Springfield dominated the news with movement on the state employee pension issue, a proposal to fund school vouchers passing the State Senate and a proposal to limit red light cameras passing the Illinois Senate.
In addition, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn announced his choice for running mate on the Democratic ticket. Sheila Simon is a law professor at Southern Illinois University, was a former prosecutor and a candidate for mayor of Carbondale.
NQ means not a direct quote. Democratic State Senator Steans was gracious to grant an interview under trying circumstances. Her comments are not direct.
Also included, Ed Rutledge, Lincoln Square resident and Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor; Ann Williams, North Center resident and Democratic candidate for State House; and Adam Robinson, Edgewater resident and Republican candidate for State Senate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start with Sen. Steans, a resident of Lakewood-Balmoral.
Q: What can you tell us about the pension reform bill?
Sen. Steans: The pension reforms affects all the pension systems except the police, fire and CTA. There should be a follow-up bill to deal with those employees. The bill raises the retirement age, calculates the final pension over the last eight years of service. Employees cannot double-dip and there is a cap on the maximum benefit you can receive. [NQ]
Q: There is some criticism that the bill didn’t deal with current employees.
Sen. Steans: Our lawyers tell us that it wouldn’t be constitutional to affect current employees. And it would get litigated, delaying the savings. A bill effecting current employees would have been more difficult to pass. But the bottom line is it may not have been constitutional. [NQ]
The big issue is that the State hasn’t been funding the system. That’s the other piece that needs to be addressed. “I feel we need to be fully funding it.” [NQ]
Q: The Senate passed a voucher plan.
Sen. Steans: Sen. Robert Meeks proposed a voucher plan. I voted No on it. It passed by 33 votes. It only affects Chicago Public Schools. In the lowest ten percent of the schools, the parents in those schools would receive $6,000 per child in a voucher if they chose to enroll their child in a private school. [NQ]
My big concern is that $6,000 isn’t adequate for the tuition of children who have special needs. [NQ]
I’ve asked for research on the affect this will have. The funding comes from the Chicago Public Schools. There’s already an educational funding issue with the Chicago Public Schools. This plan doesn’t address that issue. [NQ]
Q: There was also passage from the Senate of a red-light bill.
Sen. Steans: Red-lights do improve safety. But they are also used too much for revenue generation. There needs to be more transparency in their use. And there shouldn’t be a penalty for protesting a red-light ticket. Plus I support better regulations regarding posting signage about the cameras. [NQ]
Q: The Chicago Tribune had a report that noted that Chicago yellow lights are three seconds while the suburban yellow light is typically longer, sometimes four seconds.
Sen Steans: I first saw that in the Tribune. I think we should examine how that impacts safety. [NQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed Rutledge, Libertarian Candidate for Lt. Governor and Lincoln Square resident:
The campaign has been going well. I’ve been traveling all over the state and the response we’ve been getting has been extraordinary. People are very interested in breaking free from the status quo.
Q: So you’re gaining from the dissatisfaction of voter not only with Springfield but with Washington.
Ed Rutledge: There’s a real tax, borrow and spend mentality that is driving our state into insolvency and people are beginning to understand this.
Q: The legislature passed a sweeping pension reform bill. What was your opinion?
Ed Rutledge: Sweeping is an exaggerated term for this bill. I see it as a step in the right direction, it is a baby step, but it’s a step in the right direction. The status quo politicians are playing this fiscal reform card.
Speaker Madigan said this has been a long time coming which begs the question to Speaker Madigan where have your cronies been all this time when the General Assembly has been raiding the pension fund and sending the unfunded liabilities into the stratosphere?
And why, if this is such a good thing, why is it so limited if the provisions in this (are) so badly needed. There are provisions in this bill to allow a continued raiding of at least one of the pension funds to offset current spending which is exactly what got us into this predicament in the first place.
Q: That’s the Chicago Public Schools pension fund?
Ed Rutledge: Exactly.
Q: The other criticism is that this only applies to future employees?
Ed Rutledge: I guess I can understand that to some degree because there’s a contract in place. If we really want to solve our fiscal issues we really need to address the current situation as well.
