* My weekly syndicated newspaper column kicks off an election-season series about the upcoming vote on an Illinois constitutional convention…
There is a defect in the Illinois Constitution that is so fundamentally fatal that it practically begs voters to approve a state constitutional convention this November.
You cannot correct this flaw by throwing every incumbent out of office. The prospect of legislating a solution is nil.
The problem is that the Illinois Constitution has allowed three people to accumulate infinitely more power than the framers ever dreamt possible.
Those three people are the House speaker, the Senate president and the governor.
The problem was exacerbated in 1980, when voters were misled into approving a constitutional amendment that slashed the size of the General Assembly by a third. Before then, there were three House members in each Senate district, and both major parties were assured of holding at least one of those seats.
Republicans in Chicago, who currently have almost no voice in any governmental body, all had at least one GOP state representative. The same was true for Democrats in DuPage. But the voters decided that fewer legislators was a better idea.
The independent thinkers were mostly wiped out in 1982, the first election after the Cutback Amendment took effect. A few months later, a brilliant Democratic politician named Michael Madigan was elected House speaker. Madigan was eventually nicknamed “The Velvet Hammer” for the way he consolidated power over the now much more easily governable House.
Ten years later, a new district map allowed the Senate Republicans to seize control from the Democrats and their leader decided to wage war on Madigan’s House. The Senate used the war to justify passing a new set of rules that stripped rank-and-file members of numerous basic rights. Those powers now were completely in the hands of Senate President Pate Philip.
The House Republicans essentially adopted the Senate GOP’s rules when they took control two years later. Madigan took back the House in 1996 and kept the Republican rules in place.
No bill or amendment can advance without the approval of the speaker or the president.
Members are simply powerless.
Throughout time, the legislative party leaders also learned how to control who would be elected to the General Assembly. Once elected, they are beholden to their leaders for literally everything.
Something else happened during this time period. All state budgets were negotiated behind closed doors by the House speaker, the Senate president and the governor. The multibillion-dollar budgets were then presented “as is” to members, who would dutifully pass it so they could leave town for the summer. Then other issues were added to the budget negotiations, and pretty soon all big issues were being decided by the three men.
And then Rod Blagojevich was elected governor.
Blagojevich despised Madigan while he was in the Illinois House during the early 1990s, and he set out to use his new power to fight Madigan at every turn.
Blagojevich has sought to expand the power of his office ever since, and he has accelerated the pace since being re-elected in 2006. He has called umpteen special sessions merely as a tactic to publicly humiliate Madigan. He has abused his amendatory veto power to add radical proposals to legislation in order to put Madigan on the spot. He also has recently abused his power to issue executive orders in an attempt to cut off campaign contributions to the Democratic Party of Illinois, which Madigan controls.
All along, Senate President Emil Jones has used his own rock-solid control of the Senate to back Blagojevich’s every move. And Madigan has retaliated by stifling almost all legislative progress this year.
The power the three men have carved out for their respective offices likely will remain after they’re gone. That’s the thing about expansions of power - it’s a genie that’s almost impossible to put back into the bottle.
Every 20 years, Illinois voters are given the right to call for a constitutional convention. Delegates then are elected and voters have the final say about the endproduct. It’s a reasonable system,and we simply can’t wait another 20 years for change.
We essentially have an elected dictatorship of three men. Our only hope of breaking that stranglehold is a constitutional convention that can force democratic reforms on the process.
So please, vote “yes” this November on the constitutional convention.
I’ll propose some reform ideas in my next column.
* Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group had the same idea for his column this week. Here’s an excerpt, but go read the whole thing…
The drafters of the state constitution wisely mandated that every 20 years the voters must vote on whether to call a constitutional convention. It’s the ultimate way voters can hold state government accountable.
I’ve heard some political insiders say the “crazies” would take over a constitutional convention and talk about guns, abortion and gays — and neglect everything else.
Gee, sometimes, democracy can be inconvenient.
Sometimes if you want your issue debated, you have to listen to someone else’s. Besides, a constitutional convention requires that any changes to the constitution be approved by voters.
Voters aren’t going to accept a constitution that drives jobs out the state through unreasonable business taxes or leaves retired folks without the pensions they earned.
Those asking you to vote against a constitutional convention would have you believe that a group of politicians in Springfield are more likely to bring reform – than you, the voters.
Don’t believe them.
Reform rests in your hands.
Vote yes, Nov. 7.
* This pro con-con letter to the editor is the very definition of strange bedfellows….
