Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mud flies as special election nears *** UPDATED x3 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Dawn Clark Netsch was one of the members of the state’s last Constitutional Convention, and she’s always been proud of her achievements there. I’m less impressed.
Yesterday, Netsch said there was no need for another Con-Con…
“We don’t have a constitutional crisis in the state of Illinois. We have a leadership crisis,” [Netsch] said, adding: “There are no constitutional barriers to resolving the issues that have been plaguing us for the last couple of years. The only thing that is missing is the kind of leadership that brings those issues finally to bear.”
In a perfect world, she’s right. But only she lives in that perfect world.
Because the leaders and the legislators are so entrenched, I’m convinved that the only way to change things is to change the Constitution itself. The type of players we have won’t change unless the foundation document changes. Leaders have too much institutional power, unchecked by the Constitution. Legislative districts are drawn to favor incumbents to the point where very few seats ever change hands. The governor has too much leeway in rewriting legislation and his rule-making powers are not fully enumerated. I could go on, but I’ll save it for another time.
* Netsch even countered her own logic when she agreed with Pat Quinn…
[Quinn] said one of the provisions that would do just that would be to allow voters to recall elected public officials. Netsch agreed that the only way a recall provision would be added to the state Constitution is through a convention, considering lawmakers are unlikely to approve a measure by themselves
So, it’s not just the players, it’s the document.
* And this is bogus…
[Netsch claimed] The state has done nothing other than approve a non-binding resolution to prepare and educate voters for the decision… She described a two-year effort by a 50-member committee in preparation for the ballot question in 1988. Nine public hearings across the state and a series of research papers all contributed to discussion beforehand. There’s nothing like that this year so far.
So what? There’s still plenty of time to hold hearings and distribute information to the electorate. The media can also help spark the public debate. Her condescending attitude towards the voters of Illinois is somewhat appalling.
The current Constitution has not served us well at all, the opinion of a “Founding Mother” notwithstanding. Fear tactics and talking down to voters may work to derail the effort to call another convention, but those are not valid reasons.
The question is, does the current system work? I would say “No.”
*** UPDATE *** The Union League Club of Chicago is hosting a series of forums on this very topic…
Tuesday, March 18th – “State Government: Structural and Reform Issues”
Presenters: James D. Nowlan, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs;
Steven F. Pflaum, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery; General Counsel, Chicago Bar Association.
Topics: The size and structure of the Illinois General Assembly and Executive Branch; proposals for term limits and/or recall of elected officials; judicial selection
Thursday, April 10th – “State and Local Government Finances”Topics: State and local government budgeting and taxation, including proposals for a progressive vs. flat income tax; home rule powers; overall state budget process
Thursday, May 15th – “Education Funding and Reform Issues”
Topics: How the state raises funds to support public education; reform proposals including the “tax swap” concept that would place greater reliance on income taxes to fund public education and reduce reliance on property taxes
A continental breakfast will be provided at each forum. These programs are being offered on a complimentary basis but advance registration is required.
Those interested may register by calling the ULC’s Public Affairs Office at (312) 435-5946 or by sending an e-mail to: publicaffairs@ulcc.org.
Please note: the Union League Club of Chicago’s dress code requires business casual attire.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mud flies as special election nears *** UPDATED x3 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m for Con-Con to revisit and revise the whole state and local tax structure and educaiton funding mechanisms. Everyone hold hands and walk off the cliff together.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:25 am
Capt Fax:
Must have hit your head again. The current system works like a Swiss watch….sometimes it is not pretty, but it works.
And it has made you rich beyond your wildest dreams.
By not working I assume you think we needed the GRT, free riverboats for Harrahs, no electric rate relief, total giveaways for telcos and cable co, etc…..perhaps after you repair the bump on your head you can clarify working versus non working.
Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:29 am
I take issue with the statement, “The current Constitution has not served us well at all.” The 1970 constitution did work very well, for a long time. It was a very forward-thinking document, and served us very well.
And there is more than a grain of truth in Netsch’s observation that we have a crisis of leadership rather than an institutional crisis.
