Perhaps during the last few months of campaign season attacking Democrats advocates by saying bringing terrorists to a maximum security prison in Illinois of which no inmate has ever escaped might fly but right now, in this economy, I predict that Congressman Mark Kirk and Co.'s claim that by transferring Gitmo prisoners to the Thomson maximum security prison in Illinois will mean endangering Americans and letting the terrorists into "America's heartland" will fall flat. Strangely enough, Rich Miller rounds up all the facts and is still skeptical:
Prisons bring in revenue by employing people to build the prison and run it and I'm not just talking about security. Prisons need people to do the laundry, people to cook the food, people to drive trucks in and out of the facility and a whole bunch of other things. It's a stimulating. That's all in addition to the people who actually build the prison.
Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Ever.
Again, let me stress, these terrorists won't be taking that seat next to you at the local bar. They will be in a maximum security prison of which nobody has ever escaped. There is no security concern that these terrorists will escape. Hell, I've got a hunch that they'll even be more secure there than in Cuba.
Also, there are already terrorists in American prisons, 340 to be precise. Surprise!
As Miller notes, the locals actually SUPPORT bringing the terrorists to the Thomson prison.
Well, I'm not skeptical. So not only is Kirk endangering his candidacy by making an attack that is largely false, it's also famously false. People are aware of what the real story is which makes Kirk look like a partisan liar.
We got an email from Jonathan Goldman about his candidacy for state rep in the Democratic primary for the 10th district.
I suspect when the email was sent they didn't figure it would be the suburban Republican who would do the item on it. But he makes some points I would like to take a closer look at. You can find what was in the email here.
Work to put Illinois' fiscal house in order. "We need to get serious once and for all about fixing the State budget, rather than lurching from one fiscal crisis to another. We need to restructure our tax policies based on ability to pay and address our structural deficit so that we can pay our bills on time and fully fund our pension obligations," said Goldman.
So bottom line, who is going to pay more? Who is going to pay less? As for the pension system, do you think the current state pension system should be available to folks who go to work for the state three years from now?
I've argued in the past in favor of term limits, and addressed the concern that the government bureaucracies, or career staffers, would simply come to dominate government, and that legislators, seeing their pending unemployment, would spend the bulk of their time in office jockeying for private sector jobs or higher office. (The response was that, of course, legislators are kind of putty in lobbyists' and bureaucratic operators' hands now). I do think that the argument around unintended consequences is a good one and worth keeping in mind.
Larry at Archpundit sums it all up in a characteristically succinct line:
Does it happen in Illinois too-sure, but experienced legislators are the best defense against determined lobbyists.
While I agree with Larry (and the Rich Miller piece he cites) that term limits could likely end up having unintended consequences, like shifting power to the executive bureaucracy and lobbyists who are permanent residents of state government, I don't think this rules out term limits completely. It only rules out unreasonably short term limits (like Michigan's).
What makes a state Representative "seasoned" or experienced enough to know the players in government and how to move a piece of legislation? A combination of natural instincts, political influence, and relationships with legislators built on mutual respect and trust. Those latter two can only develop with time. So having a one-, two-, or three-term limit on legislators (particularly with no similar limit on the governor) is not a good idea.
But what about five, or ten? At some point, there is diminishing return, and legislators accrue power based on their seniority and immobility out of proportion to their legislative prowess or willingness or desire to move legislation at all (Cf., Phil Crane).
As I stated in that earlier piece, lobbyists thrive on long-standing personal relationships, not cyclical bullying. Who do we see going down for scandals with lobbyists? Is it more often some fresh faced legislator with no influence? Or their relationships with powerful, long-serving legislators? Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Randy Cunningham, Dan Rostenkowski, potentially Charlie Rangel--these are scandals that come about because people have accrued power over time, not the result of powerful lobbyists preying on the uninitiated.
I understand the point of view of those, like Larry and Rich, who oppose term limits: there is a distaste for "naive" reformism that paints with a broad brush. But surely limiting one person to a decade in office as one piece of reform to chip away at dynastic politics would do more good than harm. The organization put Bilandic in there to replace Daley; even with a strong organization "controlling" the office, eventually the bench depletes and elections can become more competitive.
You might have seen Syron Smith in a post on The Capitol Fax blog earlier this month as the subject of a "Question of the Day". At this moment we look at Syron Smith as he runs for state representative for the 32nd District. He is to run against Andre Thapedi who currently holds that seat. Thapedi is a "rookie" having assume the seat of Milt Patterson who stood down at the end of his term having not run for re-election.
He ran against Thapedi last year in the primary and was forced to run as a write-in candidate after his petitions were successfully challenged by Thapedi. If your petitions to run for election are rejected then that only means that you won't be on the ballot, but most of us already know that right. All the same this time Mr. Smith is coming to this election ready!
This video is by CAN-TV personality Marc Sims. Also watch part 2 & part 3.
Check out friend of Mechanics and neighbor to me Josh Kalven of Progress Illinois discussing the state budget (along with Mechanics contributor Richard Lorenc's boss John Tillman of the Illinois Policy Institute) on Chicago Tonight:
Well, if you want to save video poker and the funding for the capital plan, I think it is still possible, but you would have to try and do it during the veto session and time is running short.
A "solution" would have to provide a better cut to the state and a better cut to local governments. If a local government was able to get a better cut I suspect they would be less likely to vote it down. It's one thing if video poker could pay for one cop, it's different if it could pay for five.
The Solution
Take the machine owner cut of out the system by having the state lottery own and operate the machines.
I had the pleasure yesterday, in between e-mail and a client meeting, to take in the 7th Annual lunchtime media briefing by Chicago Metropolis 2020. CM2020 is a non-profit organization originally established by the Commercial Club of Chicago "to promote long-term planning, better regional cooperation, and smart investments in the Chicago region and its people." The briefing, attended by a number of notables on the Chicago journalism scene, promised presentations on criminal justice reform; campaign finance limits; housing policy, early childhood education, and the Burnham Plan Centennial.
Adele Simmons, VP of the Burnham Plan Centennial, combined a general welcome with an overview of the mission of the Centennial, which is to carry on the legacy of legendary planner Daniel Burnham by focusing on innovative regional solutions for the Chicago metro area, saying, "The choices we make today will shape the future." While that statement might seem tautological at first, the emphasis was on bringing to the forefront of our decisionmaking the long-range, rather than short-term drivers.
No big shock, Jesse White is running for reelection. Who doesn't love this guy? He reminds me of at least five dozen relatives I have. And, yes, before everybody starts leaving comments about all the horrible people he's raised money from or how long it takes to get your license, I get it. I'm not saying he's the World's Greatest Secretary of State. More like the World's Greatest Grandpa.
So Andy McKenna is going to run for governor as a Republican.
Well if you want my post-mortem on his senate run back in 2004 you can go here. Suffice to say I wasn't real impressed with Andy's senate run back in 2004.
I guess I don't understand why he wants to run. Did he look at the field and see some sort of chance to win against guys with bigger organizations? Does he see a chance of winning against guys who in some cases have been running for months? If he does he is seeing something I must be missing (big time).
To win in this primary and to win in the general a successful candidate is going to have to be aggressive. In the primary you are going to running against candidates who have built up statewide followings, who have spoken at Republican events at all ends of the state. When they and finished speaking at these events they have had people think 'hey I wish that guy would run for governor'. I have heard Andy speak at more than one Republican event over the years, nice guy, but he wouldn't stand out at a convention of stereotypical accountants. I doubt anyone has heard Andy speak at a Republican event and thought "I wish this guy would run for governor."
SEIU's Illinois State Council--representing some 170,000 workers and a sophisticated political operation--endorsed Pat Quinn for Governor. Good news for Pat Quinn.
Will the other big labor growler--AFSCME's Council 31--jump in on Hynes' side? Quinn made a pitch to the Council today.
QUINN: I want to say a word about the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. They're my good friends. They've been my friends since 1972, when I helped them organize the union and get recognized by the state of Illinois. ... I like all the leaders and members of AFSCME. I want to work with them on solving a tough problem. As Tom said, we need to have more revenue in our state government to balance the budget and pay for fundamental things like education and public safety.
A few days ago, a Tribune poll reported that many of us have thrown up our hands when it comes to political corruption. You couldn't hear the champagne corks popping, but you've got to figure that the status quo was celebrating.
And that's the real debilitating effect of the Chicago Way. That's the tragedy and the terrible sin of it. The political carnival is sometimes entertaining, the way crime stories are entertaining.
But it also makes us numb. It makes us feel powerless. The insiders who run our governments like their gangs or hereditary fiefdoms are organized around a single principle -- their self-interests.
And the rest of us? We're dispersed, divided, fighting each other about this program or that benefit, or this tax break or that "free" legislative scholarship, or a coveted spot in the city's magnet schools, or the jobs promised by the 2016 Olympics if the mayor wins his gold.
Up until Saturday, the Chicago Way had become a carnival, a laughing matter. Blagojevich was busy in New York selling his innocence harder than he was selling his autobiography, playing the Mad Hatter on daytime TV.
And his wife Patti was in her little black dress just like Audrey Hepburn. They posed, wide-eyed, holding hands, with Manhattan behind them, a movie poster.
But on Saturday, he paused to offer sympathy for the friend who could have brought him down, sympathy for Kelly's wife and three daughters.
They should be in all of our prayers too. And after, perhaps we could say another prayer, asking for an end to the numbness, and a chance to see things clearly.
A man is dead. And the Chicago Way is not a game.
While this may be hard to swallow from somebody who regularly refers to Mayor Daley as "Shortshanks" (whatever that means) and makes criminal underworld figures into cartoon characters, his point is well made. Chris Kelly's death is a reminder that when we talk about political corruption, we're talking about crime, and punishment.
Governor Quinn and the local leadership of AFSCME Council 31, which represents the largest proportion of state workers, have been unable to reach a deal that would avert over a thousand layoffs. The Governor was asking for concessions that the union said amounted to a 15% pay cut. This is a combination of cuts: deletion of promised raises, reduction of health care benefits and pension contributions, and unpaid furlough days. Quinn has announced that he will have to move forward with over a thousand layoffs as a result of the refusal of AFSCME locals to accept the cuts. Quinn sees the roaring budget deficits we all see. The assumption is that spending needs to be cut to reduce and eliminate this deficit; but it doesn't necessarily follow that cutting programs will have that effect. Cf., Adam Doster's "Civic Fed Rule."
And of course there is the fact that many state programs actually "save" the state, or the people, money from the services they provide. Either by addressing a problem that effects productivity (road congestion, child care for working class families, subsidies for health insurance that reduce sick days and unemployment), or by providing a service that indirectly raises revenue (subsidies for jobs programs; maintaining regulatory standards that protect consumer confidence). This isn't controversial; Illinois' conservatives would look at a list of state activities and approve of way more state activities than they disapproved of. Licensing, regulation of professions, capital projects that increase mobility, building institutions of higher learning, etc. We need correctional officers and child safety case workers; we need inspectors to check that our bridges aren't falling down, and to monitor water pollution levels. That's what a "state worker" is.
Knowing this, how about the fact that Illinois has the lowest state worker-to-resident ratio in the country? The problem is not the size of government, the problem is that politicians refuse to pay for the services Illinoisans demand. Cutting deeper into the bone won't make Illinois better; it'll make the quality of life worse. Even were our budget to be balanced, basic services will disappear. We know we're talking about basic services because Illinois has a tiny state government:
If Illinois state budget is "bloated," as many charge, these numbers would seem to indicate that the state's employees are not the cause of that bloat.
