Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Think, don’t sing
Next Post: 20 races at a million each
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
After five months, you’d think that the warring parties at the Illinois Statehouse would have learned something about each other. Instead, last week’s bitter and divisive House overtime session showed that they still fundamentally misunderstand one another.
What follows are some questions I’m hearing and my own responses.
Republicans: Why would the House Democrats propose such a weak workers’ compensation reform plan last week when they knew Gov. Bruce Rauner wants so much more?
The Democrats’ plan didn’t contain much real-world progress and actually regressed in part. Unless you read between the lines. Workers’ comp insurance essentially is a no-fault system designed to keep disputes out of the courts. For years, Republicans have attempted to insert “causation” into the system in order to weed out employees whose injuries are mostly not the fault of employers.
But House Speaker Michael Madigan’s bill used the term “causal” in relation to a certain kind of injury. This was a pretty good indication that after more than 30 years as speaker, Madigan is moving away from his complete opposition to causation standards.
He appears willing to deal on this topic because he attached his language to a House bill that now can be amended by the Senate. If he had used a Senate bill, it would have been “take it or leave it.”
So build on the causation issue and ignore his other items that set the negotiations back. It’s not rocket science.
Democrats: Why won’t the Republicans accept the fact that we’re moving in their direction but can only go so far? We’re not Republicans.
The governor believes Republican legislators were far too content in the past to accept any crumbs the Democrats offered. Those days are over. We have a Republican governor who is demanding significant change. And with the session in overtime, he’s not going to want to look like he’s caving to Madigan, as so many of his predecessors did. The Democrats must keep moving toward the governor’s position or this thing ain’t ever gonna end.
Republicans: Madigan hasn’t moved an inch all spring. We’ve retreated on dozens of issues, so why won’t he give up a single priority?
He has. If you look at his floor actions as a negotiating process, Madigan has eliminated several of Rauner’s proposals from consideration by defeating them during floor votes. He did the very same thing to his millionaires’ tax proposal. The Republicans interpreted the floor vote as an insult to the wealthy governor. Well, yeah, but its defeat also effectively took the issue off the table. Ignore the show business and look for progress.
Democrats: Why did the Republicans go nuclear on Democrats in committee last week by claiming we were conducting a “sexist smear campaign” against one of their appointees who is drawing her $250,000 salary from a mostly unrelated state agency? We’ve held plenty of similar hearings about Democratic governors. It’s part of our budgetary oversight process.
Y’all were preparing to zing the governor with an over the top claim that he was stealing money from poor people in the Department of Human Services budget and giving it to his education czar. Other governors may have prostrated themselves humbly before you, but Rauner is unlike anything you’ve ever seen. Yeah, the administration’s response was hugely over the top. But that’s the way they roll. Have you forgotten the 2014 campaign already? These folks are stone cold killers. And they ain’t changing. Plus, it’s just show business. Don’t take it personally.
Republicans: Madigan negotiated privately and in good faith on the fiscal 2015 budget problem without all these silly floor votes and side shows. Why won’t he just sit down with us now and hash out the new budget and the governor’s turnaround agenda?
There was some initial anger over the “Good Friday Massacre,” when the governor unilaterally cut programs that Madigan had inserted, including autism assistance funding. But Madigan got over that because he had unilaterally put that money into the appropriations bill, so he figured he should have cleared it with Rauner. The tide changed in April. Why? Well, one reason is that that’s when local governments around the state began voting on the governor’s draft resolution in support of Rauner’s anti-union agenda. That freaked out labor to no end. Eventually, I think, Madigan decided that Rauner was more interested in campaigning than governing and sided with his fired-up base.
Plus, Madigan is, um . . . odd. He ain’t changing, either. You gotta figure him out if you really want a deal. If you don’t want a deal, fine. Otherwise, start learning.
The subscriber version of this included several additional points of possible compromise.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:13 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Think, don’t sing
Next Post: 20 races at a million each
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Why don’t they have opposite day where they debate support for the other side? Walk a mile in those moccasins.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:40 am
Absolutely the most interesting analysis I have seen yet on this session. Perhaps there is some faint hope for genuine compromise and reform after all- Eventually.
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:41 am
As I said last week, they could have done a deal if EVERYONE was willing to cut it.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:57 am
This post and “Think, don’t sing” are must read articles.
