Republican Leaders Discuss Budget Battles with Business Groups
1 comment May 7th, 2008
Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson on Wednesday said this year’s legislative session is likely to stretch well into the summer.
“I don’t see us getting more done in the next four weeks than we’ve done in the last five months,” Watson said during the Illinois Business Day luncheon in Springfield. “I don’t see a lot of meetings I don’t see a budget or much discussion there. It’s poison in the air, and that’s not conducive to getting things done. So I would expect to see us back here again in the summer.”
Listening to Watson talk to hundreds of business people, I couldn’t help but remember a goofy motivational banner in the hallway outside my U.S. history class.
It said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”
As the current legislative session wears on, it’s becoming more and more clear that lawmakers may not have learned the lessons from last year.
Last year, budget deliberations turned acrimonious early when the governor used his budget address to introduce controversial programs and revenue sources, and his method prompted his deteriorating relationships with lawmakers erode even faster. Infighting among the Democratic leaders in both chambers and the governor set the tone for the ensuing months of session, which some jokingly say never ended.
This year legislators will have to fight with declining revenue streams, rising unpaid bills and the desire to expand or start new programs as they hone in on the next budget. One audience member asked House Republican Leader Tom Cross why the state couldn’t just balance its budget by cutting government spending.
“It would be tough,” said Cross, who also spoke at the event. “You’re not going to cut your way out of it. … That is a component, but that will not solve the problem.”
Lawmakers will also have to struggle with growing distrust in Springfield.
“This dysfunction is starting to have real negative impacts on people’s lives,” Cross said. “No one trusts each other. … There are enough votes 71 and 36 to get these things done — not without kicking and screaming because they don’t like it but they know they need to do these things. I don’t think the issue is substance, it’s personality.”
As of Wednesday, the Legislature and the governor have 24 days to agree on a budget. This might be easy, but the key seems to be start talking about it.
Watson said the recent leaders’ meeting has focused on agreeing on a capital construction plan and not on the next budget. When attention does focus on the budget, it looks like the Legislature again might break from its traditions. Historically, the leaders and the governor meet and hash out one budget. Last year, the House and the Senate crafted their own budgets and this only made the already tense atmosphere more toxic. It appears a new method might make an encore presentation.
“The thought is the House might pass a budget over to the Senate. … There have not been any discussion between the leaders. The only meetings we’ve had are over capital,” Watson said.
The state Constitution says lawmakers must agree on a budget by May 31 to pass it with a simple majority of votes – that’s 60 in the House and 30 in the Senate.
And Watson said if that doesn’t happen, the process, “becomes more cumbersome to get things done.”
Cumbersome, indeed.
Starting on June 1, Republicans gain a seat at the table. The House Democrats are forced to woo their GOP colleagues in order to pass any bill, because each chamber now needs 71 votes, rather than 60. Unlike the House, Senate Democrats have the necessary 36 members to meet its raised threshold, and technically wouldn’t need Republican votes to pass anything if the Legislature misses the May deadline. But it’s hard to keep all of those ducks in a row, so any overtime session would also Senate Republicans a louder voice during negotiations.
Cross said citizens are beginning to see the true effects of Springfield’s infighting.
“Somewhere, somebody at the end of the day has to say, ‘You know what? I don’t like the guy in front of me. I don’t like him for a lot of reasons, he might have even lied to me, but at the end of the day, this is not about whether I like someone or not anymore,’” Cross said. “This is about the guy down the street who doesn’t have a job, (is) losing his house, losing his car … We’ve got to put aside our differences … We don’t like everybody. It’s human nature, but we’ve got to say enough and move forward.”
