* So far, the Illinois Republican Party has sent me no press releases whacking individual House Dems, but I assume those are coming. From the ILGOP…
“By voting to enact Madigan’s Rules, House Democrats have relinquished all ability to act independently or put the people ahead of the political machine. Today House Democrats chose to put Mike Madigan first.” - Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Aaron DeGroot
Moments ago, House Democrats voted to relinquish all autonomy and independence to the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, Mike Madigan, by adopting Madigan’s own handcrafted rules that govern the Illinois House of Representatives.
Madigan’s Rules continue to give the Speaker an unprecedented amount of power over the legislative agenda of the Illinois House of Representatives, stifling the voice of all other 117 members, both Democrats and Republicans. These rules allow Speaker Madigan to determine what legislation lives and dies.
House Republicans, led by Leader Jim Durkin, proposed alternative rules that increase transparency and public participation in the legislative agenda and process of the House. The House Republican proposal was not given a public hearing. Highlights of the proposal were discussed in Capitol Fax.
Thanks so much for dragging me into this, ILGOP.
The roll call is here.
* Rep. Scott Drury, who voted against Madigan for Speaker, voted “No” on the rules today.
Rep. D’Amico is listed as a “No,” but he rose after the vote to say he accidentally hit the wrong switch. Reps. Mayfield and Soto have excused absences.
…Adding… I should also probably note that House Majority Leader Currie pointed out during today’s debate that all Senate Republicans voted for very similar rules in their own chamber just this month.
* From newly elected GOP Rep. Steven Reick…
Today in Springfield the House Democrats used their majority status to push through a set of egregious House Rules that stifle democracy and silence the voices of Republican lawmakers on important issues.
After a vigorous hour-long debate that was heated at times, rules that will govern the movement of legislation for the 100th General Assembly were approved in a 63-53 vote. All but two Democrats in attendance voted in favor of rules that increase House Speaker Mike Madigan’s power over the entire General Assembly.
State Representative Steve Reick (R-Woodstock), voted against the proposed rules. “I’ve heard stories about the heavy hand of Mike Madigan and how he manipulates the rules to increase his power, but today’s action showed a breathtaking example of overreach,” said Reick, a freshman lawmaker from McHenry County. “Good ideas that benefit real people will be buried because of Mike Madigan’s singular authority over what bills get heard and what pieces of legislation will die a slow death in his all-powerful Rules Committee.”
Reick continued, “Individual Democrat members have said publicly that the rules need to change, and today we had an opportunity to return representative democracy to the people by rejecting Speaker Madigan’s Rules. Unfortunately, at the end of the debate, much like they did with the House Speaker vote at Inauguration two weeks ago, House Democrats fell in line and did what they were told to do.”
Under the rules approved on Tuesday, Madigan will retain a 3/5 majority on his House Rules Committee. Consisting of his most loyal stalwarts, no bill will be assigned for a hearing before a substantive committee without a majority vote of the Rules Committee. “Speaker Madigan’s most loyal supporters serve as the gatekeepers of the Rules Committee and all legislation,” said Reick. “These loyalists determine which bills advance through the process and which ones never see the light of day.”
The element Reick said he found to be the most egregious is a stipulation that rulings of the Speaker related to the discharge of bills cannot be appealed or challenged. “Even if lawmakers follow the rules to the letter for the discharging of a bill, the Speaker can, and has on many occasions, ruled a motion to be ‘out of order’ and his ruling is final. This unrestricted power is a slap in the face of representative democracy and it undermines our ability as legislators to bring forward legislation that benefits our constituents.”
40 Comments  
|
Question of the day
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* OK, let’s try this again since I misidentified the person in the previous question, which is now deleted. Been one of those days. Ugh. Sorry!!!
* The Question: How do you foresee the Senate’s “grand compromise” playing out in the next month or so?
28 Comments
|
* Things can change in a nanosecond on days like these, but a new service tax is expected to be unveiled before the Senate Revenue Committee meets today at 3 o’clock.
In recent days, I was told that the new tax would be somewhat limited and kinda like Wisconsin’s tax. Click here for that state’s list of taxable services. Candidate Bruce Rauner proposed a limited service tax back in the day.
I’m not sure what will be in the Illinois tax at this moment. But when/if it does surface, the amendment will likely be at this link.
No vote is scheduled on this and other tax hikes at that 3 o’clock hearing. As explained below, it’s gonna be testimony only.
* So, to recap, the sugary drinks tax is being removed from the package, the income tax will be set at 4.99 percent, a corporate tax exemption on certain dividend income that was targeted for repeal likely remains intact and a service tax could become part of the mix.
And it’s doubtful that we’ll see floor votes this week…
Republican Leader Christine Radogno said she’s unsure if a series of votes will come at all this week, citing concerns from lawmakers who are worried about the size and scope of the evolving package. The plan calls for everything from raising the income tax to overhauling how schools are funded.
“It’s gigantic, there’s a lot of moving parts, we are still amending it,” Radogno said Tuesday. “I, who have been living and breathing it for two months, am still having a hard time getting my head around certain pieces. So obviously, we want to respect people who have to cast a vote, that they are comfortable.”
* As always, keep track of everything by monitoring our live coverage post below.
