Keep your cell phone number. Thank you, Big Government

The Federal Communication Commission's new rule on number portability went into effect this week, so that we can keep the same telephone number when we switch cell phone carriers or move from a cell phone to a landline. This has sparked a huge price war as the main reason why people didn't shop around for a better plan -- not wanting to get a new phone number -- is gone.

And this boom for the economy and for consumers is thanks to Big Government. A new rule -- and yes, a Federal Regulation! -- making things better.

Next time you hear an anti-government ideologue ranting against the evils of Big Government, think about your cell phone. Because a lot of time, Big Government works for us.

Press on Bush ballot bill skewed for GOP

(Sorry for the delay -- I was in DC at the Claim Democracy conference where Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. made a fantastic speech calling for a federal constitutional amendment giving us the right to vote (currently, we have no right to vote for president, and if a state legislature wants to give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who came in second or third in the state's popular vote, the legislature may do so. Which is absolute B.S. but that's why we need a right to vote).

Anyway, there was some press about the Bush ballot deal and whether the Dems were to accommodate the NYC 9/11 political convention. But only one paper reported on the exploitation angle -- every other paper only mentioned the 'technical flaw' and 'quirk in the election code' that kept Bush on the ballot, totally ignoring the reason why the debate surfaced in the first place (the Bush campaign's relentless drive to milk the tragedy of 9/11 for political gain).

Guess which paper earns top honors?

The Daily Herald.

In John Patterson's article, the Daily Herald has this important paragraph:

"Democrats fired back. State Sen. Patrick Welch, a Peru Democrat, said the reason this problem exists is the Republican Party moved its convention to try to take advantage of the Sept. 11 tragedy for political gain. The convention is scheduled for Aug. 30 through Sept. 2."

So the Democrats did bring up the 9/11 exploitation issue on the floor! I'm very pleased, and am getting a CD of the debate sent to me. I'll transcribe it as soon as I get it.

But all the other papers failed in covering this part of the story.

The Sun-Times has never mentioned this part of the story. One story focused mainly on Senator Watson not helping out the City of Chicago's plan for early retirement in this article; this Sun-Times article only mentioned the fines levied against Democrats and didn't mention the 9/11 exploitation angle at all; while Lynn Sweet's article on IL GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka's reaction here also failed to mention the New York City 9/11 story.

The Chicago Tribune also ignored that part of the story in Ray Long and John Chase's account of the wild finish of the legislature here. But the Tribune's blogger Eriz Zorn covered this story in his Notebook, so we can only fault the print edition.

The Peoria Journal-Star's report here made no mention of the 9/11 story.

Kevin McDermott's St. Louis Post-Dispatch story here also didn't mention the Democrats' objection to the 9/11 convention, and even had the GOP skewed headline of "Illinois GOP Senators accuse Democrats of extortion" What liberal media?

So, even though ELEVEN Democratic Senators voted no on the bill, almost every single print story of this battle framed it as a "Reasonable Republican Request to fix a quick in election law to put the president on theballot versus Dirty hypocritical Democrats extorting honest politicians to waive financial penalties for breaking campaign finance laws"

That is shoddy reporting and editing.

And feel free to call/email the editors of those papers and ask them why they didn't cover the 9/11 exploitation angle -- after all, a full third of the Democratic Senate caucus voted no on the bill and at least one of them (Senator Welch) cited the scheduling of the New York City convention in September as a reason to vote no.

For more on the conservative side, the Illinois Leader is running a bunch of stuff on this on their site. Jeff Trigg also is covering this well.

Kovoselic -- Nirvana bassist -- for Washington Lt. Gov. Oh yes.

This is awesome.

Krist Novoselic, a long-time advocate of instant runoff voting and proportional representaiton (great website at www.fixour.us) and Seattle resident, is considering a run for Lt. Governor on the Democratic ticket.

This is one of the things that really helps bring people into the Democratic Party (which to me is the same thing as progressive governing). And that is great.

Here's the news article about the potential run.

Senate shoots down the bill! Maybe a new map is in the offing. . . .

I *wish* I had been in Springfield to see this!

The Senate shot down the "Accommodate Bush exploitation of 9/11 bill" by a vote of 23-27 (9 not voting).

