Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts *** UPDATED ***
Next Post: Horrible news on just about every level, except for the chosen few
Posted in:
* Carol Marin begins her latest column by “thanking” the state’s powers that be for uniting divergent groups on behalf of a constitutional convention…
The reason that we should salute Rod Blagojevich, Mike Madigan and Emil Jones, our fearless Democratic leaders, is that their toxic, ego-driven, Bermuda triangle of a relationship has so poisoned Springfield, so paralyzed the General Assembly, that the citizens of this state who’ve been forced to watch their antics like endless episodes of “Days of Our Lives” are desperate to fight back.
We have a former governor in federal prison, a current governor under federal investigation, and thanks to Jones’ Senate deep-sixing what Madigan’s House passed, no mechanism for a recall of officeholders.
So, suddenly, a Con-Con has sex appeal.
In the end, however, Marin sides with Dawn Clark Netsch, who opposes the convention…
Like Netsch, I believe that a Con-Con this time around will become a battleground for social issues, shoving aside less flashy but urgent discussions of fiscal policy and education.
Like Netsch, I believe the biggest problem we have right now isn’t the Constitution but the people we’ve put in power.
And so like Netsch, I’m going to say no to Con-Con.
Personally, I think the convention as social issue battleground is overrated. So what if that happens? The General Assembly rarely has a “real” debate on any of these issues, so why can’t citizens do it themselves? Is a debate so bad? And, don’t forget, Illinois voters have the final say on the finished product.
Also, as I’ve pointed out numerous times before, the problem with saying we should just elect new people isn’t valid because 1) legislators choose their voters, not the other way around; and 2) the power of the leaders is so intense and complete that new members don’t have an impact. Look at what happened in 1994 if you want proof. The House Republicans found themselves with 13 new GOP members. The same leadership team stayed in place and it rammed its agenda through both chambers. Two years later, many of the newcomer Republicans were swept out of office by Democrats, and things didn’t change in that leadership team either.
Dawn Clark Netsch is a fine human being who has done much for her state. But her direct, daily experience with Illinois government ended with her loss to Jim Edgar back in 1994 - a dozen years ago. You have to really see this beast up close to get a good idea of what’s going on. Netsch is not a credible witness.
* Then again, there are serious questions about people on both sides of this issue…
Then [Rep. Mike Boland], who is seeking his seventh two-year term in the Illinois House, called for term limits. And, as an added starter, he resurrected his long dormant proposal to make the Illinois General Assembly a one-chamber “unicameral” legislature by either eliminating the House or Senate.
A unicameral legislature, such as the one employed by Nebraska, would ensure “we don’t have this kind of personality clashes that hold up progress in our state,” Boland said. […]
What Boland didn’t say was whether he would prefer to eliminate the House, of which he is a member, and keep the Illinois Senate.
Oy.
* Meanwhile, the Tribune editorializes again today on behalf of a quick and fair resolution to serious problems with the con-con ballot question. The Trib wants the IL Supreme Court to step in and accept an expedited appeal…
• The people of Illinois are entitled to have their say on a constitutional convention free of the obstacles that schemers have tried to put in their way.
• As is, citizens risk having this vote voided after Nov. 4 when a court rules that it was just too convoluted. That could mean holding another election. What a waste.
Justices, please get involved. You have the power to do the best you can with circumstances not of your making—and not of the plaintiffs’ making. We clearly don’t agree with all of Judge Howse’s thoughts, but he had the courage to put the pure interests of voters first, and the procedural problems of election officials second.
Good for him. We trust you’ll show the same courage. Justices, block this fraud.
* Related…
* Constitutional convention supporters hold rally
* Illinois voters have chance to change constitution
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts *** UPDATED ***
Next Post: Horrible news on just about every level, except for the chosen few
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I got three more anti con-con e-mails this morning forwarded to me by various people. All of which are still pushing the “lose your pension” propaganda as the main theme.
When I saw more of these e-mails I literally pounded my desk and about threw my computer across the room. I need to relax, but these blatant lies surrounding a con-con are extremly annoying.
Comment by Speaking At Will Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 9:41 am
Forward those to me, please. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 9:43 am
I really, REALLY didn’t need to start off a Monday morning after a Bears loss with a mental image of Netsch doing the Meg Ryan deli scene. Carol, were you that close to deadline? I’ll have what she’s having? What…Gallatin County??
Comment by Vote Quimby! Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 9:45 am
No mention of Kristen McQueary moderating this event so it probably won’t be cancelled.
