Q.        What are the issues you’d like to address this session?

            I’d like to address the issue that is related to our capital program, our school construction, make sure schools around the state of Illinois have necessary support from the state through its bonding program so they can repair and build new schools as needed.

            I’d like to address a broader program as related to early childhood education.

Q.        In what sense, expanding opportunities?

            Expanding opportunities. Yes.

Q.        My understanding is that in the Chicago Public Schools it’s quite difficult to enroll your children in preschool without having to pay tuition?

            If it’s difficult, then we need to find a way to make sure it’s done. It’s for all children, particularly in Chicago schools. We’ve got to try to see what we can do so that all children have access to early childhood education.

Q.        How do you describe your leadership style?

            My leadership style is one where it’s all-inclusive. We have a very diverse caucus. We’ve got caucuses within the caucus. And everyone has their input and we try to come together on an agreed agenda. It’s not my decision on what usually is a caucus decision. But I believe in inclusion, rather than just point them in one particular direction. My style is inclusion of the members.

Q.        How difficult is that, since you have such a diverse caucus? For instance some people thought when the Senate went to Democratic leadership issues like gay rights or a state ban on assault weapons would be voted on?

            Again, it’s a very diverse caucus. What impacts in one locale may have an adverse impact in another locale. We’ve got legislators from the urban areas, suburban, downstate, so we as a caucus come together to discuss this.

            As [for] human rights legislation, that should not be a party or a Democratic issue. Human rights affect all, be it Democrat, Republican, upstate or downstate. So it shouldn’t be a party issue. The only thing is, Democrats are more progressive on those types of issues.

Q.        So Democrats have to lead, but that issue needs Republicans too?

            To be honest with themselves.

Q.        You’ve been in the General Assembly since 1973. You just turned 69 last fall. Going into your second term as Senate president, do you feel any personal pressure to create a legacy?

            When I came into the General Assembly, the number one issue then was the adequate funding of education. We passed that year, in 1973, the resource equalizer formula that funded education throughout the state of Illinois. Ever since that time, every year, adequate funding of education has been an issue. I’ve been at the forefront of trying to adequately fund education.

            Hopefully next year [2005], we will resolve that problem once and for all and relieve the burden of homeowners paying for education through the property tax and shift it to a more equitable way of funding it and that would be the state income tax.

            Hopefully, we can come to a resolve on that issue and equalize the funding of education across the state of Illinois so that all children will have equal access to the public dollars being spent on education.

Q.        Does that mean House Bill 750 [that shifts the reliance on local to state taxes]?

            It could be 750 with some changes, but that’s the general concept. Of course, year after year, we continue to go through the same problem. My legacy will be one of trying to solve the problem of funding education for all children.

Q.        You’ve become a major proponent for a Chicago casino. Is that something you see as part of your legacy?

            We already have gaming in Illinois. It’s just more or less parity. Gaming is a means with which we use the revenue that is generated to deal with issues of funding for social programs, capital programs and it’s not something new for us. It’s already here. If Chicago gets gaming, then the revenue generated from that would help the entire state of Illinois.

            Illinois loses a lot of money to Wisconsin and Indiana, so we can recapture those dollars if we had gaming in Chicago and the southern suburbs and Waukegan. We can recapture those dollars and keep them in the state of Illinois.

Q.        You mentioned the need for a capital plan and, specifically, school construction.

            Well, we have to have a dedicated revenue stream to pay for the bonds for this. How are we going to do that? As leaders we must lead. We recognize that as a problem, but our job is to come up with a solution. Gaming is one of the solutions, as far as the revenue to help deal with that problem.

Q.        It’s also been talked about as a way to alleviate the Chicago Transit Authority’s budget woes.

            The CTA, it’s a possibility there, but it also may require restructuring the [Regional Transportation Authority] so that you can have adequate change in the formula, based on ridership. Right now the formula is at a disadvantage to the CTA. Each year it gets worse and worse.

Q.        How did you become the leading advocate of gambling expansion?

            At the time we originally passed the legislation for gaming, I advocated it. But the mayor didn’t want it at that particular time. Five years ago when they dealt with the 10th license, I wanted that license to go to the southern suburbs, and so we’ve been discussing these issues with the other leaders. The leaders say we’ve got all these problems, but they’ve got to be willing to support some sort of tax revenue that’s going to solve the state’s problem.

