t this more or less been offered by Democrats for the entire past year? The whole issue is that Rauner will not discuss budget until turnaround agenda items are not just floated but passed. And they won’t pass. That is the whole point of Rauner’s campaign this past year - hold the state budget hostage until he gets his items that nobody wants. - Belle - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:20 pm: Disagree I took Rauner’s side on the school budgeting issue yesterday and afterwards felt like I had been taken. The reality is that he an propose a budget any day and refuses to since he only wants to win. He cannot win by proposing a budget since he needs to show his cards first. Plus, then go through possible/probable defeat of his proposal. - LizPhairTax - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:23 pm: Now youse can’t leave - Facts are Stubborn Things - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:23 pm: @- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:09 pm: = Others who mostly disagree are welcome to offer their compromise suggestions= you don’t compromise with a hostage taker. I mostly disagree and I offer the following: Rauner should set down and address the number one problem facing the state of Illinois and negotiate a budget that has cuts and new revenue. - HBO Special - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:25 pm: Anon221 “Rauner thinks he’s already done that when he was elected! Although, he’s still campaignin’. /s” If my memory serves me correctly, Rauner never specifically campaigned on any of the items in the “Turnaround Agenda” but instead just said that he would “shake up Springfield.” Since the voters never had a chance to vote on any “Turnaround Agenda” items, and deliver him any sort of a mandate, not sure why the Legislature needs to do anything until Rauner makes his case to the voters in Illinois. - RIJ - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:29 pm: Mostly agree, but it ain’t gonna happen with Governor Ahab at the helm. But it is still important to get ideas out there that are alternatives to the Run Aground agenda. - Chicago 20 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:30 pm: Been there, done that. Madigan already held votes on Rauner’s turnaround agenda items even though the Republican’s refused to write the legislation. No Republican’s voted yes on any of the bills. It’s not the Speaker of the House or the Senate President’s duty to sit down and hammer out a budget, it is the Governor’s job. Rauner insists on making objectives for others to meet after Rauner has encumbered those objectives with additional, unrelated poison pills. If Illinois needs a constitutional amendment is should be to allow the State to impose a progressive income tax A progressive income tax would put us on par with the majority of States and take some of the burden from property taxes. - Earnest - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:30 pm: I voted Disagree. I don’t think it would accomplish anything. I think it would be more of an issue with the Republican rank and file than the Democratic rank and file to cast a vote of any kind on the vast majority of Rauner’s proposals. Most of what Rauner wants is not popular with voters, which is why he doesn’t campaign on it, other than with very vague references. He is not going to let himself get pinned down to admitting exactly what he wants, especially since he’s already got it–decimation of human services and higher education, a rapidly rising backlog of bills and budget deficit, which will give him more and more leverage. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:31 pm: Mostly disagree. With a more reasoned, measured executive, I may very well agree. But to risk so much to appease this Governor? Not in good conscience. - Magic carpet ride - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:31 pm: Voted disagree. Maybe he wants to write more checks to the dems to vote “his” way. - chicagonk - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:32 pm: @Reality Check The bills have been introduced in various pieces by members in both the house and the senate. Along with hundreds of other bills, they are stuck in purgatory (aka the Rules Committee). Controlling which bills get voted on is one of the benefits of having a majority in the house and senate. Considering Madigan appoints the majority of the house rules committee, Zorn’s idea is dead in the water. - HBO Special - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:32 pm: By doing nothing, the Legislature is, in fact, telling Rauner that he needs to keep on shaking because the drink he’s serving is going to get ignored. Judging by the results of the elections on March 15th, the voters in Illinois seem to be okay with the Legislature ignoring the Governor and focusing on passing a budget without any side issues from the Turnaround Agenda being put into the mix. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:34 pm: HBO Special- You are correct! But, it was all in his mighty CEO mind. The minions didn’t need to know the details. - The Doc - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:36 pm: I applaud Zorn’s effort, but mostly disagree. The compromise here is *hammering out* a budget. If I’m a generic Dem rep, no doubt that the budget agreement shorts (or eliminates completely) funding for numerous agencies and services I (or my constituents) consider worthwhile. Add on a bunch of tough votes that will be used to beat me over the head by my opponent in the general, and I’m out. - Dr X - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:36 pm: Didn’t the House already vote on individual bills last year and they failed? Plus, this idea starts with the assumption that Rauner wants to govern. He does not. - One of the 35 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:36 pm: I voted, “mostly agree”. Yes, it is an idealistic proposal, just as “letting the people have their say”, is an idealistic concept in a representative republic such as state government. