Keep it straight

*Today* is Talk Like a Pirate Day.

*Tomorrow* is Talk to the FCC Day.

See you there!

Read more...

An exercise in futility?

In a mostly rosy display of bipartisan cooperation (with some thorns in the Senate president’s side), the Senate approved an all-in-one deal to create three new casinos as a way to pay for a capital plan. That $25 billion plan would finance road and school construction projects and provide a one-year subsidy for Chicago mass transit systems. Not everyone was happy. Worse, they predict trouble in the other chamber.

“I think it’s fine and dandy that we can be here and doing this,” said Sen. William Delgado, a Chicago Democrat and Latino Caucus leader. “But this is just an exercise in futility because it’s dead on arrival [in the House].” The House wasn’t represented in the past two weeks of negotiations and isn’t expected to support that large of a gaming expansion.

The Senate version of a gaming plan would license a new land-based casino in Chicago and two new riverboats elsewhere in the state. Side note: Despite an earlier version, this plan would require all casinos to abide by the statewide smoking ban that starts in January.

A large part of the gaming revenue would subsidize mass transit with $425 million over three years. The Regional Transportation Authority, which includes the Chicago Transportation Authority, Metra rail services and Pace suburban bus services, has been threatening to lay off hundreds of workers and cut services if the state doesn’t lend a helping hand. The deal would grant the agency $200 million for operating funds in the first year (downstate would get $30 million). The catch is that if the General Assembly doesn’t come up with a way for the RTA to generate a long-term revenue source, then the RTA does not have to repay the $200 million.

Sen. Rickey Hendon, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the gaming bill, said this plan would buy time for the General Assembly and the governor to work out a long-term funding solution for mass transit, and it avoids raising the sales tax in the Chicago area. “With this route, if you don’t play, you don’t pay. If you don’t go to the boats, it’s not costing you a nickel,” Hendon said earlier Tuesday. “And I think that’s the best way and the fiscally responsible way, the prudent way, to help the people of this state.”

House Speaker Michael Madigan, on the other hand, favors the regional sales tax for the long-term solution. He has also repeatedly said there’s not enough support in his chamber to approve a deal for new casinos. The House could tweak the Senate’s plan to do a limited expansion of gaming, but that risks being shot down in the Senate again. As Hendon said, “I just hope the House doesn’t tweak so much ‘till it’s dead on arrival when it gets over here.”

The governor said in a Statehouse press conference Tuesday night that he still opposes a regional sales tax increase and favors ending a series of business tax breaks to generate revenue.

So we have the governor, Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson on the same page. But then there’s Madigan and House Minority Leader Tom Cross on a separate page, and they may not even agree with each other on a gaming for capital and mass transit plan. Veto session will provide the next chance to see how close (or if) the four legislative leaders and the governor can come to a compromise.

Read more...

How to Speak to the FCC

Cross-posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

The Federal Communications Commission has released the official schedule for their hearings in Chicago on media regulation (click here for the pdf, or here for the Word document.) The hearings, open to the public and with most of the time set aside for comment from TV viewers, will be held at the Operation Push National Headquarters 930 East 50th Street, at the corner of South Drexel Blvd. They'll be using Dr. King’s Workshop, a 1,200-seat venue, so that they're ready for big crowds.

This is the public's chance to speak directly to the five commissioners at the FCC about how broadcasters should be regulated. Back in 2003, the FCC adopted new rules on media ownership that would have allowed media conglomerates to own a larger share of the market, greatly increasing consolidation and reducing minority input at the management level. The public outcry was fast and furious. Over 1 million people sent letters to the FCC, and the U.S. Senate publically rebuked the Commission for its stance. A court challenge forced the FCC to start over from scratch.

That's why they're coming to Chicago for the 5th of 6 planned hearings around the country.

There are many perspectives on what's wrong with broadcasting today. ICPR has been tracking coverage of local government, campaigns, and elections for years. We've found that TV news broadcasts throughout the Chicago media market spend more time touting themselves and their upcoming stories than they do covering local campaigns, government and elections. Ensuring that these stations remember their obligation to local viewers is an essential role for the FCC.

