Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Skimming over the “why”

Posted in:

Illinois

* So, the New York Times does a 1,200-word piece entitled “One State’s Struggle to Make Ends Meet: Why Illinois Is Without a Budget,” and here is the sum total of the “why”…

Q. What is holding up finding a solution?

A. Lawmakers were deadlocked in negotiations leading up to the budget deadline of July 1, the beginning of the fiscal year. Since then, little progress has been made in meetings between Mr. Rauner and Democratic leaders.

Democrats say that the governor’s proposals are nonstarters and damaging to the middle class. Among them are measures to limit prevailing wages and cut down on eligibility for workers’ compensation, changes that the governor says are reasonable and will stimulate economic growth.

Any normal person would look at that and say “Those people are freaking nuts to fight over nothing!”

I mean, that’s not to say our leaders aren’t freaking nuts, I’m just saying that maybe less ink used to talk about lottery payouts and more to provide some context.

The Times isn’t solely at fault here. Pretty much nobody explains what the beef is about beyond personalities.

Sorry, but it drives me nuts.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:15 pm

Comments

It’s not just superficial, it’s outright wrong. There was no “deadlock in negotiations” among lawmakers — they passed a budget that the governor vetoed.

Comment by Reality Check Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:17 pm
=== Pretty much nobody explains what the beef is about beyond personalities. ===

Because that requires hard work of a reporter — something reporters and/or newspapers aren’t willing to invest the resources in.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:21 pm
===Because that requires hard work===

How so? The info is easily available.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:23 pm
=I mean, that’s not to say our leaders aren’t freaking nuts=

It’s ok Rich, you can say it. We’re all thinking it anyway.

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:24 pm
the Democratic legislators passed the budget and told Rauner to sign it and raise taxes.
Rich, I thought it seemed like a brief, but reasonable, fair summation. what you have said in a paragraph or two?

Comment by jim Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:26 pm
I read the NYT on an almost daily basis and, overall, I appreciate the coverage they provide, especially in-depth pieces about national, NYC and NY State issues. I wonder if (in part) the moral of the story is that because the Times isn’t closely following Illinois issues, they got caught up in the surface part of the story and missed the larger context. I’m not defending them- if they can’t do justice to an issue then, they shouldn’t write about it. We get enough half baked journalism from our local papers!

Comment by Former Hoosier Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:28 pm
And that was the Times to boot. I’d have expected more. Unfortunately, the lack of effort plays right into Rauner’s wheelhouse.

Comment by PublicServant Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:31 pm
That section of their answer is 77 words. How would you answer the question in

Comment by Empty Chair Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:32 pm
EC, they labeled their story as the “why,” then allotted just a few words for the why. It’s ridiculous.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:33 pm
sloppy sloppy sloppy journalism.

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:34 pm
More so than any other bias in the media, there’s a bias toward symmetry and balance, even when the truth is far from equal. Scientists are in an equal debate with flat earth society members. Both sides being “deadlocked in negotiations” implies an equal struggle over similar issues, not that the Governor rufuses to even negotiate the budget until collective bargaining is gutted.

Comment by AC Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:35 pm
All I can say is I”m glad the collective bargaining stuff is no longer an issue, at least according to the article. That should clear the way for a speedy budget resolution. /repeated snark

It would be more up the NYT’s alley do do an article on the national campaign against unions and show that Rauner’s taken it to the extreme holding the the poor and weak hostage to that end.

Comment by Earnest Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:39 pm
@RM fair enough, but very few readers (not including those on this blog) have attention spans beyond that.

Comment by Empty Chair Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:40 pm
===but very few readers (not including those on this blog) have attention spans beyond that.===

Do you read what you write?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:44 pm
=== Both sides being “deadlocked in negotiations” implies an equal struggle over similar issues, not that the Governor rufuses to even negotiate the budget until collective bargaining is gutted.===

If former governors from the same party as the current governor can understand this, why can’t everyone else? Pretty simple to me. That is why almost everything written infuriates me so.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:51 pm
Rich,

I think this is the only thing I agree with Sarah Palin on: it really is a “lamestream” media.