The Republicans all voted no or didn't vote.

The following Democrats voted no or didn't vote (the equivalent of a no vote): Burzynski, Clayborne, Forby, Garrett, Haine, Obama, Ronen, Schoenberg, Silverstein, Sullivan, Welch. Right on, you guys.

The vote total is here (you can check if I missed anyone).

(And I should say the following House Dems voted no or present on the House side: Bradley, Chapa LaVia, Franks, Fritchey, Jakobsson, Jefferson, Joyce, May, Miller, Nekritz, Phelps, Ryg, Turner). That vote is here (I probably missed a few). Nice vote, House Dems.

So, the conservatives are saying that they shot down the deal -- permit the 9/11 accommodation in exchange for giving the State Board of Elections the discretion to waive or reduce fees, primarily assessed against Dems.

The Illinois Leader is (again) the first news outlet to publish the story in their (as always) well-written article here. (And no, I'm not saying nice things about the Leader just because they printed my letter to the editor this week -- which Rep. Ed Sullivan told me he read, which goes to show how smart it is to get a real state-based political online publication and why we progressives are again behind the conservatives when it comes to communication).

That's undoubtedly why the bill died, since it took 40 votes to pass in the Senate (they needed a 3/5 vote in veto session).

But why did the Senate Dems mentioned above shoot it down? That's why I wish I had seen the debate.

I hope it is because they decided that if the Bush campaign wants to intentionally break state law in order to exploit the 9/11 convention, then the Bush campaign is going to have to go to federal court to get on the ballot. And this gives the Dems a public opportunity to frame the 9/11 convention as a dishonorable attempt at exploitation.

This issue is, of course, going to be kicking over the next two months, and could end up being one of the first bills to fly though in the first few days of the regular session in January.

But. . . if there's a revolt among Democratic members of the House and Senate caucuses that demand a much better trade than giving the Board of Elections (a 3-Dem, 3-GOP board) the discretion to come up with a reasonable fee to assess against Jesse White and other Democrats who didn't comply with some disclosure laws in a timely fashion, maybe this bill will take longer to get worked out.

And maybe, just maybe, the Democratic members can push Madigan to accept a new congressional map (which is currently a 10-9 GOP delegation). Not an excessively partisan gerrymander that might result in a 13-6 Dem map (and yes, it is possible to draw such a map), even though that would be justified in light of the GOP redistricting in Colorado and Texas, and now perhaps in Ohio as well. But a fair, more neutral map which creates competitive districts instead of the incumbent-protection plan that currently creates 19 safe seats (so voters really have no say over the congressional delegation in Illinois) -- that should be something that Mike Madigan might support if his members and the Dem Senators demand it.

Hey, that's good government. Competitive congressional districts. Who could be against that?

Trib calls it "a technical problem with Illinois election law" Yeah.

Ray Long and John Chase in their Chicago Tribune article here call the issue "a technical problem with Illinois election law" in their otherwise great run-down of the ethics reform triumph.

There's nothing technical about a deadline that is knowingly violated a year and a half ahead of time in order to exploit the 9/11 tragedy. This wasn't a mistake. This was an arrogant decision by the Bush campaign to go ahead and break a dozen or so state laws and assume that the states would roll over -- that's how hungry they are to use the anniversary of the attacks to help the Bush campaign. It's dishonorable. It's worse than the fighter pilot costume with the military-as-prop stunt. This convention will be the mass-grave-as-prop stunt.

9/11 convention, Chicago pensions, no fees for lawbreaking pols

Dave McKinney has a good article in the Sun-Times on this behind-the-scenes game here.

What I find objectionable is that the members did not know about this deal when they voted on it. The Speaker did, and some of the leadership did, but most of the members of the House did not. That's not right. These trades should be out in the open.

Full House rolls over -- what is Madigan trying to get?

So the full House of Representatives passed the "let Bush exploit 9/11" bill, 84-21-4. The roll call is here.

The dirty part of the bill (yes, even dirtier than having Dems working for the Bush campaign by allowing them to get away with their September NYC political rally without any negative fallout whatsoever) is an apparent provision that lets the State Board of Elections waive as much as $700,000 in fees assessed against political committees that failed to file their campaign finance reports in a timely matter (or at all). Most of those fines -- still out there -- are against Democrats. A few are against Republican committees. A good chunk of them area apparently levied against Secretary of State Jesse White's committees.

