* OK, kids, I am one tired puppy dog in dire need of sleep. I’ll leave you with live coverage of the Rod Blagojevich trial, which is already in progress…
* Gov. Pat Quinn is planning an 11 o’clock press conference this morning. Quinn dodged reporters all day yesterday, promising he’d have plenty to say today. Listen to or watch the live feed by clicking here. I’ll be posting my own updates as well as Twitter feeds and news links, but please help out with the blogging duties in comments below. Thanks…
People who file piles of requests under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act would have to wait longer for responses from public bodies under legislation that’s cleared the General Assembly.
Government bodies could declare someone a “recurrent requester” for filing more than 50 FOIA requests in a year, 15 in a month or seven in seven days. They could take 21 business days — it’s five days for others — to answer.
Media, not-for-profit organizations and academics are exempt.
* This was an agreed bill with the Illinois Press Association, but not everybody is happy…
Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator for the Better Government Association, explained why her organization opposed the measure.
“If someone files seven requests for information in one week, they are labeled a recurrent requester for a year and would have to wait longer for a response, while a person who realizes you can bundle all seven requests into one FOI request will not be classified as a recurrent requester,” Miller said.
“You can actually ask for an unlimited number of documents in one request and not be deemed a recurrent requester, but the average person isn’t going to know that so we think it is unfair.
“In addition, people are entitled to government information just like they’re entitled to fire and police protection,” Miller continued.
* The Question: Do you agree with this bill to allow governments to delay FOIA responses for “recurrent requesters”? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
* ComEd had been predicting for days that they could find veto-proof majorities in both chambers. But the bill fell four votes shy of that three-fifths margin in the House and five in the Senate…
Before the House vote Monday, ComEd lobbyists had been telling opponents they were confident they had more than enough support. Then several African-American representatives, who normally vote with ComEd on contentious energy bills, surprised the utility and voted “no.”
Mr. Quinn could veto the bill outright or amend it. When the Legislature meets in November for its annual veto session, it could try to override or agree to the governor’s changes, if he opts for an amendatory veto. Many are expecting ComEd will enter into negotiations with Mr. Quinn over the summer.
“This means that ComEd and (Downstate electric utility) Ameren will have to work with the governor’s office to see if there are changes they can agree to,” said David Kolata, executive director of consumer watchdog Citizens Utility Board, which opposes the bill.
Areas the governor would be expected to focus on include strengthening the consumer protections in the bill. In particular, the bill doesn’t allow electric rates to rise more than 2.5% in a given year, but the rate cap is only good through 2014. From 2015 to the end of 2017, there are no rate caps. In addition, the bill mandates that the utility earn a return on equity of at least 10.25%, but that figure rises as the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond does—with no ceiling. So, if interest rates rise from their rock-bottom current levels, as many expect, electric rates will, as well.
Quinn’s “position has not changed” from days ago, when he vowed to veto the bill, Quinn spokesman Grant Klinzman said.
Sponsoring Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, is taking a wait-and-see approach.
“I know what he says, but let’s see what he does,” Jacobs said. “When people move away from the intense lobbying of the attorney general, the governor and every state agency in Illinois, I think at some point people will look at it for what it is: It’s progress.”
State Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, accused state Sen. Mike Jacobs of “using profanity and pointing his finger before he punched me with his fist in my chest” following a heated debate.
McCarter said he gave a statement about the incident to the Secretary of State police.
Jacobs, D-East Moline, brushed off the incident as an emotional outburst common at the end of a legislative session when big issues are being debated and tempers are flaring.
Jacobs was infuriated that McCarter had accused Jacobs and his father of a conflict of interest on a controversial measure Gov. Quinn has threatened to veto.
Jacobs was chief sponsor of the utility-backed Smart Grid bill. It included an electric utility rate increase worth tens of millions of dollars to Com Ed. Among Com Ed’s army of Springfield lobbyists: former state Sen. Denny Jacobs, father of Sen. Mike Jacobs.
“He stood in front of my desk while I was completing a bill…then he proceeded to verbally just curse at me, then he punched me in the chest with his fist,” McCarter told the Chicago Sun-Times. “It’s totally inexcusable. I think the citizens expect more.”
Shortly before midnight, McCarter said he filed a complaint against Jacobs with the Secretary of State Police, who provide security at the Capitol.
Offering a different account, Jacobs demanded an apology from McCarter, whom Jacobs said “came at me.”
“If he wanted to say something about me, that’s one thing. For him to attack my family members, that’s out of bounds,” Jacobs said, holding a copy of the Senate rules book that bars personality-laden debate. “In effect, what he’s saying is I’m a 50-year-old man that does whatever my father tells me, which is a bunch of crap.”
Reporters were attending a media availability by Senate President Cullerton, so there was no video of the alleged fisticuffs.
