52 Comments - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:28 am: President Cullerton, above… ===We don’t have the votes in the Democratic Party to pass a tax increase and then override it if Rauner veto’s it. So that means, if there’s gonna be a tax increase, Governor Rauner is going to determine what that level’s going to be, or if it should be. Tell us that number and then we’ll go back and figure out how to spend the money you’re willing to sign.”=== This is the WHOLE ball of wacks. Governors own budgets because a governor’s signature make them real. This isn’t against Rauner, this isn’t new to process or governor(s). It’s not a slam on Rauner, the Rauner Tax, it’s the reality Rauner keeps ignoring in process and governing. “Pat Quinn failed” is the same as the Cullerton quote to process. There is a reason it’s called The Big Chair, it’s not an accident. “Governor, if we give in, what will your budget be, that you’ll sign, with your party’s votes, and what are the price tags of your agencies, and agenda priorities” Geez, Louise, that’s just straight up governing. Period. - Dude - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:29 am: If someone would just put forth a budget plan! Leave your fricking egos at the door. We all know there needs to be both a tax increase and some cuts/reforms for fiscal sustainability. Just Do It! Come on. There needs to be a place to start. - Anonymous - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:31 am: SECTION 2. STATE FINANCE (a) The Governor shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly, at a time prescribed by law, a State budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall set forth the estimated balance of funds available for appropriation at the beginning of the fiscal year, the estimated receipts, and a plan for expenditures and obligations during the fiscal year of every department, authority, public corporation and quasi-public corporation of the State, every State college and university, and every other public agency created by the State, but not of units of local government or school districts. The budget shall also set forth the indebtedness and contingent liabilities of the State and such other information as may be required by law. Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget. (b) The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year. (Source: Illinois Constitution.) - Anon221 - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:32 am: To the Dems- Keep.On.Message. Drive it home to the public every which way you can. Be consistent. Be truthful. Educate. After all, Rauner is the one that wanted Civics brought back to the classroom. Here’s your opportunity to add to the “lesson plans”! - Blue Bayou - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:34 am: I’m having this weird feeling that I’ve been in this thread before….. - Nick Name - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:36 am: “If someone would just put forth a budget plan! Leave your fricking egos at the door.” You need to re-read the Cullerton quote. - Dude - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:39 am: Rauner and Madigan’s names are both so tarnished at this point because of their lack of leadership on the issue. But if there was someone else willing to stick their neck out there with a solid compromise proposal, they could be a rock-star in Illinois politics. - Annonin' - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:40 am: Why not go first? The simple answer is because BigBrain and the SuperStars will be spending the money. Think of their destructive efforts and move on to question 2. Is this ok with us? - Illinois O'Malley - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:42 am: Hope IL Dems stand strong on this, think Bruce said he could balance the budget with 3% tax rate by 2018. Since it appears he can’t, he needs to propose the new tax rate. “What we need to do is make major structural change over time so we become a growth state again. That’s the critical thing. And here’s what my commitment is. We need to roll the (personal) income tax rate back from 5 percent back to 3 percent where it started within a four-year period and I think 3.75 is a good place to step to next but we’ll work out those details with the General Assembly,” he said. - Whatever - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:44 am: The Democrats should present the Governor’s last “plan” without the phantom pension reform savings (on the grounds that the Supreme Court nixed the reform) and with no tax increase, and dare him shoot holes in it. Even if his plan would appropriate less for some items than what they would prefer, they can defend it as being better than no appropriation at all. - Rocky Rosi - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:53 am: Don’t point fingers, cut a deal. Add a VAT of .25%(food and home buyers exempted) Pension reform/ Current pension plan stays in effect for retirees and people with 13.5 years of service. Everyone else must contribute more to pension plan and new hires must move to a hybrid model of 401k/pension. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:55 am: ===…new hires must move to a hybrid model of 401k/pension.