1. - howdy - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:40 am:

   No. We need to consider just the opposite, citizen legilators. People who work for a living and don’t make a living from public service. Lower compensation, limited days of meeting, and NO pensions. Doing public service should not be a carrer path.




2. - Amuzing Myself - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:41 am:

   Absolutely not! While the practical reality may be that they’re more-or-less full-time legislators anyway, the idea that at least a few of them have real jobs and real lives outside the State House to keep them grounded in the “real world” is good for government in general.

   And this pay raise being held up by Emil is the biggest softball Republicans could possibly hope for. It’s not that it’s a pay raise for themselves, the key is that it’s a pay raise for this Governor! Are you kidding me?! Only in Illinois!




3. - SuperDave - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:43 am:

   No, the current model is broken beyond repair. Illinois needs less full-time legislators and more citizen legislators who are not in it for a career, but rather out of civic duty. Reduce the length of the sessions and reduce the salaries. The only downside to that approach is that it could reduce -to some degree- legislative “oversight” of the executive branch, giving future governors more authority (and, by extension, arguably, more accountability for performance).




4. - Levois - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:43 am:

   I would rather they didn’t. I want Illinois to have a citizen legislature where the members work regular jobs and we discourage people from treating legislation like making a living. They should only be compensated for those days where they’re conduction either legislative or constituent business.




5. - The Doc - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:45 am:

   Great question, Rich. And the answer is yes. There are simply too many conflicts of interest for members of the GA. Prohibiting outside income, coupled with a fair but substantial pay raise would help to ensure that the legislator’s voice in the Capitol is more in line with that of his/her constituency. McQuery’s article is right on - it’s a coveted job. And since their salaries are funded by taxpayers, any other positions that are in conflict with the goal of the lawmaker should be banned, without exception.




6. - Ahem - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:48 am:

   The Doc said it well.

   $73,000 ought to pay the bills and then some. If they need more income that’s what the private sector is for.




7. - Will Clark - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:05 am:

   Yes, it should be full time. And I’m sorry, but you’ll never get me to believe these guys work harder than we give them credit for, spare me.




8. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:09 am:

   There are many states that have PART TIME legislators where there salary is extremely lower. This ensures they get their job done quickly without all the games so they can get back to their real job.
   I like that model better.




9. - wordslinger - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:13 am:

   That loud noise you just heard was House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, attorney-at-law, hitting his head on the ceiling.

   I don’t think so. Obviously, there are scores of potential conflicts in outside income, but full-disclosure and transparency can take care of that. It’s up to the public to know the facts.

   Smart, talented people want to make more than 70G a year. We could use them in government. I’m less impressed by those who see being a legislator as a full-time gig, have no outside income and “need” the pay raise. More, not less, representation outside the full-time political class is needed.




10. - lifer - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:14 am:

    I agree with the Doc full time–no outside interests but I am in favor of term limits. The system is broke it needs to be fixed and term limits could do it. Down side is there needs to be someone who knows how to run it but I know that staff can do it and staggered terms and limits would weed out the career politicians we are subject to today.




11. - The Federalist - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:20 am:

    I would give them the same salary if they just met for 6 months every two years. They could not do as much damage to the rest of Illinois!!!




12. - Just Observing - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:21 am:

    We should NOT limit outside income. Doing so will serve as a disincentive to public service and will help ensure only wealthy individuals serve.




13. - SouthSide Mike - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:23 am:

    No.

    First of all, I question the Constitutionality of forbiding outside work. An elected position is not an employment contract except to the degree spelled out by statutory authority. I understand the sentiment behind this, and the desire to limit outside influence. But a full-time legislator can still be influenced through the employment of his or her spouse.

    One problem is that legislators are all paid the same, no matter how much or little they work. You get some who are true public servants, and others who enjoy the perks but have done nothing. However, merit based raises are an even worse concept. Could you image Blago in charge of legislative pay?




14. - Ghost - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:29 am:

    Yes, I have to pretty much agree with what Doc said.

