|
Comments Off  
|
* 2:56 pm - The House just approved Rep. Lou Lang’s HB1, the medical marijuana bill. The measure received 61 votes. The roll call is here.
Check the live coverage post for further information. There are some videos of the debate here. The Sun-Times has a quickie story online here. At this moment, a liberal Democratic concealed carry amendment is now up for debate. Watch it.
24 Comments
|
Boston updates
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* CNN is reporting an arrest has been made in Boston, so let’s crank this up again. A press conference is expected in a few hours. [ADDING: As you know by now, the police are denying that an actual arrest has been made. Stay tuned.]
Blackberry users click here…
37 Comments
|
Maybe you should follow your own advice, guv
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Gov. Pat Quinn held a press conference today to announce a six-year, $12.6 billion construction program for roads and bridges. Afterward Quinn took questions on ComEd, gaming expansion and medical marijuana, and talked about gay marriage.
He was also asked about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is attempting to poach companies from Illinois…
“I know him. I could give you three reasons why he’s wrong, 1, 2 and 3. I was his roommate when we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. So, he’s a big talker and I think people saw that in the presidential campaign… We don’t need any advice from Gov. Perry.”
Full audio of the governor’s response…
* Right after he talked that trash about Gov. Perry, Quinn was asked how he interpreted the “gap” in fundraising between himself and Attorney General Lisa Madigan. Quinn’s response…
“I’m not going to get into political things. I said that the other day. I do want to say a few words about the people of Boston, the families who are grieving because they lost their family members. That young boy, Martin Richard, who lost his life. What a special soul he was. He was only given eight years by God on this earth, but he certainly made a difference. And I think all of Illinois, all of America, we’re with the people of Boston and the people who were at that race. So I think that’s the important thing to keep in mind right now. I went to the wake yesterday of Anne Smedinghoff. She’s being buried at this hour. She went to my high school and my brother taught her and my nephew went to school with her and she was a moderator of a debate that I was at.
“You know, these special young people, whether it’s Martin Richard from Massachusetts or Anne Smedinghoff from Illinois, we’re blessed to have them. And I think public safety is really what we should focus on in the aftermath of the events of Monday. I called my friend Gov. Deval Patrick, who was born and grew up in Illinois. I think he’s done an outstanding job. And I said that we’re more than ready in Illinois, we have some special experts who can help in any way. If they need them we’ll be there to help.”
Audio…
* Since he took personal shots at Rick Perry and talked about issues other than “public safety,” which he said “is really what we should focus on” this week, the Madigan question was not out of bounds and my initial reaction was that he didn’t have to dodge it by dragging in the bombing victims and Ms. Smedinghoff.
But, politics can most certainly be unseemly, and American political leaders ought to be focusing on national unity instead of divisions, especially with the revelations of ricin being sent to the President and two US Senators.
So, maybe Quinn should’ve just held his fire on Perry, too.
* Raw audio of Q&A…
* Related…
* Quinn ‘open minded’ to legalized medical marijuana: He told reporters Wednesday that he recently met with a veteran suffering from war wounds who was helped by the medical use of marijuana.
* Governor Quinn announces multi-year, $12.62 billion construction program
24 Comments
|
Rare agreement on guns?
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Details matter, but this sure looks like a practical idea on guns…
Both sides of the gun-control debate could be headed for a rare agreement at the Statehouse on a push by Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart to get guns out of the hands of felons and the seriously mentally ill.
His plan would require gun owners to surrender their state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Cards within 48 hours of being notified they were ineligible to possess a gun because of being convicted of a felony or domestic violence or being judged mentally ill.
A top gun-rights advocate told the Chicago Sun-Times late Tuesday that his “intuition” was an agreement could be reached on the issue with gun-control supporters.
In Cook County, about 5,000 people have had their state gun permits revoked by the Illinois State Police, making them ineligible to buy weapons. But only about 1,000 have actually turned in the cards, leaving them able to buy ammunition at will, Dart’s office said.
Under the sheriff’s measure, those who had their permits taken away also would have to account for where their weapons would be maintained during the period of time their FOID cards were revoked.
* Meanwhile, John Schmidt defends onetime foe Attorney General Lisa Madigan on her refusal to say whether she’s appealing the appellate court ruling that declares Illinois’ public carry ban unconstitutional…
In December I wrote in these pages on why Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan should not appeal the federal appellate court decision throwing out Illinois’ total ban on concealed carry. The Supreme Court decision in the New York case strongly reinforces that conclusion.
The question is one of judicial tactics, not a test of commitment to gun control. A total ban is the least defensible concealed carry law. In his December decision, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner said the Illinois ban failed any test of constitutional scrutiny. That conclusion is almost inescapable now that the Illinois total ban is unique in the nation and Illinois crime rates give no support to the argument that the ban has a positive impact in reducing violence.
The positive side of the Supreme Court’s New York decision is that limits on concealed carry may pass constitutional muster. New York’s law requires any gun applicant to show a “special need” for a concealed carry permit and gives the permitting authority to local officials who can respond to differing statewide needs and interests. We don’t know how the appellate court would come out on such a law. In his decision, Posner expressed some reservation about the New York court’s analysis, but he reached no conclusion on whether a New York-type law would be upheld here.
Illinois can now follow New York’s lead and come up with a new law that the General Assembly believes meets Illinois’ particular needs and circumstances. After the New York decision, any reasonably drafted law, short of a total ban, has a real chance of withstanding constitutional challenge.
* And the Tribune editorial board concurs with that last point…
So, let’s go. Illinois could live with a concealed-carry law that recognizes local needs and interests. Gov. Pat Quinn and other Democratic leaders have signaled support for that option. The gun lobby doesn’t like the New York template, but it would be interesting to watch pro-gun lawmakers defend a vote to defeat a bill that for the first time establishes concealed carry in Illinois.
The Illinois Legislature is scheduled to adjourn on May 31, nine days before the clock runs out on the appellate court’s grace period. That court could stay its ruling if Illinois appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorney General Lisa Madigan is wise to delay a decision on whether to appeal until the Legislature acts or doesn’t act.
Bottom line, the wisest course for the Legislature is to act: Pass a “may-issue” concealed carry law that provides local control.
The NRA won’t see the irony. To them, “may carry” might as well be “no carry.” From an ISRA action alert…
URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
GUN GRABBERS TRY TO HIJACK CONCEALED CARRY
YOU MUST MAKE PHONE CALLS IMMEDIATELY
Rabid gun grabber Rep. Kelly Cassidy has introduced amendments to HB0831 which hijack the court’s requirement to enact concealed carry and transform concealed carry into gun control.
IT’S IMPORTANT THAT YOU ACT IMMEDIATELY TO HALT CASSIDY’S SCHEME.
Kelly’s vision of concealed carry is absolutely unacceptable to law-abiding citizens. Her proposal contains all sorts of impediments to self defense – the worst of which is that carry licenses would be issues on a “may issue” basis.
UNDER KELLY’S PROPOSAL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONVINCE SOME POLITICAL HACK THAT YOUR LIFE IS WORTH DEFENDING.
That’s right, under Kelly Cassidy’s version of “concealed carry,” you would have to go down to your village hall and beg some civil servant for the right to defend yourself and your family from vicious street thugs. Of course, your chances of success will depend greatly on what you look like and how many checks you had written to your local sheriff’s reelection campaign committee.
* From the preamble in Rep. Cassidy’s bill…
The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Moore favorably cited Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2012), a recent opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld New York’s law restricting the carrying of firearms in public. New York’s law gives the local issuing authority considerable discretion in deciding whether to issue a license, and has been interpreted to require an applicant for an unrestricted license to demonstrate “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community”. By favorably citing the Second Circuit’s opinion in Kachalsky, the Seventh Circuit in Moore indicated that it agreed that New York’s requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment.
* From the bill…
A sheriff or the [Chicago police superintendent] may submit a recommendation for approval of an application to the Department, if the applicant is an eligible individual under Section 20 who has sufficiently demonstrated, in the judgment of the sheriff or Superintendent, that:
(1) he or she has a particularized need for the license;
(2) he or she is a responsible person; and
(3) the issuance of a license is in the public’s interest.
“Particularized need” is defined in the proposal as meaning that the applicant is “exposed to unusual personal danger, distinct from other members of the community.”
Discuss.
68 Comments
|
Off the top of my head
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This seems like a good idea…
A suburban lawmaker’s plan to let 17-year-olds vote in primary elections if they will turn 18 before the November election won preliminary approval Monday.
State Rep. Carol Sente’s plan would apply only to elections in even-numbered years, not local elections like the one earlier this month.
She argues that if young voters are going to vote in a November election, they should get a say in who the candidates are in the primary. […]
Illinois wouldn’t be alone if the state allowed 17-year-olds to vote in primaries. Twenty other states already do, and a couple others are weighing the idea.
I don’t see how it could hurt and it appears to make sense.
* I don’t necessarily agree with this…
There ought to be a law against your property tax bill increasing when the value of your home decreases. […]
I wrote about House Bill 89 last year. It would have amended the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), commonly known as the “tax cap,” to freeze the amount that a taxing district can raise its annual tax levy if the collective value of homes in the district has decreased during the previous year.
“In Illinois, more than 28 percent of homes were underwater as of Jan. 1, yet taxing bodies act as though they are victims and continue to ask for more every year,” Franks said in a statement. “In fact, homeowners are being victimized by an unfair and outdated system, and it is driving people out of the state.”
Property taxes aren’t like sales taxes. When sales drop, those tax receipts also drop. But property taxes are supposed to be a more stable revenue source, so if your home value drops, that doesn’t mean local governments and schools need less money. It’s the only “elastic” tax in existence, I think. But people are definitely struggling and the property tax is not based on the ability to pay. So, I’m kinda torn.
* While many people hate double-dipping, the General Assembly is supposed to be a part-time citizens legislature, so it takes all kinds. But I can see both sides of this one…
House Bill 3250, the Public Service Act, would place limits on the number of elected offices a person can hold.
It states that an elected official may not hold more than one public office simultaneously and specifies that the limitation applies whether or not elected officials receive compensation for a public office. […]
The Illinois attorney general’s office has issued opinions about certain public offices having a conflict of interest with others. But those are very narrowly defined, and the problem comes up often. […]
It concerns me that legislators have also held the post of township supervisor in the Southland.
