Gov. Bruce Rauner has said for the past several days that he’s open to just about any sort of compromise in order to get school funding reform signed into law.
For example, he recently told Amanda Vinicky on Public Television’s “Chicago Tonight” program that there was nothing on his list that he had to have. “Nothing,” he said when asked to clarify. “Absolutely nothing has to happen. The only principle we should be guided by is what’s best for our children, what treats them all the same so they have the best chance they can at the American dream.”
That could be a very big caveat. It more than just implies that he intends to stick to his guns on stripping money from the Chicago Public Schools, which he contends is given special treatment in the education funding reform bill he vetoed. The Democrats will most definitely not like that.
But even if the negotiations among the four legislative leaders do produce some progress, some folks are still doubtful that Gov. Rauner can bring himself to sign the bill, or that his new staff can get him to stick to his word.
If you go back to 2015, you may remember that after weeks of negotiations over a stopgap budget and after a tentative deal had been reached, Rauner decided during the ensuing weekend that he had some additional demands that would clearly be unacceptable to the Democrats. His top staff fought back hard, insisting that he couldn’t back out after accepting terms. Rauner signed the bill.
More recently, near the end of June, you might recall that Rauner’s office publicly berated the Democrats for not officially transmitting the Chicago gun crimes bill to his desk in order to deliberately deprive the governor of a “win.” The Democrats denied they had any such intentions and the legislation was quickly sent to Rauner. The governor’s staff set up a press conference for the very next day and Chicago’s police superintendent came down to the Statehouse for the signing ceremony.
Just before he was set to sign the bill, however, Rauner blew up at his communications staff over a single sentence in a Chicago Tribune article which detailed his battle with Mayor Rahm Emanuel about the sale of the James R. Thompson Center building. As it turns out, Rauner had misread the sentence, but the blowup was “like nothing I had seen before,” said one person who was present.
And then the governor reportedly had second thoughts about signing the gun bill, other sources say. Mind you, this was just before the signing ceremony was supposed to begin.
A task force inserted into the legislation to help the Illinois State Police combat violent crimes was what reportedly set him off. Sources say he flip-flopped and wanted to veto the bill. Again, this was minutes before he was set to publicly sign the thing with Chicago’s most senior cop on his way to town.
His top staff had to intervene again and eventually convinced him to calm down and sign the bill.
Most of those staffers had been with Gov. Rauner since the campaign. They’d learned over the years how to deal with him and, since they helped get him to the governor’s office, Rauner trusted them enough to eventually listen. But Rauner fired some of them when he brought in far-right Illinois Policy Institute staffers and the rest quit in disgust.
Nobody on his current upper echelon staff has a similar personal history with Rauner. And, so far, nobody on that staff appears to have the ability to steer him in the right direction. They’re letting Bruce be Bruce, and that has its consequences.
Rauner’s former staffers negotiated what started out as a quasi “sanctuary state” bill for illegal immigrants to a point that was even further to the right than where the governor wanted to be. While he is expected to sign the bill as I write this, Rauner hedged publicly about it during an appearance on the Fox News Channel and proponents couldn’t get him to firmly commit to make it a law.
So, there’s naturally some informed doubt that the governor will be able to bring himself to sign something as big and important as an education funding reform bill. The governor publicly denied last week that the First Lady has become more involved in his administration, but by all accounts she most certainly has and she now may be the only hope of keeping him on track. This piece of legislation will forever define him, one way or another. If it’s passed over his veto (in whatever form), he may never live it down.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:03 am:
“Nothing has to be in this bill” is a fundamentally compromised negotiating position. If that’s true, than why not just accept the other side’s offer? And if it’s not true, what is the other side supposed to do, guess?
It’s not a bad tactic if you’re the minority party in the legislature, but he’s the Governor, inability to get things done will (and has!) drag him down.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:09 am:
SB 1 should be the sign post that 1.4% can’t bring himself to cut a deal. He had 90% of what he wanted and still AV’ed the bill.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:12 am:
If the governor’s ultimate (silent) goal is chaos (’shake up Springfield’) - then that is his only consistent personal success. If the follow up was institute reforms after the storms aftermath, he’s showing no abilities at all in that case. It appears that if his only goal was chaos - 👍Bruce.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:16 am:
Rauner has painted himself into a corner on school funding. He’s not going to get the deal he wants; he doesn’t have any leverage to speak of (other than the veto) and ye will own the veto.