TV viewers from around the Midwest now have a rare opportunity to speak directly to the five Commissioners who will decide how to ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest. Viewers should seize this opportunity.

For more information on these hearings, click on these links:

Benton Foundation
Broadcasting and Cable (magazine)
Chicago Media Action:
Free Press
Illinois PIRG

Read more...

All in one: gaming, capital and mass transit

The Senate could consider a new gaming bill that would pay for a capital plan and, potentially, Chicago mass transit all in one. (The governor temporarily saved mass transit last week.) Some Senate Republicans favor the all-in-one strategy, but its fate is uncertain in the House. But House Speaker Michael Madigan wasn’t invited to the Springfield meeting between Senate leadership and Gov. Rod Blagojevich this afternoon. After the meeting, Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson said, “How do you leave out the speaker of the House in this discussion? But that’s what’s happened.”

One gaming proposal outlined by Sen. James DeLeo, a Chicago Democrat and assistant majority leader, would create a new casino in Chicago and two others somewhere in the state. The revenue, an undetermined amount, would help pay for road and school construction projects as well as mass transit. It also would serve as an alternative to the House’s version of a mass transit bill that would increase the sales tax in the Chicago region and allow a real estate transfer tax in the city of Chicago.

But opinions differ about the all-in-one approach. DeLeo says Senate Democrats think the chamber should focus on gaming and capital first. “If we have a capital and gaming bill, we can certainly give the [Regional Transportation Authority] a lot more funding than anticipated. So it’s a better way to go. And we wouldn’t have to do a sales tax.” It also would satisfy the governor’s repeated no-tax pledge for state income or sales taxes.

Sen. Christine Radogno, a Lemont Republican, said she actually agreed with the governor and credited him for opposing the sales tax increase, which she says is regressive and would unfairly apply to food and drugs. Instead, she favors the consideration of more transportation-related fees, such as those for drivers’ licenses and vehicle stickers.

The governor, on the other hand, still favors closing “corporate loopholes,” or ending various tax breaks for businesses. Eric Zorn now with the Chicago Tribune has more here.

The Senate Democrats and Republicans are meeting behind closed doors in their respective caucuses tonight. The chamber is scheduled to convene around 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and break for committees around 11 a.m. or noon. Meanwhile, House Democrats continue to hold a series of budget hearings around the state to build support for overrides of Blagojevich’s budget cuts. One interesting thing I missed before: According to the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, the governor’s budget cuts total $470 million, not the $463 million announced by the governor’s office.

Read more...

STATE’S MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR CONSTRUCTION PLANS NEED SAFEGUARD AGAINST POLITICS

Cross-posted from ICPR's blog, The Race is On:

Government reform advocates on Monday said the multi-billion dollar construction program about to be debated in Springfield has made the need for limitations on pay-to-play contracting opportunities even more obvious and more important.

“When the Senate returns to Springfield on Monday to take care of its unfinished business from the spring session, House Bill 1 should be at top of its list of things to do,” said Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “The Senate should act swiftly to pass HB 1 and prohibit large state contractors from contributing to the campaign committees of the officeholder awarding the contract.”

The House approved HB 1 by a vote of 116 to 0 on April 25, but the Senate leadership has not allowed it to be debated in the Senate.

“This state government’s reputation as a cultivator of corruption is well deserved, and Illinoisans have good reason to question the likelihood that a multi-billion dollar construction road and transit program will be run on the up and up,” Canary said. “There is serious talk of spending an extra $5 billion per year for each of the next five years and – unless there is a change in law –some contractors will likely feel pressured to contribute to the Governor’s campaign committee and that is not how the people’s business should be conducted.”

The governor’s closest ally in the General Assembly is Senate President Emil Jones, and Jones is responsible for blocking the progress of HB 1. For more than four months, Jones has refused to allow the Senate to vote on HB 1.

Despite Jones’ public claim that he’d like more comprehensive reform, the Senate has failed to produce alternate legislation. Sponsored by 46 of 59 Senate members, HB 1, if called for a vote would pass out of the Senate and go to the Governor’s desk for signature immediately.

