Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Senate overrides governor’s SB1 AV 38-19
Next Post: Senate approves EDGE credits, managed care contract controls
Posted in:
* Sen. Dan McConchie (R-Hawthorne Woods), one of the school funding reform negotiators…
“Today’s override of the Governor’s veto was an unnecessary partisan act,” said McConchie. “I firmly believe we could have come to a bi-partisan agreement on school funding reform had negotiations been carried out in good faith.
“As one of the negotiators, I came to the table fully prepared to come to an agreement on how we can better fund our schools. However, good faith discussions never happened. In fact, the bill’s sponsor admitted in the press that he was never really negotiating with us. Instead the Democrats have decided to pursue a path of bailing out Chicago at any cost. It is now up to the House to reject this partisan, regionalistic politics.”
* Comptroller Susana Mendoza…
We encourage Illinois state representatives of both parties to listen to students, parents, teachers and school officials in their districts and vote to override Governor Rauner’s veto of equitable school funding, as state senators of both parties just did. After the House votes to override, our office can begin sending schools the General State Aid they are owed.
* JB Pritzker…
“Today’s action by the Senate is a step towards getting the school funding our students, parents, and teachers across the state deserve,” said JB Pritzker. “Bruce Rauner’s reckless veto left our state’s 852 public school districts without a way to get state funding and even though Rauner agreed with 90 percent of SB 1, he chose to use school funding as leverage to score a political win. Bruce Rauner’s damage is done and he’s proven once again that he is incapable of governing without throwing our state into a crisis.”
* Sen. Daniel Biss…
“There’s no question that overriding Rauner’s veto was the right thing to do. The better questions are how we got here in the first place—to August without school funding and to a billionaire governor with the arrogance to threaten our schools.
“We took a step forward on fixing an immediate problem today. But like the state’s budget, our education funding system will continue to be a problem until we address the underlying rot: a broken tax system that benefits the millionaires, while punishing the middle class.”
* Mayor Rahm Emanuel…
Governor Rauner’s education funding veto brought together rural, suburban and urban educators and legislators in bipartisan opposition to the governor and in support of today’s veto override. This diverse group of educators and leaders knows the Senate’s education bill is right for Illinois children and the governor’s veto is flat wrong. I want to thank Senate President Cullerton and the state Senators who voted on behalf of students and educators. The Senate’s vote is a bipartisan rejection of the governor’s divisive politics and of his repeated attempts to pit children with different backgrounds and from different parts of the state against one another.
* Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago)…
“The governor attempted to remove equity for Chicago from Senate Bill 1 in his amendatory veto and force Chicago Public Schools’ students to pay for a pension problem they did not create. To be truly equitable, school funding reform must recognize the fact that Chicago is the only school district in the state that is responsible for its own pension payments. Senate Bill 1 corrects this inequality and provides pension parity for Chicago Public Schools.
“Today I voted with my colleagues in the Senate to override the governor’s veto and bring Illinois students—both in Chicago and throughout the state—one step closer to a fair school funding formula for the first time in decades. It is time for all Illinois students to have access to a quality education, regardless of where they live.”
* Sen. Tom Rooney (R-Rolling Meadows)…
“We’re supposed to be overhauling our education system to provide equity for all our students and schools. Instead, we’re recrafting a system that preserves the same practice of redirecting state dollars toward one district and burying special deals among the spreadsheets. That’s not equity, that’s disingenuous and ineffective,” said Rooney. “Today’s vote demonstrated that the interest of one district outweighs the needs of the remaining suburban and downstate students. My only hope is that moving forward the House recognizes the importance of fair funding, puts the needs of all students ahead of political agendas and embraces equity as the only path forward for education funding in Illinois.”
I’m sure there will be more.
* Sen. Chris Nybo (R-Elmhurst)…
“I could not support the school funding plan presented in the Senate today, because it does not equitably address funding for all Illinois students. It should not matter where a child is born; every single student has an equal right to earn a quality education. The Governor’s Amendatory Veto made changes to the school funding bill that were both fair and equitable to all 852 school districts in Illinois, and does not unfairly tip the scale toward Chicago schools at the expense of every other school district-like has been done in years past. Senate Bill 1 was not the product of bipartisan negotiations, and that is extremely unfortunate because I truly believe good-faith negotiations and bipartisan progress were possible.”
