Understanding that the period for petition signatures and filing has passed as of this past Monday I wanted to show two videos of candidates making their filings in Springfield running for state offices.
This video from the Quinn campaign is a bit more "glamorous." The production values are very nice, although it doesn't seem to convey how long that they've stood in line to turn in the petitions. Found this via Capitol Fax in discussing an asset the Quinn campaign doesn't utilize or even publicize enough.
This video may not score as much as far a production values, but it sure does convey somewhat how serious the petition filing process is at the state level! This video was by Syron Smith running for state representative in the 32nd District. I posted another video featuring him earlier.
Well hopefully the candidate of your choice has put in all the hard work to file their petitions, whether on the federal, state, or even county levels. Hopefully the candidate of your choice will have solid petitions to remain on the ballot in 2010. I think we'll have some interesting elections to watch next year!
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.
This video from the Bob Schillerstrom for Governor campaign is straightforward. It makes it plain that he wants the state to stop spending. I just found this to be the goofiest video ever. Could you imagine SNL writing a skit like this?
Well of course I can be wrong on this. What do you think of this vid? Is it effective or might you find it to be goofy?
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.
Today the Illinois Policy Institute is releasing a new short film about charter schools and their success in Chicago.
Entitled 'Charter Schools: Changing Lives,' the documentary profiles students, teachers and administrators in three Chicago charter schools: Chicago International Charter School's Ralph Ellison campus, Noble Street Charter School's Pritzker College Prep, and the Urban Prep Academy for Young Men.
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.
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.
I like Dan Proft. I mean, I disagree with practically every single one of his dearly held beliefs, find his analysis of political events cleaved to a broken ideology, and probably hate whatever is his favorite food. But, he definitely believes what he believes and doesn't hide it.
He used to address his campaign emails, "Dear Unapologetic Conservatives." More recently, his emails have read, "Dear Conservatives, Republicans, and Independents Looking For Reform." Proft is an opinionated guy who has had an extremely entertaining on-going feud with boyish Tribune columnist Eric Zorn (it involves the phrase "put-down books for first graders"). He also is not particularly fond of Carol Marin. Please watch the below video (h/t Josh).
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.
Mick Dumke has some nice things to say about Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes who announced yesterday that he will campaign against Gov. Quinn for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Dumke says that Hynes seems like a "decent" fellow if not a little dull compared to other politicians (to be fair, there aren't a lot of people who are more exciting than Barack Obama). Dumke also notes that Hynes has an impressive warchest and Quinn has a platform that needs work:
Yes, there's already a Democrat in that office, but Pat Quinn has struggled to lay out a clear, viable plan for confronting the state's budget or ethics messes, and he's widely viewed as little more than a caretaker. That's undoubtedly hurt his fund-raising--his campaign raised about $860,000 in the first half of 2009, leaving him with about $702,000 in the bank. Hynes brought in $905,000 and has $3.5 million to spend.
All good points. It's going to be a good election.
Rich Miller wrote a syndicated column about the current state Senate Majority Leader that he posted onto his blog on Monday. Last year when then Senate Pres. Emil Jones (you may know him as Obama's political mentor when our current president was in the Illinois state Senate) announced his retirement, I outright hoped that Clayborne could become the new Senate president. One reason I would have been OK was because he was a downstater, every leadership position was taken by someone who lived in the Chicago area. The fact that he was also black should've sweetened the deal somewhat.
It didn't, hence the fact that Clayborne is the majority leader in the state senate. It was sort of a deal, a consolation prize for not being Senate President. But it seems he wants another prize, our state governorship.
Perhaps since 1994, Illinois has seen a black person (well it has often been black males) who have attempted to run for Governor. I often mentioned Roland Burris (Illinois current US Senator) who ran for Governor on three occasions between 1994 thru 2002. Then there was state Sen. James Meeks who mulled a run against Ousted governor, but decided against it because Ousted governor seemed to become serious about the issue of education funding.
Now it could be Clayborne! I did just mention that Clayborne is from downstate, but that is certainly a contrast to Burris and Meeks who reside in the city of Chicago. Sometimes I forget that there are blacks in other parts of the state, in fact I think I have relatives in East St. Louis (well that's about the area Clayborne resides) or at the very least a familial connection to that city. Still I wonder what that means if he's serious about his gubernatorial bid.
