Posts filed under 'Rod Blagojevich'
May 12th, 2008
The New York Times today covered Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the Rezko cloud over his career in a story it called “Corruption Case Taints Rising Political Star”:
 |
| Blagojevich at the U of I in 2006 |
When the trial began two months ago, national attention focused on how Senator Barack Obama of Illinois might suffer because of his connection to Mr. Rezko, a former patron who made a fortune on fast food and real estate.
But it is Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, an ambitious chief executive who has not been charged and denies any wrongdoing, who is left flailing in the wake of weeks of testimony. His name and administration have surfaced repeatedly, described as a participant in the kickback schemes of which Mr. Rezko is accused.
It’s been a couple years since any Illinois political insider, perhaps other than the governor himself, truly thought of Blago as a “rising political star.” His presidential hopes were long ago dashed against the rocks.
The Times story reports that Blagojevich “has been so badly wounded by association with the case that he may not be able to recover.” But the fact is that the governor had big, big problems well before this trial began.
His relations with many other Democrats were in tatters. The state’s budget problems worsened under his reign, even as he insisted that everything was going swimmingly. The state’s auditor general was having a field day documenting widespread mismanagement of executive agencies.
And federal investigators were probing the governor’s hiring, contracting and fundraising practices. The Rezko trial appears to be an outgrowth of that probe, and it may be the political death knell for Blago.
Closing arguments in the Rezko trial are supposed to begin today. Jury deliberations will follow.
UPDATE 1
Speaking of the Blagojevich administration’s trouble with management, Illinois Auditor General Bill Holland today ripped the state agency administering the state’s health care programs. From the AP:
A new audit confirms Illinois has a severe backlog of overdue health care bills, but problems with the Medicaid system go much deeper.
Auditor General William Holland found that Illinois ended each of the last three years with an average of $1.5 billion in unpaid bills.
He also found the Department of Healthcare and Family Services did a poor job of handling the bills it did manage to pay.
There was no clear system for deciding who got paid first. The state held bills for nearly two months before even starting the process of paying them.
Illinois could owe up to $81 million dollars in interest on overdue bills.
The department says it will make improvements but defends many of its procedures.
The full report is here.
UPDATE 2
Dan “Seeking Higher Office” Hynes issued a news release saying today’s audit shows the “administration’s hyprocrisy“:
“This audit provides more evidence that the administration has been mismanaging the Medicaid system and has been manipulating the payment process,” Hynes said. “By doing so, they are not helping people as they claim. Rather, they are harming some of the most vulnerable Illinoisans and the dedicated healthcare professionals who are trying to provide those citizens with critical services.”
May 7th, 2008
What is it with some men in politics and their fixation on testes?
First it was Gov. Rod Blagojevich saying he had the “testicular virility”to fend off the influence of his father-in-law, a ward boss from Chicago’s North Side who was Blagojevich’s political mentor.
“This is the kind of thing that I think separates the men from the boys in leadership. Do you have the testicular virility to make a decision like that, knowing what’s coming your way?” Blagojevich said. “I say I do.”
This is the same man who in 2004 accused Attorney General Lisa Madigan of doing her father’s bidding when she effectively quashed his plan to mortgage Chicago’s Thompson Center for $200 million. Her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is Blagojevich’s political nemesis.
“It’s her father. You know, I can’t fault her,” Blagojevich told reporters in Chicago. “I don’t want to get involved in a family deal here but, you know, it’s her father. I’ve got two daughters. I hope they back me on stuff that I do.”
Blagojevich got back on the side of working women in 2006, when he dismissed a reporter’s questions about his wife’s questionable real estate deals as “Neanderthal and sexist.”
Now back to testes. Last week, it was labor leader Paul Gibson projecting big, powerful testes onto none other than Hillary Clinton:
“If you’re thinking the next President of the United States should address and amend and convince people that here are the flaws with that law, and here’s what we’re supposed to do and it shouldn’t cause harm to either border,” said Gibson. “Well, you know what, then I truly believe that that is going to take an individual that has testicular fortitude, that’s exactly right, that’s what we got to have.”
I am a man. But I cannot imagine seriously and publicly equating mental and intellectual prowess and stamina with the presence of testicles. I’d go with a metaphor just a touch more sophisticated than Fonzie, Andrew Dice Clay and Chris Farley.
Then again, perhaps there is a constituency of dullards out there with whom pointed references to testicles resonate well. Our dear governor and one of organized labor’s finest appear to think so.
UPDATE 1
There evidently is a constituency among us with whom talk of testes rings home. Politico. com has the story of Hillary Clinton, the “ballsy fighter”:
Clinton may not like the story, but her supporters love it: The sheet metal workers union official in Portage, Indiana cited by Bayh had praised her “testicular fortitude” before lighting into unnamed “Gucci wearing, latte-drinking” opponents.