Comment by History Prof Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:52 pm
And because the story is so often presented this way a lot of average Joe’s think what the Rauner Crew is asking is within reason.

The fact that Rauner is asking the Democrats to throw labor under the bus and the ramifications of that seems beyond their comprehension.

These are the people who walk the precincts, donate cash and hold positions in the party.

How do highly educated media types not at least concede history.

Comment by Bemused Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:54 pm
“Catherine Kelly, a spokeswoman for Mr. Rauner, cited a letter that the governor sent to legislative leaders on Friday, offering to host a public meeting on Nov. 18 to discuss the budget.”

offered to host? i didn’t read it that way. looks to me as he’ll do the meeting if it’s on his terms.

https://capitolfax.com/2015/10/23/rauner-accepts-leaders-meeting-offer-but-in-his-office/

Comment by working stiff Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:55 pm
It’s what happens all too often when a reputation precedes you. Illinois has been a negative punchline for several years now; Governors more likely than not to go to jail. Speaker of the House; copping a plea. Six pack abs Rep. hoping to cop one. State Reps going to jail for little bribes, now the FBI visiting Dorothy Brown, the list just goes on and on….

And it’s with that backdrop, this pub and any other can say…it’s Illinois, what’ya expect.

Sad really. Even tragic.

Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 3:58 pm
It seems they neglected to mention Illinois voters voted to change the status quo in Springfield by electing Goveror Rauner. Democrats are rejecting every item of the turnaround agenda, even those that would only require a local resolution of the matter. Some of his agenda is pro business / anti Union some is just reform that is popular in both parties - term limits and redistricting. Workers comp reform is also bipartisan supported by Mayor Emanuel who thinks it will bring down premiums the city pays.

Too often the bipartisan issues are left out of the coverage and just the pro business anti Union stuff is reported as if that was all that mattered.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:01 pm
so tell me the “Why”. Seriously.

Comment by Tom Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:05 pm
lucky - you mention illinois voters as if every person in the state voted for rauner. he won with 50.2%. did you neglect to notice that part?

Comment by working stiff Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:07 pm
I’m just happy they decided to report on the issue. It seems like most of the national media is ignoring the crisis.

Comment by Chicago Guy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:11 pm
Well, the Times certainly phoned that one in.

But they certainly performed much better on this one, LOL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/us/politics/its-illinois-v-illinois-in-a-duel-for-justices-attention

Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:12 pm
===so tell me the “Why”. Seriously. ===

I have. Seriously. A million times.

Brief thumbnail: Democrats refuse to/can’t increase taxes on their own to balance a budget, Rauner refuses to negotiate a balanced budget until local governments have the right to undo union rights, including collective bargaining and prevailing wage. Plus tort reform, fair maps, term limits and anything else he happens to come up with.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:16 pm
==Illinois voters voted to change the status quo in Springfield by electing Goveror Rauner==

And for a (near) supermajority of Democrats in the legislature. If there’s a message that was sent by the public it was a desire for some balance, and dissatisfaction with Quinn, not that Rauner’s voters matter, Democratic voters don’t.

==the bipartisan issues are left out of the coverage and just the pro business anti Union stuff is reported as if that was all that mattered==

Or it could be that once the anti union provisions are removed, Rauner labels them as a sham.

Comment by AC Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:18 pm
My favorites are that the governor claims to be pushing “structural reforms” that will “grow the economy and free up resources.”

None of those words mean anything.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:26 pm
So many play the “why” as easy to overcome, just stubborn men (and women) refusing to deal. What these people want and stand for is more complicated and the difference between sides is monumental. Too bad most journalists don’t give this struggle the respect it deserves. Neither do they report on the suffering by those held hostage by the lack of progress. Real suffering, not unpaid lottery winnings.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:27 pm
=== Pretty much nobody explains what the beef is about beyond personalities.

