The measure’s backers include the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, the Puppy Mill Project and Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, but several kennel clubs across the state oppose the idea.
Under the plan - which would not apply to breeders or shelters - consumers who purchase an ill or diseased cat or dog from a pet store would have three options: get a new pet, get a full refund or have the store pay for veterinarian treatment.
A licensed veterinarian would have to deem the pet unfit for purchase within 21 days of the sale date, and only pet’s with certain conditions, not including hereditary or congenital diseases, would qualify. Zalewski said 17 other states have similar laws. […]
Illinois now requires pet stores to provide information about a pet’s health history but gives consumers no remedy if they unknowingly buy an ill animal. […]
“We have bills of great importance,” Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro) said. “Now, I want to let you know how important this is. The office of the governor has come in as a proponent for this. [He] can’t stand up for any other thing we’re doing around here, but the puppy lemon law. You talk about somebody riding issues to the hilt. That’s ridiculous.”
* On a related note, Oscar the Puppy took his first pontoon boat ride several days ago. He loved it…
* He really needs a haircut, but so do I. We’ll get it done after session…
* Lately, Oscar has taken to tugging on his leash. Gotta break him of that habit…
* One more…
Oscar is always positive, happy and fun-loving. He’s just a great puppy.
* Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz released actuarial data for Speaker Madigan’s pension reform bill today. The grand totals…
$21 billion off unfunded liability
$187 billion off total payments
$1.9 billion off first-year payment
From her spokesperson…
We have said from the outset that pensions present a real math-based problem, and any reform must be driven by the math. These numbers prove that Senate Bill 1 is the clear winner in the criteria needed for a real, comprehensive solution to this complex problem. It acknowledges the problem is very real and very significant, and will require an equally significant solution. It provides a solution with certainty — there is no wiggle room in these numbers, and no ranges of savings from scenarios that bring unpredictability into play. And it provides a solution that is clearly sufficient to address the problem while preserving benefits earned by workers and retirees and protecting taxpayers and those who depend on vital state services and programs.
* The Question: Should the Senate pass the House’s pension reform bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
* Rep. Don Moffitt (R-Gilson) is my new hero. He sent me this e-mail today…
Dear Rich,
You indicated that you would like to have a “before” and “after” picture of my weight loss efforts, which I have enclosed. The “before” or heavy picture, was at the start of my weight loss journey in December of 2011, and the “after” or lighter picture was taken in January 2013, when I reached my personal goal of losing 100 lbs. I have been able to maintain my new reduced weight since January of 2013.
You also asked me to explain how I was able to lose the weight. In order to reach my goal of losing at least 100 lbs., I consulted with my family doctor and developed my own plan which was to have a target goal of approximately 1,500 calories per day, but never more than 2,000 calories per day. In addition, I wear a pedometer and try to walk 10,000 steps per day, which is about three miles.
There are also many very good, healthy, low-calorie snack items that have been helpful to me. These include products or snack bars made by The Quaker Oats Company, Kellogg’s and Nature Valley, to name a few. The important thing for me was to keep track of my total daily calorie intake with the goal of being between 1,500 and 2,000.
Also, “fast food” does not necessarily mean “fat food” since some restaurants do an outstanding job of listing calories on their menu boards. I frequently eat at McDonalds and stay within my calorie goal. I also eat healthy snacks like baby carrots, fruits, vegetables and peanuts, but always watch my total daily calorie intake.
Losing 100 lbs. in about one year has not been an easy journey, but it has been a worthwhile one. If I can do it, then I know anyone can do it! At my heaviest weight, I was on medications for high blood pressure, cholesterol and would have probably soon needed medication for diabetes. Now I am being phased off of all medications. In addition, I no longer have sleep apnea.
I have been talking with Senator Martin Sandoval and with lobbyist Betsy Mitchell, who have both been very successful in their recent weight loss efforts. The three of us are exploring the possibility of starting a new caucus next spring to encourage a healthier life style for all of us serving in Springfield.
Sincerely,
Don Moffitt
State Representative
74th District
As everyone at the Statehouse knows, Rep. Moffitt looks great. I’m gonna have to join that new caucus.
