Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner thankfully rejects failed Kansas model

Posted in:

Illinois

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

The most important question asked of Bruce Rauner during last week’s gubernatorial debate in Peoria was posed by Jamey Dunn-Thomason of Illinois Issues magazine.

My pal pointed out that Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, had cut taxes across the board on the theory that it would boost the state’s economy. His idea hasn’t worked. What’s happened instead is a huge revenue shortfall, which has forced gigantic state budget cuts and an economy that now lags the rest of the country.

So, what did Rauner think of Brownback’s policy, Dunn-Thomason wondered.

It has seemed to me over the past several months that Rauner is a true believer in “Brownbackism.” He’s proposed slashing the income tax over 4 years from 5 percent to 3 percent, without regard for the budgetary pain he would cause, and predicted that doing so would so intensely stimulate the state’s economy that all those lost revenues would magically be replaced by new income from growth.

The idea is a fantasy, and Brownback’s Kansas pretty much proves it.

The hard truth is that almost the entire Illinois income tax hike pays for the state’s pension payments. Illinois had kept its tax rate low in comparison with most of the nation for decades because it was skipping and skimping on its long-term pension obligations, which finally led to big trouble with the state’s credit raters.

And since the Illinois Supreme Court appears to be in no mood to help the state out on pension reform, the only responsible thing to do is to keep revenues about where they are now in order to avoid a very real disaster in the rest of the budget.

You may not like to hear this, but the math is the math.

What we’ve all been hearing out of Rauner to date appears to be ideologically driven nonsense designed to appeal to a gullible and angry public. He absolutely cannot do what he says he’ll do unless he intends to drive the pension systems into bankruptcy, but I’m not sure he can legally get away with that.

Rauner has also pledged big spending increases for P-12 education, higher education, infrastructure, natural resources, corrections, and a host of other state programs. How the heck can he do that if he plans to slash state revenues?

I’ve been hearing from some Republicans over the past couple of weeks that Rauner is planning to “pull a Jim Thompson.” Our former governor twice ran on a pledge not to raise taxes, in 1982 and then again in 1986. But as soon as he was safely sworn in, he declared he had not realized the extent of the budget problems and now firmly believed that Illinois desperately needed a tax hike.

Rauner’s proposed expansion of the sales tax to services would bring in only $400 million – a drop in the bucket compared to the billions lost from the income tax hike rollback, and wouldn’t even begin to provide the revenues needed to fulfill his spending promises.

But, if you listen carefully, you’ll often hear him say that he hasn’t completely ruled out expanding that new tax to other services.

So, what I’ve been told by people who have regular private contact with him is that Rauner intends to drastically expand that service tax beyond what he’s claiming now in order to replace some of the revenues from gradually phasing out the income tax hike. He’ll have a “Big Jim Moment” come January, if he’s elected.

OK, let’s go back to last week’s debate.

“I don’t agree with the tax policies that were put in place in Kansas,” Rauner declared in response to Dunn-Thomason’s question. In other words, tax cuts without regard for consequences is not in the cards.

Rauner then returned to his familiar talking points about looking “at the entire tax code” to close corporate loopholes and “broaden the base, lower the rates.” Putting that into context with his Kansas statement, to me, at least, supported what I’ve been hearing about what he actually intends to do with the budget next year.

A tax on services will naturally dampen growth and will lower the overall burden on the wealthy, and that’s a totally legit debate to have, if it comes to that.

I admit that I’m counting on the fact that he’s lying through his teeth about taxes, and I acknowledge that even a broad service tax will replace only about a third of the income tax cut he says he wants.

But when he publicly rejected the Kansas model last week, I breathed a quiet sigh of relief.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:13 am

Comments

===“I don’t agree with the tax policies that were put in place in Kansas,” Rauner declared in response to Dunn-Thomason’s question. In other words, tax cuts without regard for consequences is not in the cards.===
I think it’s a bit optimistic to assume that this remark would be the one that sets policy. He did say it, but he’s said a lot of other things too, some of them pointing the other way. Who knows what he’d do? Not him, I suspect; I suspect that at this point he’s just making stuff up in the hope of being elected.

Comment by UIC Guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:21 am
I am a firm believer (as was Dem JFK) that higher taxes rates stifle growth. That said, there is a minimum level that needs to be maintained to pay for state bills. 5% is the absolute minimum in today’s environment.

Comment by Peoria guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:22 am
Good column Rich.