Sorry, but it drives me nuts. ===

It drives everyone nuts, except for Raunerbots who love the obfuscation caused by the simpleton story.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:28 pm
Time for a letter to the editor in response to the article?

Comment by Former Hoosier Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:41 pm
==“structural reforms” that will “grow the economy and free up resources.”==

It all referrs, I believe, to the Governor’s Mansion. The structural reforms reference the renovations, growing the economy as stimulus spending on the repairs, and freeing up resources references the reduction in energy consumption by resolving insulation and hearing/cooling issues at the Mansion. /s

Comment by AC Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:44 pm
Wordslinger,

Let’s say the “structural reform” is to “repeal the state’s prevailing wage law.”

That will “grow the economy” by “increasing competition in the bids for public works projects.

It’ll “free up resources” by “saving the state $160 million per year,” so that those monies can be used on other programs.

See, all those words mean something. But you already knew that, didn’t you?

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:46 pm
- Paul Kemp -,

Great, show the charts and graphs that prove these savings are real.

Funny, if they’d exist, I’d presume Gov. Rauner would’ve added a slide or 9 showing the ROI as to why the state needs to be held hostage for Prevailing Wage and Collective Bargaining.

Why hide these? Why not show how all these real and actual saving exist…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:49 pm
==Let’s say the “structural reform” is to “repeal the state’s prevailing wage law.”==

Then it should be called repealing prevailing wage, why obfuscate it?

Comment by AC Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:53 pm
Oswego Willy,

To commandeer the salvo of many of the commenters here, don’t make do your homework for you. Try Google.

I’ll even give you some search terms to help you hit the ground running. Try “Illinois prevailing wage law” and “$158 million in annual savings.”

Let me know what you find.

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:53 pm
“Stubborn” is not a word you apply to someone hell-bent on driving your state off a cliff. Sure, it’s accurate, but it’s not the emergency.

Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:54 pm
- Paul Kemp -,

You should give that advice to the Rauner Administration…

They’re the ones pretending there’s a ROI, yet can’t (or won’t) give a presentation on it.

Let me know if the Governor does the Googke search, lol.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 4:55 pm
Though it’s possible to search for and make presumptions regarding Rauner’s vague phrases and which public policies they reference, to me it suggests a certain shame about those policies. It’s similar to a real estate agent who referrs to a small, cramped house as “cozy”.

Comment by AC Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:03 pm
I would summarize it by saying that Rauner was elected by a slim margin in a state divided into roughly two halves - those who benefit from a large and expensive bureaucracy, and those who do not benefit from it (they use little (or perceive they use little) in the way of services and resent having to pay for these services via some of the highest property and sales taxes in the country - the 2011, 66% increase in income tax represented the “last straw”, and Rauner was partially elected in backlash against it).

Rauner took this as a mandate to do in Illinois what Walker did in Wisconsin. The difference is, the WI legislature, unlike IL, sided with the governor. That isn’t going to happen in IL, state labor is simply too powerful. The question shouldn’t be “Why?” at this point, it should be, “Now What?”.

The people of Illinois voted for a divided government, and are now reaping what they sowed. Fair enough?

Comment by Hokey Horner Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:09 pm
It just dawns on me that Binny’s “if you can’t find it at Binny’s, it’s probably not worth drinking” is just a spin on the NY Times’ “All the News that’s Fit to Print”…

Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:16 pm
It’s bad enough when an out of state paper does a drive by story on Illinois politics. I don’t expect much depth. But this isn’t that much different than the reporting being done by media outlets who have statehouse bureaus. Until Edgar broke ranks the majority of the reporting called it a budget impasse. We can’t have a budget impasse until the governor starts to negotiate the budget without ancillary preconditions. What we have is a roadblock caused by one individual. If reporters would stop trying To Create some false equivalency and get to the heart of the system breakdown there might be pressure on Rauner to move forward.