* Senate President John Cullerton…
“Our students, parents, teachers and taxpayers have waited too long for a needed overhaul of how the state funds public schools. With this bipartisan vote, the Senate moved our state one step closer to getting rid of the worst funding system in the nation. I hope the House will be able to do the same and finally bring the reform Illinois public schools need.”
posted by Rich Miller
Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 4:36 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Senate overrides governor’s SB1 AV 38-19
Next Post: Senate approves EDGE credits, managed care contract controls
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner react: “The system is broken.”
Comment by Norseman Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 4:42 pm
“Rauner Sends Pineapple To McCann as Senate Overrides with 38 Votes”
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 4:46 pm
So noW what happens?
Comment by Galena Guy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 4:47 pm
GG - all the action will be in the HOUSE. Either an override, compromise or SB 1 dies. I’d expect this to drag on for several days while the “heat” is turned up.
Comment by Eagle Eye Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:04 pm
“The system is broken.”
“My wife and I give millions to schools.”
“Well, I’d tell you that … the system is broken.”
Comment by Macbeth Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:14 pm
What I expected….and I expect Rauner to pull out all the stops. Sigh…
Comment by Galena Guy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:15 pm
“The system is broken.”
“Well, the system is broken.”
“The system is broken.”
“Actually, it’s a broken system.”
“The system is broken.”
“Madigan.”
“Madigan.”
“The system is broken.”
Comment by Macbeth Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:16 pm
GG - It will take HGOP members that put their local schools thinking over their Guv’s threats. That’s harder to do than it sounds.
Comment by Eagle Eye Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:23 pm
Negotiations have been going on for a long time. SB1 have 1.4% 90% of what he wanted and he still did an amenditory veto. At what point is enough? The HDem have to override.
Comment by Huh? Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:38 pm
Has anyone heard from or seen the Sect. of Ed since the AV on Aug. 1?
Comment by Eagle Eye Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 5:43 pm
If the House is unable to override the AV, GOP legislators may want to consider an extended vacation, the reception at home could be less than friendly.
And I wouldn’t sta in Springfield. It may be inundated with educators and parents that may want to meet with them. Hopefully it stays civil but I doubt it will be friendly. This has people’s attention.
Comment by JS Mill Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 6:33 pm
The Gov. is broken.
Comment by Lt Guv Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 7:43 pm
All those Rs bleating about wanting more negotiations and “how close” they are to an agreement may just get their wish if the House doesn’t override. And I’ll be right there waiting for their “equitable” solutions with will not be forthcoming. Hypocrite much?
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 8:05 pm
Why would Republicans want to negotiate with anyone? Everyone on this blog criticizes every move a Republican makes unless they fully capitulate. This is as close to group think as you can get. If the elected officials act like the people on this blog we’re all doomed. The regulars here act like they know everything, and are dismissive of anyone who disagrees. I’m sure this won’t see the light of day but really, you need to take a breath and dialogue in a way that you would like to see our elected officials behave.
Comment by Justin Case Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 9:02 pm
JC–I’d like to see our legislators–all of them–and the Governor get their job done and move on to the next issue. If I worked in my job the way these policy makers work (or don’t) , I’d be discharged for cause in short order. This whole thing should have been done months ago.
Comment by Eight Zero Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 9:53 pm
>
Oh, I don’t know, to govern, perhaps?
Given divided government, I see the veto/AV as part of the negotiating strategy and governing process, so it is not surprising that it is being used. It is just another lever of power. However, the negotiating has to end at some point (which most of us assumed was at the final version of SB1), and Rauner has not shown yet that he will accept anything less than 100% on big issues. Remember that he likes 90% of the bill he vetoed (even though he totally changed the character of the bill using his AV). Do you think the Dems should agree to give him 100%? That is capitulation.
If you don’t like SB1, what is your answer? That’s what I want to hear from Rs if they don’t override the veto. If you can’t vote for something, say what you will vote for. If not, you are not a statesman/woman.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:01 pm
Missing quote from Justin Case:
Why would Republicans want to negotiate with anyone?
To govern…to make government work. Like they all should be doing.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:03 pm
Why would Republicans want to negotiate with anyone?
Maybe Justin was saying that Rs get criticized no matter what they do, so why bother? Poor little snowflakes…
Rs have gotten a pass for more than a decade because they were not expected to be green on anything of importance (nor were they often invited by the majority, mostly). Maybe it has become part of their DNA to not participate in negotiation of bills and other acts of government even now that they are needed. How sad for us all.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:11 pm
The regulars here act like they know everything, and are dismissive of anyone who disagrees.====
I agree with this 100%. This happened in the other thread with OW and wordslinger. These regulars think they know everything.
