Compromise Polarized

There’s no hiding the dysfunction in Illinois state government, but what got us here?

From the late 1970s through the 90s, Illinois was viewed as a progressive state, a leader in the Midwest. Our state government, led by a series of moderate Republican governors like Jim Thompson (14 years), Jim Edgar (eight years), and George Ryan (four years), worked with the General Assembly, dominantly controlled by Democrats, to move Illinois ahead. But then times changed.

Our current governor, Bruce Rauner, ran and won his campaign on the premise that Illinois state government was broken and dysfunctional. He’s maintained this posture throughout his first term in office—because it still is, and there’s no hiding it from Illinois voters.

More than 730 days passed without a state budget; there are ongoing delays in state aid payments to local school districts, social services providers, and others; and, the state’s pile of bills and debt continues to grow. The open question remains: How did we get here?

It’s not my intent to single out any elected official or political party, but as someone who has spent his professional life working in executive branch positions in both Republican and Democrat administrations, and currently as the Illinois CPA Society’s vice president of Government Relations, I have some observations.

First, the state wasn’t prepared for the economic downturn that followed the horrific 9/11 attacks. Despite being in fair fiscal condition prior to then, Illinois legislators failed to reduce state spending as revenues declined. Second, Illinois legislators failed to reform unsustainable public pension practices, like offering early-retirement incentives to state employees that only compounded state pension debt. For what it’s worth, both Govs. Thompson and Edgar have stated that some of their decisions contributed to Illinois’ current fiscal problems. Third, and perhaps most damaging, over time the willingness to compromise has been lost in our political and governmental processes.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines compromise as “an agreement or arrangement by which, in consideration of mutual concessions, a controversy is terminated.” Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of compromise in establishing our legislative chambers to ensure that larger states wouldn’t overshadow smaller states. James Madison in The Federalist Papers wrote of the necessity for compromise and the impossibility of drafting a “complete Constitution.”

I submit that compromise is an inherently necessary part of our legislative process and that, as Illinois Manufacturer’s Association President and CEO Greg Baise stated, “The legislative process is not an art of excellence, but rather, an art of compromise.”

However, as our political processes have evolved and become more polarized, “compromise” has become a dirty word at both the state and federal levels. The lack of compromise has already laid claim to many victims in our state. Consider the human service providers and state vendors not being paid, and public schools and universities receiving no or delayed state appropriated funds.

The polarization and lack of compromise in our governmental process has also scored casualties in the 100th General Assembly—18 veteran senators and representatives have announced their resignations or retirements upon the completion of their terms. This is a tremendous loss of leadership, wisdom, and experience spanning both sides of the aisle.

The polarization of our political processes facilitates a winner-take-all approach and undermines the collective good of our state and nation. U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel, who also served as an Illinois cabinet official, expounded on the eroded public faith in government when he sentenced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich: “In the United States, we don’t much govern at gunpoint. We require willing and creative cooperation and participation to prosper as a civil society,” Zagel said, reminding voters of the maxim, “The American people always get precisely the government that they deserve. Your case is another lesson for us.”

The polarization of politics today has driven us to prolonged gridlock and a winner-take-all approach that should be another lesson to us all. I believe Illinois can be restored to its place as a progressive leader in the Midwest and throughout the country. It will take political change, greater voter literacy and participation, and the appointment of public officials committed to the interests of the state and solving its systemic problems.

We know how we got here. The question now is whether we can accomplish what’s necessary to get us out of here. As trusted business and financial leaders and advisors, we’re in a unique position to help Illinois and its people understand and overcome the challenges of today, tomorrow, and beyond. Can we help lead the compromise?

---

Author’s Note: This column includes my personal observations of the evolution of the legislative environment and are not necessarily the views of the Illinois CPA Society.