Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Part 1, Electric Rates.
Myth: Taylorville will put an “enormous economic burden” on consumers
Fact: The Clean Coal Portfolio Standard caps residential rate increases at 2.015%, or $1.67/month, according to the ICC.
Myth: Taylorville means rate increases now, when we can least afford it
Fact: Between now and 2015, the project will invest billions in Illinois, employ nearly 2,500 construction workers and purchase supplies from all corners of the state. The cost to ratepayers between now and 2015? ZERO. NOTHING. ZILCH.
Myth: Taylorville will dramatically increase electric rates for large business customers
Fact: Big business customers currently pay 40.5% less for electricity than residential and small business consumers. Even under their worst case scenario, large customers would still pay 37.1% less.
Myth: Illinois has plenty of electricity. No new plants are needed.
Fact: As Crain’s and others have reported, environmental regulations are expected to force 25-40% of Illinois coal plants to shut down by 2020. Since Illinois still relies on coal for half of our electricity, less supply and more demand means higher electric rates if cleaner supplies of reliable electricity, like Taylorville, are not built. And who benefits from that?
U.S. Senator-elect Mark Kirk is implying that politics has something to do with his not being seated right away in the Senate. […]
Kirk told Don and Roma he’s upset that state Democratic leaders did not work to make sure he be seated right away after his win over Alexi Giannoulias.
“You know, you would have hoped that Illinois leaders would have gone back to Judge (John F.) Grady that ordered this election, and said ‘now that we’ve had a clear victory, and that my opponent conceded, we can seat the new Senator’,” Kirk said.
In case he didn’t realize it, Mark Kirk is actually an “Illinois leader” himself. Kirk or the Republican Party or pretty much anybody else could’ve asked the judge to allow the state not to count military and other absentee ballots and not to conduct the official statewide canvass.
They didn’t.
And, just to repeat myself here, there is no current vacancy in the US Senate. Roland Burris is the Senator, which is why Kirk cannot be appointed to the seat right now. That vacancy does not occur until the results are certified as legal, per the judge’s orders. Burris could step down, but he has the right to remain in place until the judge’s order is fulfilled.
* Sen. Bill Brady was back at the Statehouse yesterday. He’s staying in the Senate for now…
He said he plans to serve out the remaining two years of his term in the Senate, but is not sure whether he will try to carve a different role out for himself in the chamber.
“There’s a lot of dynamics left to look at,” Brady said.
There are even rumors going around that Brady might be interested in running for governor again.
* The Catholic Conference of Illinois is turning up the heat against the civil unions bill, and urged action by its adherents this week…
Please call your state representative and state senator next Monday, Nov. 15 or Tuesday, Nov. 16 and ask him or her to vote NO on Senate Bill 1716. We expect a vote next week! Senate Bill 1716 enacts civil unions and grants those in civil unions the same rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage. Under this bill the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the name. Your message is simple: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.
It’s not completely clear what that “significant impact on the Church’s social service missions” means. Washington, DC’s archdiocese originally threatened to close homeless shelters and end various social service programs if the city enacted a gay marriage ordinance. Instead, they simply transferred a foster care program to another group and stopped paying for new employee spousal health insurance.
Forcing the Catholic Church to consider civil unions in its qualifications for adoption and other family-oriented ministries would force state policy onto religious doctrine, a possible First Amendment infringement.
* Robert Gilligan, the executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, penned a recent op-ed that provides some clues…
The November 12, 2010 editorial “Time for Civil Unions” stated that civil unions are not the same as same sex marriage. You should have read the legislation more carefully because they are the same.
The bill describes a “party to a civil union” as the legal equivalent of a “spouse” under Illinois law. The bill then states that a “party to a civil union” is entitled to the same legal obligations, protections and benefits as are afforded by the law to a spouse. Proponents of civil unions know lawmakers do not have the political will to pass same sex marriage in Illinois, so they have created the pseudonym of civil unions in order to get the same benefits of marriage by calling it something else.
The real tragedy with this legislation is that it further undermines traditional marriage, an institution necessary for creating and shaping new human life. More attention needs to be directed at how this legislation presents a clash with established principles of religious liberty. Real concerns remain about how this bill could require faith-based employers to grant benefits to same sex civil partners and how it would impact social service agencies by mandating placement of foster or adopted children with same sex civil partners. Do not be fooled. Civil unions are same sex marriage and there are real problems with this legislation for religious entities.
So, it appears that the Catholics may no longer be in the foster child, adoption game if this passes.
* Meanwhile, House Speaker Michael Madigan not only claimed that the civil unions bill has a good chance of passage, he also appeared to endorse it…
“There’s a good chance it’ll pass,” he said. “. . . It’s an appropriate thing to do.”
* Sen. James Meeks is probably hoping the bill never arrives in the Senate. He’s a social conservative and has opposed the idea in the past. He wouldn’t tell Chicago Tonight what he would do if he does have to vote, but said as Chicago’s mayor he would have a duty to uphold all the laws. Have a look…
* The Catholic Conference is also urging abolition of the state’s death penalty. From its website…
Legislation to abolish the death penalty in Illinois may be considered during the fall veto session in Springfield (November 16-18 and November 29-December 2). The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI) supports this legislation. The use of the death penalty when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without parole, weakens the respect for all human life. Now is the time to end the death penalty in Illinois. Here are a few things you can do to take action.
1) Call your legislators.
