Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Recently, Tenaska has been waging a scare campaign about available energy in Illinois and how desperately we need the power from the Taylorville Energy Center.
What they don’t tell you is this: The available Illinois power pool is 304,000 MW. Tenaska would contribute 544 MW to that pool. That’s two-tenths of one percent - like pouring a coffee cup into a bathtub.
Which would be perfectly fine – should even be encouraged – if it didn’t come with a special deal, above market price tag on consumers.
These are the facts:
• The power produced at the Tenaska plant would be five times more expensive than current market price for power. (21.3¢ per kilowatt hour for Tenaska power versus 4¢ per kilowatt hour current market)
• The hit to Illinois consumers: $286 Million per year, every year, for 30 years.
Tenaska describes this increase as small, says it won’t kill a single job statewide. You be the judge:
* The Chicago Public Schools will pay $1 million more every year in higher electricity costs because of this plant.
* The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District will pay $1.3 million more per year.
* An industrial supply business in central Illinois will pay $265,025 more.
* A state university will pay $208,959 more per year.
* A retail discount store in southern Illinois will pay $66,204 more per year.
Former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel meets the residency requirement to run for mayor of Chicago and will remain on the Feb. 22 primary ballot, a Cook County judge ruled Tuesday.
In a ruling issued early Tuesday afternoon, Cook County Circuit Judge Mark Ballard upheld an earlier 3-0 ruling by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners that Emanuel, despite having lived in Washington, D.C., for the past two years to serve as President Obama’s chief of staff, is eligible to run.
“On the question of whether candidate Emanuel has satisfied the 1-year residency requirements… the court finds no error with the Board’s decision,” Ballard wrote. “We find the analysis presented by respondent candidate Emanuel to this court persuasive on the issue of whether an individual must have a ‘place to sleep’ to satisfy the litmus test of continued residence.”
Ballard heard arguments from lawyers from both sides during a 45-minute hearing on the 19th floor of the Daley Center. Burt Odelson, attorney for the objectors, argued Emanuel is trying to “re-write history” by claiming he was a Chicago resident, saying it was akin to the George Orwell’s book “1984.”
“But they can’t re-write the law,” Odelson said.
This thing is gonna go on for a while yet. Nothing is finalized, but the score is now 3-0 Emanuel (hearing officer, city elections board and circuit court).
…Adding… Emanuel statement…
The Board of Elections and the court have both now concluded what I have said all along – that the only reason I left town was to serve President Obama and that I always intended to return. Now that these decisions have been reached, Chicago voters should have the right to decide the election and to vote for me or against me. And they deserve to have the campaign focus on the challenges facing the city and the need for safe streets, strong schools, and stable city finances.
* In other news, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, who set off a firestorm with his report on Chicago’s parking meter deal, now doubts the city can get out of it…
The idea sounds simple and very appealing: Cancel and renegotiate the much-despised deal that privatized Chicago’s parking meter system.
But the idea may well be too good to be true, with outside experts warning that cancellation, even if legal, could stick the city with a tab for more than $1 billion that it doesn’t have. […]
If a court were to overturn the parking meter contract, Morgan Stanley et al. “would have a good argument” to reclaim their $1.16 billion, says former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, who for two years has criticized the deal as providing an inadequate return.
The courts more than likely would order both sides “to return to the starting point,” Mr. Hoffman says. Meaning that Chicago would get the meters back, but the Morgan Stanley group would get its $1.16 billion back — money the city has already pretty well burned through to fill budget holes.
Even getting that far is questionable, Mr. Hoffman adds. “The idea that you can overturn this contract in court is just highly unlikely,” he says. And, given credit market conditions, the city “maybe” would do better if it rebid the pact today, and “maybe” would do worse.
* Related…
* Emanuel: Ads could help pay for after-school programs
* Four major Chicago mayoral candidates debate Jan. 27
* Senate President John Cullerton talked to reporters after a meeting today between himself, Gov. Pat Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan. He didn’t say much, but did say they’re looking at various versions of an income tax hike…
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, emerged from the meeting with Quinn and House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, and said discussions are centering on a variation of a tax hike bill previously approved by the Senate, but stalled in the House. That bill raised the income tax by 66 percent.
“They are talking about trying to get the votes to pass an income tax, a variation of that out of the House,” Cullerton said. “Whatever it takes to pass an income tax (increase) is what they are talking about now.” […]
“It would be helpful to get some support from the other party,” Cullerton said. “We have a huge deficit we are trying to overcome. We are going to try to work on this today. If we have to come back and meet later, we will have to do that as well.” […]
Cullerton said he thinks the public understands the need for a tax hike.
