* Tribune…
Republican state lawmakers were almost entirely united in opposition to the Democratic-controlled General Assembly’s decisions on how to dole out $2.8 billion in federal coronavirus relief money through the budget passed this spring. […]
Republicans said the money was handed out with few specifics, little public scrutiny and no real opportunity for the minority party to advocate for the needs of their constituents. GOP lawmakers were angry both about being denied the chance to make special requests for their districts and critical of a spending plan that uses federal coronavirus relief funding for programs that reflect Democratic priorities.
* Now, scroll way, way down…
If Republicans feel like similar priorities in their communities have gone unaddressed in the first round of funding from the last federal coronavirus relief package, [Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Elgie Sims] said, the onus is on them to be more productive partners in the budget process.
“When you come to the table in a meaningful way, you’re able to identify and outline those priorities,” Sims said. “That’s how they end up in the budget. But if you don’t identify them and don’t come to the table to talk about that, it’s hard to know what your priorities are.”
As the article mentions, the lone Republican who worked the process was Rep. Brad Stephens, who secured some one-time money for Rosemont’s pandemic-battered convention center.
*** UPDATE *** Senate Republican Leader Dan McConchie just called. Here’s some of what he said, edited for space and readability…
Probably about a month before the end of session, I pushed myself over to Don Harmon’s office and I went in and I said, ‘Hey, you guys can pass whatever it is you want on your own if you guys get on the same page. What is it that you’re actually interested in doing on a bipartisan basis?’ And he said ‘That’s a good question, budget, ethics.’ He joked about remap, which wasn’t serious, obviously. [I said] let’s keep in contact about those things. Multiple times over the next month, I brought it up in leadership meetings, as well as personally. Every time I had a meeting with Harmon, I would ask about that. My budget people would go over to Elgie’s office for these budget meetings, at which there’s no information that was provided, there was no mock up, there was nothing in regards to that stuff. It would just be kind of like a real generic level of detail, to the point I would bring this up at Harmon. And at one point Harmon finally said, ‘Well, we’re trying to get on the same page with ourselves.’ This was about a week before the end of session. And he’s like, ‘Once we do that, then we’ll bring you in,’ and it never happened. So I can’t comment about what went on in the house. But I can comment that I specifically tried multiple times with Harmon as well as Chapin and DeWitte and Wilcox, with the budget people, would try to and it was a closed door the entire time. So I’m a little frustrated by the characterization.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:00 am:
If you’re not going to participate, in every and all way, and vote “red” on other parts… why should you (your district) get *any* monies?
Your district shouldn’t
- DuPage Dad - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:06 am:
Reminds me of the good article last week of Sen. Peters, who is a young man and does not have seniority of tenure at this time, getting a lot done in the chamber simply by showing up and working the process. Rep. Stephens worked it and may not have gotten a lot, but he got something for a major economic function in his community (we don’t need to elaborate on the family ties, do we?). But he worked it and got something for it. The GOP would be a lot more effective if it just had realistic expectations for what’s right in front of it.
- JS Mill - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:14 am:
=be more productive partners in the budget process.=
With the possible exception of the Rauner budget override, this has not happened in eons. They also seem to relish the ILGOP standing as the party of “no”.
Plus… what OW stated.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:20 am:
===With the possible exception of the Rauner budget override, this has not happened in eons===
It happened in 2019
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:21 am:
Follow the lead of the Republicans in Congress: request your earmarks then vote against the bill. Have your cake and eat it too.
Instead, ILGOPs are standing at the pier after refusing to board the ship and now want to know what the other passengers are having for dinner.
- JS Mill - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:36 am:
=It happened in 2019=
that is why I said possible exception- and I used possible because irrc it was 10 or 11 that joined in versus the whole ILGOP.
But, yes 2019.
- Phenomynous - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:49 am:
Last time Republicans came to the budget table was 2019 (Pritzker) where they secured pro-business reforms in exchange for votes on revenue to support the new capital bill and budget.
How did that work for them? The pro business reforms are on the chopping block and they are getting short changed on capital spending.
What’s that saying? Fool me once?
- truthteller - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:56 am:
the party of no which means NO participation is upset that they aren’t part of the process or have input on the outcome? Crying out loud have they no self-respect at all?
- Sir Reel - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 10:59 am:
Republicans seem to find it more fun to hurl insults from the peanut gallery than to actually work on, and God forbid, compromise on their agenda. Easy gig.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 11:03 am:
===The pro business reforms are on the chopping block===
You need to update your programming. That was resolved in May. Didn’t happen.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 11:06 am:
===How did that work for them?===
Kinda like being against the Fair Tax… they “won”, how did that work out for them?
- JS Mill - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 11:12 am:
=they are getting short changed on capital spending.=
Just exactly how is the party that voted against ALL revenue now getting short changed for the things they didn’t want, and did not want to fund?
I know they want to tell their constituents what they got for them, but if you voted against them and the money to fund how can you…. Oh never mind.
Cognitive dissonance at an elite level.
- Phenomynous - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 11:31 am:
-Resolved in May-
I guess they didn’t make changes to the franchise tax in May after all and decided to move forward with the Blue Collar Jobs Act without telling anyone?
I didn’t see that in the papers. My bad.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 11:52 am:
Just say no has been good short term politics for Republicans. But it has a serious price for your constituents and this is it. You can’t play if you’re not in the game.
- Scott Cross for President - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 1:53 pm:
Elgie continues to impress, and his colleagues continue to benefit from his experience as approps staff.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 2:21 pm:
To the update,
Did McConchie have a public budgetary wish list or framing to a budget?
Maybe folks could make a real decision to the amount of process the Senate GOP was making… it sounds like a bunch of people doing minimum to have a back story of alleged unwelcome engagement.
- Facts Matter - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 2:41 pm:
Phenonmynous - As the Blue Collar Jobs Act - apparently they are moving forward - See the proposed rules in last Friday’s Illinois Register.
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 4:34 pm:
Did McConchie just cop to trying to cut some sort of backroom deal, to being totally ineffective as a legislative leader, or both?
If you sent your staff to budget meetings and didn’t offer up revenue ideas, or sent legislators to hearings and they never once mentioned “we should spend more on This or That” then you are doing it wrong.
- walker - Monday, Aug 16, 21 @ 7:34 pm:
The leadership in both houses was in transition, and zoom meetings just didn’t make it easy to make nuanced demands and trades. The two houses vied for assumed budgeting leadership, and the person most effective in moving the needle off the expected trend lines (eg Blue Collar jobs, and decoupling) was Durkin So both McConchie and Harmon reported accurately from their perspectives.