Capitol Fax

Rich Miller's commentary on State Government

It's no secret that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is probably the most unpopular Illinois governor in living memory.

The entrenched politicians and special interest groups who oppose a state constitutional convention are rightly worried that the public's mistrust, even hatred, of this governor will skew November's vote. Every twenty years, voters are given the right to call a constitutional convention, and the next opportunity is this November 4th. Opponents fret that Illinoisans may decide to make the constitutional convention vote a referendum on Rod Blagojevich. If that happens, they say, then illogic and emotion will prevail and terrible consequences could follow.

Ridiculous.

The truth is that Rod Blagojevich is a walking, talking poster child for a constitutional convention.

Blagojevich's disastrous, harmful and years-long fight to the death with his political nemesis House Speaker Michael Madigan has featured numerous and often dangerous attempts to exploit the constitution's needlessly vague language.

For instance, the courts have gone back and forth on gubernatorial veto powers, and Blagojevich has seized his opportunities. The governor believes he can use his amendatory veto power to drastically write totally new legislation and send it back to the House and Senate for approval. Others say his amendatory veto authority is limited to only minor corrections to whatever passes both legislative chambers.

Trouble is, the constitution's language is so terribly vague that nobody really knows who is right.

This may seem too "insiderish" to you, but the governor has used those amendatory vetoes to act as if he is a legislature unto himself by creating gigantic and complicated new laws. Most of the constitution's drafters who are still alive will tell you that they never meant this to happen, but they should also admit that they did a very poor job of wording the provision.

Nothing in the Illinois constitution specifically gives the governor any authority to create what are known as administrative rules. In the past, the General Assembly would pass legislation, but it would also allow state agencies to come up with the details needed to implement the new laws. Many years ago, the legislature created an oversight committee to make sure the governor's rulemaking stayed within reason, and Blagojevich even signed a law a few years back to give the legislature more power to stop his rules.

Since then, however, Blagojevich has used administrative rules to create completely new programs out of nothing. When the special legislative committee tried to stop him, he said it had no authority to do so, thereby ignoring the law that he, himself had signed.

Blagojevich essentially believes that he has almost dictatorial powers to create new taxpayer-funded programs without the General Assembly's approval. Speaker Madigan retaliated by demanding that almost all bills had to include language forbidding the governor from creating new rules. The fight has basically halted all major legislation this year. A court recently shot Blagojevich's argument down, but he still won't admit defeat.

The constitution allows the governor to call special sessions of the General Assembly, but Blagojevich insisted that he had the authority to call special sessions at any time he wanted. That case went to court as well. The governor's lawyers then demanded that House Speaker Madigan be sanctioned if he did not call special sessions at the exact times demanded by the governor and also guarantee that enough legislators were present to conduct business. The sanctions and quorum arguments were dropped, but the governor can now call special sessions at 3 o'clock in the morning if he sees fit, even though nothing in the constitution gives him that specific right.

I could go on for days, but I'm running out of room. The point is that Blagojevich has done us all a favor by attempting to exploit these and many, many other constitutional loopholes. We now know where they are and how to close them. And we also know that if we don't do something about this, then Blagojevich or the next governor who decides he's a dictator can't be stopped.

So, if you believe as I do that Gov. Blagojevich has abused his constitutional powers, you should vote "Yes" on a constitutional convention.

Always remember that you'll have the right to vote for convention delegates, and then you'll vote up or down on any and all constitutional changes. It's not nearly as scary as the other side wants you to think.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.

Pew On CAFO's

A new study of CAFOs claims they take more money away from rural communities than they leave behind and leave less money in rural areas than do smaller, family-run farms. The study, released Sept. 24, by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP), and entitled "Impact of Industrial Farms Animal Production on Rural Communities" was conducted by Tim Kautza, a science and environmental education specialist for the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and Holy Cross Brother David Andrews, former executive director of the Conference

The PCIFAP is an independent group formed by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is chaired by former Kansas Governor and Archivist of the United States John Carlin, and brings together accomplished individuals from a variety of backgrounds, including academia, public health, agricultural production, the food industry, veterinary medicine and the general public.

The report contends that large-scale confinements return $1 to the economy for every $1 spent, while smaller operations return $7 for every $1 spent on the development.

