Budget Lover's Open Thread
Here's what I had to say about the budget over at CapitolFax Blog:
Another poster was right, the phrase "political terrorists" was on point, but unnecessarily incendiary. As I pointed out later, Washington Democrats are no better at offering a real alternative to the majority, but my apologies to anyone whose feelings I hurt.I’m tired of all of this whining about how the Republicans got shut out of the budget process. Boo-hoo.
The Republicans weren’t shut out, they chose to sit-it out. They decided to be obstructionists and saboteurs, and you don’t negotiate with political terrorists.
The GOP could have offered up their own plan as an amendment to any GOP approp bill, but did they? No. Why? Because they don’t have a plan, other than trying to circumvent majority rule by delaying the budget until June 1. It didn’t work last year and it wasn’t going to work this year. Great plan, thanks for playing.
Furthermore, any single GOP member could have approached the Governor, the Senate President, the House Speaker, and offered to be a constructive part of the process; Madigan, for sure, would have included them as part of his caucus negotiations, if it meant a “yes” vote. Instead, they followed their partisan leaders like sheep.
Cry me a river.
So, what do you think about the budget? Who were the real winners and losers? What about the rest of the session's winners and losers? Do voters care?
This is your weekend budget open thread....
16 comments:
Losers are people of Illinois because of stuff like this,
For DHS: Page 587, Section 45, beginning on line 2 is a $4.8 million lump sum for no specific purpose.
Who knows what that's about.
I'm not sure if a partisan sitout isn't the best strategy (ditto for National Democrats).
Winners might be the blogosphere if we take time to fiddle around with the online budget and sort out what's in there.
Bottom line though is City of Chicago is the winner and that's where the bucks are flowing.
The winners: schools, preschoolers, college students, and public safety officials. Oh yeah, Mike, Emil, and Rod.
To quote one of my heroes from Cap Fax, “it’s nice to finally see the state of Illinois working for the people, instead of the people working for the state of Illinois.”
Losers: Republican obstructionist. I actually kind’a liked Tom Cross until he joined the ranks of the whiny bitches. Hell, he was as bad as Bill Black.
P.S. anon, come November, you'll still be a piss ant car salesman.
Guys, guys, guys.....if you're going to resort to name-calling, it's "pissant", not "piss ant."
By the way, life would be better if we didn't resort to namecalling.
That said, I'd rather be called a "pissant" than a "car salesman".
The real losers are the taxpayers down the road who have to pay for this mess, while having nowhere to go for services because there will be no one to answer to their calls or to send them what they want.
And yet again, the merit comp. employees of the state, who have to endure being called lazy, overpaid and incompetent, now are thought of as second class citizens by Senate President Jones. After all, he said yesterday that lawmakers weren't second class citizens, they deserve a raise. Since merit comp employees have gone almost 5 years without any show of appreciation for the work they do, doesn't that send us right into the second class, according to one of the people who were elected to represent them and all other citizens. Nice attitude, Mr. Jones.
Wow, YDD was incendiary? How very, very unusual.
I thought I was a pretty solid GOPer, but you must manufacture all the Blago Kool-Aid, YDD.
1. The so called four tops have too much power. Really Madigan and Jones have too much power.
2. Nothing has been done about long term debt nor PENSIONS.
3. We need term limits in Illinois.
4. What about a UNICAMERAL Legislature like we they have in Nebraska and Jesse "the Body" Ventura proposed in Illinois.
The real loser in this is you YDD. You bring a lot of insight to these boards, but calling someone a political terrorist was a low point in your tenure here.
Anonymous 9:46: Fine, I withdraw the remark; you come up for another name for a political movement that refuses to sit down at the table and negotiate constructively, and instead chooses to hurl political invectives via press releases and temper tantrums on the chamber floor.
Republicans are blockading school construction, road construction, and other vital projects right now. Why? Because they think holding up these projects is in the best interests of Illinois? No, because they hope that if they suffocate our school children in overcrowded classrooms and reduce our roads to rubble, voters will blame the Democrats and elect them instead.
Pure, selfish, destructive behavior. You can call it whatever you want.
If you call insisting on details like how programs are paid for, objecting to spending more when we have the worst pension funding in the country, and expressing outrage over indenturing our great grandchildren because we can't rein in the spending "pure, selfish, destructive behavior", then call me GUILTY.
God, YDD, you are such a shill you are pushing me to actually be enthusiastic about Illinois Republicans, and I hate the Illinois GOP.
Dog, good job.
Though I wish you weren't so partisan about it, you identify the great dilemma. The minority party, knowing its suggestions won't be adopted, has two choices:
One, boycott the budget process, trying to make a statement that they are not part of the shenanigans; or, two, offer their own very unpleasant (for Republicans, raise taxes, cut funding for health care for kids, cut funding for schools, etc.) alternatives, knowing that the outcome will be, BINGO, you still have a bad budget AND you are on record supporting unpopular positions.
I think its one of the great quandries; I've watched it play out dozens of times, with one party or the other.