State Rep. Robert Rita (D-Blue Island) is supervisor of Calumet Township and state Rep. Al Riley (D-Olympia Fields) is supervisor of Rich Township.
Bridgeview Mayor Steven Landek is also a state senator. He replaced Lou Viverito in the Senate. Viverito is the longtime Stickney Township supervisor.
* The Illinois Policy Institute hates this bill, but a pause might be prudent while this concept is checked out a bit and regulations considered…
As local school boards rejected [last’] week a request from a proposed online charter school that would draw students from its schools, state lawmakers appear poised to slap a hold on the creation of virtual schools until regulations and guidelines to govern them can be crafted.
State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, introduced legislation Thursday to place a one-year moratorium on web-based virtual charter schools. […]
“This is the first time Illinois has ever seen anything like this,” Chapa LaVia said. “And I’m not willing to risk something that would be detrimental to our children and our schools.”
Chapa LaVia’s legislation has passed a state House committee, and is headed to the full chamber for a possible vote.
The legislation arose in response to a proposal from Illinois Virtual Learning Solutions to open the Illinois Virtual Charter School at Fox River Valley.
The online school was proposed to include students from 18 school districts in Kane, DeKalb, DuPage, Kendall, McHenry and Will counties, and would be funded by local district funds, estimated at up to $8,000 per student.
While the nonprofit Illinois Virtual Learning Solutions would govern the virtual school, it has said actual operations for the school would be handled by Virginia-based, for-profit company K12 Inc.
The virtual school concept is in place in other states, including Tennessee and Florida. But officials in those two states have raised questions over the virtual charter school operations, noting participating students’ low test scores, among other issues.
* Roundup…
* RTA claims companies running ’sham’ offices
* Proposal would keep 17-year-old felons in juvenile court
* House passes bill to ease juvenile court age limit
* Illinois House approves bill to keep more juveniles out of adult court
* Lawmakers Strengthen Child Pornography Prosecutions
* Illinois House approves fine for tossing cigarettes
* ComEd urges Quinn to sign bill to help smart meter project
* Does it matter if districts cover teacher pension contributions?
* Editorial: Tanning salons no place for teens
* Bahamas Foreign Affairs Minister remarks to Illinois House of Representatives: So against this background, we are looking at the possibility of appointing an Honorary Consul, with residence in Chicago, to assist with enhancing the bilateral relationship between our two peoples. We have asked a Chicagoan with Bahamian roots Michael Fountain if this is something he would consider and of course this is subject to your governmental approvals at the federal level. I seek your support in this. We think Mr. Fountain would do an excellent job.
42 Comments
|
Your unsolicited advice
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Politico…
Republican Governors Association communications director Mike Schrimpf is leaving Washington to work for a likely candidate for Illinois governor.
The hire is a boost for Chicago private equity executive Bruce Rauner, who created an exploratory committee last month. […]
Republicans now control 30 governorships and the RGA views Illinois as probably its best pick-up opportunity next year. […]
“Bruce is an incredibly impressive and successful businessman, who cuts a great profile – a results-oriented reformer – for a potential gubernatorial candidate in Illinois,” Schrimpf told POLITICO in an email. “Illinois is in desperate need of reform and I believe it will take someone from outside Springfield to get the job done.”
It could be a “boost,” but, then again, Rauner has nobody on his staff who truly understands Illinois politics. This ain’t some parachute-in state.
* Bio…
Schrimpf has served at RGA since 2008. He previously served as Communications Director for the Center for Competitive Politics. He got his start working in Hamilton County government in Cincinnati, OH.
Schrimpf is a 2005 graduate of Tufts University.
Any advice for Mr. Schrimpf?
53 Comments
|
Lite guv debate
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Daily Herald editorial…
Three years ago, when the job of lieutenant governor was vacant, 13 candidates ran for the post. Clearly, it must have important duties and some power attached to it, right?
Wrong. Its allure is in what it potentially can lead to — the governor’s office, just as it did for the current governor, Pat Quinn, after Rod Blagojevich was impeached.
Advertisement
And knowing who the successor will be in case a sitting governor can’t continue is an important issue. But line of succession doesn’t have to mean creating a governor-in-waiting position. That’s the message in what the Illinois House did last week and one that we support.
Rep. David McSweeney, a Barrington Hills Republican, sponsored a bill approved by the House that would eliminate the lieutenant governor position by 2019. It is estimated that the move will save the state about $1.8 million a year.
While that’s a small number compared with the entire state budget, it’s still significant in that it makes a statement that legislators are serious about cutting costs where they can. It’s a good first step in consolidating government and one that we hope leads to even more consolidation.
* I think Eric Zorn has an interessting idea on this matter. Don’t eliminate the office, just defund it…
Zero out the $1.8 million annual budget line for the state’s most conspicuous sinecure and render the position of governor-in-waiting wholly ceremonial. Like a beauty pageant runner up, the lieutenant governors will simply go about his or her life and remain ready to take over if, for any reason, there is a vacancy at the top.
Simply getting rid of the position isn’t a bad idea. The law spells out no formal duties for the so called “lite gov.” But if the state Senate and the voters go along with the constitutional-amendment route, the change won’t take effect until 2019.
And it will leave us with a potentially awkward line of succession in which the attorney general is next in line if the governor dies, becomes incapacitated or is impeached and removed from office.
If the attorney general were to be from a different party than the governor, the will of the voters about state leadership would be denied in the event of death or incapacitation. And impeachment proceedings would be infected by extra political considerations.
* Gov. Pat Quinn wants to keep the status quo…
“There are some issues that fall between the cracks, and somebody has to stand up for those issues,” he said, listing off an array of topics he addressed in the position including aid to families of military service members.
“I was lieutenant governor for six years, and I believe in that office, for sure,” he said.
Moreover, he cited his ability to take over immediately after Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment as a positive to having someone in the position.
“It’s good to have a backup quarterback,” he said.
However, the duties Quinn cited were mostly those that he chose for himself rather than those that are given to the lieutenant governor by constitution or statute.
* Finke…
The amendment is still a long way from getting on the ballot. The Senate must still approve the measure, and face it, when’s the last time something was on the ballot to eliminate a statewide office, despite numerous efforts? Try never.
This is not to say that Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon is doing a poor job. On the contrary, she is doing more with the office than many of her predecessors. But it’s hard to overcome the stigma of a job where, over the years, two people have quit to find more fulfilling work.
Discuss.
21 Comments
|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I think this was his first bill…
Drivers would be allowed to legally go 70 mph on tollways and interstates in Illinois under a plan from state Sen. Jim Oberweis that won preliminary approval Tuesday.
Oberweis, a Sugar Grove Republican, told a Senate committee that people already drive that fast, so a faster speed limit would be more realistic.
“In my opinion, it’s not good to have laws on the books that are widely ignored,” Oberweis said. […]
[IDOT’s interim director of the Division of Traffic Safety John Webber] said the agency thinks average drivers now go between 5 and 10 mph over the limit on average, and he thinks people will just speed even more if the limit is raised to 70 mph.
Jim Edgar used to say that the speed limit was really a minimum for most drivers. That’s why he opposed raising the limit above 65 back then. If we’d made it 70, he said, people would start driving 75-80, which he maintained was way too fast.
Also, I hope Sen. Oberweis remembers his comment about it not being good to have laws on the books that are “widely ignored” when medical marijuana comes up for a vote.
* The Question: Should Illinois increase its interstate highway and tollway speed limits to 70 mph? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
web survey
72 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
Fine lines
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I’m stealing Eric Zorn’s traditional headline because I’m also (again) posting one of his blog items. Zorn and I are both somewhere in the middle of the gun debate, and his piece is quite good. Some excerpts…
I also don’t understand how you can watch this video [of Logan Square store owner Luis Quizhpe], which became the subject of news stories worldwide, and argue that store owners such as Quizhpe are better off because of Chicago laws that prohibit store employees from carrying handguns. […]
I don’t understand why gun-rights advocates are so stubborn about mandatory background checks in most instances when firearms are sold or transferred. Yes, it can be a hassle. But it should be a hassle. We’re talking about passing around lethal weapons. It should always be harder to buy one than to buy a box of Sudafed. […]
I don’t understand why so many staunch gun-rights advocates are simultaneously paranoid about government power and vehement about the need to keep the U.S. military robustly funded. Swarthmore College political scientist Dominic Tierney labeled this paradox “the great gun gobbledygook ” in a recent essay at TheAtlantic.com and noted, “Conservatives say that a weaponized citizenry is a necessary shield against dictatorship. I’ll take the argument more seriously if conservatives stop arming this tyrant to the teeth.” […]
I don’t understand why gun-control advocates focus so much attention on “assault weapons” and limiting concealed-carry rights when by far the biggest problem we have with firearms comes from illegally obtained, unregistered handguns.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything in his piece, but I do agree with pretty much everything I’ve excerpted. And on his very last point, I couldn’t possibly agree more. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that liberal politicians just don’t know what to do about crime, so they fall back on time- and poll-tested “solutions” that won’t make a difference, but sound good to the masses.
His closing…
Finally, I don’t understand why an issue that’s so perfect for compromise — for people of good will to come together to craft ways to lower the rates of violence and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens — remains so intractable.
Discuss.
49 Comments
|
About that “555-page bill”
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Eriz Zorn’s unsolicited advice to Gov. Pat Quinn…
Gaming Board chairman Aaron Jaffe said in a contentious Senate Executive Committee hearing last week that among his many problems with the current 555-page bill is that it could and should be far shorter — 30 pages or less.
Is he correct? Prove it. Give us that bill. Get a friendly lawmaker to introduce it for you. Put this issue behind us.
As with any legislation, most of the bill simply restates existing statutory language. You have to get to page 60-something before you even find anything new.
And, as with most legislation, there’s repeated language. The ban on campaign contributions by the gaming industry is repeated, for instance.
So, I copied all the new language, except for the repeated stuff on the campaign contribution ban, and pasted it into a text file, counted the words and divided by 270 (which is, more or less, about how many words are on a bill page as far as I can tell) and came up with 98.6 pages. [ADDING: Those first 60-some pages create a new entity, so add that to the total, which comes to160-something]. That’s more than 30, but certainly not 555 pages, a “fact” which is used mainly as a rhetorical device to undermine the bill by people like Jaffe, Gov. Quinn and the Tribune editorial board..
