Pie in the sky? *** Updated x1 ***
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
First of all, getting 280,000 valild signatures on a complicated issue like this won’t be easy.
A group of Illinoisans says it’s time to end the Legislature’s practice of last-minute deals and votes on the state budget and other important issues.
The Illinois Democracy Project has formed to amend the state Constitution in the November 2008 election. The amendment would require legislation to have a 21-day review period before lawmakers could approve it. Legislation deemed an emergency by top leaders and a special panel could still be approved quickly under the proposed amendment.
This “group” (with a small handful of members and no discernable or disclosed funding source) also assumes that just because there’s a delay that anyone will actually read the legislation. There are thousands of bills each year, and most legislators just don’t read them. Giving them more time probably won’t change things. Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer that they all read the legislation as well. But whether this idea will make it so is another question entirely.
More likely, the people who will benefit most from the constitutionally stalled bills will be bigtime lobbyists, who spend most of their time slowing down or stopping legislation rather than passing them. They do this by nitpicking the bills to death. Lots more time gives them lots more nits to pick. While this may look good on its face, I wonder if it has more to do with another agenda.
Here’s the actual text of the proposed Constitutional Amendment.
(a) Public Review Period: Except bills passed as emergency legislation, the final vote required for any bill to meet the procedural requirements for passage shall not be taken before a public review period of twenty-one calendar days has elapsed since the latter of the date on which the bill was filed or, if the bill has been amended, the date on which the bill was last amended.
(b) Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation: Prior to the election of the presiding officers of either house in odd-numbered years, the Secretary of State shall publicly draw by random selection the names of forty members of the House of Representatives, and the Governor shall publicly draw by random selection the names of twenty members of the Senate, and the members of the General Assembly whose names are drawn shall comprise the Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation. The member with most time served in the General Assembly shall be the chairperson, with ties in service resolved by lot. Any vacancy shall be filled within thirty days by a public random selection of the name of a member of the same house and by the same state authority that selected the member whose departure created the vacancy.
(c) Emergency Legislation: If a bill is declared by the presiding officers of both houses to be emergency legislation, and if the bill describes a state of emergency and explains why a delay would exacerbate or render the bill ineffectual as a response to the emergency, and if at least three-fifths of the members of the Joint Committee on Emergency Legislation cast record votes in favor of a resolution recommending passage of the bill, then the bill may be considered concurrently and immediately in both houses and, if at least three-fifths of the members in each house cast record votes in favor of the bill, the bill shall be declared passed and, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10 of this Article, shall take effect immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor.
Again, the goal isn’t bad at all. It may have stopped some pretty lousy bills from being passed (the SBC debacle comes to mind).
But if legislators won’t stand up for their rights now, why would this make any difference?
*** UPDATE *** YDD makes an interesting, if a bit harsh, point in comments.
The… moron who drafted this has obviously no legislative experience. Flip it around the other way: no amendments to any bill within 21 days of final passage. I can’t think of any bill of substance that passed without some amendments to atleast fine tune it in the last three days. Once amended, most of those bills pass with landslide majorities.
38 Comments
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
As I’ve said many, many times before, I hate national politics. And I hate the sort of ugly “discussion” - rife with inane, prepackaged talking points - that national politics provokes in the mainstream media (particularly those idiotic cable TV talking heads who are always wrong, yet still keep their high-paying gigs) and on blogs.
So far, I’ve posted about the Obama thing here because he is, after all, our US Senator and I covered him for years in the Illinois Senate.
Here’s the question: Do you want a daily Obamarama? Would you rather that the posts stick strictly to a local angle (my preference)? Or do you want the whole issue banished?
I will say that I intend to continue this at least through the February announcement, regardless of the comments today. But I’m interested to see what your thinking is.
Also, bonus question: Should I start deleting the gratuitous “Hussein” comments?
We already have a thread to discuss the Obama candidacy today, so let’s keep this one strictly to the questions at hand, please. Thanks.
74 Comments
|
“Enough is enough”
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
I originally had this in Morning Shorts, but then thought it deserved more play.
The downtown Springfield hotel deal, replete with politically connected insiders, has rankled government critics for years. The hotel, whose lead investor is GOP powerhouse Bill Cellini, has made just two mortgage payments since 1998, and zero in the past four years.
Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin wanted the local convention center board to buy out the mortgage after the bank filed foreclosure papers, at newly elected state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias’ behest. Davlin appealed to Giannoulias to stall the foreclosure until details could be worked out. But…
Saying “enough is enough,” state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias said Tuesday he will not halt foreclosure proceedings against the Abraham Lincoln Hotel and Conference Center in Springfield and wants the property placed in receivership until it can be sold.
In a letter to Mayor Tim Davlin and Mike Coffey Jr., chairman of the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition and Auditorium Authority, Giannoulias said he has concerns about their idea of having SMEAA buy the hotel mortgage to avoid foreclosure.
Under such a deal, Giannoulias said, “the state would once again be on the losing end of another bad deal as it would almost certainly receive less money” than if the hotel were sold at foreclosure.
“This financial boondoggle has cost the state and its taxpayers far too much money and has dragged on far too long,” Giannoulias wrote. “Enough is enough.”
Springfield boosters worry that new owners might convert the space to offices or condos, which could hurt the adjoining convention center’s business. Frankly, more condos downtown would be a huge boost to the area, and the convention center ought to live or die on its own. And the current owners apparently haven’t kept the place up. They lost their franchise agreement with Marriott allegedly because of the lack of improvements. I stayed there on New Years’ eve and, while it wasn’t bad, it certainly wasn’t up to standards.
The Journal-Register’s editorial today strongly supported the treasurer.
Having the hotel foreclosed upon and placed in receivership is not a rosy situation. But in the long run it is a preferable situation to having the place rot into the ground, leaving Springfield and the state taxpayers on the hook for millions.
Foreclosure and receivership won’t be pleasant, but it does provide a path for restoring the hotel to physical and financial health - and putting it where it belongs, in private, not public, hands. Attempting to again restructure loans for those who have been unwilling to pay them will merely continue the decline of what should be a shining jewel in Springfield’s historic downtown.
You can see the treasurer’s letter here [pdf file].
Thoughts?
26 Comments
|
Overreaction
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
Drowned out by all the screaming over Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s proposed budget cuts, which will eliminate almost 1,500 positions and cut various budgets, was this little nugget:
Stroger had a $500 million hole to fill in the $3 billion budget and wiped out a good chunk of the deficit by refinancing debt and increasing efforts to collect hospital bills.
And this one:
The plan released Tuesday proposed eliminating 1,492 full-time positions, but only about 30 percent are currently filled, Budget Director Donna Dunnings said.
As a result, despite the headlines, only about 450 people will lose their jobs. And it’s not even clear if all of those will be out the door, considering union rules, etc.
Today’s Tribune editorial summed it up well.
…But at first glance, the 2007 budget proposed Tuesday by Cook County Board President Todd Stroger tries to do what his father, John, didn’t do when he occupied that chair. Todd Stroger proposes to give county officials far fewer dollars than they want–and then force them to meet those smaller numbers.
You could see how deeply that notion threatens Cook County’s culture of spending entitlement by studying the grimaces of officials listening to Stroger’s budget address. Assessor James Houlihan, Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, State’s Atty. Richard Devine–Stroger essentially wants to make them and other managers give taxpayers less costly and better services. […]
Expect the alarmists to sow public panic that less spending will embolden criminals or cripple health care for the poor. On Tuesday, though, Dr. Robert Simon, the county’s top health officer, asserted that some of the scarifying is mistaken. Example: The county intends to close 16 of its 26 clinics–some of which, he said, serve few patients. Simon predicted initially longer lines at remaining clinics as patients and medical resources shift. But he said that those surviving clinics can absorb all of the displaced patients–and offer them longer hours of medical services.
Everybody expects Stroger to continue the old patronage ways, so hiring friends or giving jobs to the wives of pals probably won’t upset too many people outside of the pundit class, whose mostly white members will likely overreact and create another backlash in the black community. If he follows the Rod Blagojevich playbook and doesn’t raise general taxes, he’ll go a long way towards re-election.
Meanwhile, while we’re talking about local politics, this quote by Alderman Burt Natarus has to be our Quote of the Week. Natarus was speaking about the Chicago Federation of Labor’s endorsement of his opponent Brendan Reilly:
“(E)verywhere I am going in my ward, I happen to be well-liked.”
I’m sure.