“We have to pay our bills. We have to make sure out bond rating is improved and people see that going forward we can pay our bills,” Cullerton said. “If people look at it from that perspective, I think it is something they would accept.”
Cullerton said the governor has been meeting with Republicans about the tax hike ideas. He also said that the Senate would address school reform sometime in the new spring session if it can’t be done this week.
* Cullerton also confirmed a report in this morning’s Capitol Fax that he believes he now has enough votes to pass the $3.7 billion pension bond plan. The Senate fell one vote short during the spring session after the bill passed the House, and Cullerton said he has lined up enough Republican support to approve the legislation. The state doesn’t have the cash to make the pension payments, so the pension funds have been paying benefits out of assets for months.
* Meanwhile, House Speaker Madigan talked to reporters today after he testified in favor of yet another constitutional amendment which would require a three-fifths vote to increase state and local pension benefits. Check back in a few for video of that discussion.
…Adding… From an AARP press release urging rejection of Madigan’s TABOR legislation…
As a matter of policy, AARP opposes fixed, arbitrary, rigid caps on revenues and spending. Such constraints lead to vital services being shut down or severely diminished, and prevent states from responding to changing economic conditions – from recession and plant closings, to emergencies in public health, natural disasters, or terrorism.
HJRCA61 would impose such rigid and arbitrary caps on spending, making it impossible to meet new social and economic goals mandated by the courts or the federal government; it would tie the hands of elected officials – who have been chosen to make decisions about taxes and spending; and it would cut out citizens from fiscal policymaking – putting vital matters on auto pilot.
AARP has strongly and successfully opposed similar measures in states across the nation, from Oregon, to Maine, Washington, and most recently Florida where our members were instrumental in defeating a constitutional amendment. Even after a measure similar to HJRCA61 was passed in Colorado, the citizens of that state repealed it once they saw the devastating effect it had on the critical services they rely on, and on their very own livelihoods.
Recent studies have shown that HJRCA61 would lock Illinois’ current human services underfunding into the constitution, worsening an already critical situation for thousands of providers and millions of Illinoisans who need those services.
* Related…
* Rep. Hays enjoying brief stint in Black’s old office
Hang on to your pocketbooks, the Illinois Legislature is coming back to town.
With the collection of retiring and defeated, has-been lawmakers, scheming is afoot to increase your state income taxes by 66 percent.
If it happens this year, it will most likely happen during the next week, when the Legislature is in the final days of its lame-duck session.
It’s the most cowardly way of governing — voting on things when lawmakers are least accountable to the voters.
* The Question: If you had your druthers, would you prevent legislators from voting on anything except vetoes during the time period after the general election and before a new General Assembly is sworn in? Explain.
* The Taxpayers Bill of Rights proposal that I’ve been telling you about for the past couple of weeks got its first legislative hearing yesterday in the House. Speaker Madigan showed up to testify in favor of the legislation…
The Illinois House State Government Administration Committee on Monday approved the so-called Taxpayers Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment that would limit increases in general revenue fund spending to the average increase in per capita personal income over the previous five years. […]
“I think (the amendment) is reflective of how a majority of citizens in the state feel today,” Madigan said. “I think the majority of the citizens in the state feel, ‘You know, the government ought to be like us – it ought to live within its means and not overspend.’”
The Illinois Policy Institute opposed the plan, even though it admitted the measure would save taxpayers big bucks…
Kristina Rasmussen of the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, said in written testimony that Illinois would have spent $29 billion less if the limit had been in place from fiscal years 1997 to 2009.
“Fiscal year 2009 spending would have totaled $27.335 billion, or $1.8 billion less than available revenues,” she wrote.
The Illinois House will be asked to consider changes to a gaming expansion bill that the sponsor said are designed to help existing riverboat casinos whose revenues have been battered by the combined effects of the recession, competition from other states and Illinois’ indoor smoking ban.
Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, the House sponsor of the gaming bill, declined to explain specifics of the proposed changes Monday.
However, he said the basic outline of the bill — adding four new riverboats, a land-based Chicago casino, placing slot machines at horse racing tracks and allowing existing riverboats to expand — will remain intact.
“There are going to be provisions in the [new legislation] that will recognize that current gaming operators will have some problems as a result of the smoking ban, as a result of the down economy, and as a result of the increased competition they are going to get under this [plan.],” Lang said. “We’re going to provide some credits to them that they are not getting today. We’re going to provide some opportunity for expansion. We’re going to try and make their way a little better.”
Lang is not yet saying what lawmakers will do to make it “better” for existing casinos, though he is quick to point out that the basics of the Senate plan, SB737, will not change.