* The federal government will pick up 100 percent of this program for the first three years and then 90 percent after that…
After nearly three hours of debate, the House approved a key part of President Barack Obama’s health care law. The proposed Medicaid expansion would cover low-income adults who don’t have children at home, and up to 500,000 uninsured Illinoisans would be newly eligible for coverage. Under the multifaceted measure, 342,000 people are expected to enroll by 2017.
“This is the cornerstone of our president’s agenda. Many of us have been waiting for this moment,” said Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, a Chicago Democrat and bill sponsor. She tamped down questions from Republicans over timing by saying those who need care can’t wait another day.
The Republicans have been arguing for delay for a very long time. Last year, House GOP Leader Tom Cross urged the House to wait until after the presidential election, to see if Obamacare would survive. Obama won, but yesterday they came up with more reasons, including waiting until after the debt ceiling talks in September - as if Obama would negotiate away his signature achievement.
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), who voted for the plan, said it would result in a financial windfall for Illinois because of an influx of $5.7 billion in federally-reimbursed Medicaid expenditures in Illinois, including for 48,000 veterans who would be newly covered under Monday’s expansion.
“The real point of this bill isn’t dollars and cents, although we make out like bandits if we pass Senate Bill 26,” Currie said. “The real point of Senate Bill 26 is to make for healthier Illinoisans.”
Sponsoring Rep. Sara Feigenholtz, D-Chicago, argued the plan would allow 342,000 poor adults to be eligible for the state-federal Medicaid health care plan who have long been denied coverage because they had no children.
Monday’s roll call included seven Democratic “no” votes. They included Reps. Jack Franks (D-Marengo), Stephanie Kifowit (D-Aurora) Martin Moylan (D-Des Plaines), Natalie Manley (D-Joliet), Sam Yingling (D-Round Lake Beach), Katherine Cloonen (D-Kankakee) and Sue Scherer (D-Decatur).
All targets, or, at least, people who believe they’re targets. And I cannot see how Rep. Franks thinks he can run in a Democratic statewide primary after voting against Obamacare.
As Illinois’ Legislature heads into the final weeks of the spring session, the business community is acutely aware of the serious decisions lawmakers must make to restore security to the state’s economic future. While it may seem counterintuitive to argue in favor of expanding Illinois’ Medicaid program to serve single, childless adults at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, our organizations believe expansion is an important part of a very complex equation in alleviating overall costs on employers in the short and long term (”Not enough doctors in Medicaid, state director says,” ChicagoBusiness.com, April 10). That’s why we urge the General Assembly to approve Senate Bill 26.
Illinois stands to gain more than $12 billion in federal funding under the expansion over the next seven years, but not without incurring some additional costs—albeit a fraction of the funding gained.
Beginning in 2014, all employers with 50 or more employees must offer full-time employees and their dependents coverage that meets minimum criteria outlined under the federal health reform law. Failure to do so will result in a penalty if an employee obtains subsidized coverage on the insurance marketplace-exchange, but no penalty is assessed if the employee enrolls in Medicaid. According to a recent Jackson Hewitt study, without Medicaid expansion, Illinois employers would face up to $106 million more in penalties assessed annually. For employers in the nonprofit sector—many of which serve the Medicaid population and support low-wage staff—the added financial penalties could mean drastic cuts in services or even shuttered doors.
We ask lawmakers to support SB 26 to expand Medicaid in Illinois to protect employers from even higher short-term costs and employees from missed coverage opportunities, and to provide additional certainty in planning for 2014.
* Other important stuff…
* Illinois House committee approves $9B human services budget: Rep. Greg Harris is chairman of the committee. The Chicago Democrat says the state is able to use unanticipated revenues to make payments that qualify for federal matching dollars. Those federal funds will lead to an overall increase in the state’s human services budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1. Larger agencies still will face cuts of about 2.5 percent in their operations budgets.
* Recommended Illinois education budget $6.6B: Democratic Rep. Will Davis of Homewood is the chairman of the committee. He says the budget will fund schools at 89 percent of the amount recommended by a state commission. The proposed funding level averts schools from cuts in general state aid for the first time in at least four years. Davis says the funding for school transportation, early childhood education and bilingual education will remain the same as the current fiscal year.
