* From a Tribune editorial on House Speaker Michael Madigan and, of course, pensions…
The Capitol he entered in 1971, like the state it governed, was muscular and robust. […]
Madigan’s reaction is to lament, as would a victim, the crises he helped cause — and has the influence to solve. At the federal level, the senatorial Gang of Eight works to avoid a fiscal cliff, and presidential candidates clash over debt. In Illinois, Madigan and his fellow leaders haven’t had significant talks about their pension debacle in months.
* The Tribune really needs to bone up on its Illinois history, at least regarding pensions. Here’s a chart showing the pension systems based on percent they were funded from 1968 through 2011…
You can click the pic for a larger image. If you still can’t see the funding ratio for the early seventies, here you go…
So, in 1971, right as Madigan took office, the pension systems were being blatantly ignored.
Now, that’s not to say that other aspects of the state budget were worse then than they are now. It’s just that the Tribune has always acted as if this pension funding problem is somehow new. It’s not. As I’ve told you before, this problem goes back more than half a century.
* The Tribune’s latest poll has a plurality of Illinoisans opposing the gaming expansion bill that Gov. Quinn recently vetoed…
The survey results show growing opposition to new casinos and video slots at horse racing tracks, contrasting sharply with a similar poll conducted in February. The latest poll findings also appear to show that voters back Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision to veto the legislature’s latest gambling expansion bill in August.
Lawmakers have twice approved measures to allow five new gambling palaces for Chicago, Rockford, Danville, the south suburbs and Park City in Lake County, but Quinn has raised many concerns to block the measures.
The poll found 47 percent oppose the gambling expansion plan, while 43 percent approve of it. Those numbers are turned around from February, when a survey showed 50 percent of voters statewide approved of the gambling expansion plan while 42 percent disapproved.
In the new survey, almost half of Chicago residents, 49 percent, opposed the gambling expansion proposal, while 40 percent supported it.
Respondents were not told what the money from expanded gaming would be used for, but whatever. It is what it is.
* Meanwhile, as Penn National fights against gaming expansion and slots at tracks to protect its Joliet and St. Louis casinos, the company is making the exact opposite argument in Maryland…
Election Day – Nov. 6 – could very well be doomsday for a Maryland horse racing establishment.
That’s how officials of Rosecroft Raceway see it. They predict that if voters approve the referendum on expansion of gaming in the state, it will mean the demise of the 63-year-old raceway.
Karen Bailey, director of public affairs for Penn National Gaming [PNG], owner of Rosecroft, said that they’re being squeezed out of consideration to develop a new casino in Prince George’s County if the measure passes, which will likely force the track to close.
“Rosecroft is not going to have a fair shot,” said Bailey. “In order for us to stay open, we need to add gaming.”
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is interested in introducing a special gambling tax on video poker and slot machines, to the tune of $800 per machine, as part of her larger budget proposal this week, the Sun-Times has learned.
In a brief phone call with the Sun-Times, Preckwinkle confirmed that she’s examining a gambling tax, including on the poker machines, but declined to provide specifics beyond that. […]
Zack Stamp, a lobbyist for the Illinois Coin Machine Operators Association, had no problem commenting on such a proposal.
“I don’t know if they can legally do that,” said Stamp.
“These businesses have made a substantial investment in this equipment with an understanding somewhat of what the tax target is going to be, but if you’re going to come back in and lop something like this on top of them, it’s just another hurdle to get a return on their investment,” said Stamp.
State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, a champion of gambling expansion, also said he was surprised.
“I find it ironic that the same County Board that prohibited video gaming in unincorporated areas of the county has decided to make some money off of the video gaming devices where they can’t prohibit them,” Lang said. “I find it unusual and interesting.”
Lang said he was most concerned that an additional $800 charge per machine could eat into additional revenue bars and restaurants would use to improve their businesses and hire more employees.
“This additional tax on games might have a chilling effect on economic growth and jobs within Cook County,” Lang said.
* Related…
* September revenue dips 1 percent at St. Louis area casinos: Casino Queen in East St. Louis saw its revenue fall 5.5 percent last month to $10.3 million compred with September 2011. The Casino Queen’s revenue had risen 8 percent in August 2012 compared to the prior year’s month. Argosy Alton saw its September revenue fall 5.1 percent to $5.6 million compared with the same month last year. Argosy’s revenue had risen 9 percent in August compared with August 2011.
* New video gambling machines start to go live at area businesses
* Video Poker Collection Timeline Unclear: The Illinois Gaming Board says it’s also processing applications from more than 2,200 businesses interested in running video poker machines.