They believe Rauners quick veto of the budget means he wanted the tax hike and budget to be overridden and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:16 pm
- Real -
(Sigh)
From - GoM -
===So Rauner secretly did want the tax increase to pass and didn’t hold the bill, because of fear of junk status. Instead brave Republicans and Democratic GA members, unike Rauner, risked a lot to pass something of tremendous need that has tremendous risk to them.
Wow, that seems to make the Wordslinger point, that Rauner really wanted the tax increase, he just wasn’t honest about it. Actions, not words.===
Then Rich Miller to follow…
===GoM is correct. In addition, Rauner held a press conference (the infamous “2×4 to the forehead” presser) to claim that what the bond raters said made no difference to him.===
Neither - Wordslinger - or I were involved.
Good try. Your victimhood is noted, however.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:22 pm
Stick around for a while, Real, and you may learn something from those regulars. I certainly have.
Personally, I think they have a point because of the timing of things, which they mentioned, and his budgets would never make sense without the revenue. But Rauner’s near-ballistic reactions to the override (firing his whole staff) might suggest the opposite. Perhaps he has two minds over the issue? You probably know the psychiatric term for having two minds…
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:23 pm
Jibba
I stuck around long enough to know that some of these regulars are nothing more than know it alls’. Case in point in the Munger Mendoza race for Comptroller. OW claimed that Mendoza would be defeated and sweared by it up until after Munger was defeated.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:34 pm
===Case in point in the Munger Mendoza race for Comptroller. OW claimed that Mendoza would be defeated and sweared by it up until after Munger was defeated.===
I stated clearly that Munger could win, and I also stayed the biggest mistake was Munger waiting weeks and weeks to go negative to defeat Mendoza.
If you’d like, I’ll embarrass you here like in the other posts, or you can point to posts where your claims are and then I’ll refute those, up to you, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:40 pm
Did you collect your beer from OW?
Nobody is right all the time, but if I find myself disagreeing with Rich and the others, I check myself at least once, sometimes twice, because they know the inside game. But if I still disagree, I stand my ground. Why, just the other day I cheezed off OW and Rich told me to take a breath.
I think many of the contrary voices here get argued with because of a lack of logic and consistency, not politics. You can be D or R as long as you have the courage to state your case and not just score cheap points.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:43 pm
===I think many of the contrary voices here get argued with because of a lack of logic and consistency, not politics. You can be D or R as long as you have the courage to state your case and not just score cheap points.===
Well said.
I’ve been wrong, and said when I’ve been wrong.
I’ve learned far more here than anywhere. For me it’s not about the argument for the sake of arguing, it comes down to the points and merits having the weight of institutional knowledge cited, the politics to that historical context, and the plum real time governing happening within those contexts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:48 pm
OW
I’m not one of the zombies who mindlessly cheer lead for you. You get no points and you are wrong a lot of the time period.
Good luck
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:50 pm
Oh - Real -…
Have a good night.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:51 pm
- Real -
I woulda put me in my place with this…
“At no point in your rambling, incoherent responses were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who reads this blog is now less informed having read what you write”
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:55 pm
OW
I would like to debate you on that topic of your claim that Rauner wanted Madigan’s budget on another forum. Be it facebook, twitter, or another form of social media. A place where your mindless cheerleaders aren’t around and where the comments aren’t moderated.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:57 pm
So how about it OW.
Lets debate this on another form of social media and not on Rich’s blog.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:59 pm
===mindless cheerleaders===
Hey, I resemble that remark. And if no one is around, who will judge who wins?
OW may be right if Rauner wanted to govern, even a little bit. Real may be right if Rauner never planned to do anything at all for four years other than destroy government. That’s the way I read it. So which is it, Real?
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:05 pm
Jibba
Yes you would qualify.. And I think that Rep Wheeler answered that question for ypu when she said that the republicans were close to real compromise if the budget had not been overriden.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:08 pm
I said Rauner wanted a tax increase because it was required to make even his own budget work.
I also said agenda elements are not required elements of any budget ever. Nowhere infant accounting terminology will you find any turnaround agenda items, but revenue is found in every accounting principle you would find, public, private, even educational.