“With barely a whimper of protest from his followers in the Senate Democratic Caucus, Senate President Emil Jones has stood in the way of this government reform bill by refusing to assign it to committee,” Canary said. “It’s time he stopped carrying water for Gov. Blagojevich and instead give taxpayers some hope that their money might be spent without regard to political fundraising.”

Read more...

Illinois Constitution Could Be Big Obstacle for Judge Maddux and Other 'Veteran' Judges

The Illinois Constitution could play as big a determining factor in Judge William Maddux’s lawsuit in 2008 as it played in Judge Joan Margaret O’Brien’s lawsuit in 2006. However, while the Constitution supported O’Brien’s arguments in her – and her two colleagues’ – effort to stay on the ballot, the Constitution could be the biggest obstacle for Judge Maddux and other judges facing retirement at age 75.

Things are never dull in the Cook County judiciary when petitions are being circulated in the fall every two years: someone’s changing their name, or someone missed the deadline for filing for retention, or – this year – a preemptory strike against the mandatory retirement age.

When Judge O’Brien sued two years ago to stay on the retention ballot, after missing the deadline by one day, the court dealt with the matter in almost record time. Judge Patrick McGann quickly ruled the December deadline unconstitutional – rightly so – despite the fact that the deadline allowed for greater efficiency in guaranteeing the voters the opportunity to choose replacements for retiring judges. However, the statute setting the December retention deadline was so out-of-step with the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous bench decision after hearing oral arguments. Three judges gained a place back on the ballot, while the nine candidates who circulated petitions and filed for the vacancies found themselves off the ballot.

The resulting changes in the election procedures from the O’Brien v. White decision could make things interesting should the court decide favorably in Maddux v. Blagojevich. But, first, one must consider the chances the court would rule in Maddux’s favor.

The Illinois Constitution clearly states in Article VI, Section 15: “The General Assembly may provide by law for the retirement of Judges and Associate Judges as a prescribed age.” That provision supports 705 ILCS 55/1, which states: “A judge is automatically retired at the expiration of the term in which the judge attains the age of 75.”

That might have ended the story had the First Appellate District not reapplied the mandatory retirement “only to sitting judges” in Anagnost v. Layhe in 1992. In its application, this law meant “mandatory retirement” precluded sitting judges from running for retention. As if perfectly pointing out the interesting complexity in the law’s application – or lack thereof – to “retired” judges choosing to simply to run against an opponent, the author of the Anagnost decision – 75-year-old Justice Alan Greiman – is now running in the open Appellate seat vacated by Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke.

Additionally, the Court has frequently tapped “retired” judges to occupy vacated seats through appointment for all levels, from Associate Judge to the Supreme Court.

With all that being said, the federal court has supported mandatory retirement of Illinois judges several times, including two prominent cases that are described by Bernard S. Meyer in his book Judicial Retirement Laws:

In Trafelet v. Thompson (594 F.2d 623, cert. den. 444 U.S. 906), mandatory retirement at age seventy was held rationally related to the state’s purpose of competency of its judiciary and, therefore, not unconstitutional; and in U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. State of Illinois(721 F.Supp. 156) it was held not in conflict with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as to appointed state judges, although that statute (29 U.S.C. 680[f]) expressly excluded from its protection only elected officials including judges.

But, plaintiff Maddux directs his arguments towards several different angles, including the Constitution’s mandatory retirement provision with the same document’s ban on “special legislation.” Judge Maddux also intends to challenge the concept that age is somehow tied to judicial competency.

David Novoselsky, the attorney for Judge Maddux, hit on the age and competency question in his comments in Thursday’s Chicago Daily Law Bulletin: “Judge Maddux, I think everyone will agree, is an excellent judge. He was born in 1935. So what? Why is 75 the magic number? Shouldn't it be based on the actual ability of the judge?”

According to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, Judge Maddux “contends the law undermines the intent of the Illinois Constitution, which was to use the retention system to remove judges from partisan elections following their initial election to the bench, ‘a benefit intended to be conferred on both the judges and the electorate.’”