Rich Miller has this about him:
On paper, Clayborne would be a fascinating candidate, especially if he is the only African-American in the contest.
Sen. Clayborne is not the sort of Democrat that Chicago media types are accustomed to seeing. He's a downstate attorney with a pretty solid pro-business voting record who is also regularly endorsed by organized labor.
He's pro-gun, but he's also pro-choice. He ran and lost for senate president last year, and the campaign exposed some rifts with his fellow black senators, partly over his strong rating from the National Rifle Association.
Well as a Chicago Black, I have no problem with his support for Gun Rights, Miller however, brings up some recent gubernatorial history:
Gun owner rights are not usually very popular with Democratic primary voters, and particularly with Chicago blacks. Pro-gun southern white Glenn Poshard was able to win the Democratic nomination in 1998, although that issue was used against him in the fall by Republican George Ryan. Just about every likely Republican nominee strongly favors the National Rifle Association's view of things, so that issue might not hurt Clayborne as much as it did Poshard if he manages to win the primary.
We'll see, but the entry of a downstate Black in the Gubernatorial race is going to be interesting. Besides this race is about excitement with the idea being that our next governor might take this state into another direction. Perhaps a break from our most recent past with two recent governors running afoul of the law. One was arrested and sent to a federal pen, and the other arrested by federal agents then impeached and Ousted from office.
I outlined the idea of a 2010 gubernatorial candidate with a bold vision in another post largely about Dan Profit (running as a GOP candidate for Governor). I would like to see a bold vision perhaps a man like Clayborne, who is said to have pro-business credentials, might be an answer. I hope to see what he may run on, if he does run.
You know I should just dust off my post about looking like a Governor. I should ask this question about Clayborne, does he look like a Governor. What do you think out there?
Talk about good things happening to a good guy. Disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich writes a book, reads it himself for the audiobook, and you could feel the warm mirth emanating from Capitol Fax publisher Rich Miller's blog comments.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 27, 09 @ 3:32 pm:
Notice that the book's price has already been marked down by one-third.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 27, 09 @ 4:01 pm:
...But, I may buy the CD anyway in order to excerpt the best parts here. lol
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 27, 09 @ 4:16 pm:
Just pre-ordered the audio book. Ringtones for everybody!!!
Tribune statehouse reporter Ray Long had a commendable piece in the Sunday Trib about how state cuts will affect the state's most vulnerable residents. To wit:
Illinois might have a working budget in place, but there is a broader story behind the numbers: Real people are hurting.
If they have not lost care, they worry the thin reed of stability provided by non-profit, community-based organizations will disappear without state support. Cuts at social service agencies are tearing holes into safety nets for the state's most vulnerable residents.
People who need medication are not getting it. Single parents are thinking about quitting jobs, unsure whether they can count on state assistance for day-care costs. Families that depend on counseling for mental health, substance abuse and other social ills are finding, at least in some places, they are out of luck.
....
Quinn has pushed for a 50 percent income-tax increase he said would better fund social services, but lawmakers have not agreed with him. Some opponents say the state should tighten its overall spending, and many predict a taxpayer backlash in the 2010 elections. Lawmakers are expected to consider a tax increase later this year, after they know whether they will face primary opponents in February.
Long's story highlights the fact that a government's budget is not the caricature of waste and hilarious programs that conservatives have fabricated. It is collective spending determined by the public. Yes, much waste and abuse is in there, too. But in highlighting that waste and abuse disproportionately, the right has made it all too easy to talk about "cutting spending" while disconnecting that from the human cost.
Kudos to the Trib for running a story proving that they know exactly what a shortfall of revenue leads to. Where were their editorials insisting on raising revenues to make sure they wouldn't have to run these human interest stories? Why wasn't the Tribune supporting an alternative, like Sen. James Meeks HB 174, which would have raised revenues to pay for these things (not that Meeks' plan is a cure-all)? Now that there's a budget deal and lawmakers have refused to face economic reality, the Tribune bawls for the people negatively impacted by the failure to raise a commonsense level of revenue?
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.
Progress Illinois' effort to track exactly how the budget debacle in Springfield is impacting Illinoisans--both in number of individuals left unserved and number of private sector employees laid off--has gained lots of attention, and deservedly so. This effort at crowd-sourcing may just become the next tool for activists of all ideological stripes to document exactly what the state is doing and how it impacts you locally.
