|
Question of the day
Friday, Jul 24, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * Would you support a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote after May 31st to pass any bill with an immediate effective date? The current rule is three-fifths. Two-thirds would make it even more difficult to pass anything, including the budget, perhaps adding encouragement to settle things before the end of session deadline. Explain fully. * By the way, yesterday’s Sox ticket winner is Phocion for this comment…
Phocion needs to e-mail me today. If Phocion cannot attend the August 17th Chicago White Sox vs. the Kansas City Royal game, Bill gets the ticket…
Actually, Bill will probably get a ticket anyway. * Our Wednesday winner, How Ironic, cannot attend the game, so Jim Rockford needs to contact me right away.
|
 |
|
|
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:39 am:
Two-thirds would make it even more difficult to pass anything
Is this a solution in search of a problem? Our current government is a failure. Making it even more difficult to pass anything doesn’t seem to me to be necessary.
- Secret Square - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:39 am:
Absolutely not! All our constitutional mechanisms designed to “encourage” timely decision making have failed miserably — from the redistricting process to the 3/5 vote after May 31 deadline; why would this be any different?
- Bill - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:44 am:
Thanks. Count me in.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:47 am:
So Madigan would need to pick up and hold 78 seats before telling us he can’t pass a budget without GOP votes?
- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:50 am:
If I were in the minority, yes. If I were in the majority, no.
Since I’m in neither, I would say no. I don’t think we need to make it tougher to get things done. That’s one of the (many) problems California has taking care of its problems.
- reformer - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 11:55 am:
Two-thirds would be good for the shrinking GOP legislative minority. But that’s not a good enough reason to adopt it.
- SAP - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:00 pm:
No. Once GA blew the deadline so that majority party could attempt to get minority party to share the blame for the unpopular vote du jour, minority party would have more reason/cover to hold out in overtime giving the majority reason/cover to punt the issue to the following January.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
No — distraction from the real problems.
- Ghost - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
Pretty much what Word said. The 3/5ths provides a strong incetive, I am not conviced the 2/3 hurdle changes the pressure level that much. BUT, the 2/3rds lvl could create a reality where nothing effective can occur.
- Rob_N - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:08 pm:
Given the systemic sandboxing going on I doubt it would make a difference if you put the supermajority all the way up to unanimous.
Texas has a relatively decent system — if no budget is agreed upon by the deadline last year’s budget remains in effect and darn the consequences. Of course, when you’re “balancing” the budget on soap bubbles and magic ponies that’s a setup for catastrophe no matter what.
- Rob_N - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:10 pm:
I should clarify: “decent” in the sense that at least something gets approved, even if by default.
- Ghost - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:21 pm:
ROB_N, In the immortal words of RUSH, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice…”
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:22 pm:
Seems like another rearrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic (SS Illinois)
It is actually a small change 6.66%, it seems meaningless.
My vote would be no
- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:24 pm:
–It is actually a small change 6.66%, it seems meaningless.–
The Devil’s in the details.
- Ghost - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
=== The Devil’s in the details. ===
but illinois is at a cross roads.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:31 pm:
That would be 78 votes in the House, up from 71.
- Wondering - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:44 pm:
No, since the GA is inept now, making it harder to pass legislation doesn’t make since. I would be in favor of the GA not getting any pay or per diem after May 31. I think that would be more effective in getting the budget, etc. passed in a more timely fashion.
- Wondering - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
Sorry, “sense” not “since”.
- fedup dem - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 2:25 pm:
Hell No! Who in their right mind wants to be like those crazed fools out in California, which labors under a state constitution that dates from 1879!
- Another Dart fan - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 3:37 pm:
What…no Sox tickets today?
- jake - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 4:27 pm:
If anything, I would go in the opposite direction and eliminate the June 1 deadline altogether and the subsequent change in necessary majority altogether. The “real” deadline seems to be when payrolls won’t get met, the state gets sued, etc., so why impose any arbitrary deadline?
- Central_IL_farm_boy - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 5:30 pm:
I support an amendment that would automatically schedule a NOV election for all members of the General Assembly if they don’t pass a balanced budget by the end of the current fiscal year.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 6:32 pm:
No way, this would waste far too much time, especially in Illinois. And can you imagine the whining from republicans if we were forced to elect even fewer of them to maintain control?