Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Senate moves debate forward on much-needed capital bond

Senate Bill 668 (here) is a billion dollar bond program for school construction.

Last week, the Senate Democrats brought the bill, along with Senate Bill 665 (here), a $2.7 billion transportation bond bill, to the floor for a vote.

Because the state constitution requires a three-fifths vote for putting the state deeper into debt, and Democrats only have 54% of the seats, Republicans need to vote for the bill as well. They did not, so the bills failed on a party-line vote.

Much of the debate, and much of the reporting on the debate, framed this as the Senate Republicans killing "the Governor's bill." Republican objections centered on the lack of any real negotiation between Governor Blagojevich and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, the lack of trust they have for Governor Blagojevich and finally, the lack of a revenue stream to finance the bonds.

I think that's not quite accurate, at least as it pertains to SB 668, the billion dollar school construction bond. This was clearly not the Governor's bill, as the Senate Democrats chose to double the stakes and push for a billion dollar bond for school construction, not $500 million.
One of Leader Watson's main points on the floor was the apparent absurdity of Governor Blagojevich's office scheduling a meeting for the day after the vote. I think that's a good sign that the bonding bill was the initiative of President Jones and the Senate Democrats, and not Governor Blagojevich. So it's a little unfair to rip into Blagojevich for not meeting with Leader Watson in time for the vote when the President pushed the bond forward to the floor.

The interesting part of the exercise was the apparent openness of several Senate Republicans to passing a capital bill. Just about every Republican began their statement with something along the lines of "I would like to vote for this, but...." Some attribute these statements as cynical window dressing to protect themselves from charges of obstructionism (remember that's what the federal GOP Senators called Tom Daschle?), but I choose to take electeds at their word. I think there's an opportunity to find a bipartisan consensus on a capital bill -- particularly the school construction bond, where, as Senator Miguel del Valle pointed out during debate, the state law creating the program strips out much of the Governor's ability to amend the rules governing the distribution of funds. Therefore, even if Republicans do not trust Governor Blagojevich, they should still be open to the school construction program, as it doesn't rely on trust.

Who can forge that consensus? I think the legislators have the chance to do that. The odd, persistent culture of deference to the Executive Branch in the General Assembly continues to shape the budget debate. It was a little weird that Governor Blagojevich dominated the Senate debate on the capital bill -- why didn't Leader Watson and the Republicans demand to negotiate with President Jones and the Senate Democrats in shaping what is, after all, a Senate Bill?

Especially given the re-election pressures that cause people to dramatically inflate the electoral consequences of passing or not passing a capital bill (really, how many swing voters will be moved in November based on whether school construction is funded?), it makes sense to me that the legislators work to find a consensus among themselves. Given that in any other year, April 11th would be just the beginning of talking about the shape of the budget, we've got plenty of time.

And I think there is absolutely zero fallout from 'missing the deadline' of April 7th to adjourn. The only deadline that matters is May 31st. Press spin that Democrats are 'failing to govern' because they didn't pass a budget seven weeks ahead of time is borderline ridiculous -- especially if one looks at the Republican-controlled Congress which is perpetually months late at passing the federal budget, and the press almost never frames that body as 'failing to govern'.

Senate Democrats and President Jones should be proud that they moved the debate about a much-needed capital program forward last week. I hope they continue to do so and take the initiative -- legislator to legislator -- at forging a bipartisan bill.

7 comments:

Anonymous,  3:10 PM  

Allow choice with parents to send their kids to schools of their choice

Anonymous,  3:18 PM  

Anon 3:10 pm-

That is a tired old argument. Farm more likely is that the parents who have an interest in moving their children to a better school don't really need to because their children are doing fine. That type of parent is the type of parent who gives a darn about their kids education and takes time to help them by reading with them, helping them over stumbling blocks, etc.

The children who are typically struggling and holding down the school ratings have parents who could care less and can't be bothered to help their kids out let alone try to determine a better school in which to move their children.

Anonymous,  4:32 PM  

The senate ain't doin' $#!+ now...

Yellow Dog Democrat 5:00 PM  

Anon 3:10 -- That's actually a myth. If you look at the school report cards on the ISBE website, you'll see that some of the worst performing schools actually have some of the highest participation rates from parents.

Lovie -- usually you are all over my case (although I'm not sure why, like GOP, I think we agree 80% of the time), but that was funny.

Anonymous,  11:17 AM  

Dan --

without real funding streams, this is all about politics. What Emil and others on that side of the asile won't like, is not all the nunions are behind the bill.

And if the dems, had not stole 1.5 billion from the road fund, there might actually be some money for more bonding and projects.

You also seem to have lost track of the fact that the gov and others have reveled in putting a brick on projects in republican distrcis. projects that were funded under Illinois First.

So to those republicans that decided not to spend our way into oblivian, and not pass a bill without having a funding source sounds good to me.

And with more unions providing cover for the Rs, it ain't gonna be that big a deal with the trades. Not when the dems are fixing to screw them.

Dozer

Anonymous,  8:50 PM  

Just one little slick man tea all that suffered in hay moss and victory rays worked up while fit share holds feral grant surrey feather wears down cold may or daily.

Dan Johnson 4:36 PM  

Hi all,

I'm no longer convinced that legislators need a particular revenue stream to fund a new project. After all, there is natural revenue growth most years. The question is where to spend that revenue growth -- on debt service for a bond or on some other program. It makes sense to create a new revenue stream, but it isn't absolutely required to float a bond. And what Dozer calls politics is another way of saying budgeting -- it's just a question of priorities as to whether financing a school construction bond is more important than, say, support for home health care workers or nursing home subsidies or tax breaks for wealthy people who pay property taxes or tax breaks for the largest corporations. I don't think the trade unions are relevant to the school construction bond question -- probably more so on the transportation bond. So, I hope some Rs propose some revenue streams that they could live with, because they are basically in a position to dictate a lot if they come forward on their own -- without waiting for Governor Blagojevich to invite them -- with some proposals on how to amend the Senate's capital plan. And that would be a good thing.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP