Posts filed under 'Illinois politics'
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?
How much of a raise should lawmakers get?
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
August 8th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s relations with so many Illinoisans are so horrible that some wondered recently whether somebody might physically assault him had he decided to attend the Thursday parade marking the start of the Illinois State Fair. He didn’t show at the parade, but the point stands: His unpopularity among Illinoisans, particularly those outside of Chicago, is extraordinary.
 |
| Is that you, governor? |
It’s unlikely Blagojevich will turn that image around any time soon, if ever. But in the spirit of State Fair fun, I hereby propose a way for Blagojevich to begin the healing: He should find a dunk tank at the State Fair, climb in, take a seat and hold his breath. If there’s no dunk tank at the State Fair, his people certainly could arrange one on the fly. If they do anything well, it’s manage a gimmick.
Yes, there would be complications to having Blagojevich in a dunk tank:
1) Hordes of people would make a special trip to the State Fair and line up for their chance to dunk the Blago. State Fair staff would have to work overtime — maybe around the clock for the entire fair — to manage the giddy, ball-carrying crowd.
2) The dunk tank would need a heavy-gauge grate over its face to guard the guv against errant balls. Hey, accidents happen. Maybe lots of them.
3) The governor’s mane might absorb all the tank’s water the first time he drops, rendering the tank not so much a tank as an empty box. A backup supply of water is a must.
Each point is surmountable. And the benefits are vast.
Ordinary folks could ventilate their pent-up anger with Blago and state government, generally. The governor could raise a bundle of cash for state coffers, potentially restoring much of the spending he recently cut from the budget. And most importantly, the governor would have a chance to show some true humility — a trait sorely lacking from his character.
It’s been a long time coming. Take the challenge, Illinois.
How Much Would You Pay for a Shot at Dunking Blago?
Update 1
Blagojevich, at the State Fair this morning, responded to a reporter’s question about whether he would climb into a dunk tank to help raise money for the state.
“Gimme a number. How much could we raise? I’ll look at it,” Blagojevich said.
The audio clip is on this page, which also includes other Blago audio.
August 6th, 2008
As you probably know already, the powers that be in Springfield are more interested in battling egos than in reaching a compromise over a new statewide capital construction plan.
What isn’t clear is whether the state’s failure to adopt a new capital plan might compromise its ability to attract millions in federal matching dollars earmarked for Illinois building projects in the last federal highway bill. In other words, will Illinois forfeit federal dollars because it doesn’t have its own money to spend first?
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin helped answer that question in a recent WTTW interview with Carol Marin.
“Next year we start negotiating the next federal highway bill,” Durbin said. “What do you think I’m going to say walking into those meetings, that Illinois needs more money? They’re going to say, ‘You didn’t use the money we gave you last time.’”
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/jOTqQrSwzfE" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
August 6th, 2008
In today’s Register Star, we told you about how law enforcement organizations and victims’ advocates are paying more attention to the Illinois Prisoner Review Board after some lawmakers in May tried to oust one of the board’s more conservative members.
In June, the coalition sent a letter scolding lawmakers for playing politics with the board. That letter is here.
“Convicted murderers and cop-killers, the unbelievably damaged families left behind, public safety, and the integrity of the criminal justice system are not political footballs to be played with in this manner,” they wrote.
One lawmaker, Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, took the time to offer a detailed response. He makes a number of valid points, but his letter also reeks of brazen, election-year partisanship. His letter is here.
Effectively, Righter tells the victims’ advocates they ought to back Republicans to reverse what he labels as the Democrats’ push toward an “anti-law enforcement agenda.” As he put it, “There is no doubt that if (Senate President Emil Jones Jr., D-Chicago) and his leadership team felt their power could be threatened by the continued pursuit of an anti-law enforcement agenda with regards to the PRB, this agenda would come to an abrupt halt.”
In other words, Righter appeared to say, they should elect more Republicans. For as long as Democrats control the Senate and for as long as Jones wishes to continue serving in that role, Jones will be Senate president. His power isn’t “threatened” unless Republicans manage to win a majority — or, at the least, a few more seats than they have.
Democrats control the Senate, just as they control the House and the governor’s office. They rule the roost, and Republicans have little power to stop them.
But Righter’s flat refusal to accept any responsibility for the perceived ”anti-law enforcement agenda” — even as he admonishes the victims’ advocates to more directly name Senate leaders in their own letter, and as he implicitly encourages them to back Republicans – is nonetheless striking.
Go read the whole thing for yourself. It’s a gem.
Terry Rudeen, whose husband was killed by a bank robber while working as a Winnebago County sheriff’s deputy in 1974, gracefully responded to Righter with an e-mail. A copy is available here.
Previous Posts