You don’t even know what you’re arguing with me about.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:10 pm
Jibba
I would love for you to be there as well… But people like OW only can operate in forums where they receive praise which is why he will never accept my offer.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:10 pm
===…republicans were close to real compromise…===
Yeah, no one believes that ridiculousness anymore after Dr. Purvis said Rauner agreed to 90% of SB1 but that wasn’t good enough. So, there’s that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:12 pm
OW.
Revenue is found.. Yes. But how does extra revenue help a governor who is hell bent on busting Unions? You keep avoiding this question.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:13 pm
OW
You believed the statement when you criticized Wheeler and republicans for wanting to burn the state to help Rauner. Yet now you say Rauner secretly wanted Madigan’s budget and tax hike.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:15 pm
===But how does extra revenue help a governor who is hell bent on busting Unions?===
Governors still need budgets.
Why rewrite SB1 as it was, why keep pushing for the phony property tax freeze after the budget passed.
This stuff might be over your head. Why? Rauner ran on Pat Quinn failed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:15 pm
Do you really believe that malarkey about being so close to compromise after the Senate’s grand bargain flameout? Fool me once…
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:16 pm
(Sigh)
===You believed the statement when you criticized Wheeler and republicans for wanting to burn the state to help Rauner.===
No. Raunerites want to burn down the state. The 16, then 11 Republicans fought to save Illinois with overrides.
You have no idea what you think you know.
===Yet now you say Rauner secretly wanted Madigan’s budget and tax hike.===
No. I said Rauner’s own budget required revenue.
Either you can’t read, or you are unaware what words mean.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:18 pm
There can be no doubt that Rauner needed the revenue and his veto actions helped the override occur. Can anyone explain why he had his temper tantrum afterward? Cover? Realization that he didn’t get much out of the stalemate (even with the prince of snarkness on staff), so he was open to a change in tactics? Real question.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:21 pm
Jibba
Notice OW has not accepted my offer to debate on another form of social media. This is because people like him can only operate in a forum where he recieves praise.
OW’s belief that Rauner secretly wanted Madigan’s budget would crumble in a debate… But OW would never accept that invitation since it can’t take place on this blog where he hopes for mindless zombies to cheer lead for him.
Good night
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:24 pm
Math says Rauner needed the revenue. Good night, friend.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:28 pm
===Notice OW has not accepted my offer to debate on another form of social media. This is because people like him can only operate in a forum where he recieves praise.===
No.
You get simple facts wrong, you think you know my positions which I refuted with actual comments, and you seemly ate concerned about the locations instead of the facts of the argument
Plus, Rich Miller’s blog… It’s the “Madison Square Garden”… The “Rose Bowl”… the “Original Yankee Stadium”
It’s the “biggest stage” stage for discussion on Illinois politics.
Make your case. If you’re case(s) have merit, they win the day.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:32 pm
OW
Hahaha you’re scared and you can’t operate in another forum. This is a moderated blog. This is not the proper forum for a debate. The real reason is that someone of your personality needs praise in order to function. Take it to twitter or Facebook and let the people decide. But of course you can’t handle that.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:37 pm
- Real -
Get some sleep. You need rest.
You’re the guy that plays golf and gets beat and then complains “you play my course, I’ll beat you”…
Golf is golf. Facts are facts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:43 pm
Real, you sure know how to lose an argument.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:44 pm
OW aka Jibba
Stop speaking on 2 accounts with 2 different ip addresses. Losing your argument is not that serious.
Comment by Real Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:46 pm
===Stop speaking on 2 accounts with 2 different ip addresses.===
No. This isn’t true. Go to bed, it’s late.
Comment by Oswego Willy Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:51 pm
Arguing about the messenger instead of the message is a sure fire mark of having no point. And you are trying awfully hard for something not serious. And while I like Oswego well enough, you should reread the chain if you think we are one in the same. The answer is plain.
Jibba has left the building. Night all.
Comment by Jibba Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 11:51 pm
== when she said that the republicans were close to real compromise if the budget had not been overriden. ==
You need to understand process, something the Rauner think tanks haven’t been good at. Timing is everything in politics.
Trying to compromise after a bill is passed is too late. The time to try to get something is before the bill is passed; that is when an extra vote can have value.
And coming in after a veto is also too late to affect the vetoed bill. That late in the game you can’t amend it; you have vote it up or down as is. The best you can do is get a future promise for something else. Trying to achieve compromise after the fact shows a total misunderstanding of the process.