*** UPDATE 1 *** The Senate bill could include what’s called an “opportunity tax.” It’s essentially a tax on employers based on their payroll. It’s supposedly a low tax that could raise big bucks because there are so many employers here. It has been estimated by one business group to raise $500 million a year and it’s sort of a “nod” to Speaker Madigan’s proposal to make all corporations pay a tax. ADDING: I’m now hearing this could raise $750 million a year at the level set in the legislation.
*** UPDATE 2 *** The amendment is now public. Click here. A quick reading shows a service tax on storage, amusements, repair and maintenance, landscaping, laundry and drycleaning,
*** UPDATE 3 *** And here’s that “opportunity tax” language…
(a) Beginning on July 1, 2017, a tax is hereby imposed upon each qualified business for the privilege of doing business in the State.
(b) The tax under subsection (a) shall be imposed in the following amounts:
(1) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is less than $100,000, then then annual tax is $225;
(2) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $100,000 or more but less than $250,000, then the annual tax is $750;
(3) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $250,000 or more but less than $500,000, then the annual tax is $3,750;
(4) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $500,000 or more but less than $1,500,000, then the annual tax is $7,500; and
(5) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $1,500,000 or more, then the annual tax is$15,000.
Apparently, there are about 100,000 businesses in Illinois with a payroll of less than $100,000.
And, yes, the personal income tax rate will indeed be set at 4.99 percent. The corporate rate will be set at 7 percent.
*** UPDATE 4 *** The proposal also repeals the franchise tax, which is a tax hated by the Illinois Policy Institute…
Illinois’ corporate franchise tax makes no sense. It is convoluted and economically harmful, and should be repealed. Even the term “franchise tax” is misleading and outdated, as it is not a tax on the franchise locations of a larger business, such as a chain of Burger Kings. Rather, it is a tax on entrepreneurs and investments in Illinois for the privilege of doing business here.
70 Comments
|
* From the Southern Illinoisan…
The Senate package, which also includes tax increases, gambling expansion, pension reforms and a host of other issues, would allocate an additional $1.1 billion in the current year for higher education. That includes money for universities, community colleges and grants to low-income students through the Monetary Award Program.
Combined with nearly $1 billion for higher education that was included in a stopgap spending deal approved in June, the Senate plan would restore university funding for this year to where it was in the 2014-15 school year. Schools currently aren’t receiving any state funds because the stopgap deal expired after Dec. 31.
* But drill down…
Under the Senate’s proposal, SIU would receive $93.4 million on top of the $106.2 million it received from the June stopgap spending plan. But the university, like others across the state, used the stopgap money to pay for expenses from the 2015-16 school year, during which it received only $57.5 million from an emergency funding measure approved in April.
In effect, Charles said, because the June stopgap money was used for last year’s expenses, the $93.4 million from the Senate plan would be SIU’s only state funding for the current year, compared with $199.6 million for the 2014-15 school year.
And the same goes for the other schools. They’re gonna wind up being about a billion short, I think. But they should go back to “normal” next fiscal year. If, that is, the governor and legislators can come to some sort of agreement.
21 Comments
|
* Subscribers know lots more about this topic…
The plan is to take testimony on the bills, then go to caucus late this afternoon. If the caucuses approve, then they’ll go back to committee for votes [the bills will be moved to the floor by the Senate Assignments Committee, which is unusual, but further amendments could be heard in committee]. If they don’t approve, then votes will be postponed until next month when the Senate returns. Again, subscribers know more about the why’s and the what’s.
As Monique says, floor votes tomorrow do, indeed, look iffy right now. Stay tuned and keep a close eye on our live coverage post below.
*** UPDATE *** Subscribers were told about this earlier today…
Again, keep an eye on our live coverage post below.
27 Comments
|
Today’s number: Up to 95,000 lost jobs
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* SJ-R…
The Illinois Health and Hospital Association has said block grants for Medicaid, combined with the loss of subsidized private insurance [via the ACA], could lead to a potential loss of $11.6 billion to $13.1 billion in annual “economic activity” in Illinois. The IHA says that translates to a potential loss of 84,000 to 95,000 jobs.
The hospital association is an interest group, so take its job numbers with a grain of salt.
But, man, even if those lost jobs are half that number. Whoa.
16 Comments
|
Rauner announces changes to pharmacy oversight
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Our old buddy Ray Long at the Trib…
Responding to a Tribune investigation that found drugstores frequently failed to warn customers about potentially dangerous drug interactions, Gov. Bruce Rauner is unveiling a major plan designed to improve public safety at pharmacies throughout the state.
The administration’s proposal would require pharmacists to counsel patients about risky drug combinations and other significant issues when buying a medication for the first time or when a prescription changes. Illinois law now requires only that patients be offered counseling, a mandate often addressed at the cash register with a brief inquiry, such as: “Any questions for the pharmacist today?”
The governor also plans to beef up state oversight, including directing inspectors to put more emphasis on adverse drug reactions and launching a “mystery shopper” program to test how well pharmacists comply with the law. […]
A Walgreens spokesman said: “Our goal is to provide the highest level of care to patients, and we are supportive of the governor’s effort to further promote a culture of safety in community pharmacies.”
