Listen to Mayor Daley, Speaker Madigan, Senate President Jones and Gov. Blagojevich talk to the Chicago press about today’s meeting. Audio is from Chicago Public Radio…
* 11:14 am - Miracle upon miracles, I’m told the governor actually showed up on time for the big confab this morning with the four legislative leaders and Mayor Daley. The AP has a quick brief…
Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Transit Authority officials are in a morning meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich and top legislative leaders in the governor’s Chicago office.
Blagojevich and lawmakers have yet to agree on a plan on how to get money for the cash-strapped CTA and suburban mass-transit agencies.
The governor is supposed to travel to Wisconsin today for a “summit” on energy and climate change, so I’m not sure how long Blagojevich is planning to stick around.
* 11:26 am - There’s been a lot of chin-scratching about where a Chicago casino might be, with reporters and columnists speculating about Navy Pier and Northerly Island, among other places. This is from Chicago Public Radio today…
DALEY: First of all, you can’t select a site. You can’t do that, you can’t select a site, because every real-estate developer would rush in there and buy around the site.
But Daley will say what’s off limits. It’s a no-go for McCormick Place, Navy Pier and Northerly Island. That leaves plenty of real estate left for developers to wonder about.
I’ve been hearing for months that the Congress Hotel is a prime spot. The workers there have been on strike forever, so organized labor would like to turn it into a more union-friendly locale by snatching it away from the owners. The place is a dump, so it would have to be completely gutted out, providing lots of construction jobs. I haven’t seen it mentioned in print before, but keep your eye on that spot.
* 11:29 am - Mayor Daley just left the leaders meeting. The others are still inside.
According to a friend who is there, the mayor said he is optimistic about the future and claimed that the CTA had done its job. More later.
Mayor Richard Daley says he’s “very optimistic” after meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich and top legislative leaders about mass-transit funding.
But House Speaker Mike Madigan walked out of the meeting, saying it deteriorated to shouting and threats, NBC 5’s Mary Ann Ahern reported.
Daley emerged from Wednesday morning’s meeting in the governor’s Chicago office after more than an hour without saying what was being discussed. He said he left because lawmakers and the governor were getting down to the particulars.
* 12:15 pm - The meeting is over.
*** 4:04 pm *** There’s more in the subscriber section, but here’s a Daily Herald story about today’s “action”…
“It is not a one person show,” said Senate President Emil Jones, a Chicago Democrat, of Madigan’s refusal to go along. “If he wants to kill money for the CTA, the monkey will be on his back.”
The backdoor meeting also included Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, who laid out his preferences for a city-owned casino and transit bailout. Daley declined to publicly back any specific plan to bailout the transit agencies.
Meanwhile, Madigan refused to comment further on the shouting and accusations, but he said he was unhappy most of the talk focused on casinos instead of transit.
Jones said the dispute was between Madigan and Democratic state Sen. Ricky Hendon over mandatory minority ownership and revenue sharing rules tied to the new casinos.
Blagojevich used that dispute to indicate Madigan was racist.
“Speaker Madigan is the only one who doesn’t agree that African Americans ought to participate in the ownership of the casinos,” Blagojevich.
*** 4:48 pm *** Another leaders meeting is scheduled for 10 o’clock tomorrow morning. All leaders are invited. As a consequence, the governor is not going to Wisconsin for the energy summit after all.
A federal judge today found that a new state law requiring school districts to begin each day with a moment of silence or prayer is “likely unconstitutional” and he will for now stop a northwest suburban school district from following the requirement, a ban that the judge could extend statewide Thursday.
The preliminary ruling by U.S. District Court Robert Gettleman was a win for atheist activist Rob Sherman, who filed a lawsuit concerning the new law being applied at Buffalo Grove High School, where his daughter is a freshman.
Gettleman asked the parties in the case to return to the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse Thursday when he could consider making the injunction statewide. The Illinois attorney general’s office is considering stepping into the litigation.
Gettleman said the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act isn’t specific enough about what is a “moment” and when it should take place. It also may cross the line into unconstitutionality by giving students a choice to pray, the judge said. […]
Gettleman said he also is concerned about whether a child could or would do something physical in an act of prayer, such as take out a Bible or a Muslim prayer book.
There are only two choices given by the statute, he said. “One is an endorsement of prayer,” he said. “If that’s the way it’s being interpreted, then I think we have a problem.”
