45 Comments - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:33 am: — … and simply not found a mechanism to balance the state’s books that doesn’t have some additional revenue coming in. — Ergo: he can’t do it. And won’t. Meanwhile, bluster masks impotence. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:34 am: ===”…(Gov. Bruce Rauner) has looked very closely at this and simply not found a mechanism to balance the state’s books that doesn’t have some additional revenue coming in.”=== Wow is that good. A “give” on a required “NEED” (revenue) is not a “give”… at all. I believed that when Rauner produced his “sham” budget outlines, believe it the same today. Sen. Biss is Spot On perfect, restaurant-quality. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:34 am: The entire pension deficit has been created because there wasn’t enough revenue to pay for both the state contributions and other needs of the state. If people want stuff they have to pay for it. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:36 am: ===The entire pension deficit has been created because there wasn’t enough revenue to pay for both the state contributions and other needs of the state.=== Quinn made the payments. What else ya got? - JS Mill - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:37 am: =If people want stuff they have to pay for it.= Exactly. - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:40 am: What’ll be interesting moving forward — and then jumping forward to 2018 — will be the convergence of Trump and Rauner’s ideas about debt — and how to deal with it. They’re on parallel paths it seems — Trump suggesting borrowing with the idea of paying it off on pennies on the dollar when everything tanks, Rauner suggesting a similar approach. (And Trump’s loony-toons idea of just printing more money.) Anyway, the Convergence (stealing from DeLillo’s latest novel) should happen fairly quickly — Trump and Rauner on parallel, nearly identical, essentially converged paths. Don’t think it’ll turn out good for Rauner, that. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:41 am: Senator Biss has a keen grasp of the obvious. Governor Rauner has acknowledged we need additional revenue but Senator Biss and others have not publicly acknowledged reform of state government and our business environment is necessary. Why? Because just raising taxes in a “temporary” way in 2011 did not solve Illinois problems and we voted the previous governor who advocated just raising taxes and not reforming anything out of office. - Anony - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:41 am: Not really news…. Rauner’s side has suggested from the start that he’ll go for additional revenues, but wants something in return (TA and cuts). It seems he’s not going to unilaterally disarm. We’ll see what Madigan offers. Or doesn’t….. - Longsummer - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:42 am: Too bad this is an election year - illini97 - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:44 am: I don’t know how many times this has been said. Acknowledging that revenues will increase is not a “give” or compromise. It’s a requirement. It’s like saying I’ll let you breathe if you let me decimate unions. Well, you have to breathe, so that was always going to happen. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:44 am: ===Governor Rauner has acknowledged we need additional revenue but Senator Biss and others have not publicly acknowledged reform of state government and our business environment is necessary.=== Reforms or not, revenue is REQUIRED. Are you seriously not paying attention. Revenue is required, not a “give”. Holding hostage a required need isn’t governing. Offering a required need as a “give”, again, is not governing. - pundent - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:44 am: =Senator Biss has a keen grasp of the obvious. Governor Rauner has acknowledged we need additional revenue but Senator Biss and others have not publicly acknowledged reform of state government and our business environment is necessary= By Governor Rauner’s own estimates the “reform” will bring about a whopping 1.4% benefit. So explain how the decimation of unions for such a nominal benefit justifies the destruction of the social net and higher education? I’m sure you’ll have a cogent thought on this since you have “a keen grasp of the obvious”. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:45 am: Takeaway from yesterday’s City Club presentation: Bliss = rational analysis of state issues. McSweeney = Instant pudding rationale for not needing tax increase. - illini97 - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:45 am: Also, I’d really like to see Rauner’s ideas on increased revenues with cuts to produce a balance. Why, I’ll pull up a copy of the budgets he has presented. Oh. Oh no, have they been lost? - Anon221 - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:55 am: Some excellent work by Tony Arnold on recent Illinois history… lest we forget: http://interactive.wbez.org/rauner/ - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 10:55 am: Holding hostage is not a give unless Cullerton does it right Willy? All reforms don’t decimate unions. Chicago has made exceptions to collective bargaining for years. Do the unions look decimated in Chicago? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:00 am: ===Holding hostage is not a give unless Cullerton does it right Willy?=== I’m sure continually hammering the “Cullerton Mistake”, over and over makes me “approve” of Cullerton’s hostage taking. Are you even trying? - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:01 am: –…but Senator Biss and others have not publicly acknowledged reform of state government and our business environment is necessary.