* Tax hangup stalls bill to expand gambling: Rita said negotiations are centered around both the rates that are paid and when they will go into effect. He acknowledged that in some cases, the negotiations could lead to lower taxes for some casinos. Rita also said discussions are taking place about earmarking some of the gambling revenue for specific purposes. The expansion bill, which was previously approved by the Senate, calls for some money to be allocated to economic development programs in black and Latino areas and for specific agriculture programs like extension services and to repair the Illinois State Fairgrounds. The amounts of those various earmarks are under discussion.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
A recent telephone survey to Peoples Gas, Ameren and Nicor customers who are Illinois voters age 18+ found:
• The overwhelming majority (71%) of Illinoisans oppose the state’s leading natural gas companies’ proposal to raise customer rates for extra infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements beyond what is required by law.
• Further, Illinois natural gas customers do not believe their state officials are doing enough to lower the cost of their natural gas bills (61%).
• And, along with electric utility customers, they do not believe their interests are represented and taken into consideration when rate increases are proposed (60%).
AARP urges Legislators to represent their constituents
Vote NO on SB2266 (Natural Gas Rate Increase Surcharge)
First lady Michelle Obama will make a visit to Manhattan’s Park Ave. on May 29 for an exclusive LGBT reception, headlined by singer Sara Bareilles and NBA star Jason Collins, to benefit the Democratic National Committee.
Tickets to the 5 p.m. event, which is being hosted by the LGBT Leadership Council, are scaled from $32,400 to $1,250 apiece. Bareilles is expected to perform her new song “Brave” (from the forthcoming album The Blessed Unrest) which has become an anthem for gays struggling with coming out.
So, she can attend a swank LBGT event but not get involved in helping to pass a gay marriage bill in her home state?
No offense to the First Lady, but priorities, please.
* Then again, as a gay marriage lobster told me yesterday, a few stern words to recalcitrant members from Speaker Madigan might do a whole lot more to pass the bill than any phone call from FLOTUS.
* I’m not so sure that this “compromise” concealed carry bill is gonna be all it’s cracked up to be…
The House has already passed a bill, and the Senate may yet take it up. But State Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) says he is working on another compromise which, he says, combines the best of the House bill and a stalled Senate bill.
“There were some good things from my perspective in the House bill, that was not in my bill. So I will add those,” Raoul said.
Raoul said he would take out language allowing police to object to a concealed-carry applicant based on “moral character” and add a House provision listing places where no weapons would be allowed.
Though Senate President John Cullerton does not like the House bill, he says “We’re gonna send both bills to Executive Committee and see what happens.”
The new amendment has surfaced and can be read by clicking here. Tell us what you see in comments.
Keep a close eye on our live coverage post for all updates. Live BlueRoomStream.com video will be here. Senate Exec convenes at 10:50 this morning.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
The 2013 Natural Gas Consumer, Safety and Reliability Act (Senate Bill 2266, HAM #3) passed yesterday by 84-32 in the Illinois House and now awaits the Senate’s vote.
If enacted into law, this legislation will bring the Illinois regulatory system into the 21st century. This bill will provide a cost-recovery mechanism that will allow for gas utilities to recoup investments made to upgrade and improve Illinois’ natural gas distribution system.
These improvements and enhancements will make natural gas delivery safer, quicker and more reliable. This will benefit Illinois consumers and improve our state’s economy. It will be better for the environment, and it will create jobs.
With natural gas prices at near historic lows, we need to focus on replacing these outdated mains and modernizing our aging gas infrastructure. Illinois’ natural gas utilities need a legislative solution to have the continued confidence to invest and provide customers with the safe and reliable service they expect.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
The satellite television industry serves a crucial role in connecting Illinois to the rest of the world with content that informs, entertains and educates – in many instances it’s the exclusive broadcast service provider available to Illinois homes. In addition, the satellite TV industry is an important economic driver creating hundreds of jobs in our state.
Facts About Satellite TV in Illinois:
• Serves 1.3 million households in Illinois (almost a third of homes that subscribe choose satellite)
• Employs over 790 people, plus more than 1,000 technicians at 481 local retailers
• Rural Illinois depends on satellite TV since cable does not often provide service to their area
• Satellite TV offers a wider range of foreign language programming in comparison to cable
Lawmakers continue to be prodded by the cable TV industry to place a NEW 5% monthly tax on satellite TV service. Previous versions of this discriminatory tax proposal have been defeated in Springfield—and similar bills are regularly defeated in other states including three times in neighboring Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota. This revenue generator needs to be clearly labeled what it is: An unfair tax increase on the 1.3 million Illinois families and businesses who subscribe to satellite TV.