Despite that statement, I support a con-con in 2010. There are a number of improvements we can make in the governance of this state. Moreover, there are outdated provisions in the 1970 constitution that need to be removed, mostly in the finance article. And certain questions of civil liberties that were not issues in 1970 have to be addressed.
Hopefully, a con-con will also result in the appearance of a new set of political leaders that place principle over partisan or personal politics. That was one of the best consequences of the 1969 con-con.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:33 am
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current constitution. It provides rights and protections that would be in jeapordy if the lunatics were put in charge of the asylum.
School funding reform will not be written into a new constitution.
Meanigful ethics planks will never pass.
Maybe some feel good plank about recall might make it but would be so watered down that it would never be used and wouldn’t apply to the most obvious target anyway.
There is nothing wrong with constitution in this state. It is the legislature and executive branch that is broke.
Fooling around with a con con just gives the legislature an excuse to do nothing for the next three years.
It would be a very expensive boondoggle that would accomplish little if anything.
Address the problems of this state through legislation the way the current constitution provides.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:40 am
But the question isn’t “does the current Con work”.
It is, “what would the changes be, and how do we know those changes would work”?
While I do agree that an “Iowa method” of redistricting would be a very good idea, I don’t see how you restrict the legislative leaders power.
That power comes from the “people wont give me money, they give it to the leaders to give to me”.
I would feel MUCH more warm and fuzzy about a con if there were a specific set of proposals being pushed for it.
Say a “contract with the voters of Illinois”
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:41 am
===I don’t see how you restrict the legislative leaders power.===
Bar transfer of campaign cash from one committee to another over a certain amount. Bar leaders from appointing committee chairs.
There’s plenty you could do.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:45 am
I think that the State Constitution might need tweaking in the area of taxation period. Recall of officials may be taking place in the courtrooms of Cook County even as I type this…question: how often do other states comparable in size and political landscape to IL
rewrite their document?
Comment by Anonymous45 Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:45 am
“Bar transfer of campaign cash from one committee to another over a certain amount.”
could this be accomplished legislatively?
“Bar leaders from appointing committee chairs.”
could a rules change address this?
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:48 am
Netsch admitted yesterday that the section on redistricting has not worked as she and her fellow framers intended. It’s clear the legislature will not reform redistricting. Netsch admits there are other issues the legislature will never take up. Quinn provided a list of issues he thinks Con -Con should address. HR25 also lists three issues.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:48 am
“Leaders have too much institutional power, unchecked by the Constitution.”
The legislative leadership has too much power, willfully ceded them by the membership.
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:50 am
Quinn, himself, is the perfect example of why we should not have a con-con.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:50 am
There IS plenty you could do, and we most definitely need to do it.
And out here in Oak Park, one of the highest-taxed communities in the country, we need to get ourselves cut out of our stuck-onto-Chicago legislative district and attached someplace where raising taxes while simultaneously doing virtually nothing for Oak Park is the name of the game for all of our state reps and senators. They see us Oak Parkers as chickens to be plucked…and pluck they do.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:51 am
===willfully ceded them by the membership===
A membership that’s controlled by leadership campaign cash and leadership redistricting maps and leadership committee chairman appointment powers. Etc.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:52 am
===could this be accomplished legislatively?===
In Netsch’s perfect world, yes. In reality, no.
===I would feel MUCH more warm and fuzzy about a con if there were a specific set of proposals being pushed for it.===
That’s what delegate campaigns are for.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:54 am
I’m not buying the membership as victims of the leadership. The rank-and-file love their “member initiatives.” The campaign cash is available if they play ball.
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:56 am
They’re not victims of the leadership. Many, if not most, are creations of the leadership in one way or another.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:00 am
The single-subject thing also has to go. More otherwise baseless state constitutional challenges are brought on that issue than any other. It is “lawyer-play” at its worst.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:04 am
I thought I would never say this, but I agree wholeheartedly with Bill’s comments.
Comment by Just the Facts Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:05 am
===The single-subject thing also has to go. ===
It actually needs to be refined and strengthened to include approps (single agency bills). If you do away with SS, you allow for gigantic omnibus bills negotiated by the leaders.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:05 am
I fully support a Con-Con. Those who do not do so becuase they are trying to protect their own interests. There needs to be a recall mechanism..
