* Crain’s editorial…
Gov. Bruce Rauner recently gave Mayor Rahm Emanuel good reason to be ticked off with him. Actually, he gave everyone who has even a passing interest in Chicago’s fiscal well-being good reason to be ticked off with him. Rauner’s offense: He vetoed legislation that would have enabled the city to pump critically needed money into two municipal pension funds nearing insolvency. Without this infusion, the funds will fall further into arrears, meaning the bill will be that much bigger when it’s paid off.
Rauner said he blocked the legislation because it would have fixed only two Chicago pension funds and not underfunded public-employee pension funds throughout Illinois. In other words, the Republican governor killed what was a sane step toward civic responsibility at the municipal level solely to give himself leverage with the Democratic leaders of the General Assembly in their long-running fight over the state’s budget.
* And then there’s the I-55 privatized tollway plan and the Thompson Center sale that are stuck in the House. Greg Hinz…
The Senate is poised to act [on the toll lane]. Building trade unions and planning groups are on board, too. But Madigan’s House, after a year of considering, is not ready. Though Team Madigan denies that it’s just trying to deny Rauner an accomplishment for his upcoming re-election race, it’s clear that the speaker wants to retain House signoff on the deal when Blankenhorn comes back with a final negotiated contract a year or so from now. Team Rauner replies that potential private partners won’t put up with that much uncertainty. […]
Rauner went too far the other day when he accused Madigan of bad faith on [the Thompson Center] deal. Insiders in state and city government confirm that there are some unresolved issues holding up a vote to authorize the sale. Among them: Would the measure lock the city into having to accept whatever private deal Rauner cuts? Would the new owner guarantee keeping big Chicago Transit Authority el stops in and under the building? And is Rauner shooting too high in pitching what could be a 115-story tower on the site, a potential overreach that could leave a big hole in the center of the Loop (like a giant version of the once-upon-a-time Spire near Lake Shore Drive)?
Again, reasonable people could work this out. But the speaker wants a final deal on this project to come back before him. And people who would know make it clear that Emanuel is not going to lean on anyone to vote for Rauner’s plan until he gets the $215 million for teacher pensions he says Rauner unfairly is keeping from him.
That last line is by far the most important.
* So, to sum up, Rauner vetoed the city pension plan to squeeze something out of the Democrats, and the mayor isn’t going to help push anything of Rauner’s forward until he gets what he wants out of the governor.
Stalemate.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 11:55 am:
Rich points this out… Last line…
===And people who would know make it clear that Emanuel is not going to lean on anyone to vote for Rauner’s plan until he gets the $215 million for teacher pensions he says Rauner unfairly is keeping from him.===
The “emotional” veto is doing considerable harm to Chicago students as they wait to see what it all means in ending the school year early, to CPS looking elsewhere for more monies.
Raunerites can’t have this both ways, and further, can’t have Rauner “un-own” a veto.
You can’t say “Rauner didn’t get his bill, so they forced… ”
No, Rauner chose the time, the bill not passing wasn’t at play, at that time…
… you can’t say “We’ll inaction has consequences… ”
… and say the have was forced by backing Rauner in a corner and there were no other punishment options.
Why all the exercises? “Simple”…
When Governors play hardball where they can as the Big Dog, it’s difficult to herd cats when you’re stomping on avenues to build compromises.
Rauner wants, a want, 60 and 30.
Alienating allies that can get you to 60 and 30 in governing, that’s malpractice or purposeful derailing the possible.
Rauner, here, has both at play.
- Roman - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:06 pm:
“Emanuel is not going to lean on anyone to vote for Rauner’s plan…”
Rahm’s ability to deliver votes in the GA is close to nil, but he can certainly hold up building permits.
The city pension reform proposal and the redevelopment of the Thompson Center are both good ideas and if they went forward, everyone could take a bow. When even the easy stuff can’t get accomplished, you know we’re screwed.
- jim - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
Is anyone shocked Rauner is using whatever leverage he has, just as Madigan is using whatever leverage he has.
If so, why?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:24 pm:
===Is anyone shocked Rauner is using whatever leverage he has, just as Madigan is using whatever leverage he has.
If so, why?===
(Sigh)
No one is shocked, what’s at play here is the fallout by using apparent leverage moves and the ownership of those moves too as the fallout. Two prong hurts.
