51 Comments - RNUG - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:37 pm: Didn’t vote because I’m unsure. Being in favor of it helps and it allows a tax increase to be proposed without his name directly tied to it. But in the long run, actions speak louder than words and I don’t know if we can trust him to follow through on the support. - Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:37 pm: I went with “bad idea”, but it’s a really narrow run sort of thing. I just don’t think he said much of anything about it, frankly. Which gets it no closer to passing, which is bad. - Joe M - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:46 pm: I think he put the grand bargain more in limbo than it already was - because he put in both his hard and soft restrictions - plus he even added more spending items without saying where the money would come from. Nor did he really get specific enough on cuts he is proposing. And he is still relying too much on money saved on the backs of state employees - and money saved from pensions. As a result, he made the grand bargain much more complicated. - flippy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:49 pm: Geez Louise. Just get it done. Folks are hurting. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:50 pm: The governor has to stop saying what he opposes (taxing groceries, or retirement income, or really anything without some part of the TA) and start saying what he supports. How much revenue does the state need to fund the government he wants? How does he think the state should generate that revenue? What state spending does he want to cut or eliminate? What is his plan? Commenting on the Senate negotiations could be a platform for that but he’s got to be clearer, and more punlocly engaged, to move the ball forward. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:53 pm: I voted a very reluctantly, and not “sold on”… “Bad Idea” “Why?!” If Rauner gets the IPI/Proft actors to back off enough to let these words price to be true that Rauner is for and working towards a grand bargain, I’d be 100% behind “Good Idea” This ridiculous game Rauner is playing, with IPI and Proft and with the “kids” at ILGOP (Yaffe and DeGroot) seemingly undercutting Rauner “the statesman” at every turn, presser, press release, and sound bite, I find it difficult for a Democratic member, let alone a Raunerite being attached by Proft and/or IPI, to see these games and say… “I’m going to vote against Labor, I’m going to vote against some funding of some social services, and I’m going to vote for one of the largest tax increases in Illinois history… because I trust Bruce Rauner” Rauner’s own credibility to his… word… because the other actors seem to discredit Rauner’s word at the most convenient/”inconvenient” times. If it’s played out that Proft and IPI are projecting Uihlein’s frustration with Rauner, then the Governor needs to call these actors out. Rauner has not. That’s why right now, I’m 50.05% “Bad Idea” Rauner needs to call off the IPI/Proft. Or… Rauner needs to reprimand the IPI/Proft in a “way” that all the GOP Members know, unequivocally, will have their backs, even over Proft/IPI. Or… Rauner needs to tell his State Party kids to counter all the negative IPI/Proft have been expounding and defend the governor and members, directly and specifically, against IPI/Proft… and it has to be honest and believable, unquestionable to everyone. Otherwise, how can it not be “Bad Idea” So… That’s how I voted. Today. Now. “Bad Idea” - Political Animal - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 1:55 pm: It was a good thing, with one exception. Most of his feedback was constructive, reasonable, and should help contribute to deal making. Making the property tax permanent, the income tax temporary, etc. are responsible requests that could be negotiated. But when he brought up term limits again I just about blew a vein in my head. The laughter that comment elicited from the GA tells you all you need to know about how realistic of a request that was. It’ll blow up the whole deal if that’s an ACTUAL requirement. My hope is that it was: A) merely politics because he knows term limits are popular and this is a high profile speech or B) Just a negotiating chip to be later taken off the table. - Earnest - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:01 pm: I voted that it was a good idea on his part. He made himself appear cooperative and protective of potential taxes on retirement income, food and medicine. He laid groundwork for a veto if the reform included wasn’t “real.” He also changed his budget word salad to add “long-term balanced budget” to take the focus off his first two years. Does it help the grand bargain succeed? No, but I don’t think publicly undermined it. Publicly. - Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:01 pm: Voted bad idea. Rauner must be actively engaged and must actually want a budget. Then it is a good idea. Yesterday showed passive engagement. No sign that he really wants a budget. - A guy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:04 pm: Good idea. Coulda, shoulda gone a little further. - Reluctantly Living in ILL - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:07 pm: My guess is that he’s hedging. If the Court orders that salaries not be paid, he can throw his support behind the GB. If it doesn’t, he throws cold water on the GB and pushes the state further to the (over?) brink. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:08 pm: Similar to OW, I struggled with this vote. But voted 50.05% “Good Idea” because to not mention the Senate compromise would have been even worse; that would have been a clear signal that he wasn’t supporting it. Completely agree with OW that Rauner isn’t doing enough to assure GOP legislators that he has their backs. And what OW suggests isn’t crazy; by way of analogy, President Obama called out the left all the time in his rhetoric. Reasonable conclusion: Rauner really doesn’t want a deal, but simply wants to appear statesman-like enough to win the blame game. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:12 pm: The man has no intention of ever signing a budget. Never has, never will. That is the ’shake up Springfield’. Some have understood that since his campaign. - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:14 pm: Weighing in is one thing. Using the Senate’s budget efforts to produce a campaign ad is another. Bad. - Hambone - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:15 pm: Well - the senate went home and took tomorrow off. So I say No. - titan - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:16 pm: I leaned to “good idea” - but with the caveat that it means nothing unless the funded attack dogs get called off. - DuPage Saint - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:20 pm: Voted good idea. He may not have really said anything but at least he acknowledged it. Imagine the tea leaf readings if he didn’t even mention it - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:21 pm: it is also a good idea to get Dr. No Aka Speaker Madigan to weigh in on the Senate’s Grand bargain - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:21 pm: I voted “good idea” but because we have to know where the governor stands, even if where he stands is unrealistic and unhelpful. It’s better than a total shot in the dark and backdoor attacks from his cronies at the Illinois Policy Institute and Dan Proft’s web of organizations. - Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:22 pm: It was a good idea for him to weigh in. What he said, maybe not so much. As noted, he needs to say what he supports: what kind of services, and how do we raise the money? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:24 pm: - Lucky Pierre - That’s not “The Question” today. You’re struggling enough so I’ll just let this sit. - Robert the Bruce- all I can say, you ain’t wrong either. - WhoKnew - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:28 pm: I channeled my inner “WWJD” (What Would Judy Do) & voted good idea. This process works so much better when we all pull together! - Chicago Cynic - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:31 pm: I’m with Robert the Bruce - 50.05%. Frankly, if the question had an option for “Better than nothing” it would romp! - Wednesday morning - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:39 pm: Good idea. Poor execution. - Handle Bar Mustache - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:43 pm: Good idea but what a pathetic, gutless, dishonest approach. What rate will he support? He’s had 2+ years to answer the question and he weasels away from it every time. - Dome Gnome - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 2:52 pm: I voted “bad idea,” because I feel that Rauner is insincere and it shows. - IllinoisBoi - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:03 pm: I voted “good idea” in a sense of wild, desperate hope — because in the end Rauner will likely torpedo the “grand bargain.” - Anon - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:03 pm: Groundhog Day, Twilight Zone-take your pick - sal-says - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:06 pm: Neither. His grand bargain is still realistically $4+ Billion under water. So, more of the same: SS DD. Where’s his forward movement? Where’s HIS balanced budget that doesn’t depend on fantasy or future possible savings? - Huh? - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:09 pm: Voted bad idea. Because as OW most eloquently put it, until IPI and the IHOP stop slamming the grand bargain, nothing will happen. IPI and IHOP are 1.4% mouthpieces that are saying what 1.4% really thinks. The words that come out of his mouth are from both sides. So nobody is really sure what he is saying is true. - Gooner - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:12 pm: I voted Good Idea on the basis that his comments and the follow up make clear that it will not happen. Well, at least we’ve got that settled. It is really unfortunate in that a month ago I was convinced there would be deal. Right now based on his comments I would put it at 5%. - Steele - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:16 pm: Bad idea- as in runnin’ for governor in the first place - Ahoy! - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:27 pm: I assume it would help, he has to support it eventually to get Senate Republican’s (and some Democrats) to vote for it. I would assume some Democrats will want to know he won’t veto the legislation before voting for it. - AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:31 pm: Didn’t vote at first, but then I remembered the Governor poisons everything he touches, so voted bad idea. - PDJT - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:47 pm: “Reasonable conclusion: Rauner really doesn’t want a deal, but simply wants to appear statesman-like enough to win the blame game.” Which is why he gives so much money to IPI/Proft/ILGOP (bossmadigan), so he can pretend to want to compromise while his money is running ads against a compromise. - wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 3:57 pm: He has to get involved sometime. Nobody’s