We get a state budget; legislators get pay raises. Ideologues get a migraine

Bruce Rauner really is gone. We truly are in a new era of state government.

PRITZKER: Signed a budget a month early?

For Gov. J.B. Pritzker didn’t even wait a full week before giving approval to a budget for Illinois’ Fiscal Year 2020 – which begins July 1.

PRITZKER SIGNED OFF Wednesday on the spending plan that will allow Illinois government to operate fully. He didn’t hesitate. Although the fact that the budget plan approved by the General Assembly was compiled largely by political allies means he didn’t have reason to expect the legislators would slip something in that would embarrass him.

Which led to Illinois being able to have a budget in place when the fiscal year begins.

That shouldn’t be a big deal. It’s what has become sad about Illinois government that it is. We had that two-plus year period during the Rauner years when no budget was in place.

Which caused problems for the ability of state government to operate, and which is largely responsible for the billions of dollars of a backlog that Illinois faces because during the Rauner years, the governor’s office was more concerned with approving measures meant to undermine organized labor – rather than ensuring that government could provide the services that were expected of it.

THERE WAS ONE uncertainty about the budget approval.

For it seems that legal language was inserted into the budget bill that provides for legislators themselves to get pay raises – the first ones they’ve received since back during the Blagojevich era in 2008.

In theory, Pritzker could have used his amendatory veto powers to delete that language – thereby leaving the base of the budget intact while removing the pay hike.

SKILLICORN: More interested in ideology

But Pritzker doesn’t sense the need to mess with the General Assembly – so he’s permitting their pay hike to go into effect.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, the Legislature pays a base salary of $67,836 per year, and that will increase by $1,600 this year. In short, just under $70,000, which I’m sure some people would argue means they’re grossly underpaid.

But it should be noted the only people who earn that lowly level are the freshmen legislators – and the ones who are so untrusted by leadership that they’re not entrusted to be in positions of authority such as committee chairmanships or ranking minority party members.

So they’re really not underpaid. But it could be argued that, not having had an increase of any sort for 11 years, it was time for the pay scale to be adjusted.

It didn’t stop those in the Republican minority from ranting and raging and DEMANDING that Pritzker use the amendatory veto to delete the pay hikes.

TAKE THE VIEWPOINT of state Rep. Allen Skillicorn, R-East Dundee, who said, “taxes are going up in Illinois to pay for the mismanagement of their money at the state level,” and added, “Legislators do not deserve a pay raise. Giving lawmakers a pay increase is a mistake that the governor can and should correct.”

He was amongst the legislators who either was delusional, or overly politically partisan, enough to say that Pritzker should use the amendatory veto. Even though Pritzker made it clear by Tuesday he fully intended to let the pay raises take effect when he signed off on a $40 billion state budget.

RAUNER: His era seems like centuries ago

With Pritzker saying it was “a highly negotiated budget” with both Democratic and Republican legislative support – implying it would be wrong for him to impose his will on the process.

Not that it should be surprising some people will want to complain. These are political people – after all. Perhaps being a partisan malcontent is just in their very nature. Although my guess is that their real objections is that their “side” didn’t do better back in the 2018 election cycle and their focus is more on 2020 than anything actually happening now.

  -30-

Statehouse resembles Fantasyland; legislators need to make up minds

There are times I seriously wonder just what world do the members of the Illinois General Assembly live in?

Because it certainly isn’t the one in which you and I are forced to exist in – one in which the problems of real life need to be confronted, or else risk serious consequences for trying to ignore them.

OUR STATE’S LEGISLATURE seems to think that if they close their eyes tightly enough, the financial problems confronting the state will just go away.

Or maybe they view it the same way they view gambling expansion, new airports or many other issues that linger for years (if not decades) on end because legislators just don’t think the time is right to finally address them. They don’t want to be bothered!

What has me worked up are the votes taken this week, particularly on Friday, with regards to the state’s budget.

Based off assorted news reports, it seems that only 34 Illinois House members (all Democrats) are willing to support the desire of Gov. Pat Quinn to make permanent the increase in the income tax approved a few years ago.

THE ONE THAT was crafted in a way that it lapses after year’s end, and we’d go back to the old state income tax rate.

Which means a significant drop in the amount of money available to state government for its operating expenses this year. And it’s not just state government itself.

Let’s not forget that many public service entities rely heavily on state government grants and other funds for a significant share of their own operating budgets. That includes public education, which would take a significant hit beyond the ones they have taken in recent years in terms of the amount of money they would have to operate schools.