A review of the current system will clearly point out the basic flaws in the governing process in Springfield. Here are a few of the very obvious examples:
1) There is too much power vested in the four leaders, and individual General Assembly members have no say over the issues before them. This was caused by the ability to amass huge war chests by the leaders, which is then doled out to the willing members in exchange for compliance with the leaders requests. Term limits should apply to all leadership positions.
2) The governor’s office should not be able to rewrite legislation, change priorities clearly sent to the governor’s office by the legislature or misuse public dollars by punishing individual legislators or segments of the General Assembly.
There are other issues that can be reviewed and modified by the delegates elected to the 2010 Constitutional Convention, and I believe that a better system of governance can be established in Illinois.
Now is the time to act. The system is truly broken and it needs a total bipartisan review and overhaul.
The piece, which also appeared in the Tribune, was written by Al Ronan, former House member and bigtime Statehouse lobbyist.
Go figure.
* Related…
* Officials: Wording of con-con referendum question biased
* Officials: Referendum words biased
* Debaters argue merits of convention
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:14 am:
that was some excellent reading. Repeal the cutback amendment!!!!
- Hanging Chad - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:18 am:
Rich, it’s not an elected dictatorship composed of three people. It’s more of a disfunctional junta, only they try to kill one another rather than the citizens.
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:27 am:
All very excellent and honest arguments. I agree with most of them. I am just concerned about 2 very possible results: -1- The good old boys will have these powers confirmed in a new constitution, and have that document affirmed by the voters, or -2- they’ll get the affirmation in the document, but the voters will vote it down, wasting tens of millions of dollars needed elsewhere, and the Big Three (whomever the gov and senate prez may be by that time) having wasted 2 years focusing on their interests in that document, rather than the rather messy business at hand.
To me, delegates to a constitution convention should be elected in a non-partisan fashion (perhaps by local caucus) and any individual who holds or has held public office at the county level or higher should be excluded, for reasons of undue influence by those currently in power.
That (at least to me) is the only way to ENSURE that a constitution is drafted without concern to partisan politics, special interests or individual interests (at least on a large scale).
I know, not a popular opinion around here, but it’s my opinion none the less.
- Reform - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:32 am:
Rich - Any Con-Con should be fairly narrow in scope as a Constitution should be a broad foundationial document as is the US Constitution. Otherwise you will end up with a document that is so perscriptive in terms of policy that we will limit our ability to have a flexible policymaking process. Having said that a few points could certainly be fixed 1)return to multi-member districts; 2)term limits of 10 years for the four tops; 3) remaps should be done as in Iowa, by computer without legislative games to increase competition; 4)school funding should be addressed as the present tax system is based on the old world; 5) the Treasurer and Comptroller can be consolidated; 6) the Lt. Gov eliminated unless they want to give the office some specific responsibilities.
- Scooby - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:37 am:
You can say that the current power structure makes it virtually impossible to reform how much power is in the hands of legislative leaders and/or the enormous war chests that allow them to hold such power, but it’s inaccurate to say that a solution can’t be legislated. Current law alllows for all the money for legislative races to be funneled through leadership, but just yesterday a pretty significant bill became law that changes how the campaigns of constitutional officers are financed and you could certainly apply legislative reforms to the legislature.
And that’s just the financing side. The actual rules that give the legislative leaders their power do not come from the Constitution specifically, they are decided on by the members themselves at the beginning of each session. The rank and file voluntarily abdicate all of their power and responsibility to their leaders. You don’t need to spend millions on a constitutional convention to fix that, just teach the mushrooms basic math. 173 mushrooms, 4 tops.
- Springfield Alum - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:40 am:
Rich, have you seen any lists of organizations that support a con-con? The Alliance to Protect the Constitution has a list of opponents on their website. I couldn’t find one on the Illinois Citizens Coalition site.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:40 am:
===but it’s inaccurate to say that a solution can’t be legislated.===
I didn’t say “can’t be legislated” I said the prospect of such an action was “nil.”
Big difference.
Don’t put words into my mouth, please. Thanks.
- Levois - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:41 am:
I can’t wait for the next column where one of your reforms might include a repeal of the cutback amendment. I think I just made it too easy for you. You’ll probably just not mention that.
- On Second thought - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:48 am:
You know what we ought to have a NATIONAL Con Con because Congress and the President cant get along and leaders in Congress have to much power - Yeah!!! I am sure only good citizens with the best of intentions would run and they could come up with a much better document then we have today. After all what did those guys in white wigs know any way, heck they did not even have the internet.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:48 am:
A real public service to have a historical review in the mainstream press. I suspect 90% of the voters are not aware of how things have evolved.
- Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 9:59 am:
My question: Can the same result be achieved through less arduous means than a con-con?
- cermak_rd - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:01 am:
I disagree with repealing the cutback amendment. I think it would give an unearned advantage to the IL GOP. It is instructive that the basic rules of the IL Senate were put in place by Pate, a gentleman I don’t think too kindly toward. So now that the other team is using those same rules, suddenly it’s king’s X, no fair to play it anymore?
- Scooby - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:02 am:
===I didn’t say “can’t be legislated” I said the prospect of such an action was “nil.” ===
===Big difference.===
===Don’t put words into my mouth, please. Thanks. ===
===There is a defect in the Illinois Constitution that is so fundamentally fatal that it practically begs voters to approve a state constitutional convention this November.===
===You cannot correct this flaw by throwing every incumbent out of office. The prospect of legislating a solution is nil.===
That was a very careful parsing. (a tip of the cap)
In my view there are legitimate constitutional questions worthy of debate, but these aren’t constitutional questions, they’re legislative ones. I think they are red-herrings.
Having said that I think there are honest pro-arguments that can be made no matter what your political philosophy. Conservatives were beaten back in their efforts to put a constitutional question about marriage on the ballot in 2006. A con-con would permit that discussion. Liberals are always trying to work around the constitutional prohibition of a graduated income tax in any/every education funding reform proposal. A con-con would permit that discussion. And some Democrats, Republicans and Independents were advocating for a recall provision but were unsuccessful. A con-con would permit that discussion.
I agree with those who’ve said a con-con needs to be limited in scope and only focused on constitutional questions.
- GOP'er - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:11 am:
I personally think returning to the “Big House” is a poor reason for a con-con. If anything, I think the problem is there are STILL too many people in the General Assembly. There’s no reason for so many state districts, other than political patronage.
And having the prospect of 3 state rep mopes from a state senate district instead of the current 2, just compounds the problem in my view.
On balance, I think Quinn’s idea to save money and eliminate the “Big House” was a good one.
The size of the political class and the levels of government in Illinois are still larger than most every other state.
- Rep. John Fritchey - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:14 am:
Rich,
I’ve spoken on numerous panels, including one tonight at the Chicago Republican Women’s Network (go figure), as a proponent of a Con Con. And I will tell you that when people hear the arguments on both sides, they come out significantly in favor of the proposition.
The issue is one of educating voters. APIC is spending a LOT of money on what is essentially a fear-mongering campaign. The pro- movement is essentially a grassroots one, which is why articles like yours and the others are so important in getting people to focus on the issue.
- Captain America - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:15 am:
The three stooges - Governor Pincocchio, Godfather Jones, and Speaker Machiavelli, as well as the political troglydyte, Pate Phillip, are the posterboys for the necessity of vating for Con-Con. In Cook County. Todd Stroger is the ultimate example of the udeniable fact that Emperor Daley and the aforementioned stooges have subordinated the needs of the citizenry to their own personal political agendas.
If the average voter understood Lord Acton’s observation that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, they would vote for Con-Con overwhelmingly.
Too bad we can’t get Rich’s column and the columns of other like-minded independent journalists into the hands of the voters, persuade them to read it/vote accordingly.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:19 am:
I am totally opposed to a Con-Con and Rich’s editorial fails to persuade me, especially the point of ensuring at least one Rep from one of the two major parties in each Senate District — why should any party be entitled to a seat and why just he major parties? Why not the Libertarian or Green party?
That being said, the wording of the referendum question is completely biased. The language of the past results pretty much dooms any chance of the referendum passing. I can’t believe the wording passed any sort of muster.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:23 am:
===I personally think returning to the “Big House” is a poor reason for a con-con.===
I never said it was. I simply pointed out that the Cutback Amendment is one of the factors that got us into this mess.
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:37 am:
Just Observing said:
“I am totally opposed to a Con-Con and Rich’s editorial fails to persuade me, especially the point of ensuring at least one Rep from one of the two major parties in each Senate District — why should any party be entitled to a seat and why just he major parties? Why not the Libertarian or Green party?
That being said, the wording of the referendum question is completely biased. The language of the past results pretty much dooms any chance of the referendum passing. I can’t believe the wording passed any sort of muster.”
From a pragmatic point of view, I have to admit that Rich’s solution is more viable than mine. It at least would be an attempt to ensure that a constitution is not written to give any one party an advantage, or that any one party’s platform does not dominate the convention. So, I do have to Rich that.
