Capitol Fax.com » Redfield: Rauner demands are “beyond crazy” and “the worst kind of pandering”

 

Redfield: Rauner demands are “beyond crazy” and “the worst kind of pandering”

Wednesday, Oct 14, 2015

* From my old pal Kent Redfield…

Hi Rich,

I am just sitting around, looking for things to keep my mind off the Cards’ early exit from the playoffs. Truth be told, I am not a Cub hater, so I will gladly root for them against any of the teams left in the playoffs.

I know this is not new and it occasionally gets reported in the press, but it drives me nuts that the Governor keeps talking about term limits and redistricting reform in the same breath that he talks about necessary reforms that will help the Illinois business climate and turn our economy around.

The Governor’s constitutional amendment on redistricting (HJRCA 40 or 42) would not have any impact until the 2022 election and if the Governor gets elected to a second term and if he keeps his pledge to serve only two terms, then he would be leaving office just before the legislature elected under the new map would be sworn in.

The Governor’s constitutional amendment on term limits (HJRCA 39 or 41) is a ten year limit for legislators, but it would not have any impact on the House elections until the 2026 elections since service before January of 2017 would not count against the ten year limit.

It is a little more complicated for the Senate because a Senator elected for a four year term in 2016 and a two year term in 2020 or a two year term in 2016 and 4 year term in 2018 would have 6 years of service toward the limit before the 2022 election. Senators in these circumstances that ran in districts that were 2-4-4 in 2022 would be limited to 8 year of service since running for a 4 year term in 2024 would give them 12 years. This would potentially be 1/3 of the Senate, but incumbent losses or decisions not to run for reelection would surely make the number smaller. For the Senators with 6 years of service going into the 2022 election who ran in districts that were 4-4-2 or 4-2-4 would be able to serve a 4 year term and get to 10 years of service. This would potentially be 2/3 of members of the Senate although the number again would not be that high due to losses and decisions to run for re-election. Since the sequencing of Senate terms is a random draw, the term limit proposal would have a random effect on a few incumbent senators every 10 years, limiting them to 8 years rather than 10 year of service depending on the luck of the draw.

The limit on 8 years of service in any executive office starting in January of 2017 would have some weird effects, but basically would not have any impact until the 2022 election where all the current incumbent constitutional officers and whoever is elected Comptroller next year could not run for any executive office, assuming they run and are reelected in 2018.

Bottom line, the Governor’s term limit proposal would not have any impact until the 2026 election for the House, the 2024 election for the Senate and the 2022 election for constitutional officers.

I know I am probably being silly, acting like the Governor actually cares about the content or the impact of these proposals, but once a policy wonk, always a policy wonk.

I think I am reading these two proposals correctly. If I am, then holding the budget hostage for “reforms” that will not have any impact until 2022 for redistricting and 2022, 2024 or 2026 for term limits is beyond crazy and the worst kind of pandering. How about this for ad supporting the Turnaround Agenda?

“Turn the Illinois economy around. Tell your legislator to pass the Governor’s term limit proposal and we can force Speaker Madigan out of office in January of 2027, just a few months shy of his 85th birthday”

Having vented, I will go look for some carb free, salt free, low cholesterol way to drown my sorrows that does not violate any of the Illinois Substance Abuse Laws.

Keep up the [cardio] rehab, it is really worth committing to.

Take care,

Kent

Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » Redfield: Rauner demands are “beyond crazy” and “the worst kind of pandering”

Rauner’s term limit tango

 

By Rich Miller

The new legislative “working groups” designed to hammer out compromises on Gov. Bruce Rauner’s “Turnaround Agenda” finally began meeting in secret last week. At least one of them got a bit heated.
A working group tasked with writing ethics legislation hit a brick wall right off the bat when it came time to discuss Rauner’s term limits constitutional amendment. Two Democrats on the committee reportedly said there was plenty of time to deal with the amendment next year, since it couldn’t be placed onto the ballot until November of 2016.
Nope, said the administration representative, according to sources. The governor wants that amendment passed by the end of the spring legislative session. When he was met with stiff resistance, the administration official reportedly became agitated and more than implied that if the constitutional amendment isn’t passed by May 31st, then the governor would not support any revenue increases to patch next fiscal year’s massive $6 billion hole.
The Democrats were shocked. Would the governor really threaten to crash the entire government over a term limits bill?
Yep.
And that message was apparently sent to pretty much all of the working groups last week. Pass this stuff or deal with the horrific consequences of allowing the temporary income tax hike to partially expire.
The governor has repeatedly said that he fully intends to take advantage of the budget crisis in order to push his agenda through the General Assembly. And he has made no bones about what he wants. Term limits have been on his agenda since day one of his campaign. So, the threat shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Still, there were some thunderstruck Democrats last week.
Every poll has shown that the public is wildly enthusiastic about term limits. But legislators? Not so much. There are sound policy arguments against the simplistic solution, including the danger that it would empower experienced lobbyists and staff even more than they already are. Still, the idea’s popularity means that if it’s put on the floor for a final vote, legislators will be placed in a highly uncomfortable position and many will have to vote for the thing – so they absolutely don’t want to be backed into that corner.
Not everything went horribly. The ethics working group, for instance, eventually decided to skip over term limits for now in order to prevent a meltdown. They plan to take up a proposal to codify one of the governor’s executive orders on state employee ethics, which is viewed as pretty much a no-brainer.
The working group will also tackle the governor’s “conflict of interest” legislation, which would, in part, ban direct campaign contributions to members of the executive branch from public employee unions that negotiate employment contracts. The proposal would also ban contributions from hospitals and nursing homes which receive Medicaid funds.
Surprisingly enough, legislative Democrats are open to those ideas. One reason is a bit on the crass side. The less money that unions like AFSCME can give to gubernatorial and other statewide candidates, the more money the unions will be able to contribute to legislative candidates. Plus, as we’ve seen time and time again, money pretty much always finds a way around statutory barricades. AFSCME, for instance, could simply give money to the Democratic Governors Association or the Democratic Party of Illinois or start its own “dark money” independent expenditure PAC.
And there’s apparently even room for compromise on the term limits amendment, insiders say. One reported Rauner fallback position is to apply the limits only to newly elected legislators, perhaps sometime down the road.
But even if they can reach an accord on all of the governor’s proposals, they will still have to deal with the horrendous budget deficit. One of the smartest people I know at the Statehouse took me aside the other day and confided he was alarmed about the coming problem.
The budget hole is estimated to be at least $6 billion. But, this person said, let’s just say that Rauner agrees to $3 billion in tax hikes along with $3 billion in cuts. How the heck does he get that turkey passed? The GA spent weeks fighting over a mere $26 million in cuts to this fiscal year’s budget. Who will vote to cut $3 billion? And what Democrat will vote to raise taxes by $3 billion when that means another $3 billion will have to be cut?
Tough times ahead.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Rauner’s term limit tango