Progress Illinois, a website supported by the Service Employees International Union, is trying to track cutbacks at the organizations that state government uses to deliver services at the local level. As of Friday, it reported, 68 agencies had cut at least 1,420 jobs and halted services for nearly 13,500 people.
It is extremely easy (and, as is often the case with extremely easy things, wildly irresponsible) to just flog the putrid "wasteful government spending" horse corpse to win votes and sound like a good government watchdog. So it's important to make direct connections for people about what exactly we spend our money on, and how the constant assault on public goods and public spending ends up not only harming the disadvantaged but also, in the medium and long term, all of us (well, except the extremely priveleged who are never harmed by anything). At the same time, I imagine such a project flipped backwards (as with Chicago City Payments) could be a valuable way to highlight government waste where it does occur.
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).
Well thank god. Roland Burris isn't going to run for reelection. It's not such big news since his polling indicated he had a steep climb to retain the senate seat. That leaves Mark Kirk as the probably Republican contender and who knows for the Democrats. Maybe Chris Kennedy? We'll see.
I actually had a crazy thought today: What about Illinois Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart? You may recall Dart as that Sheriff from around Chicago who got fed up with evicting people from their houses. Yup, that's the guy I'm talking about. In the process he also stood up to banks who had been critical of him for not enforcing the law. In short, Dart disagreed.
So basically, this sheriff stands up to banks, he's a Democrat, he's popular, and he's a law abiding citizen. That's a pretty rare combination in Chicago and Illinois and a pretty appealing resume these days.
Poor Mark Kirk (R-IL10). Conservatives aren't crazy about him, considering a defector on cap-and-trade and coloring him as a Democrat-lite--or worse, a "coward". But Democrats aren't exactly fond of him, as Progress Illinois argues, he's "no moderate". So which is it?
The open primary system makes the life of a moderate difficult, if not impossible. And given that Illinois' Republican Party has shrunk, particularly in the interior Chicagoland suburbs, it means that the more ideologically committed Republicans--the more conservative ones--are disproportionately (to the population) represented in the primary electorate. That's not necessarily bad; a primary isn't meant to get the temperature of the population, it's meant to get the temperature of the party. If the party's temperature is further right (or left) than that of the population, so be it. On the one hand, Kirk would probably be Republicans' best shot at taking the Senate seat; Kirk has a good reputation in his district for constituent services, and while he's no progressive he's no reactionary and probably in line ideologically with lots of Illinoisans. On the other hand, he would be instantly alienated by his party's conservative activist base, particularly the strong abortion activist organizations in the collar counties and central and downstate Illinois county organizations that may not be willing to ignore his carbon cap'n trade cap-and-trade vote and friendly posture to GLBT issues.
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.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza is reporting that Attorney General Lisa Madigan will announce that she will seek reelection to her incumbent post rather than run for Senate or the Governor's mansion. That's a surprise...kinda. She may be waiting for pops to resign before she makes any jump.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) will run for re-election to her current post in 2010, according to a Democratic source aware of the decision, ending months of speculation about whether she might make the leap to a Senate or gubernatorial bid.
Madigan is expected to make her decision public later today.
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.
January 2009 Quinn: "Yay, I'm Governor!"
June 2009 Quinn: "Damnit, I'm Governor."
Check out Rich Miller's coverage of the Governor's press conference here. Via Rich, from the Governor's office:
HB 2145 appropriates $3.8 billion to fund state operations. However, HB 2145 fails to adequately cut the cost of state operations, including the budget of the General Assembly and other Constitutional Officers, including the Attorney General, Treasurer, Comptroller and Secretary of State.
Translation: "Hey, remember these other people that have statewide office!? Why don't you harass them for a while!?"
Here's AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall talking about state Senator James Meeks' solution to the boondoggle, House Bill 0174.
Those who follow the labor movement in Illinois probably know of the bad blood that was engendered between two of the state's largest public sector unions, SEIU and AFSCME, when former Governor Rod Blagojevich signed executive orders giving collective bargaining rights to home health care workers (2003) and child care workers (2005). In both cases the unions competed to organize the workers, resulting in intense and often times ugly confrontations. Journalist David Moberg covered the latter fight, which coincided with the big 2005 AFL-CIO split:
Out on the streets of Chicago, organizers from the two sides--boosted with staff from outside the state--became increasingly confrontational, and tires of AFSCME organizers were even slashed. SEIU, which had nearly 500 organizers of its own from around the country, brought in nearly 200 organizers for a weekend from several of its allies in the contest within the AFL-CIO--UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Laborers and United Food and Commercial Workers.
