The House has overwhelmingly overriden the Governor's budgetary vetos, and sent them over to the Senate, where President Emil Jones, the leader of the Democratic caucus, has said repeatedly that he will not allow a veto override vote. So some Senators, including some Democrats, are doing some public posturing:
State Sen. Mike Frerichs, D-Champaign, was one of about a dozen Senate Democrats who appeared onstage at the event. He called the rally "impressive."
"I think they make a strong case for override of the governor's budgetary vetoes, and I'm very hopeful that in the next week, parties can come together and reach some sort of agreement so we can cast that vote," Frerichs said. "There are a lot of important state agencies and state services that have been cut by the governor's vetoes. I think we worked a long time this summer in putting together a good budget and the governor comes in at the last minute and changes it. I think we ought to stick to our original agreement."
In addition, it's refreshing to see that some are starting to recognize that it's not just Governor Blagojevich, but rather that President Emil Jones is a huge part of the problem:
Shortly after the House voted 105-4 to override Blagojevich's mostly petty and politically motivated budget vetoes, Jones was asked if he would allow the legislative process to work as it is supposed to. "Oh, no, no, no," he said.
Later, however, Jones was quoted as saying, "I don't know. You know, things change. I might change my mind." And Sen. Michael Frerichs, D-Champaign, said Wednesday that Jones has hinted that he might allow override votes on some budget items. Frerichs declined to say which ones.
A vote on only some of the items vetoed by Blagojevich will not suffice. That was the message from an override rally in the Capitol Wednesday afternoon, attended by advocates for employee unions, social service agencies, park districts, arts groups and others. It also should be the message that Democratic senators, including Frerichs, send to Jones.
I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea of what, if anything, Sen. Mike Frerichs and the other Senate Democrats are doing behind the scenes to try and pressure Jones to allow a vote. And I'll reiterate that I'm not defending the local projects - it's the process that's bothering me.
So I think it needs to be emphasized that the Senate Democrats, including Sen. Frerichs, are the only people who can pressure Jones. He is the Senate President because they chose him. He gets his power directly from the Senate Democrats. If he fails to allow a veto override vote, it's because the members of his caucus are unable or unwilling to hold him accountable.
If Governor Blagojevitch can change the budget to suit himself, as he appears to believe, then what's the point of having a legislature?
If the Senate Democrats are regretting their choice of Senate President, then why don't they vote Jones out and someone else in? The answer to this one is probably obvious, few like the job he's doing, but fewer actually want to replace him.
"If Governor Blagojevitch can change the budget to suit himself, as he appears to believe, then what's the point of having a legislature?"
He can't - he needs Senate President Emil Jones to block a vote in the Senate. Otherwise, Blagojevich's vetos will be overridden.
"If the Senate Democrats are regretting their choice of Senate President, then why don't they vote Jones out and someone else in?"
That's the key question.
Criticize Jones all you want; he deserves it. But let's not forget that Pate Phillip was just as bad as Jones. It's the system that stinks.
"Criticize Jones all you want; he deserves it. But let's not forget that Pate Phillip was just as bad as Jones. It's the system that stinks."
I'm sorry - I agree that the system stinks - but I don't remember Pate ever breaking an agreed-upon budget deal that had been approved by veto-proof majorities in both chambers. Jones is taking Illinois' legislative autocracy to all new levels, and the powers which he is granting to the Governor by his inaction are absolutely unprecedented.
Phillip regularly refused to call bills that had passed the house, just like Jones.
"Phillip regularly refused to call bills that had passed the house, just like Jones."
Apples and oranges. Philip never broke an agreed-upon budget deal by refusing to allow a vote.
The system needs revisions. Both Phillip and Jones have dealt from the 'bottom of the deck', however Jones will only play with his deck. Come on Constitutional Convention!!!!!
Give me a break IP. You're just posturing that somehow not calling this particular bill is somehow worse than all the other bills Jones AND Phillip refused to call. It's the exact same behavior and style of governing. Exactly. Just because they didn't display it on the exact same bills doesn't mean it's radically different. As the great blues songwriter Willie Dixon so eloquently said, "It's that same thing..."
Phillip was a pig, and I'm glad he's gone. Sadly, Jones is turning out to be just as bad.
Anon-are you jealous?
"Give me a break IP. You're just posturing that somehow not calling this particular bill is somehow worse than all the other bills Jones AND Phillip refused to call. It's the exact same behavior and style of governing. Exactly. Just because they didn't display it on the exact same bills doesn't mean it's radically different. As the great blues songwriter Willie Dixon so eloquently said, "It's that same thing...""
No, they're not.
A legislative leader has always bottled up bills they didn't like. A legislative leader has never, in my memory, negotiated and agreed upon a budget with the other leaders and then gone back on his word. This isn't like any other bill - this is the budget, and that makes it very, very different. If you don't realize that, I'm sorry, but ask some folks under the dome.