I'm leaving Springfield early to appear on Milt Rosenberg's Extension 720 show tonight from 9 to 11 pm to discuss President Barack Obama's wildly successful first 100 days.
Who would have thought in 1999 when a state senator from Hyde Park was working here in Springfield under Pate Philip's rule and not really moving much legislation at the time that we would be saying that a decade later? Barack's rise is basically the political feel-good story of the generation.
And his Administration is on track to be transformational (like FDR, LBJ or Reagan).
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Another difference between Democrats and Republicans
Yesterday, the Senate Republicans voted to keep government barriers in place from citizens and taxpayers from voting while the Democrats in the Illinois Senate Elections Committee voted to reduce some of those government restrictions from citizens voting in elections.
The place was Room 400 of the Illinois Capitol (the same room where President Barack Obama used to chair the Health and Human Services Committee five years ago). The occasion was the meeting of the Senate Elections Committee yesterday. And the topic of discussion was House Bill 267, a proposal advanced by Senator Meeks to cut in half the 14-day period before each election when the government no longer permits citizens to register to vote at their current address.
The four Republican Senators (Dale Righter, Randy Hultgren, David Luechtefeld and Dan Rutherford) were united in opposition to the very concept that the legislature might limit the amount of time that the government denies citizens the ability to register to vote. That would lead on a very dangerous path, they said, to same-day voter registration. Besides, the idea of a herd of voters just showing up to vote that are presumably uneducated in not good government, they said.
Got that? The government officials are going to judge which of the taxpayers and citizens -- who decide whether they get to keep their job -- are worthy enough to vote.
The Democratic Senators -- James Meeks, Terry Link, Ira Silverstein, Lou Viverito and Maggie Crotty -- were united behind the bill and the belief that there should be as few restrictions as possible put up by the government between the people and the ballot. The bill passed on a party-line vote, and it will likely pass the Senate on a party-line vote.
I should have been happy, since I drafted the bill and testified in favor of it. But I was left with a very sour feeling. Why would the Republican legislators oppose the bill -- when the election administrators who run the elections were good enough to suggest an amendment last month that removed their opposition to the bill? So even though the bill is not an administrative burden on the people who actually conduct elections in Illinois, the Republican Senators still opposed the bill on principle!
I think this is a hint as to why the Republican Party is dying. On the same day that Pennsylvania (a big, northern industrial state like Illinois with big cities and small towns) lost its last Republican Senator and went into all-blue status with Arlen Specter's switch and the day before a popular Democratic President celebrates 100 days in office and the most ambitious progressive federal agenda in 30 and maybe 70 years, this vote in the Illinois Senate Elections Committee showed me that Republicans have a hostility towards regular people getting more power. They have a fundamental streak of elitism. And it's deadly for them.
There are exceptions. Beth Coulson and Sid Mathias, two suburban Cook County Republicans, voted for the bill in the House. But every other Republican voted no and every single Democrat voted yes. I think there might be a Republican Senator or two that votes yes.
But at base, the principle that the government should stop citizens from registering to vote -- not because it might be administratively difficult or because there might be fraud, because the election administrators who run elections agreed not to oppose the bill, but just because on principle it is better for democracy and for government if fewer people vote -- that's one of the principles of the Republican Party.
And as long as the Republican Party believes that we're better off when fewer people vote, we Democrats are going to be running governments for a good long time.
The place was Room 400 of the Illinois Capitol (the same room where President Barack Obama used to chair the Health and Human Services Committee five years ago). The occasion was the meeting of the Senate Elections Committee yesterday. And the topic of discussion was House Bill 267, a proposal advanced by Senator Meeks to cut in half the 14-day period before each election when the government no longer permits citizens to register to vote at their current address.
The four Republican Senators (Dale Righter, Randy Hultgren, David Luechtefeld and Dan Rutherford) were united in opposition to the very concept that the legislature might limit the amount of time that the government denies citizens the ability to register to vote. That would lead on a very dangerous path, they said, to same-day voter registration. Besides, the idea of a herd of voters just showing up to vote that are presumably uneducated in not good government, they said.
Got that? The government officials are going to judge which of the taxpayers and citizens -- who decide whether they get to keep their job -- are worthy enough to vote.
The Democratic Senators -- James Meeks, Terry Link, Ira Silverstein, Lou Viverito and Maggie Crotty -- were united behind the bill and the belief that there should be as few restrictions as possible put up by the government between the people and the ballot. The bill passed on a party-line vote, and it will likely pass the Senate on a party-line vote.