Also, Quinn doesn’t have any friendly lawmakers. He’s the first governor in forever who has no floor leaders. Besides, Quinn definitely does not want to “own” this issue by introducing a bill. He clearly wants any gaming expansion to be blamed on the General Assembly, not him.
* Speaking of which, here is my weekly syndicated newspaper column…
I’ve always believed that just because somebody claims to be a reformer, it doesn’t mean the person has the right solutions.
Many years ago, an activist named Pat Quinn came up with an idea to change the Illinois Constitution. He used the petition process to get rid of a third of Illinois House members in one fell swoop. This, Quinn said, would save money and make legislators more responsive to their constituents.
In reality, all that did was allow a guy named Michael Madigan to more easily consolidate his power. And one way he consolidated that power was by spending lots more money. Quinn’s plan backfired.
But even though this sort of thing has happened over and over again here, the media tends to give reformers a pass, almost no matter what.
So I guess I shouldn’t have been too surprised when I read the major media’s news reports of last week’s Senate Executive Committee hearing. It wasn’t at all like the meeting I attended.
Admittedly, I arrived a little late and had to leave for a meeting before it was over, but from what I saw, Illinois Gaming Board Chairman Aaron Jaffe’s years-long criticism of the General Assembly’s gaming expansion bills was exposed as hollow and not entirely fact-based. He badly stumbled through his testimony, couldn’t directly answer questions and despite long-standing public criticisms, a notebook filled with thoughts and a history as a state legislator himself, Jaffe seemed woefully unprepared for the hearing.
For years, Chairman Jaffe has criticized various gaming expansion proposals, which has made him a media darling. He comes up with great quotes, once calling a gaming bill a “pile of garbage.”
But he’s never once said how the General Assembly ought to actually write the bills. Instead, he has relied on media-friendly criticisms of the way the legislature has gone about things.
It’s not like Jaffe is completely blameless here. The people drafting the gaming legislation clearly despise the man and never really attempted to work with him, or even listen to him.
But last week’s Senate meeting was designed to finally provide Jaffe with a public forum to offer up some concrete solutions. He didn’t have any.
Over and over, Senators in both parties pleaded with Jaffe to offer up some specifics for how to make the gaming bill more acceptable to him, and over and over Jaffe simply could not do so.
Instead, Jaffe stuck to generalities and catch phrases.
Jaffe said he hadn’t read the full bill, saying it was too long and claiming that a better bill might be just 25 pages long, without explaining how less language wouldn’t create gaping loopholes and without admitting that many of the pages in the 555-page bill are simply filled with current statutory language restated without any changes whatsoever. Jaffe declared that there were no ethical improvements in the recently revised legislation, even though the new bill would ban campaign contributions from gaming interests.
Jaffe even urged legislators to outright eliminate some state agencies because they were impeding his agency’s staff hiring - even though existing personnel regulations were inspired by decades of state corruption. He bitterly complained about the projects in the bill inserted to attract more votes, even though those projects have no direct bearing on the Gaming Board’s mission. He complained that the Chicago casino language wouldn’t allow the Board to determine whether the region was already too saturated with gaming, but then said he had no philosophical problem with a Chicago casino. His testimony was, in sum, an embarrassing mess by a man clearly past his prime, but the media covered for him, focusing mostly on a one-minute spat between Jaffe and the bill’s sponsor.
The only real progress came late in the hearing when Jaffe’s administrator Mark Ostrowski seemed to pull an idea out of thin air to delete the Chicago management agency’s language and give full responsibility for all operations to the private casino management company that the agency was supposed to choose. The manager, Ostrowski said, would be far easier to regulate than a municipal entity, which could fight bureaucratic battles through the courts. If the Senators were paying attention, they may have found a solution to finally get Jaffe off their backs.
* Related…
* Gaming board, lawmakers aim to overcome insults
* Erickson: Sides lining up on state gambling bill
15 Comments
|
Question of the day
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Subscribers know much more about this, but buried deep in Bernie’s Sunday column was a choice little nugget…
But [state Sen. Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon] still didn’t have a good idea where Rauner stands on social issues, which he said will be important in a primary to the GOP base. McCarter characterizes himself, for example, as being “as pro-life as you can get.”
The word later from Chip Englander, manager of Rauner’s exploratory effort: “Like (former Gov.) Jim Edgar and (U.S. Sen.) Mark Kirk, he is pro-choice.”
Earlier this month, Rauner dodged questions about whether he supported gay marriage by suggesting that Illinois hold a referendum, even though Illinois has no binding referenda provisions. Rauner described himself as a “social liberal” to Roll Call several years ago.
Whether related or not, Rauner’s campaign announced today that it had hired an official campaign spokesperson.
* The Question: Can Bruce Rauner win a Republican gubernatorial primary while being a “social liberal?” Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey hosting
Keep in mind when answering that Mark Kirk won a statewide primary just a few years ago even though he’s a pro-choice social liberal, but he didn’t have much by way of opposition. And Rauner is raising lots and lots of cash.
61 Comments
|
The great pizza scandal of 2011
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Belleville News-Democrat…
The former head of the Illinois Department of Transportation’s regional office in Collinsville violated ethics rules by soliciting pizzas for an office party from a contractor, according to a report by the state’s top investigator.
Inspector General Ricardo Meza’s investigation determined that Mary Lamie violated the gift ban in the state’s ethics rules and recommended that she be disciplined. Lamie now works in the private sector.
Lamie, who worked for IDOT until at least March 2011, declined comment Monday. While at IDOT, she served as the engineer for District 8, which covers Madison, St. Clair and nine other counties in the area, as well as District 9, which covers 16 counties in Southern Illinois.
According to the inspector general’s report, during an interview with investigators Lamie admitted that she instructed an underling to solicit pizzas from an IDOT consultant for an office party for District 9, based in Carbondale.
Obviously, she shouldn’t have been soliciting $50 in pizza from a contractor. No defense there. But this is what the IG is concentrating on?
* Actually, the IG also issued another report on former Congressman David Phelps…
Phelps, hired [at IDOT] in 2003 after he lost re-election, was excoriated in the report, which included his inability to explain to Meza’s investigators what his work day entailed other than meeting with “lots of people.” Despite his title, the IDOT secretary at the time, Quinn appointee Gary Hannig, said Phelps was not part of the management team.
“It appears that Mr. Phelps does little work,” the report said. “This coupled with the … investigative findings, seemingly indicates that the primary actions which Mr. Phelps undertakes in an official capacity are those that constitute misconduct and abuse of his position.”
The report said Phelps, who made $128,000, acknowledged he met with job candidates, particularly for a 2009 summer hiring program, including those who had supported him in congressional campaigns. According to the report, he told employees doing the hiring whom he favored for jobs because he wanted to help “good people.”
Phelps countered that contrary to being unable to discuss his job in detail, he described how tried to bring accountability to the position, represented IDOT on the Illinois Terrorism Task Force, represented IDOT at events aimed at traffic safety, and submitted work schedules that IDOT secretaries approved. He disputed the report’s description of his intervention with job candidates and noted allegations that he improperly intervened came from witnesses whose names are redacted and whose testimony he had no chance to rebut.
“I talked to a lot of people about jobs,” Phelps said. “I helped direct them to the right information they could have so they’d have a better chance, but it’s not because of who they were. As soon as they went out the door, there might be somebody else talking about the same job.”
24 Comments
|
Quinn still insisting on an immediate appeal
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Here we go again…
Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan both suggested Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to turn down an appeal of New York’s tough gun law could boost Illinois lawmakers’ attempts to set strict limits on who gets to carry concealed weapons.
But the Democratic governor also used Monday’s Supreme Court move to escalate his call for Madigan to appeal to the high court a federal ruling that gives Illinois a deadline of early June to put in place a concealed weapons law.
“It would be helpful to … the people and the public safety of Illinois if that case (would) be reversed,” Quinn said.
* More…
The governor’s focus on guns while speaking with reporters afterwards ramped up pressure on the attorney general to appeal December’s federal appeals court ruling mandating concealed carry in Illinois to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, Madigan hasn’t made her intentions known.
“I think the case was wrongly decided by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I would like to see that reversed, and the only way to do that is with an appeal,” Quinn said. “I hope the attorney general reconsiders that.”
Earlier, Madigan said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday not to overturn New York’s highly restrictive concealed-carry law would “obviously influence our continuing review of the situation here in Illinois.” But she wouldn’t divulge whether she intends to appeal the federal appeals ruling mandating state lawmakers to craft a concealed-carry law in Illinois by early June.
* We’ve been over this before. The governor is clearly just trying to score some political points here. Madigan explains…
Madigan noted that even if she had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court the same day her request was denied [by the appellate court for en banc] in February, the case wouldn’t have been heard until later this year.
“(Whether I appeal or not) doesn’t have an impact … on the 180-day clock,” she said.
Because of this, she said she’s waiting to see a final bill before making a decision.
In other words, deciding to appeal now won’t speed up US Supreme Court review by a minute. And appealing before the General Assembly has a chance to work out a deal on concealed carry means her work could be mooted if a bill passes. Quinn knows this. But, hey, he’s mostly getting the media spin, so whatever. And I’ll bet it polls well.
* Raw audio of Gov. Quinn’s remarks to the media yesterday…
* Raw audio of Attorney General Madigan’s remarks to the media yesterday…
* Related…
* Lisa Madigan stays tight-lipped about a possible 2014 challenge to Quinn
* Quinn, Madigan talk housing, not politics
* Quinn and Madigan differ on guns, housing
* Madigan campaign funds are triple Quinn’s
* The money race for governor is already on
11 Comments
|
Ives doubles down
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Back in January, the Chicago Tribune editorial page absolutely blasted state Rep. Tom Morrison for his pension reform vote…
Timid lawmakers reached hither and yon to find reasons for not supporting reform legislation: This proposal is too strong, that proposal is too weak, and so on — whatever it took to avoid decisive action.
Among the most maladroit: state Rep. Tom Morrison, a conservative Republican from Palatine, who ran for office on a platform of … pension reform. We endorsed Morrison wholeheartedly — and then he voted Monday in committee against the only serious, cost-cutting pension reform measure that had any momentum. He evidently thought it didn’t go far enough. In other words, pension reform champion Morrison had found his reason to oppose pension reform!