You know, I don't really believe the idea that a competitive electoral race is a good idea because it can make the candidates more liberal or conservative depending on their challenger. I mean at best it's only a temporary shift. Once the politician gets elected (especially in the Senate), there's no more pressure to appeal to a liberal or conservative base and there's plenty of time to work toward the actual agenda, not the agenda that won the election.
But I do think that elections do have their value, as Rich Miller of The Capitol Fax Blogargues today in The SouthtownStar. Miller argues that Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes' challenge to Governor Patrick Quinn is a good thing because it will at least sharpen Quinn's campaign skills. I think Miller is making too big a leap of how popular Quinn is but that's beside the point, he's on to something with the campaigns. The difference between learning to campaign better and moving farther on the political spectrum during the campaign season is that the result is only actually real with campaigns, not with policy stances. The better campaigning can't be faked, the becoming more liberal or conservative can be.
From an AFSCME news release on their meeting with the Governor today:
AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer issued the following statement today after meeting with Governor Pat Quinn:
"This meeting was held at our union's request to urge the governor to rescind the state-employee layoffs he has threatened.
"I told the governor that layoffs will harm vital services that Illinois residents rely on. They will also hurt families and our economy by throwing thousands of men and women out of work.
"AFSCME continues to believe that the only solution to the state budget crisis is comprehensive tax reform that raises significant new revenue. Only with new revenue can Illinois invest in public services, create jobs and pay the state's bills.
"The administration must present to the body of local union presidents representing state employees any proposals that would require reopening our contract. That body will meet in Springfield in early September. Any decision regarding changes to the contract will ultimately be made by our members themselves."
An update to the column you see on your right there: Governor Quinn will sign the reforms to the FOIA and Open Meetings Act passed earlier this year by the General Assembly.
Quinn's office could not be reached Sunday after sending out an advisory indicating his plan to "sign legislation regarding transparency" today in Chicago. Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whose office helped draft the Freedom of Information Act legislation, is to appear.
The measure will plug many loopholes in the FOIA law and establish a public access counselor under the attorney general to issue binding opinions in records disputes.
Roll Call may have the answer although I'm pretty sure his campaign is over (before it officially started:
At least two well-placed sources who were working with Kennedy on his potential bid said they have been out of communication with him for several weeks and they do not expect him to run for office. What's more, several Illinois Democrats said they had heard nothing from Kennedy or his associates in recent weeks.
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Kennedy also recently suffered four broken ribs during a recent water skiing accident in Hyannis Port, Mass. Kennedy's aunt, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, also passed away this week.
This isn't the first time that Kennedy has openly considered a race for federal office then ended up not pulling the trigger on a campaign. He also considered running for Kirk's House seat, as well as this Senate seat in 2004.
Government transparency: realm of nerds? Or power politics?
America's post-war political tradition has been one of transactional politics. People measure their government less on ideology and more on "results", typically meaning, "what they provide". One of the side effects of this is that advocates for government transparency--who come from all points on the ideological spectrum, in equal degrees of vociferousness--are seen as process-oriented and, well, nerds. Transparency in government, however, isn't just something for good government hobbyists or hard-bitten cynical journalists. "Realists" on transparency argue that the desire to know everything the government does ignores the reality that in order to get things done, Serious People need to negotiate behind closed doors (Cf., privatizing parking meters; Chicago's stimulus list). Transparency--the state erring on the side of openness and making all of its institutional processes immediately available for public inspection--doesn't necessarily need to make government operations impossible. Quite the contrary, actually; foreknowledge of public scrutiny could act as a form of disarmament. Over time, the presumption of openness could disarm cynics and foster a mode of interaction between the state and private actors that eliminates the competitive pressure to hide things from the public.
Or, instead of using ridiculous jargon like I did in that last sentence, I can use a series of cliches; if Information is Power, then true and full transparency is an immediate way to give Power to the People.
Recently, two major government transparency issues have come (close to) the public eye: an amendment to the state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the City of Chicago's new TIF transparency website. A look at these two issues below.
Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (once the chairman of the US House's Ways & Means Committee) back in 1989 was chased down by some senior citizens protesting legislation, Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. They complained that they had to pay more taxes for the additional benefits. Rostenkowski seemed more rattled by the citizens than some of the Senators facing their own angry mobs in the current health care debate.
If only we had those types of contentious townhalls here. I can't argue about the people putting their politicians to the fire!
Things are finally looking up for ol' Dan Seals. Chris Cilizza has the scoop:
Seals Far Ahead in IL-10 Survey: Dan Seals, the Democratic nominee against Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in 2006 and 2008, holds a wide lead in the 2010 Democratic primary, according to a survey done for his campaign and obtained by the Fix. Seals takes 63 percent of the vote compared to to just eight percent for state Rep. Julie Hamos and two percent for attorney Elliot Richardson in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. The survey, which was conducted by Anzalone-Liszt Research for Seals campaign, also showed Seals -- not surprisingly -- as by far the best known candidate in the Democratic race with 83 percent name identification. Hamos, who won the endorsement of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) last Friday, has a meager 18 percent name identification. And, roughly two-thirds of voters agreed with the statement that Seals had earned the right to a third run for the seat while 23 percent said it was time to give someone new a chance. With Kirk leaving the 10th to run for Senate, Democrats have a very good chance of taking over this North Shore district.
I find this bit in a story in today's Chicago Sun-Times on the Cash for Clunkers program surprising:
Illinois ranks sixth among states in the number of cash-for-clunker dollars going to buyers: $2.44 million. It follows No. 1 Michigan ($3.4 million), Ohio ($2.93 million), California ($2.64 million), Minnesota ($2.62 million) and Texas ($2.5 million).
That puts us ahead of states like Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington --places where I'd assume there'd not only be enthusiasm for environmentalism and/or fuel efficiency but also a lack of conservative skepticism toward the program. Personally I can't think of any really good explanation for any of the states I mention except maybe Oregon which is basically bicycle central. But for the rest, what's the deal? Why is Illinois, whose biggest city has a fair (but far from perfect) public transport system doing more trading than these other ones? Do that many people have more SUVs to trade in?
When Rod Blagojevich ran for Governor, his website was "Rod For Us". Alexi Giannoulias is running as Alexi For Illinois; the Illinois Comptroller's race, which will be an interesting little battle among the next generation of Illinois pols and operatives, Raja Krishnamoothri is running. And it's Raja For Illinois.
If Alexi Giannoulias is our Senator, Raja Krishnamoothri is our Comptroller, Lisa Madigan our AG and Dan Hynes is our Governor, then we will have the Baby-Faced Elected Officials All Star Team. Seriously, look at Giannoulias' splash page. I wanna pinch those cheeks. That big boy tie. Aww.
Of course, noted dentist (and he has something to do with the state legislature too) David Miller is also eying a run. Miller is known for among other things his championing of payday lending reform and having a name that makes google searches for him basically impossible. Also, were he to win and Raja lose, he'd have no trouble fitting into the starting line-up of aforementioned Baby Faced All Star Team.
Levi Moore who is the "statehouse examiner" at examiner.com talks about the position of Illinois Lt. Governor's office. It's up for election next year and currently it's vacant since our current Governor, Pat Quinn, ascended to the office of Governor upon the removal of Rod Blagojevich in January. Vacant because apparently there is no provision such as the US Constitution's 25th Amendment to provide for succession to the Lt. Governorship.
I saw on Eric Zorn's blog in a recent post that there have been proposals to either eliminate the Lt. Gov. post or at the very least allow gubernatorial candidates to be able to select their running mates. You know almost similar to the process that a Presidential candidate make to select a running mate who will run with him as the Vice-Presidential nominee. Currently voters choose the ticket for both Gov. or Lt. Gov on a primary ballot and the winners of this primary become the Gubernatorial ticket in the general election.
Here's another Zorn post from this past May on this very subject. That is the arguments to eliminate this position were outlined, but one minor thing keeps Lt. Gov. post alive. This office and another non-essential office, Comptroller (the office that Sen. Roland Burris was elected to in the late 70s to become the first black to win election statewide in Illinois) or even Treasurer, are used as stepping stones. To create a minor-league of sorts for those who have aspirations for higher office in this state.
In Illinois, you might be considered a big deal if you run the offices at least of Secretary of State or Attorney General. While it was noted on Zorn's blog again that no one went from state Attorney General to Governor, I do know that two recent Governors, Jim Edgar and George Ryan, were elected directly from the office of Secretary of State. Both of those offices have significant staff and responsibilities.
BTW, the office is significant only that the Lt. Gov. is second in succession to the state Governorship when a Governor dies, incapacitated, or removed from office. There is some responsibility given to the office although these responsibilities may only be provided by the Governor himself (or herself) of course that is provided that these two individuals who had no choice since the voters essentially put them together have a decent working relationship.
Once upon a time before the enactment of the 1970 constitution of Illinois, Lt. Gov could actually preside over sessions of the state Senate. There wasn't always the position of Senate President unless you want to count the position of President Pro-Tempore. Remember the structure of government in most state matches somewhat loosely the structure of the federal government, especially as established in the US Constitution. Thus up until 1970 the Lt. Governor had a responsibility similar to that of the Vice President of the United States and the state Senate had their own President Pro-Tempore just like the US Senate.
Anyway, the structure of state government in Illinois is what it is today and there are those who advocate for the restructuring of offices or even how they are elected or still the elimination of that position. Perhaps it was a mistake to put both offices up for election in a primary and keep them together in a general election. Perhaps it was a mistake to remove the Lt. Governor's role as the presiding officer of the state Senate.
Still I wouldn't advocate for it's elimination. There are probably better more numerous aspects of government that can be cut that maybe a couple of statewide offices. Perhaps Cook County government could use some contraction in executive elected officials or there have been discussions of say consolidating school districts in the state.
Still, there is a virtue to having offices that may not have the importance of either Governor, Secretary of State or Attorney General that may allow an aspiring politician to move up in state politics. The minor-league system or bench that allows a very ambitious pol to make of their position what they will and not merely draw a paycheck. In doing so such a person hopefully with have the ability to advance themselves as a future candidate for much higher office.
Can it be so? Via Rich Miller's Capitol Fax Blog, video of House Minority Leader Tom Cross (Oswego) emerging to say that pending caucus meetings, a budget agreement has been reached:
For info on the caucus meetings, head over to the Illinois Policy Institute's Tweet Illinois; legislators will surely be tweeting.
Speaking of PI, and the budget, Josh & Friends (specifically, Adam Doster, I hasten to add) provide a nice history of how we get where we got with this years budget in Springfield.
They hit on the tactical mistake Quinn made at the outset--sadly, it seems that trying to propose something that asks all major power players to make sacrifices for the general good is the quickest way to failure.
But by crafting a compromise budget, Quinn found himself without any political support from those constituencies that can actually move an agenda forward in Springfield. His plan to reduce pension benefits for incoming state workers, increase employees' pension contributions and health care payments, and require state employees to take four unpaid furlough days frustrated public employee unions. Social service providers also criticized the proposed cuts to their critical programs.
Not all the blame, of course, is Quinn's. On House Speaker Mike Madigan's role:
House Speaker Michael Madigan had different ideas, however. Convinced, apparently, that a 67 percent income tax hike would endanger members of his majority at the ballot box next year, he pushed a modified version of Gov. Quinn's initial tax hike proposal. This measure temporarily raised the income tax rate from 3 percent to 4.5 percent while permanently doubling the EITC. But beyond saying that he himself would vote for it, Madigan made little effort to whip up support for the bill, knowing full well that no GOP members were willing to make the measure "bipartisan." As a result, the temporary plan went down in flames by a vote of 42-74-2 on May 31. The Meeks plan passed the House Education Committee that same day, but never came up for a full vote in the House.
