Will Lightfoot make deferential gestures to Mr. Speaker to get along?

Just a thought about what the relations will be like in coming years between Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and the almighty and powerful Speaker of the Illinois House – Michael Madigan.

MADIGAN: Makes conciliatory remarks

It’s probably going to be up to Lightfoot on whether she desires an antagonistic relationship with “Mr. Speaker” himself!

IF SHE IS willing to show gestures indicating that he’s the guy of prominence within Illinois state government, it would be likely that Madigan would give support to the city’s needs and desires.

Of course, one possible key is that many of the people who were inclined to vote for Lightfoot and view her mayoral election as a moment of great historic significance likely are the same people who wish that Madigan somehow could be voted out of office.

I don’t doubt that at least a few of Lightfoot’s followers eagerly would want her to be hostile and do whatever she can to undermine his political influence.

If that happens, we’re going to see a political relationship that will sour quickly – and will make us think of the “good ol’ days” (heavy sarcasm intended) when people like Bruce Rauner and Rod Blagojevich were in positions of authority.

THIS ISSUE IS coming to the forefront because Lightfoot – although she won’t actually be mayor until mid-May, is making her first trip to the Statehouse Scene in Springfield.

LIGHTFOOT: Will she retort in kind?

She’s expected to be there until Thursday, although Madigan felt the need to issue a statement Tuesday welcoming her (sort of) to the capital city.

“I’m proud to welcome Mayor-elect Lightfoot to a Capitol where women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ community (Illinois House Majority leader Greg Harris is openly gay) are serving in critical leadership roles within the Illinois House Democratic caucus,” Madigan said.

I don’t doubt he’s being sincere, in that he wants all of those groups of people to not view him with hostility. As to whether or not he really believes in Lightfoot as mayor, that remains to be seen. But as long as he doesn’t view her as “the enemy,” perhaps she won’t view him that way either.

IT SHOULD BE noted that Madigan publicly always acknowledges the significance of Chicago’s interests in defining his job. I remember back to the days of Richard M. Daley as mayor when Madigan would always downplay talk of his own political power by saying that the mayor was the number one Democratic political official.

PRITZKER: Says he'll get along fine with Lightfoot

In theory, he’s giving Lightfoot the same treatment – respecting her new job title. Will Lightfoot return the gesture?

I couldn’t help but notice comments she made recently to WTTW-TV where she talked of “not wanting to be part of the (Democratic) party apparatus,” and also hinted that perhaps Madigan has held his dual role as Illinois Democratic chairman (since 1998) for too long.

“I respect the speaker, but I believe in term limits,” Lightfoot said – a line that likely will appease the North lakefront crowd that was the base of her voter support this month but had to have Madigan and his loyalists seething deep inside.

SO WE’LL HAVE to see just what kind of relationship Lightfoot is able to create with the state government officials. For what it’s worth, Lightfoot had dinner last week with Gov. J.B. Pritzker at his Gold Coast neighborhood residence, and he says he thinks he’ll get along just great with the new mayor.

Political amateur Lightfoot gets introduction to Statehouse Scene

But just as we’re still waiting to see how well Pritzker and Madigan manage to co-exist, it will be equally intriguing to see how the Lightfoot/Madigan ties play out.

As Madigan said on Tuesday, “I believe Illinois is strongest when Chicago succeeds and when all are heard.” Which certainly is true enough. But it seems we’ll have to see for ourselves just how sincere he is, and how much Lightfoot is willing to put aside her own ego for the betterment of the public good.

And we’ll have to see what kind of reaction she has the first time someone puts a “horseshoe” before her, that so-called sandwich concoction many Springpatchers try to portray as a culinary delight!

  -30-

Pritzker already upsets Ill. ideologues

J.B. Pritzker is still in the first couple of days of his term as Illinois governor, and he’s already managing to tick off the sensibilities of those people who have a conservative social bent on the way they want to view our society.

PRITZKER: Offends gun-rights advocates

Specifically, Pritzker signed into law Thursday a measure that sets state guidelines that firearms dealers would have to comply with in order to legitimately do business in Illinois.

