Our former illustrious Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached because he was "allegedly" trying to sell the open Illinois Senate seat vacated by President Obama.  He was quoted on an FBI wire tap as saying, "I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing".  What did Blago want in return?  Money. 

Then there's another Chicago politician, this time he's in Washington DC - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact.  This politician is struggling to find the votes within his own party to vote for his monstrosity of a health care reform bill.  He knows that if this thing passes, his party and his presidency will have something to finally hang their hat on.  You could almost hear his inner monologue as he ponders, "I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing".  (Just off hand, does President Obama's inner voice use a teleprompter also?)  Then it dawns on him!  There's an empty judgeship he needs to fill and Rep. Jim Matheson (D - UT) just happens to have a brother who wants that job.  Lo and behold, President Obama nominates Scott Matheson for the empty judgeship and thereby has another possible vote.  Blago has got to be proud the way that went down.

The bloggers go wild, the White House denies, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) tries to provide cover for the hometown boy.  It all seems to be another vast right wing conspiracy trying to damage President Obama.  But then, Erick Erickson over at Redstate.com finds Media Matters backs up the original story from the Weekly Standard.  Oops. 

        

Responsible government.  Isn't that what we all want out of our federal government, our state government, and even our local government?  It doesn't seem to be that hard of a concept, just spend only what you have and foster a positive business environment.  Unfortunately, no level of government seems to understand what responsible government is these days, especially the Effingham City Council.

The City of Effingham is running a deficit in their general budget of about $2 million which the City Council borrowed the difference from the TIF district account to "balance the budget".  Effingham is bleeding money and our city is still looking to build the Sports Center next to the interstate.  Amazing.  They say it won't cost the tax payer a dime.  We know how long that promise lasted when they purchased the Rosebud Theatre.  Let's examine some of the problems with this Sports Center and show why ultimately, the plans should be scrapped and the Effingham City Council should move on to the business of staying out of business that competes with business.  They should be doing what they can to attract business instead of attempting to put businesses out of business, but I'm getting ahead of myself.  There are two major areas of contention we have with the Sports Center, and a few minor areas as well.  Let's take a look at the two major areas first, then we'll examine the other problems.

Competition

Government should not be in competition with private industry, period.

On January 11, 2008, the Effingham Daily News reported about a trip some citizens and Mayor Lange took to Centralia and Highland to look at the Sports Centers in those two cities.  Many were impressed, but one citizen pointed out that the Centralia and Highland Sports Centers did not have fitness centers in their facilities.  This same citizen expressed a possible need for such plans to be included in Effingham's Sport Center.  Mayor John Lange was then quoted as saying,

Mayor John Lange said plans have not included a fitness center out of consideration for existing fitness-oriented businesses.

“We don’t want to put anybody out of business,” Lange said.

Yet, the current plans (which are a far cry from the original plans which included an ice rink) for the Effingham Sports Center do have a fitness center built into them.  As a result, the city of Effingham will be in direct competition with private owned fitness centers.  This begs the question of how can these private businesses compete with a city that can charge less than The Zone, Get Fit or Draves memberships and expect these private businesses to stay afloat.  The private businesses do not have the theoretical bottomless pockets that the city of Effingham has and if they lose enough members to the Effingham  Sports Center, some private fitness businesses will be forced to shut their doors.

The Effingham Park District would also be competing against the city, despite nobody wanting to openly admit it.  Centralia's Sport Center manager, Dee Berry, is quoted in the same article above as saying,

“This is the first place realtors bring somebody buying a house here,” she said, adding having the center seems to cut down on misbehaving youngsters."

Isn't this applicable to our current Effingham Park District?  The EPD's Mission Statement alludes to just that:

"The Effingham Park District is dedicated to providing recreational programs, activities and facilities that enrich the individual, strengthen families and benefit the community."

So what happens if the Effingham Sports Center starts offering youth basketball programs?  Having coached youth basketball at EPD in the past, the number of kids participating in their winter program is down from years past.  If they are not getting enough money to cover the costs of these programs because of reduced participants, the EPD will have to do one of three things: cut programs entirely, raise participation fees, or raise their tax levee. 