* As you know by now, the workers’ compensation reform bill passed the House on the second try…
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, could be seen walking the floor talking to his members before taking the speaker’s podium to moderate the debate.
During the debate, Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, sat behind the speaker’s podium and had a brief exchange with Madigan.
Dunkin had voted “present” the first time the measure was addressed, but supported the plan Tuesday.
When asked if the speaker addressed his concerns, Dunkin said “Yeah, he did,” but declined to provide specifics.
The bill went from 55 votes on Sunday to 62 yesterday. Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, state Rep. Chris Nybo was the only House Republican to vote for the bill yesterday. His statement…
As the sole House Republican voting for this measure, it was an extraordinarily difficult vote to cast. I share the deep disappointment of my colleagues that we were not included in the negotiations of this bill and that medical providers are being singled out exclusively to reduce workers’ compensation costs. This bill does not achieve comprehensive workers’ compensation reform, but there is no doubt that Illinois businesses will realize millions of dollars in annual savings on workers’ compensation costs and that some of our largest employers in the state, including United, McDonalds, Walmart, Ford, Navistar and Dominicks strongly supported this bill. With workers’ compensation costs identified as the biggest impediment by our business community, this bill will improve our business climate, save jobs and create employment opportunities. That’s why I supported it.
“I’m very pleased that the General Assembly passed this historic reform. It’s now incumbent on all of us to work to implement these changes and improve the business climate of this state,” said Greg Baise, president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, which pushed for the bill.
The cornerstone of the legislation, a 30-percent reduction in fees that businesses must pay to doctors, would save companies between $500 million and $700 million.
The measure sponsored by Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion) also establishes a medical network for workers compensation claims, cuts the period during which someone can draw payments for carpal tunnel syndrome from 40 weeks to 28 weeks and switches the burden of proof from employers to workers in proving whether alcohol or drugs contributed to workplace accidents.
Republicans argued that the cost savings don’t add up, and again argued that most of the savings come from cutting medical fees for doctors and hospitals. They urged Democrats to re-negotiate the bill with lower cuts, a move pushed by the Illinois Medical Society.
“I think there are ways that there would be a lot of people willing to support this bill,” said Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville. “The problem remains that perhaps your idea and my idea of shared sacrifice are different.”
Opponents said there needs to be a higher standard of proof that an injury happened on the job and contended the issue of doctor shopping goes unaddressed because of loopholes in the proposal when it comes to requiring injured workers to see a network of doctors.
“The people on this side of the aisle support workers compensation reform,” said House GOP Leader Tom Cross of Oswego. “But this is not reform. It doesn’t look like reform, it doesn’t smell like reform, it isn’t reform. And that’s a shame because we had an opportunity to do something very real today.”
Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, said experts question the savings claim. He said the measure wasn’t real reform.
“We have simply said we’re going to cobble together some numbers, we’re going to cobble together some expectations…” Kay said. “And we’ve called it reform.”
Opponents argued that more needed to be done to prevent fraudulent claims, and that there needed to be a higher standard of proof that injuries are job-related.
Watch for the Democratic-drawn Illinois congressional map — the one that screws Republicans passed by the Illinois Senate Tuesday — to be challenged in federal court by the GOP or a front group representing their interests.
The potential basis for a legal challenge: A second Hispanic district should have been created and not doing so violated civil rights provisions in the Voting Rights Act.
How does this help the Illinois GOP members of Congress, since a second Hispanic district would likely elect a Democrat? It would force the redrawing of district lines — and a court ordered map, the reasoning goes, could not be worse than the partisan, gerrymandered plus Democratic map.
The Republicans will be hard-pressed to find any major Latino groups to support them. Pretty much everybody who is anybody in the Latino community agreed not to push for another Latino district. Here’s why…
Josina Morita, executive coordinator of the United Congress of Community and Religious Organizations, said it’s not possible to draw two districts where Latinos make up about 65 percent of the population.
“The Latino population is so dispersed,” Morita said. But she said they had hoped for a second district with a much higher Latino population than they got.
Cullerton was also asked whether the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was behind a last-minute change made Monday that placed Johnson in the 13th Congressional District instead of the 15th and U.S. Rep. John Shimkus in the 15th instead of the 13th.
“As far as any individual district, I don’t think I want to address it. I’m sure people will be wanting to file lawsuits and take my words – I’ll tell you this, the D-triple C is very happy with the fact that it’s a very fair map,” Cullerton said.
Yes, they are, but not for its “fairness.”
* More proof that just because this process was more fair and open than it’s ever been, doesn’t mean it actually was fair and open…
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said the map is fair. The public had more than a day to look at it, he said, compared to a map drawn 10 years ago by 19 of the state’s 20 incumbent congressmen, which Cullerton said was released and voted on in an hour.
An extremely low bar was set a decade ago.
