57 Comments - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:15 am: If Rauner is serious about reform, he’ll support public financing of campaigns. - A guy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:21 am: What in the world would make you think that the Speaker would support public financing of campaigns? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:30 am: Some of the suggestions seem more than reasonable, but almost all of them require the Governor to actually govern by compromising on his anti-Quinn agenda and actually leading on the needed tax increase. I just don’t see that happening. - Delimma - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:34 am: The thing about this entire situation is that we are talking about “compromise.” That would in some way imply that there are two sides to the argument. The governor has framed the Democrats as being in support of tax increases or other unpopular ideas in order to pass a budget, and that he would concede some part of his reform agenda to pass a negotiated deal. The problem is that the entire concept that Democrats want higher taxes is poppycock. I haven’t seen any proposed new spending that would require higher taxes. We are merely dealing with an ongoing budget and math. Why on earth would the speaker be willing to take the blame for higher taxes that the governor needs to balance the budget? On top of that, why on earth would the speaker give away anything for those higher taxes? Just seems like a silly fight to me. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:34 am: His comments, ideas and sentiments are hopeful, much as thousands like it - variations on the same theme. It still boils down to the ego/wills of two men. It seems neither will blink, for to do so would be too crushing on their self-image. And that is, simply put, all about their ego’s, their essential selfishness. How do you fix that? - Delimma - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:40 am: The budget is ONLY about egos when you can’t sit down and solve the math because one side wants to win on completely unrelated issues. It’s been how long since the last balanced budget proposed by the Governor’s office? I can’t remember. Was it in my lifetime? - Romeo - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:40 am: “…that lets Illinois avoid digging a fiscal hole so deep we may never emerge” While I’m not a big IPI fan, here is what I could find for our fiscal hole ($203 billion): https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/203-billion-and-counting-total-debt-for-state-and-local-retirement-benefits-in-illinois/ Current backlog is $10.8 billion: https://illinoiscomptroller.gov/ Soooooooooooo, it seems we’re already in that fiscal hole very deep. I just don’t see how Illinois can ever grow out of this. - Delimma - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:41 am: Oh, and I’m perfectly ok with quid pro quo and negotiations to get the deal done, but the concept that the governor wins on his agenda and the democrats win because they get to take credit for HIGHER taxes is ludicrous. - S-Town - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:44 am: Not every mess has a solution. Its time people come to the harsh reality that there is no fix for this situation. The only true fix is a more informed voting populous because then the solution would be to grind this out for two years and easily vote Rauner back out of office. But we saw last month that voters are not becoming more informed. I wish there was better news campers, but there isn’t. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:50 am: And Rep. McSweeney keeps saying; Don’t ask rich people to pay more in taxes. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 9:59 am: #TaxHikeMike “BossMadigan.Com” $50 million. I’ll leave this here. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:00 am: Based on the governor’s actions to date, I think it’s a fundamental miscalculation to think that squeeze-the-beast is not the prime objective in itself. Consent decrees and court orders put a lot off limits, but you can tune up a lot of union and prevailing wage workers by whacking higher ed, and a lot of anti-Randian collectivists by bleeding dry the likes of Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services. The key is to sign those K-12 approps to keep the schools open to minimize public discontent. That, and keep the multi-million-dollar campaign propaganda machine humming 24/7/365 with the “Blame Madigan.” From the governor’s perspective, why change the game plan when it is working? This is what he spent all that money to do. - Mokenavince - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:03 am: Regardless who is governor Madigan will never allow workers comp reform. Relief from prevailing wage, or tort reform. Madigan never negotiates against himself or his law partners. We are in for 2 more years of gloom or as long as Madigan is in command. The State will continue so languish until the time he decides to leave. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:06 am: Sound advice from a true blue liberal who recognizes we need reform in this state an the Governor is down to just a handful of items from his Turnaround Agenda. Budgets have involved horse trading for decades. Only now the Speaker believes only one side gets the horses and the other side gets the horse by product. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:07 am: I separated the thoughts because they ARE not only separate ideas, but separate ideals to governing. Structured Roll Calls, packaged leadership with absolutely clean signatures on all of these. Both sides need to realize yhisvisctgd way out. One side needs to stop the antagonistic two-faced hindering to these ideals. “Enough is Enough” on side said in an editorial. … that same side has a website and hashtags that all but say “we want discord, not an accord” Both sides need to appreciate the ideal of governing. Great read, thanks Rich for sharing. - BigDoggie - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:08 am: Sometimes I think that the legislature and other statewide officials would function better if they would just get it through their heads that most of the voting public hates ALL of them. Put your egos aside - it’s not a purely “us vs them” mentality in the two-party context of thinking for most of the public. We actually detest nearly EVERY SINGLE ONE of you, and would just like you to do anything productive at all and quit wasting all of our money. Thank you very much. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:13 am: From the article: “As for reaching a balanced state budget, the state is waiting for Rauner to fulfill his statutory obligation to propose one. Trouble is, he doesn’t want to be the first to concede that it’s necessary to raise the state income tax.” I really don’t think Rauner is concerned in the least with addressing the income tax issue. That is a big hammer in his toolbox to bash both Ds and Rs with if they try to raise it on their own, without his blessing. That is Leverage! It will allow him to continue to finance the restructuring of the GA to his liking. Any Democrat GA member will be bashed over and over and challenged for their seat… as will any Republican. The 2017 State of the State address Rauner is currently workin’ so hard on, and the Budget Address, will be sending a clear message. Mostly likely that message is- no reforms, no budget. So, does the GA once again throw Rauner the K-12 bone, and split down party lines because of the threat/decadence of Rauner Bucks? Or, do the GA members, enough of them to really make a difference from BOTH sides of the aisle, say enough is enough. This shell game of blame has got to stop. Rauner isn’t interested in doing that. He’s laid his bets down, and already won several rounds. Is his 100+ million dollars “investment” going to really provide Illinois with a true recovery from the 10s of billions in debt we currently have? It is going to take a decade or three to recover from the pension issues and black hole of bills we currently have. Tax increases on many levels will be necessary- sales, millionaire, income, local. And if you want to argue cuts are needed, they have been done, to the bone for many in social services and higher ed. For businesses in college towns, for legally contracted state providers, for students being refused financial aid, these cuts are permanent. Going Around is the only way out of the TurnAround insistence that has only dug a hole as it spins and spins and spins. - justacitizen - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:14 am: I find it mind-boggling that so many commenters think that crafting a budget without long-term structural reforms is OK. The immediate savings/impact may not be dramatic and quantifying ROI is difficult for issues like term limits, redistricting and property tax freezes. But doing otherwise is insanity. - Blue Bayou - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:20 am: “Quantifying ROI” for term limits. Yeah, I can see why that would be a little bit difficult. Since it makes no sense. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:21 am: Thanks for sharing the link. He really only proposed two areas of compromise: some workers comp and exempting small (how small?) local projects from prevailing wage requirements, along with joint ownership of the needed tax hike. Both seem reasonable to me versus the alternative of no budget. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:23 am: Housing development is quite complicated and McCarron is correct to differentiate between large scale and small work with public money. it’s worth a discussion especially because fixing up one block at a time especially via infill housing can make a huge difference in communities. bring this idea to the table and see if something can break. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:27 am: We are 203 billion in the hole for pension benefits but their is no will to call a pension reform bill in the General Assembly. And people wonder why term limits and redistricting are so popular. The majority of legislators are more concerned with getting reelected than solving Illinois problems. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:30 am: I would encourage the unions to see the redevelopment ideas, for example, as a way to train future people in the trades. People can train and grow into the higher rates, but we need them in the trades well-trained and skilled first. https://www.thisoldhouse.com/ideas/building-skills-generation-next - Arsenal - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:32 am: ==It still boils down to the ego/wills of two men.