Please call your state representative and state senator and ask him or her to vote YES on legislation to abolish the death penalty. Tell your legislators that:
“The death penalty is not necessary when there are other means to protect our society, such as sentences of natural life without the possibility of parole. Please support legislation to abolish the death penalty.”
You can go to the Illinois State Board of Elections to look up your elected officials or call our office at (312) 368-1066 or (217) 528-9200.
2) Participate in the November 29 Lobby Day.
You can also participate in the “People of Faith Lobby Day” in Springfield on November 29. The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is providing transportation (for a fee, lunch included) from Chicago and Glen Ellyn. Go to ICADP or contact CCI at (312) 368-1066 for more information.
3) Promote educational efforts on Catholic Social Teaching & the abolition of the death penalty.
* Exposé Hits Hard At Death Penalty System: Since 2000, she learned, $100 million in taxpayer money has been spent via the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. That honey pot was meant to ensure defense counsel in capital cases, especially in places where public defender offices aren’t staffed adequately and must enlist private lawyers. But prosecutors made sure that the fund would also pay for their often-ample nonsalary expenses, including those for investigators, not just for private defense counsel and the nonsalary expenses of public defenders.
* As you most likely know by now, Congresswoman Melissa Bean has conceded to Republican Joe Walsh. Bean lost by just under 300 votes. She didn’t do nearly well enough when absentees and provisionals were counted yesterday…
In McHenry County, Walsh picked up 17 votes to Bean’s 12 votes Tuesday.
In Cook County, Walsh received 59 votes Tuesday to Bean’s 105 votes, Cook County Clerk spokeswoman Courtney Greve said.
As of 5:37 p.m., the Lake County Clerk’s website said Walsh had received 459 votes and Bean received 474.
With the counts from Tuesday added in, Walsh stood at 98,115 to Bean’s 97,825.
Over the course of the race, Bean out-fundraised Walsh $1.9 million to $465,000.
* A big reason for his lack of funding was that the state and national GOP refused to help Walsh…
“Everybody would admit that it was a race that wasn’t on anybody’s radar,” said Illinois Republican Party chairman Pat Brady. “We made a mistake.”
The other issues included a campaign manager who quit and then sued Walsh for $20,000 in nonpayment and two more staffers who quit and accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public.
Unlike other Republicans who won districts held by Democrats on Nov. 2, Walsh didn’t receive an invitation to the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Gun” programs.
They didn’t think he could win because of his long history of personal problems. And those problems meant they didn’t really want to help him win.
* Illinois now has 11 Republican members of Congress out of 19 total. They haven’t had a majority since 2004, and I’m not sure when they’ve ever had this many members here.
* Joe Ricketts talked earlier this year about why he forked out all that money to buy the Chicago Cubs. Check it out…
The most interesting part of the video was Ricketts’ description of a conversation he had five years ago with his son, Tom, who is now the Cubs chairman.
“Why would I want to buy a baseball team?” Ricketts said he asked his son.
“They sell every ticket, every game, win or lose,” Tom replied.
“Now you’re talking about a business,” the elder Ricketts said. “Now you’ve got my interest.”
Cub fans have changed a bit since that fateful conversation. Attendance is down the last two years, even though it’s still abnormally high for such an awful team. Fan dissatisfaction appeared to grow this year with every horrific loss. They have a ton of overpaid, underperforming players and they can’t find the right managerial mix.
“If you take my money, and you start this business, you buy this baseball team, you have to come over and run it because I don’t want to be exposed to risk,” Ricketts told his son Tom. Well, the risk has injected itself anyway.
* Reading a Tribune story this morning about the proposed Wrigley Field renovation plan gave me an idea…
Ricketts said the more than $200 million in proposed ballpark renovations and another $200 million the family would commit to redevelopment surrounding the historic ballpark would create 1,000 construction jobs and hundreds more permanent jobs in the next five years.
Here’s the layout of the proposal. Click the pic for a larger image. Notice the “Triangle Building” to the west and “Cubs Alley” between the triangle and the park…
The Triangle Building will include parking, concessions, shopping, dining and Cub offices. It may also include a hotel. Cubs Alley will have a retractable roof and will feature shops, restaurants, etc…
The Ricketts see that development as a way to make more money. Understandable. But they can apparently afford to spend $200 million. So, how about they just put their cash into the stadium and find private investments for the ancillary stuff like the Triangle Building and Cubs Alley? There’d be no need for a government bailout and the park would be remodeled.
* Anyway, back to the Statehouse, where things got a bit confusing yesterday…
House Speaker Michael Madigan (D- Chicago) told reporters in Springfield on Tuesday afternoon that the team’s owners, the Ricketts family, withdrew their proposal to finance a $200 million stadium renovation with a state bond sale that would be repaid with the anticipated growth in the 12 percent amusement tax levied on tickets sold at Wrigley.
But a Ricketts family spokesman denied the family had scrapped the amusement-tax plan. […]
Later in the day, after Madigan’s comment, his spokesman, Steve Brown, seemed to leave the door open to more deliberations, but he did not elaborate on the state of negotiations.
“Mr. Ricketts has called the speaker … and the speaker has reiterated that he is prepared to try and be helpful,” Brown said.
When even the Speaker is confused, things aren’t going well.
The voters sent a clear message to stop reckless spending. Yet the earmarking system that perpetuates the power of incumbency, fosters a culture of dependency on the government, and produced the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” and influence-peddling scandals that sent many to prison, still exists. Washington keeps borrowing and spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need.