* Over the weekend, the Tribune considerably softened its rhetoric, but still urged Morrison and his sole co-sponsor, Rep. Jeanne Ives, to not make the perfect the enemy of the good…
In the House, divisions appeared in the Republican caucus. State Reps. Tom Morrison, R-Palatine, and Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, introduced a pension bill that would shift government workers into 401(k)-style plans and freeze the state’s defined benefit program going forward.
It’s a laudable idea advanced by the Illinois Policy Institute, a right-leaning think tank. The sponsors say it would cut almost in half the state’s $96.8 billion unfunded liability in the next fiscal year and save roughly $2 billion in spending.
But the two sponsors are waiting for … a third sponsor. They have garnered scant support, and they have created the risk that lawmakers will use this bill as an excuse to peel off of the consensus slowly building for the package proposed by Biss, Rep. Elaine Nekritz, D-Northbrook, and House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego.
Remember your Voltaire: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
* Rep. Ives responded…
I greatly appreciate that the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board, in their article, “On the Road to Nowhere,” recognized the merit of HB 3303, the pension reform plan put forth by Rep. Tom Morrison and me.
As one of the major daily newspapers in the state, your advocacy and influence is powerful. For that reason, I respectfully request that you, reconsidered your position on state pension reform from “Get Something (Anything) Done” to “Get the Right Thing Done – Create Real Reform in Illinois.”
If it is “the perfect” vs. “the good” then why advocate for the lesser, simply because it is more popular or has bigger names signed to it? Do not abandon your challenge to fix the pension system for the good of those in the system and tax-payers.
Advocate for the plan that remove us, as a citizenry, from the system that has played heavily into creating the economic tragedy in which we currently find ourselves.
As Military Historian, John Keegan states, “Soldiers, when committed to a task, can’t compromise. It’s unrelenting devotion to the standards of duty and courage, absolute loyalty to others, not letting the task go until it’s been done.”
Oy.
Rep. Ives is a freshman who obviously isn’t here to learn. She’s here to teach.
If she was here to learn, she’d already know the serious fiscal consequences of moving to a 401(k) system. No more employee pension contributions into a gigantic legacy system which still somehow has to be dealt with, and new state Social Security employer payments. [ADDING: As a commenter points out, Ives’ bill would not necessarily require SS payments.]
If she was here to learn, she’d already know the necessity of compromise in a legislative environment. Nobody ever gets everything they want, so eventually people have to work together to do what can be done to fix as many problems as possible.
Tea partiers like Rep. Ives like to talk a lot about strict adherence to the US Constitution. Well, there’s also an Illinois Constitution and Rep. Ives is sworn to uphold it. I don’t know of anybody who has ever come up with any sort of argument that switching everybody into a 401(k) program is in any way or form constitutional. [ADDING: OK, Sidley and Austin does, but this is still an outlier position.]
Also, you’re not a soldier, Rep. Ives. You’re a legislator. Big difference. To compare yourself to a soldier is not only silly, but also insulting to actual soldiers, many of whom put their very lives on the line every day in service to our country and our Constitution.
* Related…
* Chicago tax day Tea Party rally garners a smaller-than-expected crowd of a few hundred
55 Comments
|
* Here we go again…
In the latest effort to pull businesses from other states, Rick Perry is taking aim at yet another Democratic state – Illinois.
In a modest advertising buy, Perry and the TexasOne, a group sponsored by corporations and chambers of commerce, are running an incendiary message.
The print ad in a Chicago business journal urges Illinois businesses to “get out while there’s still time,” likening their state to a “burning building on the verge of collapse.”
It ad says the state has unintentionally created an “environment designed for you to fail,” and then goes on to list Texas’ business-friendly attributes, including the lack of a state income tax, lower worker compensation taxes and a bigger workforce.
The Illinois Review has helpfully chimed in by posting a chart that purports to show the superiority of Texas to Illinois…
* I asked Gov. Pat Quinn’s office for a response to Gov. Perry. Here it is…
We’ve seen this rodeo before. And if previous, similar efforts by other Republican governors are any indication – these publicity stunts don’t work and they don’t change the fact that businesses are choosing Illinois all the time. In fact, [today], we will announce a global corporation is choosing Illinois for its North American headquarters, in part due to Governor Quinn’s Clean Water Initiative and work to make our state a global hub for water technology.
With our strong transportation network, diverse economy, vibrant manufacturing base and skilled workforce, Illinois is one of the best places to do business in the world. And when all state and local taxes are considered, Illinois has the fifth-lowest effective tax rate in the country, at 4.6%, according to a 2011 study by Ernst & Young LLP.
Under Gov. Quinn’s leadership, the state has become friendlier to employers. He’s done more than any other governor to restore fiscal stability after decades of mismanagement and give businesses the certainty they need to invest. His actions have included reducing the state’s discretionary spending to historic lows and cutting red tape for environmental permits. Gov. Quinn successfully overhauled the worker’s compensation system to save businesses billions of dollars and reduce insurance rates for Illinois companies by nine percent. And he has made international trade and foreign direct investment efforts a priority, taking several trade missions to help Illinois companies access more global markets and recruit international businesses to our state. Not to mention – Illinois is investing in its transportation system like no other state, with $44 billion in capital construction efforts well underway.
There is no doubt that when lawmakers pass pension reform and send a bill to the governor, Illinois’ economy and business climate will be further strengthened. That’s why we continue to focus on the hard but necessary reforms to restore fiscal stability to Illinois.
In addition - Spending taxpayer dollars on ads in hopes of poaching companies from Illinois isn’t an economic development strategy. (As the New York Times pointed out in its December 2012 article on Texas’ incentive practices, despite handing out more business incentives than any other state, Texas has the third-highest proportion of hourly jobs paying at or below minimum wage. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/winners-and-losers-in-texas.html?_r=0 )
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** The governor’s office has an addendum…
Aside from the fact that there is little to no evidence to show that these publicity stunts produce any results, here are the facts:
Illinois also has a more educated workforce and a more economically stable population.
· Percent of population that graduated high school: Illinois - 86.6%; Texas - 80.4%.
· Percent of population with bachelor’s degree or higher: Illinois -30.7%; Texas-26.1%
· Percent of population living below poverty level: Illinois-13.1%; Texas 17%
53 Comments
|
Today’s quote
Tuesday, Apr 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Patton Oswalt on the Boston Marathon bombings…
I don’t know what’s going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths. But here’s what I DO know. If it’s one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out. […]
This is a giant planet and we’re lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they’re pointed towards darkness.
But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We’d have eaten ourselves alive long ago,
….Adding… Continual live updates are here.
13 Comments
|
* From a press release…
At a news conference Tuesday, April 16, a group of doctors will announce the support of nearly 250 Illinois physicians for allowing patients with serious illnesses to obtain and use medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it. Specifically, the physicians have signed on to the following statement:
“Licensed medical practitioners should not be punished for recommending the medical use of marijuana to seriously ill people, and seriously ill people should not be subject to criminal sanctions for using marijuana if their medical professionals have told them that such use is likely to be beneficial.”
The Illinois House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on House Bill 1, which would make Illinois the 19th state to allow patients with certain conditions, such as cancer and multiple sclerosis, to use medical marijuana with recommendations from their physicians. It would also establish a network of state-regulated cultivation centers and dispensaries to provide marijuana to qualified patients.
“It should be up to physicians, not police and prosecutors, to decide whether medical marijuana is the right treatment for their patients,” said Dan Riffle, Deputy Director of Government Affairs with the Marijuana Policy Project. “Those who benefit from medical marijuana should be able to obtain it legally and safely. Our laws should promote the doctor-patient relationship, not the dealer-patient relationship.”
You can read the entire list of doctors by clicking here.
See anybody you know?
* Roundup of positive newspaper editorials from yesterday and today…
* Tribune: Medical pot for Illinois patients
* Rockford Register Star: Time to say yes to medical marijuana in Illinois
* Dispatch-Argus: Medical marijuana; why yes?
23 Comments
|
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Beneath Chicago’s streets lie gas mains that were put in place, in some cases, when horses and buggies were driving overhead. Since 1981, Peoples Gas has been replacing these outdated mains. So far, the utility has replaced about half of its 4,000 miles of old cast-iron and ductile mains with updated pipe.
While natural gas supplies are abundant and wholesale costs are low, we need to focus on investing in our natural gas distribution system by modernizing this aging gas infrastructure. In 2010 Peoples Gas developed a plan to accelerate the pace at which they upgrade their natural gas distribution network. Doing the work at a faster clip would save Illinoisans money in the long run. Why? Aging low-pressure mains require a higher level of risk management: more safety inspections, more leak repairs and more service outages. New polyethylene and steel pipes will reduce these risks, offer more reliable service, create new efficiencies in system operations and maintenance, and support modern, energy-efficient appliances that cannot operate on the low-pressure mains.
But the current regulatory framework discourages investment, as rate cases and appeals can take years and their outcomes are uncertain. The Natural Gas Modernization, Public Safety and Jobs Bill (SB 1665/HB 2414) will bring Illinois’ regulatory framework into the 21st century and will enable Peoples Gas to upgrade its natural gas infrastructure.
Members of the Illinois legislature: Vote YES on SB 1665/HB 2414. Click here to learn more: www.peoplesgasdelivery.com/legislation
Comments Off
|
* From the unanimous 2004 Illinois Supreme court opinion Jorgensen v. Blagojevich…
In reaching this result, we acknowledge that substantial budgetary challenges currently confront the Governor and the General Assembly. The adverse economic conditions facing so many of our fellow citizens have taken an inevitable toll on the state’s treasury. Revenues are not keeping pace. Despite ongoing efforts by the Governor and legislature, shortfalls persist. […]
One thing we cannot do, however, is ignore the Constitution of Illinois. […]
No principle of law permits us to suspend constitutional requirements for economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons may seem.
The Court would have to completely reverse that reasoning to come to the conclusion that Illinois’ finances are so bad right now that the Constitution’s plain language on pensions must be ignored.
Stranger things have happened, but the Court reasoned itself into an extremely tight corner with that opinion.
* And this is from Senate Democratic chief legal counsel Eric Madiar’s analysis of the Constitutional Convention floor debate…
Delegate Kinney stated that the word “enforceable” was “meant to provide that the rights established shall be subject to judicial proceedings and can be enforced through court action.”
The word “impaired,” she stated, was “meant to imply and to intend that if a pension fund would be on the verge of default or imminent bankruptcy, a group action could be taken to show that these rights should be preserved.”
