* From the Tribune…
An abortion rights group filed a federal lawsuit today seeking to strike down a portion of the state’s campaign finance law that limits how much donors can give to political action committees.
Personal PAC argues that the limits are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Courtcase that found expenditures independent of political candidates can’t be regulated.
“The Supreme Court changed the rules of the game,” said Juliet Berger-White, an attorney representing Personal PAC. […]
Terry Cosgrove, president and CEO of Personal PAC, said the $10,000 donation limit has meant the organization has lost out on more than $100,000 in donations it would use to support candidates who support abortion rights in Illinois.
* Before the state’s new campaign finance laws were enacted, PACs could accept limitless amounts of cash from their contributors. Those contributions to the PACs are now capped, which I told subscribers long ago seemed aimed directly at Personal PAC and a few other groups. But a US Supreme Court ruling may provide the impetus for change…
But since then, in the Citizens United case in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “independent expenditures” — those made not by a candidate themselves, but by an outside party acting on their own, in support of the candidate — cannot be limited under Constitutional free speech rights.
In the suit, Personal PAC makes a similar argument.
“With so much at stake, we cannot win elections with one arm tied behind our back,” Personal PAC President Terry Cosgrove said in a statement. “The unconstitutional restrictions on contributions in the Illinois law prevented us from collecting tens of thousands of dollars in donations that we were legally entitled to last year.”
Says the suit itself: “Without being able to raise money for the purpose of independent expenditures in excess of the current statutory limits, Personal PAC cannot effectively accomplish its mission of preserving reproductive rights.”
The lawsuit is here.
7 Comments  
|
Real Time Election Coverage
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
With ScribbleLive, the world’s leading real time content publishing platform, you can can report on what matters when it matters. Many of the world’s largest publishers count on Scribble to deliver enhanced coverage, drive reader engagement and create new revenue opportunities.
Scribble helps you engage your audience regardless of where you are reporting from and how they are consuming your content.
Harness the power of social media within your properties. Our syndication capabilities, mobile reporting and in-depth services portfolio let you create real time content for a real time world.
Comments Off
|
* This Channel 5 blog post was apparently labeled as “satire” some time after it was initially posted, labeled as satire right from the beginning, according to blogger Ted McClelland, but it’s silly enough to certainly expect a satirical bent…
In response to the gay marriage bill introduced Wednesday by three Chicago legislators, a pair of Downstate representatives are pushing their own marriage equality bill.
State Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville, and state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, have introduced the Lonesome No More Act, which would guarantee the right to marry to Illinoisans who are unemployed, obese or have terrible personal hygiene.
“Marriage in this country is in crisis,” Phelps said at a state capitol news conference this morning. “Fifty years, almost every American, no matter how poor, hideous or unwashed, was able to find a spouse. Today, marriage has become an elite institution, available only to those with the financial resources to maintain a household. The American Dream of marriage has been disappearing as quickly as the American Dream of a steady, well-paying job.” […]
“The average household income of a gay couple is $85,000 a year,” Phelps said. “The average household income in Gays, Illinois, is $41,000 a year. I’ve been to Lake View. It’s a wonderful neighborhood with easy access to public transportation, health clubs, employment opportunities and hair salons. It’s easy to be rich and good looking in Lake View. It’s not as easy in Harrisburg or Cairo, but people there deserve a chance to get married, too.”
* Um, OK. I’m not sure what the point of all that was, but a gay rights group called The Civil Rights Agenda quickly pounced via press release…
“Well, it is a great day when two downstate Republicans would agree that we should have marriage equality in Illinois,” said Lowell Jaffe, political and policy director for The Civil Rights Agenda. “As Representative Eddy stated, all people in Harrisburg or Cairo deserve a chance to be married. We agree wholeheartedly, and would add that it is especially important for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of Cairo, Harrisburg or any downstate community, who right now do not have the right to marry. We would like to invite both of Representatives Eddy and Phelps to become Chief Co-sponsors of the marriage equality legislation, and they should see the clerk of the House to be added.”
