Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** *** LIVE *** Leaders meeting coverage
Next Post: Rauner was looking for an excuse to veto CPS bill
Posted in:
[Comments are now open on this post.]
* Speaker Madigan literally counted the minutes that the four leaders and the governor spent talking about the budget today: 14.
“Today we talked about the budget for 14 minutes,” Madigan said, and then actually provided the tick-tock. “From 10:16 to 10:20 and from 11:15 to 11:25 we talked about the budget.” The meeting ended at about 11:38 or so.
So, apparently, he was checking his watch a lot.
“The remainder of the meeting was concerned with local government consolidation and mandates on local governments,” Madigan said.
What did those budget talks consist of? “Obviously, not too much,” Madigan cracked.
The good news as far as Madigan is concerned: “There’s an agreement we’re going to talk about the budget on Tuesday,” the Speaker told reporters. The meeting will be held at 2 o’clock. The Republicans leaders, however, didn’t confirm that particular topic.
On workers’ comp and other reforms, Madigan said, “I’m available for those discussions,” but then went back to his repeated rhetoric on how the leaders have worked out a budget “7 times” in the last two years and they should stick to that format.
* Raw audio, including Rep. Greg Harris’ comments about the budget process and how they need to wait and see how things like Donald Trump’s proposals play out before they could formulate a new budget plan…
* House GOP Leader Jim Durkin emerged from the meeting to say he remains “alarmed” by the lack of urgency to get a budget. “We have a divided government,” he said, and Republicans are willing to work with Democrats on their priorities, but want the Democrats to work with them on GOP priorities.
“We did a pretty deep dive today” into local government consolidation, said Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno. But, she said, there was a “lack of engagement” on the topic from the Democrats.
Leader Radogno said the leaders were meeting based totally on Speaker Madigan’s availability.
Radogno said the Republicans asked Madigan what his budget plans were. He didn’t have a plan, she said, partly because the Democrats said they needed to wait and see the impacts of Donald Trump’s agenda. “If we are waiting on that, we are certainly not going to see it by December 31st,” Radogno said, referencing the end of the current stopgap budget.
Leader Durkin said it was clear to him that this was all about the 2018 governor’s race. The idea, he said, was to stall in order to not give Gov. Rauner any victories at all and then defeat him in two years.
“There was a new level of stalling today,” Radogno claimed, particularly since the Democrats weren’t prepared to discuss their actual budget plans.
* Raw audio…
posted by Rich Miller
Sunday, Dec 4, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** *** LIVE *** Leaders meeting coverage
Next Post: Rauner was looking for an excuse to veto CPS bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Democrats aren’t going to propose a plan that includes a tax hike and that is the only way to present a balanced budget. So yes, the lack of a plan on their part doesn’t play well in the media but then there is that pesky constitution saying the Governor needs to propose one, not the Democrats.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:20 am
Legislature passes budgets. They have the power of the purse. Nobody else.
Comment by Gone Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:38 am
Instead of being disengaged perhaps the Speaker was tasked with keeping minutes for the meeting. /s
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:46 am
Gone - Yes, with R votes. Who controls the R votes?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:49 am
Almost sounds like a Rainman quote. “The People’s Court is definitely on at 11:45.”
Comment by Downstate Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:52 am
Quite a competition here to see who can say the most ludicrous thing.
–(Madigan and) Rep. Greg Harris’ comments about the budget process and how they need to wait and see how things like Donald Trump’s proposals play out before they could formulate a new budget plan…–
Wait on Trump for a state budget? Most times, a statement that ridiculous would be a clear winner. But Durkin and Radogno are certainly in the hunt.
–House GOP Leader Jim Durkin emerged from the meeting to say he remains “alarmed” by the lack of urgency to get a budget.–
After nearly two years of carrying the water for squeeze the beast, Durkin’s ludicrousness is breathtakingly simple and concise. A true drop-mic moment in bald-faced perfidy.
Sen. Radogno goes offbeat:
–“We did a pretty deep dive today” into local government consolidation, said Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno.–
Did you hit your head at the bottom of the pool after that deep dive? What in the world are you talking about in regards to the FY17 and FY18 budgets?
In other reported news, Gov. Rauner claims he wants everyone to tone down the rhetoric and be “mature.” Well done, sir, in you purposeful LMFAO lack of self-awareness.
Let’s face it — in the competition for saying whacked-out nonsense, they’re all “winners.”
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:58 am
Kind of ironic that Rauner and the GOP accuse the Dems of stalling on a budget - when Rauner spent only 14 minutes of his 90 minute budget meeting, actually talking about the budget.
Comment by Joe M Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:58 am
We are truly in Bizarro World now.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:07 am
In fairness, the Ds have proposed (and often passed) numerous budgets over the past couple years. How many actual budget proposals have the Rs put out in that same time?
