CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Okay Then... — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:15:28 -0000

Ain't that a kick in the head?

The text edited out of my previous post was inspired by the movie "A Bronx Tale," which is a story about a Mob Boss named Sunny and an impressionable young neighborhood boy he befriends. Sunny and Mike Madigan are very similar. Just sayin' .

Ron Mexico,
Other states have term limits and are doing quite well. California is an extreme case on just about everything, so it is not fair to use it when making comparisons.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Ron Mexico — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:46:10 -0000

Take a close look at California (at least we're not California!!!) before you advocate term limits. In the Cal. legislature, there's far less interest in responsible, long-term planning than in Illinois...

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Okay Then... — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:43:33 -0000

I agree with this. Politics in this state do function like organized crime

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

wordslinger — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:29:32 -0000

Cousin Ralph, that Acorn Leviathan just keeps on keeping the folks down.

Their insidious presence in institutions like Lehman Bros., AIG, and the SEC for their own enrichment is the untold scandal of our time.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

CircularFiringSquad — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:32:56 -0000

DuP Dan ---- Did not mention, but I never forget the "love my guy, hate the institution" folks

I also forgot to ask what grand service, program etc would become available in IL with the weak caucus, weak leader era that will come with term limits:
--- more sloppy doctors
--- nuke plants on the lakefront (opps they got that lsst time)

I think you get the point and understand how far off the mark the Capt Fax was this a.m. Fortunately it was lost in the Sun Times discovering that pensions are expensive.

Good thing most of us will never collect one

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Inish — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:28:53 -0000

Dictators only lead by permission. It is not a viable excuse to say it is Madigan's fault when less than 50% of the eligible voting population bothers to get off their couch and be counted.
The analogue is DEAD on- the population at large does not operate from fear but apathy- it is easier to say "it's their fault..."

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

bluedog demo — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:19:32 -0000

and the voters thought a Constitutional Convention would cost to much. How much is the current " system " costing you the lemmings ?

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Quiet Sage — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:18:34 -0000

Rich-the situation you describe is an accurate depiction of the General Assembly circa 2002 (pre-Blagojevich). The situation is much more severe now, with a cracking of Constitutional structures designed to preserve some checks and balances in the respective powers of the legislative leaders and Governor. For example, the unlimited discretion conferred upon Governor Quinn this spring to spend $1.2 billion in tax payer dollars is an abnegation of the legislature's duty to appropriate funds for specific purposes, and a violation of Constitutional separation of powers. The apparent extinction of conference committees, and even votes to recede on legislation, curtails the ability of rank-and-file members to influence the shape of legislation in the later stages of its passage.

Pre-Blagojevich, it was understood by all the major players that a legislative session would end in a grand, compromise deal negotiated by the leaders. The rank-and-file legislators had some input on the final result with respect to specific issues of particular interest to them. Also, the mere process of compromising forced the leaders to accept some opposing positions. Now, it appears that the the leaders are no longer willing to compromise, and there will be no more final deals.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Rich Miller — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:10:04 -0000

===What about the stupid pension schemes over the past===

You mean when Cross substituted members on a committee last spring to help kill a pension reform bill?

lol

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Its Just Money — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:06:44 -0000

Rich, You have yourself pointed out in your own Capitol Faxes that the House Republicans are the most democratic (small "d") of the four caucuses. While you did at least mention the House Democrats, you couldn't think up one single example over the years? What about the stupid pension schemes over the past, where House Democrats even took the Floor and said they were bad ideas, or later on said they wish they could take back their vote? And you ignore the fact that a handful of House Republicans bucked Cross when they voted for the transit bill? And you single out the House Republicans because, what...Lou Lang is blaming House Republicans for not raising taxes? The REPUBLICAN party that is in the MINORITY doesn't want to raise taxes. Shocker!

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Nobody Sent — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:52:22 -0000

yeah, they got a lotta buffers...

