Archive for January 9th, 2008
January 9th, 2008
How much did Hillary Clinton’s teary Monday morning coffee break really mean to New Hampshire voters?
This question is reverberating around the nation today from watercoolers to pundits in both print and broadcast to the average citizen on the street. People are trying to comprehend how Clinton overcame seriously damaging polling projections on the day before the New Hampshire primary to claim a victory Tuesday.
Naturally, Clinton supporters, and even Clinton herself, have begun a whirlwind media tour to insist the former first lady’s emotions were genuine.
“I actually have emotions,” she told CNN’s John Roberts on a damage-control tour. “I know that there are some people who doubt that.” She went on “Access Hollywood” to talk about, as the show put it, “the double standards that a woman running for president faces.” “If you get too emotional, that undercuts you,” Hillary said. “A man can cry; we know that. Lots of our leaders have cried. But a woman, it’s a different kind of dynamic.”
Clinton supporters are also saying Saturday night’s debate was the turning point, not the Moment, as some are calling it.
In the Boston Globe, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, in a conference call with reporters backed Clinton, whom she is also supporting.
“I think it showed humanity and real warmth,” she said. “I mean, this was Hillary at her core…I think that feeling coming out is really, really important because we all identify with it, and we understand the frustrations of these campaigns and all the knocks that you get.”
“And she does have a steel spine, no one should ever doubt that,” Feinstein continued. “This is one strong woman. But I think for people to be able to see the basic Hillary with the basic feelings was very important.”
Columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times penned a piece entitled, “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” In it she pontificated about whether Clinton has become our very own “Lifetime” movie heroine when she talked during Tuesday’s victory speech about finding her voice.
Perhaps she really is our “Lifetime” heroine:
“Obviously we know what people will say, but maybe I have liberated us to actually let women be human beings in public life.”
January 9th, 2008
The Senate voted 54-0 Wednesday to accept Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes to the budget implementation bill, which is necessary for the state to release $617 million in general state aid to schools.
The House will now consider the governor’s veto of the bill and may vote as early as Thursday.
The dollars for schools were appropriated as part of the budget Blagojevich approved in August. That budget earmarked $554 million in new dollars for schools, including $315 million in general state aid, reimbursement for state-mandated services and other state support.
However, the State Board of Education won’t release the general state aid until Blagojevich and lawmakers also agree on a change in the foundation level. In fact, the state is actually doling out less in general state aid than it doled out last year.
The foundation level is the minimum amount that schools must spend on each pupil. It drives the state’s allocation of general state aid, particularly with respect to schools in districts with lower property tax bases. When local property tax payers contribute less money to schools, then the state must contribute more to help the schools reach the foundation level.
The budget implementation bill, commonly known as the BIMP, would hike the foundation level by $400 per pupil to $5,734 from $5,334.
Some background from the Register Star:
Without the change in foundation level, the State Board of Education says schools statewide will lose $302 million this year, compared to last year, thanks to other factors that adversely affect general state aid such as reduced attendance and higher property values.
With the change in the foundation level, the board says schools will gain $315 million, compared to last year. The difference is $617 million — cash the state board will withhold until the governor and lawmakers agree on the $400-per-pupil change.
In other words, the $617 million represents new money for schools, as compared to last school year, as well as money that schools did get last year. The state is giving schools fewer general state aid dollars then it gave them last year.
The difference between the amount of general state aid the state is now providing (less than last year) and the amount they would receive once the BIMP is approved (more than last year) is $617 million. If the BIMP is approved, and the foundation level is increased by $400, schools therefore stand to gain $617 million over their current, negative position.
State Board spokesman Matt Vanover adds in an e-mail:
The $617 million you reference is the swing from BIMP vs. non-BIMP for GSA. Because it takes less state funding to maintain the foundation level when local resources rise, about $300 million fewer dollars from the state would be paid out to school districts to keep them at FY 2007 level. However, it can not be said that it’s an increase of $617 million from 2007 to 2008, because the $300 million was already in last year’s budget.
Blagojevich proposed a series of technical changes to BIMP in his veto issued Friday. Among other points, the governor wants to expedite the distribution of special education dollars.
From the governor’s press release:
Under the BIMP bill, districts will get an additional $1,000 for each certified teacher and $700 for each non-certified staff member. Because of a drafting error, districts were not scheduled to begin receiving that money until FY 2009. If accepted by state lawmakers, Gov. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto means districts will get that money beginning in the next few weeks.
Vanover says the governor’s change on this point would mean another $50 million in special ed dollars for schools.
January 9th, 2008
The Illinois Supreme Court next Tuesday morning will hear oral arguments in the case of Alan Beaman, a Rockford man who claims he was wrongly convicted in the August 1993 killing of his ex-girlfriend.
Background from the Register Star:
Alan Beaman was convicted of first degree murder for killing Illinois State University student Jennifer Lockmiller, who was strangled and stabbed in her apartment in Normal.