THE CONSERVATIVE TYPES who believe its their “God-given” right to own as many firearms as they wish are all upset. They’re outraged! They probably, deep-down in their wildest fantasies, probably wish they could respond by going out and shooting up everybody who disagrees with them.

Illinois State Rifle Association officials went so far as to say that federal law already adequately regulates gun dealers. Nobody needs the individual states to get involved.

Although none other than mayoral hopeful Toni Preckwinkle said she thinks federal law has loopholes and that the new state regulations are meant to plug those exceptions. Thereby ensuring that people are following safety-motivated regulations when they go about selling pistols to people.

Of course, the part about this that amuses me is that Pritzker chose this to be amongst the first issues he dealt with as governor – albeit not the absolute first.

PRECKWINKLE: Says federal loopholes plugged

THAT APPEARS TO be the measure involving pay raises for state government employees that Pritzker approved, while claiming that such raises should have been provided in recent years but were denied by now-former Gov. Bruce Rauner.

A politically-partisan pot shot – further differentiating himself from his predecessor who didn’t exactly leave public life on the best of terms with those who work in government.

Now, he’s willing to take on the so-called “gun nuts” who, in fact, were claiming that Rauner would have used his veto powers to kill off this very measure.

Except that the General Assembly that approved this gun-related measure deliberately held off on sending the approved bill to the governor for consideration – UNTIL they had a more favorable governor.

RAUNER: Denied last chance to use 'veto' power

STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION President Richard Pearson went so far as to call it “political gamesmanship” and to say he was “deeply disappointed” but “certainly not surprised.”

Admittedly, there was a certain gamesmanship involved. Had the Legislature rushed the bill over to the governor immediately upon his approval, he would have used his “veto” power, while likely issuing some high-minded rhetorical statement about the redundancy of the state’s actions to federal law.

But it’s also likely he would have waited until it would have been too late for the General Assembly to come back into session during its final days last week to vote to over-ride the gubernatorial veto.

In such cases, what happens when the session ends is that the bill dies with the governor’s veto standing with no chance of being overridden.

MEANING WE’D HAVE the newly-elected General Assembly having to repeat the process of approving a bill this spring so that Pritzker could sign it into law some time during the summer months. 

MADIGAN: Cunning kept bill alive?

We’d still have the State Rifle Association, along with all the other gun groups, issuing their pompous statements in opposition. Which means their real objection is that they don’t have someone with the political cunning of House Speaker Michael Madigan on their side.

So we now have new laws in Illinois giving local law enforcement more authority to inspect gun dealers and their records, and also to keep copies of a gun-buyers’ firearms permits or other identification. It won’t be just a matter for federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents to deal with.

And perhaps the ideologues who think President Trump is justified in thinking that conditions along the U.S./Mexico border are worthy of an “emergency order” ought to keep in mind that many people in our society would have an easier time regarding the proliferation of firearms amongst the public as the real “emergency.”

  -30-

EXTRA: Political strategist Madigan vs. amateur-hour gov Rauner

Gov. Bruce Rauner concocted a scheme to try to get himself some more votes come Election Day by trying to appear to be the guy who wants to bring back the death penalty to Illinois.

Will Rauner's death penalty fantasy ...

Yet in the ultimate evidence that when it comes to politics, Rauner is a rank amateur, it would seem to be that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to wind up using the issue to take him down.

RAUNER’S METHOD OF bringing the issue up was by using his amendatory veto powers to attach the issue to a separate measure – one that would impose a series of restrictions in Illinois on firearms usage and purchase.

In short, legislators who desire to have those restrictions take effect would have to go along with his death penalty plan for people who kill law enforcement officers or large numbers of people in one fell swoop.

So what does Madigan, the man who’s been a part of the legislative process in Illinois for nearly a half-century, do?

He introduced an amendment Thursday to an Illinois Senate bill now pending in the House of Representatives, with the amendment being “the exact language the governor suggested” to bring back capital punishment.

THAT BILL WILL have a committee hearing come Monday. Legislators will have their say on the matter at that time. As Madigan put it, “we look forward to continuing our effort to keep our children, our schools and our communities safe from senseless gun violence.”