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:38 am:
Ooops … I do have to “give” Rich that.
- Levois - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:43 am:
At least a return to the big house would be discussed at a con-con. No issue should be taken off the table.
- Scooby - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:45 am:
What does Todd Stroger have to do with a Constitutional Convention?
- Downstate Commissioner - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:48 am:
Rich’s reasons for voting for con-con are excellent. The group opposing it has a compelling reason for doing so, the high cost of the convention with no guarantee of meaningful change to the way things are being done now. That said, the average voter really does NOT know anything about con-con, the negatives or the positives; I firmly believe that most voters walking into the voting booth will be confronting the issue for the first time. They may have heard about it, but won’t have paid any attention.
With the mess in Springfield, many, if not most, of those voters will vote for it, with the hope of change, regardless of cost.
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:14 am:
Hopefully some of you can help me clarify when I am asked why the SEIU, the IEA and the IFT team up with the IMA and the COC to try to stop this. Is it simply because their lobbying efforts are easier now since they are established and only have to get to 3 people? Or is it more complicated than that?
Thanks in advance.
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:15 am:
Lefty,
I’ve never thought about it that way, but you do make a pretty good point!
- Excessively rabid - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:16 am:
The GOP and dems would not be guaranteed at least one seat in each district. That’s just how it turned out in the past because there were no other significant parties at the time. The greens or whomever certainly would have a chance to win seats in districts where they are a substantial minority.
- blame Pat - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:28 am:
I find it hilarious that the person who wants to correct the problem is the person who caused the problem: Pat Quinn. The Governor, President, and Speaker can thank him for giving them power.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:46 am:
I agree nearly 100% with Rich’s analysis of where we are. What I still haven’t heard him explain is why the prospect of changing this legislatively is “nil” but the propect of changing it through a con-con made up of delegates whose selection will be determined in a process crafted by those same legislators and who will be bought and paid for by the same people who have bought and paid for the Speaker and Senate President will lead to anything better than what we have today. It’s the “and then a miracle happens” part of Rich’s logic that I just don’t follow.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:54 am:
=== What I still haven’t heard him explain is why the prospect of changing this legislatively is “nil”===
Read it again. If the legislative leaders control every step of the process, then the prospects for legislative change is nil.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 11:55 am:
Lefty, I suspect you’re right. Everyone’s got a lot of time and money invested in the status quo. Better the Devil you know…
- duck duck goose - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:39 pm:
Rich,
When you criticized Abner Mikva’s arguments last week, you assured us that you were agnostic on Con-Con.
I think that one of us is confused as to the definition of “agnostic”.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:52 pm:
===you assured us that you were agnostic on Con-Con.===
Actually I wrote that I was agnostic on recall.
===I think that one of us is confused as to the definition of “agnostic”. ===
I think one of us can’t read.
- Snidely Whiplash - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 12:53 pm:
Ducky,
I think you’re the only one who didn’t see it coming a mile away.
- laboring - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 1:14 pm:
IFT and IEA truly believe that this will put school funding efforts on hold until 2011 or 2012. You can argue nothing is being done now, but a con con guarantees nothing happens until its over.
For all public employee unions…Anyone receiving a public pension would be nuts to support a con con. Cutting pension benefits has become a bi-partisan effort and neither party will fight to keep pensions. Anyone who disagrees with this hasn\’t been following the legislature for the past couple of years.
Rich apparently believe that the Speaker and new Senate President won\’t be able to get enough of their delegates elected to influence con con. Never bet aginst the speaker…. sound familiar?
- duck duck goose - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 1:49 pm:
#
===I think that one of us is confused as to the definition of “agnostic”. ===
==I think one of us can’t read.==
No, Seriously, I’m asking, what does “agnostic” mean?
That will teach me to try and be snarky (well, it won’t, but…)
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 1:58 pm:
lol
- duck duck goose - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 2:04 pm:
If I read Rich’s column right (concededly an iffy proposition), a major reason to support a Con-Con would be to undo the cutback amendment. As I recall, Pat Quinn was the major force behind the cutback amendment. He is now a major supporter of the Con-Con.
It would be at least a little bit ironic if a major reason that the Con-Con were to be called was to undo the changes made the last time that Quinn tinkered around with the constitution.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 2:08 pm:
==If I read Rich’s column right (concededly an iffy proposition), a major reason to support a Con-Con would be to undo the cutback amendment.===
Not necessarily. More important is to undo the fatal impact that the Cutback Amendment inspired or helped create or whatever.
- Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 2:20 pm:
Thanks, Laboring. You eased my completely cynical mind back to mostly cynical. Your points also suggest the reason that the other unions are jumping aboard. All for one and all that stuff.
And to support Mr. Miller and his column, the cutback amendment was a fr’instance. The ingenuity of the Illinois lawmakers to even have this 20-year rule is refreshing. I almost think it should be mandatory to convene the con-con just so people (even just us wonky types who don’t know everything about how Springfield works) can get educated about what the IL constitution actually says. And to have some real debate about it. The alternative we have now is insulting.
It reminds me of an old Harpers Magazine article from the 1990s proposing that the Founding Fathers never meant for the US constitution to be so set in stone. Things change and the basis of our laws should change sometimes too. I think Pat Quinn has an easy answer to the irony of the cutback amendment. “Oops. Do over.”
- Bill - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 4:58 pm:
I think that the coc and ima are worried about the graduated or progressive income tax or at least changing the business rate to a less favorable percentage. It is all money all the time with these groups. If the referendum does pass (not likely)watch for them to turn on the public employees unions and go after the state pension plans.
In the meantime, extremist groups will try to focus debate on guns, abortion, gay marriage, tort reform, prayer in schools, vouchers, and on and on. Maybe the Rod caucus will try to make health insurance an inalienable right. It might be somewhat entertaining but it will be an awfully expensive comedy show.
It will be the General Assembly on steriods!
It would also probably necessitate a special ConCon daily edition of CapFax, for an additional fee, of course.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 5:01 pm:
When the 1970 Constitutional Convention met, it intended to create a state constitution that would reflect the 20th Century. It is now the 21st and times have indeed changed for Illinois. It is time to do this again, for the same reasons.
Illinois in 1970, had a remarkably different economy than it has today. The civil rights gained by minorities and women were not properly reflected in the old constitution. For crying out loud, the Union Stock Yards were still in operation! Sears and Roebuck, Montgomery Ward, and Spiegel ruled US marketing. 33% of our jobs were located in manufacturing.
Those days are so gone. Yet we still have a state constitution that reflects early 20th Century managing philosophy. The men and women who created our state constitution were from a generation that saw how working together in fraternal orders, governments and civic groups can address the Great Depression, World War II, and Korea.
They believed in centralization of government services for economy and standardization. They believed that putting concentrated power within the hands of a troika would result in efficiencies and a streamlined process.
In the days of 1970, our choices were limited comparably to today. Customization for automakers were an additional chrome stripe across a finned rear fender. Customization at Dairy Queen was getting strawberry syrup on your sundae. Customization for housing was getting the raised ranch style instead of the Cape Cod. Customization was doing a back-comb bee-hive hair style, instead of the flip.
Health care was getting a flu shot - a one size fits all approach that many universal health care supporters still believe is possible in today’s genetically focused personalized medical world.
It is simply time. It is time to do for Illinois what our grandparents did in 1970. It is time to bring our government up to date. We have never seen this backfire. We have never seen a state constitution rewritten “wrong”. The risk is doing nothing.
Naturally our senior veteran leaders don’t understand why the work they did in 1970 no longer fit today’s world. They don’t understand anymore than we will twenty years from now.
It is now our turn. It is our civic duty and we should not shirk it. Vote “yes” for the Con-Con this November!
- Bill - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 5:11 pm:
===They believed that putting concentrated power within the hands of a troika would result in efficiencies and a streamlined process.===
Actually, VanMan, the House shrinking ammendment was passed in the early eighties, not 1970. I somehow can’t put your usual drivel about a global economy in context with why we should have a ConCon.
What, exactly, do the Union Stockyards,which, by the way, were closed down by 1970, and Montgomery Wards have to do with the ConCon?
Do we need a new constitution because Target is now a major retailer?
My grandparents didn’t have a clue about the state constitution. They were too busy electing democrats to real offices like mayor and alderman to worry about that Springfield stuff.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 5:36 pm:
VanMan, what exactly are you talking about?
What relationships are you drawing between the Illinois state constitution and the economy? For that matter, what relationships do you draw between the U.S. Constitution and the economy?
- Captain America - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 5:50 pm:
Scooby:
- Captain America - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 6:07 pm:
Scooby:
Todd Stroger is pertinent to Con-Con for two reasons:
The process by which Tood Stroger was slected to succeed was legal, but fraudulent/bogus. Voters should have had an opportunity to select a replacement candidate. Claypool probably could have won the election if all voters were informed in advance that John Stroger would not be able to serve. But the powers that be cooperated with the lies that misled the electorate about Stroger’s true medical condition. Furthermore, an independent candidate was precluded from running against Peraica and Stroger, by delaying the announcement that John Stroger would be unable to serve, until it was too late for an independent to organize a petition drive and file nominating petitions.