    We do not have citizen Judges anymore (we used to) over very similiar concerns about conflicts etc. Its time for a full time legislature.




15. - clj - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:32 am:

    Everyday an issue arises that seems to point to a need for the con-con. If the legislature is to be full time then it needs to have term limits. Citizen legislators are what we are suppose to have right now! Maybe we should dramaticaly increase the number of legislators and decrease their pay like in New Hampshire. We would also have to limit the powers of the executive branches and departments. We should also restructure local governments to be more inclusive to citizens. By far the best part time job in Illinois is a Chicago Alderman followed by the members of the General Assembly.




16. - Excessively rabid - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:32 am:

    It doesn’t matter what system you have if the people in it are slime.




17. - Leroy - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:34 am:

    “Legislators work a lot harder than most people give them credit for.”

    Who doesn’t? Ask anyone. They’ll tell you exactly overworked, underappreciated, and underpaid they are.

    True fact.




18. - Little Egypt - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:35 am:

    Folks, we’re talking about Illinois, the most politically corrupt state in the union. Does anyone think it is humanly possible to put these jokers, er legislators, on full-time status, give them a bump in salary, and there would be no other outside income? Nothing from lobbyists, nothing from special interests? Gee, imagine having a campaign fund that has money left over after the election. What to do with that, perhaps give it back to contributors so there is no war chest to tap into? No, natta, nope, not gonna happen in this state. Perhaps in one’s dreams but not in the real world. Even if we try to make the legislature a full-time, year-round position, it’s not gonna happen. There’s not anyone in this state smart enough to write the legislation, least of all finding current residents of the chairs in the House and Senate who would vote for such a crazy idea. The corrupt system in this state works well for our politicians, and I can see a majority of them saying “if it ain’t broke then don’t fix it.” A lot of these people are not in office for the good of mankind, a/k/a constituents, but to line their own pockets. Kristen McQueary is half right. It’s not a pretty good gig, it’s a great and unbeatable gig.




19. - Bill - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:38 am:

    One job that beats being a legislator is being a lobbyist. Maybe we should limit their salaries by law so that they can never make more than a legislator.




20. - Downstate Commissioner - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:45 am:

    Yes. Would prefer that they stay part-time, but eliminating the outside jobs would force them to pay more attention. In my area of the state,a $73,000 job is a high-paying job, no matter what it is. Because of the outside salaries, too many legislators are in it for the title and the “glory”, not the need for a job. If they are not doing that job right,the public MAY pay more attention at election time.




21. - Cassandra - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:51 am:

    I think we need a quid pro quo here. We all need more money–gas, food, medical treatment, it is getting more and more expensive to live here in the United States. And in a fifty plus billion dollar budget, the money required to fund this is chump change.

    As to the attendant increase in legislators’ ever more lavish retirement benefits…we taxapyers have known for decades we are funding lavish retirement packages for state employees, even as private sector pensions disappear. There seems to be little impetus to change that. We apparently don’t mind having to find money from our shrinking
    family budgets to fund our own retirements as well as theirs.

    The quid pro quo should be lower taxes. Same as a raise. The legislators could do a little budgeting, cut a bit of waste, graft, and patronage, and give us a raise by lowering our income taxes. Win for us and double-win for them.




22. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 10:59 am:

    The perfect ideal would be the “citizen-legislator” who works part-time, is modestly compensated for their time and trouble, and doesn’t stick around for 20 years in a fiefdom. The full timers at LRB, etc., are there to do all the grunt work…the legislators should focus on the big picture and their constituents.

    Today’s large salaries for part-time work, especially in a system where only 2 or 4 people in the GA have trhe real power, and long-term incumbency and perks on top, are not producing quality results from what I can see.




23. - justice - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:02 am:

    $73K is too much for a part-time job at public expense.




24. - Downstate Commissioner - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:06 am:

    re “clj” comment about more legislators. We used to have more, then a guy named Pat Quinn came down the road… he is probably the ONE person most responsible for the current do-nothing legislature. In spite of this, he would probably be a better governor than Blago.