            The budget has been cut to the bone as it currently stands. So I know the mayor wants it to deal with his local budget. But, as it deals with his local budget, it would generate maybe $700 million to the state treasury and those dollars can help solve many problems. So that’s the reason why I am a strong advocate.

Q.        How much progress have we made toward eliminating the record $5 billion budget deficit of two years ago?

            There have been significant cuts in the state budget. We made significant progress with our one-time revenue and some changes in closing tax loopholes, which generate a continuing flow of revenue, but we need a steady stream of revenue. Our problem is not on the spending side. It’s on the revenue side.

            We need an infusion of new revenue to deal with the budget. I’m strongly opposed to balancing the budget on the backs of the schoolchildren of Illinois, as well as the needy, particularly the elderly of the state. And so I’m for whatever it takes to get some continuing revenue to solve the problem.

Q.        The Republicans picked up one seat in the Senate. What does that mean for you?

            It’s not much of a change. Pat Welch, I believe, has been a good legislator. He’s an excellent floor debater. He knows the issues and can articulate. It’s a loss for us, but that’s the nature of the beast in this business. It will not change, basically, the relationship with the other side of the aisle. I intend to continue to work with them and work on issues that we can agree on.

            There will be times, philosophically, when we will disagree. I’ll continue to work with them on issues and have their input as it relates to their concerns. But we are the majority and, being the majority, it’s our responsibility to set the agenda and push forward. At the same time, I don’t intend to just do it one way.  I’ll seek their input, but I’m not going to let their disagreements stop us from doing what we believe is necessary and should be done.

Q.        As one of you appropriations chairs, Pat Welch helped carry the last two budgets through the legislature, including the “rolling stock” fee hikes reviled by the trucking industry.

            No, that was not the issue. He had legislation in to close many of the corporate loopholes. He believed there has been a shift from corporations to individuals as related to their share of state revenues. So he long advocated that. That had nothing to do with his downfall in the election.

Q.        So no one will be afraid to take on an appropriations role?

            Oh, no. No one’s going to be afraid. No. What I’m saying is that, as it has been pointed out, about nine or 10 years ago, one in every $4 that came to the state treasury came from corporations. What many of the corporations have done — their skilled tax lawyers have found a way to avoid in-state taxes, which has shifted more of the burden of financing state government to the individual. Now today it’s about one in nine. So it’s those loopholes that have caused the state to be short on revenue, an issue we have to deal with.

Q.        Going back to last summer’s budget negotiations, you’re the one legislative leader aligned with the governor. What kind of relationship do you have with the governor?

            My alliance with the governor is one that, philosophically, we agree on the funding of early childhood education. We agree on increased funding for elementary and secondary education. We agree on expanding FamilyCare and KidCare. So that’s where we’re aligned. That was the whole fight on the budget.

            And, coming from the other chamber, they wanted a no-growth formula for education, which would have been no additional dollars for the current fiscal year. That’s where we disagree. So the governor and I happen to agree on the same issue. Had the House agreed that we’re going to do education, we’re going to take care of FamilyCare and KidCare, then we would have been on the same page.

            I have a very inclusive caucus. And the views I express publicly are the views that the members of my caucus express. As I’ve said, I’m one who believes in inclusion.

            So, after going through that long overtime session, we went in seeking approximately $400 million in new spending for education. We ended up with $389 million. We went in seeking $20 million in additional money for early childhood education. We ended up $30 million for early childhood education. We went in seeking additional dollars for FamilyCare and KidCare and that remained the same. We ended up with those dollars for that.

            So, what I’m saying to you, in essence, is that we went through all that overtime session to end up just almost where we started.

            And these are issues that my caucus members strongly advocate and support.

Q.        During the fall legislative campaigns, Republicans running against Democrats downstate argued that having Chicago Democrats control state government was a bad thing.

            I’m glad most voters across Illinois are more intelligent than that. Downstate Illinois, under the plan we originally passed on May 31, would have received more dollars for education in the classroom than what we ended up with. What downstate Republicans did not say is they took the dollars and shifted them to the wealthy suburban school districts, which will come back to haunt them next time around. How can they justify that?

            We had adequate funding for schools all across the state of Illinois. That’s reflective of the members of my caucus. They tried to portray it as upstate versus downstate. No, it was not. And the voters didn’t buy that in southern Illinois. In Quincy, they did not buy that. I thought the General Assembly had gone far beyond that divisive type of politics. Just because you’re from a different region does not mean you do not share the same values.