Anders Lindall, a spokesperson for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) sent us these photos from Monday's "send off" outside Rep. John D'Amico's offices at 4404 W. Lawrence Ave. UPDATE: I mistakenly thought the first pictures were from the D'Amico event. They are actually from the "send off" outside of Representative Linda Chapa LaVia's office (83rd District) in Aurora. The bottom two, which I just added, are from the D'Amico event.
About 30 people gathered outside Representative Deb Mell's office in the 40th District at 3657 N. Kedzie Ave. in Albany Park today, chanting and circling her office in an effort to get her to support House Bill 174. The event was one of about 40 "send offs" held across the state -- three of which were held in Chicago --organized by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union representing 1.6 million wokers, including caseworkers, nurses, corrections officers, child care providers, EMTs and sanitation workers, and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, among other groups statewide. Organizers and marchers are pushing for state representatives to sign HB174, which AFSCME believes modernizes the state's tax structure by, along with other measures, raising the Individual Income Tax rate from 3 to 5 percent, and the Corporate Income Tax rate from 4.8 to 5 percent.
Mechanics followed the protestors -- most of whom work for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services -- outside of Mell's office from the time they started at 11:45 a.m. to the time they left about two hours later. Here are some highlights.
Looks like Kirk will run for Senate and Illinois GOP chairman Andy McKenna, a failed Senate candidate in 2004, will not oppose him. Right wing blogger Paul Kroenke had this to say about Kirk:
Pre-Cap-and-Tax* was a time when I would have backed Kirk wholeheartedly. He talked the talk on fiscal conservatism, and at a deeper level than most. He's lost my confidence for now, but he's got some time over the next year or so to once again start walking the walk. Whether he does or not is up to him, but from where I sit, he's our next US Senator in any case. Given his tendency to follow the polling (backup in the "coward" link) I figure it's probably best to start hoping to have some effect at that level sooner rather than later.
I don't know the contours of the Illinois GOP activist base outside of Chicagoland well enough to know if Kirk's positions on social issues and Cap'n Trade will sink him with the base and keep him from raising the money and volunteers he'll need to counter Democratic support in Cook County (the most Democratic big county in the country). In Chicagoland, GOP activists tend to be anti-government, with pockets of "pro-life" activism (as differentiated from pro-Life sentiment, which is everywhere, obviously); this is also where the organized money is, so regulatory issues rate fairly highly, too. In the exurban areas--Aurora, Elgin, Joliet, Carpentersville--there is a not insignificant collection of immigration reform activism going on as well. Kirk's opponent will have to dampen support in the well-off Cook County townships by playing to support of Obama while boxing Kirk in with his positions on immigration and the environment to keep the exurban activists at home. Also, raise lots of money.
Predictions now are pretty worthless. We know one thing for sure: if the GOP nominates a moderate for the governorship, Kirk will be the "top of the ticket" and the GOP's right wing will be wholly unrepresented on the ballot.
*This is the new "framing" of what was called cap-and-trade, or what I prefer to call Cap'n Trade.
Here in Chicago, it's easy to forget how big Illinois really is, and unfortunately, how the same state budget cuts affecting us are also affecting people living 300 miles southwest of the city, in cities like Alton, Edwardsville and Collinsville, which are all considered suburbs of St. Louis but are in Illinois. This column by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch'sPat Gauen -- about state budget cuts affecting the little guy and gal -- made me get some watery eyes. As Gauen eloquently writes:
In our mind's eye, we often think of people in need of such services as looking strange and acting oddly. When we notice them, it's usually at a physically safe distance through some kind of glass -- a car windshield, perhaps, or a restaurant window or a television screen.
Looking at ordinary Sharon is emotionally dangerous, because the glass you're using could be a mirror.
So I posted something earlier about Mark Kirk's chances in a GOP primary, and in the comments made clear the fact that I wasn't defending his vote on cap-and-trade--it's not an issue I really know much about, nor do I claim any particular knowledge about Kirk's intellectual honesty in voting for it--and stressed that I certainly wouldn't consider myself a Kirk "supporter". With each passing election cycle, in fact, I find there are fewer and fewer politicians worth straining my fingers typing in support of; a function of my advanced, jaded, late-20s worldview, I'm sure.
However, as the widely acknowledged leader of Local-Chicago-Political-Writers-Who-Are-Also-First-Generation-Iraqi-Assyrian-Americans, this will no doubt get me in trouble with my fellow Assyrian-Americans, because Congressman Kirk has been outstanding in his support of minorities in Iraq, particularly the targeted and harassed Assyrians and Chaldeans of the so-called "Nineveh Plains" region. Kirk has fought tirelessly on behalf of those minorities, taking the US ambassador to task for not acting on programs created by the US Congress to ensure local security for those populations, and championing and passing an amendment to an appropriations bill ensuring funding for local security force to protect internally displaced people (IDP).
"Congressman Mark Kirk is most certainly a champion who believes we cannot allow Iraq to fail. His measure will help to ensure that Iraq remains ethnically and religiously plural by aiding IDPs in the Nineveh Plain" said Michael Youash, Project Director of the Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project (a special project of the Assyrian Academic Society). ISDP is a Washington-based policy institute providing research and analysis on the situation of Iraq's most vulnerable minorities.
Those in the know know that Kirk's district contains an enormous Chaldo/Assyrian-American population; the Chicagoland Assyrian Diaspora population is considered the largest in the world, with its roots in Andersonville, and its biggest population centers in West Ridge ("the old neighborhood"), Lincolnwood, Skokie, and the suburbs north of there. You may also know us from our many cable access television shows.
Rep. Kirk has taken his advocacy on behalf of Assyrians and internal refugees in Iraq well beyond the typical politician's talk-big pandering and actually accomplished things that have made life for the internally displaced peoples materially better.
Not that this has any bearing on whether he could survive a GOP primary or the conservative rectitude of his vote on Cap'n Trade, just something that warranted mentioning. It's only fair to point out something good about a guy you shrugged off as just another politician. Also, I don't want to get served the last bowl of kubba at our next monthly meeting; this is a mark of great shame in my culture. (Not really).
We've had a very surprising week as far as 2010 is concerned. The big surprise was that Lisa Madigan is staying put at Attorney General. This seems to be the week where those who were just waiting to make their moves are making them essentially.
Well depending on your perspective, this report of Roland Burris not seeking election to his Senate seat might be surprising. Perhaps some of us might believe that his ego might cause him to run for a seat many of us certain that he will not even succeed in a primary.
But since he's choosing not to run for the US Senate, then that opens the field up a little. Otherwise if Burris remained in the race, it wouldn't be difficult for me to say that the Republicans could pick up this seat.
Well now it might be a little difficult to predict. We have Mark Kirk for the Republicans and that field has yet to form. While for the Democrats we have a Kennedy, our state Treasurer who just so happens to be friends with the current President of the United States, and a Black woman who heads the Chicago Urban League. Right now the interesting field might be on the Democratic side but I won't predict who might be able to take this seat.
What say you? Who might be likely to be our next sitting Senator after 2010? Is that person in the race or have we ever heard of that prospective Senator?
Let me start by saying I went to this being rather skeptical about the issue to say the least. Walking up to the protest I felt my skepticism would be well justified, looking at the pins some of these folks were wearing and some of the signs they were holding I was confident these were folks who felt all prisons were bad and that there was no reason to put someone into a limited access prison....
Yep, these folks would never be able to appeal to my Republican law and order sensabilities...
Then I made the mistake of talking with a couple of the protesters.
it turns out they were not against all prisons. I had quite the little discusion with one of them and she made some intelligent points about how keeping someone in Tamms as long as some of these folks are kept there doesn't do the state, prisoner or the correction system any good. Not sure if I agree with her, but they are legitimate questions that need to be asked.
I suspect on most issues we would disagree and I suspect their vision of incrasaration and corrections is different than mine.
But even from my perspective some questions come up. For what we spend on Tamms are we getting our money worth? Could the same thing be done on a smaller scale at an existing jail in the system? We have a tight budget right now is this really the best way for DOC to be spending money? Why are prisoners spending years at a jail that was not intended to be used for stays over a year? I think there is a need for a prison for the 'worst of the worst' but is this the most cost effective way to do it?
I think these are the sort of questions the Tribune should be looking at with even a quarter of the vigor they are going after the U of I with right now.
For such a slight woman, AG Lisa Madigan sure was a big gorilla. Her deciding to stay put has set in motion a series of decisions not dissimilar to what we saw after Senator Obama became President Obama and Congressman Emanuel became Chief-of-Staff Emanuel. Rep. Hamos was a likely candidate for the Attorney-General seat had Ms. Madigan chosen to run for the governorship or the Senate. Staying put means Rep. Hamos has a decision to make regarding her own future. Is there a statewide seat for her to pursue?
"Over the past few months I have met with Democratic and community leaders and heard the concerns of voters across Illinois. In the coming days I plan to revisit those supporters and ask for their best ideas on how I can work for the people of Illinois. I look forward to hearing their ideas and input as I discuss my next steps with my family."
I'm not going to speculate on what she'll do, because I honestly have no idea whatsoever, and we all know what statewide seats exist as competitive (Treasurer, Junior Senate, Comptroller, and Governor) and I see no reason why she would be more likely to run for one and not another; I know her as being active on health care and transit, and there's no "natural" office for that.
There's a bunch of "nested Ifs" as we say in logic: If Hynes runs for Senate or Governor, then that leaves his seat open; the Treasurer's seat will be competitive, as Alexi is running for Senate; maybe she'll want to take on the Senate race. If Jesse White decides to make a full-time return to tumbling, then she could go for Secretary of State.
There's one thing we can all agree on: DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett has just lined up to run against Lisa Madigan again, which could end up being his third straight statewide loss. He's flirting with Oberweis territory there.
It'd be great if there was one person or group of people we could blame for the budget impasse (I guess, on a grander scale, the people to blame would be our legislators--but then again, we elect them, so there you go), but the problem is more with the system that creates disincentives for political courage. Paul Simon wrote about this in his book Our Culture of Pandering, a great book with an unfortunate cover (no better way to say "cutting edge solutions" than a bow tie and a rocking chair). But while legislators jockey to avoid being the first ones to plunge into the abyss of a tax hike, our communities face serious disruptions.
Yes government creates many stupid programs; but by far the vast majority of things we spend our money on we spend our money on because there is some direct or indirect benefit to the entire community. Unemployment benefits keep people spending money and keeps them off the street. Substance abuse programs and clinics keep drug addicts from descending into criminality. And programs like CeaseFire keep people alive.
Right now bullets are flying fast on the South and West sides, where a majority of this city's black and brown populations live. This weekend, depending upon whose numbers you listened to, there were somewhere between 22 and 63 observed incidents of gunfire ripping through parts of Little Village, Englewood, North Lawndale, Austin, Bethany Yards and Brighton Park.
This isn't "throwing money at deadbeats". When violence explodes in a neighborhood, that affects the entire city. We can't keep pretending we live in vacuums where as long as we're doing okay, nothing else matters. The individual only makes sense as part of a community that sustains them. Understanding that as a first step may make it easier for people to stop posturing about "cutting spending" as though that's a solution to every problem.
This is why stuff like the Progress Illinoiscrowdsourcing project are so important. Seeing where services are falling apart might make it more clear just how fragile the social fabric can be.