Also last week, a New York Post columnist wrote that she’d won the “cojones primary.”
And James Carville, the Clintons’ ubiquitous former aide, booster, and informal adviser made the point even more vividly, giving Clinton a two-gonad edge on her primary rival, Senator Barack Obama.
“If she gave him one of her cojones, they’d both have two,” Carville said.
The ballsy fighter is the newest persona for a woman whom public life has taken from a liberal policy wonk to a devoted wife, from a wronged woman to a cerebral senator.
This is too much.
May 7th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s determination to unilaterally expand state-subsidized health care, despite the fact that lawmakers repeatedly rejected his plan and refused to provide funding for it, has prompted quite the debacle.
His administration claims it can’t easily differentiate between costs associated with his unilateral expansion of FamilyCare — a move recently blocked by Cook County Judge James Epstein — and those costs associated with the state’s previously existing, core health care programs including Medicaid.
And because the administration cannot distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate payments, state Comptroller Dan Hynes is withholding payments for legitimate health care expenses as well as payments associated with the governor’s blocked expansion, according to Larry Blust, an attorney for the administration.
Hynes did “not receive from (the administration) any information from which (he) could independently determine which invoice vouchers relate to services provided under the old eligibility guidelines and which vouchers relate to services provided under the new guidelines at issue in this case,” Hynes’ attorneys said recently in a court brief.
Hynes therefore “would be unable to determine on a day-to-day basis whether (his office) was or was not complying with any (temporary restraining order) or preliminary injunction that might be entered by this court,” they said.
If Hynes withheld health care payments across the board for fear of violating the judge’s order by inadvertently making payments associated with the governor’s now-blocked health care expansion, then doctors and health care providers who provided services under the state’s legitimate health care program are not getting paid.
According to Blust, Hynes withheld at least $72 million in payments. Hynes spokeswoman Carol Knowles declined to answer questions concerning the comptroller’s policy on these payments, instead referring me to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which administers the state’s health care programs.
The Department’s Response
I approached the agency with a series of questions by phone and e-mail on Friday. Agency spokeswoman Annie Thompson finally responded by e-mail Tuesday night, and here is her entire statement:
We have halted enrollment for the Family Care expansion while issues are worked out in court. The approximately 30,000 existing enrollees are still covered under the permanent rule. While those who intervened in the lawsuit - Mr. Gidwitz, Mr. Baise, and the Attorney General - are aiming to take coverage away from working parents in the expansion group, we have not removed anyone from the program.
My questions on Friday were aimed at gaining a response for a news story and related column I authored for Saturday’s Register Star. The news story concerned the agency’s decision to cease enrollment in the governor’s expansion. The column concerned a group of 25,000 people who belonged to FamilyCare before the governor’s expansion, and whose health care now appears to be at risk.
In her Tuesday night response to my Friday questions, it’s worth noting that Thompson did not provide a more detailed response to our Saturday coverage.
It’s also worth noting that Thompson did make a point of attacking individuals who joined Richard Caro’s lawsuit against the governor’s health care expansion.
Also, when she referred to “30,000 existing enrollees,” I presume she was referring to the class of individuals previously enrolled in FamilyCare; my sources told me there were 25,000 people in this class. But when she said they are “still covered under the permanent rule,” I have no idea what she was referring to. The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a special panel of lawmakers that reviews the administration’s rules, rejected both an emergency and permanent rule that her agency filed to implement the governor’s expansion. The judge’s order blocking the governor’s program backed JCAR’s decisions.
As I reported in the Saturday column, the agency used those same rules to advance a rule change necessary to continue providing coverage to this class of 25,000/30,000 people. Again, the rules were rejected both by JCAR and Judge Epstein. The state now appears to have no authority, under it rules, to cover the cost of health care for these people and to call on the federal government to reimburse at least half of that cost. So, like I said, I have no idea what Thompson is talking about.
The Comptroller’s Role
The comptroller is responsible for paying the state’s bills. He acts in response to vouchers — requests for payment — presented to him by the administration. His attorneys argue it’s not up to his staff to sort through thousands of vouchers to determine which ones ought to be paid versus those that should not be paid.
“Even if the Comptroller’s Office received data from which it might conceivably be able to distinguish between vouchers for services provided under the expanded guidelines as opposed to the services provided under the old guidelines, the sheer volume of vouchers processed by the Office would make it a practical impossibility for the Office to exercise any role in preventing payment of services that would qualify under the new eligibility guidelines,” Hynes’ attorneys said.