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:37 pm: “No deal is required. The governor is free to write and his leaders to introduce such clean bills as Zorn describes. They haven’t and they won’t.” And I don’t see the political up-side of publicly making such an offer to Rauner. Much like the inevitable revenue increase, a budget is a necessity for a functioning state government — not an item on a Democratic wish-list. “I’ll do what we both know must be done, but I’ll only as a favor to you”? Pass. In addition, Zorn’s offer would inevitably lead to nit-picky arguments over whether or not a bill is “clean”. Rauner could trumpet his agreeing to the deal to make a deal — and then introduce legislation with duplicitous “if-then” contingencies or other poison pills. The Dems would then be in the politically untenable position of having to explain why Rauner’s legislative deal doesn’t comport with the deal they agreed to in the deal to make a deal. (If that last sentence seemes like a tangled mess, imagine the linguistic contortions necessary to explain to the public how a bill containing a cleverly worded poison pill isn’t actually the bill it appears to be. And why that matters.) As the wise man said: If you’re explaining, you’re losing. The only way the deal to make a deal would work as smoothly Zorn suggests is if the Democrats thought Rauner was trustworthy. And if the Democrats thought Rauner was trustworthy, elaborate deal swapping wouldn’t be necessary. Unnecessary. No up-side. And politically perilous. I voted Mostly Disagree. – MrJM - ILPundit - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:40 pm: Disagree For this idea to work, the Governor would have to put his entire Turnaround Agenda in bill form. There is a reason he’s avoided doing that for nearly 15 months. The status quo is the plan. Rauner doesn’t change course because he’s getting exactly what he wants. - AC - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:40 pm: Disagree, we need less theatrics. - Vole - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:42 pm: “Let Rauner make his case with legislation” Let? Has anyone prevented Rauner from making his case? Who has prevented Rauner from drafting the legislation he wants and presenting it to the legislature? Who has prevented him from governing? Have to disagree with the concept. - Beaner - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:43 pm: Rauner is askin’ for billions more in spendin’, yet he has no revenue plan. Neither does Durkin or Radogno. HFS spendin’ FY15 was $20,535.6, and is requestin’ $22,127.7 for FY17. This is a $1.6 billion increase, which outstrips natural budget revenue growth. No plan is plannin’ to fail. Rauner fails to lead. No budget equals total failure. Maybe thin’s will be clearer to the votin’ public and superstars in November. “G”s were removed to make it easier for Superstars to read. - Wallinger Dickus - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:47 pm: Naive. The kind of stuff written by a civics book author. Real world exclusion if ever there was. - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:49 pm: Vole +1. Exactly. Spot on. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 1:50 pm: ===The kind of stuff written by a civics book author=== He’s a liberal do-gooder ensconced in the Tribune’s ivory tower. You’d expect something different? lol Back to the question, please. - x ace - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:01 pm: Mostly Disagree - ” Never Bid Against Yourself “ - Liberty - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:03 pm: Disagree- It simply isn’t going to happen. Rauner has no interest in compromise because he is leveraging. The leveraging will go on until the next election. Madigan has no interest in capitulating. Rauner owns it. - Captain Illini - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:04 pm: @-414 “we have open primaries in Illinois” Umm…no we don’t…you have to declare a party when voting in Illinois primaries, thus closed. To the post, mostly disagree due to what’s already been said, lived through and agonized over the past nine months. - Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:06 pm: Mostly disagree. I don’t see offering what Zorn describes as a big risk to democrats. It is Rauner that wants a grand compromise on Turnaround Agenda+Budget items, rather than voting on them separately. So offering him this would just be a political stunt, rather than moving toward compromise. Plus I don’t see legislators of either party wanting to vote up or down on Term Limits. There’s a reason why you don’t hear Rauner say as much about that item in the Turnaround Agenda as the other items - even he has heard this from the R legislators. I’d rather they make Rauner the offer Rich suggested a couple weeks ago. - Willie - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:11 pm: I think the Rauner Administration is more worried about the Easter Egg Hunt today for state employees than the state budget. What a waste of state resources. - West Sider - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:11 pm: I would take political advice from Zorn- after Carol Marin, and years before John Kass. This is not high praise. - Willie - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:13 