The state can either fight for this unnecessary and intrusive law by waging an expensive court battle, or members of the General Assembly can attempt to re-write and pass a similar law that overcomes the Constitutional objections.
Cardinal Francis George and one of his top bishops are stirring up controversy because of statements they recently made criticizing lawsuits from victims of priest sexual abuse.
In a letter obtained by the Sun-Times, the cardinal earlier this year wrote to the parents of a victim and apologized “for the terrible abuse suffered by your son at the hands of Ken Ruge and Robert Becker,” two Chicago area priests who are now dead.
The cardinal also wrote that money was the motivation for proposed state legislation that would allow adults who were abused by priests as children to sue their perpetrators in cases where statutes of limitation have expired.
“This is irresponsible, is not about the safety of children as the sponsor claims, and is clearly, to me at least, about money,” he wrote. […]
State Sen. Terry Link, a Lake County Democrat who introduced the legislation earlier this year, said Monday that the measure isn’t targeting the Catholic Church, but all victims of sexual abuse.
Link, who described himself as a devout Catholic, has heard similar remarks from the cardinal about money being behind the bill, and told him they were offensive.
Question: Who’s right, the Cardinal or the Senator? Explain as fully as possible.
Also, let’s try to avoid attacks on the Catholic Church as a whole, OK? Attempt mightily to stick to the topic at hand.
Talk of recall is all the rage in Illinois these days, fueled in major part by the Chicago Tribune, which in an Oct. 28 editorial said voters should add a recall provision to the Illinois Constitution as an opportunity to remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
I respectfully disagree.
I have been a vocal critic of this governor, both in terms of style and substance. But the beauty of representative government is that if the voters don’t like someone, we can vote him or her out of office next time around.
Voters also have the frequently used opportunity, in mid-term elections, to handcuff an underperforming executive by voting his or her party out of power in the legislature.
And finally, in cases of serious abuse of power, our state constitution already allows for impeachment.
Then there’s the recall. Setting aside logistical burdens and cost factors (California’s recall cost an estimated $60 million), I have a larger concern. Good government advocates (and editorial writers) have for years fought to diminish the influence of special interests in politics. They have also decried the proliferation of the poll-driven politician, and bemoaned the increasingly “permanent election cycle.” These reformers are right on all three counts.
Ironically, however, a recall provision would promote each of these blights upon the political process. People love to say politicians make too many of their decisions with one eye on the next election, and that the closer the election comes, the more that becomes true. Now imagine a political landscape in which any aggrieved, well-funded special-interest group has the potential power to shorten any election cycle via a recall.
That group would have just exponentially expanded its political influence. The offending politician would be more poll-driven, and less policy-driven, than ever. And the election cycle would never end.
But - and this is a big “but” - any amendment to the Illinois Constitution implementing recall would have to either be passed by both chambers of the General Assembly or enacted through a Constitutional convention, which voters will have a say on next November.
It’s more than doubtful that the state House and Senate would voluntarily open that can of worms. Any convention, if it happens, wouldn’t take place until 2009 at the earliest, and even then a recall provision isn’t guaranteed.
In other words, you might want to recall him, but you’re almost undoubtedly stuck with Blagojevich as your governor through the end of his term in January 2011.
* While the coverage of yesterday’s tax hike vote in the Chicago City Council was pretty good, the most interesting part - at least to me - was not delved into.
The Sun-Times’ Mark Brown, for instance, listed all 29 members who voted for the tax hikes and the 21 who voted against. Brown also mentioned that the mayor’s budget passed on a 37-13 vote, as did the other stories.
What I’d like to know, though, is who were the wimps? Which members of the city council voted against the tax hikes and for the mayor’s budget? That info is nowhere to be found. It doesn’t even appear to be available online.
* Even so, Brown’s column was darned good and summed up the lapdog situation pretty accurately…
If you’re sitting at home trying to figure out how the City Council could approve $276 million in tax and fee increases — including an $83 million property tax hike — when you’re already ticked off about what you’re paying now, then that may be the problem. You’re sitting, when what you really ought to be doing is moving forward.
Confused? Let me try to explain it the way the aldermen explained it.
Mayor Daley needs the additional tax money so he can continue to “move the city forward,” said Budget Chairman Carrie Austin, the first of many to invoke the mayor’s pet phrase.
“We can move the city forward,” followed Ald. Ariel Reboyras (30th).
