Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Biss hires former OFA managing director to run his campaign
Posted in:
* Pearson…
“There is no one or two structural changes that we need to have as a requirement. I’ve never said any one thing has to be there,” Rauner said Friday during the [WBEZ] radio interview. “But we need a package of changes, structural changes that materially move the needle.”
Yet to move the needle to satisfy Rauner, the governor said “term limits definitely helps big with that.”
“So far the Senate Democrats have proposed a term limit on Senate leaders through a rule change, just for the Senate leader would be term limited. Well what we need is term limits on everybody, on me, on everybody in the General Assembly. That’s not on the table as of now,” he said.
Such elusiveness has frustrated some lawmakers at the Capitol who are looking for clarity on what it will take to reach agreement. Democrats like [Rep. Lou Lang] suggested Rauner isn’t being up front when he’s preaching flexibility.
“As you’ve seen the last few days, he’s commented, ‘Well, I don’t really need this. I don’t really need that. I just need everyone to come together.’ But the truth is that’s not what he wants,” Lang said.
* The Question: Do you think Gov. Rauner really wants a deal to end the impasse? Click here to take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Biss hires former OFA managing director to run his campaign
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I do think he wants a deal. I don’t think he’s flexible enough to get a deal to his liking. Yet.
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:28 pm
Without the impasse, what would he have left to talk about?
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:30 pm
No. Why? because then he would have to begin the job of governing and he has absolutely no idea how to to that.
Comment by Gruntled University Employee Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:33 pm
I voted ‘no.’ He’s accomplishing what he wants to accomplish right now. The only thing that might change his behavior is if he felt he were in jeopardy of not winning re-election.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:34 pm
Lou Lang: always the House Dems’ most articulate spokesperson. Not. Details, Lou, details succinctly ennumerated, otherwise just say, “No comment.”
Comment by My New Handle Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:35 pm
No. He wants to destroy the state’s publicly funded institutions and replace them with for-profit entities that will make a few well-connected rich people richer. And everyone else poorer and more powerless.
Comment by IllinoisBoi Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:36 pm
It depends at the meaning of “deal” is.
Maybe if the Dems threw in a state law barring all labor unions . . . .
But an achievable deal — no.
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:36 pm
I think the newbies to IL in the Rauner crew, backed Rauner into a corner when they took office laying out the Turn Around Agenda.
They either didn’t care, or didn’t care to learn how to work with the Dems to get a deal.
They have no idea how to extricate themselves from the corner and the mess they have made without it looking like Madigan beat them.
So, Rauner and crew don’t want to end the war or have a budget without total victory.
Comment by Give Me A Break Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:39 pm
His actions tell me that he has no desire for a deal. And why would he at this point? Any legitimate deal is going to come with a massive tax increase that he will own and the “structural reforms” that he insisted upon will pale in comparison.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:39 pm
Voted no. Rauner wants just what he has. If that weren’t the case, he would have introduced truly balanced budgets with details on spending and revenue. He has not done that because he would rather shirk responsibility in defending his budget.
Comment by My New Handle Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:40 pm
Nope. He doesn’t want a deal. And he doesn’t want to lead. If he wanted either, he would clearly state what needs to happen and move people in that direction. I just think back to real leaders like Thompson and Edgar. Man, they would put the screws to people and get a deal done. This guy, he doesn’t care and it is so completely obvious. If he did care, a budget would have been a done deal two years ago.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:41 pm
I voted Yes, but the word “deal” made me hesitate. He absolutely wants an end to the impasse, he has to, except now to save face and try to claim the impasse is worthwhile he has to have something, some win. He wants/needs it so bad I don’t think he could accept a small win even if he was willing to accept it. WC or pension reform or a property tax freeze, any of them, would be enough I think, he wants something to hang his hat on both for his reelection and for his own pride.
Comment by Perrid Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:43 pm
I voted no. For him to agree to some sort of bargain would be for him to admit defeat. It would be a public admission that despite spending tens of millions of dollars in campaigns, he has been defeated by a wily, old Irishman. He is willing to create massive collateral damage rather than face this humiliation. Sad.
Comment by Scamp640 Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:44 pm
He wants to strangle state government, decimate higher education and rip apart the social safety net. He’s achieving his goals already. He doesn’t want a deal.
