Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** On special elections, lawmaker pay and stipends
Next Post: The Senate’s “grand bargain” pops out into the open
Posted in:
* Do you think a deal to end the impasse is probable within the next 60 days? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:25 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** On special elections, lawmaker pay and stipends
Next Post: The Senate’s “grand bargain” pops out into the open
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Zero trust means zero deal. No matter how many times Cullerton slashes the sticker price or promises no money down and zero APR for 60 months.
Comment by Signal and Noise Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:28 pm
Possible? Yes. Probable? No. But I’m hopeful anyway.
Comment by LessAnon? Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:29 pm
I don’t see this getting resolved in the foreseeable future (unless the employee paychecks get stopped and a widespread general governmental shutdown ensues - in which case it might get fixed relatively quickly - say within 30 days).
Comment by titan Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:29 pm
Voted no because it has gotten to the point where the only people who could benefit from the impasse coming to a close are the less fortunate among us, and they are simply the cost of doing business to the egos that pull the strings.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:30 pm
Hasn’t been one in the past 730, so I’m not especially optimistic of one in the next 60. (But I’m absolutely willing to be proven wrong on this.)
Comment by thunderspirit Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:31 pm
Voted No.
I mean were talkin’ really big EGOs!
Comment by WhoKnew Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:34 pm
While the framework Senate leadership put together is promising, it doesn’t deal with the underlying politics. I don’t know how you craft a deal that does. That’s why I say no.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:34 pm
Not a chance. Why?
$50 Million reasons why.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:34 pm
I don’t believe it is probable, and I second the references to $50 million as to the reason why. I have tried to explain to everyone I meet about this impasse that a solution will require patience, not passion, and $50 million is an awfully passionate embrace of a set of ideals.
Comment by EVanstonian Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:42 pm
No chance. Can’t wait to hear his State of the State address (Jan 25th?) to blame Madigan and tout his “meaningful structural reforms”.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:42 pm
Voted No and would like to be proven incorrect in my assessment. However, one of Monique’s tweets tends to cast a pall on hope: “There are more amendments to come that would link the bills, so if one fails to become law they all fail to become law.”
If the Senate and House, both parties, can agree to a framework that works for them, AND will continue to stand together through vetoes, then MAYBE there’s a chance. But, also keep in mind, Rauner still has the State of the State and Budget addresses to deliver within these coming 60 days. Therein lies a great deal of the unknown while post-its and “starter kits” continue to be “manufactured”.
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:46 pm
No. Continuous perfidy has a cost.
On the other hand
DEMS moving to extend the corporate money grab of EDGE can be seen as a confidence building gesture. If extended then a deal/grand bargain is coming. Disgustingly both sides want to get their hogs into the trough to eat up any revenue to justify the austerity to come.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:46 pm
My understanding is that there’s no time for the House to pass the Senate’s bills, and thus they pretty much vanish into the either, right?
If that’s the case, I vote “no”. We don’t need to “Send a message” again.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:49 pm
I think’s is probable because pressure is building on the home front and Cullerton and Radogno don’t do things for grins. I have to believe they want to get something done. Rauner seems to be supportive at this point. I get that some may not get all that they want, but what’s the old adage about a reasonable deal - if everyone is unhappy then…
Comment by KAA-boom Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:51 pm
Yes, but I suspect Rauner is going to need a bit more.
Right now, there not much for him to save face. It looks like a huge loss.
Still, he’s in a tough position. As much as he would like his “turnaround agenda”, at some point the state of the state is bad that he needs to cut a deal.
I suspect this will be the time. If it is not done within 60 days, I don’t see any deal between now and the next Governor.
Not to digress, but as part of it he’s going to need to sign a serious contract with Proft. The biggest block to a deal is Rauner’s legitimate concern that the GOP will turn against him. He’s got to nail down his own flank.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:51 pm
Sadly, no.
Though I admire the efforts of the Senate bi-partisan trial balloon bill package (demonstrating that bi-partisanship still exists in Springfield) the end is not yet in sight. Until the Speaker feels that the Governor has given up on his Turnaround Crusade, there will be no agreement.
I sincerely hope to be wrong…
Comment by buffalo soldier Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:54 pm
No, Rauner and other GOPers have gone down the road of #BossMadigan too far to turn back now.
Comment by Highland Il Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:55 pm
Impasse? That word is a misdirection. Unless or until the current governor submits his budget, as he is required to do, the state will not have a budget. Except for continuing appropriations, there is currently no spending authority, which means no paychecks for state employees including the governor’s staff and funding for any state function. 60 days takes us to March 10, and when was aby state budget ever passed and signed in March?
Comment by My New Handle Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:55 pm
I think something will happen - although my guess would be that big movements are likely to occur in early April before the Easter/Passover break. I would love to see something sooner but with a new crop of Senators and Reps coming in - not a lot but enough to impact future actions - I have a hard time believing that anything would happen right off the bat in the 100th General Assembly.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:55 pm
No.
It Is IL.
