Quinn's Biggest Flip-Flop

The fact that Gov. Pat Quinn is once again doing a 180 on a major issue should be anything but surprising. However, the fact he's making such a stark reversal on one of the biggest pieces of legislation that was passed out of the legislature is still somewhat remarkable. The Chicago Tribune's Monique Garcia is reporting that Quinn will veto the campaign finance reform legislation that lawmakers passed this spring. Not only was this bill touted by supporters as the most important piece of ethics reform to come out of Springfield this year, but Quinn himself testified in favor of the bill, calling it "landmark" legislation. He's waffled on the issue since then, to the point lawmakers held up on sending it to his desk in an effort to use the bill as leverage in budget talks.

Republicans and members of the governor's Illinois Reform Commission have criticized the measure, saying it does little to control the flow of campaign cash in Illinois. They have gone so far as to say it would give legislative leaders more control over legislative races than they already have. It seems Quinn changed his mind if he's going for an all-out veto rather than amending the bill himself. Either way, he's not winning any points with House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton and other top Democrats who pushed hard to get the bill passed.

Frankly, I'm guessing Madigan and Cullerton are furious. They made this the centerpiece of ethics reforms this year. Considering Illinois has absolutely no limits on how much money anyone can donate to a political campaign, Quinn and other supporters seemed justified in saying that the measure was a good first step toward significant campaign finance limits in Illinois. It seems a strange tactic, then, for Quinn to veto the legislation altogether, rather than working with Madigan and Cullerton to come up with a trailer bill to impose stricter limits down the road. How is he going to have any credibility in negotiating a new bill after such a major reversal? I'm no expert on Illinois history, but I'm guessing it's pretty rare for a governor to veto a bill that he testified in favor of before both a House and a Senate committee.

We'll find out at noon exactly what Quinn's reasoning is in vetoing the measure completely, rather than using his broad amendatory veto powers or working with top Democrats to strengthen the bill during the fall veto session. The big question now is, can Democrats override the governor's veto? Probably not. Although there are enough Democrats to override a veto in the Senate without GOP support, one Democrat -- Sen. Mike Jacobs (D-East Moline) -- voted against the legislation. And House Democrats would need at least one Republican vote to override any veto and Republicans don't have any reason to help out the Democrats on this one.

The Dominoes Are Falling Into Place

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan dropped a big bombshell today. She's not running for the governor's office or U.S. Senate. Instead, she's running for a third term as A.G. A lot of people are calling this a surprise decision, since she was widely considered the hands-down favorite for either spot. But I'm not surprised at all. A U.S. Senate seat doesn't carry the kind of power that the governor's office or even A.G. does. A single senator can't implement policy on his or her own. A rookie senator, even one as popular as Lisa Madigan would be, won't have a lot of influence on Washington politics. Then there's all the travel to consider for a mother of young children. I honestly never thought she'd run for Senate, despite being wooed by President Barack Obama and other top Dems.

As far as her possible bid for governor, sure she'd be the odds-on favorite; but it's a terrible time to want to take over Illinois government. The budget is in the worst mess Springfield has ever seen and lawmakers don't seem to want to fix it, otherwise they'd have passed a tax hike weeks ago. That they didn't, to me, was the biggest sign Lisa Madigan was planning to stay put at the attorney general's office. If she was planning to run for governor, I have no doubt her father, House Speaker Mike Madigan, would have twisted enough arms among his fellow House Dems to get a tax hike passed. That way, a budget fix would be in place by now, Lisa Madigan could criticize Gov. Pat Quinn for raising taxes in a recession but still reap the financial benefits when she took office in 2011. That Mike Madigan didn't get a tax hike passed through the House was a pretty big red flag that his daughter wasn't going to run for governor in 2010. Maybe she still has her sights set on the office in 2014. She's only 42, after all and still the most popular Democrat in the state.

But that's a long way off. Her decision for 2010 was what nearly every politician in Illinois was waiting for. Would she or wouldn't she? That's what everyone wanted to know. Now that she's confirmed she wants to stay where she is, the dominoes are starting to fall into place for lots of other campaigns in 2010. Word is U.S. Rep Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is already planning to run for the U.S. Senate now that he knows he wouldn't have to face Lisa in a general election. He'd been considered a possible G.O.P. candidate for governor as well, but that field is already pretty crowded and Kirk has a much better shot at winning the Senate seat. He's a moderate Republican, which should help him against Democratic candidates.

State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias had already been exploring a Senate bid, so I bet he'll be making his candidacy official any day now. State Comptroller Dan Hynes has yet to announce his plans for 2010, but has apparently told Capitol Fax blogger Rich Miller that there's no chance he'll run for a fourth term as comptroller. I'd say that means he's probably going to run for governor, though it's possible he'll go for the Senate again. But then he'd have to face Giannoulias, who's got a huge campaign warchest and quite possibly the backing of the White House, since he and Obama have been so close. On paper, Hynes would make a great candidate for governor. He's been comptroller for three terms now, so he definitely knows his stuff when it comes to state finances. He'd been warning about the state's budget mess for months, if not years before this year's budget fiasco. His problem is he's never been much of a charismatic candidate. If he can find a way to charm the voters, the governor's office should be his in 2010. Quinn has been flailing as governor, flip-flopping on a regular basis and he'll have to wear the jacket for whatever cuts or tax hikes are ultimately approved to get a budget deal done for next year.

Lisa Madigan's decision could be a windfall for Republicans, though. She's a much more formidable opponent than any other Democrat who's been mentioned to this point, so next year should be an exciting race. None of the Republicans in the race is exactly what you'd call a superstar, but without Lisa Madigan in the race, no Democrats really are either. Unless, that is, Giannoulias changes his mind and runs for governor instead. I don't know that he's ready for the job, but this might be the best time for him to take his shot, while he can still ride Obama's coat tails to some degree.

Sayonara, Adios, Auf Wiedersehen

So yesterday was my last day as a reporter at the Capitol. It wasn't exactly what I'd call an enjoyable day. Only Illinois lawmakers could accomplish so little in six months. Yes, they got rid of Blagojevich and they deserve credit for that. But they fell far short when it came to the government reforms they promised at the start of the year. They got a $30 billion capital plan passed, as well as a $9 billion mini-capital plan, but because of their dispute over the budget, not a single project has actually started yet. Hell, they wouldn't even send the big capital plan to the governor for more than a month, despite all their talk about how important it was to create jobs for the state. Sure, the governor said he wouldn't sign it until he got a budget he would support, but he's flip-flopped on so many other issues, I bet he'd have signed it by now. Say what you want about Quinn, I think he genuinely cares about the state. He'll sign it.

But everyone, including the governor, has failed completely on the budget. For all their talk of bipartisan cooperation after they kicked Blagojevich out, no one would budge an inch to get a real budget for the state. Now the governor is preparing to veto the so-called "half budget" that lawmakers have sent him. The legislature might try to override that veto, but there's a good chance they won't be able to. The House will need at least one Republican to help, even if every Democrat votes to override. And just as Republicans had no political incentive to vote for a tax hike, there's no reason they should vote to override a veto of a budget they did not support. Which means a government shutdown could be coming in the next couple weeks unless lawmakers agree to a temporary budget to allow talks to resume. Even that might take more work than it should. Quinn wants a temporary budget that would allow spending levels that assume a tax hike has gone through. Republicans want a temporary budget that cuts spending to 2008 levels. Who knows if either side will budge.

Breaking A Logjam

Lawmakers and the governor still can't agree on a budget solution. There's little, if any, chance that the House will call a vote on a tax hike today. It's much more likely they they will send the governor a budget that doesn't raise taxes, instead relying on borrowing, fund sweeps and other gimmicks to get a "balanced" budget that would keep the state going for most of the fiscal year. Then lawmakers would probably have to come back to vote on taxes after they know whether they'll be facing any significant challengers in the 2010 election.

But yesterday lawmakers did essentially end one dispute with the governor by releasing the $30 billion capital plan. Lawmakers approved the plan in late May. But Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) had placed a legislative hold on the capital plan last month after Gov. Pat Quinn said he would not sign it until he got a budget deal he would support. That infuriated Lang, who was the chief House sponsor of the construction plan. So he stopped it from going to the governor by keeping it under House control. He removed that roadblock yesterday, but not until he gave the governor an angry tongue-lashing for going back on a promise that he would not link the capital bill to the budget. “We had just gone through six years of a governor who didn't tell it to us the way it was. We have just gone through six years of a governor that attempted to use the Illinois General Assembly as his own personal play toy and you and I for those six years were fed up with that," Lang said. "These bills need to be signed for the good of the state of Illinois. And while I support more revenue in the budget, it is unconscionable to withhold his signature on those bills." However, there's no indication that the governor will sign the capital plan right away.

Winding Down

These next two days will be my last as an intern for Illinois Public Radio at the Capitol. It's been an amazing experience for the most part. I've made a lot of great friends here in Springfield and, I never thought I'd say this, but I'll miss this place when I'm gone; not so much the city itself, but the friends I've made here. It really stinks that after making so many wonderful friends, we'll most likely all end up scattered all over the place. I know that's how life goes, but it doesn't make it any easier.