20 Comments
|
Obamarama - Local angle
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
I was interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine last week about Obama’s time in the Illinois Senate, and one thing I said was that while he certainly voted like a liberal, he went out of his way to establish friendships and introduce legislation with conservatives and Republicans. From what I can tell, he’s doing the same thing in the US Senate.
As a result of this, one of Obama’s biggest Illinois cheerleaders is Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard, who is also chairman of the DuPage County GOP, the state’s most powerful Republican organization. Dillard had this to say to the Naperville Sun:
“I believe Obama is one of the smartest people ever to sit in the state Senate,” Dillard said.
And Republican state Sen. Pam Althoff told the Daily Herald that “she’d consider voting for the Chicago Democrat.”
OneMan, a blogger’s blogger, is also a Republican, but he posted an interesting piece last night talking about this phenomenon and warning national Republicans about what they faced.
Like it or not, even large numbers of Illinois Republicans who dealt or knew Sen. Obama back when he was in the state senate describe him a likeable. They may say he is a screaming liberal, but they felt he was likeable. That is something that is going to be hard to overcome. Mocking his last name and his faith is not going to be the way to do it.
Mark Brown strikes some of the same notes:
As people are exposed to him, they come to like him. It’s a combination of intelligence and speaking ability and friendliness and looks and charisma, the same characteristics that bring most of our leading politicians to the forefront these days.
Lynn Sweet looks at the reasoning for the Springfield announcement:
A kickoff in the Illinois capital will serve to marry the Obama political narrative with that of Springfield’s Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, like Obama, was a member of the Illinois General Assembly, before his election to Congress and then the White House. Like Obama, Lincoln didn’t have much experience before becoming president and leading the nation through a turbulent era. Obama, the son of a Kenyan father, will kick off his quest at or near the home of the man who freed the African slaves.
That Lincoln was a Republican will only underscore one of Obama’s refrains: The great issues facing the U.S., such as the Iraq war, are not Republican or Democratic problems, but American problems.
…As does Bernie Schoenburg:
So, what does Springfield have to offer U.S. Sen. Barack Obama as a backdrop for his presidential campaign announcement Feb. 10?
Plenty of symbolism of middle America and the good done by Abraham Lincoln, some colleagues and observers say.
…And so did the AP’s Nedra Pickler:
For all those historians and political naysayers, Sen. Barack Obama’s allies like to point out that Abraham Lincoln served just two years in the House before becoming president.
It’s a comparison certain to be repeated as Obama, with slightly more than two years in the Senate, continues to align himself with the Civil War president. The senator’s expected campaign kickoff is scheduled for Feb. 10 in Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, Ill. where both men served in the state legislature.
One final thing. Yesterday in comments, I had this to say about all those people who think the Clintonistas will eat Obama alive:
Here’s something that really bothers me about some of the comments on Obama. Not just today, but every day we have something about him.
“Just wait until Clinton, Gore, etc. start going after him.â€
This assumes that Obama’s people can’t fight back, or that they have no Oppo team. Who the heck do you think tubed Blair Hull? These same guys.
And do you really think people like Axelrod and Giangreco don’t know how to play with the big boys and girls? Think again.
Political battle is almost never a one-way street. You’re all forgetting that.
Try to come up with something new and original for a change, please.
I’ll reiterate that for today’s discussion. Please, come up with something new and original.
35 Comments
|
Morning shorts
Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Editorial: Advocacy group stands up for public’s right to know
* Prosecutors of Ryan trial defend judge - Tell appeals court she made great effort to be fair
* ‘Reform is desperately needed’
* Bill may boost rail prospects - Legislation encourages state funding of Amtrak
* Durbin’s newfound clout - Senator’s busy day goes from Capitol to White House to delivering Democratic response to Bush war plan
* Tank vs. Troutman
* Naperville votes to join electricity consortium
* Ameren faces storm of scrutiny
* Daily Herald:
Car buyers long have been protected by lemon laws in case their vehicle turns out to be a bucket of bolts.
But if you’re buying a cat instead of a Cadillac, you don’t have the same protection. That could soon change as one suburban lawmaker wants Illinois to join the growing number of states offering “pet lemon laws.â€
* At least 7 US Attorneys throught the nation are either resigning or have been pushed out.
9 Comments
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|