Comment by Peoria guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:22 am
Rich, CTBA says generally expanding the sales tax to services (the more services it is expanded to the greater the effect)reduces the relative regressivity of the sales tax and burdens the more affluent more than it does the lower income because the more affluent purchase services while the less affluent purchase materials and supplies upon which they are already paying sales tax (classic example, buying seed and fertilizer for the lawn [sales taxed] vs using a lawn service [not sales taxed]). And also, sales taxes generally aren’t deductible from federal income taxes, again benefits the more affluent less.Of course, re the latter argument, a state imposes a relative lesser burden on the affluent thru a progressive income tax because of the deductibility of the state income tax.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:26 am
So, like Romney in 2012, the best case you can make for Rauner is “He’s probably lying about what he’d do.”

Comment by Adlai Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:34 am
If you want a permanent income tax increase, you need a Republican governor. I just don’t see Madigan allowing just the Dems to wear the jacket on that.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:36 am
Rauner wants to do Kochtopia lite (h/t to Harry Reid), with his lowering income tax rate, which will benefit the super-wealthy even more, along with union stripping.

How will the Rauner tax plans play with some strong anti-tax folks? The unions may be opening a second front against him now with Grimm and campaign funds.

“I am a firm believer (as was Dem JFK) that higher taxes rates stifle growth. That said, there is a minimum level that needs to be maintained to pay for state bills. 5% is the absolute minimum in today’s environment.”

California raised its income tax for the wealthy, is seeing above average job growth, per my latest observation of a group of states, and brought in an estimated half-billion more in revenue in the last quarter–a surplus.

The U.S. Raised the top income tax rate, is seeing more revenue and the unemployment rate has been decreasing.

Plus, economies were stronger when federal income tax rates were much higher.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:37 am
If Illinois increases sales taxes rather than income taxes, that increases what flows out of Illinois to the US Treasury.

For many taxpayers, Uncle Sam would pay about 25% of any increase in the income tax.

Why are sales taxes the better choice?

Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:45 am
What if he’s not lying?

What if he absolutely believes in what he’s saying, but he’s saavy enough to know he needs to send conflicting signals to deficit hawks? Anonymous inner-circlees have every incentive either to fool themselves, if they at heart know better, or to play his game. You had the same media whispering campaign around Romney: “Oh, tut tut, you know he doesn’t really believe his tax plan, do you? That’s just for the masses…”

I’m not saying he -is- lying … I am saying I don’t know, it is absolutely a non-negligible % chance he isn’t, and this is a very fair reason still to vote for Quinn.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:48 am
We know that Quinn wants to make the income tax increase–his income tax increase–permanent. But that’s a given, for both candidates, although Rauner might try to extend it instead of making it permanent, while he finds other revenues. What else might Quinn do. Haven’t heard much about that, and the media need to press him on it. What if that isn’t enough $$$? Then what? And so forth. From what I’ve read, he occasionally tosses a bone to the progressive income tax crowd, but no meat there. And the progressives put up with it! And talk of a service tax has been, well, muted at most among Democrats. I guess they are still recovering from Blago’s ill-fated service tax. I supported that on this blog, and I still remember the, um, critical comments.

Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:50 am
@Steve Schnorf

== And also, sales taxes generally aren’t deductible from federal income taxes, again benefits the more affluent less ==

For the truly affluent, it is a wash because of the Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) and the phasing out of itemized deductions after adjusted gross income reaches a certain level.

For someone with a million dollars in adjusted gross income, neither income taxes or property taxes are deductible. For someone making minimum wage, they pay little or no income tax to begin with.

It’s the middle class homeowner that gets hit the hardest when we switch from income taxes to sales taxes - or at the local level - from property taxes to things like a stormwater utility fee (a/k/a “rain tax”)

Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:51 am
Quinn needs to push the millionaire surcharge, in my opinion. Rauner made over $60 million last year and paid something like 27% in income taxes. I paid 14% in income taxes, after deductions. Rauner made 871 times more money than I did last year and only paid twice as much in taxes.

Something is really wrong with this picture, and Quinn needs to hammer home his support for the millionaire tax.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:58 am
After hearing your theory on Rauner, I am less inclined to vote for him. Let the Democrats continue to raise taxes and watch the State continue to lag behind the rest of the country in growth. Maybe, just maybe, the people will throw out the Democrats next election.

Comment by Apocalypse Now Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:00 am
I kind of doubt that there’s anything Rauner is really committed to doing. I think he just wants the gig as a status symbol.

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:03 am
If he does as Rich states, and admits he didn’t realize the extent of the budget problems, is that an admission that there isn’t as much waste, fraud, and abuse as he thought there was?

Comment by Hmmmmm Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:07 am
Wordslinger, as is often the case, offers the most insightful comment of the day.

Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:11 am
I misspoke. Blago’s recommendation was for a sales tax. A gross receipts tax, to be precise. Easy to collect, harder to cheat, I still think it was the right path, if combined with the right tax cuts for businesses and individuals. But that was yesterday.

Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:17 am
Great column, and expecting a Big Jim epiphany is a rational thought to have about Rauner, simply because what Rauner touts as he would govern, aren’t rational to those who follow government.

This blog has cataloged the impossibilities of Rauner’s math, the rationale to the math, and the rhetorical way of hyperbole, the Big Jim solution is Rauner’s only hope to seem credible.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:18 am
===Blago’s recommendation was for a sales tax. A gross receipts tax, to be precise===

Two different things entirely. One is on sales, the other is on income.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:22 am
“Maybe, just maybe, the people will throw out the Democrats next election.” It’s entirely possible the people *are* in a mind to throw the Dems out this election but are scared off by the Reps candidates.

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:26 am
Grandson

Not to be picky but using your math.

60 mil/871 = 69k
69k*14%= 9644
60mil*27%= 16.2 mil
16.2mil/9644=1680

Rauner payed roughly 1680 times more than you did in taxes. His Percentage may be close to double yours but the dollar amount he payed is significantly higher.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:26 am
Wordslinger

I do believe you have hit upon it. Maybe why he doesn’t seem to have the fire in the belly to really do the work needed. It amazes me the questions he acted like it was the first time he’d ever heard of the issue.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:29 am
Yeah Mason, you beat me too it. Anybody who feels Rauner doesn’t pay his “fair share” is fooling himself. He pays over $16 million in taxes.

I have attacked Rauner for a lot of things, but not for shorting the government in taxes.

Comment by Peoria guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:30 am
Has Rauner denied that he is lying? I don’t believe anything until it is officially denied.

Comment by Perry Noya Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:30 am
Good stuff, Rich. I hope Jay Levine will bring this specific comment up at the debate tonight.

Comment by Lunchbox Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:38 am
He’s lying through his teeth about rejecting the Kansas model. He is Scott Walker reincarnate. He says anything to anyone in order to try to get votes. That’s why his overall plan is so self-contradictory.

Comment by Bobbysox Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:39 am
As usual, when it comes to economics, Rich is woefully naïve:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389325/compassion-ber-alles-amity-shlaes

From that article:

“Unemployment, every politician’s hot topic, is at 4.9 percent in Kansas, lower than in nearby Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois. According to state economists, the share of total jobs that are private-sector non-farm jobs has risen by 17 percent relative to early 2011. That’s a signal that Kansas is turning to commerce.

As it happens, there’s actually a natural experiment that showcases the results of Brownback’s work: The Kansas City metro area straddles the border between Kansas and a higher-tax state, Missouri. In the period since Brownback began his reforms, Kansas City, Kansas, known as “KCK,” saw a higher rate of new private jobs relative to population than did Kansas City, Mo., “KCMO.”

Were revenues lower than expected? Yes they were…so spending was cut. Did the sky fall down in Kansas as a result? Of course not. Illinois could use a lot of cutting and a lot less spending.

Comment by Fake Herzog Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:46 am
you evidently weren’t watching when he noted that florida governor rick scott was a role model. Not a success story at all either.

Comment by Shore Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:59 am
I don’t know if a state or local government executive could “drive” a pension plan into bankruptcy, considering the likely contrary inclination of a particular executive’s legislative body. And then there’s the frequent requirement of state permission for a local government to declare formal bankruptcy.

What I see playing out is a slow deterioration into insolvency as other priorities crowd out pension funding, with the acquiescence of both the executive and legislature. Local plans likely will go first. I suspect B. Rauner’s plan may involve benign neglect as other priorities accumulate.

Ultimately, I suspect some sort of a stand-off between the judicial and the executive/legislative branches in many states after their highest courts issue a tax/pay order and the other branches say no/can’t.

Comment by Cook County Commoner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:59 am
The question was prefaced by setting up Brownback’s Kansas tax policy as a failure. Any politician would answer “No, I don’t support [whatever].” to such a question. And then switch to talking points.

It is obvious Rauner’s governor heroes like Scott Walker, and his big out-of-state funders, support Brownback-style tax policies. Who is fooling whom here?

So we still don’t really believe he believes what he says? To gamble a vote on assuming that Rauner will pivot even farther away from what he clearly said in his campaign, based on wishful thinking, is quite a risk. For moderate Republicans, that might be party-driven blindness.

We cannot vote for Rauner based on any policy position, since we haven’t a solid clue what he really stands for. We can vote for change, and take the gamble that he’s an improvement regardless.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:59 am
“Not to be picky but using your math.”

