The state of the State By DIANE ROSS

Fall session: no overriding problems

NO ONE was plotting override strategies for the veto session when this column went to press the last day of September. Everyone was plotting campaign strategy. You couldn't blame them. This is only the second statewide election to be held in the non-presidential, off-year under the 1970 Constitution.

What's true of one lameduck session, however, is true of them all: It's the legislature versus the governor as much as it's the Democrats versus the Republicans. So what lawmakers do depends on whether Jim Thompson becomes the first Illinois governor to win a third consecutive term. To a greater extent, however, it depends on whether the Democrats retain the majority they've held in the Senate for eight years and regain the majority they lost in the House two years ago.

Regardless of who wins the election, lawmakers aren't going to vote on the merits of the vetoes this fall anymore than they voted on the merits of the bills last spring. They're going to vote in their own best interests, as individuals, as a party, as a body. Last spring, it was in the lawmakers' best interest to get reelected: every lawmaker for him/herself. This fall, in anticipation of next spring's session, it's in the lawmakers' best interest to close ranks behind those who can best consolidate their party's position. In the House, Republican Speaker George Ryan, who's running for lieutenant governor, won't be back. It's no secret that Democratic Minority Leader Mike Madigan, the mastermind behind the new district map, wants to be the next speaker. And in the Senate, there's no indication that Democratic President Phil Rock doesn't want a third term.

But don't forget the lameducks — or the deadducks (cut down by the Cutback Amendment). This year there are 54 lawmakers who chose not to run, or who got beat in the primaries. The breakdown shows 44 House members (24 of the 91 Republicans and 20 of the 86 Democrats) and 10 Senate members (4 of the 30 Democrats and 6 of the 29 Republicans). In addition to the 54, there are four "strange ducks" who didn't win the primaries but are running as independents. By press time, two of the deadducks had already resigned: Rep. Ben Polk (R., Moline) went to the Department on Aging, and Rep. Jake Wolf (R., Chicago) to Conservation. Whatever the final count of lameducks after the election, it is sure to be the biggest flock on record. Lawmakers are notorious for raising their pensions and/or their pay during lame-duck sessions. Theoretically, lameducks are free to vote their consciences.

Take heart. There's not a whole lot to do as far as vetoes are concerned this year (see "Legislative Action," page 27). Only a handful are controversial; nothing like the cuts in daycare funds in 1981, the veto of the ban on transporting waste in 1980, or the penny compromise on sales tax relief that stole the show in 1979. This fall's, like last spring's session, is likely to center on taxes/revenue issues: not how to raise taxes but how to avoid losing revenue. Regardless of the politicking for speaker or president, the powerful business lobby will force lawmakers to vote at least one veto up or down.

That veto is Gov. Thompson's amendatory veto of a Democratic bill (H.B. 2588). The bill would prohibit the use of the so-called "unitary" or "combined apportionment" method to assess state corporate income taxes. Unitary assessment is the most significant — and the most volatile — corporate tax issue in nearly a quarter of a century, according to the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce (ISCC). Business is split to such an extent that the ISCC is neutral. It comes down to a fight between two giant conglomerates: Caterpillar Tractor wants an override since it would pay less tax under unitary assessment; Deere & Co. wants the veto to stand because it would pay less.

Of all the governor's vetoes, however, the single most controversial — and quite the most political — is his amendatory veto neutralizing the "multiplier" used to equalize the assessment of local property taxes (H.B. 2485, see "The state of the State," October, p. 2). Even the Democrats admit that this was the shrewdest stroke of Thompson's veto pen yet; he not only stole the issue from Stevenson, he shelved it until after the election. You can expect the Democrats to come up with a way to recoup the credit.

Democrats are quick to point to two other amendatory vetoes of state tax relief bills. The governor merely changed the effective dates, delaying the repeal of the inheritance tax in H.B. 93 and advancing the elimination of double taxation of public utilities in H.B. 991. If Thompson wins the election, Democrats warn, "Watch out." He could decide the state can't afford to lose the revenue at all and push for Republicans to kill the bills by neither accepting nor overriding his vetoes. The Democrats would disagree; they would be determined to put those tax relief bills on the books now, no matter what the effective dates.

You can also expect the Democrats to try to override the outright vetoes of two of their social services bills — the kind that draws the line between the parties so well: H.B. 2303 expanding prescription drugs available to welfare recipients and H.B. 1102 expanding in-home care for the elderly and disabled.

4 | November 1982 | Illinois Issues