So, the deal might have been, Mike Madigan gives the Bush campaign a free pass on their 9/11 convention in exchange for GOP support for getting rid of these fines against primarily Dem committees.

No one really knows, because the Speaker doesn't tell most of his caucus members the rationale behind legislation like this one. He just tells the members how to vote, and many of them do what he says. That's unhealthy, if you ask me. It's taking the concept of leadership and pushing it into obedience.

Anyway, the Chicago pension deal is in the mix as well. The legislation to let Chicago employees take early retirement is not something Republicans are too enthusiastic about, so there's some talk that the Bush bill is a trade for GOP support for the Chicago bill.

I heard (didn't see, so it's hearsay) that it all fell apart this afternoon in the Senate. Frank Watson, GOP leader in the Senate, objected to the repeal of fines for the Dem political committees (especially since that money would go to the state, which is broke). He apparently said that he'd pull the GOP caucus off of the Chicago pension bill unless the repeal of fines was stripped off the Bush bill. Senate President Jones apparently called his threat, and the pension bill died in the Senate (it needs a 3/5 vote because the effective date is immediate).

Now what I did see tonight was GOP suspicion about the repeal of the political fines. During debate on the ethics legislation (which is something that the General Assembly really did very well on, including and perhaps especially Speaker Mike Madigan) which passed tonight, one of the GOP senators (I think it was Kirk Dillard) asked if the repeal of the political fines was in the ethics bill. (It wasn't). And Senator Syverson from Rockford mentioned the irony of voting in the solid ethics legislation while they were about to vote on the unsavory repeal of the elections fines.

Now, if that is the deal that Madigan cut (Bush on the ballot for repeal of the fines), then that's a pretty dumb deal. $500,000? For political committees that admittedly broke the law? Come on. Madigan could have gotten so much more. The Republican National Committee is apparently breathing down Judy Baar Topinka's neck (the state treasurer and the state GOP chairwoman) to get this legislation. Madigan should be pushing for a new congressional map, as President Jones and Senator Cullerton introduced this week. Or something big. But to cut a deal to repeal fines for some committees? Small change.

Now, in Madigan's defense, the GOP could just sue to put Bush on the ballot, and they'd win since there are lots of Republican federal judges (and as Bush v. Gore proved, these Republicans are relentless, especially in the judiciary). And that would leave Madigan without anything to negotiate with to pass the legislation. Plus, he's saving the state the litigation costs.

However, the state GOPers seem convinced they need to pass the legislation, so even if they could successfully sue, they don't believe it. So Madigan could extract a whole lot more.

And more importantly, he and the Dems can help to show how ruthless the Bush campaign has been -- they intentionally violate state law just to exploit 9/11 in New York City. Let Bush sue. Make him look bad. Get a national platform to say that it is inappropriate to hold a political rally in New York City in September. Help to reframe the GOP convention as a too-slick-by-half, win-at-all-costs dishonorable thing.

I'm hopeful the Senate Dems, who will apparently convene tomorrow (Friday) to decide what to do with the bill, will extract much, much more from the GOPers or even better, won't pass this bill. I hope they won't give the Bush campaign an easy time of it.

IL House rolling over for Karl Rove

Speaker Madigan has decided to assist the Bush campaign's exploitation of the 9/11 national tragedy.

Ruthless hardball Republican operatives scheduled their massive political rally a week and a half before September 11th a few miles from a mass grave in order to help re-elect George Bush.

It's appalling. They are exploiting a national tragedy and the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

And now Speaker Madigan is accommodating them.

The trouble with scheduling a national convention in September is that about a dozen states require the presidential candidate of a party to be certified (formally nominated by the party) in August. Illinois is one of them.

The Bush campaign still scheduled their New York City convention in September -- knowing it violates state laws -- because they expected the states to change their laws for the Bush campaign's benefit.

Today in Springfield, the Illinois House Elections and Campaign Reform did just that.

Lou Lang (D-Skokie) introduced the amendment. All the Democrats voted for it. So did the Republicans (which is to be expected). It was by a voice vote, because no one cared enough to vote against it.

