Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

What’s the harm? Ask Pat Quinn

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a News-Gazette editorial about Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new TV ads…

What’s going on here? There is an old political maxim — if you can’t make them see the light, you can make them feel the heat.

Rauner is trying to peel away enough of Madigan’s legislative caucus to persuade the all-powerful speaker to entertain a few of Rauner’s legislative proposals, including modifications to the state’s workers’-compensation law. […]

So while Rauner and legislative leaders continue to talk, the TV ads will continue to play.

It’s an odd way to do legislative business.

But Illinois has become an odd state, one in which some of its leaders cling desperately to a status quo that has failed the people of this state. In that context, how much more harm can Rauner’s TV ads do?

* Yes, this is about making MJM et al “feel the heat.” Agreed, even though this is a relatively light check into the boards. But how does that ad “peel away enough of Madigan’s legislative caucus to persuade the all-powerful speaker to entertain a few of Rauner’s legislative proposals”? I’m not quite understanding how the CN-G is arriving at that conclusion.

And, by the way, they aren’t talking.

Whenever somebody or some institution appear to be cheerleading for war, or at least cheerleading one side in a coming war, their claims and predictions should always be put under a microscope and compared to actual facts and history.

* Let’s revisit my Crain’s Chicago Business column for this week…

In July 2013, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed lawmakers’ salaries and stipends out of the state budget. He “hit them in the wallet,” he said, to spur action on pension reform.

Instead, all legislative progress suddenly and completely stopped on pension reform for a few months until a court finally ruled that the governor’s veto was unconstitutional. No way were legislators going to let Quinn push them around.

I could very well be wrong, but if legislators wouldn’t cave to protect their own pocketbooks, what makes anyone think they’ll cry “Uncle!” over somebody else’s problems?

Plus, legislators surely know, as they did with Quinn, that they can’t allow a precedent like this to be set: getting Rauner’s approval on the budget by giving in on his legislative agenda. If Democrats capitulate now, then the governor will just do it all over again when next year’s budget negotiations begin.

And then there’s the impact of that Rauner ad about Madigan. […]

Judging by history, including the Quinn paycheck ordeal, I get where the speaker is coming from, to some extent.

As long as Rauner’s TV ads are on the air, Madigan probably is not going to move even a millimeter. Doing so only would invite more ads in the future.

As noted previously, the governor’s ad isn’t devastating the process right now. As soon as the ad eventually comes down the two sides can probably resume talking. I just don’t see Madigan talking until then, however.

Then again, it’s not like he was talking all that much before the ads went up.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:36 pm

Comments

===Rauner is trying to peel away enough of Madigan’s legislative caucus to persuade the all-powerful speaker to entertain a few of Rauner’s legislative proposals, including modifications to the state’s workers’-compensation law. …===

Complete and total misunderstabding of Caucus politics and how to “find” votes.

Also, running Ads against the person who controls what bills get heard, how they get heard, and when voting can/will occur realky shows a lack of understanding simple governmental functions and levers of the Legislative and pressure points to that.

It’s like the dorm kids that ran college student government and the school newspaper thinking they have the tools to actually govern a state.

Good luck with that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:44 pm
At some point the dynamics of the budget standoff begin to resemble those of a marital dispute than they resemble those of a political dispute.

Comment by AC Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:44 pm
A wise person posted here that the spot was all about bucking up the governor’s image. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Not a short game of flipping GA votes this summer, not a long game of flipping GA seats next year.

That’s worrisome. The governor has been at the job for just five months, hasn’t made a heavy lift yet, and he’s worried about his image.

Cowboy up, dude. The gig is all about making tough calls and taking the heat, not just talking about how tough you are.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:47 pm
AC, do you really see a “budget standoff” anywhere? Has the governor been traveling the state selling the budget he proposed in February?

The governor has avoided talking about the budget because you can’t spin it like his dorm room reactionary agenda. The math is unforgiving.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:53 pm
==At some point the dynamics of the budget standoff begin to resemble those of a marital dispute than they resemble those of a political dispute.==

Or maybe a children’s dispute at recess? Both sides stubbornly refusing to budge and blaming the other one.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:53 pm
One key difference between then and now is that the Legislators also had JBT on their side in pocketbookgate.

She’s not there for either side this go round.

Comment by A guy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:55 pm
This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object and neither are willing to compromise.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 1:57 pm
==Not a short game of flipping GA votes this summer, not a long game of flipping GA seats next year.==

Agreed, those both are unworkable plans.

A long game of flipping some GA votes by May 2016?