Comment by Relocated Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:17 pm
Paul Kemp-I took you up on it and googled it and it was “Commissioned by:
Associated Builders and Contractors, Illinois Chapter
in partnership with:
Illinois Association of School Boards
Illinois Black Chamber of Commerce
Illinois Chamber of Commerce
Illinois Policy Institute”

There assertion is based on a chart that basically states lump savings with no reference to how they reached those savings. They were commissioned by groups looking for this type of answer. So, how was it calculation, what presumptions did they make? That the workers would be paid minimum wage if prevailing wage was eliminated. I would bet that I could commission a study that concludes the opposite. Let me google some more and I will get back to you. But anything commissioned by IPI I gotta question.

Also, I am not buying that Rauner was elected as backlash to the 5%, he wasn’t Quinn. It is that simple.

Comment by burbanite Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:26 pm
Gee, George, that IPI/Chamber study really jumps through some hoops to get to that $160 million, don’t you think? Plenty of others on the google seemed to think so.

And, of course, much of the spending described is local rather than state, so there wouldn’t be state “savings,” regardless.

But it begs the question, George: Just how many billions in FY16 deficits are you willing to run up for a share of $160 million in alleged prevailing wage “savings?”

Keep in mind, “billions” is more than “millions.”

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:30 pm
Nice job, burbanite. lol

No wonder he didn’t want to identify the source.

Sheesh.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:30 pm
===But it begs the question, George: Just how many billions in FY16 deficits are you willing to run up for a share of $160 million in alleged prevailing wage “savings?”===

We’re getting close to another front-paging of comments.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:32 pm
Counter:

http://truthinemployment.org/prevailing-wage/

Oh and to remind those who think Rauner got a mandate on prevailing wage, the vote to INCREASE MINIMUM Wage was 68% in favor to 32% against. A much larger margin that the margin in the Gov’s race. Wonder what that would cost the state? hmmmm

Comment by burbanite Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:34 pm
Still, it seems to have more details about the turnaround agenda than the average Tribune editorial.

Comment by drew Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:34 pm
Burbanite…. You hit it on the head

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:35 pm
Tip of the cap to - burbanite - for following through on the “call” by - Paul Kemp -. Well done!

Thank you for doing that.

And - Wordslinger -, no surprise, puts into very sharp focus the game being played.

Capitol Fax, all the way around, at its finest.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:38 pm
Sorry for all the grammatical mistakes though!

Comment by burbanite Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:41 pm
“Did you hear the question, Mr. Kemp? Mr. Kemp… Are you still on the line, Mr. Kemp? Oh dear, we seem to have lost, Mr. Kemp…”

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:47 pm
Ok Paul: If my research agrees with yours, the millions in savings potentially available yearly in Illinois originally comes from an article produced by Americans For Prosperity, and refers to estimated labor saves in educational capital projects across the state. Different sources have a whole range of estimates for local government operating expenses. Others have disagreed with the numbers.

Be that as it may, is this the kind of thing you, or Rauner, is talking about as “structural reform?”

If so, how much of your $150m would impact the state of Illinois fiscal 2016 budget, and is there a forecast for future years? Would Rauner claim this as a budget save for him? Has anyone claiming that the net impact on the economy, other than potential impact on taxes, of these lower wages would be positive rather than negative?

Like many other pieces of the turnaround agenda, there can be arguments for future benefits, but they have little immediate impact on this budget, and their long term impact is hard to gauge. Others like tort reform and workers’ comp might attract and hold more companies in the future, but how much and when will they result in state level fiscal improvements? The good government pieces will take until 2022 or later, and would have no fiscal impact at all.

It is equally misleading to claim that all the structural reforms must be done to help us construct a balanced budget, as it is to imply these are all “non-budget items” forever. What is roughly fair to say is that these are not fiscal 2016 budget items, but could help us to some extent in the future.

The turnaround agenda is a grab bag of a variety of kinds of changes, with a whole range of time frames and potential impacts.

That’s just talking numbers. The more critical factors facing us right now are the legal and constitutional constraints on some of them, and that some are just politically dead on arrival.