“Each year the Office processes approximately 16 million voucher transactions, or more than 300,000 every week. Any injunction requiring the agency heads to provide additional information to the Comptroller’s office so that the Office could make an independent determination as to whether payments were being made according to the old guidelines or the new guidelines would require a complete overhaul of the SAMS computer system and would likely require that the Office hire significantly more auditors.”
For more background on the comptroller’s view of the conundrum the administration placed him in, see this brief that his attorneys filed in support of his motion to get out from under the judge’s injunction.
Deflecting Blame
Following are remarks made by attorneys for the administration and the comptroller in a hearing before Judge Epstein on April 23, according to a transcript of the hearing provided by Richard Caro, a west suburban attorney who filed the lawsuit against the governor’s expansion. At issue in the hearing is Epstein’s decision to stay his preliminary injunction as it pertains to Hynes but to leave the injunction intact as it pertains to the administration.
The administration sought during the hearing to also get out from under the injunction, though the judge refused.
(It’s not clear why Blust refers to Medicare in the transcript. Medicare is a federal program that is not at issue in the case. Medicaid, the state’s core program, is at issue in the case. Blust may have mistakenly referred to Medicare, or the court reporter may have mistakenly reported that he said Medicare when he said Medicaid.
A “stay” is a suspension of the judge’s order blocking the administration from carrying out, or making payments for, the governor’s expansion. The administration is appealing the judge’s order.)
We begin with Blust explaining the administration’s pickle in complying with the injunction. This gets to the heart of health care providers not getting paid:
MR. BLUST: We intend to comply with
the order unless the relief is granted on stay. We
did ask Your Honor in another motion we did file
today for a stay.
The main reason for that is because of
the stranded provider problem. Neither we nor the
controller — and I’ve tried to say this a couple
times, and I know Your Honor doesn’t like to hear it
– neither we nor the controller have the full
information apart from each other to do what’s
necessary in regard to providers if they’re not going
to be paid.
We have spent what I would call almost
an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out
what it would take to go in and find out who the
payors out there are who gave services during the
emergency rule and who haven’t been paid yet.
First of all, we don’t know who the
controller has and hasn’t paid.
Second, they don’t know — as Your
Honor may remember, the budget line here is by
service. Most of the people in FamilyCare also have
family members in other programs. So they have one
provider number, one authorization number.
So someone has to go in manually and
determine who has to be dealt with there and who
doesn’t, what the services are that were rendered
that can’t be paid if Your Honor is correct, which we
obviously don’t think you are or we wouldn’t have
appealed it, but who, in fact, has to do this.
What we’re proposing to stay, I think,
would — well, it would allow — that payment would
ameliorate the situation for people who acted in good
faith and rendered services based on provider
numbers.
Now, as I understand it, there’s like
$72 million worth of Medicare payments being withheld
at the controller’s office, not because there’s 72-
under this program. There’s probably a million at
most under this program, if that. But because, in
fact, they don’t know whether paying those would
violate Your Honor’s orders, we can’t authorize
vouchers from people either under Your Honor’s court
order.
Our agency approves the services. The
people who do that do not know whether that service
was rendered under Family Care, All Kids, some other
Medicaid/Medicare program.
So the first thing that has to happen,
I believe, after spending a lot of last week
investigating this, and we really need to do some
more, is we would have to write a program to separate
all of that out.
This is like — Medicaid is kind of
like a unitary batch processing program. A little
like the controller described; the same is happening
on our side.
We have two computer programs –
Epstein at this point interrupted Blust, noting the administration created this problem for itself:
THE COURT: The difference is, it was
created by your side, this issue –
MR. BLUST: And I’m not –
THE COURT: — and not by the
controller.
MR. BLUST: I’m not asking him for
sympathy for our creation. I’m just simply saying,
we have an issue here where we need — I don’t
believe it’s possible to say the controller has no
part –
THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a
second, Mr. Blust.
I take it the controller’s office has
no problem cooperating with the executive branch
other defendants in giving any information that is
within the power of the controller to give that would
allow them to comply with my order.
Peter Koch, an assistant attorney general representing Comptroller Hynes, at this point joined the conversation. Koch indicated it’s not clear to Hynes what the administration wanted from Hynes in order to fix its mess:
MR. KOCH: Of course, Your Honor. We
don’t have — they have not identified anything from
us, but there’s no reason why we wouldn’t cooperate.
THE COURT: That’s fine. I’m not
going to stay my order. It’s going to stay in full
force and effect.
And take the steps that are necessary
to promptly comply with the order.
MR. BLUST: Again, Your Honor, as we
said, unless we get a stay from the appeals court or
you, that’s what we’re doing.
THE COURT: Well, it’s down to the
appeals court at this point.
Blust at this point tried to persuade Epstein to stay the injunction as it pertained to the administration, just as the judge stayed the order as it pertains to Hynes, but Epstein wouldn’t do it.
