Negative ads on Topinka's Republican policies work but could use some improvements

I like the Blagojevich campaign's current 15-second commercials about the gubernatorial campaign. They are substantive, punchy and not anything like the way-over-the-top, unfair attack ads that the Oberweis campaign ran against Topinka.

The Oberweis campaign just ran commercials with Topinka polkaing (polka-ing?) with George Ryan and then just lied by saying "Topinka ordered staff to work on political campaigns" -- an unwarranted lie without any real attribution that ought to be illegal. Why didn't Oberweis get more flak for those?

On the other hand, Blagojevich's commercials are substantive, fair, issue-oriented but aggressive. There are two of them.

The first is about Topinka's opposition to an assault weapons ban, one of the gun control advocates main goals and a fiercely fought legislative battle every year (with the exception of this year, where a 'gun truce' has been imposed by the legislative leaders to avoid the bloody trench warfare of gun bills on third reading). Treasurer Topinka argued that the definition of an assault weapon is nebulous enough to potentially include a rolling pin, and the commercial makes her look a little silly. Playing off one of her primary campaign themes of "Thinka Topinka", the commercial's tag line is "What's she thinking?"

The Blagojevich campaign has laid out these commercials on a separate website at www.TopinkaWatch.com which is a nicely transparent method of being accountable for a 'negative' ad campaign.

I think that's a very strong commercial and message.

The other commercial isn't so strong, and it's taken me a while to figure out why I think it doesn't resonate as well.

The second commercial is about Topinka's support for the "Bush tax cuts" that lowered the marginal federal income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate. The most important tax cut in terms of lost revenue to the federal government (helping to create that $400 billion annual deficit, which gives China more power over us every year since we can't pay our own bills) is the tax cut on the highest incomes. Until 2001, the tax on income above $300,000 was 39.6% and because there are ever-more very high incomes, that generates a ton of money. After Bush took over and the GOP Congress secured control, the top tax rate was cut to 35%. That's the biggest deal of the Bush tax cuts and the dumbest cut, because anyone earning more than $300,000 can afford to pay the roughly 40% while the rest of us can't afford the higher cost of everything else when the government is broke (less student aid for college, less renewable energy, less support to state and local governments, etc.).

That message isn't easy to convey. The commercial calls it the 'millionaire's tax cut' because, in combination with the repeal of the estate tax and the cut on capital gains, the people who make more than a million dollars get tens of thousands off their federal tax bills. It's a stupid policy that panders to the base of the GOP (rich people and those who think they will be) and should be reversed. But it's tough to communicate in 15 seconds the reality of the federal Republican economic policy of forcing regular, working people to pay more money while enriching the wealthy.

The commercial also lays out a great wedge issue: the minimum wage. This is a great issue for Democrats and a horrible one for Republicans, because most people know it's absurd to expect someone to make a living on $6.50 an hour (Illinois' minimum wage). Very few Republicans support raising the minimum wage, while very few Democrats oppose it. Topinka called the latest proposal "a giveaway plan" and the Democrats have proposed raising the wage to $7.50. (Some Republicans rightfully question why we don't just raise the minimum wage to $7.50 before the end of the 2006 legislative session, but hey, it's good to have an issue....)

Why doesn't the message about Bush's millionaire tax cut resonate as much as the minimum wage or the assault weapons ban? I think the answer lays in how Republicans talk about taxes.

I saw on C-Span some Republican candidate talk about an uber-consultant's (I think it was Grover Norquist or perhaps Karl Rove) axiom on taxes: never mention a number. Republicans talk about cutting taxes generally. They don't talk about which taxes they want to cut and how much money people will make based on their actual income levels. If they did that, it would be very clear that the wealthy get the money while the rest of us get Chinese-financed debt and diminished public services.

That suggests that Democrats should always talk about numbers when we talk about taxes. Blagojevich (and every other Democrat) should always talk about the Bush tax cuts for income above $300,000 (to the extent it helps to remind Illinois voters about federal policy that Topinka presumably still supports).