Rauner’s plans to use existing inspectors and new mystery shoppers to improve safety at Illinois pharmacies can be achieved through executive orders. But changing the counseling requirement would need the approval of a bipartisan House-Senate panel, as would his proposal to post signs in pharmacies with a consumer hotline along with information about a patient’s right to counseling.
I still don’t understand why these big pharmacy chains don’t have computer programs that can automatically cross-check a customer’s prescriptions for potential harmful interactions. Why are we relying on human memory here? Humans can make mistakes because they get too busy (on orders from on high) or whatever.
…Adding… The proposed additions are underlined along with stricken text…
Failing to provide ensure that patient counseling in accordance with this Part, failing to respond to requests for patient counseling, attempting to circumvent patient counseling requirements, or otherwise discouraging patients from receiving patient counseling concerning their prescription medications is offered or refusing to respond to requests for patient counseling. […]
c) Every licensed pharmacy directly serving patients at a physical location must conspicuously post a sign provided by the Division containing a statement that the patient has the right to counseling, the Division’s consumer hotline number, information on how to file a complaint for failure to counsel, and any other information the Division deems appropriate. The sign must be printed in color ink or displayed electronically in color, measure at least 8 1⁄2 x 11 inches in size, and be posted at either a cashier counter or waiting area clearly visible to patients. Licensed pharmacies that do not maintain a physical location directly serving patients must include a copy of the sign within any dispensed prescriptions. The sign will be available to download on the Division’s website. […]
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as requiring a pharmacist to provide counseling when a patient or patient’s agent refuses such counseling. When a patient or patient’s agent refuses to accept patient counseling as provided in this Section, that refusal shall be documented. The absence of any record of a refusal to accept the offer to counsel shall be presumed to signify that the offer was accepted and that counseling was provided.
34 Comments
|
This didn’t have to happen
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From way back in late May of 2015…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he wants to see how the frenzied final days of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session play out before asking the new City Council to begin the search for new revenue to solve the $30 billion pension crisis that has dropped Chicago’s bond rating to junk status.
“We’re in active discussions on a casino as a funding source to shore up” police and fire pensions, the mayor told reporters after a City Council meeting. […]
Emanuel said he remains hopeful on what he once described as a “mega, mega-deal” that may include a sales tax on services, partial restoration of the expired increase in the state income tax, a Chicago casino and pension relief for police and fire and Chicago teachers.
“We’re now in the final two weeks before the end of the session. And as you know, this is usually the time — not just in Springfield, but with legislative bodies [everywhere] — when days are weeks and weeks are like months,” he said.
“There will be a lot of activity. I’m gonna be out there pressing the issues that are related to Chicago and its future [to make certain] Springfield does not make decisions at the expense of Chicago because there’s not a healthy Illinois without a healthy Chicago,” Emanuel said.
And since then? Almost nothing but destruction. And now we have a Senate plan that looks a whole lot like what was floating around a couple of years ago.
It all seems so pointless.
* From today’s NY Times…
At a meeting with the leaders of several construction and building trade unions, President Trump reiterated on Monday his interest in directing hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure investments, some of it from the federal government, union officials said.
“That was the impression I was taken away with,” said Sean McGarvey, the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, an umbrella group, on a call with reporters after the meeting. “That the American citizenry and the American Treasury will be invested in building public infrastructure.” […]
Mr. McGarvey and Terry O’Sullivan, the general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, stressed to reporters their satisfaction at meeting with the president so soon after the inauguration. They said they went the entire Obama administration without being invited to a similar meeting. […]
At the meeting, Mr. McGarvey raised one point of possible discord between the labor leaders and the Trump administration: the so-called Davis-Bacon Act, which requires the federal government to pay contractors and subcontractors “locally prevailing wages,” as determined by the Labor Department, on most construction or renovation projects.
Many conservatives contend that the act inflates the cost of infrastructure projects, and on Tuesday, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, is proposing a bill to suspend it for federal highway construction contracts.
President Trump was apparently non-committal about the proposed GOP changes.
But just imagine how much things could’ve been different in Illinois if our Republican governor had reached out to the building trades right away like Trump just did.
* From Illinois Public Radio…
The [Senate’s proposal] shows there are many areas in which Democrats and Republicans can come to an agreement. But it still leaves one big philosophical question unanswered.
That question is whether a governor can say: “Pass my agenda, and only then will I negotiate on a budget.” […]
“It’s a very dangerous precedent to set,” [Sen. Kwame Raoul] says. “You don’t know who’s going to be elected governor in the future, and if we start to do these types of thing now, every governor is going to want to do that.”
One can imagine a future governor holding out on the budget in exchange something she wants around guns or abortion or some other contentious issue.
And here we are.
110 Comments
|
* Finke…
The Illinois Senate’s “grand bargain” package of bills will be revised to create a balanced budget, Senate President John Cullerton and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said Monday.
During a meeting with The State Journal-Register editorial board, Cullerton, D-Chicago, said he will show Senate Democrats a draft for the state to have a balanced budget by June 30, 2018. […]
Cullerton said he believes the analysis produced by Rauner’s budget office contained some flawed assumptions, and that lawmakers will be able to work throughout the spring on a balanced spending plan for next year that will be based on additional revenue. […]
Cullerton warned that the state could be facing another credit downgrade if it doesn’t take action this month to show it is dealing with the budget crisis.