Anyway, the House will be back in session today to deal with budget issues, but it doesn't seem any more likely they'll take a vote on a tax hike. Figuring out what is going to happen by tomorrow night is getting to be like trying to study a quantum physics textbook written in Sanskrit. Nobody can seem to agree on how big the budget deficit is at this point, much less how to fill the hole.

With less than two days left until the next fiscal years, the budget mess is playing havoc with social service agencies. Some are planning layoffs and service cuts unless an unexpected budget deal comes through to fully fund those providers. However, some are moving forward with cuts already. Threats of budget cuts are nothing new to social service agencies, but the threatened cuts have never been this big before. On top of that, with the economy still in the tank, borrowing money to hold them over until there's a full state budget isn't an option this year. Not to mention, raising money from private donors won't get most of these groups anywhere near the amount of money they need to avoid layoffs and service cuts.

Applying Some Pressure

The capitol was quite the scene yesterday as 5,000 protesters or more swarmed the statehouse to try to pressure lawmakers into voting for a tax hike. Protesters packed nearly every corridor of the capitol rotunda, crammed onto stairwells and gathered outside nearly every entrance. The crowd was so big that at one point, security guards blocked any more protesters from coming inside. I don't know whose idea it was to tell protesters they should wear black t-shirts, but they're lucky demonstrators weren't fainting left and right. A heat index above 100 combined crowds of people packed like sardines, all while dressed in black on a sunny day is not a healthy mix. A mix of labor unions and social service agencies organized the protest to oppose budget cuts that would slash social service funding in half.

Those same groups have been staging smaller protests around the state the past few weeks. It sounds like they may be changing the minds of some lawmakers who originally voted against a tax increase. For example, Rep. Mike Boland (D-East Moline) says he may change his vote if the House brings up a tax hike again. But with only 42 House Democrats voting the first time and 71 votes needed now to pass a tax hike, it will take a lot of work to get a tax hike approved. It also means bringing at least one Republican on board. Realistically, maybe 10 Republican votes would be needed, as there are some Democrats who just won't vote for a tax hike, no matter what.

Regardless of where things stand right now, there won't be a tax hike vote this week. And there's a chance there won't be a vote at all before the end of the fiscal year. If House members can't get together enough votes to pass something, there doesn't seem to be much reason to call a tax hike for a vote again. And Senate President John Cullerton says the Senate won't vote on a tax hike again until the House passes something. Most Senate Democrats already went out on a limb last month to approve a larger tax hike than the governor was seeking, only to see that proposal die in the House without a vote. Cullerton won't let that happen again. So, while we might see lawmakers only one more day after today before FY 2010 begins, those should be two interesting days.

Here We Go Again

Hundreds, if not thousands, of advocates for state-funded social service programs will be descending on the state capitol today. Lawmakers will be at the capitol for a special session to deal with the state budget mess and other issues. The advocates will be there to greet them with a major rally to demand an income tax hike to avoid massive cuts to social service programs. Social service agencies say they expect up to 5,000 people dressed in black to take part in the rally. It's an interesting choice to bring that many people dressed in black to a protest rally on a sunny day with temps in the mid-90s and the heat index expected to hit 101 to 106.

As I've mentioned on the blog before, so far lawmakers have approved a budget that would cut the budgets for social service programs by 50 percent or more. Gov. Pat Quinn reiterated yesterday that he's not willing to accept what he calls a "half-baked" budget. But he wouldn't offer a direct answer when asked if that means he'll veto the budget if lawmakers don't provide more revenue. He's still pushing for an income tax hike that was rejected last month. He says some lawmakers who voted against the tax hike in May are willing to vote for it now. He wouldn't offer any names and it seems doubtful he's convinced enough legislators to switch their votes to get the three-fifths majority he'd need to pass a tax hike now.

The governor has been making the rounds across the state the past month to push for his tax plan, warning about the deep cuts that would need to be made to social service agencies without more revenue. So it shouldn't be a surprise that he took another opportunity while in Springfield yesterday to call on lawmakers to approve a tax hike. The thing is, he did it at a ceremony to honor Illinois students who competed in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. It seems like an odd choice of events to push for a tax hike, especially since the crowd consisted entirely of the kids, their parents and the media. He even staged an impromptu spelling bee as he handed each kid their certificate, asking some of them to spell words like whistleblower, gridlock, mudslinging and legislature. Not exactly subtle, but certainly entertaining.

Back to the grind

It was nice having the lawmakers out of town for a few weeks, but to be honest, it will be good to have them back here for at least a couple days next week. It doesn't look like they're any closer to a budget deal, but it's possible that could change by next week; a slim possibility, sure, but a possibility nonetheless. Governor Pat Quinn is still warning of deep cuts to social service programs unless lawmakers agree to a tax hike. Republicans are sticking to their demands of reforms to Medicaid, pensions and other areas before they'll support any effort to raise taxes. They sound willing to let the state slide by with a month-to-month budget until they get their way. We'll see if Quinn and other supporters of a tax hike can change a few minds over the next week or so.

Meantime, social service groups are staging dozens of rallies across the state this week. They're targeting lawmakers who voted against a tax hike to fill the budget hole. They are warning of dire consequences if a tax hike does not go through and the cuts proceed. The groups say thousands of children will lose day care services, forcing parents to quit their jobs to stay home with the kids. Thousands of specialists who help care for the disabled would lose their jobs and their clients would be forced to move into nursing homes. Thousand of senior citizens would lose home care services, also being forced to move into nursing homes. Social service groups say all of that would cost the state more money in the long run through lost income tax revenue and increased demand for nursing homes and other services.

The Quinn administration has also been trying to convince the state's labor unions to agree to contract concessions to help reduce the budget shortfall. But the unions are resisting. Henry Bayer, executive director of AFSCME Council 31, the state's largest worker union, says the savings from any contract concessions would be just a drop in the bucket. The state is trying to get the union to agree to take unpaid furlough days and accept pay freezes or even pay cuts. It doesn't sound like that's going to happen, considering the state signed a new contract with AFSCME last fall. Bayer is right that union concessions would help the state with only a fraction of its estimated $9 billion budget shortfall, but there's a good argument to be made that every little bit helps avoid major tax increases or service cuts.

What Is He Thinking?

Gov. Pat Quinn deserves praise for quite a few things he's done, or at least tried to do, since taking over for the reviled Rod Blagojevich. The word "courage" gets used too often in describing actions elected officials take, but I definitely think it took some guts for Quinn to seek an income tax hike to help balance the budget. That kind of proposal will never go over well with taxpayers, especially in a recession, but at least he offered some specific numbers to back up his budget plan. Whether or not raising taxes is a good idea is not my area of expertise, so I have no idea if higher taxes would help or not. But offering specifics on his plan is better than some critics who say more spending needs to be cut, but then only give some general ideas about where to cut, without offering real numbers to show how it would work.

But Quinn has still made some puzzling decisions in his tenure. Backing off the recommendations of the Illinois Reform Commission, for instance. Or appointing a 29-year-old man with no background in law enforcement to run the Illinois State Police. (Yes, Jonathan Monken is a decorated war veteran and a genuine hero, but I think he's in way over his head at ISP.) But this week we saw a particularly odd decision by Quinn. If you remember, last month when House Speaker Mike Madigan was pushing his so-called "fumigation bill" to get rid of hundreds of state officials appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former Gov. George Ryan, one of the biggest names he went after was John Filan.

Filan is a former Blagojevich budget director who wrote many of Blagojevich's controversial budget plans, such as the proposal to create the maligned Gross Receipts Tax that lawmakers killed unanimously. Filan is also a longtime friend of Gov. Quinn, so while lawmakers can't stand Filan, it was somewhat understandable that Quinn kept Filan on board to run the Illinois Finance Authority and help craft his budget. Quinn didn't exactly have a lot of time to line up a cabinet and Filan was already there. But it quickly became clear lawmakers -- Madigan in particular -- wanted Filan gone. When the fumigation bill specificially targeted Filan, rather than let his friend get fired by law, Quinn struck a deal with Madigan. The speaker took Filan's name out of the fumigation bill and Quinn agreed that Filan would resign effective July 1.

We found out yesterday that Filan will be staying on the state payroll for up to four months after July 1. Sure, he's technically resigning as director of the Finance Authority. And it was the IFA that requested he stay on up to four more months to help with the transition to a new director. And yes, they wanted his help implementing a $3 billion program for renewable energy grants, which he played a key role in creating. However, it should be no surprise to Quinn that lawmakers are angry that Filan is staying on the state payroll beyond July 1. Quinn's office can use lawyer talk all they want to say he's keeping his word that Filan would resign as director of IFA. Lawmakers might even concede that Quinn has the right to hire and fire who he wants for that position. But it still appears on the surface that Quinn is going back on his word by keeping Filan around longer than he said he would.

