Editorial: Lawmakers might be able to create win-wins, if leaders would let them

Can the Illinois legislature achieve significant win-wins in the areas of education funding and public pensions? It seems surprising to say, but the answer could be yes. The next question, though, is the hard one.

Will they?

Before the General Assembly resumed its session, we spent some time this week with two suburban Republican state senators - Matt Murphy of Palatine and Michael Connelly of Lisle. As has become common in such sessions, regardless of the lawmaker's party or chamber, when the conversation turned to budget gridlock, we were struck by the senators' speculation that, to paraphrase Connelly, "I'm confident that if only the rank-and-file from both parties on the floor were involved, we could get a budget agreement."

State senators and representatives from both parties are nearly as frustrated as the rest of Illinois by the budget stalemate. They carry an added burden because they feel the sting of the public's scorn and the embarrassment of a reputation for futility, yet they also see themselves at the mercy of leaders who determine what proposals get considered.

Such is the nature of Illinois politics, and there is certainly more to the picture than two bodies of eager-but-impotent lawmakers passing along blame for their inaction. But acknowledging their frustration does help one understand what Murphy describes as a need for "win-win" legislation - bills on which there is enough room for compromise from both sides to get something passed.

Lawmakers, to be clear, are passing hundreds of such bills now, but most are either of minor consequence or highly parochial. Some, such as legislation our Mary Hansen reported this week regarding a drive to make potentially lifesaving EpiPens and similar allergic-reaction medicines available to first responders, are significant but not controversial.

But, as Murphy and Connelly lamented, they haven't had many opportunities to focus on foundational issues pressuring the state, though some exist.

One is education funding, and our political editor Mike Riopell reported Wednesday that lawmakers, some of them at least, are trying to make headway on a compromise that could equalize school funding around the state with minimal short-term impact on suburban schools. The proposal is a start, but it's important more for what it represents - a rank-and-file attempt at cooperation and compromise - than what it does, which at this stage still involves shifting state funds away from many suburban schools. It's evident that suburban lawmakers still have some work to do to make sure our schools are protected, but we're glad they're talking and influencing the discussion.

Unfortunately (and to no direct fault of theirs), the same can't be said regarding pensions. In our discussion, Murphy emphasized that a meaningful win-win could be achieved if Democratic leaders would just take up Gov. Rauner on his promise to sign a pension reform bill that he and Senate President John Cullerton worked on earlier this year. Cullerton emphasizes that passing the bill is not as simple as the governor suggests, and he may be right. But the facts are that neither it nor any reform will occur unless the parties are talking, and as the governor complained last week, he can't even get the legislative leaders to meet with him.

Which brings us back to that complaint about leadership. Can lawmakers reach functional agreements on significant issues facing the state's budget and our communities' schools? It seems likely or at least possible. Wouldn't it be nice if their leaders would get out of the way and let them try?