Phil Rock: defender of government

It had been a busy June 30 in the Illinois Senate. Senators had passed a temporary income tax increase. They had passed a gasoline tax hike. Just before the midnight deadline, they had, on their second try of the night, passed a cigarette tax hike. Midnight came, and all that was left, before going home was to spend the money raised by the new taxes.

The Senate stood in recess while the Appropriations I Committee met to review the conference committee report on the appropriation for the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA), a review forced by a new rule that Republicans had added. The DCCA bill was a doozy. The conference committee had added $634 million for such things as a reptile museum in Rockford and a trip to Australia for the Springfield Municipal Band. One of the sticky extras was $10.6 million for cost overruns at 160 N. LaSalle Street in Chicago for offices of the Illinois Supreme Court.

The committee soon figured out that the new review rule gave them no power to alter the report. Members could urge fellow senators to accept or reject the entire report. Rejection would delay their departure from Springfield by at least a day, a prospect that excited no one. The committee decided to return to the Senate and vote the report up or down before the House adjourned and left the Senate no option.

Sens. Roger A. Keats (R-29, Glencoe) and Richard Luft (D-4. Pekin) blasted the spending for the cost overruns at 160 N. LaSalle. Luft pointed out that a $31 million renovation project was up to $66million. "Unfortunately there's probably enough junk in here for everyone to vote for it," Luft said of the DCCA bill. Keats charged, "At some point you have to say to the Capital Development Board that you are an incompetent disgrace to the state of Illinois." Sen. Frank Watson (R-55, Greenville) was most succinct: "This truly is obscene."

But Senate President Philip J. Rock (D-30, Oak Park) was buying none of that: "I'm frankly a little tired of hearing some of the sanctimonious comments." He noted that the size of the increase reflected the fact that DCCA's bill was the only one in place for end-of-session agreements. He reminded members they had asked for the spending for civic centers, for a program to help the poor pay their heating bills and for pension funding improvements. He asked for support, and the measure passed with 37 votes, one more than was needed. "That was neither the time nor the place for that kind of rhetoric," Rock would say later.

Rock's spiel says a lot about his view of government. He believes in the institution of government and defends it against the current vogue of putting it down. He is an activist who believes that government should help those who cannot help themselves. He is also a pragmatist who believes there must be compromise.

This spring he found himself selling a tax increase that was characterized in some quarters as anti-government. It said: "Since state government can not be trusted to spend the money from a tax increase, give the proceeds directly to schools and local governments." It also said: "Since the schools, universities and local governments can not be trusted to spend it wisely, make them come back again in two years to prove their stewardship of these new funds."

This first year of the 86th General Assembly would sorely test any Senate president who believed in the institution of government. It began on a bad note for Rock, when it took two ballots to reeled him to his sixth term as president of the body where his Democrats hold a 31 to 28 majority. It got worse in a hurry. Before committees were set up, Senate Minority Leader James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Wood Dale) assembled a majority coalition of his 28 Republicans and two disaffected Democrats, Frank D. Savickas (D-15, Chicago)

August & September 1989 | Illinois Issues | 17

and Jeremiah E. Joyce (D-14, Chicago), to demand rules changes. Both Democrats were sore that Savickas had been stripped of his assistant majority leader's post. The coalition's key demand was to reduce from 36 to 30 the number of votes required to overturn a ruling of the Senate president. Philip also wanted to remove Sen. Howard W. Carroll (D-1, Chicago) as chairman of the Appropriations I Committee and to increase Republican representation on committees. Philip and his "Sturdy Thirty" were able to block all Democratic action; when they tried to act themselves Rock ruled them out of order, and Philip lacked the 36 votes to overrule him.

The result was three and a half weeks of stalemate. Rock claims that the Republican effort was not about rules but about control of the Senate with an election coming up: "They felt that if they had the upper hand, they would be in position to make the kind of decisions that would help them win the election in 1990, looking as we all are to a session that will include reapportionment."

For Rock this spring's stalemate was a low point: "We were in a period of almost ennui. There was almost nothing going on." Rock had stood his ground and maintained that to give in to the Republican demands would undo the will of the voters. The compromise that ended the stalemate came, Rock believes, because Republicans were nervous about being in Springfield and not doing anything, and because he had convinced Savickas that an offer to create a new leadership post for him was as good an offer as he would get. Under the compromise Savickas got back his leadership spot, and Republicans got one more member on each committee. Carroll kept his chairmanship, and the number of votes needed to overrule Rock remained at 36.

