Part-Time Pundit

Press Release: Illinois Citizen begins Petition Drive for Constitutional Amendment

CHAMPAIGN – Today Illinois citizen and activist John Bambenek began a petition drive to place a state constitutional amendment on the November 2010 general election ballot. Citing the frustration at the gridlock in Springfield and the chaos caused by massive cuts to social services spending, Bambenek believes that the time is right to reform the Legislature.

“We’ve had two very different governors now, and while Blagojevich was a significant problem, the dysfunction in Springfield remains under Quinn. The only consistent feature of our dysfunctional state government is the Legislature,” Bambenek said.

The amendment will fundamentally change the Legislature by converting it to a unicameral (or one chamber) body and return to three-member districts with cumulative voting (total of 177 members). Additionally, it will implement long ignored reforms such as reforming redistricting, implementing term limits of no more than four two-year terms, term limit legislative leaders to only one session (two years), end shell bills, require a seven-day public viewing period for all legislative, provide for any bill to get an up-or-down vote upon motion of at least 25 members and greatly reform the process for legislative pay raises.

“Now isn’t the time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, it is time to decentralize power in the legislature. When one man can cause political and social chaos simply to bolster his daughter’s political prospects, something is very wrong.”

In explaining why he is taking the effort to circulate a petition to put the amendment on directly, Bambenek said, “The campaign contribution caps bills shows that we simply cannot trust the Legislature to reform itself. Regardless of what someone thinks about caps, “caps for everyone but Mike Madigan” is a radical power grab masquerading as reform. The framers of the Constitution put this right of citizens in our state constitution explicitly because the legislature cannot be trusted to right itself.”

The amendment will be called the “Bambenek Put-back Amendment” design to Put the voters Back in charge. If Bambenek is successful in gathering enough signatures (legal minimum of just less than 280,000), the amendment will be listed on the ballot and requires no General Assembly Action. It will pass upon 60% of the votes approving the question.
###

John Bambenek is a political activist, writer and co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC), a political action committee created to inform and organize Illinois citizens to take more of an interest in state government. For more information visit the ICC website at www.yesforillinois.com.

###

July 3rd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Politics, Putback Amendment | no comments

Press Release: Illinois Citizen begins Petition Drive for Constitutional Amendment

CHAMPAIGN – Today Illinois citizen and activist John Bambenek began a petition drive to place a state constitutional amendment on the November 2010 general election ballot. Citing the frustration at the gridlock in Springfield and the chaos caused by massive cuts to social services spending, Bambenek believes that the time is right to reform the Legislature.

“We’ve had two very different governors now, and while Blagojevich was a significant problem, the dysfunction in Springfield remains under Quinn. The only consistent feature of our dysfunctional state government is the Legislature,” Bambenek said.

The amendment will fundamentally change the Legislature by converting it to a unicameral (or one chamber) body and return to three-member districts with cumulative voting (total of 177 members). Additionally, it will implement long ignored reforms such as reforming redistricting, implementing term limits of no more than four two-year terms, term limit legislative leaders to only one session (two years), end shell bills, require a seven-day public viewing period for all legislative, provide for any bill to get an up-or-down vote upon motion of at least 25 members and greatly reform the process for legislative pay raises.

“Now isn’t the time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, it is time to decentralize power in the legislature. When one man can cause political and social chaos simply to bolster his daughter’s political prospects, something is very wrong.”

In explaining why he is taking the effort to circulate a petition to put the amendment on directly, Bambenek said, “The campaign contribution caps bills shows that we simply cannot trust the Legislature to reform itself. Regardless of what someone thinks about caps, “caps for everyone but Mike Madigan” is a radical power grab masquerading as reform. The framers of the Constitution put this right of citizens in our state constitution explicitly because the legislature cannot be trusted to right itself.”

