41 Comments - Stanley Motss - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:18 am: The Governor needs to learn, and accept, he ran on *Quinn bad*. That was his platform, except *no social agenda*. And cute TV commercials with his wife. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:23 am: –I’m told that the question the governor will ask Speaker Madigan today is, essentially: Are you ready to let the non-budget reform negotiators move forward in a more official capacity?– What does that mean? Are the “non-budget” items no longer pre-conditions for addressing the “budget” items? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:25 am: In addition to learning how to declare victory, can I suggest that Governor Rauner please stop referring to a tax increase as his giving in to what the Democrats want? I don’t think this characterization is helping nor do I believe it is accurate. - Thoughts Matter - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:28 am: If Madigan answers yes to that question, doesn’t that mean he has nothing to declare victory about? Instead, he and the middle class have to declare defeat? - Annonin' - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:28 am: Despite Capt Fax’s rock solid objectivity the BigBrains will be reminded on six occasions all God’s children (D, GOPies, reps and senator) voted to approve spending, 180+ towns have said ‘no thanks’ to the BigBrain plan to wreck local government cekRauner and both chambers have voted for more work comp reforms. Recognition of those simple facts might be a good distraction from his support of Trump….Oh wait that might have been two weeks ago. - Honeybear - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:29 am: -But there comes a time when the House Democrats need to learn the same thing. That time is now- I feel that I have been very earnest in trying to learn from the folks on this site, especially OW and RNUG. I don’t understand what you mean. I hope you will right a sentence or someone else will explain what you mean. Do you mean that HDEMs should give in to the hostage takers’ demands for the erosion, in small or large part, of labor rights like collective bargaining and prevailing wage? Is that what you mean? I really do want to understand. I’m not being snarky or disrespectful. I want to understand exactly what you want from the HDEMS. - Honeybear - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:30 am: Sorry “write a sentence”. ( Please God don’t let my spouse see that. ) - A guy - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:30 am: Hinz is reflecting what his readers are saying and writing to him. There is a tide of frustration building and one guy looks more flexible than the other right now to the people who are just tuning in. I suspect you’ll be seeing more and more articles with this kind of theme. The rumbling has been going on in precincts for a while. It’s surfacing. - Joe M - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:31 am: Cullerton had better be careful on how he words anything at the meeting. As shown before, Rauner has a tendency to claim that Cullerton is on board with him, when he is not. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:32 am: How can the democrats vote for spending and not the revenue to pay for it? Of course they want a tax increase, that is accurate. They just want the vote to be bipartisan - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:36 am: ===Of course they want a tax increase, that is accurate.=== Some Democrats, sure, but not all. And plenty of Republicans want the spending too, including the Governor. Haven’t you heard him complain about how terrible it is for social service providers to go without pay? - RNUG - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:36 am: -Honeybear- It means Madigan needs to move a bit. Maybe run Rauner’s actual bills with the union busting poison pills and let the D’s vote them down. That does have a political risk in that Rauner will then use those votes in the fall campaigns. But at the same time Madigan can claim victory protecting the working class. In the alternative, run the Rauner bills with amendments removing the poison pills. Or Rauner needs to agree to let those bills be run without the poison pills and accept what he can get. - Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:37 am: @LuckyPierre Unless a tax increase is bi-partisan, it should not happen - cdog - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:37 am: turn the “reform negotiators” loose on PROPERTY TAXES! Negotiate a TAX SWAP that accomplishes making the State the predominant financial support for Education (Madigan), which could then accomplish a significant reduction in the school district portion of all property tax bills (Rauner). and, make sure you CAP THE RATE that can be charged by the run-wild-with-property-tax-dollars school districts! (one district I pay in has a 5.2% of EAV, and the other is 4.5%. Cap it at 2%! Now there is some economic stimulus! /s ) - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:38 am: ===Of course they want a tax increase, that is accurate. They just want the vote to be bipartisan.