Vote for Illinois to host the Simpsons premiere

The Simpson's movie premiere will be held in Springfield. There are 14 Springfields competing for the honor, including our very own.

You can vote for Illinois here on a USA Today site.

The movies are fun to watch as well. Vote by July 9.

The premiere will be held before the nationwide opening on July 27, so if we win, the General Assembly will be in session.

First, the Barack Obama's presidential campaign kicks off in Springfield. Now a first-rate movie premiere. Good things happening to Springfield.....

Vote right now!

States renamed based on the gross domestic products

Thanks to Eric Zorn's Land of Linkin' comes this post from a site called Strange Maps that renames each U.S. state based on the nation with the same sized economy (gross domestic product).

So Illinois, with 12 million people, is named Mexico (which has 100 million people).

Iowa = Venezuela

California = France

Texas = Canada

That'll make you think. We are one wealthy nation.

Overtime budget decision: Senate Dems v. House GOP

The question will likely be resolved in late July: will the Senate Democratic plan for solving some problems (like a state structural deficit, poor schools in property-poor areas, a transit system shutting down in September and too many medical bankruptcies) with new revenues and new investments be implemented or will the House Republican plan for letting the problems wait for another day in return for not significantly raising taxes, fees or gambling prevail?

In legislative leader parlance, I think the real overtime battle is between Emil Jones and Tom Cross.

I'm not a fan of the leader shorthand that is often employed in state government discussions, as I think each caucus is much more diverse than the particular personality and policy preference of the leader. So, it isn't enough to say "what Madigan wants" as a substitute for what the members of the House Democratic Caucus want, because each of the leaders represents the views of their members, not just their own views.

So, it's clear that many (perhaps most) Republican members would accept not solving some problems in exchange for not increasing the state's 3% income tax, the sales tax, creating a new business tax, raising state fees or expanding gambling (aside from putting slots in existing casinos and, perhaps, race tracks).

It's also clear that many (certainly most, perhaps all) Senate Democratic members would accept raising taxes, fees or gambling opportunities in exchange for solving problems and making investments in education, transportation and health care.

Now that at least 4 House Republicans are required to pass a budget for the rest of the calendar year, the ultimate consensus over the FY08 budget must include some of the views of House Republicans.

Thus, a stalemate.

Either the Senate Democrats will have to trim their sails and allow many problems to go unsolved for another year or the House Republicans will have to grudgingly accept higher taxes, fees or gambling to invest the revenues in solving problems.

Perhaps they will "meet in the middle" but ultimately, the budget must fall between those two poles.

There are a few interesting observations.

One is that there are certainly 4 lower-income districts currently represented by House Republicans that would benefit from higher taxes, fees and/or gambling and the corresponding higher state spending that such taxes, fees or gambling can finances. Generally speaking, lower-income districts benefit from higher spending, and many lower-income rural districts are represented by Rs. Will these rural Republicans be able to "vote their districts" and support a Senate budget or will their ideological affiliation trump the economics of their districts? Ideally, these rural Republicans would get a seat at the table to help find a budget that can earn the votes of 71 Representatives and 36 Senators.

Another observation is that in the face of a stalemate, there is no natural default position. In other words, if Emil Jones and Tom Cross both dig in their heels (and forgive the leader shorthand again, as it over-emphasizes the personalities of the leaders) and stick to their respective positions, even as the 31-day budget expires and the state government starts to shutdown, accepting a no-growth budget in the face of disagreement isn't any more natural than accepting a high-growth budget in the face of disagreement.

Some might suggest that if there isn't a consensus for solving problems, then the coalition to increase spending has not grown strong enough so the legislature should default back to the status quo. However, when enough members have decided they will not support the status quo, then the argument is flipped: the coalition to maintain the status quo has not grown strong enough, so the legislature should default to new spending.

All that is to say that this is really the time when advocates and citizens should weigh in on their vision for state government and help forge a consensus over the smartest investments we can make. Legislative positions will change over the next four weeks or the state government will shut down.

"Socialized health insurance" not "socialized medicine"

I haven't seen Sicko yet, but the discussion that it has generated on getting rid of the for-profit, parasitic, middlemen health insurance companies has helped me to come up with a tighter phrase.

We're not advocating for "socialized medicine." We're advocating for "socialized health insurance."

Private, for-profit or non-profit medicine -- meaning doctors and nurses and hospitals -- continues. It's just the health insurance side of things we want to socialize.

Now, some can argue that we should avoid the adjective "socialized" under any circumstances, but I'm not sure about that. We do want government health insurance, just like Medicare. And the other side wants corporate health insurance, just like we have now.

