It recently came to my attention that Illinois and Pennsylvania were having mirror image experiences. Both states are operating without budgets, their legislatures and governors at odds. The Democratic governor of Pennsylvania has proposed a tax increase to balance Pennsylvania’s budget which Pennsylvania’s Republican majority legislature has refused to enact. The Democratic legislature of Illinois has enacted an unconstitutional unbalanced budget for Illinois that the state’s Republican governor has refused to sign, demanding that either the legislature make certain concessions he has proposed (a limitation of public employee collective bargaining rights and a tax freeze being the most notable) or increase taxes and enact a budget themselves (presumably over his veto). The parties are different. Only the impasse is the same.
To be sure there are some differences. Illinois has the worst credit rating of any state in the Union. Illinois has the lowest state contribution to schools of any state in the Union. Illinois has the highest rates of individual and corporate net outflow of any state in the Union.
Given the choices of lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way, the legislatures of both states have elected “None of the above”. Sounds like a distinct deficit of followership to me.
Following my policy of accepting that states other than my should be allowed to do any damned fool thing they care to, I can’t comment on Pennsylvania but here in Illinois I think that Gov. Rauner probably could do more to cultivate good relations with the state legislature and extend an olive branch to them. Realistically, I’m not sure what he could do short of total capitulation that would move things forward.
I think there are probably a lot of similarities btw/ IL and PA just based upon similar latitude and size. They are #1 and #2 in number of units of local government, respectfully. They also have home rule authority. I assume this means the states are large and diverse enough that there is a distrust of centralized authority in the state. It could also mean that legislators can more comfortably draw on local support that makes them more independent from state leaders who need followers.
Both states appear to practice gerrymandering, though in both cases the imbalance starts from too many concentrated D votes in Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The Governors should find it more difficult to persuade vulnerable party opponents to follow them or face defeat.
Been swamped at work (rapid growth is hard) so have not followed our state issues as closely as normal. In general though, PD is correct. The individual state reps have a fair bit of independence. Also, the state is split up between very safe red and blue seats with a few swing areas.
I am in a group of people who meet with state legislators once or twice a year. The older guys who run the committees complain about the new breed of politician who refuse to compromise. A lot of them are mostly worried about primary challenges.
That said, the governor comes across as a bit rigid and also not real willing to compromise.
Steve