Judge Maddux’s suit reinforces the fact that we currently don’t have a good system of rating judicial competency for judges of any age. Instead, voters mostly elect judges based upon three factors: age (or lack thereof), political affiliation (especially in places like Cook and Madison counties), and popularity in bar association polls (or even popularity within the plaintiffs bar).

But it’s unlikely that anything short of a Constitutional Convention could resolve these issues.

So how could the results of O’Brien impact the 2008 elections if Judge Maddux were to get a favorable result? The key is the change in date for retention notification from December to May. If the court were to rule the mandatory retirement statute invalid before May 2008, 75-year-old judges across the state could simply choose to tell the Secretary of State they intend to run for retention.

In Madison County, for example, Democrat Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli is already circulating petitions for “retiring” Judge Nick Byron’s seat. In fact, Judge Tognarelli recently launched his campaign website. He has endorsements from six unions and the Democratic Party of Madison County. What if Judge Byron was able to instead run for retention? If you look at the experience of 2006, is it impossible to think that candidates already chosen by primary voters could be tossed off the general election ballot?

It will be interesting to see if this case works its way through the system as quickly as the O’Brien case, especially since the arguments are much more complicated. But, just as easily, it could dramatically change the judicial election landscape in 2008.

View Judge Maddux's Complaint.

-- Al Adomite
Illinois Civil Justice League
September 17, 2007

Read more...

More Mass Transit Thoughts from Overtaxed Suburbia

Some have suggested that I have merely re-fighting a battle I lost in 1974.

Whatever the reason, mass transit thoughts keep rising to the surface of my consciousness.

Today I offer three ideas, one political and two substantive.

The political thought is

Governor Rod Blagojevich has handed the General Assembly a strategy to raise sales taxes over his veto in which those casting the crucial final votes can escape political punishment at the polls.

The deadline for passage as far as the Chicago Transit Authority is concerned is now November 4th.

Know what day November 5th is?

It’s the filing deadline for state representative and state senator.

If the General Assembly can stall that long, marginal members may be convinced to vote for the bill knowing that the odds of an outraged potential challenger getting 500 (state rep.) or 1,000 (state senate) signatures within a day are slim.

And they can vote to override the Governor's veto after the end of filing.

The first substantive suggestion is

a logical way to finance whatever deficit the CTA has.

A property tax.

Before you beat me about the head with aluminum bats, consider that that the value of property in Chicago is largely dependent on its access to mass transit. Certainly, that is a major reason, if not the primary reason, that property value in and near the Loop is so high.

Likewise, real estate in poorly served parts of the city is less valuable.

So, those who receive the most value from mass transit would pay the most; those receiving the least value, the least.

I am certain the fact that more Metra trains stop at Crystal Lake than anywhere else in McHenry County makes local property values higher than they would be otherwise.

Now, my preference would be the unrefined approach of 19th Century economist Henry George, that is, a tax on only the land. (This approach has the result of encouraging maximum development of land, since the tax on a particular parcel would be the same whether an empty lot or a high rise. Think of all the problems that could be avoided with such a tax system in Chicago or anywhere else.)

One final thought.

Residential property taxes in Chicago are about the lowest in all of Illinois.

My information comes from the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Statistics. It has information on “effective tax rates” that show Chicago about as low as one can go in Illinois.

An “effective tax rate” is defined as one’s tax bill divided by what one could sell one’s house for.

Figure out your own by getting the value of your home from Zillow.com. Divide the number there by your annual real estate tax bill.

Not a big surprise, but the Illinois Revenue Department stopped calculating effective tax rates about the time Democrat Rod Blagojevich took office. There is a couple of year lag time, so the most recent and, sorrowfully, the last comparisons of relative property tax burdens throughout Illinois is for the 2000 tax year.

I found Chicago’s effective tax rate for residential property on page 46 of that year’s Illinois Property Tax Statistics. (You’ll have to scroll down to Table 10. You can find what the effective tax rate is for your town, if it is large enough. This is a double-sided table, so it's a bit tricky.)

Chicago homeowners paid 1.1% of the value of their homes in real estate taxes for the 2000 tax year payable in 2001. That ranks 521st lowest out of 533 Illinois communities for which the effective tax rate was calculated.