Comment by b-dogg Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:06 am
Omnibus voting reduces accountability, we need more.
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:10 am
I agree with Skeeter. Take the lawyers out of it - or merely allow them in at the end to check for irregularities - and hammer out something that regular people would dream up. Sound crazy? It shouldn’t be. Illinois is a microcosm of what is wrong with politics and pay-to-play, and allowing more lawyers to doctor up a document that is supposed to be for the people of Illinois and by the people of Illinois means we’ll have another debacle like we have now.
Something must be done to limit the power of the legislative leaders as well as limit campaign contributions and fund transfers. Term limits in a state like Illinois wouldn’t hurt, either.
If we’re going to have a progressive tax system, something must to address the property tax issue should also be considered. I don’t think a sliding scale for income tax should ever be enacted with a property tax system with consistent increases in bi-yearly payments.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:19 am
The opportunity for special interests taking over a con-con are enormous. Every tax-eating advocacy group will get their claws into the majority democrat flunky delegates that will get elected and they will codify all kinds of goo-goo “rights” and funding mandates that the democrat judges in Illinois will gleefully enforce in the form of mandating higher taxes, spending and regulation.
A con-con is a one way street to economic destruction for Illinois. Anyone who thinks real “reform” has a chance in a con-con is living in a fantasy land. They won’t make redistricting fair, they won’t stabilize the tort reform situation, God knows they won’t make it HARDER to raise taxes!
Sure, the system looks pretty dysfunctional right now and the entrenched interests need some comeupance, but having the Democratic Party write a new constitution?????? THINK ABOUT IT!
Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:35 am
The current system works like a Swiss watch….sometimes it is not pretty, but it works.
Wow, Redbyrd, you win the prize for Worst. Simile. Ever. A Swiss watch epitomizes elegance and precision, neither of which can be said of Illinois state government.
Comment by Michael Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 12:47 pm
“Because the leaders and the legislators are so entrenched, I’m convinced that the only way to change things is to change the Constitution itself. The type of players we have won’t change unless the foundation document changes.”
When your PC starts grinding to a halt a lot of people scratch their hard drives, re-install & re-boot. Seems to me the con-con idea is being conflated with the “throw the bums out” idea. There’s a lot of hostility from those who are paying attention to Springfield, and early indications are this year will be no better, yet, it’s uncomfortable for some of us to believe there are 200-some bad agents in our capital building. Con-con appeals to those who think it’s not the people, it’s the system that’s the problem. But our state government is not a document, it’s very flawed human beings - US & those we elect. We get the government we deserve when we take our eyes off the ball. Neglect it and over time entrenchment settles in no matter what the document. All the checks & balances in the world will not create a government you can put on autopilot without vigilance.
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 12:52 pm
I agree that the constitution needs some serious revisions: non-partisan redistricting, term limits for leadership positions, graduated income tax, no amendatory vetoes…
And I don’t buy the argument that the special interests will take over. If they do, a majority will vote “NO” on the proposed new con or amendments.
However, it seems likely that the people writing the new constitution will be the same people who are “abusing” the current one. Why would anyone expect those people to write something that was different in any significant way? (This goes for pols on both sides of the aisle.)
To sum up: We need a new con, the people who would write the new con won’t make serious changes, what’s the point?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:17 pm
===the people who would write the new con won’t make serious changes===
i disagree. the same thing was said about the last con-con. it changed. there were good intentions, but history has shown poor execution.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:20 pm
What are the odds that we might write a brand new constitution instead of amending the document? Just asking especially if we’re asking too much for the current document.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:26 pm
I want to believe…
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:28 pm
The special interests all OPPOSE Con-Con, which is curious if they plan to take it over. Adam Smith is a fearmonger and catastrophizer.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:37 pm
Rich is right. Nothing could be worse than what we have now. Nothing.
It’s worth the risk, even if the odds are against a true “people’s convention.” Right now, leaders enrich and empower themselves and special interests feed at the trough. There’s no ability to retaliate because legislative leaders only have to please their local constituents. Only Con Con can provide the right of referendum and recall to go over the heads of our so-called “representatives” in Springfield.