The only way to leverage a vote at that time is if both the override and/or the approval fails. Then, and only then, with a new bill can you try to get a compromise. So we are back to the same point, you work the compromise before the initial bill reaches final passage.
It all comes back to lack of institutional knowledge on the part of Rauner’s teams. To win, especially when you are the minority in votes, you have to play by the rules that exist and work within the process.
It can be done … but, as a minority, you have accept less than 100% of what you want. A smart strategist would take the salimi slice approach: take what you can get this time, and come back for most or all of the rest next time.
That’s where Rauner and his team went wrong. He was used to dealing with distressed businesses where he could change the terms at the last second and still get them accepted because they were in such distress they needed his money.
That model doesn’t translate to government. It’s not Rauner’s money. And he is dealing with two co-equal branches: legislative and judicial. He hasn’t come to terms with the basic principal that Governors propose and the Legislature disposes.
Bottom line: it’s all about process. Madigan (and Cullerton), as majority leader, wrote the legislative rules and understand the process. Based on the actions and evidence to date, Rauner doesn’t understand the process.
Or if Rauner does understand the process, then he is deliberately derailing it … with an apparent goal of just destroying as much government as he can.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 12:34 am
OW
Once again you’re arguing out of both sides of your mouth. At one point you argue that Rauner and raunerites wanted the state to burn without a budget and in the next point you argue that Rauner secretly wanted Mafigan’s budget. This contradicts what you said about him wanting the state to burn.
Who spends millions to accomplish nothing because there strategic goal is just to be overriden at the end? Your idea is foolish.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:12 am
Ow says a quick veto of the budget signals that Rauner’s hope was for it to be overriden.
Well there was also a quick veto of sb1. By your logic this signals that Rauner wants to be overriden.
Lol
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:28 am
===Ow says a quick veto of the budget signals that Rauner’s hope was for it to be overriden.
Well there was also a quick veto of sb1. By your logic this signals that Rauner wants to be overriden===
The one thing I learned, you lack any logic in your comments.
What was the complaint by Rauner?
The bill was held for 60 days
Rauner wanted a crisis, not schools not opening.
Further, I said I don’t think that Rauner could be overriden in the House. Said it since the AV.
Are you now ignorant to words, mine, the governor’s, Rich’s posts?
Please, stop typing, for your own sake.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:43 am
Ow
….. But by a quick veto of sb1 you also claim that signals that Rauner wants to be overriden. You can’t cherry pick here.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:45 am
===At one point you argue that Rauner and raunerites wanted the state to burn without a budget and in the next point you argue that Rauner secretly wanted Mafigan’s budget===
Rauner didn’t want Madigan’s budget.
You are just plain ignorant.
For the 563rd time, Rauner’s own budget required revenue.
Go back and read.
I didn’t think it was possible, you are looking more and more foolish by the word.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:46 am
===But by a quick veto of sb1 you also claim that signals that Rauner wants to be overriden. You can’t cherry pick here===
It wasn’t “quick”, it was an overnight rewrite of the AV.
You have no idea of process or what’s at play.
Rauner couldn’t even give the AV language, according to him, because he did the have the bill, the bill that could be read at any time.
Rauner is trying to leverage SB1, but in the end, it will be Rauner’s veto that will hurt schools, which Rauner wants, just not the “credit for it”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:52 am
OW
Rauner’s own budget required revenue and it also contained turn around agenda items and anti-Union provisions.
So your argument crumbles with that notioj that all Rauner wanted was Madigan’s budget with revenue.
Lol
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 6:53 am
===Rauner’s own budget required revenue and it also contained turn around agenda items and anti-Union provisions===
For the 603rd time, Revebue is required.
The turnaround agenda, which couldn’t get 60 and 30 is also not a required budgetary element in any accounting principles.
With or without the ridiculous turnaround agenda, the budget required revenue, which is why leveraging for the agenda never worked. Rauner required revenue.
===So your argument crumbles with that notioj that all Rauner wanted was Madigan’s budget with revenue.===
My argument is Rauner required a tax increase for any budget.
You can’t read. That’s the only thing I learned. You are worse at understanding words than - Lucky Pierre -
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:01 am
OW
Therefore Rauner’s strategic goal was to spend millions to become governor and accomplish none of his legialative goals at the end because all he wanted was Madigan’s budget with revenue.
