Since this week officially kicks off the Spring Session for the Illinois General Assembly, I figure now is as good of a time to start here as any.

--First off, the biggest event at least should have been the State of the State. I think Governor Quinn gave as a good of a speech as I've seen him give. His style might not blow you away like the POTUS, but on Wednesday he keep things neat and tidy, and wasn't constantly trailing off on side stories about people he knows, or referencing Abraham Lincoln. In fact I had a bet with our photographer Stephen, on how many Lincoln references we would get. He said 2, I went with 3, I counted none, so I guess I owe him lunch.
   But back to the speech itself, Quinn pitched his new ideas, most of which would be hard to argue with, but never got anywhere near the topic of funding them. Since we've seem multiple studies showing how Illinois is facing a financial "cliff", the biggest issues probably aren't how he's going to improve our workforce, increase access to prenatal care, or double the number of MAP grants. The elephant in the room is the expiration of the tax hike, which will leave an annual hole of 6 or 7 billion in the state budget. He 's always pushed for a progressive tax, that movement has momentum right now, so why not use the stage of the SOTS to push it? Or at least show you're serious about it?
   I interviewed Kwame Raoul, we didn't use it in any stories, but he said he was fine with Quinn leaving that stuff out until the budget address. He said this was the place for policy agenda. The problem is that tax system reform is a huge part of a policy agenda, if it is part of his push this Spring. Kind leaves me wondering if he'll back off of that.
   Workers Comp reform? Nowhere to be found in there, except him referencing the previous bill from a couple years ago. These are big issues, if you're serious about them, they need to be in there. Just throwing out your new programs that will all require money means revenue is an even bigger issue.
   He talked about the business climate, but no proposals were thrown out that businesses have been asking for. Now maybe you could take the side that his minimum wage push will increase payroll taxes, but if that's his idea for paying for this stuff, it probably should be mentioned as part of why you want to do it.
   So in the end, I think Quinn gave a nice speech, but the overall value was low for constituents.

--Madigan's corporate tax cut proposal may end up a much bigger deal than the SOTS. This, at least to me, seemed to come out of left field. The same man who helped push through the tax hike now wants to cut it. If it weren't for all the major budget issues, this might just seem like a nice gift for businesses.
   But what does this do to the whole question over tax revenue this Spring? Again, progressive income tax has gained momentum, you have even some Republicans saying we need to consider keeping the current hiked rates, everybody else on the GOP side seeming to want to let the hike expire, and now this proposal.
   But who knows what's really behind this. Maybe this was a shot at Quinn for not taking on the question of taxes, maybe this was to scare the progressive tax people into settling for less(like a simple extension of current rates), or maybe he really does want this.
   But his logic he gave? We interviewed his spokesman Steve Brown, and when I asked what would need to be done to make up for the revenue shortfall, he said nothing, because the savings would be reinvested by businesses and would boost state revenue elsewhere. I have to admit, it caught me off guard. If it came from Rauner or Brady, I would expect exactly that. And I don't have any problem with the logic, I think this idea could work. But we're already halfway into the state's fiscal year, and he's estimating 700 million. I just don't see that coming back in revenue in time for next year. This is a long term solution, but there's a huge short term problem.
   Also, we asked Brown, is lower corporate taxes didn't lower state revenue, then why did we ever pass the hike in the first place? His answer was that the state was in a fiscal crisis and it was a different situation. I asked if he meant businesses then couldn't afford to reinvest the savings, he agreed.(I might have just bailed him out) But there seems to be a gap in logic. Now, the state can pass a budget, assume this is right, and it's "balanced", meeting constitutional mandate, because of estimates. So maybe that's the trick.
   Madigan is chair of the state Democratic party, so maybe this is aimed at taking some of the wind out of the sails of the GOP candidates. If so, good job.
   And if he wants to, we all know the Speaker can pass this through the House. But the Senate? And maybe that's the idea, he's just letting Cullerton know what direction he's going this Spring. Or it could be something completely different that we don't get now, and when we finally do, we understand why he's in charge, because he's several steps ahead of everyone else.

--Now, the big thing from today, Rutherford's allegations against Rauner over allegations against Rutherford. This was hard enough to clearly explain in a short TV story. Several people have asked me what I think the allegations are. I don't know, I'm sure we'll find out soon.
   But guessing over what types of allegations typically come out against elected officials, then we might wonder if the claims are that he tried to do something with someone inappropriately, or actually did something with someone(assuming this means sexual). We know it's from an employee, so the alleged victim works for the treasurer. So if that's the case, I see 2 scenarios, and 2 sub-scenarios, the 2 subs depending on the sex of the alleged victim.
   If it's a matter of attempting something with a woman, I think many people may believe it, because I think we're almost conditioned to see male politicians as whore-hounds. Thus, bad for Rutherford.
   If it's attempting with a man, then Rutherford can take the line that Rauner is just trying to make him look gay, and Rutherford can be very disgusted at how low the Rauner campaign goes. Good for Rutherford.
   If the allegations are he actually did something with a woman, and was caught, I think it blows over, he's single, people won't care that much about whether it's appropriate to mess with an employee. That would be a wash for Rutherford.
   Now if it's allegations he actually did something with a man, then he can again say it's just about making him look gay, look how low Rauner goes, etc. So maybe good for Rutherford as well.
   I know there's an assumption that if people think he's gay, it would cost him votes in a GOP primary, and we all know that his sexuality is a question that many have pondered publicly, but I don't know if that plays out to be that significant of a number at the polls.
   But he's being talked about in news outlets across the state today, and probably wouldn't have been if not for this, so he's at least getting publicity. Maybe that has something to do with what's going here. Now I'm not saying that is, but what if the allegations are made, Rutherford knows they're false, but he sees the potential connection to Rauner with the lawyer, so he turns it into this. Lemons into lemonade. The idea would be that if Rauner would do this to Rutherford, he must be taking Rutherford seriously. Thus, Rutherford seems more legitimate, like a frontrunner, and a true rival to Rauner. That might be almost conspiracy theory like, but it's probably more interesting than the real truth.
   The more news outlets talk about Rauner, the more he seems to rise in the polls(or it could be more ads). So maybe some bad news could help Rutherford's attempt at making a comeback in the race.
  I do need to add here, that we interviewed all the GOP candidates after the SOTS, and Rutherford seemed flat, and maybe even like he didn't care. Maybe this was weighing on his mind. I don't know.
   As a another thought, I think many are doubting the claims Rutherford made regarding the lawyer's connections to Rutherford. We spoke with Kent Redfield today, he says the attorney is thought of as an activist, and has had major roles in conservative causes, including situations where more conservative elements were fighting with more mainstream Republicans, and he believes this isn't just a lawyer that someone found in a phone book. But then he added then none of this is conclusive, but that's what makes it so intriguing. I would probably agree.

I've never really done much of any time of blogging, but I'm starting this to offer some thoughts on current events, primarily Illinois politics. As a reporter, there's usually no place for your own opinions in your stories, and I think those covering the events may have some useful insights of their own. I will try to update this at least once per week, with kind of a weekly wrap up, but I may throw up a few more often when things get interesting.