* I’m pretty sure that if we let legislators vote on who is the most obnoxious and goofy freshman, Rep. Scott Drury (D-Highwood) would win hands down.
Yesterday, the House took up SB 1872 as amended. The bill, which would eliminate the felony prostitution penalty, is being pushed by groups like Protestants for the Common Good…
Illinois’ felony punishment for a second prostitution offense is an expensive, ineffective use of diminishing local and state public safety resources. Illinois’ Department of Corrections reported 127 felony prostitution admissions for 2012, costing the state $2,011,680.
Felony prostitution unfairly targets women for harsher punishments. The “solicitation” offense for customers does not have a felony upgrade for subsequent offenses. In 2011, when law enforcement charged under the state criminal code, there were 1,875 arrests for prostitution and 95 arrests for solicitation.
Felony prostitution sentencing is rare in the United States – only seven other states have a felony prostitution sentencing option for subsequent offenses.
* No law enforcement or prosecutorial opposition ever surfaced. The bill passed the Senate 53-1.
* But Rep. Drury, who never stops reminding people that he is a former federal prosecutor, began by asking the sponsor, Rep. Mike Zalewski: “I mean, you know that I’m a former federal prosecutor, right?”
Drury then said that he worked on prostitution cases, claimed he rarely speaks of his former job (when he does it all the time) and actually charged that the measure “is a pro child prostitution bill.” Listen…
Drury’s remarks created a huge uproar in the chamber, with Republicans rushing to the Democratic sponsor’s defense and a fellow Democrat rising to ask Zalewski if he knew that she was “not a former federal prosecutor.”
Heh.
* Drury demanded that everyone vote against the bill, but it passed the House with 82 votes, mainly with “targets” voting against it. Proponents said that Drury’s comments likely added 18 votes to the roll call.
Sheesh.
* Runner-up might go to Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton). Last week, Ives spoke against a bill to waive collegiate requirements for certain military veterans applying to become state police officers “notwithstanding any Department of State Police Merit Board rule to the contrary.” The bill passed 109-1.
* Yesterday, Rep. Ives rose to speak about Memorial Day…
“I’d like to just simply add to the others’ remarks by thanking all the veterans’ groups and the individuals and the old soldiers who come out this day and pull out the faded Confederate uniform and plan for the ceremony and prepare remarks and actually hold something so dear to us as a rememberance of those who died.”
This is a Republican legislator speaking in the Illinois House, a body in which Abraham Lincoln once served, and she’s talking about the Confederacy?
As one of Ives’ fellow House Republicans cracked last night, “Will southern DuPage rise again?”
* Rep. Ives was approached on the floor by at least one fellow member who pointed out the Lincoln portrait on the wall and rose later to “clarify” her remarks…
“I inadvertently used the term ‘Confederate’ when I meant to include those who wear the ceremonial Union uniform as well.”
* I lost a tree in yesterday’s very powerful storms…
I hate losing trees, but, thankfully, nobody was hurt. My wind sculpture was also roached, but I think it can be fixed. A neighbor wasn’t so lucky. One of his trees fell onto his house.
Gov. Pat Quinn has loved to hold Sunday news conferences for decades. He discovered a long time ago that Sunday was usually a slow news day, so a news conference pretty much guaranteed coverage in Monday’s newspapers.
The problem, though, is that newspapers and other media outlets tend to send younger, less experienced reporters to Sunday events. And sometimes those reporters miss something that others might catch.
For instance, two Sundays ago, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said something pretty important that was completely ignored by the media.
Cullerton appeared that Sunday with Quinn, state Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) and parents of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre victims to tout a ban on high-capacity gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Cullerton highlighted his anti-gun bonafides during his opening remarks.
“I’m very proud of the fact that Illinois has been the only state in the nation that doesn’t allow for concealed guns to be carried in public,” he said.
But that wasn’t the news. Throughout his long political career, Cullerton has been a staunch opponent of the National Rifle Association. He doesn’t like guns at all. Nothing to see there. Move along.
So what was the big news that was missed?
“In the case of concealed carry, some say we have to pass a bill,” Cullerton told Chicago reporters.
“The fact of the matter is, if we don’t pass a bill in Springfield, the city of Chicago, county of Cook, 208 home-rule units can pass their own legislation. So, while we should pass a sensible bill to regulate it (concealed carry) statewide, if we don’t it’s not the end of the world.”