* Related…
* New map drawn by Democrats hurts Dold: Democratic map makers are apparently betting that Schakowsky can afford to absorb some Republican areas, as she won her seventh term with 66 percent of the vote. The new map is designed to erase the Republican gains in the last election and adjust for Illinois’ loss of one seat following the 2010 census.
* Congressional map sent to Quinn amid GOP protests
A bill containing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of capital projects was sitting in the House awaiting final action late Tuesday, although an operations budget passed the General Assembly Monday and went to Gov. Pat Quinn.
The problem was that, in addition to capital projects in House Bill 2189, Senate Democrats on Monday added about $430 million in spending for state operations, restoring some cuts made by the House in various state agency budgets. […]
The capital budget includes some construction projects financed with state bonds and a number of “pay-as-you-go” projects that are not. Mautino said it is possible some of the pay-as-you-go projects could be jeopardized if the House doesn’t approve the capital budget. The number of those projects and their cost was not available Tuesday night.
House members said construction projects already begun, but not yet finished, will not be in danger if the House didn’t act on the capital bill Tuesday, but senators weren’t so sure.
(T)he House refused to sign off on more than $431 million in budget cut restorations the Senate sought involving programs for preschoolers, needy college students and seniors dependent on home-delivered meals.
That disagreement means funding for $26 billion in construction projects could be disrupted, likely meaning at least the Senate will have to come back to Springfield before the fall veto session.
“We’ve passed a balanced but incomplete budget,” Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told his chamber shortly before the Senate adjourned around midnight Tuesday. “I can’t tell you when we’re going come back. You have the schedule for the [fall] veto session, but it may be before that.”
If just the Senate comes back, it would mean they’re receding from the budget add-ons in that bill. That will be a tough sell for rank-and-file Democrats, who want more spending, not less.
The largest portion of the Senate spending, about $151 million, would have replaced the House’s 4 percent cut to general state aid to schools. Because the Senate proposal, House Bill 2189 (Senate amendment 1) did not pass, the cut is in the final budget. By contrast, Gov. Pat Quinn had called for an increase of about $260 million to general state aid for schools
“Where’s the money coming from? It’s not within the [spending] caps we established. It’s not the conservative estimate. And we still haven’t done anything to pay the schools for the money we owe them for fiscal year 2011. [The payments] are going to be several months late. I understand why they took the action, but it doesn’t do anything to solve our problem,” said Eddy, the minority spokesperson on the House’s K-12 budget committee.
On Monday, Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said that if the House did not approve the additional expenditure, the spending for the capital construction programs would also go down.
Rep. Frank Mautino, a budget point man for House Democrats, disagreed: “We’ve sold bonds and the money is there, though it may be tied up in court. The bond proceeds are there. The projects will continue.”
He said that because lawmakers also voted to extend the period in which they can pay off bills for the current fiscal year through January 1, contractors working on construction projects would be able to submit bills to the state through the rest of the year. The so-called lapse period that the state uses to catch up on bills from the previous fiscal year normally lasts through August. “So now, all those projects that are ongoing can just continue without a re-appropriation. … So we don’t need to do that bill,”said Mautino, a Spring Valley Democrat.
The day’s biggest news involved the Senate’s 30-27 vote in favor of a massive gambling expansion that would lead to casinos in Chicago, the south suburbs, Lake County and downstate, plus permit slot machines at racetracks and, possibly, the city’s two airports.
The plan, sought by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Terry Link (D-Vernon Hills), faces an uncertain future with Quinn. While supportive of a city casino, the governor has repeatedly expressed opposition in recent weeks to “top-heavy” gambling expansion.
Aides to the governor declined to state his intentions after a vote that represents the biggest expansion of gambling since lawmakers authorized 10 casinos in 1990 and ends two decades of stymied legislative efforts to add casinos.
But the new mayor, in his first month in office with a huge legislative win, was effusive.
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to a significant victory for job creation and economic growth in Chicago,” Emanuel said in a prepared statement. “A Chicago casino will create 7,000 to 10,000 jobs and help energize our city’s economy.”
Gov. Rahm Emanuel — you can call him “Mayor” if you’d prefer — is running the table in this state.
Our elected governor, Pat Quinn, opposed a major expansion of gambling in Illinois. But Emanuel had a hand full of aces, and Quinn was left holding the joker. Thus, Chicago is on track to get a big, new casino of its own, along with four more casinos around the state. Add to all that slot machines at racetracks and at Midway and O’Hare airports.
Quinn can pull out his veto pen if he wants.
But that veto is in serious doubt given the budget hole he’s in and given his own party’s refusal to give him the budget he wanted.
Not only has he expressed his opposition to widespread gambling expansion, the bill comes at an awkward time. Quinn has been criticized—including by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago)— for introducing a budget in February that neither the House nor the Senate accepted as realistic. That got the session off to a rough start with both chambers developing their own spending plans. It also made Quinn irrelevant in the budget crafting process, according to Cullerton.
