Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Retirement system belatedly admits huge Mautino error
Next Post: Take what you can get, I guess
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz did some digging and came up with some of the framework put together by Senate President John Cullerton and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno over the holidays…
Rauner and the Republicans reportedly would get the term limits the governor desperately wants, but only for legislative leaders, not the rank-and-file workers. And those term limits wouldn’t kick in for a few years, so Madigan—who can’t live forever, can he?—would still have some time.
The deal would also lack the permanent property-tax freeze that Rauner wants, but would have a two-year one. That would allow time for a legislative panel to redraft the state’s school-funding code, something that Democrats have pushing.
Also in the package, I’m told, are some relatively modest but face-saving changes in the workers’ comp system. And unspecified changes in state worker pensions, perhaps the “consideration” mode that Cullerton has been pushing for awhile.
In exchange, adequate votes would be guaranteed to boost the state income tax back to around the 5 percent level it was at under ex-Gov. Pat Quinn, with a new statewide tax on sugary drinks tossed in to raise more money.
As I told subscribers earlier this week, the personal income tax level would be set at 4.9 percent - just a hair under the 5 percent level when Rauner was elected governor.
There’s plenty more, and the package is expected to be unveiled on Monday. If you want more deets, you can always subscribe.
* So far, neither the governor nor the House Speaker have overtly dumped on the plan, which is a positive sign.
Since Madigan was cut out of the Senate deal-making, he’ll likely want to put his own stamp on whatever emerges (some Democrats have suggested moving the statewide elections to presidential years, for example).
But putting his own stuff in there isn’t necessarily bad. As long as Madigan doesn’t kill off too much or insert too many poison pills, whatever he does will be a de facto counter-offer to the Senate’s counter-offer to Rauner. And that’s progress.
On the other hand, Madigan could try to shave votes off in the Senate or refuse to move anything in the House. I don’t think his members, who’ve barely been paid in 7 months and are growing more sick and tired of this war with every passing day, will love that idea, however. The union stuff that I’ve been briefed on by folks in both parties isn’t horrendous. And it doesn’t appear to be a blatant attack on the middle class (except for the raising their taxes part, that is).
If Madigan does kill it, Rauner can then blame Madigan yet again for not playing ball even when the Democratic Senate President wants to act like an adult.
Of course, there’s always the very real possibility that Rauner might try to kick the legs out from under it as well. He should resist that temptation because he can’t escape blame forever. And he should also keep his own comment in mind from this week…
“Both sides need to want an agreement in order to get one,” Rauner told WGN’s Tahman Bradley during a one-on-one interview. “I certainly want an agreement and I`ll be flexible on everything.”
Then do so.
It’s time to move forward.
*** UPDATE *** Rauner was asked about this topic in southern Illinois today. He said he was briefed by Leader Radogno two nights ago and added that he didn’t yet have all the details and said he wouldn’t comment on those details (including the tax hike) because the talks are “still in flux” and that the two leaders need “space to continue to negotiate.” He also said this…
“I’m heartened by that. I’m optimistic they’re negotiating in good faith to come up with changes to our system so it’s not broken anymore… They’re working on some really important things that can all help us get balanced budgets for the long term. So, I’m optimistic. It’s gonna take work, but I’m very supportive of the Democrats and Republicans continuing to negotiate and trying to get some solutions.”
* Raw audio…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:35 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Retirement system belatedly admits huge Mautino error
Next Post: Take what you can get, I guess
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I believe we are moving backwards. Raising taxes without any proposed spending cuts? Tax, spend, repeat.
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:50 pm
Well, if it happens,I always figured the Repubs and Rauner would never agree to a tax increase as high as or higher than Quinn’s. Imagine the ads.
And yes, if it happens, it is a hit on the middle class. But given all the publicity about the impasse, voters can hardly say they didn’t have a clue it was coming.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:51 pm
Please.
Comment by illinoised Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:53 pm
Moving the statewide elections back to presidential years is a back to the future type of maneuver. This was the norm until 1978.
