|
*** UPDATED x2 - Durkin walks back term limits comment *** Durkin “not focusing” on term limits with Madigan, warns of tough road to 30 HGOP votes
Monday, Jun 26, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller *** UPDATE 1 *** Chain, meet yank…
*** UPDATE 2 *** After saying again that he was focused on workers’ comp, pension reform and property taxes, Durkin was asked (at about the 15:14 mark on the raw audio) whether he was willing to give up on term limits. Here’s his response…
The Durkin people say this isn’t a walk back, but he more than just implied that those other three issues were the big ones. * House Republican Leader Jim Durkin talked to reporters today. You can click here for the raw audio. Here are some highlights…
* 30 House Republican votes out of the 71 needed for anything with an immediate effective date is a fair deal for Leader Durkin. As I told subscribers this morning, it’s the same basic percentage as Durkin’s 51 out of 118 House members. And Durkin is right that the more Madigan waters down this stuff the tougher it’s going to be for him (and, don’t kid yourself, the governor) to round up those 30 votes. But, the Republicans have always known that Madigan would water down whatever came out of the Senate, or whatever the Republicans proposed. It’s a balancing act, but that’s what governing is. * Leader Durkin also said his people have met with the Democrats twice each on property taxes and pension reform within the past 24 hours, so that’s good. There have been multiple meetings on workers’ comp reform, which still has a ways to go. The most positive part of this press conference was that, while the Republicans expressed concern, the process hasn’t gone off the rails. Both sides will at times be tempted to derail this train. And I figure there will be some high-profile wrecks this week. That’s always to be expected and particularly so in this climate. But everybody should do whatever they can to prevent any problems from becoming fatal. And it goes without saying that “not focusing” on term limits is good news for those who want a deal because Speaker Madigan is so opposed. But it ain’t such good news for people who’ve believed that Gov. Rauner would finally rid the state of Speaker Madigan (albeit in ten years). A tax hike and Madigan in perpetuity won’t go over well with people like the Illinois Policy Institute’s loyal followers. Their heads are gonna explode.
|
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:50 pm:
Maybe Durkin can find 30 HGOPs for term limits. Lol.
- walker - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:54 pm:
Such a Durkin-MJM deal still leaves Rauner with the Term Limits trump card, if he wants to do to Durkin what he did to Radogno.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
Leader Durkin is the most important Leader under the Dome since Rauner became governor.
The whole ball of whacks is that 30 HGOP votes, the 30 HGOP votes for Revenue too…
If Durkin can deliver those 30, now it’s how far Madigan is willing to chip away and still secure the 30 from Durkin to close these deals.
This has been the whole ball game for Rauner since 2015.
It’s like it took Rauner 2 1/2 years to finally catch on to what we all knew… 60/30 signature… 71/36 signature.
That’s it!
I’m optimistic because Durkin and Madigan are “measuring” success, this is real success mind you, by… 71.
Now if Rauner blows this up… then nothing has been learned.
We are finally seeing talks to the governing.
- winners and losers - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
There is negotiation on possible changes to Senate Bill 1.
Originally SB 1 was being held in the Senate so through negotiation the Governor could be convinced to sign it as part of a larger bargain.
Now SB 1 may be reconsidered and then amended.
- Robert the Bruce - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
While Durkin isn’t focused on term limits, Rauner still may be, and he could refuse to support any compromise on that basis alone.
- Winnin' - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
With Durkin’ professin’ he doesn’t care about term limits, he is givin’ Rauner a wide open door to put the kabosh on the whole deal, don’tcha know.
But it does give those long-serving GOP members a breather, for now.
- Anon221 - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 1:58 pm:
“Their heads are gonna explode.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSbigjiKLoU
Sorry, Rich, couldn’t resist:)
- Robert the Bruce - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:00 pm:
===If Durkin can deliver those 30===
I wonder how many of those 30 Durkin can deliver without Rauner telling those 30 that he is on board too.
- Scamp640 - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:00 pm:
Pardon my naivete, but why is pension reform getting such a high profile right now when it will likely be shot down by the state supreme court? How can this possibly be a meaningful policy reform? Is this just for campaign soundbites in 2018?
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:01 pm:
The exploding-head types should consult actuarial tables. You know, objective data, knowledge.
- Henry Francis - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:01 pm:
Refreshingly not unreasonable talk from Durkin. He is saying positive things and indicating that he is trying to get a deal done.
But does that really matter? Does anyone think Rauner will sign a budget, with a huge tax increase and so little in reforms?
Wouldn’t he lose his base?
And then what would he be left with?
- Anon221 - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:05 pm:
Henry Francis- “And then what would he be left with?”
Frankly, I don’t care if Rauner is left with anything. I do hope, though, that the ILGA (both parties) will not let their hard work go to waste if they do come to a bipartisanship agreement on a budget and reforms and Rauner vetoes any or all of the bills. I hope there will be bipartisan overrides to save this State. It is just that critical.