25. - Garp - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:08 am:

    Maybe they just need “combat pay” for having to deal with this Governor. When he is removed from office the pay should be reduced to current levels. Wait, that is a bad idea because it gives them an incentive to not impeach him.




26. - Vote Quimby - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:23 am:

    NO full-time legislators! How about we restrict the number of attorneys in the legislature to the same percentage of the overall population? If we added term limits we could attract competent people interested in serving the state, not empire-rulers who only look out for #1.




27. - Dirt Guy - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:23 am:

    $73,000 for a part time job! Wow. If these guys were in the private sector they would make the management at Motorola look competent.

    Take the $73,000 figure and break it down to an hourly rate. The pay these guys by the hour for the time they are scheduled to be in session. And nothing extra for overtime.

    “seriously long days and weeks” Bring them to my place during our “season”. None of them would last a week.




28. - PhilCollins - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:33 am:

    $73,000 might be a fair salary, if they worked full-time, 50 weeks per year, and if the state government had no budget problems. Since the legislators work about half of the year and the state has a budget problem, they should be paid $37,000 per year.




29. - Ghost - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:48 am:

    We need term limits everywhere. Anyone who is in a job should have to leave after 8 yrs. The constant turnover will keep all companies/buisness honest and provide us the best value by keeping every business in a state of flux and training as the workforce tunrsover and new people learn the job.

    After all, if term limits are good for the general assembly, they should be good for every single job.

    We need to stop people from getting experience and staying in the same old job they have had for years.




30. - out to lunch - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:55 am:

    All of my local legislators (as well as their predicessors) work their jobs full time and have no other work income.

    I thought it was standard!




31. - Wumpus - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:56 am:

    Ghost, you are joking? Some people are perfectly happy and competent/honest in their current jobs.

    As for barring outside income, no. These politicians aren’t all the smartest, but many of them are greedy as heck. Their greed will lead them to get families on payroll, etc




32. - Anon - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:56 am:

    It should be a full time job with this salary, which is appropriate for a full time job. And all outside jobs should be banned. I don’t think their outside jobs keep them grounded. What kind of outside job would keep a person employed who takes all this time off work for a run-on session? Only jobs that support this person’s legislative work like business owner, lawyer, etc. Only jobs that rich people have. The more “grounded” legislators are those who don’t have outside income and live off these wages. Legislators these days are working full time. They should be paid accordingly. And the conflicts alone, are enough to convince me they shouldn’t be allowed outside work. Being a legislator is a career in Illinois because we don’t currently have term limits. If staffers don’t consider their jobs “part time” why would their bosses’ jobs be considered part time?




33. - Cassandra - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:06 pm:

    The problem with a prohibition against outside income is that “campaign contributions” will become increasingly important, making our legislators even
    more dependent than they are on special interests.
    Plus, I’m sure any prohibition of outside income
    would have all kinds of loopholes–these folks are greedy and greed breeds ingenuity in dealing with
    whatever restrictions may apply.




34. - Rich Miller - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:16 pm:

    ===“campaign contributions” will become increasingly important===

    Why? They are prohibited from using those funds for almost all personal purposes.




35. - Truthful James - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:17 pm:

    It is clear that the poor dopes need more money if only to pay the cost of all those fund raising tickets they have to buy — perpetually.

    That is why many sit at more than one public trough. What else do you think fuels he political machines

    And they get a humongous pension vested as well. The staffs do all the detail work.




36. - Avy Meyers - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:19 pm:

    Just the opposite, we’d be much better off with the old bi annual sessions. The more they do, the worse off we the people are.




37. - Legal Eagle - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:22 pm:

    It’s a full-time job for the legislators I know - by necessity, not by choice. They all have long district office hours when the Legislature is not in session, and attend 5-6 constituent meetings a day, including weekends. Many have to give up their law practices and teaching jobs to serve.Do we want only legislators for whom $67,000 for a full-time job “is a good gig”? Part-timers in other states totally get rolled over by the staffers, the agency bureaucrats, and the lobbyists. With term limits legislators become almost irrelevant. Why not pay them what Congressman and Aldermen make. Congressmen are in DC most of the time and do not work as hard as the average legislator! Yet they make $150,000 or so. We get what we pay for!