Comment by Ward Heeler Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:53 pm
===Raising taxes without any proposed spending cuts?===
Pretty certain they’re gonna have to make some cuts to make this work. Be patient.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:54 pm
Term limits is such a dumb idea, and in this case it’s little more than using fake populism to mount an attack on a political enemy.
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:57 pm
Looks like it’s shaping up to be a solution that is universally disliked, but equally unpalatable to all. If they all feel the same way, i.e. “we got too little and gave too much”, it’s got a chance.
Just a spoonful of sugary tax makes the medicine go down….and the bill go up.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 12:58 pm
Love the judgments on labor policy Rich. Then whats next? Just kick labor a little in order for him to do what he was elected to do? Brilliant!
Comment by Obamas Puppy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:00 pm
===Just kick labor a little===
Nah. Just apply some rules statewide that already exist for one region.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:02 pm
What about spending cuts?
Comment by Ron Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:03 pm
Cullerton’s plan amounts to giving government workers a choice between keeping more generous yearly cost-of-living increases or continuing to count pay raises in calculating their retirement benefits.
Does this pass Constitutional muster for existing employees? I don’t see how. Maybe someone can explain.
Comment by Federalist Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:05 pm
===Does this pass Constitutional muster for existing employees? I don’t see how===
Then stop worrying.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:07 pm
As Rich says, relax. We’re not going to know if there are spending cuts until something is put on paper. I have to say I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in a while.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:10 pm
==Just kick labor a little in order for him to do what he was elected to do? ==
C’mon dude. Every category of resident and worker is getting kicked a little. Sheesh man, other people live here too.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:10 pm
- The union stuff that I’ve been briefed on by folks in both parties isn’t horrendous. -
Reasonable people may think the union stuff isn’t horrendous. I just hope those who use labor relations for political gain don’t see it as a chance to attack and kill the momentum of the Senate plan.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:10 pm
Dems should look at trading “Leader Term Limits” for statewides on the POTUS cycle as huge in the trade.
Just sayin’
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:10 pm
Oops. 1:10 was me.
Comment by Saluki Matt Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Will be interesting to see if Cullerton holds Rauner to the no pension reform until a deal is reached with AFSCME.
Will also be interesting to see the final wording on any proposed pension reform. I have read Cullerton’s previous proposals and I agree they appear to be unconstitutional (but my opinion doesn’t count for much).
Comment by ANONANON Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Federalist you are correct the “Consideration plan” is equivalent having the choice of being shot in the arm or stomach when robbed. Well I’d like to not get shot? Sorry that’s not a choice. It diminishes your benefit.
Comment by Muni Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Sorry, couldn’t resist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMRrNY0pxfM
Comment by Columbo Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:11 pm
===Does this pass Constitutional muster for existing employees?===
Repeat…other people live here too. You know like many millions of others.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:11 pm
I’ll reserve judgement on the pension stuff until we see the language.
As to the question of cuts, we have de facto cuts now and the math isn’t working. It’s fairly obvious to me that there will have to be some cuts to make the math work at the 4.9% plus sugar tax level. Remember, the other day you had people tossing around 9% and 10% rates as necessary to dig us out of our hole in 10 years. So 4.9% plus sugar won’t do it without cuts.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:13 pm
===Repeat…other people live here too. You know like many millions of others.===
Millions or dozens… The pesky constitution is just that pesky.
The constitution is just what it is. Protecting one’s rights, protecting all rights.
Let’s see how it plays.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:15 pm
Would somebody please try to explain the term “face-saving”? Whose face? How saved? Does this save face for those who insisted that it was necessary to do it this way or for those who insisted that it wasn’t? Two years of agony, suffering and near chaos was about saving face? Face saving and meaningful positive compromise are not the same thing, and face saving should never be a valid principle of government.