- Deft Wing - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:07 pm:
30 House GOP votes on a tax increase? Nope. Almost no chance that’ll happen.
Prediction: Durkin’s fair warning notwithstanding, there isn’t enough reforms to cover a tax increase vote now for most of that Caucus, let alone 30. A huge tax increase with a mid-term election coming shorlty thereafter? #Nope
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:12 pm:
- Deft Wing -
If Rauner tells 30 HGOP members to be “Green”, they will.
Rauner owns the switches. Rauner has proved that for 2 1/2 years. Durkin can “get” 30, ’cause Rauner will say they exist.
That, and Rauner will sign that arguably the single largest income tax increase in state history.
Rauner needs that signature be a “bipartisan budget win” and not just the Rauner Tax increase.
No 30 votes? Hmm. Small price to pay for all that #TaxHikeMike phoniness, lol
- Captain Ed Smith - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:16 pm:
30 GOP votes! Durkin is getting off easy. This is Rauner’s budget. If we had a Democrat Governor, GOP would demand 67 Democrat votes in the House.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:16 pm:
Pardon MY naivete, but what does pension reform, part deux mean? There’s Tier 2. That is pension reform. Does they mean they want to discontinue pensions? Is that what they mean by reform? Because pensions HAVE BEEN reformed. Or will it never end? If something else passes (and drags through the courts, costing oodles of taxpayer money), only to be shot down once again, will pension reform again be on the table?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:16 pm:
What does pension reform, part deux mean? There’s Tier 2. That is pension reform. Does they mean they want to discontinue pensions? Is that what they mean by reform? Because pensions HAVE BEEN reformed. Or will it never end? If something else passes (and drags through the courts, costing oodles of taxpayer money), only to be shot down once again, will pension reform again be on the table?
- weary - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:17 pm:
Agrees with Anon221. The legislators need to think about who they really work for (and it’s NOT the governor) and be ready and willing to do bipartisan overrides, for the good of the state. While I would love to see term limits, it’s not worth trashing the entire state over, and hopefully the Speaker is close to retiring anyway.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:17 pm:
OOps, sorry
- Deft Wing - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
OW–
Again, nope.
- Arock - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:20 pm:
Yes because objective data and knowledge worked well with the pension problem getting taken care of with the bogus fix in 94 and every year since.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
===OW–
Again, nope===
So… Durkin is misleading Madigan and everyone publicly?
Hmm. I dunno.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:33 pm:
- Deft Wing -
Durkin is not doing it wrong. Maybe you don’t have any idea how governing works, or you think Durkin’s word isn’t good… or you believe Rauner, now, is willing to look like a failure with that speech in an empty chamber and blow up his chance of a budget…. or all or a combination of any above, lol
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:33 pm:
BVR- (to staff)”Hey! Get that Durkie-bot in here stat!!” He needs a software update or reprgramin’ or somethin’ because he is off message!!!”
Later that same day…..
Durkie- “What I meant to say was that term limits are critical to job creatin”!”
- Jocko - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
==why is pension reform getting such a high profile right now==
Because 130 billion distracts voters from the fact that BVR has run up debts in excess of 15 billion. Wake me when Durkin or Bruce mention revenue.
- Annonin' - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:38 pm:
If Durkie thinks he has a haerd time selling watered down mumbo jumbo trying talkin’ junk bonds, wrecked universities and doomsday for Medicaid. Even his biggest dopes should get that stuff.
- winners and losers - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:43 pm:
Decatur Herald & Review Editorial, June 26, 2017:
Compromise on changes to Senate Bill 1
http://herald-review.com/opinion/editorial/our-view-compromise-a-must-on-schools-bill/article_5b28e285-5dfa-5d56-9aff-ab2ceb8536b7.html
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:46 pm:
“To clarify my position regarding House Republican priorities: Term Limits is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful issue I’ve ever known in my life.”
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 2:59 pm:
Arock, I was referring to actuarial tables in regards to the exploding head types who would wreck a deal over term limits because otherwise MJM would remain speaker in perpetuity.
I guess you’re one of those. That explains a lot.
- Truth Squad - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
Does Durkin have 30 votes to put on a tax increase? May be a stretch.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
===I don’t have a designee on that,===
Durkin should find the longest-serving HGOP and designate that member to negotiate terms limits.
Hmm, that makes me wonder, who is the longest-serving HGOP? Depending on how you count, it could be Mike McAuliffe or it might be Durkin himself. Lol. No wonder term limits keep falling off his priority list.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 3:06 pm:
Geez, the Frat Boys do not hesitate to spank the GOP “legislative leaders” in public.
Heckuva way to make a living.
