IL House rolling over for Karl Rove

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

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

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

And now Speaker Madigan is accommodating them.

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

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

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

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

I testified against the bill.

The bill is here.

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

It's unreal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you never know.

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

Junior on Dean's Southern Strategy

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

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

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

It's a good read.

Forget the South -- Dems can win without it

This is a great article.

Democrats should forget about the South.

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

We should write off the South.

And go get the Southwest instead.

Let's get Arizona, Nevada and Ohio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice rundown of progressive victories in November election

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

Here is the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasting money and history -- tearing down old County Hospital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is awesome news.

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

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

That's the perfect relationship between the two parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not with my direct involvement anymore in Illinois.

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

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

What a great city.

Going to Springfield to lobby

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

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

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

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

I confess.

I find the legislature endlessly fascinating.

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

Can you think of a more diverse bunch?

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

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

No income tax below poverty line

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

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

What to do about it?

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

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

Don't tax them.

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

Let me repeat that.

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

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

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

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

Here's where the rubber meets the road.

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

Let's make this concrete.

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

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

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

Which is a fortune to someone barely making it.

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

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

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

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

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

$225 per tax return will cover that cost.

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

But this is a different issue.

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

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