* Subscribers already know my take on this, but when Speaker Michael Madigan added several days to the January session, eyebrows went up all over the Statehouse…
Why be in session in January when the veto session is just ahead?
There are a couple of reasons. One, all of the lame ducks in the legislature will still be in office in early January. Those lawmakers can pretty much do what they want, since they won’t be facing the voters again.
The other is changing vote requirements. If you want to pass a bill with an immediate effective date during the veto session, it takes a supermajority. In the House, that means 71 votes to pass a bill rather than the usual 60. After Jan. 1, though, the vote requirements go back to normal.
So if you’ve got a bill that you want to become law right away — say, a tax increase, just for instance — it will be a lot easier to pass after Jan. 1 than during the veto session.
That’s not to say such a bill is looming. Madigan still wants Republicans to put votes on a tax hike, and there’s no indication they are willing to do that, now or in January. But if you’re a lame-duck Republican who believes a tax increase is needed, you could vote for one in January and make a quick exit.
Based on a tip, FOX Chicago News asked the Illinois Department of Transportation how longtime mob bookmaker and loan shark Ralph “Curly” Peluso was hired in as supervisor two years ago.
That’s right; you’re paying the $76,000 a year salary of a former associate of the deadly Frank Calabrese Senior street crew.
During that trial Peluso was named in more than two dozen pieces of evidence and was scheduled to be a government witness against Calabrese until he got cold feet. In one tape played for the jury, Calabrese Junior secretly recorded Peluso talking about his long involvement with Calabrese Senior.
Curly was placed on administrative leave in August and “discharged for cause on September 15th.” Odd.
* Abolish the death penalty and save $20 million up front? Interesting…
Death penalty opponents said they will try to get lawmakers to abolish the death penalty during the veto session. Jeremy Schroeder of the Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty said $20 million a year could be redirected to other uses if the death penalty and Capital Litigation Trust Fund were abolished. He said public support to abolish the penalty is building as voters hear of death row inmates being exonerated.
A published report says a write-in candidate for President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat is being investigated for allegedly forging signatures in his attempt to get on the ballot as an independent.
Illinois State Police spokesman Scott Compton says authorities are investigating Shon-tiyon “Santiago” Horton of Alton.
The (Alton) Telegraph reports Horton was more than 600 signatures short to get on the ballot.
Horton hasn’t been charged.
He denies forging signatures. He says he signed petitions on behalf of those who were unable to write their names.
The patriarch of the Ricketts family, Joe Ricketts, is so against government borrowing and spending that he has created a website called EndingSpending.com and produced this video…
The money quote…
“I think it’s a crime for our elected officials to borrow money today, to spend money today and push the repayment of that loan out into the future on people who are not even born yet.”
Um. Hmm. Isn’t that pretty much exactly what the Cubs want to do now? And since Mr. Ricketts believes this sort of a thing is a “crime,” should his son, the Cub chairman, be arrested?
Heh.
* Mr. Ricketts’ website defines earmarks this way…
What’s an earmark? In general, it is a provision inserted in the text of a Congressional bill or report that allocates money or a tax benefit for a specific project, program, or organization, circumventing a merit-based or competitive allocation process.
And the “merit-based or competitive allocation process” for the $300 million Cub bonds are… what, exactly? I suppose since Mr. Ricketts is talking about federal earmarks his family can ignore the obvious ideological conflict with state and local action.
* In the above video, Ricketts also describes those who support earmarks as “hooligans.” If there is any justice in this world, that term should be thrown right back at his own family.
* I truly had an open mind about this Ricketts proposal last week. But if the Ricketts family patriarch is against it, then why should anyone be stupid enough to vote for it?
“That would deny the next mayor — if I sign the agreement and say, ‘Go ahead’ — of the revenue they need to balance the budget,” Daley said. “And government needs money in order to balance budgets.
“We have to really talk about how you finance this without jeopardizing — whether it’s $5 million, $7 million or $8 million of — future growth….It’s a good concept. They’re well-intentioned….but that would really burden the next mayor. You wouldn’t want to do that.”
And so does Gov. Quinn…
“We have top priorities in Illinois right now that must be dealt with,” Quinn said, adding that the Ricketts family’s proposal “would not be a top priority for me.” […]
The governor added: “These are private owners of a baseball team. They spent almost $1 billion buying it. They knew what they were buying. To be coming to the people of Illinois for assistance now after an election isn’t a top priority… If they wanted this to happen, they should have talked about it before the election — not after.”