* This 15-second pause while Congresswoman Judy Biggert attempts to ask a question of Democratic challenger Bill Foster is just downright painful to sit through…
When the candidates were given the opportunity to grill each other, Biggert stumbled for 15 seconds before asking a half-formed question.
“I wanna know how you are going to, uh – solve the, uh, campaign finance…”
“ – problem,” finished Foster, who then went on to say that outside spending by super PACs and other groups is “one of the biggest threats to our democracy.”
Asked afterward why it seemed so difficult to come up with the question, Biggert suggested she wasn’t comfortable going on the attack.
“I had a question and I just couldn’t remember what it was,” she said. “I just didn’t think that this was the way I wanna be. I don’t like sending out anything like [negative ads]. … But it’s what people respond to, and I think that’s a shame.”
* Biggert press release…
“Judy Biggert won today’s debate on the facts and on temperament, while demonstrating her command of the issues and commitment to the 11th District,” said campaign manager Mike Lukach. “In contrast, and in a desperate attempt to distract from his record of layoffs at Electronic Theatre Controls, former Congressman Foster ran from the fact that his company closed the deal for their new headquarters just weeks after laying off ten percent of their workforce, and broke ground just months later.”
“Millionaire former Congressman Foster owes the voters of the 11th District an apology for his distortions and falsehoods, and for hypocritically calling for higher taxes while paying no federal income taxes himself last year. Those watching today’s debate have been reminded why the voters fired Bill Foster in 2010.”
* Foster’s spin…
Today Congresswoman Judy Biggert refused to back down from her support of the Ryan budget that she voted for twice that would end Medicare’s guaranteed benefit, force seniors to pay more for their prescriptions immediately, and increase health care costs for future seniors by $6400. Congresswoman Biggert had no explanation for her votes to raise taxes on middle class families by $2700. After 30 years in politics, Congresswoman Biggert is more concerned about the profits of billionaires and corporations than the health of the middle class.
“Today Congresswoman Biggert stood by her vote to take away Medicare’s guaranteed benefit for seniors and raise taxes on the middle class,” said Bill Foster. “The Ryan/Biggert budget would force seniors to pay more for their prescriptions and leave future seniors with $6400 in additional costs, while also increasing taxes on middle class families by $2700. By voting for the Ryan budget, and continuing to support it, Congresswoman Biggert chose to protect tax breaks for insurance companies, billionaires, and Wall Street, while squeezing out the middle class.”
Congresswoman Biggert defended the Ryan budget this morning at a taped debate hosted by the League of Women Voters and ABC7 Chicago, which will air on Sunday Morning after This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The next debate was scheduled for Tuesday evening, but Congresswoman Biggert canceled her appearance at the AARP forum, refusing to explain her position to concerned seniors.
* Democrat Ron Stradt hasn’t raised much money for his Sangamon County State’s Attorney race. He spent less than $11K in the last quarter and had less than $6K on hand at the end of September. As of this writing, his GOP opponent, an appointed incumbent, hadn’t filed his quarterly report, but his previous report showed he had far more cash than Stradt.
So what does an underfunded and definite underdog do? Try to create as much of a stir as possible, of course…
Stradt, obviously hoping to do something different to wrest the Sangamon County state’s attorney’s office away from the GOP, is also running a radio ad in which a conversation between a man and a woman includes how Stradt wants to empanel a grand jury to investigate misconduct of state legislators.
“With broken promises to state employees, he can start with Madigan and Quinn,” it says.
That refers to Democrats including Gov. PAT QUINN.
One participant in the ad wonders if Stradt is a Democrat, and the other says he is “a conservative Democrat for concealed carry” who will “clean up the Statehouse.”
* Over the years, local state’s attorneys have stayed as far away from the Statehouse as they could. Incumbent John Milhiser, for instance, refused to get involved after Sen. Mike Jacobs allegedly punched Sen. Kyle McCarter on the Senate floor. Most CapitolFax.com readers agreed with the decision, as did the SJ-R…
Cheers to Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser for introducing some common sense into a situation that never should have come across his desk. Milhiser said last week that no criminal charges will be filed as the result of an incident between Sens. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, and Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, on the Senate floor during the last hours of the spring legislative session. McCarter accused Jacobs of striking him following debate on a bill for which Jacobs’ father, former state Sen. Denny Jacobs, had lobbied. Whether it was a poke, shove or punch, this was not a police matter and should have been resolved accordingly.
But corruption is another story. I’m curious if you think local state’s attorneys should get involved in this stuff.
