Exactly one year ago today, I posted an article about the Illinois Democrats, led (so to speak) by House Speaker Michael Madigan, passing a budget for Illinois that spent $3 billion more than it took in, something they had also done in 2014. Now it’s 2016, and the Democrats are going to do it again. The only difference is that this year, the Democrats are going to pass a spending plan that spends $7 billion more than the state will take in. I call it a “spending plan,” as opposed to a budget, because a real budget would cover both spending and the revenue to pay for it.
But that’s not the way Democrats do it in Illinois.1 In fact, Speaker Madigan is merely following the example of what Rod Blagojevich did when he was governor (before the “unpleasantness” that caused him to leave office). One of the first posts I ever wrote for this blog, on May 9, 2006, was on Rod Blagojevich’s approach to governing:
“Governor Blagojevich promised not to raise taxes when he ran in 2002, and he knows he cannot go back on that. But this has not stopped him from spending money the state does not have. His theory seems to be: Just because I promised not to raise taxes, does not mean I cannot propose all kinds of new programs. The fact the state cannot even pay for the programs it already has, is no reason for Governor Blagojevich to hold back on new programs. …
This is irresponsible and dishonest. It is irresponsible because governing is more than just press conferences and ribbon cuttings. It is hard work and tough decisions. You have to figure out how to pay for things you need and how to do without what you cannot afford. …
[I]f you are governor or a legislator and you want the state to do something, you have to make sure the state can pay for it. You should not propose new programs until the state can pay for the old ones. And if you are not willing to raise taxes, then be honest with the people as to what the state is not going to be able to do because it does not have the money.”
Ten years after that post, here we are yet again. I understand Speaker Madigan thinks this is the amount the state should spend. What I don’t understand is how he can propose the spending without proposing how to pay for it. Except I do understand. He’ll propose the spending because that will make people happy. He won’t propose the tax increases to pay for the spending because that would make people unhappy. It might be the responsible thing to do to say how you are going to pay for what you want to spend, but it’s bad politics. It might make some people vote against you if you say their taxes are going to go up. And making sure people don’t vote against you, and making sure you keep your majority in the Illinois House of Representatives, seems to be more important than responsible governing.
Last year I compared Speaker Madigan to Paul Ryan, now Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2011, when Paul Ryan was chairman of House Budget Committee, he proposed a budget plan that included cuts in some entitlement plans. Representative Ryan knew that the plan wouldn’t pass, what with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. And he knew some people would get upset with him, and with the Republicans, as a result of the plan. But he proposed the plan anyway because he thought it was the responsible thing to do. In response to the question of whether he was walking into a political trap by proposing the plan, now-Speaker Ryan said this:
“That’s what everybody says, but I don’t really spend much time thinking about it, because I don’t really care. … All the political people tell us this. Even the Democrats tell us this. That it’s a trap, it’s a rope-a-dope. … It doesn’t matter.
The way I look at things is if you want to be good at this kind of job, you have to be willing to lose it. … [I]f you don’t believe in your principles, and applying those principles, then what’s the point?”
As I said a year ago, Michael Madigan seems to have a different view of what constitutes responsible governing – and what the point of being in office is.
------------
1 Or, unfortunately, some Republicans.
Comments