Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: NRCC already attacking Simon
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Inauguration Event List
Posted in:
* We looked at the hot GOP rhetoric from yesterday, now let’s look at the other side. Daily Herald…
“The late Judy Baar Topinka was a woman of the people,” Quinn said. “She understood that government officials must be accountable and responsive to Illinois citizens.” […]
This is meant to give people a chance to have an election,” Cullerton said. “We don’t know who’s going to run, we don’t know who’s going to win. The principle is, I think it’s something that we should do.”
I really don’t like the idea of putting words in a dead woman’s mouth. We have no idea what JBT would think about this. And we’ll never know.
Also, “we don’t know who is going to win”? Maybe, but we do know that presidential elections see a much higher turnout of Democratic-leaning voters.
For example, Democratic state Rep. Frank Mautino won by just 337 votes in 2014. He won by 11,706 votes two years ago. His 2014 GOP opponent received 17,072 votes while his 2012 opponent received 16,407 votes - hardly a huge increase. The difference was in Mautino’s results: 17,409 last year versus 28,113 in 2012,
The new Republican comptroller is gonna have to get really popular, really fast - and hope that Rauner doesn’t become too much of a liability.
* Sun-Times…
Earlier in the day, Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul of Chicago told his fellow lawmakers he wants to pursue merging the comptroller’s office with the treasurer’s when the next General Assembly begins its work. Republicans at times tried to turn the conversation back to that merger — complaining that there’s no reason it couldn’t happen now.
Currie called that a “smoke screen.”
“ ‘We can’t deal with this, because we’re not dealing with that,’ ” Currie said. “It’s a completely different issue, completely separate from what this is about.”
Translation: Speaker Madigan doesn’t support a merger, never has and probably never will.
* Gatehouse…
Democrats countered that the framers of the 1970 Illinois Constitution did not anticipate an appointee would serve a full four-year term as a statewide official. They also argued that an election in 2016 would cost nothing because voters will already be going to the polls to elect state lawmakers.
The framers did anticipate that something might happen, which is why they gave the GA the power to pass a special elections bill.
* Tribune…
Democrats contended that lawmakers needed to act now to avoid a legal battle in which Munger is sworn in on Monday and could claim a “property right” to the office for four years.
That’s true.
* More Tribune…
Meanwhile, Cullerton dismissed the notion that the maneuver sets a poor tone for his working relationship with Rauner, saying, “We have plenty of other things to talk about to get us set on a good foot.”
Yeah? Name one.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: NRCC already attacking Simon
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Inauguration Event List
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===Democrats contended that lawmakers needed to act now to avoid a legal battle in which Munger is sworn in on Monday and could claim a “property right” to the office for four years.===
===That’s true.===
I agree with this. I am all for having the special election but only if they passed it before someone was sworn in. Changing the rules once someone is in office obviously opens a whole different can of worms.
Comment by Been There Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:48 am
I was really was put off with the using of the late Comptroller Topinka as a discussion point.
Make your points in the merits of your position; Constitutional Convention notes, whatever, but please don’t make legislators vote on a theory of what one may think she may have thought or think…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:49 am
Did you see that big GOP wave in November?
Me neither.
The Prairie Whigs aren’t players here, even with their new billionaire governor.
Let the “MUNGER GAMES” begin!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:51 am
Let the “MUNGER GAMES” begin!
Vman FTW
Comment by Roadiepig Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:56 am
I don’t think the Repubs should be out front trying to block an election of Topinka’s replacement.
Comment by Davis Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:57 am
I was offended by the GOP argument that the people elected Judy, a Republican, so a Republican should automatically assume the position. They kept spouting the people elected a Republican. No, they elected Judy, and many democrats voted for her DESPITE the fact she was a Republican.
Comment by here we go Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 10:58 am
Great way to start the working relationship with a new governor.
And nice job putting words in JBT’s mouth after her passing. Pretending anyone knows exactly what she would have done or said on this is more offensive than anything else.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:02 am
You can rationalize anything. Lame duck legislation is just about to prove that the handful of states that only allow their Assemblies to meet bi-annually for short sessions might be onto something. The process just stinks.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:04 am
Don’t really care but think it would be kinda cool if Munger gets re-elected in 2 years.
