Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Ozinga fading fast? ***UPDATED X2***
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Froehlich; Wait; Endorsements (use all caps in password)
Posted in:
* This is starting soon, so I have to leave again…
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 10:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Ozinga fading fast? ***UPDATED X2***
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Froehlich; Wait; Endorsements (use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Knowing that there is a good chance nothing’ll change. The voters could reject any possible amendment or revision of the constitution. Even if said amendment or revision were probably the best options for this state.
It probably would be similar, but then some may not understand what this means and probably more susceptible to listening to those who don’t want a con-con.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 10:53 am
The politicians who are in office, would end up crafting it.
That’s scary!
Comment by Northside Bunker Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 10:55 am
That delegates would pass recall and term limits and call it a day without addressing redistricting.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:02 am
Trust; I believe that we will get the same “leaders” that we have now to rewrite the constitution. Anybody NOT think that Gov B would do everything he could to pick, pack or buy the group rewriting the rules ?
Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:03 am
Adding, or amendatory veto.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:03 am
i already voted. voted yes. it was the first question on the early vote ballot, and poll workers distributed the new language to every voter in the downtown location for suburban voters…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:03 am
Redistricting is the reason I’m for it.
Screwing with my pension is why I’ll be voting against it.
Comment by Leave a light on George Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:05 am
==Or what do your friends and family say are holding them back?==
It is their belief that we are too corrupted to hold a constitutional convention. Sadly we may have reached a tipping point where voters have so little respect for our elected officials, they do not believe that Illinois can do anything governmentally with ethics and honesty.
This is nonsense, but we have been witnessing such a horrific governmental meltdown that even the possibility of having these same morons controlling a constitutional convention is killing the chance for us to regain control of our state.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:06 am
Graduated income tax
Comment by Greg Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:08 am
I agree about screwing the pension. Also if Blago had the ability to appoint each and every delegate, that would deep six it for me.
Comment by Just My Opinion Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:11 am
Thank goodness Blago can’t arbitrarily appoint people to the con-con, but he could use some of that money though to help his people get elected.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:15 am
screwing with pension
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:21 am
Spending $80 million on something that could be done for much less.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:35 am
I’ve only discussed this question with two people. One is a conservative Republican and the other is a liberal Democrat. Both are against it.
One says it’s just not a good idea to try changing the constitution at a time when anti-state-government sentiment is running so high — the delegates may rush into decisions they will regret later. The other is against it because of the cost at a time when the state is in such financial trouble.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:39 am
Sorry, that’s two points, but you asked what friends and family say about it.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:41 am
I am for it to eliminate the power that three to four people have over the rest of our representation.
I would vote against it because of the possibility of my pension being changed. The pension situation has never really been explained thoroughly in the mainstream media. Joe the Plumber does not understand totally how we got in the situation we are in. How money I have contributed out of my earnings is being used to fund other things. The general public seems to think that this immense debt is because we are all fatted pigs at the taxpayer’s trough. Until that perception is changed I am leery of opening this up.
The quickest and easiest fix would be to put the elected officials, judges, constitutional office holders, in the same pension system as the state employees. I am betting the debt would be paid and no further borrowing would occur.
Comment by Irish Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:45 am
The current political class in this state will be the ones writing the new constitution.
Comment by taxmandan Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 11:48 am
Current political interests and elected officials (on all sides) will be writing the new Constitution.
Comment by 4% Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:01 pm
Because the best thing that could come from it is eliminating or restricting the amendatory veto power, and that would cut into Rich’s sales when amendatory vetoes comprise about 1/3 of the stories on G-Rod (at least until the indictments come in.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:07 pm
If you’ll give me two weeks, perhaps I can think of something (oh, that’s right…).
Comment by fedup dem Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:15 pm
I don’t like handing people blank checks, especially those that desire to lord over me.
Comment by Leroy Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:21 pm
So far there’s been a lot of discussion on this site regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the NO arguments. I’m more interested in the reasons why I should vote YES. What Constitutional failings do we expect to be remedied (other than recall)?
Comment by Budget Watcher Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:26 pm
I received an e-mail from a professional association urging a “No” vote on Con-con. The reasons given are revealing at least to me, because I am a little naïve when it comes to the “inside baseball” of Illinois politics.
The association reports that their board has voted unanimously to oppose the Referendum, and is working with a coalition against the referendum.
They think this is the wrong time for a constitutional convention because if a convention were approved, this association would incur major costs identifying, educating and supporting delegates who understand the group’s concerns. I think that means it would cost them money to sponsor convention delegates and lobby the convention for the status quo. Similarly, they would have to spend big money electioneering voters in favor of the status quo.
So it appears their reason to oppose a constitutional convention is that they approve of the current governing structure in Illinois, and don’t want to spend a lot of money – more than usual – lobbying for the status quo.