And a coda: it also means that progressives who want to stop cutting higher education and stop condemning kids in poor suburbs and rural towns to crappy schools that shut down at 2 in the afternoon and extend the school year to 200 days need to talk about a 5% state income tax to fund this investment, instead of our current 3% income tax. Now that we know Blagojevich is against a 5% income tax, and that we'll need a veto-proof majority in the General Assembly to pass a 5% income tax, we need to clearly and consistently make the case for a 5% income tax (and not just a vague idea of 'raising state taxes'). Let's talk about numbers!

Senate move for capital investment moves the debate forward

Senate Bill 668 (here) is a billion dollar bond program for school construction.

Last week, the Senate Democrats brought the bill, along with Senate Bill 665 (here), a $2.7 billion transportation bond bill, to the floor for a vote. Because the state constitution requires a three-fifths vote for putting the state deeper into debt, and Democrats only have 54% of the seats, Republicans need to vote for the bill as well. They did not, so the bills failed on a party-line vote.

Much of the debate, and much of the reporting on the debate, framed this as the Senate Republicans killing "the Governor's bill." Republican objections centered on the lack of any real negotiation between Governor Blagojevich and Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, the lack of trust they have for Governor Blagojevich and finally, the lack of a revenue stream to finance the bonds.

I think that's not quite accurate, at least as it pertains to SB 668, the billion dollar school construction bond.

This was clearly not the Governor's bill, as the Senate Democrats chose to double the stakes and push for a billion dollar bond for school construction, not $500 million. One of Leader Watson's main points on the floor was the apparent absurdity of Governor Blagojevich's office scheduling a meeting for the day after the vote. I think that's a good sign that the bonding bill was the initiative of President Jones and the Senate Democrats, and not Governor Blagojevich. So it's a little unfair to rip into Blagojevich for not meeting with Leader Watson in time for the vote when the President pushed the bond forward to the floor.

The interesting part of the exercise was the apparent openness of several Senate Republicans to passing a capital bill. Just about every Republican began their statement with something along the lines of "I would like to vote for this, but...." Some attribute these statements as cynical window dressing to protect themselves from charges of obstructionism (remember that's what the federal GOP Senators called Tom Daschle?), but I choose to take electeds at their word. I think there's an opportunity to find a bipartisan consensus on a capital bill -- particularly the school construction bond, where, as Senator Miguel del Valle pointed out during debate, the state law creating the program strips out much of the Governor's ability to amend the rules governing the distribution of funds. Therefore, even if Republicans do not trust Governor Blagojevich, they should still be open to the school construction program, as it doesn't rely on trust.

Who can forge that consensus? I think the legislators have the chance to do that. The odd, persistent culture of deference to the Executive Branch in the General Assembly continues to shape the budget debate. It was a little weird that Governor Blagojevich dominated the Senate debate on the capital bill -- why didn't Leader Watson and the Republicans demand to negotiate with President Jones and the Senate Democrats in shaping what is, after all, a Senate Bill?

Especially given the re-election pressures that cause people to dramatically inflate the electoral consequences of passing or not passing a capital bill (really, how many swing voters will be moved in November based on whether school construction is funded?), it makes sense to me that the legislators work to find a consensus among themselves. Given that in any other year, April 11th would be just the beginning of talking about the shape of the budget, we've got plenty of time.

And I think there is absolutely zero fallout from 'missing the deadline' of April 7th to adjourn. The only deadline that matters is May 31st. Press spin that Democrats are 'failing to govern' because they didn't pass a budget seven weeks ahead of time is borderline ridiculous -- especially if one looks at the Republican-controlled Congress which is perpetually months late at passing the federal budget, and the press almost never frames that body as 'failing to govern'.

Senate Democrats and President Jones should be proud that they moved the debate about a much-needed capital program forward last week. I hope they continue to do so and take the initiative -- legislator to legislator -- at forging a bipartisan bill.

What's the best way to judge transit performance?

Mass transit systems (the CTA, Metra and Pace, not to mention the dozen or so other mass transit agencies in Illinois) are just about out of money. They aren't making a big stink about it like they did in 2005 (and they were remarkably successful at framing the entire debate over the state budget, at least in Chicago, where the headlines after the budget was passed in 2005 read: CTA won't shut down), but they are broke.

