We've got a problem: not enough election workers (called election judges in Illinois). Our elections are run essentially by volunteers and we have a lot of elections (four in a two-year cycle). Many election judges are senior citizens and they have to put in a 13 or 14 hour day. It's a challenge every election cycle to generate more volunteer election judges.
In a debate last week before the Los Angeles City Council on a motion to study instant runoff voting and several other reforms put together by rising star Eric Garcetti, President of the Council, Member Janice Hahn expressed a really interesting idea. (You can watch the debate here -- jump to Item #28 on the agenda).
She noted that election judges (called pollwatchers in California) are fulfilling their civic duty and serving the Republic. She also noted that lots of people would prefer not to serve in juries (they are hard to plan and many people get booted out of the jury pool). Council Member Hahn suggested that a great way to increase the number of election judges would be to release election judges from the jury pool, as serving on election day is as much a civic duty as serving on a jury of a defendants' peers.
I think it's a great idea and we ought to implement it in Illinois.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials (version 7)
Very funny moment. Edwards repeats that we need to swear off DC lobbyists money. Hillary gets asked directly whether she'd do the same. She smiled and said "John has certainly taken that position" and the audience laughs because it was such a ridiculous response. And she smiled as well because she seemed to know how ridiculous it was.
Obama then went on the attack to make it clear that the billion dollars the insurance industry spent on contributions had an influence. "I want to challenge the notion that lobbyists don't have disproportionate influence." "they aren't giving money for the public interest. They have an objective." Huge response.
Hillary defended lobbyists, many of who represent regular people like nurses and social workers or corporations who employ thousands of people. And, as a lobbyist representing progressive clients, I appreciate that. But, Barack's point that there's a lot we can do to clean up DC before public funding is implemented resonates.
Dodd: Our Constitution is at risk!
In the Obama White House, no one can lobby after serving. We need to stop the revolving door.
Clinton actually said we're safer because we are willing to take off our shoes before we go into airports. That's absurd.
Clinton then successfully attacks the unitary executive concept infecting our government and showing incompetence all over. But she then says we need a constitutional amendment to get public funding. She's just not a reformer.
Kucinich: Reminds us that 1 million innocents have been killed in Iraq and we need strength through peace.
Obama then went on the attack to make it clear that the billion dollars the insurance industry spent on contributions had an influence. "I want to challenge the notion that lobbyists don't have disproportionate influence." "they aren't giving money for the public interest. They have an objective." Huge response.
Hillary defended lobbyists, many of who represent regular people like nurses and social workers or corporations who employ thousands of people. And, as a lobbyist representing progressive clients, I appreciate that. But, Barack's point that there's a lot we can do to clean up DC before public funding is implemented resonates.
Dodd: Our Constitution is at risk!
In the Obama White House, no one can lobby after serving. We need to stop the revolving door.
Clinton actually said we're safer because we are willing to take off our shoes before we go into airports. That's absurd.
Clinton then successfully attacks the unitary executive concept infecting our government and showing incompetence all over. But she then says we need a constitutional amendment to get public funding. She's just not a reformer.
Kucinich: Reminds us that 1 million innocents have been killed in Iraq and we need strength through peace.
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials (version 6)
Barack: China is a competitor and as long as they are our banker and we are their debtors, we have less leverage. China is also manipulating their currency and closing their markets. In Africa and Latin America, the Chinese presence is as striking as the American absence. They are building roads and schools while we are obsessed with Iraq.
Dodd: Tragic sight of the adverTISEments (funky pronunciation) in DC newspapers asking for Arabic speakers after 911 to figure out what is going on. Wants a lot more global exchange.
Edwards: Pakistan is a problem. Unstable leader, nuclear power, anti-American population, Kashmir fight. Musharref said it would change everything if our kids had a public school education, USA should use soft power to educate 100M children. Opposed to 20B arms deal to Pakistan.
Richardson: Bush-Cheney policy to Musharref is one of appeasement. We won't force them to go after Al-Queda because it's domestically hard for him, We are so easy on him and we give him so much money. Richardson seems like he knows what's going on,
Interesting that
Barack: We need to change the political map together. We have got to expand the voter base. New people will let us go into Mississippi which is 40 percent black. Our rally in Atlanta had 20,000 people, 40 percent of whom were not registered to vote.
Hillary: We need to pay attention to the red parts of the blue states. Congratulates Howard Dean for the 50 state strategy.
Richardson: We need to push for same-day voter registration. (I like that!)
Dodd: Tragic sight of the adverTISEments (funky pronunciation) in DC newspapers asking for Arabic speakers after 911 to figure out what is going on. Wants a lot more global exchange.