Rock believes the Republican power grab may have unified his caucus somewhat. The depth of feeling among Democrats on the Republicans' demand for rules changes was illustrated, Rock says, by a proposal in his caucus that the Senate simply adjourn until June 30: "It was indicative of the feeling that we were not going to give up, were not going to back up." When the feud was over and the Senate started its regular work, the most noticeable change was a heightened intensity in committees, where Democrats wound up with margins as small as one vote.

The Senate rules fight commanded the headlines until the compromise on May 11. In less than a week it was barely remembered. On May 17 House Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago) proposed and passed what Madigan called a temporary income tax surcharge for education and local governments and what Republicans charged was a bailout for Chicago. Rock says that he was surprised only by the timing, not by Madigan supporting and passing a tax increase. Rock maintains that after the failed 1988 tax increase summit Madigan took too much heat, and both Philip and House Minority Leader Lee A. Daniels (R-46, Elmhurst) too little: "I said then and still say today that it was not fair to have the speaker wear the jacket alone for that failure [to pass an income tax increase]."

Rock had supported Gov. James R. Thompson's calls in 1987 and 1988 for permanent 40 percent income tax increases and had bemoaned Thompson's abandonment of the tax increase effort this year. In 1989 Rock spent May and June trying to pass the Madigan plan that was but a shadow of the earlier proposals. At 18.4 percent, Madigan's plan was less than half of what Rock had earlier supported. The plan directly allocated all new money to education and to local governments and none to human services. And it was temporary.

There are fundamental differences in Rock's and Madigan's approaches to government. Madigan says that government has not been able to solve society's problems and he is less willing than Rock to have it take on new tasks. Rock is more the activist than Madigan, Thompson, Philip or Daniels. Rock's philosophy: "Government exists to improve and enhance the quality of life. It should not impede free enterprise, but on the other hand, there should be a recognition that government does have a role in attempting to be of assistance to those who can't assist themselves and whose only recourse in many instances is to government."

In short, on social issues Rock is a liberal. And he admits it. On other litmus tests he fails. He is for the death penalty, against judicial merit selection (he calls it "appointment by elitists") and pro-life on the abortion issue.

In his 18 years in the Senate, Rock has watched as the number of liberals dwindle. He attributes the decline to changes in the electorate, particularly in white middle-class neighborhoods where there is a feeling that government and the taxpayers are trying to do too much. "In the white ethnic areas they want less taxes. They are more concerned about public safety and security and less concerned about providing for those who cannot otherwise provide for themselves." Rock sees this changing attitude manifested in the elections of Ronald Reagan and George Bush with their philosophies to get government off your back, out of your pocket and out of your way. "If you're employed and paying your taxes, that's not half bad," Rock says.

Rock defends the institution of government, combatting what he sees as an erosion of confidence within government. To his mind, politicians who run "against" government contribute to the erosion of confidence among citizens. That loss of confidence makes it harder to develop public policy. "You don't have that kind of reflection nor do you have that kind of consensus on public policy if the system and the process are constantly undermined and there is no public confidence. If a majority of people in my district say, 'Oh shit, government can't do anything or they can't do anything right,' where am I going?" Given Rock's belief in government, how could he support a temporary tax increase that screamed, "You can't trust state government"? Rock's answer is that he is a political realist. He realized he had to do the best he could with what was possible. "I don't think a permanent tax increase could have passed the General Assembly."

While Rock admits the temporary tax increase was characterized in the House as a way to keep the money out of Thompson's hands, he says that was not his motivation. Without the tax increase for education, he believes lawmakers would have siphoned off $200 million to $300 million from other human services to give to schools. With the tax increase, the departments of Public Aid, Mental Health, Children and Family Services, and Corrections all saw substantial increases. "I recognized that there was that almost equal amount of money that

August & September 1989 | Illinois Issues | 18

was made available and left available for the ordinary operration of government and its programs," Rock says.

Although Rock signed on to the temporary increase, it was not certain whether Thompson would sign it if passed. There were no summits this year among the four legislative leaders and the governor that had marked the unsuccessful tax hike attempts of the past two years and the successful temporary one in 1983. Once Madigan had House approval of his tax hike, Rock says there was no question that it would be called for a vote in the Senate. He says that Madigan stifled the summit idea with public statements that he did not want to participate in what the speaker called "showtime." And Rock did not relish a repeat of the circular talks that went nowhere: "I just got fed up with all that stuff. 'I'm willing to talk. I'm willing to negotiate. I'm here to be helpful.' Well yeah, but. . . I just say, 'Enough.' " Instead, once the House had approved Madigan's tax hike, there were shuttle negotiations: Rock and Thompson going back and forth negotiating with the other leaders.

