|
A little sunshine could help a lot
Wednesday, May 18, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * The last sentence in this excerpt pretty much sums up the philosophy of the Illinois Policy Institute…
What we really need is a better balance. As I’ve said many, many times before, we need to do things for employers like make workers’ comp insurance more affordable. We need to help local governments deal with their cost burdens as well. But it has to be a balanced approach. Until recently, the governor hasn’t been interested in that. I think he’s changing, at least in the context of making a budget deal before everything crashes and burns. * And here’s something that the folks who don’t want a deal always miss: Once Rauner agrees to a tax hike, he will have a far tougher time holding everybody hostage. Yes, he can veto future budgets in order to try and obtain even more reforms. But if there’s ample revenue coming in, we won’t be racking up these huge deficits. So, I think the working group on the “non-budget” items should make its product public, even though it’s not yet completed. Right now, opponents of a deal (including Speaker Madigan) keep talking about how they’ll fight to the death the governor’s proposed reforms from last year. But those proposals have changed, in many cases considerably.
|
- Norseman - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:37 am:
We’ve seen earlier proposals from an informal bipartisan group of Solons. The problem is that Rauner rejected them. I don’t recall whether there was any reaction to those proposals from Cullerton or Madigan.
I presume - you’ll probably correct me if I’m wrong - that if the react to the current groups proposal is more positive than negative (in other words, not horrible), than the leaders will be pressured to adopt this as the framework.
Nice to consider, but Rauner and Madigan don’t like sunshine.
- Sir Reel - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:40 am:
Taxpayers versus tax receivers. Classy.
So businesses that pay no or little taxes, and businesses that get tax breaks fall into the receiver category, right?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:41 am:
Once you lose credibility you lose trust too. Both Rauner and Madigan have lost credibility.
- Bryan - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:42 am:
“We are tired of talking about this in our homes,” McHarry said. “Illinois representatives should represent the taxpayers and not the tax receivers.”
Illinois State Workers ARE Taxpayers, just like McHarry. Illinois Representatives should represent all of us.
- phocion - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:43 am:
Rich, you’re being too reasonable. It’ll never fly.
- Bryan - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:44 am:
“But those proposals have changed, in many cases considerably”
Do you have any concrete examples of that? I’ve never heard Rauner mention an exact thing he’d change in his reform package, other than the “right-to-work zones” thing.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:45 am:
Since, according to IPI, I am a receiver why do I get these goofy property tax bills and why am I filing income tax returns for the State of Illinois? It’s very puzzling.
- Chicago 20 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:46 am:
It would take a massive tax increase just for the State to pay its past and present obligations.
It’s way past time to pay the bills.
Future appropriations and future revenue streams are up for negotiations, the legislators can’t change the past only the future.
First deal with the present crisis before creating the next.
- Expletivedeleted - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:46 am:
200 people signed up and of those 50 showed up to a rally that paid participants $40 each. Well, with those kind of numbers I think IPI can declare victory. /s
- BK Bro - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:47 am:
If the Raunerites are willing to give on some tax increases, the Madigan crew ought to give on some labor reform issues. If anything, not having a budget is helping Rauner. Agencies and others receiving State funds are being forced to make cuts and make their organizations smaller, which is something that Rauner probably wants and Democrats probably don’t want. Not giving in to some modest reforms seems to only hurt Democrats in the long run.
- The Captain - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:50 am:
For a while we’ve been told that conservatism is rooted in compassion, that the Democratic approach is fundamentally flawed because assistance creates dependency. Instead we’ve been given’s conservatism’s bumper sticker slogan, “a hand up not a handout.”
Our single best tool to fight income inequality is access to quality, affordable education so that our most capable and hardest working young people can achieve regardless of the economic status. We have a number of tools in our arsenal to provide just that, among them are MAP grants, a need-based education grant for college students and our higher ed system, particularly those schools that serve less affluent students like Chicago State and our community college system.
Instead of emphasizing these tools that should be the pillars of the conservative approach to reducing income inequality and increasing opportunity for all the Governor (who defeated Dillard in the 2014 Republican primary via the conservative wing of the party) has spent the last year and a half specifically trying to gut them.
Now look at that quote above, the Illinois Policy Institute, the state’s right-wing think tank that has previously been personally funded by the Governor, is dividing this state into the haves and the have nots and they’re very clear about which ones they’re against. There’s no compassion in this conservatism, this isn’t a fundamental disagreement on the best way to reduce income inequality and increase opportunity, this is a naked war on the poor.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:52 am:
===If the Raunerites are willing to give on some tax increase…===
It’s not a GIVE… if more revenue IS required.
Ugh. Keep up, please.