* The Rockford Register Star refuses to look a gift horse in the mouth…
The city of Rockford needs every economic development tool it can get. Although a riverboat casino might not be the ideal opportunity, it could be a key piece in a downtown redevelopment plan that could include a hotel, restaurants and shopping.
A Rockford casino would keep money here. Busloads of local people head to Elgin and Aurora to have fun with their money. Why not make Rockford the place to have fun and give another entertainment option to residents and visitors who might want to exit Interstate 90 and detour into Rockford for a quick game?
It’s time for Rockford to put a few items in the “yes” pile. We need to say “yes” to something that would help lower our unemployment rate and might be the impetus for more investment in the city.
The community is infamous for its ability to say “no.” This is an opportunity that should be seized.
The issue: A plan to drastically expand gambling in Illinois could lead to a new casino in the south suburbs.
We say: The sudden choice of Ford Heights reeks of secret back-room deals. The process is an outrage, and the public should demand accounting. […]
This is just some back-alley craps game - sleazy, secret, with dirty motives and quite possibly thugs waiting in the wings.
It’s the kind of back-room deal that’s dragged this state into the gutter, holds us down, picks our pockets, and kicks us in the temple.
* One of the paper’s columnists compares the proposed casino to a gentleman’s club…
The casino, if approved by state lawmakers, would be just like Ford Heights’ Atlantis Gentlemen’s Club, a beacon of jobs and economic development that opened three years ago - and has yet to attract the hotels, restaurants and spinoff businesses promised.
* The Question: Do you favor adding new casinos in Illinois? Explain.
Monday, Nov 15, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Part 1, Electric Rates.
Myth: Taylorville will put an “enormous economic burden” on consumers
Fact: The Clean Coal Portfolio Standard caps residential rate increases at 2.015%, or $1.67/month, according to the ICC.
Myth: Taylorville means rate increases now, when we can least afford it
Fact: Between now and 2015, the project will invest billions in Illinois, employ nearly 2,500 construction workers and purchase supplies from all corners of the state. The cost to ratepayers between now and 2015? ZERO. NOTHING. ZILCH.
Myth: Taylorville will dramatically increase electric rates for large business customers
Fact: Big business customers currently pay 40.5% less for electricity than residential and small business consumers. Even under their worst case scenario, large customers would still pay 37.1% less.
Myth: Illinois has plenty of electricity. No new plants are needed.
Fact: As Crain’s and others have reported, environmental regulations are expected to force 25-40% of Illinois coal plants to shut down by 2020. Since Illinois still relies on coal for half of our electricity, less supply and more demand means higher electric rates if cleaner supplies of reliable electricity, like Taylorville, are not built. And who benefits from that?
Monday, Nov 15, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
1. An enormous burden on the Illinois economy and consumers
In the best case scenario, Tenaska’s proposal would force all Illinois consumers to pay at least $286 million more for electricity annually than they would otherwise. (That’s $8.6 Billion over 30 years!) And who pays for overruns? Consumers.
2. A “jobs program” that actually kills jobs
The Tenaska plant would cost ten times as many jobs as it creates! Raising the cost of doing business to this degree will cost between 15,000 to 35,000 jobs, according to independent economic analysts.
3. It’s anything but “green”
Even if everything goes right, the plant has the same emissions profile as a natural gas-fired power plant, which is a lot cheaper. More likely, the plant will either be MUCH more expensive or MUCH more polluting.
4. Huge environmental concerns
Underground sequestration is untried and untested, and could be very dangerous to any community living on top of all that CO2.
5. Shatter Illinois’ competitive electric market
Forcing Illinois’ 41 certified retail electric suppliers to buy the plant’s power – no matter the price - is anti-competitive and turns the whole principle of competitive markets on its head.
* It’s tough to argue with this Sun-Times editorial board logic…
The Chicago Cubs’ new owners, like the previous owners, are making a move to hit up Chicago taxpayers to the tune of $200 million to pay for renovations at Wrigley Field.
The money ultimately would come from 35 years of future growth in an amusement tax that the city levies on tickets and concessions at Wrigley.
That’s money that otherwise would go straight into the city’s tapped-out general fund — money the city desperately needs for essential services such as paved streets and police and fire protection.