“Do we sit still, or do we move forward,” said Ald. George Cardenas (12th).
“We must continue to move this city forward,” said Latasha Thomas (17th). “If you believe that the city needs to move forward . . . then you must vote yes.”
Ald. Ginger Rugai’s version: “I think we have to, as I think everybody has said, move forward.”
Or Ald. Leslie Hairston: “This city is at a critical point. We can decide to move forward or stand still.”
“I’m going to vote to continue to move our city forward,” said Ald. Tom Tunney (44th).
Ald. Ike Carothers (29th) set the record, invoking at least six variations on moving the city forward.
* More city council stories…
* Sun-Times: Twenty years after the death of former Mayor Harold Washington, the City Council honored Chicago’s first African-American mayor on Tuesday, then cast a vote that stirred the ghosts of Council Wars.
* Tribune: Brushing off a rare show of opposition, Mayor Richard Daley won easy City Council approval Tuesday of a spending and tax plan that will tap into the wallets of just about everyone who lives, works or plays in Chicago.
* CBS 2: City Council Passes Budget, Tax Hikes - Big Property Tax Hike, New Tax On Bottled Water Approved
* ABC 7: City Council votes to increase taxes, fees
*** UPDATE *** Thanks to a couple of commenters, I found the roll calls on all votes at the Tribbie blog. They don’t break it down, but I did. According to that list, here are the “wimps” who voted against the property tax hike but for the mayor’s budget…
Brookins (21st), Suarez (31st), Waguespack (32nd), Banks (36th), Allen (38th), Laurino (39th), Daley (43rd) and Levar (45th).
* And here are the seven aldermen who consistently voted against the property tax hikes, against the mayor’s budget and against the other tax hikes as well…
Fioretti (2nd), Preckwinkle (4th), Jackson (7th), Foulkes (15th), Munoz (22nd), Reilly (42nd), Moore (49th).
*** UPDATE 2 *** Ald. Carothers talks about “heavy lifting”…
* The Peoria Journal-Star editorial page spanks Aaron Schock today, finally going over most of the serious flaws with his Strangelovian idea to sell nuclear missiles to Taiwan to force China to help stop Iran from getting nuclear technology. It’s a pretty comprehensive whacking…
At any rate, Schock has been in damage-control mode ever since. First he issued the standard defenses: that his words were “misrepresented” - they weren’t - and that at least he has a specific plan, unlike his opponents, whom he described as “soft on Iraq, Iran and China.” Buried in all that was a semi-retraction: “I do not want to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan. I want China’s cooperation in dealing with Iran.” On Tuesday his mea culpa went a bit further, saying that “maybe I’ve learned a lesson. … In retrospect, I believe I overstated the remedy. I regret mentioning nuclear weapons … It was a mistake, and I recognize that.” If he seemed nonchalant about the use of nukes before, he’s not anymore.
Nonetheless, Schock is still on his “freedom fighters” kick as his solution for Iran, pointing to previous successes with the strategy, notably Poland’s Solidarity movement in the 1980s. But the picture he paints is not complete. If he would read up on the Iran-Contra scandal, he’d discover that funding those freedom fighters was not one of this nation’s - or Reagan’s - proudest moments. John F. Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs was a fiasco. As for those U.S.-assisted freedom fighters he praises for beating back the Soviets in Afghanistan, who’s alleged to be the most famous one of all? Schock drew a blank, when asked. The answer is Osama bin Laden.
“I’m not an expert,” a defensive Schock said Tuesday. But when you don’t know something, don’t try to fake it, not at this level. No one gets it right all the time, newspaper editors included. But they’re not running for Congress and aspiring to make laws for the rest of us; Schock is. He’s shown potential, but if he wants his campaign to be taken seriously - he’s being ridiculed on statewide blogs as “Aaron Strangelove” - he need not be perfect but he must be better. He’s dug quite a hole for himself.
Not to mention that the Polish “freedom fighters” were peaceful union leaders and not armed insurrectionists.
* The Journal-Star also criticized Schock’s opponents for copping out on big issues and concludes…
If the candidates don’t recognize it by now, this is the big leagues, and we’re not off to a promising start.
* While they don’t mention it, we can only hope that the PJ-Star also now recognizes this “big leagues” fact and will start covering Schock like a congressional candidate instead of lavishing fawning praise on their local boy wonder state legislator.
Schock is only part of the problem. The PJ-Star, remember, completely ignored his outrageous nuclear proposal in its original reporting and glossed over it until today. That’s inexcusable.
