* Coming a day late to this. Sorry. Press release…
The Club for Growth PAC today announced its endorsement of State Senator Kyle McCarter for the U.S. House from Illinois’s 15th Congressional District. The seat is currently held by incumbent Congressman John Shimkus.
“Kyle McCarter has a proven track record as a principled fiscal conservative,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh. “Kyle has been a successful businessman and he’s fought against big spending in the Illinois legislature. During a recent debate, Kyle told his colleagues in the Illinois Senate, ‘…the state is broke and doesn’t have $60 million for a new program.’ That’s exactly the kind of resolute conviction that’s needed on the House floor in Washington.
“While Kyle McCarter would bring a fresh breath of fiscal conservatism to Washington, his opponent, John Shimkus, is the epitome of what’s wrong with Congress. Shimkus was first elected nearly 20 years ago; that’s eight years longer than the term limits pledge he made in 1996. And Shimkus has an anemic lifetime rating of just 66% on the Club for Growth scorecard, with his annual rating plummeting to 34% in 2014. The Club for Growth PAC is delighted to endorse Kyle McCarter, a real economic conservative, to replace Shimkus.”
Congressman John Shimkus voted:
· To reauthorize the Export-Import Bank (#576, 2015)
· To increase the debt ceiling (#690, 2011)
· For the recent budget-busting spending deal negotiated by Obama and Paul Ryan (#705, 2015)
· To raise his own pay (#580, 2007)
· To restrict political free speech (#88, 2006)
* Politico…
McCarter is only the second incumbent primary challenger the Club has endorsed this cycle, after Jim Duncan, an opponent of GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers’ in North Carolina.
* Roll Call…
One of the most powerful groups on the right, the Club for Growth has been slow to engage in many of the primaries Republican incumbents are facing this year. Part of that, conservatives said, is that it has been successful in recent years in gaining ground.
But its incumbent challenges – even those attractive to conservatives, like taking on Sens. John McCain in Arizona or Richard C. Shelby in Alabama – are heavy lifts. The easiest way for the group to get someone that passes their litmus test into Congress is in primaries for open seats in safe Republican districts, known as “A-seats” within the organization.
Part of the group’s strength, said one Republican operative, is its willingness to be picky. “The fact that they don’t do a lot of these – it doesn’t really matter“ the operative said. “They never endorse just to say they endorsed.”
* Illinois Family Action…
“The Club for Growth is the gold standard of conservative principles, and their endorsement today demonstrates that my message of fiscal restraint, core values, and free market economics is reaching true conservatives,” McCarter said.
* React…
“It’s disappointing that an outside group that targets conservative Republicans is attacking Congressman Shimkus, the true conservative in this race,” Shimkus spokesman Steve Tomaszewski said Wednesday.
He said Shimkus “has a proven conservative record of voting to repeal Obamacare, protect our Second Amendment rights, secure our borders, eliminate wasteful government spending and protect the life of the unborn.”
Discuss.
22 Comments  
|
This is not #winning
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Reuters…
Mitsubishi Motors said Thursday it would close its sole production plant in the United States as the Japanese automaker cuts losses on dwindling sales in North America and a strong U.S. dollar, which has stymied returns.
Mitsubishi Motors confirmed a report in Japan’s Nikkei newspaper on Thursday, which said that the automaker was unable to find a buyer for its factory in Normal and take on its workers.
“We have given up looking for an automaker to buy the plant, but we are looking for possible buyers from other industries,” a Mitsubishi Motors spokesman said.
Look, it was a longshot from the beginning. We’re not a “right to work” state, which is so in vogue with manufacturers these days. And we have plenty of other problems that we all know about.
But we didn’t really see a huge push on this topic at the top. Maybe lots of stuff was going on behind the scenes. I don’t know. I’m just bummed that nothing has been done.
45 Comments
|
Napoleon Harris will remain on the ballot
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The petition objection to Democratic state Sen. Napoleon Harris’ US Senate bid has been withdrawn.
There was plenty of speculation out there that the challenge was instigated at the behest of Andrea Zopp, the only other African-American in the Senate race.
7 Comments
|
* AP…
A survey of Illinois colleges shows nearly half of those responding say they won’t front income-based state grants for students this spring.
The Illinois Student Assistance Commission heard from 84 of 133 colleges and universities approved for the Monetary Award Program. MAP provided $373 million last school year but nothing since summer because of the stalemate over a government budget.
Many schools credited students’ accounts for MAP grants last fall - the state typically reimburses the grants by December. But many schools say they can’t pay that money upfront again.
Among respondents, 41 schools say they won’t provide money this spring. Another dozen have yet to decide.
* OK, but that’s not the whole story. From the survey…
Nearly half (49%) of institutions that responded (41 of 84 schools) indicated they do not plan to credit MAP grants to student accounts for second term , and 14 percent of respondents indicated they are undecided with regard to whether they will credit MAP grants for second term. The remaining 37 percent of respondents plan to credit MAP grants to student accounts for the second term.
In comparison, 42 percent of respondents (34 of 81 schools) indicated they did not credit MAP grants to student accounts for first term, and 58 percent indicated they credited MAP grants first term.
So, the number has risen from 42 percent to 49 percent. Significant, to be sure, and 49 percent is a lot, but that story is a tiny bit misleading.
* Also from the survey…
All six of the public university respondents reported they plan to credit MAP grants for second term, compared to 21 percent of community college respondents, and 35 percent of private institution respondents. Seventy - five percent of community college respondents and 41 percent of private institution respondents do not plan on crediting MAP grants for second term. Another 24 percent of private institution respondents reported they are undecided on what they will do about MAP grants for second term.
The 37 percent of respondents that indicated they plan on crediting MAP grants for second term include 6 community college respondents, all 6 public university respondents, and 13 private institution respondents. […]
The 14 percent of respondents that indicated they are undecided as to whether they will credit MAP grants to student accounts for second term include 1 community college respondent and 9 private institution respondents (of those that identified their sector). […]
The 49 percent of respondents that indicated they do not plan on crediting MAP grants for second term include 21 community college respondents, 15 private institution respondents, and no public university respondents.