== Not really. Replace Madigan with any other Democrat and you still won’t have someone happy to smack unions and trial lawyers for the privilege of hiking taxes. I guess you could replace Rauner with another Republican and you might not have gotten the six month field trip to Galt’s Gulch, but Governor X would still need to extract some pound of flesh to sell his party on tax hikes. Not saying the two guys we got AREN’T motivated by ego, just that if they are, their egos coincide with their political situations enough that removing the ego wouldn’t solve the problem. It’s very rarely as simple as “there’s one or two bad guys, let’s get rid of them.” (Though I’d certainly be happy if this were both men’s last terms.) - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:35 am: ===I find it mind-boggling that so many commenters think that crafting a budget without long-term structural reforms is OK.=== Then “un-boggle” our minds with actual numbers and the ROI. The last “un-boggling” was a 1.4% return and an additional $500+ million. When you get your numbers, you get back to all of us to “un-boggle” the minds to destroy Labor, Social Services, and Higher Ed. K? K. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:42 am: == … quantifying ROI is difficult for issues like term limits, redistricting and property tax freezes. == Let’s talk about ROI on a property tax freeze. How does that affect the state budget? Property taxes are local revenue, not state, so they have very little direct effect on state revenues. Freezing property taxes just means local governments and school districts will have less local revenue … and, since the state imposed the freeze, will be looking to the state for more revenue to make up the shortfall. I will concede property tax exemptions to the personal and corporate income tax somewhat decrease state revenue. If you froze the property tax, then over future years the exemption would be worth a bit less and the state would get a bit more revenue. But that is a backdoor way of doing things. You could just cap the value of any property tax exemption and get the same revenue result at the state level without choking the local government bodies. As to term limits, I can’t see any direct ROI. Even if there is some, it won’t start to phase in for 10 or 12 years or more. About the only thing I can see term limits doing is tranfer power from the politicians to the lobbyists and long term staffers. Different decision makers, most likely the same result. Redistricting, at best, might mean a shift in power between the two parties. That might lead to different revenue and spending policies … but unless the power shift is major, again, the results will be minor. Right now the citizens / taxpayers of this state want gold plated services but they also want low taxes and someone else to pay for those services. If the citizens don’t change, then the outcome at the voting booth will be pretty much the same as today: only the politicians who deliver what the citizens want will be re-elected regardless of any district map or term limits. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:47 am: == We are 203 billion in the hole for pension benefits but their is no will to call a pension reform bill in the General Assembly. == Tier 2 was the legal pension reform. Period. There is no legal basis for pension “reform” that can negate that $203B of projected pension debt … which, by the way, is both state AND local. Since you can’t negate it, you should be spending your energy on figuring out how to pay it. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:52 am: RNUG perhaps you can link to a Supreme Court ruling that denies the consideration argument detailed by Senator Cullerton If what you say is true then why did the leaders of the General Assembly use pension reform as a bargaining chip for the CPS bailout - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:53 am: ===If what you say is true then why did the leaders of the General Assembly use pension reform as a bargaining chip for the CPS bailout.=== They didn’t. Rauner did. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 10:59 am: LP, RNUG has helpfully provided volumes on this issue in the past. You’re not entitled to waste his time by requesting a special primer. Try the google and read for comprehension. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:05 am: Agreeing to a deal to get through the next election that they believe is not constitutional or publicly proposing legislation that is not constitutional is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Illinois voters. I have not heard either the Speaker or the Senate President say the consideration model is unconstitutional. And we wonder why our leaders in Springfield are held in such low regard. Sorry if I don’t take the big brains on this comment board as the final word on this. I would like to hear the Supreme Court weigh in. - JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:07 am: =We are 203 billion in the hole for pension benefits but their is no will to call a pension reform bill in the General Assembly.