* As I told you Friday afternoon, the Senate is coming back to town tomorrow…
The Senate’s main focus will be to take up two bills that Gov. Rod Blagojevich wants to expand through his amendatory veto power, said Senate President Emil Jones’ spokeswoman, Cindy Davidsmeyer.
As the governor has rewritten the measures, one would allow parents to keep children on their health insurance plans until age 26, and the other would offer a new property tax break to disabled veterans.
* There’s also a “mini capital plan” that was passed by the House…
Number to Know
$1.2 billion. That’s the size of the scaled-back capital program the Illinois House of Representatives voted for on Wednesday. It’s substantially less than the $25 billion program the governor wants, but Blagojevich called the House action a good start.
* That’s pretty tiny considering the latest economic news…
Illinois’ unemployment rate has jumped to 7.3 percent — the highest level in 15 years — with job losses hitting the construction industry hard, the Illinois Department of Employment Security said. One year ago, the rate was 5.1 percent.
The latest unemployment rate for July, which translates to 491,300 unemployed people, mirrors the economic downturn nationwide, said IDES director James Sledge. […]
The national unemployment rate for July hit a five-year high of 5.7 percent, the federal government reported earlier.
Both Sledge and his boss, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, singled out the loss of 12,000 construction jobs since the start of the year to argue for a multibillion-dollar statewide construction program that’s become bogged down in Springfield.
* The most likely amendatory veto to be accepted by the Senate is the disabled veterans property tax exemption…
One bill would eliminate property taxes for 16,000 Illinois veterans. Blagojevich’s proposal would be available for veterans with a disability of 50 percent or more, such as the loss of limbs.
Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokeswoman for Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), said she did not think the break to veterans would have “any trouble at all.”
The biggest hit would be to local governments, which collect $35 million to $40 million for the veterans in this category. Other property owners would pick up the slack.
I’ll have more on the other bill in tomorrow’s Capitol Fax. I meant to have some info on it today, but was sidetracked with the Jones retirement thing.
* More…
Sen. Dale Risinger, R-Peoria, thinks that approval of the amendatory vetoes would set up a legal challenge intended to resolve the thorny question of just how far Blagojevich or any governor can go in rewriting legislation.
“My opinion is he’s out of line,” Risinger said. “I think the authority that was given to him was to rewrite bills if there’s any tweaking that needs to be done. He’s just writing legislation, not rewriting legislation.”
Thoughts?
* Somewhat related…
* State legislators might inch closer to acceptable capital plan
* With no capital plan, it’s a long road ahead for transportation plans - Projects only get more expensive as political feud goes on.
* State budget cuts mean layoffs for some
- Gregor - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:07 am:
I am beginning to think Madigan knew the Jones thing was coming and took that into consideration when working on the mini cap plan. If I was Rod, I’d be even more depressed today. Rod’s losing his wingman, and Madigan’s position looks to only get stronger. Quick, he’ll ask his staff, gimme some outrageous new unfunded entitlement or ridiculous claim to throw out there into the conversation…
- Captain Flume - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:24 am:
On last Friday, the Governor applied Amendatory Vetoes to 4 House bills and 2 Senate bills: HB4182, 4450, 4527, 5318, SB546, 2887. Haven’t seen the amendatory language yet.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:42 am:
Captain Flume, none of those bill status’s as of yet show any action, but I’ll check.
- Ghost - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:45 am:
I think the Gov abused his authority with these AV’s; I think the legislatures votes of approval wipe out an problem with the Gov;s abuse of power because the legislature does have the authroity. Instead of the taint carrying through IMHO the legislative vote removes it.
This process of the AV having to be approved or the bill dies may actually suggest that the writers of the constitution intended this kind of broad authority by the Gov, since the legislature still sits as a check by simply not voting or voting against such changes.
On the capital bill, I would suggets that you first re-hrie all the laid of DOC officers, ISP troopers and DNR employees cut from Governmnt by Blago. These represent long term employment which benefits the State through direct,m indirect and influenced jobs on a much more permanent and long scale term then a few quicky construction Jobs. We need to create permanent jobs in Illinois not fly by night poitsitions. Also by hiring back State workers you are putting the money into the State. Those constirction company jobs and workers may not be connected to Illinois at all, lots of tranisents workers in large scale consturction projects.
