Farewell & Happy Trails

6 comments August 19th, 2008

I’m no longer employed by the Register Star, and this blog is discontinued.

Thanks to you all for following my many adventures under the Capitol dome.

My personal e-mail address is aaron@awchambers.com

Cheers,

Chambers

Emil ‘Where’s Rockford?’ Jones to Step Aside

Add comment August 18th, 2008

Senate President Emil Jones Jr., who tried to antagonize Sen. Dave Syverson during Syverson’s 2006 re-election bid by asking “Where’s Rockford?”, reportedly will soon announce his retirement.

Powerful Illinois Senate President Emil Jones Jr. is expected to announce Monday that he soon will retire, sources close to him said Sunday night, which will leave Gov. Rod Blagojevich without one of his closest allies.

Jones, who turns 73 in October, long championed more money for schools and education funding reform and made them his top priority as Senate president, a post he has held since 2003. He also has been a major voice for social justice.

His decision, not officially confirmed, likely opens a free-for-all to succeed him. Possible candidates to succeed Jones, a Chicago Democrat, as president include Sens. James Clayborne of Belleville, Jeff Schoenberg of Evanston; John Cullerton, Rickey Hendon and Donne Trotter of Chicago; and Terry Link of Waukegan, who doubles as Lake County Democratic chairman.

Jones is a staunch ally of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, serving as Blagojevich’s right hook in the governor’s feud with House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. Jones used his control over the Senate to advance Blagojevich initiatives to the House and to block Madigan-backed initiatives from clearing the Senate. If Jones departs, Blagojevich must reinvent his strategy for fighting Madigan.

In 2006, Jones backed Rockford Democrat Dan Lewandowski in a race against Syverson, R-Rockford. In the months leading up the election, Jones repeatedly wondered aloud “Where’s Rockford?” when the Register Star asked him questions about Rockford’s place in certain legislation.

During a visit to Rockford before the election, Jones acknowledged that he was indeed familiar with Rockford — but that he was trying to highlight what he viewed as Syverson poor representation.

Syverson beat the socks off Lewandowski in that race, winning by more than 10 percentage points.

Politics of Pay-Raise Pressure

Add comment August 17th, 2008

In my weekly column, I took a look back at the Legislature’s deliberations over whether to grant lawmakers and other high-ranking officials a pay raise … 

The Legislature’s consideration of whether to grant pay raises for lawmakers, constitutional officers and state agency directors was a study in the self-serving design of Illinois government.

Fortunately for taxpayers, it also was a study in how citizen outrage may — when it really counts — drive decision-making.

At issue was whether to raise lawmaker’s base salary from $67,836 to $72,985, under the report. Lawmakers rejected that raise, but not before much game playing. What do you think?

Emil Jones: Critics Told the ‘Biggest Lie’ Ever

Add comment August 15th, 2008

Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, buckled to mounting political pressure Tuesday and allowed senators to vote on whether to reject pay raises for themselves, House members, constitutional officers and agency directors.

The Senate rejected that pay raise, but not before Jones lashed out at critics for suggesting he had attempted to put the vote off until after the Nov. 4 general election. You see, the Senate had to vote on the pay raises by 30 days from the time an obscure panel recommended it or the raises would have gone into effect automatically.

Jones himself had this to say in May when asked whether he would allow a vote: “I need a pay raise.”

Wednesday was the 30th session day since the panel issued its report. But Jones said that special session days held during the summer don’t count. Only regular session days count, he insisted.

(It’s true that action during special session generally must be confined to the terms of the governor’s order — education funding, for instance. But it’s also true that the Senate may meet in regular session when it happens to be in Springfield for special session. On Tuesday when the Senate was in town for special session, in fact, it convened in regular session to reject the pay raises.)

“To say, ‘The Clock is running. If you don’t act this week, the pay raises will go into effect.’ Biggest lie ever told,” Jones said.

Really? The biggest lie ever told? In the history of the world?

GOP Chief: House More Divided Now Than Over Slavery

Add comment August 15th, 2008

I’ve got to hand it to Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, for taking rhetoric to an extraordinary height. When he introduced a news conference at the foot of the Lincoln statue outside the Capitol Thursday, McKenna tied the modern Illinois GOP to Lincoln and compared the divided government of Illinois to no less a struggle than the Civil War.

“I’m here to say that we’re a party that stands together and stands with Abraham Lincoln,” McKenna said. “Abraham Lincoln was famous for his House Divided speech. If he were here today, he would have to tell a story of a house divided that’s even more outrageous than the one that lived in his time.”

When Lincoln spoke of a house divided, he was referring to the division of this nation between slave and free states. The Civil War subsequently ensued, prompting some 500,000 casualties — a conservative estimate.