=== Really? Explain. - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 9:56 am: The interesting thing noted, but many forgot (and some now choose to blatantly ignore) is that bipartisan working groups already met and did their thing. And the most shocking thing came from those meetings: More revenue, more cuts and reforms are needed to change Illinois’ dismal financial trajectory toward financial sense and fiscal sensibility. The Governor’s budget point person has laid this out for any legislator willing to listen and engage. Ask your friendly neighborhood legislator if that’s true should you doubt that. But no such legislation has advanced in the Legislature … where Rauner has no seat, no vote and not enough Republicans to get a bill out of Rules or Assignment Committees. In sum, Frick & Frack are playing, still. - A guy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:01 am: Not sure what could be added to this argument going forward. The dam needs to break before any more news breaks. - Louis G. Atsaves - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:08 am: Cullerton demands the Governor goes first, then says “It’s not a matter of who’s going first.” Huh? What? I understand that Madigan, Cullerton and Rauner do not trust each other, and that last CPS veto after Cullerton claimed there was no deal has exacerbated that lack of trust. Now we have five lifeguards standing on the beach posing to the masses while Illinois drowns, because none of them want to go first. - Tommydanger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:08 am: >new hires must move to a hybrid model of 401k/pension - Juvenal - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:08 am: Willy is right, Cullerton is correct, the Constitution spells it out. This is not finger-pointing. If Democrats propose the tax hike - as we have seen - it is in the GOP DNA to reject it, from the grassroots up. Democrats proposing a tax hike effectively kills GOP support. Pat Quinn knows. The fact that the governor refuses to put his own name on his own tax hike gives every legislator reason to mistrust him on every budget issue. And if they can’t trust him on the budget, how are they supposed to trust him on work comp? - Tommydanger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:09 am: and how do you pay the pension costs then for retirees and existing employees when they retire? Those are Carl Sagan numbers. - DuPage Dave - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:10 am: Would someone in the major media please put Rauner’s feet to the fire and make him list exactly what he plans to cut out of the state budget? He has proven adept at name calling but little else. It’s been two years and there is no plan to reduce state spending. - Galena Guy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:11 am: OW…..you think an explanation will be forthcoming? - Juvenal - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:11 am: Rocky - The last time VAT was voted on in Illinois, it failed 0-118 in the House. As long as anyone is alive who still remembers that, it will never come up again. - Illinois O'Malley - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:14 am: @Louis, MJM did go first with his 5% starting point. Remember how the R’s tore him up after that? If Bruce can’t put forward a balanced budget then he needs to resign. - Tommydanger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:14 am: There must have been a Democrat working group that came up with Cullerton’s comments. That is the best and most logical explanation for the Democrat’s position I’ve heard yet. Time for the Governor to govern and propose a budget that doesn’t include savings from reforms not yet passed. Propose alternative budgets if you want. One with real numbers based on current or proposed revenues with expenditures meeting those numbers. Propose another one that if reforms a, b and c are approved how much more revenue would be available and how the added dollars would be spent. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:17 am: - Galena Guy - Nah. This is someone on the porch worried about people on their lawn and the jealousy refuses to see the practicality of words meaning things. - Rocky Rosi - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:18 am: @Oswego Willy A hybrid system is where part of the pensions are covered under a traditional defined benefit plan and a portion is in the form of a defined contribution 401(k)-style arrangement. This reform with a VAT is the only thing that will save the state of IL other than a bailout from Washington DC. - ANONIME - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:22 am: Rocky Rosi - where did you get the 13.5 years of service to exempt people from pension reform? Maybe that’s the number of years you have with the state? Anyone hired under Tier 1 should have the same benefits! - wordslinger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:26 am: –More revenue, more cuts and reforms are needed to change Illinois’ dismal financial trajectory toward financial sense and fiscal sensibility. The Governor’s budget point person has laid this out for any legislator willing to listen and engage.