New governor to live in Springfield, while family remains in Chicago

Excuse me for thinking it a non-issue in terms of recent reports that Gov.-elect J.B. Pritzker says he intends to live in the Illinois capital city while serving in office.

PRITZKER: Moving to Springfield

The state does, after all, provide an official residence for the governor – the Executive Mansion, located one block away from the Capitol building in Springfield.

IN FACT, THE state in recent years performed significant renovations on the governor’s mansion, with some people going so far as to point out rather sarcastically that soon-to-be former Gov. Bruce Rauner kicked in some of his own money for the project, just to improve a house for his successor.

As though that makes the current governor the ultimate sucker!

But Pritzker says he’ll move to Springfield, although he admits his wife and two sons will remain in Chicago – they’re still in school and he doesn’t want to disrupt their lives, he says. Besides, the mansion is actually a series of formal ballrooms, with a private quarters on the top floor. Basically, it’s an over-glorified apartment.

Which is a fact I’m sure will manage to offend many of the people whom Pritzker was probably hoping to pacify with his residential announcement. Because there are people who are going to think anything short of the entire Pritzker family loading up the moving van to haul their belongings to Springfield is nothing more than a snub of the Illinois capital.

A Lincoln Park resident while governor

IT IS ONE of the laughable issues I recall from my days as a Springfield-based correspondent – downstate people convinced that everything had to be based downstate, and who resented those state agencies that maintained significant Chicago presences.

These are the people who were bothered by former Govs. James Thompson living with his wife and kid in a Lincoln Park neighborhood mansion, Rod Blagojevich eventually trying to run the entire state from a private office he maintained in his Ravenswood Manor neighborhood home, and Pat Quinn only occasionally staying in the mansion when not at home in the Austin neighborhood.

He rarely left Ravenswood Manor

Of course, even Jim Edgar wound up having a home in the Springfield suburbs (the “log house,” a home done up in a log cabin motif), while also maintaining an apartment in downtown Chicago for those days when his work brought him to the city.

If anything, George Ryan may have been the recent governor who made the best effort to get around the state – living in a Chicago apartment, the mansion in Springfield and spending weekends at his family home in Kankakee.

A West Sider (Austin neighborhood)

MEANING HE’D MAKE a complete circle around Illinois every single week!

As for Pritzker, he’ll use the mansion as a job-related residence, although we probably should expect he’ll be making many back-and-forth trips between Chicago and Springfield.

Which will bother those who want to think Illinois centers around Springfield – even though I’d argue the realities of the modern world mean we probably should have governors who are mobile and traveling about the state. The idea that he’s supposed to sit behind a desk inside the Capitol and never leave Springfield would be evidence of a governor not doing his job.

RAUNER: Helped renovate the mansion

Just as it can be argued that having a governor like Blagojevich who would have preferred never to have left his house was evidence alone that the job was not being done properly back in his gubernatorial era.

WHAT AMAZES ME is that some people will be willing to make an issue of all this – either that the governor never spends time in Springfield, or else is there far too often and neglecting the rest of the state’s needs.

RYAN: Actually lived around Ill.

You’d think with all the issues, financial and social, that confront Illinois government these days, there’d be far more important things for people to concern them about.

But then again, some people will want to find something to gripe about – no matter what.

Just as they’ll want to move along to the other statewide constitutional officers, who are required by law to maintain a residence in Springfield – even though the state makes no provision for their own housing. Just think how they’d moan if the state budget also included provisions for, say, an Illinois attorney general mansion?

  -30-

Who’s the boss (and I don’t mean that old television program) of Illinois?

Will new governor have to take marching orders … 

J.B. Pritzker has been governor-elect for a week now and has already created a team of advisers (including Republicans such as former Gov. Jim Edgar and former Illinois Senate leader Christine Radogno amongst them) to advise him on how to go about actually running Illinois government.

Yet there are those who are persisting with such political rhetoric as to say the only person who’s really going to influence him is the guy who will actually run the state.

… from Mr. Speaker himself?