Yet McKenna saw fit to not only presume what Lincoln might say if he were alive today. He also had the gall to suggest that division in Illinois government – which comes down to a trio of Chicago Democrats in an over-blown ego war – somehow is “even more outrageous” than slavery our nation’s bloody war onto itself.

Amazing.

Jefferson Embraces Guv’s Private-Insurance Plan, Updated X1

1 comment August 14th, 2008

As the Register Star reported this morning …

Rep. Chuck Jefferson, D-Rockford, reversed course [Wednesday] and embraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s changes in his bill to help college students keep health insurance when they must leave school because of illness or injury.

Jefferson said he initially viewed Blagojevich’s veto as an attempt to sabotage his initiative, but later decided to accept the governor’s changes — which dramatically expanded its scope — because he believes in increasing health care.

“Plans do change sometimes,” Jefferson said.

So what does this mean? There are practical and political implications.

First, the practical: If the bill — as amended by the governor’s changes — becomes law, then employers across Illinois likely will be on the hook for the cost of additional insurance sought by employees with children between 18 and 30.

The core of Jefferson’s bill would require health insurers to continue covering for a year dependent, full-time college students who leave school or reduce classload because of a catastrophic illness or injury. Under Blagojevich’s additional language, parents would have the option of simply keeping children on their private health plan until they turn 26 — or, in the case of veterans, the age of 30.

Blagojevich refused to acknowledge last night that employers might face additional cost, but Blagojevich also has a history of ignoring or even denying reality. “I don’t know that it’s going to cost them anything,” Blagojevich said.

So what happens now? It’s up to the Senate to decide whether to follow accept the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, as the House did last night. It’s not clear when the Senate might vote, as the chamber is not scheduled to meet again until after the November general election. (On Wednesday, the House and Senate were meeting in a special session Blagojevich had called.) Blagojevich said Wednesday night that he would soon reach out to Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago, concerning the schedule for a vote.

And this takes us to the political implications. These days in Springfield, most all significant action must be viewed through the lens of the ongoing feud between Blagojevich/Jones and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. This move by Jefferson, a member of Madigan’s exclusive leadership team, is no exception.

By reversing position and accepting the governor’s changes to his bill, I believe Jefferson — backed by Madigan — accomplished the following:

1) He called the governor’s bluff. Blagojevich’s amendatory veto of Jefferson’s bill was widely viewed, by Jefferson and others, as a clear attempt to sabotage Jefferson’s bill in the course of Blagojevich’s feud with Madigan. By calling Blagojevich’s bluff, Jefferson (again, backed by Madigan) stunned other lawmakers, the business community and, apparently also, the governor. Rather than making a predictable move by fighting the governor’s changes, Jefferson & Madigan surprised him — and may keep him guessing in the future.

2) He neutralized a future attack by Blagojevich. Had Jefferson led the House in rejecting the governor’s changes to his bill, Blagojevich no doubt would have blasted the House — loudly and repeatedly — for voting to deny children health care. That’s just how Blagojevich works.

3) He kicked a political hot potato into the lap of Jones — Blagojevich’s ally and Madigan’s adversary. Jones must now reconcile the governor’s health-care initiative (riding on Jefferson’s bill) and fierce opposition from the business community. Jefferson and Madigan didn’t have to reconcile any fierce opposition from the business community because, quite frankly, the House voted on the governor’s amendment to Jefferson’s bill about an hour after it became clear that Jefferson would move to accept the amendment. It happened in a flash. There was no committee hearing. There was little informed debate on the House floor because other lawmakers had to spontaneously get up to speed on the governor’s changes to the bill. But now that this bill as amended is just one or two Senate votes from becoming law, the business community is paying attention. And it will be up to Jones to deal with them. (The business community, by the way, perhaps should not have assumed — and many others did — that Jefferson’s bill was all but dead after the governor amended it. Last night, the Illinois Chamber was completely taken off guard.)

Update 1

I should add that there’s also a constitutional angle.

There is much debate in Springfield about whether Blagojevich has the constitutional authority to amend a bill in this way. Yes, the governor of Illinois does have the power of amendatory veto. And that means he may veto a bill by suggesting changes to it, sending it back to lawmakers for their consideration of his changes. But the governor may not use an amendatory veto to wholesale re-write a bill, courts have held.

During Wednesday night’s floor debate over the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, all but declared that the House Democrats’ motivation behind accepting the governor’s changes to Jefferson’s bill was to create a new test case for the courts.

“I think that the lack of clarity from the court decisions may mean that it’s time for a second crack for the judicial branch. Maybe we ought to invite the question before the courts whether this particularly amendatory veto, for example, does go beyond the scope of that authority provided in the Constitution. For that reason, I would suggest that an eye vote may help us answer this question that has been so contentious between the two branches ever since 1971.”