– You seem to be in the loop. Would you care to share what the govenor’s “budget point person” is laying out in terms of revenues, cuts and reforms? Like, numbers? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:26 am: ===A hybrid system is where part of the pensions are covered under a traditional defined benefit plan and a portion is in the form of a defined contribution 401(k)-style arrangement. This reform with a VAT is the only thing that will save the state of IL other than a bailout from Washington DC.=== … or pay what is owed as defined by the unanimous Supreme Court ruling. Did ya forget that, or… This “hybrid”… is it constitutional? How? - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:33 am: Wordbutcher, I’ll repeat myself because you quoted all but the money shot: “Ask your friendly neighborhood legislator if that’s true should you doubt that.” - wordslinger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:46 am: –Wordbutcher, I’ll repeat myself because you quoted all but the money shot: “Ask your friendly neighborhood legislator if that’s true should you doubt that.”– LOL, try the decaf. But if you have the details, as you seem to claim, why not share them? You brought it up. And seriously….. “money shot?” You have an interesting viewpoint on what you’re peddling. - Illdoc - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:52 am: Please, before commenting on pension reform read the ISC ruling. No changes can be made for current employees or retirees. The excuse the State tried of we can’t afford it failed on an unanimous vote. Done. Over - Thoughts Matter - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:54 am: Rocky- 401k plans are heavily dependent upon company match and the compounding thereof. Guess what- the reason the pensions are underfunded is the state didn’t contribute their match, so it didn’t compound. The employees contributed every dime of their portion. 2nd- I’m in late 50s with 9 years of service. It’s too late for me to depend on a 401k after I’ve been promised a pension. Yes I do contribute to deferred compensation. Yes I do have investments on the side. I also have had real life intrude on my lovely savings and investment plan. - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 10:56 am: Reading is fundamental, even when undertaking the equivalent of push-polling, which is what you regularly engage in, Wordy-One. Short answer, do your own homework. Longer answer (it was in Rich’s post … I added some additional info.), specifically: “The reality is, a series of working groups, spearheaded by the governor’s budget director, concluded that taxes would have to go up from 3.75 to 4.85 percent, and that the sales tax would be broadened to include some services. In addition, there would be cuts and some reforms. But neither party wants to be the first to propose a tax hike.” Last, thew “money shot” claim was tongue-in-cheek. Let me know if you need help with that term too. - Simple Simon - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 11:23 am: But Deft Wing, if the gov’s point budget guy has all the answers, why hasn’t the gov proposed a budget based on that solution? Because he wants to use the lack of budget to pass his TA, which cannot pass the GA because a big chunk of the legislators and their constituents know that it is snake oil. And why should the Dems agree to passing something antithetical to their core beliefs if everyone, even the gov and his point man, kni ws the additional revenue is needed? Basic logic and politics fail. - wordslinger - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 11:27 am: –Last, thew “money shot” claim was tongue-in-cheek.– LOL, nah, too easy…… - Try-4-Truth - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 11:58 am: Geesh… Raunerites are getting testy in here today. I wonder why that is????? - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 12:01 pm: Simple Simon … indeed. Yours, additionally, is a logic failure. It is the Dems, as you say, who hate some or all of the TA and the connection of these supposedly non-budgetary items to budget negotiations. Okay, then the D’s can go it alone — they still have super-majorities in both chambers — and pass whatever Dem budget they wish … except they don’t do that. Why? Because Madigan (Frick) & Cullerton (Frack) want a bipartisan tax hike by way of a partisan (read, Dem) spending plan … all to protect the Dems from singular responsibility because of their not so long ago one-party ruling days. Republicans, as you might guess, ain’t keen on a tax hike in the absence of something to show voters as positive change. I know it makes some cringe here, but Rauner’s been around 2 years in comparison to Madigan’s 40 plus years and Cullerton’s 30 plus years. So, in the past: Who ran & passed unbalanced budgets for decades? Not Rauner. Who raised taxes & fees, again for decades, while also almost always raising state spending? Not Rauner. Who created & shorted, year-after-year, state pensions while simultaneously, sweetening those pensions? Not Rauner. Who, again for decades and due