CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Bookworm — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:02:29 -0000

Term limits are OK with me if they are fairly long -- say, 10-12 years for a leadership position like Speaker or Senate President, and 20 years or more for total legislative service. That strikes a balance between letting people hold office for life and tossing out experienced people to the point that all institutional memory is lost.

Re: Question of the day

Avy Meyers — Wed, 06 May 2009 00:15:07 -0000

Absolutely yes to term limits, the shorter the better. The powers of the legislative leaders need to be lessened and some real brakes put on outside income and employment that is even remotely involved with the state and legislative agenda.

Re: Question of the day

Arthur Andersen — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:48:31 -0000

No term limits unless they are applied across the board to all the GA and Statewides, which will never happen, so just mark me as No.

The best term limiter is a ballot box. It isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

No on the outside income idea. probably unconstitutional, and definitely a solution in search of a problem. Not that Madigan, Cullerton, or Quinn object to legislation targeting one person.

Finally, hat tip to Schnorf for this great quote:
"A big problem with reformers is when their reforms donâ€™t work they think its because they havenâ€™t reformed enough yet." Amen, brother.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:01:16 -0000

What's going on here?

We hear complaints that voters are too stupid to choose correctly, and now we don't think the legislators are capable of voting correctly for their leadership?

Stop the second guessing. No to term limits.

End gerrymandering.

Re: Question of the day

this old hack — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:53:36 -0000

horrible idea--both of them. Term limits fundamentally disrupts the proper relationship between the executive and the legislative branch.

This proposal is really bad, in that it attempts to limit the terms of the leaders but not the Governor. With term limits, power is shifted towards the executive branch under any scenario. In this one, even more power could go to a long serving Governor who would then be able to roll over newly elected legislative leaders. Imagine a Jim Thompson, with as much power as he had, without a Madigan or Rock. May as well disband the legislature.

Also a bad idea to limit outside income. In that case, only millionaires (like say Garrett or Steans) could afford to be leaders.

These are among the worst ideas from the DEFORM COMMISSION.

Re: Question of the day

levois — Tue, 05 May 2009 17:13:07 -0000

I don't support term limits, we could use the institutional memory of those who have served. If we inject fresh blood every so often is it possible to learn the system in a short period of time wether 2, 4, 6, or 8 years.

I would only support barring outside income for the state legislature's presiding officers only if they were made full-time employees of the state.

Re: Question of the day

Marty — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:50:03 -0000

I don't see why to single out the leaders--

Term limits for all, not just for leadership positions.. and for all elected office under the IL Constitution---I kinda like the idea of 10 years in any one office and 14 years lifetime limitation, maybe 12 and 16, something like that.

Outside income--

should apply to all. Used to argue legislator was just a part-time job, but in the last 20 years or so they've goosed their pay and perks to where it pays better than most of them could get in a full-time "real" world job. Limit outside earned income to something like 50% of legislative pay. The trick, as per previous commenter, is to deal with spouses, etc. and I don't have an easy answer for that.

the real answer, of course, is govt is too big and has its fingers in too many pies, so of course ego and corruption are there. That isn't about to change, so all of this is just feeble palliatives at best

Re: Question of the day

frustrated GOP — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:44:37 -0000

I love the dialog about no change. How many members are able to stand on their own. I remember talking to a freshman Senator and asking for a postion on something in the community. The repsonse was. "I don't think my staff would let me do that." Some people don't even know their own power. This person had more power then they would ever know. But the leadership got someone clueless to their power and their community doesn't get that leadership. Time for a change to break up the system.

Re: Question of the day

PONsters* — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:36:26 -0000

Let's be real honest. The quickest way to turn over control to the lobbyists is term limits on members and/or leaders
Only the truly naive/inexperienced (aka Quinn Commission) do not recognize this immediately.

Re: Question of the day

Amuzing Myself — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:36:00 -0000

LIKE the idea of legislative term limits. I seem to remember the great words about how nice it was going to be to "...have Pate gone...", "...have fresh blood in the President's office with Cullerton...", to "...have Radogno taking over as the first female leader of a majority or minority party in a chamber..."

It always seems that turnover means a sort of new day for wherever it's occurring, and I think that's something that could be good to have happening regularly...not just when somebody decides to retire from public office and leaves a vacancy. The expertise can still be there, heading committees, leading on the floor, etc. Sure it would be different, but from what I've seen the last fifteen years, different can't really be any worse, and it can certainly be better.

The limits on outside income seems silly to me. I thought this was supposed to still be a citizen legislature. Maybe lower the salaries for committee leadership spots all the way up all leadership positions so the top ones are not such highly-paid positions. I like the idea of legislators needed outside income to live comfortably.

I don't think anyone believes these reforms are going to solve all the state's problems, and those using that as an excuse to oppose them are either short on good reasons to say no or are just being disingenuous to avoid saying they support the status quo. Are they THE answer? Of course not - not alone. Might they help? They might. We're in such a mess in this state, I'm will to try. Couple that with new mapping, and I'd be interested to see where the state is in fifteen years.

Re: Question of the day

Jake from Bellwood — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:43:04 -0000

Not crazy about legislative leader term limits. Let the parties decide who their leaders will be and for how long without intrusion.
I do like limits on outside employment. This would help eliminate some possibility for conflicts of interest. Madigan, Cullerton and Cross are all attorneys whose firms court and support business with entities who seek access to those with legislative power.