Comment by sal-says Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 12:57 pm
I voted no. Any deal from the Democrat side indicated by President Cullerton is doomed to failure. President Cullerton seems obsessed with being what is called in law school the “reasonable man.” He is far too prone to seek compromise at every step of the way and using that approach with Governor Rauner has led to the President Cullerton having numerous overtures made to the Governor thrown back in his face while Speaker Madigan simply nods in acknowledgement of yet another fiasco.
Comment by Rod Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:00 pm
No. Political agendas have taken precedent for some time now over governing agendas.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:02 pm
Rauner doesn’t want a deal. Sure seems like Madigan doesn’t want a deal. So no deal.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:07 pm
Voted no. From the perspective of out political deciders, what’s the rush. The next big deadline is the end of the fiscal year, so I’d see them aiming for that, or maybe a little after, so they still can get some summer vacation.
Who is going to take the biggest political hit for the tax increase? Sine neither side can be sure, might not be wise to let this drag on past this summer. Gives folks time to get used to the newest cut in their take home pay. And if Trump puts through his tax cut, maybe folks won’t feel it at all.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:10 pm
I voted “Yes”
“Why?!?!”
The DeGroots and Yaffes in their ridiculousness and usefulness to the politics are the pawns Rauner uses for leverage Rauner feels he has. Both DeGroot and Yaffe are only useful when there are still windows for movements.
Knowing that, and ignoring the State Raunerite Party, the reality is that in 60 days, state universities need to prepare for the Fall. Prisons and K-12 need budgetary knowns to move forward, be it for the next week to buy supplies, or to open doors for education come the fall for all Illinois students.
In the next 60 days, this government will face a collapse of responsibility that can only be described as a purposeful damaging of the function of a state in its required responsibilities. Rauner, as a governor, the State Executive can not be at the head of this derailment, even with all the DeGroots and Yaffes he can muster. A deal for an actual governor must be realized. The only ones that may not realize that are those that let others trade on their own credibility to tweak the politics for no rational idea to govern Illinois.
There will be two things heard. No doubt;
“We fought 2 years for this? That’s it?”
“This was doable 2 years ago.”
… and the DeGroots and Yaffes will spin the Rauner signature for the Rauner Tax to #TaxHikike… and the Raunerites “green” will again realize they only matter as switches for an agenda that in the end looks nothing like what couldn’t have been done 2 years ago.
I voted “Yes”…
… because no matter what small minded State Raunerite Party flacks think… it’s governors that own.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:21 pm
==… and the DeGroots and Yaffes will spin the Rauner signature for the Rauner Tax to #TaxHikike… and the Raunerites “green” will again realize they only matter as switches for an agenda that in the end looks nothing like what couldn’t have been done 2 years ago.==
With much love:
We need to put your posts up on Genius so we can annotate all the references.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:26 pm
I voted yes because 1) Rauner seems to approve and 2) the Dems “win” in terms of what they get vs. what they give up.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:26 pm
I clicked on no, but my real answer is I don’t know. There doesn’t appear any inclination on either side to come to an agreement. This impasse needs to end.
Comment by Levois Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:39 pm
Voted yes. O.W. explained much better than I could.
Comment by Porgy Tirebiter Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:41 pm
===We need to put your posts up on Genius so we can annotate all the references===
lol, sorry. My comments often times are for the deep end of the pool, wading far too deep into the insides of inside baseball found here. Apologies. No harm.
(Tips cap to - Porgy Tirebiter -)
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:50 pm
Yes, because it is time.
Comment by illinoised Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:50 pm
No, because I’m pessimistic about Rauner and Madigan ending their feud.
I do appreciate Cullerton/Radogno’s efforts. Keep it up and we may actually have something.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:51 pm
Voted No. I have lost hope. This is Illinois for the foreseeable future.
Rauner and MJM do not see a benefit to solving the problems they have created.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 1:58 pm
I voted yes. Why? I really have no evidence that things are going to get done. Just a feeling. The amount of details that are out in the open now is quite large. For this to all fall apart if developments continue for another week or longer, than I think the general public just flat out won’t stand for it. They will demand movement.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:05 pm
Voted no. Nothing has changed. Cullerton still wants to deal, neither BVR or MJM want to give an inch. Zombie apocolypse in the next 60 days and assuming at least one of the two get eaten, I might change my vote.
Comment by Not quite a majority Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:09 pm
No. We will wait until after the 2018 elections or until hell freezes over.
We will just drift and drift,the parties that be really don’t care. I wish we were all wrong.
Comment by Mokenavince Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:18 pm
I voted no… Madigan will continue to be speaker and that’s that.
Comment by GlimmerGirl Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:19 pm
=“This was doable 2 years ago.”=
Whether that’s true or not won’t be what’s fueling the campaigns. Takes too long to make the case for or against. As we saw in the last year, you can claim anything you want on a campaign, there’s always some tenuous connection to be made. Both sides will push their “own” victory hard.
