|
Two ways of looking at it
Wednesday, Jun 22, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * From Juvenal in comments…
Their targets and others could very well do that. It wouldn’t be a bad idea. * But they could also run tons of advertising claiming that the numerous Republicans who sent this anti-tax hike mailer want to slash [insert much-beloved, poll-tested government spending programs] to death. Considering history, that’s highly likely… 
|
 |
|
|
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:13 pm:
That mailer IS the ball game.
- The Captain - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:15 pm:
If Chicago Dems didn’t have to increase the money going to CPS they’d have a lot more available tools in their toolbox but it appears they do so this and other similar strategies aren’t available.
I’ve had some other similar ideas but the Gov would take it out on CPS.
- Keyser Soze - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:16 pm:
The story line suggests that a House revolt by Democrats is either needed, or it is coming.
- James Knell - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:20 pm:
Where is the pony? Dwight Kay should offer everyone a free pony while he’s at it.
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
Rauner would respond by pointing out that he already offered to take ownership of the budget and the cuts if the GA didn’t want to compromise on a combination of cuts, revenues and reform. The GA said No and tied his hands.
He was willing to take the credit and blame for the entire budget. He offered to make all the cuts necessary this year if he was also given temporary freedom to manage state money, or as he said =the flexibility to reallocate resources and make reductions to state spending as necessary=, should the GA not pass a balanced budget. They said No to a balanced budget and also said No to SB 2789 =the Unbalanced Budget Response Act=.
They can try, but it would immediately be neutralized and exposed as disingenous - like so much else coming from both parties in Springfield.
- Illinois Bob - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:46 pm:
I always find it interesting how Chicago pols are so sensitive about increasing the state income tax. the same goes for the alderman regarding property taxes.
What are they afraid of, a REPUBLICAN getting elected in their WARD or district(LOL)? is being primaried by an opponent without Madigan’s support such a terror?
I can see that there’s be some anger, but the unions would support them as would the political machine and that just about ensures election around Chicago.
It makes sense to plunder the suburbs for cash if they can, but failing that I can’t see too many political careers being ruined by balancing the CPS and Chicago budgets by property tax increases.
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:49 pm:
–”Democrats should just announce that they have heard from a lot of constituents that are opposed to raising taxes since returning from Springfield…”
Anything said after that except “and we support our constituents” will be lost. Democrats are seen as the tax hikers, Republicans as the tax cutters. No argument, no matter how truthful, that Rauner and the GOP can’t come up with a “no new taxes” budget is not going to win suburban/downstate Democrats votes.
Would Rich’s alternatives work? Money quote: “poll-tested.” I think voters liked the bump in their paychecks they got when the last income tax hike expired and are being hit with local property and sales tax hikes. It’ll take threatening some pretty beloved programs to overcome that.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:53 pm:
===It’ll take threatening some pretty beloved programs to overcome that===
There are lots.
And look at 2012. Same exact fight. Republicans lost it.
- RTH - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
I’m with Juvenal. I think that’s exactly what the Dems should do. (I’m guessing that Rauner would try to punt right back at them and say he already proposed a budget that didn’t raise taxes.)
A “Plan B” option for Dems would be to pass a flat K-12 budget to ensure none of their school districts lose funding and then give Rauner a lump sum for everything else. Sure, they’d be giving him an insane amount of power, but he would own the cuts. That could provide plenty of fodder for November.
- RIJ - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:12 pm:
I would like to see an actual budget from the Governor. Let’s see it. Do your job, Rauner.
- CLB - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:20 pm:
It has been interesting to slowly see what specific turnaround agenda items are currently holding up the budget deal.
It was my understanding that Rauner released all of his turnaround agenda items for the stopgap budget bill. Isn’t this why Cullerton was so optimistic?
A true crisis will be the only thing to end this budget stalemate. What is keeping Lisa Madigan from ending state appropriations without a budget?
- Mama - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:23 pm:
==(I’m guessing that Rauner would try to punt right back at them and say he already proposed a budget that didn’t raise taxes.)==
When did Rauner proposed a budget? Please tell.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:51 pm:
Where is the pony? Dwight Kay should offer everyone a free pony while he’s at it.