Comment by Soccertease Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:07 am
If Democrats demanding that an elected office be filled at the next election is going to sour the relationship with Rauner, then there was never much of a chance for a relationship to begin with.
Seriously, this dispute is over who will serve as Comptroller from 1/17 to 1/19. Given the issues facing IL, that one is way down the list.
If Rauner is upset about that one, then how is he going too respond to push back on major issues, like his first budget?
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:08 am
We do know for a fact that she wanted to merge the offices. For someone so concerned with honoring her wishes, it seems odd to omit that part.
The politics of death in Illinois. It’s sick.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:11 am
Well said, Gooner
Comment by Bill White Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:15 am
FKA- “I was offended by the GOP argument that the people elected Judy, a Republican, so a Republican should automatically assume the position. They kept spouting the people elected a Republican. No, they elected Judy, and many democrats voted for her DESPITE the fact she was a Republican.”
Rauner won by a larger margin than Topinka. The storyline of democrats crossing over in huge numbers to vote for her is a myth. Lip service is nice but in the end D’s still voted for the D. Just like they did for Rod.
Comment by Thunder Fred Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:16 am
===Lip service is nice but in the end D’s still voted for the D.===
Do you have the statistical proof? What do you base this on?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:18 am
===Yeah? Name one.===
Some of those regulations that you previously pointed too as overly burdensome.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:21 am
Do you have the statistical proof? What do you base this on?
Since when was last November’s General Election results not good enough for you?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:25 am
Yup, stripping down the constitutional authority of the incoming governor-elect with a partisan lame duck session vote to be signed by lame duck governor wasn’t a punch in the nose. It was a loving hug!
What is next? An executive order circumventing a statute that circumvented the state constitution?
Gotta love lame duck sessions in Illinois!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:27 am
===Since when was last November’s General Election results not good enough for you?===
Bost and Dold?
Two of three contested statewide races go to the GOP..,
I dunno - VanillaMan -, enlighten me…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:31 am
=== If Rauner is upset about that one, then how is he going too respond to push back on major issues, like his first budget? ===
Remember, the Gov-elect never loses.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:31 am
Good Heavens. The “normal” water in Oswego must be frozen. Lick the ice if you have to man.
Comment by A guy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:38 am
The result was right. It would have been wrong for a Gov. Quinn or a Gov. Rauner to have a four-year appointment when there’s a statewide election in 2016.
You’re elected to do your job for your full-term. The 13th Amendment passed in a lame-duck session. I’d say the process was fine there.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:39 am
- A Guy … -
Again, attacking me isn’t making a point.
It’s as though you forgot facts matter…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:40 am
==Lame duck legislation==
Then kick them out of office on election day. Otherwise everyone needs to stop whining about it.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:42 am
Thunder Fred - you seem confused. It appears you are referencing another person’s comment above me.
The only thing ==offensive== to me is attempting to use the death of a very, very good woman for political gain. That is why I and many others in both parties liked Public Servant’s suggestion so much the other day. Put both issues - combining the offices and a special election - on the ballot at the same time and truly let people decide, or leave both issues for the new session. Honor her legacy honestly, don’t manipulate it or put words in her mouth, whether you are a Republican or Democrat.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:46 am
Anybody that says I’d be for or against something after I’m dead is a damn liar.
I think that will be in my Will.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:46 am
The phrase “Grasping at straws” comes to mind, or “whistling in the wind”, or “trying to make a mountain out of a molehill”.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:51 am
—I was offended by the GOP argument that the people elected Judy, a Republican, so a Republican should automatically assume the position. They kept spouting the people elected a Republican. No, they elected Judy, and many democrats voted for her DESPITE the fact she was a Republican. —
Republicans should reach back in recent history and see what happened when Democrat Alan Dixon was elected to the US Senate. I wonder which Democrat Governor Thompson appointed to take his place as Secretary of State? That good ole boy Democrat Jim Edgar.
Regarding the merger of the offices, has anyone gone back to see exactly why they were separated in the 1970 Constitution? Can the scandal that caused separation of the offices happen again? Or have processes changed enough so it can’t occur?
Comment by Great Caesar's Ghost! Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:51 am
As for the lame duck claim, how many of those who voted ‘Aye” will return next week?