Listen to your self.
Lol
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:21 am
OW
You would have a point if Rauner did not fund the re-election campaign of Ken Dunkin.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:22 am
Thank goodness for the leadership and statesmanship of Senate President John Cullerton and those Senate members who vote to override. I just hope on behalf of my grandchildren and the other school children of Illinois that our House members will be just as responsible.
Comment by Retired Lawyer Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:26 am
- Real -
Read. Again. For the umpteenth time…
“Therefore Rauner’s strategic goal was to spend millions to become governor and accomplish his legialative goals at the end because he thought leveraging a budget that required revenue would be enough for Dems to cave. The trade was for required revenues for TA items. Since TA items couldn’t get 60 and 30, the leverage failed, but the need for a budget with revenue still remained.
The need for any budget that required revenue remained.
Rauner vetoed quickly, hoping for a quick override so bond houses, which Rauner said he didn’t listen to, wouldn’t downgrade, and he could avoid “Gov. Junk” status for himself, and Rauner can have the tax increase, by legislative override and not his own signature.”
This is way over your head it appears.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:27 am
@Real
=Listen to your self.=
=Lol= This should be the appropriate reaction.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:27 am
===You would have a point if Rauner did not fund the re-election campaign of Ken Dunkin.===
Ken Dunkin was gone by now.
Do you even know who is in the GA today.
Also, it was first the Brave 16, then the “Perfect 10″ and Sen. Righter that saved Illinois from Rauner.
His own “party” turned on Rauner, to save Illinois from him
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:30 am
Rauner vetoed quickly, hoping for a quick override so bond houses, which Rauner said he didn’t listen to, wouldn’t downgrade, and he could avoid “Gov. Junk” status for himself, and Rauner can have the tax increase, by legislative override and not his own signature.”===
Now you’re taking parts of my argument. From the beginning I said that Rauner issued a quick veto so that the state would not be downgraded while the bill sat on his desk. You have now adopted my argument. Before you stated that Rauner’s quick veto was only in hopes of being overriden and that if he wanted the bill tp die he would have sat on it for 60 days. This is all of what you argued.
I said his quick veto was to get that bill off his desk in case the state was downgraded while he held on to the bill. Also, Rauner did not want to be overriden.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:33 am
OW
This is where your reading comprehension comes into play. If you state that Rauner’s hope was to in the end be overriden that means he would of never funded the re-election campaign of Dunkin. As Dunkin would never vote to give Madigan a win.
Also, Of course Dunkin is not in the GA today. None of that was the point. The point went way over your head.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:37 am
===Now you’re taking parts of my argument===
No, I understand the politics of the budget.
You fail to mention that Rauner failed in leveraging the TA, Rauner needed a budget, needed the revenue, and had no recourse.
===Rauner did not want to be overriden.===
The bond houses required a budget to stave off the downgrade(s)…
An override was never guaranteed. It took first 16 then 11 Republicans.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:37 am
===This is where your reading comprehension comes into play. If you state that Rauner’s hope was to in the end be overriden that means he would of never funded the re-election campaign of Dunkin. As Dunkin would never vote to give Madigan a win===
Keep up. Dunkin already lost, it took 16 than 11 Republicans to override.
Faulted for Rauner all around.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:39 am
===None of that was the point. The point went way over your head.===
Bringing up a former member of the GA… you lack the realities of your argumebt
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:40 am
- Real -
What part of this… “confuses” you…
===- Oswego Willy - Sunday, Aug 13, 17 @ 10:22 pm
- Real -
(Sigh)
From - GoM -
===So Rauner secretly did want the tax increase to pass and didn’t hold the bill, because of fear of junk status. Instead brave Republicans and Democratic GA members, unike Rauner, risked a lot to pass something of tremendous need that has tremendous risk to them.
Wow, that seems to make the Wordslinger point, that Rauner really wanted the tax increase, he just wasn’t honest about it. Actions, not words.===
Then Rich Miller to follow…
===GoM is correct. In addition, Rauner held a press conference (the infamous “2×4 to the forehead” presser) to claim that what the bond raters said made no difference to him.===
What part of any of that… confuses you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:43 am
Keep up. Dunkin already lost, it took 16 than 11 Republicans to override.
Faulted for Rauner all around.
_____
Dunkin losing is not the point…lol
Rauner funding the re-election campaign of Dunkin is the point.