So, don't tell me Chicago property taxes are too high unless you can produce an up-to-date effective tax rate for the city.

Most of Crystal Lake (the Algonquin Township part) the effective tax rate is 2.05%--ranking 203rd. The Village of Algonquin in McHenry County and Algonquin Township was 1.89%, ranking 286. McHenry was ranked 251 at 1.96% in McHenry Township.

The second substantive suggestion is

allowing legalized jitney cabs to take up the slack.

I think I had a bill drafted to allow jitneys passing a safety inspection and proper insurance for a group of conservative legislators whom I was helping in the late 1980's or early 1990's. The idea is still a good one.

Not just where the Chicago Transit Authority finds it uneconomical to run buses, but anywhere in Chicago.

I know that the “powers that be” would favor this no more than they would a property tax to finance the CTA, but it also makes all kinds of sense.

Look at the price of taxi medallions.

Clearly there is room in the market for more cab-like transportation.

Of course, bailing out the CTA is not about logic or even transpiration.

It is about patronage and forcing suburbanites to subsidize downtown office buildings.

And you can read more of some of that here.

Always more on the weekend on McHenry County Blog.

Read more...

Mass transit riders saved for now

The Regional Transportation Authority accepted Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s offer to advance all of the agency’s 2008 funding as a way to prolong massive layoffs and service cuts for seven more weeks. Two of the 10 board members, including former treasurer Judy Baar Topinka, voted no.

The $78 million covers suburban transit services for the disabled and the Chicago Transit Authority’s fare subsidy, but relief is only temporary. The governor offered the advanced payment so state lawmakers would have more time to come up with a long-term solution.

We wrote about the House’s failed attempt to approve legislation September 4. Even if the House had approved the mass transit reform bill, the governor would reject it because it includes a regional sales tax increase. “[The governor] thinks we can address the long-term needs of the RTA, as well as mass transit agencies all over the state, without raising the sales tax,” said Abby Ottenhoff, Blagojevich’s spokeswoman. “As he describes it, it really ends up being a back door fare hike on people who rely on mass transit.”

She added, “He’s committed to coming up with a long-term solution, working with legislators and working with the transit agencies starting Monday in Springfield when the Senate is back in town.”

The Senate is scheduled to come back Monday and could discuss mass transit, but a) the pressure is off for the General Assembly to act now when veto session is scheduled to start October 2, and b) the governor’s veto hangs over the existing mass transit bill. That means a capital bill is the only significant option for a long-term solution. And a capital bill still relies on a compromise on how much to expand gaming, a contentious issue between the four legislative caucuses. In other words, mass transit riders will be on a roller coaster right up to the next doomsday.

Read more...

Are you a D.I.Y. or Campaign by Committee Candidate?

Cross Posted from Fako & Associates' Political Polling Blog.

As we move deeper into the 2008 election cycle and campaigns at all levels gear up, we see a process issue debated within campaigns about how to properly manage a political campaign.

There are essentially two models of operating a campaign, the "strong leader" and the "Campaign by Committee." The complex nature of modern campaigns and the finite period of time between inception and Election Day require campaigns at every level to have extraordinarily good management.

When considering running for elected office, potential candidates should understand that a "campaign" is an entity, not an activity. Professionals who work campaigns at ground level typically describe the process of building a campaign as forming a large business over night; and, describe the feeling in the office the day after the election as walking into a ghost town.

There is an old axiom in the political world: "campaigns by committee lose." Campaigns by Committee are set to fail. They fail because decisions aren’t made quickly and differing parts of the "committee" debate and micro-manage infinitesimally small details of the race such as color of signs, what picture to use, the content of press releases, what events the candidate should attend, taking a position on an issues, etc. These types of campaign committees are absent a leader, other than the candidate, who has the command and authority to end the decision process and make final judgments.

This committee system wastes time in the decision making process. The opportunity cost of the decision paralysis (that inevitably comes from the committee process as the stress of the campaign process sets in) is where the death of campaigns by committee arrive. The cost of campaign time and resources in debating decisions is opportunity and opportunity's benefits forgone, like fund raising, contacting voters, and moving the campaign forward. Time and money are the most valuable resources a campaign has; they need to be spent wisely. If a campaign falls behind in money, it can possibly surge back, but time can never be recovered.