Congress Cracking Down On Tobacco Industry

The U.S. Senate has approved legislation that allows the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry. The FDA would be allowed to set the levels of nicotine and other ingredients in tobacco products. Manufacturers would be required to list the ingredients of their products on packaging. The FDA would also be allowed to require stronger safety warnings and regulate advertising of tobacco products. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin has been pushing for regulation of the tobacco industry for years. He spoke to reporters in Springfield earlier this week about the legislation. He supported efforts to pass similar legislation in the late 1990s, but that effort died when supporters couldn't block a filibuster in the Senate. That wasn't a problem this time around. The House is expected to give final legislative approval today and Durbin says President Obama will sign the bill.

Taking it easy

With the legislature gone, this week has provided a nice respite at the capitol. No more 16 hour work days. No more staking out leadership meetings on a daily basis. So I've also been taking a little break from the blog.

But before the lawmakers left late Sunday night/early Monday morning, I spoke to several legislators about what they think of the job Pat Quinn has done as governor. While they almost unanimously think he's a hard-working, honest man (I say almost unanimously because I didn't talk to all 177 lawmakers), several think he wasn't ready for the responsibility of the governor's office. Though they also recognize he came into a really difficult situation, despite taking over for the despised Rod Blagojevich.

Native American groups get exemption to smoking ban for religious ceremonies

Lawmakers also recently signed off on an amendment to the state's 17-month-old indoor smoking ban. It's a very limited exemption that applies only to Native American religious ceremonies, since their rituals include smoking ceremonial pipes and smudging -- the burning of prairie grasses or herbs as a cleansing ritual. Native groups have been pushing for this exception since before the smoking ban was enacted. Welcome to the process of getting legislation passed in Springfield. Unless you've got a ton of clout, you're not getting anything passed quickly, not even something as simple as this.

Tying Up Loose Ends

Working close to 90 hours last week covering the budget, ethics reforms and other last-minute legislative issues at the capitol, I haven't had the energy to update the blog as thoroughly as I'd like. I've already mentioned that lawmakers left town after passing a budget that has enough money for about half the fiscal year. They also arguably fell short on campaign finance reform and left a recall measure in the hopper until they come back later this year.

The first-ever limits on campaign contributions in Illinois are headed to the governor's desk. I've already gone into a lot of the details on the limits, so I won't rehash them in this post. However, one effect I think hasn't been covered enough is that the way the limits are set up could potentially make it harder to track who is giving money to the candidates. Say what you will about having no limits on contributions, to date, Illinois has had a pretty thorough disclosure system for donations. Granted, some candidates might have failed to disclose who was giving them money, but for the most part it was easy to see where the money was flowing. But with all the different committees politicians can set up -- campaign committees, constituent services committees and multi-candidate committees -- I can easily see them hiding donations by funneling a questionable donation through one committee and then transfering it to another.

Meantime, one of Gov. Pat Quinn's top priorities for reform, a proposal to allow voters to recall a sitting governor, will have to wait. The proposal would allow Illinois voters to decide at the 2010 election whether the state constitution should be amended to allow a sitting governor to be recalled. The House overwhelmingly approved the measure on Saturday and, at first, it seemed like the Senate was going to speed it through the process so the bill could get the required three readings on three separate days -- Saturday, Sunday and shortly after midnight on Monday -- and pass it before leaving town. It got the first reading it needed in the Senate on Saturday, but the second reading didn't happen until early Monday morning.

Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said he told Quinn that it will get the required third reading on the first day the Senate returns to session, whenever that is. He explained that since the proposal requires voter approval to become law and the next general election is November 2010, there's no need for lawmakers to give their approval right away. That's a good point, though it didn't stop Republicans from making a bit of noise criticizing Democrats for not pushing the recall effort through before they left town.

I think the bigger problem here, though, is how hard it would be for the recall measure to actually be used. One hurdle would be requiring supporters of recall to gather voter signatures equal to 15 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the previous election for governor. They'd have 150 days to get what would amount to hundreds of thousands of signatures. Yes, that's a pretty high hurdle, but it seems an appropriate one to make sure there's widespread support for recall. But before that could happen, 30 lawmakers would have to initiate the process by signing an affidavit supporting recall. At least 20 House members and 10 senators -- evenly divided between the two parties -- would have to sign the affidavit. That essentially means if one of the four caucuses didn't support recall, they could block it before voters got a say. Let's put it like this, if this recall measure had been in place a few years ago and voters wanted to recall Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was impeached, does anyone think former Senate President Emil Jones would have let Senate Democrats sign off? Me neither. If recall is supposed to be a tool for the people to decide if the governor should be removed, lawmakers shouldn't have a say at all, I think.

Some might argue this move was largely symbolic since lamakers already earn a minimum salary of about $70,000, but the House and Senate approved a bill this past weekend that prevents them from getting a 3 percent pay raise next fiscal year. It would also require them to take four furlough days. I shouldn't be surprised, but there were a few legislators who voted against the bill. Considering the state's budget mess and that the Senate approved a major tax hike (even if it ultimately died in the House), it takes some major ego to vote for raising your already significant salary.

The bill would also eliminate the independent Compensation Review Board which recommends raises for lawmakers, constitutional officers and judges. The board's recommendations are automatically approved unless both the House and Senate vote down the raises. It's a process that has often been criticized as convoluted. If the governor signs the bill (I can't see him not signing) lawmakers would have to introduce and vote on their own proposal to raise pay for the state's top officials.

Civil unions will have to wait

Gay and Lesbian advocates pushing for civil unions in Illinois will have to keep waiting. Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), an openly gay member of the House, decided not to call a civil union bill before the legislature went home. He didn't want the debate over civil unions bogged down with all the other politically sensitive issues lawmakers were deciding at the end of session. He wants lawmakers to focus their full attention on the issue when it comes up for a vote and he accurately observed that the atmosphere just wasn't right to accomplish that this past week. Whether or not things will be any calmer when lawmakers come back is yet to be seen.

"The People Will Suffer"

Gov. Pat Quinn is meeting with the four legislative leaders today to discuss the budget, after lawmakers sent him a spending plan that provides only about half of the funding that Quinn was seeking. The House rejected his plan to raise income taxes by 50 percent to help eliminate a 12 billion dollar deficit and did not even consider an alternative plan from the Senate. That plan would have generated even more money, through a 67 percent increase in the income tax and an expansion of the sales tax to many services.

Quinn has said he won't sign the budget plan. “We have to stay after school,” he said late Sunday. “Right now, the budget is not in balance. People will suffer.” Since the plan does not have enough funding for the entire fiscal year, he won't sign the capital plan that lawmakers approved last month. But he doesn't have that option right now. Lawmakers aren't happy with his vow not to sign the construction plan until he gets a full balanced budget. Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is using a parliamentary maneuver to essentially hold the capital plan hostage until Quinn will sign it. So much for stimulating the state's economy this summer.

Lawmakers went home after passing that half budget, but they did not technically adjourn for the summer. At some point, either Quinn or the legislative leaders will likely call them back to pass a full budget -- that is, if Quinn and the leaders can reach a deal. The big hang up in this seems to be what Speaker Mike Madigan wants. Senate President John Cullerton was able to get his members to approve a tax plan without Republican Help. Madigan might not have the super-majority that Cullerton does, but he's got 70 Democrats and needed 60 to approve a tax plan. If he really wanted it, he could have gotten it. He's made that pretty clear in the past. Is he trying to make Quinn look bad so his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan can have another advantage if and when she runs for governor? Who knows. Madigan isn't exactly forthcoming about his motives.

Last minute maneuvering

Senate Democrats have pushed through a tax hike plan that Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) has been touting for years. It would raise the income tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent and expand the sales tax to services such as cable television, dry cleaning and video rentals. It would also double a tax credit for people who pay property taxes and triple a tax credit for low-income taxpayers.

It's doubtful that the House will approve this tax hike, but it could get the ball rolling on Gov. Pat Quinn's tax plan or prompt something in between. Quinn has been seeking a 50 percent income tax hike (from 3 percent to 4.5) and has agreed to a two-year tax hike. But so far, there hasn't been enough support among House Democrats and Republicans have refused to help pass a tax hike.

Speaker Mike Madigan has been weighing a budget that wouldn't cover the entire fiscal year, which would allow lawmakers to go home for the summer without voting for a tax hike. They'd then have a chance to find out if they will face any serious challengers in next year's election before having to face another vote on a tax hike.

Are we heading to overtime?

I don't have much new to tell you today. When the day started, it sounded like the House was going to vote on Gov. Pat Quinn's tax plan and the campaign finance limits approved in the Senate yesterday. There were rumors Speaker Mike Madigan was only calling the tax plan to a vote to kill it, or at best to find out how close they were to passage so they could find out how many Republicans the Democrats needed to bring on board. But after a private meeting with his caucus, Madigan abruptly adjourned the House around 5:30 and they won't be back in session until noon on Saturday. Word is, there aren't anywhere near enough votes among House Dems for the governor's tax plan, not even if it's a temporary income tax hike. Too many don't want to vote to raise taxes, others don't want to vote for the cuts they'd have to make even with a tax hike. Republicans aren't about to offer any help on a tax hike. I think there are a few that might vote under other circumstances, but they seem genuinely fed up with being left out of budget negotiations every year until the last minute. We'll see if Quinn and Madigan can figure out a compromise, but it's really hard to tell what will happen. They could pull the same trick as last year and pass a budget that's short on revenue and tell Quinn to fix it. They could pass just enough revenue and spending to get them through the next six to nine months until lawmakers have a better feel for how big of a challenge they're facing in the 2010 election. Or they could go into overtime until they can make a deal with Republicans. I really hope that doesn't happen, but it's looking more and more likely.