More likely, it will give the Democratic Party majority that controls the Illinois House a chance to beat up on Bruce Rauner, knock about his bill, denounce him for trying political tactics meant to impede firearms restrictions that many of them previously voted for, and pretty much go out of their way to make Monday a very unpleasant day for the governor.

Eventually, they’ll probably take some sort of vote on Rauner’s suggestion, and put the spin on it by saying it was evidence that “the people” didn’t like the governor’s ideal.

... be killed off by Madigan's political skill?

It kind of reminds me of a moment some two decades ago – back when then-Gov. Jim Edgar and Mayor Richard M. Daley came up with a proposal related to a new Chicago-area airport.

THE TWO OF them made a public announcement about what they wanted to happen, and implied the General Assembly would follow suit in coming months. Yet then-state Senate President James “Pate” Philip didn’t think much of the idea, and really was bothered by the fact he wasn’t consulted as part of negotiations.

Which resulted in Philip having the Edgar/Daley proposal written up as a bill for the Senate to consider. They wound up rejecting it outright (literally, nobody voted for it), and Philip forevermore would say of that issue, “we voted for it, nobody liked it.”

Now I know some are saying that this may be a tactic by which Madigan ensures Rauner takes full blame for trying to bring back a capital crimes statute – an issue for which the state went to lengthy extremes to abolish in past years.

Which would wind up costing him many votes in Illinois – even though Rauner is looking solely at the ideologically-inclined who might get worked up over this single issue.

BUT I SEE it more as a way of killing the Rauner plan off, while possibly trying to save the separate issues related to firearms ownership.

Reminiscent of Pate tactic

Regardless, it makes Monday’s debate more about partisan politicking rather than about any criminal justice issue.

If you want to be honest, if this gets reduced to an issue of political gamesmanship, it’s most likely that Madigan will prevail.

For Madigan just comprehends the political process and how it can be used to get things done far better than Rauner with his anti-union dreams that he tries to pass off under the label of “reform.”

  -30-

Will political pressure get Illinois to act responsibly w/ regard to firearms?

The cynic in me wants to dismiss the rhetoric being offered up by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, where he says the Legislature will begin this coming week to review a series of measures calling for responsible regulation of firearms.

Should it really be easier to purchase these ...

Largely because I’m used to the idea of a certain segment of our population being knuckleheads whenever the issue is firearms, and also because I’d have to wonder “Why now?”

COULD IT BE that after all these years, Madigan and the Democratic majority that runs the General Assembly FINALLY sees the error of its lax ways and realizes something needs to be done.

... than this?

Or is this just a matter of Madigan being sick and tired of all the focus being put on the fact his office took its sweet time in dealing with allegations of sexual harassment against certain female staffers? And the perception by some that Madigan is more interested in reducing the political fallout, rather than addressing the problems that many women have in the workplace.

Perhaps I should be thankful that people are willing to address firearms, and not worry so much about the “whys” of the matter. Because it is long overdue for us as a society to realize that nobody ever intended for everybody to own as many firearms as they desire, and for whatever reason.

MADIGAN: Why is he bringing issue up?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights isn’t written that broadly – no matter how much the conservative ideologues amongst us want to think it is.

WHICH IS WHY I find it interesting that Gov. Bruce Rauner in recent days keeps saying we need to be “respectful of our Constitution” whenever he’s asked about the need for laws regulating firearm ownership and use.

Considering the ideologues that Rauner will be trying to appeal to as he seeks re-election in the 2018 election cycle, I suspect that’s really his way of being coy and not coming right out and saying he’s prepared to use the “veto” pen to reject anything that Madigan and Democrats try to do on this issue.

Another reason, in my book, not to get all worked up over this issue and what might happen next week.

RAUNER: Constitutional 'respect' means veto?

For the record, Madigan issued a statement Friday saying the Illinois House of Representatives will take up several bills meant to address firearms.

THOSE INCLUDE REGULATION of gun dealers, restrictions on being able to purchase a military-style rifle and more laws making it clear that people with histories of mental illness probably shouldn’t be able to own such weapons.

