Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tone it down, please
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Tribune ran a profile today of some public school teachers worried about whether they will lose their jobs in the face of 20,000 layoff notices…
In a normal year, the majority of teachers let go in March are rehired in the summer after lawmakers approve a budget. For example, about 4,700 teachers were laid off during the 2007-08 school year, but nearly 60 percent were recalled.
The following year, as the recession deepened, more teachers were laid off — 6,139 — and fewer, about 50 percent, were recalled, according to an Illinois State Board of Education survey released Wednesday.
This year, as many as 20,000 school positions could be lost, according to some estimates.
“It’s completely different than any year I’ve been part of in my three decades in public education,” said Ken Swanson, president of the Illinois Education Association.
That 20,000 layoffs figure bandied about all over the media is based on a proposed $1.3 billion cut to education funding by Pat Quinn. Union contracts require that layoff notices must be issued, and the governor’s original cut was all the local school districts had to go by.
However, it now appears that there will be no significant cut - or any cuts at all - to education funding, unless something really goes off the rails with the budget.
…Adding… The Illinois Federation of Teachers took questions from the media today about new revenues…
* While hyperbolic, it would be nice if we could have seen stories like this when the McCormick Place reform plan was being negotiated. Only a couple of us ever really wrote about it, even though the facility is such an important economic engine…
It was supposed to change everything. Lure new trade shows. Keep the ones we have. Even bring back the ones we’ve lost. But CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine says Gov. Pat Quinn is thinking twice before signing the new McCormick Place bill — because of a sneaky maneuver.
Mostly because of the trustee lawmakers want to put in charge. A longtime political insider: Jim Reilly. And how it all went down.
James Reilly, a former McPier CEO, was paid big money to recommend changes. Among them, a new trustee to oversee all operations.
He writes the set of recommendations calling for a trustee and the recommendations just happen to fit him to a tee. Doesn’t that sound suspicious?
Actually, it’s not suspicious at all. It was done that way at Speaker Michael Madigan’s behest. In return, the Republicans demanded and received a one-year revolving door prohibition to prevent Reilly from immediately cashing in on his 18-month tenure as McPier’s czar. And I really doubt that Quinn will touch that bill. Hinz explains why…
In the end, my guess is that Mr. Quinn signs rather than risk horrid headlines in Chicago newspapers when a couple of big shows walk. If he really has problems with the bill, he ought to sign it anyhow, and then push for passage of a “trailer bill” that would meet his concerns.
This one is awfully important. Mr. Quinn ought to sign, even if the bill is less than perfect.
The only way he’d touch that bill is if there was an agreement up front to hold an immediate vote to accept the changes. Otherwise, he’d probably get overridden.
* Chris Wetterich thinks Quinn might listen to CUB and change AT&T’s so-called “jobs bill”…
So why wouldn’t Quinn sign it? Because one of the planks he used to build his political career was the Citizens Utility Board, which is real skeptical about this bill. Quinn is probably also more attuned than the average Chicagoan to the needs of rural Illinoisans, who might be given the shaft by AT&T under the bill.
The legislation also doesn’t require the telecom giant to actually create any jobs, despite its promises, something that might offend the governor’s sense of fairness.
Then again, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who’s also painted herself as a defender of consumers, was neutral on the bill. Her stamp of approval (or lack of disapproval) would probably be enough for any other governor.
Given that it’s an election year and Quinn is going to want to pump up his populist bona fides, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him issue some sort of amendatory veto – the power Illinois governors have to add and subtract things from legislation passed by the General Assembly.
Given that this is an election year and AT&T did a remarkable job of lining up newspaper editorial support (including Wetterich’s) and unanimous legislative support, plus the fact that the company and its allies (including newspaper editorial boards) are hailing the legislation as a major “jobs bill,” I doubt he’ll change it. He wants jobs and he wants to cut ribbons, and the word is there was a side deal for a big ribbon-cutting opportunity. More later.