Comment by DownStateGrl Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:12 am
Speaker Madigan’s laughing condescension about local government consolidation linked to a state budget to relieve taxpayers of high property taxes should be run as a major ad campaign.
His arrogance shows how completely out of touch he is with struggling middle class families who are having trouble paying all of the bills for the record number of local units of government in Illinois.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:14 am
=Speaker Madigan’s laughing condescension about local government consolidation linked to a state budget to relieve taxpayers of high property taxes should be run as a major ad campaign.=
A great ad it would be too. Do you think they will be honest and provide data that shows it will not save any money and has no connection to a state budget?
Those “local” units are financed by local not state dollars, property taxes will not be lower as a result since the tasks they perform will still be performed and paid for.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:22 am
Gone - what you forgot is that 1.4% doesn’t have to spend money from a particular line item passed by the GA if he doesn’t want to. That is where the MOUs come into play.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:25 am
–Speaker Madigan’s laughing condescension about local government consolidation linked to a state budget to relieve taxpayers of high property taxes should be run as a major ad campaign.–
Lay out the numbers, doctor. You like to talk budgets and economics without ever referencing any data or numbers.
Be sure to give us the impact on the FY17 and FY18 state budgets.
And be sure to give us the lowdown on which governments will be “consolidated,” like real-world stuff, not bong-hitting dorm-room chatter.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:26 am
Mandates from Springfield dictate spending for those local units of government.
There is bipartisan support for consolidation but the Speaker does nothing to move forward.
To claim no relation between state and local governments is misdirection.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:29 am
Nationally, we hear that Trump needs to meet in the middle with the Democrat party. He should be magnanimous in victory, despite having the house, senate and executive branch.
Usually, a party with complete control implements it’s agenda. When the parties share power, typically they negotiate a settlement that gives each party’s voters a little something. In Illinois, Rauner has strongly hinted he’ll give in on the tax hike if Madigan gives in on some TA items. Madigan has said that in return for agreeing to the tax hike, Rauner will get…..absolutely nothing.
Comment by Anony Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:31 am
Lucky-
What should downstate units of government consolidate?
Water and sewer departments? Roads?
Do you really think one small village wants to take over the next small villages headaches?
The Clearlake township couldn’t get their voters to agree to let someone else take over their roads.
Schools? Small town kids already spend up to an hour on the bus each way. Plus you can’t get their voters to agree to consolidation.
Libraries?
That’s pretty much it. The only way to reduce local taxes is to put school funding on the state level. Illinois isn’t paying what rhythm are supposed to pay now. Plus voters want local control, which means locally funded.
Property taxes are going to go up especially once ( and it will happen) teachers pension costs get transferred to the districts.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:34 am
“Rauner has strongly hinted he’ll give in on the tax hike”
Doesn’t really see like a give unless he is able and willing to propose a balanced budget without a tax hike.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:36 am
Autocorrect is often useless. Illinois isn’t paying what we are supposed to now.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:37 am
Can it really be a “give” if it is clear that both sides need it?
Comment by Ole' Nelson Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:40 am
You might want to start with the low hanging fruit of school districts
Somehow we have more than California
California’s public education system is huge (2007-2008): 6,275,469 students and 295,222 teachers in 9,846 schools,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_districts_in_California
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_districts_in_Illinois
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:40 am
Nelson - sure it’s a give. The people who voted for him will be angry about a tax hike. If he gets nothing in return?
The solution involves both of them sharing the heat, and the credit. Rauner suggests he’ll share the heat on his half. Where’s the heat Madigan has agreed to share?
Comment by Anony Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:41 am
It’s not necessarily downstate that needs consolidation. When you look at parts of central Illinois and Northern Illinois you will find many areas where townships and the like are at best not needed and at worst filled with corrupt township supervisors that use their offices, and taxpayer dollars, to fix their roads and properties.
Comment by Realist Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:42 am
== In Illinois, Rauner has strongly hinted he’ll give in on the tax hike if Madigan gives in on some TA items. Madigan has said that in return for agreeing to the tax hike, Rauner will get…..absolutely nothing. ==
You miss the point. Madigan needs labor peace and union support … but he doesn’t NEED a tax hike.
Rauner NEEDS a tax hike because he can’t (or won’t) balance a budget without it.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:44 am
=Madigan has said that in return for agreeing to the tax hike, Rauner will get…..absolutely nothing.=
When the “something” is designed to destroy your base this is the probable outcome.
Let’s say that the roles were reversed and Madigan said that they only way he’d agree to a budget would be if Rauner could convince a Republican majority to agree on new business destroying regulations? How would that scenario play out?
Rauner’s end game isn’t to achieve a balanced budget it’s to destroy collective bargaining and Mike Madigan. You can’t exactly blame Madigan for not being a willing participant.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:46 am
Beware the over consolidation of governmental units. How do things look in the largest county in the state? How about the largest city? Largest school district? Total efficiency…..
