Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: AG Madigan issues Halloween warning
Posted in:
* Illinois Public Radio’s Brian Mackey interviews Rep. Jeanne Ives…
Mackey: Do you think it’s possible to balance the budget with the old tax rate — could we forego the current income tax rate? Is that something Illinois could do?
Ives: That’s a great, fantastic question. You know it takes decades — years — for people to really understand the Illinois budget, because it’s so convoluted. But I think that we didn’t try hard enough to make the cuts that need to be made first. That’s what I’m worried about. And I think we didn’t try hard enough to use for the reforms that we have to have.
And I’ll tell you what: I’ve said it before, but the reason you would raise taxes in the state of Illinois is because it’s immoral to hold the amount of debt that we have, and owe people that kind of money. That would be the only reason to do it. But you have to make those reforms, so we don’t get into this bad spending cycle again. And you know, I just don’t think that the conversation was lengthy enough and persistent enough to sell to the people that you cannot raise taxes without these reforms.
Editor’s note: We asked the Rauner campaign if it wanted to respond to Ives’ charge that the governor lied to supporters and taxpayers on public funding for abortions, the Trust Act, and school funding reform.
Spokesman Justin Giorgio emailed the following statement: “Gov. Rauner is focused on fighting for Illinois’ future and defeating Mike Madigan’s machine so Illinois can have property tax relief and term limits, and we can roll back the Madigan income tax hike.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: AG Madigan issues Halloween warning
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“We didn’t try hard enough” is fine rhetoric, but terrible math.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:33 am
Isn’t this statement essentially what Rauner says but in a softer tone?
Sorry Jeanne…This won’t cut it
Comment by Ambassador Abe Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:36 am
What a horrible response. I can’t tell if she would be okay with a tax increase, if she thinks we could have done it with cuts alone, or if she doesn’t know enough to say.
But the third option seems most likely from her waffling response.
Comment by Phil King Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:36 am
== the reason you would raise taxes in the state of Illinois is because it’s immoral to hold the amount of debt that we have, and owe people that kind of money. ==
There you have it in a nutshell. Ives believes in paying your debts; from his actions, Rauner doesn’t.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:36 am
I think she has a future as a politician–that was a perfect non-answer. /s
Comment by G'Kar Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:38 am
So Governor Rauner, who says that the current budget is $1.7 Billion out of whack, says taxes are too high and Rep. Ives, who has railed against every proposed tax increase, says we need the current rate to repay outstanding debt. You can’t make this stuff up.
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:38 am
Abe’s right - her rhetoric is the same that Rauner used throughout the crisis - I’ll raise revenues if I get reforms.
Comment by Fax Machine Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:42 am
===…the reason you would raise taxes in the state of Illinois is because it’s immoral to hold the amount of debt that we have, and owe people that kind of money. That would be the only reason to do it. But you have to make those reforms, so we don’t get into this bad spending cycle again. And you know, I just don’t think that the conversation was lengthy enough and persistent enough to sell to the people that you cannot raise taxes without these reforms.===
We can all argue that “this is Rauner” or “this is a thoughtful Rauner” or even stretch and say “this isn’t Rauber at all, Ives acknowledges the huge debt and paying it”.
Here’s the most important part and needs the most examination…
“..,And you know, I just don’t think that the conversation was lengthy enough and persistent enough to sell to the people that you cannot raise taxes without these reforms.”
Right there. This is the most important part.
Why?
Does Ives approve of the hostage taking? Ives voted consistently to keep hostages…
Does Ives believe reforms and taxes must be together or what will she do different than Rauner did, that she supported with her votes.
Taxes, no taxes, higher taxes, paying bills…
“…And you know, I just don’t think that the conversation was lengthy enough and persistent enough to sell to the people that you cannot raise taxes without these reforms.”
… what does that conversation sound like and to what lengths are you willing to go, as Rauner held a whole state hostage.
That’s the ball game, to me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:46 am
Ives mentions reforms three times in the interview transcript. What are the reforms she is referring to? Those in Rauner’s spokeman’s response, or does she have her own list started?
“And you know, I just don’t think that the conversation was lengthy enough and persistent enough to sell to the people that you cannot raise taxes without these reforms.” (Ives)
A North Shore cocktail party conversation, or just a continuous “never enough” conversation that was famously done by the R’s during the impasse?
Kinda of a “Rauner lite” interview. Ives needs to work on her “pull my string See and Say” responses before she graduates to Rauner’s level of expertise on interview Q and A.
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:47 am
You’re going to print the answer too, right?
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:50 am
So both Rauner and Ives know they can’t pay the bills without the increased tax rate. And they both believe they just needed more time. A few pesky hostages might even survive, drat, should have kept starving the beast.
The absolute kindest way to read her statements is that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Yikes. The more cynical and probably true reading of her statements is that she just needed to inflict more pain on the state to convince Illinoisans it was time to raise the income tax rate.
1 million affected Illinoisans was quite enough for me, thanks. I’ll not be voting for anyone who wanted more than that.
