|
Question of the day
Tuesday, Apr 18, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller * Brownie last week on the Senate’s attempt at putting together a grand bargain…
Speaker Madigan has advanced a handful of smallish proposals this year, but he’s shown little interest in sitting down with Gov. Rauner or the House Republicans to try and hammer out an agreement to end the impasse. Rauner has said repeatedly that Madigan is not interested in a deal. I’ve said more than once that if the Senate could pass something, then Madigan would finally be put on the spot. Yesterday, I asked you if the governor really wanted a deal. So… * The Question: Do you think Speaker Madigan really wants a deal to end the impasse? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
|
 |
|
|
- Saluki - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:41 am:
Madigan wants a different Governor. I don’t think he is interested in anything other than that.
- Dude - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:42 am:
Nope. He’ll drag this out as long as he can. There’s less chance of Madigan losing the election in his district than there is of Rauner losing the Gubernatorial election.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:44 am:
Madigan knows he can wait it out. He knows he will still have a majority and be speaker. He just doesn’t know if Rauner will eventually give in or lose.
- Big Joe - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:44 am:
I think he wants a deal, but I also think that he wants Rauner to show him some RESPECT! So far, I don’t blame him for not bowing down to the man that repeatedly called him corrupt for such a long time. Governing takes copoperation with the other side, and so far Rauner has done nothing to even try to cooperate. He just insults the people that he must get along with. Pathetic.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:44 am:
Madigan has no incentive to change his status quo position. He has what he wants and sees no advantage to helping anyone, unless it helps him.
- Not Rich - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:46 am:
I think he wants a deal. But only on his terms.. LOL
- Anon414 - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:46 am:
Voted “no” - just as I did yesterday. Neither wants a deal. Both Madigan and Rauner think they are winning.
Can we just make Cullerton the prime minister of Illinois and have him negotiate a deal with Radogno…you know, have the senate serve as a unicameral state parliament?
- Piatt County Edsel - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:47 am:
Madigan has zero incentive to see a budget passed. No budget means he can use that as an issue for his underlings in legislative races.
- thunderspirit - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:47 am:
I voted yes, but that comes with a pair of *huge* caveats: he wants a budget largely on his terms (in that respect, he’s not unlike Governor Rauner); and he wants a bipartisan, across-the-aisle acceptance of the necessary tax increase.
All of which means no budget until at least December 2019. Yay.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:49 am:
No of course he doesn’t want a deal.
Did he work well with Governor Quinn? Nope
Did he work well with Governor Blagoevich? Nope
Did he work well with the Senate Democrats passing a democratic budget? Nope he attempted to steam roll them and they resisted finally
He wins his district by a landslide of course
The bigger question is why do House Democrats follow him like lemmings?
Has he sent an minimum wage bill to the Governor’s desk? Nope
Has he sent a millionaires tax to the Governor’s desk? Nope
What are his accomplishments?
What is his legacy? Bankruptcy of the State
Can the Democrats read polls? Nope
- morningstar - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:49 am:
No. I believe Madigan does not want to compromise when only bad choices are offered, but more than that, I believe he wants to “win.”
- The Captain - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:50 am:
A qualified yes. The Speaker hates to put his targets on tough votes but as the bill backlog increases that becomes more likely and the votes get more unpleasant, whether under this governor or the next. In a generic sense he’d prefer a budget agreement with shared pain in both senses 1) cuts and revenue and 2) D’s and R’s voting yes. However given the firmly entrenched positions I think the type of deal that the Speaker would require would not be forthcoming from the Republican side and I don’t think the Republicans would agree to the terms of a deal that the Speaker would require so it’s essentially a moot point.
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:50 am:
No way. Governors own. But Madigan doesn’t care about social services collapsing either.
And Brownie is playing right into Rauner’s hands by criticizing the Senate Grand Bargain.
Anon414, sounds like a good idea to me.
- Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:55 am:
No. Anything meaningful fix will require taxation and the jacket that goes with it. The can has been kicked for too long. Madigan and his team will play status quo because that is less unpredictable.
- Scamp640 - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:57 am:
I voted yes. Of course Madigan wants an end to the impasse. Most normal people want an end to the impasse. It is only Rauner and his minions who don’t want an end to the impasse.