And some gambling supporters worried Quinn might remind the legislature of his relevance by vetoing the bill.
Cullerton softened his criticism Tuesday night, saying the governor “is always relevant. The governor is the one who has to sign these bills and if he doesn’t sign them, that shows you how relevant he is.”
Some supporters counted on the financial enticement of a bill that would generate at least $1.5 billion in upfront licensing fees. It’s money earmarked to help pay some of the state’s overdue bills, and the cash would free up other dollars for social programs. Backers conservatively estimate the plan would add another $500 million a year to the state treasury.
Block 37. The development between Macy’s and the Daley Center could serve as a podium for a casino, and the location meets the demand of downtown business interests that want it next to hotels and restaurants. But shoppers and college students on State Street form an odd mix with gamblers. Would the proximity to local government headquarters be too much symbolism?
Northerly Island. Open-space advocates would howl, but that might not deter Emanuel, who badly needs a new source of city revenue. Developer J. Paul Beitler said of the site, “It is controllable. It is containable. It is on the lake. It could be the next Navy Pier.”
Old Chicago Main Post Office. It’s Chicago’s incredible bulk, at 2.7 million square feet. It’s big enough for a casino, hotel, parking and other uses but coordinating such a development would be a challenge. The owner, globe-trotting investor Bill Davies, is an unknown commodity here. “It’s hard to do a little bit of that building,” said an expert who asked not to be named.
Lakeside Center. The oldest building at McCormick Place is on the lake and might be the best choice to get a casino up and running quickly. It might take only a few weeks. But the convention industry doesn’t want a giant distraction from its normal business, and the building is remote from hotels and restaurants. The McCormick Place bus lane would get a workout.
There are other sites in the mix, all with significant drawbacks. They include Navy Pier, Trump Tower, the old Michael Reese Hospital at 31st and the lakefront, the Congress Hotel at 520 S. Michigan, the vacant U.S. Steel site on the lakefront south of 79th Street, a Chicago River site near the NBC Tower and a development site at the northeast corner of Randolph and Franklin.
Considering what Donald Trump said about Mayor Emanuel’s former boss a few weeks ago, I seriously doubt he’s in contention. The Congress Hotel site would rid the city of a non-union, strike-plagued eyesore, so it’s been pushed in the past by some union leaders.
The Chicago Housing Authority wants to require all adults who currently live in, or apply in the future for housing in any of its developments, to be tested for drugs — including senior citizens.
The blanket policy proposal for anyone 18 years or older has residents and housing advocates crying foul.
The American Civil Liberties Union charges the public agency seeks to place a double standard on the poor. […]
Agency officials argue they need more tools to fight crime, particularly the drug scourge, in CHA developments.
On this thorny issue, which raises the hackles of civil libertarians and public housing advocates, we are siding with what we believe is the silent majority of CHA residents.
We think they want drug testing.
Not to punish poor people for living in public housing. And not to stigmatize anyone, though we appreciate that is a real risk.
We’re tentatively backing drug testing because it can potentially make newly revamped CHA developments safer and set a tone that illegal activity is simply not tolerated.
Because God knows that wasn’t the case with the old public housing projects. Over the last decade, the CHA has torn down its projects, displaced thousands of residents and begun to rebuild. The last thing it wants is to recreate the high-rise ghettos it once had.
Mandatory drug testing could be one small part of a larger effort to make sure that doesn’t happen.
* The Question: Do you support mandatory drug tests for everyone 18 years and older as a prerequisite for admittance to public housing? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments.
Claims of strong-arm political tactics, numerous legislators with state facilities and public employees in their districts, and concerns about fairness sunk a bill that would have increased the amount current public employees would have to pay for their pensions. […]
Rep. Jim Watson, R-Jacksonville, a member of the House Republican leadership, said some GOP members were told by leaders in the Civic Committee, a group of chief executives from Chicago’s largest corporations, that they would face primary challenges for re-election, if they didn’t vote for the bill.
“Hopefully they learned something from this, that if you do want help implement change, top down may not be the best model,” Watson said. “Calling caucus members and threatening them — that doesn’t play well. Yes, they may have lots of money, but some of these members down here who just won have good relationships with people. They know what they need to do to service their districts.” […]
Another factor that contributed to the bill’s collapse was the strong opposition legislators heard at home from teachers and employees of state facilities in their districts.
* The Tribune editorial board’s anger was, surprisingly, somewhat subdued…
The point, though, is that we’ve seen this before. In the House, 65 votes for casinopalooza. But not enough votes for pension discipline.
We don’t fault Madigan and Cross. Their joint statement, issued with Civic Committee President Tyrone Fahner, indicates they will keep pressing for pension reform. It has been good to see Madigan and Cross work together this year to establish a spending level for the fiscal 2012 budget that’s more disciplined than what Senate Democrats and Quinn want.