Comment by Anony Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:48 am
“The people who voted for him will be angry about a tax hike.”
I completely agree with you on this, but think it is a function of taxpayers wanting services from government, but not wanting to pay for them. I don’t see how we balance a budget without a revenue increase. Therefore, if both sides want to balance our budget, I don’t see how it is a give.
I am not sure the Gov expected to be allowed to “shoot the hostages” (universities/social services) before the Dems caved in to his demands. I don’t think he planned for this. I believe the tables have turned, and he needs a budget (as governor) as much or more than the Democrats in the legislature.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:54 am
Prudent, I get your point, but Rauner ran on his TA agenda stuff and to change the way the state operates. He can’t give it all up AND raise taxes. Madigan lost the governor’s chair last election. As President Obama has mentioned, elections have consequences.
RNUG - the LAST thing Rauner needs (politically) is a tax hike with nothing in return. Sure political loser. Stalemate with Madigan is a much better option - at least he can run against Madigan. A deal with Madigan is the best outcome for Rauner. Madigan knows this, too, or we’d have a deal by now, imo.
Comment by Anony Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:59 am
–You might want to start with the low hanging fruit of school districts–
LOL, go right ahead, LP, put together that “major ad campaign” on the “low-hanging fruit” of consolidating school districts.
That will go just boffo in Downstate markets.
All my life, Downstate residents have been begging to have their school districts merged. Parents, civic leaders, homeowners — they all want to lose their hometown school district.
And the savings…. what are they, again? You still have to pay for schools, don’t you?
It’s a wonder that the politicians haven’t jumped on that school-consolidation Victory Train.
Dude, borrow two-bits and buy a clue. School consolidation is the third-rail. Ask any Downstate legislator.
You think Rauner is going to force school consolidation on his electoral base?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:14 am
Anony…why should Dems give Rauner any cover for a tax hike? He lied about being able or willing to balance the budget without a tax hike. He should pay the consequences of lying to voters.
Comment by Simple Simon Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:17 am
=Madigan has said that in return for agreeing to the tax hike, Rauner will get…..absolutely nothing.=
No he didn’t. He specifically said that he did not have a union agenda presumably because he knew that if he did he wouldn’t get elected. Since that time his motives and motivation have become clear.
You seem to suggest that the only thing that’s keeping Rauner from enacting his turnaround agenda is Mike Madigan. Where exactly are the 60 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate?
Comment by Pundent Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:28 am
@wordslinger 8:58
===Sen. Radogno goes offbeat:
–“We did a pretty deep dive today” into local government consolidation, said Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno.–
Did you hit your head at the bottom of the pool after that deep dive?===
Good one! (Coffee spray)
Comment by DuPage Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
Since the Dems won’t accept the fact that workers comp reform, term limits, lower property taxes, redistricting, etc. have a relationship with the budget (albeit indirect), it’s going to be a long stalemate. An no, the immediate budget impact is not as great as long-term but my gosh, can’t Madigan and his crew see past tomorrow?
Comment by justacitizen Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:00 am
–Since the Dems won’t accept the fact that workers comp reform, term limits, lower property taxes, redistricting, etc. have a relationship with the budget (albeit indirect),–
Please, enlighten the masses.
Remember, budgets have numbers in them.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:08 am
Simon - Simple, because they need cover on cuts and changes that are needed to crawl out of the hole, cuts that will anger Madigan’s base.
ps….Madigan has much to do with the state’s getting into this predicament in the first place. What are his consequences?
Comment by Anony Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:13 am
Did the Democrats stall the budget discussions in 2008 to see what the new Obama Administration was going to do?
Comment by phocion Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:37 am
Whacked out nonsense @ LOL.
14 minutes of PokerFace
Comment by May be close to an End Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:02 pm
=== struggling middle class families who are having trouble paying all of the bills for the record number of local units of government in Illinois. ===
There are 1,431 townships in the 84 counties that have them. How many GOP votes are there to abolish townships? About zero.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:16 pm
Haha! It sure is great to see leftist heads continuing to explode. Na na na na….hey hey hey……
Comment by Skew Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:47 pm
In the field, across the state, resistance to consolidation comes mostly from local Republicans who hold the local offices. It will take a significant top-down push to succeed.
Comment by walker Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:16 pm
== the LAST thing Rauner needs (politically) is a tax hike with nothing in return. ==
Agreed. But mathematically, he NEEDS revenue.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:12 pm
Annony…Dems do not own the current disaster. Madigan and other Dems put Illinois on the path for fiscal responsibility when they voted to increase taxes in 2011. The big mistake was to allow the taxes to sunset. Are you blaming Madigan for that? If not, what responsibility does Madigan have? Rainer threw us off the path for his own, non-budget agenda. He owns all the current disaster.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 8:57 pm