Beaman is serving a 50-year prison sentence.
We’ll be at the high court to bring you the story.
January 9th, 2008
A House committee voted unanimously today to restore funding for CeaseFire, the anti-violence program. In fact, the committee voted to double the program’s funding.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich cut 100 percent of the program’s state funding — $6.25 million — when he vetoed parts of the state budget in August. His cut included $250,000 slated for Rockford CeaseFire, all but killing off the local program.
House lawmakers moved to restore the funding in the fall but the Senate — a chamber led by Senate President Emil Jones Jr., the governor’s ally — blocked the effort.
On Wednesday, the committee voted to spend $12.5 million on CeaseFire programs around Illinois, including $500,000 in Rockford. The bill now moves to the full House for consideration.
Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, praised the committee vote. He said local law enforcement officials believe in the value of the program.
“If they’re convinced it works, that’s good enough for me,” he said.
January 9th, 2008
Did anyone else notice Desperate Housewives’ own James Denton standing behind former Sen. John Edwards during his concession speech last night?
I most certainly did.
Here’s a note to the Edwards’ campaign: Don’t let someone prettier than you stand behind you on national television.
(Note: Scroll down the page to find the link to Edwards’ concession speech. RealPlayer software must be installed to play this video.)
I must say I was more than a little distracted, even if the candidate on the stage has hair that would make makers of hair product commercials envious.
Denton, whose Desperate character recently became a junkie who entered rehab, was clad in a navy blue “Steelworkers for Edwards” T-shirt, and even a shapeless T-shirt was able to make Denton nearly jump off the telelvision screen.
It can be great when celebrities show their support for a presidential candidate, because they are able to harness society’s overwhelming dependence on celebrity gossip for a good cause.
But Sen. Edwards, for your own sake, next time you should probably choose someone that looks something like this.
January 9th, 2008
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made an oblique reference Tuesday night to her emotional coffee break that gave her some much-needed publicity.
“I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice,” Clinton said.
But exactly what voice has she found?
Conservatives will likely rip her emotional display apart, and her competition, former Sen. John Edwards already has.
Also, leading women’s voices aren’t doing much to help her case either.
Women’s rights advocate and feminist magazine founder Gloria Steinem recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, “Women Are Never Front-Runners,” did more to hurt a woman presidential candidate’s chances than has helped it.
In it she writes:
The woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
Okay, so she argues that Barack Obama would not be enjoying the same success as a woman. Maybe that’s the case, but maybe not.
But Steinem’s rhetoric later in the piece is what makes this sort of dialogue regressive for any non-traditional presidential candidate — black, female, Catholic, Mormon, etc.
Then she writes:
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.
She lays out a competition of who has the toughest life – women or blacks – even though she denies it.
That way of thinking is what draws young people – including this year’s most desired demographic, young women – to a candidate like Obama.
Now the challenge for the Clinton campaign will be to see if she can “channel that fragile new perception of authenticity without smothering it,” as Politico.com wrote this morning.
Let’s hope voices looking to lend their support to a candidate’s bid will leave their divisive words at home. Voters have made it clear they want some sort of change, and Steinem’s words are just more of the same.
January 9th, 2008
Lawmakers return to Springfield today and, at least in the House, are expected to make another run on plans to bail out Chicago-area mass transit systems.
Late last year, both of those plans failed to clear the House.
The first, long supported by House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, would raise the sales tax in Chicago and the suburbs. The second, supported by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, would shift nearly $400 million in existing fuel tax revenue to the mass transit systems. (How would the state replace that revenue, which currently is earmarked for other needs? There is no specific plan.)
We’ll have much more on this later, but for now here are a couple variables to consider:
1) The standard for passage of either bailout plan has changed. Prior to Jan. 1, lawmakers needed three-fifths majorities in both chambers of the Legislature to pass either plan. Now they need only simple majorities. Presumably, this empowers Madigan by making it easier for he and his fellow Democrats, who control the House but do not have a super-majority, to advance one or both of the bills. Then again, Madigan might actually prefer for at least a few Republicans to be on board; the other party, therefore, would share any political pain.
2) Many downstate lawmakers continue to maintain that they will not support a bailout of Chicago-area mass transit systems until the state also approves a capital construction plan for the entire state. Previous versions of a capital plan have promised more than $100 million for Rock River Valley infrastructure projects. Madigan has sought to keep any mass transit bailout separate from a statewide capital plan.
3) If lawmakers do insist on running a capital plan at the same time as a mass transit bailout, then how do they pay for the capital plan? Over the last year, lawmakers increasingly focused on gambling expansion as the way to generate new tax revenue necessary to finance roads, bridges and other infrastructure. But they haven’t yet agreed on a specific plan for more gambling, either.
A recap: First, there is no agreement on where to find the money for Chicago-area mass transit systems. Second, there is no agreement on whether to link a mass transit bailout with a statewide capital plan.