Subscribers know more about those claimed “flawed assumptions” by GOMB.
* More on the possible credit downgrade from Pierog and McKinney…
Fitch has warned that inaction on the budget front would result in a downgrade by the end of this month.
“If they do not do something that comprehensively addresses their budget problem and their long-term accumulated budgetary liabilities, then we certainly would take action,” Fitch analyst Karen Krop said Monday.
21 Comments
|
New House rules proposed by Leader Durkin
Tuesday, Jan 24, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Yesterday, a commenter wondered why the House Republicans didn’t propose an alternative to Speaker Madigan’s proposed rules, which have been sharply criticized by the GOP and the Illinois Policy Institute as autocratic.
Well, House Republican Leader Jim Durkin filed a rules proposal yesterday. You can click here to read through it. I asked the HGOP early this morning for quick highlights of some of their proposed changes…
1. Creates specific requirements for advance notice of Rules Committee hearings, including identification of the measures to be considered:
One-hour notice for floor amendments & concurrence motions
72-hours notice to consider referral of bills to committee
24-hours notice for any other purpose
Currently, the Rules Committee often meets without providing any public notice; and it does not identify the legislative measures to be considered at the hearing.
Also requires a 2/3 vote for the Rules Committee to bypass standing/special committee consideration and advance floor amendments and concurrence motions to full House. In other words, such a motion to expedite business would require support from both the majority and minority party members of the committee.
2. Creates a public review period before action on committee amendments by requiring at least two-hours advance notice for an amendment to be considered in a committee.
Currently, committee amendments must be filed with the Clerk by 3 p.m. on the preceding day, but there is no requirement to provide public notice that such amendment may be considered at hearing of a particular committee.
3. Extends the Public Review Period for Floor Amendments (currently 1 hour) - Creates a longer public review period before committee consideration of floor amendments and concurrence motions by requiring that advance notice of a public hearing be given no later than the calendar day before the date of the hearing.
With the current one-hour notice requirement, a floor amendment can be filed, posted for a hearing, and adopted to the bill, and the bill passed by the House, all on the same day.
4. Restores a requirement in the House Rules that each bill be referred to a standing or special committee during the first year of a G.A. In 2013, the Democrat majority removed this decades-old requirement, thereby allowing the Rules Committee to kill a bill by preventing its consideration in a standing or special committee.
5. Second reading of bills during perfunctory session would be prohibited. In order to expedite the consideration of bills when the full House is not in session, the Clerk is often instructed to read bills a second time during the perfunctory session. This practice sometimes allows a bill to be approved by committee and then read by the Clerk on the same day, thereby allowing final passage on the following day.
Your thoughts?
16 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
It’s just a (gun) bill
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* HB 492’s synopsis…
Repeals the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Amends various Acts to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.
There are no co-sponsors on this bill which has about zero chance of passage, but, wow is there ever a press release…
STATEMENT FROM TANJA MURRAY, VOLUNTEER CHAPTER LEADER WITH THE ILLINOIS CHAPTER OF MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA:
“It’s baffling and shameful that some of our representatives apparently want to get rid of a common-sense law that makes it harder for dangerous people to get guns. At a time when our state’s largest city is reeling from a gun violence crisis – a crisis made worse by guns brought in from states without background check requirements – this proposal would only make it easier for criminals to get guns right here in Illinois.
To reduce the gun violence affecting communities across Illinois and across the country, we need more states, not fewer, to require background checks for all gun sales. I urge our representatives to reject this proposal and make clear that Illinois will not let the gun lobby roll back lifesaving gun laws.”
“Some” would be “one,” at least, so far.
But, hey, ever vigilant. I get it.
* And speaking of gun bills, this is from the NRA…
On Wednesday, January 25, the Senate Criminal Law Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 50. Sponsored by state Senator William Haine, Senate Bill 50 continues the fight for important pro-gun safety reform for hearing protection rights. NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to sign a witness slip to go on record in support of Senate Bill 50. Please also contact your state Senator immediately and urge them to support SB 50.
Suppressors provide numerous benefits to the hunters and sportsmen who choose to use them. Most importantly, suppressors can decrease muzzle report to hearing-safe levels and reduce shooters’ risk of hearing damage, which can occur when discharging a firearm without proper hearing protection. Additionally, suppressors help increase accuracy by reducing felt recoil and shot “flinch.” Beginners to shooting sports adhere to a quicker learning curve on average because the muffled sound equates to increased focus and concentration on proper shooting mechanics. Furthermore, suppressors help reduce noise complaints from neighbors, which are frequently used as an excuse to close hunting lands throughout the country
* Synopsis…
Amends the Illinois Police Training Act. Provides the annual training of police chiefs must include at least one course on the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and firearms investigations. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Permits the State Police to notify the FBI if a person on the Terrorist Watchlist applies for a FOID card. Requires the State Police to provide notice and reason for the disqualification of a firearm purchase or a FOID card revocation to all law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction to assist with the seizure of the person’s FOID card. Adds as grounds to deny an application for or to revoke or seize the person’s FOID card that the person is charged with making a terrorist threat or soliciting or providing material support for terrorism. Makes other changes. Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a person may not carry a concealed handgun equipped with a silencer. Amends the Wildlife Code. Removes the prohibition on using a silencer to mute the sound resulting from firing a gun. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that the offense of unlawful use of weapons includes knowingly: using, or possessing with the intent to use, a silencer on a handgun, except at a shooting range; or possessing any silencer for firearms, other than handguns, not in compliance with the National Firearms Act. Provides that the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms includes knowingly transferring a silencer to a person not authorized to possess the silencer under federal law. Effective immediately.