The good folks over at Progress Illinois are doing yeoman's work: they are tracking just how the budget impasse in Springfield is in fact harming actual real people, not just abstract line items. They are mapping the programs and organizations impacted, and asking for your help in tracking just who is being hurt.
TV typically only carries a few seconds of action from an event. One or two pictures in print media are all that we can usually expect. This is not a rap on those media, just acknowledgment of their limits, especially in an economy this stressed.
Since I was downtown at the Responsible Budget rally last week, I thought I'd post this short (3-min.) clip, which gives more of the real size and flavor. It was the biggest rally I've ever seen for a tax increase. No doubt there are still places to cut the budget, but that doesn't negate the reality of needing to do something responsible to prevent the hurt that will occur if the draconian cuts threatened take place.
The video includes the remarks by Bill McNary of Citizen Action as well as those of working mother Gloria Gonzalez. You may have better luck viewing without interruption if you go directly to YouTube.
I watched another protest at the Thompson Center today. This time the folks protesting seemed to less folks who might lose a paycheck due to the budget cuts and more folks who will lose services due to the budget cuts.
I know that the states deficit is too big to be addressed by budget cuts alone so some sort of significant revenue enhancement is going to be needed to prevent cuts to all sorts of things in the state budget that are going to be penny dumb and pound really stupid.
Fortunately I am in position where the proposed tax increase is going to cost me more than a the price of a pizza a week (it was used on one of the posters at the protest to illustrate the cost to the average family), so before I give the state some more of my money every year I have a few conditions I want to put on the state budget.
If this is going to happen I know we need to put some Republican votes on the tax increase and that will likely lead to some primary challenges to some Republicans. Why, there are folks in this state who think we can just cut our way out of this or if we just eliminated the pork we would be fine. Some people in the Republican party feel any tax increase is evil and must be stopped.
So if the Republicans are going to put votes on a tax increase they should reasonably expect something in return. You can't basically ignore the Republicans for most of the session and then ask them to help save your bacon without having to give them something in return.
I think Redistricting Reform is a good first step, there are a few other changes I think we should push for as well.
As for the stuff the governor is looking for like recall, I would say that is not really a pressing issue. The deficit that keeps on growing is the problem.
So fine raise my taxes, they may take away my GOP card for that. If you are going to let them do it, lets get something else for the people of Illinois that isn't going to really cost anything in return.
Oh yeah, and remind the voters in 2010 what party was running things when we got into this mess...
The state of the Illinois budget continues to be at the first stage of grief, denial. What we are denying is that some form of tax increase is inevitable.
What Illinois has, and would have no matter who is governor, is this: (1) a structural deficit, because our current tax structure just doesn't generate enough to fund the total state budgets and pension obligations at the rate we spend; (2) years of avoiding this through creative accounting such as fund sweeps and, in effect, using the pension funds as a credit card; (3) an overall tax system that is regressive, and arguably one of the more regressive in the nation; and (4) a huge revenue shortfall due to the recessionary economy, which has dramatically lowered revenues from income, from sales, and from the transfer of real estate. This last is what tipped the deeply troubling into the truly alarming.
The Daily Heraldjust went up with a piece about the state government and why all the "cut spending" talk is likely just more nonsense that will gut government services for working and middle class families.
"You could shut down state government tomorrow and release 45,000 inmates, and say we're not going to provide any protection for abused kids, and we're going to turn our backs on the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled, we're going to close all the state parks, we're going to shut down all state services, and you would still have an $8 billion deficit," Lindall said. "Those who say that you should cut, it just doesn't square with the facts. There's no way to cut yourself out of this hole."
I'm all for seeking and destroying inefficiency, but public spending generates the services that make communities safe for business and families. Slashing it will have negative effects on our economy--first by further harming demand (layoffs) and then by degrading the infrastructure and services that keep people productive members of the economy.
Not all public services are created equal--but laying off working people is not the solution to a collapse in demand in the economy.
"I think they should lay off all the state troopers. I think they're a total waste of taxpayer money," Tobin said. "We have too many cops and state police have proven time and time again they're glorified Keystone Kops. We won't miss them one bit."
Tobin said lawmakers should also make state employees pay more into their pensions and pay more for retiree health care.
The Caucus of Rank and File Educators has filed charges against the Chicago Board of Education under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming that the "turnaround" policy of the Renaissance 2010 initiative has amounted to discrimination against African-American teachers in the Chicago Public Schools. According to a CORE release, there are 2,000 fewer African-American teachers in CPS today than there were at the beginning of the Renaissance/Turnaround process in 2002.
Title VII prohibits formal or practical discrimination in hiring and firing practices--so even where a system is formally fair, if the practice or operations are discriminatory, legal action is possible.
In a statement, CORE co-chair Karen GJ Lewis said, "Since the beginning of the year, I've met black teachers who are working as substitutes. They are in tears, not just about the loss of their jobs but also about the loss of their status in the community. These school and position closings are insidious and Draconian. They are based on only one measurement -- test scores -- which say more about socio-economic status than they do about teaching and learning."
Copies of the complaint were not immediately available. A spokesperson for the Board of Education declined to comment.
In 1998, the first prisoners were transferred from prisons across the state to Tamms CMAX, in Southern Illinois. This new "supermax" prison, designed to keep men in permanent solitary confinement, was intended for short-term incarceration. The IDOC called it a one-year "shock treatment." Now, ten years later, over one-third of the original prisoners have been there for a decade. They have lived in long-term isolation--no phone calls, no communal activity, no contact visits. They only leave the cell to exercise alone in a concrete box 2 to 5 times per week. They are fed through a slot in the door.
Given how much Schakowsky has flogged her early support of now-President Obama, I wonder if his close relationship with state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the other prominent Dem candidate (besides the--supressed chuckle--incumbent) weighed on her decision? Having months of leaked quotes stating that President Obama preferred his former basketball buddy would surely be humiliating. That is 100% speculation--I'd bet the President will avoid getting involved in any public way. But this is home state and his former seat; how absent can he really be?
UPDATE, 6/9: After getting some feedback from readers, my speculation doesn't seem to be the case. An interesting argument was made that, in fact, spots in Alexi Giannoulias' record--the Broadway bank loans to shady characters--could be a headache for the administration or state Democrats. That stuff was hashed through in '06, but obviously given the intervening humiliation of a Democratic governor getting indicted, it could have new teeth. In any case, the prospect of facing two immensely rich dudes (Chris Kennedy and Alexi) is more logically the overwhelming reason for Rep. Schakowsky's decision.
I was probably a little hard on John Kass my last time out on KassWatch, but I couldn't help it; he can be incredibly annoying (many of you would say the same about me I'm sure; see? Circle of life). What can I say? He gets under my skin. That's what he's trying to do, so I guess that means he's good at his job.
Anyway, I avoided touching on Kass' frustrating piece on the Sotomayor nomination because I think it deserves a longer consideration and it's an issue that I know will gin up a lot of emotion, so it deserves to be addressed seriously, instead of just me poking fun at a guy who loves the smell of his own ink.
So how about a lighter topic?
I am completely at a loss to figure out what the point of Kass' latest column was. It's about...uh...Patti Blagojevich being more manly than Eminem? Or a better washed up celebrity? I'm not sure that Eminem is washed up though; and I'm certain Patti Blagojevich is not a washed up celebrity because she was never a celebrity, and certainly wasn't one long enough to be considered "washed up". Eminem went out at the top of his game and has been producing records and making zillions of dollars. He just released a record that will definitely go zintuple SpacePlatinum. I realize that he's just trying to have a spot of fun and the piece isn't really meant to be taken too seriously--after all, it's about Eminem getting a face full of Sasha Baron Cohen's hairy ass, and Kass subsequently being put off his raisin bran--but there's an equivalence problem here.
There's no relationship between the Eminem incident/stunt, which happened at an awards show, and Patti's appearance on I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here (which the Tribune's Jeff Coen abbreviated on his twitter feed as IAC...GMOOH, which I think would be pronounced Yak Gmooh, which we can all agree is a much cooler name). I think Kass is trying to call out the Blagojeviches for trying to "taint the federal jury pool" (yet he failed to make the obvious pun there) but couldn't get to his word count, so he thought he'd comment on how gross it would be to get touched by a hairy dude ass.
Ultimately, Kass decides that Blagojevich achieved her objective of tainting the jury pool while the Eminem stunt succeeded only in making him, Kass, nauseous (funny that an ass in the face for ten seconds would make him nauseous, but seeing a woman eat a tarantula for money wouldn't).
Kass:
"All I can say, it's a good thing Borat didn't try it with 50 Cent," said my friend Big Paul. "If Borat came flying out of the sky with little white wings and touched his [you know] on 50 Cent's forehead, you know what would happen?"
So I think I figured it out. This column is one of Kass' lifestyle pieces where he gets to talk to his imaginary friends.
"Imagine if he tried it with Joe Walsh?" a guy named Tony asked. "What if he tried it with Ted Nugent?" another guy said.
We imagined Borat stumbling, pincushioned by Ted's flaming arrows. Or Ted stringing Borat's dried tendons on his guitar, as a haunch of salted Borat turns nicely on a spit over hot coals, Ted whetting his bowie knife, humming "Cat Scratch Fever."
Nice creepy revenge fantasy by proxy you had there fellas. But really--it was just a dude's ass. When I'm sitting on the bench at the gym tying my shoes, I get about five dude-ass walk-bys. It doesn't make me want to flay them and make jerky out of them. It makes me want to move my face.
Maybe Kass wanted to accomplish two things: taunt Patti for appearing on YakGmooh, and remind everybody that he has friends (and as an added bonus that he, Big Paul, and A Guy Named Tony think dudes' asses are gross). All in all, a successful outing.
It appears that at least for today the Illinois House has not acted on HB0007, the shell bill being used to carry the key campaign finance reform provisions of the ethics package. Because hardly anyone in Chicago has actually seen what is being debated and reported on, I have included here in several places the link to the actual bill.
I traded e-mails with my state rep, Julie Hamos, today, trying to keep up on what's going down, and advised that I'd probably vote against the bill if I was there, if it was a pure up-or-down. Often, any progress is better than none, but if Cindy Canary says a bill is "phony reform," I'd be pretty reluctant to give it my stamp of approval, because Ms. Canary lives and breathes the real thing, rip-snortin', no-holds-barred, tell-it-like-it-is passion for The Change We Need around here. And sometimes a half-measure is not half a loaf, it acts as a block to real reform, sometimes while making matters even worse.
I know this isn't exactly Roland Burris yelling at Chris Matthew or anything, but I do wish that our local news outlets--the Grown Up Important ones--would spend any meaningful time covering Springfield for something other than budget fights and corruption scandals.
Thankfully, there's Progress Illinois, which has been keeping a close eye on the effort to reform the usurious payday lending industry. They've got some bad news for us today:
On Tuesday evening, the industry won out again as the House Executive Committee rejected Rep. Julie Hamos' (D-Evanston) SB 1435, which would have established reasonable interest rate caps and fair finance charges on these largely-unregulated loans. Eight members of the committee voted "Present." "It's a big disappointment for those who have been working hard on the issue for years," Hamos told us from the House floor yesterday.
I'm not going to attempt to make any annoying puns or sly references to recreational drug use; just wanna say that the Medical Marijuana bill, called the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, narrowly passed the Senate yesterday 30-28-1. There are lots of people suffering from chronic illnesses who could use the relief that marijuana provides. This is a good move by our state government, so kudos. Here is the roll call vote. Check out the IPI's Tweet Illinois feed to follow legislators' chatter.