I testified against the bill.

The bill is here.

The bill is likely going to the House floor any minute.

It's unreal.

Democrats got a few rinky-dink concessions, but mostly the election administrators got some clean-up language that they wanted.

All the Democrats on the committee voted for the bill because Speaker Madigan wants this to happen.

That's the only reason. And in my opinion, that's not a very good reason.

And at the same time, Speaker Madigan wants to keep the state's congressional map which is a 10-9 Republican delegation!

Senate President Jones with Senator John Cullerton introduced a shell bill to redraw the map. That bill is here.

Speaker Madigan should be pushing for a better Democratic map instead of helping the Bush campaign.

The only good news is that the bill is actually an amendment to a Senate bill (SB 82), so if it passes the House floor tonight, it has to go to the Senate. And I don't think the Senate will accept the House amendment's so this bill will likely die. The Senate is likely to adjourn for good tonight, and there isn't time to go through the Senate committee process to accept any House amendments to a Senate bill.

But you never know.

And Speaker Madigan should get his prioirities straight. For someone so politically savvy, it absolutely befuddles me why Madigan refuses to advance the Democratic Party.

Junior on Dean's Southern Strategy

I think that the eight Dem candidates who jumped on Dean's pledge to try to earn the votes of white Southerners with confederate flag decals on their trucks lost more credibility than Dean did.

Dean is right: Dems need lower-income whites with a cultural attachment to Dixie. Not because we need to win the South (winning Ohio and the Southwest will make up for it), but because these folks should be voting for Democrats.

Congressman Jackson, Jr. makes the point very well in a Nation article published on his own website here.

It's a good read.

Forget the South -- Dems can win without it

This is a great article.

Democrats should forget about the South.

We should stop saying we need to win the South in order to win the presidency (which is the only reason Senator John Edwards is running for president).

We should write off the South.

And go get the Southwest instead.

Let's get Arizona, Nevada and Ohio.

If we can win those three states, with the Gore states, we win.

We'll never win many of those southern states -- there is too much racial polarization.

It's a great article, called "A Route for 2004 That Doesn't Go Through Dixie" by Thomas Schaller originally published in the Washington Post and republished by www.progressivetrail.org

Dem U.S. Senate musings -- good Senators and one great one.

Mike Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House, Chair of the Illinois Democratic Party and astute student of Illinois politics, endorsed Dan Hynes today. I guess that's expected (they are both Catholic southwest siders with a similar ideology and style), but it's a blow to my favorite candidate, Barack Obama.

There are a lot of people who would make for a good U.S. Senator in the Dem primary. Dan Hynes would be a cautious but fairly solid Senator. He'd be one of those Senators that doesn't have a national reputation, votes the right way on labor issues, and probably rolls over on war and civil liberties votes when the Bush/GOP machine gets in gear. Still, pretty good. Gery Chico would probably be an innovative Senator on federal funding for education (his T.I. idea is great), and I like his Infrastructure Bonds. He's a little more of an executive than a legislator, though, and like most of the candidates, would spend years trying to master the art of legislating. As the only Latino Senator, he would instantly have a national reputation, and I think he'd do fairly well. Blair Hull could be like Jon Corzine of New Jersey (who he apparently worked with): a super-rich liberal who knows financial markets and votes extremely well on most issues. And he'd probably get involved big-time with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and raise money for other Dem Senate candidates around the country. However, as he's never been a legislator, he'd have a really hard time with parliamentary procedure, especially if the Dems are in the minority. On Maria Pappas, I don't really understand her strategy. She's got a great-looking (but fairly content-free) website, though. I guess her Greek name, her gender, her good record as a reformer in Cook County all help, but why did she start so late? I don't understand that strategy at all. It's like she guarantees that she loses out on any significant institutional endorsements, and doesn't earn many endorsements from elected officials. (I keep a list of elected official endorsements here). If anyone has an idea why it is a good strategy to wait until four months before the primary to launch a campaign, please email me at dan@djw.info

Which is why I'm supporting Barack Obama. He has mastered the art of legislation (not at all an easy thing to do). He'll be ready to pass legislation, even with a Republican Majority Leader. He'll be an excellent Senator on defense (something that the rules of the U.S. Senate disproportionately permit), putting holds on horrible federal judges and appointments, enthusiastically promoting the filibuster to roll back Republican momentum and taking every opportunity to slow down right-wing policies. He'll probably end up on the Judiciary Committee, and be a real player in shaping the U.S. Supreme Court (especially if Bush wins again -- oh, I hope that doesn't happen). He's great on protecting civil liberties, and he'll join Russ Feingold in fighting that battle (shaping up to be an ever-larger policy argument). And as the only black Senator, he'll have an instant national reputation.