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.
One of my favorite weekly rituals happens about midway through the Sunday service at Hyde Park Union Church. The service leader steps to the altar microphone and says some variant of "we have come to the time in our service where we share our joys and concerns with the congregation and before God." I wish that Tom Cross, Pat Burke, Mike Madigan or any number of Springfield politicians were sitting in the pews of the gorgeous red stone church at 56th and Woodlawn the last two weeks. Despite their ridiculous assurances that the cuts were only temporary and (in Burke's words) "no one should be laid off because this will all work out," the congregation at Hyde Park Union knows better. We know that Ann, a social worker working with the indigent mentally ill working for a non-profit dependent on state contracts is now laid off. We know that her patients and clients dependent on state aid for psychotropic medicines are now without services. Given that even 48 hours without psychotropic medicine is dangerous for those with severe mental illness, the "short" week or two delay promised by our state leaders is unconscionable. We heard how Center for New Horizons, one of the last remaining social service non-profits left standing in Bronzeville has put 100 staff on furlough. We heard about how David, a CPS teacher during the year, will no longer be working for the PEP project because it has shuttered its doors due to uncertainty over funding. I'm pretty sure that the situation on the mid-South Side of Chicago is not unique (I would link to the Chi-Town Daily New's coverage, but they're in pledge drive mode).
It is relatively unsurprising, but still disturbing, that state legislators have no real understanding of the consequences of their actions. The idea that non-profits, many of whom already struggle with late payments and uncertain levels of compensation from state contracts can weather a month, or even a couple of weeks without knowing if they'll receive any funds is a serious misunderstanding of the situation of non-profits. Ground level social service agencies rarely have a bunch of money lying around for a rainy day.
But I guess I shouldn't expect state legislators to know that, or even if they do to value the lives of their constituents over winning silly political games. While I imagine few state reps and senators have the gall to not even locate their office in district (like Dan Burke, state rep in the 23rd), but I wonder how many of them really engage with constituents or have any idea of the real world consequences of their political brinksmanship. Maybe it's time for them to get some religion and head off to church, to listen to the prayers of the people.. and then go to confession.
I found this op/ed at Instapundit that describes the current situation with the budget battles between Gov. Quinn and the General Assembly:
The governor's attempts to create political chaos by placing high-profile, "feel good" programs on the chopping block is disingenuous. By failing to address the state's fundamental spending and inefficiency problems, Quinn is setting up Illinois taxpayers for even greater future fiscal disasters.
While closing the state's budget deficit won't be a painless process and some programs should be cut, that need not mean doomsday cuts. Programs that are well intended or sound good on paper aren't necessarily effective or even valid functions of government.
Perhaps the biggest deception in Quinn's budget gambit, however, is his claim that he is trying to protect lower-income families and children. In fact, they're the ones who will be most harmed by his tax hikes. Raising taxes on small-business owners and workers will decrease the amount of money they can spend, invest, and hire workers with. Low-income and low-skilled workers will have to pay more in taxes and will typically be the first laid off when businesses have to cut costs.
Taking even more money out of the private sector, where it could be used to prevent job cuts, and instead putting it into Illinois' bureaucratic money pit is a blueprint for disaster.
The main link at Instapundit analyzes why three of our nation's largest and prosperous states (California, New York, and New Jersey) are now struggling because they have more of their general economic policies such as taxes, super minimum wages, powerful unions, or even government health care.
Another link offers a place that's doing well even in this current economic climate, Texas. Of course they're bouncing off of this aformentioned main link to the Wall Street Journal article.
Five local transit and planning advocates held a media briefing via conference call on June 25 to elevate the attention level of House Transportation Committee chairman James Oberstar (D.-MN)'s $500 billion surface transportation stimulus/funding bill, as well as to call for improvements in the bill. The consensus of the panel was that the bill provides much needed funding but still lacks some key elements, most prominently performance measures and a heavier mass transit emphasis, to effect meaningful change in national transportation policy.