Keep up.
- jim - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 2:01 pm:
Oswego Willie
(sigh)
if no one is shocked, why the one-sided exasperation that Rauner is doing to Madigan et al excactly what Madigan is doing to Rauner et al
keep up.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
- jim -
Can Madigan veto a bill?
Learn how government works.
That’s how this is different. Hard ball is hard ball. Governing in hard ball as a governor is a lonely game
Ugh.
- ZC - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 2:59 pm:
Sometimes the only way to break a stalemate is to reject the greatest of the two or three evils.
So, long live Mike Madigan and Rahm (at least until 2019). If these are truly my options forced upon me, if there’s not some magical third door. Then Rauner’s gotta go. He’s the worst of the lot, clearly.
- walker - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
“”Can Madigan veto a bill?”"
Well, there’s the obliteratus boomerang curse. Or the Styx floatation device.
- choner - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 4:13 pm:
Politics is hardball you say? Maybe, but it certainly “ain’t beanbag” either. Richard J. Daley
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 4:39 pm:
-OW-,
I have to kind of disagree with you on this one:
== Can Madigan veto a bill? ==
No, but he doesn’t need to. Madigan just makes sure it never gets voted on in the House. In terms of making sure a bill never becomes law, they both have roughly equal power.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 4:48 pm:
- RNUG -
With great respect,
We are discussing, and I’m am discussing I the context of this situation, how Rauner got “here” and no one to blame for his choice.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 4:51 pm:
- RNUG -
The Rauner veto set these dominos in motion.
Madigan can’t veto a bill his chamber and the senate avid awaiting the actions of the Executive.
Your point is my point too…
60, 30, signature.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 5:07 pm:
– Among them: Would the measure lock the city into having to accept whatever private deal Rauner cuts? Would the new owner guarantee keeping big Chicago Transit Authority el stops in and under the building? And is Rauner shooting too high in pitching what could be a 115-story tower on the site, a potential overreach that could leave a big hole in the center of the Loop (like a giant version of the once-upon-a-time Spire near Lake Shore Drive)?–
LOL, it would be the height of irresponsibility to sign off on anything before those questions are answered.
The governor seems to view Illinois government as one large entitlement program for himself as hobbyist.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 7:23 pm:
Rauner must wish he could go back to the days of holding all the cards in his buy-’em’out business. You just had to threaten people (I’ll bankrupt you with legal fees) to get your way.
This funny old separate branches of government thing just doesn’t conform to his my-way-or-the-highway method of doing things. Maybe he can hire a property acquisition superstar at a quarter-mil a year to figure this all out.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:07 pm:
Why does Mayor Emmanuel think the extra 215 million dollars for CPS pensions was “unfairly kept from him”?
Did statewide pension reform pass as the leaders agreed? Nope. Dire Straits had a hit song that said Money for nothing….
What would happen if every other school district asked for a proportional increase to pay their pensions this year? Would it be unfair to deny them? Why is the Mayor expecting to be treated better than every other school district?
Why should responsible school districts be punished and irresponsible ones rewarded
Democrats don’t seem to get that their heads I win tails you lose days are over.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:18 pm:
===Why does Mayor Emmanuel think the extra 215 million dollars for CPS pensions was “unfairly kept from him”?===
A Veto, an “emotional” veto is governmentally keeping $215 million from CPS.
===What would happen if every other school district asked for a proportional increase to pay their pensions this year? Would it be unfair to deny them? Why is the Mayor expecting to be treated better than every other school district?===
Your willful ignorance is noted.
Everyone agreed already. Rauner emotionally vetoed something all sides agreed.
Your argument has no merit, solely based on that agreement. You know that.
===Why should responsible school districts be punished and irresponsible ones rewarded.===
No, the veto was the punishment. Rauner chose to punish and hurt Chicago students purposely. You already know that too.
===Democrats don’t seem to get that their heads I win tails you lose days are over.===
Since Rauner agreed to sign the bill as part of an agreement but emotionally vetoed it before the deal went through, you should be equally upset Rauner agreed to this.
Why aren’t you?
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:35 pm:
– What would happen if every other school district asked for a proportional increase to pay their pensions this year.–
The state already pays every dime of pension costs for every school district in the state other than CPS.
You’re not even trying to be minimally informed on issues you yammer on about all day, every day.