* The governor tried to talk about transit today, but his message was drowned out by questions on the ongoing federal investigations…
Gov. Rod Blagojevich today denied allegations made in a federal court document that he offered to help two political insiders who have been convicted in a corruption investigation of his administration.
But the governor largely avoided questions about the investigation in his first news conference since federal prosecutors indicated they are seeking to tie Blagojevich directly to a scheme to wring campaign donations and kickbacks from companies seeking state business.
Blagojevich was hit with investigation questions during a noon news conference at the James R. Thompson Center in which he called for the General Assembly to quickly pass a bill that funds mass transit. Lawmakers returned to Springfield today in response to the governor’s latest call for a special legislative session to deal with the looming threat of transit service cuts and fare increases.
At one point, in answering a question about why he does not use his bully pulpit as governor more forcefully to solve the transit issue, Blagojevich said he has tried to do that, but implied that his message was not being heard in the media.
Listen to the governor’s remarks about transit below…
* Quite a few of the year-end editorials and columns demanded that legislators finally start getting along in the new year. I wasn’t so positive in my syndicated column…
I was on a TV show the other day and the host asked me what I thought could be done to bring the Democratic leaders of this state back from “the brink of the abyss.”
Too late, I said. We’re already in the abyss, and we’ve been there for a while.
But maybe…
Illinois has forever been a “can-do” state, so it’s difficult for many to believe that all hope is lost. “Something” can always be done. So, why not here?
I was thinking about that very question when former Gov. Jim Thompson phoned.
Thompson had called to bust my chops about something I had written on a proposal that he helped pass in Springfield. We merrily traded insults back and forth, never taking anything personally. I whacked him but good on his goofy idea to have the state buy Wrigley Field and lease it back to whomever buys the Chicago Cubs. He upbraided me for allowing my hatred of all things “Cub” to undermine my judgment. We laughed and had a good ol’ time, hurling insults at each other in the spirit of the holidays.
And then it hit me.
Thompson was one of the most can-do governors we’ve ever had. Love him or hate him, he got things done. During his final re-election campaign, after 10 years in office, he was endorsed by both the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and the Illinois AFL-CIO. He has a knack for bringing people together, and he can charm the fangs off a rattlesnake.
Big Jim’s law firm represents Blagojevich’s campaign fund, so he has a relationship there. Thompson also chats regularly with Speaker Madigan and Senate President Jones. Both men still have respect for the old man.
So, I asked Thompson if he could do something about our immovable object meets irresistible force dilemma.
Apparently, I wasn’t the first to make this suggestion, and Thompson didn’t come out and say he’d do it, but he did seem intrigued.
But I couldn’t possibly end the column on an “up” note…
Then again, I’m not sure that a hundred Jim Thompsons could solve this intractable problem. But, hey, it’s the holiday season. I’m allowed a little hope.
If you live in Springfield and read the Illinois Times, you didn’t see that last graf. That’s unfortunate because it never pays to be an optimist in Springfield these days.
* Meanwhile, House GOP Leader Tom Cross was interviewed by the Daily Herald during the break…
A. It’s got to the point where we can’t get everybody in the room. Nobody’s willing to sit down together or there are certain folks who won’t sit together. And when they do, the animosity quickly appears. The sad thing is we’ve covered a lot of ground on capital and mass transit and the ingredients are there to get it done. But it’s pretty hard to close it when you’re not in a room together … close the deal.
Q. Do you see an end to this?
A. No. I really don’t. I see this going on for the next couple years. I don’t see the will on those who are fighting to stop. And it’s gotten to a point where it doesn’t even seem to be about policy, it’s more about personality. I think that’s unfortunate because I think everyone loses.”
Q. A construction deal, do you not see one in the near future?
A. I’m going to continue to remain the optimist in all of this. But I think the observation is it’s just difficult to have any finality to this. Everybody says they want to do one. We have narrowed the issues to just a few, but it’s a matter of whether people are in a mood to and willing to work out differences that still exist.
* At first when I saw the excerpt, I thought this SouthtownStar editorial was supposed to be ironic…
Twenty-five years from now (heck, five years from now), we will be looking back and wondering how it could have been questioned, not unlike school segregation, women’s right to vote or discrimination based on skin color or religion.
What was the editorial referring to? The statewide smoking ban that took effect yesterday. And the editorial writer was not being ironic.
* This response from a smoker interviewed at Harrah’s casino in Joliet was equally over the top…
“It’s too much government regulation,” said Marlin Raddatz, of New Lenox, while he stood outside Harrah’s. “If I want to kill myself by smoking, let me.”
Mark our words: The day will come — sooner than anyone now would ever guess, we believe — when we look back with curious wonder on the days when smokers were allowed to light up in restaurants, bars and bowling alleys. The idea that we demarcated “no smoking sections” within the same rooms as smoking sections will soon be recognized for the silliness it always was (at least to those who chose the no smoking side of the room).
Even more unbelievable in the near future will be how long the relatively few smokers managed to retain the upper hand in the clean air debate. It took years of battling by health groups and private citizens to get where we are today. This despite the vast majority of Illinoisans being non-smokers.