Is This Real Reform?

"Landmark legislation" or "A good start?" That's the big question after the Senate approved the first ever campaign contribution limits for Illinois. Supporters touted the measure as an historic step toward reducing the influence of money on elections. Gov. Pat Quinn said the proposal is not perfect, but nonetheless said it is "landmark legislation."

But his own hand-picked Illinois Reform Commission and other good government groups said the legislation is flawed and full of holes. Although they said it was "a good start," they said lawmakers should have taken more time to tighten up the limits.

Their request to amend the legislation before voting on it fell on deaf ears. Senate Democrats approved the measure, the only exception in their party being Mike Jacobs of East Moline. "Political contributions, whether they"re $10,001 or $9,999, are a mode of free speech and they are just as worthy of protection as nude dancing or lawsuits, my friend," he said. "I don"t believe the amount of money a person gives should exclude them from personally and publicly expressing their free opinions."

Quinn said he plans to sign the legislation, even though the Reform Commission he formed opposes the measures. "I think there are a lot of different ideas and I respect everyone's idea. But in a democracy, when all is said and done we have to come up with a reform package that commands majorities in both houses, can come to the governor to be signed into law," Quinn said.

All but one Senate Republican voted against the measure, echoing concerns about loopholes. They also complained they were left out of negotiations on the proposal and asked to vote on it within hours after getting it. Some critics went so far as to say the limits would make the situation worse when it comes to big spending on legislative races.

But supporters said the proposal was the best they could get right now. Under the proposal sponsored by Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), candidates would face the following limits on donations to their campaign committees:

--$5,000 per year from individuals,
--$10,000 per year from corporations, labor unions and other political groups
--$90,000 per year in transfers from multi-candidate campaign committees run by state parties or party caucuses, such as those run by the legislative leaders.

Multi-candidate committees would have more leeway in raising money. Their limits include:
--$10,000 per year from individuals,
--$20,000 per year from corporations, labor unions and other political groups
--$90,000 per year in transfers from other campaign committees.

Patrick Collins, a former federal prosecutor who chaired the Illinois Reform Commission, said lawmakers should have gone back to the drawing board. "What is the rush? Let's get it right. This bill can be better," Collins said. The Reform Commission favored lower caps identical to the federal level $2,400 for individual donations and $5,000 for donations from unions and corporations. They also wanted candidates to be able to get donations less frequently -- every election cycle rather than every year.

The legislation would also call for more frequent disclosure of donations; though not the year-round real-time disclosure sought by the Reform Commission. Instead, candidates must report donations four-times a year, up from twice a year. The only real-time reporting requirement would be in May, when the spring legislative session is wrapping up and budget negotiations are at their peak.

The two biggest complaints from critics were that legislators would be able to create a new type of committee and that the limits did not include any type of caps on so-called "in-kind" contributions. The legislation allows legislators to form "constituent services committees," a separate fund that would be used to help pay for maintaining district offices and providing assistance to people in their districts. But critics said money from those funds could be used to pay for events for constituents that would be no different from campaign events.

As for "in-kind" contributions, while a party could donate only $90,000 in cash to any given candidate, they could provide an unlimited amount of campaign mailers, yard signs, TV or radio ads and manpower to get out the vote.

Supporters said they would be willing to amend the legislation later, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon. Lawmakers have resisted contribution limits for decades. It wasn't until Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested for trying to sell President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat for campaign contributions that legislators took that step.

David Hoffman, inspector general for the City of Chicago and a member of the Illinois Reform Commission, said the Blagojevich scandal was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for major reform. "What's going on right now -- this moment in terms of the pressure, in terms of the attention, in terms of the anger -- is unlikely to be repeated. I mean, the fact that the governor had been impeached and indicted ... and that got national attention in part because of who the president elect was. ... Those circumstances are really unlikely to be repeated."

Sweet Home Chicago

Today is the kind of day that I really miss being back at the City News Service covering City Hall. I just don't hear the same scuttlebut anymore about what's going down at City Hall, who the feds are investigating, who's going to be the latest elected official facing corruption charges. Granted, it's probably been less than an hour that I've known the feds were preparing to indict someone, apparently an elected official, but I just could not wait until 2 p.m. to find out who. If I were still at City Hall, I probably would have known who the new target is within minutes, if not before the feds made it known new corruption charges were coming. The Sun-Times says it's Ald. Isaac "Ike" Carothers, a powerful alderman at City Hall. That would have made my day when I was covering City Hall; not that I have anything against Ike or want to see any elected official indicted for corruption. But working on a story like this always gets my juices flowing. I was hoping the case would have some direct ties to Springfield to give me more to work on today, even though I'm sure my afternoon will be really busy covering proposed ethics measures. I hope I have a bit of a break around 2 p.m. to watch the news conference.

Real Reform?

I'm still thinking "I'll believe it when I see it" about campaign finance reform in Illinois, but it sure sounds like House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton are willing to make a more serious effort than it seemed last week. As I told you last week, under legislation proposed by the Senate Dems last week, candidates could get no more than $5,000 a year from individual donors and $10,000 a year from labor unions, corporations and other political committees. Political funds run by the state political parties and legislative leaders would have higher limits: $10,000 a year from individuals and $20,000 a year from other political committees.

At the time, many criticized the plan because it would not limit how much money parties and legislative leaders could transfer from their own campaign funds to individual candidates. Now, Madigan and Cullerton say they plan to limit those transfers. The sponsor of the Senate Dems' campaign finance bill, Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) says the precise level of the transfer limits is still under negotiation, but he hopes to have an agreement in place by tomorrow, when the Senate Executive Committee is expected to debate several government reform measures.

Patrick Collins, the chairman of Gov. Pat Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission will be at that hearing and he's been pushing for limits on such transfers, so it will be interesting to see how things go at that hearing. If Madigan and Cullerton follow through with an actual agreement on limiting transfers between campaign committees, will the limits be low enough to satisfy Collins and other government watchdogs? Obviously, it's too early to say.

The Senate Executive Committee should also be taking up a bill to rewrite the state's Freedom of Information Act. Not surprisingly, the measure would exempt lawmakers from many of the provisions requiring disclosure of public records. Even so, it sounds like the proposal that will be discussed tomorrow should be a better alternative than one floated last week. The House has already approved the rewrite, so it could go to the governor by tomorrow night.

It's Crunch Time

Unless something really major happens in the next couple days, it sounds like lawmakers are not going to pass an income tax hike before the end of session. Quite simply, there aren't enough Democrats willing to vote for raising the income tax if it also means the state still has to make big cuts to spending on social services. You know things are getting desperate when Senate President John Cullerton is asking Republicans to help pass a tax hike. (Remember, Senate Democrats have a supermajority, so they don't need Republican help to pass anything, even if they have to go into overtime; House Democrats are only one vote shy of a similar majority.) Obviously, there aren't enough Democrats willing to risk their seat in the General Assembly to vote for a tax hike.

In what seems to be turning into a weekly spectacle, another "taxpayer advocacy group" came out this week to press for their side of the budget debate. This week it was the Illinois Policy Institute and conservative anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist urging lawmakers to reject Quinn's proposed tax hike. They want the state to cut spending by 10 percent across-the-board; and they argue that can be done without cutting education spending at the classroom level or reducing eligibility for Medicaid. It would be nice to see their actual figures on this, but they didn't provide any. Not that I'm jumping up and down over the prospect of a tax hike, but I don't see how you can possibly make that deep of a cut to state spending without a significant impact on schools and Medicaid.

Meantime, the capital plan has hit a bit of a snag. I'm sure it will pass eventually, but as I told you last week, Gov. Pat Quinn says he won't sign off on the capital bills until lawmakers send him a balanced budget and ethics reforms. That's not going over well with top Democrats, since Quinn apparently promised he wouldn't tie his support for the capital bill to any other legislation. Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie) has moved to reconsider the vote on the capital bill, meaning it won't go to Quinn's desk until there's either another vote on the capital program or Lang withdraws his motion. Lang says he won'd do that until Quinn is prepared to sign the capital bill. Ultimately, this boils down to political posturing by both sides, but you'd think after the Blagojevich fiasco, lawmakers and the governor would be bending over backwards to get a construction program started ASAP.