Also Illinois may need this construction plan, but we need a repsonsible way of fudning it. Its not enough to say we have an employment problem (which can be alleievated or improved by returning State workers to their jobs) we need to make sure we are noit creatin greater fiscal problesm for the future. The mini capitlal plan uses existing Road funds and lets us capture federal match. ity may have been small, but its somthing we can afford and it does not sell out our future by putting off huge debt problems until tomroorw with bonds or leases.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 8:48 am:
The status of bill actions since Friday will probably get updated on the LIS system this morning. There were a couple of total vetoes, and several bill approvals as well.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:01 am:
Just got the guv’s messages. These were not “Rewrite to Do Right” AV’s. Mostly technical stuff, smallish changes or cleanups.
- Vote Quimby! - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:06 am:
This notion of different ‘brands’ of AVs proves yet again the current political problems are caused from a breakdown in our constitution and not the political process. It only took 40 years to find someone to challenge the provisions. Also, I think spending about one-tenth of one percent of our annual state’s budget on such a ventue would be a wise investment. Finally, I think if a majority of people vote for change; all sides of the debate during a con-con would get a fair hearing. Don’t forget, voters still get an up-or-down vote on any proposed new constitution. I’m just saying….
- wordslinger - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:06 am:
The new unemployment numbers increase the pressure on Madigan to support a significant capital plan before the election. The condo boom in the city that’s fueled a lot of jobs for suburban construction workers is at an end. You could block a capital plan over trust in a decent economy. Not anymore. With this economy, blocking a capital plan over “trust” doesn’t fly anymore.
- pro - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:15 am:
My position has always been - if the bill has to go back to both chambers for approval anyway, then there is broad authority for a Governor to make changes.
If the only option was override, or no recourse at all, then I could see the argument that the AV was meant for only technical changes.
- Captain America - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 9:52 am:
Let’s make a deal on the mini-capitsl plan but let’s not forget those unconscionable cuts to substance abuse programs. Tribune had an excellent story on the impact of these cuts today.
- zatoichi - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 11:29 am:
I like the little sentence from the Trib regarding the property tax relieve for disabled vets: “Other property owners would pick up the slack.” All these ideas sound great and benefit someone, but eventually the bills have to be paid with real money from someone’s actual pocket.
For the capital bill, will it limited to Illinois based companies or will “Road Contractors of Kansas” get the jobs. I am sure some local firms would be used, but I have been on many large construction jobs where the big money positions all come from out of state. Just keep wonder if those 600,000-700,000 jobs are jobs slotted for current Illinois residents who are going to pay the taxes that will cover the expenses of the bill.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 12:44 pm:
I don’t see why construction workers should get any extra consideration for their unemployment problems than any other out of work worker. What about all the financial folk who have been thrown out of work should the state come up with some jobs for them too?
And I find it amazing that the media have been able to make substance abusers look like victims. These are people that voluntarily chose to start using addictive and mostly illegal substances.
Geez, maybe I’m just feeling old and cranky today or something.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 2:37 pm:
zat-
I’d say at least 90% of the state’s current capital work is done by “in state” firms using mostly in state labor force; with consolidation and globalization, you are always going to have some firms that have a presence here, but whose ownership may be either in the public domain or by private out-of-state holders. Of course, this works both ways; if some other state has a capital construction plan, stockholders and owners of any IL-based company that does work there will also see benefits. It’s fairly difficult and counterproductive these days to try to put hard limits on who can work in your state; logistics and geographic competitive advantage will usually do the trick much better than market regulation, at least in the heavy building industry.
And we didn’t see a huge uptick in out of state firms coming in during the last capital program. It usually doesn’t pay for out of state contractors to set up shop here for all but the largest jobs, where they still may be at a disadvantage due to the IL contractors’ control of building materials, etc. And the state’s union climate is highly discouraging for non-union shop Sun Belt contractors to try and do business here.
- zatoichi - Monday, Aug 18, 08 @ 4:04 pm:
Six,
I agree with you and thanks for the better estiamtes. The spot I find myself stuck at is how long the outdoor construction season can last in any year based on weather, the number of current construction workers, and how many additional people would be needed to get the capital projects done. The recent employment numbers had 490,000 something unemployed. How many of those people have reasonable skills for construction? I expect a small number. Are there enough contruction trades people around to handle all the jobs being proposed? I realize part of capital plan includes support jobs of various kinds. It makes total sense to me to say there is $35B in identified capital, infrastructure needs, but the construction capacity in any one year is, say, $8B. A $8B plan would sell much easier than the entire chunk of $25B-$35B.