Comment by walker Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:53 pm
@Lucky, Rauner didn’t campaign on most of the items in his so called turnaround agenda. He certainly didn’t mention any of his collective bargaining and prevailing wage plans. I wonder why that was? If he didn’t campaign on it that certainly wasn’t why folks voted for him. The best thing he had going for him, other than tons of money, was that he wasn’t Pat Quinn.

Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 5:55 pm
Let me add, the best back of envelope estimates, backed up by various Rauner campaign and IPI documents, plus some critique by Martire , show that even if Rauner got all the legal items that he wanted from Turnaround in year one, he would be lucky to hit 0.4b of the 2.9b he needed to balance his budget proposal. A few years out the impact of it all, best case, at the state budget level could be best case 1.3b, and that’s a stretch. Beyond that, a better overall and business environment gets us deep into economic and ideological disputes. I am all for getting better, but the fiscal forecasting becomes really dreamlike farther out.

Comment by walker Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:06 pm
Rich, I asked Bruce Sold about how the Trib would cover issues of the debt before the Edgar Netch election and he said they would rely on others to explain it. Yes it is easy to find but they won’t learn or explain it.

Comment by not so simple Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:10 pm
Burbanite, you must not have the study. It explains where the data sources were retrieved from and the methodology for coming to their conclusions. If you dispute that, fine, but show your work. Since this is “not a freshman dorm room,” I hope that we won’t dismiss an entire econometric analysis simply because it was commissioned by a group *in partnership with* a group you don’t see eye to eye with. That’s just bad form.

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:13 pm
Thought I typed Dold but Sold is almost better

Comment by not so simple Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:15 pm
Wordslinger, I take it that you simply dismissed the study based on the fact that it says “Illinois Policy Institute” on the front page. That is fine, though it doesn’t make you any less wrong. The study parcelled out the savings for municipalities, as well as the state.

As to the rest, Lenny, I’m not sure I follow. Are we scoffing at $160 million now? Gee, and here I was thinking “how many autism programs could we fund with THAT?!”

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:17 pm
So to conclude, if a news article, even one from the liberal New York Times, spreads the blame around “dysfunctional” Illinois, instead of just blaming Rauner, then that article is “superficial” or “ridiculous.”

Madigan and Cullerton are not the slightest bit responsible for this mess? Not. At. All?

No wonder we are so dysfunctional in this state. Is Rauner another cog in the dysfunction, or are we all pretending that there was no dysfunction, debt or crisis prior to Rauner’s election.

i’ll step back now and allow the rabid here to chew on my ankles for a bit.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:24 pm
Oh - Paul Kemp -, lol,

How about, since you refused to give me the link, you do the heavy lift, like we all do when making points and substantiate them. You think - burbonate - is wrong, make YOUR case. You’re right, this isn’t sophomore year in the dorm, so make your own case to prove your point.

Your trolling by omission is getting tiring…

When you’re dealing with a $8-9 billion dollar hole for $160 million in alleged savings, and no way to get it passed in the GA, a wide man walks away, Rauner refuses, as he even refuses to use your own example in PowerPoint slides(?)…

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:27 pm
===i’ll step back now and allow the rabid here to chew on my ankles for a bit.===

Ever the victim, lol.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:28 pm
@Louis

Every member of the GA is partially responsible for the “mess”. Did I miss where Madigan and Cullerton refused to work on a budget until union membership was mandatory for everyone in the state?

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:31 pm
Oswego Willy, again, you do have Google right? Clearly others had no trouble finding it. Read it. That’s my case; or at least some evidence for it. If you geniunely wanted to read the argument, then you would go read it.

In the second place: (1) Again, are we now dismissing $160 million *annually* as if it is not real money? It seems to me this is just pure stubbornness. It illustrates how no amount of savings would ever satisfy you. It’s a matter of crossing your arms and huffing “Nope! Huh uh! No!” And (2) this is simply one agenda item; we could get into the details and savings of the others but, for the sake of brevity, I chose this one. It is (2a) an issue somewhat removed from the greater budget deficit which, of course cannot be filled with $158 million. But no intelligent person ever thought or argued that; you’re just knocking over strawmen.

