|
Zorn on the Con-Con
Tuesday, Jan 22, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller * Eric Zorn thinks the state Constitutional Convention referendum will fail this November. Sure, we’re all mad as heck now, Zorn writes, but…
* I wouldn’t be so sure. Both political parties opposed a Con-Con twenty years ago, and their affiliated interest groups funded the “No” campaign. Labor and business walked hand in hand and the entire media establishment went along for the ride. I don’t hear any of those people and groups gearing up this time around. The Republican Party would be insane to oppose a Con-Con this fall. It’s their best bet to motivate voters to the polls. And a whole lot of Democrats are jumping on board. It ain’t just Pat Quinn and his merry band of goo-goos any more. Plus, what better way to show your anger at Gov. Blagojevich’s goofiness than to vote for a Constitutional Convention in the hopes that his bizarre wings will be clipped? He personalizes this issue for voters in a way that just wasn’t the case the last time this came up. Twenty years ago, there was no uproar about an out of control governor, or a dysfunctional General Assembly. And, there was still hope among the punditry and the political elite that school funding reform and a whole host of other issues could be resolved. There has been nothing done on any of that since then. They haven’t even been touched. There is no longer any hope of progress with our current system and our current actors. Three things will kill this off… 1) The powers that be learn to behave themselves this year and voters calm down; 2) A deep recession scares the daylights out of people and their fear gets the better of them; 3) Gov. Blagojevich embraces the idea as his own and voters naturally recoil. * John Bambenek has more. Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:03 am:
One of the most likely changes in the Illinois Constitution will be eliminating the flat tax. The GOP might motivate people with divisiveness and bigotry, but the people with the money call the shots.
I suspect that a number of Republican contributors will oppose tinkering with the Illinois Constitution because of this issue.
- fedup dem - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:03 am:
You can forget about Item #3. The governor’s ego will prevent him from embracing anything that might limit his powers.
- Crimefighter - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:04 am:
How would a deep recession cause people to oppose a Con-Con? If anything the public would see King Rodrick’s lack of action actually contributing to it.
- Levois - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:13 am:
Well I would agree that the only reason Illinoisians want to call a con-con is because they’re angry. They were angry when they voted for the cutback amendment. They’re angry now because of the actions of the state government, especially under Rod Blagojevich.
Still they would need a reason to change their minds if they’re going to do it. I don’t see it right now, especially if the things that Mr. Miller listed ever happened. Blagojevich may be a “madman” but I think he isn’t dumb enough to endorse a con-con. Someone might actually say hmm good idea!
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:15 am:
Illinois is such a diverse state with so many conflicting interests it’s hard to see what you’d get people to rally around that would get them that deep in the ballot. Plus, let’s face it, in a presidential year, during wartime, in a shaky economy, how much interest can you drum up for state government?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:17 am:
===it’s hard to see what you’d get people to rally around that would get them that deep in the ballot.===
Two words: Rod Blagojevich.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:17 am:
And four more words: 20 percent favorability rating.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:27 am:
What Con-Con issue would Rod be the poster boy for? Term limits? Eliminating the amendatory veto?
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:28 am:
Carl, then we should get rid of the flat tax and put a progressive tax in place. If that’s what needs to be done, so be it. However, I would like our state to cut out a lot of waste and do more for its citizens if a progressive tax is put in place. If we are just going to put in a progressive tax for the sake of spending more, I think that’s bad public policy. We’re already bursting at the seams. When does it end?
A con-con needs to occur. The power balance needs to be spread more evenly. And in Illinois, which is corrupt enough for people to be genuinely concerned, term limits are a must. To me, a con-con is a good government issue, and we deserve good government in Illinois. But if this referendum goes down in flames, I won’t be shocked.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:31 am:
===What Con-Con issue would Rod be the poster boy for? Term limits? Eliminating the amendatory veto?===
Those and more. Many, many more.
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 10:54 am:
Common sense check. Is anybody going to propose limiting governors to one term?
Blagojevich is only in his second term. How do term limits prevent another Blagojevich from emerging? Term limits prevent another Jim Thompson or Jim Edgar from existing.
I can see how someone in Speaker Madigan’s position would like term limits on the governor. But term limits on the governor will probably come with term limits on legislators.