More here.
38 Comments
|
Caption contest!
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Illinois Times…
During his October trip to Cuba, Congressman Rodney Davis stands in front of a 40-year-old Russian tractor in need of repair. Outdated equipment is a huge problem in Cuba but companies like Caterpillar and Deere could help them out if given the chance.
* The pic…
43 Comments
|
* AFSCME Council 31’s Anders Lindall has responded to the governor’s bonus plan and contract other offers that we discussed earlier today…
“The Rauner Administration’s latest scheme would allow the governor’s political appointees to reward chosen employees based on their own subjective criteria. This Rauner plan would open the door to cronyism and favoritism that AFSCME believes should be kept out of government entirely. It’s why so-called ‘merit pay’ plans are better termed ‘political pay’ and have been rejected by so many employers in public service. Just last week the Tennessee auditor criticized a similar scheme in that state and questioned its ‘objectiveness and fairness’.
“In addition to being ripe for abuse, such schemes simply don’t work, as the governor himself should know, since Rauner personally funded a bonus program for Chicago school principals that ‘failed to retain principals.’
“The Rauner Administration plan’s new twist is downright discriminatory toward working parents and anyone who gets sick or injured. Under the governor’s proposal, any employee missing seven or more work days in a year would get no pay increase. It is hard to imagine anything more tone-deaf and heartless than Rauner’s plan to punish a cancer patient, a heart attack or stroke victim, someone who suffered a debilitating accident or the parent of a child with a serious illness. The Rauner proposal offends common sense, and we seriously question whether it may also violate federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
“AFSCME represents tens of thousands of public-service workers on the front lines of state government doing difficult and demanding jobs every day. They protect kids, keep our communities safe, respond to disasters such as the recent devastating floods, and provide countless other essential public services in every community statewide. In return, like all working people, they deserve family-sustaining wages, not unfair and unworkable attempts to manipulate the rules and drive down their take-home pay.”
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
Hi, Rich –
I wanted to pass along this response from Mike Schrimpf in response to AFSCME’s statement:
Once again AFSCME doesn’t let the facts get in the way of trying to scare their members and AFSCME’s actions today are further proof why there has been so little movement at the bargaining table. The Governor makes a reasonable proposal that should generate discussion and AFSCME rejects it outright by using false and misleading information.
The Governor’s Merit Pay proposal rewards employees who miss fewer than a designated number of “assigned work days” in a year. An assigned work day does not include a day for which the employee has received advanced approval to be absent, such as approved vacation time or an approved leave of absence, including FMLA leave. Therefore, contrary to AFSCME’s claims, an employee would not be disqualified from earning the bonus for absences related to an approved FMLA leave.
Thanks,
ck
140 Comments
|
Question of the day
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
State Representative Mark Batinick (R-Plainfield) has filed a new bill to amend the Illinois Constitution to ensure public accountability by making all Illinois elected officials subject to recall. The proposal, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 44, was filed this week and is co-sponsored by Representative David McSweeney (R-Barrington Hills) and Representative Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove).
Specifically, HJRCA 44 provides for the recall of all State Executive Branch officers and members of the General Assembly; changes the signature requirements for affidavits and petitions for recall of the Governor and expands them to include all State Executive Branch officers and members of the General Assembly. The amendment also provides for the recall of all elected officials of any school district, community college, or unit of local government.
“Simply put, recall is good policy and would ensure a greater degree of accountability than we have now,” Rep. Batinick said. “Having a comprehensive recall law in place would give voters an important tool to keep their elected officials at levels accountable at all times, not just before an election.”
The Illinois House of Representatives returns to session on January 13 at which new bills can begin to receive consideration. Rep. Batinick will continue to add co-sponsors and build bipartisan support for his recall proposal in the coming days and weeks.
* The proposal (click here) would remove the existing and onerous gubernatorial recall requirement of signatures from 20 House members and 10 state Senators (half from each party).
For legislative recall, the minimum petition signature standard would be 15 percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the member’s district. But if the total is at least 10 percent, then a recall election would be held during the next statewide election - and that applies to statewide and local officials as well.
The governor would appoint the successor for any statewide official who is recalled until a special election could be held.
* The Question: Do you support this idea? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey services
43 Comments
|
Today’s number: $25 billion
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The governor’s budget office has released its annual three-year budget forecast. Click here.
GOMB is projecting a $4.6 billion deficit with $9 billion in backlogged bills by the end of this fiscal year, and then it only gets worse down the line. By Fiscal Year 2019, the numbers crunchers are projecting a $5 billion deficit and a whopping $25 billion in bill backlogs. That’ll be 65 percent of total state expenditures, and 72 percent of the state’s operating budget. And that’s assuming the governor’s relatively low spending projection increases (less than a billion a year) hold up.
By law, these projections can assume no tax increases.
And for you pension worriers, total state pension payments are expected to rise by a relatively modest $200 million per year over the next three years.
* There’s also this from the accompanying narrative…
GOMB directed many state agencies, in areas under the Administration’s control, to implement budget management steps to reduce spending by more than $700 million. Without these cost saving measures, the projected deficit would have been much higher.
There’s no explanation for what those cost savings were, however. And $700 million of $36.55 billion in total spending is just 1.9 percent, which is hardly the magic that the “businessman” candidate promised. Even so, every little bit helps, I suppose.
40 Comments
|
Rather them than us
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Illinois utilities produce far more electricity than Illinoisans consume, so this looks like a great idea if some of our electricity gets exported. Not so great for Ohio, but whatevs. It’s much better than an Illinois ratepayer subsidy…
Stymied so far in its bid to win power-plant subsidies in Illinois, Chicago-based Exelon is mounting an audacious campaign to upend a more successful subsidy effort by FirstEnergy in its home state of Ohio.
Last month, Exelon offered to undercut the eight-year power-purchase contract Ohio utility regulators appear poised to hand FirstEnergy to keep open two financially struggling power plants.