It’s money that would have to be made up somehow.
If this deal goes through, future Chicago mayors could be forced to raise taxes and fees elsewhere or cut basic city services even more deeply.
And for what?
To fix up a privately owned baseball park for one of the most profitable sports teams in the country.
Talk about a corked bat.
Tom Ricketts and his brothers and sister are grown-ups. They knew exactly what they were doing last year when they bought the Cubs and Wrigley Field from the Tribune Company for $845 million.
* But, forget the city’s editorial pages. A couple of far more powerful enemies have popped up: The Bears and the White Sox…
Bonds for the Cell will be paid off in 2021. Soldier Field bonds will be retired in 2031. If amusement tax growth is not great enough by then to retire the Wrigley bonds, the Cubs intend to borrow from the hotel tax and pay it back by extending the life of the bonds.
That could force the city and state to forfeit amusement tax growth for even longer than 35 years.
But here’s the catch: If the Cubs move to the head of the line, the Bears and Sox could be deprived of the money they may need to complete stadium renovations.
“They’re assuming we won’t need any major work at Soldier Field and U.S. Cellular Field. These are assets of the state and city that need to be upgraded,” said a source familiar with the deal.
“Twenty years from now, the Bears may say, ‘For us to stay, we need this and this.’ … The Cubs are saying, ‘When the bonds run out, it’ll go to us. The hell with you.’”
* The team’s new owner is attempting to calm the waters, but he’s only somewhat addressing the points mentioned by the CS-T…
Cubs Executive Chairman Tom Ricketts tried Friday to calm the uproar. In several radio interviews, he said Cubs fans are on the hook, not the at-large taxpayer on the South Side, in Peoria or in Carbondale.
“The dollars are only coming from people who buy Cubs tickets, and only the increase over what they pay today,” Ricketts said on WGN-AM 720. […]
Ricketts argued that the city and county can’t count on incremental revenue from the Wrigley amusement tax if the Cubs don’t refurbish the 96-year-old ballpark. The growth in the amusement tax will primarily come from increasing ticket prices. Ricketts said it’s easier to justify higher tickets prices over time in a renovated stadium.
“The increases (in the amusement tax) won’t exist unless we fix up the park,” Ricketts told WGN.
The trouble is, the new owner wants to tap all the money from the amusement tax increase. If they could split it with the city and county, they might have a better case. Or, they could raise the tax and only tap that cash.
Brian Battle, a director at Chicago-based investment adviser Performance Trust Capital Partners, suggested this tack: “If you are a Sox fan, they are not asking you to pay for anything.”
Yes, they are. The Ricketts want all that new tax revenue, which would otherwise go to municipal coffers.
“I can’t rule it in or out. It is a good proposal, but like anything else, we have to see what effect this has on the revenue. And that’s very important, especially when you’re looking at nickels and dimes. That’s what we’re looking at. People are taking furlough days off, cutting pay and all that. So, you know, it’s difficult,” the mayor said.
Daley said there are other ways to renovate Wrigley Field besides the bond proposal.
* It might be nice if the team waited until after the mayoral election to do this. At the very least, the top candidates should weigh in one way or the other. Two already have…
“While many Chicagoans feel affection for Wrigley Field and the Cubs, I have reservations about asking taxpayers to provide funding to a private company at a time when basic city services like our education and public safety systems are being impacted by the state of the city’s finances,” said Rahm Emanuel.
Gery Chico also said, “I don’t think that’s the proper way to fund any renovation of Wrigley Field. Those monies go for essential municipal services — whether it’s police, fire or Streets and Sanitation.”
Daley said it’s important to preserve Wrigley but isn’t sure it’s appropriate to saddle his successor with decades of payments using revenue that would otherwise go into city coffers.
I mean, didn’t we just come through the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression by buying crap that people such as the Rickettses told us was hot stuff?
Clever folks in the financial-services field, such as the Rickettses, know how the game is rigged. Always against the little people.
Remember a year ago when Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said he and his commission-rich underlings were doing ‘’God’s work'’?
If the bond scheme these Cubs owners are trying to foist on us — with the help of government reps such as Illinois state Senate President John Cullerton — does pass, it’s the devil’s work.
The Rickettses have revealed themselves. They might love the Cubs, but they love other people’s money more.