Comment by Paul Kemp Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:37 pm
I think the Raunerites are starting to panic.

Why? I thought you guys were winning. lol

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:39 pm
@Ducky, “===Did I miss where Madigan and Cullerton refused to work on a budget until union membership was mandatory for everyone in the state?===”

You did. Union membership in Illinois Government increased so much that even some management positions became union. Or did we all forget the last 12 years? And my distain over those facts doesn’t make me “anti-union” in the least, it expresses my displeasure at such overreaching.

I believe the majority of voters in Illinois (i.e. “The Middle Class”) feel the same way. No one wants unions “gutted” as some are shrieking around here. But there needs to be some reigning in.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:41 pm
Louis - I also agree that MJM and Cullerton share in the blame. but to get us out of this mess I don’t believe in destroying unions, ending prevailing wages, or feel we have to have stuff like term limits and maps in order to get a balanced budget right now. focus on the budget

Comment by Poolguy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:42 pm
===That’s my case; or at least some evidence for it. If you geniunely wanted to read the argument, then you would go read it.===

Ok, it’s a Troll-type argument, based on the premise you wouldn’t “expose” your alleged evidence, nor will you defend it. Got it. Thanks.

To your other point, lol, for $158 million, Rauner can’t get 60 AND 30, and your “huff and puff” fallacy is comical since the politics at play will NOT get the destruction Prevailing Wage and/or Collective Bargaining to happen.

If you’re going to arbitrarily pretend to be participating, at least tell us your drive-bys are for our comic relief.

Thanks.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:43 pm
===No one wants unions “gutted” as some are shrieking around here.===

Gov. Rauner does. He’s told us so, many times, including poison pills, they being removed, and then the same bills without the decimating of Unions called “shams”

Bud, soften it all you like, but until Rauner has bills NOT gutting Unions, it’s lip service.

Respectfully

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:48 pm
Paul Kemp, a strategy that willfully creates real multi-billion-dollar deficits in hopes of $160 million in savings is insane.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:52 pm
=== No one wants unions “gutted” as some are shrieking around here. But there needs to be some reigning in. ===

Louis, this is way beneath you. Rauner wants to gut the unions. Read his proposals. There is nothing substantive left for the unions to negotiate.

You also talk about management positions joining. The reason for that is the shoddy treatment MC employees were getting. They still haven’t received a raise since 2006. Eliminate unions and employees have no protection from arbitrary management decisions.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:53 pm
Those people are freaking nuts to fight over nothing!

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 6:54 pm
@Louis G Atsaves; what sort of “reigning in” do you think would be appropriate?

Comment by JackD Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:00 pm
Paul: if we seriously want to get into the potential state budget impacts, direct or indirect, of those “structural” proposals which could have some, can you point in some direction beyond the prevailing wage stuff. Been trying, but can always learn more about what it is we seem to be at an impasse over. Am afraid that prevailing wage might have the clearest argument, and that one’s got some challenges.

Even when a fiscal case can be argued, an idea might fail for other legitimate reasons. Better to know the whole picture either way.

Comment by walker Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:06 pm
===Union membership in Illinois Government increased so much that even some management positions became union.===

Yeah, because when your merit pay increase is zero for 7 or 8 years, a union looks more attractive. I love the “merit” system. Nothing like getting a merit raise because you are the boss’s son and everyone else gets nothing and likes it. Been there done that. I’d take the union too.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:14 pm
Paul, nice try but you didn’t even look at true empirical research to assert your claims. The numbers you site have failed empirical scrutiny many times. If you don’t believe me use the Google.

Comment by Jorge Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:31 pm
Lois Altsaves. I watched several non union employees, who really had no desire to join a union, allow their positions to be converted to union positions because they watched employees they managed pass them on the pay scale. Years with no raises for merit comp employees created an environment for union growth.