Exelon filed Dec. 30 with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission to provide the same 3,000 megawatts generated by FirstEnergy’s Davis-Besse nuclear station on the Lake Erie shore and its massive W.H. Sammis coal-fired plant along the Ohio River at a cost that Exelon said would save Ohio ratepayers $2 billion over eight years.
Akron-based FirstEnergy didn’t take kindly to the intervention by a peer company finding itself in the same straits thanks to rock-bottom wholesale power prices that are rendering some older, base-load plants unprofitable.
“Exelon lobbied for regulated rate recovery for its nuclear plants in Illinois,” FirstEnergy spokesman Douglas Colafella wrote in an email. “This effort was unsuccessful, so now Exelon is trying to make its Illinois plants profitable at the expense of Ohio jobs.”
Exelon pulls no punches in its filing. Calling FirstEnergy’s deal “grossly lopsided,” Exelon wrote that opening the eight-year contract to competitive bids would “wash away the stain of this affiliate backroom deal.”
6 Comments
|
More kicks off state’s attorney campaign
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Political newcomer Donna More on Wednesday kicked off her campaign to become Cook County’s top prosecutor by attacking State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez, with the challenger saying she would have brought charges against a Chicago police officer far sooner in the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald.
More did not limit her criticism to Alvarez’s handling of what now is the murder case against Officer Jason Van Dyke. She also said Alvarez has done too little to battle public corruption in a county that runs on a “finely tuned system of winks and nods, contracts and kickbacks, jobs here for political favors there.”
“Anita Alvarez has run an appallingly lackluster office for years with delayed prosecutions, wrongful convictions and policies that favor influencers and the well-connected while justice takes a back seat to politics — and victims and their families pay the price,” More said before dozens of supporters in a rented ballroom at the Hotel Intercontinental on North Michigan Avenue.
* The LaQuan McDonald case took center stage. From her press release…
“Our community has been rocked to its social and moral core by chants of ‘400 days’ and ‘16 shots,’” she continued. “If we had a State’s Attorney with the courage to act promptly on the video evidence of Laquan McDonald’s death, we’d be at trial today, not in the streets. We could have avoided a $5.0 million cover-up decision, and we wouldn’t need any federal investigations.
* ABC 7…
“I think that case should have been indicted in November of 2014,” More said.
* Alvarez’s response via the Sun-Times…
“Candidates will say just about anything with no accountability. Donna More has never prosecuted a police officer in her life,” said Alvarez campaign spokesman Ken Snyder. “She has no idea what’s involved. Look no further than Baltimore to see what happens when an inexperienced prosecutor rushes to charge under pressure — it results in hung juries or worse. It’s scary that casino lawyer More would wrap up murder charges against police officers in a few days. There is no justice in calling someone a murderer and then watching them walk out of a court instead of into a jail.”
* CBS 2…
“She does not have the capacity to even look at a police shooting case,” Alvarez said. “She has no idea. It’s really disheartening and kind of scary to think that she’d be able to wrap up an investigation and a couple of weeks.”
* And ABC 7…
“Neither one of my opponents have the experience or the integrity that I have to run this office and I will continue to do that,” Alvarez said.
* More’s work history was also brought up…
“Miss More is currently a gaming lobbyist and has been in the gaming industry for the last 25 years,” Foxx said.
“She’s been representing casinos all these years and that’s how she’s raised her money,” Alvarez said.
More says, “When I went into private practice I represented clients to keep them on the straight and narrow in regard to complying with rules and regulations and I’m proud of the jobs I’ve done doing that.”
…Adding… MrJM begs to differ in comments. He has a point.
* Rod Blagojevich’s former attorney Sam Adam, Jr. also spoke up for More…
“I knew there was no need for me to run, there was no need to back a Kim Foxx, we have who and what we need in Donna More,” Adam said.
* Back to ABC 7…
“We don’t need to look at this thing as black and white. That’s the problem that we have. We’ve got to understand that we’re in this together,” Adam said.
* The Rauner issue also made some of the news reports. Sun-Times…
A campaign contributor to Gov. Bruce Rauner, More boasts a healthy campaign war chest largely fueled by her mother and her husband, veteran public relations executive Hud Englehart. More recently lifted the cap on donations to candidates in the primary race by making a $250,000 contribution to her own campaign.
* Chicago Defender…
More and her husband have come under scrutiny for donating $2,500 to the Bruce Rauner for governor campaign. She stands firm on her belief at the time that change was needed, but admits that she was wary with that decision. She also has made it very clear that the couple also made contributions to President Barack Obama and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s campaigns. “As Democrats we always have to make sure we have good choices,” More said.
“I wanted to see things I wanted to hope that maybe with some different faces, we would get more cooperation. That didn’t happen. I’m certainly not defined by one thing. No more than we’re defined as women, or African-American women or White women. I view this as a label.”
We’d get more cooperation?
Really?
42 Comments
|
* The SJ-R reports that the Springfield City Council is set to vote on a resolution to urge the state to pay $9 million in utility bills owed to City Water Light and Power, including $6 million that is past due…
The resolution notes that having millions of dollars in overdue bills “is causing a hardship to the operation of the city of Springfield.”
In a Monday memo to Mayor Jim Langfelder, CWLP chief utilities engineer Doug Brown wrote that the city-owned utility has sent out late notices to all of its state accounts, and that a disconnection would be possible in the future if the state continues to be in arrears.
But that doesn’t mean shutting off power to the Capitol and other state facilities is imminent. Langfelder has said that would be a last resort.
“We’re still at the point where we’re working with the state to find out what they can do,” Brown said this week, noting that the state’s nonpayment of its utility bills “is starting to be more of a struggle” for CWLP.