Cullerton's office is still making it sound like session can wrap up on Friday, though House Speaker Mike Madigan isn't making any promises. Though from what I'm hearing around the capitol, it's more and more likely that lawmakers will just slap together a bare-bones budget and continue private negotiations this summer, then come back in the fall to vote on a tax hike (if not wait until next spring if they can cobble together enough money to get them through the first nine months of FY10). Either that, or they might pull the same trick as last year -- pass a budget that's out of whack and tell Quinn to cut spending where he chooses. Some things never change.

One Down, Two To Go

When Gov. Pat Quinn took office, he said he had three priorities for the spring legislative session: passing a balanced budget, creating jobs through a major capital construction bill and passing significant ethics reforms. With lawmakers about to begin the last week of the spring session before the May 31 budget deadline, they're one for three. The House and Senate approved a $28 billion capital plan this week. As expected, it depends on a combination of tax hikes, fee increases and an expansion of gambling to fund new construction for roads, bridges, mass transit and other projects. Taxpayers will be paying more in taxes for alcohol, candy, sweetened tea and coffee drinks and "medicated" hygiene projects. Motorists will have to pay more for their license plates and drivers licenses.

On the gaming side, the state will eventually turn over management of the Lottery to a private company, which will also be responsible for marketing the Lottery to new players. Video gambling -- poker, blackjack and other games on arcade-style machines -- was already legal in Illinois, but only for entertainment purposes. Playing for cash winnings was illegal, though quite common -- in an under-the-table fashion -- at bars, clubs, restaurants, veterans' halls and other sites. Officials estimate there are as many as 65,000 video gambling machines in the state. The capital plan would allow for at least 45,000 video gambling machines that offer payouts.

Opponents say that amounts to a massive expansion of gambling and have said it will essentially allow small casinos in nearly every neighborhood of the state. Some equate electronic gambling to "the crack cocaine of gambling." But with lawmakers desperate to approve the state's first capital plan in a decade, video poker shot to the top of the list of revenue options. The measure allows local governments to opt out of legalized video gambling if they want, but I doubt too many municipalities or counties will decide against video gambling if their neighbors allow it.

The state would tax video gambling at a rate of 25 to 30 percent. Supporters estimate it would generate from $300 million to $750 million a year for the state. Some of that revenue would be shared with local governments. Gov. Pat Quinn has said video poker isn't his first choice to fund a capital bill, but he doesn't plan to block that part of the legislation.

However, he said Friday that he won't sign the capital bill until lawmakers address his other two priorities for the spring: the budget and ethics reform. It will be interesting to see how adamant he is about that statement. So far, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough support for an income tax hike to help plug the state's $12 billion budget hole. That was pretty clear from the beginning, but in the two-and-a-half months since Quinn unveiled his budget plan, lawmakers have made little, if any, progress towards an alternative budget plan. It's not clear what they plan to do. But at this point, nothing would surprise me. They might pass just enough of a budget to cover the first six to nine months of the fiscal year and then take up the budget again this fall during veto session. Or they might do the same thing they did last year: send the governor a budget that's out of balance and tell him to make the cuts needed to balance it. The governor has made it clear he doesn't want a "temporary" budget and I wouldn't think he'd be any happier about getting a budget that's out of whack. He's made it pretty clear he wants a balanced budget. So the big question is will he stick to his guns and force lawmakers to come back for a special session if they don't send him a balanced budget to cover all of FY2010, or will he take what he gets. He's made such a big deal out of the capital plan and the state is in such desperate need of jobs, it would be a huge risk to veto the capital plan or let it sit on his desk all summer until lawmakers reach a budget deal.

One story that got pretty much got buried this week was the Illinois Department of Transportation unveiling its annual "road plan." It's an infrastructure construction plan that's entirely separate from the big capital bill. Although the plan is sold as a five- or six-year plan for roads, bridges and mass transit across the state, IDOT unveils a new plan every year, often with entirely different priorities than the year before. Sometimes projects that were announced one year are scrapped the next. For the past couple years, though the state has been taking a "fix it first" approach. It's no different this year.

The biggest funding source for the road plan is the state's motor fuel tax. Because of the crappy economy and because gas prices have been so high the past few years -- especially in summer -- drivers are buying less gas. And because the motor fuel tax is on a per-gallon basis, rather than a percentage of what you pay, that means revenue from the motor fuel tax hasn't gone up much and, in some cases, has fallen off in recent years. That hasn't left the state with much money to build new roads or bridges, so they've had to focus on basic maintenance. So it's a good thing for the state's highway and mass transit systems that the capital plan is pretty much a done deal. (Seriously, even if lawmakers pull a fast one on the budget or ethics reform, I can't see Governor Quinn letting the capital plan fail; way too many jobs are at stake. The unemployment rate is way too high. Labor unions would turn on him faster than you can blink and he's already made it clear he's running for governor in 2010. There's no way he wins if all the unions line up against him, especially if Lisa Madigan enters the race.)

As far as ethics, he hasn't said precisely what it will take to satisfy him. Sure, he's said he wants lawmakers to vote up or down on all six of the reform areas supported by his hand-picked Illinois Reform Commission: campaign finance, transparency, purchasing rules, expanded enforcement of government corruption, government structure (redistricting, term limits, etc.) and "inspiring better government" (personnel rules, whistleblower protections, etc.).

So far, lawmakers are resisting or, at the very least, trying to water down all of those areas. The Reform Commission wants campaign contribution limits that are identical to the federal level ($2,400 per person, per election). Senate Democrats are pushing a far more lenient set of campaign contribution caps -- $5,000 per person per year. If you do the math, the Senate Dems' proposal would have caps that are two to four times higher than the Reform Commission's. For example, under the Senate Democrats plan, I could donate $20,000 to Lisa Madigan's campaign fund every campaign cycle since the term for governor is four years. Under the Reform Commission's plan, I could give only $4,800 ($2,400 towards the primary election and another $2,400 towards the general election). For two year terms (state representatives run every two years; state senate seats have two four-year terms and one two-year term every decade), the limits under the Senate Democratic plan are about double those under the Reform Commission plan.

Considering most lawmakers rarely, if ever, get contributions over $1,000, quite frankly neither proposal sounds like it would have much of an impact on legislative races. It might have a bigger impact on races for constitutional offices, especially governor and attorney general. The big difference that I see in the two plans is that the Reform Commission would limit how much money legislative leaders could transfer from their own campaign warchests to other candidates in their party. The Senate Democratic proposal would not. That's a big deal in highly contested races. The legislative leaders often send hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates in swing districts to protect vulnerable seats or win new ones.

Honestly, I can understand both sides of the argument. Should the leaders have that much influence on races in other districts? Maybe not. But if both sides are dumping big amounts of cash into swing districts, you could make the argument they probably cancel each other out and just make an already competitive race more expensive. But if lawmakers are going to approve contribution limits of any kind, I tend to agree with the Reform Commission; if $2,400 per individual donor is enough for candidates for Congress and President, it should be good enough for the General Assembly and constitutional offices. After all, Barack Obama had no problem shattering fundraising records last year with the federal limits.

Bear With Me

Okay, so I just found out today that the podcast service I use to host all the audio files I link to on this blog is shutting down soon. They're transferring their paid users' files to a new server and will transfer files for free users (like me), but only if the free users sign up for a paid subscription with the new server. Being that I don't have a job at the moment, that means I need to find a new free podcasting service and manually switch over my files, so that might mean some delays in updating the blog the next couple weeks.

Anyway, on to the latest news the past couple days:

The four legislative leaders have been meeting pretty regularly in recent days to hammer out details of the capital plan so they can get it done soon. They say they expect to take a vote in the Senate on Wednesday, but it's still not clear if that means they've got an agreement on how the capital plan will work. Meantime, progress is still lacking on a budget for next year. Gov. Pat Quinn took the odd move this week to unveil a "doomsday budget" that reveals deep cuts he claims would be needed to balance the budget without new taxes. Among the cuts Quinn claims would be needed: 14,300 teachers and half the state police force would be laid off; 6,000 prisoners would have to be released early; 400,000 college students would lose financial aid grants; and 650,000 people would lose state-funded programs for prescription drugs and health care; four veterans' homes would close. But lawmakers essentially shrugged off Quinn's claims as a scare tactic to convince them to support a tax hike. Rikeesha Phelon, spokeswoman for Senate President, said if Quinn really believes lawmakers would have to consider a doomsday budget scenario, he should introduce his claims in bill form so they can see real numbers. Regardless, it doesn't sound like many lawmakers are buying that Quinn is serious. It does seem a little late in the game to be using this kind of tactic. If Quinn really wants to sell a tax hike to balance the budget, why didn't he start laying out specifics of what would happen without one in his budget address?

The other big question the next couple weeks is what ethics reforms lawmakers will enact. The biggest proposal out there is campaign contribution caps for the state. The governor's hand-picked Illinois Reform Commission says it will have a bill to limit contributions at $2,400 per person ready this week. It's already pretty clear lawmakers won't agree to those limits and will likely approve limits of anywhere from $7,000 to $10,000 per person; perhaps more for contributions from political committees. If so, that likely won't satisfy Reform Commission Chairman Patrick Collins. Of course, he doesn't have any real say in what will happen, but he's got a good point: a $10,000 limit on contributions isn't much of a limit when most lawmakers rarely see any individual contributions of more than $1,000.