Given the rapidity with which marriage equality has gained acceptance in a country that has for years been called essentially conservative (or "center-right"), this gives me a glimmer of hope that decriminalization is just down the road.
Amy Seidenbecker has worked for Illinoisans for three years. They are her employers via the Department of Human Services, specifically the Family Community Resource Center (FCRC) in Uptown. She's a Human Services Caseworker. Amy's job, in a nutshell, is to make sure people who need assistance--"We have integrated caseloads, which means all types of cases, and I like that; I have seniors, disabled people (mentally and physically), working poor, unemployed, underemployed, and homeless," she told me--are able to get assistance. This is what we mean by "government spending"; making sure that Amy is there to provide the services that keep working families' heads up above water, to keep them productive, hopefully healthy, and integrated into our economy.
As you can guess, Amy has not gotten rich as a DHS caseworker. Despite the caricatures of "public employees" getting fat on their collectively-bargained salary, as you can guess, Amy earns a living wage for the city of Chicago, where she also lives. She's a college graduate who went to work for the DHS for stability and "in order to do something directly helping people." Hers is a job that most reasonable people would agree needs to exist, to keep the social safety net that prevents catastrophe in good mend. She adds value to our community.
A Sun-Times exclusive has Burris on tape with impeached former Governor Rod Blagojevich's chief fund raiser and brother, Rob Blagojevich, promising a check a month before he got his appointment in December.
Burris has previously stated, in an affidavit to the House panel investigating Blagojevich's impeachment, that he had had no contact with Blagojevich or his representatives but for a single conversation with Blago attorney Sam Adam Jr. He later amended his affidavit to say that he had had fund raising conversations but only to say he wouldn't contribute.
The Sun-Times story did not have a transcript of the audio. Burris' story is evolving, which usually means there is a cover-up going on; but just the fact that he made a pledge to donate money to Blagojevich in November, before the election, and later he was appointed Senator, after the firestorm of Blago's arrest, isn't enough to call "pay to play" or "corrupt bargain" just yet. Probably, though, we can call him a liar.
Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, for many reasons, are distasteful to the left as well as the right. Not the least of which was their role in destroying the class-based coalition on the left in the 1960s and introducing the era of rich white kids competing for radical chic points in academia. Now they're trying to waste our time with their views on race, with a book annoyingly titled Race Course: Against White Supremacy. Don't get me wrong; being brown, I also am "against white supremacy." I'd just rather not attend any "race course" taught by a guy whose daddy was the CEO of Commonwealth Edison, and sat on the boards of Northwestern University and the Tribune Company, and who never spent a day in the clink for something anybody not benefitting from "white supremacy" would have done decades for.
"Fifty-seven percent of white voters did not vote for Obama....That was the impetus for writing this book. We've got a big job to do to change those numbers."
I tried to figure out how to take those words out of context--that maybe she wasn't being fairly quoted. The ellipsis is only to exclude exposition from the reporter--that's the quote. Seems pretty clear. My follow-up questions for Bernardine Dohrn would have been along the lines of, what percentage of white people voting for Mr. Obama would have been acceptable to them? Forty-nine percent? Fifty percent plus one? Seventy five percent? What percentage of white people voted against John Kerry? What percentage of white people voted against Bob Dole in 1996? Didn't Mr Obama win the election? Do she and Mr Ayers believe that only white supremacy kept him from winning 400 electoral votes?
Obviously his race was a factor for lots of voters, including a lot of racist voters. But it was obviously not a major factor, given his lopsided victory over possibly the whitest guy in America, the Arizonan Scotch-Irish husband of a liquor magnate heiress. But radical chic has nothing to do with material reality, it has to do with impressing your friends at cocktail and cheese parties in Hyde Park.
State Representative Julie Hamos (D-Chicago/North Shore) has started a petition to build public support for contribution caps. Currently Illinois is the Wild West of campaign finance, with no real meaningful restrictions of any kind--only disclosure requirements. Hamos wants limits of $2,400, a significant decrease from the current limit of $Infinity.
She's sent an email out to her list asking people to sign the petition and pass it on. (No doubt such an effort also beefs up her reformer cred as she probes a run for Attorney General in the Democratic primary.)
Contribution caps are a favored tool to limit the influence of single individuals or organizations on state policy, but they aren't quite foolproof. A couple Tribune reporters looked into the impact such caps would have had on curtailing Rod Blagojevich's (alleged) corruption, and found it lacking (h/t to Rich Miller at TheCapitolFaxBlog):
Here's one more irony from the downward spiral of Rod Blagojevich: The former governor, brought down by an insatiable hunger for campaign cash, could have played by tight fundraising rules and still had plenty left over to clobber rivals.
The anything-goes campaign finance system in Illinois has become a prime target for reformers, who argue that restricting donations would help level the playing field among candidates and restore confidence in cleaner government.
But a Tribune analysis of tens of thousands of contributions from the last decade illustrates the limits of plans designed to rein in fundraising inequities in a state where the candidate with the thickest wallet usually wins.
Please click through and read the whole Tribune piece, because there's also a good argument made about how the contribution caps could minimize the influence of the House and Senate leaders, who currently hold most of the power in Springfield and raise money by wheelbarrow full, sometimes in 6-figure clips.
Here is the first speech I would give after announcing that I was going to run for governor:
I am a man of faith, I am the pastor of a large church in Chicago, a large Christian church. I know however there are people of faith who do not support my canidicy because of my views on some social issues.
I want to take this opportunity to reach out to them and point out how the faith we share can point us in a new direction as a state...
I am reminded of the word of the profit Ezekiel 16:49
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy"
-- Nothing there about the sins we more commonly associate with Sodom, but "she did not help the poor and needy", the same sin this state has been guilty of for to far long....
We have children in this state who are underfed, undereducated because of the neighborhood they were born in. We fail these children as a state and perhaps more importantly as Christians. I call on all of you to work with me to solve this problem. Christ spoke much more about how we treat the least among us than and of the issues that divide us.
You may feel uncomfortable with my stands on other issues, too comfortable to support or vote for me, fine I can accept that.
But what I can not accept as a Christian and as a leader in this state is a desire to ignore these issues and do nothing. That is why I decided to run for Governor as an independent, not to attract voters because of party labels but to attract voters who agree that something needs to be done. That the status quo can not be maintained, that we need to act as a state more like the Samaritan and less like the Pharisee.
Don't know if he is going to run for governor, but if he does, I would toss the gauntlet down and toss it hard.
The arts have been brutally hit by this severe economic downturn. The creative sector of the economy is caught in a double-bind. It's suffering from lower revenues like many industries, because consumers treat art as discretionary spending rather than a necessity. But arts also have taken a hit because, in recessionary times, private donors, who provide up to 40% of arts funding, tend to scale back their generosity more for arts than for, say, a soup kitchen. Government, too, has been yanking back its dollars.
The result has been that artists are losing jobs fast and furiously. The National Endowment for the Arts ("NEA") estimated that roughly 129,000 U.S. artists were unemployed during the fourth quarter of 2008, a rate twice that of other professional workers. Unemployment in the arts is also growing faster than in other sectors - many artists are simply calling it quits. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the national artist workforce shrank by 74,000 workers.
The Economist looks at efforts to curb Illinois corruption through campaign finance reform. The thrust of the piece is basically that it's a good idea, a good start, the right direction to go in, but a hard goal to accomplish. I think that's partially right, fixing corruption in Illinois means ending under-the-table-financial-transactions but it also means stopping other ways to pay people off, like giving them high paying jobs (as we've seen both Blago and most recently our new senator).
And in that, the Shakman Decree is a step in the right direction too. The patronage system IS Chicago politics. It's so deeply rooted in the city's culture that it's implied that any politician that's come through Chicago has some dirt on his hands. Even Obama, one of the cleanest politicians of our time (for whatever that's worth), had Rezko. So campaign finance reform is a start but even overhauling it would be a baby step. Think bigger.
It's become almost cliché that mass transit was "saved" last year through a sales-tax funded revenue scheme, amended by Gov. Blagojevich to include, among other things, free rides for seniors. Something, anything, needed to be done to keep the trains and buses running, and my state Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) rightly got credit for brokering a deal between Springfield factions who didn't often play well with others. However, I suspect that most of those lauding the fix don't actually ride mass transit very often.
Given typical political schedules, I doubt many opinion leaders have spent as much time as you and I have standing on windy, freezing, sometimes-scary platforms, held hostage in tunnels or "slow zones," or stranded in the Twilight Zone of a bus stop for 40 minutes on a route that's supposed to provide service every 15. I wonder how many legislators have picked up a copy of Metra's February newsletter, On the Bi-Level, which spells out how their lack of capital funding for the last 5 years now imperils the very rails on which we ride.
State senator Martin Sandoval, acknowledging what has become clear, that last year's so-called save of mass transit was only a band-aid that avoided yet one more "doomsday" scenario, and after first criticizing the recent "mini-capital" bill as allotting insufficient monies for transit, has called for a three-part solution to address transit funding on a permanent, not stopgap, basis:
Gimbu Kali in this video discusses the possibility of concealed carry in Illinois. It's a good discussion even with the typical cliche in support of concealed carry. That is gun control makes it easier for the criminal element to have guns and victimized those who aren't armed.
What do you think? Should citizens of Illinois be allowed to carry a gun for their own self-defense?
Environment Illinois wants Bisphenol-A (BPA), a pesky synthetic hormone that's everywhere, and also, oh proven toxic, banned from baby bottles and sippy cups. Looks like they're halfway there. A House committee passed HB2485, which keeps BPA out of some children's products, two weeks ago. The Illinois House will vote this week to keep BPA out of children's products, but Max Muller of Environment Illinois warns in an e-mail today that "lobbyists representing BPA's out-of-state manufacturers are trying to kill the bill before the full House vote. The fight over a ban on BPA is a stark case of high-powered industry lobbyists versus children's health."
The group is asking for people to take action by clicking here. You can also read background information on the topic here.
The 15-member Illinois Reform Commission convened by Gov. Pat Quinn, after plowing through an extremely rapid and ambitious schedule of meetings and hearings, today announced, in press conferences both in Chicago and Springfield, its preliminary proposals designed to reform multiple aspects of Illinois's culture of political corruption. Although scheduled to work through the end of April, the IRC wanted to get its key proposals, targeting "Pay to Play," into the legislative hopper before the consideration of bills gets set in stone.
I like this idea of gun safety education, but reading this story from Newsradio 78 it appears Daley doesn't even want that! Most of us already knows Daley's position. Guns are bad no matter what and I suppose one can conclude that if Daley had his way no one would even know what a gun is.
Well let's start with the legislation in question:
State Rep. Annazette Collins (D-Chicago) said she believes that education is the key to gun safety, and said a hands-on approach is the key to taking away the mystery and allure of guns.
"Downstate they teach you that guns are meant for hunting, for protection," she said. "Here in the urban cities, all they see are guns on TV and they gun down people."
...
Collins said she suggested gun education to help gain passage of House Bill 48, a measure that would require universal background checks prior to the purchase of guns and would ban private handgun sales.
Like was already stated Daley was opposed to it:
"It's the silliest position I've ever heard taken," Daley said.
Daley said putting guns in the hands of more children is the last thing the city of Chicago needs.
"It would be different if they have an interest and the family takes them so they're going out hunting," he said. "Don't you think we should concentrate on math, science, reading, attendance, keeping children in school, after-school programs? I think the representative should put her priorities in order."
Daley said there is already too much gun violence on Chicago's West Side, and said he believed Collins' proposal would only fuel it.
