Governor Bruce Rauner blew a perfect opportunity last week to finally drive a public wedge between Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan, to clearly put Madigan on the defensive, and to maybe finally make progress on an important issue that might save the state a billion dollars a year.

But he badly bungled the rollout of a deal with Cullerton on pension reform. Instead of describing the agreement for what it really was, Rauner greatly exaggerated its scope and portrayed it as a big defeat for AFSCME and other unions.

In reality, the deal with Cullerton (and there is still a deal with Cullerton, despite what you might be reading elsewhere) is narrow in scope and elegantly designed to put Madigan in a truly tough position.

A lot of folks have taken to calling Bruce Rauner “Governor 1 Percent” because of his immense personal wealth. Rauner himself told the Chicago Sun-Times during the 2014 campaign that he was in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners.

But, right now anyway, he ought to be referred to as “Governor 1.4 Percent.”

Stay with me a bit and I’ll explain.

I sat down for an interview last week with Rauner. As he does with just about every reporter, the governor blamed House Speaker Michael Madigan for stifling his beloved Turnaround Agenda. Rauner said he was “frustrated” with Madigan for saying that the anti-union, pro-business reforms were “unrelated to the budget.”

“For example,” Rauner said, “if we can get business regulatory change so I can recruit manufacturers here and more transportation companies here, and more businesses here, we can generate billions of new revenue without raising tax rates. That’s directly tied to the budget.”

“Billions?” I asked.

“Billions,” he replied, while promising to send me a detailed analysis.

“He has taught us how to deal with him,” explained one top official in Governor Bruce Rauner’s administration when asked why the governor has once again cranked up his public criticism of House Speaker Michael Madigan.

You may already know that the governor blasted both Madigan and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel during an appearance on Dan Proft’s WIND radio program last week.

After accusing Emanuel of being “afraid” to take on Madigan, Rauner said the reason for this was self-evident: “The speaker has been the most powerful politician in the state of Illinois for decades. It’s the main reason we’re in such big trouble as a state.”

Rauner went on to essentially blame Illinois’ “long-term, slow death spiral” on Madigan and said the majority party “likes the status quo,” claiming the speaker is “not sensitive” to the real-world problems of the middle class. “He’s got a great system; he controls it. And right now they’re unwilling to change. And without change, we’ll never get a true balanced budget."

So what happened here? The governor seemed to mute his criticisms of Madigan in the closing weeks of 2015, even mostly holding his fire when Madigan skipped the last leaders’ meeting just before the holidays.

New year, new attitude, apparently.

One of the realities of Illinois legislative politics is that our state's system tends to discourage competition.

Byzantine ballot-access laws, a highly partisan legislative-district map-drawing process, heavily concentrated populations of partisan voters in Chicago (Democrats) and in the collar counties and Downstate (Republicans), and often-tireless work by incumbents and political parties at the state and local levels to reduce opposition all combine to help tamp down the number of competitive races.

One of the concepts used so effectively by Bruce Rauner's campaign for governor last year was what are called "OODA Loops." I'm going to oversimplify because of space, but the idea, developed by a military strategist and adopted by business leaders, is to introduce rapid changes to a battle with the intent of disorienting an opponent and forcing over- and under-reactions. And then do it again and again to exhaust and eventually defeat the other side.

With growing numbers of African-American and Latino politicians calling for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to resign, it's probably time for the county's Democratic Party leaders to rethink their summertime decision to not endorse anyone in the primary.

The incumbent state's attorney is facing two Democratic primary challengers, Kim Foxx and Donna More.

Foxx, an African-American woman and former prosecutor, is the former chief of staff to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle and is backed by other African-American and liberal leaders, plus some labor unions.

More is white, is a former county prosecutor, and has represented casino interests since she left the Illinois Gaming Board decades ago. She also contributed to Republican Governor Bruce Rauner's campaign - one of only a handful of contributions she's ever made. The first-time candidate has demonstrated an ability to raise enough money to compete.

The general rule of thumb for incumbents facing primaries is the more, the merrier. Multiple candidates can split the "anti" vote against the incumbent, which means Alvarez won't need to receive 50 percent plus one to win.

Here's what the Chicago Police Department told the media in after LaQuan McDonald was killed by a police officer 13 months ago: A drug-addled black kid lunged at a cop with a knife and was then shot in the chest.

Six months later, and a week after Chicago's mayoral election, the city council rushed through approval of a $5-million settlement with McDonald's family, even though no lawsuit had been filed.

Seven months after that, the city finally released the dashboard video from a Chicago police car, which clearly showed McDonald walking away from the police when he was shot 16 times - and almost all of those shots were fired as he lay bleeding to death on the pavement.

Before the officer shot him, everybody failed that kid:

Earlier this month when the General Assembly was in Springfield, House Speaker Michael Madigan called Senate President John Cullerton six different times to ask him to move the child-care-program-restoration legislation once it passed the House.

Yes, six times. The man is most definitely persistent.

As you probably already know, the deal cut with Governor Bruce Rauner's office by state Senator Toi Hutchinson (D-Olympia Fields) and others to mostly restore the draconian Child Care Assistance Program cuts Rauner made this past summer involved not voting on a bill that would've fully restored the governor's cuts.

Madigan wanted that bill to pass, however, and apparently believed through much of the day that his chamber would pass it, even though it seemed obvious that Representative Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago) had once again jumped into the political bed with the GOP governor. Some House Republicans were talking about voting for the bill, though, and that kept Madigan's hopes alive.

Because he thought it still had a shot, Madigan would not relent on Cullerton. And while the constant calls reportedly irritated Cullerton, they didn't work. Cullerton backed up his member's deal and the speaker was politely refused. Six times. The bill died in the House when all Republicans and Dunkin voted against the speaker.

Madigan's pressure on Cullerton was ironic considering that the speaker is sitting on several Senate bills. Cullerton's chamber has twice passed minimum-wage-increase bills that have gone nowhere in the House despite the fact that Madigan pushed a referendum last year to raise the minimum wage. Cullerton also passed a property-tax-freeze bill that provides more money for Chicago Public Schools and kills off the state's ancient school-funding formula. But that hasn't moved in the House, either.

"He seems so done with it all," said one top Republican earlier last week about House Republican Leader Jim Durkin. "He hates this," said a close Durkin pal not long afterward.

The overtime session's constant battles with the House Democrats and super-strict marching orders from Governor Bruce Rauner were wearing Durkin down, said some folks who know him. "This summer was pretty nasty," he admitted to reporters last week.

But that changed by Tuesday. Asked to describe the progress of the previous few days on a scale of one to 10, a cheery Durkin replied, "Eight, nine, 10." He seemed back on his game.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan clearly had a very bad week.

The concept of a public meeting on November 18 featuring the four Illinois legislative leaders and the governor sounds nice, but will it actually move the ball forward and break the months-long governmental impasse?

As you might know, a group of good-government types recently called on the state's leaders to sit down and talk about solving the state's budget issues. The four tops and the governor haven't met as a group since late May.

House Speaker Michael Madigan quickly accepted and then suggested that the meeting be held in public. The move has quite a few people scratching their heads, because nobody expects anything will be solved while the public is looking on.

So why bother?

A big reason is that the Democrats want the public to see what they've been seeing with their own eyes for months. They say the governor walks in, exchanges pleasantries, and then repeats the same basic talking points that he's been making since April.

Pages