NONE OTHER THAN Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. As though they can’t let go of all the trash talk that they tried to use to tie everybody in sight to Madigan so it would cost them re-election.

It didn’t work. Yet we’re still hearing the trash talk.

I got my kick out of the Daily Herald newspaper account where Jeanne Ives, the ideologue who tried (but failed) to beat Bruce Rauner herself, said she thinks Illinois is safe from any sort of progressive tax hike.

Although state government certainly could use the money to make real progress toward paying off all the bills it accumulated during Rauner’s partisan efforts to undermine organized labor’s influence, Ives said she believes Madigan won’t let the Democrat-dominated General Assembly approve any such thing.

Radogno and Edgar (below) … 

SHE SAYS MADIGAN is political astute enough to realize a large segment of the population would disapprove, possibly even revolt, and would start electing Republicans again if Democrats get to brazen.

“I think Mike Madigan will still run the state,” Ives told the suburban-based newspaper. “He is savvy and knows the state can’t withstand another tax increase.”

So is J.B. really nothing more than Madigan’s puppet; expected to sign off on whatever bills Madigan (with state Senate President John Cullerton’s cooperation) allows to get as far as the gubernatorial desk?

… are among those advising J.B. these days

Or is Ives, the state senator from Wheaton (no longer a bastion of the Republican Party) merely trying to maintain a semblance of relevance in today’s Illinois political age?

THIS IS A debate I have heard often – trying to figure out who’s really in charge these days! Because it is likely (if not downright predictable) that there will be a falling-out between Pritzker and Madigan. A rivalry will develop within the party over who ought to be listening to whom. Which is why people used to think Illinois would never have Democrats as governor -- Madigan wouldn't permit anyone who could undermine his influence!

Pritzker may well adopt the attitude that the people picked HIM to be governor, while Madigan may well feel J.B. is a political amateur who’s never run NOTHING and who ought to leave the governing to the big boys who have been doing this for awhile.

I’ve even heard it said that Pritzker is in a unique position to challenge such incumbent thought because he’s so wealthy. Similar to how Rauner tried to buy the Republican Party political structure to support his own desires, Pritzker has the kind of money to where he could be the guy that Democrats turn to for political support, instead of having to rely on Madigan’s labor connections to raise their political funds.

Particularly since within the Democratic Party structures across the nation, there are splits between establishment types supporting the current structure, and those who want a more politically progressive structure.

AFTER ALL, WHAT’S the point of having a not-so-liberal Democratic Party? You might as well be a Republican, is their attitude. Madigan himself is most definitely of the party’s establishment – a guy who backs the Democrats because of his support for organized labor and its interests.

IVES: Trying to retain relevance

There are times when he seems to dread having to deal with more liberal elements and social causes. Only backing them when he can figure a way to turn them to his own interests. But that may be the relevant point – Madigan is a political mastermind who can figure ways to use issues for a greater good, so to speak.

We all saw how Rauner’s efforts to use his money to buy a political party for himself failed to the point where some now wonder if the Illinois Republican Party has anything left worth use! Could Pritzker be just as inept without Madigan’s mindset on his side.

Could it be in everybody’s interest that the two men figure out a way to cooperate? Which could mean the true threat to the people of Illinois is that Democrats are not really the united force for liberal causes in the way that elements of the modern-day Republicans have become the party wishing to force conservatism down all our throats.

  -30-

Edgar an old-school “real” Republican, instead of an "Age of Trump" character

It shouldn’t be surprising to learn that Jim Edgar (the Illinois governor of the 1990s) doesn’t think much of incumbent Bruce Rauner, and is actually offering up some advice to Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker.

EDGAR: A political adviser to all

That was the BIG STORY offered up this week by WCIA-TV in Champaign, that Edgar won’t endorse Rauner’s re-election and is almost something of a counselor for Pritzker – whom it seems he knows firsthand from when the two of them served on a board over a decade ago promoting gambling interests connected to horseracing.