I should have been happy, since I drafted the bill and testified in favor of it. But I was left with a very sour feeling. Why would the Republican legislators oppose the bill -- when the election administrators who run the elections were good enough to suggest an amendment last month that removed their opposition to the bill? So even though the bill is not an administrative burden on the people who actually conduct elections in Illinois, the Republican Senators still opposed the bill on principle!
I think this is a hint as to why the Republican Party is dying. On the same day that Pennsylvania (a big, northern industrial state like Illinois with big cities and small towns) lost its last Republican Senator and went into all-blue status with Arlen Specter's switch and the day before a popular Democratic President celebrates 100 days in office and the most ambitious progressive federal agenda in 30 and maybe 70 years, this vote in the Illinois Senate Elections Committee showed me that Republicans have a hostility towards regular people getting more power. They have a fundamental streak of elitism. And it's deadly for them.
There are exceptions. Beth Coulson and Sid Mathias, two suburban Cook County Republicans, voted for the bill in the House. But every other Republican voted no and every single Democrat voted yes. I think there might be a Republican Senator or two that votes yes.
But at base, the principle that the government should stop citizens from registering to vote -- not because it might be administratively difficult or because there might be fraud, because the election administrators who run elections agreed not to oppose the bill, but just because on principle it is better for democracy and for government if fewer people vote -- that's one of the principles of the Republican Party.
And as long as the Republican Party believes that we're better off when fewer people vote, we Democrats are going to be running governments for a good long time.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
White House to announce high speed rail plans Thursday....very exciting
This is very exciting news.
President Barack Obama (who essentially single-handedly transformed American rail policy by investing $8 billion of stimulus funding into rail -- 15 times more than what the federal government had ever invested in one year before) is scheduled to announce the federal plan for how that eight billion will be spent tomorrow in the White House.
And my very first lobbying client (since 2004), Rick Harnish of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, is in Washington right now to participate in that announcement.
The Wall Street Journal has a nice article about the state of intercity rail in the nation today (and the reporter spent some time with Rick this week as you can read from his report).
I can't wait to find out what the Obama Administration is going to do.
Finally! A President who gets it! As the Bush-ites were fond of saying: Elections do have consequences....
President Barack Obama (who essentially single-handedly transformed American rail policy by investing $8 billion of stimulus funding into rail -- 15 times more than what the federal government had ever invested in one year before) is scheduled to announce the federal plan for how that eight billion will be spent tomorrow in the White House.
And my very first lobbying client (since 2004), Rick Harnish of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, is in Washington right now to participate in that announcement.
The Wall Street Journal has a nice article about the state of intercity rail in the nation today (and the reporter spent some time with Rick this week as you can read from his report).
I can't wait to find out what the Obama Administration is going to do.
Finally! A President who gets it! As the Bush-ites were fond of saying: Elections do have consequences....
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Today's special election is a waste; fill vacancies in one election, not two
Today’s special general election between Mike Quigley, Rosanna Pulido and Matt Reichel is a waste of time, money and resources. Taxpayers will shell out almost two million dollars to hold an election in the 5th Congressional district with only three names on the ballot. And the result of the election – the Democratic nominee is going to win – has been a foregone conclusion for a month.
The seat has been vacant since January. Meanwhile, during the debate on the federal stimulus and budget, the 600,000 people of the 5th congressional district have been without a voice in the House. That’s not good, because we have literally lost our seat at the congressional table while federal policy is made. Our election laws should fill a vacancy as quickly as possible to minimize the loss of our political clout.
In this case, the people spoke clearly last month in the primary election: they want a Democrat to represent them in the House.
Look at the numbers from the March 3rd primary: Mike Quigley, Democrat, earned 12,118 votes. Rosanna Pulido, Republican, earned 1,006 while Matt Reichel Green, earned 166. That’s 91% for Quigley, 8% for Pulido and 1% for Reichel. That’s a landslide. So why are we going through the motion of another election today between these three people when Quigley has already earned 91% of the vote last month? Why can’t we give the people what they already voted for?
Illinois should fill a congressional vacancy in one election, not two, particularly when the results are so clear. There are several ways to do it. We could replicate Chicago’s municipal elections where there is a runoff only if no candidate earns a majority of the vote. We could count a vote in the primary election as a straight ticket vote in the general election for whoever the nominee will be. Or we could use Irish-style instant runoff voting where voters rank all the candidates.
But whatever the method, we should absolutely not continue to waste two million dollars and minimize our own clout by waiting a month to finally elect a Representative in a second election when we could get the job done in one day.