I suppose what Mr. Ricketts ought to explain is how government borrowing that allows him to build a big shopping mall and parking garage next to his ball park is something we really need, unlike those federal earmarks.
“An earmark is something that’s appended onto a federal bill which is never debated, never discussed, just thrown in,” [Tom Ricketts] said. “The fact is, what it does is it jeopardizes the integrity of the federal budgeting process. You can tell by the people in the room today this isn’t a private process we’re going through. We’re trying to be as open as possible. This is a decision that will be made by elected officials and the people in this room.”
No this project isn’t an earmark, per se, but it’s close. If you bend the meaning a bit, you can see how some people would see that above statement as an exercise in semantics and this plan as hypocrisy.
After all, who would benefit the most by the Cubs getting a new park? The owners, of course. This isn’t a nonprofit. While Ricketts has claimed he wants the team and the park to stay family-owned for a century, a new Wrigley Field would increase the team’s value significantly. Astronomically, even.
According to [Taxpayers Against Earmarks, the group funded by Joe Ricketts], the point of railing against earmarks isn’t really the way they’re put together, it’s that they’re tailored to benefit the people who are sponsoring them. Sound about right?
Here’s what it says on the website: “Earmarks provide federal funding for projects benefiting only a state or local interest, or a private company, university or non-profit. In other words, most earmark-funded projects do not benefit the nation as a whole — though the ‘giving’ of an earmark by a Member of Congress certainly benefits that Member.”
“I just didn’t consider the result of the election to be a mandate for a tax increase. I didn’t see it that way,” Madigan said.
Well, that’s it then.
* Madigan also reiterated his desire to move a tax hike bill when he has Republican votes…
The speaker, who leads a 70-member contingent in the House, said he would not muscle through a tax increase for Quinn using only Democratic votes: “That’s not my plan.”
When asked why not, given that he controls a majority large enough to provide the 60 votes needed to pass a tax increase in early January, Madigan said, “You know, that word ‘control’ is one usually abused by media people, severely abused by media people.
“You can walk out there,” he said, gesturing toward the House floor, “and ask those people . . . whether they’re under control, and I think they’d say no.”
They might say “no,” but they’re still a bunch of pretty controlled ducklings. Madigan could probably pass a tax hike if he really wanted to. It wouldn’t be easy. A lot of his members are opposed to or frightened of raising taxes. But most know that they’re going to have to do it sooner or later. Might as well do it now in a lame duck session and get it over with. It would be better than waiting a year when the bond firms might start demanding it and a remap election is just around the corner.
More…
Madigan said paring down that deficit could take “three to five years” and will “require an increase in revenue and a reduction in spending. It’s going to have to be a balanced approach.
“Hopefully, now that we’re beyond the election, the Republicans in the Legislature will join and work with the Democrats to craft an intelligent solution,” Madigan said.
Barring a massive and unprecedented economic recovery, he’s most likely right about the timeline. But you can’t dig yourself out of the hole until you pick up a shovel.
“I would think that he’s going to learn from his experience,” Madigan said of Quinn. “I would think he would.”
Reporters asked Madigan what Quinn needs to learn.
“Be like me,” Madigan responded. “Learn day by day. Try and make today better than yesterday and tomorrow better than today.”
Asked about any advice for the governor, who has been accused by critics of not being able to close the deal on major issues, Madigan was even shorter.
“Stay focused. Stay focused,” Madigan said.
A flat learning curve and lack of focus are two of Quinn’s greatest problems.
Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
“After careful review of the FCR, the Commission concludes that the TEC facility features high costs to ratepayers with uncertain future benefits, and uncertainties that potentially add to already-significant costs.” – ICC Report, September 2010
Other Key Findings:
• “The cost associated with electricity generated by the TEC is substantially higher than that which is associated with other types of generation facilities.” – Page 2
The cost of wholesale electricity from TEC is 400-700% higher than current market prices.
• “…above market costs of energy produced from the TEC and potential cost overruns could stifle the competitive market and create significant economic impacts.” – Page 3
• “‘the true cost of the clean-coal portion of the plant is masked by the fact that approximately 46% of the electrical capacity is actually from natural gas’ and the clean-coal portion of the Taylorville facility is ‘approximately $10,641 per kilowatt’” - Page 18
• The report identifies serious “open issues” that should be addressed before the project proceeds.
These include…
• A disproportionate risk borne by consumers for cost overruns.
• Lack of technical clarity and cost estimates for carbon sequestration.
• Constantly changing plant design and configuration.
• The plant’s true “clean coal” electricity generating capacity.
For more information, visit www.stopcoalition.com
Noticeably absent from all three [weekend mayoral candidate announcements] were other elected officials. […]
While their hesitancy could prove a factor in all the campaigns, it was particularly noticeable for Davis, selected as the “consensus candidate'’ of a group that had hoped to winnow the field to avoid splitting the black vote.
Ald. Ed Smith (28th), who isn’t seeking re-election, was the only member of the City Council to stand with the veteran congressman, a further indication of a lack of true consensus among the group that had initially narrowed its endorsement to two finalists — former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Board of Review Commissioner Larry Rogers Jr. — only to pull the rug out from under them and throw its support to Davis.