I think as a sign of good faith the legislature (should) have figured out a way to apply (the bill) to current politicians, if nothing else.
Q: So, a step in the right direction but not a resolution of the issue?
Ed Rutledge: It’s a Band-aid to stop a hemorrhage. Pension reform is something we desperately need. It’s hard to condemn it because it’s a step in the right direction and frankly it’s a step in a Libertarian direction which as a Libertarian I appreciate. It’s such a tiny baby step when we have such an enormous problem. It’s disappointing because:
A. It isn’t going far enough.
B. They’re touting this as major, major reform when in fact it’s a Band-aid.
We were digging a hole, they stopped digging and they are calling the problem solved.
Q: What resolution would you propose to the legislature?
Ed Rutledge: If we really want to solve this problem, fundamentally, we need to reexamine what constitutes a vital service. We have people saying schools are not being funded, we’re laying off State Police. A lot of this is covered in the State Constitution. We really need to reexamine and redefine what constitutes a vital service and make sure those service get the funding they need. Everything else is somewhat superfluous.
We should be pushing back strongly against the increasing unfunded mandates from our Federal Government. And then we’ve got to figure out some way to bridge the gap that our politicians have caused in our current pension structure. People like to lay the blame on the union members. But, frankly the money has been there but it’s been raided by the politicians. We have a significant problem we need to deal with.
Personally I think the beneficiaries are going to have to be part of the solution. It’s sad to say but the politicians have put them into that situation.
Q: What about Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision to cut 464 positions, 600 positions total, from the Illinois State Troopers. In Chicago, where you live, this is seen as an Interstate Highway patrol function. But in other parts of the states they provide crime lab services and provide other services that smaller police departments don’t have. I believe they have an important role in the Meth Task Force in rural parts of the state.
What’s your view?
Ed Rutledge: I would say the State Police is a vital service performed by the state. So for the governor to attack (a) thing that are seen as fundamental to our state governance, or which are core to our state, is somewhat disingenuous.
It strikes fear into everybody’s hearts.
We need to reevaluate everyplace that we’re spending money, rather than taking the things that are going to scare everyone into supporting a tax hike.
Q: Did you see it as a political move, maybe along with the threat to fire thousands of teachers to get citizens to support a tax hike?
Ed Rutledge: Absolutely.
I didn’t think the decision to hire and fire teachers was the governor’s to start with, I thought that decision was held at the school board.
I understand the state funds part of the budget but still I saw it as a political maneuver to get buy-in into taxes so spending cuts wouldn’t get made.
Q: School vouchers?
Ed Rutledge: The state constitution mandates that the state provide a free education for all kids. Whether it’s a good school or a failing school, it doesn’t matter. School choice has been a Libertarian issue for decades. This voucher program that Sen. Meeks proposed is a strong move in Illinois towards greater school choice, particularly for the kids that have been at the greatest risk, the kids who have been trapped in these failing schools.
Like the pension reform bill, it could have gone further. But unlike the pension reform bill, once this jinni is out of the bottle it’s going to be very hard for the politicians to put it back in.
Everyplace, in which school choice, in some form,whether its vouchers, or tax credits or charter schools, (without caps by the way because Illinois has a limited supply of charter schools) anywhere that school choice has been implemented the quality of education has gone up across the board. Not just in specific schools but school board levels have gone up. Parents and educators: when they see the benefits that inevitably result from school choice, they are going to want more. So this is a very good thing.
I have to applaud Sen. Meeks. It took a lot of courage to sponsor this bill and break from his party’s traditional stance. It will help those kids.
Q: I have heard criticism that $6,000 was inadequate funding. This is based in part on my understanding of a Cato Institute Study that is more than ten years old. Is it enough money for a real choice?
Ed Rutledge: My understanding is that the Catholic schools in Chicago cost about $4,500 to educate a kid. Even in the Chicago Public Schools Systems, where we spend more than $10,000 to educate a kid, it’s just a fraction of that goes towards payroll and facilities. A lot of it gets slotted into educational programs. The $6,000, could it be more? Sure. Would I like to see an increase in the educational tax benefit? Yes. That would be an enormous benefit to students in Illinois.
This bill could have gone much further, but it is an enormous step in the right direction.