Comment by Just Me Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:16 pm
== Does this pass Constitutional muster for existing employees? ==
Devil will be in the details. From what little we’ve seen to date, I would say it probably won’t be, but the courts will have the final word.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:17 pm
== face saving ==
Able to say you got part of what you wanted, or you prevented some damage.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:18 pm
If Property Tax Freeze language is still being worked out, please freeze everything on the tax bill.
-Taxing districts
-Taxing district’s rate
-and something to prevent a jacking of the Assessed Values to backdoor more money.
Comment by cdog Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:18 pm
Hoping they have not omitted higher ed and human services in this round. We can’t take much more of the status quo.
Comment by Higher Ed Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:19 pm
I’ll be interested in seeing the “savings” to be assumed from pension “reform.” Because I truly doubt Cullerton’s plan is constitutional. But, like Quinn’s pension reform, it does serve a temporary purpose.And, like smoke and mirrors budgeting and borrowing, highly predictable. There really are only so many things they can do to get out of this budget situation.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:19 pm
Please and thank you. Politeness has its limits.
Comment by Biker Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:22 pm
There really are only so many things they can do to get out of this budget situation.”
Cutting state programs should be the first item up.
Comment by Ron Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:24 pm
To the update. Good. Let some momentum build.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:25 pm
How will changing statewide elections to POTUS years work. If Rauner is re-elected in 2018 will he have to run again in 2020?
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:27 pm
“And it doesn’t appear to be a blatant attack on the middle class (except for the raising their taxes part, that is).”
1) What’s the non-blatant “attack”?
2) The tax increase is going to be a REALLY hard lift for many rank & file GOPers. After all, what are they getting here? And Rauner’s going to own a tax increase but, again, is getting some chicken $@#$ in return.
3) Soda tax?! C’mon that’s just dumb.
4) Only thing that looks decent is the 2-year property tax freeze.
Comment by Deft Wing Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:28 pm
===Dems should look at trading “Leader Term Limits” for statewides on the POTUS cycle as huge in the trade.===
It’s probably what they would do. The difference? The population cares about the former and the population caused the latter to occur before Jim Thompson’s first run against Mike Howlett. Every smart state has alternated this.
That won’t happen. If they even try to bring that up, there will be huge problems on both sides of the political fence. Just saying.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:28 pm
===personal income tax level would be set at 4.9 percent ===
Oh. so we’re still going to have a structural gap between revenues and spending, that’s fun!
Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:29 pm
==but the courts will have the final word.===
So true RNUG. There’s plenty of disagreement about what the Illinois Constitution actually says or means.
There’s no disagreement with regard to who reads it and rules on it.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:32 pm
–How will changing statewide elections to POTUS years work. If Rauner is re-elected in 2018 will he have to run again in 2020?–
It probably could not affect a current term for Constitutional reasons. Most likely a Constitutional amendment would be required since I believe the 1978 switch was in the 1970 Constitution. Pass an amendment stating that the next term of office would only be two years, then every election that follows would be for four years.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:34 pm
I also agree with OW that moving the elections to Presidential years is of much greater value than leader term limits in a horse trade.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:35 pm
===Every smart state has alternated this.===
So if a state doesn’t have this they’re dumb?
Ugh.
It will pass because if it’s part of the agreed to package with structured Roll Calls, that’s what it will take.
That and Rauner’s signature. Unless Rauner wants to blow the deal up.
We know the Raunerite GA members have no say. That has been proven, LOL!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:35 pm
I don’t see how Rauner can approve this and not be condemned by his supporters.
Comment by Liberty Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:35 pm
Rich, trying to be patient. But continuing to do the same and expecting different results is the definition of……
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:36 pm
Thank you Mr. Burgundy.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:37 pm
It’s a big win for Rauner if the Senate passes this. No matter what happens afterward.
Comment by DuPage Bard Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:42 pm
“Union stuff…..isn’t horrendous”
I knew labor would get sold down the river. Go ahead and strike the deal. Save what you can.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:42 pm
“The union stuff that I’ve been briefed on by folks in both parties isn’t horrendous.”