Pony is on the other side. I just claimed mine from Dwight. It’s rainbow colored. I love it.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:51 pm:
Rich -
You are too kind.
I don’t think your suggestion and mine are mutually exclusive.
Although I suspect Democrats won’t have to lift a finger to educate the public on the impact of the Rauner Cuts.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:56 pm:
@FKA:
Those talking points were fine for February and March.
But now, handing the governor a budget that spends $3, $5 or $7 billion more than existing revenue and expecting the governor to make cuts is not a “balanced budget” as Rauner himself has defined it.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
==He was willing to take the credit and blame for the entire budget==
Apparently not or he would have signed the appropriation bills that have been sent to him and went about managing the budget within the revenues that are available.
The Governor could have ended this any time he wanted if he was willing to truly wear the jacket for cuts. Just because there’s an appropriation doesn’t mean you have to spend it all. He could have taken the high road, used the inability of the GA to pass a balanced budget, and come forward and said he would manage state finances himself if no one else was willing to do it.
- Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
I agree with Juvenal. Also that mailers on the cuts should be ready.
I don’t think the State has the revenue to pay for court ordered spending. How does a balanced budget based on current revenues fix that problem?
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
–and demand the governor introduce a budget that includes no new revenue or borrowing that can be voted on by July 1.–
Well that can’t happen because there are statutory reasons preventing that. Are the Democrats going to vote for the statutory changes (re-adjusting the pension ramp) to make this happen? This is why we need the grand bargain, which is really the message voters sent back in November 2014. This is still half the democrats fault.
- Sigh - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
But what has he done for the Metro East? What jobs have been created in his district the past 2 years? What about those social service providers in his district that are not getting paid?
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
@Juvenal - well said. Agree that handing the governor a budget and expecting him to just make cuts is not the answer. Expecting the GA to do all the work is not the answer either imho.
The only way out is a mutually agreed deal, either one negotiated by the Gov and leadership and then announced together, or the one in a million chance where the rank and file buck everyone together and pass their own bipartisan budget.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:17 pm:
@Ahoy -
Wrong. So wrong. 50 shades of wrong.
Not a single state statute need be changed. Where there are constitutional issues - such as where federal consent decrees are imposed, the governor is obliged to deliver services.
But the constitutional “power of the purse strings” trumps any state statute, and the governor may not obligate - per the constitution - regardless of what the statute books require.
Absent the judiciary stepping in, even a program mandated by law can be suspended absent appropriations, and I don’t foresee the judiciary wading in unless civil rights issues are in play.
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:39 pm:
Something I’ve raised before:
Couldn’t Rauner propose a budget with no specific cuts, just sequesters (like the Federal government)? Since such a budget would never be passed, it would blunt attacks that “Rauner was going to cut —-” or at least make them clunkier.
I get that Rauner is supposed to go first with a budget, but if this was a big deal (legally or politically) why wouldn’t Lisa sue?
- ca - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
Pass a functional budget with no tax increases? Anyone who thinks this csn be done is smoking too much of Lou Lang’s marijuana. Sure, you can clobber local governments, but this is a fiscal responsibility transfer, not a spending cut.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:58 pm:
Point of Information:
Certain expenditures must be made regardless of an appropriation. Two examples: debt service and pension contributions. Both fall under the category of “continuing appropriations.” That means the comptroller and the treasurer issue the warrants even if the Legislature and the governor have not appropriated a single penny for those expenses.
Charlie Wheeler
- Charlie Wheeler - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 3:59 pm:
My apologies, the post regarding continuing appropriations was mine.
Charlie Wheeler
- Delimma - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 4:12 pm:
It seems strange to me to have read an entire thread about the budget and almost no mention of the “real” reason we don’t have one. The demand for the turn around agenda before any budget can be negotiated.
- Juvenal - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 4:35 pm:
@ca -
I don’t know if there are enough votes to pass a budget with no new revenue.
I suspect there might not even be 10 GOP votes for a budget with no new taxes.
But until Democrats demand the Governor introduces a real balanced budget — not a sham, phony budget — we will never find out.