The seat has been vacant since January. Meanwhile, during the debate on the federal stimulus and budget, the 600,000 people of the 5th congressional district have been without a voice in the House. That’s not good, because we have literally lost our seat at the congressional table while federal policy is made. Our election laws should fill a vacancy as quickly as possible to minimize the loss of our political clout.
In this case, the people spoke clearly last month in the primary election: they want a Democrat to represent them in the House.
Look at the numbers from the March 3rd primary: Mike Quigley, Democrat, earned 12,118 votes. Rosanna Pulido, Republican, earned 1,006 while Matt Reichel Green, earned 166. That’s 91% for Quigley, 8% for Pulido and 1% for Reichel. That’s a landslide. So why are we going through the motion of another election today between these three people when Quigley has already earned 91% of the vote last month? Why can’t we give the people what they already voted for?
Illinois should fill a congressional vacancy in one election, not two, particularly when the results are so clear. There are several ways to do it. We could replicate Chicago’s municipal elections where there is a runoff only if no candidate earns a majority of the vote. We could count a vote in the primary election as a straight ticket vote in the general election for whoever the nominee will be. Or we could use Irish-style instant runoff voting where voters rank all the candidates.
But whatever the method, we should absolutely not continue to waste two million dollars and minimize our own clout by waiting a month to finally elect a Representative in a second election when we could get the job done in one day.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Metra should take credit cards -- a Senate bill would require just that
Yesterday Senator Michael Bond (D-Grayslake) and I held a press conference on his legislation that requires Metra to accept credit cards for fare payments.
I represent the Transit Riders' Alliance, a project of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and we enthusiastically support Senator Bond's bill. Hopefully Metra will just decide to start taking credit cards in the places where it immediately makes sense to do so. If not, we'll keep working to try to pass Senate Bill 577 into law.
There's a new service in the Illinois General Assembly's press room that offers a feed of press conferences. Here's the full, unedited C-SPAN-ish feed of the press conference.
And here is a story in the Daily Herald:
I represent the Transit Riders' Alliance, a project of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, and we enthusiastically support Senator Bond's bill. Hopefully Metra will just decide to start taking credit cards in the places where it immediately makes sense to do so. If not, we'll keep working to try to pass Senate Bill 577 into law.
There's a new service in the Illinois General Assembly's press room that offers a feed of press conferences. Here's the full, unedited C-SPAN-ish feed of the press conference.
And here is a story in the Daily Herald:
"The problem is fairly simple: they only accept check or cash," [Bond] said. "Metra is the second largest commuter train system in the country and happens to be the only one that doesn't take electronic payment."
Bond says checks are outdated and younger commuters today do not always carry checks or cash because they expect places to take debit or credit. The CTA currently takes credit cards as payment.
Judy Pardonnet, spokeswoman for Metra, said the agency is looking into the change to credit cards and said the procedure will be phased in.
Dan Johnson-Weinberger, representing the Transit Riders' Alliance, said many times people are unaware the trains don't accept credit and debit. "We believe there is some lost revenue from riders who would like to get on the train but because they don't carry a checkbook - and honest to God who does anymore? - and they don't happen to have cash on them, they can't buy," said Johnson-Weinberger.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Poll: Majority of >100K income earners favor a higher tax rate for high incomes
This report is a few months old, but particularly timely.
The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University conducted a poll last fall and asked Illinois respondents what revenue-generators they would support. The most popular way for the State to raise more money was a federal-style progressive income tax where higher incomes pay a higher rate than lower incomes. 65.9 percent of respondents favored a progressive income tax.
Interestingly, while 74.2 percent of respondents who make less than $50K annually favored a progressive tax, and 68.9 percent of those who make between $50K and $100K favored the tax, more than half of the people who make more than $100K and would presumably pay the higher rate still favored a higher rate for themselves. 57.5% of the respondents who make more than $100,000 support a higher rate for higher incomes. (See page 26 of Professor Charles Leonard's Public Policy Institute Occasional Paper #12 to read the report yourself.)
Governor Quinn's proposal to raise the state's flat rate income tax rate from 3% to 4.5% combined with the uber-progressive move to triple the amount of tax-free income from $2,000 to $6,000 is as close to setting up a progressive tax as the General Assembly can get, since the Constitution unfortunately mandates a flat rate.
So while it is not only the right thing to do to tax lower income people less than higher income people (why would we possibly tax people who are earning money below the poverty line?), according to the SIU poll, it is also the most popular option on the table -- even among the people who would pay more.
I suspect a progressive income tax is popular because it is the right thing to do.
The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University conducted a poll last fall and asked Illinois respondents what revenue-generators they would support. The most popular way for the State to raise more money was a federal-style progressive income tax where higher incomes pay a higher rate than lower incomes. 65.9 percent of respondents favored a progressive income tax.