Comment by Anon III Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:28 pm
Would we voters get to approve each section or change separately, or do we only get to vote the whole thing up or down as one piece, after the conventioneers make their choices?
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:31 pm
I voted no because I cant trust Gov Rod or State Government (except a select few). I think if there was anyway he could benefit from it, he would regardless of what is in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers. I also think pensions would be robbed to pay for Rods health care dream (which I may need Nov. 30th when my wife gets layed off from DHS). $80 mil could help offset some of the budget cuts that were imposed.
Comment by Disturbed Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:34 pm
I’m basically for the idea, but what gives me pause is the collection of organizations who are backing the yes campaign. Why? Because I think they want to gut the state pension system while leaving all the crooks and the terrible revenue system in place.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:36 pm
As one who has never been to Springfield and couldn’t care less about the parlor games down there, I proudly voted against this thinking that the folks down there can’t handle the work they have already, why add this mess?
Also very frustrated with the tribune’s continued endorsements of democrats outside of morgenthaler. It’s ridiculous that Schoenberg gets commended when he let new trier get blamed for the chicago public school cesspool.
One day hopefully we’ll get him out of office.
Comment by Shore Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:46 pm
Already voted for it. Change versus status quo. Kind of a big theme in this election overall.
Comment by doubtful Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 12:53 pm
Objections to voting “yes”
Reason #1 The unintended consequences of potentially signficant changes to the consequences.
Reason #2 Pat Quinn supports the idea.
Comment by Seeker of Truth Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:01 pm
I voted NO. The folks in Springfield would fight over how to word things and that would cost tax payers tons of money. Even though our taxes are already the highest in the nation. Very sad.
Comment by Deeda Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:04 pm
No $
It may not be changed to my liking. I am being honest here as this is a blue state
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:04 pm
Friends and family? I assure you that outside of political circles, nobody is talking about this. I guarantee you that my friends and family outside of political circles don’t even know it’s an issue.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:12 pm
There’s an easy fix to this problem that doesn’t involve a con con or $80 Million of our money - VOTE THE BUMS OUT!
Comment by steal your face Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:18 pm
The lobbyists want me to vote no…the politicians the lobbyists helped put in office want me to vote no.
So I’m voting yes. Very simple. The voters will get to decide if what’s changed should be approved. We’re not there yet, of course, so lets see what the Con-Con delegates come up with.
Comment by Deep South Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 1:19 pm
A fair and balanced moderator in the tradition of Fox news. Good luck Jeff! Vote NO!!
Comment by Harry Caray's Galsses Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 2:14 pm
I voted no. I see it as a backdoor way for the GOP to get more power in this state than they can at the ballot box.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 2:29 pm
cermak….yes, all that GOP power is amazing! The dems control the constitutional offices, the house, the senate, Chicago, are moving to the burbs to make us like Chicago (Diersen says it) and you are worried about the GOP accumulating some power? That is like the dog catcher being able to chase cats too.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 2:52 pm
What would knock me off voting “Yes”? Rich Miller coming back from this luncheon debate and deciding that he had changed his mind, that’s what!
Comment by Captain Flume Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 3:04 pm
I have none. I am objection-free. Despite the projected costs and resources necessary to stage the Constitutional Convention, I am a firm believer in engaging in “refresher courses” every once in a while. The Illinois Constituion may be in need of a face-lift.
Comment by Black Ivy Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 3:28 pm
I voted “No” on Con-Con because my union said to vote “No”
Comment by leatherneck Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 4:20 pm
With the way the public views state workers, I have to vote NO. I have 9 years in at IDOT as a worker bee, and have turned down much more money due to the fact that I have a pension here (not a big one, but its something).
The public thinks we are spoiled as it is, and my pension would disappear. If it wasn’t for that I would be for a con-con.
Comment by IDOT Guy Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 4:22 pm
They would vote to soak the middle class by changing the flat income tax rate requirement for individuals and the income tax rate relationship between individuals and corporations. We’ve lost enough medium and small businesses in this state, we don’t need to lose more.
Comment by Silent Majority Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 4:22 pm
I guess if I was going to oppose it would be as many have stated that the job may not be one to entrust to some of the current people and on a lighter note maybe we are merely substituting a constitutional convention for perfectly good and affordable tar and feathers.
Comment by Ahem Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 5:43 pm
There’s not a functioning Republican Party in Illinois. So the Con-Con would be a one-way, give a away the store to the Left.
Comment by GOP'er Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 8:43 pm
IDOT guy believe it that you should be worried every bussiness group in this state is after the DB plans and they would try to use this forum to take it away from your future earnings.
Comment by Harry Carays Glasses Thursday, Oct 23, 08 @ 8:45 pm
Mayor Daley’s people would control the convention and control what changes are made to our Constitution. This is just another way for Mayor Daley to take away our Second Amendment rights.
Comment by Deleted Daily Friday, Oct 24, 08 @ 4:27 pm