Prescient, eh?
79 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
Boston Marathon explosions
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* If you’re following the news you know that two explosions occurred at the Boston Marathon finish line. Here’s a quick ScribbleLive feed to help us all keep up.
Try to avoid repeating rumors in comments, please, but help us keep up if you can. Blackberry users click here…
46 Comments
|
Money, or lack thereof
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From a press release…
1025 contributors donate to Rutherford Campaign First Quarter 2013
State Treasurer Dan Rutherford continued his strong momentum in the first quarter of 2013 by raising over $300,000 for a likely gubernatorial bid. The election finance report was filed with the State Board of Elections and shows he has no debt and cash on hand is at three quarters of a million dollars.
Most impressive is that during the three month span there were 1025 individual contributors donating to the cause. Contributions varied from $10 to $10,000. Over the span of Rutherford’s political career 25,000 contributors have donated to his effort.
That’s a nice pile of contributors, but not a truly gigantic amount of money. Rutherford has $740K in the bank.
* Then again, by contrast, state Sen. Bill Brady had about $280K at the start of the year in two separate funds. But his statewide fund reported raising no money at all this quarter, while his Senate fund brought in just $2,810.
Um, dude. If you’re gonna run for governor, you might wanna start cranking things up a bit.
* State Sen. Kirk Dillard hasn’t yet filed a quarterly report, but he reported starting the year with just $22K in the bank (two different funds) and has reported raising $105K in large contributions since then.
* Meanwhile, surprise here…
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) rounded out the first quarter of the year with $3.23 million in his campaign fund, placing him in a strong position for a reelection run. […]
Durbin, 68, raised more than $736,00 in the first quarter of 2013.
* Also from a press release…
Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth will report raising $351,285 for the first quarter of the 2014 election cycle. Duckworth once again displayed her grassroots support by receiving contributions from more than 1,500 individuals. The $351,285 raised is near the top of funds raised by House Freshman in the first quarter.
* And a GOP state Rep. responds to Bruce Rauner’s “right to work” ideas…
State Rep. WAYNE ROSENTHAL, R-Morrisonville, like McCarter, has not yet decided on a favorite candidate for governor in 2014. He said he does consider Rauner a serious candidate, and said the right-to-work issue was mentioned at the meeting.
“But I look at it as a non-issue in Illinois,” Rosenthal said. “It’s just not going to happen. So why think about it? … It’s kind of like the people that want (downstate) to secede from Chicago. That’s not going to happen either.”
Rosenthal did call Rauner “personable” and “a very impressive guy.” But the lawmaker also said, “I think he hasn’t been involved in the political process. There’s obstacles there that you need to be aware of. … You don’t worry about the things that you can’t do anything about,” like the right-to-work issue.
* Related…
* Teachers’ union to ramp up political work: CTU says it will register 100,000 more voters, recruit candidates for alderman and mayor.
* NRCC Chair among big names courting IL state Rep. Darlene Senger for Congressional challenge to Foster
* Robin Kelly hopes to change legacy of 2nd District seat
* Congressman Schock on Huckabee Show
1 Comment
|
Question of the day
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
“We will win the World Series,” Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts said Monday at a news conference at Wrigley Field to outline the team’s plans for renovations to the 99-year-old ballpark.
He said the “financial impact” of the development plan “will help us do that.”
* The Question: In what year will the Chicago Cubs win the World Series? Explain.
42 Comments
|
*** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Gov. Pat Quinn are both speaking at the Illinois Housing Leaders Conference. BlueRoomStream has the live/archived video. Click here.
* On to the ScribbleLive-enabled coverage. Blackberry users click here…
1 Comment
|
Looks kinda thorough to me
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Earlier this month we looked at Professor Laurie Reynolds’ thesis about how the Illinois Supreme Court might rule that the Nekrtiz/Cross pension reform was constitutional, even though it appeared to defy the state Constitution’s prohibition against diminishing or impairing benefits. The Tribune editorial page approvingly quoted from her analysis over the weekend and concluded…
The overriding truth here is that all legal speculation is just that. If merely reading statutes, case law and constitutions could settle disputes, we wouldn’t need judges to think more broadly about what’s just. In this dispute, the Illinois Supreme Court could decide that, yes, pensioners are losing some future benefits, but are receiving two gains of great value in return: much healthier pension funds, and a fiscally stable state better able to fund their still-generous benefits.
I don’t disagree that it’s possible the Illinois Supremes could rule this way. With a court, almost anything is possible.
* But there was also this…
As for the 1970 convention: “I have looked at the convention history surrounding the adoption of the pension clause, and it is remarkably scant,” [Professor Reynolds] says. “There was very little delegate discussion of this clause, and I’m not sure how helpful the constitutional history will be to the court’s analysis.”
* I dunno about that. If you click here you can see some pretty extensive Con-Con floor debate, much of it foreshadowing today’s debate.
* Also, according to the analysis prepared by the Senate Democrats’ Eric Madiar, there were at least two attempts to water down the pension language’s impact. Both were rebuffed. The first would’ve tacked some language onto the front of the pension clause itself. The proposed additional language is italicized…
Subject to the authority of the General Assembly to enact reasonable modifications in employee rates of contribution, minimum service requirements and other provisions pertaining to the fiscal soundness of the retirement systems, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or any local government, or any agency or instrumentality of either, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired
The second attempt would’ve provided some “intent” language read into the record…
The statement provided, in pertinent part, that while the proposed Pension Clause “is taken from the Constitution of New York,” “it should not be interpreted as embodying a Convention intent that it withdraws from the legislature the authority to make reasonable adjustments or modifications in respect to employee and employer rates of contribution, qualifying service and benefit conditions, and other changes designed to assure the financial stability of pension and retirement funds.”
That move was also rejected, leading Madiar to conclude…
The contemporaneous nature of the Commission’s overtures and their rejection by Convention delegates show that the drafters (1) were cognizant of the Clause’s broad limitation on legislative power and (2) intended to immunize pension benefit rights (e.g., employee benefits payments, conditions or contribution rates) from any adverse, unilateral action by General Assembly.
* Voters, of course, had to approve the new Constitution. Madiar looked at the official explanation provided to Illinoisans…
The Convention stated in its official text and explanation of the proposed Constitution that under the Pension Clause “provisions of state and local governmental pension and retirement systems shall not have their benefits reduced.” And, “membership in such systems shall be a valid contractual relationship.”
The Convention’s official explanation also stated that the Clause was a new section “and self-explanatory.” The Convention’s official text and explanation was mailed to each registered voter in Illinois and published in newspapers throughout the State prior to the special referendum election held in December 1970 to approve the proposed Constitution
59 Comments
|
* 10:25 am - The US Supreme Court has decided not to hear arguments of an appellate decision upholding New York’s restrictive concealed carry law. From the SCOTUS Blog…
The denial of review in Kachalsky, et al., v. Cacace, et al. (docket 12-845) was the latest in a series of denials of attempts to get the Justices to explore the reach of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing a Second Amendment right to have a gun for personal self-defense. That decision, though, was limited to a right to have a gun ready to shoot inside one’s own home.
In the Heller decision, the Court emphasized that the personal right it was recognizing for the first time was not an “absolute” right, and that gun ownership could be subjected to “reasonable” regulations. It provided some examples, such as having a gun in a sensitive public place, but that list was not intended to be complete. That has left it to Congress and to state legislatures to decide whether they want to impose new forms of gun control. […]
There is now such a clear split among federal appeals courts on whether constitutional gun rights extend beyond the home, and yet that was not sufficient to draw the Court back into the center of the controversy in the new case from New York. The new case sought to test the constitutionality of limiting a citizen’s right to a license to carry a concealed gun in public to those who can show they have a “proper cause” for their belief that they need a gun for self-defense away from home.
Essentially, the Court’s decision allows New York’s quite restrictive concealed carry laws to stand as-is. That could strengthen the hands of gun control advocates here, who have bitterly disputed the Chicago federal appellate court ruling that Illinois’ blanket prohibition on concealed carry was unconstitutional. At minimum, gun control groups say, any new state law ought to be pretty darned restrictive. Gun rights advocates had hoped that the Supremes would take the NY case and toss out that state’s law.
I’m assuming the pressure will also increase on Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the appellate court’s ruling that gives Illinois until June 9th to revamp state law.
*** UPDATE *** Washington Times…
Alan Gura, counsel for the [New York] plaintiffs — five residents who had applied for a “full-carry license” — disagreed.
“The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be to declare a right ‘fundamental’ while standing aside as lower courts render it worthless,” Mr. Gura wrote in a reply brief on March 26. “Few outcomes could promote as much cynicism about our legal system.”
The other way of looking at this is that the US Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided that concealed carry truly is a “fundamental right.”
So far, no response from ISRA.
73 Comments
|
Today’s number: $86.3 million
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the SJ-R…
As taxpayers rush to send in their 1040s Monday, folks sending a check to the Illinois Department of Revenue may be wondering what happens to all that cash.
The answer for at least $86.3 million last year is that it gets “flushed away,” according to state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka.
The line of unpaid vendors is much longer and the bill is much higher than that comparatively small amount — the total for outstanding bills stood at nearly $5.9 billion as of Friday afternoon — but those tens of millions of dollars last year went to cover interest owed on those late payments.
If the state can’t pay its bills on time — after 90 days — private vendors become eligible for interest on the overdue amount. That accrues month after month until the bill gets paid.
Many of those overdue bills are in the Medicaid program, which means the state isn’t getting timely federal reimbursement, which just compounds the problems.
24 Comments
|
Keep your fingers crossed
Monday, Apr 15, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From NBC 5…
Gov. Pat Quinn admitted he’s a procrastinator when it comes to taxes.
The Governor said there’s nothing wrong with waiting until the last minute to file tax returns. In fact, Quinn said he’s filing them close to the deadline himself. […]
“You can file early on and if people want to do that I commend them, but those of us who often do our term papers at the last minute often times do our taxes at the last minute,” he said. “But as long as you get in on the deadline you’re OK and that’s what I plan to do.”
As you may remember, the governor did his own returns last year, filing them on April 16th, which was a Monday that year. As we eventually discovered, he goofed up his taxes a bit…
The federal tax he reported paying was actually $1,607.48 less than the tax he reported owing. But he looks like he reversed the numbers. Instead of subtracting what he owed from what he paid, which would have given him a negative result, he subtracted what he paid from what he owed, and then asked for a $1,607.48 refund when he actually appears to owe that amount.