Q: The other criticism is that if you have a child with special needs this is an inadequate amount and further that private schools don’t even have the resources to help those children.
Ed Rutledge: No, that’s true.
That’s kind of a blanket statement. It general it tends to be right. But school choices offer the initiative to match kids to the educational program that best suits those kids. The system as it stands assumes every child learns in exactly the same way and at exactly the same pace and they have to be slotted into that school system.
Any school choice system allows the parents and children to pick the school that best meets the needs of that particular student, and gives the student the resources that student needs to thrive according to that student’s abilities and talents.
Q: The Tribune timed Illinois red lights and found that Chicago yellow lights are three seconds and suburban yellow lights are longer, up to four seconds. Chicago said that’s the way we’ve always done it and besides it meets the Federal minimum standards for safety. If this is all about safety, why aren’t they four second lights? There appears to be some evidence four second yellow is safer than three second yellows.
Is it a proper state role for the state to mandate the timing of yellow lights in municipalities?
Ed Rutledge: This bill is what we’ve come to expect from our politicians. It makes it look like they are listening to the people when they are ignoring the issue behind the red-light debate. People don’t like red light cameras because they understand that these cameras are just a revenue generator, not a public service, it’s a tax and nothing more.
Rather than addressing that concern this bill further burdens revenue strapped communities with the need to assign additional staff to review every ticket. In Chicago alone they generate nearly 600,000 a year.
Q: I believe the Foster and Western camera generated more than $200,000 in revenue alone.
Ed Rutledge: This bill mandates that every single one of those will be review by some employee. So the question is how many more city employees will taxpayers be forced to use. And there have been studies that show intersections with red light cameras have an increase in accidents that cause severe injury. Red light camera companies and the communities that generate revenue from them will dispute this fact, but there is no real evidence that red light cameras make streets safer.
Q: The accidents are more critical?
Ed Rutledge: That’s what I said.
Q: So, without the cameras the study says the accidents are not as severe?
Ed Rutledge: They are not as severe. Either people are slamming on the brakes or skidding into the intersection and getting T-boned. These cameras have not been shown to make our streets safer. The first priority of government should be the same as doctors should be to do no harm. Even the possibility that our government is putting citizens at risk to fill coffers is abhorrent.
Q: Did you ever receive a ticket yourself?
Ed Rutledge: One of them was for an area that I’d never been to. I disputed it. I fought it, they fought it, I sent evidence and threatened a jury trial and they dropped it.
Q: And part of the bill was to make it easier to fight the tickets.
Ed Rutledge: It’s a tax. If people recognized it as such we’d all be better off. It has the potential to hurt people.
Q: The Green and Libertarian parties are the only parties in the race that have no questions being raised about their candidates for Lt. Governor. Do you have anything you want to reveal to the public now? It seems to be a cursed office, why do you want to run for it?
Ed Rutledge: [Laughs] How about it. My wife and I have been active in our community for about ten years. I’m an Eagle Scout.
The whole race (in the Democratic Party) is interesting to watch. I feel sorry for Democratic voters in that they didn’t do their homework, they elected someone and then the Democratic Committee forced that guy out and instead of slotting the number two person they’ve slotted someone outside the race. It suggests the voters voice is a sham more or less. They do it just for show.
I feel sorry, but they have their process and we have ours. We have ours because we’re not allowed to participate in the primaries. I’m not going to condemn their process but it seems the Democratic voters had the wool pulled over their eyes.
Q: What’s your feeling about Joseph Lyon’s bill on ballot access?
Ed Rutledge: I oppose it. Absolutely. We’re in the beginning of our ballot access petition drive. By law, if I was running as a Democratic or Republican I would need 5,000 but we need 25,000 and realistically are shooting for 50,000 to offset the challenges we know are coming.
I recommend that people sign as many (petitions) as you can. It is very rare that for example I’d say I won’t sign one of these petitions. If someone feels they have good ideas, they should be able to address them and to run and the voters be able to make an educated choice from a full slate of candidates instead of the one or two or three that the party heads say.
Q: It takes an election cycle to explore a candidates viewpoints? As a democracy we should support this expression?
