Restive, annoyed Democratic lawmakers quietly but openly mocked Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner several times Wednesday afternoon as he delivered his third annual budget address in Springfield.
They murmured in audible disagreement when he claimed, again, that he proposed a balanced budget two years ago.
They laughed when he said, "This isn’t about pointin’ fingers or assignin’ blame."
They laughed again and almost seemed to heckle him when he claimed that legislative term limits, an item on his policy agenda of which he seems particularly fond, “get job creators excited.”
Overall, the 37-minute speech deserved a resigned, Reagan-esque chuckle: There you go again.
Lots of platitudinous evasions of the tough choices that he and the General Assembly are really going to have to make if the ongoing budget stalemate is to be resolved. More exhortation than policy.
A few quotes and comments:
Rauner: “For the first time, legislators from both parties are standing together to say that Illinois must have structural change to grow our economy and create good jobs in every part of our state. That budgets must be truly balanced for the long term — and that to achieve balanced budgets, changes must be made to fix our broken system. On this, we all now agree. And that is real progress.”
No, that is real nonsense. Both parties have long agreed that certain policies and practices need to be changed to set things right in Illinois, and the problem has always been that they don’t agree on which ones and how they should be changed.
Rauner: “Today, we finally all agree that economic reforms must be part of a balanced budget solution.”
Long term, yes, and nothing new or “finally” about it. But there is not widespread agreement by any means that such “reforms” (journalists should avoid that word when at all possible) should be mandatory before annual budget talks can proceed, which is Rauner’s position.
Rauner: “Two years ago, our Administration proposed a balanced budget. It contained more than $6 billion in cuts, spending only what the state could afford at current revenue. But the majority in the General Assembly simply ignored our proposal, didn’t discuss it, debate it, didn’t vote on it — just passed their own your own $4 billion out-of-balance budget. And so our current impasse began.”
This rank revisionist history prompted groans and grumbling in the hall. Rauner’s proposed budget two years ago assumed into reality phantom savings from a constitutionally dubious pension program alteration that, of course, never materialized. He might be able to get away with such statements at service club luncheons, but not in front of lawmakers who know the record.
Rauner: “We are here once again with our hand outstretched to the leaders and members of the General Assembly. Between ongoing budget negotiations in the Senate and all of our leaders acknowledging the need for change, there is good reason for optimism. I am deeply optimistic.”
This line was greeted with applause and I’m all for can-do uplift, but really? At a time like this, a leader needs to level with his constituents about the pain and sacrifices that lie ahead. Illinois is in a huge hole. Digging out is going to be tough.
Rauner: “Some people argue we should just cut our way out of our budget problems. Others believe we should simply raise taxes and declare the budget crisis solved.”
But these are not serious people. They are strawman ideologues. The grown-ups have long known that a mix is required.
Rauner: “I’ve repeatedly said that I will consider new revenue, revenue increases if we stand together to make the job-creating changes we need … we’ve always said that we’d consider revenue if it comes with changes that create jobs and grow the economy.”
So say something new! Like what rate will you accept? What rate do you think will be necessary?
Rauner: "Pension reforms, in addition to (Senate) President (John) Cullerton’s consideration model, can save us a billion dollars right off the bat. A new hybrid pension Tier III plan could give new employees more options while saving the state money."
I’m deeply suspicious of any claim that new employees will choose a pension option that will save the state lots of money. Because if it saves the state lots of money, well, I’m not the math person in my family but … And Cullerton’s consideration model is certain to face a court challenge, if passed.
Rauner: “Together, let’s look at each regulation that we have, at every law we pass, and ask ourselves a simple question: how does this impact job creators? Is the benefit of this rule worth the cost in lost jobs? That’s the essential question that can guide our decisions every day.”
One person’s regulation is another’s consumer protection. Of course the interests of business should be part of any discussion of safeguarding laws, but not the essential question. How does the requirement impact the environment? Public safety? Health? The fundamental concepts of fairness?
Rauner: “These changes (rootin’ out fraud and abuse from the workers’ compensation system and gettin’ highest-in-the-country property taxes under control … term limits and redistricting) are necessary to producin’ long-term balanced budgets and long-term financial stability. They are THE items that can ensure Illinois not only survives, but thrives, for generations to come.”
Each is worthy of a vigorous and independent debate. None needs to be held hostage before serious budget talks can begin.
Rauner: “We need a permanent property tax freeze in Illinois.”
This is populist piffle from the party that otherwise keens over the value of local control. Property taxes should be a local issue, and freezes on any budgetary items ought to be temporary, not permanent, because circumstances change.
Rauner: “We’re open to a broader sales tax base to mirror neighboring states like Wisconsin, but let’s make sure it’s best for the people of Illinois, not for the lobbyists here in Springfield.”
He’s “open” to it? No. He’s the governor. He’s got to get behind a specific proposal and stop punting to the lawmakers.
Rauner: “We cannot tax people’s retirement income.”
Just about every other state does.
Rauner: “Passin’ term limits is one of the most important things we can do to send a positive recruitin’ message to job creators: It’s a new day in Illinois, we’ve turned the corner.”
If there’s any evidence that states with legislative term limits are more attractive to relocating businesses than states without such limits, I’ve yet to see it.
Look, we get it. Rauner hates septuagenarian Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan. But Madigan will almost certainly be retired by the time a term-limits amendment would take effect. Give it a rest.
A quick look at page 30 of the budget book Rauner’s office released after the speech shows that his budget is “balanced” by sprinkling onto it a fairy-dust line item of “Grand Bargain” savings of $4.6 billion.
Oh, and if you’re keeping score: Of the 136 words Rauner spoke from the podium that ended with the “-ing” syllable, he dropped the final “g” on 76 of those, (“We convened bipartisan workin’ groups, doin’ our best to find a way forward together,” for example) for a 56 percent score on the Folksy-Meter.
That’s down from a 62 percent score in his State of the State address in January, but up from the 47 percent score in last year’s budget address.
Twitter @EricZorn
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