to their above “financial planning,” regularly borrowed and re-borrowed and accumulated debt on top of debt, making Illinois the worst credit of all 50 states? Not Rauner. Given that above, some think Madigan & Cullerton — two old and tired careerists as responsible for Illinois’ ridiculously bad financial plight — should not continue to do what they have always done. So, Simple One, basic Illinois political logic means we have total war because the old way ain’t just going away … 2018 will straighten this out or the Illinois exodus will only accelerate. - RNUG - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 12:03 pm: == Current pension plan stays in effect for retirees and people with 13.5 years of service. Everyone else must contribute more to pension plan == Not legal. The IL SC has clearly stated the deal is what is in writing when you are hired [lus any enhancements granted by the GA. == new hires must move to a hybrid model of 401k/pension. == Would be legal. But please explain how such a hybrid model with some level of State employer match (and possibly having to contribute to SS) is cheaper for the State than the current Tier 2 that is fully paid for by just the employee? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 12:08 pm: ===Because Madigan (Frick) & Cullerton (Frack) want a bipartisan tax hike by way of a partisan (read, Dem) spending plan … all to protect the Dems from singular responsibility because of their not so long ago one-party ruling days.=== … but Rauner would need to sign it… so this is just dorm room silliness. ===I know it makes some cringe here, but Rauner’s been around 2 years in comparison to Madigan’s 40 plus years and Cullerton’s=== … and yet colleges weren’t on the brink of closing, Rauner ignores signed contracts, refuses to even FUND higher education… Ignoring these past two years is the Raunerite folly you believe? ===Given that above, some think Madigan & Cullerton — two old and tired careerists as responsible for Illinois’ ridiculously bad financial plight — should not continue to do what they have always done=== As did Pate, Lee, Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, Cross… You keep forgetting. Go read McKinney, get back to all of us how “we got here”… then realize what Rauner is actually doing, and not doing to destroy Illinois for an agenda. (Sigh) - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 12:10 pm: ===Would be legal. But please explain how such a hybrid model with some level of State employer match (and possibly having to contribute to SS) is cheaper for the State than the current Tier 2 that is fully paid for by just the employee?=== The “thing” about - RNUG - that rocks beyond the analysis and the institutional knowledge… is he will give you enough rope to swing on your own. Thanks - RNUG - - walker - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 12:11 pm: DW: Seriously: Where are the budget/approp bills, reflecting a potential spending agreement, that have been filed, but have been prevented from moving in the legislature? I’d like to read them. Pardon me if I misinterpreted your words. - Demoralized - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 1:41 pm: Deft: You tell us all when it’s time for Rauner to stop being the victim and to begin, you know, governing. If he’s so unable to do anything because of “boss Madigan” then maybe he needs to quit and go home. I mean, whey do we need anyone besides “boss Madigan” since he has all of the power. Why waste money on anyone else? And, as a little lesson in how government works, Governor’s sign budgets. So your “decades” argument doesn’t fly if you are trying to lay the blame at one party or the other. I seem to remember a few Republican Governor’s over those “decades.” The blame lies on everyone. Only the hopelessly hyper-partsian believe otherwise. - Simple Simon - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 1:42 pm: DW…what a fun game! Lemme play! Who submitted a balanced budget in 2015? Not Rauner! Who submitted a balanced budget in 2016? Not Rauner! Who is able to keep his campaign promise to run the government on a tax rate of 3.75%? Not Rauner! Who sis capable of negotiating a contract with unions or political opponents? Not Rauner! Gosh, I could do this all day! Thanks for all the fish. - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 2:27 pm: Demoralized, Read what I wrote, not what you think or wanted me to write. 1) Rauner’s not going to quit anymore than Madigan will. One may well exit Illinois politics in 2018, though. One way or another. 2) Keep your lessons, because they’re useless and meaningless. The illustration I offered, if you go back and read what I wrote, was about the context of the stalemate … and exactly why Rauner and the Republicans will not just do things as in the past. 3) Only partisan Dems blame “everyone” … because it’s easy, makes them feel better about themselves, and because they can’t accept the lion’s share of the blame that is rightfully theirs by virtue of the fact that EVERY financial problem facing Illinois bears both Madigan’s and Cullerton’s fingerprints; which is why Frick and Frack must compromise. Or not. In which case the 24/7/365 campaign for 2018 will continue … now. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 2:29 pm: ===…because they can’t accept the lion’s share of the blame that is rightfully theirs by virtue of the fact that EVERY financial problem facing Illinois bears both Madigan’s and Cullerton’s fingerprints=== Again, read McKinney, get back to all of us. - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 2:54 pm: Walker: Ask your contacts in your former caucus should you wish, but most of the working group’s final efforts were put in bill form, or partially so, and were done so for the Leader’s meetings — which are kind of happening now — ostensibly to achieve a final compromise on several fronts. But so far, no such luck. Simple Simon, You are true to your name, no doubt. Rauner offered two unbalanced budgets — both had holes in them, no doubt. The first based on an aggressive (in retrospect badly flawed) belief that the pension bill before the Supreme Court would be accepted. It wasn’t thus the hole that year. Given the recalcitrance of Frick & Frack the second year’s hole was a result of politics in full display. But let’s be perfectly honest and clear, no Governor’s budget- as proposed whether legit balanced or balanced with smoke & mirrors, EVER gets accepted as is by the Legislature. EVER. No, lawmakers then run a series of budget bills or one large budget bill alone. That’s their job … which the legislature did in year one of Rauner’s term — he vetoed it but for K-12 education and in year two the legislature sent Rauner no budget at all. Frick passed a Dems’ only $8B out of balance “budget” only to have Frick’s caucus vote “No” on it with Senate Reps. Simply stated, Simple One, the legislature failed to do its job … because the politics became too much. And things are now where they we are, still. Stuck in purgatory until the Dems compromise. Rauner and the R’s have said the’d sign onto a tax increase. That’s a huge R compormise. Where’s the compromise from Frick/Frack and the Dems? - Deft Wing - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 2:57 pm: … Frack’s caucus vote “No” on it with Senate Reps. (they are easily confused for the other …. my bad) - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 3:21 pm: === Rauner and the R’s have said the’d sign onto a tax increase. That’s a huge R compormise. Where’s the compromise from Frick/Frack and the Dems?=== A required element that is not in dispute isn’t a give. It’s only a give if the Governor shows a balanced budget WITHOUT the revenue increase and the accompanying cuts. The rest of your drivel falls apart when you can’t even be honest about what is a give, and what is required. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 3:24 pm: ===But let’s be perfectly honest and clear, no Governor’s budget- as proposed whether legit balanced or balanced with smoke & mirrors, EVER gets accepted as is by the Legislature. EVER.=== Let’s be perfectly honest, saying “oh well” about not submitting a balanced budget isn’t an argument. Rauner said he was going to shake up Springfield, and all he’s done is break, squeeze, or hurt this entire state on purpose. So, let’s be perfectly honest… - Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 3:27 pm: ===he vetoed it but for K-12 education and in year two the legislature sent Rauner no budget at all.=== Governors veto are governors’ The mere FACT Rauner purposely refused to fund Higher Education is on a Governor… Governor Rauner. I didn’t know Rauner ran a campaign to close Eastern, Chicago State, close a SIU Campus and discredit Western? How proud you, and Governor Rauner must be. - Whatever - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 3:49 pm: Juvenal ==The last time VAT was voted on in Illinois, it failed 0-118 in the House.== That was a gross receipts tax, not a VAT, but very few people know the difference. A properly-constructed VAT could favor Illinois-based businesses selling outside the state at the expense of businesses based outside and selling in. That’s one of the reasons so many developed countries have one. - walker - Friday, Dec 9, 16 @ 4:01 pm: Deft Wing: Can we forgo the partisan positioning and ad hominem grenades for a bit? Following your arguments and perception of reality, do you believe that: 1. The working groups are close enough that we have a potential agreement on spending at hand? 2. Given an agreement on available borrowing and funds shifts, that we all will know, by simple arithmetic, the revenue needed to balance the 2017 budget? 3. That compromise and arithmetic have already produced a potential agreement on the numbers? 4. That we have, at long last, come to the point where the remaining challenges are: who will take/share the blame for the required tax increase, and the decreases in state services, and who will get what political coverage to mitigate that blame? Not saying these are simple challenges. In addition, we will need some sense of priorities and timing of demanded “structural reforms.” But it would be nice to clearly see that we have made some progress. Peace brother. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.