They’re hoping that the recent string of incidents involving schools (including the one in Florida where 17 were killed, and it seems police at the scene hesitated before trying to enter) will provide the motivation to get political people to overwhelm the “gun nuts” who usually play too large a role in this debate.

My own belief on this issue (one that I know will p-o some individuals) is that owning a firearm ought to be like owning an automobile. We restrict who can have a driver’s license, how a car can be used, and always insist on saying that car ownership is a privilege – one that can be taken away from irresponsible people.

Will Illinois Statehouse become heated place we should keep our distance from next week?

Now before anyone sarcastically asks me if I ever have read the Second Amendment, I have. Personally, I think it is the part of the Constitution that has become obsolete in the 21^st Century.

BECAUSE IT MAKES mention of militias, which once were thought would be the way the national defense would be provided for without a large standing army, I believe that not restricting one’s firearm ownership ability was because one serving in a militia would be expected to provide their own weapon.

The gun-rights people claim militias and their role are now replaced by the National Guard. Yet I’ve never heard of any guardsman called to duty who had to arm himself.

As far as making it tougher to get a firearm, I’d say it ought to be more difficult to do so than to buy an automobile. So here’s hoping the General Assembly proceeds with its Friday partisan talk.

I’d feel safer on our roads coexisting with bad drivers than with the thought of people who think they’re exercising some “all-American” right by having a pistol tucked in their belt and who – on some level – are looking for the excuse to pull out their weapon and shoot another human being. Wouldn’t you?

  -30-

For Rauner, is 3rd time the charm? Or is it Steeerike 3, Yer Outta Dere!!!

Wednesday is the day that Gov. Bruce Rauner will take his third crack at presenting a budget proposal for Illinois government’s upcoming fiscal year, which kicks off July 1.

RAUNER: At what point is it Bruce's fault?

It’s a routine ritual – the governor puts forth a spending plan, the opposition party in the Legislature says the governor is out of touch. His allies come to his defense, and in the end the General Assembly approves a plan that will be about 99 percent of what the governor asked for in the first place.

OR AT LEAST that’s the way things used to work each spring when it came to putting together the plan by which state government would spend the money it had available from state taxpayers and federal government grants.

For as we all know, Illinois government hasn’t had a formal budget in place since the 2015 fiscal year that was the end of the Pat Quinn era of state government. Rauner came into office with a desire to impose a series of changes meant to undermine the authority of organized labor.

Under the disguise of being “reform,” he has decided that getting these changes is more important than having a government that operates functionally.

While I don’t doubt that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is more than willing to play political games in order to mess with the governor’s mind and prolong any gaffes he makes, this standoff we have been in for two years now is truly going to be Rauner’s lasting legacy.

AND IT IS one that is now going into its third year. Rauner will make his third attempt at proposing a state government budget, even though he’s the governor who has never been able to get a budget passed into law.

 

MADIGAN: When will he be reasonable?

Legislators whose bills continually get stalled and thwarted wind up becoming the subject of ridicule.

So the question arises what will we get from Rauner this year? Is he finally determined to show he’s capable of handling the operations of state government as many Republican governors have managed to do while dealing with Madigan as the Illinois House speaker?

Or are we truly moving forward to being on our way to having yet another year without a state budget – which is a hassle because of the Illinois Constitution requirements that a budget be in place for government to operate the way it should.

THERE HAVE BEEN efforts within the Illinois Senate to put together a budget plan that could get the state operating the way it should and enable officials to focus on the backlog of bills that now totals in the billions of dollars.

Although there are questions about whether the Illinois House of Representatives would follow suit and approve something, Besides, there also are the objections of Republican types who say this plan is nothing more than the same old tax hikes and (what they consider) overspending that has caused the financial situation that has Rauner so willing to thrown the proverbial monkey wrench into the works of state government.

So what will happen Wednesday?

I have no doubt Rauner will attempt to sound oratorical and try to make us think he’s having deep thoughts about our state’s future. Although I always suspect that our state officials don’t think too deeply about what they do – it would confuse them.

JUST LIKE THE legendary baseball catcher Yogi Berra who once said of the mechanics of hitting a baseball, “How can you hit and think at the same time?”