= The “pension” does not need to be reformed. The system has done what it is supposed to do. Investment long term trends have been above national averages. As RNUG stated, “Tier 2″ was the change that was legal and lowered the benefit while extending the years of service. Aside from some special sweetheart deals and a small percentage of outliers, the average benefit is very reasonable and eminently affordable. What we really need is legislative/governmental reform. Had the state paid its’ share of the pension, all other things remaining the same, we would have been in a budgetary surplus for the last five years not a deficit. It is just math. =If what you say is true then why did the leaders of the General Assembly use pension reform as a bargaining chip for the CPS bailout= As OW stated, that was Rauner. But even if it was ILGA members, are you saying that you believe everything these guys and ladies say as fact? If so, I have some credit default swaps I would like to sell you. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:11 am: Setting the bar pretty low JS Mill. We should be ok with having leaders lie to us. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:14 am: “Then “un-boggle” our minds with actual numbers and the ROI.” The fact that these numbers are not coming out speaks much louder than the clamoring for “long-term structural reform.” I find Mr. McCarron to be reasonable and decent in his opinions and on “Chicago Tonight.” I’ve said I support some sort of compromise, but I do expect some adult analyses, like well-crafted estimates and ROI. - Francis Ford Coppola - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:22 am: Waiting for Don Corleone to tell Tom Hagen “call Bonaserra, we need him now”… - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:24 am: -LP-, The IL SC hasn’t said whether or not consideration would be acceptable. To put the best spin on their words, they have noted there could be a legal way to modify the pension contract. What they HAVE clearly said is the Sidley-Austin model of “only benefits earned to date” is not valid by their consistent restatement that the rules and benefits at hiring plus GA granted enhancements are protected. True consideration MIGHT be a valid model. But no one has proposed a consideration offer that includes “keep what you have under the current (and constitutionally protected) rules without penalty”. Everything that has been proposed is pick diminishment A or diminishment B. The debt is from Tier 1. If you are on Tier 1 and get any kind of competent financial advice, you aren’t likely to pick any diminishment. You might have a few percentage points who, due to personal circumstances or medical conditions, that would take it. But my guess is that would be less than 5%, so that isn’t really a solution. It would just be another kick the can down the road bill that wouldn’t really solve anything. We don’t need to keep kicking the can … - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:26 am: == If what you say is true then why did the leaders of the General Assembly use pension reform as a bargaining chip for the CPS bailout == Politically, it’s easier to stall or kick the can than it is to raise taxes. - City Zen - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:42 am: ==Had the state paid its’ share of the pension, all other things remaining the same, we would have been in a budgetary surplus for the last five years not a deficit.== That’s a pretty big assumption. Decades of employee compensation would have been negatively impacted had the state paid its share of the pensions. Or if you subscribe to the “building bridges” pension argument, then those jobs created to build those bridges would never have existed, resulting in less state/local revenue, resulting in cuts somewhere in the budget. After all that, you’d still have to assume our leaders could then properly manage a surplus. They can’t even balance budgets, let alone present one. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:45 am: Good explanation RNUG, it would be nice if our leaders would call the bill and get it over with so we know once and for all. They have been trying to run out the clock on this for over two years. - Just Me - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:45 am: While we’re at it, would somebody please attempt to explain the ROI on workers’ comp reform? How would workers’ comp reform reduce the tax rate that is needed right now to balance the budget? In other words, if you did workers comp reform, could you get away with a 4% or 4.25% or 4.5% tax rate? - City Zen - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:51 am: == If what you say is true then why did the leaders of the General Assembly use pension reform as a bargaining chip for the CPS bailout == I wish Rauner instead tied a CPS bailout to a ward downsizing effort. For every Chicago ward removed/consolidated, the state would match the resulting savings from alderpeople staff reductions and invest it in CPS. That would’ve been a creative solution everyone (unions included) could’ve backed and provided a financial incentive to right-size government. - Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:51 am: Forgive me, didn’t we already do workers comp reform and insurance companies didn’t lower rates but in fact raised them. Thus isn’t the cause of that insurance companies? To bad Dwight Kay won’t be there to cover that one up. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:53 am: – We should be ok with having leaders lie to us.