* Related…
* Illinois school officials warn of more layoffs & cuts from state budget impasse
* Voice of The Southern: Legislators need to step forward now
* Quinn calls on lawmakers to prevent education cuts
* Quinn pushes for borrowing to save state budget
* Quinn still wants to borrow money
* Quinn right to veto waiver bill
* Get lawmakers out of granting tuition waivers
* Voting in favor of bad schools
* Collins turns to writing in lifelong corruption fight
* State transportation officials lose car perk
* Illinoid Department of Transportation to hire 170 new workers
* Lisa Madigan Cracks Down On Contractors
* Madigan Cracks Down on Bad Labor Practices
* Metro-east ineligible for STAR bonds under new bill
* Village asks Gov. Quinn to sign new crosswalk law
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tone it down, please
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Quinn’s office knows how downstate businesses and residents would react if they knew what the bill REALLY did. Rolling back at&t’s requirement to go through with broadband in rural areas - and they called it a broadband bill?
Looks like their big promises of money fooled everyone.
What will people say when they figure out that “trusting” a company like at&t is a big mistake?
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:33 am
Save the day Governor Quinn - give it an amendatory veto to assure broadband for rural areas!
He’s facing a down state opponent. It’s a no brainer.
Comment by downstate hero Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:34 am
You “two” are gonna find yourself banned, since you’re posting from the same IP address under different names. Stop it.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:39 am
Quinn would be crazy to mess with the Mac Place bill that the consortium of shows signed off on. It’s a buyer’s market. They can go anywhere, and have shown that they will.
Reilly is simply the best person for the job. It’s a no-brainer.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:42 am
This is Daja Vu. Didnt the Blago Administration get nailed for having some consultant come in to write RFP for something and their company got the award? HMMMMM.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:55 am
“unless something really goes off the rails with the budget”
I get your point, but as an unnecessary aside, when has the budget last been on the tracks? I am not sure there are any even any tracks to get back on to.
I would not be too confident of “restored” funding if I was one of those laid off teachers.
Comment by Vole Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 11:58 am
This will open the way for the Apple producers to hold a major convention at McCormick place….
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:06 pm
==Union contracts require that layoff notices must be issued==
Clarification: State law requires that school boards provide the layoff notices. (I think it’s 60 days before the end of the term.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:21 pm
It is 60 days required by law. Lee news caught the most relevant part of the press conference today in the Blue Room. http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/article_b525df70-5eb3-11df-b945-001cc4c002e0.html
Comment by dc Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:34 pm
I was actually encouraged by the McCormick Place bill. I Reilly didn’t think they had it in them.
Besides the legislative stuff, using the lakeside building to it’s full potential, opening up more lakefront access, beautifying the old building and emphasizing it’s attachment to the lake and getting rid of excess patronage security would be a fine start to a long way back.
They Reilly need a innovative landscape architect and servicer to take advantage of the beautiful location.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:40 pm
PJW, the lakefront building is coming down as soon as they can find the money. It’s has tens of millions in deferred maintenance and is simply not a competitive venue after the nationwide convention center building boom.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:46 pm
One thing Jim Reilly was really vague about was whether this legislation would be sufficient to keep the half dozen or so trade shows who are thinking about bolting from staying.
While no one can write a guarantee into legislation that it will keep or create jobs, Quinn should atleast ask these trade shows what they think of the bill before signing it.
Which brings me to my second point. I’ve always cautioned state lawmakers and other elected officials against taking credit for job creation. For the simple fact that the President of the U.S. and the Federal Reserve barely have any control over the economy, even less since the early 90’s, and state lawmakers and governors have even less. But if you try to take credit when times are good, its tough to shield yourself when times are bad.
You simply cannot write into law, as some have proposed with the telecom bill, a guarantee that it will keep and create jobs. But the AFL-CIO, IBEW, and Communications Workers of America support the bill, and I would take that as a very strong indication that it will be good for the economy and for jobs.
As for the DSL build-out provisions that other posters have raised concerns about, I suppose that’s legit. Unless you consider that those wired build-out provisions were written when Wi-Fi was in its infancy, and there are probably as many or more people accessing the internet on a regular basis from their handheld wireless devices as there are who rely on home DSL connections. Maybe we should have rewritten the build-out provisions to require access to the iPhone instead of DSL, except that by the time the ink was dry, folks would probably be using some other technology.
That’s the whole problem with the idea that state government should be the architect of our technology infrastructure. Have any of you been to the State Board of Elections website lately? As Rich has pointed out, it sucks, and the redesign has made it even worse. Have you tried to access ANY of the state’s illinois.gov domain from a wireless device? NONE of it is wireless compatible.
State government should figure out how to fill potholes before it tries to run the internet.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:47 pm
What will the put there?