 

The wit and wisdom of Yogi applies too often

But at some point, Rauner is going to have to be the one who breaks – unless he really wants to be the one-term governor remembered because he couldn’t get a budget passed. There's only so far that all the GOP "Dump Madigan!" can go before people turn on the governor.

There’s a lot of rhetoric being spewed about Facebook and Twitter, with the slogan “Do the Job!” being used almost as an order to Rauner. If anything, Rauner could wind up appearing to be the reasonable one if he were to make serious efforts toward putting together a functional budget now. That is how he could convince people it's really Madigan's fault.

As for those ideological, anti-union dreams the governor has, they’ll still be there following the upcoming election cycle of 2018 – when the many millions of dollars of his own money that he’s putting into Republican political coffers may be capable of buying him a Legislature more sympathetic to his desires!

  -30-

I'm back. Did I miss much?

It has been a week-and-a-half since I last wrote commentary, and it’s kind of reassuring to know I didn’t really miss much.

A whole lotta nothin' goin' on!?!

Our state government in Illinois managed to make it through its second full legislative session without being able to come to agreement with Gov. Bruce Rauner on a budget for the state’s operations.

NOT THAT THERE weren’t efforts made by assorted politicos. But all of them were geared toward people trying to position themselves in ways so they could claim it “wasn’t my fault” when we go into a second straight fiscal year come July 1 without a state budget in place.

For I don’t care that the Legislature’s leaders have said they will continue to meet every week on Wednesday to be in place in the event a budget proposal comes forth.

Those session days are going to be the ultimate in political posturing, possibly as pompous as those mini-tours of Illinois that Rauner has made across the rural parts of the state – all geared toward trying to present the image that “It’s Chicago’s fault” that our state is bogged down in partisan politics!

All those days that I spent packing up my belongings and hauling them off to a storage locker (I’m going to have to move them again in a couple of months once I figure out where I’m going to be for the long term)  don’t seem to have had one bit of impact.

I DIDN’T MISS a thing – except for the nonsense political rhetoric that always spews up.

I’m at the point where I wonder if it’s ever possible to resolve this dispute – at least until we manage to dump the current governor from office and get someone who’s interested in governing rather than engaging in partisan maneuvers meant to undermine organized labor.

As far as my personal situation is concerned, I’m hoping to be in a permanent residence by the time my birthday comes around at the end of August. Honestly, I’m starting to think it totally realistic to expect we won’t have a state budget in place by the time that comes around.

It’s truly a level of nonsense beyond comprehension!

SO WHAT DID I miss?

The Illinois House of Representatives, under the leadership of state House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, did manage to produce something that sort of was a budget. But one that Rauner most definitely would have applied the “veto” stamp to.

Of course, it didn’t even make it that far – since the state Senate refused to go along with it. That caused Rauner acolytes who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about to claim it was the Senate Dems who screwed the pooch, so to speak on the budget process.

Only Ali is the Greatest

Various news reports indicate that the Senate Dems didn’t go along with their House Dem colleagues because they weren’t included in the negotiation process.

CERTAINLY NOTHING NEW. I remember once when the state Senate, under the leadership of then-President James “Pate” Philip, rejected a proposal negotiated by then-Gov. Jim Edgar and then-Mayor Richard M. Daley because Philip didn’t like the idea of Edgar negotiating alone on behalf of Republicans.

Heck, I remember another time when Madigan made a floor speech telling his colleagues “it is not wise” to exclude HIM when proposals are being put together. All of which means there’s nothing unique or unexpected about the fact that the lack of cooperation amongst our political people prevents something essential from getting done.

There are times when the key to comprehending electoral politics is to realize that it is all about ego – this situation will not be resolved until everybody manages to get something that enables them to make a public statement proclaiming themselves “da winnah and still champeen.”

They all want to think of themselves as “the greatest,” even though anyone with sense realizes that “the greatest” passed away on Friday. Maybe someday, the spirit of Muhammad Ali will meet up with our politicos and knock some sense into their heads – posthumously, that is!

  -30-

Does Rauner think only rich need apply?

I suppose it is the money that particularly bothers me about Bruce Rauner being our governor.

RAUNER: Money buys legislative results?