pm: That would be IDNR at conservation world… - Ahoy! - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:15 pm: I mostly agree because at this point, why not? The one flaw I see, and one that is so often over looked is that this is not just about a budget. A budget is about appropriating existing money. This is also about a tax increase and if the Republicans are going to put votes on a tax increase they are going to want to pass some of their legislation. Another problem here is that the Illinois Democrats have forgotten how to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans, they have just had such large majorities for far too long that they have never needed them and now they do. - HBO Special - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:16 pm: This all seems a bit moot to me. As long as Rauner has millions in the bank (and he does) and he’s willing to spend it on political campaigns (he is) against any one (he is), he isn’t getting any political wins to put on his political resume to use in either 2016 mid-term elections or in his 2018 re-election campaign. The Legislature’s plan now is to make him wear the jacket for higher ed insolvencies, a CPS insolvency and any other fiscal crisis that result from his failure to capitulate or the Republican failure to override the Governor on spending Bills (without cuts or tax hikes) so Rauner personally has to decide what items to fund and, more importantly, not to fund. If all he has to show for his time in office in 2018 is gridlock and unplanned closures, even astronomical campaign spending is unlikely to get him re-elected. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:20 pm: Wouldn’t it be great if there were real, “open’ proposals presented, debated and then voted upon? But that requires trust, good faith and honesty—–all qualities lacking by both sides. As we all wait for the November election there should not be any realistic expectations for a budget resolution - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:21 pm: Madigan would never, ever cede control of the map. - Nick Name - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:23 pm: Mostly disagree. It’s a naive proposition: you can’t trust Rauner not to spin it to make the Dems look bad, or to uphold his end of the bargain; and you should not have to cut deals just to enact the most basic element of any government at any level: a budget. - Melvina - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:26 pm: Eric Zorn should resign, voted no, for trust reasons as cited by others, I do love him describing someone else as sanctimonious. - RNUG - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:31 pm: I voted mostly agree, not because it would ever happen, but because right now perception is reality and the D’s need to be perceived as being reasonable and willing to compromise. There won’t be overwhelming public pressure to get a budget done until there is only one obvious holdup / villain in the minds of the voters … and such an offer might move public perception. - Diogenes in DuPage - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:36 pm: As an optimist, I voted Mostly Agree. As a realist, I fear this won’t end until Rauner & Madigan let it, or 2019– whichever comes first. - anon - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:44 pm: === I mostly disagree because I don’t think Rauner would go for it. === If the Dems make the offer, however, and Rauner rejects it, he will be seen for the stubborn obstructionist he is, while the Dems would be seen as the side seeking reasonable compromise. That alone is a benefit. - Juvenal - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 2:48 pm: Disagree. If we are going to hammer out language on a budget to get it to the approval of the governor before a vote, wouldn’t it make sense that tlanguage for the governor’s roll calls would be amended by Democrats before a vote? Having “sham votes” on Republican ideas that are just going to flame out and fail is not a good faith effort or compromise. Having a real vote on a real budget that is based on the input of Democrats and Republicans is a good faith effort and compromise. Here is a counter-proposal for Mr. Zorn: why not have the Governor submit a new Turnaround Agenda that is actually related to state revenue and appropriations? - JackD - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm: No; it’s just another distraction allowing more delay in reaching a deal. - efudd - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:14 pm: Disagree. Rauner has no intention of signing a budget. If he does not pick up any seats, or loses some, in November I maintain that he will walk away from the job. He never had any intention of governing, and I’m starting to think he believes the job is beneath him. - Flying Illini - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:28 pm: Mostly agree–no, I don’t think it will solve anything, but Madigan saying something other than: (1) I’m prepared to reasonably negotiate, (2) Rauner’s attacking the middle class, and (3) Rauner’s being radical, would be a welcome change. It would be nice for someone to set strategy and “who wins” aside for long enough to recognize the hits that our universities (public and private–from no MAP grants), our social services, our vendors, and our State agencies are taking, in order to offer an olive branch and make a move toward the middle. With the possible exception of healthcare, Rauner needs to give up his union rants (and bankruptcy and CPS takeover as back doors to gutting CBAs and pensions). Both sides need to accept a half sandwich, declare victory and move