I voted yes. Just because I want to believe…
Comment by m Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:23 pm
I voted ‘yes.’ I’ve got to admit that it’s less a rational choice than needing some kind of hope that things can, at some point, get better. Whatever the long-term consequences of budget cuts or revenue increases that would come as part of a grand bargain, the sense of stability for anyone who is funded by or does business with the state, plus catching up late payments would have a very positive impact on Illinois’ economy. If there are some changes that would have some long-term impact as well, great.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:24 pm
Willy - while I agree with you in total I think a lot of the proposals we have seen today would not have been possible before the election. Do you really think Governor Rauner would have done backflips when presented with a minimum wage increase or a secondary tax on sugary drinks? How many Dems not named Jack Franks are enamored with the idea of local gov’t consolidation? And, if my memory serves me correctly, gaming expansion has been a major sticking point for almost a decade (if not longer). Sorry for using hyperbole on the first two points but I contend that a lot of what has been agreed upon by President Cullerton and Leader Radogno would not have passed muster during either of the last two spring sessions.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:34 pm
No not as long as Rauner is gov.
Comment by quincy Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:40 pm
===Sorry for using hyperbole on the first two points but I contend that a lot of what has been agreed upon by President Cullerton and Leader Radogno would not have passed muster during either of the last two spring sessions.===
Your premise is based on the circumstances that did and currently exist.
I am arguing that a governor willing to do the doable and working with legislators 2 years ago… these compromises are what governing can be when actors in the process want resolution.
That’s what is at play.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:51 pm
No, They have managed to go 18 months without a budget, why do it now? We should have had a complete IL government shutdown on 7-1-2016, otherwise they will just continue like this forever (if that is even possible)
Comment by just me Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 2:55 pm
==Do you really think Governor Rauner would have done backflips when presented with a minimum wage increase or a secondary tax on sugary drinks?==
I don’t see what has changed in his incentive structure. If anything, shouldn’t he feel like he has a STRONGER hand after the election?
==How many Dems not named Jack Franks are enamored with the idea of local gov’t consolidation?==
Let’s see what Chairman Franks says now. Where you stand often depends on where you sit.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 3:25 pm
==lol, sorry. My comments often times are for the deep end of the pool, wading far too deep into the insides of inside baseball found here. Apologies. No harm.==
No apology necessary. It forces me to learn.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 3:26 pm
No. Because Rauner doesn’t want a deal and never has.
Comment by Nick Name Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 3:31 pm
I voted NO. Even if everything is agreed on by both parties, what guarantee is there that Rauner will sign it? He is not the most trustworthy person in the room.
Comment by Retiree Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 3:45 pm
Passage during the end of the Veto Session would have been easier, but if the Governor is on board then the Republicans will have to provide the votes in the first few days of the next session.
So it all comes down to the Governor supporting the tax increase and restructured budget!
Comment by Capitol View Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 4:41 pm
No. “Change is hard.”
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 4:47 pm
I voted no. There is no trust between Madigan and Rauner. Without Rauner and Madigan’s involvement and blessing, this Senate “deal” probably has no chance. Besides, Rauner needs the impass to continue his squeeze-the-beast agenda. He’s going to need a couple of university campus closures and more vaporization of social services before he can claim some sort of victory to his fan club. ,
Comment by South Illinoisian Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 5:51 pm
This is the sort of compromise I expect from an Edgar-Republican. Tax the poor and middle classes.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 6:07 pm
Voted no.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 6:08 pm
===I expect from an Edgar-Republican.===
Radogno?
What is Rauner signs it?!
LOL!
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 6:17 pm
No,the Senate effort is admirable, but without Madigan nothing happens and he appears to have no interest in solving any problems.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 6:17 pm
I voted no…. I don’t think Rauner has a bone in his body which would allow him to negotiate anything other than his view point.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 7:09 pm
I cast my lot for “no.” This budget impasse won’t die until either Rauner or Madigan die a physical or political death. This animosity between the two may even supercede the grave.
Comment by Dome Gnome Monday, Jan 9, 17 @ 7:27 pm
I voted “no” but there is no doubt that the probability of a “yes” has increased greatly in the last two days. A final deal will have to look much like the deal cut in the Senate. The benchmarks for an agreement have been laid, something that was not true before this week.
Comment by Quiet Sage Tuesday, Jan 10, 17 @ 12:10 am
Voted no. History strongly suggests the TA is only a vehicle to enact anti-union legislation. I don’t see that strong anti-union legislation here, so don’t see this going forward. These measures could be part of the next stopgap though.
It is incredibly annoying.
Comment by peon Tuesday, Jan 10, 17 @ 12:19 am
My vote is “no,” for the following reasons:
(1) Rauner will blow up any proposed deal at the last minute by insisting on the inclusion of EVEN MOAR Turnaround Agenda items.
(2) Madigan won’t support a budget agreement that gives Rauner even the vaguest semblance of a win (however, his official reason will be “I am not aware of any budget agreement”).
(3) Not having a budget is the “new normal.” Illinois hasn’t had a budget in 18 months and the sky hasn’t fallen, so why bother now? Hey, maybe Illinois doesn’t need budgets anymore!
I honestly don’t think there will be a budget until Rauner is out of office. I sincerely hope I’m wrong about this.
Comment by tobias846 Tuesday, Jan 10, 17 @ 1:18 am
No. Not until Rauner’s gone in two, or, perish the thought, six years.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 10, 17 @ 8:25 am