So, filing at the last minute does have its downsides.
Have you filed yet?
35 Comments
|
[This story was originally posted Saturday, but has now been updated and bumped up for conversational purposes.]
* Opponents of Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady were not able to muster the votes to oust him today. Indeed, no votes were even taken on an ouster, which was a serious defeat to his most outspoken opponents.
However, the central committee did set up a process to find a replacement. So, it appears as though the “surrender with honor” idea by top Republicans has worked. Brady can announce a resignation “of his own accord” and without a sword over his head. The opponents “win” because Brady will step down, but there will not be a hardline conservative appointed in his place. Expect either Sen. Matt Murphy or somebody like him.
* The Illinois Review summed up a few tweets from the meeting…
# Meeting went to Executive Session without period for public comment
# Crowd got rowdy and began to chant outside Executive Session
# Oberweis went out to crowd to calm them. Offered ice cream.
# Tinley Park police called because of noise complaint
# Reports of “hundreds” outside GOP State Rep. Ed Sullivan’s office - protesting his intention to vote for marriage redefinition
* Um, here’s a photo of what IR called “hundreds” of people outside Rep. Sullivan’s office…
Doesn’t look like “hundreds” to me. More like a few dozen or so.
* Also, click here for tweets from the hashtag #ilgop for your entertainment purposes.
*** UPDATE *** Coverage roundup…
* Tribune: Brady still chairman, but state GOP panel preps for his succession
NBC5: Brady Ouster Fails, Support for Gay Marriage Continues
* Daily Herald: Republicans keep Brady as party chair at Tinley Park meeting
* AP: Brady to remain Illinois Republican Chairman
* IL Review: Illinois Republican State Central Committee retains Brady as party chairman
* IL Review: Videos of ILGOP meeting begin to emerge
* IL Review: Another video from ILGOP meeting
* William Kelly: Kelly Calls on Pat Brady to Apologize for “Treating Republicans Like Animals”
35 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
Not giving up
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I told subscribers about this today. You’ll have to subscribe to get all the deets, however. There’s quite a lot left out of this report…
A suburban state senator isn’t backing down from efforts to oust the beleaguered Illinois GOP chair, who supports gay marriage, at Saturday’s state central committee meeting in Tinley Park.
Dairy magnate Jim Oberweis, of Sugar Grove, told the Daily Herald Friday that he believes the state central committee will soon begin interviewing potential candidates to replace GOP Chair Pat Brady of St. Charles, though he did not indicate whether there were enough votes to force the chairman’s ouster in the coming weeks. […]
Oberweis reacted strongly on Friday against speculation that an agreement crafted by Brady supporters could be reached and that Brady might exit gracefully and be replaced by state Sen. Matt Murphy, of Palatine.
“It’s going to be determined by the state central committee and not by anybody who thinks suddenly they’ve got a great idea,” Oberweis said.
I talked to Oberweis yesterday and again today. He wants you to know, in no uncertain terms, that he’s not opposed to Republicans supporting gay marriage. He says he just adamantly believes that the state GOP chairman should adhere publicly to the party platform.
* I was also able to confirm yesterday that it was indeed Sen. Oberweis who recently commented on my blog…
Jim Oberweis - Thursday, Apr 4, 13 @ 10:17 pm:
I have tried to make this clear to every reporter I have spoken to: I believe it is OK for any Republican, including elected officials, to have some differences with the party platform. However, if you are the “CEO” of the state party, it is not OK to lobby against the state party platform. If the State Party Chairman feels so strongly in opposition to the party platform, then he/she should resign from the position as chairman since it will be very difficult for him/her to then lead a unified party. I’m not happy that Mark Kirk or Jason Barickman took a position that differs from our party but that does not mean that they are not good Republicans.
* Oberweis also told me that his political director was upset because I had deleted one of his comments here. I said I didn’t remember deleting the comment, but I delete a lot of them and that maybe it was just held up by my automatic moderation system. So, I went back and looked today and found it. It had, indeed, been held and I didn’t notice, probably because it was posted in the evening and I was out and about by then. Anyway, here it is…
Ben Marcum - Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 8:44 pm: |Edit
Rich,
I must take issue with your characterization of Jim Oberweis backtracking or recalibrating his message on the Pat Brady issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the story about Pat Brady lobbying legislators first broke, Jim’s message has been the same. From day one Senator Oberweis has stated in nearly every interview that this indeed, has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Instead, it is and always has been an issue of corporate governance. You’ve been around long enough to know that most of these reporters have the story written before they even speak with him. I am fully aware of the narrative that Jim is some sort of ultra right wing bigot who hates illegal immigrants and gays. I’ve worked closely with the man for a decade and I assure you it is total myth. I fail to see a link of recalibration or retooling drawn from the Kane County Chronicle quote. Jim has always told reporters that if it had been another issue contrary to the Republican platform his response would have been the same. It could have been Pat Brady supporting Obamacare or Quinn’s tax increase. You later go on to say, “A month after saying it was all about gay marriage, Oberweis told Chicago Public Radio “It has nothing to do with gay marriage.” The Chicago Public Radio quote is COMPLETELY consistent with what he has said from the beginning. I’ve heard him give the interviews. It just is not the case!! With the current legislature being the most liberal in my lifetime, I don’t see how Jim is losing the argument when Madigan still can’t find the votes to pass it. It appears to me like Jim is winning the argument.
Respectfully,
Ben Marcum
Political Director
Friends of Jim Oberweis
19 Comments
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Broken Illinois
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Oy…
The Illinois Department of Human Services is struggling to provide services as some workers face caseloads of more than a thousand people.
Michelle Saddler, the agency’s director, said that the department is understaffed. “Many of you have probably heard DHS is behind or DHS has a backlog,” she told a House human services budget committee today. “We at DHS overall need more realistic staffing.” The department is asking for $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2014, the same amount proposed under Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget. DHS is expected to spend more than $3.2 billion this fiscal year. The department was cut by almost $150 million under the current fiscal year’s budget.
Linda Saterfield, director of the division of family and community services at DHS, said some of her caseworkers have caseloads as big as 2,600. “If you calculate that out, that leaves that worker less than 45 minutes over the course of a year to serve that family.” The average caseload in the division, which administers such core safety net programs as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, averages more than 900 cases per worker. That compares with the year 2000, when the average was just under 250 cases per worker. Saterfield said that one in four residents are served through one of the division’s programs. “Our caseload has grown dramatically, but our staffing levels have reduced so much that we are unable to adequately meet the needs for services,” she said.
Kevin Casey, director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities at DHS, said there are about 11,000 people with developmental disabilities waiting for services in Illinois. He said the wait time can be up to four years. “It really is a struggle to understand how they get from one day to another at times,” Casey told the committee. He said the department does have a plan to reduce the number of people on the wait list over the next few years. Casey told committee members that he would later calculate what it would cost to address the wait list immediately. “It’s a choker of a number. It would take a good deal of money to serve everyone on that waiting list.”
Theodora Binion, acting director of the Division of Mental Health at DHS, said that more than 80 percent of people in need of mental health services are not receiving them. “Eighty percent of the people who need mental health services aren’t getting them? Something fundamentally is wrong with that system,” said Rep. David Leitch, who serves on the committee. Leitch said that he thinks lawmakers should prioritize mental health funding over other requests the department might have. “To overlook this, to me, is quite a crisis. I think we should as a committee take a very hard look [at it] before we add a lot of new employees at DHS and do some of the other things.” Binion said steps are being taken to serve more people through managed care programs. “I think that there are plans afoot to increase the capacity.”
* Oy…
Social service advocates say agencies providing in-home care for seniors could be at risk if additional state money is not set aside to pay them.
The Illinois Department of Aging notified service providers in a letter March 7 that it would soon run out of money to fund the Community Care Program for the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30. Providers say that $173 million is needed to properly fund service through the end of Fiscal Year 2013. Kimberly Parker, the Department of Aging’s spokeswoman, said in an email it was “common knowledge” the legislature did not give the agency enough money to continue to pay providers through the entire fiscal year and that administrators are hopeful additional money could be found. She said that so far, providers have continued to administer services, but without more funding, payment would likely be delayed until the start of next fiscal year.
The program serves mainly lower-income seniors who apply for assistance through the state for home-based long-term care assistance, with everyday needs ranging from preparing meals and running errands to dressing and bathing, according to the agency’s website. The program helps to care for an estimated 80,000 senior citizens in the state. Aside from at-home providers, it also helps to pay for background checks for at-home caregivers, adult day centers that watch elderly clients during the day and a program designed to preventing elderly spouses from being burdened by their spouses in-home care and falling into poverty. To qualify, Illinois residents must be at least 60 years old, the state must determine that they need long-term care and they must have less than $17,500 in assets aside from their home, car and furniture.
* Meanwhile, the mother of a Murray Developmental Center resident confronted the governor this week, and WUIS’ Amanda Vinicky jumped in…
WINKELER: “It is not safe, one size does not fit all…”
QUINN: “Well I understand that.”
Winkeler’s son, Mark, is 28-years-old…
WINKELER: “He functions like a nine-month old, has an IQ of twelve, needs total round the clock care, diaper changing, feeding, clothing.”
Like the kind care she says he gets at Murray.
Winkler says Quinn might realize that if he ever saw it firsthand.
VINICKY: “Governor, actually have you visited Murray Center, or Jacksonville Developmental Center?”
QUINN: “I made a decision based on what I think was right for the people of Illinois, it’s not an easy decision but a necessary one.”
VINICKY: “But did you visit either of them ever?”
QUINN: “No. I have not. I’ve seen plenty of information about it.”
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
The one-size-fits-all approach is exactly what we are moving away from. Before Governor Quinn took office, Illinois institutionalized more people than any other state. Now we are rebalancing the way the state provides services for people with developmental disabilities and mental health challenges, increasing community care so that families have more choices and people have a higher quality of life.
Whether it be an institution (once Murray is closed, there will be six institutions left Illinois); community care (which is proven to provide a higher quality of life, which is why we have increased community care and are building more capacity every day); or private intermediate care facilities (of which there are 298 across Illinois) — this is the opposite of a one-size-fits-all approach.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Related…
* The state of mental health funding in Illinois is ill.