“I have seen political grandstanding before, but this is definitely a new level,” stated Anthony Martinez, executive director of The Civil Rights Agenda. “It is a common misconception that gay people in Illinois only live in the Northside of Chicago. We at The Civil Rights Agenda have made it part of our vision for Illinois to change that perception, which is why we testified at the legislative redistricting hearings this past fall, and presented our Illinois LGBT Population Density Map, based on our database of over 150,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. What we found when creating this map is that the LGBT community in Illinois is everywhere throughout the entire State.
“I would like to know where Rep. Phelps is getting his income data from, because the Census does not include lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender folks so there is no source that can truly state these numbers he quotes as fact. We work with a number of LGBT folks throughout the state that are homeless, jobless, low-income and just struggling to make it, just like straight people. Through our Workplace Discrimination Project we constantly work with folks who were fired or discriminated against just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Most of these folks are low-income or unemployed and we help to provide free or low-cost legal services. This is especially true of the LGBT folks we work with downstate.”
* A couple of minor corrections were subsequently issued and David Ormsby tried to find out what was going on…
At 5:59 p.m., this blogger, after reviewing Eddy and Phelp’s on-line, legislation sponsorship list and finding no-such legislation and after conducting a Google search that revealed no other reporting on the ‘press conference’ during the day, e-mailed Martinez a link to McClelland’s piece, with the satire warning label included, and asked if the group was responding to the NBC Chicago post and if had he a number for the “introduced” bill?
Martinez’s response was curt: “The sponsors had a press conference today in Springfield. The bill has not been filed as of yet. Please let me know if you have any other questions.”
This blogger had no other questions. Dinner, not a satire sand trap, beckoned.
In the following hours, despite the satire warning in place, Martinez issued two “correction” press releases backing peddling on the bill “introduction” claim but still peddling the group’s criticism of Eddy and Phelps’ ‘press conference’.
* Finally, two hours after the initial press release was sent out, a full retraction appeared in my in-box…
Whoops! Things have been extremely busy in terms of legislation and the LGBT community in Illinois this week. We also have been fighting some pretty extreme and discriminatory legislation and attacks against the LGBT community in Illinois. Unfortunately, legislation like the “Lonesome No More” Act is real for the LGBT community across the United States, such as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” in Tennessee.
We were tipped off by a Springfield resident that thought this was real, and stated to us that they were in attendance at the press conference. We realize now that the below article is satire, and will ensure that we triple check our sources in the future.
* Ormsby is a PR guy by trade, and this was his conclusion…
An assortment of single, professional public relations reality checks should have applied the breaks on the group’s first press release. Oh, well.
Unfortunately, the group compounded its public relations goof by failing to offer an official apology to Eddy and Phelps in its “retraction”.
There is still time for another press release “correction.”
Discuss.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Too funny. From a press release…
Equality Illinois has received numerous media inquiries regarding an obviously satirical column by NBC5 Ward Room Blogger Edward McClelland about a fictitious marriage equality bill, the “Lonesome No More Act” for the unemployed, the obese and those with terrible personal hygiene, supposedly introduced in Springfield by state Rep. Roger Eddy and state Rep. Brandon Phelps.
Equality Illinois has made no comment regarding the column.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rep. Roger Eddy’s response…
“This blogger crossed the line when he used fictitious quotes attributed to several legislators,” Eddy said. “This blog post is false, irresponsible journalism. The legislation described in the post does not exist. There is no such legislation and the supposed press conference never happened.”
Representative Eddy reaffirmed his commitment to traditional family values.
“I am a conservative who strongly supports traditional family values,” Eddy said. “I believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. My wife Becca and I have been married for 31 years and we have five wonderful children. I oppose gay marriage and I voted against the Civil Unions Law. I will continue to stand up for downstate families in defense of our shared conservative values.”
25 Comments
|
The governor’s pension plans
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gov. Pat Quinn’s pension reform ideas weren’t covered by the media in much detail last week, so I used my syndicated newspaper column to do just that…
Gov. Pat Quinn outlined a plan last week to reform the state’s troubled pension systems. In doing so, Quinn appeared to outright reject some pension ideas offered up by House Republican Leader Tom Cross and Senate President John Cullerton.