Why are they broke? The federal government has money to pay for the invasion and occupation of Iraq for years to come, but no money to help cover the cost of buses and trains. As of 1993, the feds stopped paying for any operating support for mass transit. That was a dumb idea. But, what can you do?

They are also broke because the source of their income -- the local sales tax -- is not rising. As you savvy Internet readers go buy things online, you dodge the local sales tax. And, as we move more towards a service and tourism economy, the sales tax (which is for the sale of goods, not services) generates fewer dollars. Ridership is up all over the place, but fares only cover half the cost of the service, and the taxes (the local sales tax) that supports mass transit is flat or shrinking.

We should raise the tax on gasoline or parking so that people who drive pay more of the cost of transit, since really, fares on the CTA or Pace or Metra should be a lot closer to free than they are, as every rider on transit makes life better for everyone else, while every additional driver makes life a little more congested and thus a little worse for everyone else. Ideally, drivers would pay a lot more, and riders, well, maybe they'd even get paid a little something for making life better for everyone else. Or at least they'd ride for free. Illinois took a good step in that direction in the late 90s with Illinois FIRST, a big capital bond that paid for a lot of CTA capital needs like new buses and train stations that is financed by a higher fee for a license plate. That means drivers paid for the cost of infrastructure (lots of roads, but some transit). Our operating budget should move in that direction as well.

In any event, we've got a state policy debate on how, sometime before early 2007 when the FY08 budgets must be created and it becomes very clear and very public just how broke the transit agencies are, we can come up with a lot more money and (here's the fun part) make sure it is spent wisely.

Today's subcommittee hearing of the Mass Transit Committee of the Illinois House started that policy discussion. Triggered by Representative Larry McKeon's HB4663, the subcommittee on Transit Management and Performance discussed how to implement performance measures.

This is an important and intriguing debate, because part of building the case for spending more money on transit (a very good thing, especially transit that's powered by electricity and not Saudi Arabian oil) is to get the best bang for the buck. And right now, the members of the Mass Transit committee, led by Chairwoman Julie Hamos, are looking for good ideas.

Here are a few I have and I encourage you to add your own to the comments and send that over to Representative Hamos' office.

1) All data collected by any transit agency should be available online. It should be open source. Every little bit of data gathered, especially the actual trip times of each run of each bus and train, should be available online.

2) Employee data should be online as well, including salaries and benefit packages of every employee. There's a widespread suspicion that some agencies pay too many administrators too much money. If that suspicion is unfounded, then data will evaporate that objection. If it's true, then that needs to change.

3) The state should set up somewhat arbitrary standards and force every mass transit agency to use them, so that comparing different agencies will be easy. Ideally, every agency in the country would use the same standard.

What else should the state do to make sure that transit agencies work better?

I should mention that Representative McKeon's main point was that transit agencies should be planned according to a consumer-driven process. He wants to start the process by determining what the consumer expects (reliable, on-time, cheap and fast travel, presumably), and then work backwards from there in order to figure out what the agency needs to do to make that happen and what reporting processes need to be created to make sure the agency is executing the plan that leads to consumer expectations.

Meeks, Blagojevich, Topinka: an inverted spectrum on social and economic issues

Random thoughts after a week back at the Capitol.

The House of Representatives is taking a more active role in shaping the state budget than, apparently, the legislature has done in the past. Usually the Administration submits a budget (they've got an Office of Management and Budget -- the General Assembly does not) and the legislature negotiates around those basic parameters. There are add-ons in the budget to satisfy the demands of legislators and there are agreements reached on what social service agencies will receive state funds devoted to human services. But the big picture stuff generally comes from the Governor's office.

This year that seems to be changing, and that's a very healthy institutional move. The legislature ought to have an equal say in shaping the budget. I've found an odd, persistent deference to the Executive branch on setting the budget in Springfield, and I'm glad to see that the legislature is asserting its role.

I also picked up this insight on Meeks, Blagojevich and Topinka.

On the main economic issue of the next four years: whether to raise the state's 3% flat rate income tax (the lowest of the 41 states with an income tax), Blagojevich is the most conservative with his no-new-tax pledge, Topinka is in the middle with her studied amiguity and Meeks is the most progressive with his promise to raise the state income tax to 5%.