As to the overall topic, his last minute changes of mind are part of the reason he can’t get anything done: no one trusts Rauner to keep his word.
- Piece of Work - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:21 am:
Again, if you have ever negotiated anything in your life, %’s don’t matter. Please quit referring to 90% being a win as the 10% can make all the difference for not agreeing to something. 98% could be agreed to but if the 2% is key to either negotiator it isn’t going to happen.
Why should he cut a deal?
- Trapped in the 'burbs - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:23 am:
He’s obviously incapable of compromise. All of his business success came by imposing his will and getting complete control. When faced with getting 90% of his desired outcome, he obsesses over the 10% he’s not getting. The idea of somebody else getting anything is unacceptable to King Bruce. Let’s see if the departing legislators spoil Rauner’s game plan.
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:27 am:
Loyalty is a two lane road. If you require it, you also better give it, not dump people or ideas simply because the road got rocky. That’s when you need people who understand the real details.
- Markus - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:27 am:
No. Only another outbreak of pragmatic R’s can keep their schools from closing. It’s not their loyalty to or trust in Rauner that will keep them together; they mostly dislike and distrust him. Brady can only keep them together as a team until the “I” in “pain” from constituents complaining about schools closing, overshadows the lack of one in “team”. If the override fails, the countdown clock for several districts will start.
- Arock - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:32 am:
Piece of Work, well said.
- Ginhouse Tommy - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:33 am:
The difference between the Superstars and the Best Team in America is that the Superstars saw the big picture and the common sense value and the Best Team is blinded by their far right ideology. Superstars knew when to let Bruce vent and how to talk sense to him. If they were still there the bill would be signed. Best team, like Bruce, doesn’t care if there is chaos and may be the final nail in his political coffin.
- Langhorne - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:35 am:
Words–any compromise is fine, no gotta haves
Deeds–everyone has to be treated the same–see my veto message. If he was really open to compromise, the veto would have laid out smaller, incremental but important changes, that respect the content of the bill. You can get there from here. Instead, the veto is the IPIs education manifesto. Process be damned.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:36 am:
Persistent Rascals like Rauner don’t cut deals. They are funeral undertakers, waiting for death. Rauner is a wealthy hyena, unwilling to fight for what he believes will die without his interference. Rauner is what emergency rooms in hospitals would look like if they were ran by vampires.
Rauner doesn’t prevent chaos, he supports it. The sooner Illinois dies, the sooner he can sell our vital organs and turn us into Sri Lanka or Macao where everyone has the right to work for guys like Bruce Rauner. Rauner believes he helps us as he pulls out our life support.
Consequently he made a horrible governor. He won’t compromise. He won’t govern. He won’t deal. Because Bruce Rauner doesn’t know how to do those things with adversaries still living and believing they still have choices other than Rauners.
Rauner is financially successful because beggars can’t be choosers. As governor, Rauner discovered that we’re not beggars, and in a democracy, we choose.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:37 am:
===Why should he cut a deal?===
Meh. He can cut a deal, not cut a deal… Veto a deal…
But, what you - Piece of Work - and - Arock - need to fully grasp… Really understand.
As Bret Baier eluded to, as I paraphrase…
“What will be different in a Rauner 2nd term?”
Rauner has no signed budgets, the current budget, Rauner vetoed everything from Agency budgets, higher education, even the State Fair funding.
So, if you want the argument to be…
“Yes, Rauner didn’t cave. Rauner vetoed that”… I’d like that.
Rauner is a failure, and you both are cheering the failures.
“Well said”…
- Piece of Work - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 10:48 am:
Willy, what you would claim as successes. another tax hike with no reforms, sky high real estate taxes, sugary drink taxes, sales taxes of 10.25% in Chicago, companies expanding in other states, pension obligations of $130 billion(or if you believe Moody’s, $250 billion), a broken and broke CPS system, unsustainable pensions—-go ahead and claim those successes!!
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 11:03 am:
===…what you would claim as successes. another tax hike with no reforms, sky high real estate taxes, sugary drink taxes, sales taxes of 10.25% in Chicago, companies expanding in other states, pension obligations of $130 billion(or if you believe Moody’s, $250 billion), a broken and broke CPS system, unsustainable pensions—-go ahead and claim those successes===
Take a breath…
===what you would claim as successes.===
Bret Baier asked Rauner what would be different. That’s an indictment that Rauner has failed, continues to fail, shows no real direction beyond his own failures. So… there’s that.
