Rauner as Governor (Chicago: 2015, minimum wage, tax)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Attrill

To be clear I'm not making any general statements about private equity companies overall, I'm talking specifically about Bruce Rauner and GTCR, and how that experience can be applied to running a state. I agree with emathias and I don't see how it is directly relevant to managing a state. The instances where you do see government getting involved in those areas generally go poorly for the government entity involved.




You're right - I said Whitney Young when I meant Payton. I leave that up to anyone reading the posts to judge how large of a mistake that is.

That still leaves the main point standing - do you think it's OK for a guy from Winnetka to use political connections to get his daughter into one of the most desirable CPS schools when thousands of Chciago residents are rejected every year? I have serious problems with that on many levels, and it certainly factors into my opinion of Rauner.



A takeover is a takeover, whether friendly or hostile. Sometime over the last 20 years PR departments started calling takeovers "acquisitions", but there is no difference at all between a takeover and an acquisition. Whether the takeover is friendly or hostile can change multiple times during the process, depending on the bids involved. It really has no bearing on what I'm talking about at all.

GTCR is certainly a company that is heavily involved in takeovers/acquisitions and proudly advertises itself as such. I have no idea why you want to deny that.

Again - my point is that Rauner's experience is not as a manager involved in operations, it is as a financier. I don't see the relevance of that to managing a state.

I don't know much about GTCR, but I do know a bit about PE, and the general attempt to paint it with a nefarious brush is very odd IMO. LBOs are controversial but IMO at the end of the day there's no buyer without a seller.

From what I understand, which is less than PE guys but likely far more than most, bonafide hostile takeovers are extraordinarily difficult to pull off and I highly doubt most PE firms, if any, would waste their time engaging in them.

Beyond that you are left with management teams or boards looking for well capitalized partners who, btw, are often investing on behalf of extremely large institutions, like pension funds. Whoop de do.

Anyway, if you don't think exceptional business savvy could potentially translate to strong beaurocratic leadership, we'll have to just disagree. That is a long, boring hashed over conversation.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Rauner is facing a veto proof majority in both the house and the senate - he can't block anything.

That said, I hope Chet is right and he negotiates reasonable policies with Madigan and Cullerton, but I'm not hopeful. The fact that he's brought guys like Bill Daley and Oberhelman to handle the transition makes feel that the state is going to continue to be fleeced.

There could still be enough centrist Democrats that don't want to go along with Madigan and Cullerton to block such legislation. It makes passing foolish legislation a bit harder when you have to get enough democrats together to overide a veto vs simple majority.

[Chicago60614]

^ still annoying we couldn't at least take away the veto-proof majority, just to keep things more interesting!

[almost3am]

I wouldn't mind seeing Rauner veto some stuff, just to make sure the House and Senate know it is their deal only, and success and failure would fall in their laps solely. It would make it all more interesting, at least.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Rauner is facing a veto proof majority in both the house and the senate - he can't block anything.

All the Republicans needed was to pick up ONE SEAT in the General Assembly, and Madigan would have lost his super-majority. The Senate super-majority is pretty much bullet proof.

And once again, the ridiculous Illinois Constitution fails us. Why 3/5 for a super-majority? Why not 2/3 like any reasonable state?

[chet everett]

Madigan writes the rules and counts the votes...

Did you notice who never had any comment about who he called or was called by on election night or the day that followed...

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

All the Republicans needed was to pick up ONE SEAT in the General Assembly, and Madigan would have lost his super-majority. The Senate super-majority is pretty much bullet proof.

And once again, the ridiculous Illinois Constitution fails us. Why 3/5 for a super-majority? Why not 2/3 like any reasonable state?

Isn't 3/5 and lower threshold than 2/3?

[jonnynonos]

Yes; 60 % vs 66 %

[long101]

Well I voted for the guy because Quinn could not pass pension reform, and for some reason Indiana is gaining jobs and has been falling behind. I dont care if our jobless rate is getting better, its still lagging behind most other states.

What does concern me... I heard this guy spent 25mm of his own loot on the campaign, why does he want to be the governor so bad? Its obviously not for the pay.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by long101

What does concern me... I heard this guy spent 25mm of his own loot on the campaign, why does he want to be the governor so bad? Its obviously not for the pay.

Why does any millionaire want a job that pays a couple hundred thousand (president, congressman, etc)? Power.