Oberstar and Rep. John Mica (R.-FL) released the full draft text of the 775-page Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 ("STAA") on Monday, June 22. A shorter 17-page summary was made available the week before. Fuller account below.
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.
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.
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.
With Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) saying, "we're approaching George Orwell's '1984' right now,"HR0935, a bill that would would require the involuntary surrender of DNA information from anyone arrested for a felony, was narrowly voted down this week. After passing by a wide margin in the Illinois House, where it had been introduced by Susana Mendoza, the Illinois Senate, where Matt Murphy was the chief proponent, showed more respect for civil liberties.
Never mind that many felonies have absolutely nothing to do with physical crimes or bodily fluids, where DNA evidence could neither incriminate nor exculpate the accused. The more troubling suggestion is the repetition of that old canard, "the innocent have nothing to fear." Under that same Orwellian illogic, we might as well repeal most of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution.
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.
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 Executive Director Henry Bayer knocks one out of the park in an editorial going after the Civic Federation for their loopy contention that legislators can cut $4bn out of the state budget and should go after public employee pensions. Bayer makes the point that people in labor are constantly trying to communicate to the public: that it serves no one to keep attacking the comparatively minor benefits other working people get through unionization, that the goal should be raising the standard of living for all working people, not trying to snatch hard-earned benefits away.
Meanwhile, the Civic Federation types get golden parachutes and have eliminated defined benefit pensions for everybody but themselves. Defined benefit pensions are good enough for the Masters of the Universe, for geniuses who lose billions of dollars like Bank of America chief Ken Lewis, but not good enough for a state social worker who has spent thirty years helping tens of thousands of families be more productive members of our society (as an example). These union members are not getting rich on these pensions--they have to get up and go to work every single day, they worry about making ends meet, they live the life that most Americans live, but they've bargained for a little better compensation and benefit.
I was fortunate to be able to spend a little time at Windpower 2009, the just-concluded 4-day expo at McCormick Place. There was surprisingly scant local coverage of the world's largest windpower conference being held here in the Windy City, of all places, so I'm posting these notes, because it was an amazing event. From a gathering that, longtime attendees told me, had about 200 people here 10 years ago, and only 1,000 attendees as late as 2001, this has grown into a massive conference, sprawling across the entire South Hall of the expo center. According to The American Wind Energy Association, the conference had 23,200 attendees, close to double the size of last year's gathering, and over 1,200 exhibiting companies.
In keeping with the green theme of the conference, I took a multimodal route to get there: I biked to the Metra, took the train downtown, walked to a bus stop, then took the CTA to McCormick Place. I was glad I made the effort. Any policymaker, activist, reporter, or general member of the public who stopped by this show would have come away convinced that wind is no longer, in any fashion, an "alternative" energy source or science fiction. Rather this is a burgeoning industry with tremendous growth ahead.
In addition to the five governors who came by the conference, speakers included Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, financier T. Boone Pickens, FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu (via video). Illinois Governor Pat Quinn used the conference to announce an agreement by which the Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS) will purchase all of its energy for facilities in the capitol from wind-generated sources, through the city of Springfield.
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.
Here's the story: Governor Quinn originally promised to use some stimulus funds both on roads around Illinois and on city transit mainly in Chicago. Both could use some funding. A little while ago, Governor Quinn went back on his original promise saying that funding public transit wasn't quite possible and then committed the majority of the money to the roads instead.
Quinn's office is arguing that there are financial constraints from putting the money to fixing the CTA (does that make any sense to you because it's not supposed to). Greg Hinz has the details:
Mr. Quinn's spokeswoman says road work can begin right away because the state's road fund has existing revenue sources that can support $640 million appropriated for road projects. Mr. Quinn "believed it was critical to pass the Jump Start Capital Plan to get shovel-ready roads projects going in May so we can start putting people to work," she says.
But the transit work is different, according to the governor's office. It requires the Legislature to pass "revenue enhancements" to pay off the bonds, and that has not yet occurred, the spokeswoman says. The transit agencies can use the time to get their projects shovel ready, she says.
Notice the last part which I bolded and underlined. I did that because in actuality the transit agencies DO have shovel ready projects. Now, I accept that there are some things that I, a humble college student miles away from his Hyde Park, Chicago home, does not know that the Illinois Governor very well might. But Michael Madigan says Quinn is wrong too (quote from Hinz's story):
As the media caught on Quinn's office backtracked and said, basically, that the Governor has every intention of eventually putting much needed money into rails. I'm going to go out on a limb here and by bet that every intention means never.