IT IS THE kind of political tidbit that will get the conservative ideologues who have taken over the Republican Party all worked up. They’ll spew a whole lot of nasty names – the nicest of which may be that he’s a “RINO” (a so-called “Republican in Name Only”).

As in one of those people whose refusal to be ideologically rigid is what is wrong with politics these days.

Yet I can see where Edgar is so different in background compared to Rauner – and most definitely to President Donald Trump that the real news would be if Edgar could find a way to be supportive of either man.

Or any of the ideologues determined to use party politics and government for the sole purpose of wiping out the opposition on just about any issue.

RAUNER: Lost the leanings of Gov. Jim

THE TRICK TO comprehending The Edgar Years (which coincide closely with the Bill Clinton era) is to remember that Edgar was a man who worked the bulk of his professional life collecting paychecks from Illinois state government.

He was a guy who went from being an intern within the Illinois Legislature all the way up to two terms as governor. I remember I used to joke to people that Edgar was the equivalent of the mythical guy who went from working in the company mailroom to being CEO – except that his company was Illinois state government.

He also served as an Illinois House member(from his hometown of Charleston, the college town that gives us Eastern Illinois University), on the staff of Gov. James R. Thompson and also as Illinois secretary of state.

PRITZKER: Will he listen to Edgar advice?

Edgar was definitely someone who worked his way up through the system, learned how it works and took a strong interest in preserving it.

I CAN SEE where a person like that would find someone like Bruce Rauner distasteful.

With Rauner being the venture capitalist who developed significant personal wealth, then decided to run for a top government post (none of that working his way up politically) because he thinks government made things difficult for his business-self entity.

Just like I’m sure a significant part of the Trump presidency is about trying to change all the government regulations that see sees as having interfered with the business interests of himself, and people like him.

Never mind the fact that many of those regulatory functions were meant to protect the public from the harm that could be caused by Trump’s every little precarious whim.

SO IS THE fact that Rauner let state government go for multiple years without a balanced budget in place an act of irresponsibility that would lead Edgar to say he’s endorsing nobody this year – and certainly not Gov. Bruce? Very likely yes!

Edgar an antique in this Age of Trump

Does the fact that Edgar has always had a strong interest in horses and racetracks and the fact that he got to know Pritzker mean he’s willing to sit down and advise him on how to conduct himself responsibly during a campaign? Probably.

So for the Champaign-area CBS affiliate to report that there have been meetings between Edgar and Pritzker – with the former governor advising J.B. not to get too tied into details now because the realities of governing could cause him to have to change his stance on issues – shouldn’t be shocking.

Because I don’t doubt Edgar is a “Land of Lincoln”-style Republican at heart, and he’ll probably be the first to publicly lambast a “Gov. Pritzker” the first time J.B. screws something up.

  -30-

Now, it’s a free-for-all for who gets to be the new 'Man on Five' at da Hall

We haven’t even cast ballots yet for governor or senator, yet the focus Tuesday clearly shifted to the election cycle scheduled for 2019.

EMANUEL: As 'Hawk' Harrelson would say, "He Gone!"

As in the mayor’s office, the post that many local political people think is more important than any other.

THAT CAMPAIGN JUST became a free-for-all, what with Rahm Emanuel letting it be known he’s NOT going to seek a third four-year term in office. He’s willing to leave it at two – and let his political headstone read 2011-2019.

Which means the bidding for who gets to be the next mayor of Chicago truly is up-for-grabs. There were some dozen or so people who already had expressed interest in challenging Emanuel. While many of them will likely turn out to be long-shots who will be lucky to take 1 percent or so of the vote, it will be interesting to see who winds up becoming the front-runner.

And, by extension, which vision for the city of Chicago we’re driven in as a result.

I’m not about to try to predict who the new front-runner is. Personally, my own thoughts are that Emanuel would have been the number one vote getter of the candidate field, but that the other dozen or so people might well have managed to get a slim majority of the vote in February.

Rahm from his days in Congress

RESULTING IN A run-off election come April between Rahm and whichever challenger turns out to be Number Two.