How many seats will which parties between today and next week?
How does a re-elected incumbent fit the definition of lame duck?
Comment by Bill White Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:52 am
How many seats will [ switch ] parties between today and next week?
Comment by Bill White Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:57 am
=== Yeah? Name one. ===
Closing corporate tax loopholes.
A Capital bill.
Increasing school funding.
> Regarding the argument that Republican candidates are less competitive in Presidential elections: That is wholly the GOP’s choice.
First, if they want to be competitive in presidential election years, they can start by updating the party’s platform, which has not changed significantly in well over two decades.
It sounds to me like Munger is set to run as a social liberal and fiscal conservative in 2016. I’d say she will be very competitive, unless the GOP decides they would rather nominate a social conservative.
Again, that is their choice.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 11:59 am
To Rich’s question, “Name one?”:
Broadening the sales tax base. Surprised this hasn’t gotten more attention, Cullerton and Rauner are fairly aligned on this. Lower overall rate, raise revenue, plug (some) of the crazy gap we’re facing.
Comment by vibes Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:00 pm
P.E.N.S.I.O.N.
Comment by Reformed Public Servant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:01 pm
===Lower overall rate, raise revenue===
Rauner’s original proposal was only about $400 million, if memory serves. No rate lowering there.
It would have to be a very broad service tax to lower overall rates by a tick, but the pushback would be enormous. Heck, it’s gonna be huge with Rauner’s modest plan.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:04 pm
True. Have you seen any other credible revenue ideas with less expected pushback?
Comment by vibes Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:10 pm
And when it came to expanding the service tax, if memory serves the bulk of the revenue came from taxing legal services.
I am not sure that Illinois is poised to become the third state in the country to tax legal services.
But I suppose we could call someone over at Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin, Mayer Brown, Winston & Strawn or McDermott Will & Emery and ask them.
Anybody know anyone at any of these firms?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:19 pm
Another big chunk came from taxing marketing, communications and public relations services, including all advertising except for billboards.
Yeah, no pushback there.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:21 pm
Finally, as I recall the Senate Democrats’ service tax proposal was explicitly revenue neutral.
That won’t help Rauner much.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:22 pm
Geez, Louis, are you guys going to play the victim for four years? The boss hasn’t even been sworn in yet.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:26 pm
===What is next? An executive order circumventing a statute that circumvented the state constitution?===
Nah, run a Bill and sign it, more fun that way.
I’m not going to ask you - Louis G. Atsaves - even to admit you have no links to Rauner’s Doom anymore. I will just keep that in my head during “Outstanding” “Excellent” and “Great” puffery.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:31 pm
Not sure if Madigan cant’t see the irony or is trying his attempt at comedy but actually said he does not support merging the 2 offices because it would give 1 person too much power.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:31 pm
–Good heavens. The “normal” water in Oswego must be frozen. Lick the ice if you have to man.–
Does anyone speak this language and can provide a translation?
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 12:33 pm
===Not sure if Madigan cant’t see the irony or is trying his attempt at comedy but actually said he does not support merging the 2 offices because it would give 1 person too much power.===
There are better accounting system internal controls in place now, more transparency, better audit techniques. MJM is still living in the Orville Hodge days.
Comment by Soccertease Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:04 pm
“The result was right. It would have been wrong for a Gov. Quinn or a Gov. Rauner to have a four-year appointment when there’s a statewide election in 2016.”
As you know from my prior postings, I agree with the above statement.
BUT, can a enacted statute strip down the constitutional rights of an office holder? Without a constitutional amendment? The ends don’t always justify the means.
And for those who are trying to minimize the lame duck label by counting noses in the legislature, if my memory serves, lame duck Governor Quinn called for a special session, and lame duck Governor Quinn has already announced he will ratify the actions of the lame duck legislature, which will strip down the powers of the governor to appoint for a term certain in this situation.
Or as my late Constitutional Law professor used to say, American Constitutions and Popular Will of the People tend to clash. Often for good reason. Tyranny of the majority stuff is protected against in constitutions.
But not in Illinois? My response remains: “Even in Illinois.”