Comment by Relocated Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:39 pm
“some is just reform that is popular in both parties - term limits”

We have term limits. They’re called elections. Stop whining that you can’t win them and do it.

“Term limits” are a terrible policy.

Comment by Odysseus Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:43 pm
===the best back of envelope estimates, backed up by various Rauner campaign and IPI documents, plus some critique by Martire , show that ===

Provide links and that’ll go into the front page post, walker.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:45 pm
Term limits are for winners

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:52 pm
No Mr. Kemp I don’t have a detailed study, I reviewed the report I found on line when I googled it at your suggestion. In full disclosure I am NOT an economist and never purported to be. However, even if I was, I work full time and do not have that kind of time to expend to prove myself on a blog. I do however note, that as with statistic you can pick and chose the data to support the argument you chose to make. There report does generally state the information they looked at to draw their conclusions and what I believe is missing are some other items that would impact the overall savings. I think it is clear by now that trickle down doesn’t work. The people who spend money and drive our economy are the middle class, if the have less to spend the economy takes a hit. I remember what happened in ‘08, gas hit $4.00 a gallon, property assessments at an all time high, and we went into a massive recession, millions lost their homes, billions lost the bulk of their net worth. You don’t improve the economy by keeping wages down or lowering them. I am not an economist, I am just a hard working self employed person, supporting my family, paying my taxes and I am willing to pay a little more for those who have less.

And I have also found in my life, sometimes “cheaper” is more expensive.

Comment by burbanite Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 7:56 pm
==I think this is the only thing I agree with Sarah Palin on: it really is a “lamestream” media.==

History Prof, if it makes you feel better, you can “agree” with Noam Chomsky. He was saying essentially the same thing 40 years ago, only from his perspective US mass media was too conservative.

Comment by Anon. Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 8:06 pm
I will say it. It sounds crazy I know. $160 mil/yr. ain’t diddleysquat. We’re talking $5.5 billion per year out of whack.

Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 8:51 pm
@JackD, I would retool the overtime provisions so that OT is paid for work performed beyond a 40 hour week. I would insist on changing some work rules to take into account technology upgrades and changes. Lets face reality and admit some jobs are eliminated through technology. I would keep seniority provisions but departmentalize seniority by agency and within each agency. I would allow an agency the ability to outsource work not being performed, by a union employee on a minimum temporary basis (the busy season for tax returns, license renewals, etc.) I would further scale back unionized management jobs to differentiate between who is the boss and who is isn’t.

Financially, I would ask for a minimum 1% increase in pension payments out of paychecks for pensions in exchange for allowing pay increases based on COLA as defined by the Federal Government. I would pay a bonus to each employee willing to move to an HMO for healthcare purposes or for those who are overinsured (example: the wife has a separate policy from her employer and is also insured through the husband under the state plan.)

Just a few examples.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 8:52 pm
@ducky, I would agree with the merit pay problems non-union workers had over the past 12 years. Going 7-8 years without a pay raise while union workers got theirs wasn’t exactly a moral booster. Neither was demanding 12 months of work for 11 months of pay for a couple of those years.

Interesting on who made those decisions or allowed them to happen over the past 12 years pre-Rauner. Democratic supermajorities and Democratic Governors who pretend or pay lip service to “The Middle Class” perhaps? Because that is who they were hurting the most.

A conspiracy theorist would claim those actions were designed to get more state employees to join unions. I’m too tired tonight to put on any tin foil hats!

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 8:58 pm
@Louis G Atsaves; thanks. Do you think the Governor would be willing to settle in that area? Do you think such negotiations should be part of the CBA negotiations as opposed to the budget negotiations?

Comment by JackD Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 9:09 pm
- Louis G Atsaves -

At what point will Rauner realize that Prevailing Wage and Collective Bargaining won’t get 71 and 36 let alone 60 and 30.