The governor said pension reform negotiations, which have dragged on for well over a year, are in need of a fresh start. Republican Leader Cross’ reform proposal raises employee pension contributions in order to force public employees into either a lower-cost system or to a 401(k)-style plan. The state’s pension plans have billions of dollars in what’s called unfunded liability and the idea is to lower that liability by reducing retiree pension payouts.
The governor all but said Cross’ plan, which is hotly opposed by labor unions, needed to be tossed out. “I don’t think there’s a lot of enthusiasm by members of either party and either house for that particular bill,” the governor said. “We’re going to start from scratch and everybody will have a voice and we’ll get to a good place.”
Quinn claimed he wants “meaningful reform” of the pension system and laid out four “key variables.”
1) Employer contributions: This idea would force local school boards and universities to finally pay a significant share into the pension funds. Quinn said the contributions could be phased in over time. The governor also said that the transfer of responsibility from the state to the schools and universities wouldn’t necessarily result in higher local property taxes, which are capped, but could be done via economizing by employers. Cullerton said much the same thing. All three Democratic leaders have said they favor this concept, so watch for it to move forward.
2) Employee contributions: The governor now favors increasing employee pension contributions out of their paychecks. Cullerton’s chief legal counsel has suggested using various incentives in order to hike employee contributions by 3 percent, which could raise hundreds of millions a year if you include all state workers, public school teachers and state university employees. With the governor including the item on his list, the idea appears to be seriously in play.
It also doesn’t hurt that the Chicago Tribune’s latest poll showed that 50 percent of Illinoisans want to see employees contribute more to their pension funds to help pay for the billions of dollars of taxpayer underfunding over the past several decades. No other option presented by the newspaper’s pollster came even close to that number. The next highest was “Cut other state-funded programs,” which was backed by 30 percent.
3) Cost of living adjustments: Some of the talk at the Statehouse has been about possibly basing annual cost of living raises on the original retirement income, rather than basing the increases on the previous year’s amount. By doing that, the state would switch to “simple” interest and avoid the “magic” of compound interest, which really adds up over the years. This COLA readjustment was done for future hires during the last round of pension reforms. The COLAs could also be lowered or even possibly eliminated.
4) Retirement age: The retirement age has already been raised for future hires, but Quinn now wants to do that for current public employees.
Despite Quinn’s claim last week that any pension reforms would have to be “done in a constitutional manner,” AFSCME, which represents thousands of state workers, pointed out that a legal analysis prepared at the governor’s own behest in 2010 completely rejected the idea that pension benefits could be changed after an employee was hired.
The Illinois Constitution declares that public pension benefits are an “enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” AFSCME and many others contend that the language means once a worker starts paying into the pension fund, the benefits can never be reduced in any way.
The governor also appeared to reject Cullerton’s idea to adjust the pension “ramp” which ultimately requires a 95 percent pension funding ratio by 2045. The idea is to have 95 percent of all pension payouts for the next 30 years. Cullerton has said that ought to be lowered to 80 percent, which could save lots of money.
“I think we should look at the ones I mentioned,” Quinn said when asked about the Cullerton idea.
* Related…
* Millions at stake for schools with change in pension plans
* Proposal would have schools take on future pension costs, not debt: But the proposal would require local schools to pick up the actual cost of a teacher’s pension going forward — an estimated $800 million among all the suburban and downstate schools this year. Chicago schools fund their own pension program.
* Editorial: Pension shift proposal is likely DOA
* Kadner: Pols pull bait-and-switch on teacher pensions, taxes
59 Comments
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Not so “Super”
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* An attempt at hammering out an agreement over banning Super PAC money in the 8th District Democratic primary appeared to start out innocently enough…
Tammy Duckworth and Raja Krishnamoorthi both said Monday evening that they hope to reach an agreement banning super-PAC spending in their race. “Unlimited contributions undermine the American principle of ‘one person, one vote,’” Duckworth said in a statement. “And the secretive nature of Super PACs means voters can’t know who’s behind an attack ad. That’s not acceptable — the only money that should be spent in the 8th District is money that is fully disclosed before the election under federal election laws.”