But even with their combined efforts, Madigan and Cross couldn’t persuade a majority of their members to support pension reform, the most significant legislation in Springfield this year.
Lawmakers head into their final scheduled day of the spring session on Tuesday. Some of them think they dodged a bullet on pensions. They haven’t. Illinois has $85 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Every family in Illinois is already on the hook for $42,000 in combined debt. That’s $42,000 and counting.
* But the pension bill wasn’t the only retirement-related proposal to bite the dust yesterday…
Retired state employees will not be required to pay premiums for their state health insurance for the foreseeable future.
Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, D-Evanston, the principal architect of the legislation, said he does not plan to call the health insurance premium bill, Senate Bill 175, during the closing hours of the spring session. […]
Schoenberg said his intent was to target people who retired from upper-income state jobs before they reached 65, the age when they would be eligible for Medicare. Those employees would also likely be receiving larger pensions and able to afford paying premiums for their health care, according to Schoenberg.
The plan under consideration, though, would have charged premiums to retirees with pensions less than $15,000 per year. Even retirees with pensions between $35,000 a year and $50,000 a year could have paid from $5,882 to $1,476 annually for state health insurance.
* Related…
* Push to cut government worker pensions fizzles at Capitol
In an amendment filed Monday afternoon and voted on roughly two hours later, [Republican Congressman John Shimkus’] home was moved from the proposed 13th Congressional District — which includes most of Springfield, all of Decatur and most of Champaign-Urbana — into the 15th Congressional District, which takes in southern Illinois.
The home of U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, is now in the 13th Congressional District.
The move is a break for Shimkus because it gives him back most of the territory that is in his current district. Johnson will now face an electorate that is more Democratic-leaning.
Johnson will now have to decide whether to run against Shimkus or face a strong push by Democrats next year. He says he’ll run in the 13th…
Johnson spokesman Phil Bloomer said the congressman expects to run in the reconfigured 13th district in the 2012 election. But, he decried the process that led to the new boundaries.
“It’s not only unfortunate, it’s crazy, that they didn’t include any members of the delegation on the Republican side when they created the map. That’s not only a disservice to the congressman, but a disservice to the people he represents,” Bloomer said.
Thoughts?
* You can find the newly revised maps by clicking here. And here are the voting age population breakdowns by district…
Notice that African-American congressmen had to give up super-majority black districts in order to maintain the current level of representation.
* Related…
* Illinois House give OK to congressional redistricting map
…the governor’s involvement in crafting a new state budget has proved so minimal that Democratic Senate President John Cullerton told colleagues Monday that Quinn is “irrelevant” on the issue. […]
Quinn’s higher spending demands were ignored when the Senate sent him the final pieces of a $33.2 billion spending plan Monday. It’s more than $2 billion less than what Quinn requested. Senators, however, added an additional $431 million in spending on education and social services to a public works bill, daring House members to give up funding on projects in exchange for cutting the money.
Cullerton’s “irrelevant” comment came in a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats.
“Yes, yes, yes, he used the word ‘irrelevant,’” said Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline. The comment was confirmed by three other Senate Democrats, who said Cullerton was characterizing the spending plan Quinn introduced as too far from what lawmakers could pass.
Later, Cullerton and his aides denied that Quinn was irrelevant to the budget process, noting that the governor fulfilled his duty to introduce a spending plan to lawmakers even though it “exceeded our revenues.”
Gov. Pat Quinn has said that he is not in favor of gambling at the state fairground. While he hasn’t said he would veto it, the governor has said he opposes top-heavy expansions of gambling. He added that, each time a bill was introduced, it seemed to get bigger.
Lang noted during floor debate that the governor was careful not to use the word “veto.”
“Those of us down here are state representatives — we pass laws, and when we pass them, he gets to review them,” Lang said.
“If a bill was on his desk that paid off a billion and a half dollars of bills, and he had no other way to pay it off, I think he’d want to take a strong look at that bill.”
An attempt to overturn controversial new health insurance contracts for state workers and retirees was approved by the Illinois House on Monday.
The measure flew through the House on a 98-15 vote, but could be vetoed by Gov. Pat Quinn, whose deputies OK’d the contracts for Blue Cross Blue Shield in the first place.
The governor’s office wouldn’t comment on a possible veto of the plan, but instead recommended workers and retirees review their benefits options in order to make a decision before a June 17 sign-up deadline.
Shortly after Gov. Pat Quinn introduced a budget this year which was way out of balance, called for even higher taxes and increased state spending, the General Assembly decided to ignore him.
That was back in February. Things haven’t changed much since then.
The governor’s original budget proposal was just so out of sync with political and fiscal reality that pretty everybody knew pretty quickly that something different would have to be done. It wasn’t long before House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton decided that the best way to pass a reasonable, realistic budget was to cut the governor out of the process and hand the budget-making responsibilities over to the legislative appropriations committees, with strict spending limits.