32 Comments
|
A new twist on the gift ban
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* They had a big problem with this in Missouri recently, but I’m wondering what y’all think…
* Relevant passage from the bill…
For purposes of subdivision (2) of this subsection, the term “gift” shall include sexual relations between a registered lobbyist and a member of the general assembly or his or her staff. Relations between married persons or between persons who entered into a relationship prior to the registration of the lobbyist, the election of the member to the general assembly, or the employment of the staff person shall not be reportable under this subdivision. The reporting of sexual relations for purposes of this subdivision shall not require a dollar valuation.
The proposal has no listed co-sponsors as of yet.
…Adding… From a reader…
Rich:
Regarding your gift ban post, see this North Carolina ethics opinion from last year in which it was opined that a consensual sexual relationship where the lobbyist is not paid by the lobbyist’s principal for engaging in a sexual relationship does not constitute goodwill lobbying and therefore did not trigger lobbyist registration.
http://www.ethicscommission.nc.gov/library/pdfs/AOs/PDFs/AO-L-15-001.pdf
56 Comments
|
[UPDATE: AFSCME has responded. Click here.]
* From a memo sent by the governor’s legal counsel, with all emphasis added…
To: Agency Directors
From: Jason Barclay
Re: UPDATE: Employee Pay Proposal Date: January 6, 2016
As we have discussed in the past, one of the Governor’s priorities is to modernize the employee compensation system. The Governor set several broad goals for how that modernization should occur: (1) despite our significant budget constraints, we will not reduce current employee salaries or wages; (2) for the first time in the State’s history, we will implement a meaningful bonus system that rewards and incentivizes exceptional performance that will be evaluated by fair and objective measures; (3) employees at all levels should be financially rewarded if they identify and help implement taxpayer savings ideas; (4) merit employees, who have not received an across-the-board wage increase since December 2, 2005, must not be treated as a second-class workforce and must be compensated in a way that encourages promotions and reflects management responsibilities; and (5) automatic “step” increases are appropriate but not until the state’s massive budget deficit and financial crisis are solved.
To that end, we have begun implementing this new program for merit employees and the 17 labor unions who signed collective bargaining agreements in 2015. We have put a comprehensive compensation package based on these principles on the table in our negotiations with AFSCME. We believe this is a fair and thoughtful way to better compensate all of our employees, especially those who have never previously been rewarded for going above and beyond the ordinary course of business.
* The memo goes on to discuss employee bonuses…
We have proposed a bonus program to reward and incentivize high-performing individual employees, or an entire work group’s or unit’s performance. Payment will be based on the satisfaction of performance standards to be developed by the State in consultation with AFSCME or other union representatives.
Under the State’s proposal to AFSCME, for instance, for Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019, the State would set aside an amount equal to two percent of the budgeted base payroll costs for AFSCME bargaining unit employees. Employee bonuses would then be distributed as follows:
1) Every employee would be eligible to share equally in the one-quarter of the Bonus Pool if they accomplish these two basic requirements:
2) The remaining three-quarters of the Bonus Pool would be distributed to no fewer than 25% of employees who satisfy performance standards developed by the Employer in consultation with the Union, as well as meeting the criterion set out in subsection (1)(a) above.
As noted above, we have proposed working with the Union to develop specific policies for the program. Once developed, the Union will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the policies prior to implementation. Consistent with our intent, we have proposed to reward employees or groups of employees based on specific objective achievements and to prevent payouts that are influenced by favoritism, politics, or other purely subjective criteria.
Several Teamsters bargaining units have agreed to a similar provision and the State and those unions have held numerous productive discussions on objective criteria, fair to all, which can be used to measure performance. The Teamsters accepted the State’s proposals last summer, and 50% of eligible IDOT Teamster employees will get bonuses next summer, ranging from $1,500-$4,000, with half of all bonuses near the high end of that range.
The five Teamsters bargaining units are not the only unions to agree to wage increases linked to merit and performance. The trades unions ratified their collective bargaining agreements in November of 2015. Employees represented by twelve different trades unions, such as carpenters, plumbers, stationary engineers, painters, electricians, maintenance workers, barbers, etc., will also receive merit incentives following the conclusion of additional discussions between the State’s employee relations team and the leaders of those unions. Those discussions will be scheduled for the first quarter of this calendar year.
* Merit pay…
Furthermore, we are also committed to using merit pay to improve the efficiency of state operations and better align the incentives for the Employer with the workforce. To that end, we have proposed a gainsharing program in which employees or agencies that achieve savings for the State will share in such savings. The savings will be calculated based on achieved savings for the State. Every state employee will be eligible for this program, regardless of their level or job description, and the program will be structured so that employees can receive significant portions of taxpayer gains.
* Signing and attendance bonuses…
As you are aware, we previously offered every AFSMCE represented employee a $1,000 non-pensionable signing bonus if a new collective bargaining agreement was ratified by January 1, 2016. The State offered this to AFSCME at the bargaining table on September 8, 2015 in the first negotiation session following the failed veto override vote on AFSCME’s Bill, Senate Bill 1229.
Our proposal clearly stated that: “In the event a successor agreement is ratified prior to January 1, 2016, all bargaining unit employees who are in active employment status on that date shall receive a one (1) time, non-pensionable bonus of $1,000.”
AFSCME’s leaders had more than 100 days to consider the proposals similar to those already adopted by the Teamsters and Trades unions before the signing bonus offer expired. Even though AFSCME missed the January 1, 2016 deadline, today our negotiators modified this proposal one more time because we are still committed to finding ways to increase employees’ wages in this fiscal year.
Accordingly, the State has offered the following to AFSCME:
All bargaining unit employees who are in active employment status on June 30, 2016 and who have missed fewer than five (5) percent of their assigned work days between the effective date of this Agreement and June 30, 2016 shall receive a one (1) time, non-pensionable bonus of $1,000.
This proposal is designed to help our employees with additional payments, but it is linked to attendance. We have chosen attendance because it is a simple marker that is universally applicable to all employees, regardless of the specific nature of their duties. Moreover, many of our crushing overtime costs are made only worse due to excessive absenteeism. This is made worse when employees “make up” their absences by volunteering for overtime, paid at time-and-a-half.