My old Economics professor once told us "monopolies are price setters, not price takers".  The reasoning behind that statement is where there is no competition, prices are set by the monopolist, not the market.  The City of Effingham is looking to establish a monopoly on sports recreation in this city, in my humble opinion.  As a result of having tax payers, Hotel/Motel tax dollars, or private donors, the city will be able to drive out any competition.  For example, take a look at Standard Oil from the 1920s before the company was broken up by the US government.  The Standard Oil monopoly did not get broken up because of vertical integration or the size of the company, but Standard Oil was broken up because they controlled most of the resources and were selling their oil cheaper than the competition could afford to do, thereby pushing their competitors out of the market.  Sound familiar?  I think it does.

Lastly, if there was such a demand for such a facility, where are the private investors jumping at the opportunity?  If private investors don't see profit and have not built such a lavish facility, then what makes the Effingham City Council believe they will succeed where others see failure?

Funding

After the purchase of the Rosebud Theatre by the City of Effingham, there is no more money left in the Hotel/Motel tax account to adequately fund all the projects proposed.  Hank Stephens, Effingham's Economic Consultant, even stated as much prior to the Rosebud Theatre bailout, as quoted in the Effingham Daily News December 16, 2009,

With other projects already slated for use of hotel-motel tax funds, there is not enough remaining in the hotel-motel tax account to sustain payments over 20 years to purchase the Rosebud building, according to Economic Development Consultant Hank Stephens.

As a result, the city council (though they now deny it) has been pushing for a .5% food and beverage tax to help offset the purchase of the Rosebud, which would in turn help find the funding for the Sports Center.  Needless to say, not many people are going to like the idea of their taxes being raised, directly or indirectly, to help pay for the Sports Center or Rosebud.

With these funding problems in mind, how does this effect the feasibility study done showing that in the best case scenerio, the Sports Center would be paid off in 7 years; worst case scenerio would be up to 38 years?  It would be interesting to see to say the least, especially in this economic climate...

Other Arguments

Who is going to run the Sports Center?  It is my understanding that Rink Management has been out of the picture for quite some time now, and how does that effect the overall cost of running the facility?

What about the local schools?  How will they be able to utilize the facility?  The local schools are owed plenty of money from the state and budgets are tight, so if there were any plans to establish swim teams at the local schools (which one school board member said has not even come up at this point), how would the schools find the money to use the facility?

If the fitness center is not included in the plans, how often will the building be used?  It seems that the entire project is based on getting people to use the facility at all times via the fitness center instead of just opening the doors for tournaments or meets.

Money is tight all around.  How will schools or organizations justify spending the extra money to attend and stay overnight (the weak justification for using the Hotel/Motel money) or add another tournament or meet to their schedule?  Ask any teenager what there is to do in Effingham and they'll tell you nothing.  Don't think that coaches and athletic directors don't recognize this as well.  Do you spend the money going to a meet near or in Indianapolis, Springfield, St. Louis or Chicago, or do you spend money to come to Effingham to have your players twiddling their thumbs when they are not competing?

If the private fitness center businesses close, then how much money will the city lose in tax money?  Besides, Commissioner Karen Flach raised another point regarding the purchase of the Rosebud that is more than applicable to these businesses as well.  She was quoted in the Effingham Daily News, November 4, 2009,

Public Property Commissioner Karen Flach was concerned about the theater’s cost to the city and what would happen to the investment if it did not generate enough revenue to keep the doors open.

"We’re going to be stuck with that building and property,” Flach said.

Think of The Zone downtown Effingham.   We would have an empty building on Jefferson Ave., downtown if they closed their doors as a result of the Sports Center.  What if the Sports Center did not go over and failed to live up to expectations?  Will the city bail out the Sports Center or will we "be stuck with that building and property"?

Final Thoughts

First, the Sports Center should be scrapped for the reasons I stated above, least of which is the destruction of private business that the Sports Center will compete against. 