Which actually seems to be the strategy of everybody who was daring to challenge Emanuel come February – count on the number of people who want “Anybody But Rahm” to total more than the number of people content to have the political establishment candidate prevail, and they might well fluke their way into the history books as the 56^th mayor ever of the city of Chicago.

Emanuel served presidents Obama … 

Without Rahm in the running, it means the dozen or so challengers are going to have to run on their own merits and voters will have to decide for themselves whether the collection of complaining no-names are actually qualified to hold the post – should they manage to prevail on Election Day.

That might actually be better for Chicago, since it reduces the chance that an unfit candidate will creep and crawl his or her way into the Fifth Floor suite of offices used by the mayor and his/her staff at City Hall.

… and Clinton

AS FOR EMANUEL, I’m not sure if I totally believe his story on Tuesday that he wants to spend more time with his family – or as he phrased it, “What matters most is four more years for our children, not four more years for me.”

But the man who was a presidential aide to Bill Clinton, a chief of staff to Barack Obama AND a U.S. senator from the city’s Northwest Side already has established a political legacy for himself. Serving another term would have been purely an ego-booster, and maybe one not worth the headaches he’d have had to endure to achieve it.

At the very least, I’m sure Pat Quinn will claim “victory” in that he got Emanuel to not seek another term – and we’ll probably never learn what the courts would have had to say about the merits of his mayoral term limits proposal that really was crafted in such a way as to kick Rahm out of office.

EDGAR: Will Rahm follow his lead into academia?

In fact, I found it interesting to see that the first politico who felt compelled to issue a statement in reaction to Rahm was none other than Illinois House Speaker (and state Democratic Chairman) Michael Madigan, who issued a sort of back-handed praise about Emanuel’s departure.

“AS CHICAGO CONTINUES to move forward and grow as an international city, we will remain grateful for Mayor Emanuel’s leadership,” Madigan said. Which almost translates to something along the lines of “Good riddance. He’s gone, and I’m still the Boss!”

Emanuel’s departure kind of reminded me of similar actions of two decades ago – when Jim Edgar announced he would not seek re-election to a third term as governor back in 1998. Many people were convinced he was a politico-for-life and could not bear to be away from elective office.

Who will be the new occupant of mayoral office suite?

It should be noted that Edgar has not held elective office since then, and in fact worked his way into academia at the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public Affairs.

I must confess; the thought of Emanuel winding up in a similar academic gig intrigues me – a master of blunt-spoken, political hardball tactics morphing into the ultimate goo-goo!

  -30-

Now we can see why the Dems wanted Pritzker so badly to run for governor

Whodathunkit! The big-bucks governor … 

How different would things be these days if Christopher Kennedy or Daniel Biss had somehow managed to win the Democratic primary for governor back in March?

I wonder that because the party’s establishment always made it clear they wanted J.B. Pritzker to be the nominee who challenged Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desire for re-election to a second term as Illinois governor.

… is being outspent. For now!

AFTER LOOKING AT the latest campaign disclosure reports, it becomes blatantly apparent why J.B. was the favorite of da Dems. His wallet.

The Chicago Sun-Times went so far as to break down the totals showing that Pritzker was capable of spending $207,000 per day during the three months ending June 30. By comparison, Rauner was a virtual pauper at a “mere” $83,000 per day on his campaign.

The bulk of that money went to all those annoying campaign ads we’ve been seeing on television taking pot shots at both of the major party candidates. How many more times do we need to see a Pritzker parody taking the sledge hammer to his toilet – so as to cheat the government out of property tax monies he allegedly should have paid.

For the record, the Pritzker campaign spent some $20.1 million during the past three months and had some $18.3 million in its bank accounts as of June 30.

MEANING PRITZKER WAS anxious to try to bury Rauner in so much campaign dung that he’d never be capable of crawling out of the heap. Similar to the 1994 election cycle when Gov. Jim Edgar managed to bury Democratic challenger Dawn Clark Netsch in so much sludge related to her alleged desire for tax hikes that she never was able to gain ground when the campaign cycle peaked in autumn.