* Illinois lawmakers eye $2.5 bln bond deal to pay bills
* Harris: “We’re not solving the problem” by borrowing $2B to pay old Medicaid bills
* Illinois looks to borrow $2 billion
* House votes to end access to state pension system for part-time board members
25 Comments
|
Question of the day
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A Facebook photo taken during Gov. Pat Quinn’s recent trade mission to Mexico…
* The Question: Caption?
I am fully aware how difficult it will be to keep it clean, but you must keep it clean. And write your posts in English as well. I don’t wanna be using Google Translate all darned day to make sure you’re following directions.
Again, keep it clean.
89 Comments
|
About that polygamy argument
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I didn’t get into this part of Rep. Tom Morrison’s argument today against gay marriage…
If one male and one female is discriminatory, then isn’t limitation of marriage to just two people discriminatory, too? There are men who would like to marry two or more consenting females. Would you define their relationship as marriage, too?
The post was way too long as it was, so I just skipped over that. But some folks are debating it in comments, including the usual social conservative stance that polygamy must be approved if gay marriage is allowed. The commenter “47th Ward” wrote a highly cogent counter-argument…
Plural marriages would require a complete rewrite of the tax code to determine how and who can file as married filing jointly. Divorce laws would need to be amended, including custody and property rights. What if I want to divorce one of my wives, but my other wives don’t want to divorce the other?
The civil, legal understanding of marriage is a two-party, mutually agreed contract. To argue for polygamy you are truly trying to redefine marriage.
Providing for same sex civil marriage brings none of the extra legal issues to the table. The polygamy argument is ignorant and tiresome.
Discuss. And, please, try to be intellectually honest with the rest of us. Arguing in favor of something you actually oppose in order to score some cheap points in a different argument is not cool or welcome.
40 Comments
|
Leading with his chin - Brady’s secret letter
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The News-Gazette interviewed possible Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner…
Rauner also said he was prepared to use the power of the governorship to take on “special interests.”
“We are a state that has been taken over completely by special-interest groups that make their money from government. Unfortunately for us, they’ve taken over a big chunk of the Republican Party too,” he said. “We don’t like to talk about it, but it’s true. And they own the Democratic Party. The folks who make their money from the government — AFSCME and SEIU and the teachers’ unions and trial lawyers, you look at their financial muscle, who they’ve given donations to. They’ve got our taxpayers by the throats and they’re squeezing. They’ve got our schoolchildren by the throats and they’re squeezing them.”
He declined to say specifically how he would take on interest groups.
Um, hmm. Wouldn’t “special-interest groups that make their money from government” also include the companies which have made millions of dollars from investing government pension funds? And wouldn’t that list include Rauner’s former company?
The attack ad basically writes itself.
* More Rauner…
“The governorship in Illinois is a very powerful governorship,” he said. “You can do things with executive order here that many states can’t do. You have an amendatory veto, line-item veto, you’ve got the ability to appoint to key positions that the Legislature wants to have influence in. If you’re a creative negotiator and you’ve got a steel backbone and are willing to play hardball, you can get a lot of stuff done. We’ll be stretching the power of the office. I’ll be stretching the envelope aggressively.”
Executive orders are basically limited to reorganizing state agencies. Lots of governors have done that, and the reorgs have failed more often than not.
And I think it’ll be extremely important for political reporters to get him to say how he will be “stretching the envelope aggressively” if he’s elected governor. If Rauner intends to do unprecedented things with the office, then we definitely ought to know what he has in mind. And if he won’t say, well, that’s also a great attack ad. Fear of the unknown is the worst.
* And Rauner on Bill Brady’s 2010 campaign…
“I don’t think Bill ran a particularly good campaign. Let’s start with that. I think he ran a pretty lousy campaign and he spent virtually no time in metro Chicago,” he said. “You’re not going to win if you don’t show your face. Nobody will outwork me in this campaign.”
* Speaking of Sen. Brady, the likely 2014 candidate sent a confidential letter to his supporters a few weeks ago. In that letter, he defends his losing 2010 race. Click the pic for a larger view…
The full letter is here. There are some poll results and other stuff that you might wanna discuss below.
* And while you’re at it, take a gander at this letter Sen. Brady sent to his colleagues yesterday. Notice the misspelling of Sen. Durbin’s name. It’s also misspelled as “Durban” on the press release, along with numerous other typos. Oops.
19 Comments
|
No data to support sentencing claim
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* WBEZ has an excellent story about how Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s demand that state legislators increase mandatory minimum sentences is not based on actual research. Emanuel, his police chief and others have pointed to New York City’s great success with reducing crime and claim that harsher mandatory minimums are a big reason for that success…
The situation in New York — that’s one of the main “arguments” Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy have repeatedly made over the past few months as they’ve pushed their agenda on gun legislation..
“And just look at New York,” said McCarthy at a press conference this week. “It couldn’t be a clearer example of how to do this. The fact is, where these conditions exist, it’s working. I mean, what research do we need?”
But that’s not what the data shows…
[Frank Zimring is] a professor of law at the University of California Berkeley and author of the book “The City That Became Safe: New York’s Lessons for Urban Crime and its Control.”
“The mandatory minimum punishments, is, if you study the New York experience, beside the point,” said Zimring.
Zimring studied 19 years of data tracking crime in New York. He says in 1990 the city had 2,250 murders. In 2012, it had 419. That’s an astonishing 80 percent drop in murder.
It’s that success that’s being used to justify the mandatory minimum sentences being proposed by Emanuel and McCarthy, but mandatory minimums weren’t signed into law in New York until late 2006.
“That’s after 90 percent of the crime reduction!” said Zimring. “I think that what’s going on is that the superintendent and the mayor in Chicago are under a ‘do something fast political pressure,’ and in my experience, at least, that’s never been good for penal codes.”
Go read the whole thing.
* Meanwhile, Rep. Brandon Phelps is not optimistic at all about the future of concealed carry negotiations…
On Thursday, Phelps said he thinks both sides are as divided as they were at the beginning of the spring session, despite ongoing negotiations over several components of his bill, such as defining where guns couldn’t be carried and whether home-rule units could have local control.
“I don’t know if there’s going to be a compromise, to be honest,” Phelps said. “I just think we’re too far apart.”
* ISRA’s Richard Pearson talked about yesterday’s gun control rally…
Pearson said a mandate to make people report lost or stolen guns “actually makes the victim the defendant” and “actually helps the criminal element.”
Pearson said everything gun control advocates want to do “puts a burden on the law-abiding gun owner and doesn’t do anything to punish the criminal.”
The gun control advocates’ real goal is “to nullify the Second Amendment, to stigmatize gun owners and to culturally isolate them so lawful firearm owners look like some kind of weird fringe group, when that’s not true. Actually, they (the gun control advocates) are the weird fringe group,” Pearson said.
I don’t quite see how reporting lost or stolen guns helps criminals. But I do believe that he’s at least partly right on some things. Focusing on generally law-abiding people when crafting gun control measures is often counter-productive. You end up with people prosecuted for harmless stuff. Focus on the violent criminals. Mayor Emanuel’s proposal to up their sentences may not be based on science, but at least it puts the focus where it belongs.
However, if yesterday’s polling is anywhere near accurate, then the gun control groups are solidly within the mainstream. They aren’t fringe by any means.
* Here’s something that could be useful…
While gun regulation supporters rallied outside, House lawmakers inside the Statehouse voted in favor of a measure that would create a mental health first aid program in which certified trainers could teach members of the public how to recognize and help someone who could be dealing with a mental health disorder or addiction.
Backed by lawmakers who referenced the mental health condition of the shooter in Newtown, the bill passed 105-8. It now moves to the Senate.
Sponsoring Rep. Esther Golar, D-Chicago, told lawmakers to spread the word of this proposal through “town hall meetings and in your newsletters” because people need information about mental health issues in society.
* Related…
* VIDEO: Gov. Pat Quinn at gun control rally
* State police say they need more funding for concealed carry
* Heat continues on gun issues
* Sheila Simon: Let’s find common ground on guns
* Will County Board to take up concealed carry in May
* Illinois US Representatives and Gun Control
* Robin Kelly is sworn in: ‘Today is about a new beginning for the people of 2nd Congressional District’
33 Comments
|
Illinois NAACP backs gay marriage
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From NAACP Illinois State Conference President George P. Mitchell…
“The NAACP was founded 104 years ago in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield.
While the nature of the struggle may change, our bedrock commitment to civil rights and freedom never will and that includes civil marriage equality. The fight for freedom and equality encompasses all mankind.
We live in a democracy. In our democracy we have the benefit of a Constitution which defines the equal rights which we all share and to which we as a nation aspire. The Fourteenth Amendment to that Constitution says, in part, that no state “shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” and that becomes a significantly relevant issue.
Just 50 years ago, many states would not recognize a marriage between people of different races. Today, we see marriage equality as a civil rights issue and an extension of that fight. Marriage equality is just that – the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the government. What better evidence than the Fourteenth Amendment.
People of good conscience can disagree on this issue. We deeply respect differences of opinion and conscience on the religious definition of marriage, and we strongly affirm the religious freedoms and ceremonial practices of all as protected by the First Amendment.
But, the NAACP will always stand for full equality under the law.”
According to its website, the state conference has no officers from Chicago. That’s a problem because much of the pushback on gay marriage is coming from Chicago ministers.
* And speaking of the ministers, here’s my Sun-Times column…
There was a time at the Illinois Statehouse when using African-American ministers as political props was all the rage.
ComEd touted support from black preachers to pass a bill to raise its rates. AT&T did the same when it passed a major piece of legislation. Before the national real estate and banking crash, the mortgage industry fought a bill to crack down on excessively lenient home loans by putting black ministers up front.
And though the ministers were obviously just doing a bit of payroll shilling, their state legislators took them quite seriously.
ComEd and AT&T won their fights.
The mortgage industry lost, but only because House Speaker Michael Madigan called in every favor he could think of to pass his bill. But then Gov. Rod Blagojevich used his veto powers to basically gut the measure, so Madigan eventually lost and the industry won.
For whatever reason, the big corporations have mostly stopped recruiting African-American ministers to front their causes.
But there’s a new group called the African-American Clergy Coalition that is trying to make some waves in Springfield, and they’re doing a pretty good job.
The group claims on its website that it exists to provide resolutions to problems “affecting the lives of African-American and other oppressed people.”