1. If Rauner wanted Madigan’s budget with revenue he would not be close to that goal if Dunkin had won re-election.
That’s the point and the fact that Rauner funded Dunkin’s re-election.
Keep up OW
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:44 am
OW
This debate is finished on this blog.
If you want to debate let’s take it to another forum be it facebook or Twitter. The invitation stands, but of course you can’t function outside the comfort of Rich’s blog where you hope for cheerleaders to enable you and your ignorant comments.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:47 am
===Rauner wanted Madigan’s budget with revenue he would not be close to that goal if Dunkin had won re-election===
Read.
===“Therefore Rauner’s strategic goal was to spend millions to become governor and accomplish his legialative goals at the end because he thought leveraging a budget that required revenue would be enough for Dems to cave. The trade was for required revenues for TA items. Since TA items couldn’t get 60 and 30, the leverage failed, but the need for a budget with revenue still remained.
The need for any budget that required revenue remained===
Then this… - GoM
===So Rauner secretly did want the tax increase to pass and didn’t hold the bill, because of fear of junk status. Instead brave Republicans and Democratic GA members, unike Rauner, risked a lot to pass something of tremendous need that has tremendous risk to them.
Wow, that seems to make the Wordslinger point, that Rauner really wanted the tax increase, he just wasn’t honest about it. Actions, not words===
Capiche?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:48 am
- Real -
Where are these cheerleaders you think are here right now?
It’s just us, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:50 am
Real:
Are you done trolling yet? I mean, it’s entertaining at all but you are making a fool of yourself.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:51 am
Oh, and stop acting like a child with your Facebook challenges. You want to threaten to beat up his mom too? lol
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 7:52 am
OW and Real, you need to get a room. /s
Comment by regnaD kciN Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:06 am
Demoralized
Another OW cheerleader here to the rescue. What a surprise.
OW can’t save himself he needs cheerleaders and cosigners. Lets debate on another forum and not a blog but ofcourse OW can’t function outside of Rich’s blog
And demoralized I could care less of making myself look like a fool to you.. Who are you but an OW cheerleader?
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:09 am
Why play on a sandlot, - Real -, when you can make all your points in… “Old Yankee Stadium”, “The Rose Bowl”… the “Madison Square Garden” of Illinois politics?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:12 am
Real.
Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself and annoying the folks on this blog.
Go somewhere else, please.
Comment by Mr. K. Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:14 am
Mr K
I’m suspecting you’re either an alias of OW or another OW cheerleader.
OW
This is also why I requested for you to debate on another forum outside of this blog where the discussion is open to more than just your Capfax cheerleaders and cosigners, but of course you chickened out.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:21 am
Mr. K
I’m embaressing myself because I don’t believe Rauner secretly wanted Madigan’s budget.. Oh ok I’m so embarrassed for not believing that.
Comment by Real Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:24 am
Strangely, I find it hard to focus on the reaction of to the override. My mind is on the House vote already. That said, I find it strange that there’s no outcry in the Republican statements above about not voting to support the AV, even if they’re citing procedural issues.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:27 am
Real-There is no further need for debate on this particular issue. Both you and OW said everything you had to say several times over and now it’s just “Did not”, “Did so”.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:29 am
@- Real - If this blog offends your childish sensibilities by all means rejoin your friends on Facebook and Twitter. The adults here will carry on without you.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:31 am
===either an alias of OW===
Rich forbids sock puppetry.
That, and I don’t feel the need, want, desire to argue like that. My arguments aren’t predicated on sock puppets.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:43 am
===or another OW cheerleader.===
Now you are making other commenters “less” to try to make your own arguments stronger?
Your disrespect to others is noted.
Let it be. I’ve moved on. Leave others and your conspiracies out of it.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:46 am
I have disagreed with OW previously. For instance, I indicated last week that the odds of SB1 override were better than even while OW repeatedly provided odds of 1 in 4. I see no reason for any disagreement in analysis between readers to erode civility or require a change in debate venue. Incidentally, I would like OW to provide his updated odds following yesterday’s outcome in the Senate. The action now moves to the House where predicting the outcome is much more difficult.
Comment by PragmaticR Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:49 am
Where is Meeks in all of this?? He’s been silent since he was appointed to ISBE. His hypocrisy speaks volumes.