Campaigns at all levels need a dedicated and experienced decision maker who can execute decisions with total authority and in a timely manner. The decision maker or "strong leader" cannot be the candidate. A candidate can't do everything in a campaign; in fact, a candidate should only focus on meeting voters, raising funds and recruiting volunteers.

Campaigns at every level need a campaign manager. The campaign manager (CM) is the overall coordinator of the race and should have directive control over all operations and strategic decisions of the campaign. The campaign manager is the chief administrator of the campaign and the candidate. A campaign needs someone who can see the forest for the trees and make the trains run on time, with the ability to direct the candidate's schedule and coordinate with campaign staff and consultants to oversee the successful implementation of all aspects of the campaign's operations and strategy.

Here are some of the basic responsibilities of a campaign manger:

• The campaign manager should have control over the campaign's finances (i.e. nothing gets spent without CM approval).

• The CM must have directive control over all staff and consultants and all staff / consultants ultimately report and are accountable to the CM.

• The CM must have the authority to direct the candidate’s activities and schedule (with candidate input).

• The CM should be the final decision maker on all operational and strategic decisions (with input from staff, consultants & candidate) and he/she must have the authority to resolve internal disputes and make decisions between differing / conflicting recommendations to the campaign.

The CM reports to the candidate, but the candidate must understand that the manager is the person who is in charge of the day to day operations of the campaign.

To review, a candidate can't and shouldn't try to do it all. No matter how competent the candidate is, the candidate's time is best spent serving the functions of a candidate. A campaign can't be a democracy or even a republic; it needs to be run by be strong leader. Campaigns simply don't have enough time to debate the pros and cons of every decision. A campaign needs an authority figure, a campaign manager with the experience to manage the complex and high stress organization that is modern political campaigns and someone with the authority to execute timely decisions. These are the components of a winning campaign structure.

Read more...

Exclusive: Van der Hooning, and Illinois vets, get a hearing at the Court of Claims

Cases involving employees of the state of Illinois often end up in the Court of Claims, and in Chicago that means heading to the massive Helmut Jahn-designed James R. Thomspon Center in the city's Loop.

The building, pictured above, has many distinguishing characteristics, but its most prominent one is its enormous atrium in the center of the roundish building. Many of the offices in the building don't have doors--the inspiration behind that was Jahn's belief that government should be open and accessible to the people it serves.

My alma mater, the University of Illinois, has been less than open in its handling of the scandal involving rescinded military scholarships for its Chicago Executive MBA program.

The state, on the other hand, was great today. They let me into the hearing, which fits Jahn's inspiration.

Here are my key posts on that topic:

Broken promises: How "jarheads" got shunted aside at the University of Illinois: A Marathon Pundit series

Marathon Pundit Exclusive: What happened behind the scenes of the University of Illinois veteran scholarship scandal

University of Illinois: "Hookers are Praised as Soldiers" –Marathon Pundit's Third Investigative Report

University of Illinois military scholarships scandal update

I'm going to do a second post as soon as some of that I observed is digested, particularly the legal terms

Each side got twenty minutes to present their case. Lindsay Jones, with a booming southern accent stated the U of I's case with well-timed cadence, which in one sentance was: This case should be dismissed.

Then Robert van der Hooning's side got its turn. Van der Hooning has two lawyers fighting for him--and the veterans. Legendary Chicago attorney Michael Shakman, the inspiration behind the anti-political patronage legal decision known as the Shakman Decree, and Jennifer Smiley are in van der Hooning's corner.

Smiley's presentation was measured and deliberate, which to me--keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer--was the best way to convince the six judges the merits of van der Hooning's case.

Forty-five minutes after it began, the hearing was over. Van der Hooning thanked me repeatedly for showing up. Shakman and Smiley didn't seem to know what to make of "this blogger person," but I'm used to that. Neither did Tom Klocek's attorneys John Mauck and Andy Norman when they met me for the first time when their battle with DePaul began in 2005. They're big fans of the blog now.