That’s the only route that makes some sense out of Rauner’s current actions. And it would require some real pain in the interim to work.

Comment by walker Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:01 pm
To the Ads, and the point of “image”,

Rauner needs to convince 71 House members and 36 Senate members his vision(s) have merits worthy of an up or down vote. Figuring in the 67 owned GOP votes, it comes down to 24 House Democrats and 16 Senate Democrats to reach passable totals…

… after getting the President and Speaker to agree… agree … to bring bills up for passage.

It always comes back to the vote totals.

Rauner lacks them. Ads won’t move 40 Democratic votes, Ads won’t “encourage” chamber leaders to run bills.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:02 pm
The lesson of 2013 is clear. Nothing is more important to the people and state of Illinois than legislator’s salaries!

Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:15 pm
==A long game of flipping some GA votes by May 2016?==

Does anyone believe Rauner can play the “I can’t do my job because I don’t have the votes.” game for two years and get away with it? He’s going to have to prove he can govern if he wants the votes to make change. In a presidential election year that’s a lot of mojo he needs to come up with to get the change he wants. Lack of any record at all won’t help, and all his gazillions can’t make up the difference.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:16 pm
Maybe another question might be;

Does Bruce Rauner need to be “loved”?

Rauner refuses to take any responsibility to decisions that might “hurt” people.

Rauner has had a habit of speaking to groups and people abd saying what they want to hear, even if it’s in comflict with another documented position.

Rauner has yet to “address” with Madigan and Cullerton, personally, Rauner’s own issues with the men, choosing to be affable when with them.

Calling Democrats and 1/3 of the GOP “corrupt”, as a whole, but in one on one, trying to be their “buddy”.

It’s as though Rauner doesn’t need to be the smartest in a room, but the most beloved in a room.

Rauner wants praise for decisions that he can blame the consequences on others, so the live fur Rauner remains, even if Rauner is choosing to hurt that person or group.

Rauner wants to be the “bad guy” as long as the “bad guy” is beloved.

It makes absolutely no sense in his elected role, or understanding how governibg is often about making unpopular choices.

Ugh.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:20 pm
==Does anyone believe Rauner can play the “I can’t do my job because I don’t have the votes.” game for two years and get away with it?==

Others have referenced the arrival of Washington gridlock in Springfield. If that is true, then Rauner plays Obama while IL Dems play the ==obstructionist== DC Repubs.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:27 pm
==Doing so only would invite more ads in the future.==

Well, more ads are coming, one way or the other. You don’t sock away $50 million and NOT run ads. But I take your point.

==Does anyone believe Rauner can play the “I can’t do my job because I don’t have the votes.” game for two years and get away with it? ==

I don’t know. It sounds daunting, but he can put a lot of money behind that message.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:28 pm
==If that is true, then Rauner plays Obama while IL Dems play the ==obstructionist== DC Repubs.==

The problem for the Governor there is the President had 2 years of a solidly Dem Congress. And *still* the Republicans had a lot of fun in the midterms.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:30 pm
Rauner is trying to buy back the mandate he has wasted since his inauguration. He wasted it doing that ridiculous RTW-FL (Right to work - for less) stunt this year.

He is flailing and feels the need to run this ad.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:33 pm
I didn’t realize that we elected a “TV Ad Producer” for Governor. With all due respect Mr. Governor, if you have no intention of governing all citizens kindly vacate the office.

Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:34 pm
Hey TeamBungle the ad was described as “not very good” on a Tribune political writers weekend radio show. Also noted was that it fails to tell viewers what to do and does nothing the blunt blame for disruption of services.
“Shutdown by any name does not benefit the CEO,” one WGN-AM radio talked proclaimed.

Comment by Anonin' Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:42 pm
mjm and the dems can always say to rauner, “if you don’t want revenue, then make the cuts.” They can further say, “we gave rauner’s non budget issues a vote and some passed and some did not…no republican support.” If there is a shutdown, then the dems can say to rauner make the cuts and the shutdown is over and we have a budget. If you don’t want the cuts we stand ready to pass revenue increases with republican support.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:46 pm
=== One key difference between then and now is that the Legislators also had JBT on their side in pocketbookgate. ===

A Guy, that one is from way out in left field. Quinn was stopped by a lawsuit, not Judy’s belief (rightly of course) that Quinn’s action was wrong. Rich and so many others are on point. Although Judy may have been able to talk some sense into Rauner’s head, but I doubt it.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:49 pm
Might be a long year and a half until the midterems, when I predict that the Democrats will add to their majorities, unless Republicans finally get smart and revolt against Rauner, and the revolt will have to be organized and AIMED at Rauner’s policies…

Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 2:57 pm
= Rauner wants praise for decisions that he can blame the consequences on others, so the live fur Rauner remains, even if Rauner is choosing to hurt that person or group. =

OW, I assume you were going for “love for” rather than “live fur”, but that gave me quite a chuckle!

