Is the Illinois Governor Recall Amendment Fake Reform?

Last week I posted a copy of the proposed amendment to Illinois State Constitution to insert a procedure to recall the governor. There are multiple pros and cons to the amendment that are discussed in the amendment notification booklet itself, that are pretty self explanatory, but there is one issue that has jumped out as a hot topic of discussion: the caveat requiring approval of the recall procedure by both parties:

The recall of the Governor may be proposed by a petition signed by a number of electors equal in number to at least 15% of the total votes cast for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election, with at least 100 signatures from each of at least 25 separate counties.  A petition shall have been signed by the petitioning electors not more than 150 days after an affidavit has been filed with the State Board of Elections providing notice of intent to circulate a petition to recall the Governor.  The affidavit may be filed no sooner than 6 months after the beginning of the Governor's term of office.  The affidavit shall have been signed by the proponent of the recall petition, at least 20 members of the House of Representatives, and at least 10 members of the Senate, with no more than half of the signatures of each chamber from the same established political party.

THE ARGUMENT

Kristina Rasmussen of the Illinois Policy Institute calls this fake reform:



Basically the argument is that this is far too stringent of a requirement for recall, that it doesn't put enough power into the hands of the people.  Kristina argues that it should be easier to initiate a recall, that we should do it the way it's done in other states.  In most cases I would tend to agree, however given the political landscape in the State of Illinois, I am leaning toward agreeing with this caveat.

THE FACTS

First and foremost, let's look at the initial requirement that at least 100 signatures for recall be gathered from each of the 25 counties.  For anyone determined enough to spearhead a recall campaign, that's going to be an easy step, and actually lends itself to being a precursor to pressuring the representatives into going along with supporting the recall.  As to capturing the representatives, let's look at that requirement.

Basically it's saying that a recall will require 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the House to approve the affidavit.  Currently the House has 119 seats, with 69 Democrats, 48 Republicans and 1 vacant seat.  This means a recall is approved by the House with 14.5% support by seated Democrats, and 20.8% support by seated Republicans.  Next we go to the Senate, where we need 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.  The Senate has 37 Democrats and 22 Republicans, meaning a recall is approved in the Senate with 13.5% support from seated Democrats and 22.7% support from seated Republicans.

A STATE DIVIDED

To begin with, 20 people out of 119 and 10 people out of 59 are not exactly difficult coalitions to put together, but allow me to go back to my aforementioned point of the State's political landscape.  I like to think of Illinois as two states.  There is the State of Illinois, and there is the State of Chicago.  For the most part, the State of Illinois is largely center-right and trends Red, while the State of Chicago is as Blue as it gets.

Taking a look at the makeup of the House bears this out.  Of the 69 Democrats in the House, 30 are listed as being in the City of Chicago, with another 6 being from towns with different names, but that may as well be within city limits anyway:  Maywood, Skokie, Evanston, Cicero, Blue Island, Calumet City.  36 of the 69 Democrats in the House come from the State of Chicago.  By comparison, the State of Chicago has produced 1 Republican Representative.  This means the rest of the State of Illinois trends Republican by a margin of 47 to 33.

The State Senate breaks down similarly.  Of the 37 Democrats, 17 are from the City of Chicago, and another 2 qualify as State of Chicago: Evanston and Burbank.  The State of Chicago produces zero Republican State Senators.  This means the rest of the State of Illinois trends Republican 22 to 18.

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD


One of the cons of Recall listed in the amendment booklet is that the party not holding the governorship would use the recall procedure to play political games, leading to an endless string of recall proposals.  Given the divide between the State of Illinois and the State of Chicago, this would be very likely to be the case.  If a Republican governor were elected by the State of Illinois, how long would it be before the Machine revved its engines and began a State of Chicago only recall process?  They'd have the Democrats without even thinking about it.  The reverse process would also take place.  If the Machine put a State of Chicago governor into office, it would not be long at all until the Republican State of Illinois fought back via the recall process.  We'd be looking at an intrastate political civil war pitting Democrat Chicago against the Republican rest of the state.

Essentially, the bipartisan cooperation requirement means that the State of Illinois and the State of Chicago have to play nice.  It puts a check on all out political posturing for its own sake, and requires that there be an actual legal and/or ethical reason for initiating the recall process.  I don't call this fake reform, I call this smart reform, and given that the recall amendment does not replace the impeachment process, but rather supplements it, I like the idea of voting for this amendment.

I'm Voting Republican

A little morning ridicule for Republicans from some folks who believe government is the answer to everything. They manage to run the gamut from supporting "soulless corporations" to using black people to backhandedly call all Republicans racists.  If you had something like a junior high level education, or were named Bill Maher (oops, no difference), this might be funny.



Hat Tip: SGP on Facebook

Boehner Steps In It Up

Well if nothing else, I guess we can say that John Boehner has stepped out of the spray tan booth long enough to notice which way the political winds are blowing:

Most spending bills come to the floor prepackaged in a manner that makes it as easy as possible to advance government spending and programs, and as difficult as possible to make cuts.

Again, this is not a new problem. But if we're serious about confronting the challenges that lie ahead for our nation, it's totally inadequate.

I propose today a different approach. Let's do away with the concept of "comprehensive" spending bills. Let's break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each Department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own.

This is probably the most common sense idea I've seen pass through the lips of anyone residing in Washington, DC in quite some time.  Boehner should realize that while this is a phenomenal idea politically, that he did just stick the GOP's neck out onto the chopping block.  Ace sees hope:

Still, it's a good sign that Boehner is thinking about new ways to do business. We aren't going to translate the conservative/tea party wave into anything concrete if Congress simply continues to play by the same old rules that have perpetuated the go-along, get-along ways of doing business.