Unfortunately, while these two posts provide a road map to avoid the melt down of state government, the war seems to have started. Both the Speaker and the governor are strong willed men with little to lose.
Each man must be willing to give a little to get what they want. But so far, the public slights seem to have hardened positions.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 9:58 am
In my opinion:
1. The state has to tax pension benefits
2. The state income tax has to increase to 5.5% for at least 5-years.
3. Chicago needs a casino to attract more conventions, particularly during winter months. Should have been constructed at Northerly Island, but too late now.
4. Slot casinos should be allowed at both airports. Great source of new revenue, much of which would come from out of state passengers. Based upon the number of passengers and length of delays, as compared to Nevada, which has casinos in both Vegas and Reno, which still do well despite catering to people either coming to or just leaving from a gambling weekend, this could generate $100 million. The passenger’s plane has been delayed, they have cruised the bookstore and toured the food court, and there’s nothing left. Let them go hug a slot machine. This would not compete with casinos as people have gone through security and aren’t going to leave the airports to go gambling someplace else.
5. Take a hard look at the ridiculous number of property tax exemptions currently on the books. I would even look at instituting a 5% level of assessment for all exempt properties with a market value in excess of $100,000. Until we get the state and local taxes budgets on track, everyone should pay. That should include an income based limit on the $500 property tax credit that taxpayers can use against their state income taxes.
6. Eliminate all no-bid contracts throughout the state for all contracts exceeding $100,000, including home-rule municipalities like Chicago.
7. All new state and municipal employees must go on a 401K plan.
8. Retirement benefits for all public employees can begin at age 55, but at only 10%, rising by that percentage every year until they hit 65, when they are finally entitled to full benefits like the rest of us.
9. Stop being dumb with taxpayers’ money.
Comment by TaxGuy Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:06 am
The governor has a very bully pulpit. He has an unprecedented amount of money to spend on media. He’s a self-described world-class salesman.
Why not go over the head of the GA and spend millions on spots in support of right-to-work, ending prevailing wage, gutting pensions and his worker comp and tort ideas, whatever those are? Back it up with speech after speech?
Yeah, I thought so.
The reality is the governor’s legislative agenda is neither popular nor populist. It benefits the few at the expense of the many. That’s why he didn’t campaign on it. That’s why he can’t pass it.
If he really wants it, he will need to build a majority in the General Assembly, and to do that, he’ll need to sell those ideas to the public.
He’ll need two terms for that, because it’s a very long game.
This ain’t Wisconsin where Scott Walker had a GOP majority in both chambers on Day One.
As a matter of fact, for much of the governor’s agenda, he’s probably going to need some different Republicans, too. The current crop still hasnt proven that they can make a tough vote.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 10:17 am
== 7. All new state and municipal employees must go on a 401K plan. ==
That would actually be a bad move because the current ‘Tier 2′ plan costs the State nothing, zero, nada and actually helps to slightly pay back the underfunding for all the years. A 401K would require some level of matching and, for those not currently past of SS, the State to start contributing the 6.2% employer portion of SS.
== 8. Retirement benefits for all public employees can begin at age 55, but at only 10%, rising by that percentage every year until they hit 65, when they are finally entitled to full benefits like the rest of us. ==
While not that drastic, ‘Tier 2′ made changes like that. You can pass those changes for new hires, but the IL SC has already said current employees can’t have their pension contract altered.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 11:06 am
The “causation” issue in workmen’s comp is tricky. If what is meant (and I haven’t seen it articulated well anywhere, much less by the governor) is establishing fault on the part of the employer, such a change will threaten the constitutionality of the act. It was only held constitutional to begin with by giving the employees something in exchange for taking away their common law right to sue. This change would appear to try to renege on the original deal.
Comment by JackD Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 11:07 am
The reality is the governor’s legislative agenda is neither popular nor populist. It benefits the few at the expense of the many. That’s why he didn’t campaign on it. That’s why he can’t pass it.
Read that again!
Governor Rauner did not run on his “Turnaround Agenda”. He was asked pointedly about his position on unions - and he didn’t tell the truth, did he? He would have lost the election.
What we are witnessing could be what happens when a gubernatorial candidate is dishonest during the campaign to such an extent that he can’t hold back a week after his inauguration about his true intentions.
When Bruce Rauner, governor launched his RTW anti-union proposals he turned his back upon BRUCE RAUNER, candidate. Anyone who voted for him either snickered at his deceit, or felt duped by him. See that GOP support across Illinois? If it wasn’t bought for or beyond cynical, they weren’t publically supporting the new governor, were they?