We consider this attendance bonus a simple hurdle to cross, but one that begins to demonstrate that people can earn more when it is tied to performance, when the performance criteria are objective, and they are clearly understood by the workforce.
To be sure, these attendance policies will be implemented in a manner consistent with federal employment law so as not to detract from employees’ rights to take FMLA leave or military leave. But the message should be clear: people who show up to work and people who do good work for the state will be rewarded for their efforts.
Under our proposals, after July 1, 2016, the merit pay and gainsharing programs discussed above will go into effect for AFSCME represented employees.
* Incentives for non-bargaining unit employees…
Our desire to incentivize and reward employees is not confined to those employees that are represented by a union; we also want to recognize the many outstanding State workers who are not represented by a union. Unfortunately, many of these individuals have not received a raise in many years. In fact, the last across-the-board pay increase to non-union personnel was over a decade ago. To address this injustice and to reward these employees, we will be expanding the performance bonus system to non-union employees and looking to correct base compensation inequities for managers and those who have been promoted into merit positions. It is my hope that the performance bonuses for non-union employees will be the first step in ensuring that the needs of these employees are no longer overlooked.
Your thoughts?
125 Comments
|
Just get it done
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Mark Brown write about how the construction of the new Illinois Veterans Home in Chicago was halted at the end of the fiscal year…
What’s really irritating in this instance is that the people who are getting hurt are the veterans who need this type of specialized housing, especially those who would benefit from the facility’s promised 44 beds for individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s and dementia.
The state already operates four homes for veterans, but the closest one is located in Manteno, a distance from where most of the state’s aging veteran population lives in Chicago. The facilities operate much as skilled nursing homes with specialized programming for veterans.
* What happened?…
Sen. John Mulroe (D-Chicago), whose district includes the Veterans Home site, said continuing the project requires legislation to re-appropriate money earmarked for the project in prior years but left unspent.
Mulroe said Democrats haven’t offered such a bill because of the expectation Rauner would just veto it.
Rauner’s staff counters that the governor included the Veterans Home project in his original proposed 2016 budget while Democrats did not. If Democrats had included it in a limited capital appropriation bill that the governor signed in June, the project would have been funded and continued on schedule, they contend.
This is a similar fight to what’s taking place over the stalled flood plain home buyout program. The governor put the reappropriations in his budget, but the Democrats didn’t include it in their own reapprop bill, which the governor signed.
* From the Illinois Republican Party…
The money for the Olive Branch relocation project was included in the Governor’s proposed budget in two separate bills: SB 2024 and HB 2913. Neither of those bills were called in a committee hearing in the House or Senate. Why? Because they proposed cutting wasteful government spending so we could afford projects like Olive Branch. Mike Madigan and the Chicago machine didn’t like that very much — they wanted billions more in wasteful spending at the expense of Southern Illinois projects like Olive Branch. That’s why money for this project was not included in the Madigan-Phelps out-of-balance budget that was passed by the General Assembly — they intentionally left out Olive Branch from the capital appropriations bill, HB 4166. Rep. Phelps voted yes on the Madigan-Phelps budget and capital bill – both of which excluded the funding for Olive Branch.
Statement from Nick Klitzing, Executive Director of the Illinois Republican Party: “Today, as Rep. Brandon Phelps claims to be in favor of releasing funding for the Olive Branch relocation project, Southern Illinois voters should understand Phelps’ hypocrisy. Phelps had an opportunity to vote for the funding, but he chose to stand with Mike Madigan. Phelps claims to represent Southern Illinois, but time and time again, he has shown that he represents his Chicago boss Mike Madigan.”
Thoughts?
12 Comments
|
* From an October 6, 2013 Reuters story about the US Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case…
The disputed section limits the aggregate amounts that a person can contribute in a two-year election cycle to candidates, political party committees and PACS. The Supreme Court has allowed government more latitude to enact such limits on contributions - as opposed to limits on independent spending on campaign activities - because contributions involve money that goes directly to a candidate or committee and could more likely lead to quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Base limits, such as the $2,600 for a candidate, are not at issue in McCutcheon. Rather it’s the aggregate cap of $48,600 on what an individual may give overall to federal candidates and the $74,000 that an individual may give to political party committees and PACs.
Erin Murphy, the attorney representing McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee before the justices, said the overall limits were unnecessary to fight any appearance of corruption and impinge on First Amendment rights.
As she has previously over the past two years, Kagan used her questions to lawyers to strategically telegraph arguments to her colleagues. When Kagan challenged Murphy with multi-million-dollar contribution scenarios, Kennedy immediately picked up the thread to question Murphy - and also question Kagan’s assertions.
Alito declared his suspicion of the line of hypotheticals Kagan raised. As Kagan, who sits to his left, faced him, Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli, “How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they’re all going to transfer it to one candidate?”
More from Justice Alito…
“What troubles me about your argument, General Verrilli, and about the district court’s opinion is that what I see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible or — and lack, certainly lack any empirical support,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts called the arguments “divorced from reality.”
The Supremes eventually ruled 5-4 that limiting aggregate contributions would violate free speech rights.
* This past September, the Washington Post noted that “Just four years ago, the most a donor could give a national political party was $30,800″…
The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue million-dollar donors with zeal.
Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to $1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about $1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.
In return, elite donors are being promised perks such as exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the nominating conventions and special dinners organized by contribution rank at this month’s RNC finance committee gala.
* And the Clinton campaign is taking full advantage, with a Chicago twist…
Here’s how it works: Donors are limited by how much they can give to campaign committees, national party committees and state party committees. A single donor can give $5,400 to a candidate’s campaign to cover both a primary and general election, $33,400 annually to a national party committee’s general fund and $10,000 annually to each state party. These limits are known as “base” contribution limits. (Additionally, donors can give $100,200 annually to each of the national party committee’s convention, building and legal funds thanks to a provision slipped into the 2014 omnibus budget bill.)
