U.S. Senate

Not since 1971 has a Republican sat in this seat.  If the GOP can win in Massachusetts, maybe there is hope for this country after all.  I'm sure the liberals will create some way to delay Brown from getting his seat, and the media will try to downplay the importance of this win, but to me this proves that the people are sick and tired of big government and out of control spending.

Gov. Jim Edgar and US Senate candidate Rep. Mark Kirk will be having a free event next week.  Details here.

Join Governor Jim Edgar
for a Meet and Greet Tailgate with
Congressman Mark Kirk
Republican Candidate for US Senate

Tuesday, January 12
6:00 – 7:00 pm
iHotel, Alma Mater Room
1900 S. First Street, Champaign

This is pretty remarkable, given that Giannoulias has run statewide and Kirk hasn't:

In thinking about the 2010 Election for the United States Senate, suppose you had a choice between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mark Kirk or Democrat Alexi Giannoulias?

41% Kirk

38% Giannoulias

4% Some other candidate

17% Not sure

President Obama is at 56/42 approve/disapprove in Illinois, which is much lower than I would have thought.  Gov. Quinn at 47/49 is also lower than I would have thought.

The poll also shows that the entire GOP field for Governor is largely unknown right now.

Rep. Mark Kirk is getting hammered by Republicans and conservatives for his vote in favor of Friday's "Cap and Trade" global warming legislation. 

Greg Hinz seems to think that his vote makes Kirk more likely to run statewide, for the US Senate. 

But President Obama's home state now is bright blue and Mr. Kirk's "yes" vote would be helpful, maybe very helpful in rebutting Democratic charges in a statewide race that Mr. Kirk is just another out-of-touch Republican.

 Mr. Kirk wasn't available to discuss his vote, and his office hasn't even released a statement. But his voting record has drawn consistent applause from environmentalists, who compose a big chunk of the base vote in Mr. Kirk's north suburban district.

I disagree, and think that it's more likely he now runs for re-election to the House in Illinois' Democratic-leaning 10th District.  Thoughts?

Not to long ago the government came out with a report talking about the solvency of the Medicare and Social Security Funds.  It is not surprising with the economy doing poorly that these funds are not doing as well as expected.  The social security fund will be exhausted in 2041 and Medicare will be exhausted in 2020.

That is a little alarming but really that still is a few years away we can sit on this awhile longer right?  Wrong!

What they don’t tell you is that the tooth fairy has sold you a bill of goods.

Welcome to reality folks.  That SS “trust fund” is a figment our imaginations.  Where exactly does the government put this money it is saving?  In US Treasury bonds.   Hmmmmm so in the year 2017 when our income in SS tax is less then our anticipated expense the government will be able to cover it with what????  Who actually pays back these bonds with interest?

That’s right they can print more money or increase our taxes….. yea problem solved.

Tribune:

Over Republican objections, Democrats who run the Illinois Senate defeated legislation today that would have allowed for a special election to replace appointed Democratic U.S. Sen. Roland Burris before his term ends in January 2011.

The 3-2 party-line vote at a Senate committee represented another setback for Republicans who have been pushing for a special election since then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich made the appointment weeks after his Dec. 9 arrest on political corruption charges. Among the federal accusations is that Blagojevich tried to sell the very Senate seat he later gave to Burris.

I can only quote Russell Roberts of Cafe Hayek:  "This is a bad idea...But if you think it's a good idea, fine. Just don't bury it in a bill that's supposed to save the economy. Put it out in the daylight and let people debate it."

The bill in question is the spending bill slouching towards the President's desk for his eventual signature.  Taken along with the previous entry, the entire idea scares the living crap out of me.  Which apparently is one of Tom Daschle's goals...(H/T to Reason's Hit & Run blog)

HG

Barack Obama's stimulus plan is getting panned mostly for its enormous price tag, which is nearing $900 billion, not including interest payments.  But what is perhaps as striking is its low bar for job creation.  Obama says that his program will create 3 million jobs in "a few years".    If all those jobs are "created" and no jobs are lost, that would be a 2.2% increase in employment.

Now take a look at Ronald Reagan's plan of tax cuts in 1981.  According to the Bureau of Labor statistics, Reagan's plan created over 5 million jobs in four years, an increase of 5.5%.

How low is the 3 million jobs bar?  Well, in 9 of the last 28 years, the economy created 3 million jobs in a single year.  Obama wants the most massive government debt and spending program in the nation's history to create the same number of jobs that were created in nine single years in the past three decades.

Harry Reid is saying that no one in the history of the Senate has had the Secretary of State signature rule waived.  It might be a moot point at this point, as White has apparently certified the document that he didn't sign.  Although, because the appoinment itself isn't signed by White, Reid and Durbin might still try to not seat Burris.

But six years ago, in an extremely controversial move, Gov. Frank Murkowski from Alaska appointed his own daughter, Lisa Murkowski, to replace him in the US Senate.  If you think the Alaska Secretary of State signed that appointment, you'd be wrong.  There is no Alaska Secretary of State.  So to say that the Senate Rule has never been waived is inaccurate.  It was waived at least once in the last decade.

Tribune:

Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat.