Raja Krishnamoorthi’s campaign went a step farther in its response, offering a ban on all donations from political action committees, unions, lobbyists and corporations. Both versions of the agreement would force the campaigns to pay major penalties if it is violated. [..]
Their calls come after Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Democrat Elizabeth Warren reached a similar agreement, which Duckworth’s campaign says they used as a model. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) have been arguing over the details of an agreement that would do the same in their race.
* So, if Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren could make a deal, you’d think Duckworth and Krishnamoorthi could do so as well. But Krishnamoorthi didn’t want to stop with just a ban on Super PAC money. He demanded concessions that Duckworth most likely wouldn’t ever agree to…
But Krishnamoorthi said he will make a promise with Duckworth only if it goes further.
Krishnamoorthi calls his terms “basically removing all D.C. money from this election.”
He also proposed that the candidates get rid of “paid media (ads)” by holding one debate a week until the election.
Krishnamoorthi says while he is “troubled by the advent of Super PACs, and their appearance on the landscape, in this situation I’d have to take a look at the idea (the Duckworth campaign) put forward.”
* By 8 o’clock last night, Duckworth’s campaign was attempting to put all the blame on Krishnamoorthi. From a press release…
Krishnamoorthi Campaign Tries to Leave the Door Open for SuperPACs
Refuses to Sign an Agreement with Teeth
Raja Krishnamoorthi’s campaign rejected the key pieces of Tammy Duckworth’s Super PAC pledge this evening, refusing to “have our budget held hostage by a third party.”
The only limitation Krishnamoorthi’s proposal would put on SuperPACs would be to reject direct contributions - something already banned by current law.
“Mr. Krishnamoorthi’s campaign is missing the point,” said Josh Levin, Duckworth’s Campaign Manager. “The only way to keep SuperPACs and other secret, unlimited money out of the race is to let them know that if they get in it will hurt the candidate they’re trying to support. If Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren can agree to these terms, surely we can do the same here.”
“We are disappointed and surprised that our opponent has refused to sign the pledge. Instead of putting the voters first and setting an example for Illinois and the country, Raja’s campaign has chosen to put political gamesmanship first.”
* At 5:09 this morning, Krishnamoorthi’s campaign was countering with its own press release…
DUCKWORTH REFUSES TO FORGO D.C. & PAC MONEY OR ENGAGE IN DEBATES
Duckworth Campaign Refuses Pledge to Keep D.C. Money out of Race
Tammy Duckworth’s campaign refuses to address the agreement put forth by Raja Krishnamoorthi, which (a) calls for both candidates to reject PAC and D.C. money and (b) calls for both candidates to engage in a series of substantive debates on the issues.
The U.S. campaign finance system undermines democracy due to a broad and systemic problem of huge amounts of D.C. money tilting the scales of an election. That is why Raja has proposed a plan that diminishes the impact of PAC and D.C. money on this election.
“Duckworth’s campaign is taking a page out of the D.C. playbook by muddying the waters instead of discussing the issue at hand,” said Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Murray. “The facts are clear. Raja’s proposal will allow voters to cast their votes based upon the strength of a candidate’s ideas and plans instead of the strength of a candidate’s financial support from Washington D.C. and PACs.”
“Instead of discussing Tammy’s ideas and policy solutions, Duckworth’s campaign seeks to avoid substantive debate on the issues facing working families and relies mainly on name recognition and D.C. money to try to win this election,” continued Murray. “The voters of Illinois’ 8th district deserve better.”
* And then at 10:03 this morning, Duckworth’s campaign was trying to raise money off the “controversy”…
Yesterday, I asked my opponents to join me in a pledge to keep Super PAC spending out of this race. An overwhelming number of you signed on to agree that unlimited, anonymous funding should have no role in our democracy. But unfortunately, my primary opponent refused to sign on to the same kind of pledge Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to.