On social issues (abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights), Blagojevich is the most progressive with his best-in-the-nation record on the morning after pill, abortion rights and the like, Topinka's in the middle with her moderate branding and more conservative voting record and Meeks is on the far right with his evangelical position that essentially mirrors Oberweis'.

(Meeks reminds me that those Christians who take the teachings of Jesus seriously are economically liberal -- chasing the money-changers out of the Temple and all that).

Fun dynamics.

New jobs don't pay well. What to do? Tax low incomes less

Thanks to an anonymous poster for the link to this New York Times story about the new lower-wage economy (the basis of a new book, "The Disposable American: Layoffs and Their Consequences" by Louis Uchitelle).

Here's the end of the article:

So the demand for jobs is considerably greater than the supply, and the supply is not what the reigning theory says it is. Most of the unfilled jobs pay low wages and require relatively little skill, often less than the jobholder has. From the spring of 2003 to the spring of 2004, for example, more than 55 percent of the hiring was at wages of $13.25 an hour or less: hotel and restaurant workers, health care employees, temporary replacements and the like.

That trend is likely to continue. Seven of the 10 occupations expected to grow the fastest from 2002 through 2012, according to the Labor Department, pay less than $13.25 an hour, on average: retail salesclerks, customer service representatives, food service workers, cashiers, janitors, nurse's aides and hospital orderlies.

The $13.25 threshold is important. More than 45 percent of the nation's workers, whatever their skills, earned less than $13.25 an hour in 2004, or $27,600 a year for a full-time worker. That is roughly the income that a family of four must have in many parts of the country to maintain a standard of living minimally above the poverty level. Surely lack of skill and education does not hold down the wages of nearly half the work force.

Something quite different seems to be true: the oversupply of skilled workers is driving people into jobs beneath their skills and driving down the pay of jobs equal to their skills. Both happened to the aircraft mechanics laid off by United.

The article also mentions that more than 30% of the country has a college degree now (up from 10% 50 years ago), but less than 30% of all the jobs require a college degree. That's why a lot of twenty-something graduates are working retail. There aren't that many jobs that require a degree. And with a lot of student debt, that's not good at all.

What to do?

One thing is to tax incomes below $30,000 less than we do now, and therefore tax incomes above $100,000 or so more than we do now.

The structure of the economy is moving to more low-wage work, so it makes sense that we lessen the low-income tax burden.

The payroll tax hits jobs, not wealth. The federal income tax is somewhat progressive (higher rates for higher incomes), but the federal GOP is hell-bent on cutting high-income taxes, and has been successful at doing so for the last six years.

The state sales tax hits lower incomes more than higher incomes, and the state's 3% flat income tax rate with a very low $2100 personal exemption also hits lower incomes far more than it should.

There's a good focus on creating more high paying jobs, but we also should ensure our tax system reflects the new economy. Cut taxes on low incomes!

What should Edwin Eisendrath and Ron Gidwitz do now?

Edwin Eisendrath and Ron Gidwitz are both wealthy, civic Chicagoans who believe that state government ought to do a better job at raising our standard of living.

Since neither one will be campaigning for governor any longer, what should they do?

Start a think tank that focuses on state government.

We don't have many of them, and our state would be far better off with some entrepreneurial research from civic benefactors who want to help shape public policy.

There are tons of D.C. think tanks and institutions where federal policy is debated and shaped and prodded and discussed -- and these think tanks help move policy by serving as a crucial resource to legislators and executive branch staffers.

For progressives, a lot of that is wasted energy, since we don't have the ear of federal policymakers. We do have the ear of policymakers in Illinois -- at least, enough to get a fair hearing and the same basic values.

And now that Eisendrath and Gidwitz have formed relationships with people and donors around the state, as well as created a decent media profile, either one can take the next step at creating a permanent institution that can advance the causes they hold dear.

Great quote from Learned Hand

...life is made up of a series of judgements on insufficient data, and if we waited to run down all our doubts, it would flow past us. On Receiving an Honorary Degree, 1939, p. 137

I subscribe to a list run by www.delanceyplace.com and today's (or maybe yesterday's) excerpt was from U.S Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) Judge Learned Hand who was one of the most influential jurists of his time. Sort of the Richard Posner of his day.

