Will political retribution be swift and merciless? Or long and drawn-out!

It wasn’t a surprise that Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives failed to override the veto by Gov. Bruce Rauner – they have a veto-proof majority when EVERYBODY shows up and votes in unison.

DRURY: Dem with nerve to vote 'no'

But the absence of state Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, when the Illinois House met on Wednesday literally left them short.

SO WHY WOULD Democrats and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, even bother with a vote?

There was a Friday deadline for action. But the vote is more about putting people on the record – legislators were forced to take a stand “aye” or “nea” with some wimpier-types deciding to vote “present” instead.

Democrats who want to continue to have the financial support of Madigan and the Illinois Democratic Party’s electoral apparatus had to vote for an override, while Republicans who want to have a chance at getting campaign cash from Rauner knew better than to vote against it.

The bill in question was a measure that would allow for labor disputes involving state government employees to be resolved by an arbitrator. Rauner hates that idea because he claims those arbitrators are not elected officials themselves.

HE’S RIGHT. THEY’RE not. They are experts in labor law who by not being beholden to electoral interests are capable of putting the issues of any particular labor dispute into their proper legal context.

FRANKS: A usual Madigan thorn

Which might not be something that Rauner would want because one of his priorities is undermining the authority of labor unions within state government. To the point where Rauner made it known prior to the vote that he was watching the votes of eight non-Chicago Democrats to see if they would stick with Madigan (five of them did, so now they’ll get GOP abuse).

Anyway, 68 legislators wound up voting “yea” – three short of the 71 needed to override Rauner’s objections. Dunkin, in his absence, was one of three Dems who didn’t back Madigan, as were Jack Franks, D-Marengo, and Scott Drury, D-Highwood.


Springfield-based legislators Poe ...

Franks voted “present” (he’s always a thorn  in Madigan's heel; it’s a wonder at times he doesn’t just become a Republican), while Drury actually had the nerve to vote “no.” He told reporter-types at the Statehouse he objects to the fact that the measure would prevent state workers from being able to go on strike – a right he called “sacrosanct.”

WHILE THE TWO representatives from Springfield – Tim Butler and Raymond Poe – both were the Republicans who didn’t back Rauner by voting “present.” Although that was more of a stance than that of state Rep. Terri Bryant of Murphysboro in Southern Illinois.


... and Butler didn't back Rauner

The Capitol Fax newsletter reported that she was in the House chambers at the time of the vote, but somehow didn’t hit the proper button that would have cast a stance.

Bryant herself is a former state employee and member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, while Butler and Poe both have many, many members of that union who live in their district.

Voting for a measure that would be perceived as anti-union could wind up harming them when they have to seek re-election in the future. Not even Rauner’s campaign contributions might not be enough to help them prevail against a well-funded Democrat – which is something that Madigan might be able to find.

THEN AGAIN, WHAT will happen to the Democrats who didn’t back Madigan? The speaker himself refused to say this week that Dunkin was on his private “list” of persona non grata because he didn’t show up (Dunkin’s Facebook page had pictures of him in New York City).

DUNKIN: The 'no-show'

Although it was interesting to hear the boasts that if Dunkin had shown up, he could have twisted the arms of everybody in his caucus and got the 71 votes! From anybody but Madigan, I wouldn’t believe it. From “Mr. Speaker,” anything is possible.

So this issue moves forward, sort of. Because the end result is that the attempt by Democrats to claim they were making a concession to Rauner’s union opposition (the bill would have prevented strikes in the future) goes nowhere.

Which means nothing changes. Except that now, Madigan and Rauner can start punishing those people who wouldn't align with their view. Which means that we, the public, wind up losing!

  -30-

ELECTION DAZE: How did gubernatorial dreamers ‘play’ in Peoria?

Personally, I thought the Thursday night debate between Gov. Pat Quinn and Republican challenger Bruce Rauner was rather “blah.” More a matter of scratching my head and wondering, “Do we really have to pick from these two guys for our state’s next governor?”

But I can think of one group of persons who probably were ecstatic with what they heard from the two – public educators.

SPECIFICALLY, I’M REFERRING to those schools superintendents all across Illinois who have been quaking in their pants for some time now concerning a measure pending in the Illinois General Assembly – the one that seeks to redo the way state aid is apportioned to school districts.

The bill in question, which has state Senate approval but still needs review by the Illinois House of Representatives, is meant to give more state funds to those school districts in areas where property values are on the decline.

But I have heard several superintendents and financial advisors say the bill’s specifics are so complex and convoluted that there aren’t any easy ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ I have heard from district officials who are convinced they will lose money even though they technically are in areas where property taxes just don’t produce enough cash to keep the schools functioning at a respectable level.

During the debate, both candidates were asked whether they’d support the bill.

QUINN SAID HE hates it because he doesn’t like the idea of any school district losing state funds. He wants to find a way to increase the state’s share of money for all districts.

Whereas Rauner admitted he hadn’t studied the bill in great detail, but said that from what he had heard, he’d be inclined to oppose it.

Does this mean the sudden “whoosh” we heard Thursday night was the sound of superintendents across Illinois exhaling at the prospect that this reform measure may eventually wither away?

What else should we think of what was the first of three formal debates between Quinn and Rauner prior to the Nov. 4 general election?

LEGISLATORS GET ENDORSEMENTS THEY MAY NOT WANT: At one point, Bruce Rauner confessed to having respect for state Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, and state Sen. Toi Hutchinson, D-Olympia Fields.

While Pat Quinn said he respects Illinois House Minority Leader Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, and former state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale – who now is in charge of running the Regional Transportation Authority.

The question was meant to give the two gubernatorial hopefuls a chance to express some bipartisan support.

But how long will it be until those people named wind up wishing that the candidates had kept their mouths shut and not singled them out? Because we do have way too many people who view “bipartisan” as the ultimate dirty word.

POLITICAL ‘LOVE’ BY ASSOCIATION?: Bruce Rauner offered up Michigan Gov. Rick Scott, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and one-time New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg as examples of business-oriented people who achieved government office.

He tried to claim them as examples of why he should not be regarded as too inexperienced to hold Illinois government’s top political post. But I can think of many people who would view those examples as proof of why we should vote for Pat Quinn.

As for the Mighty Quinn? He tried at one point to gain some goodwill by touting the accomplishments of that Jackie Robinson West Little League team from the Roseland neighborhood that almost won the Little League World Series this year.

It makes me wonder if, on that date sometime in the future when Quinn has to appear before St. Peter and justify his admission to ‘Heaven,” will he try trotting those youngsters out as an example of something positive that happened on his watch?

GO AWAY!!!!: Chad Grimm is a 33-year-old gym manager who has the Libertarian Party nomination for governor. He also happens to live in Peoria, which would have made him the lone candidate who didn’t have to travel a great distance to partake in the debate at WTPV-TV studios in that central Illinois city.

But we didn’t get to see or hear from him, because the debate organizers wanted only candidates who register 10 percent or more in polls to participate. Various polls that have included Grimm put him at about 5 percent backing.

I know the rationale from TV types; they don’t want the stage cluttered with candidates who can’t win. But I have never bought that – I have always thought anyone who can actually beat the legal challenges and get their names on the Election Day ballot ought to be included.

So that the voters know for sure just who that otherwise-anonymous knucklehead is when they show up at a polling place to cast their ballots.

  -30-