With Democrats now holding a supermajority in the Illinois House and Senate as well as the governor's office, one might suppose a Democratic agenda would be a slam dunk in Springfield.
As recent years have shown, however, single-party control doesn't guarantee the wheels of government grind smoothly.
And former Gov. Jim Edgar, who served from 1991 to 1999, suggests that probably won't change anytime soon.
In a wide-ranging interview with the new website Reboot Illinois, Edgar says Springfield is less dysfunctional when the two parties share power.
"More times than not I think split government works pretty well. The reason is to make the tough decisions you need both parties. It’s hard to get one party to put up all the votes and take all the blame, so they don’t make the tough decisions. If you’re in the minority, you don’t have to be responsible. If one of the houses or the governor is in your party, then you have a responsibility to be part of the solution. ...
"What happens is your party gets complete control and then the extremes in the party say, “Hey, we have control. Let’s go!” Dealing with Pate Phillip (Republican Illinois Senate president from 1993 to 2003), when we had a split government he knew he had to compromise. When we had complete control he wanted to go to the right so far. When I had a House Democrat and a Senate Republican everyone knew we had to compromise from the word go."
Edgar, who might have been the last effective, respected governor to serve the state of Illinois, had some interesting things to say about other thorny problems, including how much income tax you should be paying.
Raise Income Taxes: "Until we double the income tax, Illinois is a very low-taxing state. We’re still not that high for an industrial state. And so for years the people of Illinois have got off pretty cheap, what they pay for state government compared with other states. So I think one of the realities is, you can only cut so much and we need to cut. But it’s not going to be that easy. But I think we’re going to have to pay more because for too long we kind of got a free ride in Illinois."
No New Programs: "First of all, no new programs. I don’t care how wonderful they are, we don’t have any money. I think you have sit the leaders down and the governor is going to have to probably be a little more flexible from the point of view that we’ve to figure out how we’re going to cut spending and we’re going to have to not create new programs."
The All-Powerful Mike Madigan: "Well, if the speaker’s the most powerful person in Springfield, something’s not working. Because the governor should be the most powerful. And I don’t blame all the problems on Mike Madigan."
Cut Good Programs: "We’re at the point where you’re going to have to cut some good programs. You have to determine what’s essential and what’s just good. That’s a tough decision. I had to go through that in the early '90s and it’s not an easy decision. But the governor has to just continue to work with the four leaders and put aside personal animosities and he’s going to have to put aside some of his personal wish list and work with them."
Up to this point, however, Gov. Pat Quinn hasn't shown much ability to work with the legislative leaders. His latest big idea is Squeezy the Pension Python, a cartoon mascot designed to rally Illinoisans around pension reform. Apparently, the governor imagines a groundswell of popular support via Facebook and Twitter will persuade lawmakers to spontaneously think up a solution.
Members of his own party mocked the idea as "juvenile," reports the Chicago Tribune.
This post is published throughout the Patch network in the Chicago area.
The point here is, as my house value goes down my taxes continue to rise. We need accountability in all of our govermental agencies. The now vacant bank at the S/W corner of Mill and Orchard roads would make a great location for a police substation. It will be needed when the crime rate surges.
If anyone could present an actual plan, based on the unique circumstances of EACH body, they could get my support. That plan has never been put forth, just more of the 'cut 20%' ramblings. This is not a 'negotiating tactic' or any other nonsense, this is the fiscal health of your town, and a surprisingly large amount of people have willingly gotten on board to actively damage their communities. On the surface, it makes perfect sense - who wouldn't want to pay less money? That sounds great, when asked as an independent question. And that was the dangerous part of this... those consequences were never listed, or brought up, by this 'protest' before election day. There was no 'counter' group out there that was sounding the warnings of how poor of an idea this actually was, so none of the negative information about this choice ever reached a voter. Choices have consequences, so you(the royal you) better make sure you FULLY understand what you are doing. Not knowing how the finance world functions is not going to stop it from functioning that way, no matter how unfair you may think it is.
http://bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_rates_2009hb.pdf But even this data ignores the obvious which is that pensions have gotten out of hand and are much too high. An argument by someone that they deserve all they get should be followed by that person's agreement to pay the bill as the rest of us cannot afford it. Going back to Edgars comment, increase his tax but not ours but better lessen his pension to one and reduce the size of that. Personally I find his comment hypocritical as he is part of the problem and his solution is absolute nonsense. Former neighbors of mine left the state for another because of the costs here.
I am with you as I find Tim's comments offensive. My wife and I were given nothing but we have been frugal and have an amount of savings in our 401k. I am retired but my wife is still working, and even with what we have saved with our house also paid I would not make comments like Tim's. No we do not have control of everything we would like. I take no responsibility for idiot Quinn but I blame others who voted for him. Unless you are a billionaire, do not assume your funds might run dry because of illness or something else unforseen. I am not happy with all of those who declared bankruptcy when they can still afford it but they do not want to accept their loss. Guess many would like to have gotten their 401k losses back when the stocks and housing hit the skids but that is not the way it works. I remember a plasterer in his 70's who did some work for us quite some time ago. He had retired, but his wife's bout with cancer wiped away all of their savings. So my attitude is not to assume all because a person is facing difficult times it is not always their fault or a lack of planning.
Originally, the increase was to clean up some short term fiscal issues and give the state some breathing room to get it's spending priorities in order, but once the new money was there all the parasites were lined up to grab it, from road contractors to teachers unions and wasteful Universities, and the spending reform never happened. Sound familiar? Wash, rinse, repeat.
If you are complaining about your taxes, why are you bringing up those other issues? Either you could afford your house, or you couldn't. One off unexpected expenses would have happened NO MATTER WHAT. You can't suddenly point to your taxes as being the problem, when there are other expenses multiple orders of magnitude larger than that, that are what are actually the main contribution to your problems. Taxes are what you chose to focus on, but they are not the problem. Your income is. Guess what - there a MILLIONS of people poorer than you that would LOVE to have your problems. By your logic, we should cut all the services and tax breaks you currently have, to make it 'fair' to those who have less than you. For example; Renters do not get the mortgage interest deduction on their taxes - are you supporting eliminating that to make it 'fair'? Of course not - because that is the benefit that YOU want. The concept you are advocating is called a 'race to the bottom', and if you pulled yourself out of your limited perspective, you would understand the problems with it. I'm sorry your life has been rough, but why do you think that others that have absolutely nothing to do with your circumstances, need to be punished for it?
A good book on the federal budget, which affects our state budget is Red Ink by David Wessel. The people of this county and state are for the most part well educated we just need to be more well informed.
"Illinois has an unfunded pension liability of at least $83 billion, according to state figures. It had 45 percent of what it needed to pay future retiree obligations as of 2010, the lowest among U.S. states, data compiled by Bloomberg show. " http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/illinois-debt-cut-by-s-p-after-lack-of-action-on-pension-funding.html Some of the same idiots are not resolving the pension problem. Our government in Illinois drove us into debt and are not fixing it, possibly to protect their own pensions. This is also why I said sometime ago edgar is a hypocrite suggesting tax increases while receiving 2 huge pensions. All in our Congress should have all of their pensions rescinded until they resolve this problem without raising taxes.