41 Comments
|
How will the strike authorization vote work?
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* In anticipation of the strike authorization vote starting January 30th, I asked AFSCME’s Anders Lindall a couple of quick questions about what to expect. Here are my questions with his answers…
* What are your strike vote authorization rules?
* Do you need a percentage of members voting (ie a majority of those who show up to a meeting to vote) or a total percentage of all membership? And is it 50 percent plus one to authorize?”
A vote of more than 50 percent of those voting would grant the bargaining committee the authorization to call a strike if necessary.
But as we have repeatedly made clear, a vote to authorize a strike would not necessarily mean there will be a strike. The committee will continue to do everything in its power to bring the governor back to the bargaining table in good faith, and to avoid a strike.
A bit more here. For instance…
The Strike Authorization Vote will take place in each local union between January 30 and February 19
Thoughts?
54 Comments
|
* The New York Times reports on various gubernatorial reactions to a reported Trump administration plan to block-grant the Medicaid program…
Governors like the idea of having more control over Medicaid, but fear that block grants may be used as a vehicle for federal budget cuts.
“We are very concerned that a shift to block grants or per capita caps for Medicaid would remove flexibility from states as the result of reduced federal funding,” Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a Republican, said this month in a letter to congressional leaders. “States would most likely make decisions based mainly on fiscal reasons rather than the health care needs of vulnerable populations.”
Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama, a Republican, said that if a block grant reduced federal funds for the program, “states should be given the ability to reduce Medicaid benefits or enrollment, to impose premiums” or other cost-sharing requirements on beneficiaries, and to reduce Medicaid spending in other ways.
In Louisiana, Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, said he was troubled by the prospect of a block grant with deep cuts in federal funds. “Under such a scenario,” he said, “flexibility would really mean flexibility to cut critical services for our most vulnerable populations, including poor children, people with disabilities and seniors in need of nursing home and home-based care.”
Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, said that block grant proposals could shift costs to states and “force us to make impossible choices in our Medicaid program.”
If history is any guide, block-granting will lead to less federal money being spent.
* The issue is also mentioned briefly - and rather coldly - in a letter sent by our acting Director of Insurance to Republican congressional leaders. Click the pic for a larger image and the complete letter…
Discuss.
22 Comments
|
* From the ILGOP…
Will House Democrats Bow to Mike Madigan Again This Week?
Decision to Enact Madigan’s Rules Expected This Week; Would Give Madigan “Total Control”
“House Democrats voted less than two weeks ago to give Mike Madigan an unprecedented 17th term as Speaker. This week House Democrats must decide whether they will give Madigan even more power by adopting Madigan’s Rules, which would give him total control of the legislative agenda of the General Assembly.” - Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Aaron DeGroot
Background:
After the inauguration of a new General Assembly every two years, members of the Illinois House of Representatives adopt the little-known rules package that governs how their legislative body hears, debates, and votes on pending legislation.
For decades, House Speaker Mike Madigan has used the Rules of the House of Representatives to control the legislative agenda of the General Assembly according to his personal whims and political strategy. Speaker Madigan rules the Illinois House of Representatives and determines what legislation lives and dies.
“The way our House rules operate, I think they are more restrictive than any other legislature in the country and create a lot of control in the speaker.” – State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, October 2013
The House based its rules on the Senate’s rules back when the Republicans had control of both chambers. The Senate’s rules are still pretty close to the House’s rules, yet nary a peep about that chamber.
But, then they couldn’t tweet stuff like this…
* Even so, I’ve been railing against these rules since Pate Philip first unveiled them. They’re undemocratic and they should be changed.
Committee chairmen and minority spokespersons should be elected by their caucuses, not appointed by the leaders. Committee staff should report to and be hired by chairmen/spokesmen and not the leaders.
I’d hesitate to bring back floor amendments, which long ago could be filed on bills without first having to clear the Rules Committee as long as they were related to the underlying subject matter. Back in the old days, Madigan would simply refuse to move any legislation at all to the floor that could be amended with hostile language to his favored constituencies (like trial lawyers). And the House Republicans tried one year to essentially shut down the chamber’s operations by filing a couple of hundred floor amendments to a bunch of bills on the floor. The old rules required taking action on all those amendments before the underlying bills could be advanced.
Also back in the day, the House Rules Committee only really met to enforce a chamber rule that limited legislation in even-numbered years to appropriations bills and “emergency” (I think that was the term) legislation. The Rules Committee decided what could be considered an emergency under the rules during election years (a very handy power). Now, Rules controls everything all the time. It should be reined in.
* Anyway, that’s a few points for starters. Y’all have any other ideas?