Please contribute $10 now to prove to my opponent that grassroots funding works–and it’s the right thing to do.
As I said yesterday, this will only work if my opponent agrees. Over 7,000 of you have contributed to my campaign–often in spite of tough financial circumstances–and I’m not willing to let your contributions be overwhelmed by millions of dollars in negative attack ads.
We’ve already seen the corrosive effect of Super PAC support in the Republican presidential primary. And frankly, I’m not surprised to see Republicans embrace unlimited, anonymous corporate funds. But using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. It’s just not who we are as a party and it’s not what we should aspire to be.
Thanks for standing with me,
Tammy
P.S. We can’t let millions of dollars in negative Super PAC ads manipulate the outcome of this race. Contribute $10 to our Anti-Super PAC fund now–because this race should be determined by grassroots support, not a few wealthy backers.
*** UPDATE *** The Raja campaign has now issued its own fundraising appeal based on the disagreement…
Dear Friends,
The Citizens United decision equating corporate speech with individual speech was one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court. That is why I support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Now my opponent is attacking me for my stance on this issue. Please contribute $25, $50, $100 or more now to help me stop the lies and tell voters about my plan.
I am asking my opponent to join me in a pledge to combat D.C. politics as usual by (a) refusing to accept D.C. and PAC money; and (b) holding a series of debates, one per week until March 20th, in order to let voters make a truly informed decision that is not solely based upon TV ads and sound bites in the upcoming election.
So far, she has refused.
The Citizens United decision highlighted and accelerated a growing problem in politics, which is that there is simply too much money in our political system, and much of it is directed from Washington D.C. This problem pre-dated Citizens United and will remain with us even after we overturn Citizens United. My opponent is pushing a misguided Super PAC pledge created by D.C. Republicans, which of course fails to truly address the problem of special interest money in politics. And, she won’t sign on to my pledge.
Click here to join me in calling on my opponent to take D.C. money out of this election and engaging in a series of debates to allow voters to make an informed decision.
My opponent should join me in improving our political system by pledging to hold a series of debates so that the voters of the 8th District can choose their candidate by the strength of their ideas and their plans for restoring prosperity to the middle class.
If you agree that we need to remove D.C. and PAC money from politics, and think the voters of the 8th District deserve a substantive discussion of the issues facing working families, then join me by calling on my opponent to accept the terms of my pledge.
I await a response from my opponent, and I look forward to a substantive discussion of the issues.
Best regards,
Raja
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Meanwhile, in other Super PAC news…
A super PAC opposed to incumbents from either party plans to spend several hundred thousand dollars in Illinois before the March 20 primary to unseat three long-serving members of Congress from the Chicago area.
The Campaign for Primary Accountability, a Houston-based group with more than $1.6 million cash on hand, is targeting Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Chicago; Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Hinsdale, and Rep. Donald Manzullo, R-Rockford. Under federal law, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they do not coordinate with the campaign they are trying to help.
More…
According to the Texas Tribune, a nonprofit news organization, Linbeck contributed $775,000 to the Campaign for Primary Accountability, Joe Ricketts (patron of the family that purchased the Chicago Cubs) donated $500,000 and O’Keefe gave $100,000.
Curtis Ellis, spokesman for the super PAC, claims the group is nonpartisan and has carefully picked candidates throughout the country who have a chance to defeat long-term incumbents.
* Congressman Jackson responded via press release…
Jackson calls on Halvorson to Denounce SuperPac Support and Tell Pac to Stop Spending on Her Behalf
Today Congressman Jesse Jackson,Jr. decried the involvement of an outside Super Pac in the 2nd Congressional District race. The Campaign for Primary Accountability , a SuperPac formed by a wealthy Texas construction magnate named Leo Linbeck, III is reported to be spending money on robo calls and direct mail on behalf of Debbie Halvorson.