Second, if it isn't scrapped, there should be a new feasibility study conducted to take into account our city and state finances, the current national economic climate, the reduction of positive income via the Hotel/Motel tax, impact to the Effingham Park District, and area school funding.

Finally, the residents of Effingham should be allowed to vote on this project in a BINDING referendum because as Mayor Lange is quoted on the City of Effingham website from August 6, 2007,

“The Sports Center is one unique project that these funds can be used for that will benefit everyone,” said Stephens, adding because the funds are restricted they can only be used for certain projects.

Mayor John Lange reminding residents that this is a “community project.”

“This project is about you, the community,” said Lange. “It is not an ‘I’ project. It is the community’s project.”

Tell me what you think.  Call the Effingham City Council members.  Write letters to the editor.  Attend the City Council meetings with signs protesting this irresponsible government spending.  Your silence is their consent!!!

        

President Obama and the Democrats had a super majority in Congress which would allow them to pass whatever they wanted whether the Republicans wanted it or not.  However, even the leftist policies of the Democrat leadership was too much for their own members.  No matter, they used legislative bribery to bring some of the lower hanging fruit into the fold.  Now, the Democrats must get their own people to vote for a bill that neither house in Congress can truly agree on.  They dallied and now have lost their super majority in the Senate. 

Urban Myth 1:  It's the Republicans' fault we didn't get a health care reform bill passed and signed into law.

Does anyone remember the big wooden door that Neil Cavuto used to keep on camera during his show?  Behind that big door, the Democrats, Rahm Emmanuel, and David Axelrod were hammering out the health care bill without inviting Republicans. 

Urban Myth 2:  The Republicans' refuse to take part in crafting health care reform.

So today, we were treated with hours upon hours of  on camera "negotiations" between President Obama, the Democrat leadership and the Republican leadership.  At the end of the day, President Obama hinted that the Democrats were prepared to go it alone on health care.  Obama was alluding to the reconciliation process which the Democrats would use a budgetary maneuver that requires 51 votes instead of the usual 60 votes in the Senate.  It's no secret that the Democrats have been planning to use this "nuclear option" for a few weeks now so basically today was nothing more than a complete waste of time.  It was meant to embarrass Republicans, but I think it kind of backfired on the President. 

Urban Myth 3:  It's the Republicans' fault that they won't negotiate.

South Park, whether you like the show or not, always has great political and social commentary.  Listening to Obama at the end of a long day of "negotiating", I was reminded of a clip where the boys at South Park were trying to muster up the courage to test an urban myth they knew that if you say "Biggie Smalls" 3 times in a mirror, Biggie Smalls will appear.  This clip reminded me of what the Democrats have been doing for the last few weeks in front of the cameras instead of a mirror.  "We looking at reconciliation", "we'll pass it without the GOP", "we're going to plan B".  Threats, threats and more threats.  If they had the courage, they'd go ahead and do it but they know they'll pay for it in November.  They don't want to do it alone because they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.



"Reconciliation".  "Reconciliation".  "Recon..."  Your move Dems, it's always been your move. 

        

For one of my education classes this week, we have been learning how to write tests so I thought I'd give it a try on here.  Let's see how you can do:

True/False
Read each statement and decide whether the statement is true or false.

1.  T     F     The spending policies of President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are sending this country toward bankruptcy.

2.  T     F     You are better off today than you were one year ago.

3.  T     F     If Governor Quinn raises our taxes, Illinois will bleed jobs faster than it already has.

4.  T     F     Man-made global warming exists.


Matching
Match the best answer to the choices given.

President Obama_____                                                                 A. Believes in socialist ideas

Van Jones______                                                                            B. Believes the CIA are liars

Vice-President Joe Biden______                                                 C. Member of "Chicago Mafia"

Nancy Pelosi______                                                                       D. Has no idea what is going on

Rahm Emmanual_______                                                            E.  Idiot

Multiple Choice
Pick an answer that best satisfies the question.