When I asked Speaker Madigan earlier this spring if Quinn had become irrelevant to the process, Madigan said that the governor had not. Quinn had introduced a budget, Madigan said. That was the governor’s role, he added, politely ignoring the fact that for decades governors have had infinitely larger roles in the state’s budget process.
Senate President John Cullerton was asked last week why the governor has seemed so invisible.
“He kind of put himself in this position,” Cullerton said. “He proposed an unbalanced budget, and we’re cutting it.”
In order to make sure that legislators remembered he still had a big weapon at his disposal, the governor has repeatedly run right up to the edge of threatening to veto the legislature’s budget if he didn’t get what he wanted.
“I’m going to make it crystal clear to our legislators of both parties of both houses, we’re not going to jeopardize our economic recovery and our jobs for policies that are very, very harmful to our schools,” Quinn said in early May. “We’re not going to have severe, radical cuts in our education and our schools. We’re not going to have severe, radical cuts in our healthcare. We’re not going to put the healthcare of our Illinois workers in jeopardy. We’re not going to have severe, radical cuts in our public safety… We’re not going to let them do that.”
“My job,” Quinn said, “is to be the goalie to protect the people of Illinois from radical, severe cuts in their fundamental way of life.”
It’s true that Illinois governors have extraordinarily strong constitutional powers when it comes to vetoes. But governors cannot increase spending in budget bills. They can only reduce or eliminate spending. If Quinn did eliminate any spending, those programs would not be funded until the General Assembly returned to act on his vetoes.
If, for example, Quinn decided to veto the State Police’s appropriations bill because it didn’t meet his standards of protecting public safety, the coppers wouldn’t have any operating cash until legislators acted on his veto.
And since the General Assembly won’t return to Springfield until October or November, Quinn would have to call a special session during the summer and risk upsetting legislators so much that they might very well override him. And then there would go his remaining relevancy right out the window.
The governor also hasn’t seemed to learn any lessons. After being snubbed in February for introducing an out of whack budget, then complaining that legislators were cutting programs too much, Quinn actually had the gall to ask the legislative leaders last week to give him $300 million to spend any way he wished.
That’s simply inane. At a time when legislators were looking for even the tiniest cuts to preserve the same much-needed state programs that the governor said he wanted to protect, Quinn decided he’d ask for a gigantic discretionary fund.
Adding insult to injury, the governor didn’t even bother to identify a way to pay for his slush fund.
More than almost anything else I can think of, that request demonstrated just how far out of touch the governor has become this spring. All Quinn got out of it were rolled eyes, deep sighs and slowly shaking heads from people who had taken on the very painful task of trying to balance a budget that hasn’t been balanced in years.
If you want to be relevant, you can’t be counterproductive.
* I should’ve started this earlier. Better late than never, I suppose…
*** UPDATE 1 *** Pension reform is being delayed until the fall veto session at the earliest. From a press release…
May 30, 2011
STATEMENT REGARDING PENSION REFORM
We are absolutely committed to reforming Illinois’ public pension system for current employees. It must be done to stabilize our systems and address long term financial issues for both the public employee pension systems and state government.
We believe passage of legislation addressing this issue is essential to the state’s well being.
It was made very clear during the May 26th hearing in the Personnel and Pensions Committee that both those who support pension reform and those who are opposed to Senate Bill 512 acknowledge we have a problem and something must be done.
Our goal is to enact reforms to our pension systems that provide a long term solution for both those who are members of the pension systems and those who fund them.
We will convene meetings over the summer to address the issues and concerns that have been raised and work toward a solution in this year’s Fall Veto Session. [Emphasis added]
-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan
-Illinois House Republican Leader Tom Cross
-Tyrone Fahner, President, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago
*** UPDATE 2 *** As mentioned in the live-blog above, the Senate Democrats passed an amendment through committee today that contains over $400 million in extra funding for state budgets. They attached the extra funding to a capital projects bill, so if the House doesn’t approve the extra funding the projects are held up. Click here to read their analysis…
Attached is a Senate budget overview associated with HB 2189.
Explanation of columns:
“FY 11” is the current year’s budget.
“FY 12 Intro” is the Governor’s proposed budget.
“FY 12 Senate” is the Senate budget proposal.
“FY 12 House” is the House budget proposal.
“Restorations” are Senate additions to the House budget lines.
The House budget amounts are being used as the base for proposed funding restorations in select categories.
The Senate is proposing restorations totaling $431 million.
* The Tribune has a story today about the big money raised by House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton this month…
All told, more than $600,000 in amounts of $1,000 or more has flowed into political funds controlled by Madigan and Cullerton this month. That campaign cash is changing hands during a month when lawmakers traditionally face the most controversial legislation — an agenda dictated by the two Democratic leaders. […]
“Our only criteria in the Democratic caucus in the House is whether legislation represents a common-sense solution to a problem or making sure a program operates in a common-sense fashion,” [Madigan spokesman Steve Brown] said. He said it is “critical” to raise money “every month of the year” to defend incumbents because of the recent effect of groups that accept unregulated and anonymous sources of money “to put slop on the heads of candidates.”