We don't want doctors and nurses working for the government. We want them private (if they want to be -- if they'd rather work for government hospitals, that's fine too). But we want all private providers to be paid by the government, instead of paid by corporate, for-profit insurance companies.

When our opponents attack with a dishonest, designed-to-confuse phrase like "socialized medicine" I like an honest, designed-to-clarify response like "socialized health insurance" to make them defend the corporate health insurance companies.

Thanks to Michael Moore for advancing the discussion.

Cross-posted at my dailykos page

Why is Senator Dillard getting criticized for helping Barack in a primary?

I don't get it.

Now, I'm certainly not qualified to advise the Republican Party on anything related to 'how to be a good Republican' but I really don't understand the blowback against Senator Dillard appearing in a Barack Obama television commercial for a primary election.

First, I think Senator Dillard has made it clear that he prefers a Republican candidate to Barack Obama in November.

Second, wouldn't we all benefit in Illinois if an Illinois resident were the President of the United States? Doesn't it make sense -- from the perspective of helping out the people of Illinois -- to prefer that the only Illinois candidate in either party primary get a nomination?

Third, if there's a Democratic candidate who has made a habit of reaching out to Republican colleagues and forging good, bipartisan solutions, wouldn't Republicans prefer that type of a Democratic President instead of one who governs like George W. Bush and essentially steamrolls the other side?

All of those good reasons for a former Republican colleague of one of the leading presidential candidates to appear in a primary campaign ad are apparently outweighed because, perhaps, in October or November (16 long months from now), if Barack is the Democratic nominee, then perhaps Senator Dillard's comments could be used to undercut the Republican nominee's chances, particularly if that Republican nominee doesn't have a history of forging bipartisan solutions.

Except, Senator Dillard's preferred nominee, Senator John McCain, does have such a history.

And to a certain extent, so do the other leading GOP candidates (Rommey who worked in an overwhelmingly Democratic state and Giuliani who worked in an overwhelmingly Democratic city).

If some New York City Democratic politician appeared in a Giuliani ad in Iowa or New Hampshire congratulating him for working well with the Democratic City Council (assuming that he did), who cares? Or if Senator Feingold appeared in an ad for McCain congratulating him for trying to lessen the clout of big business in political campaigns, so what? People deserve to get credit for their good work and if it means the politicians who work to reach consensus end up winning primary elections, that's a good thing.

I can understand why Republicans would be upset if Senator Dillard supported Obama's presidential campaign in the November general election. But to support the best candidate with a record of building consensus who is from Illinois and understands state legislatures in a primary election seems like smart politics rather than a partisan betrayal to me.

Paul Froehlich joins the Democratic Party

Good news: State Representative Paul Froehlich (R-Schaumburg) will join the Democratic Party on Wednesday.

Paul is an excellent legislator: an institutionalist who cares about policy and pays attention to the details. He is an electoral reformer, consistently standing up for more transparency and accountability in government. He's unafraid to take on unpopular issues that advance justice but won't win many votes, and he's probably the most aggressive white legislator of either party that reaches out to issues that matter to the Black and Latino Caucuses.

When Washington Republicans get crazy, I always looked to legislators like Paul as evidence that Illinois Republicans kept a level head. Unfortunately (for them) a few of their influential leaders decided to wage angry crusades against independent legislators like Paul, preferring a purged party to a heterogeneous caucus. Well, they've got it now.

The Democratic Party is fortunate to have an advocate for justice and reformer like Paul Froehlich among our ranks.

I'm glad our party leaders all recognize the value of a diverse caucus.

Why do we keep for-profit health insurance companies again?

Michael Moore raises the question in Sicko: why exactly are we tolerating for-profit health insurance companies that make money by denying us the health care that we've paid for?

What sense does that make?

I recall Luis Gutierrez (who, here's my prediction, will run again in 2008 for Congress) at a town hall meeting in 1993 or 1994 on public television called for abolishing the insurance companies and the crowd, previously passive and polite in that public television way, erupted in applause. The host (probably John Callaway) asked for calm and then asked the insurance company spokesperson to justify the industry's existence. "What do you do?" he asked.

"Spread risk" was the answer.

That's it.

The health insurance guy could have said "suck resources out of health care like a parasitic middleman to build skyscrapers, run commercials and make our investors rich" which would have been more honest, but the economic basis for the health insurance industry's existence is "to spread risk."

Well, you spread risk by getting a bunch of people in the same big pool. So if there are 5 people in a small business who are paying for their own health care and one of them gets cancer or gets hit by a bus, then those 5 people have a lot of money to pay. The goal is to get 10,000 people in a big pool so when someone gets cancer, the cost is absorbed and spread out among everyone.

I've got a big pool we should all get into: Americans.