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:45 pm
Voted No. IF he wins in 2018 he figures he’ll have enough leverage and he’ll have the map. If he loses he can leave the state with his approximately 500,000,000 in income over his four years and say “I tried”.
Comment by don the legend Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:45 pm
No. The goal is to do whatever is necessary to break “Af-scammy” even if it means wrecking Illinois.
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:48 pm
No. White man speak with forked tongue.
Comment by Chicago Barb Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:48 pm
Voted no for all the reasons other “no” voters stated. Rauner wants to destroy the state and then rebuild it.
Comment by Downstater Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:49 pm
No. And while I agree he wants to destroy Illinois, I’m not sure he wants to rebuild it.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:56 pm
He only knows how to do one thing, buy a company, break it apart, and sell the pieces. He is executing his plan and not having a deal is part of the plan.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 3:57 pm
Voted NO and for many of the same reasons already noted here.
Comment by illini Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:03 pm
No. Rauner wants to tank our bond rating and have an operational solvency crisis.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:04 pm
Yes, Governor Rauner “wants” a deal, but no deal he could possibly achieve now would be significant enough to justify all damage he knows he has caused and all the debt he has piled up. Any deal the Governor strikes now would just be too little, too late not to be obviously embarrassing for such a renowned deal maker as himself. The question would be “After almost 3 years,this is what you got us, just so that you could raise our taxes?”
Comment by The Real Just Me Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:09 pm
No. This week he’s playing good governor who just wants to get things done for people.
Next week it will be back to the real governor who has no plans of doing anything but blamin it all on everyone else.
Once you understand the cycles, his actions are a lot easier to track.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:09 pm
No. I believe he’s a hired flunky to get rid of Madigan so the 1%-crowd can insert their own czar into Illinois politics. Rauner does not have a plan, as he as so aptly demonstrated. He has nothing to lose except his rich friends.
Comment by morningstar Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:09 pm
Yes, he wants a deal, but only on exactly his terms.
Comment by A Non Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:16 pm
It may be that Rauner wants an unrealistic deal, one that Radogno-Cullerton couldn’t get to.
But I believe it is more likely that Rauner wants no deal, and thinks he can successfully blame the democrats for the lack of reform/budget deal.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:17 pm
==It may be that Rauner wants an unrealistic deal, one that Radogno-Cullerton couldn’t get to.==
But doesn’t that fit under the category of “egendarily poor at his job”
Comment by Hambone Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:21 pm
Had to vote no, since I didn’t see the “Hell no” button. He is drowning government in the bathtub quite successfully right now.
Comment by Groundhog Day Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:22 pm
No, assuming ‘deal’ means some form of compromise. Why? See my repeated references to Captain Ahab which have garnered zero enthusiasm here –– What? Not a single Melville fan to be found? Oh well.
Comment by X-prof Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:27 pm
Voted no. Would have voted “Yes, only if it results in the destruction of labor” - but it wasn’t an option.
Comment by Gaslighter in Chief Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:28 pm
Voted “No.”
Whatever you think of Trump, at the end of the day he builds things. The end result of his efforts is a tangible thing (a luxury high rise, a resort).
Rauner does not build. He made his living dismantling. As such he won’t be done until organs have been harvested and the life support turned off. He won’t be ready to bargain until he does not have to bargain; he can impose his terms unilaterally.
Illinois may be on life support but the patient can still blink out a message; Save me.
Comment by 37B Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:29 pm
Nope. And why do I think that? Because he has had ample time to come to a deal before now and has taken a pass on it, and even flat out refuses to lead on brokering a compromise. I think he gambled that the Dems would crumble way before now, and now may be feeling a little desperate to get something done for his re-election campaign, but not desperate enough to make a deal. He’d rather blame others for his inability to lead. He is the Victim-in-Chief, never mind the real victims.
Comment by pawn Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:30 pm
No. If he wanted a deal he would have let the Grand Bargain get out of the Senate.
Comment by Roman Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:31 pm
Bruce and Diana Rauner are spending their private fortunes to close state universities, close social service organizations, hurt Illinoisans for the sole purpose to have prevailing wage and collective bargaining be gone in Illinois, and to see the end of AFSCME or “Af-Scammy” as Bruce said in 2012.
Not one thing, not a single budgetary maneuver has wavered from that 2012 speech from being true.