Even if it just a minor tweak or two, I fear it might be a problem. Rauner has succeeded in radicalizing many Dem members when it comes to protecting collective bargaining rights. A whole bunch of Dem members who have voted for minor changes in the past (like the bill to increase the CTU strike vote threshold,) or have voted against labor on pension reform, won’t take votes like that now. Rauner has redifined the lines in the battlefield.
But I don’t see Rauner being on board unless he can claim one face-saving win on collective bargaining — even if it’s very minor. This, as much as a tax increase, is a major obstacle to passing a bill.
Comment by Roman Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:44 pm
How will changing statewide elections to POTUS years work. If Rauner is re-elected in 2018 will he have to run again in 2020?
Thompson won in 1976 and then won again in 1978 when Illinois moved to off-year gubernatorial elections
Comment by tominchicago Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:46 pm
==Cutting state programs should be the first item up==
Can I have an example of what state programs you think are irrelevant? And are they only irrelevant to you?
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:49 pm
+++
===Every smart state has alternated this.===
So if a state doesn’t have this they’re dumb?+++
In a word; yes.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:50 pm
== Thompson won in 1976 and then won again in 1978 when Illinois moved to off-year gubernatorial elections ==
That transition was laid out in the 1970 Constitution.
I would expect any new amendment would lay out the transition path; I could see the shift being delayed to 2024 with 2022 being a 2 year term.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:51 pm
“I`ll be flexible on everything.”
What is unsaid “As long as you pass my TA. Otherwise, forget it.”
Comment by Huh? Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:52 pm
===How will changing statewide elections to POTUS years work.===
Not even worth discussing.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:52 pm
The “consideration model” has more problems than just constitutionality. The state has had very few pay raises for non-union employees in the last decade and the Governor’s union contract calls for no raises for union employees, either. Unless you include mandatory pay raises that exceed the present value of the reduction in pension benefits, rationale employees will stick with their Tier I benefits. Why give them up in exchange for raises that may never be granted?
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:52 pm
===I don’t see how Rauner can approve this and not be condemned by his supporters.===
Raunerism isn’t based on actual ideals, Raunerism is based on leverage for what Bruce Rauner demands.
- Liberty -
It’s never been about Rauner’s supporters. That’s the red herring. It’s about Raunerism. Whatever Rauner can get leveraging.
Sorry.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:54 pm
Thanks RNUG. I guess the perpetual election cycle is here to stay. Sigh.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:56 pm
===In a word; yes.===
That’s not proving anything. Sorry. Do better.
===Not even worth discussing.===
If it’s in the deal, we’ll do more than discussing, lol
So… why are those states dumb again?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 1:58 pm
The sugary drinks tax is like the several cigarette tax increases that we’ve had in Illinois over the years. There won’t be much political risk in passing it which is what legislators like.
At least we have some positive news which is most welcome. I’m hoping this can be accomplished and the sooner the better. A 4.9% income tax rate won’t be enough unless there are also significant budget cuts.
Comment by The Dude Abides Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:05 pm
“Can I have an example of what state programs you think are irrelevant? And are they only irrelevant to you?”
Everything needs to be cut. Easiest way to start.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:06 pm
==Dems should look at trading “Leader Term Limits” for statewides on the POTUS cycle as huge in the trade.==
Yes, if that comes to pass- and let’s be clear, right now, Madigan hasn’t even asked for it yet, let alone gotten it- Democrats “win” this deal, no question.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:07 pm
==The sugary drinks tax is like the several cigarette tax increases that we’ve had in Illinois over the years.==
And I bet, just like they did with the cigarette tax, they will expect all this new tax money to roll in, spend it before they get it, and then act shocked that people bought less and therefore didn’t put as much into the taxes. Then there will be another shortfall. Amazes me how they always seem so surprised.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:10 pm
==So… why are those states dumb again?==
I thought we were supposed to be MORE like Indiana!
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:11 pm
===Everything needs to be cut. Easiest way to start.===
Argue like an adult, please.