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 12:50 pm
I don’t know. Daley said it was coming down if they didn’t get the Olympics. Prime piece of real estate, no?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 1:03 pm
Beautiful spot for a land based Casino,Marina,Condo Project
Comment by bwana Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 1:20 pm
I’ve got to disagree about there being “no significant cut - or any cuts at all - to education funding, unless something really goes off the rails with the budget.”
When you get beyond General State Aid and MCATs such as special education, these budget plans envision approps of about $370 mil for all other education grant lines - programs that had gotten more than $650 mil in total for FY10. These range from preschool to bilingual to alternative education, Summer Bridges, anti-truancy services, reading improvement - you name it.
Absorbing that kind of cut - about 43 pct - will absolutely require massive layoffs.
Now, the Guv could sprinkle some more lump-sum $$ in those programs’ direction and ease the amount of cuts a bit. But he won’t have enough of those magic beans to spread-around among all the education, human services, health care, municipal services, etc that are also being shortchanged and need help, stat.
Not only that, but $4 bil of backlogged bills turning into $6 bil of backlogged bills will continue to force payment delays, which in turn will force budget cuts throughout the year.
This is a bad, bad, bad budget deal that’s shaping-up right now. It hides a lot of cuts that are going to start to be made from Day 1 of the new fiscal year - at the local level as well as statewide.
Comment by Linus Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 1:28 pm
For the past decade, AT&T has endeavored to ‘unburden’ itself from the increasingly archaic landline business, inasmuch as existing state and federal regulations mandating the company’s continued maintenance of landlines siphon away potential investment capital. Thanks to healthy competition and nascent communication technologies, landlines are poor revenue makers for telecommunications companies. By freeing itself from State of Illinois regulations, AT&T can focus on the big money makers, i.e. cell coverage and internet penetration. Last time I checked, AT&T had also convinced Wisconsin to consider a similar bill.
While I understand and appreciate the evolving nature of the telecommunications industry and consumer demand, AT&T’s deregulated withdrawal from its legal and fiduciary responsibility will negatively affect the state. Sure, the chicagoland area might – yes, might- benefit in the short run from increased investments in cell tower coverage and subsequently better cell phone connectivity and download speeds, but I doubt that this law will increase an overall level of competition between wireless carriers and will result in little if any price savings for consumers. Additionally, downstate residents, citizens still utilizing landlines (i.e. the elderly), and 911 communication centers will receive poorer service and most likely higher rates.
Moreover, what incentive does AT&T have to invest in extensive cell and broadband networks in rural and scarcely populated downstate? Sure, AT&T will invest in a couple of extra towers downstate to replace existing landline usage – but that is no guarantee that the company will provide high speed cell networks (3G, 4G) or broadband coverage.
Lastly, what jobs? The telecommunications bill on Quinn’s desk only benefits AT&T. Unless the company relocates its headquarters to Illinois, I don’t see how any jobs or tax benefits materialize.
Comment by Gnome Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 1:31 pm
=== Thanks to healthy competition and nascent communication technologies, landlines are poor revenue makers for telecommunications companies. ===
@Gnome, my point exactly.
Landline service is more costly than wireless technology not just for companies, but for the consumers who buy the service. So why is state government insisting it be made available? Especially given that it fails to provide the innovation that most consumers are demanding.
Finally, if you agree that telecommunications is a competitive service, and no longer a monopoly, why should government be in the business of trying to regulate the market at all?
Look, I’m as liberal as they come, but smart liberals recognize that a competitive market is a much better guarantee of lower prices and more choices than government. It why we split up Ma Bell to begin with, and the result has been overwhelmingly good for consumers.
Government has about as much business regulating telecommunications as they do regulating coffee prices.
Can you imagine if state government told Dunkin Donuts that they had to make black coffee available to any customer who wanted it, that they had to get their coffee within two minutes, and that they could only charge 59 cents?
If you’re Dunkin Donuts, good luck staying in business, as the line for people who want a latte grows out the door and you have to raise prices on lattes and everything else to subsidize your black coffee regulations.
Pretty soon, Dunkin Donuts is out of business, and folks are standing in line for ten minutes at Starbuck’s just to get a black coffee, which they now charge $1.29 for because there is no competition.
That’s how the real world works.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:15 pm
The irony of calling “fake astroturf” is hilarious on this issue.
So, all the chambers & all the editorial board support is completely genuine, right? AT&T just happens to pay big $ to all the bus. groups to sit on their advisory councils.