Its one of the reasons I've said repeatedly on these sites that the Republicans are governmentally disingenous (though frequently correct) in opposing the Dem's budgets. They are in a trap because they can't offer an alternative.
When the Dems are in the minority they are faced with, when asked by the Rs for their alternatives to the R budget, "and how would you pay for them, raise taxes, or cut where"?
I don't know exactly what a possible answer would be. Perhaps two parallel budgets, one drafted by each party, and votes on them in tandem, but it ain't going to happen.
Its fun to watch, or very frustating, depending on which side you're on. It's why, in my opinion, a negotiated bipartisan budget will always be better (or less bad) for the citizens than a unilateral one.
Steve, I agree, a bipartisan budget is almost always better policy, although the price tag is often just as high, or higher.
I'm still a fan of the two-year budget, passed in non-election years. Closer we get to an election, the more likely you are to have a partisan budget, and pork.
YDD,
Remember what happened two years ago when Madigan formed an alliance with the Senate Republicans to craft a budget? Madigan essentially stood with minority leader Watson against the Governor and Emil Jones, and the outcome was a record setting overtime session. At the time, Senator Jones and the Governor challenged Madigan's position as a "true" Democrat; Madigan, in turn, didn't have much good to say about the Governor, and bottom line, the rancor within the Dem party was not conducive to maximizing potential party gains in the General Assembly over the next four years.
So last year, when Madigan again allied himself early with the Senate Republicans, we were again headed straight for an overtime session and a repeat of the prior year. Madigan really was left with little choice but to cut the Senate Republican alliance and offer up the two-year pension deferral as a bailout to the Governor. The pension deferral was the lifeline that a Governor with sinking poll numbers had to have just to survive the next two years. However, severing the alliance Senate Republican marked the end of a bipartisan budget effort for both last year and this year.
So does Madigan's very pragmatic decision to exclude the Republicans from the budget make the Republicans "political terrorists"? Only someone with a a partisan slant would characterize the situation that way.
Madigan, who I believe is one of the smartest, most effective leaders in the Democratic party, understood that for the good of the party, he and Senator Jones were going to have to help to carry a weak and increasingly unpopular Governor to the finish line this year. And since Watson and Cross certainly weren't going to help them carry the Governor, Illinois is now stuck with a single party budget process that frankly isn't very good. I would expect the majority leader to extend the olive branch next year, and maybe then we'll see a bipartisan effort and possibly even a capital budget deal.
One last short term historic note - when John Filan put together the budget book two years ago, he defined the two most critical budget dilemmas facing the state as pension underfunding and Medicaid deficits. Two years later, those problems are now even larger, and there's been no real effort to try to address these issues. These aren't issues that are likely to make most voters most-important-issues lists, but they're problems that will continue to undermine the state's fiscal health.
budget watcher - Madigan's goal was to pass a budget, not derail the state. He didn't stand against Emil and Rod, he just wanted the Rpublicans to be a part of the process. At that time, they were willing to negotiate. That's a big contrast with their attitude now.
As I said before, Republicans haven't offered up a plan of their own because they have no plan. If they were forced to put one in writing, my guess is that it would look an awful lot like the one just passed. And the differences would be so politically popular, Republicans would be backed into supporting the Democratic version.
This, of course, would boost the Governor's popularity, passing a bipartisan budget. Topinka couldn't attack him, the state would be better off, and we'd four more years of Democrats.
"Throw the rascals out," the Republicans can now scream. But does anybody really believe that with Republicans in charge we would balance the budget and fully fund our schools, our pensions, and health care without raising taxes? Only if you believe Reaganomics.
Of course, Tom Cross, Frank Watson, and Judy Topinka can prove me wrong any time. They can post their own budget bill. I bet they couldn't even come up with a budget that every Republican would co-sponsor.
YDD,
That's quite a bit of revisionist history. The truth is that he absolutely stood against Rod and Emil. It was a long nasty session that wrapped up just before the National Democratic Convention, and afterwards there were some seriously strained relations for several months. At that time, the House Dems and the Senate Republicans were the only two chambers that could realistically put together a budget. In fact, most of that FY2005 session the Governor's staff wasn't even invited to meet due to lack of trust and/or competence.
We were headed the same direction last year, but Madigan abruptly stopped inviting the Senate Rs about five days prior to the end of session when it became obvious that the budget gap was simply too wide. The Republicans essentially didn't get invited to the final sessions because Madigan decided to propose that all of the modest savings from the pension reforms be front-load for two years as a means of facilitating a budget deal for last year and this. He knew that the Republicans would ridicule this plan, so they were simply dis-invited.
This year there was no invitation to participate, except to carry Rod's water on a capital budget plan. That's hardly bipartisan outreach.
BTW, how do you know if Watson, Cross, or Topinka has a budget alternative? I voted in 2002 without ever seeing a Rod Blagojevich budget plan, and yet by the middle of his first year, he had a budget. My guess is Governor Topinka could get one passed also, although her job would be much tougher in a Democratically controlled General Assembly.
I'm the real LOSER...for even caring what people here think.
Post a Comment