How was it, we will wonder someday, that smokers consistently prevailed with the argument that if you didn’t want to breathe others’ secondhand smoke, you should stay home?
With so much of society having given up cigarettes in the last few decades of the 20th century, why was it that the convenience of the 20 percent or so who chose to smoke took precedence over the ability of the nonsmoking majority to breathe clean air?
Mostly, though, we think the big question in the near future will be this: What was the big deal about asking smokers to take their habit outside?
OK, that’s not so bold considering that starting today, smokers in Illinois who want to light up in most public places, including restaurants with bars and taverns, will have to do it outside. In the cold. You already know how we feel about this law. We’re enthusiastic supporters. It’s hard to imagine a law that carries so much potential to change lives — to save lives — than this one.
And now it’s your turn…
*** UPDATE 1 *** Is a statewide ban on leaf burning next?
Fresh off urging lawmakers to ban most indoor smoking in Illinois, the American Lung Association might turn its efforts toward pushing for a statewide ban on burning leaves next year.
American Lung Association of Illinois spokeswoman Kathy Drea said a ban on leaf burning is an issue they regularly think about. With a victory on their coveted smoking ban out of the way, she said the group might consider turning some attention to leaves.
Many Illinois communities, including most all of the state’s larger cities, already ban leaf burning. But several attempts to do the same statewide have failed.
Drea said she probably will look for a lawmaker to sponsor a leaf-burning ban soon. If someone agrees, they’re assured a tough fight, Drea said.
When Steve Kahn got a $26,000 tax bill on his airplane, he thought Maine Revenue Services had made a mistake. Kahn lives, works and keeps his plane in Massachusetts.
It turns out the bill was no error. It was part of the agency’s efforts to collect taxes on aircraft owned by out-of-staters, even though they bought their planes elsewhere and brought them to Maine only to visit.
States are in rebellion over Washington’s actions — and inaction — on some of the nation’s most pressing problems.
Disgusted with federal gridlock, states are carving out their own global-warming and immigration laws and are warning they simply may ignore Uncle Sam’s costly plan for tough national standards for driver’s licenses.
* Utilities, state make plans for interim power purchase period
The ad is running on broadcast TV stations, said Jack Quigley, Allen’s media consultant. The campaign bought daytime slots, which cost less, and some newscast slots, where the thinking is news viewers might be more likely to vote.
Quigley said they expect their media buy will exceed $500,000 of what will be a $1 million primary campaign. If that’s spread out over the five weeks left until the Feb. 5 primary, the ads could have a small audience. Blanket coverage on Chicago TV stations can run anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million a week.
The 2007 legislative session won’t be remembered for what lawmakers accomplished for Illinois. A year of overtime infighting and bickering has assured it will be infamous for all that didn’t get done.
Still, legislators can point to some achievements. From a statewide smoking ban and electric rate relief to a bevy of new license plates and protection for horses, more than 700 measures –both significant and obscure–became law.
Here’s a look at what happened under the Statehouse dome that might affect day-to-day life in Illinois.
* Illinoize: New year, new rules, new server–A couple of thoughts on the coming of the new year from ICPR
* Animal Farm: Illinois gridlock quotes of the year
* 6:01 pm - As expected, there’s little more than a gubernatorial press pop on this week’s agenda…
“We are not going to vote for anything this week,” said Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston), who has led two failed efforts to find money for the region’s transit agencies.
Though Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued his call for a special session before Christmas, many lawmakers are not expected to show up for Wednesday’s scheduled meeting. Included on that list is Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), who has tickets for the Rose Bowl pitting University of Illinois against the University of Southern California in Pasadena. Jones’ spokeswoman did not return calls. House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) also is not expected to turn out Wednesday.
As for the governor, he’s planning on holding a news conference in Chicago Wednesday to talk up the mass transit issue before heading to Springfield. Blagojevich has not yet scheduled any meetings this week with legislative leaders, his spokeswoman said.
“We’re in a position now where it is only going to take a simple majority of Democrats to pass a bill, but it is really going to require Democrats coming together,’’ said Abby Ottenhoff, Blagojevich’s spokeswoman. “That means everyone needs to show up and be prepared to work because this time we’re facing a very real and serious transit crisis if something is not done until Jan. 20.” [Emphasis added]
They can’t come together if they’re not even present. The earliest we can likely expect anything “real” will be next week, and maybe not even then.
* Also today, the governor used his amendatory veto power on SB 120. No veto message was available at 6 o’clock Monday night (when I happened to check my e-mail), but here’s the bill synopsis…
Amends the State Finance Act. Provides that for personnel under the jurisdiction of the State travel control boards, the allowance rate for automobile travel mileage reimbursement, which is the same as the rate set by federal regulations, shall be increased or decreased during the State’s fiscal year as of the effective date of the federal regulations (now, increases do not take effect until the next July 1).
*** UPDATE *** Here’s the veto message…
on page 2, line 10, after “rate.”, by inserting “However, in the event the rate set under federal regulations is an increase of 3% or greater, the effective date of the new rate shall be the July 1 immediately following the change in the federal rate.”