===Agencies and others receiving State funds are being forced to make cuts and make their organizations smaller, which is something that Rauner probably wants and Democrats probably don’t want.===
Um… no agency has ANY money. Blissfully unaware I’m guessing…
===Not giving in to some modest reforms seems to only hurt Democrats in the long run.===
Diana Rauner and Ounce thank you.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:52 am:
Rich, “As I’ve said many, many times before, we need to do things for employers like make workers’ comp insurance more affordable. We need to help local governments deal with their cost burdens as well. But it has to be a balanced approach.”
From yesterday’s blog posts (Nyet)- Brown also said that Madigan’s appointees will have a specific role at the negotiations. “On most of those topics, people will be able to go to those meetings and explain what the House has already done on those topics in the past year and a half.”
*****
There has been bipartisan work done on all these topics in the past, as many have posted on CapFax. Rauner either is totally unaware of this, or chooses to ignore past work done either under his administration, or past administrations. Tweaks and changes probably do need to be made, but more likely than not, not a complete overhaul. Work on the topics such as WC with that in mind, and keep away from the nastiness of poison pills attached to budget bills. A separate working group on these non-budget issues is a good first step. Compromise, not capitulation.
- molly maguire - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:56 am:
Balance sounds good, but I have to call out the gentleman’s false dichotomy and class warfare against working people of “taxpayers” and “tax receivers”. This is the Romney 40% are lazy, don’t want to work, and just living off the rest. This goes back a long way in right wing and Republican circles, and what the IPI is peddling. I remember when my white collar salesman uncle used to bend my teenage ear about the “makers” and “takers” in society. There is also a lot of racism and “those people” thoughts embedded in these tropes. I see it and hear it every day.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:58 am:
–But those proposals have changed, in many cases considerably.–
Not until the governor says so, publicly. Same goes for the budget “framework.” They don’t really exist unless he gives some reasonable indication he won’t pull the ball away like Lucy.
You really can’t do his job on the sneak. You have to stand up and be counted. That’s how things get moved.
- JoanP - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:59 am:
“Swanson was one of about 50 Illinoisans who gathered Tuesday at the Capitol. . .”
“Over 200 people signed up for the taxpayer rally . . .”
So only 25% of those who signed up showed up? Guess those t-shirts weren’t quite the draw they expected.
- Bull Moose - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:59 am:
People ought not think of government like buying a product. Investing in public safety, in roads, in education have benefits that spill out well beyond their immediate recipients. They create something more valuable than if just had people pay voluntarily.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Captain.
+100
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:02 am:
I use public schools and roads and libraries and police/ fire and transit and water / sewage… Am I a tax receiver? Should my legislators start ignoring me?
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:02 am:
But Madigan doesn’t want this war to end until after the election, it’s all part of his political plan, taxpayers, tax-receivers, women and children, it doesn’t matter, what matters to Madigan is his agenda and the next election and he has his mind set that this war helps him.
Until he fears voter backlash against his members (in the rigged districts) he’s not going to change. Yes, we need balance, the Governor needs to come closer to the middle (which I believe he is) but so does Madigan, and I don’t believe he’s willing to do that.
- cgo75 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:09 am:
Compared to many states; people in Illinois are begging for tax increases, even substantial tax increases….There’s very little resistance, beyond the Governor’s office. Income, Property, Sales Head Taxes, additional fees etc.
- Mouthy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:10 am:
–But those proposals have changed, in many cases considerably.–
So if the ransom is made less you should pay it? Not in my book..
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:20 am:
So people who get TANF or SNAP or unemployment comp or state contracts are all second class citizens now?
- BK Bro - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:21 am:
===If the Raunerites are willing to give on some tax increase…===
It’s not a GIVE… if more revenue IS required.
Ugh. Keep up, please.
Is it also not a “give” if labor reforms or other cost saving measures are required to help local gov’s control costs? Even significant revenue increases alone won’t solve the problem.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:27 am:
===Is it also not a “give” if labor reforms or other cost saving measures are required to help local gov’s control costs? Even significant revenue increases alone won’t solve the problem.===
No.
That’s a want. Revenue IS required. Labor reforms are a want.
You can have a budget with or without labor refoms… Can’t have a budget balance without revenue.
Again, please keep up, maybe bone up on wants and needs too, LOL
- Earnest - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:28 am:
>So, I think the working group on the “non-budget” items should make its product public,
It would be interesting to see behind the curtain of “pro-business reforms” and “details to come later.” We’ve yet to see that from Rauner, though, and I’m not optimistic.
- Hoping for Rational Thought - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:36 am:
Sunshine is always best. It is also the hardest for legislators and bureaucrats.
OW - Revenue is not required if cuts are made instead. The problem is those who do not want to vote for more revenue can’t stomach voting for the amount of cuts needed.