Percentages are what the are. I paid a 14% effective income tax. Rauner paid 27%. These are set numbers. It doesn’t matter how much more in dollars Rauner paid; it’s the percentage of income that goes toward taxes.

Rauner’s income tax burden is pretty light, compared with so many others who make so much less money. What did Quinn pay in income tax last year, 22%

Rauner and other wealthy people should bear more of the tax burden during these tough times. Quinn should push this hard and keep trying to make a strong distinction between himself and Rauner on taxes.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:00 am
—————– Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:58 am:

Quinn needs to push the millionaire surcharge, in my opinion. Rauner made over $60 million last year and paid something like 27% in income taxes. I paid 14% in income taxes, after deductions. Rauner made 871 times more money than I did last year and only paid twice as much in taxes.

Something is really wrong with this picture, and Quinn needs to hammer home his support for the millionaire tax.”———–

27% of $60 million is $16.2 million in taxes.

You’re saying you paid $8.1 million in taxes?

My guess is Rauner paid a lot more than twice what you did.

Comment by Phil King Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:06 am
Rauneromics is like Reaganomics, except nothing trickles down.

Comment by jake Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:07 am
Fake Herzog
You need to spend some time in Kansas! When the state Supreme Court forces the state to find more money for K-12 education the sky is falling! There are more than enough real everyday examples of the abject failure of Silly Sam’s economcis if you take the blinders off! Get a clue!

Comment by Old and In the Way Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:17 am
^^Rauner and other wealthy people should bear more of the tax burden during these tough times.^^

Lord, he paid $16.2 million. What did you pay?

Comment by Peoria guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:17 am
I know a lot of wealthy people. They pay millions in taxes. Telling them they do not do their part is silly.

Comment by Peoria guy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:19 am
Grandson

“Quinn needs to push the millionaire surcharge, in my opinion. Rauner made over $60 million last year and paid something like 27% in income taxes. I paid 14% in income taxes, after deductions. Rauner made 871 times more money than I did last year and only paid twice as much in taxes.

Something is really wrong with this picture, and Quinn needs to hammer home his support for the millionaire tax.”

Are you talking federal taxes ? Illinois has a 5% flat rate. Neither of you should be paying 14% or 27% of your income in state income tax.

Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:19 am
Kansas’s nearby state neighbor Ohio? In August, Kansas added 900 jobs. This gives Kansas an anemic growth rate of one half of one percent, which is below its neighbors. You probably wouldn’t get that in the National Review.

Comment by Carhart Representative Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:21 am
Grandson

– It doesn’t matter how much more in dollars Rauner paid; it’s the percentage of income that goes toward taxes.–

That is one way to look at it. I also believe i acknowledged the fact that the percentage was almost double what you paid. However the gross dollar amount is a significant data point. He paid almost 1700 times more dollars than you in taxes.

Now don’t get me wrong i get the argument. More money can be collected from the “rich” without causing as much pain since they have more disposable income. There is a difference between saying the State needs more money and the “rich” can afford to give it and saying someone who wrote a 16.2 mil check only payed twice what you did.

To make an honest arguement would be to paraphrase Willie Sutton when asked why he robbed banks. “That’s where the money is.”

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:28 am
About Rauner’s tax payment: it almost doubled in rate the year he announced he was a candidate for Governor. This is not the level he is used to paying.

More millions drained from his wallet for his run for governor.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:28 am
- Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:59 am:

I have this fear that Rauner will actively try to bankrupt the pension funds … it keeps me away at night. That would be a classic bust-out scheme, something Rauner has lot of experience with. And if he manages to do so, then his budget math starts to add up.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:29 am
“You’re saying you paid $8.1 million in taxes?”

It is about percentages, not actual dollars. You can’t spin your way out of the fact that for all the money Rauner makes, he pays a relatively lower percentage of it in income tax. I saw a blurb somewhere that said Quinn paid 22% in income taxes and made $160,000 last year. I didn’t follow it up, but if the Quinn numbers are roughly accurate, it illustrates my point.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:30 am
‘awake’, not away .. darn autocorrect

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:30 am
Wordslinger says clearly in one line, what I tried and failed to do in nine.

Same as it ever was on the Captain’s blog.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:32 am
Herzog, thanks for that insightful economics lesson from the National Review.

I especially liked the comparison between Kansas and “nearby” Ohio.

What nation do they review, anyway?

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:38 am
“private-sector non-farm jobs has risen by 17 percent relative to early 2011.” Ok, now add in public-sector jobs lost and farm jobs lost? And “early 2011″, in the midst of a recession during a seasonal slow time in the economy, seems to me it wouldn’t take much to show a 17% increase in anything. How do we know they’re not just cherry-picking that date?