It’s not entirely clear to me why the administration wanted the judge to stay his order as it pertains to the administration, but I suppose the administration would rather not deal with the trouble of separating the legitimate health care bills from the illegitimate ones. If the judge stayed his order as it pertains to the administration, then perhaps the administration believes that it won’t have to bother with this troublesome task.
Judge Epstein alluded to the administration’s demand for information from Hynes:
MR. BLUST: Well, we have to ask you
for a stay, too. I believe you do have the authority
to grant a stay.
THE COURT: And I’m respectfully
denying that.
And I would ask the controller’s
office to please comply with the best — within the
best of your ability to give them the information
which they claim they need to be able to undo that
which they have done.
MR. KOCH: Your Honor, we have no
objection to that. I did file separately today a
motion to modify the –
THE COURT: Which I think I’m barred
from doing –
Koch asked the judge to continue the stay relative to Hynes:
MR. KOCH: Yes, Your Honor.
Previously, last time we were here,
you did grant a stay of the injunction as to the
controller for seven days, and it was the
understanding, I think of all the parties here, that
we try to work something out.
I’d ask that the Court continue that
stay, at least as to the controller.
Epstein agreed to do just that:
THE COURT: I will as to the
controller, with the understanding that I am asking
the controller to please cooperate within the best of
his ability with the other executive branch
defendants to give them the information which they
claim they need to be able to comply with my order.
MR. KOCH: Any letter from Mr. Blust
I’ll forward on to the controller.
THE COURT: But it should be done with
all speed, because I think the longer this goes on,
if I am correct, the more money that would be spent
in violation of the order.
MR. KOCH: We will await questions
from Mr. Blust.
MR. BLUST: We’ve tried to do this
directly with the agencies. I suppose we can do
this through — it’s really hard to encourage the
people in the controller’s office and the department
to work together on this and not have to –
THE COURT: I don’t know that this has
to go through you. You can talk to your respective
clients on that. I don’t suppose I have to encourage
these people or, for that matter, any litigators to
paper what you’re doing so that it can be
demonstrated who, if anyone, is dragging their feet,
because should this be affirmed and should there be a
failure to comply with the order, there will be
sanctions, and that’s all I need to really say on
that.
Let’s recap: The governor’s administration claimed it couldn’t distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate health care bills, and it’s unclear how or when it might sort this out. Meanwhile, the comptroller is withholding payment on both fronts, and is looking to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services to sort it all out. The judge, for his part, is concerned about the state making payments in violation of his order.
A Big, Big Mess
Late Tuesday, Caro added this in an e-mail:
Blust meant all Medicaid payments have been held up
until HFS can determine which ones have been enjoined
from being paid. Under State law it is a serious crime
for HFS to certify to the Comptroller a bill as
lawfully payable. Apparently on April 15 after
issuance of the preliminary injunction HFS sent over a
computer tape asking the Comptroller to pay $72
million in Medicaid charges, which included charges
that were enjoined from being paid. The injunction
effectively voided any prior certification. So now HFS
has to figure out what bills can’t be paid and that is
a tough, tough job, and requires a manual review of
each and every charge. There may be hundreds of
thousands of submissions to review. May 15th is coming
soon and the same problem exists for those payments.
How long will it take HFS to sort what can and can not
be paid, no one knows. The Judge’s position was that
HFS created the problem and it’s up to them to do
whatever it takes to comply asap.
What a mess.
The lawyers are back in court this week Monday.
May 6th, 2008
Continuing to raise his profile while traveling Illinois, state Comptroller Dan Hynes on Monday slammed Gov. Rod Blagojevich for reportedly threatening to cut higher education funding.
Blagojevich has said the state has a $750 million deficit in the budget ending June 30, and his aides have said a number of programs — including perhaps higher education — may not get all the funding that lawmakers appropriated for them this year.
In a news release following a visit to Western Illinois University, Hynes said the governor ought to honor the state’s commitment.
“The Governor says we can’t afford to give colleges and universities the state assistance they promised this year,” Hynes said following a round table discussion with administrators from Western Illinois University. “I say we can’t afford not to. I say investing in our colleges and universities is one of the best investments this state can make to help ensure a thriving economy and a solid future for the next generation. The Governor needs to keep his word and give the universities the funding they were promised.”
It was the third time in a month that Hynes, a third-term comptroller, took a shot directly at Blagojevich. But compared to his speech at Southern Illinois University, in which he offered an exhaustive and nuanced criticism of Blagojevich’s budget practices, this announcement didn’t strike me as too constructive. It seemed like boilerplate campaign rhetoric in which one candidate attacks another candidate in an attempt to garner some publicity, but then doesn’t really say how he or she would do things differently.