Since the Hillary Victory Fund links the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 33 state parties, the total amount a donor could give is $669,400 per year. Technically, a maximum contribution to the fund would include $330,000 to be split among the 33 state parties. Since party committees are allowed to make unlimited transfers between each other, that money can easily be sent to the state parties most advantageous to the candidate raising the money — in a swing state, for example. Or, as is happening with the Hillary Victory Fund, that money can be sent to the DNC, which redistributes it as they see fit.
Wealthy donors like Fred Eychaner, M.K. and J.B. Pritzker and Donald Sussman have seen their six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund split into $33,400 contributions to the DNC and $10,000 to a variety of state parties. The state parties have then sent the exact amounts received from Hillary Victory Fund donors directly to the DNC.
Emphasis added for obvious reasons.
12 Comments
|
Good questions
Thursday, Jan 7, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Natasha Korecki has three questions for Gov. Bruce Rauner…
1) Governor, we have entered an unprecedented seventh month without a budget. In a few weeks, you have to give a budget address for the next fiscal year, how do you expect to do that?
2) Since you’re talking transparency, why has your administration fought releasing basic information like your calendar? Don’t you think taxpayers should know who has the governor’s ear and with whom he meets? Will you fight the release now that the Illinois Attorney General’s office has ruled you must turn them over? Why did you fight it in the first place?
3) You sold yourself as a negotiator who could get things done. Instead of a war of words, why can’t you come up with at least a short-term compromise to help Chicago schools?
Talk amongst yourselves.
58 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Jan 6, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* More from today’s appearance by Gov. Rauner on Dan Proft’s show…
Proft: …A story this week about a city attorney who failed to disclose evidence that you’re required to disclose in discovery and now a judge has had to intervene yet again and say there’s going to be a new trial in the wrongful death case of someone else who was killed by a Chicago Police Officer back in 2011. It seems like we need an ARDC investigation, a state investigation—not that Lisa Madigan will do it—, a federal investigation; we need a lot of investigations into a lot of the moving parts in city government.
Rauner: Well that’s right, unfortunately what I’ve heard in the last two days is that Mayor Emanuel has come out and he’s opposed to a federal investigation of the legal department for the City of Chicago, right immediately after one of the attorneys for the city has been accused by a judge of withholding evidence. It’s so…
Proft: Mind-boggling
Rauner: It is. How tone-deaf can you be? I mean how—it’s incredibly disappointing. Why would the mayor fight the investigation of that department, given these facts? Just the way he fought the federal investigation—the civil rights investigation—of the shooting incident. It’s just out of touch and it’s a failure of leadership.
* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with Gov. Rauner’s decision to speak out on this topic? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey tools
58 Comments
|
* WREX…
Gov. Rauner spoke in Watseka this morning, saying there doesn’t seem to be support for a budget agreement in January.
“Some of my fiends who are members of the Democratic Caucus in the general Assembly, and I’ve got friends on both sides of the aisle, are telling me that [House Speaker Madigan] is indicating that maybe he won’t be taking any tough votes until the primary is done on March 15. I think that will be very unfortunate,” Rauner said.
A spokesman for Speaker Madigan told 13 WREX that Madigan has been saying for several weeks that a budget deal would come sometime in April.
Actually, it could be January, of next year. Maybe.
*** UPDATE *** Brown in comments…
I told the reporter it was the governor who said April before the holidays. The Speaker believes the budget is the state’s #1 issue and should be resolved as quickly as possible.
43 Comments
|
* From the twitters…
* Click here to listen. The governor once again kicked the mayor when he’s down (I’m sure that’ll help) and blamed pretty much all the state’s problems on Speaker Madigan. Some Rauner quotes…
It’s so unfortunate the way the mayor is failing the people of Chicago and he’s looking to blame other people for it.
The mayor has done virtually nothing to reform and transform the government of Chicago and the schools of Chicago.
He’s afraid to take on Speaker Madigan… He’s afraid. He’s hiding behind the Speaker.
[Q: Why is the mayor afraid of Madigan?] The Speaker has been the most powerful politician in the state of Illinois for decades. It’s the main reason we’re in such big trouble as a state. And he’s head of the Democratic Party. He controls tens of millions of dollars in political funds, and he controls a massive army of patronage workers and lobbyists and the judges and politicians and you know what he’s an intimidating figure for the Democratic politicians who are under him.
The reason we don’t have a budget is that the existing majority in the Legislature, led by Speaker Madigan, likes the status quo and they don’t want to make any changes whatsoever.
We’re in this long-term, slow death spiral. The reality is, who’s doing well in Illinois is the political class led by Speaker Madigan. The political class is doing great, the lobbyists, the politicians, the insiders [in] the government, the folks who make money from the taxpayers are doing great. But the taxpayers themselves, homeowners, school children, small business owners, your average working family is hurting in Illinois. And unfortunately the Speaker is not sensitive to that. He likes the power. He’s got a great system, he controls it. And right now they’re unwilling to change. And without change, we’ll never get a true balanced budget.
Summary: “Because… Madigan!”
If only life was that simple.
* Certain pundits, columnists and editorial writers will eat this stuff up and shout huzzahs from their own little rooftops. It makes for great copy and reinforces the beliefs of his base, but that isn’t governing.
He’s not completely wrong, of course. Madigan must take his share of the blame - and there’s plenty of it. But can you behave like this and actually get something done? Why would anyone cut a deal with a guy who talks like this?
And does he want to get anything done or is this war gonna continue as long as he’s in office? Right now, it sure looks like it ain’t gonna end.
Madigan needs to give. No question. But the governor also needs to govern.
112 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
Taking us for fools
Wednesday, Jan 6, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday it’s “not possible” that City Hall’s Law Department is part of the cover-up culture he’s acknowledged exists at the Chicago Police Department — a day after a federal judge ruled that a city lawyer intentionally concealed evidence in a trial over a fatal Chicago police shooting.
Emanuel also said it’s not necessary for the U.S. Department of Justice to add the Law Department to its investigation into the Police Department’s use of excessive force. And the mayor gave a vote of confidence to his top attorney, saying Stephen Patton would ensure the city’s legal team is operating “at the highest level that the public should expect.”