By contrast, Republicans who have spent the past decade out of power in the House and Senate saw their leadership funds raise only $38,500 in donations of $1,000 or more in May, state records show. […]
“Six hundred thousand dollars at the close of session when all the very controversial legislation is attempting to move forward?” asked Sen. John Millner, R-Carol Stream. “It doesn’t look good and it might create more cynicism on the part of our constituents. I think we really have to seriously re-evaluate how we’re doing business.”
Democratic Sen. Don Harmon of Oak Park, the sponsor of the current campaign finance law, said he’s concerned that Illinois is increasingly seeing “unregulated political interest groups, who don’t disclose where they get their money, launching campaigns to influence public policy.” Harmon, a member of a bipartisan commission looking at the law, said he remains open to suggestions and recommendations.
Fundraising is banned on most session days, however Monday events before session begins on Tuesday is a regular occurrence around these parts.
* The Question: Should all legislative fundraising be banned during session months? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments. Thanks.
* You may have seen this story last week about the Rockford Diocese dropping adoption and foster care services because of the new civil unions law…
The Rockford Diocese announced Thursday that it would end those services rather than be forced to serve same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex couples. The agency served children and families for more than 100 years.
“It’s the moral teaching of our faith that we believe in the natural order of marriage. In order to serve our children best, we believe that they be in that kind of a family,” said Ellen Lynch, general counsel for the diocese. “This is not a judgment on whether or not they are loving or capable. We are strictly following the teachings passed down by our faith.” […]
The agency was forced to opt out of its contract with the state for adoption and foster services because legislators failed to enact an amendment to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would have allowed Catholic Charities to continue its practice to refer unmarried couples, whether same or opposite sex, to other agencies.
“Catholic adoption agencies have no need to stop serving foster and adoption families,” said attorney Peter Breen of Chicago-based Thomas More Society. “In our view, Illinois law does not require sectarian agencies to abide by the same non-discrimination standard as non-sectarian agencies. We’re encouraging Catholic Charities adoption agencies to continue their work just as they have before.” […]
Thomas More Society attorneys argue the Illinois Human Rights Act currently does not force Illinois non-discrimination public accommodation laws on sectarian organizations, only non-sectarian groups. The Illinois Human Rights Act defines specifically where the non-discrimination laws apply, and sectarian adoption agencies are not listed. […]
Because “non-sectarian adoption agencies” are listed and sectarian are not, Breen argues that Catholic Charities may continue to operate without referring for fostering or adoption same sex or opposite sex couples whose partnerships are not considered marriage by the church’s definition.
* Whatever happens, the kids will apparently be cared for…
Transitions like this have happened in the past, and other agencies are expected to step up to support the children and families served by Catholic Charities, officials with Children’s Home + Aid Society and Lutheran Social Services of Illinois said. Each agency serves families that are married or unmarried, including gay and lesbian partners.
“We’re sad to lose the partnership with Catholic Charities in this community,” said Kathy Reese, program director for Children’s Community Services of LSSI. “The foster care community here is very collaborative … if we’re called upon to be of help with this situation, we’ll stand ready to work with Department of Children and Family Services in any way that it’s deemed appropriate.”
Senate Republicans defeated a Democratic bid to borrow nearly $1.5 billion over seven years to pay down part of the state’s crushing backlog of unpaid bills. The measure failed by a 19-23 vote with 36 votes needed for Senate passage.
“It’s always a bad idea to borrow money when you don’t know how to repay it,” said Sen. Dale Righter (R-Charleston), who voted against the measure.
The one-sided loss involving the first piece of a four-bill, $6.1 billion borrowing proposal represented another significant defeat for Quinn: It effectively killed his hopes of righting the state’s bleak budget situation and persuading lawmakers this spring to authorize borrowing to pay unpaid state bills.
In February, the governor called for $8.75 billion in borrowing to deal with unpaid bills but had swung his support to the $6.1 billion borrowing plan pushed by Sen. John Sullivan (D-Rushville).
Stretching out the payment cycle to Medicaid providers into next year will allow Gov. Pat Quinn’s office to “manage” hundreds of millions of dollars, said state Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, adding that the state pays $28 million a day for Medicaid services. […]
An Illinois Senate panel on Sunday approved a measure that would extend the amount of time the state has to pay its bills from three months to six months. That period, know as lapse-period spending, covers bills that arrive in Springfield after the end of the budget year, which ends in June. Illinois traditionally would pay those bills by September, but lawmakers want to give the governor until December to send the checks. […]
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, said if lawmakers do not give the governor more time, they have to either give him more money or tell businesses and hospitals to sue the state.