27 Comments
|
Question of the day
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This group is was [he resigned from the board last year] backed by Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Kennedy…
* The Question: Effective or not? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey hosting
77 Comments
|
Unsolicited advice
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* My Crain’s Chicago Business column…
[The Senate’s grand bargain] plan isn’t perfect, but no compromise ever is. The governor’s budget office says their plan isn’t balanced, so more work definitely needs to be done.
In public, the governor has been doing his best not to derail the Senate’s proposal, but nobody really knows what he’s doing behind the scenes. Madigan hasn’t said much of anything, but nobody expects him to just accept something from the Senate and gleefully put it on Rauner’s desk.
To my mind, the key to getting something done right now is in the hands of House Republicans. They were, after all, the caucus that asked the governor’s budget office to analyze the Senate’s appropriations plan. Rauner’s budget folks projected a $2.3 billion deficit for next fiscal year.
Did Rauner or his people “suggest” this request? My guess is yes, but House Republicans need to make darned sure that Rauner doesn’t somehow kill this thing off. Work with—and not for—the governor to help figure out how to fix and pass the Senate’s plan.
An agreement would mean Madigan will be outnumbered and surrounded—the position he has worked so hard to avoid for two solid years. Right now, he can credibly point to Rauner’s intransigence while the Republicans point at him, and he can do this for as long as he wants.
But an agreement means that Madigan will either have to finally lay all his own cards on the table or take all the heat for the ongoing destruction.
Don’t screw this up. We simply can’t go through another two years of this.
Click here to read the rest.
15 Comments
|
Chairman’s association announces straw poll
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I told subscribers a bit about this poll earlier today…
The Illinois Democratic County Chairman’s Association announced that from Monday January 23rd to midnight on Sunday January 29th, it will conduct an online straw poll of its members and Democrats who join the organization via online submission to measure their preference for whom Democrats in Illinois should nominate for Governor.
The straw poll results, once tabulated, will be released to the public the following day on IDCCA’s website and social media channels. The straw poll will run from 10:30am on Monday January 23rd until midnight on January 29th.
“After two years of disastrous management under Governor Rauner and with the impending presidency of Donald Trump, Democrats must offer a positive vision to voters and draw their attention to the numerous well-qualified and exciting candidates who can lead Illinois into a better future,” said IDCCA President and Chairman of the Rock Island County Democrats Doug House.
The straw poll will be the first of its kind in Illinois to express the preference of activists, elected party leaders, and volunteers in all of Illinois’ 102 counties. IDCCA intends to conduct several more polls to continue drawing attention to the Democratic primary race for Governor.
The candidates included in the first straw poll are (in alphabetical order):
• State Senator Daniel Biss
• Congresswoman Cheri Bustos
• Congresswoman Robin Kelly
• Chris Kennedy
• State Senator Andy Manar
• Alderman Ameya Pawar
• J.B. Pritzker
• State Senator Kwame Raoul
• City Treasurer Kurt Summers
“Since November, there has been tremendous energy and desire among the people to find a way to fight back. IDCCA and its members across Illinois are prepared to play a leadership role in harnessing this enthusiasm and preparing it for our eventual nominee,” said House.
The straw poll voting will occur via the web at:
http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07edqhemzkiy8ustps/start [Fixed link - again]
The straw poll will be monitored by staff to prevent duplicate or fraudulent voting. Submission of an identifiable and valid email address and an Illinois zip code are the only requirements for membership in IDCCA and for the vote to be counted. This straw poll is not scientific and should not be construed as an accurate measurement of public opinion among Democratic primary voters.
If you vote, let us know which way you went and why.
…Adding… The link has now been fixed. Click here. [I had to fix the link again. Sorry about that! The second time was on me. Oops!]
45 Comments
|
* The Illinois Policy Institute continues to focus on Senate Republicans in order to kill off the chamber’s “grand bargain.” Here’s its latest…
Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer advocacy group, maintains an active pledge for lawmakers across the country to sign. The pledge states that the signer will agree to not vote for or support any new taxes or tax hikes. The pledge has proved popular among candidates and officeholders across federal, state and local levels of government with signatures from over 1,400 elected officials.
The following Illinois state senators have also signed the pledge:
Tim Bivins, R-Dixon
Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon
Jim Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove
Dave Syverson, R-Rockford
Bill Brady, R-Bloomington
Sue Rezin, R-Morris
The state senators who signed this pledge should remember they were not making a promise to Americans for Tax Reform, but rather to Illinois taxpayers. Illinois already has one of the largest combined tax burdens in the country, and the last thing middle-and working-class Illinoisans need at this point is yet another tax hike.
Meh.
It was a campaign pledge, and campaign pledges should be broken when the very future of the state is at issue.
And, really, the only pledge that matters now is the pledge that all lawmakers make when they’re sworn in: To uphold the state Constitution. And that Constitution requires a balanced budget.
So, unless these geniuses can come up with a plan to close a $6 billion budget hole without raising any taxes whatsoever, that pledge to Grover Norquist means nothing.
* Meanwhile, here’s its latest Facebook ad, which appears to be targeting Leader Radogno’s own district…
* And this is from its “news service”…
Parts of a potential budget agreement in Springfield include a number of pro-business incentives, but business advocates say they’re no consolation for massive tax hikes.