In short, I think Barack Obama will be a great U.S. Senator. I think his opponents will largely be good U.S. Senators.

Nice rundown of progressive victories in November election

I'm not sure what it says about the state of progressive politics when the best compilation of progressive victories around the nation in the November elections comes from the Communist Party USA's website, but hey, it's a great article.

Here is the article.

Clinton: "It's your money. And it's your country."

Bill Clinton has a great line in an interview in the November issue of the American Prospect with Michael Tomasky. Tomasky asks how to respond when Republicans crow about taxes that "It's your money. It's not the government's money. And we just want you to have more of your own money." Tomasky calls it so emotionally compelling when Bush says "It's your money -- you deserve it back" and Clinton comes up with:

"It's your money, and it's your *country*. So what kind of country do you want?"

Bill Clinton was one talented guy. That's an awesome line.

Because that shifts the question into the results that we want from government investment (good schools, a better economy, less sickness from pollution) and avoids the simplistic appeal of "It's your money"

I hope that line "It's your money. And it's your country." gets picked up by Dems around the country. It's a great counter-attack to a great GOP line.

Wasting money and history -- tearing down old County Hospital

There's a beautiful old building on the West Side of Chicago that used to house Cook County Hospital. It's vacant now, and needs a lot of work.

The smart thing to do would be to let a developer that specializes in rehabbing big old institutional buildings get into the place, make it into something nice and collect property taxes from it for the next 100 years.

The dumb thing to do would be to knock it down and spend $15 million in demolition costs in the process.

For some reason, Cook County Board President John Stroger wants to do the dumb thing.

And hopefully, at least 9 of the 17 Commissioners want to do the smart thing.

The Near West/South Gazette reports that President Stroger is pushing ahead with demolition, and Commissioner Suffredin continues to lead the charge to save the hospital, as he looks for nine commissioners to hold together and refuse to grant a demolition contract.

Commissioner Quigley said that Stroger and his people always wanted to demolish the old hospital and that the attempts to get developers to submit bids to rehab the hospital was a shell game.

This issue is still very much alive and the Cook County Board should save the hospital and save taxpayer dollars.

Democrats and Greens: a great two-party system (in San Francisco)

This is awesome news.

Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez is in a runoff with Democrat Gavin Newsom for Mayor of San Francisco.

There is a two-party system in San Francisco: the Democratic Party and the Green Party.

That's the perfect relationship between the two parties.

The Greens are the minority party while the Democrats are the majority party. But still, the Greens elect people and they help push policy in an ever-more progressive direction.

It's hard to do. That's what I had tried to do with my involvement with the Green Party: build up a minority voice to articulate the progressive message in November elections.

But I've essentially left the Green Party over the last year to join the Democrats.

In Chicago, I've wanted the Green Party to eclipse the Republican Party (at least in the liberal areas) to continue to push policy left-ward, to bring out new voters and to energize people into participating in policy-making.

That didn't happen very well, and I've found much more traction advancing progressive issues within the Democratic majority (at least in Chicago and, more broadly, Illinois).

I'm still a big believer of a multi-party system. I still want the Green Party to be the 'second' party in liberal areas in the state.

But not with my direct involvement anymore in Illinois.

(Although I must say there's something wrong about defining political party affiliation in such personal terms: "I am a Green; I am a Democrat" as if it an ethnic background instead of an association. Many people are uncomfortable elevating a political association into a characteristic of self-identity. Any association with a political party is an imperfect fit as no one thinks exactly the way you do, much less tens of thousands of other people. Plus, lots of people like the flexibility of voting for the best candidates regardless of their partisan affiliation. So I think we should move away from the self-identity aspect of party affiliation as it makes it more difficult for people to feel totally comfortable about 'joining' a party and it tends to cultivate outright hostility towards other parties.