The amendment will be called the “Bambenek Put-back Amendment” design to Put the voters Back in charge. If Bambenek is successful in gathering enough signatures (legal minimum of just less than 280,000), the amendment will be listed on the ballot and requires no General Assembly Action. It will pass upon 60% of the votes approving the question.
###

John Bambenek is a political activist, writer and co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC), a political action committee created to inform and organize Illinois citizens to take more of an interest in state government. For more information visit the ICC website at www.yesforillinois.com.

###

July 3rd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Politics, Putback Amendment | no comments

Press Release: Illinois Citizen begins Petition Drive for Constitutional Amendment

CHAMPAIGN – Today Illinois citizen and activist John Bambenek began a petition drive to place a state constitutional amendment on the November 2010 general election ballot. Citing the frustration at the gridlock in Springfield and the chaos caused by massive cuts to social services spending, Bambenek believes that the time is right to reform the Legislature.

“We’ve had two very different governors now, and while Blagojevich was a significant problem, the dysfunction in Springfield remains under Quinn. The only consistent feature of our dysfunctional state government is the Legislature,” Bambenek said.

The amendment will fundamentally change the Legislature by converting it to a unicameral (or one chamber) body and return to three-member districts with cumulative voting (total of 177 members). Additionally, it will implement long ignored reforms such as reforming redistricting, implementing term limits of no more than four two-year terms, term limit legislative leaders to only one session (two years), end shell bills, require a seven-day public viewing period for all legislative, provide for any bill to get an up-or-down vote upon motion of at least 25 members and greatly reform the process for legislative pay raises.

“Now isn’t the time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, it is time to decentralize power in the legislature. When one man can cause political and social chaos simply to bolster his daughter’s political prospects, something is very wrong.”

In explaining why he is taking the effort to circulate a petition to put the amendment on directly, Bambenek said, “The campaign contribution caps bills shows that we simply cannot trust the Legislature to reform itself. Regardless of what someone thinks about caps, “caps for everyone but Mike Madigan” is a radical power grab masquerading as reform. The framers of the Constitution put this right of citizens in our state constitution explicitly because the legislature cannot be trusted to right itself.”

The amendment will be called the “Bambenek Put-back Amendment” design to Put the voters Back in charge. If Bambenek is successful in gathering enough signatures (legal minimum of just less than 280,000), the amendment will be listed on the ballot and requires no General Assembly Action. It will pass upon 60% of the votes approving the question.
###

John Bambenek is a political activist, writer and co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC), a political action committee created to inform and organize Illinois citizens to take more of an interest in state government. For more information visit the ICC website at www.yesforillinois.com.

###

July 3rd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Illinois, Politics, Putback Amendment | no comments

Democrats will have Buyers’ Remorse over Specter

This morning the political world was abuzz with news that Senator Arlen Specter left the Republicans to become a Democrat. Effectively, once Al Franken is likely crowned the junior Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats will have a de jure filibuster proof majority.

Republicans, for their part, were celebratory more than anything else. Speaking with Scott Wheeler of National Republican Trust this afternoon he said, “It’s a great day for Republicans and a great day for conservatives. The integrity of the Republican Party just went up.”

For his part, Wheeler takes credit for pushing Specter out of the party. After issuing a challenge that any Republican who supported the unpopular stimulus package would have a primary opponent, Specter took him up on the dare. Unfortunately for Specter, once he saw that he would be trounced in the Republican Party by challenger Pat Toomey, he picked politics over principle and sold himself to the Democrats.

Sold is the right word and in the coming days we will likely see what concessions he extracted. For starters, President Obama has promised to campaign for him next year which is no small token of support. However, in so doing, he has lost a powerful political role he (rightly or wrongly) held.

So-called moderates in the Senate are a powerful bunch. For instance, the “Gang of 14” wrote the policy on judicial appointments once the filibuster threats came out. Because of the hyper-partisanship (that still persists in the Obama post-partisanship era), moderates often are the key votes and can extract huge concessions for their votes. Those days are over for Specter because Republicans simply will not work with him again.