The mayor’s defense of Patton, a confidant, comes as a federal judge has cited and rebuked five city attorneys within the last year for withholding evidence in two separate police misconduct cases. In the most recent of those rulings Monday, U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang faulted lax training and oversight at Patton’s department for hampering the production of Police Department records when officers are accused of misconduct. […]
“There is zero tolerance for not only violating the public trust, but your professional standards and there will be no place for that,” Emanuel said. “Once the decision was made, the lawyer and the city parted ways.”
“Zero tolerance”? Then how come Jordan Marsh was on the law department payroll until just the other day? He admitted to the cover-up in September, for crying out loud, and we’ve known about this story for almost a year.
Zero tolerance for what, exactly?
[Fixed some coding problems which deleted some of my words.]
45 Comments
|
Caption contest!
Wednesday, Jan 6, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From House Speaker Michael Madigan’s Democratic primary opponent…
102 Comments
|
* From the very end of Elizabeth Campbell’s Bloomberg story entitled “Illinois ‘going to be penalized’ in upcoming bond sale”…
“I don’t know that we’ve hit the bottom,” said Richard Ciccarone, Chicago-based CEO of Merritt Research Services. “There’s a lot of things yet to happen.”
Ain’t that the truth.
As we learned under Rod Blagojevich, things can always get worse.
* OK, now scroll back up…
Since it last sold general-obligation bonds in April 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court threw out the state’s effort to cut workers’ benefits to help close a $111 billion pension-fund deficit. Its credit rating has been cut. And temporary tax increases have expired, leaving Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democratic lawmakers locked in a record-long impasse that’s left the state without a budget for more than six months.
The $480 million of federally tax-exempt bonds scheduled for sale Jan. 14 will illustrate the cost of Illinois’ long-building strains, which have caused investors to demand higher premiums to buy its bonds. The state’s 30-year securities yield 4.67 percent, about 1.8 percentage points more than top-rated debt. That gap has risen by more than half a percentage point since April 2014 and is the highest among the 20 states tracked by Bloomberg.
“They’re definitely going to have to pay a higher yield,” said Dan Solender, head of municipals at Lord Abbett & Co. in Jersey City, N.J., which manages $17 billion of the debt, including Illinois bonds. “They’re going to be penalized compared to other bonds of similar ratings.”
We’ll have to wait and see whether the “bond vigilantes” will be as harsh on Illinois as predicted above. It hasn’t really happened in the past. Sales have been heavily over-subscribed.
* And while we’re on this topic, the Illinois Policy Institute’s news service has a story up about the governor’s borrowing plan…
Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute, says funding road construction and transit projects should be funded by current revenues or cuts in lower priority budget areas because going into debt by selling bonds pushes the costs onto future generations. Edwards says Illinois is the last state that should want to go further into debt because a variety of factors, including having the most unfunded state pension plans.
“That means that in the future Illinois taxpayers will not only have to pay back the money for the bonds they’ll have to probably chip in to pay for this overextended state retirement system.”
Edwards says Illinois’ worst-in-the-country credit rating will also mean selling the bonds will cost taxpayers more because of higher interest rates, however the governor’s office says there was no change in the state’s general obligation bond ratings from the three major ratings agencies. The governor signed a capital bill last summer that gives the state authority to spend bond funds with dedicated revenues to cover the payments.
My own opinion is the state shouldn’t sell a 30-year bond to pay for repairs that will only last 10 years.
Other than that, borrowing for infrastructure is totally legit in my mind.
* And here’s more from Bloomberg’s Campbell…
Chicago Board of Education bonds tumbled to the lowest since September as Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner said he wouldn’t bail out the cash-strapped school system.
The public school system known as CPS has said it needs $480 million from the state to close a budget gap and will face cuts and “unsustainable” borrowing without the funds. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and CPS Chief Executive Officer Forrest Claypool have called for the help, saying the system receives less state money than other Illinois districts. CPS is the only state district that pays for its teachers pensions. Rauner has said he’ll help out only if Emanuel supports structural changes that he has proposed such as limits on collective bargaining.
“Let’s be clear Chicago Public Schools are in dramatic trouble,” Rauner told reporters on Monday. “They’re looking at a disaster somewhere in the next nine months in the Chicago public schools.”
The Chicago Board of Education’s federally tax-exempt, general obligation bonds traded for an average of 82.45 cents on the dollar on Monday, the lowest since Sept. 28, to yield 6.4 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The securities, the most-actively traded over the last three months, have a 5 percent coupon and mature in December 2042.
26 Comments
|
* Insurance companies which charge higher premiums to their most loyal customers, and are being stopped in other states, but not in Illinois…
Last month, Connecticut became the 16th state to issue a bulletin barring insurers from using “price optimization” in ways that would charge customers with the same risk profile different rates based on their propensity to shop or their likelihood to switch providers. Indiana took similar action in July.
Anne Melissa Dowling, Gov. Bruce Rauner’s choice in May as insurance director, came from Connecticut, where she had been acting director of that state’s Insurance Department.
In a statement, the Illinois department says: “As there is no agreed-upon definition as to what is entailed in the term ‘price optimization,’ we don’t plan to address an undefined notion. We are, however, aware of many new and innovative pricing models, responding to the market demand for more individualized pricing.”
* Crain’s looks at a growing “industry”…
In 2013, though, Keller stepped off the path again, this time with Adam Gerchen, whom he had met at Alyeska Investment Group, a Chicago hedge fund. Together they founded Gerchen Keller Capital to finance litigation in exchange for a cut of the resulting judgment or settlement. Gerchen, 34, is CEO, and Keller, 36, managing director. Travis Lenkner, 36, joined soon after as a partner and managing director.
Gerchen was a former Goldman Sachs banker and Harvard Law School graduate who had never practiced law, while Lenkner, a senior counsel at Boeing, knew Keller from their time clerking together for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The trio’s collective background was dubbed “resume porn” by David Lat, founder of legal news and gossip website Above the Law.