But back to San Francisco. What a victory for Matt Gonzalez and the San Francisco Green Party. I'll be sending him another small check. And San Francisco voters also approved an increase in the minimum wage to $8.50. That's smart economic development -- putting money in the local economy to be spent in the local economy. High wages is good for the economy and good for creating and maintaining high-wage jobs.

What a great city.

Going to Springfield to lobby

Hate to delve into the 'diary' aspect of the blog, but I'm going to Springfield tomorrow to lobby the Illinois General Assembly.

And the odd part is that I don't have any specific bill I'm working on.

One bill I really worked on is now law (county boards may now give cumulative voting rights to voters in multi-seat districts). The other bills are all dead.

So I'm going to set up some bills for the 2004 session. And because I really like the legislature.

I confess.

I find the legislature endlessly fascinating.

It is the most diverse group of people in the state.

Can you think of a more diverse bunch?

And they have to somehow figure out how to advance justice, form a more perfect union, grow the economy and make sure the vulnerable are protected.

It's a wonderful thing to watch. And it's even more fun to participate.

No income tax below poverty line

Full-time workers earning anything less than 8 bucks an hour are not making it.

Anyone can do the math. 320 bucks a week barely covers rent, food and transportation -- especially with any debt whatsoever.

What to do about it?

I think 80 - 90% of people (rich or poor, GOP, Dem or third-party) want public policies that raise the living standards of the working poor. They aren't sure if lots of government programs really help and don't want to pay taxes on a feel-good program that doesn't really do anything but pad a patronage machine.

We have the most effective, efficient government program imaginable to help the working poor:

Don't tax them.

The government should only tax people once they pass the poverty line (about $10,000 for a single person, $18,000 for a family of four with two kids).

Let me repeat that.

The government should not tax working people below the poverty line.

I believe that 80% of people would agree with that.

Do you? Email me at dan@djw.info if you do, please. I'd really like feedback.

If the government stopped taxing working people below the poverty line, there would be less tax money coming in. In order to keep the budget balanced, we'd have to bring in new money.

Here's where the rubber meets the road.

Would you be willing to pay higher taxes on any income earned over $30,000 or so in order to cover the cost of not taxing anyone's income below the poverty line?

Let's make this concrete.

In Illinois, we have a 3% income tax. That represents about a week and a half of wages. (50 weeks in a year, 2% of annual income equals one week).

The state government taxes people after they earn $2,000. There is a $2,000 personal exemption from the income tax. Once someone earns $2,001, the state government starts applying the 3% tax.

So the state government taxes the person living in poverty with a full-time job the equivalent of a week and a half's worth of wages.

Which is a fortune to someone barely making it.

If we raised the state income tax from 3% to 4% -- representing about 20 additional hours of wages -- that would bring in about $2.7 billion (according to the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability).

There are almost 12 million people in the state. And each one of us is entitled to a $2,000 personal exemption from state income tax.

So, dividing $2.7 billion dollars into 12 million people gets us $225 in relief for each person in the state.

Which is enough to cover the cost of not taxing anyone below the poverty line, because that's about how much in the state income tax is collected now from the money earned below the poverty line.

Now, someone who earns $10,000 is taxed at 3% on $8,000 worth on income (because the first $2,000 is exempted from tax). That's $240.

$225 per tax return will cover that cost.

These are rough numbers, and I'd want the professionals to crunch them.

But the principle remains the same: the government should not tax working people below the poverty line.

Illinois should raise the personal exemption to $10,000 (or whatever figure works out) to ensure that no one working and still not making it past the poverty line is taxed.

What do you think?

Because I'd like to borrow a page from Lt. Governor Pat Quinn's handbook and put an advisory question on the ballot and see if some of the state's most affluent voters who would pay more tax think this is the right thing to do.

(Mr. Quinn would rather spend that extra money on Illinois schools and on tax relief for homeowners -- consistent with a long-time push for more state money for education and less reliance on the property tax. He's pushing forward with advisory referenda this March. I think that's great).

But this is a different issue.

The government should not tax working people below the poverty line.

Do you agree? And do you want to help make this happen? Email me: dan@djw.info