I'm so glad President Jones cancelled session today

Here's the fun part about these legislative campaigns -- session starts up again tomorrow in Springfield and doesn't really stop until April 7th.

Tough schedule. I'm grateful President Jones and Speaker Madigan both cancelled session today so the political hacks like myself could sleep off this primary.

I don't have much insightful to say, but here's what I see.

Too bad about Claypool's campaign. It reminded me of the Vallas campaign and the Gore campaign on election night -- fleeting thoughts of victory only to be brought back down to earth after a few hours. Remember when Vallas was ahead from 8 to 9 pm four years ago? And when it looked like Gore won? Oh well. I can't recall any election where the victor was in the hospital.

Very glad that Debra Shore and Terry O'Brien both won for the Water Reclamation District. I can't tell who came in third. Is it Frank Avila, Jr. or Patricia Horton?

Two upsets both in 708-land in the House -- Calvin Giles beat by LaShawn K. Ford and Michelle Chavez beat by Lisa Hernandez. What do they have in common? Both of them represent the City of Berwyn.

More later on how the Cicero Voters Alliance, led by President Larry Dominick, surged for Lisa Hernandez. Lots of credit to the victory should go to former state representative Frank Aguilar. The slogan for Cicero is "the new Cicero" and I believe that Cicero is firmly on the upswing. It's a good news story for the 60,000 or so people of the Town -- most of them working-class. The Cicero Voters Alliance is probably the most influential independent (meaning they endorse candidates from both parties) political organization in the state.

And on the late results from the voting machines: I think we're going to have to somehow get used to the fact that election results will not largely be available on the night of the election. Federal law mandates these touch-screens (the Help America Vote Act), and with two systems per precinct, it will be difficult to merge the results from the optical scans and the touch screens in each precinct flawlessly.

Claypool for President; Cook County Democratic primary ballot

I voted yesterday. I have moved since the 2004 general and decided that I'd take advantage of the grace period (that ended today) to register to vote at my new address. After registering, they gave me a ballot (a large, two-sided optical scan) which I filled out and turned back in. I'm curious to find out how many people took advantage of the grace period this first time out -- and I'll bet far more will in November.

I had been a little bit torn over the Cook County Presidential election ever since SEIU endorsed the incumbent John Stroger. Some of the Stroger-supporting legislators also made a case that without Stroger's leadership, the new County (Stroger) hospital would never have been built, and that the capital investment had really paid off for poorer people. Yes, the county might have been an ossified mess, but was I somehow not sufficiently valuing the contributions that Stroger had made on health care over the last decade?

Nothing assured me more than Dr. Quentin Young's endorsement of Forrest Claypool. Dr. Young has been a fierce, relentless advocate for universal health insurance in Chicago for decades. He spent decades at County Hospital and he loves the institution. If *he* believes that a Claypool Administration would deliver more health services to the people of Cook County, then I believe it too.

That's the huge disconnect (that actually got to me for a while) on the Claypool message. Somehow, the common sense view that cutting wateful middle managers and modernizing county operations leads to more and better services, especially for poor people, doesn't intuitively resonate. It feels like wasting money on patronage bureaucrats means more health care for poor people. Most of the Stroger supports back Stroger because they believe that Claypool will cut services for people -- or they have equated 'lots of county jobs' with 'lots of health care for poor people.'

I'm proud to have voted for Forrest, and when I did so, I thought of Mike Quigley, who took one for the team and withdrew from the race in order to give the reformers one shot at the presidential race.

I'm predicting a Claypool victory. I sense a shift over to Claypool among people who are paying attention, and I also sense a lack of enthusiasm for Stroger. I think there's a strong sense of duty and loyalty to John Stroger among his supporters, but very little passion for the man or the campaign. It's a little bit like Bob Dole running for president in 1996 -- his loyal followers are limply raising the flag for an old battle-scarred veteran, not because they really want to, but because they feel they must.

I do think that this one will be close, so if you live in Cook County, you really ought to vote for Claypool.

The rest of my ballot was like this:

I voted for Tom Dart. He'll be a great sheriff.