Adam Doster at Progress Illinois points out that this is yet another example of how state governments are set up in a way that transit funding gets to city transit agencies the long way. It's not at all unusual. New York is having a very similar problem right now. What would make more sense would be if public transit funding went to the areas of a state where the public transit is used most (cities).
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?
To Blagojevich's credit, he decided as a final act it was important to appoint someone with an exceptional reputation of integrity and superior public service to the U.S. Senate seat. Blagojevich gave Illinois the chance to accomplish three worthy goals -- save the taxpayer's (sic) an expensive special election, give the state a representative of proven experience, and show the rest of the world Illinois has good officials to take us beyond our tainted image. His last words were, 'Please don't let the allegations against me taint this good and honest man,' Blagojevich said at the time.
So let me get this straight...Sen. Burris is praising Blagojevich for picking Sen. Burris? How noble...
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".
It's easy to forget that the Senate Ethics Committee is still in the midst of investigatingCrazy Old Man Sen. Burris's appointment by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich but it's true, it's still going on and Harry Reid and Sen. Durbin are cooperating with the investigators.
Something tells me though that the entire Burris-appointment story is over. Generally, Chicagolanders have given up hoping to have a normally corrupt political system. We're far more corrupt than your average state. I'll bet that even if Burris is found guilty (which I'm pretty sure he is) Illinoisians will shrug and say 'well, that's how the state is.'
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.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Burris should stay where he is.
"He came nominated by a governor who was in office, he came with the paperwork, the Senate seated him, and anything outside of that is something for Sen. Burris to think about," Burr said.
Likewise, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called on Burris's critics to stop their calls for his resignation at least until the Senate Ethics Committee completes its investigation. Graham said that to do otherwise would be to judge the Illinois senator prematurely.
But then after some thought (and consultation with a close friend) I realized that, realistically, Illinois Republicans are still pretty unlikely to win a special election. Their brand is just too unpopular right now. Better to wait until some of the crap blows over while a walking embarrassment to the Democrats keeps the chair warm.
Given the incrediblestubbornness of politicians today has anybody considered that it might be unwise to keep asking Burris to resign? I mean after all that we've seen of Burris I'm starting to think he's more likely to keep the seat just to spite everyone. Remember, this is the guy who accepted Blago's nomination and even after it resulted in plenty of boos on his part he kept the seat. What makes us think he'll change because everyone is telling him to give it up now? I think the calls are pissing ol' Roland off so badly that he's going to make a run for the seat again in 2010 --it's being reported that he's considering it now. (sigh)
"I dislike, and strongly dislike... the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if he may be re-elected. He is then an officer for life. This once observed, it becomes of so much consequence to certain nations to have a friend or a foe at the head of our affairs that they will interfere with money and with arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787
Watching coverage of the increasing authoritarianism of the Chavistas in Venezuela, it occurred to me that despite all of the contrived consternation by talking heads and editorialists, the fact that the vast majority of our government has no term limits never seemed to come up. But it is a fact that American governments, from the municipal to the state to the federal level, operate nearly unfettered by "rotation in office" rules that would go a long way to breaking not only dynastic holds on office, but also the pattern of social and professional networks growing around individuals with lifetime holds on those offices. How can Chicagoans, who have lived 41 years under Daley-family rule in the last 53 years -- 75 percent of the last half-century -- be expected to feel outrage at popular foreign leaders who undermine the clearly democratic principle of term limits?
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.
I've got an idea for stemming the corruption associated with money in politics. How about stopping the politicians from asking for it so much?
Among the many topics never taught in high school civics, and rarely in college political science, is begging. The "beg." The "pitch." The "ask." Otherwise known as the direct solicitation of money, by an officeholder or would-be officeholder.
The uproar over the Blagojevich-Burris follies might lead some to believe that the constant "touch" put on friends, acquaintances, and the not-so-well-acquainted was some freakish aberration on the part of the governor and his henchmen. Hardly so.
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.
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 "game" of politics is always interesting for various reasons, and the jockeying of personalities and organizations can fixate us. So it's occasionally easy to forget that politics is ultimately about governing, and governing impacts people's day to day lives -- not just big general social patterns we read about, for example, in the Chicago Community Trust's great Vital Signs series, but in so many personal, material ways.