It was the clearest statement yet from Cullerton that not passing a concealed-carry bill might be the best way to go.
As you know, a federal appeals court has given Illinois until June 9 to pass a state law allowing concealed carry. If not, Illinois’ current law will be struck down.
At first, liberals were being stampeded into passing new legislation. But Chicago’s mayor and his legislative allies have lately made it quietly known that not passing a bill might not be so bad. Chicago could pass a much stricter proposal than anything that could ever get through the General Assembly.
The statement was also somewhat of a cover for Cullerton’s inability to move a concealed-carry bill out of the Senate a few days before. Top sources said two of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s strongest Senate allies flipped from supporting Cullerton’s bill to opposing it.
The sponsor, state Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Cullerton both blamed the NRA. But it was Madigan (D-Chicago) who actually killed it.
Why? Madigan did not want the Senate bill to pass because he believed it would undermine support for the House bill among liberals and Chicagoans. He also believed that the Senate’s far more restrictive bill could not pass the House, so killing that measure was a way to avoid gridlock.
After Madigan passed a concealed-carry bill through the House on Friday, Cullerton said he could see ways to compromise, but he also blasted parts of the House bill as “offensive” and said he was “violently opposed” to them. The main thing Cullerton objected to was a provision that would kill off all local gun control ordinances, including Chicago’s assault weapons ban.
So, if Madigan’s radical local pre-emption language on all gun ordinances were removed, the rest of the bill would be a whole lot more acceptable. Offering up a completely unacceptable and even outrageous demand to get the other side to accept some things they might not otherwise is a pretty standard legislative negotiating tactic.
And if they can’t come to an agreement? Well, Cullerton has said it wouldn’t be the end of the world if nothing happens and the state law is struck down. If he’s telling the truth, it gives him a pretty good negotiating stance.
* Via IR, Sen. Dick Durbin talks about the 1st Amendment and a media shield law…
“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”
Durbin has tried to use this media shield issue as a not so back door way of defining who is and who is not a journalist. The federal government should not be in this business. The people we are covering should not have that sort of control over us. That “unanswered question” Durbin frets about so much ought to be up to the people themselves.
Buried more than 400 pages into the 524-page gambling expansion bill that would bring a casino to Chicago are directions for splitting some of the state’s take to create new ways to pay for the pork-barrel projects politicians covet.
Money from the new casinos and slot machines at horse racing tracks would be steered to a new “depressed communities economic development fund,” a “Latino community economic development fund,” grants to the State Fairgrounds and county fairs, funding for equine research, soil and water conservation, cooperative extension services and an annual grant to the Chicago Botanic Garden.
Other provisions in the bill allow several suburbs to split the local share of the new gambling take, guaranteeing that nearby cities and villages will collect cash even if they aren’t the coveted winners of a new casino or have a horse track within their borders.
All told, some legislative estimates show about $250 million in annual revenues will be diverted from the state in what’s shaping up to be a conga line of earmarks. At once, the promise of spreading a new influx of money to interest groups is both a powerful tool to win more votes for gambling expansion and a new way to dispense pork projects after state tax dollars dried up significantly because of Illinois’ dire budget problems.
Actually, $250 million won’t be “diverted from the state.” The vast majority of that cash, $210 million, is for local communities which host the new casinos and racinos, and that money is further divvied up for regional revenue sharing. That’s pretty standard stuff.
* Related…
* Gaming bill undergoes changes: Also Sunday, the House approved a bill to return advance deposit wagering to the state. Illinois had a law on the books that provided for advance deposit wagering, but it expired before lawmakers renewed it. Under advance deposit wagering, bettors can wager on horse races online using money from special accounts they have established.
* Illinois House Re-Authorizes Online Horse Betting: A few lawmakers worried that the horsemen are being coerced — they are only receiving a fraction of the $109 million in the horse-racing fund. But Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, says that is not the case.
* Some Illinois jobless face benefit cuts: Thousands of out-of-work Illinoisans will see a nearly 17 percent cut in their jobless benefits beginning in early June. The cuts are the latest fallout from automatic federal budget cuts that went into effect earlier this year.
