By NORA NEWMAN JURGENS

Lee Daniels: the 'little guy' of the leaders

Following in the footsteps of his grandfather, Lee E. Daniels, who served in the House from 1956 to 1962, House Minority Leader Lee A. Daniels (R-46, Elmhurst) was first elected in 1975, replacing James "Pate" Philip, who went into the Senate. Daniels has never been seriously threatened, either by reapportionment or the effects of the Cutback Amendment. Daniels worked his way up through the ranks to become minority whip in 1981, under then-Speaker George H. Ryan, and he was elected minority leader in 1983. He is currently running unopposed for his sixth term. This interview, which was held in his Springfield office February 5, shows a suburban Republican who is acutely aware of the importance of the city of Chicago, both economically and politically. Although Daniels referred to himself as the "little guy" of the four legislative leaders, there is no doubt that he has big ambitions. He is credited with being the main author of the 1983 temporary income tax increase, a feat he considers his most important accomplishment. Daniels is a lawyer specializing in real estate and has a dream of building a major skyscraper. He looks forward to someday being speaker of the House, and perhaps a U.S. senator. In the meantime he will continue to work with a minority that, as one of his Republican members said, is not afraid to set the agenda in the Illinois House.

Jurgens: What is your philosophy of government?

Daniels: I return to the philosophy of government that is closest to the Republican party. I believe that government is best that governs least. When you look at some of the difficulties we have gotten into, with government trying to seek an answer to every problem, I find that sometimes we're better off leaving an issue alone without governmental involvement.

On the other hand, at the time that government needs to be involved in an issue, I think that we have to move decisively and with the resolve to do what's best for the majority of the people. Consequently, things like governmental expenses and expenditures ought to be kept to a minimum. The only way we're going to cut the deficit on the federal level is to reduce spending. It's not unlike what we faced in Illinois in 1983 when we implemented the temporary tax increase. We cut spending and instituted a temporary tax to pay our one-time debt. And when that was paid, we reverted back to the old tax rate that had been in for 15 years.

Jurgens: It looks as though we are headed into a situation similar to 1983 with state spending exceeding revenues.

Daniels: We're being told of the possibility. Last session it was the House Republican organization that consistently presented amendments to reduce state spending. . . . When it got to floor action, of course we were outnumbered substantially, and many [agency] directors felt that their percentage increase was essential, so Republican members then in fact did join the majority in voting for the current level of spending in Illinois, which is now approximately $19.8 billion, or the highest level we've ever had.

It's important to emphasize at this point that when you look at governmental spending, the levels of spending are ultimately determined by the General Assembly. The governor introduces the budget, but we, the General Assembly, determine how much money is being spent. . . .And for most of the Gov. [James R.] Thompson's term, Democrats have been in substantial control of the Illinois General Assembly; consequently, the spending levels have been encouraged by the Democrat majorities.

Jurgens: You're leader of the House Republicans, who happen to be in the minority. What is your role as minority leader in attempting to influence state policies and laws?

Daniels: Well first, if the Democrat majorities were unified in their positions, there'd be little that we could do. . . . Anytime they want to pass a bill in the House, they can pass it. So the only opportunity we have to have a meaningful impact is, one, to be heavily issue oriented, and we have been, and secondly, to have a consensus of our membership, which we have. We have made a difference in the Illinois political scene in the last three years because of our close relationship with Republican members, one to the other, and because of our desire to develop a consensus approach to legislation.... So long as the Democrats don't feel strongly about their position and refuse to take a straight position on an issue, we then will make a difference in the determination of that issue....

Jurgens: You see the divisiveness within the Democratic party as an opportunity for your membership?

Daniels: There's no question about it; it's an opportunity. The question is whether or not we will be up to the challenge. And that's the issue that will be determined only in the future years.

8/April 1986/Illinois Issues

You never change a system overnight, And rarely does an organization become powerful overnight. It takes years to acquire the power. . . . [B]ut on the other hand, it takes a great deal of effort to maintain the strength that you arrive at. And what we face right now is a tremendous opportunity in the city of Chicago and the county of Cook, because of an unwillingness of the political powers in force right now to respond in a responsible fashion to the public needs. . . . We in the suburbs encourage a strong city and a functioning city, and it's distressing to us to see the city as divided as it is right now, and so much along racial lines. Frankly, it's unhealthy to the whole metropolitan area.

Jurgens: In what respect? Why would the suburbs be so interested in a strong central core?