The whole country should be one big pool. That's what we do with Americans over the age of 65. It's called Medicare. And there isn't any role for private health insurance companies to make money. That's why it's so cheap to administer.

I wish I had access to Medicare.

I pay Medicare taxes. Why can't I have Medicare coverage?

Because for people under 65, we have to make health insurance companies rich to get access to the doctors and hospitals.

The best thing we could do for our economy is expand Medicare for everybody to end medical bankruptcies and encourage small businesses to grow (who now have to make insurance companies rich).

Funders, events, parties and more

You've got an extra 50 bucks in your pocket and you're looking for a good time to meet some other civic people in Chicago.

Well, that's what summer funders are for.

Here are a bunch of them. Come to some or all.

Representative Sara Feigenholtz
Monday, July 9
6 - 8 pm
Wishbone Restaurant
3300 North Lincoln

------------

Museum of Broadcast Communications
75th Anniversary Salute to FDR
5:30 pm cocktail reception
7:00 pm program
Auditorium Theatre
Michigan and Congress

On July 2, 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted his first nomination for President of the United States -- in Chicago. It was the night most Americans heard FDR on the radio for the first time.

The Auditorium Theatre will be transformed into the convention floor of 1932 with bunting draped boxes, state delegate signs and "Happy Days Are Here Again" will welcome guests as the clock is turned back 75 years.

For history and political buffs, this will be a really cool night.

$25 tickets general admission; $500 VIP (for the cocktail reception)

---------------------------------

Mikva Challenge
Developing the Next Generation of Civic Leaders
June 28
5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum
$75

The Mikva Challenge, named after Illinois great Abner Mikva, effectively engages high school students into politics and government. They are relentlessly bi- (and multi-) partisan and provide a great after-school program for students.

-------------

"Always look at the bright side of life...."

The post title is the title of the closing song (and my favorite part) of the Monty Python musical Spamalot. I catch myself whistling that tune quite a bit.

So, to apply that piece of wisdom to the overtime session in the Illinois General Assembly, I'd like to point out the good things about an overtime session.

Because a budget requires a 60% vote, the General Assembly has more institutional power. Once 71 Representatives and 36 Senators agree on an agenda (and the Speaker and the President sign off), lots of good things can happen that are normally taken off the table when only a 50% vote is required.

Good things like putting constitutional amendments on the ballot.

If we want a modern, progressive income tax to match the new structure of our economy (where the middle-class is under pressure and most of the new income is flowing to high income people), we need to amend our constitution.

(Note we can make our flat rate income tax more progressive as Voices for Illinois Children explains in this policy brief by raising the personal exemption and the state's earned income tax credit, but if we really want a modern income tax, we should get rid of that constitutional provision prohibited a non-graduated rate.)

It takes a 60% vote of each chamber to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Well, since it takes a 60% vote of each chamber to pass a budget, it's just as easy to pass a budget as it is to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. And since most of our budget troubles are based on an out-of-date tax system (too heavy on low incomes and it doesn't tax enough of the modern economy -- services and high incomes), it would be prudent for those who care about the FY10 and FY12 budgets just as much as the FY08 and FY09 budgets to ask the electorate for the ability to implement a progressive income tax in 2009.

Note that a constitutional amendment does not require gubernatorial action.

Speaking of gubernatorial action, another nice thing about overtime is that the threat of a veto doesn't matter so much, since it takes 60% of each chamber to override a veto. So, since it takes 60% to pass a budget, and 60% to override a veto....whomever votes for a budget and sticks to their guns will be able to override a veto.

That means when the Governor makes a mistake and threatens to veto good public policy, it doesn't matter. Once 60% of each legislative chamber agree to implement good policy, a veto is irrelevant.

That dynamic opens up the possibility of a legislative consensus, since this year, the Governor's bold vision was unfortunately matched by hostility to alternatives. That hostility is less important in June.

If ever there was a time to have a big picture conversation with your legislator, this is it.

I hope 60% of the General Assembly match the Governor's attractive tendency for game-changing proposals with constitutional amendments and progressive taxes.

Great Chicago company has a neat blog

Inspired by Google buying Feedburner (congratulations to fellow progressive blogger Rick Klau! -- and I think former CrossBlogger Jake Parillo was working there too, congratulations), I thought I'd note another cool Chicago-based software company with products I use, 37 signals.

I use one of their products called Basecamp for project management. If you are part of projects (especially if you are in charge of them), check it out. But more interesting to everyone, perhaps, is their blog about:

entrepreneurship, design, experience, simplicity, constraints, pop culture, our products, products we like, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago.

It's called Signal vs. Noise and it's an interesting read.