IL-Gov. 2018 Megathread

[muon2]

IL continues to lose population faster than any other state, primarily due to outmigration to other states (over 500K net loss since 2010). The Gallup poll of 2013 identified that 50% of IL residents would move out if they could - the highest percent in the US. A similar poll this fall from the Paul Simon Pubic Policy Institute put the percentage who want to leave IL at 47%. This attitude was present under Quinn, and hasn't changed.

Rauner will say he has a plan to change that, but the Dems have blocked it. He does have a plan, and it is bold and far-reaching, and parts may not even work, but its a plan. His plan involves a lot of anti-union elements as well as curbs on legislative power. Those parts are toxic to a lot of the Dems. So far under Rauner the Dems have only proposed the same sorts of programs and spending they did under Quinn - ie no change as far as many voters are concerned. But the poll numbers say change is demanded, and for the first time in most people's memory the Pubs picked up legislative seats in a presidential year.

Who ever the Dems nominate for Gov is going to have to come to grips with the facts above. They don't have to espouse the Rauner agenda, but they can't rehash Quinn either if they plan to succeed. They are going to have to be as bold as Rauner and risk some pushback from key groups. But there are Dem models out there from MN to CA that a candidate could run on. So far, none have dared. That could cost them in 2018.

[muon2]

ILGOP released an ad against Kennedy already. Looks like they are pretty certain that he will throw his hat in.

I do appreciate the "Rauner has an awesome plan but Dems have blocked it" narrative coming from muon.

Rauner won an election and decided he had a mandate to fully implement his "Bring Back Springfield" plan and if he didn't get every piece, he was going to light the place on fire.

The people of the state did elect him, but they also maintained a Democratic supermajority in the chamber. That means he will have to work with the other side in some capacity.

In 2018, I'll be donating heavily to his challenger's campaign. As executive, he is chiefly responsible for the lack of a state budget and it has proven extremely damaging to my alma mater and to many of the great organizations in Chicago working to address issues facing our city.

I hardly said it was awesome and I have previously opined that there are parts that won't necessarily work well here. I did say it was bold because he set out a lot of markers that went way beyond what even other Pubs were proposing in IL. It certainly is a clear agenda.

But what agenda do you want your nominee to have? The budget impasse has played havoc in the state, but I don't think that proposing passing a full budget that is 4 billion or more out of balance is going to attract the swing suburban votes. So, I know that the agenda you want isn't Rauner's, but you have to concede that merely suggesting a return to Quinn's policies will make it tough to win back the mansion. I suggested other Dem-based state models like MN and CA, but those may not be to your taste. What's your preference?

[muon2]

IL continues to lose population faster than any other state, primarily due to outmigration to other states (over 500K net loss since 2010). The Gallup poll of 2013 identified that 50% of IL residents would move out if they could - the highest percent in the US. A similar poll this fall from the Paul Simon Pubic Policy Institute put the percentage who want to leave IL at 47%. This attitude was present under Quinn, and hasn't changed.

Rauner will say he has a plan to change that, but the Dems have blocked it. He does have a plan, and it is bold and far-reaching, and parts may not even work, but its a plan. His plan involves a lot of anti-union elements as well as curbs on legislative power. Those parts are toxic to a lot of the Dems. So far under Rauner the Dems have only proposed the same sorts of programs and spending they did under Quinn - ie no change as far as many voters are concerned. But the poll numbers say change is demanded, and for the first time in most people's memory the Pubs picked up legislative seats in a presidential year.

Who ever the Dems nominate for Gov is going to have to come to grips with the facts above. They don't have to espouse the Rauner agenda, but they can't rehash Quinn either if they plan to succeed. They are going to have to be as bold as Rauner and risk some pushback from key groups. But there are Dem models out there from MN to CA that a candidate could run on. So far, none have dared. That could cost them in 2018.

Rauner has been a disappointment to me, but I admit it is way to early to count him out. Especially for a gubernatorial bid. Illinois is a Midwestern state. Midwestern state= generally great chances of a swing. Two years ago, they elected Rauner. Less then two months ago, it was the minority of states that swung Democratic on the Presidential level.