Comment by Chicago Guy Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:37 pm
The current Constitution is amendable, several amendments have been added (and several rejected) since 1970. One reason that the U.S. Constitution has lasted as long as it has, is because it is wiser to amend it rather than wholesale re-creating it. There are probably 3 or 4 solidly commendable issues that could be the subject of amendment. I am very skeptical a better document than the current one would result from a concon. Issues such as recall, single subject and single appropriations bills could just as effectively addressed in constitutional amendments. You can rant about the legislature, and the governor, but we knowingly elected each of them. They are us. Power is a two-way street, and if enough people want to exercise the power to make a substantial change, it will be done.
Comment by anon Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 1:42 pm
The con-con is a distraction from holding the current crop of state elected officials accountable. It gives incumbents something to say. They can’t appear in public without the first question being extremely hostile and about dysfunction. In the fall we will no doubt be treated to the spectacle of incumbents running in part on a pro-con-con plank, completely irony-free.
Comment by BannedForLife Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 2:16 pm
My concern with a Constitutional Convention is that the General Assembly gets to write the rules for how delegates are selected AFTER the voters indicate they want a convention. Personally, for me, the process by which delegates are going to be selected will determine, in large part, if my answer would be yes or no. I don’t want some convention where Madigan has crafted the selection rules in order to stack the convention. Unless the General Assembly adopts delegate selection rules in advance, I’m afraid that I can’t support a convention. Until that time, I will continue to promote a petition for constitutional amendment to legislative article number five, even though extremely difficult to accomplish.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 2:23 pm
Michael: elegance and precision are in the eye of the beholder…you forgot to tell me what was not really working
Capt Fax when you block leader spending you leave members vunerable to attacks from the hate speech groups ….do the initials LEAA ring a bell?
Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 2:28 pm
The current system does not work, not only with the people currently holding the titles-for-life. It is a system that needs teeth. I support a con-con for if no other reason to shine light on the people behind the curtains (before it gets to a courtroom). The last 3 governors have all been investigated/indicted/convicted of crimes.
Campaign poster for a con-con? How about George sitting behind bars?
Comment by South of I-70 Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 2:50 pm
Ah, Reformer, as pollyannish as your name implies…
The “special interests” are against a con-con because they all know it means they will have to spend boat loads of money fighting with each other for the upper hand. But spend money they will and fight like dogs they will. But it will still be political insiders who write the constitution, and it will reflect their political bias in favor of more government, more taxes and more BS.
Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 3:02 pm
===more government, more taxes and more BS.====
You’re not getting that now?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 3:05 pm
The Constitution can’t keep idiots out of office. Only the voters can do that. But they seem intent on keeping the circus going.
And Rich, we CAN have more government, more taxes and more BS. It’s called New York State.
Comment by Adam Smith Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 3:12 pm
We need a new Con. My first suggestion for inclusion is that a budget must be passed and signed by the Gov on or before April 30 of each year. If not accomplished by the deadline the prior years budget less 5% in what we must live with for the next year.
Comment by Hickory Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 3:28 pm
I’ve always been a bit queasy at the prospect of a con-con because of the possibility of the special interest taking it over.
However, if the Gov’s most vociferous defender, Bill is against it, then I am convinced it is a great idea. I might even run as a delegate.
Comment by plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 4:15 pm
Be careful what you wish for Pluto! A lot of con con supporters want a graduated income tax and articles that force the state to pay for public schools. Also there are bound to be articles proposed that would take away your guns and legalize gay marriage, and affirm a womans right to choose, and maybe even make the death penalty unconstitutional.
Are you willing to risk all of that for a stupid recall ammendment that won’t even apply to the guy you love to hate by the time it is ratified?
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 4:40 pm
Ah, Bill. The neocon approach. How silly.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 4:41 pm
Sorry. It must be all that stuff I’ve been reading everyday on Illinoize.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 4:54 pm
Touche.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 5:07 pm
But, you gotta admit he’s added some spice to the venue. May not be your flavor, but it’s not something you can remain neutral about.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 5:10 pm
My question is this: Currently the Illinois Supreme Court takes the approach that the Illinois Constitution is interpreted as being “in limited lock step” with the U.S. Constitution in matters of Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. Would a con-con affect that status?
Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 5:18 pm
“Bill - Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 4:54 pm:
Sorry. It must be all that stuff I’ve been reading everyday on Illinoize.”
“Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 5:07 pm:
Touche. ”
Put me in the “welcome the new blogger” category. It is always good for a laugh.
I particularly like her (his?) repeated use of the word “sad.” It is almost like we have The Blogger of Perpetual Sorrow.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 5:36 pm
Bill,
You gleefully support all the other methods of fleecing the taxpayers, why not add a few more tricks to the wonderful Democratic politicians who rule our state.
My business is mobile. I can leave the sinking ship whenever I want to.
Comment by plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 6:15 pm
I am for a Con-Con! Forget the “be careful what you wish for” tactics. If others choose to propose changes I disagree with that is okay too. The process should be there for all, not just those limited to what I may selfishly desire–like a recall provision.
Comment by sinequanon Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 7:45 pm
There is no intellectually sound argument against a Convention.
It is virtually impossible for things to get worse, and the opportunities to make things better are huge.
The existing constitution is a piece of junk, as Blago’s opaque give-aways and Cook County’s feudal system grow stronger.
The idea that we can amend is laughable, as only the legislative article can be amended, and the courts rule out any change that might threaten their powerbase in the legisature.
We need;
Binding Ballot initiative
Transparency
Term Limits
Eminent Domain reform
Home Rule reform
TIF reform
Property tax reform.
Transparency and Binding initiative alone would fix much of what ails Illinois, and there is no way that any politician nor group of politicians would ever campaign on it.
Theoretical rhetoric aside, the people here (left and right) know quite well how IL works. There is no scenario whereby IL improves or reforms absent a convention.
On this entire thread, the ONLY decent argument against was made by Squideshi, who accurately pointed out the games that can be played by the GA after a “yes” vote.
This item itself shows how even reform elements were “gamed” by the bozos who wrote the worst state Const. in America.
Squideshi undermines his own good argument. This const. is so awful that it MUST be re-written. It is worth any risk - particularly given that we can vote down anything worse in a ratification vote.
Perhaps too few people understand the condition of the state at this time. It is bankrupt. The leadership vacuum is a FUNCTION of this constitution.
There IS NO process or combination of processes whereby things improve, for the simple reason that we are where we are BECAUSE of the 1970 Const.
Blago, Daley, TIFs, property taxes, school funding inequities, Opacity. etc. etc. are NOT functions of lack of leadership. They are a direct result of our Constitution.
Vote “Yes”. Junk it. Start over.
Comment by Bruno Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 8:40 pm
Rich, rarely do you and I disagree so much as on this issue.
Money (campaign funds) may be the root ao all evil, but I think a rational person would look at what has happened at the federal level attempts to regulate campaign finance and move toward the conclusion that full and quick disclosure is the better answer. Can you say “501(c)4″? Some of you will say that doesn’t work either, but the failure is lack of interest on the part of the citizenry, not the rules.
Such criticism of Dawn is unwarranted. She may see the world thru slightly rose tinted glasses, but I’ll take 100 of her in the Illinois GA any day and twice on Sundays. Our poltical arena would be a better place for it. After all, under your theory, isn’t she exactly the sort of legislator an informed public, not hampered by the constraints of such a bad constitution, would elect?
I would be thrilled if I could believe that a new ConCon would do no worse than the last one, but that can’t be assured. I see much more to lose (rights and freedoms) than to gain.
You assert that in the last Constitution there was good intent but poor implementation. Unfortunately that will always be the case, because (even perfect) ideas are implemented by imperfect people.
I believe anyone who believes things couldn’t get worse are just wrong. Plenty of bad things have been made worse by the unintended or unforeseen consequences of well intentioned people’s efforts (and that’s assuming delegates, elected by the very same people who elect the legislature you are showing increasing disdain for, would be well intentioned).
Until someone can show me exactly what a different (blind) date would look like, I’ll take the Devil that I know to the dance.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:00 pm
FYI — I am currently at the IEA convention where the leadership is pounding hard against con-con. They say they are afraid of opening the Pandora’s Box, despite the opportunity for tax reform and education funding guarantees.