Congressman Jesse Jackson said, “This SuperPac is certainly no friend of Democrats. They are anti-Obama, anti-labor, anti-health care reform, I call upon Debbie Halvorson to actively and strongly denounce them and ask them to go back to Texas.”
* Halvorson hasn’t responded, but she did put out this press release…
According to a recent New York Time’s article, Representative Jesse Jackson Junior’s primary financial investor for the Peotone airport has been recently connected to the plot to smuggle Quadafi’s son to Mexico.
Debbie Halvorson stated:
“Representative Jackson is once again walking a fine line when it comes to ethics. According to Congressman Jackson himself, SNC-Lavalin is the one of the primary financial investors for the Peotone Airport and he has a long-standing relationship with this corporation. This makes me call into question the firm’s ability to fund the airport and whether we even want a firm here in Illinois who is connected to a plot to smuggle a member of Quadafi’s family into Mexico. On top of the connection with the airport, Representative Jackson voted last summer to bar funding for President Obama’s Libya operation. This doesn’t pass the smell test.”
The NYT story is here.
* Related…
* Brown: Voters disappear from city rolls: There were 1,279,971 registered voters in Chicago as of Monday morning. Barring an unexpected last-minute surge, that will leave us short of the previous low for a presidential primary — 1,307,519 — set just four years ago when Barack Obama bested Hillary Clinton and that slick lawyer from North Carolina whose name I’ve already forgotten. Oh, yeah, Edwards. City election officials estimate that leaves 400,000 to 500,000 individuals in Chicago who would otherwise be eligible but aren’t registered. “We view it as a real problem,” Chicago Board of Election Commissioners Chairman Langdon Neal said of the registration totals, which have been trending in this direction for quite some time despite constant efforts to make it simpler to sign up.
* ADDED: Illinois Supreme Court election: Does anybody even know it’s on the ballot?
* ADDED: Kinzinger, Sheyman hit TV in races for Congress
* ADDED: VIDEO: Kinzinger for Congress “Our Debt” Ad
* ‘Progressive’ Sheyman up with first ad
* VIDEO: Sheyman for Congress: American Dream
* Manzullo calls for teamwork, end
of super PACs at DeKalb town hall
* VIDEO: Walsh: “Clergy feels stabbed in the back” by Obamacare
* Rep. Kinzinger announces local supporters
* Partisan clash jeopardizing local transportation projects
* Congressmen don’t like transportation bill
21 Comments
|
The harsh Medicaid reality
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* US Sen. Dick Durbin pointed out some sobering Medicaid statistics this past weekend…
“One-third of all children in Illinois, their only health insurance is Medicaid,” Durbin said. “Over half of all births in Illinois are paid by Medicaid. And 60 percent of the Medicaid budget goes to the frail, elderly who are broke and living in nursing homes on Medicare, Medicaid and whatever they can scrape together on Social Security.
“When you start talking about cutting Medicaid, those are the three vulnerable populations.”
* DHFS numbers for Medicaid enrollment by fiscal year...
2000 – 1,365,070
2001 – 1,461,754
2002 – 1,535,648
2003 – 1,596,482
2004 – 1,750,335
2005 – 1,896,234
2006 – 2,021,314
2007 – 2,150,519
2008 – 2,304,291
2009 – 2,433,625
2010 – 2,590,945
2011 – 2,704,791
The recession has played a big role in the increase, but a doubling of the rolls without corresponding revenue growth to pay for it is a very real problem.
Illinois has one of the lowest costs per Medicaid patient in the country. Its provider reimbursement rates are also quite low - and if they go much lower patients will have trouble finding care. Eliminating programs and kicking people off health care is the “best” option, but as Durbin rightly points out, it’s an extremely harsh option.
56 Comments
|
* As you’ve probably read by now, Caterpillar Chairman and CEO Doug Oberhelman penned an op-ed over the weekend explaining why his company didn’t choose Illinois for a new factory. The heart of the matter…
What’s the solution? For starters, Illinois needs to adopt a long-term sustainable state budget that relieves pressures on taxpayers. Unlike some, I do not favor an early rollback of the temporary tax increases in Illinois; but they should expire as planned. Keeping the temporary tax increases in place for now gives the state time to develop a multiyear plan that balances the state budget. In addition, the state needs to dramatically lower workers’ compensation costs. Some say these changes are not politically possible in Illinois. But if Illinoisans put pressure on both parties to make these types of improvements, I think the state can become a place that can successfully compete for business growth and new jobs.