So Revenue OR Cuts are required. An that is the dilemma we face because legislators can’t be honest with themselves. They don’t see it.
- BK Bro - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:39 am:
Forgot to put on my state house sunglasses that only allow me to see revenue when thinking about how to solve financial problems, not expenses. Back to escaping reality!
- Louis Capricious - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:46 am:
=== Not until the governor says so, publicly. ===
Exactly. Not to mention, the governor has repeatedly moved the goal posts (his TA priorities) over the last year. Who knows what he will actually settle for.
I’d also add that the governor’s local “right to work” pursuit is still very much in play. He distanced himself from it publicly but IPI, his agent, is handling it for him.
- JustRight - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:51 am:
AFSCME is pushing for billions in increased pay, even though they are among the highest paid in the nation. All while median household income has slightly declined in IL over the past decade… Dems want this VETO overridden only as one more gesture to keep AFSCME funding them politically.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:52 am:
===Forgot to put on my state house sunglasses that only allow me to see revenue when thinking about how to solve financial problems, not expenses. Back to escaping reality!===
Nah.
Understand the definitions of want and required.
“You’re welcome”
===Revenue is not required if cuts are made instead.===
Rauner said the day he proclaimed “big long term gain, in front of cameras he (Rauner) will not offer cuts. Period. That’s up to the GA. So there’s that.
Revenue IS required. If Rauber signed the unbalance budget, instead of vetoing it, we’d all be Billions better off than were we are now. Capiche?
==The problem is those who do not want to vote for more revenue can’t stomach voting for the amount of cuts needed.===
No. Rauner himself said he refused to make the cuts required. Keep up.
===So Revenue OR Cuts are required. An that is the dilemma we face because legislators can’t be honest with themselves. They don’t see it.===
No. A systematic cuts and revenue, less the poison pills, with bicameral, bipartsan structured, overwheling roll calls… and a clean signature will get to a budget.
Ugh.
- Qui Tam - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:58 am:
===If the Raunerites are willing to give on some tax increase…===
The assertion that paying past due bills is a “give” or concession reveals why the GOP is fittingly called the “Deadbeat Caucus”. People of conscience and morals view unpaid bills as obligations, not as tool for extortion or just to rip people off.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:02 pm:
Today Sandack tweeted (or hooted):
Instructive reminder of the current backlog of unpaid state bills. Adding more unfunded items makes no sense!twitter.com/LeslieMungerIL…
https://twitter.com/RonSandack
****
OK Dokey then…. don’t honor contracts, tell the schools (all levels) that what you got for FY 16 if what you’re getting, call all the unpaid bills/contracts/obligations CUTS, and move onto the FY 17 budget. That’ll git ‘er done, don’t cha see! (SNARK!)
****
The State may not be able to take bankruptcy, but it’s sure doing a good job of foisting State obligations onto “local control”. Will that balance the budget for ya, Rep. Sandack???
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:06 pm:
Hope Rep. Sandack didn’t tweet that while on the floor… lol.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:27 pm:
Is “tax receivers” the new “Welfare Queens”?
We seem to forget that we aren’t just handing personal care assistants a check to sit at home. That are in turn providing services to taxpayers who are receiving the services.
Its a more specific example of the general problem of trying to compare government to to the for-profit sector.
Public goods are not a commodity. We don’t pay taxes to get a specific, personal benefit out of government.
If we did, only people with children would pay for public education. Only people who can’t protect themselves would pay for police and fire. No one’s taxes would fund senior services until they actually reached retirement.
- Ghost - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:36 pm:
we need media to report that low taxes are not an economy driver….
Minnesota raised taxes and the min wage. economic boon. if people have money they spend it. low taxes have seriouly wrecked kansas and louisana
- Anon221 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
OW-
- Anon221 - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:25 pm:
Sandack is hooting, Rauner is hiding (in St. Clair County)-
https://www.facebook.com/NewmanCarriers/posts/1040034309414680
- Joe M - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
Are elements of Rauner’s turnaround agenda violating the Illinois Constitution’s single subject law provisions in Article IV?
Bills, except bills for appropriations and for the
codification, revision or rearrangement of laws, shall be confined to one subject. Appropriation bills shall be limited to the subject of appropriations.
Take for example, a bill to freeze property taxes. Wouldn’t adding the poison pills of curbing collective bargaining be adding another subject? Just wonderin.
- RNUG - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
== Are elements of Rauner’s turnaround agenda violating the Illinois Constitution’s single subject law provisions in Article IV? ==
The GA and various Governor’s have stretched that definition drastically over the years … plus someone has to actually specifically challenge it.
You have a valid point but the courts may not automatically rule that way.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 5:21 pm:
Joe M: No