You said cuts. Ok, where?
If you say “everywhere”, explain federal money implications, mandates, and constitutional and legislative requirements and circumventing them.
(Sigh)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:12 pm
====Dems should look at trading “Leader Term Limits” for statewides on the POTUS cycle as huge in the trade.
Other than Madigan, I think most Dems would be find with leadership term limits–most of us would prefer to avoid another Madigan. While he can be incredibly useful (see Rauner, B). He’s stopped Democratic ideas often over the years. Moving statewides to POTUS years is a double win.
Comment by ArchPundit Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:13 pm
I wonder how Cullerton’s consideration model will deal with members in TRS who are already in the pipeline to retire in two or three years? These individuals, specifically teachers in the suburbs have their raises already agreed too and calculated until they retire.
Comment by JGG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:18 pm
As part of the deal, legalize weed and tax it. Stops some of the reason for the population outflows, creates an incentive for some inflows, and raises money (while reducing criminal justice costs). And sales of Doritos will sky rocket! Think of the sales tax revenues from all the 7-11 stores. A win-win-win!
Comment by Concerned Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:19 pm
They’re gonna want to be careful with a sugary drinks tax. Cook County’s new one is already set to raise the price of a case of soda (or pop if you prefer) almost 3 bucks.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:21 pm
RNUG what about people already retired? Any threat to their cola? No consideration model for them.
Comment by Greybeard Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:22 pm
==C’mon dude. Every category of resident and worker is getting kicked a little. Sheesh man, other people live here too.==
These comments drive me bonkers because they seem not to realize that when you kick labor AND raise taxes, you’re kicking labor twice
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:23 pm
What I’d be looking for in a property tax freeze is your current taxes don’t go up at all during the period in question while you own the house.
Other states have done this, I believe, maybe Calif? In any case, the burden falls on buyers so the real estate industry might balk.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:25 pm
**rationale employees will stick with their Tier I benefits. Why give them up in exchange for raises that may never be granted?***
This would tend to go after TRS as teachers tend to get pay raises every year.
Comment by Person 8 Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:25 pm
So with this deal, that Rauner likes, does he stop the slash and burn politics? I doubt it.
But now he can slash and burn everyone and say he’s able to compromise. Rauner 2018
Comment by DuPage Bard Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:29 pm
++
If it’s in the deal, we’ll do more than discussing, lol
So… why are those states dumb again? +++
No one even suggested this that I could see…..besides you.
Why on Earth would anyone agree to this? You are one of those constantly harping on the Dems advantage in Illinois in presidential years. RJ Daley lamented that the Dems would go a generation without a Governor when the switch took place (he was right)
States like self determination and separation from National elections for their statewide tickets. Now you’re just arguing to argue.
Despite your amazing gem of an idea, no serious Democrat would even bring this up. Just unserious Republicans I guess.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:29 pm
On the move to prez-year for statewides, to borrow from Richard J, when the statewides were moved off-prez in Con-Con:
“You won’t see a Republican elected governor in Illinois for 20 years.” Or SOS, or AG, or Compt….
Still, it would be phased in long after Rauner is gone. So it’s conceivable he might go for it, if the price is right.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:29 pm
On the “And it doesn’t appear to be a blatant attack on the middle class (except for the raising their taxes part, that is).”
Rich, Why is raising taxes an attack? The money is used for public schools , universities, help for the disabled , etc.The attack on the middle class and others is a lack of revenue to fund those programs.
Comment by Truthteller Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:32 pm
Methinks Cullerton will agree to run a pension bill that he knows will be ruled unconstitutional (he’s done it before,) make it look like a concession to Rauner, and then tell labor “don’t worry, it’s not really a concession if it never actually happens.”
Comment by Telly Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:33 pm
Sling, I think you mean Democrat.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:43 pm
===No one even suggested this that I could see…..besides you.===
Oh - A Guy -, reading is fundamental.
Rich Miller, reporting, in the Post itself?