* Cross: Medicaid not getting the scrutiny it needs
* For some reason,. there’s nothing on the governor’s weekend schedule about meeting with lawmakers…
GOVERNOR’S PUBLIC SCHEDULE
**Saturday, May 25, 2013**
DES PLAINES – In remembrance of Illinois servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom, Governor Pat Quinn will unveil the Portrait of a Soldier memorial exhibit.
WHEN: 9:30 a.m.
WHERE: Des Plaines Oasis
Jane Addams Memorial Tollway (I-90)
Milepost 74.5
Des Plaines, 60016
CHICAGO – Governor Pat Quinn will join city, state and national leaders to honor Gold Star families and the brave men and women that have given their lives for our country.
WHEN: 11 a.m.
WHERE: Daley Plaza
Outside the Picasso Statue
Chicago, 60602
**Sunday, May 26, 2013**
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS – In honor of Memorial Day, Governor Pat Quinn will address and cheer on runners at the Got Freedom Run.
WHEN: 7:45 a.m.
WHERE: Miner School
1101 East Miner
Arlington Heights, 60004
CHICAGO – As part of his agenda to support our Veterans and servicemembers, Governor Pat Quinn will announce a major investment to increase affordable homeownership opportunities for returning Veterans and their families.
WHEN: 12 p.m.
WHERE: Former Army Reservist Janelle Hamilton’s Home
3809 West 83rd Street
Chicago, 60652
**Monday, May 27, 2013**
PARK RIDGE – Governor Pat Quinn will march in the annual Park Ridge Memorial Day parade.
WHEN: 10 a.m.
WHERE: Park Ridge Memorial Day Parade
Steps off at Talcott Road and Cumblerland Avenue
Park Ridge, 60068
CHICAGO – In honor of Memorial Day, Governor Quinn will bring Challenger the bald eagle to soar above U.S. Cellular Field and raise awareness for the Illinois Military Family Relief Fund.
WHEN: 5:20 p.m.
WHERE: U.S. Cellular Field
333 West 35th Street
Chicago, 60616
ADDITIONAL: There will be no additional press availability following this event.
* I’m finding it difficult to work up much excitement about the Crosstown Classic this year. The biggest reason, I suppose, is that I’m stuck in session during the series. But even if I was in Chicago this week, I probably wouldn’t be feeling it.
Yes, the White Sox are on a roll of late. After an absolutely miserable start, we finally got our first sweep of the season and are now just four games out of first place in the AL Central. But, man, those first two months really took a toll on my baseball soul.
Maybe I’m not my usual self because the Flubs are so exceptionally horrible these days. 19-30? Words fail me. Perhaps y’all should send your entire team down to AAA. And I don’t mean just the players. I mean the entire team, rickety stadium and all. Do us all a favor and secede from the National League. Move to Rosemont. Heck, move to Peoria, for all I care.
* Anyway, go Sox, Cubs suck, etc. Let’s at least go through the motions.
“If you go back and look at the Senate Bill 1 that I introduced, it had two parts. It had both bills in the same one, and the one that the House passed was primary. And I sponsored it and wanted that to go to a court. And if, and only if, they threw it out would they have to look at the back-up. And Ty Fahner and the Tribune editorial board and the Republicans who said they would be for that came off the bill. And I didn’t have enough votes because, of course, the unions were against it. So congratulations business community, who now want me to only call the first part of the bill and not the second part even though the second part, the one that we passed, had a three-fifths vote. Republicans and Democrats alike, Republicans in the House, are urging the speaker to call [SB2404] so they can vote for it. And [Madigan’s] bill barely passed.
“So, you know, I’ve always been trying. And I, by the way, called for a vote Senator Biss’ bill, which is very similar to the speaker’s bill, and it got 23 votes. Seven votes short, and by the way, seven Republicans voted ‘no.’ And I voted for it. I’m sponsoring Senate Bill 1. It doesn’t have enough votes. It has fewer votes than Senator Biss’ bill because now the unions have gone out and they’ve actively worked against it, okay. So, I’m going to continue next week to see if I can reach some kind of compromise. Maybe the Tribune editorial board and the business community would - and the Sun-Times editorial board - would change their position and go back to my original Senate Bill 1 that I originally proposed, which has both bills with theirs being primary. And then we can have the court decide on that.”
Q: Would you lose union support on a bill like that?
A: “That would be up to them to decide. I suppose they probably would be against that. That’s why I’m having trouble passing Senate Bill 1, you see. I just want to emphasize that I’m not holding us back from trying to advance compromises.”