And all of the business groups, editorial boards, policy “tech partnership”, minister alliance & legislators know exactly what comprises this bill & how much AT&T stands to gain, right?
Nope - the truth is that there was a giant for sale sign on & around the capitol & at& t took full advantage of it.
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:19 pm
No cuts doesn’t equal no layoffs. ISBE testified before a Senate committee that the relatively flat budget they proposed earlier in the year would result in 13,000 layoffs. So while it may be better than the alternative, it’s still means tough choices in schools.
Comment by jojo1423 Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:21 pm
Looks like Levine is the winner of this week DTDK award
the bill forces audits by auditors selected by Bill Holland and wage cuts cut the contractors too.
opps facts hurts another “exclusive” Hats off to CHI TV
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:26 pm
“However, it now appears that there will be no significant cut - or any cuts at all - to education funding, unless something really goes off the rails with the budget.”
State payment history and loss of trust in State will keep jobs down. School officials already borrowing to make payroll aren’t going to be quick to add jobs back even if the budget looks better on paper. Who in their right mind would signup for more contracted expenses when the State already owes so many so much. they are going to assume 10-15% loss of what is promised.
Comment by frustrated GOP Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:28 pm
Easy Snookered…Before you start saying that everyone is for sale (the AG, editorial boards, every single member of the General Assembly, etc.), why don’t you at least consider that some actually believe that less regulation encourgages companies to do business in Illinois. Doing business in Illinois creates jobs. Hence, a jobs bill. Plus, the AG required some pretty strong consumer protections. Those landline packages are cheap!
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:33 pm
@snookered:
I don’t think the term “astroturf” means what you think it means.
Do you think the members of AARP and CUB who called their lawmakers in opposition to telecom modernization knew every detail of what was in the bill? Don’t be absurd. That doesn’t make their opposition any less real.
Nor does it make the support of the AFL-CIO, chambers of commerce, or editorial boards any less real.
“Astroturf” is insurance companies giving people free points for their favorite facebook games in exchange for adding their name to a petition against health care reform. That ain’t what happened here.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:40 pm
@Anonymous 2:33
Don’t forget the AFL-CIO, favorite “puppets” of corporate America.
What a goofy accusation.
The only way for corporations to “buy off” the unions is by creating and retaining jobs, the one thing critics claim this bill won’t do.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:43 pm
Yellow Dog,
The main point of my post was to suggest that the possible benefits from the AT&T bill do not out weight the probable costs to Illinois telecommunications consumers. I agree that over time, AT&T should be able to reduce its landline responsibilities and interests, but not over night. I believe that AT&T has duty to continue providing reasonable landline services, seeing as how the company held the US hostage for decades as a monopoly, charging outrageous prices for phone services.
Second, I do not concede that the telecommunications industry is competitive. A handful of large corporations provide the vast majority of internet, cable, and cell phone services. The sheer size of these companies allows them to offer certain advantages to the consumer, but in the end, the lack of competition hurts consumers. While the cell phone industry is slightly more competitive that the internet or cable sectors, high speed, data-laden plans are dominated by only three or four companies. Moreover, most markets only have a couple of cell phone or cable/internet services providers to choose from.
Lastly, some government regulation is needed in the telecommunications industry because communication is as essential to a society as any other utility. We need phones and the internet to conduct business and develop commerce. High telecommunications costs will stifle innovation and economic activity in this state. I’m not saying that the state or fed has to dictate every price of every service, but governments should be able to set up a basic framework of rules outlining how a telecommunications company should operate in its jurisdiction.
Comment by Gnome Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:45 pm
YDD, I’m well aware of what astroturf is, thanks!
And what they created was for the most part, completely manufactured. Maybe this bill will save jobs, it might save the jobs that corporate at&t would have given to other states who succeeded in getting rid of their regulations.
It will be interesting to hear when & if the small business groups figure out what they signed on to help. Businesses in rural areas will continue to ask for broadband access & what will their umbrella groups say? “oops - sorry” ??
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 2:51 pm
Thanks for bringing up the labor support anon and YDD. I mean, that MUST 100% genuine support - because employees never ever fear their employers. I mean, that just never happens…
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 3:02 pm
snookered, take a breath. The IBEW bargains hard in Springfield. They did this time as well.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 3:05 pm
LOL - thanks Rich - I sure will.