===Since Madigan was cut out of the Senate deal-making, he’ll likely want to put his own stamp on whatever emerges (some Democrats have suggested moving the statewide elections to presidential years, for example).===
===States like self determination and separation from National elections for their statewide tickets. Now you’re just arguing to argue.===
That’s an opinion, you said “smart state”, again, opinion. I’m confused what makes it smart or dumb, factually.
===Despite your amazing gem of an idea, no serious Democrat would even bring this up. Just unserious Republicans I guess.===
… and yet… Rich’s post, lol
I’m also looking at this as Raunerism needing wins. Rauner will be long gone, he first care about Republicans, just his agenda. You know that, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:43 pm
== no serious Democrat would even bring this up==
Literally every Dem I know wants this.
As well they should. IL has been more Democratic than the country as a whole in every POTUS election since 1980. Since 1992, every Dem POTUS candidate has won IL by double digits.
At this point, I’d still be surprised if it happens now. But there will be a HUGE push for this next time Dems have the trifecta in state government.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:50 pm
Good signs, but a tough deal to close.
There will be further spending cuts along with the 4.9 rate for the budget to be “balanced.” No other way the arithmetic works.
Radogno is a fair, smart dealer, regardless of what generic talking points she occasionally feels moved to broadcast. These are pretty skimpy fig leaves for Rauner, to cover his support for the tax increase. Now would come the real political messaging challenges for him.
Comment by walker Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:52 pm
No Guy, read harder.
Richard J. said “no Democrat” when the move was made to off-prez. Borrowing from that, I said “no Republican” if the move is made to prez-year.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:56 pm
I hope the progress is real and we can get a budget.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:06 pm
“There will be further spending cuts along with the 4.9 rate for the budget to be “balanced.”
Good
Comment by Ron Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:08 pm
Where is labor getting “kicked” in this plan?
Comment by BK Bro Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:10 pm
Wouldn’t GA republicans balk at the election year change, no matter what else is included in a deal? Wouldnt Rauner be selling them out to get a deal done? I know he did it a couple years ago with the ed funding, but that seems like a real kick in the you-know-where.
Comment by Lincoln Clay Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:11 pm
== RNUG what about people already retired? Any threat to their cola? No consideration model for them. ==
For retirees, the AAI is safe.
It was quite clear the last go around that retirees are off limits except for some possible tinkering with the health insurance co-pays / deductibles / dependent cost and even some coverage items. And on the coverage, they already got most of what they could get by forcing the Medicare Advantage plans on the retirees.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:14 pm
Substantively, this looks like a huge loss for the Governor. At times like this, it is nice to have $50 million to spin a loss into a win.
Even with the money, I still don’t see how he runs again after signing off on a 4.5+ tax rate. That was the heart of his last campaign.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:14 pm
===Wouldn’t GA republicans balk at the election year change, no matter what else is included in a deal?===
That’s adorbs. The last two years have proven, Rauner owns the switches. Period. They aren’t their own switches.
===Wouldnt Rauner be selling them out to get a deal done?===
Like the signing the K-12 after having the Raunerite members going “Red”
Have you been paying attention?
===I know he did it a couple years ago with the ed funding, but that seems like a real kick in the you-know-where.===
Rauner cares less about the members now.
What has changed? LOL!
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:16 pm
== Other states have done this, I believe, maybe Calif? ==
Yes, CA did through a voter ballot inititive. It’s also caused some local revenue problems, so it’s a double-edged sword.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:17 pm
==Wouldn’t GA republicans balk at the election year change, no matter what else is included in a deal?==
Maybe, but November’s results were pretty OK for them.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:17 pm
All this Rauner destruction of the state for a one tenth of one percent income tax cut plus a new tax on sugary soft drinks. Plus term limits, plus WC cuts, plus a 2 year property tax freeze set to run out right after Rauner will be re-elected. This looks like an almost total defeat for the Democrats, a major victory for Raunerites.
Do they really expect Madigan to roll over and play dead?