Or… do more Illinois familes need to suffer until Rauner realizes it?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 9:13 pm
== Financially, I would ask for a minimum 1% increase in pension payments out of paychecks for pensions in exchange for allowing pay increases based on COLA as defined by the Federal Government. ==

Probably constitutional if offered voluntarily but it’s questionable if it only applies to pay increases. Additionally, I see two problems with it. (1) On average, the 3% AAI has matched the average Fed calculated COLA over time. (2) The State had an opportunity to make the AAI a real COLA when it was introduced and decided not to for a couple of reasons: (a) the 3% was easier to budget to and (b) the State thought they were getting a deal because COLAs were running from 9% - 12% and higher when the AAI was introduced. The State is the party who insisted on a fixed AAI; I just don’t see the State being willing to buy into an unpredictable pension raise every year.

== I would pay a bonus to each employee willing to move to an HMO for healthcare purposes or for those who are overinsured (example: the wife has a separate policy from her employer and is also insured through the husband under the state plan.) ==

The State already offers various HMO plans to the employees and, generally, the monthly cost and the out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles are lower than the traditional Quality Care (CIGNA administrated) plan. And the State has already taken the QC plan away from the retirees by forcing all the Medicare eligible retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan. So I don’t see much, if any, opportunity for additional cost savings there.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 9:26 pm
@JackD, I can’t speak for the Governor here. Those are some of the items I personally would set as a goal from negotiations. They can help the state save money, improve services and keep individual compensation from taking a nosedive.

Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 9:41 pm
- Going 7-8 years without a pay raise while union workers got theirs wasn’t exactly a moral booster. -

Thankfully Bruce took care of that for a certain member of the Atsaves’ household.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 9:55 pm
Paul Kemp: “It’ll ‘free up resources’ by ’saving the state $160 million per year,’ so that those monies can be used on other programs.”

And it will also reduce the purchasing power of the workers who benefit from those state contracts. Furthermore, because the market efficiency of the bidding process is always below 100%, some of those lost wages will find their way into the pockets of the business owners who do contract work for the state. This is, of course, the real reason why Rauner is hostile to paying prevailing union wages to workers.

Furthermore, the economic benefits of the extra $160 million that the state gets to spend on other programs (or for reduced taxes) will be negated by the lost purchasing power of the workers who benefit from state contracts. As a result, there isn’t any overall economic benefit to the proposed shift in policy.

Comment by Ultragreen Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 10:49 pm
Also, if the state uses non-competitive no-bid contracts for some of its programs, then most of the money that is saved by paying workers less will wind up in the pockets of business owners in what is essentially a zero-sum game. In this case, the state wouldn’t be saving hardly any money at all. And I bet Rauner would REALLY like that.

Comment by Ultragreen Monday, Oct 26, 15 @ 11:05 pm
On the Prevailing Wage study. Would also note that the $158 million savings is an estimate of school construction costs over the past ten years - i.e. eliminating prevailing wage would save local school districts and higher education an average of $158 million a year state-wide. Or about 5.5% of the construction cost.

This estimate has nothing to do with the State budget - and the $158 million does not reduce the State budget at all. I do not know of any study that estimates the saving to the State construction projects relative to prevailing wage elimination.

Comment by archimedes Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 8:27 am
==Democrats are rejecting every item of the turnaround agenda==

That’s fun and false.

== If you dispute that, fine, but show your work.==

Really? This from the guy who refused to produce the study in the first place?

$160 million would be nice but 1) It would presumably be from cutting pay, which would lead back to lower revenues for state and local governments and 2) It’s certainly not the kind of “structural” reform Rauner sells it as. If your position is that we shouldn’t raise taxes without some major policy changes that insure that we won’t have to raise them again in X amount of years, this ain’t your horse to bet on.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Oct 27, 15 @ 9:01 am
Archimedes, that school construction is partially funded by state grants. The number still isn’t valid, but the savings if any would have a minor effect on the amount of construction bonds we sell, so divide the state’s portion of that by 20 and thats what we’ll save in bond payments not including interest.

Comment by Me too Wednesday, Oct 28, 15 @ 9:07 am