1.  What is the biggest "Chicken Little" moment?
           a.  Global Warming
           b.  Swine Flu
           c.  Passing the "stimulus package" will avoid double digit unemployment
           d.  John McCain suspending his campaign to help fix the economy

2.  What is the biggest lie told in Washington DC?
           a.  "Health Care reform is a bi-partisan effort"
           b.  "I paid my income taxes"
           c.  "We're not monetizing our debt"
           d.  "Hope and Change"

3.  Who is behind the thrashing of Toyota in front of Congress?
           a.  Car industry unions
           b.  Government Motors and Chrysler
           c.  Anti-business Democrats
           d.  The powerful Horse Buggy lobby

4.  What will Governor Pat Quinn recommend during his State of the State speech?
           a.  Raise taxes
           b.  Borrow gobs of money
           c.  Cut tax breaks for businesses
           d.  Cut non-union government jobs
           e.  Punt

Fill in the blank
Provide an answer in the blank that best completes the sentence.

1.  If Speaker Madigan has his way and eliminates the Lt. Governor office, ________________ would be the next in line to succeed the governor should he/she be unable to fulfill his/her duties.

2.  Illinois is __________________ in debt with a ____________% unemployment rate.

3.  ________________  and _______________ are responsible for that giant sucking sound surrounding the Illinois budget.

4.  It has been ________________ years since the Chicago Cubs have won a World Series.  (sorry, couldn't resist)

5.  The ____________________ is the document the Tyranny of the Majority refuse to read or respect.


Send in the answers and let me see how you did.  Good luck!!

              

        

There are those within the government - at all levels - that believe they can regulate your lives and what you do during the coarse of the day.  Most people didn't complain when they banned smoking in bars and restaurants here in Illinois.  At least the ban is not as bad as some other states or communities that have banned smoking even in people's own homes.  It doesn't really matter whether you smoke or not, that is not the point of this article.  The point I want to make is the gradual increase of government intrusion into our lives.

At the beginning of the year a new law took effect here in Illinois that banned texting on your cellphone while driving.  Proponents said that texting created "distracted driving" and can help contribute to car accidents.  To that, I ask the lawmakers who thought this was a great idea if they plan on banning small children from riding in cars (because they cry, or throw a hissy fit because they want McDonald's), or the application of make-up (I've been stuck at green lights behind these people), or eating while driving?  No?  Why not?  All these things are distracting to drivers as well and may cause car accidents, but yet we allow them. 

Fresh off the presses at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday was an article discussing IL Rep. Karen May (D - Highland Park) wanting to get a bill through the General Assembly that would ban ALL cellphone usage while driving.  She believes the law banning texting is virtually unenforcible because law enforcement can't tell whether someone is using their phone to text or to talk.  As a result, she believes her proposal to ban all cellphone usage while driving would solve the problem of distracted driving AND fix a difficult to enforce law.

Is IL Rep. May alone in wanting to ban cellphones?  Apparently not if you believe a Harris poll conducted last year that found 80% wanted a texting ban and 60% wanted a total cellphone ban while driving.

After reading both of the above articles, I realized I had heard these arguments and polling somewhere before.  A few semesters ago, I did a research paper about the radio industry from its inception to modern day.  While doing the research my paper, I recalled coming across two separate news articles from the NY Times (back when they were still the "paper of record"):



The article on the left is from 1930.  Do the arguments against radios in cars sound a bit familiar to the arguments regarding cell phones?  The article on the right is from 1934.  Notice the results of the poll conducted in the article - 56% opposed to radios in automobiles.  Sure, 63% said they did not have a radio in the car, but if you go back and read the Harris poll article, you will see that of the 60% that felt cellphones should be banned while driving, 80% admitted to using cellphones while driving.  History has a way of repeating itself.

We always seem to support those initiatives that don't effect us directly - higher income taxes, more government regulation, banning cigarettes, or banning texting.  By the time government does get around to effect your life in some way, it's too late.  Precedent has been set.  We have to stop government intrusion even when it effects someone other than yourself.  Every little loss of liberty willingly given up adds up overtime.  By the time we realize what has happened...too late.  Stay vigilant.