Governor Rauner is playing politics and trying to shove down our throats politically what Illinoisans never voted for when he won eight months ago. His millionaire supporters seem to be the only folks who could live more comfortably in a world where your wallet was more important than your citizenship.
Bruce Rauner could not get elected today, based upon what he has finally revealed himself to be - worse than any Quinn campaign stereotype and dishonest.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 11:29 am
== Governor Rauner did not run on his “Turnaround Agenda”. ==
Probably a more accurate version of that would be:
Governor Rauner did not run on his “Turnaround Agenda” in public in front of the voters.
I have no doubt Rauner ran on that agenda in front of his 1% constituency and now he’s confusing that approval with public support.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Rich, excellent format and content. “These guys are stone cold” should be painted above the entrance to 207.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 12:19 pm
JackD - The causation issue isn’t nearly as tricky as you think and many states have addressed this issue. It can be the slight difference between establishing that your injury “occurred” at work as opposed to being “caused” by your work. Proving that your injury “occurred” at work is a much easier standard as it only requires you to be working on the date of the alleged injury. Establishing that your injury was “caused” by your work simply means that you have to prove that you were at greater risk by being at your place of employment. It doesn’t fundamentally undermine the no-fault nature of workers’ comp. It simply requires the employee to be able to demonstrate that their work put them at greater risk.
Comment by pundent Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 12:26 pm
I do not think for Democrats to move closer to Governor Rauner on just workman’s comp issues will be enough of a victory for the Governor to raise taxes. Clearly he wants more than that including at least aspects of the right to work zones and many of the restrictions on public sector union bargaining rights to offset the property tax freeze he wants implemented.
I agree that the Speaker has moved further away from Governor Rauner on openness to discussing a number of issues in his turn around agenda. But this came after having an epiphany over the idea that the Governor was not just going to try to govern, but to use his office to break the back of Democrat power, it’s a bigger and deeper agenda than that Governor Rauner was more interested in campaigning than governing.
I honestly don’t believe the Speaker thought the Governor’s campaign rhetoric was any more than just that. I think the Speaker came to the realization that Governor Rauner meant what he said on the campaign trail and is willing to take great risks in destabilizing Democrat rule in Illinois. Presumably at some point a compromise will be reached and a FY 16 budget will be agreed to. But Governor Rauner will attack yet again and the Speaker I think knows this.
Comment by Rod Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 2:05 pm
===including at least aspects of the right to work zones===
Not these days.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Pundent, does that mean if there is a slip and fall, the employee has to show some problem with the floor?
Comment by JackD Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 2:24 pm
JackD - Generally speaking the employee has to show that they were at greater risk than the general public or that the workplace somehow contributed to their injury. “Tripping over your own two feet” would not be compensable. Tripping on a loose tile would. Where things get murky is so called “cumulative trauma”. A 50 year-old man has a bad back which could be related to his job that requires lifting or could be the result of being a 50 year-old man. Another challenge is the aggravation of a pre-existing injury and the debate on how much can or should be attributed to the new injury. But these are all issues that other states have successfully dealt with.
Comment by pundent Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:05 pm
I don’t pretend to be an expert on comp but I do recall number of cases where the issues you pose are already litigable under the act. I think the real complaint the employers have is with the fact finding done by the hearing officers as opposed to the law itself. Repetitive lifting or repetitive motion cases allegedly leading to carpal tunnel already require a showing of “cause”in the sense of proving that the activity brought about or contributed to bringing about the condition. Looking for cause beyond that is really trying to use a negligence of the employer standard, or so it seems to me. It would be helpful to see what language is proposed if indeed any has been.
Comment by JackD Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:47 pm
TaxGuy - How many of your proposals DIRECTLY affect you? None? 50% All? From your writing my guess would be none! Which is exactly the problem with Bruce’s agenda. GOP view appears to be ‘take from those with the least $ or influence’, i.e., easy pickings, or a Sheriff of Notingham approach.
Speaker Madigan has created multiple programs over the years which benefit the people with the least $ or influence. Speaker Madigan’s actions are those of compassionate communities. Bruce with his feudalistic view prefers to destroy any community or association since then he can be Lord of the Manor!.
Comment by IL17Progressive Monday, Jun 8, 15 @ 3:54 pm