57 Comments - Actual Red - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:47 am: Rauner has had four years to show he can “lead beyond obstructing the democrats.” He can’t. - Macbeth - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:47 am: Barickman’s right, of course — but politics now is sharply polarized and tribal. The only visionary message that resonates with the tribe is one condemning all other tribes. I mean, Rauner (since Day 1) and Trump (forever) play politics as zero sum. It’s not enough to win. Someone else has to lose. This is Rauner’s game in a nutshell. - Driveby - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:50 am: But you forfeit that right if you aren’t working to get rid of Madigan. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:56 am: Either Barickman is playing the good cop to Rauner’s bad cop, or he’s prepping for a Rauner defeat. Rauner is not going to change his destroy Madigan message, and Barickman is not so much an attack dog for Rauner anymore, it seems. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:57 am: ===“I think the public will want more. I think the path forward for a Republican has to be demonstrating the leadership necessary to advance our state regardless of whether Madigan is speaker or not. That message, I think, wins a general election,” said Barickman.== … says the man who sat in the Illinois Senate for the 99th General Assembly and adhered to the premise… “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate.” See, here’s the rub. Mr. Barickman, an instructor at a state university, made sure his votes kept full year funding away from Illinois higher education. Mr. Barickman can’t have these type of epiphanies and not acknowledge his own complete and total complicity. Nope. Can’t. Don’t. In actuality, Mr. Barickman is as much to blame as Rauner. Until Raunerites in the GA decide they owe Illinoisans a sincere apology for believing that “no budgets until Rauner reforms” was hurtful, and demonizing Madigan to hurt this state was just a damaging. You want to stand for something other than being against Madigan, how about standing up and apologize for your own role these past 3 years in your want to hurt Illinois. I have NO time for a Raunerite who, on his twitter touts teaching at a state university while as a Senator felt the need to hurt higher education for an agenda for a whole GA… and sees ZERO need to apologize for it. Nope. - Flat Bed Ford - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 9:59 am: Jason isn’t wrong but he isn’t correct. Madigan himself hasn’t governed either. Instead he has built a massive extortion racket all while destroying a once great state. The man got rich through politics plain and simple. Illinois suffers because of it. - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:02 am: As always OW, you’re being blatantly dishonest about the budget impasse. Rauner had two criteria as is his right as governor wielding the veto pen: send me a budget balanced with current revenues, **OR** send me a tax hike budget that includes reforms. The impasse was caused by Madigan’s stubbornness to negotiate in good faith. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:03 am: Sounds like a sports analyst saying things are not looking good for the current team. - Macbeth - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:06 am: — The impasse was caused by Madigan’s stubbornness to negotiate in good faith. — Or, more precisely, Rauner’s inability to compromise and accept a win when there’s a win to accept. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:08 am: Oh - Phil King -, LOL ===The impasse was caused by Madigan’s stubbornness to negotiate in good faith.=== Nope. Good try. No. “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” That was The Owl. Rauner’s Floor Leader. No reforms, no budget. Rauner made sure that the House couldn’t get 71 to override vetoes instead of finding 60 (which wouldn’t exist under Rauner’s terms, Madigan as Speaker or not. Rauner had no 60). Rauner held the state hostage, with Dunkin, Franks and Drury. “It’s frustrating, but no budget, until reforms.” Stopping overrides included. Keep up. K? K. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:08 am: Great words. They should be used against Rauner in an ad. These words and those of others, who’ve urged Rauner to govern and not obstruct and fight. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:09 am: Rauner is a pessimist. He promised to shake up Springfield, not make it better. He told us that we had to sacrifice. He told us that businesses didn’t want to come here. He told us daily that the current speaker is a criminal. He told us that the mayor of our state’s largest city is corrupted. Rauner told us that we were overpaid if we were union members. He told us that we’re being ripped off on taxes. Rauner has not shown the state he governs any respect or love. He has done nothing but ruin our state’s finances, lied to those who voted for him, and expanded abortions. He is the worst governor in Illinois history, a pessimistic junk dealer who vultures over us waiting for us to fail. Because if we fail, he wins. - wonder - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:12 am: Barickman is abandoning ship, yet, here, some members of the band play on… - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:19 am: –“I don’t think Republicans win elections in Illinois simply by saying we’re the defense to (Illinois House Speaker Michael) Madigan’s offense. We don’t get to earn the right to govern simply by saying Madigan is the boogeyman,” said Barickman.