“New riverboat licenses, slot machines at race tracks, a land-based casino in the city of Chicago… none of those are being changed. But it’s a 400-page [piece of legislation], there’s a lot of room in there for change,” Lang said.
However, the proposed legislation will most likely ruffle feathers among providers of long-term care for the elderly, developmentally disabled and mentally ill, Mautino said.
“There’s a provision in here for long-term care, where we’re going to take the pieces of the budget out of all of these other different agencies it’s located in – make one global budget, which would be for the long-term care side,” he said. “And then up to 4 percent of that total budget would then have to be spent on community services where the money follows the patient.”
The philosophy of “money following the person” is popular at both the state and federal levels since it generally is less expensive than institutional care. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision calls for the disabled to live in the least restrictive environment possible.
“It’s something we haven’t done, but the courts have told us we need to do,” Mautino said. “So at this time, though it’s controversial, I would expect to see that in this bill.”
* Roundup…
* Report: State would gain $377M by raising cigarette tax: In light of the report by economist Frank Chaloupka at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Senate President John Cullerton said in a statement that “a cigarette tax is one of the most important agenda items for the coming year” because it would generate new revenue. The Chicago Democrat also noted the higher tax would reduce Medicaid costs attributed to smoking-related health concerns and reduce people’s desire to smoke.
* The Senate’s special committee on education reform met in Springfield yesterday, but Mayor Daley also weighed in on the topic. Hizzoner doesn’t think public school teachers should be allowed to strike…
[Daley] said he hopes state lawmakers pass a bill making it more difficult for them to walk off the job.
Daley made his comments at the ribbon cutting for the new Azuela Elementary School on West Marquette. The mayor acknowledged that the bill is controversial and that many people disagree with him. But he called a strike “unfair” to students. He went on to say that no one was going to treat teachers unfairly.
“You can’t give taxpayers money away all the time,” Daley said. “It’s not my money. It’s your money, it’s the taxpayers. It’s the taxpayers of the city of Chicago. And so we negotiate fairly and honestly what we can afford and what we can do.”
But most controversial, the measure would severely curb teachers’ power to strike. Now, teachers can strike after negotiations fail. But the proposal would mandate that the two sides go before a mediation panel and give the local school board the final say on whether to accept the mediators’ proposal or to impose its own settlement. Unions could strike only if the school board failed to make a final decision.
“The threat of a strike is so significant, it casts a very long shadow over the negotiating process,” said Robin Steans, executive director of Advance Illinois, an education-advocacy group that helped craft the proposal. “If you want the other reforms to stick, you have to deal with the strike issue in state law.”
The unions want school administrators and local school boards to be more responsible for what happens in a school district. Additionally, they are seeking professional training for school board members, a second certification for principals based on performance evaluations, and a list of programs that districts must maintain, said Ken Swanson, president of the Illinois Education Association. […]
Several union representatives said not all parts of the state’s first draft of reform are ill conceived. Like the proposal in the House, the unions would have performance ratings established in the Performance Evaluation and Review Act of 2010 count heavily when districts fill new and vacant positions.
“What we are proposing is all predicated on a successful implementation of the P.E.R.A. evaluation system so that we have a credible, solid base of reliable evaluations to work from. That is in our view absolutely critical,” Swanson said.
All schools in the state are slated to have the new evaluation system in place by 2016.
Additionally, like the House version of the plan, the unions want to see tenure based on good evaluation scores. The unions, however, want the length of time for earning tenure shortened from four years to three years, barring no poor evaluations.
After brusquely rejecting on Monday that she should release her income tax returns, Chicago mayoral candidate Carol Moseley Braun did an about face Monday night.
She now says she will release her tax records Tuesday, matching the disclosures made by her three major opponents.
“She changed her mind. It is no big deal,” Braun spokeswoman Renee Ferguson said. “She had intended to release them after Feb. 22 (Election Day), but everybody made such a big deal of it.”
Braun, who heads a coffee and tea company called Ambassador Organics, has suggested she has endured some recent financial challenges, including holding off on paying property taxes on her home because she was trying to keep the company functioning.
“I think it’s a nonstory. … Yes, I delayed paying them,” Braun told the Tribune in the fall. “I’m running a small business and I had to make a choice between paying my property taxes on Day 1 or day whatever it was and I chose the latter date. But they were paid.”
Opponents Rahm Emanuel, Miguel del Valle and Gery Chico each released their returns last month. Emanuel’s showed he and his wife made nearly $2 million during the last five years , and that they paid more than $300,000 in federal taxes.
Chico’s returns showed he made millions of dollars the last few years from his law firm, which lobbies City Hall on behalf of clients. Chico is a longtime City Hall insider, serving as Mayor Richard Daley’s chief of staff and Chicago Board of Education president.