Democrats believe they now have a filibuster-proof majority, but likely what they gained on paper will not be that much in reality. If Specter wanted to side with the Democrats (as he is often prone to do), his party affiliation has never stopped him before. He’d cross party lines to break a filibuster. Now that he’s a Democrat, it certainly won’t give the Democrats any more filibuster-breaking votes.

Specter is also against “card check”, the unions’ top legislative priority, a stance that will hurt him in the primary if the party establishment can’t muscle whatever challenger may appear. He’s for judicial restraint and likely his positions on judges won’t change much. In short, the Democrats got a mere symbolic victory and inherited a vulnerable Senator up for re-election next year.

Whatever support Specter may have had in the Republican Party among voters is likely to vanish. Voters simply do not respond well to party switching. He will also likely face a Democratic primary challenge because the left wing of the Democrats will not embrace him either (remember how they treated Joe Lieberman?).

More importantly, while Obama is moderately popular, his policies are not. Come mid-term elections, his unpopular policies will be a weight around the Congressional Democrats shoulders. While many areas of the country do not necessarily have strong Republican farm teams, Pat Toomey is no amateur. Combine that with a candidate who obviously lacks principles and Specter faces real trouble come November of 2010.

Or as Wheeler put it, Specter showed he will “hold on to political power above considering principles, party and even the people.” In 2006 and 2008, voters threw out Republicans across the country for appearing slimy and unprincipled. Specter just put himself in that category for 2010.

So can conservatives win in Pennsylvania and elsewhere? Much depends on how Obama’s Administration goes (and it is not going well so far). However, the voters are fed up with the financial shenanigans of Congress and of the States, a symptom of that frustration being the popular Tea Parties. If Republicans can convince voters they’ve learned their lesson on fiscal conservatism (and Pat Toomey is the exemplar of that idea), the voters may well welcome them back to power; certainly after the radical expansion of deficits proposed by Obama.

May 2nd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Elections, Politics | no comments

Democrats will have Buyers’ Remorse over Specter

This morning the political world was abuzz with news that Senator Arlen Specter left the Republicans to become a Democrat. Effectively, once Al Franken is likely crowned the junior Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats will have a de jure filibuster proof majority.

Republicans, for their part, were celebratory more than anything else. Speaking with Scott Wheeler of National Republican Trust this afternoon he said, “It’s a great day for Republicans and a great day for conservatives. The integrity of the Republican Party just went up.”

For his part, Wheeler takes credit for pushing Specter out of the party. After issuing a challenge that any Republican who supported the unpopular stimulus package would have a primary opponent, Specter took him up on the dare. Unfortunately for Specter, once he saw that he would be trounced in the Republican Party by challenger Pat Toomey, he picked politics over principle and sold himself to the Democrats.

Sold is the right word and in the coming days we will likely see what concessions he extracted. For starters, President Obama has promised to campaign for him next year which is no small token of support. However, in so doing, he has lost a powerful political role he (rightly or wrongly) held.

So-called moderates in the Senate are a powerful bunch. For instance, the “Gang of 14” wrote the policy on judicial appointments once the filibuster threats came out. Because of the hyper-partisanship (that still persists in the Obama post-partisanship era), moderates often are the key votes and can extract huge concessions for their votes. Those days are over for Specter because Republicans simply will not work with him again.

Democrats believe they now have a filibuster-proof majority, but likely what they gained on paper will not be that much in reality. If Specter wanted to side with the Democrats (as he is often prone to do), his party affiliation has never stopped him before. He’d cross party lines to break a filibuster. Now that he’s a Democrat, it certainly won’t give the Democrats any more filibuster-breaking votes.

Specter is also against “card check”, the unions’ top legislative priority, a stance that will hurt him in the primary if the party establishment can’t muscle whatever challenger may appear. He’s for judicial restraint and likely his positions on judges won’t change much. In short, the Democrats got a mere symbolic victory and inherited a vulnerable Senator up for re-election next year.