What curbs on legislative power is Rauner wanting to run on? As far as anti-union legislation, is this for public sector unions or all unions? I dislike public sector unions as a rule.

On top of all that, why do you think half of Illinois residents want to move out? When I was visit Chicagoland it seemed like heaven on earth to me. I realize that being a tourist versus resident are two different things.

The two main curbs on legislative power that Rauner seeks are term limits and redistricting reform. Both poll well over 70% with broad bipartisan support. Both require constitutional amendments that the Gov has no role in proposing. Term limits can only be done by legislative action - limiting their future, since an amendment could likely not be retroactive.

Rauner surprised a lot of observers by coming out against all union power, not just in the public sector. His public sector initiatives have been pushed more forcefully and would impact collective bargaining directly. But he'd like to end the use of prevailing wage which affects private-sector unions on public projects. He initially pushed hard for right-to-work but that hasn't been part of his agenda since May 2015, nonetheless that push cost him a lot of support from the private-sector unions.

IL residents have been itching to get out since the end of the last decade. Property taxes are the highest in the nation, and they don't think they are getting enough value for those local taxes. Suburban taxpayers feel like they spend too much on Chicago, but see little improvement, and now Chicago has had the largest property tax hike in its history, too. Chicago does look great near the Loop and there a whole lot going on as finally the tech economy has come around. However a lot of that improvement in Chicago's center came at the expense of the neighborhoods, and Emanuel had a real reelection fight in 2015 against a substitute candidate. As the murder rate has climbed and school scores have dropped, it only reinforced the sense that the taxpayers aren't getting enough value from government.

Then the Great Recession brought a stagnation in middle class private sector jobs, particularly in manufacturing and other less specialized fields. Those businesses didn't come back to IL in the same way they did other Midwestern states as the recession ended. When asked businesses say they are looking for signal that things are going to change, and then be stable - neither of which has happened this decade. So, when housing prices came back above water after the recession, the outflow to other states kicked up.

[muon2]

I see that the Champaign News-Gazette is pretty much saying the same things about why people want to leave IL, and that doing the same old thing won't bring them back. They note that the data shows that it's middle class taxpayers who are leaving and those coming in are earning less.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Editorials like this is why I claim that addressing this is the challenge facing candidates in 2018.

[muon2]

State Rep. Drury announces bid. Of note, Rep Drury is the lone Illinois State House Democrat to vote against Michael Madigan for speaker.

Probably symbolic to burnish his "outsider credentials" and to try to create some lane to run, but still.

Drury's outsider credentials are not symbolic. He's taken many tough stands against his party while in the House, including a "present" vote for Speaker at the start of this year. He will point at everyone else who may claim to be an outsider, but have failed to break from the machine when the pressure was on.

[muon2]

IL, along with NY and AZ, has the strictest pension language in its constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IL copied from NY and AZ from IL. AZ's attempt at modest reform was rejected by its SC and the ILSC followed suit when IL tried a more major set of reforms a couple years later. A 2012 attempt to slightly soften the language in the ILConst could not get the necessary 60%. Nonetheless there are statutory changes that do not run afoul of the ILConst and some have even passed this year. The hang up to get to complete agreement is whether or not to treat Chicago's teacher pensions differently from everyone else. The other parts that have passed would save the state about a half billion next year and in future years, but they are tied to the budget itself which relies on a tax hike to balance it.

Privately the vast majority of officials recognize that the state cannot be operated on 32 G$ of revenue which is the current amount. The current spending rate, in part dictated by judges during the impasse, is 39 G$. The offered budget is $36.1 G$ with a tax hike to bring revenue up to 36.5 G$, and the difference can be directed towards the 15 G$ bill backlog.

The outflow of tax base in IL is not primarily in response to the income tax, but from the property tax which is the highest in the nation. The neighboring states swapped property tax for other taxes two decades ago, but IL resisted the change. Now the effort to merely freeze property taxes is herculean; the Dems have agreed to the Gov's demand for a four year freeze, but with certain exemptions for payments outside the control of local governments.