“This is not new spending,” said Cullerton. “This is giving (the governor) more time to pay the bills.”
Quinn’s budget spokeswoman, Kelly Kraft, said the governor would prefer that lawmakers “restructure” the state’s backlog of bills by borrowing $6 billion, but the Quinn administration will take what it can get.
“An extension is something we need to manage the state’s cash flow” said Kraft.
One idea that’s been tossed around is to limit local governments to the same share of revenue that they received this year. That would mean no additional money if the economy rebounds and the state collects more than expected from income and sales taxes.
State government retirees – many of whom don’t pay premiums for health insurance – would have to pick up roughly half the cost under a bill approved by the Senate Executive Committee Sunday.
The prospects for the bill, Senate Bill 175, are uncertain, however. Two senators on the committee said they voted for it only in order to give the full Senate a chance to consider the measure. They did not pledge to vote for it when it is debated by the full chamber.
The bill would affect thousands of retired state employees, most of whom pay no premiums for their state health insurance, according to a consultant hired by the state. Mercer Health and Benefits said that is a rarity both among state governments and large private employers.
Illinois reduces health insurance premiums by 5 percent for each year a retiree worked for the state, so a retiree with 20 years on the job pays nothing in premiums.
* After last night’s House defeat of the workers’ compensation bill, Caterpillar, Inc. sent out this statement…
As previously stated, Caterpillar did not oppose the workers’ compensation bill passed by the Illinois Senate, but the company was concerned that it did not go far enough to position the state to attract additional jobs and investment. While the bill failed in the House, we are hopeful that a compromise can yet be reached, that would provide for meaningful reform. We remain committed toward supporting changes that support our goal of making Illinois one of the best states in the union for attracting investment and jobs.
* Gov. Pat Quinn’s office had a much different take…
“Tonight House Republicans have walked away from a chance to bring meaningful reform to Illinois’ workers’ compensation system—the best opportunity our state has seen in decades. This is a bill that saw bipartisan support in the Senate. This proposal had broad-based support in Illinois’ business community, from large companies including United and American Airlines, Hyatt, Ford Motor Company and Navistar, as well as business advocacy groups including the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, the Illinois Retail Merchants’ Association and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce - groups that represent thousands of businesses across our state.
“Most importantly, this proposal would have resulted in more than $500 million in savings to Illinois businesses, while still protecting the rights of workers.
“House Republicans had a choice between enacting landmark reforms, or voting to support their own partisan agenda, and maintaining the status quo. Their political decision was made at the expense of workers and business owners in their districts. When they return home, House Republicans will need to explain to their constituents why they chose the interests of their political leadership over significant financial savings for their constituents.”
Notice he didn’t mention any of the Democrats who voted against the bill or cast a “Present” vote.
* Sen. Kwame Raoul, the bill’s Senate sponsor, pointed out the obvious: The House Republicans voted in lockstep to protect their favorite interest group, the Illinois State Medical Society…
“The Republican leader and his caucus are largely financed by the medical society,” Raoul said. “I’m sure that Rep. Bradley could not donate as much to their campaigns as the medical society, so I don’t see them changing their position.”
Freshman Republican Rep. Dwight Kay, who voted present, expressed frustration about the political nature of the vote.
“Today, I found out a lot of things that I really don’t know about politics,” said Kay, of Glen Carbon. “But I have learned a couple things. The first is that there is no such thing as perfection. Well, you learn that in life, but we try to attain it. Then you learn when you get here about politics, and you think you know what that’s about until you get here. And then when you kind of (get) disenchanted with the political part, you say to yourself, ‘What’s possible?’ Well, because we don’t have perfect and because there is an awful lot of politics in Springfield, we aren’t doing what’s possible. And I’m sorry, I can’t apologize for my feelings. Because we need reform.”
“Illinois employers will not get an opportunity to realize $700 million in savings. No bill is perfect in Springfield, but this one was certainly better than the system we live under today.”
“[Opponents say] we’ve never gone far enough, but we’ve never gone anywhere,” said David Vite, president and chief operating officer of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. “Every election, candidates from both parties talk about the jobs climate, talk about helping Illinois business, and when it comes right down to it, they didn’t step up to the plate today.”
* The House has already passed the “nuclear option” bill to eliminate the workers’ comp system altogether. The Senate has advanced the bill to the floor. Will they call it or try to work out an agreement? Unclear at the moment…
State Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, was the Senate sponsor of the failed measure, and said late Sunday that he would be moving Bradley’s “nuclear option” in the Senate as soon as Monday.
“We need some type of workers’ compensation reform, and that may be our only option at this point,” Raoul said.
“For something that produces upwards of 20,000 cases a year or more, how’s the Illinois court system going to handle that?” Baise told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I guess it’s a lawyer’s delight.”