- Levois - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 11:02 am:
Hey when I first posted I hadn’t actually read Bambenek’s column. There’s a lot to chew on in there. I would definitely agree with the end of gerrymandering.
In the brief time I followed state politics I’ve recognized that Republicans and Democrats stake their territory enough to not even have a great interest to compete in each other’s territory! It’s quite unfortunate.
- Crimefighter - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 11:11 am:
I still don’t have an answer as to how a deep recession would result in people opposing a Con-Con.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 11:23 am:
Because I’m going on the assumption that recessions induce great fear, which I think might cause people to avoid the potential for radical change.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 11:46 am:
You want to win an election this year? Have your candidate tell voters what they already believe - goverments are broken. Then have your candidate tell voters how they will make government work better, or how your political opposition would make the situation worse.
So, until November 2008, voters will hear this drummed into their heads. It doesn’t take much of a leap to see where this plays regarding a constitutional convention for Illinois - it obviously favors it. So pro-convention supporters need to piggy-back on this election meme, and anti-convention groups will need to explain to voters how government is too broken to do it now.
Blagojevich is the poster child for broken, freaky state government. Smart candidates will add Jones, Madigan and Halvorson to this list of “Gridlock Losers”. Even incumbants will get into the act to admit to voters that what they witnessed in 2007 was a horror and commit to ending the Democratic Party meltdown.
Nationally, the GOP will fingerpoint at Pelosi and Reid, and the Democrats will fingerpoint at the outgoing president.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards all promise “change”. McCain, Romney and Giuliani promise it too. This fall we will have had seven months of this message as economic concerns overtake Iraq and health care as issues.
In a year with winning candidates pledging to do something to end “broken governments”, Illinois will be poised to riding this meme with a vote in favor of having a constitutional convention.
- Bookworm - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 11:49 am:
A mild recession might indeed spark fear and a desire not to rock the boat… but a more serious downturn might do the opposite, leading people to think “we have nothing to lose”
A deep recession combined with a serious scandal (a ticking time bomb for the current state administration) could really ignite passion for change. On the national level… think of the radical changes that were made during the Depression and the recession/energy crisis of the ’70s.
- Bruno - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:00 pm:
I commented on Zorn’s cynicism here.
The discussion here makes more sense.
First, many here are missing another source of real anger - property taxes. A recession won’t make people fearful of a convention, but rather more thirsty for it, particularly when confronted with increasing taxes in the face of falling values.
As for Rich’s point re: Republicans, he’s 100% correct - except for the fact that they are called “the Stupid Party” for a reason.
Carl’s comment re: the flat tax, when stripped of the ‘divisiveness and bigotry’ nonsense, is more to the point.
If you are for a convention, you should remind every business man and “republican” that Illinois has enacted a steeply progressive tax by proxy - the property tax.
This is how they got around the flat tax clause, and, as a result, the money isn’t going to necessary state needs, but only into the maw of the ‘Education Industry.’
I’m conservative, and I have no problem tinkering with the ‘flat tax’ clause in exchange for an open and honest property tax system and an end to the “educational apartheid” that it creates.
There is no intellectually sound reason against a “Yes” vote, unless, of course, you are one of the interests that is profiting off of this Kleptocracy we call Illinois.
- The Doc - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:01 pm:
Imposing term limits on most elected and appointed state and local officials could shake things up a bit. Most notably, wouldn’t it place significantly more pressure on legislators and officials to work more closely in an effort to enact actual policy, rather than the current gridlock we see in Springfield et al?
Also, a con-con that results in constitutional changes may serve as an idealistic wake-up call to those legislators that rely heavily on the historically ephemeral and uninspired nature of the Illinois voter - especially the machine in Chicago.
- Old lawyer - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:18 pm:
Let’s not forget merit selection. It almost passed in 1970 as a separate amendment. While merit selection wouldn’t solve all problems with the judiciary, it should eliminate the bottom of the barrel. And taking control of the judiciary away from political committeemen would be one of the most positive changes possible to Illinois government. Judgeships shouldn’t be limited to relatives of committeemen.
Pingback Extreme Wisdom » Blog Archive » Eric Zorn - Illinois Cynic in Chief and destroyer of hope - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:19 pm:
[…] Eric Zorn has an article in today’s Tribune that cynically throws cold water on those of us who are promoting an Illinois Constitutional Convention. Rich Miller’s makes excellent points regarding the article on his site, as well. Piling on, John Bambenek wrote an excellent article that has now appeared in both the Champaign News-Gazette and the Peoria Journal Star. […]
- Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:39 pm:
Bruno makes a good point about property taxes.