Daniels: Because a strong major city, I think, is very essential in the overall economic development of an area. When you're talking about the health, the vitality, the vigorousness of an area, you talk about the necessity to have a strong central core to support that. The suburbs are dependent to an extent on Chicago, and Chicago is becoming more dependent on the suburbs. Do we have opportunities in Chicago? Yes. But those opportunities have to be filled by competent, capable people. That's why you see the reemergence of a Richard Ogilivie, who was an excellent governor, who is without a doubt a major leader in the city of Chicago; a new spirit of Republicanism through a Bill Smithburg, who is chairman of Quaker Oats; Bill Farley of Northwest Industries; Don Rumsfeld, who has moved back into the city of Chicago, who has been a national figure for years, who is rumored to be interested in running for mayor or federal office. These are people that are reemerging as major leaders in the Chicago scene, and I expect to participate with them.

Of a great benefit to us as a party is the appointment and election of Don Totten as the chairman of the Cook County Republican Organization. Don Totten, a seasoned legislator in the House and the Senate, is organizing rapidly and has shown his ability and support. He was Midwest coordinator of the Reagan campaign in the 1980s, and I think will organize or reorganize the Republican party to respond to the challenge.

Jurgens: Would you apply that statewide, to the Republican party as a whole?

Daniels: Let me just suggest to you a few thoughts. Approximately 35 seats come out of the city of Chicago to the Illinois House. Thirty-four of the 35 are Democrat. That means the score of the ballgame when we leave the city of Chicago in an election is 34 to 1 — or 34 1/2 to 1/2 because of the one legislator that's Republican and half of his area is suburban. That means we are down by 34 seats just coming out of Chicago. Another approximately 20 seats come out of suburban Cook County; 10 out of 20 are of the Democratic party. Coming out of Cook County, the approximate score in legislative seats becomes 44 to 11. Then we start in the collar counties. That means that we have to pick up 30 seats more than the Democrats to equalize the numbers, and when you look at downstate, outside of Cook County, we pick up substantially more. Bottom line analysis: We lose control of the Illinois House in the city of Chicago.

Jurgens: The power is still focused on the city?

Daniels: No question. And I do not think that the electors of the city of Chicago realize the massive stakes that we face right here. It's up to the Republican party to make sure we not only furnish good candidates, but that they be organized, they have good campaigns and be well financed, and that they address the issues. . . .

Jurgens: You are perceived as a Republican from the suburbs, on the conservative side. How do you balance your own principles and philosophies with statewide issues, and the needs of your district?

Daniels: You can never ignore your own principles and your own philosophies. That was the reason I was elected to office and was selected as the minority leader of the House. But at the same time, as the leader, you can never take such an ironclad position that you are unable to bend or compromise at the appropriate time. Personally, I think we ought to reduce taxes, but it's unrealistic in certain instances. You cannot implement massive education reform and send $400 million more to elementary and secondary education and $200 million more to higher ed and reduce taxes. It's a simple fact of life. If you're going to leave taxes the same, then you have to cut spending in other areas. When you realize that over 80 percent of our budget comes from four departments, the task of cutting spending is monumental. So in this case we had to increase the sales tax in some areas, such as the cigarette tax, and look to the used car tax to help fund Build Illinois. Those are areas that you have to continually balance — the need to serve people, and educational components and transportation components versus the public perception and willingness to pay for those facilities through increased taxation.

Ultimately, there gets to be a line where there's too much.

April 1986/Illinois Issues/9

Jurgens: Too much?

Daniels: Too much in terms of a burden on taxpayers. That's the balance you always have to pay attention to in government. Unfortunately, whatever we do on the state level is overshadowed by the federal level. You can see more or less a do-nothing Congress right now. You've seen Washington activity that has not addressed the deficit problem that everyone knows is there. The president of the United States can talk all he wants about increasing defense spending by 40 percent and cutting spending in other areas, and he can lay out the program, but it's Congress that has to implement it. And Congress is a do-nothing federal branch of government that does not address the basic problems of the country today. I would suggest to you that if Congress had to balance the budget like the states have to do, we wouldn't be in the deficit problems that we are right now.

Jurgens: So we have Gramm-Rudman?

Daniels: We have Gramm-Rudman, which is an effort to address that. Somewhat rough, at best. I would have preferred to see Congress tackle the overall job of cutting spending and come forth with an exact budget, like we did in Illinois in 1983. But that's probably the best we can expect out of this current Congress. Actually, my way of thinking is that the Democrats have had control of Congress for most of the years of my lifetime, and you can't tell me that the president is increasing the spending level. He can't do it at all without Congress. And Congress has been controlled by the Democrats. It's time we do a reversal there.