38. - BandCamp - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:32 pm:

    I understand the legislature works. And at times, they do work hard. Having said that, they are not in Springfield all that often. When they are, they are often sitting around waiting on their leaders to iron issues out. Back in district, there are many who are available daily, but cm’on, let’s be realistic, a majority of legislators are punching their state card when they are Springfield.

    SO.

    For that kind of money, INCLUDING THEIR per diem, they should be FT, and CAP outside income at something like $25k a year. I suspect you would have less incumbants. But because of the cost of getting elected, I also suspect you would have puppets.

    So choose your poison: a puppet or the puppeteer.




39. - Bill - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:33 pm:

    Both of my legislators are very competent, hard working, attend almost every community event,have regular office hours in district offices, are always available to talk to constituents. They are always at least conversant about most current pending legislation and will actually seek expert advice on certain issues when need be. They spend untold hours helping people in the district who really need them without any publicity or need for thanks or recognition.They are pillars of our community. The residents of our district are very proud of both of them. They are grossly underpaid for what they do and their time spent on task.
    $73k is peanuts compared to what they are worth and could make in the private sector. The thing I like most about them is that they are not lawyers. Being a legislator is a personal sacrifice for them and their families. It is public service. They deserve (and need) a raise.




40. - Amuzing Myself - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:38 pm:

    Anyone who has worked for any length of time at the Capitol knows that once you’re there, it’s very easy to get “sucked in” to the minutia politics and forget about what really matters to the constituents back home. The job these days is not to serve constituents but to do what’s best to please your constituents and get re-elected again and again, whether it’s good policy or not.

    Legislators that have a “regular job” of any sort, be it a fireman, a small business owner, or a lawyer or a doctor at least have to step out from under the dome once in a while and re-discover the real world. Most Illinois watch what goes on in Springfield with utter disbelief, because so much is done there that makes absolutely no common sense. But to those in the middle of it, it often makes perfect sense … from their perspective as an insider.

    You cannot convince me that it’s better to have a highly-paid, full-time Legislature than what we have now. I’d agree that term limits, at least on the leadership positions, would go a long way toward keeping fresh ideas and common sense closer to lawmaking in Illinois, but to reward the mess we have now with higher salaries and the same level of corruption we have now is absolutely ludicrous.

    As for conflicts, in my experience, many legislators vote “present” on issues that are directly related to their outside job. Even if you banned outside jobs, there’s still plenty of room for corruption/conflicts with votes that affect the businesses/finances of close friends and relatives. Thinking a full-time, highly-paid Legislature will take care of that problem is naive at best.




41. - Old Shepherd - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:38 pm:

    In my region, the citizens would revolt if our legislators had outside employment. We expect our legislators to work full time as legislators. My Senator and Representative are both full time legislators, and they are at it twelve hours a day; six, sometimes seven, days a week.

    I am not a supporter of the pay raise. However, I would argue that not all legislators treat it like a “part time” job.




42. - One of the 35 - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:47 pm:

    The reason that legislators have to work such long hours is because they have created a system which requires it. They have created such a quagmire like process that it is difficult to get anything done. The current version of the GA is the quintessential example of a bogged down system.




43. - A Citizen - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 12:55 pm:

    I think Bill is the head of the Compensation Review Board. Bill could you represent me in my next salary negotiation, please?




44. - Moderate Repub - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:51 pm:

    NO, they should not be considered full time. HOwever, legislative staff is FULL TIME but only makes (in most cases) part time wages. THey should pay staff more so there is not so much turn over, and we keep the institutional knowledge with those who craft legislation in the best intrests of Illinois, not intrests. Its a great place to work, but I think it would be a great idea to increase staff salaries, that way staff knows as much or more than the intrest groups that are here to lobby the points for industry.




45. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 1:51 pm:

    Maybe deductions from their salary should take place. $1,000.00 deducted from their part time paychecks for each day they are in “overtime” session. Then they have a reason to finish their business early, on time with no egos at stake.

    To be far, the Governor’s salary should have a $2,000.00 daily deduction under those rules.




46. - SuperDave - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:31 pm:

    The dialogue here has shown an interesting paradox: geography (and by extension the size of legislative districts) seems to sway people toward their answers. People in larger geographic districts (central and southern Illinois for example) tend to think their legislators should be full-time, while those in more densely populated areas see the opportunity for part-time legislators. From a political “succession planning” standpoint, I can see that argument where a Vermillion County Chairman moves up to be State Representative, then maybe Senator. But, in Will County or even Cook County, the succession planning is just the opposite: State Representative is a stepping stone to higher office as a county commissioner or, in the case of Chicago, a member of the City Council.

    This is a great discussion, Rich…




47. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:38 pm:

    1. Get rid of the compensation review board and force lawmakers to actually vote to raise their own salary, the salary of constitutional officers, and Agency heads.

    Or/And

    2. Tie those salaries to the median family income in Illinois.




48. - SMC - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 2:47 pm:

    We already have a full time legislature. We might as well acknowledge it.




49. - Miranda - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:23 pm:

    I love this quote from the AP story:

    Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, stood up for Hendon.

    He said it was unfair for lawmakers such as Garrett who “have married very well and don’t need the money” to turn down raises that other rank-and-file lawmakers deserve.

    “I didn’t go into government to get rich, but I just didn’t take a vow of poverty,” Jacobs said. ” I’m not a priest.”

    Exactly when is the current rate of $66,000 considered poverty??? That’s more than double my full-time salary!




50. - wordslinger - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:29 pm:

    Senator Hendon’s comments brought back memories of when I was a cub reporter. There was an ongoing debate at my newspaper as to whether you should clean up quotes for grammar. The standard policy at my paper was that you did.

    Obviously, the policy at the Daily Herald is that you doesn’t. :)




51. - cynically anonymous - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:29 pm:

    It is amusing that Senator Jones indicated a need for food stamps when his wife is earning well over $150,000 in her DHS job. But perhaps she doesn’t share with him.




52. - Princeville - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:32 pm:

    I think Sen Hendon should come on down and bargain with us peons. Might not get us a raise but sure would liven up the meetings.




53. - SSS - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 3:44 pm:

    I make $50,000 a year raising a family and it’s not a lot of money. believe me!




54. - Ghost - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:03 pm:

    They really shouldn’t let Hendon speak.

    The non-rich people who pay taxes are opposed to this pay increase coming on the heals of the big 10% raise he just got. We poor people oppose him padding his part time wallet as well. Work can be hard for Hendon, somedays he has to push a button, and a couple of times a year he may work an entire week.




55. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:04 pm:

    Once again one more reason to push for a Con Con.




56. - Rich Miller - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:29 pm:

    The update has been moved to the “This Just In” post above.




57. - CapitolAspect - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:38 pm:

    There are a lot of other “State Employees” out there making a lot less that $73,000 a year. If any other state employee wants additional employment, they must obtain prior approval from the Director.




58. - Rich Miller - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:40 pm:

    CapitolAspect, legislators are not state employees. They’re elected officials. That’s a silly canard.




59. - State worker - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 4:56 pm:

    I am shocked that the GA would think of giving themselves a raise when Rod is asking that State Agencies make more cuts in their budgets. The word in my office is that once again we will not get any type of raise, not even a cost of living, because Rod wants more money for his pet projects. Where is the justice and fairness for all of us who keep this state running. Give the employees of the state a fair raise to keep up with the obscene taxes and costs just to get by day-to-day.




60. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 7:31 pm:

    Of course. The “citizen legislator”? No one with a “real job” could be a legislator, too. Unless the legislature meets for two weeks in the Spring and one weekend a month, no ordinary “citizen legislators” need apply.