You don’t put up the considerable monies that Diana and Bruce Rauner have done for something so… benign… as a compromise… or a budget… without significant wins…
… or more hurt for the “unwashed” until Bruce gets… his wins.
Do I think Rauner wants a deal?
Yep.
So do I think Bruce will drive us all nuts, with Diana laughing like she did in the ads? Yep.
So, do I think Bruce is a persistent rascal, refusing to find in as he says? Yep.
Do I think hurting social services, and thisevhurt suing Bruce are as Diana Rauner says, making a “business decision”…
…
No. No I do not.
That’s why I vote “Yes” to wanting a deal, but knowing that deal is for pain for one, or pain for everyone else.
That’s “the deal”.
The budget or anything else is just window dressing.
Destruction and pain, or the finishing off of Labor is what the RaunerS are paying for, we Illinoisans get to feel the weight of the freight… of the pains.
Voted “Yes”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:31 pm
Downstater said it all
Comment by Vince Glothor Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:33 pm
Voted no. There will be no full, actual, traditional budget until Rauner leaves office. He is “winning” now by destroying non profit agencies and damaging state universities. The lack of a budget deal is part of his plan and he’s doing very well based on his own metrics.
Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:35 pm
How would term limits affect the budget except for the pensions they earn?
Comment by anon Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:36 pm
No. Rauner knows he’s not going to get enough to justify a tax increase he’d have to sign. He’s looking at re-election and he believes that his money will allow him to bamboozle the electorate.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:38 pm
== They either didn’t care, or didn’t care to learn how to work with the Dems to get a deal.
They have no idea how to extricate themselves from the corner and the mess they have made … ==
Probably more truth in the above statement than any of us want to.admit. Over the last 2 years, I saw a couple of things Madigan put out there that any other Governor could have grabbed as a face-saving lifeline … but these guys couldn’t see it. I don’t see any more face-saving lifelines being tossed out; we are past that point.
== He wants/needs it so bad I don’t think he could accept a small win even if he was willing to accept it. WC or pension reform or a property tax freeze, any of them, would be enough I think, ==
Rauner could have had a WC deal, at least enough to save face, if he had worked for it. He’s not going to get his version of pension reform; the Tier 1 changes will he ruled unconstitutional. A 401K with match for new hires will actually cost more than Tier 2, do that’s loser evening f he does get it passed. And he’ll never get a permanent property tax freeze unless it includes the State drastically increasing local school funding.
So, if Rauner DOES want an achievement to run on, he better see if he can revive a WC deal.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:39 pm
No. His ultimate goal is the destruction of the Democratic Party in Illinois. A deal wouldn’t help him out there..
Comment by Mouthy Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:40 pm
A Non,
His terms have been slippery at best. So perhaps there are some terms in his head, but that would assume he has thought long and hard about what he thinks Illinois needs and is holding out for some secret sub or super set of the T.A.’s announced items. Hardly plausible at this point.
He does not present an actual plan because he prefers not to think about the complexities. By definition the private sector is always better. That this accords neither with economic history nor with economic research does not matter. It is an ideological prior commitment.
A word on “ideological.” Ideology refers to a set of ideas, sincerely held or not, that are promulgated, not because they seem best upon thoughtful examination, but because ultimately they serve the interests of those who produce them or who pay to have them produced.
Without the anti-government dogmatism, Rauner would have to look at himself in the mirror and acknowledge both his own privilege and his own moral failings as a person. Not going to happen.
He wants to blow up reality because facing it would be too painful. The damage to the rest of us is necessary to justify his privilege.
There is no deal he can accept short of destroying the public sector and the unions which are the only institutions that can challenge him.
Comment by HistProf Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:42 pm
Rauner only sees absolutes.
For Rauner it is total Democratic capitulation with Rauner having complete unquestioned control or nothing.
Comment by Chicago 20 Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:47 pm
“Do you think Gov. Rauner really wants a deal to end the impasse?”
No.
Bruce Rauner isn’t an idiot. If he was unhappy with the last two years of impasse, he would have modified his strategy and tactics accordingly. But Rauner has offered nothing but the familiar cynical cycle of OODA Looping, hostage taking and finger pointing. Time after time after time.