Amendment 49 on the November ballot in Illinois is cleverly drafted to concentrate more monetary power in the same Springfield legislative leaders who have de facto bankrupted the Illinois Treasury. With $83 billion in projected liabilities, Illinois has the nation’s largest state budget crisis.
Amendment 49 is crafted to strip local governments and voters of current decision-making prerogatives and transfer those decisions to Springfield.
Among other subterfuges, Amendment 49 overrules and destroys the Illinois Constitutional protection against eliminating or reducing earned benefits, such as pensions for state retirees who by state law cannot receive Social Security and, in many instances, cannot receive Medicaid.
Furthermore, thousands of elderly retirees and current state employees were mandated by Illinois law to pay into Illinois retirement systems and then were legally prohibited from having Social Security.
Amendment 49 contains more words than the entire first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution — the Bill of Rights. The obvious intent of the verbose Amendment 49 is to hide its true impacts from voters in a 700-word avalanche of unnecessary and deceptive words.
Marketing experts know that few voters will read beyond the benign first sentences and that voters will be inclined to vote “yes” in that benign spirit. While the voters may wish to vote to concentrate more monetary power in Springfield leadership, they should not be tricked into misdirecting their votes and eliminating their current constitutional safeguards by the confusing 700 words in Amendment 49.
For example, hidden in the “last sentence” is the new constitutional provision: “(d) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the passage or adoption of any law, ordinance, resolution, rule, policy or practice that further restricts the ability to provide a ‘benefit increase,’ ‘emolument increase,’ or ‘beneficial determination’ as those terms are used under this Section.”
Thus, Amendment 49 overrules the current Constitutional safeguard known as the “non-impairment provision” in Article XIII, sec. 5, of the Illinois Constitution.
As confirmed by expert memoranda — for example, the State Universities Annuitants Association memoranda (at www.suaa.org, June 8, 2012) — Amendment 49 was drafted outside normal processes, including the Springfield Legislative Reference Bureau.
Among other problems for local taxpayers, the language overriding the “non-impairment provision” was added at virtually the last minute as the “last sentence” hidden at the end of 700 words.
Amendment 49 has also been disguised with various monikers including “HCA49” and “HJRCA49,” and it was originally floated by Speaker Michael Madigan’s office as “Amendment 5.”
Instead of concentrating more power in Springfield’s legislative leadership, taxpayers should consider simply rejecting Amendment 49 as just more deceptive legislative legerdemain.
* Kindt uses a heckuva lot of scare tactics in the piece. That gibberish about the proposal having different names is just whacky talk, for instance. There is no such a thing as “HCA49.” HJRCA49 is the actual, legal legislative name. Amendment 49 is short-hand.
* But what really irked me was how Kindt cited a bit of language and then declared that it overrules the Constitution’s non-impairment provision without any explanation whatsoever.
“Legal counsel for the We Are One Illinois coalition of unions does not share the view that (the amendment) threatens existing constitutional pension protections,” said AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall.
Until the opposition comes up with actual legal reasoning behind this claim, I just can’t buy into it.
Democrat Tammy Duckworth went on the attack against Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh on Friday, airing a TV ad calling attention to what she said were his extreme views on abortion.
The half-minute commercial, which appears to target female voters who might be more likely to support abortion rights, features a repeated video clip of Walsh saying, “I am pro-life without exception.”
A Walsh campaign spokesman did not directly respond to a question asking Walsh’s stance on abortion, but the congressman previously has indicated that he opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.
Duckworth supports abortion rights. In an email Friday, Duckworth said she does not “support any restrictions on a woman’s right to choose or her access to safe, affordable reproductive health services.”
U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s campaign finances are the subject of a federal probe after the congressman allegedly improperly used campaign money to decorate his home, according to a new report.
The Chicago Sun-Times on Friday first reported that Jackson was under federal investigation, a probe that began before he took a leave from Congress in June to seek medical help. Ultimately, the Jacksons said he suffered from bipolar depression.
The Sun-Times reported that the investigation was being handled out of Washington D.C. and was an entirely new area of scrutiny and did not involve the sale of the U.S. Senate seat — a case involving Rod Blagojevich where Jackson’s name repeatedly came up. Spokespeople representing Jackson were not talking on Sunday.
The probe prompted lawyers for Jackson to meet with federal prosecutors this week in an attempt to persuade them not to indict the congressman.
The sources said it was unclear whether Jackson, who has not been seen in his office for months, would be charged before the November election — a subject that was discussed between Jackson’s lawyers and the prosecutors this week. Jackson’s lawyers urged the prosecutors not to file charges before the election — but prosecutors refused to make any commitments, the sources familiar with the meeting said.