    A good rep or senator already treats this like a full time job. When they aren’t in Springfield, they are in their office or out talking to constituents.




61. - Tired of the Mess... - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:43 pm:

    Key being– ” a good rep or senator”…

    Hendon and Jones’ comments make the rest of the state really think that Chicago politicians are not just dirty, but ignorant. What horrible use of the English language!




62. - Anonymous - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 9:50 pm:

    Sorry, I kind of see two separate questions. If “outside income” means income generated by “active employment” (and excludes, other income e.g., income from investments that are subject to disclosure), then Legislators should NOT be making outside income regardless of whether they’re working full or part-time. (And for those who are arguing it’s unconsitutional, try getting clearance per most policies for moonlighting nowadays in most industries or professions).

    Legislators SHOULD also be working full-time so that they can focus on their jobs without being distracted by other concerns (or having to deal with related ethical issues while in office).

    However, that doesn’t mean I support a massive salary increase in having everyone move to “full-time” status, which might actually be a good general strategy for the public sector right now. (Everyone’s cutting back, fewer “acceptable” part-time jobs; so I’m switching to “full time”; give me a huge raise. Yeah….NO! It’s the GLOBAL economy, guys!)

    I was also interested in Ghost’s observation re: judges. They generally seem to be paid enough to keep them honest, but then again not as well as most would be if they went into practice with one of the major firms.

    There seems to be a good balance there between making enough to stay honest, not making a ton of money because you are in public service, and still being motivated enough to get out of there at some point so you can make big bucks again in the private sector. (And if someone has to ask how much should one make to stay honest, stay out of the public sector, please.)

    With regard to those who are arguing that full-time/public service salaries are going to keep alot of talented people from running: the current salary seems adequate enough for many offices and if I were making millions, $60 to $70K wouldn’t really sway me one way or the other (though I’d probably have a greater appreciation for that amount).

    And…don’t forget that there are some LONG-term benefits to 1) running for office and 2) serving–if you don’t wind up in jail or sluffing off a major scandal. I’d bet some people run primarily to realize those benefits once they’re out.

    Try getting that boost moving from one private sector job to another!




63. - Let's Be Realistic - Thursday, May 8, 08 @ 11:37 pm:

    It’s too bad there are so many cynics out there. I know there are many in government who give rise to the cynicism, but let’s not paint with a broad brush. The vast majority of our legislators are good, decent and honest people who do, indeed, work hard. They are in government for the right reasons. Don’t get me wrong — I think the pay raise is a stupid idea at this time. But, I also know that most of the cynics commenting here wouldn’t last a week if they had to do the stuff that the legislators I know do everyday. I do agree that there is a real difference geographically. Downstate legislators are like Members of Congress. People who think legislators only work under the dome are grossly mistaken. Most of their work is actually done back home. Take a look at the list of state employees for any major county in the state and you will see some pretty large salaries — a lot larger than these legislative salaries.

    I think we should consider a full time legislature, and maybe look at reducing its size again at the same time. Let’s face it we live in an ever increasingly complex world. Our legislature has to deal with a huge range of issues never dreamed of in the past. The idea of a “citizen legislator” sounds so nice, but folks we’re not like most of the other states. We’re not New Hampshire, or even our neighbor Iowa (Thank God). We are the sixth largest state with some of the most complex issues facing any government in the United States. The days of our legislators riding to Springfield on horseback and passing a few bills for a couple of weeks and then going back home are long gone, people.

    As for term limits, are you people that crazy. Term limits do nothing but weaken the legislature even more and put the power in the hands of the legislative staff and lobbyists who are the only ones that will be left. Talk to any state of our size that has gone to term limits and see what has happened. We need reform, but not term limits. Let’s have a con-con and flush out some real reform. Let’s take some power away from the legislative leaders and spread it around. Let’s consider a full-time year-round body. Better yet, let’s go to a parliamentary system where the chief executive comes from the legislature and is accountable to the legislature. Can you imagine Rod doing weekly question time before the legislature? Still yet, maybe we should consider a monarchy — but only if I get to be the King.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.