[muon2]

Republicans in the House have got to be worried about the coming primary challenges should they support this veto override.

Not usually one to support primaries from the right, but God damn.  Watching that live broadcast today was sickening.

If you read my post from July 3, how would you close the gap between expenses and revenue? What was passed cut roughly 3 G$ from current spending and raised 5 G$ in taxes. Cutting much more than 3 G$ either violates judicial orders or cut school funding causing property taxes to rise.

[muon2]

Illinois NEEDS a graduated income tax, flat tax supporters should look at IL and understand the limitations of it. Next Governor needs make it a priority for a progressive tax and fix the pension mess.

As I posted above, the pensions can be changed going forward and this budget package did that. However the ILConst has very strict pension language and the ILSC has ruled retroractive pension changes are unconstitutional. The 2012 attempt at modest changes to the pension language in the constitution did not get enough votes.

I would argue that the problem is not the flat income tax, but the lack of a broad-based sales tax. IL has the narrowest range of taxable items of any state with a sales tax.

[muon2]

Republicans in the House have got to be worried about the coming primary challenges should they support this veto override.

Not usually one to support primaries from the right, but God damn.  Watching that live broadcast today was sickening.

If you read my post from July 3, how would you close the gap between expenses and revenue? What was passed cut roughly 3 G$ from current spending and raised 5 G$ in taxes. Cutting much more than 3 G$ either violates judicial orders or cut school funding causing property taxes to rise.

muon, you are much wiser on this issue than I am, and if you honestly think this is the right approach, I'm inclined to believe you, especially since I know for a fact you deal with the Illinois Democratic caucus, and frankly you and your party members are the only hope in saving that state right now.  There is too much entrenched power on the other side of the aisle for any reform.  However, whether it's property tax, income tax, sales tax or something else, Illinois taxpayers have been given the spiel time and time again that in order to reduce our debt problem and *fix the state* (or at least take a measly first step in that direction), we need to raise revenues, and you just gave the argument that if we don't raise revenues, things will get worse.  IL citizens, very understandably, are infuriated that THIS is the compromise we must make.  We must further hurt our tax base so that we can *pass a budget*, but we can't further go without a budget to protect our tax base?  It just worsens the impression that the state legislature is so entrenched in "business as usual" and is totally oblivious to people's actual impressions of Illinois and what's wrong with it.

I get that in your position, you actually have to come up with the answers, and that's gotta be tough.  The obvious first step, at least to me, would be to change the absolutely asinine pension language in our state's constitution, but it sounds like that will be pretty hard.  I guess my question is, with the passing of this budget, what will change next year or in two years?  Rauner has somehow become a bad guy for being elected to finally crack down on the teacher's unions and all of the other tax-and-spend nonsense that has gotten IL into this mess, but a lot of people are starting to wonder if it's just so broken that it's not worth putting a bandaid on.  Why not take the attitude that we're taxed enough, and nothing should be added to that burden until spending is SERIOUSLY reformed and the state's economy improved?  Honestly asking.  Surely, as a state Republican, you'd prefer that approach, all things being equal.

Your comments are well taken and the Gov is right that the state needs additional reforms to attract more business to IL. I agree that we need spending reforms. For example the legislature passed a significant reform to streamline the state procurement process, but as significant as that is it only saves 200-300 M$ out of the over 7 G$ gap. The enacted budget cuts 5% across the board and 10% for the universities (part of which is offset by the procurement changes).

The big three cost drivers are payments to Medicaid, K-12 schools, and pensions. Cutting deeply into Medicaid runs up against federal law. Cutting deeply into K-12 funding pushes the costs to the local districts which in most cases means an increase in property tax to make up the difference. The enacted budget reduces pension costs by charging local districts for high-paid employees and creating a new plan for new employees. That reduces the actuarial liability for the state, but the Constitution bars changes to current employees or retirees.