Comment by illini97 Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:53 am
Sounds like she kinda sorta almost considered voting yes.
Let the record reflect Rep. Ives’ intentions
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:55 am
=== … and we can roll back the Madigan income tax hike. ===
Rauner keeps making this promise. Come February at his budget address he needs to introduce a balanced budget that does not require the additional revenue generated by the tax increase or this is empty rhetoric. That’s his marker come February.
Comment by The Captain Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:01 am
Can’t vote for her if it’s going to take decades for her to figure out.
Comment by justacitizen Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:03 am
Cuts - how dumb. Illinois social services are already bleeding out, the infrastructure is crumbling, higher ed is on life support. The only people who seem to be doing well are Rauner hires. How about we cut some of them?
Comment by RIJ Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:04 am
Pragmatic incrementalism can eventually achieve a balance in government spending in Illinois.
Paying Rauner’s bill backlog and properly funding overly-generous public pensions is a tough row to hoe, but can be done. Truly balanced budgets, that are responsibly implemented by executives, can also be achieved.
Rauner has convinced everyone that he is simultaneously incompetent, unwilling, distracted, and opaque. The Madigan-controlled statehouse is Rauner’s cosmic twin on these.
Ives seems to have the moral framework the other two are lacking. She will get her message tightened and smoothed.
Economic growth reforms and spending reforms, smaller government by prima facia conservative principle, will make for a much healthier Illinois.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:05 am
Ah the unnamed reforms again. Or the named reforms that can’t get 60-30…or the reform attempts that have failed to pass constitutional muster. Love me that reform mumbo-jumbo.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:05 am
Captain, that’s a great idea, in theory. He’s yet to produce an actual balanced budget to present though, so I’m not going to hold my breath for him to do so during a campaign.
Comment by Fixer Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:06 am
===You know it takes decades — years — for people to really understand the Illinois budget===
Speak for yourself.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:07 am
Mrs. Ives, please specify what “reforms” are you talking about, document the cost savings they’ll create and how this represents a meaningful way to alleviate Illinois’ fiduciary problems. At the USMA you could not “lie, cheat or steal or tolerate others who do so” and you certainly had to show your work in higher level math classes. Show your work.
Comment by kitty Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:10 am
The people don’t seem to understand that Illinois hasn’t passed a truly balanced budget in two decades.
Comment by Stand Tall Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:12 am
Weak sauce from the Rauner campaign. Really weak sauce. Rauner could have had property tax relief if he was reasonable. But he mocked what was on the table this past summer, the two-year freeze, as phony. Perhaps if he was reasonable he could have worked on and got a deal for legislative leaders’ term limits. But he sabotaged negotiations.
Ives didn’t do her part to step up either—now talking about the immorality of debt. We unfortunately don’t have a reasonable Republican running for governor. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that choice—someone who’s pragmatic and trustworthy—who doesn’t demonize the opposition and who strives to get things done?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:14 am
Did she just move to Illinois.
Comment by Red Rider Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:15 am
Yes reform mumbo jumbo is certainly not required.
Just a 32 % permanent income tax to fund another $ 1.7 billion unbalanced budget because Democrats will not reform government or our business environment.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:16 am
===Just a 32 % permanent income tax to fund another $ 1.7 billion unbalanced budget because Democrats will not reform government or our business environment.===
I’m cryin’ in my cherios for ya. So let’s just bail out profitable companies, propose sham reforms that do almost nothing, and then sabotage any chance of getting them passed. Then take credit for spending that was vetoed and a school funding bill that you opposed.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:20 am
while the posters here will rationalize the fiscal crisis, worried more about whom we should blame madigan/Rauner … another 37,000 or 40,000 people will leave the state in 2017.
Comment by Texas Red Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:22 am
===Pragmatic incrementalism can eventually achieve a balance in government spending in Illinois.===
Buzz words. Show your work. Numbers. Line items. Proposals that can be scored.
Comment by Langhorne Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:24 am
Ives +2
Rauner 0
Ives believes in paying bills.
Rauner believes debt should be a political weapon.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:24 am
Both Ives and Rauner face the same issues with “reforms”…
60 and 30
The rest? It’s just talk.
They both need 60 and 30. That’s how it works.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:25 am
==Pragmatic incrementalism can eventually achieve a balance in government spending in Illinois.===
That’s correct. It’s not about details, it’s a philosphy of governing that Rauner doesn’t want to understand.
==decades==
That’s correct as well. Good governing creates stabilities permitting incremental government improvements.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:29 am
“Buzz words. Show your work. Numbers. Line items. Proposals that can be scored. ”
Wish I had time. I’d start with some FOIAs and pursue some forensic accounting techniques. You know, follow the money and look for the baloney.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:30 am
“we can roll back the Madigan income tax hike”
I pretty sure this statement means Rauner is planning on backing a progressive income tax that would cut the rate for the vast majority of Illinoisans. /s
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:31 am
She also keeps using bad numbers with HB 40, and as someone who is “super fiscal” she can clearly fudge numbers to appease the pro-life crowd.