Edwards: Pakistan is a problem. Unstable leader, nuclear power, anti-American population, Kashmir fight. Musharref said it would change everything if our kids had a public school education, USA should use soft power to educate 100M children. Opposed to 20B arms deal to Pakistan.
Richardson: Bush-Cheney policy to Musharref is one of appeasement. We won't force them to go after Al-Queda because it's domestically hard for him, We are so easy on him and we give him so much money. Richardson seems like he knows what's going on,
Interesting that
Barack: We need to change the political map together. We have got to expand the voter base. New people will let us go into Mississippi which is 40 percent black. Our rally in Atlanta had 20,000 people, 40 percent of whom were not registered to vote.
Hillary: We need to pay attention to the red parts of the blue states. Congratulates Howard Dean for the 50 state strategy.
Richardson: We need to push for same-day voter registration. (I like that!)
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials (version 4)
Congressman Kucinich calls for universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care and notes that even the insurance companies want universal health care. He wants to put the money into health delivery. His new adjective is "not-for-profit" for the health care system we want. not bad.
Edwards: I will close Guantanamo. No illegal spying. No torture. And a transparent government. Calls to swear off all money from the Washington lobbyists and credits Obama for already doing it. Huge reponse.
Gravel gets asked about his support for the fairtax. But he gets a little odd. Maybe I'm not sure whether he adds a lot of value or not. He's a little Andy Rooney. But ends up with a somewhat coherent call for statutory power by referendum.
Next question is on Kucinich's idea to use the power of the purse to get out of Iraq. Clinton explained that Senate rules really hurt Dem attempts to pass legislation. Basically says we need more Senate GOP support in September.
Kucinich says the way to deal with Cheney is to impeach him for lying. And if the President won't withdraw from Iraq, impeach him too.
Dodd: The policy has been a failure but the troops have not been.
Richardson: I have a one-point plan: Get Out. Leave no residual forces behind. Create an all-Muslim peacekeeping force. De-authorize the war with a six-month withdrawal. We did it in three months in Kuwait.
Gravel: Vote on cloture every day. Get the votes from the GOP any way we can.
Obama: There's no excuse for the act of evil of 9-11 and by the way they were not in Iraq. And we have absolutely fanned anti-American sentiment by invading an innocent nation and helping to trigger a civil war. now, end the occupation of Iraq and win the war against Al-Queda that is stronger now than they were before. We have had a pattern in the past in the Middle East where we act unintelligently where we are interested only in oil and our own interests. Pretty close to telling the truth.
Edwards: Simple formula. Less allies, more terrorists. We should not accept Bush's framing.
Edwards: I will close Guantanamo. No illegal spying. No torture. And a transparent government. Calls to swear off all money from the Washington lobbyists and credits Obama for already doing it. Huge reponse.
Gravel gets asked about his support for the fairtax. But he gets a little odd. Maybe I'm not sure whether he adds a lot of value or not. He's a little Andy Rooney. But ends up with a somewhat coherent call for statutory power by referendum.
Next question is on Kucinich's idea to use the power of the purse to get out of Iraq. Clinton explained that Senate rules really hurt Dem attempts to pass legislation. Basically says we need more Senate GOP support in September.
Kucinich says the way to deal with Cheney is to impeach him for lying. And if the President won't withdraw from Iraq, impeach him too.
Dodd: The policy has been a failure but the troops have not been.
Richardson: I have a one-point plan: Get Out. Leave no residual forces behind. Create an all-Muslim peacekeeping force. De-authorize the war with a six-month withdrawal. We did it in three months in Kuwait.
Gravel: Vote on cloture every day. Get the votes from the GOP any way we can.
Obama: There's no excuse for the act of evil of 9-11 and by the way they were not in Iraq. And we have absolutely fanned anti-American sentiment by invading an innocent nation and helping to trigger a civil war. now, end the occupation of Iraq and win the war against Al-Queda that is stronger now than they were before. We have had a pattern in the past in the Middle East where we act unintelligently where we are interested only in oil and our own interests. Pretty close to telling the truth.
Edwards: Simple formula. Less allies, more terrorists. We should not accept Bush's framing.
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials (version 3)
The first statement from any candidate was Bill Richardson and he said "I screwed up on that one."
That was cool. The moderator (Joaninmd by her kos moniker) asked about Richardson's statement on Byron White as his ideal justice. And she's got a bit of a lisp, interestingly enough.
Dodd says the Administration is trampling over the Constitution. And he said he thinks we should not approve any more Supreme Court Justices until 2009. I buy that.