The study was commissioned two years ago because of the "challenges all livestock, dairy and poultry producers face with the reemergence of avian influenza and other zoonotic diseases," said Carlin. "American agriculture is the most productive in the world. As the number of farms has declined, the number of animals produced for meat consumption has increased. That means animals are being raised in more and more concentrated operations. The potential public health consequences, particularly the increasing threat of zoonotic diseases like avian influenza, was studied by the Commission, as well as the impacts these types of operations have on the environment and rural communities. It is in everyone's interest, including producers, that concerns are addressed and viable solutions found."

The co-authors reviewed 40 years' worth of peer-reviewed empirical studies on the social effects of industrial livestock production, including work by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, Ohio State University and the University of Missouri, and concluded that "what began as a pursuit of efficiency to improve production for all farms has unintentionally resulted in a decline in economic freedom for them and an imbalance of economic power favoring dominant farms within the industry rather than individual producers."

The study illustrated the economic disparities in today's farming. "Farms with a gross income of $100,000 made nearly 95 percent of their expenditures locally, while farms with gross incomes in excess of $900,000 spent less than 20 percent locally. That means that most dollars made by the industrial operations do not stay in the community and help it thrive, but instead leave the community, draining it economically." The study also found that industrial livestock workers earn 58 percent of the typical wages in their area. About 45 percent of all hired farm workers ages 25 years and older earn less than the poverty threshold for a family of four. Greater than one-third have family incomes of less than $15,000, according to the report.

Richard O'Connor

Pearl City IL

Out of Line

After my last week's letter to the editor regarding the incompetence of Senator McCain's campaign and stating how they insult my intelligence, The Publisher of this paper decided to add a note. The Publisher's note referenced the votes for the financial bailout by Senators Obama, Biden and McCain ­ that all three insulted our intelligence and that the bailout was opposed by the majority of the citizens. The Publisher also added at the end "What do you think about that".

Number one, this note was totally out of line since my letter had nothing to do with the bailout. Second, the Publisher's statement that the majority of Americans opposed the bailout is not true. According to a September Newsweek issue, "the Pew Research survey released on Sept. 23 found that 57% of respondents think the government is doing the right thing". This is the time when the Bush Administration was working with Congress on the $700 Billion bailout. And last, what I think about that! Let me tell you. The government should not be in the bailout business; however, since the republican failed policies of deregulations got us where we now find our selves, the current government had to something to alleviate the situation. This is typical Bush's shock doctrine; get us into a catch 22. Damn if you do and damn if you don't.

It is amazing to me that the same deregulating republicans the put us here are the same now crying about the bailout. That is the way I feel!

Paul Gonzalez

Lake Carroll, IL

And This One

Tom Kocal is entitled to his opinions, but I know of no newspaper other than the Prairie Advocate where the publisher reprimands letter-writers who disagree with him. Paul Gonzalez, for example, hada valid point in the last issue: Sarah Palin, by not answering questions and by repeating scripted speeches, demonstrated her unfitness for the office of the vice-presidency of the United States.Gonzalez' statements thather interviews insult our intelligence is, of course, an opinion, but one shared byeven several Republican columnists.

Tom Kocal added a "Publisher's Note" beginning "Remember, Paul" and taking Obama, Biden and McCain to task for voting for the Bailout Bill, a subject not evenmentioned by Gonzalez, and asking him, "What do you have to say about that?"

Gonzalez, not having access to the newspaper before it is printed, could not answer. However, many readers might agree with Thomas L. Friedman that "putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative."

It would make more sense for Mr. Kocal to state his opinions in an editorial or op-ed piece, instead of trying to play "gotcha" with his readers.

Patricia Wemstrom

Mount Carroll

Publisher's Note: Thanks for the reality check, Pat and Paul. You are correct. I should have vented my frustration in a commentary. I should have cut the comment, since I wrote it in frustration. My apologies. But I didn't say that I disagreed with Mr. Gonzalez. My frustration comes with the lack of attention and discussion on the part of most everyone regarding the passage of the Bailout Bill. The two presidential candidates and one VP candidate had the perfect opportunity to show their leadership abilities and their commitment to "real change" (from the Obama camp) or the claim that their administration will be different than the usual "Washington politics" (from the McCain camp). I ask you both: How do you really feel about the campaign ads, the so-called debates, and the media slant - both ways? Don't you tire of the noise? I look for, and find, more enlightened discussion on internet blogs than I do from newspapers, TV and radio. Last week, I will admit, I fell into the same category that I abhor.

Save Our State Parks

We would like to provide this update to you on the "Save Our State Parks" campaign, launched by Lt. Governor Pat Quinn.