A series of bills waiting to be voted on in the Illinois Senate are being promoted by leadership as the grand compromise that will break Illinois’ two-year long budget stalemate between Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. The proposed plan rakes in billions by raising the state’s income tax to almost five percent along with other taxes. They also included a two-year property tax freeze and minor reforms to pensions and workers compensation laws in an effort to court business support.
But Technology and Manufacturers Association of Illinois President and former state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger says token reforms are no justification for a massive tax increase. “An increase in revenue is not a good deal for minor changes to the workers’ compensation program,” he said.
*** UPDATE *** Hilarious…
This is exactly why I consider that group to be more of a propaganda outlet than a “think tank.”
44 Comments
|
* Tribune editorial board…
In a perhaps unprecedented move, Senate President John Cullerton and Republican Leader Christine Radogno will present to their members a proposal that’s like a Jenga game — remove one cube and the whole thing collapses. […]
Without analyzing each Jenga cube, we’re on board with the idea of nudging the fragile tower forward. We agree with Radogno’s description of this proposal — at this point in Springfield, it’s this something vs. everyone else’s nothing. Waiting for a more critical development, a more perfect policy package, a less painful strategy, hotter pressure from bond markets or constituents, would only continue the status quo.
Is a “do something” strategy the ideal way to proceed? Not even close. There are 100 reasons senators could collapse the Jenga tower. Perhaps most difficult to swallow will be the proposed tax hikes, which include an increase in the personal income tax from 3.75 to roughly 5 percent, along with a new state tax on sweetened beverages. Those proposals could change; the tax hike bill, along with many of the others, is not the final product. […]
But we agree with Radogno that at this point, given this sorry state, what she and Cullerton are doing is something vs. nothing. If passed in the Senate, it will put pressure on Madigan’s House and on Gov. Bruce Rauner to react.
The most interesting part of that editorial was in its description of our current environment as the “status quo.” The Trib has formerly relegated that phrase to the decades before Gov. Rauner was elected. So, is that an admission that we’re now in a whole other realm? We’ll see.
The editorial also concluded with the admonition that it was waiting to see all the bills before issuing its final opinion. So, things could change.
* The Daily Herald’s editorial board issued a very similar opinion…
As to the grand deal itself, we can say this: We appreciate the political courage Cullerton and Radogno are displaying in putting the state’s interests above their own, risking the political fallout from special interests and partisans.
We are not ready, at least not yet, to sign onto the entire proposed 13-point proposal that would include a significant increase in the state income tax and an expansion of legalized gambling. We do, however, agree without reservation with many aspects of the plan — a property tax freeze, the leadership term limits, workers’ compensation reform.
And it is clear that Illinois is not going to solve its significant problems and rebuild its reputation, is not going to stop the exodus of families and businesses fleeing the state, unless our two parties work seriously together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise.
No matter anyone’s positions on the proposed grand deal, the two Senate leaders deserve everyone’s thanks for their willingness to put themselves on the line.
* But the Northwest Herald is having nothing of it…
We’ve got to hand it to Senate leaders; they don’t discriminate. Their proposal is equally bad for middle class wage earners and business owners.
“The Senate budget proposal is an absolute disaster,” Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, said. “Raising the income tax rate by 32 percent, or even up to 40 percent, would crush taxpayers.
“We need to cut spending, not raises taxes. This would be the final nail in the coffin of the state of Illinois. … We lost 115,000 people [to outmigration] last year. This will drive even more people out of the state. …”
We urge state senators, including Sen. Pam Althoff, R-McHenry, and Sen. Karen McConnaughay, R-St. Charles, to reject this plan.
* And the Sun-Times doesn’t want radical changes in the workers’ compensation insurance component…
One way to cut costs without further reducing worker benefits would be to give the Illinois Department of Insurance the authority to ensure workers’ comp insurance companies aren’t getting excessive profits. That’s a safeguard that already exists in many other states.
Setting workers’ comp benefits at a reasonable level can help Illinois’ economic competitiveness. But Illinois shouldn’t expect to have lower workers’ comp costs than its neighbors. Part of the formula for calculating workers’ comp premiums is the total amount of employer payrolls. Because Illinois has higher average incomes than adjoining states, it can’t expect its workers’ comp rates to be lower.
Cullerton and Radogno are pushing for a bipartisan solution to a political impasse that has forced Illinois to stagger along without an annual budget for more than a year and a half. We support that effort. We also trust they can get the job done while preserving a fair workers’ comp system.
* Related…
* Phil Kadner: Small ray of hope for fairer school funding in Illinois
24 Comments
|
Blair Hull back in the news
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
State Rep. Scott Drury, the lone House Democrat that didn’t vote for House Speaker Michael Madigan earlier this month, reported a $2,000 contribution from Blair Hull, a businessman and 2004 primary candidate for U.S. Senate.
Not mentioned is that Hull was a top backer of Speaker Madigan’s Democratic primary opponent last year. So, the contribution to Drury makes more sense in that context.
12 Comments
|
Dem candidates start to staff up
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Korecki…
As J.B. Pritzker explores a 2018 bid for governor, he has tapped an array of advisers that includes influential Democratic donor Michael Sacks, POLITICO has learned.