Of course, the Rauner campaign isn’t exactly struggling financially.

Some $7.8 million was spent by the Rauner camp trying to make J.B. out to be the ultimate con artist cheating Chicago out of property tax revenues by making his second home technically uninhabitable (no functioning toilets). I’ve seen those campaign ad spots so often, particularly the one with a J.B. lookalike that looks nothing like him.

But Rauner is trying to pace himself, it would seem.

FOR THE SAME campaign reports showed Rauner with $31.8 million in bank accounts on June 30.

Either Pritzker is going to have to cough up significant amounts of more cash for himself or go on a political fundraising spree to match Rauner. Or else accept the fact that he’s going to be significantly out-spent by Bruce, who’s bound to have more sleaze to fling J.B.’s way between now and the Nov. 6 elections.

This is kind of odd, to me at least. Because I’m used to political circumstances where Republican candidates are the ones who have access to the real big money. After all, the very rich want political people in office who are sympathetic to their needs.

Times have changed since days of Jim Edgar

They are capable of outspending the special interest groups that raise money, then donate it to political people they think will sympathize with their causes.

RAUNER WAS DIFFERENT because he showed back in 2014 that he WAS one of those very rich people, only he got tired of giving his money to other people to look out for his interests. Instead, he’s running for office himself.

It seems the Democrats, this time around, trotted out the guy THEY usually turned to for financial support for their candidates. It seems Pritzker already has coughed up some $100 million of his own money to fund his campaign.

Which puts to shame the “mere” $50 million that Rauner donated last year to the fund paying for his campaign and those of assorted Republicans running for General Assembly posts that Bruce wants to win so he can have political allies.

The point being both of these guys are quite a bit different from the days of, say Jim Edgar, who actually had to live off the roughly $150,000 annual salary Illinois paid him to be governor. Between Rauner and Pritzker, one of these guys is in for a serious emotional shock when he realizes how much of his own money he blew on a failed ego trip by running, and losing, for governor.

  -30-

Overloaded with symbolism, but will future generations “get” Quinn portrait?

It has been a gimmick of recent men who have served as governors that when they pose for their official portraits that hang in the Hall of Governors in Springfield that there are background details meant to distinguish them.

Quinn making a statement? Or just a political hoarder?

Former Gov. James R. Thompson is posed sitting in front of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln – making it a portrait within a portrait. He also wore an Elgin Watch in his portrait, and made sure to point that detail out.

WHILE IN THE case of former Gov. Jim Edgar, he’s sitting in front of a painting from one of the famed Lincoln/Douglas debates – in fact, the debate that was held in what later became his hometown of Charleston, Ill.

Considering that Edgar, when he was governor, actually had that painting hanging in his office at the Statehouse, it seemed somewhat appropriate.

Even in the case of Thompson, the Lincoln inclusion seemed kind of cute – although I wonder if anyone ever notices the Elgin-brand watch or finds it relevant.

Yet now we move ahead to former Gov. Pat Quinn, who on Monday (a little more than two years after he stepped down from the post) presented the portrait of himself that will hang in the Statehouse halls for generations to come.

THE OFFICIAL WAY we’ll be asked to remember “the Mighty Quinn.”

Which seems like it’s overload.

Quinn had a Lincoln portrait included in the background of his own portrait, along with several objects meant to be symbolic of his time in office.

There’s the photograph of Quinn surrounded by people who happen to be black – which Quinn wants us to know makes them the first non-white individuals whose images will be part of the Hall of Governors; right near Shadrach Bond (the first governor), Joel A. Matteson (whose name pronunciation is now routinely butchered by all the people who live in the south suburb entitled in his honor) and John P. Altgeld (probably now remembered by most as a public housing complex).

OF COURSE, THERE also are illustrations of a wedding photograph of Quinn’s parents, photographs of his sons and other relatives and several specifically-titled books – one of which touts the “Illinois Jobs Now!” program that the former governor would like to believe will be the keystone of his legacy.