Q.        Republicans say that when you ensure there is extra money in the budget for City Colleges of Chicago or Chicago State University that those are examples where downstate is losing out.

            That’s really unfounded. It’s just a fair distribution of dollars, equitable distribution. The community college board recognized that the funding formula is flawed, and since the funding formula is flawed, it punishes city colleges. And so they believe it should be corrected.

Q.        So is that like the CTA? An old formula doesn’t reflect current needs?

            Yes. Right. Changing populations. When you say the Chicago Transit Authority, what you in the media do not write is the transit authority services about 39 suburban communities. It’s not just isolated in Chicago.

            If some would support gaming for Chicago, for example, that’s $700 million in state tax dollars that will go to fund many of the communities throughout the state of Illinois. If they support expansion of McCormick Place, which in turn brings more conventions, those tourists who come there pay taxes on the dollars they spend, state tax dollars. Those tax dollars help all the other communities throughout the state of Illinois. What I’m saying is, the voters are more intelligent than that. They understand that. Chicago is a big economic engine and that economic engine fuels revenue to all communities throughout the state of Illinois.

Q.        Do you feel that you’re given the respect that you deserve as a legislative leader? Do you feel you get as much respect as, say, House Speaker Michael Madigan, be it in the media or elsewhere?

            Let me put it this way to you: I’ve known Speaker Madigan for many years. Ten years I spent in the House with him. He has acquired quite a bit of knowledge and so forth. But everything has changed now. At one point he was the only Democrat in the state that Democrats could go to. Now they have myself and the governor to go to. So it’s a shared responsibility.

            Now, if those of you in the media think otherwise, that’s your problem. I’ve never considered it my problem. That’s your problem because it tells me that you really don’t understand it.

Q.        Do you expect another struggle on the budget? The speaker and the Republican leaders say their budget coalition will continue this year.

            I’m a Democrat. I believe in helping Democrat elected officials. I don’t mind working with my other colleagues, but I’m not going to involve myself in a conspiracy to hurt the schoolchildren and the poor and the elderly of this state. Therefore, the state budget needs revenue. The people elect us to lead, not to be in position to do nothing and try to blame someone else for it. So you must lead on these issues.

            You must have the courage to find the revenue and do the right thing. I don’t like to get involved in anything that’s being obstructive. I don’t want to say, this is happening, where’s the revenue? When you’re in position to try to help get it done, that’s our job. That’s what we must do.

Q.        How much of an issue is pension funding for the state?

            Well, we haven’t even gotten into that as of yet. I realize what the pension boards indicated. But, again, it’s revenue that must come out of general revenue dollars. And the crunch is here. So how do we deal with those problems? We know it’s here. I think we should do the responsible thing and get the revenue source there to deal with it. And I’m quite certain we will deal with that in the upcoming budget negotiations.

Q.        Republicans point to their victory in the 5th District Illinois Supreme Court race as a referendum for caps on medical malpractice awards for pain and suffering.

            It wasn’t a referendum on caps. It was a referendum on the issue, as related to medical malpractice in the southern region of the state. That’s why my senators who represent those communities strongly supported legislation to reform medical malpractice, and we passed that legislation out of the Senate. It got stalled in the House. So, again, I have a diverse caucus and I try to reflect the views of all the members of the caucus. Even though [Sen. John] Cullerton is my judiciary chairman, he may have one view but that view may have an adverse impact on other members and other members have their say. And that’s what happens.

Q.        In general, you don’t support caps?

            In general, I don’t. But, again, I personally may not feel that way, but I don’t let my personal views impact the decision that’s to be made by this caucus.

Go to questions and answers with:
Tom Cross >>>>>>>>>>

Go to questions and answers with:
Michael Madigan >>>>>>>>>>

Go to questions and answers with:
Frank Watson >>>>>>>>>>

Click here to go to pdf of complete Q&A text.

Illinois Issues, January 2005

For information about how to subcribe to Illinois Issues go to:
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/subscribe/subscribe.html

Go to Illinois Issues blog at http://illinoisissuesblog.blogspot.com/

Write a letter to the editor
I would like to comment on this article
(Please state month and author of article.)
Ask a staff member
Home