Q: Do you have any idea how close SB2404 is to getting 60 votes in the House?
A: “The bill that we passed here with 40? That had two people missing when we passed it so we would have 42? I would say probably 84 votes, maybe 85 like [Speaker Madigan’s concealed carry bill] got today.”
* We talked a lot about the House’s concealed carry vote on Friday, including audio of Senate President John Cullerton’s remarks. Here’s the transcript, which may help show you the way forward…
“…So there’s a consensus on - very close to a consensus on - what a concealed-carry law should be. And that’s what our task should be this session, not to go out and do a wish list that the NRA - that has nothing to do with concealed carry that preempts home-rule.”
Q: Are you going to call SB2193 for a vote?
A: “Well, I’m going to try to defeat the bill, and we’re going to have a caucus on it on Monday.”
Q: Madigan said he thought SB2193 would have overwhelming support in the Senate. Can you say where the vote might be?
A: “What would have overwhelming vote in his chamber would be the pension vote that we passed over there that is still in Rules Committee. I don’t know what he bases that on. We have a different makeup here. We have a lot more Democrats than he has over there. We won a few more seats than he did. So, I don’t know why he would predict that.”
Q: But he also successfully lobbied against Sen. Raoul’s bill last week…
A: “That’s true, but now what we’re saying, as it relates to concealed carry, we’re accepting the Brandon Phelps version of concealed carry.”
Q: Do you have an idea how much ground you may need to make up to defeat SB2193?
A: “I really don’t know. The people who want to pass a bill have the burden of going forward and getting 36 votes. So the question is how far back is Senator Forby (the bill’s Senate sponsor) in getting his 36 votes.”
Q: So do you envision calling it, having it rejected and then moving forward with a compromise proposal?
A: “Well that’s what I would hope we have.”
Q: So there will be a vote on Phelps’ bill in the Senate as it is now?
A: “Well, maybe our caucus doesn’t want to go forward with it. Maybe we’ll have a caucus and see there is no support, and we’ll go ahead with an alternative. Once the members realize there’s an alternative that’s very similar, almost identical to the House alternative, maybe we can avoid this. Maybe we can focus our attention on concealed carry, which is what the courts tasked us with doing, and then solve that part of the problem we have facing us.”
The transcript doesn’t show it, but Cullerton is now in favor of preemption of local concealed carry ordinances - something that would be unheard of just a week or so ago. The overwhelming House vote in favor probably moved him (and quite a few of his more liberal members) off that particular dime.
Cullerton is, however, “violently” against the “super preemption” of all local gun ordinances currently on the books.
Imagine the push-back from citizens if you strip local governments of their ability to pass local firearms laws. That’s the most noxious provision of legislation the House approved Friday. The bill includes other reasonable safeguards and restrictions.
We wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the provision pre-empting local firearms laws is a loss leader, added to the bill so it can be negotiated away in talks with the Senate. That chamber, less open to concealed carry, wants to let municipalities and other local governments set rules for their unique circumstances.
So cut a compromise. The Senate can make changes in the House bill — most important, strip out that pre-emption provision — and send it back to the House. You’re not that far from meeting the mandate of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A “loss leader” is probably right on the money. I told subscribers as much last week.
Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka isn’t in the running to take a position she once had — chairman of the Republican Party of Illinois. But she’s not shy in saying what she thinks of the job after just “a tad of discussion” that she could take it again.
“That has got to be the worst job in the world,” Topinka said. “It is horrendous. It was just so wearing after two years of that. I was thrilled when I was able to divest myself of it.”
Accurate.
* Wouldn’t Joe Walsh have to give up his brand new radio gig if he took the chairmanship? I doubt he’d get the chairmanship anyhow, but here’s what he had to say…
“The Republican Party in this state is irrelevant,” Walsh said. “We’ve been an irrelevant force for a long, long time. … Party leaders going all the way back to Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, Tom Cross, you name ’em, we’ve all been happy playing second fiddle, and we’ve let the Democrats run this state. I really do believe that the Republican Party … has been complicit, in this almost criminal arrangement, where we let the Democrats run the state and we just take a little bit of power wherever we can have it. That’s got to end.”
Yeah, Thompson, Edgar and Ryan ceded all sorts of power to the Democratic Party. Right. Please.