Comment by ste_with_a_v_en Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:32 am
LP
You are the poster child of mumbo jumbo as well as dumbo, everytime you regugitate your boring talking points here.
It’s like you are thinking that being wrong also means being original. Try new ways to spread your misinformation.
Anyone supporting Rauner is a silly political pawn. This man isn’t just a failure, he’s incompetent and Madigan’s revenge on all of us.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:35 am
From Rauner response, it appears that Ives is being exiled to Trumpistan and her name shall therefore not be mentioned by the ruler. /s
I’m so relieved to her the great Rauner is working on property tax relief. /s
Too bad everything he touches is a disaster.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:37 am
Michelle nails it (exclamation point)
Since I misplaced my GOP codebook, can Jeanne tell me if “reforms” means reneging on contracts and pension obligations…or a repackaged version of “finding waste, fraud, & abuse.”
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:40 am
Silly talking points about reforming Illinois government which leads the nation in distrust by its voters.
Not a single reform of our government or business environment passed and none proposed by democrats in the past almost 3 years.
Just permanent income tax increases and rising property and sales taxes.
Yes all the Madigan supporters who resist all reforms are pure as wind driven snow.
Illinois voters should just be willing to accept our terrible unemployment , slow population growth etc. and keep electing the same people decade after decade.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:43 am
M J M and the Republicans he controls.
Comment by Red Rider Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:49 am
“we can roll back the Madigan income tax hike”
In 2014, candidate Rauner promised to roll back the entire Quinn tax hike within four years. Since he failed to keep that promise, why should voters believe he’ll keep this new one?
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 10:59 am
===Not a single reform of our government or business environment passed and none proposed by democrats in the past almost 3 years.===
The four year property tax freeze got 0 yes votes from House Republicans. But, nice try.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:17 am
Rep. Ives, the reforms I would like to see you pledge to implement are:
1) end pinstripe patronage contracts
2) end $100K+ political Governor’s office ghost employees buried in the state agencies
3) end costly excessive / mandatory overtime through proper staffing levels
4) work for gradual changes through the Legislature
5) not hold the budget hostage by completely vetoing everything but note that you will use the amendatory veto when needed and will use your budgetary discretion to hold down costs.
It won’t save the $B’s that you need to save, but it will add up to some $M’s. And it would demonstrate simple management competence, something the current administration seems to lack.
Whatever candidate that could do the above would get my vote.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:22 am
===The four year property tax freeze got 0 yes votes from House Republicans. But, nice try.===
It should also be noted that when exact reforms were introduced without union hurting prongs (ending collective bargaining and prevailing wage) Rauner required Raunerites to vote Red, and the Superstars calling the bills and votes “shams”… since the Labor prongs were omitted.
It’s about destroying Labor.
The reforms are the “window dressing” to hide true intent.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:22 am
How exactly can property taxes be frozen if local governments can’t reduce union mandates?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:38 am
== How exactly can property taxes be frozen if local governments can’t reduce union mandates? ==
Just cut out all the waste, fraud and abuse they are always complain about /s?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:42 am
===How exactly can property taxes be frozen if local governments can’t reduce union mandates?===
Property taxes are too high…
“Because… Labor”
Hmm.
If that true, - Lucky Pierre -, show me the real monetary savings, the real dollars.
Also tell me that people making less, how is that a Republican ideal?
“We want people making less”
Back to Reagan… have yet to recall a Republican saying the Party is about reducing trade and labor wages.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:42 am
I would like to see the candidates answer the following questions:
1) List and explain your five biggest budget cuts.
2) List and explain your five biggest revenue sources.
OR
1) Show us your detailed, balanced budget…
Every reporter should start responding to vague promises with questions on specific proposals.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 11:51 am
“How exactly can property taxes be frozen if local governments can’t reduce union mandates?”
Get the school levies removed. Other states find different ways to fund schools.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 12:01 pm
===How exactly can property taxes be frozen if local governments can’t reduce union mandates?===
How can you garner support for ending union mandates if you can’t freeze property taxes?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 12:40 pm
Reporters rarely work hard enough to get a straight answer.
Comment by DeseDemDose Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 1:55 pm
–Ives: That’s a great, fantastic question. You know it takes decades — years — for people to really understand the Illinois budget, because it’s so convoluted. –
No. it doesn’t. That’s a weak dodge.
– I’d start with some FOIAs and pursue some forensic accounting techniques. You know, follow the money and look for the baloney.–
Maybe some baco-bits and Thousand Island on the side.
Or you could go to the GOMB website, where the big honking line-item budget books reside, and the Comptroller’s website, where every check cut is posted.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 2:31 pm
Only thing Ives is missing is her motorcycle ans flair jacket. Identical to Rauner
Comment by Generic Drone Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 7:51 pm
Remember, old Blue is available, free of charge to help cut the budget.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:07 pm