I sent a few questions by e-mail to Hynes spokeswoman Carol Knowles:
Does Hynes dispute the governor’s statement that the state has a $750
million deficit in the current year? If so, then does Hynes believe that
there is a deficit? And if so, how large does he believe that it is?
If Hynes does not dispute the governor’s deficit figure, then where does
he suggest the administration find the promised money for higher ed?
Would Hynes prefer to see across-the-board cuts or some alternative
approach to reconciling the budget deficit?
She responded:
The Comptroller doesn’t know where/how the governor’s Office/GOMBY came
up with that figure.
As you are aware, the Comptroller has said repeatedly, over the last
several years that the state’s budget is not balanced because of
Medicaid carryover.
The Comptroller would point out that the cuts the governor has
threatened will not really address the long-term funding concerns for
education, pensions and health care and that entities such as the
universities and the U of I Extension are being unfairly targeted.
The comptroller has indeed been steadfast in his dour assessment of state finances. The governor, for his part, has been anything but focused on reconciling the state’s massive debt load. Still, do you think it is fair of the comptroller to continually rail against irresponsible budget practices, then criticize a particularly spending cut and then not provide a specific alternative cut? You tell me.
May 5th, 2008
Try as he might to unilaterally expand the availability of state-subsidized health care, Gov. Rod Blagojevich is pushing his program forward with one step forward, two steps back.
Blagojevich kicked off spring session last year by calling on lawmakers to approve his version of universal health care backed by the largest tax hike in Illinois history — a tax on the gross receipts of Illinois businesses. But the House shot down his gross receipts tax, and the governor failed to shepherd his health care plan through either chamber of the Legislature — even the Senate, where his ally Emil Jones Jr. is president.
Onward to August, when Blagojevich used his veto power to slash more than $460 million in grants and other spending — pork, he called it — from the budget that lawmakers belatedly approved. He focused his cuts on grants secured by political adversaries, sparing those earmarked by political allies.
The governor insisted at the time that he would use the money to support his health care plan. Never mind that lawmakers, whom under the state Constitution have the exclusive power to “make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State,” had not appropriated the spending for his health care plan; the governor insisted he could unilaterally redirect the spending for his health care plan anyway.
“In short, I’m cutting pork and special interest spending, and in its place, I’m using the legal authority that I have to expand health care,” the governor said.
In November, the governor’s administration filed an “emergency” rule to vastly expand the state’s FamilyCare program, pushing Illinois toward his goal of universal health care. It said the “lack of access to insurance has reached a crisis level requiring immediate action.”
Fast forward to this spring, when the governor’s aides applauded him for saving the budget from an even larger budget hole. When the governor’s office announced that the budget has a $750 million deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30, they said the hole would be far larger if the governor hadn’t taken fiscally prudent action last August and vetoed more than $460 million in spending.
The governor’s budget proposal, delivered in February, said this about his August veto:
Anticipating a potential budget deficit resulting from
the General Assembly’s budget passed in HB3866,
the governor exercised his amendatory veto authority
to reduce appropriations by $463 million. This
reduction was implicitly anticipated by the General
Assembly, which passed a budget that required the
state to not spend over $830 million in appropriated
spending in order to meet the their own overly
optimistic revenue projections.
In other words, the governor said in August that he was shifting the spending to his own priority (despite the absence of an appropriation allowing him to do so), and then he said in February that he saved the state a bunch of money by cutting the spending (though, by his reckoning, the state remained $750 million in the hole). Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose, particularly when it serves the governor’s interest.
Well, it turned out the governor’s “emergency” rule, and a subsequent permanent rule, did not successfully facilitate the expansion of health care. A special panel of lawmakers charged with reviewing the governor’s rules rejected both of those rules. And in mid-April, a Cook County judge followed the panel’s lead and also beat back the governor’s program.
As I reported in my Saturday column, even as the governor insisted on the expanded program embodied in his emergency and permanent rules, his strategy threw into question coverage for roughly 25,000 people who previously enjoyed it.
When the Blagojevich administration moved last November to expand health care to folks earning far more money than these 25,000 people, it used them as bargaining chips. When the administration ultimately failed to implement the governor’s larger program, it left health care for the 25,000 lesser-earning individuals in limbo.
“They wanted to piggy back the governor’s expansion onto the people that really faced some hardship here and they put everybody in an all-or-nothing proposition,” said Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago.
Meanwhile, the administration has instructed health care workers to stop enrolling people in the program set forth in the emergency and permanent rules. Its stop-new-enrollment memo also covered the group of 25,000 people who had health care before the governor launched his controversial rules in November. (The memo speaks in terms of a participant’s income as it relates to the federal poverty level. To decipher that code, go here and scroll down to the chart.)