Interestingly, while 74.2 percent of respondents who make less than $50K annually favored a progressive tax, and 68.9 percent of those who make between $50K and $100K favored the tax, more than half of the people who make more than $100K and would presumably pay the higher rate still favored a higher rate for themselves. 57.5% of the respondents who make more than $100,000 support a higher rate for higher incomes. (See page 26 of Professor Charles Leonard's Public Policy Institute Occasional Paper #12 to read the report yourself.)
Governor Quinn's proposal to raise the state's flat rate income tax rate from 3% to 4.5% combined with the uber-progressive move to triple the amount of tax-free income from $2,000 to $6,000 is as close to setting up a progressive tax as the General Assembly can get, since the Constitution unfortunately mandates a flat rate.
So while it is not only the right thing to do to tax lower income people less than higher income people (why would we possibly tax people who are earning money below the poverty line?), according to the SIU poll, it is also the most popular option on the table -- even among the people who would pay more.
I suspect a progressive income tax is popular because it is the right thing to do.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Media headlines are wrong: Quinn proposes tax cuts for most, tax increase for some
That's what the headlines should be about Governor Quinn's likely budget proposal.
The Governor has confirmed that he wants to cut the income tax for everyone by making the first $6,000 of income tax free. Right now the first $2200 of income is tax free. So the benefit is basically $120 from the 3% tax rate. And with a 4.5% tax rate, the benefit of not taxing an extra $4000 is $180.
In other words, the Governor proposed an income tax cut of $180 for everyone.
He also wants to raise the income tax rate from 3% to 4.5%. Illinois has the lowest income tax rate of any state in the Union that has an income tax. We're lower than Indiana (at 3.4%). We are lower than every other state that has an income tax. So that is an income tax increase.
To be clear, he proposed an income tax cut of $180 and then a higher rate of 4.5% instead of 3%.
That is not a 50% increase.
Most people get a tax cut. (If you make $6,000 a year, you will pay less than you do today. That's a tax cut). A few people get a wash (the $180 tax cut from the personal exemption about equals the higher rate). And some people will pay more because the higher income tax rate will be bigger than the $180 tax cut from the personal exemption.
So media headline writers! Don't screw this up! Quinn did NOT propose a 50% income tax increase! He proposed a tax cut and a tax increase. Most people will pay less (that's my initial cut of the math -- I may be wrong). Some people will pay more. But most people will NOT face a 50% income tax increase.
And, since state income taxes are deductible on federal income tax returns, this is a really smart move, because it means that the actual dollars paid in taxes by our wealthiest Illinoisians (a group I hope to join), will not be 50% higher than they were before Quinn's proposal. For every dollar a millionaire pays in state income taxes, she cuts 35 cents off her federal tax bill. So the actual bottom-line increase for even the wealthiest people in Illinois is 65 cents on the dollar for every dollar increase in the state income tax (making the 50% increase even more incorrect).
Friday, January 30, 2009
From Bush-Blagojevich to Obama-Quinn. What an upgrade!
Just think: two weeks ago, the two chief executives for Illinois residents were President George Bush and Governor Rod Blagojevich. Tonight, they are President Barack Obama and Governor Pat Quinn.
That is the biggest upgrade in an eight-day span we've ever seen.
We went from two executives who regularly expanded their powers and authority in defiance of the law to two with humility and an honest commitment to greater democracy.
I'm with Senator Meeks: this is a great day for Illinois.
That is the biggest upgrade in an eight-day span we've ever seen.
We went from two executives who regularly expanded their powers and authority in defiance of the law to two with humility and an honest commitment to greater democracy.
I'm with Senator Meeks: this is a great day for Illinois.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
President Barack Obama. Sometimes the good guys win.
The first time it hit me was after his speech in Grant Park when the brassy presidential music started to play. All the pomp and circumstance around the closest thing we have to a King would be placed on the thin shoulders of a guy who was working three jobs to get by a few years ago, a guy who believes all politicians are not judged by their greatness but by whether they improve the lives of ordinary people and a guy who comes from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party but believes in governing with an open door to build a consensus rather than make a point.
This guy -- a guy who was essentially drafted into the race -- will be the President of the United States of America.
These things aren't supposed to happen. The smart guy who stays clean and sides with the weak and the powerless usually doesn't end up in power. It's the shady people who saddle up to the moneyed interests, the operators who shift and pivot wherever the wind is blowing, the sons and daughters of wealth and privilige -- they are the people who end up running things. But not today.
