Few people thought that Governor Bruce Rauner’s administration could keep state operations running for a year without an actual state budget.

The Illinois fiscal crisis is only going to get worse, and the solution is becoming more difficult by the day.

As you probably know, the General Assembly and the governor have not yet agreed on a full state budget. But because of various federal judicial orders, a signed education-funding bill, and several ongoing statutory "continuing appropriations" (debt service, pension payments, legislative salaries, etc.), the government is on pace to spend billions of dollars more than it will bring in this fiscal year.

Guesstimates have been tossed around by various folks that the state could run out of money by March or maybe April if no formal budget agreement is reached. That's because all the judicial orders etc. are based on last fiscal year's budget, but last year's budget was based on revenue from a 5-percent income tax - which automatically fell to 3.75 percent in January.

Long term is grim, but so is the short term.

The absurd facade of this long-running state-government impasse might best be summed up with two brief statements.

(1) Governor Bruce Rauner to Democrats: Just support my plans to eviscerate organized labor and I'll give you the rare privilege of voting to raise everybody's income taxes.

(2) Democrats to Rauner: Just accept our piddly little workers' compensation reforms and we'll let you put all Republican legislators on an income-tax-hike bill, which you can then, of course, gleefully sign into law.

Those two statements bring to mind a long-ago description of the play Waiting for Godot. It was, the reviewer wrote, a play in which "nothing happens, twice."

Ain't that the truth. Neither of these things will ever happen.

I have heard some portray this standoff as something like a religious war, in which each side is so wedded to their own core belief structures - particularly when it comes to labor unions (Rauner against, Democrats for) - that all rapprochement is impossible.

But as hard-line as the summer has most certainly appeared, I am increasingly convinced that this overtime session isn't quite as simple as either of those comparisons.

Last week, Governor Bruce Rauner declared to reporters that if it weren't for House Speaker Michael Madigan, the budget impasse would've been resolved.

And perhaps if the sky were green, then grass would be blue.

For starters, what the governor said is dubious. In the absence of Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton and his liberal Democratic caucus wouldn't have gone along with the harshly anti-union aspects of Rauner's "Turnaround Agenda" in exchange for a budget deal and tax hike, as the governor is demanding.

After staring at my computer screen for more than an hour, I realized that my goal of providing a succinct and thoughtful analysis of what happened on a very weird day last week in Illinois government was impossible.

Instead, we're going to have to take this in pieces.

The court case. C.J. Baricevic was one of the lawyers representing a host of unions in their successful St. Clair County lawsuit to force the state to pay its employees without a budget. The victory Thursday came just two days after a Cook County judge ruled that paying employees without an official state budget was a clear and total violation of the Illinois Constitution.

Why was St. Clair County's ruling so different?

Well, Baricevic happens to be the son of the county's chief judge, John Baricevic, who was once the county-board chair and is regarded as one of the most powerful Democrats in the region. The younger Baricevic is the local Democratic choice for Congress against freshman Republican U.S. Representative Mike Bost. According to Ballotpedia, the judge in Thursday's case also appears to be up for retention next year in the heavily unionized county.

Hey, I'm not saying nothing bad about no judges. I visit that fine county every now and then. I'm even told the judge in the case isn't the type to be sensitive to such pressures. "He's just a pro-labor guy at heart," explained one area politico, who added that I was "reading too much" into the local political angle.

I'm just saying.

Republican Governor Bruce Rauner is proving to be quite adept at skirting responsibility for the current Statehouse impasse and impending government shutdown.

He has relentlessly painted himself as the good guy, even to the point of blatantly abandoning his previous stances.

For instance, Rauner has righteously slammed the Democrats' "unconstitutional" unbalanced budget, even though his own proposed budget was also billions of dollars out of balance.

Rauner trashed that Democratic budget even after he signed the part that funded schools, thereby ensuring that he avoided blame if schools didn't open on time.

Rauner warned in April that the state had no money to bail out Chicago, then offered $200 million a year in "found money" for the Chicago Public Schools to keep it from going belly up.

He often refers to the state employee union AFSCME as "AFSCAMMY" and told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that the crisis of a state fiscal meltdown "creates opportunity" to get his non-budget issues passed. But last week he pledged to work arm-in-arm with the unions to make sure those poor state workers got their paychecks, even though the lack of a budget means there is no legal appropriation to do so.

He's a clever dude, that one. He'll say just about anything to shift the focus off of him and on to the Democrats.

House Speaker Michael Madigan likes to send "messages." He doesn't often explain what those messages are, but last week's surprising defeat of a bill to give the Chicago Public Schools a 40-day extension on its $634-million pension payment due June 30 was most surely a message to somebody.

Despite his spokesperson saying the day before that Madigan was "prepared to be supportive," it's clear that Madigan did not work to pass the bill, which was being pushed by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. His staff did not urge members to vote for it before or during the roll call.

Madigan himself said he did not ask Republicans for a specific number of votes for a structured roll call, which is another indication that he wasn't ready to move the ball forward.

Madigan's deputy majority leader, Lou Lang, presided over the proceeding. A newspaper reported that Lang voted "no" so he could file a motion to reconsider that would keep it alive. Okay, but if you watch the roll call, Lang pushed his red button right after the voting opened, which probably sent a strong signal to the rank and file.

Governor Bruce Rauner's much-anticipated TV ad isn't as over-the-top negative as many thought it would be.

"Exactly," was the response from a Rauner official I spoke with after watching the ad and making the above observation about its somewhat muted tone.

"There's plenty of time for that if it's necessary," the official added.

Governor Bruce Rauner gave rip-roaring speeches in several Democratic legislative districts last week denouncing the state's Democratic leadership. All of his visits were accompanied by Illinois Republican Party press releases bashing area Democratic legislators for being in the back pockets of House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton.

Some are warning that this tour is only making it more difficult to cut a budget deal before the government shuts down. By belittling legislators in front of their constituents, Rauner is risking that those lawmakers will get their backs up and switch to a campaign-war footing, just like the governor appears to be doing. When that happens, they won't want to cooperate.

But if you look at the numbers, Rauner did quite well in all of those districts.

The governor won 15 of the current 39 Democratic Senate districts last year, some by quite a lot. Despite what you may read, many of the Democrat-drawn districts are not prohibitively partisan.

Add in all the Republican Senate districts he won, and Rauner took 35 Senate districts to then-Governor Pat Quinn's 23, and came very close to Quinn in one other (Senator Linda Holmes').

After five months, you'd think that the warring parties at the Illinois Statehouse would have learned something about each other. Instead, last week's bitter and divisive House overtime session showed that they still fundamentally misunderstand one another.

What follows are some questions I'm hearing and my own responses.

• From Republicans: Why would the House Democrats propose such a weak workers' compensation reform plan last week when they knew Governor Bruce Rauner wants so much more?

The Democrats' plan didn't contain much real-world progress, and actually regressed in part. Unless you read between the lines. Workers' comp insurance is essentially a no-fault system designed to keep disputes out of the courts. Republicans have for years attempted to insert "causation" into the system to weed out employees whose injuries are mostly not the fault of employers.

But House Speaker Michael Madigan's bill used the term "causal" in relation to a certain kind of injury. This was a pretty good indication that after more than 30 years as speaker, Madigan is moving away from his complete opposition to causation standards.

The speaker appears willing to deal on this topic because he attached his language to a House bill that can now be amended by the Senate. If he'd used a Senate bill, it would've been "take it or leave it."

So build on the causation issue and ignore his other items that set the negotiations back. It's not rocket science.

Pages