Davis needed a large turnout of elected officials from both the South Side and West Side to give a clear indication of widespread support and remove any confusion. His backers said that will come later, but they lost a chance to get off to a big start.
I still don’t understand the Danny Davis choice unless I look at it as yet another in the endless skirmishes between the oldtimers and the up and comers. The oldtimers have won almost every one of those battles. Obama is the exception, not the rule. And even he lost to Bobby Rush, remember.
* Although Rev. Sen. James Meeks’ habitual use of racial epithets probably didn’t do him much good…
On “Chicago Tonight,” State Sen. Meeks said for the first time that he regrets his repeated use of the N-word to describe African-American allies of Mayor Daley.
“Sure, I regret it,” Meeks said. “I don’t regret being passionate about the subject of education. And for those who would accuse me of using the N-word, I would just want to find any speech they’ve made about education, period.”
* Meanwhile, the Teamsters Union commissioned a poll of likely Chicago voters Nov. 8 through 14 with a +/-3.7 percent margin of error. Rahm Emanuel has a big lead…
36 Rahm Emanuel
14 Rep. Danny Davis
13 Moseley Braun
10 Attorney Gery Chico
7 State Sen. James Meeks
4 City Clerk Miguel Del Valle
Among African-Americans…
29 Emanuel
22 Davis
18 Moseley Braun
14 Meeks
2 Chico
1 Del Valle
14 undecided.
Emanuel also leads among whites and Latinos and in all of the city’s congressional districts, according to the poll.
* Check out Carol Moseley-Braun’s unfavorables. Not great…
• Gerry Chico 31% Favorable / 16% Unfavorable - 47% Name ID
• Danny Davis 55% Favorable / 24% Unfavorable - 79% Name ID
• Miguel Del Valle 24% Favorable / 13% Unfavorable - 37% Name ID
• Rahm Emanuel 58% Favorable / 29% Unfavorable - 87% Name ID
• James Meeks 34% Favorable / 39% Unfavorable - 73% Name ID
• Carol Moseley Braun 48% Favorable / 42% Unfavorable - 90% Name ID
Her fave/unfaves among blacks are better, but not outstanding at 61-33. But her fave/unfaves among whites are quite bad at 36-55. It’s amazing that she is so disliked after all these years. But, then again, she completely blew it when she had her shot.
Meeks’ unfaves among African-American voters are also relatively high at 36 percent.
* It appears that the residency issue is actually working a bit in Emanuel’s favor…
Chicago voters are aware of the recently-raised residency issues involving Rahm Emanuel, but an overwhelming majority believes he should be allowed to run.
• Almost two-thirds of the electorate is aware of the press reports involving Emanuel’s residency (63%), and - by a greater than 3:1 margin (62% Yes / 20% No) - Chicago voters believe Emanuel meets the residency requirements to run for mayor. In fact, Emanuel’s lead is actually slightly greater among voters who are aware of the residency issues than among those who are not aware.
• Just 24% agree that “because he has spent so much time living outside the city, Emanuel just doesn’t understand the city well enough to be a good mayor”. Almost three-quarters (72%) disagree. [Emphasis added]
The theory is that attacks on his residency are “Machine style” politics, so it helps paint him as the non-Machine guy. That ain’t reality, but it could be the perception.
* TV ads might be able to turn these numbers around, but nobody yet has shown they can raise the cash to do that…
Only 36% of voters agree that, “Emanuel is an opportunist. He left his seat in Congress to work in the White House. Then he abandoned the President to run for Mayor before the difficult mid-term elections. Now, he wants to run for Mayor even though he has not lived here.” A solid majority (59%) disagrees.
Voters also disagree that “Rahm Emanuel’s personality would make it hard for him to get things done as Mayor” (37% Agree/ 50% Disagree).
* Back in October of 2009, Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts told the Tribune that his family saw the Boston Red Sox as a model for their organization. I’ve set the embed to start at that point in the conversation. Watch…
But the Red Sox revamped their stadium without any taxpayer financing. The owner put $200 million of his own money into the place. And the investment has paid off…
Revenue has grown to $266 million today from about $180 million in 2002. The team’s market value has also risen, to $870 million from $617 million in 2005. All without building a new stadium or asking for a dime of taxpayer money.
* Yesterday, I showed you a video of Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts deriding government borrowing as a “crime” and a Ricketts website that labels US Sen. Dick Durbin and others “hooligans” for supporting projects just like what the Ricketts family wants to do here.
The elder Ricketts, who controls the family cash, is also a board member of the American Enterprise Institute. Ironically enough, an article published a couple of years ago in AEI’s magazine derided publicly financed sports stadiums. The conclusion…
Of course, even if the benefits of stadiums and arenas cover the subsidies, the subsidies still may not be sound policy. First, there may be enormous variation in the distribution of the consumption and public-good benefits. It is clear that not all citizens in a community benefit equally from the presence of professional sports franchises in their city. Indeed, because the tax revenues used for the subsidies are often generated from lotteries and sales taxes whose burden falls disproportionately on the poor, while the consumption benefits go mostly to relatively wealthy sports fans, the net benefits are distributed regressively.
Second, we should consider the net benefits to the community of alternative uses of the funds spent subsidizing sports facilities. Good policy means using the money where the net benefit is greatest, not simply where the net benefit is positive. That’s something state and local governments should keep in mind before pledging millions of dollars to fund the next new stadium project.