        

In every election it seems there is one or two people that come out of the woodwork to run as an independent candidate in various races across this fine land.  We saw a 3rd party candidate almost win in the NY-23 special election which gave some established politicos pause and sent shockwaves across both parties.  But does that mean the 3rd party is viable or does it give a warning that if we are not careful, we'll end up with the same incumbents in Congress and in Springfield that we have spent all of last year rallying against?

NY-23 gave 3rd party candidates a boost, but what are the lessons learned from that race?  First, we know that the GOP candidate in that race, Dede Scozzafava, was nothing more than a Democrat in a pants suit.  We also know that the Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman was the real conservative in the race.  But what was the overall outcome?  First, conservatism gained a renewed interest and respect within the GOP and those "leaders" within the GOP and outside the GOP who supported Scozzafava had egg on their face the second she dropped out of the race and supported the Democrat Bill Owens.  One lesson learned - vet your candidates.  However, the largest lesson learned was that the Democrat still won the seat in that race.  So did conservatives or the GOP win that election night?  Not so much, but many began to see a shift in the political winds.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against a Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton.  There was another candidate in that Presidential race as well - H. Ross Perot.  In November 1992, Clinton won the White House with by a plurality - 43.01% versus Bush's 37.45%.  Where did the rest of the votes go?  They went to H. Ross Perot - 18.91%.  Now, if you peel off just 6% of Perot's vote count, Clinton loses (at least the popular vote; I don't have the time or the resources to break down the Electoral College state by state).  If Perot was not in the race at all, how might that election and the next 20 years have played out?

In 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush was up against Vice President Al Gore for President.  There was also a 3rd party candidate in that race - Ralph Nader.  The Electoral College decided that election (some would say the US Supreme Court) with Gore winning the popular vote and Bush winning the Electoral College vote.  Bush won 47.87%, Gore won 48.73% and Nader took 2.73%.  Now, considering the intense closeness of that race, what if Nader hadn't been in the race and his 1.73% of the vote he got in Florida went to Gore?  Considering that Gore lost Florida by .01%, that's a difference maker to say the least because Florida's .  I can't imagine the ridiculousness of a Gore presidency, but how would the last 9 years been different?

In the 2006 Illinois Governor's race, a soon to be disgraced Rod Blagojevich was up against Judy Baar Topinka.  In this race, Blago won 49.79%, Topinka won 39.26%.  Again, a 3rd party candidate was in the race - Rich Whitney.  Whitney took 10.36% of the vote.  Despite Blago winning by a good margin, one can only wonder how the vote count might have been different if Whitney wasn't in the race.

In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, the incumbent - Sen. Norm Coleman - was going up against a blowhard comedian Al Frankin.  Again, there was a 3rd party candidate in this race - Dean Barkley.  After the polls closed, Coleman's lead was very, very slim.  After a recount (with possible shenanigans with ballots), Frankin came out on top and took his seat in the Senate.  How did a clown become a Senator?  Dean Barkley is how.  After the recount, Frankin had 41.99%, Coleman had 41.98% and Barkley had 15.5%.  It doesn't take a math major to figure out the results if Barkley had not been in the race. 

We bring ourselves full circle to the elections of 2010.  Much has been made about the possibility of the Tea Parties starting a 3rd Party.  In my opinion, this would be absolutely disastrous.  We live in a two party system, like it or not.  3rd parties serve a purpose by bringing issues to the forefront of elections that might have otherwise been ignored or glossed over by the major party candidates.  But that's where it ends.  Too many times the 3rd Party has played the spoiler rather than the victor.  Why do I bring this up?  Three reasons...

First, one of the dangers the GOP face is a Sarah Palin independent run.  She has left the door open to such a possibility in previous interviews, but recently has said that the Tea Parties need to "pick a party". She goes on to state that the party chosen should be an "R or a D" due to our two party system.  Even the "Rogue One" gets the idea that a 3rd party is dangerous to enacting real change. 