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:18 pm
I thought we were living in the Rita Crundwell days, Soccertease. Just sayin…
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:20 pm
===Tyranny of the majority stuff is protected against in constitutions.===
Glad to see that you’re in the anti-SB1 camp, Louis. Welcome.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:21 pm
Louis,
Do you intend to cry every time that Rauner does not get his way?
You lost this one. You are going to lose a lot more.
Part of the reason lose is because voters don’t trust you people, which is partly because you all have made it clear that you don’t trust voters.
Louis, try embracing democracy. If you embrace it, voters might embrace your kind.
Either way though, please stop whining about losing.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:26 pm
===strip down the constitutional rights of an office holder===
She ain’t yet an office holder.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:32 pm
Louis:
You can scream to the high heavens that this has stripped away constitutional authority but you are just full of it. Period. The constitution allows for this. And anybody that can’t see this is either illiterate or obstinate just for the sake of being obstinate. Get. Over. It. It’s done. Stop whining about it and move on. Playing the continuous victim is pathetic.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:51 pm
=== BUT, can a enacted statute strip down the constitutional rights of an office holder? ===
First, as Rich an others have pointed out. She isn’t an officeholder. That’s why they had to act now. The emergency the House GOP kept questioning in a dilatory fashion. YES, the vacancy replacement procedure and be changed When authorized by the constitution.
=== Without a constitutional amendment? ===
YES, when the constitution allows a law to be passed to accomplish the action. Reading the convention transcripts shows that was the intent.
=== The ends don’t always justify the means. ===
NO, but here the means was authorized by the constitution to accomplish a good end for the citizens of Illinois.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Cullerton has been blaming Republicans for years for all the state’s woes even when the GOP was a useless super-minority. Now they actually have a toehold. I bet Cullerton is going to be annoyed that they have some real power for the next 4 years.
I love it when the people get services and the politicians get annoyed.
Comment by Rhino Slider Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 1:56 pm
===I thought we were living in the Rita Crundwell days, Soccertease. Just sayin…===
PS-agree, fraud still happens, but the tools to prevent it are much better now. Dixon IL wasn’t on top of their game and Crundwell took adavantage.
Comment by Soccertease Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:01 pm
” . . . you people . . . ”
Sheesh!
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:07 pm
Louis,
If we can get you outraged by 1) voting for democracy; and 2) referring to white conservative males as “you people”, then the next four years sure will be entertaining.
Son, while I wasn’t trying to troll, I do admit that the thin-skinned outrage is pretty funny.
And now back to the post. I have to wonder if the outrage in the House and Senate, in contrast to Rauner’s apparently calm response, is on purpose. Are they smart enough to create that contrast on purpose to make Rauner look good? While this may sound like tin-foil hat talk, it would be brilliant strategically.
Rauner may give up control of the office for two years, but he’s coming out of the process looking good.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:20 pm
Gooner, Unger’s response was way better, but Rauner did come off lighter than the rhetoric from the House GOP.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:35 pm
” . . . you people . . . ”
So you walking that one back or does it apply in your mind to just Republicans like me? Or all Republicans including me?
I know my comments around here often aren’t popular, and I have a pretty thick skin, which is why I keep posting here, but do yourself a favor and leave the gratuitous insults to Oswego Willie in the future.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:37 pm
So now I’ve got Louis focusing his outrage at me rather than Democrats, which is nice.
I think I’m going to start referring to Louis as “Francis” Atsaves. The “lighten up” will simply be implied by the same.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:42 pm
===I know my comments around here often aren’t popular, and I have a pretty thick skin, which is why I keep posting here, but do yourself a favor and leave the gratuitous insults to Oswego Willie in the future.===
LOL
Man o man, are you ever the victim or what?!
I’ll leave the Dopey hyperbole, and rhetoric without the supporting links to you - Louis G. Atsaves -
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 2:46 pm
Louis:
You’ve got the victim thing down pat today. Sheesh.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 3:28 pm
Well I for one, am gratified that Louis understands that in a Representative Democracy, a constitution is meant to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Love ya Lou…for today, anyway.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 4:01 pm
Great Ceasar’s Ghost:
Actually, the Comptroller’s post wasn’t created or separated from the treasurer.
The predecessor of the comptroller is the auditor of public accounts.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 9, 15 @ 4:44 pm