"If (she thinks) more guns on the West Side is going to help those people, she is greatly mistaken," Daley said.
I could agree, but Daley seems to assume that anyone with a gun=automatic criminal. That's not true, but it has been argued that gun control can only benefit those who choose not to obey them anyway. A person who is without a gun to protect themselves or their home might largely be defenseless against a criminal who would do great harm to them.
The Mayor doesn't appear to have great faith in this idea of a responsible gun owner. If Daley doesn't have faith in the citizen then does he have faith in his police? They carry guns and every now and again we hear stories that might cause people to lose faith in the police. Such as this story about the cop who loses it at a bar and he's about to go on trial.
Anyway, let's hear from you. Might it be beneficial to teach gun safety to young people? If we can educate them now, perhaps, they might be more reticent in pulling a gun on anyone. Hopefully they'll know that this isn't Hollywood and a gun is a very dangerous tool.
Let's not misunderstand guns are dangerous. They certainly don't belong in everyone's hands, but is it smart to not even allow some people an opportunity to understand gun safety?
Via 2nd City Cop who titles their entry "Common Sense Rejected".
That's what Mary Mitchell is saying in her column today:
An investigation by the Chicago Reporter, a monthly investigative publication on race and poverty, found that the state agency has refused to enforce about 1,800 of 21,000 expungement and sealing orders mandated by state judges.
...
Earlier this week, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan demanded the State Police immediately conduct an audit to determine the exact number of orders at issue, to comply with court orders and to devise a strategy to reach those people impacted by this issue. "They are not following the law. I am curious about their reasons," Madigan said during an interview. "We've sent off a letter to the director trying to find out what is going on."
Four years ago, Illinois lawmakers who represent districts with large African-American and Latino populations were celebrating legislation that was designed to make it easier for ex-offenders to re-integrate into society.
It was a hard-fought victory.
Expungements and the sealing of criminal records of people with low-level felony or misdemeanor arrests or convictions were viewed as critical to urban communities where unemployment figures were double-digits long before the country sank into a steep recession.
If you're up on a Saturday morning at about 10:30 AM watch some cable access programming. You might see what's going on, especially if there programs may have either a lawyer or a politician as a guest.
That was when I figured out that for a lot of blacks this is a huge issue. Usually the callers are guys who may ask questions about a conviction that they had in their youths. This conviction is holding them back in their lives and perhaps this conviction can be expunged from their records.
Here's what else was found in the investigation:
• • Statewide, about 1,800 of the 21,000 sealing and expungement orders issued after the amendment, between 2006 and 2008, went unenforced.
• • An additional 900 or so orders went unenforced before theamendment, starting in 1991, when some ex-offender advocates believe the practice began.
• • Statewide, 5 percent of the 412 court orders issued in 2008 went unenforced.
• • Paul P. Biebel Jr., presiding judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County Criminal Division, got overruled about 13 percent of the time in 2007.
Our ousted ex-governor figured into this article. Larry Trent, the current director of the State Police was appointed by him in 2003. According to Mitchell, Trent may have himself picked up some bad habits. Another thought from Mitchell:
Because African Americans account for about 61 percent of Illinois parolees, it is the group most impacted by the arrogance of this state agency. So, it is quite ironic that it was black community leaders who publicly supported Blagojevich during the corruption scandal that jettisoned him from office.
The failure of the Illinois State Police to expunge and seal criminal records when ordered to do so by a judge also has likely resulted in people who honestly thought they had complied with the law losing their jobs after a background check.
Also, since applying for an expungement costs $60 -- a fee that many applicants are hard-pressed to come by -- the state agency has effectively scammed these applicants when it refused to obey the judge's orders to seal or expunge the records.
Now that we have Gov. Quinn in office and an environment that seeks to break from the past, I hope that we can see some change on this issue. Yeah I know the best way to avoid this is to not commit a crime, however, for those who have paid their debt to society, they should be able to expunge a crime from their record that was only a past offense. Especially if it was a minor one.
And we need for the state police to follow the orders of judges!
The saying goes, "If common sense were so common, more people would have it." When it comes to gun control policy, plenty of people in Illinois seem to "have it" according to the most recent poll by the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In a press release issued earlier this month, the results of the poll clearly demonstrated the overwhelming support of so-called common sense gun control laws to be adopted in Illinois.
The focus of the poll was on the basic tenets of logical gun sales and ownership restrictions. Among all Illinoisans, over 90% support closing the "private sale" loophole. This would require any private transaction of firearms be reported so the buyer could undergo required background checks. Surprisingly, support for expanding the universality of background checks polled around 85% of Republicans, 79% of gun owners, and 70% of NRA members. To see the full poll results, click here.
Legislation has been introduced before the Illinois House as H.R. 48 and is currently undergoing debate. The timeliness of this legislation seems particularly appropriate as the Chicago Tribune reported that 9 shootings were reported yesterday, largely due to a temperature increase. Coupled with the remarkable frequency of fatal gun crimes in Chicago last summer it would seem that passage of this legislation would be a forgone conclusion. However, there are those that seem intent on expanding ownership rights despite the fact that 1,000 citizens of Illinois die each year from gun crimes. Most recently, 5,000 attended a rally was held in Springfield on March 10th to support the reversing the Illinois ban on concealed carrying laws. Several downstate members of the Illinois House of Representatives openly stated support of allowing concealed firearms to be carried Illinois.
Apparently common sense is not quite common enough.
Check back here over the next week as Gaper's Block continues its coverage of gun control legislation.
As expected, Governor Pat Quinn has proposed increasing the state personal income tax to help close the impending budget shortfall. According to the Chicago Tribune, the current tax rate of 3% would increase to 4.5%. Paired with the hike is a tripling of individual exemptions, from $2,000 to $6,000. In addition to the standard exemption increase, several new measures would be introduced to help alleviate the impact on lower income families. Past governors of both parties have unsuccessfully pushed to raise the abnormally low tax, so proposing this increase is not a particularly unique or partisan issue. However, Gov. Quinn should take some added measures to comfort a population battered by incompetent state and local government.
While Chicago became notorious for it's highest-in-the-nation sales tax rate after Cook County increased its percentage, it is easy to forget that the majority of the sales tax percentage is, in fact, the state's portion. (For a breakdown on the Cook County sales tax rate click here.) To help smooth the transition, Gov. Quinn should allow the state to decrease the sales tax assigned to Cook County. Doing so would help stimulate activity in the largest consumer base in the state while simultaneously easing the burden on the largest collection of lower income families.
Possessing more than 5 times the population of the next largest county, Cook County is clearly a substantial "donor" county when tax receipts are compared to state spending received. Because the county pays more than it receives in state funding, residents are forced to pay a host of regional taxes that unfairly place the burden of providing basic services that benefit the whole state. Further exacerbating this imbalance is that this condition is not isolated to state funding. For example, despite accounting for approxiamately 80% of the state population, the Chicago area receives only 45% of the federal transportation dollars targeted towards Illinois. (Coincidentally, that is the Chicago area's share of the transportation dollars contained in the stimulus package.)
The lack of a state income tax increase has hampered a state government over-reliant on volatile sales taxes and gimmicky lotteries. While Cook County residents are resigned to accept that their tax dollars will inevitably help fund other counties that could otherwise not provide the standard of living shared by all Illinoisans, state legislators should give credit where credit is due and relieve the Cook County area of the embarrassment and burden of the highest sales tax in the country.
This morning, the Environmental Health Committee of the Illinois House will hold a hearing on HB0422, the Illinois Clean Car Act. This bill, cross-introduced in the Senate as SB 1941, on which hearings are occurring in the Energy Committee this morning, essentially gives Illinois the same automobile mileage/emissions standards as California, phasing in from 2012 to 2020.
Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and others have made this a priority for this year, on the theory that if enough large car-buying states adopt these higher standards, manufacturers will make all their cars cleaner, not just the products destined for California.
While a similar bill came up short last year, advocates have higher hopes this time around, with public awareness of the importance of lowering greeenhouse gas emissions growing. Significantly, on Feb. 19, House Speaker Michael Madigan switched his status on the bill from "co-sponsor" to "chief co-sponsor." All things being equal, this would indicate that the bill is a priority and has strong leadership backing.
In the Illinois state senate, there are only four sponsors: Jacqueline Y. Collins, Iris Y. Martinez, Michael Noland, and Kwame Raoul. The Illinois Climate Action Network working for this bill is urging constituents to contact their state senators and ask them to co-sponsor SB 1941.
Today, IL-05 Congressional candidate Tom Geoghegan filed a lawsuit against Governor Pat Quinn, claiming Quinn has failed to uphold the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I could parse the suit and bore you to tears, or you can check out the complaint yourself here (PDF).
It's an interesting strategy for Geoghegan to go after Quinn on reform. It's debatable whether Quinn should lose his street cred as a reformer just yet. The newly sworn in Quinn has only just started to make heads or tails of the mess left by everyone's favorite impeached, potty-mouthed Elvis fan. Should Quinn really be spending his time and political capital throwing out Burris and forcing a special election when the primary is just under fourteen months away? Should this be a top priority while our state is basically on the verge of shutting down?
Certainly, if Geoghegan is successful in forcing special elections for appointments permanently, the people of Illinois are better off. But I wonder if this leaves Geoghegan better off politically? Will voters in IL-05 see this as an attack on Quinn? Will the five billion other IL-05 candidates jump in on this issue and accuse Geoghegan of attacking Quinn?
And the biggest question of all: Do voters in IL-05 even care? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Quinn, who called Burris an "honorable" man, is now asking state lawmakers to set a special election, but a similar bill stalled in the legislature late last year and led to Burris' appointment by the impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Under Quinn's proposal, within 72 days a primary would occur -- and there would be another six weeks until a special general election is held. In meantime, Quinn would appoint a temporary senator, but to avoid picking a favorite, he said he would only appoint a caretaker, not someone who would run in the special election.
When asked if Burris could be that temporary senator, Quinn said: "I don't think so."
His plan doesn't come without caveats. For one, there's always the possibility that the Senate seat could switch parties and, for another, it could prove rather costly (the most common projection I've heard is around $50 million). But I say it's worth it as it's more democratic and less opportunistic than the present system.
By the way, if Obama's seat goes Republican it'll be the first time in the 20th century, as best I can tell, that a president will have seen his party lose his seat while he's in office. Harding's Republicans held his Senate seat when he was elected president in 1920. Jack Kennedy's Senate seat stayed in Democratic hands. Vice presidential seats have flipped. Gerald Ford's house seat went to a Democrat in a special election after he was confirmed as Nixon's second veep. It would be pretty embarassing for the Republicans to pick up Obama's senate seat but if in the unlikely event Burris manages to stay in until 2010, can anyone doubt that's likely? That would be one more legacy of this weird season.
"In January, I wrote a piece published in the New York Times about the need to hold a special election to replace not just Barack Obama, but all Senate seats that are vacated. I didn't write this for political expediency, but to point out that this was a century-old constitutional reform made to take power away from large, monied special interests. We don't need a new amendment. We just need to follow the one that's there: the 17th Amendment.
"Once again we see our political system at the local, state and federal levels flooded by the influence of big money. Banks receive trillions in bailouts while working people lose their jobs, health care and homes. We are in desperate need of reform in this country; let's start by holding elections to fill vacant Senate seats."
Listening to the rhetoric from the state senate chamber in Springfield, you might think that we should consider ordering a few million caplets of Prozac from Canada.
Let's refrain, shall we?
