-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2008/10/06/tribune-urges-yes-vote-on-con-con-erickson-lays-out-whats-at-stake/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"Maybe Wrigley was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything. I guess Wrigley is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, a missing piece."
The only thing that the "Yes" side is missing is a few hundred thousand for radio. If some one provides it in time, it will pass.
The "no" side has nothing to offer but fear itself, and the ratification vote at the end of the process washes most of that fear away.
To address Bill's FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), how much money is is costing the state's taxpayers to continue with business as usual? What were the costs of trying to rig the question? Secondly, why was it a good idea to have a con-con in 69-70, but not now? The State constitution is not like the Federal one. It requires some tweaks as shown by the evolution of the behavior of the politicians.
Your money's likely going to have to come from folks outside the state... Unless you know a few wealthy conservatives willing to part with a few hundred K.
The no side and its acceptance of "political reality" only offers the idea that democracy has failed, that we should through up our hands and return to crown rule.
How many times since 1990, Bill?
Bill?
John Wintrop ghost contacted us and he wants you to return his powdered wig.
LOL! Man.....I'm speechless....
I also enjoy watching Bruno try and con everyone here. This guy admittedly has recruited over 50 delegates and has an extrememly conservative agenda outlined in his book. He hopes that everyone will not look behind the curtain and only focus on his recall message. He is a prime example of the dangers of con con and the zero accountability of delegates.
If you're insinuating that's the reason those reporters and myself are writing this stuff about the con-con, I have two words for you...
1) Bite
2) Me
" . . .The General Assembly has sent fifteen proposed amendments of the 1970 Constitution
to the voters. They are summarized below [1990-present, adopted only here--CF].
Adopted amendments . . .
1990: Amended Article 9, section 8 again, to subdivide the kinds of real property
having a shorter period for redemption from taxes into two groups—one with a redemption
period of 6 months, and the other with a redemption period of one year.
1992: Added to Article 1 a new section 8.1 on rights of crime victims.
1994: Two amendments were proposed and adopted.
(1) Amended Article 1, section 8 to remove the requirement of face-to-face confrontation
in criminal trials between witnesses and defendants.
(2) Amended Article 4, section 10 to change the intended legislative adjournment date
from June 30 to May 31.
1998: Amended Article 6, section 15 to strengthen the process for discipline of judges
charged with misconduct."
Amendment initiatives can be made only for Article IV, but must be, according to a Supreme Court ruling be for both "structural and procedural subjects" (Article 14, Section 3 annotation).
Vote for whomever you want. Without some change in the Constitution, the newly elected legislators will still be led by the old guard.
Bill, quit yelling at the kids running through your front yard.
It isn't just the governor who is at fault here. For example, has anyone noticed that the current constitution mandates that pensions be paid but DOESN'T mandate that they be funded? Apparently the people who wrote that clause assumed the GA and governor could be trusted to take care of that -- but they haven't. All three branches of government are to blame here because the Ill. Supreme Court ruled way back in the 70s that it was OK for the state to skip pension fund payments as long as it didn't endanger anyone's CURRENT benefits. There are other examples as well. We now know how badly these powers can be abused, and therefore need to take measures to prevent their abuse in the future.
Send a message to the political plutocrats, and their friends and families feeding at the public trough, that politics and government as usual are no longer acceptable.
Illinois is ready for reform even if the politicians, unions, and other established interests are not.
We can do better!Vote yes for Con-Con! Let the chips fall where they may.
Please define "extremely conservative agenda."
Just in case some one doesn't know, I tell everyone in the beginning of all of my presentations and debates that I'm a talk show host, and generally perceived as pretty conservative.
For my part, keeping a pension guarantee clause in the Constitution, but also mandating the funding of benefits is hardly an "extreme" position. (and BTW, Secret Sq., I think you are naive. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing in 1970) Neither is fixing the balanced budget clause so that it actually mandates a balanced budget.
Who ever we "recruit" still has to get elected, and last time I checked, that is done by the people of each district.
Next, what ever changes are made to the Constitution have to be ratified by the voters, and I doubt any "extreme" right-wing issues would get passed any Illinois electorate.
My guess is that you've read the same tea leaves we all have here in IL. There aren't enough tax dollars (or future tax dollars) in the state to pay for the army of bureaucratic dross, their end-of-career largess, and EROs that force every one in IL to pay for their living off the tax payers for the last 20-30 years of their lives.
The biggest fear of the "no" coalition is that the gravy train will end. The fact is that has to end in any case.
118 delegates in a convention will fix things faster, and in a better fashion, than the current process and/or people.
Vote "Yes". Bad ideas won't get passed ratification.
The biggest tax increase ever was voted in by the "informed" electorate after the 1970 constitution. Home Rule -- or "self government" as the conservatives liked to call it then has resulted in Cook County and Chicago having the highest sales tax in the nation. Its never been called a called a tax increase. Fear mongering -- you bet -- but fool me once ...
An accurate point re: home rule, but totally non-persuasive re: the 2008 convention vote.
I'm reminded of the many enjoyable debates against Dan Proft on this issue. Let's see...
a) the 1970 convention got us a bad constitution, therefore,
b) another convention is a bad idea.
WTF!? Who the hell thinks that way?!
Let's see, GWB is a bad president, therefore elections are too risky, let's keep him in office until "better leadership" comes along.
It's absurd logic on both counts.
The 1970 Convention was scripted in advance by all the powers that be. (Ogilvie, RJDaley, et al.) A 2008 convention is unlikely to be scripted in the same fashion. (not that our book wouldn't be a great script, IMO) Hence the special interests' fear of a convention. Anything they can't script HAS to be "too risky."
I'm 100% with you re: "Home Rule," which is NOT "local control" by citizens, but control by difficult-to-defeat local pols.
If you want to repeal/reform Home Rule along citizen driven lines? A convention is the only way you'll ever get there.
Every citizen in the state should ask themselves what top 3 things they would do to improve Illinois. Ask yourself whether a convention is more or less likely than the current process to get those improvements. The answer points to "Yes" every time.
your thinking is very noble and one that I wish we all shared. Unfortunately, this state threw out the 9th grade civics model of government back before the Cubs won their last world series. Unfortunately, the powers that be, In Kass' words, the combine - would influence this convention just like they influence everything in this state. If we get a convention -- hold onto your wallets -- all levels of government in Illinois need revenue.
So? The machine influenced the last con-con, too. The resulting document wasn't bad at all for the times, but times have changed.
Give up if you want. Your perogative. You must be a Cub fan. lol
You know I can see your IP address, right? lol
Thanks for the compliment.
Unlike Kass, who complains about the so-called "combine," but won't offer any ideas to combat or replace it, I haven't given up yet.
I see a "yes" vote as an opportunity, not a guarantee. Some people make a living "cursing the darkness," and Kass is better at that than most. (very similar to my conservative curmudgeon friends who think I'm crazy)
I'm jist sayin "let's light this candle!"
Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed.
Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed. ====
And 2/3s of our senators are not running at all.