Coping With Stress

One of the things I love about working at a public radio station is working on feature stories. Being given up to four-and-a-half minutes of air time for a story is wonderful. It reminds me a bit of my first job at the City News Service. Since it was a wire service, we basically got to use as much space as we wanted for a story. So long as we hit the most important parts of the story early on, we could go into as much detail as we felt was needed.

When I started at WBBM a couple years ago, it was a big shift trying to sum up important news into 30-second spots for the anchors. Public radio gives me a bit more time to work with on spot news, but even with a minute, I find myself wishing I could go into more detail. So working on pieces like this week's feature is a joy. Working in the perspectives of four different people to tell the story is so fulfilling.

It's not often that a random press release from a politician turns into a fulfilling story like this one. But a release we got about a bill in Congress that would provide grants to colleges and universities for mental health programs turned out to be a better story than you'd think at first glance. But after talking with my bureau chief, Sean Crawford, about the issue a bit, it blossomed into a great story about how counseling programs at universities have changed in the past few years and how students are getting involved in outreach. Even with this piece, I know there are so many other angles I could expand on, but I'm really proud of this one.

It's All About the Money

We're coming up on the final two weeks of the spring session and it sounds like lawmakers aren't much closer to agreeing on a budget for next year. Even though it sounds like he hasn't got enough support in the legislature to pass it, Gov. Pat Quinn is sticking to his guns on the proposed income tax hike. He said he still wants to raise the rate by 50 percent and he doesn't want it to be temporary as some have suggested. Although he does sound more willing to compromise on the exemptions he proposed so that they're focused more on low-income taxpayers and homeowners, rather than offering tax breaks across the board.

As far as a capital plan, it's not clear yet how close Democrats and Republicans are to agreeing on how to pay for it, but the four legislative leaders have been meeting regularly. The governor's office has laid out a menu of revenue options to fund a construction program:

• Ending the diversion of money from the state's Road Fund, which is supposed to be used for road construction,
  
• increasing the fees for driver's licenses and license plates,
• increasing the tax on wine and hard liquor (but not beer),
• removing the sales tax exemption for candy,
  
• removing sales tax discounts for bottled tea and coffee drinks, as well as "medicated" health and beauty products,
• and allowing for the sale of lottery tickets over the Internet and bringing in a private firm to manage the Lottery and market it to new players.

None of those options is set in stone and some of them were included in the governor's original capital budget proposal. Legalizing video poker might also be on the table soon. A measure to legalize video poker in Illinois (House Bill 4239) has been approved in the House Executive Committee and supporters estimate it could generate $200 million to $300 million per year. Quinn says he's keeping an open mind about the proposal, though he's not "excited" about it. But at this point, with little more than two weeks before the scheduled end of the spring session, Quinn might have to take what he can get if lawmakers agree to a funding source for construction.

Some lawmakers want to go a lot farther than that to expand gambling in Illinois and raise money for the state. Sen. Terry Link (D-Waukegan) is pushing a major gambling expansion bill that would create three new casino licenses and expand the size of existing casinos (Senate Bill 744). The measure calls for a 4,000-position casino in Chicago and a pair of 2,000-position casinos in Rockford and Park City in Lake County. The nine current casinos and the planned 10th casino in Des Plaines would be allowed to expand from 1,200 gaming positions to 2,000.

The bill would also allow casinos to team up with horse race tracks to place between 350 and 1,000 slot machines at each track. The casinos would have to compete to place the slots at tracks and then split the profits with track owners. The bill is still in committee while lawmakers, casino owners and track owners hammer out details of how profit sharing would work. Right now, tracks would get 30 percent, but track owners aren't happy with that and say casino owners would have too much leeway in determining how much "profit" the slots would generate.

Link says the proposal would generate about $500 million in new revenue for the state. But the measure has little chance of passing. House Speaker Mike Madigan has already said he's not willing to consider casino expansion this session and he doesn't usually take such a definitive stand on an issue and then change his mind a few weeks later.

Chicago Area Senators Want More Money For Roads

Several senators from the Chicago area say the region deserves a bigger share of the state's road funds and they're pointing to a recent Legislative Research Unit report as proof northeastern Illinois doesn't get enough money. State Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Cicero) requested the study comparing population vehicle miles traveled, miles of roadway, amounts of gasoline sold and other factors in Cook County and the collar counties compared to Downstate.

Sandoval said the study validates his argument that the state's traditional formula for distributing road funds is flawed and shortchanges the Chicago area. The formula calls for 55 percent of highway money to go to Downstate regions and the remaining 45 percent to go to northeastern Illinois. But the study found that for the past decade, the Chicago area has not received its 45 percent share from the road fund and, in many years, got less than 40 percent.

Sandoval says the 55-45 split should be reversed. He points to findings in the study that 63 percent of the state's population lives in the Chicago area. The report also found more than half of the vehicles in Illinois are registered in northeastern Illinois and nearly 55 percent of the miles driven in Illinois are on Chicago area roads.

The study also reveals that about half of the 6 billion gallons of motor fuel sold in Illinois last year were sold in the Chicago area. State and local gas taxes along with bonding and federal funding pay for roadway spending.

But downstate lawmakers have long opposed efforts to switch the 55-45 split to favor the Chicago region. State Sen. John Sullivan (D-Rushville) said the LRU study leaves out the highway funds that come from bonding and federal funds. He said when those funds are added to road fund money, the Chicago region receives an average of 45 percent of all state highway dollars between 2002 and 2008, meeting the state's formula. Sullivan also pointed out that only 18 percent of the roads in Illinois are located in the Chciago area, which means 82 percent are located Downstate. He added that, although Chicago and the collar counties are the state's economic engine and serve as a major transportation hub, the Chicago area depends on good roads Downstate to get goods, supplies and people to and from the region.

A Little Late to the Party?

Last month, I mentioned that advocates for substance abuse programs were asking lawmakers to increase the state's alcohol tax by a nickel a drink. Well, either it took them a few weeks to convince a lawmaker to introduce an actual bill or Rep. Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) likes to be fashionably late to budget talks. She held a news conference this morning to announce she was introducing the nickel-a-drink tax hike. (Her proposal is separate from the liquor tax hike being floated to help pay for construction.) She says she wants it included in the final budget plan and claims it would generate $254 million for the state. But a majority of the funding would be earmarked for substance abuse and mental health treatment programs. Only about $22 million would be made available to the state's general revenue funds. Asked why she didn't bring this forward weeks ago, Feigenholtz essentially said that now is the best time to bring revenue proposals to the table because budget negotiations don't begin in earnest until the end of the spring session. That's certainly true, though it's also nothing new for lawmakers to come up with tax hike plans to fund pet projects late in budget talks. Most years, they don't stand a chance, but with the state facing a $12 billion deficit, it will be interesting to see if this gains some traction.

Won't Someone Please Think of the Children?

Sorry, I couldn't resist the above title for this post after listening to the House debate on Senate Bill 62 last week. Every year, literally dozens of bills are introduced to "crack down" on sex offenders, setting new limits on where they can live and work. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that when a bill came up this session to ban convicted sex offenders from driving ice cream trucks, the vast majority of lawmakers were happy to jump on board the proposal. The idea seems reasonable enough to me, although I can't remember the last time I saw an ice cream truck.

The thing is, the measure goes a lot farther than that. They wouldn't even be able to drive one of those lunch trucks you see parked outside the Cook County Courthouse at 26th and California, all over downtown Chicago, or at most any construction site in the state. The bill would also make it illegal for convicted sex offenders to drive fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles. Was there some epidemic of sex offenders impersonating fire fighters and stealing fire trucks that I wasn't aware of?

The Reverse PIN Myth

I'm sure you've heard the urban legend before: If you're getting held up while you're at the ATM, enter your PIN code in reverse and the machine will secretly alert the police. You'll still get the money so the robber won't hurt you and the cops will soon be on their way. Joe Zingher of Gurnee wants to make the myth reality.

In 1998, he patented software that would allow you to do just what I described, but so far, banks aren't buying. So he's been trying to convince Illinois lawmakers to make it mandatory. But all they've been willing to do is pass a law a few years ago that gives banks the option of installing the software, which they haven't done. His basic argument is that if a criminal knows every ATM has the emergency PIN technology installed, he or she will be less likely to put a gun to someone's head to force them to withdraw a couple hundred dollars if there's a good chance the cops would be on their way within minutes.

A couple quick questions came to my mind when I heard about this. Like, what if your PIN code is 2442? Or 4444? Zingher came up with a workaround for both of those: the inside-out emergency PIN and the plus-one emergency PIN. If your code is 2442, you turn it inside-out and your emergency PIN is 4224. If your code is 4444, you add one to each digit and your emergency PIN is 5555.

But the banking industry argues most people wouldn't be able to remember their emergency PIN even if it's just the reverse of their normal PIN code. They say many people have a hard time remembering their normal PIN code. I know I've been guilty of that before, since I have different PIN codes for my ATM card and several other accounts online.