– Could I get bacon bits and blue cheese with that, on the side? What’s the ROI on your word salad? Last week, the governor’s peeps released a laser-like analysis that purported to project the statistically insignificant impact of a graduated income tax over 14 years. Little help, on the Turnaround Agenda? Sell it, in numbers. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:01 am: Somebody forgot to tell the unions in Chicago they are decimated. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:02 am: Sorry, 11:01 was me. Gadget problems. - Zonker - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:15 am: Politically, there’s no question that revenues will need to be raised, at least in the short term to avoid systematic collapse. It’s a Solomon-like situation. The child will be “cleaved” in half unless the “mother” who loves the child the most will step up and give in to save the child’s life. Madigan will let the child be halved and die as long as he maintains power and money for his cabal. I honestly can’t figure out what Rauner is willing to sacrifice to stave off the disaster. The “greater good” is becoming very murky at this point. The people of Illinois are in a no win situation. If they give Madigan his way, the economy and employment will continue to tank, and the political class will suck the state dry. If they don’t give him his way, there’s no amount of suffering to the people that Madigan is willing to inflict that is too great for him to keep his machine, wealth and power growing. At some point Rauner will realize that Madigan won’t be pressured into responsible leadership, and he has the power to stymie Rauner as long as he wants. I just can’t see how this Gordian knot gets unraveled. it only ends with a Madigan coronary or Rauner capitulation as I see it, and that’s a shame for Illinois. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:20 am: ===Madigan will let the child be halved and die as long as he maintains power and money for his cabal.=== Hmmm. When Rauner was given the chance to AV or save countless agencies, programs, Higher Ed, Bruce Rauber vetoed everything, killing his own agencies’ funding, refusing to fund Higher Ed, denying payments, killing off social service organizations. Purposely. The choice was NOT the baby… Rauner’s funding was as barren as an Arizona Desert… - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:25 am: === … but Senator Biss and others have not publicly acknowledged reform of state government and our business environment is necessary. === The reason you’re a troll, Lucky, is that you just spew talking points without any real attempt to verify the authenticity of what you’re saying. In fact, Biss and others have acknowledged that changes are necessary. They just don’t buy all of Rauner’s suggestions. Try listening to the City Club program from which the quote was taken. Of course, that would mean you would actually have to do some work. Spewing talking points is just so much easier. - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:36 am: it’s something the members of the Tribune editorial board have yet to comprehend. True for most values of “it”. – MrJM - Anony - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:39 am: Norse - I agree that there has been some acknowledgement of the need for structural change, most apparently in the worker’s comp area. Do you have any sense on how much movement is needed, and on how many of the TA items, before Rauner will sign off on revenue increaes? - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:40 am: Interesting how most Democrats keep avoiding structural changes that will improve the business environment. Adding businesses, salaried employees (i.e. “taxpayers”) will increase personal income tax revenues to the State of Illinois. Those new businesses in turn will purchase supplies and goods that are also taxable. Those new taxpayer employees will pay sales taxes and other taxes on goods and items out there. Short term however, a tax increase is needed. Everyone seems to agree on that. Long term, growing the economy seems difficult for most Democrats to comprehend. Biss seems to understand this concept. I understand he is not willing to adopt Rauner’s proposals in their entirety, but what he can support seems at times vague. Until there are some structural changes, a short term tax increase fix will lead to future governors proposing unbalanced budgets and legislatures passing them. Just as they did in the past pre-Rauner. - 13th ward - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:45 am: Expand the sales tax to advertising revenue and legal fees. Let the state budget share in the windfalls from election year ads and the multi-million class action fees. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:47 am: ===Until there are some structural changes, a short term tax increase fix will lead to future governors proposing unbalanced budgets and legislatures passing them. Just as they did in the past pre-Rauner.=== So, - Louis G Atsaves - No tax increase, until structural reforms? “Simple” question… - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:48 am: Anony @ 11:39 am, what Rauner will accept is the $64,000 question. Throughout this last year, Rich, Charlie Wheeler and so many others have suggested areas that can be acceptable. However, only Rauner and the frat boys know what they will truly accept. I can only hope that the latest “green shoots” are the result of GOP caucus pressure on Rauner to be less absolute on his wants. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 11:55 am: === but what he can support seems at times vague. === Biss’ problem is the same as we all have. We don’t know how far Rauner will back off his poison pills. === Until there are some structural changes, a short term tax increase fix will lead to future governors proposing unbalanced budgets and legislatures passing them. === What Rauner structural change will prevent this? Be specific! - Anony - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:00 pm: Thanks for the response, Norse. Don’t they each need the other to share the heat before giving in on sacred cows? Just curious how far each would go in the end to get a deal. On the outside, it looks like each is most interested in pounding the crap out the other. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:00 pm: ===We don’t know how far Rauner will back off his poison pills.=== This. Negotiations lead to conpromise but I recall vote after vote after vote of “Rauner Bills less the Poison Pills” and House Raunerites voting “Red”… “simply” because Union decimating language was… omitted. How far will Rauner go… as Rauner or his Raunerites keep inserting “reforms” which up to now always seem to include ending prevailing wage and collective bargaining. How far will Rauner go, given this continual “reform” vagueness? - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:16 pm: If I were chief negotiating tsar of the Rauner administration, “yes.” But that is just little old me. I’m not part of the administration. I’m just a fan sitting in the bleachers. There seems to be an impression out there that most Republicans are desperate to cut a deal and throw away all turnaround reforms presented. There is also an impression out there that most Republicans do not agree with the turnaround proposals as a rule. Those impressions need to be dispelled to reach a consensus on this budget and future ones. You will, however, need to directly ask the Rauner administration the question to see if their answers match mine. I’m just up here in the bleachers enjoying the Chicago baseball season. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:28 pm: Sorry, my last post was responding to OW question to me. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:28 pm: Rauner at some point has to either let go of the collective bargaining/prevailing wage poison pills or modify them extremely (if that’s possible and acceptable). Many others and I fervently believe in a progressive state income tax, but as we have seen over and over, we can’t even get it on the ballot. Yet we don’t see any hostage holding over this particular policy, good and needed as it is, which should be the right way to proceed. On the other hand, if Rauner continues to demand the poison pills, why not demand that he and his big financial backer Griffin, who made over $4.5 million a day last year, pay a much higher state income tax? The voters would likely back it. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:32 pm: - Louis G Atsaves - I asked you, not the Administration. “No tax increase, until structural reforms?” ===If I were chief negotiating tsar of the Rauner administration, “yes.” But that is just little old me.=== Then understand… while the Cullerton Mistake is Cullerton’s to put to a vote and force the Rauner Veto, or signature against every GOP GA member, you, - Louis G Atsaves - can’t blame Democrats while “cheering” the strategy of Rauner holding hostage a need, a required need. If you favor the purposeful holding out, that’s s choice, a choice you support, a purposeful choice, not a passive result. Understanding this tweet… By Rauner’s House Floor Leader… @RonSandack: I’m frustrated 2, but taking steps towards reforming IL more important than short term budget stalemate. - Ron Sandack, 9/28/15 Rauner and Sandack are purposely destroying Higher Ed, social services, refusing to fund Rauner’s Agencies, refusing to ensure Agencies’ missions are not met. You agree to that, with your “yes” I seriously appreciate your comment. Thank you. Go Cubs! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:34 pm: - Louis G Atsaves - I appreciate it, bud, and again, I appreciate the expertise you bring here in the WC prong and the sharing of your expertise and looking for solutions there tgat could lead to reforms that all can get behind. Thanks. - Qui Tam - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:41 pm: =If people want stuff they have to pay for it.= After decades, the majority of Illinois voters continue to disagree with you. - Skeptic - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:43 pm: “Democrats keep avoiding structural changes that will improve the business environment.” Objection: Arguing facts not in evidence. 1) Just because the D’s are opposed to Rauner’s idea of “reform” doesn’t mean they’re avoiding changes. 2) There’s been no evidence presented that the TA will in fact improve the business climate. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 12:51 pm: === Don’t they each need the other to share the heat before giving in on sacred cows? === That’s the way it should work. The dance to now has been to try and get the other guy to take the heat. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:03 pm: Norse I did listen to the entire hour. Senator Manar did acknowledge the business environment and specifically workers comp. Senator Biss did not. He did however deliver a lecture straight from the faculty lounge which could it be further away from what businesses need to hear to invest in Illinois. - blue dog dem - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:06 pm: Can somebody help me out and define “some”? - Anony - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:14 pm: Norse, do you think finding something else to work together on would help them on budget and TA items? Something like Chicago’s crime situation? Assuming they could find ANYTHING to agree on….. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:23 pm: Anony, I suggested that months ago. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 1:48 pm: –“Governor Rauner, who I think has sterling fiscal conservative credentials,…”– Examples, please? What a bizarre thing to say. Those words actually have meanings, and when you string them together like that in that context, it’s just loopy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.