They say a crazy person does the same thing expecting different results. But Bruce Rauner isn’t crazy. He does the same thing because he expects the same result — his desired result: impasse.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:48 pm
OK, last try. The classic film starring Gregory Peck, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLTlfljynV4 , starring
The Pequod as the State of Illinois,
the crew as the good people of Illinois,
the whale boats as social services and public universities,
Moby Dick as Afscamy, MJM, IDP, or all three,
and of course …
the Honorable BVR as Capt. Ahab
Not sure who to cast as Starbuck yet.
Comment by X-prof Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:49 pm
No, because he could have had various deals at different times, such as workers comp reform in 2015, property tax freeze and the Grand Bargain. A deal would interfere with his long-term game plan to turn the state red. Who would he vilify, and what eternal campaigns would he run, if he did a deal with Madigan?
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:50 pm
Yes. He just has no idea how to get it. “Never assume malevolence when incompetence will explain it”, or whatever.
Or:
“Are my methods unsound?”
“I don’t see any method at all, sir.”
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:52 pm
No.
The public (through polling) will also say they want someone who can work in a bi-partisan way and compromise.
The public will also say they will be more likely to vote against someone who supports a tax increase, and if you’re a Republican, I imagine its a lot of your base responding that way.
So the Governor has to act like he’s working on a deal, but the deal he would have to sign off on is probably pretty toxic for him politically at this point.
Comment by Juice Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:52 pm
NO.. If he wanted a deal, he had a willing partner in the Senate D caucus.. HE and ONLY HE killed the grand bargain..And, this so called Grand Bargain has become the Senate President’s Bridge Over the River Kwai..
Comment by Not Rich Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 4:59 pm
er, *DPI* and *Capt. Ahab as the Honorable BVR*
Comment by X-prof Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:01 pm
Trick question. You pretty much cleared that up with an article a couple of weeks back.
Billionaire Brucie is not invested in the success of IL. Folks seem to over think his motivations.
How about this? It’s all a game to him. How so? His ‘requirements’ to settle his failures change daily. Its always, ‘I don’t have a specific requirement’ and then throws one or more mandatories out.
Just a game to him to win at any cost.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:04 pm
Point to ponder - BVR has changed this from a Godfather quoting blog to a Col. Kurtz quotin’ blog … .
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:04 pm
Voted no. I thought for the longest time that Rauner’s biggest goal in creating the budget impasse was to hang the tax increase on the Democrats, but the impasse had gotten us so far in the hole that we’re going to eventually get a huge tax increase and extremely painful budget cuts, and he’d have to share the blame. Plus “because Madigan” is the only message he has, and that will stop working if he agrees to a deal.
Comment by Whatever Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:08 pm
No.
The governor is the most powerful politician in Illinois, by far. Rauner, like any other, is achieving what he wants that is “doable.”
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:21 pm
No, it’s not in his political interest to make a deal, that’s why he sabotages every effort by the GA. If I believed he actually cared about this state I would say yes, but he doesn’t, at all. His allowing the decimation of higher education and social services prove my point.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:23 pm
Nope. What RNUG said. The pension proposals are indicative of someone who isn’t even trying to solve the problem.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:30 pm
No. If it was going to happen (lol), it would’ve been done by year 2 at the latest (voters have short memories). Anything done from this point on will be seen as “Rauner raised your taxes”. Rauner wants to break the state, hoping that the ensuing disaster will allow destruction of the Unions, pensions, etc. Looks like JB or Kennedy is going to get stuck with the tax hike—and if they’re smart, they’ll get it done in year 1.
Comment by Ratso Rizzo Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:41 pm
He wants a deal but hasn’t realized he can’t get get the deal he wants. But he also hasn’t figured out what deal he needs.
Comment by LTSW Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:50 pm
His smile says it all…havin a good time.
Comment by Liberty Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:52 pm
downstater at 3:49 and Mouthy-Monday at 4:40 said it succinctly, No! he wants total party control, and his campaign $$ will be used to defeat Democrats, and buy a Republican Trifecta for Illinois in 2018
Comment by Living it daily Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:53 pm
I still vote “Yes” for the exact reason I stated.
To get an honest budget to break the “impasse” Rauner needs to show 60 and 30 to prove a belief in process.
Until then, everything is going exactly according to plan.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:53 pm
No to wanting a deal. His way or no way. Burn the state down to the ground for not giving him his way. Other than that, can’t think of a single accomplishment. What does he do all day besides just wait till there’s nothing left of this state?