Over all the budget cuts almost 3 G$, but that still leaves a hole that must be filled somehow. Plus IL has to have enough extra to start paying off the backlog of bills that have piled up over the last two years.

[muon2]

Thanks for the response.  There are clearly a lot of obstacles, and it's just sad to see.  According to the Census, there were like 3 counties in the whole state that didn't lose population in the whole state, and only one was Downstate (Champaign), between 2015 and 2016.  I just wonder if there will ever reach a point where state Democrats will decide it's more important to stop the bleeding than to "not budge."  I know that sounds hackish putting all of the blame there, but they're the ones blocking attempts at serious reform to how this state has been run for the last several years, pure and simple.

P.S.  Still sad I didn't see your message to meet up in time before the Iowa caucuses last year!

P.P.S.  You weren't one of the guys giving the fiery speeches in Springfield yesterday on the live feed, were ya??

I'm not prone to fiery speeches. I tend more to facts and figures. You might have even heard a speech like that yesterday.

[muon2]

 A higher flat income tax and astronomic property tax makes employment in the state or interstate immigration difficult. Rents are expensive, property taxes pose an impediment to home ownership and high income taxes for businesses and employees make other states more attractive. A progressive structured income tax helps alleviate the regressivity inherent in the consumption tax, while ensuring that employees move to Illinois expecting low taxes on their entry level jobs. A lower corporate rate encourages Illinois' companies to remain in Illinois and to continue to attract top-tier companies to the state (see, e.g., Boeing's move to IL, Amazon's corporate support office expansion).

Long post short, tax increases or decreases shouldn't be the goal; moving to a modernized revenue system while maintaining similar levels of overall revenue should. Of course, this would require addressing (read: scaling back on) pension spending for current recipients, which would require a constitutional amendment.

Nice analysis. To add a little history to it I can say that there have been attempts to modernize the syste for decades. In the mid-1990's Pub Gov Edgar proposed restructuring the tax code to reduce the reliance on property taxes for education. In 2007 there was another attempt spurred by the unions to do the same including a broad expansion of the sales tax, since IL has the narrowest sales tax base of any state that imposes one. Both those efforts ran into interests on both the right and left that liked their tax advantages under the antiquated system, and a public mistrust of Springfield to get it right with new taxes. Even at the beginning of this year there was discussion of restructuring revenue as part of an effort to bring revenue back to 2014-levels, but by the time all the interests had weighed in, the only surviving proposal was to return the income tax to the 2014 rate.

[muon2]

If I was in the legislature, I would go ahead with the 4.95% income tax, but also raise the sales tax to either 7.5% or 10.0%, and then take the resulting revenue to use to cut back at the property taxes.

The problem is the voters would just take that hike at face value and not trust that property taxes would actually go down... and rightfully so. You can't trust anything politicians say in this sorry excuse for a state.

... Which is why I would cut property taxes in the same bill. Illinois is getting by on a relatively low sales tax, but certainly too-high property taxes. Balance them out, cut spending back a bit, and it should be fine. The problem in the equation obviously is Madigan.

I'm not sure now much more one can significantly cut spending. The budget just passed had 5% cuts to all agencies and 10% cuts to higher ed. It also cut pension spending by over 1 G$. That's almost 3 G$ less spending this year than the state spent in the fiscal year ending June 30. Medicaid is one of the largest components of spending not cut, but it's hard to cut without changes to the rules in DC. One could cut transfers to local governments and schools, but that would inevitably force higher property taxes on a state with rates already at twice the national average.

[muon2]

Bill Daley is the new finance director for Kennedy's campaign. Biss raised more money than Kennedy did in Q2.  

Also, Chicago Tonight just had an interview with a primary challenger to Rauner.

He's a perennial candidate that gets little attention or votes.

[muon2]

Should have picked Kelly Burke or Fran Hurley.  Two great Illinois Democrats.

But Biss is making a play for the progressive wing, and though both Burke and Hurley are solid legislators (esp. Burke on higher ed funding), neither are going to excite progressives.