Then there's the question of cost. Ten years ago, the Illinois Office of Banks and Real Estate conducted a study that said it would cost $1,500 per ATM to install the emergency PIN system. Zingher claims that's false. He says it would cost only $25 per ATM. Even if he's right, something tells me there's more to this story that I haven't heard yet. If it's that inexpensive, I doubt he'd have that much trouble convincing any banks to buy his software.

Steady As She Goes

Another week down for lawmakers until the budget deadline on May 31 and still not much action in either the House or the Senate. Yes, both chambers have been doing some work in committee, but honestly there isn't a lot of major legislation up for discussion at this point. It's not clear whether or not a civil unions bill will ever get called, though it seems to be gaining some momentum thanks to the gay marriage bills that recently passed in New Hampshire and Maine. So we'll see if Rep. Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the main sponsor of the civil unions bill in the House, can get together enough votes to pass something this spring.

That's not to say that this week was without any major developments. Far from it. Though I didn't have the pleasure of covering the story myself, on Thursday House Speaker Mike Madigan did something we rarely see him do: hold a news conference to announce major legislation he's introduced. His proposed legislation would fire nearly 3,000 state employees and board members who were hired or appointed by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich or former Gov. George Ryan. The bill targets anyone appointed to a state board or commission, any state appointees subject to Senate confirmation, or any state employees hired to positions exempt from patronage hiring limits -- if they were hired from the time Ryan took office to the time Blagojevich was removed from office. Madigan argued that current Gov. Pat Quinn hasn't moved quickly enough to "fumigate" state government as he promised the day he took office. But since the proposal is coming from Madigan, you can bet he's got other motives. Democratic leaders have been taking some heat recently for not moving faster on ethics reforms proposed by Quinn's reform commission, so this might be an attempt to show he's doing something. Quinn said he supports the proposal, but there are already signals that it's going to be amended before it gets to the floor to reduce the number of people that would get the axe.

State Senate weighs in on Afghanistan

Although lawmakers are taking their time in dealing with the budget, a capital plan and ethics reform, they took a few minutes out of their day on Thursday to essentially tell President Barack Obama -- a former state senator himself -- how to do his job. The Senate approved a resolution urging the president not to escalate the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and to instead withdraw all U.S. troops from the country. State Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago) essentially argued that the only thing the U.S. has accomplished since ousting the Taliban is to watch Afghanistan turn into the world's leading heroin supplier. Personally, I was surprised that more senators didn't get up to defend the president's policy in Afghanistan, but then again, they passed a similar measure on the Iraq war a few years back and former President George W. Bush obviously paid little attention. I doubt Obama really cares what the Illinois State Senate thinks about the war in Afghanistan either.

State Buildings In Springfield To Go Green

The State of Illinois and the City of Springfield finalized a deal this week that will convert state-run buildings in Springfield to 100 percent wind power. It was the result of an agreement between the city and the Sierra Club to prevent delays on the completion of a new coal power plant for the city's utility, City Water, Light and Power. With state buildings running on wind power, emissions should be reduced at CWLP coal plants. The city has struck a deal with two Iowa wind farms to supply the power. The deal also means that Springfield residents and businesses can soon purchase wind power for themselves. Officials said that should start happening next month. CWLP customers won't be able to convert their homes or businesses to 100 percent wind power like the state, but officials say they can do their own small part to reduce emissions at coal plants. Of course, wind power is more expensive than coal power, so they'll have to shell out a little more money if they want to use wind power, but officials say it won't lead to a huge spike in power bills.

Shift in Swine Flu policies

Granted, if you run a public health department it's probably a better policy to respond to some new health, but even so, it seemed a bit extreme when they started advising schools last week to shut down when there were suspected cases of swine flu. They did a 180 on that policy pretty quick this week when it became clear that the swine flu isn't any worse than traditional seasonal flu viruses. I think Illinois Public Health Director Damon Arnold pretty much nailed it on the head when he essentially said that if a school shuts down every time a student gets the flu, schools would never be open in the fall or spring.

The Flu Formerly Known as Swine

Honestly, I'd been avoiding discussing the swine flu on this blog, not because it's not an important story, but because I'm trying to focus on politics. But since this blog is also a way to showcase the work I'm doing in Springfield, I decided I'll put up some of the work I've done on the flu that officials now want us to call H1N1 virus. It just doesn't have the same ring to it though, so I'm going to keep calling it swine flu unless someone comes up with a better name for it. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised last week when I called the two local hospitals here in Springfield -- Memorial Medical Center and St. John's Hospital -- and found out that, contrary to my expectations, they had not been inundated by people with flu-like symptoms who were afraid they'd picked up the swine flu bug. I figured with all the coverage of swine flu in recent weeks, a lot more people would be showing up afraid a simple cold or seasonal flu was swine flu. Instead, only a handful of people have come in to get tested for swine flu. It looks like the message "don't panic" is actually sinking in.

Public health officials are sure to like that reaction from the public. They've made it pretty clear they want people to avoid flooding the hospitals unless they're really sick, so doctors can focus on the most severe cases. And they've certainly shown to this point that they're well-prepared to handle the situation. Last Wednesday evening, Illinois and Chicago got their shipments of anti-viral medications and other supplies from the CDC's Strategic National Stockpile. They turned around and got those supplies out to nearly 300 hospitals and local public health offices in less than two days. Pretty impressive for government work, I'd say.

One Month And Counting

When lawmakers go home this afternoon, they'll have exactly one month left to wrap up the state budget, a new capital plan and any campaign finance, ethics or other government reforms without needing an overtime session to get things done. As I've said before, right now negotiations on all those matters are going on behind closed doors. We probably won't see any significant floor action on any of those issues until the end of May. Though it seems pretty clear Gov. Pat Quinn won't be getting everything he wants, even if there hasn't been much offered in the way of alternatives to his budget plan. Senate President John Cullerton has said there aren't enough votes in the Senate at this point for Quinn's income tax hike. He's suggested before that there might be more support if the tax increase is made temporary. Also, it seems there's some resistance out there to the increased exemptions in Quinn's plan, since they would reduce the revenue brought in from an income tax hike.

Of course, Republicans are still saying they won't support a tax hike without more cuts. But at this point -- at least on the budget and a capital plan -- Republicans are being left out of negotiations. That's pretty typical since Democrats control both chambers. Although I doubt Cullerton or Madigan would let any kind of tax hike pass either chamber without some Republican votes, they don't technically need the GOP to pass a budget. I've got to wonder if them leaving Republicans out of talks so far means they think they can come up with a tax plan they feel voters would be willing to accept. We'll find out in a few weeks.

New cola war on the horizon?

A few years ago, the state awarded an exclusive contract to Pepsi to supply soft drinks for all state facilities. But lawmakers were suspicious of the deal and demanded an audit. Last month, Illinois Auditor General William Holland said that the bidding process for that contract was flawed. The audit found the so many details were lacking about how the state reviewed the competing bids from Pepsi and Coke that it's not clear whether the state got the best deal. Auditors also said that revenue officials failed to follow proper evaluation guidelines for the bids and failed to notify Coke it had been disqualified until Pepsi was officially awarded the contract several months later.

Yesterday, Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), who chairs the House State Government Administration Committee, called in Revenue officials to question them about the audit. The Revenue Department says it's been reviewing the Pepsi contract ever since the audit came out and plans to decide in a couple weeks whether to continue the deal. But they did defend the decision not to notify Coke it had been disqualified. They said they didn't want to give Pepsi too much leverage in contract negotiations since they were the only bidder left. They didn't tell Pepsi that Coke was no longer in the running, so as far as Pepsi knew, they had to worry about losing the contract to Coke. Seems like a reasonable argument to me.

Franks says the state should start the bidding process over. But at least one other lawmaker made a good point on that demand: the state already has a 10-year contract with Pepsi. I doubt they can just cancel the deal because they made some mistakes in the bid process, especially since I haven't heard any indication that Pepsi did anything wrong.

Endangered Historic Places

Landmarks Illinois is out with its annual list of 10 Most Endangered Historic Places in Illinois. This year's list includes an auditorium in Shelbyville, a hotel in Marshall where Abraham Lincoln used to stay, a century-old train depot in Moline and -- perhaps most prominently -- the Michael Reese Hospital campus in Chicago, which is the proposed site of an Olympic Village if Chicago gets the 2016 Summer Games. Mainly, they want the city to save the main hospital building, which was built in 1907. It's been included a zone marked for demolition to make way for the Olympic Village. But the city insists it plans to save the building and that that the document showing the demolition zone—a request for qualifications, or RFQ—was merely a guide for contractors on the scope of the project. Still, preservationists are not totally convinced that the building will be saved. They also want the city to spare several buildings on the Michael Reese campus that were designed by famed architect Walter Gropius. They think the buildings could be incorporated into an Olympic Village, but the city is planning to demolish them. Whether Landmarks Illinois will be able to drum up enough public support to save the buildings by including the entire Michael Reese campus on its top 10 endangered sites list remains to be seen.