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Responsa — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:43:09 -0000

Good article Rich, and some really insightful and thought provoking comments today to add to the discussion. But gawd, the seeming hopelessness of being able to change it all almost makes you want to stick your head in a gas oven sometimes. And, it's not because most voters are apathetic, IMO. I just think most voters feel a heavy sense of helplessness, too.)

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

dupage dan — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:35:33 -0000

Circular Firing Squad,

You forget that local voters also like the idea of someone who brings the bacon home. Local issues are important but a rep who is (or perceived to be) a powerful figure in the legislature will be re-elected. Everyone likes term limits for the other reps in other districts. That's why it is difficult to enact term limits.

VM, Perfect analysis. While I agree with the description of the power structure that Rich presents, you describe with devestating accuracy the overall milieu in which it operates.

I wonder, is there anything us comrades can do to accelerate the process?

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Shore — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:13:27 -0000

The problem with your column and the blog is that there are 2 ways to change the system. Editorial boards and political journalists can either target the leaders (unlikely to work) or you ran rip the rank and file legislators and let their constituents know what they are really all about (unlikely to be done by media because you guys buy their shtick as nice innocent victims).

The latter was tried and used to get rid of the GOP Congress. Editorial boards accross the country held nice 7 term legislators accountable for iraq, spending, corruption despite how well they had lead and or voted on things like health it bills and pork brought home.

You have the option to change things, and it starts with being a real political columnist and naming and shaming these members you say are the foot soldiers-the hamos's, may's, garrett's, schoenbergs, who somehow aren't accountable for the springfield cesspool.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

CircularFiringSquad — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:09:39 -0000

Capt fax: Hate to say this,but this was an extremely poor analogy....the "soldiers" are locally elected by registered voters. Theb they are reelect.
These locally elected officials react to local issues
Any leader who does not respond does not stay leaders very long.

a strong caucus can yield a strong leader who can stand up to well financed, special interests --- be they banks, utlities, insurance, gamblers. sloopy doctors or shoddy manufacturers.

Without strong leaders who runs the show? Crackpots like Blagoof? Media darlings?
Special interest stooges?

Term limits will only serve those masters
Be careful in following Motehr Tribune too far down the road.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

You Go Boy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:55:45 -0000

Excellent article. We are cursed with a regime of "Fredo's", statewide and nationally. I tell people everything you want to know about life can be found in The Soprano's or The Simpson's. Blago has the intent of a gangster and the brains of Homer Simpson.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Pot calling kettle — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:35:55 -0000

I you find a horse's head in your bed this weekend, I hope you'll be willing to tell us. :)

Even when someone is left swinging in the wind, the remaining members have to decide whether it's worth it to go alone...it's not. Since the leaders control both the bulk of the campaign cash AND the leadership positions and committee chairs (which add to a member's pay and boost fund-raising potential), it would be really stupid to go against the flow. You'll notice that the extra pay for leadership remained intact even in this year's tight budget.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

siriusly — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:27:36 -0000

Good column as always Rich, but I think its too simplistic. The mob's ultimate power came down to the ability to protect life and inflict death and was only partially checked by fear of jail. In Springfield there are many other forces at work.

I think the end of Casino might be a more appropriate analogy. Where if the mob ceases to control the casinos, another force, like the corporate entities just grows in power. Power abhors a vacuum. If the legislative leaders didn't have the power, the special interests would.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

The Doc — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:25:58 -0000

From the beating a dead horse department - that's why we've witnessed such a disinclination to change our state's redistricting process. Unless and until incumbents are more fearful of their constituency than they are of their party leaders, there's little motivation to buck the trend.

And MSM coverage of this particular issue, which I consider to be of the most import, has been woeful.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

downstate hick — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:24:00 -0000

Great article Rich,

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

VanillaMan — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:21:49 -0000

I don't compare our state government to gangsters. I compare them to the Soviets.