As the Register Star reported on Saturday:
In a memo dated April 22, the administration ordered health-care workers to not enroll any more adults, age 19 or older, earning more than $13,832 annually. Pregnant women may earn up to $20,800 and still qualify, the memo said.
The shift is consistent with a Cook County judge’s April 15 order blocking the governor’s push to make health care available to adults earning up to $41,600.
Still, it marks a retreat for Blagojevich. Since last fall, he has pushed his expanded program forward even though lawmakers refused to authorize the spending and a special legislative panel twice rejected rules that his administration advanced to enact it anyway.
For background on the court case, see the Web site of Richard Caro, a west suburban attorney who initiated the lawsuit against the governor’s expansion.
On Friday, I placed a series of questions by e-mail and phone with Annie Thompson, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. I still don’t have answers.
May 1st, 2008
Recall is poised to be the big news of the day here in Springfield today.
After stalling for days, the Senate on Tuesday acted on a proposed constitutional amendment to allow voters to recall unsatisfactory politicians. The background is here.
Of course, they opted against taking the House’s version of recall, and crafted their own.
Today, the Senate is expected to vote on the measure. If approved, it would then go to the House, which will likely have to stay in all weekend to make the mandated Sunday deadline for the proposed constitutional amendment to be on the November ballots. For recall to become a provision in the Illinois constitution, the measure must have get a three-fifths vote from the people.
Not all of the legislators (or reporters, mind you) were happy to hear they would have to work through the weekend. Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, asked Madigan why recall was suddenly of such great importance in the House. He said topics such as school funding reform should outrank recall.
Madigan had this to say in response:
“This has become such a priority because of Governor Blagojevich.”
Read into that what you will. Everyone knows that Madigan controls the chamber’s business, yet he rejected the final recall bill when the House voted a few weeks back.
Stay tuned. We will update you as things develop.
May 1st, 2008
Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes is a low-key guy in a low-profile position. In his third term as the state’s chief fiscal officer, he has become a reliable counterpoint to Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s fiscal madness. Where Blagojevich and his aides throw dollar signs up on a wall to see what sticks, Hynes sorts through those numbers in an orderly fashion. He speaks rationally about what’s really happening with state finances.
Where Blagojevich lacks credibility on budget matters, Hynes has it.
But where Blagojevich has political gusto, Hynes lacks it. Back when Blagojevich showed his face in public on a regular basis, he could ignite a crowd with his energy, crazy stories and antics. Though Hynes is down to earth and engaging one on one, he can get stiff as plywood in front of a crowd. Like it or not, political persona matters for somebody hoping to advance himself politically. Credibility on budget matters alone likely won’t do it.
So it’s worth noting that Hynes in recent months has worked hard to heighten his name recognition while recasting himself as a leader in touch with populist concerns. Hynes has not formally indicated his interest in another office, perhaps governor or U.S. Senate, but he certainly appears to be positioning himself for one.
In February, Hynes slammed Blagojevich for failing to capitalize on a growing national economy after taking office in 2003.
Hynes noted that a growing economy has helped boost state revenues, but added that “while other states took advantage of a period of economic growth to firm up finances, Illinois … still sustains a deficit, ending fiscal year 2007 nearly $3.6 billion in the red based on preliminary unaudited estimates. While this is an improvement from the record $4.166 billion deficit recorded in fiscal year 2003, it provides Illinois the dubious opportunity to retain its status as having the worst deficit in the nation for the fourth year in a row.”
Then in mid-April, Hynes turned up the rhetoric. He traveled to Southern Illinois University and delivered a speech that read like an indictment of Blagojevich’s fiscal practices. He cast Blagojevich as an absentee governor:
You see, to be committed, you first have to – for lack of a better term – show up. Be engaged. And that starts at the top. A few years ago, the Governor complained that the General Assembly was spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. But I think the real problem is a captain hiding in his quarters.
The full text of his speech is here and here. Click here to watch video.
Then on Tuesday, Hynes went to Rockford to rally 4-H Club members distraught over Blagojevich’s refusal to release dollars for the program. (On Thursday, the administration reportedly was preparing to release the dollars.)
Hynes reiterated criticisms of Blagojevich’s decision to revoke the $18 million in budget allocations, saying the 4-H Club participation in the county fair is not the only thing in jeopardy. Extension officials echoed his sentiment and told him the Winnebago County Extension office stands to lose about $125,000 in state funds, half of its budget. The other half is raised through fundraising efforts. That could mean staffing cuts or the elimination of some popular programs the office sponsors, such as master gardeners and youth programs.
Hynes’ visit followed Chuck Sweeny’s coverage of the 4-H funding cuts. Sweeny previewed his appearance in another column on Tuesday.