Maybe, just maybe an old bull like Boehner is starting to see the light.

There should be one gigantic caveat to that statement, though.  Boehner has got to realize that if they don't act on what he laid out, the retribution will be as swift and as forceful as has been the anti-Democrat wave over the past two years.

Illinois Turnaround Plan

The Illinois Policy Institute is one of my favorite organizations in the state for the work they do every year in compiling the information necessary to hold our state government accountable for its actions.  You might think of them as an Illinois-focused Cato Institute.  They promote Health Savings Accounts (which, if tax policy were correct, would be the best path to free market healthcare reform) and an Illinois Honest Taxation Pledge, and compile a Legislative Vote Card in order to simply convey who voted for what.  Probably my favorite item that they produce, however, is the yearly Illinois Piglet Book that outlines all of the pork barrel projects passed in our state budget.  They've even produced a subsequent report on the recently issued Capital Improvement budget entitled "If You Build It, Debt Will Come" that highlights billions in wasteful government spending on supposed capital improvements (land acquisition and construction projects).

This year, continuing on their fantastic work, the Illinois Policy Institute has launched the Illinois Turnaround Plan, that clearly outlines just how bad our state's financial situation really is, and provides solutions for how we can right the ship.  Their broad spectrum positions are:

- Stopping out of control state spending

- Expanding government transparency

- Reforming our bankrupt state pension system

- Removing government roadblocks to transparency

The plan itself is excellent and well worth the read, and as their promotional video says, real reform has to come from the ground up. Good ideas gaining support in the electorate will drag the politicians onto the right path eventually.  Give the plan a read (embedded below), and visit the website for updates on where members of Illinois Turnaround will be speaking next.  Tonight they are at PJ Klems in Lyons at 5:30, and feature the following current candidates for office in Illinois

Roger Keats (R) - Candidate for Cook County Board President

Tom Tresser (G) - Candidate for Cook County Board President

Tony Peraica (R) - Candidate for Cook County Commissioner, 16th District

Jeff Tobolski (D) - Cook County Commissioner, 16th District

Also invited but not confirmed are Toni Preckwinkle (D) - Candidate for Cook County Board President, and Joe Berrios (D) - Cook County Assessor.
Illinois Turnaround Plan Handbook

Rand Paul's Medicare "Lie"

Andrew Sullivan catches a new Rand Paul campaign ad being run to clarify Paul's views on Medicare, and flies off the handle at what he perceives as it's hypocrisy.  Before we look at the video at explain why, as usual, Sullivan is a scatterbrained moron, let's take a look at what said moron had to say:

Seriously, when Rand Paul is attacking the first ever serious cuts in Medicare in the health insruance reform bill, why on earth should anyone believe the Tea Party's fiscal resonsibility message one iota? They're total frauds - Christianists and obstructionists in fiscal conservative clothing.

Now, let's take a look at the video shall we?



A thinking person, rather than the goober Sullivan has degenerated into, would understand that this ad is saying Rand Paul is against the $500 billion in Medicare cuts because it is a part of the Obamacare boondoggle as a whole.  No Obamacare means no Medicare cuts.  No Obamacare is far more fiscally responsible than Obamacare.  See how that works?

Aside from that, Sullivan also seems to think that this ad makes Rand Paul an outright liar.  Taken from Paul's debate with Jack Conway, Sullivan was actually impressed by the following:

Mr. Paul said he would raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare — he did not say to what age — and the deductibles for Medicare, casting these steps as the responsible approach.

This is where paying attention to the words being used comes in handy.  Paul's ad says he is against raising deductibles on seniors specifically.  Watching the debate, this is exactly in line with what Paul discussed.  Raising deductibles and the retirement age on younger people, keeping it the same for seniors and people long invested in the program.

Perhaps Sullivan would do well to start paying attention, or perhaps he's just lost that particular mental capacity.

Rand Paul Debates Jack Conway

And dominates across the board.  From Fox News Sunday, with Chris Wallace, a pretty good way to start your Monday.  Time for the Left to start digging for more crazy extremist behavior, I suppose.  Enjoy!





HT: Cubachi

Song of the Week

My song of the week this week is a fantastic brand new tribute to our troops.  Ever since I was introduced to what was their first hit, What a Day, and shortly thereafter their second major release album, Development, I have consistently enjoyed Nonpoint.  They are heavy rock without being too heavy for my liking, and since they're kind of a niche style, their shows never get so big that they border on being unenjoyable.  For their newest album, Miracle, lead singer Elias Soriano describes his inspiration for his tribute to our troops, Frontlines:

"When I wrote the concept for Frontlines, I wanted to make sure the focus was on the commitment of what our soldiers do for us. The weight they carry, and the intensity they hold steadfast to protect people they don't even know." 

"I say this with as much meaning as I could possibly have," says Soriano. "God bless the men and women of our military, and thank you for allowing me to be what I am, and do what I do. Every single one of you are the reason I'm free to do so."

Nonpoint will be donating the proceeds of the digital sales of Frontlines to the USO and Soldiers Angels Foundation.  I've got three videos here.  The first is one Soriano put together because he was moved by the imagery he was seeing, and couldn't wait for the official video to be released, the second is the band's official video, and for fun (albeit low quality) the third is a video I took on my phone from their show in Dekalb on Tuesday.  Give it a listen, and if you like what you hear, give it a download for the troops!