– LP, I think you meant to post that on the “Rauner again strains all credulity” thread. Must be rough when the big man lets you down. But stay golden, Ponyboy. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 11:58 am: Yes by all means Rauner has done all of the lying in Springfield not the Speaker who wakes up each morning attempting to raise the standard of living for working class families while ignoring the reasons so many of those people are leaving our state - JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:01 pm: =Setting the bar pretty low JS Mill. We should be ok with having leaders lie to us.= What? Since you are always looking for evidence, please provide evidence that I said it was “OK” for leaders to lie? Or anyone else for that matter? Seriously dude, I don’t agree with you very often but that is some weak sauce there. I shared some math facts with you and a bit about the real problem, implied that politicians lie and that is your response? Wow. To the original post- McCarron makes a lot of sense and that may be exactly why it won’t happen. I am not sure there is a benefit for MJM, Rauner, Cullerton in finding a solution. The crisis makes them essential in some people’s eyes. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:05 pm: == That’s a pretty big assumption. Decades of employee compensation would have been negatively impacted had the state paid its share of the pensions. == Actually, if the state employee and teacher salaries had been lower during that period, the basis on which the pension debt would also be lower, which means the pension debt would be lower. Would that have offset the lower tax revenue from the lower salaries? Maybe, maybe not. Pick your set of assumptions and run the numbers. But when you run the numbers, remember that the state only controlled the state employees salaries, not the teachers. So you will need multiple sets of models to even begin to guess at what might have happened. If you don’t want to build models and run numbers, historically, all we can do is look at IMRF where the payments were made and say it is in better shape than the 5 “state” pension funds or CPS or any of the local police / fire funds that all underfunded. - titan - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:29 pm: Pension reform was already done (with Tier II). The big debt is the money that the State essentially borrowed from the pension systems (by not making the yearly contributions and spending the money elsewhere). That debt can’t be fixed by new reforms. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 12:33 pm: Honeybear by your logic all of the over 300 insurers who sell workers comp are colluding on pricing. It would take just one insurer to offer a fair rate and increase their market share exponentially. The fact that no company has done that indicates to premiums are fair given the exposure. - DuPage - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 2:11 pm: First WC reform should be for a requirement for all WC insurers to be required to open their books, completely, like most other states. They should not consider changing anything until the books are open. Some of the companies might be charging more in Illinois and using the excess profits to cut rates in other states. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 2:12 pm: “Compromise is possible in Springfield.” Which Springfield? Surely, they don’t mean Springfield, IL. The political environment has been poisoned so much that it is about to be named an urban toxic waste dump and qualify for clean up as a US EPA Superfund site. - Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 3:06 pm: LP you believe all that free market stuff don’t you? Man I man are you an easy mark. Lay off the Hayek a bit. Maybe look at how collusion and market manipulation works. - Just Me - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 3:30 pm: Check me on this, but insurance companies are exempt from federal anti-collusion laws, aren’t they? And in IL one organization sets the same rates for nearly all of the insurance companies. - South Illinoisian - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 3:41 pm: Rauner doesn’t want the impass/war to end. He campaigned on it and his agenda requires it. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 4:05 pm: We live in a free market country Honey Bear. The socialist countries aren’t doing so well lately if you read the papers. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 4:34 pm: –We live in a free market country Honey Bear. The socialist countries aren’t doing so well lately if you read the papers.– What do you call selective, government market-interfering “job creating” taxes on citizens for private enterprises like the Exelon bailout, EDGE credits, and DCEO handouts, Adam Smith? - Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 5:41 pm: Thanks for the assist Word. That’s exactly where I was going. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jan 5, 17 @ 6:00 pm: i am not sure what any of that has to do with over 300 workers comp insurance companies supposedly gouging Illinois businesses If only one company could run Geico like ads they would corner the market. I suppose if you want to deny that the 2005 reforms actually have tilted the playing field way to far away from the employers to the trial lawyers thank you can misdirect as you see fit Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.