Comment by SalukiGuy Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:03 pm
“But only she lives in that perfect world.”
Dawn Clark Netsch does not deserve such
cynical commentary.
If Dawn were in charge of the state it would
be a much better place.
actually, she’s pretty pragmatic about things
and she is rightly concerned in these “American Idol days” that opening the proverbial Pandora’s
box could be dangerous.
it’s back to the days of Pat Quinn screaming
for referenda and cut back amendment, and Dawn
advocating for reasoned change, which occasionally
mirrored a Quinn position.
I’ll take Dawn’s reasoned approach now too.
Comment by amy Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:16 pm
==Until someone can show me exactly what a different (blind) date would look like, I’ll take the Devil that I know to the dance.===
If that argument was used in 1968, there would have been no new Constitution. Nice try, though.
===I’ll take Dawn’s reasoned approach now too.===
Except that her reasoning is circular and flawed. She doesn’t live in the Statehouse world any longer - if she ever really did - so I’m not sure she knows what it has become. Remember, DCN hasn’t been involved in day-to-day Illinois politics for over 13 years.
Also, anyone who would shut down a gubernatorial campaign for two months out of the belief that campaigns are “too long” - and therefore allow the other side to define her without response - isn’t exactly “pragmatic.” Yes, 1994 was a national blowout, but that neither excuses her campaign nor buttresses your argument.
===and she is rightly concerned in these “American Idol days” ===
Please. There were plenty of shallow, TV-obsessed people in Illinois back when delegates were elected and the Constitution was approved. I’d also add that campaign contributions were often in the form of cash, as were lobbyists gifts back then. Somehow, they muddled through at the Con-Con. There’s no reason why this state couldn’t do it again.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 10:38 pm
Rich,
Sounds like you and Fritchey have been drinking allot together. What if we had a good Governor instead of this guy? There would be little if any support for a Con-Con. Don’t let one bad apple spoil a good Constitution.
Comment by Go Dawgs Thursday, Mar 6, 08 @ 11:37 pm
Sounds like you and Fritchey have been drinking allot together. What if we had a good Governor instead of this guy?
Kerner brought on the last Con Con.
Ogilvie gave us the income tax
Walker went to jail
Edgar left before MSI ran him out
Ryan is in Jail
Blago is likely for indictment and possibly jail
…
and (drum roll please) Jim Thompson is defending every indictee.
_____
Financially, the state is bankrupt ($106 Bn. liabilities)
There is no politician arguing for a spending cap or freeze, despite the fact that they would be instantly popular if they did so.
____
The current Const. has a balanced budget clause, but no balanced budget
It has a pension guarrantee clause, but pensions are raided
It has a equal opportunity clause, but no equal opportunity (school funding equity)
____
You naysayers can’t be serious. It’s a piece of crap, and our leadership is as it is BECAUSE of it.
There is no fixing Illinois with out fixing the Constitution.
Comment by Bruno Friday, Mar 7, 08 @ 5:55 am
[…] There is a pretty good debate on a Constitutional Convention over at Capitol Fax. […]
Pingback by Constitutional Convention | Extreme Wisdom Friday, Mar 7, 08 @ 5:58 am
Go Dawgs, I haen’t had a drink with Fritchey since Tuesday. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 7, 08 @ 8:32 am
I have to agree with Bruno. I don’t see how it can get any worse. This State is a shambles. If we don’t attempt to fix it now, we have to wait 20 more years.
Comment by Lennie Saturday, Mar 8, 08 @ 9:28 pm
Our Democracy is suffering under too much top-down, centralized, monopoly power.
The evidence is clear with the endemic levels of corruption, which are the inevitable result of too much concentrated power and money.
Just as our Federal government works best by allowing 50 states to innovate and compete, IL should encourage more competition between local governments by allowing counties and cities more flexibility in revenue sources, while delegating responsibility for more services. The best run local areas will attract residents, while the worst will drive them away.
If Amendments aren’t realistic, then a Con-Con is definately needed.
Will the Union Club post videos (or audio) of the presentations on a website that Capitol Fax can link?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 10, 08 @ 7:55 pm