Sacks, GCM Grosvenor CEO and a top personal adviser to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, called Pritzker “extraordinary” and offered his backing should Pritzker ultimately file campaign papers.
Sacks was the lead donor to the anti-Gov. Bruce Rauner political action committee, LIFT — Leading Illinois for Tomorrow — in last November’s legislative battles, and has long financially backed Emanuel’s campaigns and funded Democratic efforts in Illinois and elsewhere. […]
Among others with whom Pritzker is conferring on an unofficial basis: state Sen. Heather Steans, who chairs the Senate appropriations committee and Matt Hynes, former chief lobbyist to the city of Chicago under Emanuel, said Becky Carroll, who is handling Pritzker’s communications for this phase.
Steans was once considered a possible gubernatorial candidate and is closely allied to Senate President John Cullerton.
Anyway, that’s a lot of Rahm folks.
* One person not mentioned in the piece is Nikki Budzinski, who was the UFCW’s political director before running labor outreach for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She’s from Illinois and was recently hired by Pritzker to handle things. From her Twitter feed this past weekend…
* Back to Korecki…
On Saturday, [Chris Kennedy] took part in the Women’s March in Chicago.
“He marched with his wife and kids and other relatives in Chicago,” said Hanah Jubeh, a senior adviser to Kennedy.
Hanah Jubeh is also an advisor to Sen. Kwame Raoul, who describes Kennedy as an old friend. The two men attended the Operation PUSH breakfast on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day last week. Sen. Raoul has long been listed as a possible gubernatorial contender, but Kennedy’s Jubeh hire makes me think he may be aiming for something else.
* Related…
* Sneed exclusive: Pritzker goes on gubernatorial ‘listening tour’
25 Comments
|
Ambition isn’t always blind
Monday, Jan 23, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
On a fairly regular basis back in the day, state Sen. Barack Obama would walk up to the Senate press box and bum cigarettes off me. That was when people could smoke in the Senate chambers and back when both of us smoked. Now, we both chew nicotine gum and smoking on the Senate floor is strictly forbidden.
Obama was mainly an OPC smoker, meaning “other peoples’ cigarettes.” I’d usually give him a little grief about how maybe he should buy his own pack once in a while, but I never denied his request unless I was almost out. He’d always take the cigarette to a room in the back of the chamber, never seeming to smoke at his desk like others did.
One day as I was wandering through the Statehouse near his office, Obama hollered out my name and asked me to come in and join him. I presumed he wanted to bum yet another cigarette and I was right. I tossed my pack on his desk and he took one out, lit it and we made a little small talk.
Honestly, I didn’t much care for the guy in those days. He hadn’t yet done a lot of real work, or built strong relationships with fellow legislators by then, particularly with members of the Senate Black Caucus. And by the time of our little chat he’d gotten way ahead of himself by challenging Congressman Bobby Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary and losing badly.
I was interviewed by the Chicago Reader newspaper during that campaign. I told the reporter that Sen. Obama was “a very intelligent man” who has “some really good ideas,” and would “probably make a pretty good congressman.” But I also pointed out that he hadn’t had a lot of success in Springfield and speculated that it could be “because he places himself above everybody. He likes people to know he went to Harvard.”
I got a phone call from Obama after that story was published. He was stung by my comments. I tried to point out the positive things I said, but that didn’t work. At the end of our conversation, we agreed to start talking more often, which may have been why he called me into his office that day.
We had finished our cigarettes and I remember getting up to leave. It’s not like he knew any hot inside information that I could use in my Capitol Fax publication, so I had work to do and needed to move on. But Obama asked me to stay a while longer, so I sat back down and we each lit another smoke.
Obama then stunned me by asking a question that I never in a million years would’ve anticipated: What would I think of him running for U.S. Senate in 2004?
His question seemed so . . . presumptuous. Rush had just cleaned his clock by a 30-point margin, I reminded Obama. If he ran for statewide office and lost, he’d be finished, washed up, out of the game for good. “There is still some honor to serving in the Illinois Senate,” I gently scolded him.
But Obama said he was getting heat from the home front. His Springfield duties were preventing him from making a decent living as an attorney, so he either had to move up to a much higher office or get out of politics and go make some real money.
I couldn’t argue with that logic, but I suggested that maybe he stop using “Barack” and call himself “Barry” or something. He said that’s what his friends called him when he was growing up, but said he wanted to stick to his given name. I made some sort of joke about Irishing up his last name with an apostrophe after the “O” and using green yard signs. Had I known at the time that his middle name was “Hussein,” I’m sure I would’ve made some sort of inappropriate joke.
I tell this story whenever somebody asks me for advice about whether to run for higher office in order to explain why I no longer provide that sort of counsel. I mean, I actually told a future President of the United States to not be so darned ambitious. It was not my proudest moment.
Nowadays, I just say, “What do you really want to do?” And if they can answer that question, I urge them to put their entire heart and soul into the effort.
It works out much better that way—for them and for me.
* Related…
* Bernie Schoenburg: Obama’s legacy ‘forever tied’ to Springfield
* Christi Parsons: I reported on Obama longer than anyone else. Here’s what I learned.
21 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
 
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS |
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax |
Advertise Here |
Mobile Version |
Contact Rich Miller
|