Even moderate conservatives (e.g. Radogno) want an end to the impasse. The end to the impasse means passing a budget. Rauner and his minions are the only ones who don’t want a budget.
- Perrid - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:57 am:
I agree with thunderspirit, in that he wants the impasse to end, but wants it his way. So “deal” is questionable. Though I think he wants/needs the impasses to end less than Rauner does.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:00 pm:
Voted yes. I believe Madigan honestly wants to end the hostage situation. But I also believe he concluded long ago that he’ll never reach a deal with Gov. Gaslight.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:03 pm:
“The bigger question is why do House Democrats follow him like lemmings?”
Apparently you have paid zero attention to the House and Senate GOP the past 28 months.
- Bogey Golfer - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
Voted No. Both Rauner and Madigan are not willing to budge an inch, because that’s a sign of weakness. So no movement until after the ‘18 election at the earliest.
- pawn - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:05 pm:
Nope. I think he believes that the voters will blame Rauner and that he sees no upside to giving Rauner a win or a deal of any kind.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:11 pm:
Voted no, although, given the choice, I would have said only on his terms. And after the last two years, the deal would be total humiliation of Rauner or anything else that ensured Democrat wins in 2018.
- A guy - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:17 pm:
Same thought as yesterday. He wants a deal. But he too is not flexible enough to get a deal that would please enough people to pass a bill.
- A Non - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
Yes. He wants a deal but not on Bruce’s extreme terms.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:20 pm:
== Has he sent a millionaires tax to the Governor’s desk? Nope ==
Due to the flat tax provision, a bill to just add a millionaires surcharge would be found unconstitutional.
Any millionaires tax would need to be a constitutional amendment presented to the voters; the Governor doesn’t have to sign anything for that to happen.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:33 pm:
Did the Speaker lift a finger to get a constitutional amendment presented to voters on the millionaires tax?
No he is very good at proposing meaningless sham proposals that accomplish nothing more than political gamesmanship.
Democrats should elect someone Speaker who can work to solve the State’s problems through compromise not gum up
the works by passing sham bills for political purposes time after time after time
What is the evidence he wants a deal?
He has barely spoken to Leader Durkin or Governor Rauner
He also has not spoken to the media
Perhaps they should change his title, what good is a speaker who does not speak?
- phocion - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:40 pm:
No. Never. Nada.
Madigan is too vested in this battle with Rauner. He’s convinced public and private unions and trial lawyers that obstructionism and giving no quarter is the way to beat Rauner. He can’t now make a deal with the Governor.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:40 pm:
No for the same reason that Rauner doesn’t want a deal. A deal now carries profound consequences and blame with it. That’s not to suggest that there aren’t consequences with our current state but neither Rauner or Madigan wants to be tagged with being responsible for the inevitable tax increase. In some respects it’s even worse for Madigan, he’ll be labeled as “tax hike Mike” and will have provided Rauner with the reforms that Democrats as a whole don’t support.
I can’t see this resolving itself until 2019 unless we either shut down state government by court order or don’t fund K-12. Absent that this is the new status quo.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
==No way. Governors own. But Madigan doesn’t care about social services collapsing either.==
Well said. But expect to see future press releases and political ads crafted to help the general public better understand that allowing Illinois’ social services to collapse IS a two way street. People often post here that the governor doesn’t give a rip about the poor and vulnerable or he’d “do something” to end the impasse. The exact same comment can and must be said for Speaker Madigan. If he cared about the poor and most vulnerable Madigan would do something-anything- to help end the impasse.
- Harry - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:49 pm:
No. Things are trending his way, why take the risk of signing on to the inevitable revenue package?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:55 pm:
===The exact same comment can and must be said for Speaker Madigan. If he cared about the poor and most vulnerable Madigan would do something-anything- to help end the impasse.===
That’s adorbs.
Rauner vetoed a budget that only got his signature for K-12 funding.
Rauner continues, tirelessly, to stop veto overrides, keep veto proof numbers from happening for social services, ad you think the Speaker is in on this two way street.
That’s cute, it made me chuckle, really.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:57 pm:
Voted “Yes”.
“Why”?
The question is “Do you think Speaker Madigan really wants a deal to end the impasse?”
The way to end the impasse is the Rauner Tax mixed with the Rauner Cuts.
Of course MJM wants the impasse to end, with those 2 things, absolutely.