=== If There was a budget presented that no tax revenue would be required, and further, given these months without a budget, the Rauner vetoed budget that was sent to him would’ve been better than what we have today. Seriously, you either know, but refuse to acknowledge that revenue is required to be a partisan gadfly, or you lack so much in understanding the financial shape Illinois was in before the impasse and since, you are incapable to keep up with what is going on. Given your talking point comments, and your continual purposeful refusal to accept reality, you are just trying to play a game and it’s tiring. You are adding nothing by ignoring everything. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:40 am: ===How can the democrats vote for spending and not the revenue to pay for it? Of course they want a tax increase, that is accurate. They just want the vote to be bipartisan=== Geez LP, no one “wants” a tax increase but the math shows it is required. If something is required to get a budget then both sides should share the ‘blame’ equally. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:44 am: - Honeybear - I defer to - RNUG -’s comment. That’s the ball game now. - Joe M - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:47 am: ==I’m told that the question the governor will ask Speaker Madigan today is, essentially: Are you ready to let the non-budget reform negotiators move forward in a more official capacity?== In other words, are you ready to cave? The main issue here seems to be Rauner’s union-weakening structural changes that he is proposing, and I don’t see a reason for the Speaker to “move a bit” Being for a little bit of union-weakening policy is like being a little bit pregnant. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:53 am: I’m sorry, but after Rauner’s veto of the union no-strike bill, his many attacks on public unions and unions in general and his ballistic opposition to a progressive income tax, Madigan and HDems should say no on prevailing wage/collective bargaining reform. Not just no, but no with an expletive in front of it that rhymes with truck. - ILPundit - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:54 am: I suspect Madigan’s response won’t be “no”. It will be, “yes, once we have a budget resolution signed into law” - DuPage - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:57 am: I remember the house did pass a property tax freeze last year, and Rauner vetoed it because it did not include his unrelated union-busting items. This makes me think Rauner is not really concerned about property taxes. Rauner is ONLY concerned about union-busting. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:58 am: Here’s another preview Madigan says NO. As others have said in comments and the media, NO reforms, NO alternative proposals, NO progress, NO change. Greg nailed it yesterday. Madigan’s primary concern is keeping power for himself as long as he decides to stick around. He can leave this mess behind at any time if he ever wants to. But the state will be left dealing with the fallout for years, if not decades. - forwhatitsworth - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:58 am: ===Unless a tax increase is bi-partisan, it should not happen=== Unless a tax increase is bi-partisan, it will NOT happen! - Joe M - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:01 am: The Democrats already made a huge compromise to Rauner. They gave into Rauner’s request that the 5% income tax be allowed to sunset. The only problem is that Rauner had no plan on how to make up for the lost revenue. So buyer beware about giving Rauner anything else he asks for. He doesn’t have too good of a track record. - Daniel Plainview - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:09 am: - Are you ready to let the non-budget reform negotiators move forward in a more official capacity? - If that’s the point of the meeting, who’s holding up the budget again? - IRLJ - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:13 am: Rauner’s veto yesterday reiterated that he is still intent on union-busting. If his question for Madigan today is whether the Speaker is ready to cave, then the Governor is whistling past the electoral graveyard of March 15. Madigan’s answer should be an emphatic ‘we’re not even on the same planet.’ - burbanite - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:16 am: f/k/a 10:58, despite the Governor being in office substantially less time than Madigan, the damage he has wreaked on our state will most certainly take decades to fix and he can leave any time he wants as well, he already has enough other homes to do just that. While Madigan has been in the GA and has been speaker for decades, he did not and does not have the power to do damage unilaterally as the Governor does and has. - Tom K. - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:17 am: ==Negotiate a TAX SWAP== Cdog has it right - the high real estate taxes have been a huge foot on the neck of property values, I think you’d see a big rebound in real estate if r.e. taxes were restrained to something like 1.5% of market value (and get rid of the nonsense equalization values, etc., that do nothing but line the pockets of the appeals firms). Since most people purchase homes that are what, 2-3 times their income, a point in r.e. tax equals a much larger percentage of income than does a point in the income tax, which makes it very regressive on the middle class. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:22 am: ==It will be, “yes, once we have a budget resolution signed into law”== @IL Pundit - well said. That is what one would expect from the Speaker, a =no= without bluntly saying =no=. If he will not agree to any sort of reforms that may be unpopular with his base right now, he certainly will not agree to them after the budget is passed or before November. A rose by any other name… A =no= by any other name… - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:29 am: ==he did not and does not have the power to do damage unilaterally as the Governor does and has== @burbanite - that might miss the point of Greg’s comment yesterday. Rauner can, and may, be voted out by the public after one term. The only way Madigan is leaving is on his own terms. He is not losing that district, and he is certainly not losing the gavel as Speaker or his role as Party Chair. He also has plenty of power through those roles to =do damage unilaterally= by unilaterally controlling what does or does not move through his chamber as well as candidate support. - RNUG - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:35 am: Madigan needs to appear a bit more willing to compromise to the public. But the truth is whatever he says, Rauner will still paint it as NO! And politically, Madigan is in a good position. Rauner NEEDS a budget to prevent a State employee lockout / hard shutdown and to have the schools open in the fall. And even though Rauner SAYS otherwise, simple math says Rauner HAS TO HAVE a revenue increase; it’s mandatory, not optional. I’ve supported the GOP for many years, but I can see the electoral train wreck coming this fall. Darn few incumbent GOP politicians are going to be re-elected to State office this fall (McCann may be the exception). And it won’t be because of Madigan; it will all happen because of Rauner. - walker - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:37 am: Not sure Greg has focused on the right key question. The question is whether Madigan and Rauner will agree that budget numbers, and non-budget turnaround agenda items, will both be seriously negotiated — but as separate, non-linked issues. - Beaner - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:42 am: All sides are in agreement on the most important issues. The solution must be found without reducing the multibillion dollar liquor subsidy, and there will be no discussion of reducing the threshold where the maximum gaming tax kicks in, which is currently $200 million. Total agreement we cannot allow the privatized gaming revenue be diverted into the Common School Fund. Taxing Liquor as is done in Washington State, would bring in an excess of $400 million in revenue. - Mama - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 12:02 pm: As Anon221 said in another post, “There is compromise, and there is capitulation. Rauner wants capitulation. And, I did vote for Madigan to compromise, but I do not expect him or any other legislator to capitulate when that may not in the best interests of their constituents. Poison pills are capitulation.” I think Anon221 said it all. No one will agree to cut off their right arm and left leg. - Mama - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 12:12 pm: I think the legislators are trying to reach an agreement for their leaders to embrace, but they can only do so much. However, legislators not voting on any bill should not be an option. Everyone should vote either Yes or No. Plus every legislator should vote with their constituents. - Anon221 - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 12:44 pm: Tips hat to Mama:) - fka Lester Holt's Mustache - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 12:58 pm: ==But there comes a time when the House Democrats need to learn the same thing. That time is now.== Agree with Thoughts matter. What, exactly, are they supposed to declare victory on? Funding higher Ed at 30%? The decimation of social services throughout the state? What, exactly, is it that the speaker is supposed to do? If he runs a bill for redistricting, workers comp, or anything else on the governors agenda without collective bargaining changes it’s called out as a “sham” and quickly vetoed. Even if he ran those bills and included the collective bargaining changes the gov demands, it wouldn’t pass either the house or the senate anyway. Are y’all contending that Madigan (and Cullerton) must force Dems to vote in favor of legislation that they don’t want to, so that the governor will agree to a budget of some kind? And declare victory based on that capitulation so that the governor will finally agree to sign some kind, any kind of budget? - burbanite - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 1:05 pm: Tax Swap- Yes! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 1:06 pm: ==Tax Swap=== Wanna bet? - Honeybear - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 1:50 pm: - Rauner NEEDS a budget to prevent a State employee lockout / hard shutdown– I think that is the main feature and not a bug. The death of labor is all he longs for. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 2:30 pm: Lucky Pierre @ 10:32 am: “How can the democrats vote for spending and not the revenue to pay for it? Of course they want a tax increase, that is accurate. They just want the vote to be bipartisan.” How can Rauner veto spending citing lack of revenue and not offer solutions for more revenue? NOBODY wants a tax increase but Dems are more apt to recongize its necessity. Correct. Fixed it for you. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.