I’ll go & enjoy my Comcast broadband access…
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 3:09 pm
“Hyperbolic” — Does Jay Levine do stories any other way?
Comment by PW Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 3:38 pm
For everyone who ever breathlessly talks about how the unions have made it so crappy teachers could never get fired, read that sentence right there and understand it.
I have said it before and I will say it again. Principals don’t often have the patience to go through the process of firing a teacher. What they do is simply lay them off and then have them not be one of the ones asked back the next year.
Thousands of teachers across the state are “not asked back” each year. And it is something principals can do in many circumstances.
What the statistics the trib and other republicans blather on about don’t take this into account.
Comment by George Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 3:44 pm
@Gnome -
As far as I’m aware, nothing in this bill changes the responsibility of AT&T or any other landline provider to remain “provider of last resort,” so the idea that AT&T or any other company is getting out of the landline business “overnight” is absurd. If folks want landline service, AT&T and other will have to provide it.
Moreover, those who want basic service, the bill requires AT&T and others to provide it at a price that’s extremely reasonable. So reasonable in fact, that CUB was recently quoted as saying that they plan to aggressively promote the so-called Safe Harbor packages.
Secondly, you may not agree that the telecommunications market is “competitive”, but according to what I’ve heard and numbers I think the Illinois Commerce Commission agrees with, AT&T holds 48% of the telephone customers in its market. If that isn’t competitive, I don’t know what is, but it sure ain’t a monopoly.
Moreover, according to the FCC’s own reports, there were 132 highspeed internet providers in Illinois as of 12/31/2008, more than any other state except Iowa and Texas.
Speaking of the FCC, its worth noting that back in 2008 (which seems so long ago), the largest number of folks with highspeed internet access relied on a cable modem, followed closely by DSL, and not too far behind was mobile wireless, at more than 1 million users.
http://tinyurl.com/ygy3ook
That analysis comes from President Obama’s FCC, whose #1 recommendation as their National Broadband Plan was:
“he federal government, including the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Congress, should make more spectrum available for existing and new wireless broadband providers in order to foster additional wireless-wireline competition at higher speed tiers.”
Notice the emphasis on wireless buildout and competition, and the conspicuous lack of any call for wireline price controls?
Moreover, recommendation 4.9 of the National Broadband Plan calls for retiring the copper wireline network, which is more costly to maintain and holds back innovation.
Finally, I don’t disagree with you that “some” regulation of telecommunications is still needed, and I think the Attorney General would have opposed this measure if she thought that it lacked needed consumer protections, just as she did with the video competition bill a few years ago.
Where you and I seem to disagree is on whether in addition to protecting consumer service standards, the state should also be in the business of price controls. I don’t think price controls are warranted where no monopoly exists or as powerful as competition at regulating prices and promoting innovation.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:09 pm
I think Rich’s idea that there will likely be “no significant cut - or any cuts at all - to education funding” if the current budget plan, if one can call it that, falls into place maybe confused. It is very possible that we will see a formally appropriated budget that may reflect flat funding, but what is the possiblity that yet again the comptroller will not the cash to equal the appropriation? I would suggest that is likely in FY 2011.
One only needs to review the April 2010 edition of the Illinois State Comptroller’s Quarterly Report to understand the situation. We have to realize in FY 2010 the state had to pay out $3.9 billion in money owed for FY 2009, that the current cash position is negative $4.4 billion. It seems really far fetched to think the Governor’s budget will fix every thing for education in FY 2011. The EMERGENCY BUDGET ACT OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 also will allow the Governor to take money from the Common School Fund if he sees that it is necessary, why do you think he might want that power?
Comment by Rod Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:15 pm
Guys, there’s a difference between not getting an approp and not getting paid timely. There are a bunch of vendors out there doing business with the state who would give up payment cycle for rate increases. Payment cycle can be financed. Lower rates is money never coming.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:25 pm
== As far as I’m aware, nothing in this bill changes the responsibility of AT&T or any other landline provider to remain “provider of last resort,” so the idea that AT&T or any other company is getting out of the landline business “overnight” is absurd. ==
Actually, the bill makes it much tougher for a company to pull out of an area. Current law only requires 30 days notice. A company has to give the ICC notice, and the ICC can hold a hearing to stop the withdrawal. After the hearing or if the ICC doesnt hold a hearing, the company has to give 60 days notice to all customers before withdrawing from the community.
