Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Explaining the pension failure
Next Post: Lazy, cut-and-paste campaigns
Posted in:
* From the Chicago Tribune editorial page today about the gaming bill that’s sitting on Gov. Pat Quinn’s desk…
Lawmakers still are promising to ameliorate Quinn’s concerns, whatever they may be, in a trailer bill. Sorry, that alone is a deal-breaker. With an issue as serious as a massive gambling expansion, every detail — from contract bidding to how the new revenue will be spent — should have been part of the underlying bill, not compiled in a “Trust us, Governor” afterthought.
* So, the Tribsters hate trailer bills, eh? Really? This is from an October 26, 2011 Tribune editorial on ComEd’s “smart grid” bill…
The bill passed the General Assembly in May, and Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed it last month. The utilities have lobbied furiously to win the additional votes needed for an override. Democratic Sen. Don Harmon has crafted a trailer bill that makes positive changes, and the Senate on Tuesday approved that bill on a 37-20 vote.
Looks to us that, in this case, the General Assembly is driving a hard bargain on behalf of Illinois citizens. […]
On balance, this measure coupled with the changes offered in the trailer bill offers the best way available to secure the power system that Illinois needs for the future. Thanks to vigorous negotiations, what was once a lopsided bill in favor of the utilities has become a plus for Illinois businesses and citizens. We support it. […]
We viewed this legislation with skepticism, and only now embrace it. We thought the formula for return on equity was too rich in favor of the utilities. With Tuesday’s trailer bill, it’s whittled down to a more reasonable level. We thought the requirements for hardening the grid against future storm outages were inadequate. The trailer bill addresses that too. ComEd even revived a good idea for a fund to cushion the impact of higher rates on the elderly and poor. As the legislation underwent a rigorous review, it got better. That’s how the legislative process is supposed to work.
So, a clean-up trailer was just fine with the Tribune a year ago and an example of “how the legislative process is supposed to work,” but now even the theory of a clean-up trailer is a bad idea in principle?
I don’t get it.
* Well, maybe I do. The Tribune is opposed to gambling expansion and has contorted logic to fit its current ideology. From today’s editorial…
A video gaming rollout with the potential for some 45,000 gambling terminals statewide, plus this bill’s five new land-based casinos and slot machines at racetracks, would more than saturate Illinois with legalized gambling. Most major casino operators are looking overseas for gambling opportunities, not domestically. It’s a sign the industry senses its own bell curve.
But Mayor Emanuel makes a good point…
Emanuel points toward a study showing Hammond, Ind. generating $20 million a month in revenue from Chicago gamblers — money that’s used for scholarship programs.
The Tribune appears to be flacking for the gaming monopolies controlled by existing license holders instead of looking at how a neighboring state’s casinos are draining this state’s coffers.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 8:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Explaining the pension failure
Next Post: Lazy, cut-and-paste campaigns
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can’t Trust the Newspaper, the Legislature , the Governor , the Corporate Casinos , … Can’t Trust Nobody Nowadays.
Maybe, if The Outfit still ran all Gambling and most of Government , the neighboring state would only get the non traditional burial business.
Comment by x ace Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:18 am
Rich, based on your write-up it seems that there is a clear distinction, that you failed to point out, between the ComEd bill and subsequent trailer bill and the current gaming bill and the proposed trailer bill. The distinction lies within the fact that the ComEd trailer bill followed the Governors veto and was the vehicle by which the GA sought to override his veto. Thus, the ComEd bill had NOT become law with the promise of a subsequent trailer bill to clean things up. With the gaming bill, I believe that the Tribune is arguing that once the bill becomes law it is inappropriate to use a trailer bill to clean it up. Instead, whatever issues the trailer bill would address should be incorporated into the legislation before it becomes law. Seems pretty reasonable to me. When you consider this key distinction I think your “flip-flop” argument fails.
Comment by Independent Voice Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:19 am
I agree with x ace….things were so less hypocritical when The Outfit was controlling gambling.
Comment by Leroy Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:29 am
Indy: The problem is that the Trib didn’t make the distinction you just made, between handling a veto override, and a bill passed with a promise of a trailer. They just called the idea of a trailer “a deal breaker”. You improved upon the Trib’s argument.
Rich has it right.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:37 am
The saddest part of the Tribbie rant is the fact video gaming was passed in 2009 — it is now 2012. The footdraggers at the gaming board look like fools for dragging this out. The worry about expansion is nonsense. Mark this as the last chance for Chicago to get a casino until 2016 — maybe
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:41 am
===I believe that the Tribune is arguing that once the bill becomes law it is inappropriate to use a trailer bill to clean it up===
As walkinfool said, you made a distinction that the Tribune did not make.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:44 am
Trib ‘editorial board’ lost its’ way some time ago.
Scary to think I wold agree with Blago about anything, but firing the Trib editorial board does make some sense. They DO need a fresh start over there.
Comment by sal-says Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 9:56 am
Walk & Rich: I am in no way predisposed to support the Tribune but I think that the distinction is implicit if you read their remarks. In their most recent remarks, regarding the gaming bill, it is clear that they are most certainly aware that the bill is not signed into law and has yet to be acted upon by the Governor. They state that the trailer bill is a deal breaker, in this situation, because the details included in it should be included in the legislation that the Governor will act upon and not left to be determined by the GA after the bill becomes law. In contrast, their remarks regarding ComEd clearly state that the bill was already vetoed by the governor and the trailer bill would need enough votes to override his veto. I see both of your points that they did not expressly make the argument that I did (thanks for your props
) but both of their statements recognize the factual realities of both bills at the time their articles were written. Am I missing something?
Comment by Independent Voice Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 12:10 pm
The point they are trying to make is in reference to what Quinn should do with the gaming bill that is sitting on his desk, agreed? If so, then all they are saying is that, my paraphrase - Quinn should not sign the bill into law based on a promise by the legislature that they will take care of “whatever” concerns Quinn has in a trailer bill, AFTER the bill on his desk becomes law. They go on to say that “every detail should have been part of the underlying bill”. I agree they did not clearly spell it out, but as I read both articles, I saw the situationally significant differences that would negate the flip-flop label.
Comment by Independent Voice Friday, Aug 24, 12 @ 12:34 pm