Rock tried on June 23 to pass the Madigan plan in the Senate but fell three votes short when all 28 Republicans and four Democrats stayed off it. He told reporters afterwards that he considered the rejection a personal defeat. Republicans never produced their promised alternative to Madigan's plan, so Rock revised to accommodate calls for property tax relief. He doubled the income tax deduction that homeowners can take for property taxes. In order to keep the level of new funding the same for education, Rock trimmed local governments' share and pushed the tax rate to a full 20 percent increase.

Then, Rock says, he could see the pieces coming together. "I could almost instinctively, and then in a real sense, see everything falling into place in terms of the temporary income tax increase, the new formula for Medicaid reimbursement for disproportionate share hospitals [a Rockford initiative that boosts funding to $55 million for hospitals that serve the poor] and a number of pieces." The income tax measure passed on June 30 was Rock's revision.

With its passage, Rock saw what had begun as a standoff turn into a "very productive, surprisingly productive session." The biggest single accomplishment he sees is the new funding for education. Elementary and secondary schools got money to help the 200 districts on financial watch lists and to implement the 1985 state reforms and the 1989 Chicago school reform packages. There was money for higher education. "I would hope that we have restored hope and morale among the higher system, the faculty and administration." And there were higher Medicaid reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals and a grant increase for those on welfare.

Extending the tax increase in 1991 will be difficult, but not impossible, Rock believes. Making it more difficult will be the fact that all 177 members of the General Assembly have to run for election from new districts in 1992. On the other hand, if Chicago school reform is working and if the 1985 statewide education reforms are showing results, it could be easier to sell the extension. "It's easier to keep a program going that everybody recognizes is working than it is to reinvent the wheel," Rock believes.

Rock says it is inevitable that Republicans will tag his downstate members who voted for the tax increase as supporting a "Chicago bailout." He believes that effort will fail: "All those individuals like Tom Dunn or Jim Rea or Bill O'Daniel or Penny Severns have to do is point out how many schools in their districts were on the financial watch list. You can't turn your back on these schools that are in trouble."

Neither this year's temporary income tax increase nor its successful extension in 1991 will resolve education financing in Illinois, Rock says. Looming large on the horizon, according to Rock, is revision of the school aid formula by which the state distributes money to schools. The decision that lawmakers face is whether income or property taxes will finance schools. "The idea is constitutionally sound that there ought to be an equalization of educational opportunity," says Rock. "The theory is, in order to accomplish that, there's got to be an equalization of resources available for that opportunity." If suburban taxpayers are going to be asked to pay higher income taxes, they will have to receive more in school aid, Rock says. He is confident that the issue can be resolved; he is equally confident that it will not be easy.

His goal for Illinois and its education system is clear: "If we can establish that we have an education system both at the elementary and secondary and higher levels that is working and is producing marketable skills in our youngsters, I think we will maintain a preeminent place in this country."

Another major issue Rock sees for state government is the kind of economic packages that it should or should not offer to businesses to entice them to relocate in Illinois. "I don't think we can continue on this course of mammoth giveaways," Rock says. That is not fair to existing Illinois businesses which could legitimately ask for the same benefits, he says.

Rock has a clear legislative agenda; his personal agenda is less defined. He says he will run for reelection and again be a candidate for Senate president. He does not rule out seeking a judgeship. He would like to be governor but shies away from an expensive and arduous campaign: "I've really lost the fire in my belly to go after higher office — you have to have it — that's not to say it's forever quenched."

Helping to quench that fire was some undesired and undesirable publicity Rock got this spring when it was revealed that he had borrowed $90,000 from his campaign funds to pay his children's college tuition. Rock argues that the loans were neither illegal nor immoral: ' 'I thought frankly it was kind of a cheap shot. I still do." Rock calls the coverage sensational and says that people interpreted the stories to say that he had done something wrong. "So my children come home crying thinking I'm going to jail. They don't understand it. Some of my erstwhile acquaintances are making a wide circle around me. . . . That kind of basic unfairness just really gets to me."

It was a tough spring for Rock. The criticism over the use of campaign funds troubled him. The inability to resolve the deadlock with Republicans bothered him. And after two years of pushing a higher and permanent tax increase, Rock had to sell somebody else's lower and temporary hike. But Rock is undaunted. He operates in the world of political reality and calls the session productive: "Virtually everything that was on everybody's list, including the governor's, was met." For somebody who believes in government, that's not half bad.

August & September 1989 | Illinois Issues | 19