Whatever support Specter may have had in the Republican Party among voters is likely to vanish. Voters simply do not respond well to party switching. He will also likely face a Democratic primary challenge because the left wing of the Democrats will not embrace him either (remember how they treated Joe Lieberman?).

More importantly, while Obama is moderately popular, his policies are not. Come mid-term elections, his unpopular policies will be a weight around the Congressional Democrats shoulders. While many areas of the country do not necessarily have strong Republican farm teams, Pat Toomey is no amateur. Combine that with a candidate who obviously lacks principles and Specter faces real trouble come November of 2010.

Or as Wheeler put it, Specter showed he will “hold on to political power above considering principles, party and even the people.” In 2006 and 2008, voters threw out Republicans across the country for appearing slimy and unprincipled. Specter just put himself in that category for 2010.

So can conservatives win in Pennsylvania and elsewhere? Much depends on how Obama’s Administration goes (and it is not going well so far). However, the voters are fed up with the financial shenanigans of Congress and of the States, a symptom of that frustration being the popular Tea Parties. If Republicans can convince voters they’ve learned their lesson on fiscal conservatism (and Pat Toomey is the exemplar of that idea), the voters may well welcome them back to power; certainly after the radical expansion of deficits proposed by Obama.

May 2nd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Elections, Politics | no comments

Democrats will have Buyers’ Remorse over Specter

This morning the political world was abuzz with news that Senator Arlen Specter left the Republicans to become a Democrat. Effectively, once Al Franken is likely crowned the junior Senator from Minnesota, the Democrats will have a de jure filibuster proof majority.

Republicans, for their part, were celebratory more than anything else. Speaking with Scott Wheeler of National Republican Trust this afternoon he said, “It’s a great day for Republicans and a great day for conservatives. The integrity of the Republican Party just went up.”

For his part, Wheeler takes credit for pushing Specter out of the party. After issuing a challenge that any Republican who supported the unpopular stimulus package would have a primary opponent, Specter took him up on the dare. Unfortunately for Specter, once he saw that he would be trounced in the Republican Party by challenger Pat Toomey, he picked politics over principle and sold himself to the Democrats.

Sold is the right word and in the coming days we will likely see what concessions he extracted. For starters, President Obama has promised to campaign for him next year which is no small token of support. However, in so doing, he has lost a powerful political role he (rightly or wrongly) held.

So-called moderates in the Senate are a powerful bunch. For instance, the “Gang of 14” wrote the policy on judicial appointments once the filibuster threats came out. Because of the hyper-partisanship (that still persists in the Obama post-partisanship era), moderates often are the key votes and can extract huge concessions for their votes. Those days are over for Specter because Republicans simply will not work with him again.

Democrats believe they now have a filibuster-proof majority, but likely what they gained on paper will not be that much in reality. If Specter wanted to side with the Democrats (as he is often prone to do), his party affiliation has never stopped him before. He’d cross party lines to break a filibuster. Now that he’s a Democrat, it certainly won’t give the Democrats any more filibuster-breaking votes.

Specter is also against “card check”, the unions’ top legislative priority, a stance that will hurt him in the primary if the party establishment can’t muscle whatever challenger may appear. He’s for judicial restraint and likely his positions on judges won’t change much. In short, the Democrats got a mere symbolic victory and inherited a vulnerable Senator up for re-election next year.

Whatever support Specter may have had in the Republican Party among voters is likely to vanish. Voters simply do not respond well to party switching. He will also likely face a Democratic primary challenge because the left wing of the Democrats will not embrace him either (remember how they treated Joe Lieberman?).

More importantly, while Obama is moderately popular, his policies are not. Come mid-term elections, his unpopular policies will be a weight around the Congressional Democrats shoulders. While many areas of the country do not necessarily have strong Republican farm teams, Pat Toomey is no amateur. Combine that with a candidate who obviously lacks principles and Specter faces real trouble come November of 2010.

