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.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
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."
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."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 22, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 15, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
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:
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, May 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