It is striking that Hillary is the only woman candidate. She pointed out that all candidates are for universal health care. Her three lessons: 1) Have a political strategy 2) Build a coalition and 3) Get ready for the drug companies, insurance companies and ideologues to attack.
Barack's question is on budget discipline. 1) Stop spending 275M every day on Iraq war. 2) Don't extend Bush tax cuts on highest income brackets and 3) Institute PAYGO. But he also says that "we've got to make some investments." And the biggest fiscal threat we have is Medicare and Medicaid and we need to control costs through universal health care for long-term fiscal discipline.
Edwards said we need big changes, not small changes. And he dodged his question and instead said the insurance, drug and oil companies will never give up their power. So you need someone who will fight them, has fought them and will continue to fight them to take the power back.
Richardson: These are fine speeches but I have balanced 9 budgets. He wants a balanced budget amendment and got booed. (Edwards got a great response).
That was cool. The moderator (Joaninmd by her kos moniker) asked about Richardson's statement on Byron White as his ideal justice. And she's got a bit of a lisp, interestingly enough.
Dodd says the Administration is trampling over the Constitution. And he said he thinks we should not approve any more Supreme Court Justices until 2009. I buy that.
It is striking that Hillary is the only woman candidate. She pointed out that all candidates are for universal health care. Her three lessons: 1) Have a political strategy 2) Build a coalition and 3) Get ready for the drug companies, insurance companies and ideologues to attack.
Barack's question is on budget discipline. 1) Stop spending 275M every day on Iraq war. 2) Don't extend Bush tax cuts on highest income brackets and 3) Institute PAYGO. But he also says that "we've got to make some investments." And the biggest fiscal threat we have is Medicare and Medicaid and we need to control costs through universal health care for long-term fiscal discipline.
Edwards said we need big changes, not small changes. And he dodged his question and instead said the insurance, drug and oil companies will never give up their power. So you need someone who will fight them, has fought them and will continue to fight them to take the power back.
Richardson: These are fine speeches but I have balanced 9 budgets. He wants a balanced budget amendment and got booed. (Edwards got a great response).
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials (version 2)
It works. Cool. So, in the spirit of liveblogging, here we go.
The feel of the convention is a lot less hacky and a ot more earnest than the national convention. Almost all the people here are essentially good citizens: they care about the Republic and are trying to improve it. It's refreshing.
There are about 1500 seats and a dozen or so cameras. It's got a professional feel.
The weird celebrity vibe of incoming presidential candidates is in the air. It must be tough for candidates to stay grounded when they becom famous. I'm sure @ld have a hard time staying humble if people were genuinely excited just to be in the same room as me. I don't anticipate that happening. Maybe if I get a dog.
I wonder whether we're on the cusp of a New Deal. There does seem to be a big change in the air.
I like that a forum of presidentials is pulled together because of the netroots, not because of any interest group.
And I like that Mike Gravel gets to participate in the discussion. It's like the opposite of the corporate-funded, ham-handed Commission on Presidential Debates.
The crowd just sang Happy Birthday to Barack after Matt Bai announced it's his birthday. That was fun.
Here we go.
The feel of the convention is a lot less hacky and a ot more earnest than the national convention. Almost all the people here are essentially good citizens: they care about the Republic and are trying to improve it. It's refreshing.
There are about 1500 seats and a dozen or so cameras. It's got a professional feel.
The weird celebrity vibe of incoming presidential candidates is in the air. It must be tough for candidates to stay grounded when they becom famous. I'm sure @ld have a hard time staying humble if people were genuinely excited just to be in the same room as me. I don't anticipate that happening. Maybe if I get a dog.
I wonder whether we're on the cusp of a New Deal. There does seem to be a big change in the air.
I like that a forum of presidentials is pulled together because of the netroots, not because of any interest group.
And I like that Mike Gravel gets to participate in the discussion. It's like the opposite of the corporate-funded, ham-handed Commission on Presidential Debates.
The crowd just sang Happy Birthday to Barack after Matt Bai announced it's his birthday. That was fun.
Here we go.
Live at YearlyKos with the presidentials
I'm sitting in McCormick Place in Chicago with 1000 other progressive bloggers waiting for the presidential leadership forum to begin, My company, Progressive Public Affairs, had a booth so we've all been here since Thursday mixing it up with the progressive base of the Democratic Party.
I've got a new Treo 700 that I'm trying to use for a liveblog, so let me see if it works....
I've got a new Treo 700 that I'm trying to use for a liveblog, so let me see if it works....
Monday, July 02, 2007
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!
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)