Both Illinois and the old Soviet Union are one party governments in a decaying economic environment. Since 1976, more people move out of Illinois, than move in. The state's economy is stagnated. The national economic booms are either non-existent or fall far shorter here than in most other states.

After 35 years, we have a government that is focused on protecting what is left of the economic pie. When these things happen, you get top-down government decision making, few reforms, and little economic growth. The people in power, remain in power. They pass their power onto family members. What you are describing as gangster-minded organizations, is what we have seen repeatedly through history when an economy stagnates - it forms these kinds of governments.

The immediate solution isn't a government solution - because the government is the problem. There are no viable solutions capable of coming from governments in this situation. This is why we have seen the budget gridlock repeatedly since 2005. Reality is meeting political lies.

Feeding this organization with more money will also not work. The problem of reduced revenue is due to the perpetual economic stagnation, not due to low taxes.

Pro-government supporters don't get it. We have a broken government which has failed to keep the economic success that was Illinois throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries. Illinois government got insular and started focusing on internal monetary redistribution instead of external monetary gain. The lacked the foresight previous Illinois governments had, so when the Industrial Age slowly petered out - so did Illinois.

While it is not wrong to be concerned about how the stagnating economic pie is being divided - not focusing on growing that economic pie is the real problem. We have been stagnating for a generation. It took that long to eat up all the extra, because Illinois was that successful!

With our stagnant economy, we have stagnant Soviet-style government.

The solution will require that we allow this corrupted, broken state government to bottom. Stop bailing it out. Let it crash. Rats don't leave until the ship sinks. In our case, if we don't want the rats to continue running Illinois, the only way to get rid of them is to allow this ship to sink.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

Rich Miller — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:11:25 -0000

===But you cannot say the same for Cross and Radogno. I cannot understand why Crossâ€™ caucus continues to follow him into the abyss.===

Um, didn't those two sentences contradict each other? Re-read the column, please.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

wordslinger — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:03:47 -0000

In any system, in any society, at any time, leaders -- saints, sinners and everyone in-between -- will always seek to maximize power. It's human nature.

That's why the designers of the American system created separation of powers, checks and balances.

One of the problems we have in state government is that the great majority of citizens are indifferent to its workings. That allow those who show up -- whether at the polls, or in campaign contributios, or in lobbying -- to exert a disproportionate influence on how power is exercised.

What's the percentage of the voting-eligible population you have to persuade to win a primary? Bupkis.

Is it hopeless, can you beat the system? Absolutely. Jane Byrne did. Harold Washington did. They did so with massive voter turnouts. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

blah — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:03:21 -0000

Rich, this is a fun read, but I think you are over-generalize the legislative leaders. Your account is true for Madigan and I bet Cullerton as well. But you cannot say the same for Cross and Radogno. I cannot understand why Cross' caucus continues to follow him into the abyss. In 2008 the state democrats were tearing themselves apart, yet Cross managed to lose seats. His top Deputy, Brent Hassert, faced a complete unknown (McAsey) and should have had Cross' "protection" but if you look at the reports, it is as if they just let Hassert lose. It was a landslide. If you're in his caucus how can you even pretend Cross will help you after he left Hassert hanging in the wind?

Re: Loyalty and protection – The Springfield way

cassandra — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:02:47 -0000

I agree with everything Rich says in the article but I do think we citizens bear part of the blame

If the state House and Senate are dictatorships, the dictators probably don't want to lose their
loyal minions and contend with new, unknown, legislators, so they do have pay some attention to
helping them retain their seats. So if the legislators are getting a lot of mail or calls about an issue, the dictators have to pay some attention to that.

But how many people know who their legislators are and how to e-mail them or where to write them a letter. How many of them actually write those e-mails and letters. You many not have a lot of respect for these folks, but they are the only legislators we've got. And pressure on them means pressure on the big bosses, if it gets strong enough. You have to work within the system while trying to change it. Or do something, not nothing.