I won't go so far as to say it's the state's finest day -- it most certainly wasn't -- but former Governor Blagojevich's unanimous conviction on impeachment charges today should be a proud moment for anyone who believes that the General Assembly has the sworn duty to remove a governor when he or she has lost the confidence of the people.
I never thought I'd find myself thinking this, but I agree with what Senator Meeks of Chicago said on the senate floor earlier today. "This is not a sad day for me," Meeks said. "This is a great day. We are not ruled by angels. We are not ruled by super-humans. We have, unfortunately, as our leaders of our state, city, country, people with flaws -- human beings, just like the rest of us who are prone to mistakes. We have leaders who make errors. However, when those errors drift into criminal activity or abuse of power -- when that happens and a leader oversteps his or her boundary, what a joy that we don't have to form a militia, that we don't have to form an army -- an upstate army and a downstate army -- and go down to the second floor, and get grenades and guns, and bomb the governor out of the second floor."
"What a joy we have a process," Senator Meeks said.
I know Fox News is the television equivalent of a sandwich-board-wearing street crazy, but I couldn't resist watching paunchy propagandist Neil Cavuto's show to see State Rep. John Fritchey discussing the Governor's intensely delusional "media blitz." Boy am I glad I watched -- because Geraldo Rivera absolutely lost his mind. Can he read? Can he use a phone? Does he know that the Governor's approval ratings were nearly in the single digits BEFORE the revelations about the Senate seat?
The Illinois legislature is impeaching the Governor on behalf of the pharmaceutical lobby because of a botched importation fiasco from nearly five years ago? And when he's called on the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about, he flips his shit.
Our embattled Gov. Blagojevich's recent jawdropping media blitz is worth a listen, for anyone who hasn't had the pleasure. Among the many interesting tidbits was the Guv, on his own, bringing up the parallel of impeached President Nixon, but comparing himself, instead, to Teddy Roosevelt. Did anyone else find it bizarre to hear an elected Democratic governor saying, "I like to see myself more like a Teddy Roosevelt Republican?" Note to Guv: the last politician to claim that mantle was John McCain. How did that work out?
It may be true that Blagojevich has not yet reached the "pray with me, Henry" stage. But the bunker mentality of the last days of the 37th president seems a far more apt match than the populist progressivism of our 25th. Teddy Roosevelt, instead of opposing tax increases across the board, argued for a more progressive tax structure; instead of raking in millions from favor-seekers, Roosevelt railed against the role of special interests, corporations, and money in politics. Consider these words from TR's famous "New Nationalism" speech in Kansas nearly a century ago:
If our political institutions were perfect, they would absolutely prevent the political domination of money in any part of our affairs. We need to make our political representatives more quickly and sensitively responsive to the people whose servants they are. [A] step in this direction . . . [is] a corrupt-services act effective to prevent the advantage of the man willing recklessly and unscrupulously to spend money over his more honest competitor. It is particularly important that all moneys received or expended for campaign purposes should be publicly accounted for, not only after election, but before election as well. Political action must be made simpler, easier, and freer from confusion for every citizen. I believe that the prompt removal of unfaithful or incompetent public servants should be made easy and sure in whatever way experience shall show to be most expedient in any given class of cases.
The Huffington Post has obtained a copy of H.R. 1, the economic stimulus package. On first glance this section restricts how Illinois will receive federal money:
SEC. 1112. ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE OF APPROPRIATE USE OF FUNDS.
None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any funds provided directly to a unit of local government (1) by a Federal department or agency, or (2) by an established formula from the State.
Check back here throughout the next few days as we go through the stimulus package and its implications in Chicago and Illinois.
I attended the Rockford School Board's meeting on Tuesday and witnessed their unanimous approval for the first charter school in the city. The Legacy Academy of Excellence will be a K-5 school for "at-risk" students.
Charter schools are public schools open to any families who wish to apply. Charters design their own curricula, hire their own teachers and need to meet certain student achievement standards set forth in their agreements with state and local officials. If they don't meet these standards, the school must close, and students return to their local traditional public school.
In other words, Legacy will have freedoms that other public schools lack. From flexible work rules that allow charters to hire and retain the best teachers, to their independence to design curricula without mandates from Springfield or Washington, charters are fundamentally different than traditional public schools, and results in Chicago and elsewhere prove their high worth.
The Illinois Technology Partnership, directed by none other than Mechanics contributor Aviva Gibbs, came together to advocate for public policies that democratize the most cutting edge technologies and to connect students, small businesses, and professionals to those technologies.
Chicago and Illinois politicos are starting to creep into the digital age. I remember being interviewed by Tracy Swartz for the RedEye about blogging in politics and involuntarily laughing when she asked how important blogging and the Internet had become to local politics. This was in 2006, and I imagined Bernie Stone with a MySpace account and I lost it. But as the IL-05 race is demonstrating, technology is infiltrating our calcified politics and, hopefully, making our public servants more accountable. We're fortunate to live in the early stages of this new technology infrastructure, while it is still pretty democratic. And groups like ITP, hopefully, can help keep that infrastructure democratic and un-institutionalized.
Jump the jump to watch the eye-opening panel ITP held on online marketing and your privacy.
When I first learned what the Capitol Fax was years ago, I remember thinking, "Does every state have a Rich Miller?"
After years of reading the Capitol Fax, the answer is clearly "No."
I've often given Miller props for his various "journalistic dis tracks" of the D.C. political press, but here he turns his pen* on his absolute favorite target, our Governor. Blagojevich's love for himself and his annoying tendency to turn every public policy dispute into some kind of paean to his manhood has manifested itself in his confounding refusal to even temporarily step aside for the good of the state. He thinks it means he's a tough guy if he clings to the trappings of office while the world mocks his refusal to face material reality. Rich makes it impossible for him to lie to himself that way:
Frankly, conviction is almost as certain as the governor's removal. Former Gov. George Ryan is serving essentially a life sentence for some dinky little crimes in comparison to this governor's alleged lawlessness. Plus, the feds didn't have thousands of surveillance tapes on George like they do with Rod. As Hawk Harrelson would say: "He gone."
Then there's Patti Blagojevich, who is likely behind Fitzgerald's "Door Number Two." Offering to resign now and throwing himself at the mercy of the system might spare the governor's wife from imprisonment....Does Rod Blagojevich really want his much-hated father-in-law Dick Mell to raise his children?
Cut your best deal and resign, governor. Spare the state and your family from this tragicomic circus. Man up and go away.
Damn.
*Our kids will feel comfortable saying "keyboard", but I'm not there yet.
Even after the Friday ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court made it pretty apparent that Roland Burris would be seated in the U.S. Senate, I continued to hear over the weekend scenarios by which various aspirants to fill Barack Obama's vacancy could still get there by way of a special election. The Chicago Tribune has been clamoring for one, putting the onus on, variously, presumptive governor-to-be Pat Quinn or Sen. Dick Durbin to somehow accomplish that.
I seem to like visual aids so how about a pair of videos and them some other pertinent articles.
This video with State Journal-Register reporter Bernard Schoenberg talks about the significance of yesterday's vote but offers one tidbit as to why this occurred. It's probably safe to say the Governor caused this by his combativeness and distance from the General Assembly. Better yet some could charge his lack of a relationship with the state House of Representatives or even his feud with Speaker Madigan.
I would honestly like to see more pieces with regards to the Governor's temperament. I like to compare him to former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Yeah they did get caught up in different types scandals but the questions that were raised about Spitzer as far as temperament could almost parallel the Governor's. If Spitzer had friends in the NY establishment who knows he might still be Governor although his crimes were serious.
The next visual aid is a very artful video of Illinois' state House of Representatives debating whether or not to impeach the Governor. I almost wonder if these speeches could inspire some of you to make a political run!
Want to know about two state reps who didn't vote for this impeachment resolution. Milt Patterson voted no and Elga Jeffries voted present. You don't have to look far to see how they framed their decisions especially if all you have to do is go on this site to Merge. The links are all there.
Also we're at the end of the current General Assembly and this is probably the last new business that will be taken up by the outgoing 95th General Assembly. Next week we will see the new General Assembly convene and be sworn in. That also means that there will be another vote on Blagojevich's impeachment and then send it on towards the state Senate. Clout City talks about that more!
You know what might happen when the state Senate convenes next week with a new Presiding Office in John Cullerton? I understand that the Governor's role is to convene and inaugurate the state Senate, but what will happen if he chooses to sit this one out? Might the state Senate inaugurate itself? Could the Lt. Governor, Pat Quinn, inaugurate the state Senate? Might the state Police force the Governor to preside over the state Senate?
Well we do know that the state Senate will preside over the "trial" of the Governor, but what might the continuation of this drama bring?
BTW, I got most of these questions or scenarios from last night's edition of Chicago tonight with such columnists as Carol Marin, Laura Washington, and Greg Hinz.
Those who know me know that the only thing I enjoy more than discussing state and local politics is discussing the American Revolution era. And the only thing I enjoy discussing more than that is the literary value of "The Sopranos," the show that killed the novel.
The simple solution to resolving the dispute is to read the statutes in question using the standard rules of statutory construction that wherever possible, statutes should be read to give meaning to all provisions, to be consistent, and to avoid absurd results. Using these rules, it is clear that White is obligated to sign the Certificate of Appointment. For whatever their reasons, none of the parties has chosen to focus on these principles.
The two key provisions of the Illinois Statutes, 15 ILCS 305/5, are as follows:
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:
1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor.
2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register. [Italics added.]
According to White, the Certificate of Appointment is not a "commission" so all White need do is make a register of the appointment, which he has done. White's interpretation, however, does not give meaning to the distinction drawn in the statute between the Secretary of State's need to countersign and affix the seal to a document (the commission) versus the record keeping obligation to register the appointment. The Secretary of State's register is the official record of the State of an appointment, but the certified commission is the proof of the appointment. These are two distinct functions, and the only consistent way to read the statute is to honor this distinction, not read the "commission" provision out of existence as White proposes.
You should go over there and read the rest, but the legal analysis is pretty good. It makes sense -- of course we have no idea how the state Supreme Court should rule.
I don't begrudge White for not being willing to certify Blagojevich's appointment. It may well be proven that White didn't follow the law in this instance, even if a Senate appointment by the currently impeached governor was very unpalatable. Perhaps White made the best move he could in preventing an unpalatable appointment. This story is somewhat unprecedented.
Still it looks like despite being turned away by the U.S. Senate or even Jesse White, as the Secretary of State wasn't willing to affix the state's seal to this appointment, Burris might get his U.S. Senate seat.
It goes without saying that the special election to fill Illinois' 5th Congressional District is hot. Practically every major political consultant is looking to get involved, and since the district was once home to Dan Rostenkowski, Rod Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel, great things will be expected of the next person to fill the seat.
Click the link below to see the slides of a presentation I made last night to the activist group North Side Democrats For America:
The House impeachment committee has released its report, and, yikes. I think the Hunka Hunka Burnin' Gov has not long for the office.
In the Committee's opinion, the unsworn information the Governor's counsel introduced does not refute the notion that the Governor was scheming to obtain a personal beneift for the Senate appointment or that he was dispatching individuals to negotiate on his behalf. Whether those subordinates succeeded in their endeavor, or whether they even carried out their directives, does not change the fact that the Governor asked them to negotiate on his behalf.
(h/t to Rich Miller for his furious typing -- the document is not copy-and-paste-able. Thanks, House.)
The report does a good job of explaining why they CAN impeach Blagojevich despite the (temporary) absence of criminal-trial caliber evidence. (Also, they quote the Federalist papers.)