Property taxes hit property owners for a fixed amount. If the economy has a downturn the property owners are expected to pay the same amount whether they are making money or not.
This provides revenue stability for local government, but a recession is going to make property owners question the wisdom of funding so much of the gov’t on the property tax, especially people who work in volatile sectors of the economy.
What sectors of the economy are volatile? Real estate, home construction, etc.
What businesses exercise a disproportionate influence on local politics? Real estate, construction, etc.
So, it seems quite possible that a politically powerful coalition could emerge to change the Illinois Constitution to create a graduated income tax in exchange for a system of reducing property taxes.
- Crimefighter - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 12:50 pm:
>Because I’m going on the assumption that recessions induce great fear, which I think might cause people to avoid the potential for radical change.
Ummm…not in our instant gratification society…
- Napoleon has left the building - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 2:15 pm:
Rich
I agree with you. Zorn is wrong (maybe he’s just trying to movtivate us). I think there’s a chance that people will vote for con-con but it won’t happen easily, we have to talk to the voters and convince them.
Do you know the process after the vote? Is it 50% of the voters to hold a con con? When does it happen? Who oversees the details? How are delegates selected?
- Leroy - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 2:48 pm:
The “people” can’t control state government as it is…what makes you think they can control a session where all the rules are re-written.
But..coming from a state that is *dying* to go from being controlled by “The Four Tops” to handing it over to the control of the Madigan family (by electing Lisa as governor) I can only dread what will happen at a con-con.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 2:49 pm:
Beneficiaries of the state pension plans (teachers, etc.) are worried that the defined benefit plans will be lost in a rewrite. As I understand it, that is their primary concern. The other arguments I have read opposing the con-con seem much weaker and of lesser concern.
The constitution says the revisions can be a revised constitution OR amendments. And, the revisions/amendments have to win a majority of the vote. So a con-con, in and of itself, does not guarantee any change.
If Springfield in 2008 is like 2007, it will be a close vote.
- Bruno - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 4:32 pm:
Napoleon,
It is either a) 60% of those who pull a ballot, or b) 50% of all votes cast.
My guess is 60% is the easier target, as there will fewer people pulling a ConCon ballot than regular ballots.
The delegates will be chosen (2 per senate district) in an election that must be set during the spring 09 session, but not necessarily in 09.
d) The General Assembly, at the session following approval by the electors, by law shall provide for the Convention and for the election of two delegates from each Legislative District; designate the time and place of the Convention’s first meeting which shall be within three months after the election of delegates; fix and provide for the pay of delegates and officers; and provide for expenses necessarily incurred by the Convention.
The last time (1968-70) there was an open primary and an open run-off. (general was two of top 4.)
___
Leroy,
I understand where you are coming from, but why the defeatism?
Why concede defeat before the fight? Instead, why not find a good delegate in your district (smart, no previous experience raping Illinois - ie not Dem or Repub hack) and work to get him/her across the finish line.
Geez, y’all are so shell-shocked by this bunch that you can’t even imagine a way to win.
I can imagine about 118 ways to win. I’ve been accused of “having my head in the clouds,” but that’s far better than wallowing in their dirt.
If we don’t vote “yes” this time around, we truly have become sheep.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jan 22, 08 @ 5:15 pm:
Pot-
As long as existing employees/retirees are grandfathered in, I don’t think there will be a large resistance to changing IL’s constitutional pension protection for teachers and state workers. The proponents of Con-Con will need to sell this to skeptical teachers and unions or they will have the fight of their life on their hands. This is not an insignificant hurdle.
- T.J. - Wednesday, Jan 23, 08 @ 6:59 am:
My main opposition owes to the nickname “Con-Con.” I want to votesy-wotesy against it.
- Greg Pierce - Tuesday, Feb 5, 08 @ 11:06 am:
I am a member of a group in Cook County, United Power for Action and Justice, that is actively promoting a yes vote on the constitutional convention. We had people out at the polls on primary day, getting them to sign up to vote yes. Our goal is to talk with 100,000 people by November 4. If you’d like further information, go to www.united-power.org.