The man is engaged in a battle with the General Assembly over putting together a budget for the fiscal year that almost is over, and it is good to hear him this week talk about the need to tie those talks into discussions over a budget for the upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1.

IT WOULD BE pretty stupid to approve a budget for the current fiscal year, only to have the same financial problem recur come summer.

But what got to me was Rauner’s talk about how he wasn’t sure that the discussions could be complete by the time the General Assembly adjourns at the end of May for a summer break.

Not to worry says Rauner. He’s prepared to dig into his own wallet to come up with the cash to keep the Legislature in session (per diem living expenses for the full Legislature totals just under $20,000 per day) until talks could be complete. Because he absolutely does not want taxpayers to have to take on the overtime expenses of keeping the General Assembly in place at the Statehouse in Springfield until action could be taken.

Which won’t be until the governor and legislative leaders come to some agreement that the full Legislature can vote for. Our General Assembly truly has been one of the most useless government bodies while this political stalemate has been ongoing.

I WANT OUR government officials to get their acts together and figure out how to put together the budgets for 2015-16 and 2016-17 and not figure out schemes to try to buy themselves even more time.

Besides, it makes me wonder if our governor seriously believes that if he’s paying the tab for a special session, he has the right to demand it’s outcome.

Maybe he thinks he gets a “money back guarantee” if the General Assembly comes up with the “wrong” solution. He can return it and force them to come up with the measure he wants.

Which in Rauner’s case is a whole series of measures whose purpose is meant to undermine the authority of organized labor within state government.

ADMITTEDLY, THE MAN campaigned on that very premise back when he ran for governor in 2014. Nobody should be surprised that this is the way the man feels. He may even have a significant segment of Illinois’ populace willing to give him such a government.

But they wouldn’t be a majority, as evidenced by the fact that the Democratic majorities in the Illinois House and state Senate aren’t exactly facing backlashes for their opposition to Rauner during the past 10 months.

If our governor truly believes he can “buy” the results he wants on government, that truly is despicable. It’s not quite bribery – but it comes across as someone who thinks his wealth entitles him to order people about.

Which may well be what is most irritating about the concept of the Republican presidential campaign of Donald Trump – who acts as though he can bark orders at people and be entitled to meek compliance.

WHICH IS SOMETHING our legislators definitely haven’t given to Rauner.

But we do need a budget in place. It means the labor talks really do need to wait for a future year – particularly if Rauner is capable of such wealth that he could alter the Legislature’s composition to be more favorable to his desires.

Because if Democrats wind up losing influence and Rauner gains, it becomes their own fault. If they really have public support, they’ll keep their influence.

Rauner trying to “buy” a special session would be more frustrating to him than just trying to get more Republicans in the General Assembly.

  -30-

EXTRA: Merely a pol power shift?

The Illinois General Assembly isn’t making any progress toward approving a state budget, yet it seems the legislators are trying to keep themselves busy. That could be the most dangerous aspect of this political stalemate!

Will these people in Springfield really try to dictate ...

How else to explain the portion of the Chicago delegation in Springfield who want the General Assembly to change state law requiring that the board of education for the Chicago Public Schools be elected by the voters?

CURRENTLY, WE HAVE school board members who get appointed by the mayor. Richard M. Daley went through two decades as mayor being able to dictate who ran the school system, and Rahm Emanuel has had the same power during his time in office.

Yet the people who were desperate to dump Rahm as mayor in this year’s election cycle have also been vocal in their desire to reduce what authority he has.

Leading to the bill that could come up for some sort of vote during the November veto session, or may linger around through next spring. Or maybe it will become one of those perennial issues that causes much debate, but little activity, in the General Assembly.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of the legislators – Reps. Robert Martwick, Elgie Sims, Art Turner, Mary Flowers, LaShawn Ford and Jaime Andrade – in introducing this bill. Which calls for 13 people from across four sections of Chicago to be elected. They may think they're doing the right thing.

THEY MAY EVEN believe their rhetoric that they can advance this bill in the legislative process during upcoming weeks – the time when the Legislature returns to Springfield on the off-chance they will do something budget-related, but wind up doing this instead.