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 5:54 pm
Voted yes. He wants a deal. His deal. Or at least 98% of it. Anything less than that, he is happy to let things go to heck and blame Madigan.
Comment by Henry Francis Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 6:48 pm
He wants “his” deal. I think he went into this thing wanting to actually do some things to solve the State’s many problems. He tried doing it his way and he ran into a buzzsaw. It seems clear to me that now he only wants to defeat MJM.
Comment by JDuc Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 7:35 pm
No. He likes to place the blame on others for not coming together for a deal but whenever it appears various groups are working together he either moves the goal posts or blows it up.
Comment by Tough Guy Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 8:33 pm
Rauner’s negotiating ” partners” have stated there would be no budget for four years.
Has the Governor said that?
Of course not.
Apparently there are no mirrors or hypocrisy meters in Springfield.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 8:47 pm
Rauner is laughing at all of us all the way to the bank.
Comment by DeseDemDose Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 9:14 pm
No, He would have to admit that a tax increase was necessary to his budget which blows up his whole because the democrats want a tax increase.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 9:20 pm
Another “no” vote. Why - because he doesn’t know how to fix IL and as long as he can blame Madigan, he has an excuse for failing as governor. In fact, his greatest secret fear is if Mike Madigan passed away unexpectedly - who would he blame then?
Comment by Nobody Sent Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 9:49 pm
Voted no. He is willing to let total deconstruction of state services, higher education, and state supported social services happen — because he thinks that out of the ashes will rise a state without unions - and with public employment at only a fraction of what it used to be, both in numbers and in salaries.
Comment by Joe M Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 9:55 pm
Voted “NO”. Reasons are obvious. Gov.Rauner has not been truthful since the day he announced he was going to run. He continues to be in campaign mode and had yet to govern.
Comment by ILGOV2018 Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 10:06 pm
“According to Roger Waters, Barrett came into what was to be their last practice session with a new song he had dubbed “Have You Got It Yet?” The song seemed simple enough when he first presented it, but it soon became impossibly difficult to learn and they eventually realised that while they were practising it, Barrett kept changing the arrangement. He would then play it again, with the arbitrary changes, and sing “Have you got it yet?” Eventually they realised they never would, and that they were simply bearing the brunt of Barrett’s idiosyncratic sense of humour.”
Replace “Barrrett” with Rauner and “Roger Waters” with Madigan
Comment by Morty Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 10:20 pm
No. His tax rate being lower for 4 years was all the ROI he ever needed.
Comment by Biker Monday, Apr 17, 17 @ 11:46 pm
Had to vote no. After Rauner began to complain about being “stymied” by the Democrats, but everything will change once the next elections place eight (sic) more Republicans in the Illinois House and the Republicans can control the General Assembly, it became clear his gaze has turned to November, 2018. He doesn’t care what happens in the meantime.
Comment by resistanceisfutile Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 12:27 am
No. That would defang his frontal assault on the public sector and diminish his cartel’s desire to capitalize on society’s ills (i.e., social service for profit).
Comment by Stumpy's bunker Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 7:01 am
….diminish his caret’s effort
Comment by Stumpy's bunker Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 7:03 am
Voted no. I think he is burning down the state gov on purpose. His intentions after the fire are unknown, but the chaos is intentional.
Comment by anotherburnvictim Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 8:56 am
He does not want a deal, he wants HIS deal and his deal happens to be what ever he wants it to be today. As a business person he simply outlasted or outspent any competition to get what he wanted 100% on his terms.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 8:58 am
Voted No. If he wanted a deal he would have gotten a deal by now.
Comment by DuPage Bard Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 9:07 am
If he wanted a deal, he would have had one by now. He would have had one by June 30, 2015, in fact. Or he would have approved month-by-month budgets until he and the GA reached a deal, as has happened in the past. People who want a deal eventually arrive at one. Rauner has actively worked to quash any potential deal.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 9:38 am
Only on his terms. Rauner and his Republican team are cowards. They are aware that taxes will have to be made, but won’t sign on for one. They want to blame the democrats because they are afraid of voter backlash. Rauner also wants to destroy labor at the same time.
Comment by Generic Drone Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 9:39 am
No, Rauner doesn’t want to end the impasse. The damage being done to social services and higher education is a feature, not a bug, in his agenda.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 18, 17 @ 11:18 am