- Michael Westen - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 4:03 pm:
I’m going to go out on a long limb and predict that IPI is going to endorse Rauner whether he does or doesn’t sign the large tax increase. They will pretend their heads will explode to give the Governor cover. “I signed this tax increase despite deep, deep opposition within my party.” Rauner has probably already written IPI’s press releases for them.
- Lucly Pierre - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
What is the point of term limits anyway if Speaker Madigan is 75 years old and they would not start for a decade?
The issue does hurt Madigan and Democrats especially because it forces Democrats to defend the most unpopular politician by far in Illinois and explain why they continue to vote for him.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 4:16 pm:
===…forces Democrats to defend the most unpopular politician by far in Illinois…===
Madigan - 61% disapproval
Rauner - 58% disapproval
3% is “by far”?
Hmm.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 4:22 pm:
== but what does pension reform, part deux mean? ==
Two items, one legal, one probably not.
The legal item - eliminate Tier 2 for new hires, all they get is a 401K type defined benefits plan with a limited match. Will likely cost the taxpayers more than Tier 2, especially if they lose the Safe Harbor rule for teachers and have to pay into Social Security. Note: it may be the local school districts that get stuck paying into SS with no new money due to the property tax freeze.
Tje likely not legal one - forcing Tier 1 employees to choose between keeping their 3% AAI or having future raises be part of the base calculation for their pension. Last I looked, there was no “keep what you have”; both choices are diminishments.
There are some smaller changes, but those are the biggies.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 4:27 pm:
LP:
When you can tell us all how Term Limits help the budget crisis let us know. I would prefer that everyone focuses on the REAL issue which is the lack of a budget.
Besides, we already have Term Limits. They are called elections. Term Limit supporters just want the law to do for them what they can’t accomplish at the ballot box.
You certainly are a good little soldier LP
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 5:07 pm:
LP, you had an involuntary spasm of honesty on term limits there. Better get it checked out.
You’re supposed to say something like “job creators get excited, peas and carrots., harrumph harrumph….”
Copping to it just being cynical politics in the midst of an intentional fiscal disaster will get you a Frat Boy spanking like Durkin.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 6:29 pm:
Term limits are not part of an extreme right wing agenda. The concept enjoys bipartisan majority support.
Since the current group of long term legislators have been unable to take the tough votes and compromise for the benefit of Illinois, they are a necessity. There are too many more concerned about reelection and the necessary fundraising than solving Illinois problems
Why a 75 year old would resist such a no brainer is beyond me
- AnonymousOne - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 6:32 pm:
RNUG@ 4:22
So, if Tier 2 is eliminated and 401ks replace, that’s a large loss in contributions to the pension fund. Only other Tier 1 employees will be contributing(given that the state stiffs them and usually doesn’t put their share of money in, as in historic fashion) Once they retire, where will the money come from (given that the state stiffs the fund more times than not–that repetition is deliberate) to pay out benefits to those retirees?
If contributions (mainly on the state’s part) aren’t adequate, what happens to the benefits?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 6:44 pm:
===Why a 75 year old…===
I’m not saying this is ageism - Lucky Pierre -… I’m not saying that… lol
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 6:47 pm:
Then:
–What is the point of term limits anyway if Speaker Madigan is 75 years old and they would not start for a decade?
The issue does hurt Madigan and Democrats especially because it forces Democrats to defend the most unpopular politician by far in Illinois and explain why they continue to vote for him.–
Now:
–Since the current group of long term legislators have been unable to take the tough votes and compromise for the benefit of Illinois, they are a necessity.–
LOL, did you take your Frat Boy spankin’ like a big boy?
- Rabid - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:03 pm:
Term limits have bipartisan support, who are the democratic sponsors of the non budget notion
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:06 pm:
Term limits are still very popular but I doubt that they will kill the deal
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:10 pm:
Do you really think Speaker Madigan will be in office in 10 years?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:14 pm:
===Do you really think Speaker Madigan will be in office in 10 years?===
What kind of odds are ya giving me?
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:31 pm:
== if Tier 2 is eliminated … ==
The people currently in Tier 2 will still be there unless they opt for a different plan. Tier 2 is protected just like Tier 1.
- RNUG - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 7:33 pm:
== If contributions (mainly on the state’s part) aren’t adequate, what happens to the benefits? ==
Under current IL SC rulings, the short answer is the benefits still have to be paid, presumably on a “pay as you go” basis using GRF.
- Rabid - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 8:01 pm:
If I thought it would do any good, I’d term limit every elected official from judge to precinct committeeman, I don’t see the benefit
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jun 26, 17 @ 9:30 pm:
Wordslinger, there are two separate term limit proposals, one for leaders and one for rank and file.
My point was about the term limits for legislative leaders being a bit of a gag, given the Speaker would be in office for 57 years before they took effect.
- Rabid - Tuesday, Jun 27, 17 @ 5:59 am:
Anyone who wants term limits, will cut off their nose to spite their face