Secondly, I think an executive recall provision for Statewide,County, and Municipal executives should be considered. Todd Stroger could have been removed from office by now, if a recall option was available to voters.
- Bill - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 6:48 pm:
Why would anyone want to remove Todd Stroger? Todd has done an excellent job so far leading one of the country’s largest counties. He has improved accountability and patient services at Stroger hospital, surrounded himself with excellent administrators, kept his promises to county employees, and solved a gigantic fiscal crisis. Todd will have no problem getting re-elected should he decide to continue his service to the residents of Cook County.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Sep 23, 08 @ 10:56 pm:
=Cutting pension benefits has become a bi-partisan effort and neither party will fight to keep pensions. Anyone who disagrees with this hasn’t been following the legislature for the past couple of years=
Excuse me, but the one recent pension bill adversely affecting benefits (SB 27/PA94-0004) was supported by all the major labor unions. There was nothing to fight about at that point, though AA doesn’t remember many R votes on that bill. Granted, there are ongoing challenges to the pensions from both sides of the aisle, but nothing has gotten any traction either because the proposals don’t save money, are fundamentally unfair to employees, or both.
The unions clearly don’t share Scott Reeder’s optimism about the future of pensions under a Con-Con.
Bill, I thought you hit a new low yesterday but you just sank a bit farther with the Stroger props.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 8:38 am:
Geez, you people are so politically focused you ignor the historical facts that the Illinois economy is no longer reflective in our state constitution.
How this government is designed and operated impacts our economy. Our constitution is so outdated, it hinders us economically.
If you guys cared enough about to study economics, you’d have a better idea what I was talking about.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 24, 08 @ 9:25 am:
Enlighten us, Vanilla Man. Maybe one specific?
I guess the boys at the University of Chicago have missed a fertile area of study. Those Nobels are just there for the taking.
–Geez, you people are so politically focused you ignor the historical facts that the Illinois economy is no longer reflective in our state constitution.–
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
- elgin - Friday, Sep 26, 08 @ 5:43 am:
It’s a very interesting article, but I’m not sure it explains how the powers of the speaker and president in the legislature differ from those of the speaker and majority leader in the Congress, and why the latter is a system that is working fine whereas the Illinois situation is a mess.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 26, 08 @ 7:33 am:
Who said the congressional system was working fine? There are huge differences in powers, by the way. Illinois leaders have far more power over the process than the US leaders do. Committee chairmen here, for instance, are appointed, not elected, have staff controlled by the leaders, cannot choose which bills are taken up by their committees, and have little to no say over who serves on their committees.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 26, 08 @ 8:20 am:
To expand a little bit on what Rich said, that diffusion of power translate to independent centers of fundraising as well. As chairman of Ways and Means, Rosty could raise boatloads for himself and his pals, for example. Armed Services, Commerce, etc., can do the same.
The Four Tops take all the money and decides who gets what.
Pingback Ballot trick: Leading language in Illinois « Votejacked - Friday, Sep 26, 08 @ 9:21 am:
[…] For more on the powered interests opposing the con-con, check out this piece by Phil Kadner. Also, see this by Rich Miller. […]
Pingback Illinois Constitutional Convention: Yes | Ora et Labora - Wednesday, Oct 22, 08 @ 5:04 am:
[…] Governor Rod Blagojevich, House Speaker Michael Madigan, and Senate President Emil Jones have inherited and amassed power in recent years. How they got it is the premise of this article by Rich Miller. And they fact that they hate each other only makes a bad situation worse when it comes to basic government operation. […]
Pingback Things are happening « Elgin Jessica - Thursday, Apr 23, 09 @ 8:59 am:
[…] It sounds like the parks just might be saved and ethics reform in Illinois is underway. I’ve really been appreciating the Capitol Fax Blog lately. Click here to read their post on the Illinois Constitutional Convention. Once again, I am most definitely voting for this. As for the bailouts, I’m gonna stop writing about them for now. A mentor of mine recommended the New York Times Business section and reading just a few articles on their site really brought me up to speed and helped me feel like I understand what’s up. Way better than some of the other news sites. For the rest of the week I will try to take your minds off of our dismal economic situation and focus on pure fun and entertaining topics. […]