This proposed Wrigley Field deal is so anathema to the Ricketts family’s political and ideological history that it just reeks of rank hypocrisy.
Taken as a stand-alone, the renovation plan has plenty of merits. But this family has literally spent millions of dollars stoking hatred of government subsidies for just about everything. To see them now eagerly run to Big Brother with an out-stretched hand kinda makes me ill.
* Meanwhile, an added dynamic is injected into the political debate whenever a sports team wants something from the government. Sports columnists become part of the mix, and they’re far more brutal than political columnists…
Can’t you see the Cubs’ lightweight battle for stadium financial support shaping up like the Bears’ mess did? I don’t know if the respective pols will act the same, but the respective owners are stumbling along similarly, not to mention the way Ricketts has seemingly adopted McCaskey’s elfin voice.
Except, the Bears actually got their stadium rehab. It wasn’t everything they wanted, but they did get something. Right now, the Ricketts family isn’t faring nearly as well.
Still, though, “elfin voice”? Oof.
* The other thing that happens is city reporters are often given the assignment to cover the story rather than Statehouse reporters. From the Sun-Times…
The mayor said he likes the concept of a stadium renovation plan that would keep the Cubs at Wrigley for at least 35 years and free up the money the Ricketts family needs to develop a triangle building promised to Wrigleyville residents in exchange for a bleacher expansion.
But Daley said he’s not about to saddle his successor with a deal that requires Chicago taxpayers to forfeit 35 years of amusement-tax growth needed to bankroll basic city services
Daley is a lame duck. His Statehouse power is pretty much gone. And the bill will preempt his home rule powers, so he’s been written out of the script.
* Admirably enough, the Tribune editorialized against the Ricketts plan, but as usual they got their facts wrong…
Perhaps the strongest argument of all: The Civic Federation’s Laurence Msall warned against taking on debt for non-essentials with a $15 billion deficit looming. “The state of Illinois faces an enormous financial crisis and will be needing all of its borrowing power just to pay its bills and continue to operate,” he said.
The bonds won’t be backed by the state whatsoever, so it wouldn’t impact the state’s borrowing abilities.
* The governor’s petulance at not being consulted is completely understandable, but perhaps he ought to tone it down a bit…
“They haven’t shown it to me. Apparently they don’t think I’m as important as some others, and I am important in this matter because I’m a goalie for the people of Illinois to make sure they get their priorities addressed.”
All true, I suppose, but the bill will require a three-fifths vote, meaning that even if he vetoes it the General Assembly will have enough built-in votes to override.
* Whatever the Ricketts family did, this would probably not go well. People are naturally averse to using tax money of any kind to build stadiums.
But there’s no doubt that they completely screwed up this process. It’s mind-boggling, in fact. And in the end they may get far less than the Bears did if they don’t make some adjustments very soon.
In that October, 2009 interview posted above, a Ricketts family member told the Tribune that “hope is not a strategy any more.”
He was talking about the team’s on-field play, but it could just as easily apply to this stadium revamp.
* It seems pretty clear to me since the election that Gov. Pat Quinn didn’t learn much, or grasped the wrong lessons from his victory.
Before proceeding, let’s review Paul Lis’ wise words of advice from a previous newspaper column of mine…
“Strength,” Lis says, “Is the ability to advance your agenda.” And when you fail to get things done, you look weak, no matter the reason.
So, what does Gov. Quinn do right after the election? He claims a “mandate” and insists his victory means that voters want an income tax hike.
Look, he campaigned on the issue and was mercilessly drubbed for proposing the tax hike, so he has an obligation to move it forward. But actually moving it forward is far different from holding press conferences.
And what happens if and or (more likely) when his tax hike fails to pass during the veto session? He’ll look weak before he’s even sworn in for a full four-year term.
* And the tax hike vote isn’t the only dead duck Quinn is supporting during the lame duck session. He wants a civil unions bill to pass, for instance. He will also be defending an amendatory veto that created an open primary system. Another AV would force the General Assembly to vote on citizens ethics initiatives.
* The bottom line here is that Quinn needs some veto session wins to balance out his inevitable big losses or he’s going to enter the spring session as a hobbled incumbent.
* Zell: ‘I don’t envision any role’ at Tribune after Chapter 11 exit: “As soon as the bankruptcy proceedings are done, I’ll turn it over to whoever the creditors decide they want to run it.”
* Subscribers already know my take on this, but when Speaker Michael Madigan added several days to the January session, eyebrows went up all over the Statehouse…
Why be in session in January when the veto session is just ahead?
There are a couple of reasons. One, all of the lame ducks in the legislature will still be in office in early January. Those lawmakers can pretty much do what they want, since they won’t be facing the voters again.
The other is changing vote requirements. If you want to pass a bill with an immediate effective date during the veto session, it takes a supermajority. In the House, that means 71 votes to pass a bill rather than the usual 60. After Jan. 1, though, the vote requirements go back to normal.
So if you’ve got a bill that you want to become law right away — say, a tax increase, just for instance — it will be a lot easier to pass after Jan. 1 than during the veto session.
That’s not to say such a bill is looming. Madigan still wants Republicans to put votes on a tax hike, and there’s no indication they are willing to do that, now or in January. But if you’re a lame-duck Republican who believes a tax increase is needed, you could vote for one in January and make a quick exit.
Based on a tip, FOX Chicago News asked the Illinois Department of Transportation how longtime mob bookmaker and loan shark Ralph “Curly” Peluso was hired in as supervisor two years ago.