If anything, the actual depiction of Quinn seems kind of bland – as though more attention were paid to including items in the background. As it turns out, 44 items to be exact.

Truly a case of the details overcoming the reality of the man.

It makes me wonder if this portrait will ultimately be remembered as a failure. For so many are included that there’s too much to process. Plus the fact that future generations may remember so little of Quinn the details won’t make much sense.

I DID FIND it interesting to learn that William T. Chambers was commissioned to do this portrait. For he’s the same man who gave us the aforementioned portraits of Thompson and Edgar. Which makes him now a politically bipartisan artist.

And yes, Quinn made sure to point out that no taxpayer monies were used to make this portrait. He handled the fundraising himself, which perhaps is why it took just over two years for the work to be finished.

Also ensuring that the only gap we’re going to have for the time being is that of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich – who has been preoccupied with his incarceration at federal facilities in Colorado to be able to pose for a portrait.

Which makes me think it too bad that Quinn couldn’t have included a Blagojevich head shot in the background of his official portrait – since Quinn’s term-and-a-half as governor did start when he was called upon to finish two years of Blagojevich’s term following impeachment.

BLAGOJEVICH CERTAINLY WOULD have fit in with the clutter of Quinn’s portrait. It also would be a blow to the Blagojevich ego since he, in his own self-delusional state-of-mind, thought HE and not Barack Obama, ought to be Illinois’ contribution to the national political fabric.

For those who want to see Rod reduced to nothingness, how much lower could he go than to be merely remembered as a bit player in “the Quinn Years?”

  -30-

EXTRA: Gov. Gridlock? It doesn’t have the same panache as “Gov. No.”

To listen to the communications director for Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Gov. Bruce Rauner is now “Gov. Gridlock.”
 

Rauner as 'Gov. Gridlock'...

The Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday how Adam Collins has coined the new nickname for the governor, in response to Rauner saying he will veto a measure the Illinois Legislature approved to try to salvage two city worker pension programs.

NOT THAT RAUNER’S reaction ought to be surprising. He’s willing to play politics with the measure desired by many city officials who see the need for state assistance with regards to the pension issue.

 

... falls behind Jim Edgar's 'Gov. No'

Then again, coming up with that kind of nickname surely shows the willingness of Chicago Dems to take on some partisanship of their own.

It reminds me of the days of old some two decades ago, back when the idea of city and state officials feuding meant Richard M. Daley taking on Jim Edgar – who got the nickname “Gov. No.” In response to the notion that Edgar’s automatic reaction to anything desired by the city was “No.”

Although it also brought up the James Bond-ian image of Dr. No – the evil villain who plotted to undermine the Project Mercury program into space, only to be saved by British agent 007 himself.

NOT THAT I ever thought of Edgar as being reminiscent of the evil villain portrayed by actor Joseph Wiseman. Or Daley as anyway like a British intelligence agent – unless you mean like in an Austin Powers-type world of ridiculous parody.

But it did have a punchiness to the nickname; a certain ring to it.

Rauner's nickname doesn't bring to mind cinematic images

To where I must confess that my first reaction to learning that Rauner now had a nickname was to compare it to that of Edgar – whom I suspect would resent being compared to Rauner on every level.

Because Edgar was a lifelong state government person to whom getting a chance to put together the state budget was the whole point of the job – and not just an excuse to play political games.

  -30-

Making money off of Illinois idiocy

You almost have to admire, in a conniving sort of way, the ability of a new company to figure out a way of making money off of Illinois government’s financial incompetence.

We're talking about the fact that certain parts of state government went for the entire 2016 Fiscal year (which ended last week) without being able to spend money.

THEY WEREN’T FORTUNATE enough to have court orders mandating that their services be provided and bills be paid regardless of the lack of a state budget.

So people who do business with those agencies have unpaid bills for their services. They have a legal assurance that they will someday be paid for their work, but it will be whenever the state finally gets around to things – which will come in upcoming months now that a budget of sorts is in place.