Jurgens: You have to balance state needs with what the federal government does?

Daniels: And we're going to have an increasingly rough time. They're going to pass a lot of the responsibility back down to us. And that's why the states' roles are becoming more important.

Jurgens: There is also the balancing of individual needs with what business wants, as well as with what the state needs for the public good.

Daniels: I'm an overall believer that basically, for the most part, let business seek its own level and that will benefit people in general. That's an old philosophy that's a good concept to follow. I think we place too many regulations on business. We look at the various problems business men and women are facing — paper work, overregulation, OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] regulations and the like, and you question whether or not they are really serving us in the best form. Now we've got other problems we are facing in the insurance liability area, and we find. . . . the need to develop a system, primarily on the state level, to resolve some of our insurance problems.

Jurgens: Is it possible to balance the need for business to be as unfettered as possible with protecting the public?

Daniels: I think it's possible to do that, and I think we do do that for the most part. One of the things that we in Illinois have not responded to is the Workers' Compensation premium structure. When we pulled the reform in 1975, 101 of the 177 members of the legislature were Democrats, and they passed the most massive, sweeping Workers' Compensation increases in the history of any state. We went from, I don't remember the exact number, 46 to No. 1 in terms of benefit levels paid. Ever since that year, business has suffered from the structure of the premiums. But yet the Democrat majorities have refused to change that, to amend the Workers' Compensation benefit level and to assist business in that way. That's an example where we did the reverse of helping business. By our action, we hurt business and drove business out of the state. . . .

'There would NOT be any tax increases
if Lee Daniels were
speaker of the House . . .'

I just heard Adlai Stevenson talking about how we've lost over 100,000 jobs in the last 10 years. I'm going to tell you that is the direct result of the 1975 Workers' Compensation increases passed by a Democrat-controlled legislature and signed by then-Gov. [Dan] Walker.

Balancing business and individual rights is always a careful thing we try to do. I don't think we should lay down and do everything possible for business, but by the same token, a healthy business environment allows government to furnish the necessary services to its citizens, such as education — the necessary funding in education — and allows us to tend to keep the unemployment rolls down.

Jurgens: Is the summit process — the meetings of the four legislative leaders and the governor — the way to arrive at consensus?

Daniels: The tax summit [in 1983] was so major because out of that summit was developed the consensus on the temporary tax plan which the House Republicans put forth. We also developed the state budget. That's what was so unusual.

The concern that you have in government by summit, using that as a definition, is that you can get carried away with it. Today, every time something comes up, somebody suggests summit — summit on horseracing, summit on Las Vegas Nights, summit on liability insurance, summit on unemployment insurance. And they're discussing the potential of putting all these things together by summit. I don't endorse that. I endorse committee hearings, committee action and development of legislation by the members of the House, and I will continue to work for that. When final issues come into play, you've got to have spokesmen that deal with that issue. That's what we're expanding more and more on the House Republican side by assigning various members to handle various issues. We have the liability insurance issue, and I have a 10-person task force working on that. I intend to follow fairly carefully the recommendations of that task force.

But to say that the four leaders and the governor ought to sit down and settle the insurance crisis is not appropriate, because that is far beyond what I intended when I introduced the concept of summit meetings in the 1983 [tax] discussions. We're not here to replace the Assembly; we're here to work with and parallel the Assembly.

Jurgens: What did you intend?

10/April 1986/lllinois Issues

Daniels: To resolve the confiict that existed at that time; the conflict being that three of the four leaders endorsed a permanent tax increase, and the governor did, and the House Republican organization said absolutely no to a permanent tax increase. The Democrats were unwilling to exercise their majority and said that they wouldn't do anything. So I asked the governor to call a summit on the 1983 tax in order to resolve that impasse. Ultimately, the three leaders and the governor came around to the temporary tax plan. It was to resolve an impasse, not to determine the finality of legislative action. You'll always have the governor and the four leaders meeting at the end of a session, but they will pretty much work, and should work, for the development of the consensus of the membership, not for their own agenda.

Jurgens: You also established the House Republican Policy Committee. Is that still a viable body?

Daniels: Yes. Last summer we reorganized it and have placed it under our communications director, whose name is Pat Foley, and it's working hand in hand with our press office.

Jurgens: What issues will the policy committee be working on?