Second, Illinois is the epitome of a two party system state.   In addition, we face the danger of 3rd party or independent runs here in Illinois regarding the US Senate race.  Now I know most of us have some serious issues with Mark Kirk, and Alexi Giannoulias is a definite no, however, a 3rd party run would hand Giannoulias, Obama's protégé, the open Illinois Senate seat.  Right now, there are 3 candidates that have declared or are considering declaring their intentions to run as an independent against Kirk and Giannoulias - Robert Zadek, Dr. Eric Wallace, and Michael Niecestro.  All three are self-described conservatives that would peel votes away from Mark Kirk.  Whether any of them can put together a strong enough campaign is one thing, but with many Tea Parties, 9-12 groups, and conservatives looking for someone or anyone who is aligned with their beliefs to support, they could pose a serious risk to turning Illinois back toward the shade of red.

Third, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is in serious trouble in his re-election bid.  JD Hayworth is ahead in the polls against Reid, which would be awesome to say the least if Reid is defeated.  However, there is a wrinkle in the race now because the Tea Party in Nevada has entered a candidate as a 3rd Party run risking splitting the conservative vote and endangering a Reid defeat.  Time will tell if

I have to admit there is a bit of romanticism voting for the 3rd party as a protest against the 2 major parties, however, as I always write about on here, the law of unintended consequences will ALWAYS come up and bite you in the butt.  Take another look at some of the examples I sited above.  If enough people vote 3rd party, the 3rd party doesn't necessarily win, but they effect an entire outcome of an election and therefore the policies supported or enacted by those that won said elections.  In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, Frankin became the 60th Democrat vote in the US Senate making any GOP filibuster a moot point (until Scott Brown's election changed that).  Blago won re-election here in 2006 and helped send Illinois further down the spiral.  Those are just two examples, but it has been repeated time and time again.  Sure, you can point at Jesse Ventura winning Governor in Minnesota as an independent, but for every Ventura, there's a hundred or more examples than just the ones I stated above.  So I urge you to resist the temptation of voting 3rd party, because nothing good can possibly come from it.  I'm not saying we all need to automatically jump on the Mark Kirk bandwagon or any other GOP or Democrat with questionable votes or records, but at least wait to make your decision - the fate of Illinois and our country depends on it.

        

The Illinois General Assembly last year legalized video poker machines in an effort to raise $200 - 300 million to fund a construction bill that would build schools and fix roads.  I think I've heard that "gambling will fund education" line before and we've all see how well that has worked out for Illinois schools' budgets.

First, the idea that Illinois would raise that type of cash is ludicrous to say the least.  Before the legalization, just about every bar paid out on their Cherry Master machines so gambling outside of casinos is nothing new.  Every once and awhile, the Gaming Commission or the Illinois Revenue Service would do a raid and fine a bar for paying out on their machines - but everyone still paid out regardless of or the possibility of the raids.  I remember telling a state legislator (who voted against the legalization) that the cash they hoped to raise was a farce because of what I have seen through personal experience where I work.  Before the economic collapse, there would be truck drivers lined up waiting to play the Cherry Masters.  So much so that the tavern added another machine.  After the economic collapse, you would have had no problem finding a machine to play.  In fact, you might have been the only one playing those machines all week.  You see, disposable income went out the door for many truck drivers, and other drivers were laid off because of the economy.  This lack of people playing the machines is happening elsewhere as well, so how Illinois expected to raise up to $300 million is beyond me.

Second, the video poker legalization is typical of Illinois and government in general.  God forbid someone make a dollar in this state without Illinois taking their "fair" share.  Just like how the state raided a number of taverns for having Super Bowl boards.  If the state can't get a cut, they don't want it at all.  Furthermore, like it or not, Cherry Master machines helped keep some businesses in business.  Now, the Cherry Masters are gone from just about everywhere and the new "state controlled" video poker machines may not even be installed until October this year.  Times were already tough after the smoking ban, then the economy hits, and then the General Assembly takes away a decent source of revenue.  What about the revenues lost by the businesses that service, own and rent out those Cherry Masters.  How many jobs have been or will be lost because of video poker legalization?  I know of at least one company that is laying off their workers and may even have to shut their doors at some point.  That silly law of unintended consequences always seems to rear its ugly head, doesn't it.

