21 Comments - cdog - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:21 am: Let’s use Occam’s Razor here. Get the pension language out of the school funding legislation. Why make this even more complicated than it needs to be. The shortest distance between point a and b is a straight line; with pensions included, the line between point a and b becomes undefinable. - Fax Machine - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:33 am: Are they gonna schedule a vote so Bill Brady loses his “designee” status? - Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:38 am: cdog, you haven’t paid much attention lately. We’re seeing that Rauner has made this about more than the pension language. Right now, school funding reform looks like a dead issue thanks to Rauner. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that his legislative minions didn’t even know what Rauner was planning to do. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:38 am: ===Get the pension language out of the school funding legislation. === Agreed. They need to go back to SB1 as passed by the Senate. - Anon414 - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:45 am: I’d like to see them Run a motion to accept Rauner’s AV language — and vote that down in spectacular fashion. Then, as Rich suggests, put a version of the original SB 1 (without the House amendments) on the board and pass it. - Curl of the Burl - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:46 am: Norseman - not that you are wrong but cdog and Rich are spot on. The bill should have been left alone - especially since it was amended on Memorial Day and voted on in the House on the last night of session. I am not an Andy Manar fan but I would bet that he is not as happy as before given that his bill was tinkered with at the proverbial last minute - which makes his task and life more difficult. Will Davis could have easily run a separate bill or promise to bring a trailer bill as an add-on to SB 1. Instead he threw a wrench into the bike spokes as it was being pedaled towards the finish line. - cdog - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:47 am: N, I’m to keep up, thanks. I think I have the larger moving parts processed into my mind. Been “developing” my childrens, across multiple states…so just dropping in here a little less. I don’t worry to much about the peanut gallery review of the org behavior, and this is a tough crowd that will never be pleased. Let’s hope for compromise and resolution on education. Pensions can wait until tomorrow, said Scarlett, I think…. - Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:07 am: Curl, is the pension language the only issue holding up SB 1? Is that why Rauner made formula changes that harm others as well? Would GOP legislators support SB 1 without that language despite other Rauner changes? I just don’t see it’s that simple. - Robert J Hironimus-Wendt - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:16 am: Like I said, this is a manufactured crisis. Knowing the Governor would do this, the Dems should have released the bill earlier. We could be done by now. Instead, schools must worry. A win-win is to divide the bill. Vote first on all things related to CPS funding. Reps get to vote against, saving face. Then vote to accept. That will fail. Then vote to either override, or harm all schools. The override will pass, and Republicans save face back home. Just do it, and be done. - Curl of the Burl - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:17 am: Norseman - the pension addition is a huge deal though. It was not just a minor technical amendment. My argument was that HFAs 1 & 2 should have never been added. Rauner’s changes are not ideal. But the bill should been kept as is in the House. Cullerton commented on how Rauner had a bad month. He was right. But perhaps Cullerton’s leadership should have sent Rauner the bill immediately. Would it have been better for Rauner’s old team or new team to work on an amendatory veto? I think almost all of us can agree that his prior team would have been better equipped to handle it. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:17 am: ===A win-win is to divide the bill=== lol They cannot do that. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:23 am: ===A win-win is to divide the bill=== This is a process question, not a political question. Knowing process helps understand the politics better. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:27 am: ===But perhaps Cullerton’s leadership should have sent Rauner the bill immediately.=== Rauner had weeks and weeks to work on that AV. Cullerton gave Rauner weeks and weeks to ponder. Rauner didn’t even know… think just on that… didn’t even know it was 3/5th. Heck, Cullerton himself warned Rauner, publicly, with a note explaining the options the governor had. Maybe your argument is that Cullerton shoulda sent it earlier, because Rauner was going to mess it up anyway, lol - Robert J Hironimus-Wendt - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:27 am: If this is an amendment proposed to change an existing bill, I do not see why the Republican sponsor cannot agree to divide the motion. Are AVs immune from negotiation? Just asking. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:29 am: - Robert J Hironimus - Accept AV Override AV Thems the choices. “Questions?” - Curl of the Burl - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:32 am: Willy - staff changes clearly alter the direction of an administration. This is especially true when the level of turnover is so high (and stark). Obama’s team was much different when Rahm Emanuel left. Rauner did have time to work on it earlier - but then new staff leadership was brought in and likely would have killed any progress towards a more equitable solution. Timing is everything in life and especially in politics. The timing in this instance has proven to cause plenty of problems. - Fax Machine - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:36 am: Or a new bill that can get 36 & 71 - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:39 am: ===Or a new bill that can get 36 & 71=== Yep. If either the Accept or Override fail, Bruve Rauner will then own a complete budget veto, all aspects, no “buts”, Rauner will have vetoed… everything. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:43 am: ===Rauner did have time to work on it earlier - but then new staff leadership was brought in and likely would have killed any progress towards a more equitable solution.=== Your beef is with Diana Rauner. Diana wanted Goldberg gone and many gone, and approving IPI hires. You know how Dem Social Service Presidents can be… One overall goal isn’t just about school funding but other political means within the governing loses. A revisit if you will. The purge was never about getting SB1 through or not or even compromise on SB1… or not. Ask Diana… - PragmaticR - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:22 pm: Acceptance of AV will not receive a vote. Legislators will have the choice to override or to kill the bill. Killing the bill will lead to a protracted funding delay with schools closing downstate and an eventual compromise that may or may not be better than SB1 for downstate districts. What would happen if Chicago Democrats and suburban Republicans formed an alliance to distribute state education funding in a manner that closely matched the county distribution of state income tax revenue? More than 70% of state income tax revenue is from Chicago and surrounding suburban areas. - Ghost - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:34 pm: I always lke the ohrase “acting” in a bill. I imagine Madigan tossing the bill on the floor and standing on it while performing shakespeare….. [amendatory veto] to be, or not to be- that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The reductions and cost shifting of outrageous libertarians Or to take arms against a wealthy donor. and by opposing, end his terror. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.