Yet what is annoying is the vote that came Friday – one on a budget proposal that assumes the income tax boost will not remain in place, and that there will be major cuts required in state government operations.

THAT IS THE bill that received a 5-107 vote. As in only five legislators – House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and four other Democrats – being willing to support it.

We'll all be in the gloom 'n' doom of the Statehouse if legislators can't make up their minds by month's end

 

Now I’m sure the masses of those 107 voting against are going to claim they’re being responsible. They’re looking out for the schools. They’re protecting other public service programs and agencies that would be devastated if they took a major cut in funding.

But that’s nonsense.

Because like I pointed out before, there are only 34 (out of 118 Illinois House members) who are willing to support the cuts.

WHAT WE HAVE are legislators who don’t want anything cut, but don’t want to do anything to come up with the money required to avoid serious cuts.

Actually, what I suspect is that most of those legislators don’t want anything cut that impacts their legislative districts. They want the cuts to be made in programs affecting everybody else’s district.

A greedy little sentiment, which is in total character with the mentality of the typical General Assembly member.

Like I have written before, I don’t like the idea of the income tax remaining at a higher rate. Nobody does. Although I suspected back when it was temporarily increased that it would become permanent out of necessity.

SO EXCUSE ME for accepting reality, and the need to use the schools in particular to try to score some cheap political points meant to appease the anti-tax crowd – the ones who believe they have no obligation to support their government in any way.

Although maybe their problem is they don’t like the way it supports certain people whom they’d prefer to ignore.

So what’s going to happen between now and next Saturday, which is when the General Assembly is supposed to complete its business for the spring session and go home until November?

MADIGAN: How hard can he hit?

I don’t have a clue! Several somebodies in the General Assembly are going to have to undergo serious changes of heart in their feelings. They’re going to have to pick a side – more money, or more cuts.

WE MAY WIND up seeing some classic use of power by Madigan to make people wind up doing the right thing. We could learn just how hard the “Velvet Hammer” of old still hits.

Trying to play both sides and avoid offending anybody is what is going to cause serious financial problems to develop and linger on long after this spring session is nothing but a distant nightmare.

  -30-

Is it time to consider Latino political empowerment in NW Side lege district?

We now have 33^rd Ward Alderman Deborah Mell, along with a vacancy in the Illinois House of Representatives from the city’s Northwest Side.

MELL: She needs a legislative replacement

And in a sense, the real politicking now takes place.

BECAUSE IT WAS always kind of a done deal that now-retired Alderman Dick Mell’s desire to hand the seat off to his daughter was going to be accomplished (as it was on Wednesday when Mayor Rahm Emanuel made it official).

But Mell’s political “promotion” means her seat from the Illinois House 40^th district is now open. For the record, the openly-lesbian Mell has said she’d like it if the legislative post could go to someone who identifies as gay – so that there will be no loss in political influence in the Illinois General Assembly.

But she’s not being openly pushy about that point – which is good in the sense that it avoids a political battle with those who want the retirement of Dick Mell to result in some form of political advancement for Latinos – who comprise a majority of the 33^rd Ward’s population these days.

Heck, most of the 12 publicly-named finalists whom Emanuel supposedly considered seriously for the aldermanic post were of Latino ethnic origins. There were those who wanted the new alderman to be a Latino.

NOW, THOSE PEOPLE are going to be pushing for the legislative post, at the very least, to go to a Latino.

It’s not impossible that it could happen. When Dick Mell initially said he was retiring from the City Council, the rumor mill had daughter Deb getting the aldermanic post, and long-time aide Jaime Andrade being picked to replace her in the Legislature.

It may still wind up working out this way. Although I wonder if one of the other Latinos who tried to become alderman will express interest in being a state legislator. Some of them who envisioned spending time at City Hall downtown may not like the idea of making the four-hour drive back and forth to Springfield every spring.

Personally, I hope it works out this way. Because I think the General Assembly (representing the entire state) needs a boost in its Latino ethnic composition; if just to show those people in the rest of Illinois who are either in denial or are clueless as to the growing potential influence of the Latino population.

ANYBODY IN CHICAGO proper who doesn’t realize the Latino significance is probably beyond redemption. Whereas I haven’t written off the rest of the state.

Besides, I believe it is possible for any Latino public official to work with the various interests that comprise the modern-day Democratic Party – including those who have as their top concern the rights of gay people in Illinois.

Picking a Latino official shouldn’t be exclusionary to the concept of picking a gay-sympathetic legislator. As it seems to have become this spring between the gay rights interests and the Black Caucus when it came to the issue of gay marriage being legitimized in Illinois.