Comment by Flynn's mom Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:50 am
Earnest- In the Senate, the Republicans knew they were “safe” and could vote for the AV because the Dems had the votes to override. I applaud McCann, though, for breaking ranks and exposing the hypocrisy of Rauner. The procedural issue was an after-thought tantrum. If that had truly been a roadblock for them, they should have exposed 9-3 much earlier. In fact, all Senators voted for the adoption of the 100th assembly Senate rule in January. Where was the outcry or debate then?
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:56 am
- PragmaticR -, well said. Agree.
To this…
===Incidentally, I would like OW to provide his updated odds following yesterday’s outcome in the Senate. The action now moves to the House where predicting the outcome is much more difficult.===
Odds remain unchanged.
Not one House member that was “Red” indicates they will be “Green” Wednesday, and “why is that a factor?” in this…
… the cover of Kristen McQueary, the phony district numbers and double-counting of Chicago’s funding, and the school superintendents not moved by Rauner are enough to come out and say, “I’m for override” and bask in the warmth of saving schools with all the cover needed.
There were 59 HDems and McAuliffe.
Gotta show me the 11, “Well, it’s one greater than ten, it goes to 11″
Not hearing the groundswell of double-digit votes needed eroding.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:56 am
Real is that you Ann coulter
Comment by Rabid Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 8:56 am
OW - you have the patience of Job trying to reason with real. You have chased the squirrel around the tree too many times.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 9:29 am
Did Real actually start a post with hahaha?
Comment by Mongo Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 9:31 am
===You have chased the squirrel around the tree too many times===
I need the exercise. Got to work off all the cannoli.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 9:36 am
==Gotta show me the 11, “Well, it’s one greater than ten, it goes to 11″==
Perhaps, I have a model with incorrect assumptions, but I will layout the details.
First, the Democrats that did not vote at all on May 31 will almost surely vote to override.
Second, the few Democrats that voted no on May 31 will likely vote to override because the Governor’s botched AV signals that the alternative to override is chaos during protracted negotiation and defeating the Governor’s agenda is its own reward in this context. The length of the stalemate regarding the budget will provide the cover to allow these Democrats to vote to override as only way to avoid education funding stalemate. I also include the impact of the Speaker in support of this prediction.
Third, McAuliffe, voted for SB1 and his vote will not change because he represents a district including part of Chicago.
So, there will likely be 68 votes (or at least 67) in favor of override. Are there another three or four votes from Republicans?
At this stage, the rational members of the Republican caucus are looking for an escape hatch. The caucus does not want to be held responsible for chaos following SB1 failure. There is also a strong desire not to appear to help CPS or undermine the Governor. I think there are meetings in which those running for reelection are asking those that have voted for the tax increase and/or already announced retirement to take the political fallout so that those remaining do not have to live with the consequences of SB1 failure or actually go on record in support for SB1. Who are the Republicans most likely to provide override votes in this analysis (other than McAuliffe)? My prediction is some combination of Fortner, Hays, Mitchell, and Pritchard are more likely than not to step forward at the last minute, but there is substantial uncertainty.
Comment by PragmaticR Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:03 am
- PragmaticR -
===First, the Democrats that did not vote at all on May 31 will almost surely vote to override.===
What do you base this on?
If these Dems are so willing to override, they sure are silent about it. That’s where this falls apart.
There’s nothing in the Senate roll call to glean what the House will do either.
===Second, the few Democrats that voted no on May 31 will likely vote to override because the Governor’s botched AV signals that the alternative to override is chaos during protracted negotiation and defeating the Governor’s agenda is its own reward in this context. The length of the stalemate regarding the budget will provide the cover to allow these Democrats to vote to override as only way to avoid education funding stalemate. I also include the impact of the Speaker in support of this prediction.===
“Chicago bailout”
The politics of this with the 59 HDems and McAuliffe haven’t changed. The HDem targets, it’s a huge ask to put them on an override for a “Chicago Bailout”. That’s the politics now.
===The caucus does not want to be held responsible for chaos following SB1 failure.===
No. The Rauner veto will be the reason for chaos and Rauner will be held responsible. The Illinois House can’t veto a bill.
It’s still 1 in 4.
The HDem targets won’t be green, there just aren’t enough Raunerite House members willing to “bailout Chicago”
Math.
I hope I’m wrong, but there was a real reason it was a supermajority passing in the Senate, and only 60 in the House…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 14, 17 @ 10:14 am