The current status is that our state parks are still in danger of being closed.

On Tuesday, Oct. 7, Governor Blagojevich signed Senate Bill 790 into law, sweeping dedicated funds into a special budget restoration fund. Although we disagree with some of the funds that were swept and the consequences of the sweeps, this is still only half of the action needed to restore funding to DNR and keep the parks open.

The action that is needed is for the Governor to sign Senate Bill 1103, and authorize spending to keep state parks open. Without the Governor's signature, state parks and historic sites will close at the end of November and state workers will be laid off.

We ask that you continue your citizen action and send a loud and clear message to Governor Blagojevich that it is not acceptable to close 11 state parks and 13 historic sites.

What can you do next? Two things:

1. Please call the Governor's Office and let him know that you want to keep these parks open! Chicago Office: - Capitol Office:

2.Tell your friends to sign the "SaveOurStateParks.org" petition!

We are currently at 23,000 signatures so far on the petition drive, and we would like to double that number by the end of the month.

Lt. Governor Pat Quinn launched the "Save Our State Parks" online petition drive to prevent Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich from permanently closing 11 Illinois state parks and laying off 39 employees.

On August 28, Gov. Blagojevich announced the closure of 11 state parks as part of his effort to slash $ 14 mil lion from the budget of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

State parks which will be closed on November 30 include: Castle Rock State Park and Lowden State Park in Oregon; Hennepin Canal Parkway State Park in Sheffield; Illini State Park in Marseilles; Channahon Parkway State Park in Morris; Hidden Springs State Forest in Strasburg; Kickapoo State Park in Oakwood; Moraine State Park in Leroy; Weldon Springs State Park in Clinton; and Wolf Creek State Park in Windsor.

In the most recent year, there were more than 44 million visitors to Illinois state parks and recreation areas. Wildlife watching, hunting, and fishing contribute $2.4 billion to the Illinois economy each year, according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey.

Please ask your friends to sign the petition. This will make even a stronger statement that our parks are important to our citizens, our health and our economy.

www.SaveOurStateParks.org

Marc Miller, Senior Policy Advisor

Office of Lt. Governor Pat Quinn

Springfield, Illinois 62706-4700

Capitol Report

By Jim Sacia, State Representative, 89th District

A Constitutional Convention ­ should we or shouldn't we have one?

We have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) in the upcoming November 4th election. The fact is our last one was held in 1970, and at that time they decided the question on whether to hold another, should be on the ballot every 20 years. I'm glad we have that opportunity.

It's safe to say that there is a great deal of opposition to revisiting our state constitution coming from many organized and professional groups, ranging from organized labor to the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, teachers' unions and others. My goal with this column is to lay out some of the pros and cons.

First of all, holding a Constitutional Convention will cost us, the taxpayers, up to $78 million at a time when the state is having great difficulty paying the bills.

A recent quote from Secretary of State Jesse White in a periodical noted that "voters must approve any changes (to the state constitution). Opponents to a Constitutional Convention argue that special interest groups and lobbyists will influence delegates and dominate the convention to benefit their clients, but a strong argument exists that these same groups already have disproportionate influence over the legislative process.

While elected representatives approve any changes to the laws of our state, any changes proposed at a Con Con must be approved by the citizens. This approval process gives voters the opportunity to participate directly in any revision of the constitution, countering the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists." To me, that speaks volumes. You the voters will be the final authority on whether or not the delegates did their job.

Speaking of delegates; who will they be? Any one of you can be a delegate. There will be a process established whereby you can run for the position, raise money and campaign to win the seat. Yes, it's history in the making.

The reality is that a Constitutional Convention is an opportunity for real change. Illinois has more than 6,900 units of government, both state and local. That's far more than any other state. Delegates could propose ideas to consolidate state and local governments to improve efficiency. Term limits could be created for elected offices. A fairer process could be established for deciding representative district boundaries to replace the current system that almost everyone agrees is badly broken.

Some argue that the current amendment process works, so why a Con Con? This past year we observed government operating at its worst in Springfield. We watched three prominent leaders successfully circumvent the will of 12.8 million people. That is completely unacceptable, and no amendment will fix it.

I believe the most important point to note when making your decision on whether or not to hold a Con Con is "Any proposed changes to the constitution must be ratified by the voters before they become effective." In other words, you're still in charge.

As always, you can reach me, Sally or Barb at or e-mail us at . You can also visit my website at www.jimsacia.com. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.