Chicago Southland Chamber of Commerce
Regional Consensus Luncheon
Con-Con Debate with Lieutenant Gov. Pat Quinn
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
11:30 am - 1:00 pm
Tinley Park Convention Center
18501 S. Harlem Ave.
Tinley Park, Illinois
Phone: (708) 957-6950
www.chicagosouthland.com
Member: $25.00
Non-Member: $35.00
Table: $240.00
Comment by Been There Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 9:53 am
I saw some small anti-con-con signs up inside a local police station. It’s not like they were on the front door, but I thought the fact that I could even see them from the customer service counter was inappropriate.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:07 am
== legislators choose their voters, not the other way around; ==
I am not sure what this means. If it is meant literally, and we voters are merely ficticious contructs to put a legitimatizing democratic face on an auctocratic election process, then what prevents a constitutional convention from choosing its voters? Who’s wearting the tinfoil hat here?
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:16 am
== You have to really see this beast up close to get a good idea of what’s going on. Netsch is not a credible witness. ==
It’s a contradiction to say that 60% of the electorate should support and vote for a con-con, but unless you’re a super insider you’re not credible enough to speak out against it.
Comment by Scooby Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:25 am
Illinois Constitution v. 4.0(?), 2009
Article I.
The City of Chicago and the County of Cook shall become part of the state of Nebraska, effective immediately. Then we’ll see how effective those Cornhuskers’ legislature is.
Comment by Excessively rabid Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:33 am
When you get right down to it, Netsch and Marin are bedrock establishment and have no real beef with the status quo. They fear the great unwashed participating in the process.
It’s ridiculous any longer to argue that voters really have a choice in GA elections. Which districts? Not with the sophistication level of computerized gerrymandering. Couple leaderships control over the map with their stranglehold on fundraising and the GA is now more than ever the Four Tops and the Mushrooms.
And unless human nature does a surprise 180, why in the world would leadership voluntarily give up that power? A Con-Con is really the only way.
Social issues? Total smokescreen. Bring them on. If Netsch and Marin are as progressive as they claim to be, they should be able to build a powerful coalition in Blue Illinois to oppose any right wing/evangelical blitzkrieg.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:43 am
Netsch isn’t credible because she was instrumental in writing the present document. It is hard to be objective when critiquing your own work. I’m sure there are far more objective experts Carol Marin could base her judgement on, however, as with most of Marin’s opinions there is almost always a hidden agenda.
Comment by Pros of Con Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 10:51 am
Justified or not, I’m immediately suspect of anyone who opposes a con-con as having an alterior motive in support of the status quo. The argument that certain rights regarding social issues (i.e. abortion) will be rescinded, in a state as blue as ours, is truly difficult to fathom, and is certainly not supported by history.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 11:20 am
===It’s a contradiction to say that 60% of the electorate should support and vote for a con-con, but unless you’re a super insider you’re not credible enough to speak out against it.===
Not what I said. Netsch claims to be an expert. I believe she’s not.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 11:22 am
“Dawn Clark Netsch is a fine human being who has done much for her state. But her direct, daily experience with Illinois government ended with her loss to Jim Edgar back in 1994 - a dozen years ago. You have to really see this beast up close to get a good idea of what’s going on. Netsch is not a credible witness.”
from time to time on your blog you fall back on ad hominem, calling out someone who disagrees with you as out of touch, as if you are the arbiter of who is allowed to have an opinion
it is not clear to me that the position of blogger offers privileged insights over former legislator
“Netsch claims to be an expert. I believe she’s not.”
the best way for you to support your position is to critique Netsch’s reasoning, not Netsch
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 11:42 am
===the best way for you to support your position is to critique Netsch’s reasoning, not Netsch===
Except much of her reasoning is that her experience means she knows best. It’s just political, is her constant refrain. But when I askd her to explain how the problems could be resolved simply through electoral means, she couldn’t answer.
If you claim to be an expert on the political process and haven’t stepped foot in the Statehouse in a dozen years, that’s a problem.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 11:47 am
===it is not clear to me that the position of blogger offers privileged insights over former legislator===
Wow. Talk about your ad hominem attacks. lol
My main gig is publishing a relatively expensive newsletter for Illinois political insiders. So, my real job is to be as connected as humanly possible. I don’t just sit in the office and react. Your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what I do for a living.