Illinois Democrats seemed poised to rule almost unchallenged in the state Capitol after winning super majorities in the House and Senate last fall. But as intraparty divisions have surfaced, things haven’t been that simple.
Heading into the final week of the legislative session, Democrats are split on some of the state’s biggest issues, from the nation’s worst pension crisis to the public possession of guns, gay marriage and gambling expansion. Lawmakers also have yet to get a deal on the state budget, the expansion of Medicaid or how to regulate a high-volume oil and gas drilling process known as “fracking.”
It’s a weighty agenda to wade through by Friday’s scheduled adjournment, even in a statehouse accustomed to leaving legislation to the last minute.
“It is unusual in the scope of what has to be done,” said Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat who’s working to pass a measure in the House to legalize same-sex marriage. “Those are each big things on any one day, much less all at one time.”
Also too, McCormick Place expansion. That’s kinda disappeared from the media’s radar screen.
* We’ll get to the individual topics later. The budget, however, is moving forward…
House and Senate Democrats have agreed on a proposed Illinois budget that would keep education funding at the same level and increase human services spending.
Sen. Heather Steans is one of the Legislature’s budget negotiators. She says Democrats will present their 2014 spending plan early next week, after which Republicans will get a chance to weigh in on it.
Gov. Pat Quinn proposed cutting education funding by about $400 million, a cut he said was difficult but necessary.
But Steans says unanticipated revenue increases helped restore that money. Democrats also want to reduce the amount of money that goes to local governments.
In his budget proposal, Gov. Pat Quinn called for a cut of about $300 million to K-12 education and another $100 million to higher education. Cullerton said the cut to K-12 education would have resulted in general state aid to schools being prorated at an 82 percent level, rather than the 89 percent this year.
The General Assembly’s budget plan calls for maintaining an 89 percent level, he said.
Sullivan said the budget will also preserve transportation assistance for school districts, a priority for downstate lawmakers.
Cullerton said the issue of accounting for back wages owed to union employees as well as raises contained in their new contract is “still up for negotiation.”
Sullivan said some areas of human services will see additional cuts, although they will not be across-the-board.
Q: What’s the agreement principle on the budget from here?
A: “Well the fact that the House and the Senate Democrats actually worked together on a budget is a first in the last four years. So, I’m really encouraged by that. And we have an agreement on the amount of money we have to spend and a general idea of where these categories of money should go. You know, how much for higher [education, how much for elementary and secondary, that sort of thing. And we’re working through all the different line items over the weekend to make sure we have an agreement. Then we will share this with Republicans. We will not vote on it on Monday. We will give data that we have to them, at least in the Senate. I can’t speak for the House. And we’ll vote on it maybe two or three days later.”
“I’m very confident that the Republicans are going to like the budget, and hopefully we can get them to vote for it.”
Q: Will education money be restored?
A: “That was our number-one priority to restore education money and to try to not create new old bills.”
Q: How much will be restored?
A: “We’re hoping to get back to 89 percent of [the foundation level]. The governor’s budget was like 82 percent.”
Q: Have you figured out how to deal with the back-wages owed to unions?
A: “That’s still, I think, up for negotiations in terms of how to deal with the back-wages as well as the new contract.”
Q: Do you see forcing the governor to choose between paying the back-wages and laying off workers in state agencies?
A: “Well, I would just say that if you look at what we’ve done this year, there’s been a number of supplementals that we’ve passed. As you see, a budget is just an authorization to spend, and we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen during the course of the year in terms of revenues…So, I would say if you manage your agencies and if you look like you need more money, you come back and we react.”
* Lawmakers have a week left — and much unsettled: With the state’s top four ruling Democrats at least appearing out of sync, the long out-of-power Republicans are wondering what the endgame will be.
* Big issues remain as adjournment nears: The legislation to provide state incentives to attract a $1.2 billion fertilizer plant on Tuscola’s west side is struck in the House Rules Committee. Rose said he is confident the measure will be considered in the closing days of the session. “I think this is classic Speaker Madigan. He holds all of his cards until the end,” Rose said. “There are too many jobs at stake with this.”
* The Senate isn’t in today, but the House convenes at 3 o’clock. I’ll fire up the blog at about 2 or 2:30. Want to have a bit of Oscar the Puppy time before we start that last long, hard slog.