going to take the real tough votes unless they trust he will not club them with his veto. But it’s pointless to track what he says. He can contradict himself within hours on the same day. Watch what he does. - walker - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:02 pm: Would be good for him to get positively involved, but not sure that’s actually happening. Voted “bad” on the statement yesterday, because his words combined with his known actions, are more confusing than helpful. - Rod - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 4:17 pm: I voted it was a bad idea primarily because he did not propose any alternative source of revenue for the taxes he doesn’t like. So since he seemed critical of lobbyists for the soda industry, does he want to stick it to them? He didn’t say. Would he support going to an individual income tax rate of 5.25% like the Civic Federation supports, we don’t know. That is the problem, he is like a riddle when it comes to concrete guidance to the Assembly. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:07 pm: I say “Good idea.” If anyone had any doubt yesterday that Rauner was opposed to the grand bargain, or any hope left that he might actually have some leadership skills hiding in there that we haven’t seen yet, they got their answer. Radogno and her members are going to have to do it without the governor, or it is t happening. If they send something over, Madigan isn’t going to wear the jacket. Durkin will have to play goaltender, and then he and governor Rauner can explain it to suburban parents when their kids schools do not open on the fall. - mama - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:17 pm: I voted “Bad Idea”. Why? Rauner has proven in the past that that he says one thing and does another. - illini - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:28 pm: For what it is worth - I know of some in the ILLGOP members of the GA who do want a Grand Bargain to bring this impasse to an equitable end and to start getting our state back on the right course. Yet, the devil is in the details of that Bargain, and I am certain all are cognizant of the Rauner Millions and what it can mean for their upcoming elections. Hoping some will have that Profile in Courage moment to get this resolved! - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 5:46 pm: Bad idea. I just am focused on one of the thicker slices of baloney in the whole buffet, the pension proposal. From reading the budget book, it includes the Cullerton “consideration 2.0″ but doesn’t assume any savings based on ” outcome of a court decision.” That’s some buy-in right there. It also includes some, but not all, of the IPI pension plan we discussed here a couple weeks ago. Tier 3 is proposed, now in some hybrid form “with a small defined benefit plan” along with his old ideas about pay spikes, smoothing actuarial changes, and cost shifting earnings higher than the Governor’s salary. In Rauner math, this is worth $740 million in immediate FY18 savings. NFW. If they are gonna peddle this kind of nonsense, keep them away from the big show. - illini - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:17 pm: @AA - The pension part of the Grand Bargain is THE major issue with those of the ILLGOP that I have been in touch with. Other issues are problematic as well, but may not be deal breakers for some courageous members of the GA, if this issue can be honestly addressed in a manner that will pass the scrutiny of our highest courts. - Harvest76 - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 6:49 pm: I say bad. He hasn’t seemed willing to negotiate on ANY issue to date, so why all of the sudden is he weighing in on something he should have been engaged with from the beginning? He is a roadblock to real progress in this state. - A veteran - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 7:29 pm: “Doesn’t matter “. Should have been an option. Since he doesn’t govern he is pretty much just there for the ride. You would think that having to buy yourself a seat at the table you would be trying really hard to prove you deserve to be there but instead he is just trying to buy the table too. - Roman - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 7:51 pm: It all depends on how he weighs in. If he did it publicly, that would be bad because it would give a lot of Senate Dems a reason to bail. But he would virtually assure passage if he lobbied Senate Republicans behind the scenes and encouraged them to vote for it. - justacitizen - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 8:10 pm: Good idea. Many (besides the Governor)believe that the so-called non-budget items really do affect the budget although they are hard to quantify. Business and consumer confidence are hard to measure (think stock market)but can have dramatic impact on future revenue growth, consumer spending, etc. - justacitizen - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 9:25 pm: ===Harvest 76: He is a roadblock to real progress in this state=== The state has regressed for many, many years. The general assembly IMHO has been the real roadblock. - Rabid - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 10:31 pm: Bad govenor, turnaround falsehoods don’t fly without savings,sad. No one needs you go away - Rabid - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 10:38 pm: Your time for guidance has passed I’d like to help you out, what way did you come in? - Rabid - Thursday, Feb 16, 17 @ 10:49 pm: The mayor has a grand bargain for “ounce” just show him the facts Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.