April 24th, 2008
Gov. Rod Blagojevich has long channeled Elvis. During campaign stops, public events or parties, the governor’s aides would play Elvis. Or the governor would talk about Elvis. Or both.
The governor proudly displays a statue of Elvis in his otherwise vacant Capitol office. Heck, the governor’s mop of a hairdo even looks like Elvis.
Now that the feds are closing in on him, the governor has a new tune. On Wednesday, at the end of his appearance at his annual prayer breakfast, the governor recited the words of “Men With Broken Hearts,” an old Hank Williams tune.
“You never stood in that man’s shoes or saw things through his eyes, or watched with helpless hands while the heart inside you dies,” the governor said. “So help your brother along the way, no matter where he starts, because the same God that made you made him too, these men with broken hearts.”
Talk about melodramatic. The closing words, coupled with Blagojevich’s tone of humility, is striking.
A link to audio of the governor’s speech, which runs about nine minutes, is here. The governor’s brooding, compliments of Hanks Williams, is in the last 30 seconds.
And if you want to hear the song, here’s the “Men With Broken Hearts” with Hank Sr., Hank Jr., and Hank III:
April 23rd, 2008
Another week brings another witness putting Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the center of an alleged pay-to-play scheme in his administration.
A former top official in Gov. Blagojevich’s administration said Tuesday the governor gave him a $127,000-a-year state job in exchange for pouring cash into Blagojevich’s campaign fund, including tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket.
That bombshell from Ali Ata came as the onetime director of the Illinois Finance Authority pleaded guilty in a deal in which prosecutors plan to have him testify in the ongoing corruption trial of former Blagojevich fund-raiser Tony Rezko.
Ata, in his plea agreement, one-upped other witnesses by claiming that cash changed hands in front on the governor. Stuart Levine, the federal governments lead witness in its prosecution of Blagojevich pal Tony Rezko, and Joe Cari, another witness, previously testified they had conversations with Blagojevich in which, according to their interpretations, the governor offered state business in exchange for campaign contributions.
Back to Ata, from the Sun-Times:
Ata placed the governor at a meeting where money was exchanged and a reward — his future state job — was promised. Ata said that, in 2002, he met with Blagojevich at Rezko’s Chicago offices and gave the governor a $25,000 check for a campaign contribution. Rezko placed the check on a conference table, according to Ata’s plea deal. Then, according to Ata, Blagojevich “expressed his pleasure and acknowledged that the defendant had been a good supporter and good friend.” The governor, “in the defendant’s presence, asked Rezko if he [Rezko] had talked to the defendant about positions in the administration, and Rezko responded that he had.”
Yet Blagojevich continues to act as if he has no idea what anybody is talking about when they ask about such matters. His spokeswoman on Monday continued to insist that Public Official A is not the governor.
“As we’ve said many times before, we don’t endorse or allow the decisions of state government to be based on campaign contributions,” she said.
In a telephone call, she further pointed to previous statements from the governor’s office saying that Blagojevich doesn’t do business in the ways being alleged in federal court and that, based on the descriptions arising from the case, the governor is not Public Official A.
But as the Tribune pointed out, the world already knows that Public Official A is Blagojevich:
It is obvious from the details and descriptions contained in Ata’s plea agreement that “Public Official A” could only be Blagojevich. Campaign contributions detailed by Ata track with donations he made to Blagojevich that are listed in public records. The governor’s name has come up frequently during testimony in Rezko’s trial, and before that proceeding began, prosecutors had used the pseudonym to refer to the governor in court documents.
Three cheers for pointing out the obvious, even when the governor pretends reality is something other than what it is.
April 14th, 2008
It’s the greatest of perennial questions at the Illinois Capitol: What’s Mike Madigan Up To?
He is the Capitol sage, a man widely regarded for political acumen but difficult if not impossible to read. So it goes that last week when Madigan antagonized House Republicans, Capitol insiders found themselves again asking themselves and each other this question.
The speaker’s strategy over the last week doesn’t make sense on the surface. It doesn’t seem rational. Here we are, less than two months from the formal May 31 end of session, and Madigan and other state leaders have not even a basic framework for the next state budget. Yet Madigan acts to divide the parties in his own chamber — thereby making the prospect of a budget deal even more elusive.
He is already facing off with Gov. Rod Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones Jr., his fellow Chicago Democrats, and now he is poised to fight House Republicans too. Is he yearning for a long, ugly summertime session — just like the one last year, only worse? It’s one thing to relish a good fight. It’s quite another to invite additional opponents into the fight against yourself.