– Strange to be steppin’ on the Boss’ very expensive, coordinated, statewide GOP campaign strategy. I doubt if Barickman will be repeating those statements down the home stretch. - Whatever - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:25 am: Phil King == Rauner had two criteria as is his right as governor wielding the veto pen: send me a budget balanced with current revenues, **OR** send me a tax hike budget that includes reforms. The impasse was caused by Madigan’s stubbornness to negotiate in good faith. == Article IV, Section 9(d) of the Illinois Constitution: “(d) The Governor may reduce or veto any item of appropriations in a bill presented to him.Portions of a bill not reduced or vetoed shall become law. An item vetoed shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may become law in the same manner as a vetoed bill. An item reduced in amount shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may be restored to its original amount in the same manner as a vetoed bill except that the required record vote shall be a majority of the members elected to each house. If a reduced item is not so restored, it shall become law in the reduced amount.” The Governor had all the authority he needed to reduce appropriations to match revenues. Either he has no idea how to do that or he’s afraid to to it himself. - BlueDogDem - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:26 am: Commonly referred to as dissolving one’s self. - pawn - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:30 am: Phil King, you are forgetting the Governor’s power to line item veto or to submit balanced budgets himself. He could have submitted an actual balanced budget detailing actual cuts, but chose instead to submit budgets with fantasy lines like savings from working together on a grand bargain. He could have used his line item veto pen to delete funding that he thought was not necessary. He could have submitted an FY19 budget that rejected the revenue from the tax increase. Rauner did none of these things, and instead played the victim on TV, while actively holding social services and higher ed as hostages, er, “wedges” in his anti-union war. Be honest. - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:30 am: Line item vetoes can’t reduce spending which is set by statutory formula. Or biggest items, Education, Medicaid, Pensions, State Worker Compensation all require the legislature to change the law to find savings. There simply isn’t money there to balance a budget by tinkering with discretionary spending. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:33 am: ===There simply isn’t money there to balance a budget by tinkering with discretionary spending.=== … or raise revenue… … or cut discretionary spending… All a governor can do, and do as a partner in budgeting. “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” That’s not what Rauner chose. You sure you were around for the impasse. Rauner made clear he was holding the state hostage, The Owl too. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:40 am: “The Governor had all the authority he needed to reduce appropriations to match revenues. Either he has no idea how to do that or he’s afraid to to it himself.” Hogwash, 90 percent of the budget is automatic spending The Governor cannot reduce spending without the cooperation of the legislature and the courts - We'll See - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:40 am: - Phil King - google “Illinois line item veto” and then get back with us on your newfound education - low level - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 10:46 am: “Line item vetoes can’t reduce spending which is set by statutory formula.” You must work for Rauner? Absolutely clueless - @misterjayem - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:00 am: Mr. King, Why would anyone reelect a governor who’s as helpless and ineffective as the one you describe? – MrJM - don the legend - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:02 am: ==The impasse was caused by Madigan’s stubbornness to negotiate in good faith.