But the paper’s story today doesn’t give much hope that any lessons have been learned over there. Check out the lede…
State Rep. Aaron Schock regrets his proposal to sell nuclear arms to Taiwan as a way to get China to go along with U.S. policy toward Iran, he said Tuesday, adding he “went too far.”
The moral of today’s stories is that like it or not, if they are sincere in trying to accomplish the goals that they claim to be seeking, both the Administration and the proponents of damage caps are going to have to find legal and constitutional means to reach those goals.
Doctors and insurers blamed lawyers, particularly the active plaintiffs’ bar in the Metro East area, saying lawsuits drove up rates. Lawyers said the courthouse was becoming a scapegoat as the insurance industry chased profits.
But dozens of doctors retired or left the area rather than pay continually rising insurance rates, and in some instances hospitals and patients were left scrambling to find a physician. The issue became a political firestorm as hundreds attended meetings around the state to complain. President George W. Bush came to Collinsville in January 2005 and told an audience of doctors that medical litigation was tilted in favor of plaintiffs’ lawyers.
This could be the year that the state really does put a casino in Chicago. But at what expense to Joliet casinos?
State legislators at least broach the subject of a Chicago casino almost annually. But talk has seldom been as intense as it is this year, with legislators and the governor looking at a casino in Chicago and at least one other undetermined location to fund future roads, bridges and other infrastructure work.
* Editorial: Hasty state construction plan could hurt more than help
This state has a long enough history of construction programs with catchy names that broke the bank, from Jim Thompson’s Build Illinois to George Ryan’s Illinois FIRST. We don’t need another one with wastefulness similar to those.
Instead, the state needs a plan that helps finance projects based on need, not political favoritism or vote-trading.
State Sen. Dan Rutherford has outlined three elements that must be part of the capital bill and we agree: Any plan must identify a reliable revenue stream to pay for it; include a list of projects on which the money will spent, not a lump sum allotment to leaders; and specify when money would be released.
* Governor’s ‘emergency’ health care rule is rejected
* Panel derails governor’s ‘end run’ to expand health insurance
State Sen. Dan Rutherford, R-Chenoa, who also voted against the change, said a significant expansion of health care might be a laudable goal, but it shouldn’t be put in place without more debate from the legislative branch.
“Yeah, but go through the process,” Rutherford said.
The governor’s proposed emergency rule would provide discounted health care benefits to about 147,000 Illinois residents with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level.
State Sen. Brad Burzynski, R-Clare, said the change could mean a family of four that has a family income of at least $80,000 would be getting health care from the state.
“Should those 20,000 people find themselves without health coverage, it would be because of the inaction of the administration, not the actions of [this committee],” Fritchey said.
Ottenhoff said the administration is “working on ways to make sure the 20,000 parents do not lose coverage,” but she did not offer details.
Blagojevich may portray this as another “up” for his agenda. He’s evidently trying to convince people that he’s a man of compassion who won’t let stingy legislators stop him from giving taxpayer-funded health coverage to middle-income families. He says he’s “simply doing my job and setting the right priorities.”
But the people of Illinois, through their elected representatives, are talking back. They’re unequivocally, and repeatedly, saying to Blagojevich: Don’t write a blank check and create debts that will come due for generations.
So what now? Well, the governor can attempt another end run. Or he could sue.
* Wisconsin supporting Illinois for FutureGen plant
Pennsylvania, Indiana and Kentucky have also backed Illinois’ bid. But it’s unknown what influence other states will have on the final decision.
Both Illinois and Texas have offered substantial financial incentives to help try to charm decision-makers. And Illinois officials have gone has far to spend more than $300,000 on a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm.
* Editorial: Teen advice good, but licensing rules are working
There is hope, however. The American Academy of Pediatrics last year cited a study of graduated licensing programs in 13 states that found the programs reduced crashes by as much as 41 percent. Illinois recently toughened its graduated licensing by lengthening the learner’s permit period to a minimum of nine months from three months; moving up curfew; and making teens wait a full year until they can have more than one nonfamily teen passenger in their car. The waiting period is now six months.
“Most states are performing about as well or better than most foreign countries,” said Gary Phillips, who wrote the report. “We’re kind of in the middle of the pack. However, our highest-achieving states are significantly below the highest-achieving countries. There was no state that did as well as the highest-achieving countries.”