Theories on Madigan’s motives abound among political insiders: Perhaps he is trying to supercharge the Democratic base in advance on the Nov. 4 general election. Perhaps he is trying to whip the House Republicans into line. Perhaps, amid a toxic political climate, he is getting paranoid.
It’s not clear when we’ll know what Madigan is up to, or when the mess is Springfield might work itself out. But I’ll do my best to sort through some of the variables at play, and maybe, just maybe, I can put some of this chaos into order:
- The Obama factor. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama may appear light years away from his days in the Illinois Senate, but as a candidate for president he may do much to shape the politics of Illinois this year. If the ultra-popular Obama leads the Democratic ticket in the November general election, he could pull other Democratic candidates upward. In other words, Democratic and independent Illinois voters likely will turn out in droves to vote for Obama, if he is the Democratic presidential nominee, and in doing so they are more likely to support other Dems on the ballot. And that means the Dems controlling Springfield may have substantial wiggle room this year. They may be able to take risks — such as a brutal, intra-party, summer-long fight over the budget — and not suffer losses in the November general election.
- The Rezko Factor. Tony Rezko, a former top fundraiser and adviser to Blagojevich, in on trial for allegedly using his insider clout to shake down firms seeking business with the state. As I noted in my Saturday column, Blagojevich has been MIA for much of the last two years as the feds closed in on his inner circle. (Chris Kelly, another former top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser, also is under indictment on federal tax-related charges.) If Rezko is convicted, pressure will build on Rezko and Kelly to share with the feds any dirt they have on Blagojevich, who has already been named as “Public Official A” in the Rezko case. I would expect Blagojevich to head even deeper underground; he won’t want exposure to rank-and-file lawmakers, the public or the media. If Rezko is acquitted, Blagojevich could feel emboldened and be much more enthusiastic about a high-profile fight at the Capitol.
- Madigan v. Jones. The intensity and sincerity of the animosity between Madigan and Jones cannot be exaggerated. These two men are locked in a political battle of the titans — a brawl dominating state government matters large and small.
- Jones & Blagojevich. At least until further notice, Jones is in lockstep with Blagojevich.
- More cash to spend. If Madigan and Jones agree on anything, it’s that they both have expressed support for income tax hike to generate more state revenue. Jones is a longstanding proponent of a tax hike to help public schools with more state money. Last spring, Madigan kicked off the spring session by saying it was time for the state to take responsibility for its pension debt and other fiscal problems (you can’t pay off this debt without raising more money). Last summer, he went a step further by actually suggesting an income tax hike.
- Blago’s tax-hike pledge. Blagojevich continues to insist he won’t raise taxes on “people.” His no-tax-hike pledge, in fact, is the pledge from his races in 2002 and 2006 that he has most often repeated. Only, he violated that pledge by approving a sales tax hike for the Chicago-area early this spring, as part of an effort to bail out mass transit systems. Will he now support an income tax hike?
- Supermajority after May 31. The formal end of spring session is May 31. After that, lawmakers must produce a three-fifths majority to approve any bill with an effective date prior to the following June 1. A budget for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning July 1, obviously must be effective before then. Passing a budget after May 31, therefore requires a three-fifths majority. It is not possible to achieve a supermajority in the House without at least four Republican votes, and that’s assuming every one of the 67 Democrats in the chamber sticks together. Jones does have a supermajority in the Senate, but he failed repeatedly to keep his own members together last year. Even with his supermajority, Jones failed to steamroll Senate Republicans when it really mattered.
Now, back to the question of what Madigan is up to. What if he is three steps ahead of everybody else at the Capitol, as he is so often said to be? What if he is acting in accordance with a rational plan to advance his political objectives?
All of the conventional theories of Madigan’s motives assume he will continue his fight with Blagojevich and Jones. They discount the possibility of the three Democrats making a deal.
Is it possible that Madigan is trying to signal to Jones that he is prepared to make a deal, perhaps on a tax hike, by pushing the Republicans away? It’s a radical theory, but I’ve certainly crazier ones.
Madigan, Jones and Blagojevich could make a budget deal by May 31, and approve it without a single Republican vote. Come June 1, they do need Republican support, and it’s anybody’s guess what that might mean — particularly if the parties are divided in both chambers.
Then again, the lines of communication between Madigan and Jones, just as between Madigan and Blagojevich, and now between Madigan and House GOP Leader Tom Cross, are dead, sources say. Any deal among the Dems appears a long way off, at best.
And the summer fast approaches.
Last summer, work at the Capitol resembled the scene near the end of “Animal House”where frat guy Stork wanders into a parade, shoves aside a drum major, and then leads the marching band into a dead-end alley. The band members, still playing their instruments, march themselves into a wall, crushing each other.
Last summer, Blagojevich and lawmakers repeated this scene twice daily.
Previous Posts