== Oh Reeaally. So the Republicans/Raunerites who voted to pass the Fy2018 budget and override Rauners almost instant veto supported Madigan’s “stubbornness”. So the bought and paid for Republican/Raunerite caucus who overwhelmingly supported this year’s budget with an income tax hike that Rauner signed and began to spend immediately continue to support Madigan’s “stubbornness”. Gotcha. - pawn - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:08 am: Phil King I think you have a complete misunderstanding about what an appropriation is. It permits spending on specific things up to that amount. There is nothing in the appropriations bills that compels spending, or spending in full. Believe me, I asked legislators of both parties this question repeatedly over the past few years. It has often been a practice of previous administrations — both parties — in holding back some funding either to control budgets or have funds available to deal with an emergency, etc. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:19 am: Pawn if they were giving out medals for misunderstanding…. “Democratic legislators have refused Gov. Bruce Rauner’s request for “extraordinary” budget authority, with one – Sen. Don Harmon of Oak Park – saying it would be akin to “giving a razor blade to a toddler.” Rauner wants the power to reduce state spending, unilaterally, by anywhere from $6.3 billion to $7 billion. Under a measure crafted by his office, only areas that the governor generally already supports would be off-limits, including funding for grade schools (known as General State Aid payments) and early childhood funding, as well as required debt payments.” https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2017/03/15/rauner-wants-power-chop-state-budget-won-t-say-what-he-d-cut - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:20 am: Pawn, I know how line item vetoes and appropriations work quite well, unlike some of the other commenters here. Obviously appropriations don’t compel spending. MANY other statues, court orders, and consent decrees do. There are statutes throughout the Illinois code that create spending outside of the budget process. Examples include Medicaid, Education, Pensions, worker compensation, etc. The governor cannot line item veto Medicaid. If he reduces the amount budgeted in an appropriations bill, that does nothing to reduce the actual liability. The liability is created by state and federal law and the appropriation is simply a projection of what the liability will be in the coming year. Same goes for pensions. The annual required contributions are set by the state retirement systems pursuant to a statute. Governors can not reduce those amount via line item veto. Over 75% of General funds spending is completely untouchable by line item veto. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:24 am: ===Same goes for pensions. The annual required contributions are set by the state retirement systems pursuant to a statute. Governors can not reduce those amount via line item veto.=== No governor skipped pension payments? - Low level - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:24 am: Phil, Very well, but you are undercutting your own argument. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:26 am: - Phil King - So the whole ===…blatantly dishonest…=== thingy you said about the Rauner impasse and Rauner holding Illinois hostage, you accept that truth that both Rauner and The Owl readily admitted when it happened, or… - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:35 am: I don’t see how it undercuts my argument. The point is Rauner needed the legislature to act, to change the underlying laws, in order to balance the budget with no tax hike. It was the legislatures’ refusal to do so that lead to the impasse. Heck, they didn’t even send him appropriations bills to veto for FY17, much less the tax hike to pay for them. In FY16, when Madigan had super majority, he didn’t even try to pass a tax hike over Rauner’s veto. Madigan made a political decision that he would not negotiate with the Governor on needed reforms and that he did not want to bear the blame for the tax hike he wanted. There’s nothing Rauner could have done to get a budget those two years. Madigan could’ve done it on his own or by negotiating. He did neither, therefore he deserves the lions share of blame. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:40 am: ===I don’t see how it undercuts my argument.=== Hmm. “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” Which word do you need to understand or which word or words confuse you? Rauner wanted the impasse, his floor leader explained it. So I guess I ask again, which words are confusing you? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:43 am: ===In FY16, when Madigan had super majority, he didn’t even try to pass a tax hike over Rauner’s veto.== See: Dunkin, Ken; Franks, Jack; Drury, Scott That’s 68. What else ya got? Are you trying? It doesn’t seem like you’re trying. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 11:54 am: ===It was the legislatures’ refusal to do so that lead to the impasse.=== Were you out of the country in 2015? The impasse had little to nothing to do with the annual budget-making process. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 12:47 pm: ==There’s nothing Rauner could have done to get a budget those two years.== Sure he could have. Focused on a budget instead of demanding other things as part of that budget. Nothing stopped him from doing that. To suggest he could have done nothing is absolutely dishonest. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 12:47 pm: And Phil, I can tell you unequivocally that you don’t have that good of an understanding of how budget implementation works. - Henry Francis - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 12:59 pm: ==There’s nothing Rauner could have done to get a budget those two years.== Well, he could have allowed leader Radgno to do her job and continue to negotiate in good faith with the Dems. But he stepped in and stopped her when they seemed to be getting closer to a deal. The Guv made a deliberate decision. No budget if he didn’t get his reforms. He chose no budget because he thought that would give him the leverage to get his reforms. He said that. Out loud. Reporters reported on it. Are you trying make this an example of “the truth isn’t the truth?” - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:00 pm: ===Are you trying make this an example of “the truth isn’t the truth?” === Yes, I do believe he is. - Hieronymus - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:03 pm: @Macbeth 9:47am - “It’s not enough to win. Someone else has to lose. This is Rauner’s game in a nutshell.” Agreed. … and to paraphrase another saying: He would rather rule over a h**l of his own making, rather than serve the people as they strive to achieve the trappings of paradise for everyone. - Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:18 pm: Who will give Rauner the power to make cuts? Who? Who-who?? C’mon, this is a retread of the “I am not in charge, I am trying to get to be in charge” argument. The editorial board are not buying it. The general public is not buying it. Even the GOP primary voters did not largely buy it. Jim Edgar didn’t buy it, when he repeatedly said the Governor is in charge, and Mike Madigan is not omnipotent. Perhaps crucially, When asked where they would make cuts if they could during the budget process, no one in the administration had any answers for the approp committee or the public. In fact, even with the bipartisan tax hike AND bipartisan spending increase, it was Rauner’s Dept. of Corrections who had to come forward and sheepishly admit they needed $1 billion more than they had requested for unpaid bills. Should I mention the funds Rauner spent without appropriations authority or even a court order? Rauner, Is. In charge. - pawn - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:31 pm: Just a reminder. Please read the opening sentence of this story. “On September 18, 2012, the year before Bruce Rauner declared his candidacy for governor….” he laid out his strategy to hurt social services in exchange for separating Democrats from the unions. http://www.nprillinois.org/post/illinois-issues-social-cost-rauner-v-labor#stream/0 This. Was. The. Plan. All. Along. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:37 pm: Strictly speaking Pawn local communities would have to choose to “hurt unions” Did you ever consider blind allegiance to unions and trial lawyers is hurting the rest of the state? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:38 pm: LP using the term “blind allegiance” to mock someone else. Priceless. - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:53 pm: Every single year he gave two options: 1) Balanced budget with no tax hike (he even offered to take the heat for the cuts through his “Unbalanced Budget Response Act”) 2) Tax hike budget with structural reforms You all are acting like he only proposed #2, but #1 was on the table every year from the beginning. Reforms weren’t a condition for a budget, they were a condition for his signature on a tax hike. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 1:58 pm: (Sigh) - Phil King - Again… “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” Which word do you need to understand or which word or words confuse you? Rauner wanted the impasse, his floor leader explained it. So I guess I ask again, which words are confusing you? Throw in, like it was brought up… Radogno being big footed. You are willfully ignorant or blissfully unaware. You refuse to see the truth of 2015-2016. Why? - Phil King - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:13 pm: You keep talking about option two. Here’s the Gov’s message from his budget address. Which words confuse you? “The Unbalanced Budget Response Act would put everything on the table to help us balance our budget – everything except funding for early childhood education and General State Aid to our schools. To balance the budget without reform, we’ll have to take a microscope to every other category of state spending. You’ve given emergency budget authority to governors in the past – other states have too – and no one can dispute that we have an emergency on our hands. It’s not my preferred course of action. It wouldn’t solve our long-term challenges. But it would, at the very least, allow us to stop digging the hole deeper.” - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:17 pm: - Phil King - Until you come to terms