The key to comprehending this particular deal, which the Chicago Sun-Times reported on during the weekend and the Associated Press spread across the state like peanut butter on bread, is to realize that the state does have a legal obligation to pay extra to these people.

It is a penalty, of sorts, to the state for being late. Someday, these businesses could get more money than they had expected.

UNLESS THEY WIND up doing business with Illinois Financing Partners, which is a new company that is in the business of paying off people who are owed money by state government.

This company, controlled in part by former Gov. Jim Edgar, makes sure the businesses get the money they’re owed, with the understanding that when the state actually does reimburse for its debt, that payment – and any interest – will be given to Illinois Financing.

Meaning the businesses won’t gain that extra money. It will go to the company, which will wind up making its profit off of the fact that our state officials let partisan politics interfere with government operations to the point that it impacted the daily way of doing things.

In a sense, it sounds like some sort of third-rate conspiracy to make money off of someone else’s suffering one step up from bookmaking or loansharking. Although I’m sure there are laws that ensure it is completely legal.

PARTICULARLY SINCE NO one is forcing any particular business to take the deal!

Actually, I can comprehend why businesses would be eager to do business with Illinois Financing. Because it promises that companies will get the money they’re owed RIGHT NOW!!! Not at some obscure, unspecified date in the future.

When it comes to smaller companies where cash flow is important to maintain the daily operations, the idea of more money to be paid in the future is much less important than the idea of getting paid what is owed right now.

Waiting for the bigger payment could cause a company to fall so far behind in unpaid bills that they wouldn’t remain in existence long enough to collect that bigger payoff.

SO MAYBE THE companies feel blessed, in a sense, that they’re getting the money they’re owed. They can move forward, get on with their operations, and perhaps use the experience of recent months as a lesson of what can go wrong if one relies too heavily on doing business with Illinois state government.

Which is really a sad lesson to have to learn – if you think about it.

For state government is often semi-jokingly referred to as “the people’s business.” It ought to be something that companies consider a safe bet because their work will end up (or at least it’s supposed to) benefit the public.

Instead, someone has figured out a way to turn politically partisan ineptitude into a profit margin for themselves – rather than the public at large.

  -30-

EXTRA: Gov. Bruce “No Budget” Rauner??? Is it possible?

"We might not have a budget during the term of Bruce Rauner”—State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie.

  -0-

LANG: Harsh talk?!?

What if it comes true?

A part of me wants to believe it’s political nonsense being spewed by a Democratic partisan – which certainly is a role that Lou Lang plays within the General Assembly.

HE SAYS THE ‘over the top’ things too ridiculous for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, to say.

But we’re approaching the end of the fiscal year without a budget, which in and of itself is a concept that once would have been unthinkable.

What if we have a governor who buys into his political baloney of shaking up government so much that he doesn’t care about the many services and functions the state is supposed to perform, but isn’t right now because of the lack of a specific spending plan dictating how state funds are to be spent?

To me, it sounds downright irresponsible. Impeachable, almost. The kind of negligence for which we ought to think of removing a person from office.

NOT THAT I expect anyone to seriously lead an effort to impeach Bruce Rauner. In the end, Rod Blagojevich got booted from office because he had an arrogant attitude that caused the people who were supposed to be his political allies to turn on him.

Whereas while they might be somewhat embarrassed by their behavior, Republicans in the General Assembly see Rauner’s actions as the only reason they have a voice in these days of the veto-proof majorities that rule both the state Senate and Illinois House of Representatives.

 

EDGAR: What would Jim have done?

Nobody’s going nowhere at least until the next statewide election cycle of 2018. Even then, we might wind up with the same split. So I don’t see any change, and Lang’s rant from an organized labor rally held in Springfield on Wednesday is something that ought seriously be contemplated.

Still, I am someone who came into following state legislative antics in the days of Gov. Jim Edgar, who himself was the ultimate Springpatch-oriented geek. The idea of not doing a budget is something he could have never envisioned – even though his constant opposition to then-Mayor Richard M. Daley made him the original “Gov. No.”

  -30-