One of the very top officials in Bill Brady’s campaign told me a few days after the election that he believes Brady lost to Gov. Pat Quinn for one reason: The pro-choice group Personal PAC.
Brady’s election-day model, the top campaign official said, had him taking 43 percent of the suburban Cook County vote. Instead, Brady took only 40 percent. That extra 3 points definitely would have won race for the abortion opponent Brady.
“The North Shore went to hell,” this uppermost Brady operative added, blaming Personal PAC’s mail, TV ads and robocalls for the loss.
A look at Cook County results showed that Brady vastly underperformed the numbers of Republican Mark Kirk, an abortion rights supporter, in several northern Cook townships. Kirk is a north suburban resident, so he was expected to somewhat outperform Brady. Yet Kirk won New Trier Township by 4,535 votes, while the anti-abortion Brady won it by just 537. The pro-choice Kirk won Northfield by almost 7,000 votes to Brady’s 1,325-vote margin.
And it wasn’t just the North Shore. Kirk more than doubled Brady’s winning margins in Schaumburg, Wheeling, Maine and Lyons townships. The same basic pattern played out in all the suburban collar counties as well.
Personal PAC CEO Terry Cosgrove told me he focused his group’s mail and robocalls almost solely on suburban women who voted in the last two general elections, but who didn’t vote in any primaries. That way, Cosgrove said, he could aim his message at what he believed were “very middle of the road, average suburban women.” He also included in his list 170,000 pro-choice Republican women whom his group had identified in suburban state legislative races over the years.
“I knew if we could get enough of those suburban women, that’s where victory was,” Cosgrove said.
Cosgrove said his media buyer’s research showed he could find those same “average” women voters via the early morning news and daily TV talk shows. “We were on every single network TV station in the–morning through 4 o’clock,” he said. Cosgrove said Personal PAC spent $100,000 on TV the day before the election alone, figuring that he could catch busy, preoccupied women who were just about to make up their minds.
Cosgrove also determined early on that independent millionaire Scott Lee Cohen would help Quinn. “I didn’t care if they went for him because it wasn’t a vote for Brady,” he said.
“This race was a referendum on Pat Quinn,” Cosgrove continued, saying that he viewed it the same as a multi-candidate primary. Relative unknowns often split the “anti” vote in those primaries. Cosgrove figured Scott Lee Cohen would do the same. He was right.
Were there other important factors in this race? Absolutely. Organized labor and the Democratic ground game helped push Chicago’s turnout well above 2006 levels. The Brady Campaign - the gun control group, not the candidate - most certainly helped pit many of those aforementioned suburban voters against Bill Brady.
But it’s no secret that Personal PAC is infinitely more sophisticated with its messaging than its counterparts on both the left and the right. The best example of this is one of the group’s mass mailers featuring a photo of a middle-aged couple on the front. “My husband might not have made it,” the mailer began. “Prostate screening saved his life. Who would vote against that?” Brady voted against a bill mandating prostate cancer screening.
The idea behind the mailer, Cosgrove said, was to get women to talk to their husbands about Bill Brady. About one man in six are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that rate is far higher among older men. The mailer was designed to play on an almost universal fear.
The group also is much more willing than typical candidates to use harshly blunt messages in its advertising. Cosgrove, for instance, said that men are more amenable to his abortion messaging when they’re reminded of their daughters. So, his TV ad featured a young woman who talked about how she was raped at age 18, saying she wouldn’t know what she would have done had she become pregnant. The rest of the ad featured photos of very young women along with the message that Brady was against abortion in cases of rape and incest. The idea was to drive the message home that this was about daughters. It worked.
Titled “Tough,” the 30-second spot will begin airing Monday as part of a large, nearly $750,000 ad buy of broadcast Chicago TV stations.
Showing images of Emanuel talking and greeting people around the city as part of his five-week ramp-up to the mayoral run he formally announced Saturday, Emanuel narrates, saying Chicago is “at a crossroads” and needs a mayor to make difficult but necessary decisions.
* Axelrod on whether Obama will campaign for Rahm Emanuel for mayor: “Well, the president has made clear what his view of Rahm is. He said he was an excellent chief-of-staff, thought he would be an excellent mayor. Whether he involves himself actively in this campaign is a matter that we haven’t yet decided. But I think his view of Rahm is very clear.”