Yet I remain skeptical of the idea that an elected school board makes any real difference. To me, it sounds like a power shift.

... who gets to serve here in Chicago Board of Education?

Instead of having Emanuel in control of who runs the local school system, it will wind up being the party chairmen – the ones who often dictate which candidates for political office wind up being taken seriously by voters and which ones are the fringe kooks who get disregarded.

It would create a whole new round of political posts for the party chairmen to fill, which would mean more government officials who would be indebted to them.

I’M NOT NECESSARILY out to blast state party Chairman Michael Madigan or Cook County party Chair Joe Berrios. But does it really make much of a difference who has the influence to pick the school board members?

I think the people eager to make the change to an elected school board overestimate the difference that it would make. It has been my own experience in dealing with some of the suburban school boards that are elected that the quality of people who wind up serving doesn’t really get bolstered.

They wind up being the local politicos who, for whatever reason, fall short of getting elected to the aldermanic or trustee post they’d prefer.

Is that what we really want for the Chicago Public Schools – the people who got squeezed out of a seat on the Chicago City Council?

  -30-

Politically partisan tactics have a knack of repeating themselves at Statehouse

It’s true that Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives used political tactics Thursday to take a partisan pot shot at the idea of the “right to work” legislation that Gov. Bruce Rauner so eagerly desires.

RAUNER: Took a political hit

The Illinois House pushed forward a bill that allegedly details the specifics that Rauner wants in a new law that would undermine the concept of organized labor and unions in this state.

OF COURSE, MADIGAN’S bill wasn’t put together by Rauner’s people. His staff had nothing to do with it.

The whole purpose of Thursday was a political stunt so that the Democratic majority that runs the Illinois House (and the state Senate too) could vote “no” in such an overwhelming manner that they could say the idea was dead.

This was a political hit, similar to the scene in “The Godfather” where Clemenza killed Paulie Gatto in the car. The only thing we don’t know is if the Madigan “hit job” involved ditching the murder weapon, but making sure to take the canoli.

So yes, Illinois House Minority Leader James Durkin, R-Western Springs, wasn’t totally out-of-line when he ranted Thursday that the vote – which was 0-72, with 37 other legislators voting “present” (and seven other legislators conveniently being absent from the House chambers when the vote was called) – was pointless.

“WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY... is really a disservice to this body, to this chamber and to this building,” Durkin said.

But excuse me for not being terribly sympathetic toward the Grand Ol’ Party, which I know is really only upset that they can’t use the exact same tactics on Democrats.

MADIGAN: Following Pate's lead?

I make that statement knowing it isn’t the least bit libelous because I remember the days of the mid-1990s (back when Republicans were not only relevant to state government, but were dominant) when the exact same tactic WAS used on the Democrats.

It was an issue in which there was an attempt at negotiation, of sorts. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar and then-Mayor Richard M. Daley had reached a compromise and had publicly announced their deal – which Daley was to then persuade Democrats to support while Edgar would do the same for Republicans.

THE REASON THIS issue sticks in my mind some two decades later is the fact that then-Senate President James “Pate” Philip was offended that HIS staff was not included in the negotiations.

PHILIP: His memory lingers

He didn’t like the idea of being told what to do, not even by a governor of his own political persuasion who was supposed to be his ally.

So the very next day, before any talks to try to persuade legislators to back the governor/mayoral deal could take place, Philip had his staff put together a bill supposedly based on the ideals of the issue.

Then, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously against it. All of the Democrats voted “present.” Officially, Philip said that the vote was legitimate because it showed “nobody wants this.” As I recall, a watered-down version of the issue eventually did get passage, although bitter feelings never truly withered away.

COULD THIS LATEST action have a similar effect – in that it makes it appear that the incumbent governor is weak and capable of being pushed around by a united front on the part of legislative Democrats?

Too many similarities to politics

It would be an equal response to the tough talk that Rauner has engaged in whenever issues of organized labor come up.

Although if it were to wind up that both sides of labor/business disputes were to wind up realizing the need for compromise and to back off the cheap trash talk when trying to resolve the issue, then perhaps something good will have come from Thursday’s politicking.

 

  -30-