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:48 am
AFSCME Steward, I think Rauner paid like 23% in effective federal income taxes, and the total with the state tax was 27%. I could be wrong about these facts, but I recall seeing two different numbers for Rauner.

When I saw Rauner’s rates, I looked at my 2013 tax return, and I paid an effective 14% in taxes. I’m assuming the state income tax is included, but if not, then my tax rate was higher.

Hmmm, I wonder if some of you who are crying about my use of percentages support the notion that the 2011 state income tax increase was huge because it was 67% higher than before? Well, if the tax was increased from 1% to 2%, would you be screaming that it’s a 100% increase rather than looking at sheer numbers, as you are now?

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:04 am
I have the same fears as RNUG as the pension “reform” discussions were pretty clear that the business community wanted to bankrupt the funds. Rauner’s tactic seems to be the same. Move the employees to 401k and let the funds run out of money (they even manage to take surpluses funds in the private sector to pay the 401K in the future.) I don’t see the pension language or rulings (especially Kanerva) upholding this position. “it is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired. “

Comment by Liberty Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:15 am
===I admit that I’m counting on the fact that he’s lying through his teeth about taxes===

That’s certainly a very disturbing, albeit when it comes to Rauner unfortunately believable, way for you to resolve inconsistencies and have your analysis make sense.

Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:24 am
RNUG
The ISC has been pretty explicit about the “remedy” for pensioners should Bruce the Breakout Man try and bankrupt the pension systems. Taking the state to court for payment might be messy but it would be effective and successful. While the court has avoided mandating appropriations they have been very clear that the lack of an appropriation does not mitigate or cancel the debt. The specter of lines of pensioners lining up in court to sue the state would seem a pretty powerful deterrent for that faux populist hero Brucie!

Comment by Old and In the Way Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:33 am
The pension problem was created by the failure to make payments into the system and every time the state has a windfall they do not use it to pay down the debt they buy land or increase entitlement spending. And we just bought 51 acres next to Starved Rock Park for $900,000.00 dollars. We bought land in Pike Co. and 2 or 3 other Counties right after the sale of the Thompson prison. So we must not be as bad off as we are told or those funds would have been used to reduce debt or pay down back logs of bills.

Comment by Rob Roy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:35 am
BTW This election is for the Governor of Illinois and not the King of Illinois! Bruce will not be in a position to mandate anything like a pension default. The ILGA will weigh in on this and my guess is that Bruce, should he get elected Governor, will be on his heels for four very long and painful years. Let’s face it he is not equipped to deal with either Madigan or Cullerton.

Comment by Old and In the Way Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:39 am
The very best part of Jamey’s question was the first look at Mitt … he clearly had no clue what she was talking about.
Now when will anyone write about Mitt calling for emptying the prisons to hold down Corrections Costs

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:44 am
- Old and In the Way - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:33 am:

I agree the ISC has been clear the pensions have to be paid when due and have not mandated payments. I think there is some wiggle room there but I’m not going to draw the roadmap … I think you can fill in my logic.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:45 am
–Let’s face it he is not equipped to deal with either Madigan or Cullerton.–

We could say that about everyone on the ballot.

Comment by Mason born Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:47 am
The State will have to cover the pension obligations.

It is others who are dependent upon the State budget who should be most worried if Rauner is elected.

Comment by east central Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:48 am
RNUG
To be clear the ISC HAS mandated payment. What they have not mandated is appropriations. Two very different things. In a summary judgement against the state the funds would come right out of GRF. Period. If I were a bond holder this would worry me a great deal!

Also don’t discount the ineptitude of Bruce Raunner. I’m sorry but he has not shown himself to be either a good tactician nor particularly knowledgeable about how state government even works! Should he be elected he will be on his heels most of the time. After $14 million in ads demonizing Madigan and Cullerton I suspect they will remember and there will be payback.

Comment by Old and In the Way Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:07 pm
- Old and In the Way - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:07 pm:

It’s an extended pension holiday in the appropriations that gives me the nightmares.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:39 pm
RNUG, you also need to remember that the court ordered the comptroller to make the payments in Jorgensen. Don’t lose too much sleep over it.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 3:29 pm
- Old and In the Way - Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:07 pm:

It’s a bit ironic that the masters of finance who attacked the State pensions in order to be sure the State bonds would always get paid may end up with the opposite result …

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 6:36 pm
How much did Rauner put in offshore tax shelters? He might have reported only part of his real income. Why is he hiding the rest of his tax forms?

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Oct 15, 14 @ 12:02 am