14 Comments - Mal - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:50 pm: So many incompetent people working at these editorial boards. Arent they supposed to know more about these issues than us? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:51 pm: The important understanding about Rauner is that Rauner refuses to see Revenue beyond “a give” when anyone who honestly looks at what needs to be done knows… “Revenue is Required” Anyone who refuses to see there’s no leverage in withhin this phony ideal that “reforms are required” Reforms are a want, reforms are not an actual accounting principle in budget crafting. Revenue is a required element, and increased revenue is going to be required. Revenue is in accounting principles, an actual budgetary element. Withholding a budget for reforms… that’s holding hostage navy things… Maybe clarification might help. - Anon221 - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:52 pm: “The bottom line is, the governor isn’t ever going to agree to a “balanced” budget (meaning new revenues) until he gets some of his reforms.” My jaded response is- Some may never be enough. He’s got to “win”, and “at all costs” might be where his goal posts will always be for certain items such as his constitutional budgetary duties. - Ahoy! - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:14 pm: I have said this before and will say it again, this is not a budget deal, budgets are a process of allocating existing resources. This is a tax increase deal, unless they can figure out a pension reform and ramp (like another 75 year ramp) that can be agreed upon and pass the Supreme Court whose justices are in said pension plans. - RNUG - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:41 pm: “The bottom line is, the governor isn’t ever going to agree to a “balanced” budget (meaning new revenues) until he gets some of his reforms.” Then we’re never going to have a budget until Rauner is out of office. - Henry Francis - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:45 pm: I think what Ms. Munger meant to say is “never, at this time . . .” - RNUG - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:59 pm: == … unless they can figure out a pension reform and ramp (like another 75 year ramp) that can be agreed upon and pass the Supreme Court == 1) You can’t “reform” Tier 1. 2) Tier 2 was your legal pension reform. You can change things for new hires but anything beyond Tier 2 will actually cost the State more money, either in a required 401K match or being forced to put all the TRS members into Social Security. 3) Any ramp over about 35 - 40 years is just paying interest upon interest; doesn’t make financial sense. All that is left is paying the debt. The only real question left is: (a) do you do another ramp that might save a few millions short term but cost billions more long term? or (b) do you design a level payment plan that will cost millions upfront but save billions in the long run? or (c) offer a buy-out consideration model to current Tier 1 members that will, if it is anywhere close to the actual value, require the State to immediately pay out cash it doesn’t have? or (d) keep making the payments as scheduled on the Edgar Ramp? (a) might delay a pension tax increase a year or two while (b) requires an immediate pension tax increase. (c) is most likely a non-starter for any Tier 1 member who consults a financial planner and (d) is apparently what the Governor and GA don’t want to do because it also requires a tax increase. Those are your legal choices. Time to pick one. - kitty - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:00 pm: As someone else here posted, most of the T/A items are “window dressing” relative to Mr. Rauner’s infatuation with destroying organized labor. Unless the anti-labor items are removed, I agree with RNUG that there will not be a budget during Mr. Rauner’s tenure as Gov. - Anonymous - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:00 pm: Ahoy- given his failure to present a constitutionally-required balanced budget, I think the governor disagrees with you. A budget is not about allocating resources, it’s about fulfilling obligations. When the governor files specific proposals to change the obligations, maybe then we’ll se3 progress. - Anonymous - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:17 pm: Ahoy, the pension bill that was struck down did not include the judicial pension plan. - yeah - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:44 pm: If we have a budget, the financing fees will not be as huge when we issue the bonds. Not having a budget, its freaking priceless. - Albany Park Patriot - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:25 pm: Munger keeps not telling the truth about the most basic things. It started when she wanted to walk back saying she was Rauner’s “wingman.” These pesky Internet computer machines tend to capture things like that. It just shows me she’s entitled and not used to being told “no.” - Langhorne - Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:47 pm: Meanwhile, rauner is content to starve the beast. He accomplishes that without passing a bill. Its just leverage. - shytown - Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:16 am: I guess the editorial board at the Sun Times isn’t reading their own paper… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.