[muon2]

I'd watch for both a primary challenge and a separate conservative independent candidate at this point. The GOP base is furious and some key leaders and policy influencers even beyond the right-to-life groups have turned their back. For example, the south suburban Cook GOP cancelled the Gov from their picnic today. The libertarian Illinois Policy Institute has been Rauner's biggest backer from the start of his campaign through the budget fights, but their CEO posted this on Facebook:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

The regressive POP tax was repealed today by a veto proof majority.  With it, the clouds finally broke over Chicagoland, the sun shined, and we drank our sugary drinks in harmony.  The people of Cook County finally woke up, for the first time, and the politicians listened.

Next, we vote Taxwinkle out of office.

Then again she was voted in largely because of the unpopular tax policy of her predecessor, Todd Stroger. Cook is a very large, expensive county to operate and offers more programs than other counties in the state. The problem is finding someone who can fundamentally change the way the county operates, since the voters in Cook have rejected leaders who would make deep cuts in those programs. Without that kind of change, the next county board president will be looking for another tax to cover the deficits.

[muon2]

Ives is confirmed to be circulating petitions with former state Rep Rich Morthland as a running mate. She is still circulating petitions to run for reelection to the IL House as well.

[muon2]

Looks familiar.

One thing to beware in making comparisons - the rapid gentrification from millennials this decade in the neighborhoods near the loop, especially along the blue line NW to Logan Square. Those are are much whiter than they were in 2010, and Hispanics have moved west in response. Those gentrified areas were big for Biss, while the more solidly Latino neighborhoods farther out went for Pritzker. Biss also picked up the Asian neighborhoods. Kennedy did best where the cops live in Edison Park, Beverly, and Bridgeport.

[muon2]

Here are some of the 'fun' maps that I did yesterday in my limited free time. First off we have Biss + Kennedy vs Pritzker, wich is interesting because of the various divisions it show. Like is currently being discussed, JB racks up wins in deep downstate and in the driftless zone. However, in the Champaign McLean area, the opposition wins a bunch of rurals. There arn't many votes here, but the votes still come in. Perhaps this is the media market effect, since this region would have been Biss's target due to the colleges? Moving North, the suburbs are where the opposition gets their votes. Thiis one thinks is easily explainable - educated voters reject the machine. Finally, the overall statewide margin is reflected in Cook, signifying just how prominent the county is in Democratic Primaries.
 

Nice work on the maps. Here's my take on the first (others to follow). Pritzker had a couple things going for him in the south. One was his money that let him go up on TV in small and large markets throughout the state, especially in St Louis to cover Metro East. The other edge was his union support, and the southern Dems still have strong union ties. Pritzker even spent the day before the primary down there to get turnout. It is interesting to note that his strategy was similar to the way Blago won a four way primary in 2002.

[muon2]

The map of Kennedy vs Biss is also interesting. Kennedy, like Pritzker, dominates the rural, but there are not many votes out there left. Most of his margin is coming from larger lower-educated counties like Rock Island and St. Clair. Biss meanwhile gets his downstate votes from the universities and well-educated cities. Madison county is unique because a local candidate got a equal amount of votes to Biss and Kennedy, throwing the results. Moving North we see this pattern continue with Biss doing will in the collars, but Kennedy still keeping up. Biss also has a emanating power base in Rockford, one that matches his downstate margins. Once again Cook matches that statewide numbers in the D primary, signifying its importance.

The downstate here isn't about rural, but it is about colleges and name ID. Biss had a good network in the college counties and Rockford where his running mate is a state rep. Elsewhere downstate Biss is largely unknown. If you are a Dem and not for Pritzker, you are more likely to go with Kennedy as a familar-sounding name.