As for consumer protections, the bill maintains 90% of the consumer protections currently in place and actually beefs up some of the penalties. The only real reduced protection is that a company (AT&T) has 30 hours, rather than 24, to make repairs.
As for the broadband deployment, the areas that were required to provide 90% of wireline service already have 100% coverage using wireless, satelite, etc. The ICC requirement didn’t apply to “downstate” rural areas, it applied to places like Peoria, Rockford, and Springfield. Ask the people in the areas affected by the buildout requirement - they already have internet access. The buildout requirement was nothing more than the ICC trying to ensure IBEW has jobs in those areas, despite the fact that the requirement was virtually meaningless.
Comment by the truff and the hole truff Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:25 pm
@truff -
I’ll take your word for it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:29 pm
Truff - wireless is more expensive than basic broadband access, so the 100% figure you say is misleading.
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 4:50 pm
@snookered -
According to the FCC, expanding wireless broadband access is the most cost-effective way to increase broadband penetration in EVERY county in the state except Winnebago.
http://www.broadband.gov/maps/availability.htm
Moreover, while basic access to broadband is important, its also important to realize the scale of the problem: there are only 3 counties in the entire state where more than 5000 homes lack access to broadband (Fayette, Adams and McHenry), and in the vast majority of counties fewer than 2000 homes have broadband access.
The big question is whether all of Illinois will have access to the next generation of broadband internet, and I think that’s the goal of SB 107.
I understand that there are always going to be folks who believe that what’s good for AT&T can’t be good for consumers, that if Mike Madigan is for it it can’t be reform, and that Illinois Republicans have never supported a tax increase or increased spending. But believing doesn’t make it so.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 5:55 pm
YDD - glad you agree that basic access to broadband is impt. So, why wouldn’t at&t agree to make a commitment?
Comment by snookered Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 7:03 pm
ABC7 says Quinn is wavering on Reilly for Mac Place. Maybe there’s some 24-year-old assistant manager at the Mayberry Convention Center he has his eye on.
The only major, bipartisan, good legislation to come along in a while for Mac Place, and he just might mess it up. If he does, he’ll wear the jacket when the next big show drops out.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 8:10 pm
The schools (and most everything else) will appear to be fine until, oh, say, Novemberish…Gov. Quinn gets the authority to play shell games until after the election. In January: A) Gov. Quinn has his tax increase or B) Gov. Brady finds he has roughly zero dollars for the remainder of the fiscal year. Heh.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 13, 10 @ 10:41 pm
This is all B.S. by Quinn. Quinn knows he is using teachers to bring his aganda. It is terrible! I am writing as a spouse of a teacher thrown under the Bus by Quinn.
Comment by Dem. Donkey Friday, May 14, 10 @ 2:28 am
P.S. I was a Democrat as was my wife.
Comment by Dem. Donkey Friday, May 14, 10 @ 2:35 am
Lisa: “If you liked the last 40 years, I am the next generation.”
Comment by Louis Howe Friday, May 14, 10 @ 6:06 am
A couple of word changes and the “worst bill ever” - Star Bonds - can pop up anywhere in the State of Illinois. If the Senate passes this mess within one year amendment after amendment will come forth and the “worst bill ever” will get even worse for this down and out, broken, state. This thing needs to be voted down by the Senate once and for all.
Comment by Worst Bill Ever - AGAIN Friday, May 14, 10 @ 9:13 am
Rich: I hope this version of my post is more appropriate.
I like Mr Forby’s comment in the BND stating that Star bonds in the Metro Eastwouldn’t work due to competition. What about Carbondale and Mt Vernon? star Bonds will turn these towns into Black Holes.
Also, the Chief sponsor of this Bills name is Bradley and a thename of a major land owner in this areas last name is Bradley as reported in the May 11, 2010 issue of “The Southern Illinoisan”
Comment by Ronbo Friday, May 14, 10 @ 9:56 am
@snookered
The answer is that we’re already meeting the goal of access to DSL where it applies, but keeping that requirement in place requires providers to continue to invest in a more costly, less robust technology instead of replacing it with a new technology.
Wireless is the PRESENT, and while we don’t yet know what the future is (maybe satellite), its most certainly true that DSL is the past.
The bill is written to allow providers to meet the consumer demand for current and future technologies.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 14, 10 @ 12:27 pm