Today, Gerchen Keller Capital is the largest firm of its kind in the world. Starting out with $100 million from a dozen investors (two were anchors), the Chicago-based business has grown to $1.4 billion in assets under management. In addition to funding early stage lawsuits, it buys legal fee, judgment and settlement receivables from finished cases. It has invested an average of $6.7 million per case since inception and an average of $10 million per case in the past year. The pension fund for Michigan’s state employees has invested $3.5 million with it, and Texas’ pension fund has put in $28.7 million. The firm is profitable, Lenkner says.
The rise in litigation financing in the last decade has attracted attention from lawyers, investors, clients, business lobbyists and the U.S. Senate. There’s the potential to make serious money: Burford Capital and IMF Bentham, public companies based in the United Kingdom, boast respective returns of 71 and 158 percent. There’s also the potential for serious humble pie: Juridica Investments in Guernsey announced in November it would stop investing in new cases after it poured $3.5 million into a trade secrets case expected to yield $9.4 million—and got $2 million back instead. In August, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and John Cornyn of Texas sent a letter to Burford Capital execs demanding to know the scope of its investment in U.S. cases.
* And Pro Publica looks at workers’ comp “cost containment” companies…
While lawmakers have clamped down on payments to workers, doctors and lawyers, little scrutiny has been given to these “cost containment” firms — even though today they arguably have more influence on how injury benefits are handled than insurers and employers.
Highlighting the bounty, there are now more than 150 workers’ comp conferences a year. There’s one for the American Society of Workers Comp Professionals, one for the Association of Workers’ Compensation Professionals and one for the Association of Workers’ Compensation Claims Professionals. At least 26 have golf tournaments. […]
Last year, workers’ comp insurers in California spent 36 percent of premiums on overhead — more than they spent on medical care. That’s over twice what group health plans can spend on administrative costs under the Affordable Care Act.
A glimpse of the Vegas expo shows why. There were companies that provide networks of doctors and companies that review medical bills, firms that provide expert medical opinions and firms that specialize in complex claims. There were defense lawyers, data processing firms, rehab facilities, surveillance companies, outside claims shops, occupational medicine clinics, pain management services, translators, schedulers, headhunters and associations promoting other conferences.
There were labs that test injured workers’ urine for illegal drugs. There were even labs that test urine to ensure workers are taking the prescribed drugs instead of selling them.
In California, the amount of money that insurers spend on medical cost containment programs has more than doubled from $197 million in 2005 to $471 million in 2014, according to the state workers’ comp ratings bureau.
25 Comments
|
* Robert Feder…
It’s only the first week in January, but I’m pretty sure we can already declare the dumbest TV executive of the year.
Dan Salamone, an executive producer at Fox-owned WFLD-Channel 32, this week told the women who report on “Good Day Chicago” not to wear hats during their outdoor live shots this winter, sources said Tuesday.
Salamone’s directive, which he did not issue to male reporters, said the women would “look a lot better without hats” and should go without them from now on. He’d be willing to make an exception, he said, “if it’s 20 below.”
* From last August…
“Growing the ratings in this time period is a big challenge and very important to the company,” Salamone told friends on Facebook. “I’m ready to dig in and help the entire team produce newscasts that will have the Windy City talking!” […]
Reputed to be an innovative news manager, Salamone attracted national attention in 2012 when he used puppets on the air to re-enact testimony from the corruption trial of a county commissioner after cameras had been barred from the courtroom.
From puppets to women’s winter hats.
Such innovation.
56 Comments
|
Then and now
Wednesday, Jan 6, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Rockford Register-Star, June 19, 2013…
Rauner discussed four priorities: “I want to make Illinois the No. 1 state in America for economic growth and job creation. Right now we’re among the worst. I want to make us pro-business, pro-job creation.”
Second, “I want to make Illinois government the most efficient, transparent in America.”
Third, “I want to make the education system the best in America. … Today, the politicians in Springfield are cutting school funding, doing special deals with teacher unions, allowing bad teachers to stay in the system through tenure. We’ve got to change our schools so they’re responsive to our schoolchildren, our parents and our property-taxpayers.”
Rauner’s fourth priority is term limits. Public service shouldn’t be a lifetime, wealth-building career, he said. “Everybody (should) serve eight years and you’re out. No more Madigan power structure for 30 years.”
60 Comments
|
* Press release…
State Representative David McSweeney (R-Barrington Hills) hopes to help create manufacturing jobs in Illinois by exempting manufacturers from the state’s income tax.
“We need to have a strong manufacturing base to have a strong Illinois economy,” McSweeney said. “We continue to lag in job creation and manufacturing companies are generally not considering Illinois as a top tier choice for expanding. Eliminating the income tax on manufacturers will create a strong incentive for manufacturing companies to consider locating to Illinois and it will encourage existing Illinois manufacturers to stay in Illinois and even expand their operations here.”
House Bill 4381 would allow existing and new manufacturing operations (corporations as well as LLCs and LPs) to fully deduct their net income, which essentially would exempt them from the state’s income tax. For a manufacturer with $10 million of Illinois net income, HB 4381 would reduce that manufacturer’s tax liability by $525,000 ($10 million x 5.25% corporate tax rate).
While manufacturing jobs have increased in other states, Illinois continues to shed manufacturing jobs. From 2001-2015, Illinois manufacturing jobs have decreased by 38.9%.
“We have to get the Illinois economy moving again and reviving the manufacturing sector is an important step we need to take,” McSweeney said. “The current policies are not working. Raising taxes has only served to drive middle class jobs away from Illinois. Let’s lower taxes and create incentives for manufacturers to invest in Illinois.”
Representative McSweeney has asked the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability (COGFA) to review the full revenue impact of HB 4381. McSweeney said, “The best way to create new revenues for the state is to create new jobs and thus new taxpayers. I’m confident that my proposal will create new jobs.”
HB 4381 has been filed and is awaiting assignment to a legislative committee.
Your thoughts on this idea?
66 Comments
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