Then-Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Gerald Ford, once famously said that an impeachable offense is "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history." Supreme Court Justice Story remarked that impeachment applies to offenses of a "political character" and are "so various in their character, and so indefinable in their actual solutions, that it is almost impossible to provide systematically for them by positive law." Alexander Hamilton, in an essay known as Federalist No. 65, wrote that impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they related chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."
For those out there who caught vapors when I mentioned that impeachment was about votes, not criminal standards of evidence.
Keep up with the hearings, as Senator-Designate Roland Burris is testifying.
Do you think a special election should have been held to fill this seat?
What Senator Durbin quoted you as saying about the role of race in the Senate deciding not to seat you does not match some of the rhetoric coming from members of the Illinois congressional delegation. Who is right?
Do you think the issues surrounding the governor have an impact on your ability to serve in the Senate?
If the governor is removed from office before you are seated in the U.S. Senate, will you give up your claim to the seat?
If after you are seated in the U.S. Senate and a special election is held, would you give up your seat to the person elected?
If you were on this committee would you vote to remove the governor from office?
Were you surprised it was not the governor who approached you first about filling this seat?
I suspect they are going to ask most of these questions, if not all of them.
After Barack Obama's election as president, many names were floated as his possible Senate replacement, but Burris' wasn't among them. Burris wasn't even Blagojevich's first choice after the governor's arrest for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Blagojevich first offered the job to U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, who declined. He had better sense than to let Blagojevich use him as a political pawn.
Rich referred to Burris as Blagojevich's "human shield." Zing.
I just want to point out the yeoman's work being done by Josh K. over at Progress Illinois covering the Burris appointment, particularly this video scoop.
Impeachment is only a legal statement of charges, analogous to a criminal indictment. The Illinois House investigative committee is currently trying to decide what suffices to send this to the Illinois Senate for trial.
Statements to the effect that Illinois has "no standards" for impeachment wrongly suggest unbridled legislative discretion. Few impeachment statutes offer bright line tests. But Illinois has a constitution and a long history of due process. Even the constitution's vaguest clauses did not arise in a vacuum. A basic principle of constitutional construction is to look at the document as a whole so as to exhibit some consistency. Besides the clause empowering the House to impeach, numerous other provisions, as well as an historical look at impeachment, provide some guidance. I'd argue that some functional equivalent of "high crimes and misdemeanors" be applied. Based on evidence I've seen so far -- and none of us have seen it all, as Mr. Genson correctly reminds us -- that standard can likely be met.
Over the weekend, I ran into a former coworker, a great union organizer at one of the largest unions in the state. After exchanging some pleasantries, he couldn't resist ribbing me.
"Hey, how about your buddy Blagojevich?" He was referring to the fact that despite intense collective hatred of Blagojevich by the union's rank and file and staff back in 2006, I still voted for (and wrote in favor of) Blagojevich's re-election. After decades of Republican dominance over state government, it seemed a no-brainer to support the party's standard bearer. But now, of course, I had no answer and could only shrug. What could I say? Blagojevich has made fools of millions of Illinoisans, me well included. Partisan attitudes like mine have permeated media, with reporting often reduced to simply repeating (or "evaluating") partisan-generated "narratives." Our public intellectuals and opinion leaders, with not unimportant exceptions, have succumbed to the false equivalencies that enable moral relativism.
The Sun-Timesis reporting that Governor Blagojevich will appoint former Comptroller and AG Roland Burris to Senator Obama's open Senate seat. The news is expected to come at a press conference at 2 p.m.... UPDATE:
...and now Secretary of State Jesse White is saying he will refuse to certify the appointment, and the Senate Democrats have issued a statement saying they will not accept Burris. Sorry, Roland.
You can follow impeachment proceedings of the investigative committee here. If Blagojevich's Kipling-quoting, "I will fight" speech caused you fits of sleeplessness, worried that you'd be subjected to two more years of bouffant-topped lunacy, Rich Miller is here to pet your hair and tell you it's going to be okay:
Everybody, calm down. This nightmare will soon be over. I try to avoid cable TV news shows, but I tuned in this week to watch some of the talking heads grossly overreact to reports that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald won't cooperate much with the General Assembly's attempt to remove Gov. Blagojevich from office....The talking heads were babbling wildly over whether that meant Blagojevich might remain in office for the rest of his term.
Not a chance.
ETA: Miller refers to Blagojevich's administration as a "rein of error." Don't know if he coined that, but I hope so.
Since the headlines started on the 9th of December I just felt like this vid of Alan Keyes is so relevant now. Remember him? Keyes was vying to become U.S. Senator against a future president-elect back in 2004!
Are you finished laughing yet?
Yeah well I'm sure most of us didn't have much faith back then that he could clean up the state, although four years later it seems Illinois might get a little closer (notwithstanding the conviction of George Ryan and the arrest of our current governor Rod Blagojevich).
Sometimes I wonder at this point, are we upset about the corruption of this governor or do most of us want to see a good fight? It looks like we're going to see a good fight. The Governor isn't ready to let go of his office yet. He may not be ready to let go of his office even if the current charges against him are proven true.
Now to talk about the current situation. The Governor will still have to answer the complaint against him, and the investigation into alleged pay-to-play schemes continues. All the while a "Special Investigative Committee" has convened to determine cause(s) for the impeachment of the Governor.
"I'm not going to do what my accusers and political enemies have been doing and that's talk about this case in 30-second soundbites on 'Meet the Press' or on the TV news. Now, I'm dying to answer these charges. I am dying to show you how innocent I am. And I want to assure everyone who's here and everyone who's listening that I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way. However, I intend to answer them in the appropriate forum in a court of law. And when I do, I am absolutely certain that I will be vindicated."
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me:
Seven Taps a-Tapping
Six Burges a-Breaking
Five Bleeping Blagos
Four Trucks a-Hired
Three Rezkos Flipping
Two Singing Scooters
and an Eddie V. Who's Pleading Guilty
Governor Blagojevich's attorney can't believe the Governor is not being afforded "due process" and "equal protection," though one wonders if he isn't aware that Governor Blagojevich is being treated the same way any other sitting Governor of Illinois would be treated in an impeachment proceeding -- and that the impeachment itself is the "due process."
This is a political activity. Impeachment is about votes, not legal standards and tests.
Illinois' leadership crisis continues, as Speaker of the Illinois House (and Chairman of the state Democratic Party) Michael J. Madigan has begun moving impeachment proceedings forward, beginning with this resolution:
10 RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
11 NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that a
12 Special Investigative Committee be created for the purpose of
13 (i) investigating allegations of misfeasance, malfeasance,
14 nonfeasance, and other misconduct of Governor Rod R.
15 Blagojevich and (ii) making a recommendation as to whether
16 cause exists for impeachment
Here's an interesting bit:
19 RESOLVED, That the Special Investigative Committee is
20 empowered to adopt rules to govern the proceedings before it in
21 order to ensure due process, fundamental fairness, and a
22 thorough investigation; and that the Special Investigative
1 Committee shall have the power to administer oaths and to
2 compel the attendance and testimony of persons and the
3 production of papers, documents, and other evidence, under
4 oath, by subpoena signed by the Speaker of the House of
5 Representatives and attested by the Clerk of the House of
6 Representatives when the testimony, documents, or evidence is
7 necessary for or incident to any inquiry relevant to the
8 business or purposes of the Special Investigative Committee,
9 and to punish any person for the neglect, refusal to appear, or
10 failure to produce papers or documents or provide evidence
11 commanded by subpoena or who, upon appearance, either with or
12 without subpoena, refuses to be sworn or testify or produce
13 papers, documents, or evidence demanded of him or her; and be
14 it further
That subpoena power just may be enough to nudge the Governor to a decision to resign.
While the clear facts of this case make it clear that the Governor should at least "step aside" as the Illinois Constitution seems to allow him to do, I am a little concerned at the ability of an unelected prosecutor to grab worldwide headlines and make startling claims ("political crime spree") before a single indictment has even been handed down. Suppose Blagojevich is found not guilty?
While in this case it may be deserved, I don't know about the precedent it sets.
Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan talks about the long history of corruption in Chicago politics and the current troubles of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich with Terry Michael, former press spokesman for the Illinois House Democrats and former press secretary for Sen. Paul Simon, and Mike Flynn, Director of Government Affairs at the Reason Foundation.
ILLINOIS GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF JOHN HARRIS ARRESTED ON FEDERAL CORRUPTION CHARGES
Blagojevich and aide allegedly conspired to sell U.S. Senate appointment, engaged in "pay-to-play" schemes and threatened to withhold state assistance to Tribune Company for Wrigley Field to induce purge of newspaper editorial writers
CHICAGO - Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others are engaging in ongoing criminal activity: conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator; threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical of Blagojevich; and to obtain campaign contributions in exchange for official actions - both historically and now in a push before a new state ethics law takes effect January 1, 2009.
Since the presidential campaign was decided on November 4, the name Tony Rezko has largely vanished from the national news. That is because, as BuzzFlash repeatedly reported from our perch in the Windy City, the Rezko case (overseen by Patrick Fitzgerald) is not about Barack Obama, but rather the Feds in hot pursuit of the allegedly "pay to play" Democratic Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.
Last month I posted a blog that spring-boarded off an article from this website I like to read, LewRockwell.com. The main thesis of this article is that the government by its nature isn't "liberal" and it doesn't do what it is supposed to do.
Well, needless to say, LewRockwell is a libertarian website that would say that there are some functions that government assumes but these functions are better served by the market. Well, the reason why I write this post isn't at this moment to argue about what offers the best services: private entities or the government.
I wanted to somehow relate that article with the state of government -- well, mostly in the city, since city government is delivering most of the services we rely on. We could expand this topic to talk about county government or state government. But let's focus on city government for now.
It has often been said that the residents of the city of Chicago will tolerate a certain amount of corruption as long as city services are delivered and government is well run. Never mind what the U.S. attorneys or anyone else might discover as far as something illegal in city government.
But perhaps someone should ask the question: What does good government entail to those of you who live in the city? Or indeed I could ask about any aspect of government in Illinois. What is good government?
A better question: What do you expect from your government?
By all accounts, Cong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is on the "short list" of possibilities to fill Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat for the next two years. Some newspapers and activists have been actively lobbying for Gov. Blagojevich, who has sole discretion in the decision, to appoint Jackson.
The '08 election taught us many things, not the least of which was the role of digital media and digital advocacy. Whether it was a text message announcement, unprecedented online fundraising and volunteer networking, the speed-to-market of a YouTube video, or this blog, we saw traditional tactics playing out on a whole new plane.
At a certain point, it's hard not to take these efficiencies, products, and services for granted. Like anything else, be it mobile access or internet taxes, technology is subject to public policy debate, and should be.
Lots of local groups count tech policy advocacy among their efforts, and one new nonprofit group has made it its core mission -- the Illinois Technology Partnership.
I'm very fortunate to serve as the organization's executive director, and wanted to take this opportunity to share some ITP opportunities with my bloggie friends.
You can find info on recent policy positions, events, news, and our partners onour Web site. As a quick reference, here is the basic gist of what we do:
ITP monitors and assesses legislation and shares that information with our members, policy makers, and the public. By working together, we can ensure that next-generation technology will thrive and Illinois tech consumers will have access to the cutting-edge products and services they demand.
It's free to join to receive tech updates and advocacy action alerts. And get this -- if you sign up this week, you're automatically entered to win an iPhone. Cool, huh?
And hey, if you're in Springfield this week for veto session, stop by our reception -- Tech & Tonic-- and hear more about what we do.