I asked Shakman when he thought a decision would be reached. "Weeks," he replied. "Or months," Smiley added.

To reply to this post, please visit Marathon Pundit.

Read more...

The art of compromise

Gov. Rod Blagojevich attempted to execute another power play to make House Speaker Michael Madigan seem like the problem in state government. The governor charges the speaker and his staff with violating the state constitution for delaying action on the governor’s budget cuts. The good news is that one separate compromise allowed the state to distribute overdue payments to hospitals. The bad news is who knows whether the political maneuvering will ever stop long enough for the four legislative leaders and the governor to compromise on a capital budget and mass transit subsidies.

The governor sues again
Blagojevich sued Madigan two weeks ago in hopes that the courts would rule that the speaker has to call special sessions at the date and time specified by the governor. Blagojevich is now suing Madigan’s House clerk, Mark Mahoney. The lawsuit, filed in Sangamon County court September 11, charges that the clerk should have entered the governor’s budget vetoes into public record as soon as the House met for session September 4.

Part of the reason the vetoes weren’t recorded then is because Madigan scheduled 19 budget hearings across the state to discuss “Blagojevich’s budget savagery.” The hearings also are designed to build support for overriding those vetoes. Steve Brown, the speaker’s spokesman, said the same about this lawsuit as he said about the suit against Madigan. “This is just a waste of resources and really no merit to the case at all. And the hearings will continue.”

The administration tried to defend the governor’s budget cuts before they were ripped to shreds by angry constituents. Agency directors held press conferences yesterday in Decatur, Marion and Kankakee, the first three sites of Madigan’s budget hearings. “They were in the same areas the House hearings are in because we feel it’s important to make sure these areas have the facts,” said Rebecca Rausch, the governor’s spokeswoman, in an e-mail.

The location of the hearings relate to the budget cuts that canned projects sought by House Democrats who have at some point bucked the administration’s priorities. For instance, Kankakee is represented by Democratic Rep. Lisa Dugan of Bradley. She requested grants for local fire and police departments to buy and update equipment, for sexual assault centers in Iroquois and Kankakee counties and for a domestic violence shelter. “He cut all of mine and considered it nonessential,” she said this morning. Why? “The Democratic House members lost everything that they requested, and I’m assuming that it’s for the reason that most of us believe, that is because unfortunately, the governor doesn’t like our stand on wanting to compromise on his health care plan.”

Dugan laughed out loud when asked about the governor suing the House clerk. “This is a sad state of affairs in the state of Illinois, and the governor seems to just want to continue to make it worse.”

So the governor is punishing people who don’t want to compromise on his health care plan, but lawmakers rejected his health care plan because the governor wouldn’t compromise on the funding source. We're running in circles following these disagreements. Brown, Madigan’s spokesman, blames the governor for not compromising. “He fails to persuade anybody to accept his point of view and refuses to accept a more reality-based proposal. Not a whole lot you can do about that.”

I know the feeling. There’s not a lot we can do about the sideshows going on around the state with little action in Springfield. And when action does return to the Capitol October 2 for the fall veto session, we’ll witness a series of shows about the budget overrides, a capital budget and transportation subsidies. The House is expected to have enough votes to override at least some of the governor's budget cuts, but who knows whether they'll have a chance in the Senate. And who knows whether the four caucuses will be able to compromise on a funding source — four new casinos, one new casino, no new casinos — to finance road and school construction projects. And who knows whether lawmakers are willing to stick their necks out by voting for a mass transit plan that raises taxes while knowing the governor will veto it. That would require the four caucuses, again, to compromise and agree to override his veto.

Hynes: Compromise minimizes damage for hospitals
Hospitals around the state have been waiting for reimbursements for the cost of caring for poor and uninsured patients. The reimbursements come through a hospital assessment program, where hospitals pay a tax and then get back $3.6 billion from the federal government over three years. A series of missteps and political infighting delayed the payments due to hospitals in March. In a rare act of teamwork, Illinois’ constitutional offices recently agreed to get an immediate infusion of cash through short-term borrowing. That cash will allow the state to disburse half of the $1.2 billion due to hospitals.