Here's the entire list of sites on their list:

Arcade Building, Riverside Road and Quincy Street, Riverside
Archer House, 717 Archer Ave., Marshall
Aurora Masonic Temple, 104 S. Lincoln Av., Aurora
Chautauqua (shuh TAW kwuh) Auditorium, Shelbyville
Davenport, Rock Island and Northwestern Depot, 2021 River Drive, Moline
Lewis Pharmacy interior, 8 S. Main St., Canton
Michael Reese Hospital Campus, 29th and Ellis, Chicago
Porthole Barns of Greene County
Prentice Women's Hospital, 251 E. Huron St., Chicago
Shawneetown Bank, 280 Washington St., Old Shawneetown

Historic Sites Reopened

Governor Pat Quinn officially reversed another unpopular move by former Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday, reopening all 11 state historic sites that had been closed since December. About 100 people showed up at the Dana-Thomas House in Springfield yesterday to celebrate the reopening of the 105-year-old mansion designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. To be honest, considering the uproar over the closure of the historic sites, I was expecting a bigger crowd, especially since the weather was so beautiful.

Photo Courtesy: Jamey Dunn, Illinois Issues

The state did a great job planning the event. A brass quintet started things off with a selection of ragtime music that seemed to set the perfect tone for reopening such a popular building from the early 1900s. The crowd was big enough to add some energy to the moment without being so big that it was overwhelming. And to top it all off, although there were gray skies that looked ready to open up and rain on the whole parade, the skies cleared up and the sun was shining just in time for the celebration to start. I worked up a feature on the reopenings that you can check out here. Fair warning, it's 3-and-a-half minutes long.

The sites that reopened are:

• Apple River Fort in Elizabeth
• Bishop Hill
• Hauberg Indian Museum at Black Hawk State Historic Site in Rock Island
• Cahokia Courthouse in Cahokia
• Dana-Thomas House in Springfield
• Fort de Chartres in Prairie du Rocher
• Fort Kaskaskia in Ellis Grove
• Pierre Menard Home in Ellis Grove
• Jubilee College in Brimfield
• Lincoln Log Cabin in Lerna
• Carl Sandburg’s birthplace in Galesburg
  

Lawmakers Get Back To Work

The General Assembly is back in session this week after their two-week spring break. They're mostly doing committee work, so not a lot of floor action and -- so far -- not much debate on any major bills. It seems like they'll be taking their standard approach and doing all the heavy lifting on this year's big issues close to the end of sesson. Right now, most of the work the budget, the capital plan and ethics reform is going on behind the scenes.

The Illinois Reform Commission -- a panel formed by Gov. Pat Quinn to suggest government reforms -- will issue its final report next week. They've already offered their ideas on two big topics: campaign finance and state contracting. Neither of those ideas has gotten a very warm reception from the people in charge in Springfield. As I've mentioned before, lawmakers aren't too keen on adopting the same campaign finance limits used on the federal level. If they do approve some form of contribution limits, the caps will probably be higher than $2,400 a person.
As far as overhauling the state's contracting rules, the Reform Commission is pitching a plan to create a new Procurement Department that would be shielded from political influence. The head of the department would be appointed in much the same way the state's Auditor General is appointed. The governor would nominate the Executive Procurement Officer and a supermajority of both the House and Senate would have to approve -- meaning the EPO would need bipartisan support. Once appointed, the EPO would serve a five-year term and could only be removed for cause through an impeachment process. The Reform Commission also wants to create an independent contracting monitor to review the procurement process in real-time.


While it's not clear yet what lawmakers think of the proposed changes to the contracting rules, there's definitely resistance from the administration. Current procurement officers say they all have different procedures and priorities in awarding contracts, so merging their offices wouldn't be practical and could delay the process. They also say having an independent contract monitor could delay the process further if the monitor requests changes in the way bidding is handled. But the reform commission insists the monitor wouldn't have the power to block or halt any bids or contracts. The monitor would be tasked with basically being a watchdog -- looking for flaws in the process and pointing them out to those in charge.

Meantime, there was a bit of déjà vu on Wednesday when hundreds of people gathered outside the capitol to protest the governor's budget plan. Only this week's protest was pretty much the exact opposite of last week. While the Republican-led rally last week called on lawmakers to cut taxes and reduce government spending, this week, labor unions and community groups (mostly Democratic-types) said the governor's budget plan cuts too much money for social service programs, puts too much of a burden on state workers, and should have more new money for government programs.

Speaking of the burden that Quinn's budget would put on state workers, we finally got some details this week on exactly what kinds of health care concessions Quinn wants from state employees and retired workers. The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability says the governor's plan would mean significant increases in health care premiums for workers who choose the state's preferred provider plan, or PPO, over the HMO plan. Retired workers who haven't reached the age of 65 and therefore don't qualify for Medicare, would get hurt even more. The average retiree without Medicare now pays about $13 a month for health care premiums. That would go up to about $430 a month for retirees on an HMO and about $580 a month for retirees on a PPO. Needless to say, the unions are not happy about this.

A few days before this week's budget protest, advocates for substance abuse treatment programs proposed raising the state's alcohol tax. They say the governor's budget would cut about $13 million from substance abuse programs. Their proposal would add an extra nickel-per-drink in alcohol taxes, which they claim would raise $250 million a year. Lawmakers are already considering a cigarette tax hike to help balance the budget and don't sound too keen on the governor's proposed income tax hike, so don't be surprised if this gets passed so the General Assembly can reduce the income tax hike.

Taxes, taxes and more taxes

Income tax returns were due this week, so it's no surprise that taxes in general were a popular topic of discussion in Springfield. Governor Pat Quinn's proposal to raise income taxes hasn't been the most popular idea, obviously. At first glance, his suggestion to triple the personal exemption to $6,000 seems like a good way to help low-income taxpayers avoid a huge jump in their taxes. But there has been plenty of talk around the capitol that the proposal doesn't do enough to help taxpayers who need it most. At the same time, it minimizes the benefit the state would get from new tax revenue.

It sounds like some lawmakers would be more apt to raise the income tax on a temporary basis without the higher exemptions to maximize revenue for the state for a couple years until the economy turns around. Of course, the last time lawmakers passed a "temporary" income tax hike, they eventually made it permanent. But one alternative floated this week by a coalition of citizen advocacy groups was to increase the state's Earned Income Tax Credit, rather than raising personal exemptions. The groups said they support an income tax hike considering the state's budget mess, but they say raising the EITC makes more sense than raising personal exemptions. The EITC is targeted specifically at low-income families, so it would ease the tax burden on those who can least afford a tax hike, while not taking nearly as big a bite out of the new revenue the state could bring in. Currently, families of four who earn less than $42,000 a year can get an EITC of about $240. The groups want to quadruple the EITC to nearly $1,000. They say it would cost the state $350 million -- as opposed to the $2 billion they estimate the state would lose from tripling the personal exemption for all taxpayers.

Meantime, hundreds of people turned out on April 15 for Springfield's "Tax Day Tea Party." It was one of scores of gatherings nationwide to protest government spending, mostly focusing on the federal stimulus package and other economic policies brought forth by the Obama administration. Although organizers claimed the events were non-partisan, speakers and protesters in Springfield focused almost entirely on Obama. Oddly, even though organizers said the event was meant to be in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party of 1773, there were far more people carrying signs than tea bags. And not all of the signs focused solely on taxes or the economy. One guy carried a sign that must have been eight feet tall that read "Buy Guns." A few other signs urged lawmakers to oppose House Bill 2234, which would legalize civil unions for same-sex couples in Illinois. Normally, I wouldn't post links to "The Daily Show" here, but I had to in this case. Jon Stewart's take on the "Tea Party" protests was excellent.

There was more bad news on the job front this week. The national unemployment rate continues to rise and Illinois is no exception. The jobless rate was up to 9.1 percent in Illinois in March, with 27,400 more people losing their jobs. The manufacturing sector continues to be the hardest-hit industry in Illinois with 14,200 lost jobs. But there was one small bright spot as far as unemployment goes. Thanks to the federal stimulus plan, Illinois is getting funding to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. It's good timing too, because many people who have been out of a job for the past year were about to run out of unemployment benefits.

Changing gears a bit, the University of Illinois at Springfield has been dealing with a bit of a controversy inside the athletic department lately. Three coaches resigned last month, including two softball coaches who stepped down after the women's softball team was suddenly called back from a trip to Florida over "serious concerns." The university has refused to elaborate on what happened, citing privacy issues. But many faculty, staff and students have been so upset about what's going on that the Campus Senate was preparing to take a "no confidence" vote in Chancellor Richard Ringeisen and Athletic Director Rodger Jehlicka. They eventually backed off of targeting Jehlicka and have delayed a vote of "no confidence" in Ringeisen for now. But they've approved a resolution organizing an independent investigation of the athletic department. The Campus Senate will wait until a three-member investigative committee issues a report before they vote on the "no confidence" resolution.

The State Journal-Register has been providing some excellent coverage of the situation, including the fact several student athletes are defending how some recent problems have been handled.