Rauner running with his Rauner Tax and Rauner Cuts saddled to him, that’s agreeing to end the impasse.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:07 pm:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
“Republican” Oswego Willy defending the indefensible Speaker Madigan once again.
From just yesterday
Why are you the Speaker’s biggest defender?
I’m not
I actually in line with both Govs Edgar and Ryan
Does anyone believe OW is not Speaker Madigan’s biggest defender?
- Dupage - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:08 pm:
Yes, he wants a budget deal, dealing with the budget. How much money goes to different items, and revenue to cover the expenses. Madigan does NOT want a budget deal that has unrelated non-budgetary turnaround items thrown in. He realizes if he starts dealing with a hostage taking governor, the hostage taking will continue, year after year. He is doing the right thing, NOT giving in to Rauner.
- Boone's is back - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:10 pm:
No.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
- Lucky Pierre -
Making it about me isn’t making an argument.
Take a breath, what are you saying exactly?
They both want a deal, and Madigan wants the Rauner Tax and the Rauner Cuts.
That’s how Madigan will frame the deal.
Your ignorance isn’t compelling, it’s sad and unfounded.
Also, your ignoring of Ken Dunkin, vetoes of social services and higher education and Rauner stopping them thru Ken Dunkin is noted
Edgar and Ryan worked to get things done, Rauner works tirelessly to impede things getting done.
Governors… Some might say “Apples to Apples”
Also, Rauner is a Raunerite, not a Republican, so there’s that too, lol
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:29 pm:
The speaker wants a budget; however, it will only happen if it follows the constitutional framework. Attempting to leverage state policy against the budget process is not in the constitutional framework. Therefore, negotiate in good faith on budget issues, only. It’s doubtful the governor has ever negotiated on a level playing field or when the other side has an advantage. He’s out of his comfort zone. Thus, the stalemate.
- Deft Wing - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:46 pm:
No. Madigan will not permit this Governor to achieve anything which could even be perceived as a win.
- Earnest - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 1:52 pm:
I voted no. I think he wants to maintain his position as Speaker of the House. I think the only thing that will change his behavior is if he perceives there’s a chance he won’t do that.
I can understand him not supporting TA items having a very negative impact on Democratic constituency. I don’t understand him failing to spotlight the negative impact on higher education, human services and state vendors, or to counter Rauner’s messaging to try to pressure Rauner to negotiate on a budget.
- Winnin' - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 2:01 pm:
Yes. But there will need to be an acknowledgement that Rauner has backed off his non-budget agenda.
Will that happen? It’s how Rauner achieves his objective of no budget.
Cat and mouse.
- Ace Laredo - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 2:08 pm:
I want whatever needs to happen to stop the “Lucky Pierre vs Oswego Willy” daily p____ matches to happen.
Madigan—out? Rauner—out? Doesn’t matter to me. I’d just like the Buckley v Vidal routine to take a breather already.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 2:46 pm:
Deal? The only deal Madigan wants is the end or Republicans is Illinois, and he is apparently willing to flush the state down the toilet to make the wish come true.
- Chicago Barb - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 4:11 pm:
Yes, but only if he gets Republican votes.
- Dead Head - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 4:21 pm:
I voted Yes because I agree with Madigan when it comes to the budget. Policy issues should not be attached to a budget bill, the purpose of the budget is to appropriate money, period. Policy issues should be voted on separately.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 4:38 pm:
No. He’s not a very passionate guy. Pinning Rauner to the ground with no budget is more important than social services or folding universities.
- Arock - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 8:32 am:
Madigan and his minions will not work on policy issues in or out of the budget frame work so “no”, Madigan ran the State into the ground before Rauner was governor so it seems he has no problem totally burying the State to show who is in charge.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 8:37 am:
===Madigan ran the State into the ground before Rauner was governor===
By nearly every measure Illinois is worse since Rauner became governor.
So… there’s that.
- Arock - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 11:16 am:
It is worse because Madigan will not entertain any reforms and wants no solution but tax increases. Even with the roll back of the temporary tax increase the income tax is still higher than before the temporary increase. So taxes increased over what they were and we still can’t make it work because Madigan and his minions solved no problems knowing that there was a possibility of the tax not staying at the temporary rate. His plan was keeping taxes at the temporary rate, make no reforms in spending and to continue kiss the unions a**.