Daniels: They are working on several issues. The most apparent one is liability insurance, in gathering information and looking at the question of insurance reform and tort reform. You can't talk about solving the liability insurance crisis without talking about some meaningful tort reform. By the same token, I don't think you can talk about resolving it unless you talk about some kind of insurance reform. Anyone today in Illinois that sits down and suggests they have the answer to the problem is just plain in error because that answer is not with us at this point. But we have to arrive at a conclusion on how to reduce the increased premium costs, how to have the availability for insurance. There's a formula that we've got to find that will require a combination of tort reform and insurance reform.

Jurgens: This is supposed to be a nonsubstantive session.

Daniels: (Laughs) No session is nonsubstantive, not any more.

Jurgens: What other major issues do you see?

Daniels: The budget is always a major issue. And if we face any kind of recession, then we're going to find some difficulty in balancing our budget. We're hoping the economy will remain strong, and that Washington will do its responsible job and not impact too greatly on the states. There's going to be an impact. Everyone's got to understand that. You cannot cut spending on the federal level and expect all the states to remain the same. But I'll tell you something, we've got to balance out the cutting of spending as it relates to Sun Belt states and northern states and eastern and western states.

Health care costs are always a concern. Implementing [Department of Public Aid] Director [Gregory] Coler's workfare program called "Project Chance" will be a major commitment of ours; continued education reforms, and examining better ways of furnishing tools to our teachers to educate children; small business legislation. The Unemployment Insurance question comes up again this year; Workers' Compensation costs and how to reduce that; anything dealing with the environment.

Jurgens: What if there were a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate? What difference would that make for Illinois?

Daniels: We would be able to correct the failing business climate that is perceived by a lot of business in Illinois. . . . We would quickly look into the issue of taxes, and whether or not our tax structure is where it should be or if it shouldn't be reduced. We would examine far more carefully than the Democrats our state spending, and I would suggest to you that there would be some cuts in state spending.

There would not be any tax increases. There would NOT be any tax increases if Lee Daniels were speaker of the House. Today I can't say that. . . .

In the last three years, it has been the House Republicans that have consistently taken stands on issues, some tough stands, one after another after another, that have been implemented into law, and initially have been fought by Democrat majorities. The greatest accomplishment, of course, was the 1983 temporary tax increase. . . . The 1983 Regional Transportation Authority reform was dreamed up in the House Republican Policy Committee. The abolishment of commissions and the savings of upwards of $7 to $9 million in taxpayers' dollars. McCormick Place reform. Point after point after point you see the direct involvement of the House Republican organization because we have not been unwilling or afraid of taking a stand on an issue.

Jurgens: Your own Republican governor wanted a permanent tax increase.

Daniels: That only goes to heighten what I'm saying. When we believe we're right, we'll stand up to anybody. . . .

Jurgens: You're small, but you're tough?

Daniels: I like to think of it that way. Let's say we're an awesome defense.

Jurgens: When the 1990s roll around, and it's reapportionment time again —

Daniels: — we have to be ready, and I'm speaking now as a partisan, as the Republican leader. Computers have to be utilized to a great extent. The Democrats are already organizing; we're aware of that. They've already selected their counsel. I'm going to suggest to you it will be William Hart, who is active in Democrat circles. They realize that they can force a vote to a commission on a draw of the hat. If they lose the draw of the hat, Republicans will not destroy Chicago because we realize the economic necessity of a strong, viable Chicago. But it is not necessarily the same as Chicagoans view the suburban areas. We have to make sure that the suburban people are aware of what's at stake. When you talk about these areas, you're talking about a myriad of problems that we today in the suburbs are facing that Chicago faced years ago. The delivery of Lake Michigan water, roadway systems, mass transportation, the development of a third airport, which I think is critical to the continued economic viability of the metropolitan Chicagoland area. . . . Those are the issues that are at stake.

Jurgens: How would you get around having to draw from the hat?

April 1986/Illinois Issues/11

Daniels: First, you're going to have to assume it's going to end up in federal court. . . . Today the Democrats are planning for court action, and so are the Republicans. We know what they're planning, and they know what we're planning.

Jurgens: It has been suggested that the power in the legislature is shifting as the suburbs grow. Do you see the formation of a suburban bloc?

Daniels: To an extent. But I feel strongly about the fact that we must address the problems of Chicago at the same time we address the problems of the suburban areas. As the Republican leader of the House I cannot turn my back on any part of the state. I can't tell you that the philosophy of those who live in Chicago is the same as it applies to the suburban areas, and that's unfortunate. Ultimately that will mean major problems for them in Chicago if they try to ignore the suburban areas.