“Through cooperation of the governor’s office, the attorney general’s office, the treasurer and the comptroller, we’re going to be able to minimize the damage,” said Comptroller Dan Hynes. “But it still was unfortunate that it happened the way it did.”

The federal reimbursement and assessment will allow the loan to be repaid within the month, said Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, an Evanston Democrat and architect of the assessment plan. The delay, however, means the state can’t disburse the next $600 million installment until the General Assembly comes back to Springfield to approve the new spending authority. Schoenberg adds that it’s also unfortunate that the delay could taint the state’s opportunity to get federal approval for another assessment program when the current one expires after 2008. “It’s not far fetched for the federal regulators at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to question whether Illinois actually needs the money so badly if the state is taking so long to disburse the money once it receives federal approval,” he said.

Read more...

So Much Heat Over RTA Sales Tax Hike Plan from a Typo

I see my typo generated a lot of heat yesterday on Illinoize while I was occupied elsewhere. From the comments, I sense that not a lot of people linked to McHenry County Blog's original story.

My calculations indicate that the RTA tax hike proposed by Democrat State Rep. Julie Hamos will cost McHenry County families about $200 a year, not the "$200 a month" that I mistakenly typed in yesterday's article.

That may be chump change to the folks in Chicago that want to pick suburbanites' pockets yet again, but out here we fight major battles when local tax districts want to raise our taxes $200 a year.

One other comment I found laughable.

It was about collar county residents should be happy that half of the tax hike will be be earmarked for our county boards to spend on highways. That's about $9 million for that square on the upper left hand corner of the Chicago TV's weather map.

If we want to raise our sales taxes by one quarter of one percent and earmark it for highways, we can follow Rockford's example and VOTE on that idea in a referendum. It might even pass.

I know Chicago-centric Illinoize commenters may be unfamiliar with the concept of people actually voting on tax hikes. But, you did it once way back in 1974. The official results show you won that RTA referendum, but there was demonstrable vote fraud and the timid new State Board of Elections would not allow a recount. You won by under 12,000 votes using paper ballots.

If you advocate increasing RTA taxes again, why not be big and bold and put your idea on the ballot?

But, you're not that bold, are you?

We in the collar counties don't need Chicago Democrats doing us the big favor of forcing our sales taxes up $100 a year to pay for roads the state has woefully neglected. (The potholes are on McHenry County's main north-south road, Route 31.)

Not that some of our local county board members wouldn't be delighted to have state legislators take the fall for raising taxes and giving them $9 million a year to spend on asphalt. (Or does the bill require the county board to vote to impose the tax?)

What follows is how I got to the $200 per year. If you want to challenge my logic, have at it. But have the decency to use source date from the Illinois Department of Revenue, as I did.

And, if you can find anyone else who has brought the price of this legislation down to what it would cost a local family, please tell me where to find the story or the analysis.

It's at least $18 million that will be picked out the pockets of McHenry County shoppers every 12 months if the General Assembly passes the half percentage point RTA-Road Sales Tax Hike.

To put that in perspective, $207 million was collected in sales taxes throughout the county this past year. So, the proposed sales tax increase would hike sales taxes 8.7%.

Previously, I estimated the increase would be at least 7.6% and pointed out how a local newspaper was helping the RTA to raise taxes with its headline. That calculation was based on using the tax rates. This one uses actual dollars.

If only the 89,403 McHenry County households paid the tax, it would amount to $231 a family. But, since businesses pay some sales tax, the figure per household will actually be less.

Maybe local folks won't care.

That’s certainly what the legislators behind this tax hike are hoping.

If the legislation becomes law, the Regional Transportation Authority will get another $9 million. About $100 per McHenry County family.

Almost half of the RTA’s McHenry County $9 million will go to the Chicago Transit Authority, according to Kevin Craver’s Northwest Herald article.

And the county board will get the same amount--$9 million--to spend, apparently as it wishes, on roads it wants to improve. That’s almost twice as much as $4.6 million collected in McHenry County Motor Fuel Taxes this past year.

The county board just decided to borrow $50 million to improve roads. If the $9 million per year were similarly bonded, an extra, what, almost $100 million could be spent on roads.

Read more...