Re: Question of the day

Chad — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:25:48 -0000

Steve is right. Both are bad ideas. Let the voters decide when the "time is up" for someone. The proposals seem directed at MJM, whose long tenure has generally well-served the State. He has provided perspective and "adult supervision" when it was needed. And, let's allow higher income persons who have ambitions outside the legislature to serve as leaders by continuing to allow the outside income. Abuses here would be corrected by the voters. File these proposals under "Go Gos Gone Wild".

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:51:33 -0000

Anon, leaders need the approval of the members to change the rules. I take it you don't agree with me on term limits. I'm sure just as soon as we get them things will straighten out-not. A big problem with reformers is when their reforms don't work they think its because they haven't reformed enough yet. Silly, silly, silly

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous45 — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:38:05 -0000

or let's take the example of Madigan killing gaming expansion just today...one man controlling the dialogue is insane, and to boot he is doing it for purely political reasons...why do we elect his mushrooms? What is the pont of paying State Reps? Is this equal representation? Democratic? Nope...

Re: Question of the day

Taxhound — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:36:47 -0000

Term limits for leaders - sure. Term limits for all elected positions in the state from government all the way down to mosquita abatement district.

But before term limits then eliminate pensions and other benefits and minimize compensation to a reasonable amont.

Re: Question of the day

COPN — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:28:10 -0000

missed the name box for anon 1:27

COPN

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:27:16 -0000

silly, silly, silly

Sometimes how the field is striped matters. Leadership limits strike at the heart of control over legislation. When a leader changes the rules to preserve their power post-leadership, they remain in control as a #2 party elder, or they use the purse strings of party campaign coffers to control legislation (ignoring possible legal implications), then we'll talk.

Until then, recognize that some of these stripes make sense, and please use your experience to further the conversation.

Re: Question of the day

Carl Nyberg — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:13:00 -0000

Wasn't Vladimir Putin required to give up the presidency of Russia due to term limits?

I don't understand how having a rotating Speaker with someone behind the throne holding the real power is a reform.

I'm also skeptical that the public can be sold on term limits for the Speaker and Prez of the Senate, but not for others. But maybe the public isn't the audience for this, maybe the audience is the legislators.

I guess I can go along with weakening the Speaker and Prez of the Senate vis-a-vis members of their chambers. But I think the governor (generically, not Quinn specifically) is always going to want to weaken the legislative leaders because s/he knows that weaker legislative leaders mean a stronger governor.

Even before Bush I kinda favored a strong legislature and a weak executive. Experiencing Bush has made me feel more that way.

I'm in favor of reform, but the governor pushing a reform measure that is pretty weak in general reform terms, but shifts power from legislature to governor.

I'm inclined to oppose.

And the outside income ban.... If we're going to have "part-time" legislators then they get outside income. Much of this outside income is unseemly. But the reform that needs to be enacted is one that stops them from getting money connected to their public duties and status as politicians (consulting for local gov't, tax appeals, etc.)

What if a legislator had a legit private sector job? Do we expect him/her to give it up b/c s/he's a candidate for speaker? "Sorry, the reformers say you can't take your vegetables to the market."

Re: Question of the day

frustrated GOP — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:51:26 -0000

Term limits on leadership is fine, but really what changes once the person leaves the leadership position; tey then have their list of IOU's to collect as a member. The only change I see making a difference is term limits on legislative terms. We all find indivuals that we want excepted but it's time for a significant change. the only way to remove power from leasdership is make these temporary jobs.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:48:25 -0000

Silly, silly, silly

these folks keep thinking that how you stripe the field can determine whether people will play by the rules during the game. Silly.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:45:42 -0000

Anon 45, no doubt there are examples. My point was, the commission is not selling its GA recommendations to the public with real-life, present-day examples of why reforms are needed.

Put it another way; at some point, to get some traction, they're going to have to say "We think MJM is an example of why we need term limits for leaders, and here are our reasons for saying that." Context.

Re: Question of the day

COPN — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:42:37 -0000

YES on leadership limits. Arguments emphasizing experience and a democratic electorate do not apply to limits on top leadership positions. A cursory search of our state's history shows the House speaker position changing very often. It appears that only a handful have been Speaker 6-8 years, and only one longer. The internal politics of voting for party leadership is completely distinguishable and goes beyond the argument of let the voters decide. I don't vote in any of the leaderships' districts, and it becomes very convoluted to vote for a representative based on how they will vote for their legislative leader. A 10 year cap in no way suffocates the agenda of a leader, but 30 years of a leader can suffocate the well-deserved ideas of others.

NO to complete limits on outside income. As a simple matter of equity, outside income should be treated no differently for leadership than other legislators.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:35:11 -0000

===Emil Jones===

He was a top dog for 16 years. Not far above the term limit.

Re: Question of the day

David Ormsby — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:33:34 -0000

No on legislative leader terms limits.

Neither the House Speaker nor the Senate President was, unless I am mistaken, arrested on December 9, 2008 or convicted on April 17, 2006. If the gubernatorial reform commission wants to term limit, term limit where state ethic problems apparently lie--the governor's office.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:30:12 -0000

===Rank and file State employees have to fill out a form annually and submit it to their Director to request permission to hold a second job. ===

Legislators are not state employees. I really can't stand this silly canard. They are elected officials.