Jurgens: Looking at your years in the legislature, what do you see as being your greatest challenge?

Daniels: The challenge is moving Illinois into the year 2000 and furnishing the necessary tools to the leaders of today and the leaders of tomorrow with which to meet the challenge of those days. The challenge of needing to educate our children in a better fashion then ever before, to furnish them the tools they will need to face an increasingly complex society, and the pressures, the social pressures, the pressures on a family, and the pressures on the child's development. We live in an extremely exciting time right now. If you analyze this time in history, we are probably one of the most affluent governments that has ever existed.

Those challenges, as great as they are, also really tax every single ability that you have as an individual, leader or legislator. I see those as our major challenges, and the development of those concepts and ideas as what our top responsibility is today. I don't mean to overemphasize where we are this minute versus where we were five years ago, but I see the responsibilities as tougher today then they were five years ago. Because I see the demands on people to be higher. I see the demands on our kids. I have a 12-year-old daughter who is a cheerleader, a very popular young girl whom I'm very proud of and very happy with, who is leading her class in grades . . . and gets award after award. She comes home from cheerleading and sits down and starts studying and stops studying at 10:30 at night. And I look at this young girl and I say, I never did that. Whether I didn't have the personal discipline or the demands, I didn't have to do that. I know that I'm not smarter than she. I know that the demands on young people today are higher than they were on me when I was a young person. We have to furnish the tools for those young people to take this country into the future years. When we talk about the world scene and we talk about the problems on the federal level, boy, I'll tell you, it's frightening. Unless we give them every tool possible then they're not going to be able to meet those demands as they should.

Jurgens: You keep those things in mind as you deal with day-to-day issues?

Daniels: That's why I'm involved on a federal level with the National Conference of State Legislatures. I'm on the Executive Committee and I serve as the chairman of what's called the State-Federal Assembly [SFA]. The SFA is comprised only of legislators; we determine policy as it relates to the federal government. I go to Washington on a regular basis and represent the state to the federal government. When they talk about Gramm-Rudman, when they talk about the federal deficit, when they talk about the cuts in federal spending, I make sure that the states' voices are heard.

Jurgens: Where is Lee Daniels heading?

Daniels: Not to sit here and try to sound modest but to state it as it is, I'm very flattered at the position that I serve. I never really saw myself as the minority leader or potential speaker or Republican leader of the House when I started here in 1975. As I look at where I'm at right now, I'm very pleased with the responsibility that my members have placed with me. I'm happy with that position. I have a demanding law practice; I'm personally pleased by the fulfillment that a law practice of that type gives me. Where will I be in the future? I run on this philosophy: If you do a good job in what you're doing at the present, then good things come from that. Whatever the future holds for me, if I do the best job here, I'll be OK. The future will take care of me because I'm going to take care of it. (Pause) You want a more definitive answer?

Jurgens: You must have some goal.

Daniels: .... I don't realistically think that I'd ever become president of the United States. Ultimately, the U.S. Senate is a place that, if the circumstances were right, I'd like to be in. There's a major opportunity to impact directly on a federal — on a worldwide — basis the happenings of the day, and to continue what I'm doing in the Illinois House. But there are only two senators from Illinois. That day may never come. If it doesn't, I'm not going to be upset or disturbed. I think that I've had, at 43 years old, a degree of success already that I'm pretty pleased with. I'm going to work hard and continue to work hard and see what happens.

Jurgens: Is there any question you would have liked me to have asked you?

Daniels: .... "What disappointments do you see in government today?" — and I do see disappointments. People really deserve more than they're getting in the city of Chicago, and that disturbs me. The Republican party has a higher responsibility in Chicago; they aren't meeting that. . . .

On the state level, I think we have to look at the next election very carefully as to the person we elect governor. I look at Jim Thompson . . . bright, aggressive, unafraid of the future, willing to do the things. . . . That's why I don't have any trouble supporting Jim Thompson for reelection. But at the same time, I may walk into his office and disagree with him. He understands that, and I understand that. We support each other, and we'll continue to support each other. What I'm afraid of is that if the other person is elected, this same vision, the same commitment, the same aggressiveness and the same energies will not be displayed. On a partisan basis, I have what I feel to be a major stake in the next election because I think that it will be a major crossroads for the state in how we proceed. Whenever you're aggressive, you run the risk of making some major mistakes. You have that higher risk than if you sit there and let other people act. The Democrats of today are allowing other people to act, are not willing and have not been willing to lead. . . .

12/April 1986/Illinois Issues