WBEZ's Gabriel Spitzer filed a great story illustrating just how the mess at the top of our state government is having real, disastrous effects on your friends and neighbors. While insulated politicians stick and move, babies go without formula in the wealthiest nation on Earth. Whatever your views on the services government should provide, there is a real material situation in front of us and when government fails to meet its responsibilities, we are all indicted in the failure as the ultimate source of government.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to be on the hook for failing to provide promised care to children or the elderly.
Besides paying nurses, Bethel also buys formula for babies, meals for needy families and books for teens. Right now, the state is almost 3 months behind in paying Bethel back- last fall, the lag stretched to 5 or 6 months. That means Bethel doesn't have cash to pay the light bill or make payroll. The agency has cut almost a fifth of its staff and lately, they've even been running out of the basics. Margaret Daniels works with new mothers.
DANIELS: It's really disheartening when a parent comes to you and say, I need Pampers for my baby. Then you gotta go home thinking I'm not able to provide this service we're supposed to provide because of the state funding.
Now take that dilemma, and multiply it by about 50-thousand. That's how many invoices the state is sitting on from childcare providers, nursing homes, hospitals and others all over Illinois. In the past, those places could just go to their banks and borrow money to get by. But now, for many agencies, that safety net has been yanked away. Steven McCullough says Bethel can no longer borrow against what it's owed.
UPDATE: Missed it this morning, but Angela Caputo has a post up about this same issue at Progress Illinois, which rules.
Ed Genson, lawyer of the usually guilty, will stop representing Blagojevich concerning his impeachment, but he'll still represent the Governor on corruption and criminal charges. Honestly, this is probably better for Blago given Genson's past clients (R. Kelly and Conrad Black). Blago really doesn't know how helpful or unhelpful associations can be for appearances.
Check out a good profile of Genson written by Steve Rhodes in Chicago magazine.
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.
As a Republican I have been thinking a bit about what our ideal candidate would look like and I have to admit I am of two very different minds.
Option One:
A statewide known entity, ideally a pro-choice woman: Judy Baar Topinka.
Yes, I think Judy Baar Topinka might be an answer. Yes, I understand that she would face a real primary battle but that being said I think this state may have a bit of 'buyers remorse' when it comes to Judy thanks to Rod, something we might be able to take advantage of.
Yes, a portion of the Republican party thinks Judy is the 3rd horseman of the RINO apocalypse. Yes, I wish she would be a better campaigner, but we don't have a host of other options.
Option Two:
A wealthy unknown or known who has been vetted in some way shape and form to avoid a Jack Ryan, Blair Hull surprise.
If you assume that Burris is going to be seated (and at this point I think it is going to happen) then you would assume that he is going to run for a full term. With Bobby Rush's recent statements it would be hard for a mainstream Democrat to challenge him when it comes time for the full term. Burris may face a primary challenge, but it will be a B-lister at best.
If we got a wealthy unknown, they could self fund and could use that as a tool against Burris in the general election.
Burris is going to face some fund raising challenges and could end up being in the unusual situation of being a sitting senator at a significant financial disadvantage. Who will have the 'taint' of political fund raising in this state.
We can have a candidate who would could say I will not take more than $150 from anyone running against someone who owes significant money to folks from previous state races.
I think a fresh face would be a good idea but if not I wonder what Jack Ryan is up to these days?
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.
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.
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.
We've been artificially stimulating consumption for decades now. Isn't it time we stopped and thought about what we should be "stimulating?"
I think "stimulus packages" are nonsense, but if we are going to go down that path, shouldn't we rethink what we should be stimulating? We ought to be stimulating the production of value, and nothing else. Perhaps more importantly, stimulating the production of value goes hand-in-hand with preventing (current and future) the unnecessary destruction of value, which comes in the form of waste, corruption, duplication of effort, and any other misallocation of resources in both the public and private sector.
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.
The presidential race has been cast, at least by the Obama campaign, as one between hope and fear Here in Illinois, however, where blue v. red is in no doubt, voters still confront a ballot question that truly represents the same dramatic choice: yes or no to a constitutional convention (PDF)? Proponents hope for change and real reform. Opponents want to scare voters into rejecting a rare shot at democracy.