Or as Wheeler put it, Specter showed he will “hold on to political power above considering principles, party and even the people.” In 2006 and 2008, voters threw out Republicans across the country for appearing slimy and unprincipled. Specter just put himself in that category for 2010.

So can conservatives win in Pennsylvania and elsewhere? Much depends on how Obama’s Administration goes (and it is not going well so far). However, the voters are fed up with the financial shenanigans of Congress and of the States, a symptom of that frustration being the popular Tea Parties. If Republicans can convince voters they’ve learned their lesson on fiscal conservatism (and Pat Toomey is the exemplar of that idea), the voters may well welcome them back to power; certainly after the radical expansion of deficits proposed by Obama.

May 2nd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Elections, Politics | no comments

Seller’s Remorse: Banks Regretting Acquiescing to “Good Enough Nationalization”

We’ve all seen the story of banks lining up to get “free” money from the federal government in an attempt to pump up the economy. The reality is, the money hasn’t pumped up much of anything except the national debt. One trend, however, is that banks are regretting taking the money in the first place and some are even trying to give it back.

Take, for instance, Bill Cooper who is the CEO of TCF Bank. His bank took the bailout money even though they didn’t really need it. Cooper reports that regulators actually tried to pressure them to take the funds. On top of that, when the federal government came in with their money, many traditional lenders to banks suddenly walked away from the business that dried up the conventional source of capital for banks.

The reason for the drying up of conventional capital is that the federal government has imposed a “shareholders get nothing” approach to bailouts. If you, in good faith, invested in banks, your equity gets wiped out first. This has led to many institutional players simply not wanting to take the risk. While there is merit in protecting consumer accounts from a run on the bank, targeting shareholders has led to almost all traditional flows of capital to banks disappearing overnight.

As a result, some banks were pressured to take federal money they did not need and others had to take federal money when traditional capital would have been available in any other circumstance. The take away from this is that the law of unintended consequences strikes again. By propping up bad banks, the federal government has created a cycle of drying liquidity that forces other banks onto the federal dole.

The mode of federal spending always tends to be to hook a target into relying on federal money, turning them into a captive recipient and then imposing rules after-the-fact, when the entities have no choice but to capitulate. It was the same way with New Deal highway funds. The federal government pays to build and maintain the interstates and now that states are hooked on that money, they can impose almost any terms they want on receiving that money.

Even a better example is federal title 1 money for schools. The money was created to “level the playing field” between rich states and poor states, and rich districts and poor districts. Of course, every state got some money also. Now that the schools are hooked because of the constant upward pressure of education spending (rightly or wrongly), the districts and states can no longer say no to title 1 funds. In comes No Child Left Behind.

It’s hard to argue that No Child Left Behind (and by extension, the federal government) is the primary driver of educational policy, not parents or local school boards. Accountability is all well and good but the question is, accountability to whom?

The same is now true of bailout money. After banks have accepted the cash and have no choice but to hold it, the federal government is imposing terms after-the-fact to control the banks. This is, in effect, “good enough nationalization” (where the government controls the aspects of a business it cares about and leaves the mundane details it doesn’t care about to the business). Bill Cooper, for instance, wants to give the money back.

Rep. Barney Frank wants all recipients of federal money to be subject to end-to-end wage controls on all employees. That’s the most flagrant example of overreach to date. Of course, banks got desperate and held out their hands. Now the federal government is calling the tune.

The result is that an ever-widening portion of a major industry will fall under federal control (in part because no one wants to invest in financials anymore). As with most things, it will be the consumers and citizens who have to pay the ultimate tab but never seem to reap any of the benefits. Hopefully the banks can give back the money before it is too late.

April 2nd, 2009 Posted by John Bambenek | Columns, Congress, Economics, National, Politics | no comments