That’s right; you’re paying the $76,000 a year salary of a former associate of the deadly Frank Calabrese Senior street crew.
During that trial Peluso was named in more than two dozen pieces of evidence and was scheduled to be a government witness against Calabrese until he got cold feet. In one tape played for the jury, Calabrese Junior secretly recorded Peluso talking about his long involvement with Calabrese Senior.
Curly was placed on administrative leave in August and “discharged for cause on September 15th.” Odd.
* Abolish the death penalty and save $20 million up front? Interesting…
Death penalty opponents said they will try to get lawmakers to abolish the death penalty during the veto session. Jeremy Schroeder of the Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty said $20 million a year could be redirected to other uses if the death penalty and Capital Litigation Trust Fund were abolished. He said public support to abolish the penalty is building as voters hear of death row inmates being exonerated.
A published report says a write-in candidate for President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat is being investigated for allegedly forging signatures in his attempt to get on the ballot as an independent.
Illinois State Police spokesman Scott Compton says authorities are investigating Shon-tiyon “Santiago” Horton of Alton.
The (Alton) Telegraph reports Horton was more than 600 signatures short to get on the ballot.
Horton hasn’t been charged.
He denies forging signatures. He says he signed petitions on behalf of those who were unable to write their names.
The patriarch of the Ricketts family, Joe Ricketts, is so against government borrowing and spending that he has created a website called EndingSpending.com and produced this video…
The money quote…
“I think it’s a crime for our elected officials to borrow money today, to spend money today and push the repayment of that loan out into the future on people who are not even born yet.”
Um. Hmm. Isn’t that pretty much exactly what the Cubs want to do now? And since Mr. Ricketts believes this sort of a thing is a “crime,” should his son, the Cub chairman, be arrested?
Heh.
* Mr. Ricketts’ website defines earmarks this way…
What’s an earmark? In general, it is a provision inserted in the text of a Congressional bill or report that allocates money or a tax benefit for a specific project, program, or organization, circumventing a merit-based or competitive allocation process.
And the “merit-based or competitive allocation process” for the $300 million Cub bonds are… what, exactly? I suppose since Mr. Ricketts is talking about federal earmarks his family can ignore the obvious ideological conflict with state and local action.
* In the above video, Ricketts also describes those who support earmarks as “hooligans.” If there is any justice in this world, that term should be thrown right back at his own family.
* I truly had an open mind about this Ricketts proposal last week. But if the Ricketts family patriarch is against it, then why should anyone be stupid enough to vote for it?
“That would deny the next mayor — if I sign the agreement and say, ‘Go ahead’ — of the revenue they need to balance the budget,” Daley said. “And government needs money in order to balance budgets.
“We have to really talk about how you finance this without jeopardizing — whether it’s $5 million, $7 million or $8 million of — future growth….It’s a good concept. They’re well-intentioned….but that would really burden the next mayor. You wouldn’t want to do that.”
And so does Gov. Quinn…
“We have top priorities in Illinois right now that must be dealt with,” Quinn said, adding that the Ricketts family’s proposal “would not be a top priority for me.” […]
The governor added: “These are private owners of a baseball team. They spent almost $1 billion buying it. They knew what they were buying. To be coming to the people of Illinois for assistance now after an election isn’t a top priority… If they wanted this to happen, they should have talked about it before the election — not after.”
* The Rockford Register Star refuses to look a gift horse in the mouth…
The city of Rockford needs every economic development tool it can get. Although a riverboat casino might not be the ideal opportunity, it could be a key piece in a downtown redevelopment plan that could include a hotel, restaurants and shopping.
A Rockford casino would keep money here. Busloads of local people head to Elgin and Aurora to have fun with their money. Why not make Rockford the place to have fun and give another entertainment option to residents and visitors who might want to exit Interstate 90 and detour into Rockford for a quick game?
It’s time for Rockford to put a few items in the “yes” pile. We need to say “yes” to something that would help lower our unemployment rate and might be the impetus for more investment in the city.
The community is infamous for its ability to say “no.” This is an opportunity that should be seized.
The issue: A plan to drastically expand gambling in Illinois could lead to a new casino in the south suburbs.
We say: The sudden choice of Ford Heights reeks of secret back-room deals. The process is an outrage, and the public should demand accounting. […]
This is just some back-alley craps game - sleazy, secret, with dirty motives and quite possibly thugs waiting in the wings.
It’s the kind of back-room deal that’s dragged this state into the gutter, holds us down, picks our pockets, and kicks us in the temple.
* One of the paper’s columnists compares the proposed casino to a gentleman’s club…
The casino, if approved by state lawmakers, would be just like Ford Heights’ Atlantis Gentlemen’s Club, a beacon of jobs and economic development that opened three years ago - and has yet to attract the hotels, restaurants and spinoff businesses promised.
* The Question: Do you favor adding new casinos in Illinois? Explain.
Monday, Nov 15, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Part 1, Electric Rates.
Myth: Taylorville will put an “enormous economic burden” on consumers
Fact: The Clean Coal Portfolio Standard caps residential rate increases at 2.015%, or $1.67/month, according to the ICC.
Myth: Taylorville means rate increases now, when we can least afford it
Fact: Between now and 2015, the project will invest billions in Illinois, employ nearly 2,500 construction workers and purchase supplies from all corners of the state. The cost to ratepayers between now and 2015? ZERO. NOTHING. ZILCH.