Teachers Back Tuite in Race Against Wait

Add comment August 14th, 2008

Local teachers unions have endorsed Rockford Democrat Greg Tuite in his race against Rep. Ron Wait, R-Belvidere, according to a Tuite new release …

ROCKFORD – In an effort to invoke change, the Illinois Education Association (IEA) and the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) announced their support for Greg Tuite, candidate for State Representative in the upcoming general election.

“I am honored to have the support of local teachers and believe that we need to change the direction our state is heading,” said Tuite. “I believe that we should work together with educators, parents and school leaders to improve the quality of education in our state.  As the father of three children, I will work to guarantee that our kids are getting the best education possible while ensuring that local schools have the resources they need to succeed.”

The Illinois Federation of Teachers represents 80,000 teachers and paraprofessionals in Illinois. The Illinois Education Association represents more than 130,000 education employees.  Both the IFT and the IEA have officially endorsed Greg Tuite in his bid for election in the November 4th general election.  Each union bases their endorsement on a candidate’s commitment to supporting educational programs, resources and new opportunities in local schools.

“Greg Tuite knows that the education our children receive is incredibly important to the future progress of our region,” said John Seeber, a local teacher and member of the Illinois Education Association.  “It’s time we elected someone who will advocate for our local schools and be a strong voice for us in Springfield.  Greg will work for a strong educational base that will prepare our students to compete for jobs in today’s global economy and bring back our fair share of state resources.”

For more information, please contact Tuite’s campaign office at (815) 544-9647. The district includes portions of Belvidere, Caledonia, Capron, Cherry Valley, Genoa, Kingston, Kirkland, Loves Park, Poplar Grove, Rockford, Roscoe, South Beloit and Timberlane.

Fun at the Fair

Add comment August 13th, 2008

The Democratic Party’s “unity” rally begins at about 1:30 p.m. at the State Fair. Expect plenty of fireworks from Blagojevich, Madigan, Jones, et al.

Watch our home page for updates.

Senate Prez to Allow Pay-Raise Vote

1 comment August 12th, 2008

This is a big surprise …

Senate President Emil Jones has promised that he will allow an up-or-down vote on legislative pay raises this week, a spokeswoman confirmed Monday.

Jones, a Chicago Democrat, told Sen. Susan Garrett, D-Lake Forest, Friday that he will give the chamber a chance to accept or reject the raises when senators meet Tuesday and Wednesday in special sessions called by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

“He made a commitment to call the pay raise for an up or down vote,” Garrett said. “I take him at his word on that.”

The decision represents a change for Jones who didn’t want the Senate to have to deal with the pay raise issue until after the November election. Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer said she didn’t know why Jones had a change of heart.

However, she said it wasn’t because of speculation that the pay raises will automatically go into effect Wednesday unless the Senate rejects them. Senate Democrat researchers have determined that Wednesday is not a deadline for the Senate to act, she said.

Jones has refused to allow a vote up to this point. And if the Senate doesn’t vote on whether to accept the raise, then the raise goes into place automatically. Jones had this to say during the spring session when the issue first popped up: “I need a pay raise.”

The state’s comptroller says there’s no money in the budget for pay raises, even if the Senate refuses to vote — or if senators vote to approve the raise, in which case it would go into effect.

Even if the raises are approved, there is no money to give lawmakers, top agency officials and the statewide elected officials a bigger paycheck, said Comptroller Dan Hynes.

Hynes said the legislature didn’t include money for the raises in the budget approved in May.

That may be true, but as the SJ-R story notes it’s not really the point. Though there’s no money in the state budget at this time, if lawmakers decide to vote themselves a pay raise then the raise would be retroactive whenever they get around to making the appropriation — presumably after the November election.

That’s your state government at work: Lawmakers would all get lump-sum checks if they approve (don’t reject) the raise now and then approve the appropriate some time down the road.

Cheating Edwards: ‘I Have Already Beaten Up Myself’

4 comments August 9th, 2008

The extreme narcissism and self-centeredness of some politicians never ceases to amaze me. John Edwards, whose presidential bid was built in large part on his image as a wholesome and devoted family man, has admitted to cheating on his cancer-stricken wife:

Edwards’ confirmation of an extramarital affair with a woman he met in a New York bar shakes the public persona of a man whose image was deeply linked to his role as a devoted husband. It effectively rules him out as a vice presidential nominee, and it appears to have cost him a prime-time speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention.

Edwards joins the ranks of Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Eliot Spitzer and other upper-echelon public officials who cheated on their wives. In classic form, Edwards issued this gem of a statement:

“In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up — feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.” [Emphasis added]

By claiming to have “already beaten up myself,” its as if Edwards could somehow pre-empt public criticism of him and his infidelity. And by saying he’s off to “help,” it’s as if everybody who believed in him and his campaign must quickly move past his indiscretion and re-embrace a man who wants only to help other people.

It’s as if ordinary folks are all just so simple. And he is so superior.