Netsch hasn’t been a legislator in many, many years, so I don’t see how her old experience is valid in today’s world.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 11:50 am
Plus I know Rich you have written before about how DCN is defending her ‘child’–the 1970 constitution. When she ran for governor she only won a single county—this means she has the insight in Illinois politics over a man who eats, breathes, walks and talks it every day? This ‘grandmothers advice’ schtick is wearing thin…
Comment by Vote Quimby! Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:02 pm
Prof. Netsch is begging the question. She is saying the problem is not the system; it is just bad boys & girls. She implies that if everybody was a good person, everything would be just fine.
News flash for Dawn: since the Garden of Eden, we have had men and women behaving badly. The seductive appeal of power and other-peoples’ money has and will always draw naughty ones to politics. It is the norm with which that the system of government must deal. This constitution demonstrably does not deal with the problem.
Comment by Anon III Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:02 pm
” … when I askd her to explain how the problems could be resolved simply through electoral means, she couldn’t answer.”
that’s better: the anti-con-con folks don’t have a good explanation of exactly how the electoral process will solve our problems
“Talk about your ad hominem attacks.”
well, I’m not even pretending to be a journalist, I’m just another dumb guy in the comments section, one who hasn’t stepped foot in the statehouse
look, I’m just saying, from a reader’s point of view, it reads sometimes like you go over the line and get personal, and it’s not flattering and it’s not necessary
Comment by BannedForLife Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:02 pm
===Dawn Clark Netsch is a fine human being who has done much for her state.===
Yep. Way too personal on my part.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:08 pm
“look, I’m just saying, from a reader’s point of view, it reads sometimes like you go over the line and get personal, and it’s not flattering and it’s not necessary”
From this readers point of view Rich Miller’s willingness to mix it up from time to time and get real sure makes the blog more interesting. Politics ain’t beanbag, after all.
Comment by Payin' attention Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:10 pm
== Except much of her reasoning is that her experience means she knows best. ==
Aren’t you using the same reasoning when you say this:
== Dawn Clark Netsch is a fine human being who has done much for her state. But her direct, daily experience with Illinois government ended with her loss to Jim Edgar back in 1994 - a dozen years ago. You have to really see this beast up close to get a good idea of what’s going on. Netsch is not a credible witness. ==
Comment by Scooby Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:41 pm
It is painfully obvious to me that Carol Marin fits in right along with her fellow Lincoln Park lady of naivete, Dawn Clark Netsch. Both women are deluding themselves in believing that even by voting “NO” on Con-Con, the people of Illinois can fix what is broken in Illinois government via other means (like asking our elected leaders real nicely to do the right thing for a change).
That’s not going to happen ladies! That’s why we need a “YES” vote for Con-Con.
RANDALL SHERMAN
Secretary/Treasurer, Illinois Committee for Honest Government
Chicago
Comment by Randall Sherman Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:43 pm
===Aren’t you using the same reasoning when you say this:===
I tried to make that clear. Try reading it again.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 12:48 pm
I like and respect Marin and Netsch - I know Dawn personally. But I don’t need their advice.The establisment opposes the Con-Con simply because it favors the current insiders and power brokers and their powersharing arrangements.
Illinois goverment is broken - ths system of goverment in Illinois appears to be endemically corrupt from top to bottom. I’m not buying the message that changing leaders/throwing out the rascals is adequate remedy. We’ve had 10 years of crrupt executive leadership in Illinois and legislative dictarorships even longer.
Send the Democratic and Republican establishment a message - politics and government as usual in Illinois isn’t good enough any more. We can do better. Rock the system by supporting Con-Con.
I plan to go to the Evanston City Hall and vote yea today - early but not often!
Comment by Captain America Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 1:11 pm
D.C. Netsch was a delegate to the last constitutional convention. Apparently she thinks that she is competent to decide the future of Illinois, but no one in today’s generation is. This is the hallmark of the political lifer who has been around too long. Heck, even Richie Daley was a delegate to the last Con-Con, so they weren’t all that fussy about who go in the door.
A much better known Illinoisan said it best- government of the people, by the people and for the people. Let the people speak. Dawn had her turn 38 years ago.
Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 1:47 pm
Rich,
With all due respect, if Dawn Clark Netsch is not a credible witness then I would guess that the same would be true for Bruno Behrend? Judy Topinka?
You’re beginning to sound like Jim Leach!! LOL!