Today, thanks in part to the largest grassroots organization in modern history, one of our own is going to the White House. A President for the people, not the powerful. It's a wonderful day.
This guy -- a guy who was essentially drafted into the race -- will be the President of the United States of America.
These things aren't supposed to happen. The smart guy who stays clean and sides with the weak and the powerless usually doesn't end up in power. It's the shady people who saddle up to the moneyed interests, the operators who shift and pivot wherever the wind is blowing, the sons and daughters of wealth and privilige -- they are the people who end up running things. But not today.
Today, thanks in part to the largest grassroots organization in modern history, one of our own is going to the White House. A President for the people, not the powerful. It's a wonderful day.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Live from Cleveland: Speaking engagement on Amtrak advocacy before All Aboard Ohio
Good morning from Cleveland!
I'll be speaking in a few hours before a meeting of All Aboard Ohio on the topic of Amtrak/transit advocacy, sharing lessons learned from the successful effort in Illinois to double the size of the Amtrak program in 2005-6. I helped to lead that campaign for my client, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.
If you won't be able to join us in Cleveland today, here's the bottom line:
1. Develop a reasonable but aggressive legislative ask. This is something that the government can do this year -- not a nebulous vision like "get us better service" or "European-style high speed rail" but instead a specific, actionable request like "increase the Amtrak line item in the budget from $12 million to $24 million in order to double service in the state." The best way to develop this request is in close consultation with legislative champions who are the ultimate test for political viability, since they are the ones who will expend their political capital to implement the request.
2. Focus relentlessly on the decision-makers: elected officials. Everybody else in the world, particularly organizations, are a means to the same end of convincing elected officials to implement the request. Don't fall into the trap of working to convince civic leaders and non-profit organizations and then hoping that somehow that consensus of non-elected officials will transform into a consensus among elected officials. The decision-makers are the prize to keep your eyes upon.
3. Cultivate your legislative champions. It takes at least one legislator to decide to move beyond passive support of an idea towards active support for a bill. Someone has to introduce a bill. That one legislator who is willing to introduce your idea as legislation is the most important legislator in the body, because that legislator is your champion. Finding that champion and convincing him or her that your idea is worth his or her limited political capital is essential.
4. Campaign for a yes as the junior partner. Advocates work for their legislative champions, not the other way around. So take direction from him or her and generate a sense of urgency by mobilizing as many influencers as possible to convince the other legislators to join with your champion in implementing the bill this year. "There's always next year" doesn't apply. Push hard for action this year -- until your champion says no. Then, and only then, do you wait.
I lay this out a bit more in graphic format on the Progressive Public Affairs website. And transit advocacy is the cover story in the latest issue of More Riders Magazine (published by my sister company, More Riders).
I'll be speaking in a few hours before a meeting of All Aboard Ohio on the topic of Amtrak/transit advocacy, sharing lessons learned from the successful effort in Illinois to double the size of the Amtrak program in 2005-6. I helped to lead that campaign for my client, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association.
If you won't be able to join us in Cleveland today, here's the bottom line:
1. Develop a reasonable but aggressive legislative ask. This is something that the government can do this year -- not a nebulous vision like "get us better service" or "European-style high speed rail" but instead a specific, actionable request like "increase the Amtrak line item in the budget from $12 million to $24 million in order to double service in the state." The best way to develop this request is in close consultation with legislative champions who are the ultimate test for political viability, since they are the ones who will expend their political capital to implement the request.
2. Focus relentlessly on the decision-makers: elected officials. Everybody else in the world, particularly organizations, are a means to the same end of convincing elected officials to implement the request. Don't fall into the trap of working to convince civic leaders and non-profit organizations and then hoping that somehow that consensus of non-elected officials will transform into a consensus among elected officials. The decision-makers are the prize to keep your eyes upon.
3. Cultivate your legislative champions. It takes at least one legislator to decide to move beyond passive support of an idea towards active support for a bill. Someone has to introduce a bill. That one legislator who is willing to introduce your idea as legislation is the most important legislator in the body, because that legislator is your champion. Finding that champion and convincing him or her that your idea is worth his or her limited political capital is essential.
4. Campaign for a yes as the junior partner. Advocates work for their legislative champions, not the other way around. So take direction from him or her and generate a sense of urgency by mobilizing as many influencers as possible to convince the other legislators to join with your champion in implementing the bill this year. "There's always next year" doesn't apply. Push hard for action this year -- until your champion says no. Then, and only then, do you wait.
I lay this out a bit more in graphic format on the Progressive Public Affairs website. And transit advocacy is the cover story in the latest issue of More Riders Magazine (published by my sister company, More Riders).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)