Myth: Taylorville will dramatically increase electric rates for large business customers
Fact: Big business customers currently pay 40.5% less for electricity than residential and small business consumers. Even under their worst case scenario, large customers would still pay 37.1% less.
Myth: Illinois has plenty of electricity. No new plants are needed.
Fact: As Crain’s and others have reported, environmental regulations are expected to force 25-40% of Illinois coal plants to shut down by 2020. Since Illinois still relies on coal for half of our electricity, less supply and more demand means higher electric rates if cleaner supplies of reliable electricity, like Taylorville, are not built. And who benefits from that?
Monday, Nov 15, 2010 - Posted by Capitol Fax Blog Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
1. An enormous burden on the Illinois economy and consumers
In the best case scenario, Tenaska’s proposal would force all Illinois consumers to pay at least $286 million more for electricity annually than they would otherwise. (That’s $8.6 Billion over 30 years!) And who pays for overruns? Consumers.
2. A “jobs program” that actually kills jobs
The Tenaska plant would cost ten times as many jobs as it creates! Raising the cost of doing business to this degree will cost between 15,000 to 35,000 jobs, according to independent economic analysts.
3. It’s anything but “green”
Even if everything goes right, the plant has the same emissions profile as a natural gas-fired power plant, which is a lot cheaper. More likely, the plant will either be MUCH more expensive or MUCH more polluting.
4. Huge environmental concerns
Underground sequestration is untried and untested, and could be very dangerous to any community living on top of all that CO2.
5. Shatter Illinois’ competitive electric market
Forcing Illinois’ 41 certified retail electric suppliers to buy the plant’s power – no matter the price - is anti-competitive and turns the whole principle of competitive markets on its head.
* It’s tough to argue with this Sun-Times editorial board logic…
The Chicago Cubs’ new owners, like the previous owners, are making a move to hit up Chicago taxpayers to the tune of $200 million to pay for renovations at Wrigley Field.
The money ultimately would come from 35 years of future growth in an amusement tax that the city levies on tickets and concessions at Wrigley.
That’s money that otherwise would go straight into the city’s tapped-out general fund — money the city desperately needs for essential services such as paved streets and police and fire protection.
It’s money that would have to be made up somehow.
If this deal goes through, future Chicago mayors could be forced to raise taxes and fees elsewhere or cut basic city services even more deeply.
And for what?
To fix up a privately owned baseball park for one of the most profitable sports teams in the country.
Talk about a corked bat.
Tom Ricketts and his brothers and sister are grown-ups. They knew exactly what they were doing last year when they bought the Cubs and Wrigley Field from the Tribune Company for $845 million.
* But, forget the city’s editorial pages. A couple of far more powerful enemies have popped up: The Bears and the White Sox…
Bonds for the Cell will be paid off in 2021. Soldier Field bonds will be retired in 2031. If amusement tax growth is not great enough by then to retire the Wrigley bonds, the Cubs intend to borrow from the hotel tax and pay it back by extending the life of the bonds.
That could force the city and state to forfeit amusement tax growth for even longer than 35 years.
But here’s the catch: If the Cubs move to the head of the line, the Bears and Sox could be deprived of the money they may need to complete stadium renovations.
“They’re assuming we won’t need any major work at Soldier Field and U.S. Cellular Field. These are assets of the state and city that need to be upgraded,” said a source familiar with the deal.
“Twenty years from now, the Bears may say, ‘For us to stay, we need this and this.’ … The Cubs are saying, ‘When the bonds run out, it’ll go to us. The hell with you.’”
* The team’s new owner is attempting to calm the waters, but he’s only somewhat addressing the points mentioned by the CS-T…
Cubs Executive Chairman Tom Ricketts tried Friday to calm the uproar. In several radio interviews, he said Cubs fans are on the hook, not the at-large taxpayer on the South Side, in Peoria or in Carbondale.
“The dollars are only coming from people who buy Cubs tickets, and only the increase over what they pay today,” Ricketts said on WGN-AM 720. […]
Ricketts argued that the city and county can’t count on incremental revenue from the Wrigley amusement tax if the Cubs don’t refurbish the 96-year-old ballpark. The growth in the amusement tax will primarily come from increasing ticket prices. Ricketts said it’s easier to justify higher tickets prices over time in a renovated stadium.
“The increases (in the amusement tax) won’t exist unless we fix up the park,” Ricketts told WGN.
The trouble is, the new owner wants to tap all the money from the amusement tax increase. If they could split it with the city and county, they might have a better case. Or, they could raise the tax and only tap that cash.
Brian Battle, a director at Chicago-based investment adviser Performance Trust Capital Partners, suggested this tack: “If you are a Sox fan, they are not asking you to pay for anything.”
Yes, they are. The Ricketts want all that new tax revenue, which would otherwise go to municipal coffers.
“I can’t rule it in or out. It is a good proposal, but like anything else, we have to see what effect this has on the revenue. And that’s very important, especially when you’re looking at nickels and dimes. That’s what we’re looking at. People are taking furlough days off, cutting pay and all that. So, you know, it’s difficult,” the mayor said.
Daley said there are other ways to renovate Wrigley Field besides the bond proposal.