Also just heard the same thing on WDWS.

UPDATE:  Maybe not?

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is denying an AP report that Roland Burris will be seated in the Senate. The report is "wrong," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.

"There are have been no decisons," Manley said.

What a circus.

A few interesting tidbits out of the Democrats in the Senate this past two few days. 

Harry Reid says that he's open to a deal to seat Roland Burris and then offers up this line which can't really be what he means...at least I hope not.

We think that we're pretty clear on what we believe is the law, and the precedent in the United States Senate that we are, we are the ones that determine--Democrats and Republicans determine who is going to sit in the Senate.

I'm still a big proponent of elections myself.

But maybe the biggest news of today was from Dianne Feinstein.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators.

Mike Madigan called the legislature back into session three weeks ago to consider legislation for a special election.  If that bill had been passed and signed by the Governor, we'd be having a campaign in Illinois instead of a circus in Washington.

I wrote last year about why I think it is likely that Roland Burris will end up in the Senate seat.  Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the various legal arguments that have been made, but I think that on balance the scholars are coming down on the side of Burris and Blago.

Rich Miller has done excellent work in writing about the political nature of the impeachment process.  In essence, the Senate can remove Blago for reasons that don't need to reach criminality.  But he's wrong in suggesting that the power of the Senate to not seat Burris is clear.  First, the article he cites conflates jurisdiction and justiciable.  They are two separate terms with two separate meanings.  Clearly, the US Senate has jurisdiction when it comes to reviewing this appointment.  But just as clearly, under Powell, their decision is justiciable, that is, a court can review it.  Miller links to a WaPo article that quotes former Frist Chief of Staff Eric Ueland.  Like anyone associated with the U.S. Senate, he feels strongly about their prerogatives.  That he suggests that the Supremes couldn't review this is no surprise.  And that the Post didn't find another commentator on this on New Year's Eve is also not surprising. 

But don't be misled. The Slate commentary from Amar and Chafetz is not typical.  A better view I believe is Rick Hasen's, whose electionlawblog is the best source in the Country for election law news and analysis.  I pointed yesterday to a few other law scholars.  Add Ann Althouse to your reading and this ABC news analysis as well

My concern is that the WaPo article and the analysis by Miller will be matched by partisans who will convince the public that the dirty work of keeping this appointment from Blago will be done by the Senate.  That's a dangerous road to follow and one that I and many others believe will lead to an appointment that no one seems to want.

We need a special election.  Any legislator who punts this important decision to the U.S. Senate or to the U.S. Supreme Court is doing a disservice to the voters. 

From ABC in Chicago.

UPDATE:

Notice of meeting here.

I plan to be there.  If there really happens.

That's likely the end result of the Blagojevich appointment.  There's a nice roundup at Bench Memos.  Volokh and Brian Kalt with more.

It is remarkable to me how many people have taken as fact the presumption that the Senate can refuse to seat this appointment.  The controlling law here appears to be Powell v. McCormack.  America has been here before and the Supremes have ruled that the member must be seated.

Certainly the Democratic Party doesn't have a monopoly on grandstanding, but in this instance their moves are incredibly cynical.  They purport to not want Blagojevich to have this appointment power.  They can take it away from him next week if they want by simply passing legislation calling for a special election.  But by offering up the option that they can pretty clearly see is unconstitutional they are all but guaranteeing that Blagojevich will have this appointment. 

I suspect that when all is said and done, Burris will be sitting in Washington in the Senate seat.  And Democratic legislators will come back to their districts and claim they tried.  The reality is that they didn't try.

Now we have other scenarios to consider.  For example, if the Burris appointment goes to court but Governor Quinn tries to appointment someone else on February 15th, will the Senate seat that person?  What would be the effect of votes cast by the Quinn appointee if the Supreme Court rules that he/she should never have been appointed. 

The solution is easy.  Let Roland Burris have this seat until April 7th.  Elect a new Senator on April 7th and immediately seat that person.

After Lisa Madigan got clobbered by the Illinois Supreme Court you'd think our elected officials would be a little more careful about providing Blago with another public relations win.  Jesse White may have done that with his promise to not certify his pick of Roland Burris to the Illinois Senate seat.

It's hard to see how a court would see White's certification of Blago's appointment as anything other than ministerial.  Just as I don't have the ability to kill a County Board ordinance by not signing it, I don't think White can stop this appointment.  Further, the requirement that White certify the appointment may not even be Constitutional.  White's stand, like Madigan's, seems to be taken more for political gain than out of any legal principle. 

And for another fun thought on this circus, imagine that a court does order White to sign the appointment.  Now it gets tosses into Harry Reid's lap.  I'm not sure, but I think that in any lawsuit by Blago against Reid, Madigan would represent the State of Illinois.

Shameless:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

And Illinois' Democrats could have stopped this crooked clown from appointing somebody, but have both actively chosen not to pursue a special election, and are dragging out impeachment weeks longer than it needs to take.

(Hat tip:  a commenter in today's Open Thread)

UPDATE:

Video of the press conference:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Shameless. Why hasn't he been impeached and convicted yet? What is taking Illinois Democrats so long?