Comment by 4% Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:02 pm
Speaking,
I assume that the e-mail is being mailed to active workers. If that is the case then their pensions are at risk if there is a con con. Let’s put aside the questionable “contract” clause in the US Constitution and the questionable court decision referred to by proponents. There are many important benefit provisions that are protected by the current Il. Con. which will be put at risk if the language is deleted. Let’s say for example that you a state employee, age 40, with 15 years of service. Let’s say that your pension plan calls for you to receive 2% of your average salary for each year of service at age 55. So you are 15 years away from retirement and have accrued a pension so far of 30%. Without constitutional protection that is all that you are guaranteed even if the contracts clause applies. Legislation could be passed which lowers your per year of service accrual rate to 1.5% or 1% or .5% or, worse yet, a variable rate determined by the GA or JCAR or SERS or Rod Blagojevich. Would you call that “losing your pension”? What if legislation is passed calling for all future pension benefits to be accrued in a defined contribution plan with the state contribution contingent upon available funding? Would you call that “losing your pension”?
Those are just two of the scenarios that would be legal if not for the pension clause in the current constitution.
“Civic groups” and “business groups” are indicating that these types of “solutions” are what they will be advocating if the pension protection clause is removed.
Anyone covered by a state pension plan who is not set to retire already would have to be crazy to vote for a concon. Just think what your “self-managed” defined contribution plan would be worth today after last week’s crash. But, go ahead, show Rod and those democrats. Cut off your nose to spite your face. That’ll show ‘em.
Comment by Bill Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:03 pm
===if Dawn Clark Netsch is not a credible witness then I would guess that the same would be true for Bruno Behrend? Judy Topinka?====
JBT has only been out of the process for two years, so she saw a lot more recent stuff. BB, as far as I know, isn’t making his experience with the process close hand as his big reason to dump it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:06 pm
==JBT has only been out of the process for two years==
No offense, but I don’t think Judy was ever in the process.
Comment by Bill Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:10 pm
== The establisment opposes the Con-Con simply because it favors the current insiders and power brokers and their powersharing arrangements. ==
That statement would us believe it is only “the establishment” (where are my peace beads?) that may be against a constitutional convention. There may be many who want the maintain the current power structure, and they may not all be members of the “establishment.” The potential for abusive practices by the current power structure has been available since the reduction amendment was okayed by the voters (those uninformed rabble). If there is a vote on a new constitution and the document is rejected, who assumes to cast a stone against the voting public–the same public that gave us the current Governor, the previous Governor, the rejection of an amendatory veto limitations amendment,and a host of other flops? Do I fear the will of the people? No. But I certainly don’t unquestioningly laud their foresight or wisdom. I would like to see a Con-Con just to see what issues are deemed important enough to be included or rejected, and what the delegates believe is a better document than the one we currently have. I mean that.
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:18 pm
Bill, you shouldn’t be making those arguments on a day when most public employees are off. Conversion to defined-contribution plans would be a compelling argument for many of us to vote for a con-con, if it in fact were likely to happen.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:54 pm
Roughly half of the potentially eligible voters in Illinois don’t bother to register. Of the half that do bother, frequently half or more don’t bother to vote. I could (and have) argued that this is democracy at its best, 3/4 of the eligible voters saying “I don’t give a s— one way or the other”.
I’m not sure whether that represents a fear of the great unwashed or not, but I personally happen to thing that a better solution to our problems than con-con might be 80-90% registration and 80-90% turnout. Regardless, I continue to believe that our current Constitution and our citizens face more risk than upside with a con-con, and I go with those odds.
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 2:59 pm
Rich you know this stuff a lot better than I do, but it seems from an outsider’s perspective that the Springfield cabal can’t get anything right with its current deal, how is opening another mess going to fix things? They can’t manage one government so they are going to come together and somehow get religion?
Comment by Shore Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 3:00 pm
You’re assuming they will have total control of 118 newly elected delegates. Impossible.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 3:22 pm
You don’t need 118 to prevent a question from going to the voters. I think Shore is saying that the odds are that not enough delegates will agree on anything in a convention. I agree. There is an unprecedented (and unrealisitc)level of optimism on here only on this issue.
Comment by numbers Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 3:56 pm
numbers. I would have to disagree with you. This doesn’t have to be an all or nothing question to put in front of the voters. Each item could be submitted to the voters. I can easily see issues that may get 60 con-con votes. And if nothing else at least the debate can happen without participants who have to worry about how it will be used against them at the ballot box the next time they run.
Comment by Been There Monday, Oct 13, 08 @ 4:20 pm