Finally, the General Assembly include a provision that counties, municipalities, or townships could opt out of the video poker scam and ban the machines out right.  There is a growing number of localities that have done just that.  Some have done it to protect their casinos and others have done it because of the social ills that follow with gambling.  So those localities are free and in the clear, right?  Oh no, not when the state of Illinois needs and wants money...

Take a look what some members of the General Assembly have in store for those that have opted out.  HB 5313 reads:

Amends the Video Gaming Act. Provides that, if a municipality or county prohibits video gaming pursuant to the Act, then the Board, with the cooperation of the Department of Revenue, shall impose a monthly surcharge in an amount determined by the Board that the municipality or county would have been contributing under the Act had the municipality or county not prohibited video gaming, which shall be based on the maximum amount of machines that may be located within the municipality or county. Provides that, if a municipality or county fails to remit the surcharge, then the amount of the monthly surcharge shall be deducted from any amounts certified to be allocated to the municipality or county from the Local Government Distributive Fund in the next consecutive monthly allocation. Makes conforming changes in the State Revenue Sharing Act. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.

Well then.  So basically you have to have video poker or else lose funds or pay a fine.  Seems like a scene from a mafia movie - if you don't pay some protection money, something bad might happen.  Likewise, you'll pay Illinois what they want, otherwise, something bad might happen.   Nothing like Mike Madigan and his boys riding roughshod over the people, local government, and businesses of Illinois.

This whole thing is indicative of how the current Illinois government has a complete and utter disdain for business and the people in this state.  We are looked at nothing more than a cash cow for their runaway spending and for funding political favors to their favorite lobbies.  Meanwhile, Illinois sits at 11.1% unemployment (most likely close to 15% unofficially) and the budget is just over $12 billion in the hole.  Instead of trying to make Illinois as business friendly as possible, we find ourselves losing businesses and jobs.  Just ask Chicago how that unfriendly business climate is working out.  Maybe we should consider changing our state's name from Illinois to South Michigan, Chicago could be renamed West Detroit, and the state motto could be "You make it, we'll tax it, and we'll spend it".

        

Is there a reason why we still have all three branches of government in Illinois?  In theory (and according to the Illinois Constitution), the Governor has the veto power over legislation.  Who cares about that when the Speaker of House Mike Madigan won't let anything he doesn't  like get to the Governor's desk let alone voted on.

Campaign finance reform in Illinois was passed last year but had absolutely no teeth to it.  It was basically giving lip service to a commission's findings that would have possibly made Illinois politics a bit less corrupt.  The meat and potatoes of the commission's findings was limiting campaign financing by political leaders and parties.  Madigan hates this provision because over the years, he has funneled money from his campaign coffers or the Democrat party coffers to races he needed to win.  You see, Madigan is not only Speaker of the House, but he is also the Democrat Party Chairman.  Both parties funnel money, but Madigan has been a master at it.  Despite being one of 4 states without similar campaign finance laws limiting these types of donations, Madigan essentially has killed the ethics reform - for now.  Minority Leader Tom Cross said it best,

"When one person dictates whether or not a bill or a concept, an idea, a new thought, can be debated or not – it's not a democracy," said House Republican leader Tom Cross of Oswego. "That doesn't work."

Time after time, Madigan has sat on bills that he does not agree with.  No votes.  He uses the power of the Speakership to kill anything he doesn't care for whether it's campaign finance reform or concealed carry.  For over 10 years Madigan has ruled - and I mean ruled in every sense of the word - the Illinois House.

Madigan is going one step further.  As many of you know, Scott Lee Cohen was duly elected as the Democrat Lt. Governor nominee.  Then, by some miraculous feat, it comes out that he has a very checkered past (domestic abuse charges, steroid abuse, ex-prostitute ex-girlfriend, late on child support payments - all "allegedly") All this stayed silent despite a 3 month long campaign before the election where nothing was said which makes me a bit suspicious.  In Illinois it seems if you don't like who was elected, God knows we'll find a way to get who we want on the ballot.  This goes double for the Democrats this time around.  Cohen has since resigned as Lt. Gov. nominee, but now the Democrats are scrambling to replace him.  Madigan will have his say in the process as well.  Click here for a great article outlining the Democrats' problems in picking a replacement for Cohen.