Comment by cover Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:06 pm
I was, yes.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:06 pm
The News-Gazette? You mean, the newspaper that endorsed Sarah Palin? Yeah, they really know their stuff.

Comment by Filmmaker Professor Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:15 pm
==mjm and the dems can always say to rauner, “if you don’t want revenue, then make the cuts.” They can further say, “we gave rauner’s non budget issues a vote and some passed and some did not…no republican support.” If there is a shutdown, then the dems can say to rauner make the cuts and the shutdown is over and we have a budget. If you don’t want the cuts we stand ready to pass revenue increases with republican support.==

Rauner can always sign the mjm and dems budget and say ==Fine, let’s do this your way==. Then when programs run out of money during the year, Rauner can further say ==we gave mjm and the dems budget a try as it was passed… no republican support.== If programs run out of funds, then rauner can say to the dems raise revenues and we have a budget for the rest of the year. If you don’t want the revenue then I stand ready to make cuts with democratic support.

The standoff options run both ways. Eventually, you always wind up back in a standoff until you negotiate a compromise.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:25 pm
Wordslinger, the issue I see is that there isn’t even agreement on what constitutes a budget. In the mind of the governor it includes items that aren’t actually part of the budget, despite his continued assertions they are. To Madigan, it includes a political requirement for bipartisan support for the tax increase that everyone paying attention agrees is necessary. Come to think of it, the budget is just the hostage in what is more rightly viewed as a struggle over policy and politics.

Comment by AC Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:53 pm
Running tv ads and traveling the state pushing your personal agenda without addressing the budget is crazy. Being governor of Illinois at this point is a extremely tough job. Gov. Rauner should of been clear on this! His whole campaign was budget, and fixing Illinois finances-it is time for him to do it. With or without the Dems help!

Comment by chiagr Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:58 pm
Rauner is doing exactly what he said he would do…..thank god! I guess 40 years of fealty to the dem leadership isn’t long enough. With a little help from Sam Zell, Rauner is beating MJM at his own game…..Sen. Sullivan’s announcement last week was a classic canary in the coal mine!

Comment by DuPage Don Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:02 pm
===Rauner is beating MJM at his own game===

Jumping the gun a bit, aren’t we Sparky?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:06 pm
*** ===Rauner is beating MJM at his own game===

Jumping the gun a bit, aren’t we Sparky? ***

Someone else saw some of yesterday’s marathon as well.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:11 pm
===Rauner is doing exactly what he said he would do…..thank god!===

What, proposing budgets $3 billion out of whack?

What will you say when Rauner reinstates a larger income tax then we have now? Hurray? lol.

===I guess 40 years of fealty to the dem leadership isn’t long enough.===

Please remember 1995 & 1996. You’re welcome.

Please also explain away Thompson, Edgar, and Geo. Ryan.

===With a little help from Sam Zell, Rauner is beating MJM at his own game…===

What “game”? Use your “words” please.

===Sen. Sullivan’s announcement last week was a classic canary in the coal mine!===

Total and complete misunderstanding of the factors at play, further, Sullivan, as a sitting lame duck in a district as his, Rauner could’ve smoozed Sullivan as an extra vote instead of carpet bombing a career both sides of the aisle consider admirable.

Try breathing through your nose more, your mouth less…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:11 pm
===Rauner is doing exactly what he said he would do…..thank god!===

How would freezing Chicago property taxes help pay down the debt caused by failing to collect enough tax revenue to fund Chicago city government and the Chicago public schools?

Comment by Enviro Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:35 pm
Perhaps DuPage Dan could come by and help DuPage Don with some actual facts and common sense.

Comment by Politix Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 4:49 pm
What will happen when Rauner can not pay state workers because of no budget?

Comment by DuPage Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 6:09 pm
Formerly Known As… - Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 3:25 pm:

Rauner can not sign the spending plan the dems sent him without balancing it with cuts or revenue. This is not about ending up back with a compromise, but rather who gets to own the cuts and the revenue increases. The dems can live with Rauner not signing anything because the shutdown becomes his. He can end the shutdown by making the cuts or he can work for more revenue. The dems can say hey we sent him a spending plan that avoids huge cuts but we need him to sign off on revenue….if not well then to end a shutdown he will need to make cuts.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Jun 22, 15 @ 9:33 pm