Besides, every legislator (and alderman, for that matter) has so many differing individuals that they’d better be capable of representing different interests. Even though some legislators like to pretend they can ignore anyone who isn’t exactly like them!

THE POLITICAL FUTURE is now in the hands of Dick Mell, who in all this shifting is the one constant – he hasn’t given up his post as Democratic committeeman for the 33^rd Ward.

Which means he gets to be the predominant voice in picking a new legislator – since his ward dominates the 40^th Illinois House district and the committeemen (NOT the mayor) make this pick.

So in the end, we can talk all we want about political change and the idea that there is potential for Latino influence to grow at the state government level.

The bottom line is that the new state representative will be the person who most pleases the Democratic committeeman; who’s about as “old school” as our current lot of officials gets.

  -30-

Legislature to give up college tuition waiver perk? Who’s kidding whom?

It seems that an increasing number of state legislators are going out of their way to distance themselves from a perk that has been a part of their job for more than a century – the ability to send someone to college tuition-free.

Some state legislators are so eager to avoid the headaches that have come to be associated with the measure that they go out of their way to avoid using it.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, has even concocted a bill that would do away with it – and the appearance of bipartisanship could be provided because of the fact that Gov. Pat Quinn has said he would sign it into law if it were ever approved by the General Assembly and sent to him for consideration.

Yet nobody thinks this perk is in any serious danger of disappearing, because too many legislators (including the ones who are actually in control at the ‘Statehouse in Springpatch’) think they are doing a public good with their perk.

That, and they like the ability to ‘play God,’ so to speak, with the ability to help someone who might be in need to be able to attend a public university and work toward a college degree of some sort.

That is the reason why the Legislature’s black caucus members are particularly big fans of the perk – which has been in place since 1905.

SO PEOPLE LIKE state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi, D-Joliet, and state Rep. Jason Barickman, R-Champaign, can rant all they want about misuse of the perk for political purposes, or how it deprives the state of money that can desperately be used right about now.

The only people who are going to be listening are their hometown reporter-type people who will latch onto the related quotes because it gives the impression that their local official is someone relevant on statewide issues – rather than just a local politico who is asked to vote on issues (usually in accordance with how their leader tells them to).

What motivates me to write this latest commentary on the issue is that I have noticed several reports in places like the Joliet Herald-News or WJBC-AM radio of Bloomington with these legislators shouting and screaming for the need to do away with the tuition waiver perk.

But I don’t sense any movement from the people who might be able to push the measure through. Which means this will be nothing but a lot of ‘hot air.’ Cheap rhetoric fills space, and I have written my share of stories throughout the years that were based on nothing but some political person’s ‘hot air’ talk.

BUT THAT DOESN’T mean we should get our hopes up that any action will occur. We have a better chance of a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance this year than we do of seeing the tuition waiver perk disappearing.

Note that I keep using the phrase “tuition waiver” to describe this action – rather than the politician-preferred phrase of “legislative scholarship.”

The people who back this seem to like the image being created that what they’re doing is controlling a pool of money that is distributed to the public universities across Illinois to pay for the tuition of those students who receive the waivers.

The problem is that there never was, never has been and never will be, any real money associated with this perk. It is a tuition waiver. The people who get chosen by individual legislators to receive the perk get nothing more than an official letter on the legislator’s state stationery.

THE LETTER IS addressed to the bursar of whichever state college the recipient attends, and it informs them that the student in question is NOT to be charged any tuition for the courses they take during that academic year.

Since the colleges in question already realize that they are going to have a certain number of people not paying tuition for political purposes, they react in the obvious manner. Every year when tuition rates are set for the following year, they are boosted ever so slightly higher than otherwise necessary to cover the costs of the freebies they’re forced to give out.

In short, the rest of the student bodies are paying just a little bit higher in tuition rates to cover the costs of the people who get to pay no tuition for the year because it suited the political needs of a state legislator.

To me, the part of this perk that is troublesome is not that it exists. But it is that each legislator is allowed to set his (or her) own terms for who gets it – and for what qualifications.

SO WHILE SOME legislators go out of their ways to create committees that judge students on their academic merits or financial need, others literally are giving them to the children of their political allies.

The way the law is now written, there’s nothing wrong with that. Except that there really is.

As for the people who just want to do a knee-jerk elimination of the perk, I’m not sure what to think. Because as much as I’m sure they want to think they’re being heroic and noble, a part of me believes they, too, are looking for an easy way out by wanting to do nothing at all.

  -30-