The bigger news, in my opinion, is Madigan wanting to abolish the Lt. Gov. office for good.  The estimated savings would be $2.5 million a year, but as Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune points out,

A problem with this proposal is that it creates the possibility of an abrupt change in party control in Springfield based on one tragic accident, one fatal illness or one big hairy scandal.

If the attorney general is a Democrat and the governor is a Republican,  then it doesn't seem right to me -- doesn't seem fair to the voters who elected a Republican governor -- to install a Democrat as governor if, God forbid, the Republican governor should drop his hairdryer into the bathtub.

And the prospect of such a change in party rule would therefore introduce conflicts of interest into any future impeachment proceedings. Again, God forbid.  Imagine that, in early 2009, a Republican attorney general had been next in the line of succession instead of a Democratic lieutenant governor.  The Democratically controlled House might well have been less inclined to bring impeachment charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and the Democratically controlled Senate might have been less inclined to convict.

Reverse a few of those party affiliations and it's easy to imagine a hypothetical situation in which lawmakers would be more inclined to pursue impeachment and removal from office than they would be if no party switches at the top were in the offing.

Or consider the situation of a governor who is very ill or deeply enmeshed in some ghastly personal scandal.  His or her decision whether to step down might well be strongly influenced by the party affiliation of the successor, leaving us with a weakened governor.

We amended our state constitution roughly 40 years ago to make party nominees for governor and lieutenant governor run as team precisely to avoid this problem of perverse succession.

King Madigan's proposal is to eliminate the Lt. Gov. office in 2015, and then make the line of succession go through the Attorney General's office after 2015.  Hmmm.  Who holds that office now....oh, that's right, his daughter, Lisa Madigan.  Barring an appointment to the US Supreme Court (which I think will happen if Ginsburg or Stephens retires - especially Ginsberg) or her running for another office in 2014; she would be the successor to the Governor's mansion.  Since her father doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, we could possibly have family dynasty in 2 of the 3 branches of government should the Governor not be able to complete his or her duties after 2015.

Some have other suggestions from having Gov. Quinn run solo without a Lt. Governor running mate leaving the office unoccupied to making Governor/Lt. Governor candidates run together in the primaries - similar to what McKenna and Murphy tried to do.  There's also another proposal to eliminate the Lt. Gov. office and combine the Comptroller and Treasurer into one office.  But what happens if Quinn runs solo, somehow defeats Brady/Plummer and for some odd reason has to resign before his term is up?  Lisa Madigan would take over since there is no Lt. Gov. spot.  Don't think for one second that Mike Madigan has not thought that one through.

Let's face it.  One man controls the Illinois government right now.  One man dictates what legislation sees the floor of the General Assembly.  One man holds the purse strings.  One man wants to continue to control Illinois politics.  How does one man do all these things?  Because we let him.  The first way we can help defeat Madigan is to return the Illinois House back to the Republicans.  Right now, the GOP would have to pick up at least 11 new seats and hold on to what they have in order retake the House and oust Mike Madigan from Speaker.  It would be doubly great if Bill Brady beats Quinn AND the GOP take back the House.  Then, maybe we can get something done in this state - like attracting businesses and jobs, reducing our debt, and real campaign/ethics reform for starters.

        

Most of us agree that our government's spending problems did not begin on Jan. 20th, 2009 with the inauguration of Barack Obama.  However, since that day, spending has gone off the charts and our national debt is mathematically impossible to pay off.   At the time in addition to TARP, the "stimulus" package was being discussed.  In the process of this expansion of governmental powers and government spending, Rick Santelli of CNBC lit a powderkeg that exploded into the Tea Party movement.

        

OK, it's Super Bowl Sunday.  Who do you like?  I'm going with the Saints.  I think today's game with be epic.  Two #1 seeds in the Super Bowl.  You couldn't have written a better script! 

Saints over the Colts - 38-35.