Comment by DuPage Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:19 pm
Term limits for leadership, I believe. Which is silly.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:27 pm
I’m not sure why my post never made it but I was suggesting some cuts in fees and other taxes could make a higher income tax more palatable. It would also serve to cut some services.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:27 pm
The decision as to whether or not the pension changes are constitutional will be long after the budget is applied. As Rich said, don’t worry.
As to changing the election cycle, it will save counties money and reduce property tax increases to consolidate elections. No idea about political ramifications.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:35 pm
==Literally every Dem I know wants this.===
lol. Literally every Dem I know (and 1 Republican) want a lot of things. They’d like there to be only one party in the state.
It’s just “the people” who don’t want it. You know…them.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:37 pm
One thing about moving elections — that is going to be a major problem for IL Congressional Dems. Right now, they’ve got either a Gov race or a White House race to push turnout.
Low turnout typically is not good for Democrats. This could really cost them.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:40 pm
===It’s just “the people” who don’t want it. You know…them===
It’s - A Guy -, “The Voice of the People”? That it?
If Rauner wants a deal, and leaders term limited, this could be a reality, with lots of Raunerites “Green” and Rauner’s signature.
Oh, did you see where Rich had the election switch in the post, or…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:41 pm
JGG, just a guess, but they may place the cost of pre-retirement pay increases on the employer and/or reduce the amount the State will cover to COLA instead of 6%.
Reasonable people may disagree on the constitutionality of this approach.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:42 pm
==Literally every Dem I know (and 1 Republican) want a lot of things.==
Including this, so you ought to stop trying to speak for Democrats. ‘Cause clearly, serious Democrats *are* bringing this up.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:53 pm
==Right now, they’ve got either a Gov race or a White House race to push turnout.==
Those Gov races don’t drive Dem turnout all that well. Just ask Enyart, Schneider, or Callis.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:54 pm
Sugar tax. Great. What will they tax next to plug holes in the budget…I mean help curb obesity and keep us healthy?
Comment by SKI Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 3:55 pm
Thanks for the insight.
Comment by Greybeard Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:00 pm
===- wordslinger - Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:56 pm:
No Guy, read harder.
Richard J. said “no Democrat” when the move was made to off-prez. Borrowing from that, I said “no Republican” if the move is made to prez-year.===
I have no idea why I didn’t get it immediately. It was so clearly stated. Oy, dude.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:01 pm
- The Dude Abides - Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 2:05 pm:
“The sugary drinks tax is like the several cigarette tax increases that we’ve had in Illinois over the years. There won’t be much political risk in passing it which is what legislators like.”
Once passed, there will be more increases which will reduce people drinking it or just buying it from out of state. This will cause a revenue shortage and will result in more soda tax increases. It will be funny when a 12 pack of pop costs more than a 12 pack of beer.
Glad I broke my soda habit last year….
Comment by SKI Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:02 pm
I’m trying to feel optimistic, but I can’t let go of the suspicion that Rauner or Madigan will succumb to the temptation to sink the deal. Rauner might get greedy and start demanding more concessions; Madigan could simply ignore the deal and refuse to allow a House vote on it.
I want to believe they’ll do the right thing, but the last two years have demonstrated that they’re both more interesting in political victory than actual problem-solving.
Comment by tobias846 Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:03 pm
==‘Cause clearly, serious Democrats *are* bringing this up.===
Oh, I’m sorry. Could you please identify a serious one?
/s
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:04 pm
Anon 3:40, speaking about impact on Congressional races, we me. Sorry about that. I should look over that top section before posting.
In Arsenal’s post on the topic — as bad they did, I suspect they would have done even worse with reduced turnout.
IL Dems may not care about Congress, or maybe they think they can draw such an amazing map that it will not matter.
I have my doubts.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:06 pm
==Oh, I’m sorry. Could you please identify a serious one?==
Rich’s source.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:10 pm
*sources, sorry. Forgot he used the plural “some Democrats”.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Jan 6, 17 @ 4:11 pm