with… “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” You have no arguement. Type all the words you can think of, grab a dictionary, start with “A”… You are willfully ignorant to… “I’m frustrated too but taking steps to reform Illinois is more important than a short term budget stalemate” … and Radogno. It’s embarrassing, actually. - Skeptic - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:18 pm: “and no one can dispute that we have an emergency on our hands” Funny, there wasn’t an emergency in October 2014. I wonder what happened? - Huh? - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:37 pm: “Rauner, Is. In charge.” No. he. isn’t. 1.4% specifically said that Madigan was in charge. - pawn - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:38 pm: Lucky Pierre, Those of us who were held hostage, used as weapons in the effort to separate Democrats from unions, did not appreciate being weaponized at all. The very best parts of us, the parts that care about people and want to help them achieve well-being so that they can give back to their communities, that was used against us in a cynical effort to win a political fight that we did not pick. I find that an unforgivable tactic. People really suffered for a loss of services. Others lost their jobs. Whole communities were used with no regard for their welfare, just for their impact as weapons, while Rauner banked on the fact that we would not shut our doors and walk away from our missions and the communities and people we have dedicated our lives and careers to caring for. It was disgusting and cynical, and a deliberately chosen strategy. The very least you can do is acknowledge the truth of what happened to us. I don’t appreciate being gaslighted. - Whatever - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 2:55 pm: Phil King, again ==Every single year he gave two options: 1) Balanced budget with no tax hike (he even offered to take the heat for the cuts through his “Unbalanced Budget Response Act”)== And, again, his reduction veto authority gave him the power and opportunity to take the heat by crossing off or reducing appropriations to make the spending authorizations match revenues. If, as you say, court orders and consent decrees force spending so that cutting appropriations won’t work, then there is nothing the general assembly can do about spending on these things either. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 3:20 pm: –Every single year he gave two options: 1) Balanced budget with no tax hike (he even offered to take the heat for the cuts through his “Unbalanced Budget Response Act”) 2) Tax hike budget with structural reforms – Curiously, I don’t see those budget proposals on the GOMB website. That’s part of the gig, to introduce a balanced budget, as proscribed by the Constitution. There are presentations to the bond houses at the GOMB website where the guv’s whiz kids admit their proposals are billions in the red. Not to mention, piling up $12B in unpaid bills in 2.5 years. But enough on this, Phil. Tell us how that War of Northern Aggression had nothing to do with slavery. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 3:24 pm: ==Hogwash, 90 percent of the budget is automatic spending== You two are *Seriously so close to getting it*. Just take the one more step… - Arsenal - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 3:28 pm: ==You all are acting like he only proposed #2, but #1 was on the table every year from the beginning.== Because #1 was never atually possible. You’ve actually admitted it, when you said you can’t balance the budget by tinkering with discretionary spending. LP agreed when he noted that 90% of the budget is automatic. And Rauner himself proved as much when he failed to even *submit* a balanced budget year after year. He had all the staffers at GOMB to work on it, and none of them could ever even come up with something he could submit, let alone pass. - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 3:32 pm: Wordslinger and Arsenal, your outrage about balanced budgets is highly selective with zero criticism of the co equal legislature who has been failing at their “gig” for decades. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 4:35 pm: –Wordslinger and Arsenal, your outrage about balanced budgets is highly selective with zero criticism of the co equal legislature who has been failing at their “gig” for decades.– And if you, comrade, read the Illinois Constitution, you’d see that it is singularly selective as to whose responsibility it is to propose a balanced budget every year. But, then again, last week you thought it took 50% + `1 to be elected governor. So your programming….. like old Soviet Wang knockoffs? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 21, 18 @ 6:28 pm: ===your outrage about balanced budgets is highly selective with zero criticism of the co equal legislature who has been failing at their “gig” for decades.=== Rauner signed a budget $1.2 billion out of balance. How can you support someone so “status quo”? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.