on. - RNUG - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:28 pm: == If he does not pick up any seats, or loses some, in November I maintain that he will walk away from the job. == Right now that might be the best possible outcome. - Truthteller - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:41 pm: Disagree. If there were no public employee collective bargaining in Illinois and the Dems were insisting that such a bill be passed before a budget could be adopted, the press wouldn’t be wringing it’s hands over the obstinacy of the parties, rather it would be pointing its fingers at the Dems for holding the budget hostage. It’s time for them to point fingers at the Governor. No more hand wringing. Rauner is responsible for this mess. He inherited a hole and dug it deeper.Zorn shouldn’t be trying to help the Governor save face, he should be exposing the egg which covers it - m - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 3:55 pm: I like the idea. But after Rauner has gotten his caucuses to take some incredibly unpopular votes, I think Madigan could easily get enough votes to kill redistricting or term limits, no matter how popular they might be. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 4:04 pm: Agree. At this point, what could it hurt? I’m not holding my breath, though… - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 4:45 pm: Umm, Captain Illini: Umm…no we don’t…you have to declare a party when voting in Illinois primaries, thus closed. Incorrect. A closed primary is one where you have to be a registered member of a political primary in order to vote in that party’s primary. A system where you can declare at the polling place which primary you want to vote in is an open primary. Illinois has an open primary system. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 4:59 pm: I know OW is going to scold me but I totally disagree. I know I don’t speak for labor but my local is no longer going to compromise or take anything lightly till this governor is gone. It’s Thunderdome for us… two enter, one leaves. I know many want “peace in our time” but the people I’m with are no longer interested. If there is compromise fine, but even bringing up prevailing wage just threw me into a rage. I think those in the Ivory tower should stay there till this is over. Que my scolding in three…two…one. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 5:15 pm: - Honeybear - You seem to be listening, but not hearing me.. The governing must happen. Rauner needs to govern, we need functional state government. Come “now to July 1st”, organize, prepare, message, build… After July 1st till November? “Vote Accordingly”. Do the necessary things Labor is preparing when the time is ripe. Until July 1st, or a functioning state government emerges, even with AFSCME strife, be “cool” You won, everyone knows Labor won “Round 1″ March 15th, but November still needs to be won. Gloating, over confident and unnecessary bashing isn’t needed… today. Today. “We’ll be in a few races, we’ll be heard, we’ll make a difference, but today, we need a contract, we need a functioning government, we need a budget, we need an end to the hostages.” Patience. Message and time to organize ALL this is I fromt if you. Let the horse lead the cart. - Peon - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 5:22 pm: Voted no - this budget impasse is not a problem of legislative process. - James - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 5:56 pm: Nice column, but voted no, and as many have observed the primary issue is that Rauner is not trustworthy. He’s shown his true nature repeatedly, just as a rattlesnake will bite you no matter how well you treat him. Right now I trust Democratic leadership to make the best of the situation, and to see beyond January 2019 when we can “bring back Illinois”. - Phoenix - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 7:38 pm: Disagreed. Don’t trust Rauner. - cannon649 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 7:45 pm: Zorn has some reasonable ideas for reasonable leaders. That is not close to Illinois. - Losing My Edge - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 8:05 pm: Disagree. I’ll believe a compromise when I see a compromise. This is more show biz. More of the problem. - Odysseus - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 10:34 pm: Mostly disagree - bad policy is bad policy, and even bringing it to a vote is a bad idea. Nonpartisan redistricting is a great idea. Require districts to respect county lines as much as possible, and it gets even better. Term limits are a terrible idea. We have term limits - they’re called elections. Quit whining and win one. - Tinsel Town - Wednesday, Mar 23, 16 @ 11:37 pm: I don’t think you can trust Rauner… given some of the past statements he hasn’t followed thru on. - jerry 101 - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:48 am: If Rauner was a reasonable person interested in governing who just had a different vision for Illinois than the Democrats, then I’d be happy to agree with Zorn. It’s a very reasonable proposal. Unfortunately, Rauner is not a reasonable man. He’s an ideologue on a mission from Koch. He is a true believer in his mission to implement his agenda. As such, I don’t see him ever agreeing to do anything reasonable. Illinois won’t have a budget until one of the following happens: -the Democrats have a caucus that will fully unite and override the governor’s veto, which would require a supermajority that is in lockstep with leadership, -the Republicans take a majority of both houses, or -Rauner leaves office. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.