A little more on the topic that I just can't let die.  :)

I was recalling the special election of Harris Wofford from Pennsyvlania in 1991 (which was something of the canary in the Republican coal mine as it turns out) and went to look for the Pennsylvania law on filling vacancies.

 § 2776. Special elections for United States Senator; nominations     

Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator, said vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by the vote of the electors of the State at a special election to be held at the time of the next general or municipal election, occurring at least ninety (90) days after the happening of such vacancy, and it shall be the duty of the Governor to issue writs of election to the various county boards of elections and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth within ten (10) days after the happening of said vacancy. Candidates to fill vacancies in the office of United States Senator shall be nominated by political parties, in accordance with the party rules relating to the filling of vacancies, by means of nomination certificates, in the form prescribed in section 630 of this act; [FN1] and by political bodies, by means of nomination papers in accordance with the provisions of sections 951, 952 and 954 of this act. [FN2] Said nomination certificates and nomination papers shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of said special election. Until such time as said vacancy shall be filled by an election as herein provided, the Governor of the Commonwealth may make a temporary appointment to fill said vacancy.

Anyway, this is the type of law that I think could work well in Illinois, not just for this vacancy, but for future vacancies.

The News-Gazette had a nice editorial in support of the idea of having a special Senate election with slating of candidates instead of a primary.

Then how about a compromise offered by Champaign County Clerk Mark Shelden? It would certainly be much less expensive, and it would give voters the final say on Obama's successor.

Shelden proposes that leaders of the three qualified parties (Democratic, Green and Republican) each slate a candidate this winter in time for the April 7 consolidated election – when all Illinois voters are eligible to go to the polls anyway. Depending on how the special election law is written and when it is passed, there's even a chance that independent candidates could get on the April 7 ballot. Shelden estimates the additional cost statewide at about $25,000 (the expense to print special ballots).

Randy Balko says Illinois Democrats should, as a way of washing Blagojevich's taint off their hands, nominate former US Senator Peter Fitzgerald to Illinois' vacant seat.

In retrospect, Fitzgerald's most notable achievement may have been a stand he took that, oddly enough, contributed to the fall of Blagojevich. In the spring of 2001, a U.S. Attorney vacancy opened up in Illinois. Traditionally, senators who represent the state where there's a U.S. Attorney vacancy are asked to nominate someone for the president to appoint. By custom, senators nominate someone from the state party for these positions—big donors with a law degree, kin or friends of powerful politicians, sometimes even an actually qualified prosecutor.

At the time Fitzgerald was considering whom to nominate, state and federal prosecutors were investigating Illinois' Republican governor, George Ryan, on a wide range of corruption charges. Fitzgerald worried that an up-and-comer from the state party might hesitate to investigate his party's governor, or might face political pressure to go easy on Ryan. So he went out of state, nominating New York prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) to the position.

That decision won Sen. Fitzgerald the wrath of his party, conservative grassroots activists, and Karl Rove, who Fitzgerald says tried to browbeat him into nominating someone with more party loyalty (a bit of a foreshadowing of the coming scandal with the politicization of the Justice Department). It even won Fitzgerald contempt from Chicago newspaper columnists, who scolded him for not putting a native up for the job.

Sen. Fitzgerald's instincts were correct. U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald sent Ryan to prison. He'd go on to prosecute Scooter Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, and he now heads up the investigation into Blagojevich. He's one of few Bush Justice Department officials to show a contempt for corruption, no matter which party the corrupt official calls home.

Interesting idea.  It won't happen, of course, as I don't think Fitzgerald is even an Illinois resident any longer, and, as Rod Blagojevich so memorably put it, a US Senate seat is a [bleeping] valuable thing, and Illinois Democrats aren't just going to give it away for nothing.

A $50 million dollar figure for conducting a special election is being bandied about, generally by the opponents of the special election.  This figure is inaccurate, although it is based on some substance. $25 million is more accurate since the special election schedule could be wrapped in with the current election schedule.

But there's a free option that isn't getting enough attention.  As I said in a previous post, by having the parties slate candidates for the general election and allowing a filing period for independent candidates, we avoid the cost of a February primary and put the Senate candidates on the April 7th ballot when every voter in Illinois is already scheduled to vote.

This option isn't unusual.  In fact, if Barack Obama had quit on July 1st of this year, the scenario I am proposing would be exactly what would happen.  The Senate race would have been forced on to the November ballot, beyond  a primary date, thus creating a vacancy in nomination.  The three State Central Committees would then meet and slate candidates. 

The cost of doing this isn't quite free.  For Champaign County voters it would be under $1000.  About a thousand federal only ballots would have to be printed and some people overseas would be sent ballots who would otherwise be ineligible to vote in the April 7th election.  Add a few more bucks because the newspaper publication would increase by about two column inches. 

Of course, primary elections are the preferred way of selecting these candidates.  But the slating method would save $25 million and also give us a date certain for having a Senator.  It also is a reasonable compromise between all parties.  As it stands now, I wouldn't want to bet on the impeachment and removal process ending before then.  And certainly the public support for the person elected is going to be higher than if he/she is selected by the Governor, either Bloco or Quinn.