===another tax hike with no reforms===
Rauner wants to say “I vetoed that”, I’m more than fine with that. Rauner’s veto also refused to fund Senior and children programs, higher education, all of Rauner’s agencies… so, please, say Rauner vetoed it… because it then got overriden and Democrats, in a bipartisan manner, saved Illinois.
===sky high real estate taxes===
Labor loves this “phony”. Property tax freeze is about destroying organized Labor. Keep bringing this up, Rauner’s tax freeze. It rallies… Dems and Labor.
===sugary drink taxes===
Rauner was “for it” behind he was against it, and it’s a county thing, so there’s that too.
===sales taxes of 10.25% in Chicago===
If Rauner wants to run for Mayor of Chicago, he should, lol
===companies expanding in other states===
… you want that billion dollar deal Wisconsin just signed off on? The reason it’s stuck? It’s not so great. Wisconsin is yapping about getting money from Illinois, lol
===pension obligations of $130 billion(or if you believe Moody’s, $250 billion)===
Will Rauner refinance short term debt? Could that help long term obligations? Dilemma to me you are pointing to another Rauner failure.
===a broken and broke CPS system===
You must cheer the refusal of funding CPS and/or purposely hurting Chicago children. Otherwise, your concern is just trolling.
===unsustainable pensions===
Rauner needs 71 and 36. That’s how the job works. Rauner failing there is on Rauner, like every governor before him, and after him.
===—-go ahead and claim those successes===
So you see why Bret Baier is so confused, lol…
“What will be different in a Rauner 2nd term?”
- JoeMaddon - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 11:04 am:
Piece of Work… that’s a great name for you.
No reforms, eh? Then please explain why Rauner was celebrating the procurement reforms. Or the local government consolidation reforms. How about Rauner’s pension reforms being in the budget package? About some of the criminal justice reforms that came out of the Governor’s taskforce.
I am so tired of the IPI/Rauner talking/lying points.
- Earnest - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 11:12 am:
>Please quit referring to 90% being a win
Perhaps it’s a wording thing. If most people see the word “negotiation,” they tend to think getting 51% of what you want as a win.
- PragmaticR - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 11:20 am:
Negotiating in the government context is not the same as negotiating in the private sector. In the private sector, both sides can walk away from a transaction and seek alternative business partners if there is a small disagreement. However, the Governor cannot afford to walk away from school funding without being held at least partially responsible for the resulting chaos.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 11:56 am:
PoW:
You must be advising the Governor. Seems like you’re a 100% sort of guy. All or nothing.
It’s laughable to hear someone say 90% isn’t good enough. It’s even more laughable to hear someone say 98% isn’t good enough. In this atmosphere 90% is a Super Bowl win.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 12:17 pm:
==Please quit referring to 90% being a win as the 10% can make all the difference for not agreeing to something.==
Are there any other things the Rauner Administration has said that we now need to ignore because NARRATIVE?
When they talked about the 90/10 split, they weren’t talking page count or word count.
- dbk - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 12:25 pm:
“…there’s naturally some informed doubt that the governor will be able to bring himself to sign something as big and important as an education funding reform bill.”
(1) Being the governor of the 5th-largest state is a big job; part of having a big job is signing big and important legislation. Sheesh.
(2) IPI doesn’t want SB1, they want the AV of SB1 or nothing. At this stage, probably nothing if they can get it. Scorched-earth.
This isn’t politics in the classical sense; as others noted, it’s an attempt to translate hedge fund capitalism to representative government.
Really not a good look for the governor, although he and the BTIA won’t understand why.
P.S. Don’t expect help from the governor’s wife.
- Ed Observer - Tuesday, Aug 22, 17 @ 1:42 pm:
Piece of Work and Arock, what is this nonsense about demanding to get your way 100 percent? I’ve negotiated many successful deals for many years and “negotiating” is part of finding common ground. It’s called listening. Sometimes, it is also really vital to leading. Furthermore, this is government, and our founding fathers set it up so that negotiations and compromise would have to take place. I would argue that there has NEVER been a successful politician who did not understand this.
- facts are stubborn things - Wednesday, Aug 23, 17 @ 7:11 am:
Gov.(captain) Queeg is not very steady. Those darn democrats are steeling his strawberries.