Right now, though, the only issue the group is tackling is gay marriage. The ministers are against it. Solidly against it, despite the thick irony of declaring support for the oppressed while fighting to deny civil marriage rights to others.
The pastors are doing a very good job so far of intimidating black legislators into backing away from their previous support. Their push has all but halted the momentum of gay marriage backers, who had high hopes when the state Senate approved the bill in February.
Along the way, some of those ministers have picked up a few bucks. For example, Bishop Larry Trotter of the New Century Fellowship International was paid $1,000 out of the group’s new political action committee for “clergy consulting.” Bishop Lance Davis of the New Zion Christian Fellowship Covenant Church was also paid $1,000 for “clergy consulting.”
So far, the group has reported raising $72,000, all of it from the National Organization for Marriage, which was heavily involved in passing California’s statewide proposition that declared marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. NOM is run by white folks who have recently made outreach to the black community a top priority. Polls have consistently shown that African-Americans are not nearly as supportive of gay rights and gay marriage as whites.
Of that significant NOM cash pile, the African-American Clergy Coalition has so far reported spending just $11,250 to actually air radio ads blasting gay marriage.
They don’t really need the ads. For decades, African-American churches have been at the center of black political life. Candidates, black and white, flock to the churches during election time, seeking a few kind words of praise. What the pastors say generally goes.
This is America and church pastors have the absolute right to weigh in on the issues of the day. The prospect of losing their religious tax exemptions is extremely remote because the IRS almost always gives churches the benefit of the doubt.
But the upcoming gay marriage vote here in Illinois is taking place on a national stage. The pastors need to be very careful to make sure they dot all their “i’s” and cross all their “t’s” because a very bright light may be shone in their direction.
4 Comments
|
Today’s constituent e-mail
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Click the pic for a larger version…
Um, this issue is about marriage between two consenting adults, not pedophilia.
Let’s try to make this clear. To “refuse” an adult the right to marry a nine year old wouldn’t be “discrimination.” It would be preventing statutory rape. It’s defined as statutory rape because a nine year old girl cannot give such “consent” to an adult.
* I talked with Rep. Morrison this morning. He clearly regretted sending the e-mail, which he said he did in haste, adding “I don’t hate anybody,” and saying he wanted to have a “healthy debate” on the issue. He also insisted that he didn’t ever mean to imply that proponents are “advocating for statutory rape.”
Still, some things are just best left unsaid. And when given an opportunity to back down, he wouldn’t.
“If you look at my follow up e-mail, I flesh it out.” Morrison then referenced an article about a nine-year old Saudi girl forced into marriage that he’d read a while ago. “Two years ago we were told, we don’t want marriage, we want legal protections, and furthermore there’s going to be no impact on religious institutions… And less than a year later, Catholic Charities is out of the adoption business, and in the next General Assembly we see SB 10. I think it’s a fair question to ask ‘What is the next thing?… I think that’s the kind of dialogue I want to have with my constituents.”
“Maybe this is a little provocative,” he said, but also claimed that he was being unfairly singled out. “I think the proponents of the bill have to keep the interest level up. That’s why this group sent this e-mail to the media outlets.”
“I apologized to her,” the legislator said. “I invited her to a meeting… This is an attempt to make me look like a bad guy. It’s an effort to paint me in the worst possible light. It’s an attempt to assassinate my character.”
* Rep. Morrison also forwarded me a long e-mail he sent his constituent in response…
Dear [Redacted],
I got an email and phone call tonight from Natasha Korecki at the Chicago Sun-Times. She told me that you were upset by the last email I sent you regarding SB10.
I get hundreds if not thousands of emails everyday, and I do my best to read and personally respond to as many as I can. Sometimes in my haste to deliver, words or thoughts do not translate well.
As you’re well aware, we do disagree on this issue and likely will continue to disagree. That’s OK. I have my strongly felt reasons, and you have yours.
To be clear, however: I do not equate same sex marriage with statutory rape.
The point I was trying to make was this: the state already has certain restrictions on what marriage is. The law itself makes distinctions on who can and cannot marry. For example, one cannot be married to more than one person at the same time. You are not advocating for polyamory (I don’t think), but there are those in Illinois who do. Just google Polyamory Chicago, and see for yourself. They argue that the state is discriminating against their sexual orientation, love, desire to commit, freedom, equality, etc.
The state also defines the age at which individuals may marry. There are groups today that believe young girls ought to be able to marry. Check out the following: (http://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/26/marriage “Saudi Cleric Defends Marriage of Nine-Year-Old Girls and Blasts Human Rights Treaties as the Work of Atheists and Fornicators”). Yes, I find that shocking, too! Saudi Arabia is not Illinois obviously, but would this Saudi Cleric consider IL’s law on marriage to be discriminatory? Probably. I think it’s a fair question to ask. By whose standards do we make our laws? I learned to drive a car at age 10. Was the state prejudicial against me in not allowing me to get a license and drive until I was 16? Why not 15? Why not 12? Why not 10?
So how do we as a society deal with differences of opinion and beliefs on important and emotional issues?
We have a democratic process here. The people’s elected representatives are deciding whether or not our state’s marriage law should be re-defined. Our society is engaged in a healthy debate about that now. You and I can continue to engage in that now, if you wish, either via email, phone call, or in person. In fact, I will be meeting with a Palatine man who is in a same sex civil union later this summer (assuming SB10 still hasn’t been decided by then). You and I could also meet individually or as a group to discuss this.
Changing a law like this is not a light matter. Same sex relationships have been around for millenia, obviously, but codifying marriage as a relationship without regard to gender is a shift of enormous proportions. Interracial marriages have been in existence for millenia, too. Though they were temporarily (in the scope of human history) outlawed in certain jurisdictions, the unions were still of man and woman. That’s why I don’t believe it’s appropriate to say SB10 is analogous with interracial marriage laws, by the way.
Just two years ago, in a lame duck session, the legislature passed a civil unions law. You may believe that it was late in coming, or inadequate, or still discriminatory to same sex couples; you and I haven’t discussed those details so I don’t know. During the debate two years ago, however, the sponsors of the civil unions bill stated that marriage was not their end goal. They also stated that religious individuals and organizations would not be affected if the civil unions law was enacted. We discovered in short order that neither was the case. Same sex marriage is under discussion now, and two large religious-based adoption agencies have had their state contracts cancelled due to religious beliefs. That’s why opponents have real concerns about SB10.
[Redacted name], I don’t seek to intentionally offend or be condescending to anyone, and if I was to you it was unintentional, and I genuinely apologize. If this ever happens again, please do not hesitate to contact my staff or me personally, and I will do my best to respond in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Tom
Discuss.
60 Comments
|
Did the SJ-R get played?
Friday, Apr 12, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Appearing in today’s State Journal-Register is a guest column entitled “Marijuana not a safe or effective medicine”…
The marijuana bill the Illinois legislature is considering does away with the Food and Drug Administration process, and the legislature assumes the role of the FDA.
The FDA has concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use and lacks an acceptable level of safety even under medical supervision. The FDA has approved Marinol, which is not smoked, but is marijuana in pill form. […]
This is about whether Illinois citizens want the legislature to decide on how to approve and dispense medicine instead of the FDA. The medical marijuana lobby has put together myths and money that will not make for a safe or healthier Illinois. The proposal endangers our youth, our highways and our workplaces and increases costs for employers and taxpayers. It is bad medicine.
Etc., etc. Go read the whole thing if you want.
* This is how the SJ-R identifies the column’s co-authors…
Peter Bensinger is former administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and former director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Andrea Barthwell is former deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Ah, but that’s only part of the story.
* US News & World Report ran an article about Bensinger a few days ago…
Two of the former Drug Enforcement Agency officials who came out this week urging the federal government to nullify new state pot laws in Washington and Colorado are facing criticism for simultaneously running a company that may profit from keeping marijuana illegal.
Robert L. DuPont, who was White House drug czar under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and Peter Bensinger, who was administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the 1970s, today run Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, a company that specializes in workplace drug testing, among other employee programs. Both men signed an open (along with eight other former DEA officials) addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee members this week criticizing the Obama administration for failing to quickly address the new states laws legalizing pot, which are inconsistent with federal law.
* The other co-author, Andrea Barthwell, at one time worked for GW Pharmaceuticals, a company that is marketing Sativex, which is a liquid made from marijuana plants…
GW Pharmaceuticals also announced this week that it had hired former White House Drug Czar Deputy Director Andrea Barthwell in an advisory capacity. As Deputy Director, Barthwell lobbied against legislative efforts to legalize the medical use of whole smoked cannabis by qualified patients. “Having this product (Sativex) available will certainly slow down the dash to make the crude plant material available to patients across the country,” Barthwell told the Los Angeles Times Wednesday.
The pharmaceutical company doesn’t want people smoking weed, they want to provide weed in liquid form and make lots and lots of money.
Barthwell is no longer with the company, but…
Early in Sativex’s development, GW hired Dr. Andrea Barthwell as a consultant to sing the drug’s praises, although she’s no longer in the employ of GM. Barthwell was a deputy drug czar under George W. Bush and is the former president of the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM). In a recent ASAM press release, Barthwell denounced medical marijuana but — significantly — only because it was unregulated by the federal government. […]
The likes of Barthwell and Burr have drawn the ire of supporters for the reform of marijuana laws who believe that they represent the pharmaceutical industry’s goal for medical marijuana: demonize it, prosecute it, shut it down, then grab the market.
So, yeah, to answer the headline, I’m pretty sure the SJ-R got played.
* And I wonder if the Illinois Family Institute knew what was really going on when they scheduled Barthwell, Bensinger and Bensinger’s partner Robert L. DuPont to speak at an April 15th legislative conference…
Truth and Consequences of Marijuana as Medicine
A fact-checked, research-based discussion about marijuana and Illinois
Our speakers will sort fact from fiction about how marijuana impacts health and safety, Illinois youth, drugged driving and the workplace. They will explain what to expect if a medical marijuana law is enacted in Illinois, and how it will dramatically increase use and dependency. Join us to learn the facts.
This FREE conference on marijuana is for elected officials, educators, faith organizations, drug prevention and treatment providers, business leaders, and local governments. A complimentary lunch will be provided.
29 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Comments Off
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax
Advertise Here
Mobile Version
Contact Rich Miller
|