* It might be nice if the team waited until after the mayoral election to do this. At the very least, the top candidates should weigh in one way or the other. Two already have…
“While many Chicagoans feel affection for Wrigley Field and the Cubs, I have reservations about asking taxpayers to provide funding to a private company at a time when basic city services like our education and public safety systems are being impacted by the state of the city’s finances,” said Rahm Emanuel.
Gery Chico also said, “I don’t think that’s the proper way to fund any renovation of Wrigley Field. Those monies go for essential municipal services — whether it’s police, fire or Streets and Sanitation.”
Daley said it’s important to preserve Wrigley but isn’t sure it’s appropriate to saddle his successor with decades of payments using revenue that would otherwise go into city coffers.
I mean, didn’t we just come through the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression by buying crap that people such as the Rickettses told us was hot stuff?
Clever folks in the financial-services field, such as the Rickettses, know how the game is rigged. Always against the little people.
Remember a year ago when Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said he and his commission-rich underlings were doing ‘’God’s work'’?
If the bond scheme these Cubs owners are trying to foist on us — with the help of government reps such as Illinois state Senate President John Cullerton — does pass, it’s the devil’s work.
The Rickettses have revealed themselves. They might love the Cubs, but they love other people’s money more.
One of the very top officials in Bill Brady’s campaign told me a few days after the election that he believes Brady lost to Gov. Pat Quinn for one reason: The pro-choice group Personal PAC.
Brady’s election-day model, the top campaign official said, had him taking 43 percent of the suburban Cook County vote. Instead, Brady took only 40 percent. That extra 3 points definitely would have won race for the abortion opponent Brady.
“The North Shore went to hell,” this uppermost Brady operative added, blaming Personal PAC’s mail, TV ads and robocalls for the loss.
A look at Cook County results showed that Brady vastly underperformed the numbers of Republican Mark Kirk, an abortion rights supporter, in several northern Cook townships. Kirk is a north suburban resident, so he was expected to somewhat outperform Brady. Yet Kirk won New Trier Township by 4,535 votes, while the anti-abortion Brady won it by just 537. The pro-choice Kirk won Northfield by almost 7,000 votes to Brady’s 1,325-vote margin.
And it wasn’t just the North Shore. Kirk more than doubled Brady’s winning margins in Schaumburg, Wheeling, Maine and Lyons townships. The same basic pattern played out in all the suburban collar counties as well.
Personal PAC CEO Terry Cosgrove told me he focused his group’s mail and robocalls almost solely on suburban women who voted in the last two general elections, but who didn’t vote in any primaries. That way, Cosgrove said, he could aim his message at what he believed were “very middle of the road, average suburban women.” He also included in his list 170,000 pro-choice Republican women whom his group had identified in suburban state legislative races over the years.
“I knew if we could get enough of those suburban women, that’s where victory was,” Cosgrove said.
Cosgrove said his media buyer’s research showed he could find those same “average” women voters via the early morning news and daily TV talk shows. “We were on every single network TV station in the–morning through 4 o’clock,” he said. Cosgrove said Personal PAC spent $100,000 on TV the day before the election alone, figuring that he could catch busy, preoccupied women who were just about to make up their minds.
Cosgrove also determined early on that independent millionaire Scott Lee Cohen would help Quinn. “I didn’t care if they went for him because it wasn’t a vote for Brady,” he said.
“This race was a referendum on Pat Quinn,” Cosgrove continued, saying that he viewed it the same as a multi-candidate primary. Relative unknowns often split the “anti” vote in those primaries. Cosgrove figured Scott Lee Cohen would do the same. He was right.
Were there other important factors in this race? Absolutely. Organized labor and the Democratic ground game helped push Chicago’s turnout well above 2006 levels. The Brady Campaign - the gun control group, not the candidate - most certainly helped pit many of those aforementioned suburban voters against Bill Brady.
But it’s no secret that Personal PAC is infinitely more sophisticated with its messaging than its counterparts on both the left and the right. The best example of this is one of the group’s mass mailers featuring a photo of a middle-aged couple on the front. “My husband might not have made it,” the mailer began. “Prostate screening saved his life. Who would vote against that?” Brady voted against a bill mandating prostate cancer screening.
The idea behind the mailer, Cosgrove said, was to get women to talk to their husbands about Bill Brady. About one man in six are diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that rate is far higher among older men. The mailer was designed to play on an almost universal fear.
The group also is much more willing than typical candidates to use harshly blunt messages in its advertising. Cosgrove, for instance, said that men are more amenable to his abortion messaging when they’re reminded of their daughters. So, his TV ad featured a young woman who talked about how she was raped at age 18, saying she wouldn’t know what she would have done had she become pregnant. The rest of the ad featured photos of very young women along with the message that Brady was against abortion in cases of rape and incest. The idea was to drive the message home that this was about daughters. It worked.
Titled “Tough,” the 30-second spot will begin airing Monday as part of a large, nearly $750,000 ad buy of broadcast Chicago TV stations.
Showing images of Emanuel talking and greeting people around the city as part of his five-week ramp-up to the mayoral run he formally announced Saturday, Emanuel narrates, saying Chicago is “at a crossroads” and needs a mayor to make difficult but necessary decisions.
* Axelrod on whether Obama will campaign for Rahm Emanuel for mayor: “Well, the president has made clear what his view of Rahm is. He said he was an excellent chief-of-staff, thought he would be an excellent mayor. Whether he involves himself actively in this campaign is a matter that we haven’t yet decided. But I think his view of Rahm is very clear.”