I voted for Terry O'Brien, Debra Shore and Patricia Horton for the Water Reclamation District. O'Brien has been a very solid President of the District, Debra Shore will be a fantastic addition as a strong conservationist (check out her website at www.debrashore.org) and Patricia Horton got my third vote because Senator Rickey Hendon has been pushing for her so hard and the rest of my ticket was all white. (I would have liked to have cumulative voting rights so I could have cast all three of my votes for one candidates if I wanted to. And did you know that at one time the Water Reclamation District used cumulative voting rights when it was known as the Chicago Sanitary District? Check this out if you don't believe me).

In the state treasurer's race, I voted for Mangieri over Giannoulias. I buy the Speaker's argument that we really ought to have one Downstater on the statewide ticket, and while Giannoulias might be a touch sharper than Mangieri, Mangieri is an elected official and that matters. There's something a little wierd about running for statewide office without serving as an elected or appointed official -- or even a staffer. However, this one felt a little empty, because I think Christine Rodogno is going to be a very strong candidate for the Republicans (and probably the only GOP who wins this coming November).

And for Governor? Well, I was in a quandry. It was the last race I voted for. I looked at Blagojevich's name, and looked at Eisendrath's name, and just didn't know what to do. I know that Eisendrath is not a serious alternative, and I know that I want Blagojevich to get re-elected in November. I thought about AllKids and FamilyCare and KidCare and a ton of great Democratic-sponsored bills that Blagojevich signed. And so I planned to vote for him.

And then I remembered the No New Taxes pledge -- a ridiculous pledge made in the middle of a totally uncompetitive primary election that essentially guarantees that we won't raise the 3% state income tax and that locks us into regressive sales and property taxes as well as poor kids in poor school districts not getting a fair shot at life. I wondered whether I'd somehow weaken Blagojevich by voting for Eisendrath. No way. So, with an angry little mark of my pen, I voted for Eisendrath.

Ultimately, that's the fuel of the Eisendrath vote: Democrats who are mad at Blagojevich and want to formally express their disapproval before working to help his re-election campaign in November. Maybe a higher Eisendrath vote will help signal to the Blagojevich team that they can find a way to raise the state income tax but not raise taxes "on the hard-working people of Illinois" by significantly raising the personal exemption while raising the overall income tax rate to 5%, so that most people actually pay less, but the people who are making a lot of money pay more (since they can most afford to do so). I hope so.

Now, why am I disclosing who I voted for and opening myself up to some backlash? (And I'm having second thoughts about laying it all out there right now, as a lobbyist and political hack/operative...) I believe that the Democratic Party (and democracy) works best with honest conversation about policy and politics. It bothers me when people won't tell me who they vote for or which political party they support, because "that's private" or "you're not supposed to talk about politics." Democracy is public. And if I'm going to press people to share who they vote for in order to try to create a more civic culture (and try to convince people to vote for better candidates), I've got to walk the walk myself. I mean, I think government should be ever-more transparent, so as a citizen, I should try to be as transparent as possible. (I'm trying to talk myself into keeping this post on the internet...)

Who are you planning to vote for and why?

Procurement and pension clean-ups happening, but you'd never know it

I guess good news doesn't really sell, because the press rarely covers the legislative moves to clean up Illinois government that, over time, really do make the state a cleaner place.

The press coverage is all about pay-to-play, as if contracts are auctioned off on the rail to the highest bidder.

And when good news does happen, like Senator Schoenberg's SB 2847, which was voted out of the Executive Committee unanimously (signaling a consensus between the Senate Dems and the GOPs, especially since the co-sponsors include Senators Dillard, Garrett, Radogno and Harmon).

Bills like these are good things, and I do believe that the workhorses of the legislature don't get nearly enough credit from much of the press.

I guess as Miller says, coverage follows conflict. The inherent problem is that legislating is a consensus-seeking process (either with the majority caucus or the entire body), so most bills don't get covered very well. There's not a lot of transit funding discussion, even though it's a huge policy debate, largely because the CTA, Pace and Metra are all largely getting along.

Maybe that's why the Governor gets a lot of coverage -- he's good at creating conflict (some good, some bad).

Anyway, SB 2847 should be voted on this week. Let's see if anyone covers it (and let's hope it passes).