Let me be clear. Caterpillar is not threatening to leave Illinois. Rather, we want to grow our presence here. For Illinois to really compete for new business investment and growth, the state must address these matters.
* Gov. Pat Quinn was mostly in denial…
Quinn - who touted an improved business climate earlier this month in his State of the State address - said he was disappointed in Oberhelman’s comments and that Illinois has enacted reforms and tax credits to create jobs. He said Caterpillar officials told him the facility would need ocean access.
“We don’t have any ocean front property in Illinois, so with that particular facility we weren’t in the ball game to begin with,” Quinn said Sunday at an unrelated news conference. “We met with the Caterpillar people and they made it pretty clear that the logistics would drive the decision.” […]
Quinn said that while Caterpillar has voiced complaints about Illinois’ economic climate, Chrysler last week announced it was adding 1,800 workers at its plant in Belvidere. The Democrat said that since Oberhelman’s letter, Illinois has enacted worker’s compensation reform and passed a Caterpillar-backed tax credit for research and development costs. He also said exports in Illinois are up.
* The Tribune reacted harshly…
Look at the results of the new Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll of 600 registered voters. We asked them about the outlook for the U.S. and for Illinois.
• 52 percent said the U.S. economy is recovering. Just 21 percent said the Illinois economy is recovering.
• A mere 18 percent said the national economy is slipping. But 47 percent said things are getting worse here.
That gap — optimism about the nation, rank pessimism about Illinois — has been growing of late. You’re a perceptive lot, Illinoisans. National unemployment fell over the course of 2011 while it rose in Illinois, one of the few states to answer hard times by, yes, hiking taxes on citizens and employers.
The takeaway: Regular citizens have a far greater sense of urgency about this state’s problems than their politicians do. We’ve been trying on this page to raise the urgency in Springfield. A state that hikes taxes and chases away job-creators and still can’t balance its books is hurtling to disaster.
Discuss.
* Related…
* Editorial: Caterpillar complaint should hit home
* Editorial: Economic viability not out of Illinois’ reach
* Rutherford Sides with Caterpillar CEO on State’s Business Climate
* Rutherford: Business climate work in progress
* Proposal would have schools take on future pension costs, not debt
24 Comments
|
Question of the day
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
On Sunday, on Lincoln’s Birthday, Gov. Pat Quinn called for the passage of a so-called “Lincoln Amendment” to the Illinois Constitution which would allow voters to more easily implement stronger ethics laws and recall elected officials.
“We must have a way for everyday people to gather signatures on a petition and put on the ballot a binding referendum that will improve our government in the 21st Century and centuries beyond,” Quinn said at a news conference at the James R. Thompson Center in Chicago.
Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 52 was filed by Sen. Annazette Collins (D-Chicago) on Friday. If approved, the amendment would give voters the ability to enact ethics reforms to local governments, school districts and the legislative, executive and judicial branches of state government by gathering 8 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. It would be limited to changes that establish and enforce ethical standards, including campaign finance reform, conflict-of-interest voting, pay-to-pay abuses, patronage abuse and misuse of taxpayer funds.
“When it comes to ethics in government standards of conduct for elected officials at the local and state levels, we need to have mechanisms for the voters to set down the rules, put the voters in the driver’s seat, make sure the voters have the last word,” Quinn said.
* Text…
SECTION 5. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS
Amendments to Section 2 of Article XIII of this Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendments shall be limited to subjects that establish and enforce ethical standards for candidates for or holders of office in units of local government, in school districts, or in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch of State Government
* The Question: Do you support giving citizens the right to amend the Illinois Constitution to create new ethical standards, including campaign finance reform? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
40 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