[muon2]

My favorite map of the night is Ives vs Rauner, filtered on the 10% margin of victory. It is very rare that we get a map this fairly divided - usually candidates have bases they run up the score in. I place the blame on this being that Ives is from the Collars and ran most of her ads there, while Rauner ran a statewide campaign with his large warchest. This allowed each of the candidates to dig deep in to their opponents 'bases' with Ives winning/keeping the suburbs close, while Rauner won a bunch of area in the 'upper' part of downstate. The regional bases still came out, resulting in narrow margins everywhere. Rauner probably won his primary in the downstate suburbs like Champaign, St. Clair, Peoria, and McLean where he won larger margins then Ives could match in the narrow rurals.

I agree with a lot of this analysis, especially the role that Rauner's money played downstate. The main point I'd add is that the first major TV spot that Ives ran was deeply offensive to moderate Pubs in the suburbs and college towns. Without that ad, my guess is that Ives would have cleared a bigger margin in the western collars and been closer in some unhappy college towns. She would be the nominee if not for that ad.

[muon2]

The Democratic primary should have been entitled "The Three Stooges of the Prairie State" because that's what they were. Given the alternatives, I'm glad Pritzker won. We all know Kennedy was a clueless fool, but Biss was a Republican in sheep's clothing. Combine the fact that he would have ended pensions, term-limited lawmakers, and handed control of the legislature over to the Republicans by ending gerrymandering, I'm shocked that so many Democrats on this site lined up behind him.

I've looked at a number of neutral maps for the IL legislature. None of them hand to GA to the Pubs, though they would have an outside chance in wave year like 1994 or 2010. Even then they would give it up two years later as they did in1996.

[muon2]

The Democratic primary should have been entitled "The Three Stooges of the Prairie State" because that's what they were. Given the alternatives, I'm glad Pritzker won. We all know Kennedy was a clueless fool, but Biss was a Republican in sheep's clothing. Combine the fact that he would have ended pensions, term-limited lawmakers, and handed control of the legislature over to the Republicans by ending gerrymandering, I'm shocked that so many Democrats on this site lined up behind him.

I've looked at a number of neutral maps for the IL legislature. None of them hand to GA to the Pubs, though they would have an outside chance in wave year like 1994 or 2010. Even then they would give it up two years later as they did in1996.

The Democrats have already lost a bunch of seats because the Republicans just scream  “MADIGAN!!!1!!!1!1” endlessly, just as how Democrats hold only one Congressional seat outside Chicago. One would figure that would happen in the legislature too if the districts were drawn impartially.

Downstate makes up less than a third of the state population, and at the scale of legislative districts there a number of urban centers that will produce Dem seats (Rockford, Rock Island, Peoria, Champaign, and metro St Louis). That leaves the Pubs needing a lot of suburban seats, which they have a hard time getting without gerrymanders. Cook alone is 40% of the state, and the Pubs wouldn't get many seats there even with gerrymanders. The Pub path to a majority is steep with or without a campaign against Madigan.

[muon2]

The Democrats have already lost a bunch of seats because the Republicans just scream  “MADIGAN!!!1!!!1!1” endlessly, just as how Democrats hold only one Congressional seat outside Chicago. One would figure that would happen in the legislature too if the districts were drawn impartially.

I'm just going to shamelessly put out a thread I made on Illinois legislative targets for this cycle:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=278843.0

TL;DR is that I think Democrats are primed to make a lot of pickups this year, particularly after seeing the suburban bloodbath in Virginia and the surge of Democratic support from suburban areas of other specials since (like Alabama and PA-18). Clinton really opened a lot of potential targets in the collar counties.

It's not that Clinton opened up targets for 2018, it's that Trump opened them by being Trump. His style iritates a lot of traditional suburban Pubs, and it showed in 2016.

[muon2]

This morning's headlines are probably too late to shift the election outcome given Pritzker's lead in the polls, but the charge from the Cook County Inspector General could create a cloud over the next administration. I can see people trying to create deeper links between Blagojevich and Pritzker. They were already featured on federal wiretap tapes together during the primary this spring discussing the disposition of Obama's Senate seat in 2008.

Cook County watchdog says 'scheme to defraud' saved Pritzker $330,000 in property taxes

You must be logged in to read this quote.