Ed Rutledge: By making it difficult for independent candidates, for third party candidates to get on the ballot, it drains a lot of energy. The energy is a real key in these campaigns. It is extremely hard to get on the ballot. People don’t understand how difficult it is to get on the ballot. There’s almost a victory celebration (when you gain ballot access) but there’s still a whole race to be run.
We stand a good chance of getting a sizable chunk of the votes this year, and I’m very confident we’ll get above the threshold to become a recognized party so we don’t have this issue going forward.
Q: And that level is?
Ed Rutledge: Five Percent. But I’d still push for this for everybody. It is a credible issue for our state, our country.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Democrat Ann Williams of North Center is running for the State Legislature
Q: What was your reaction to what happened in Springfield, regarding the pension reform?
Ann Williams: It was a positive thing that we made some progress in restoring fiscal discipline to the state. The dramatic change to the benefit and the new law will at a minimum put an end to the double-dipping pensions and taking a high paying government job for a few days before you retire to get your pension up. At a minimum that is what it does. Long-term it will provide the state $300 – $500 million a year (while) reigning in the spending and the irresponsible fiscal practices that created this mess in the first place.
A: There was criticism of the pension reform bill because it didn’t apply to current employees, others have defended it as it might have been unconstitutional to make it apply to current employees. What’s your view of those arguments?
Ann Williams: I was reading an article in the (Springfield) State Journal Register that addressed these issues. I’d like to take a look at that further. The Constitutionality— we don’t want to get this thing wrapped up in the courts and be counting on the savings. I’m open minded to looking at the issue but we’re in a dire financial situation. I said during the campaign too that everything has to be on the table at this point. Unfortunately, that includes the benefits.
With regards to future benefits for employees, I’m not sure if that’s permissible. But I look forward to hearing the arguments about it.
Q: What did you think of the red-light camera proposal?
Ann Williams: As a general rule I support local governments making their own decisions on law-enforcement issues. So, if the suburbs or the City of Chicago wants to use a particular law-enforcement tool I’d defer to the local government to make the decision.
There’s a lot of debate whether this is a revenue enhancement device or promotes public safety. I would be wary of something that is put in place to merely increase revenues. In this case I understand the issue with red light cameras was they were ticketing people for right turn on red. I was happy to see that that was addressed in the Cullerton Bill. My view is (a high proportion of) the tickets issued were for that.
As far as an outright ban, at this point I’m comfortable with (legislation) that would provide professional review and make public safety the primary focus of the cameras.
I’m comfortable with the compromise legislation unless something new comes to light.
I don’t want the cameras, I’m sure I’ve gotten at least one ticket. But no one likes speeding tickets either. At some point we need to see what it does for public safety.
I’ve asked people about the issue and feel comfortable with the safety. The people who live around the cameras (say) it addresses the head-on issue rather than the right turn on red.
Q: The Chicago Tribune did a study that indicated that suburban yellow lights are set at four seconds while the yellow lights in the city are set at three seconds. I believe there may be a study of the yellow lights in the American South that indicated that lengthening the yellow by one second has a dramatic increase on safety.
Chicago defended its three second yellow noting that this is a long-standing standard and also that three seconds meets the minimum safety requirements of the Federal government. Should the State set yellows to four seconds?
Ann Williams: I haven’t seen the data on the safety implications of longer yellow lights. I also haven’t seen Chicago’s response. I’d like to see the data if for (no other) reason (than) these cameras are irritating people.
There is an answer somewhere. I don’t want to weigh in without all the data in front of me.
Q: State Sen. Meeks proposed a voucher bill. It would affect Chicago Public Schools in the lowest 10 percentile, providing parents with vouchers of $6,000 as they see fit.
Ann Williams: We’re lucky in this district to have actual public schools. There is a lot of support for our schools and our system of education.
In terms of accountability, it is important to hold public schools responsible for providing quality education. Where they don’t, ( we need to be sure) that all the children can have (access to a) quality public education.
I understand that if your children are not getting the quality education they should, we should do something about it. There are many ways to address public education as a policy matter. I feel that public funds are supposed to be used in education for Public Education. But if we are unable to provide a quality public education we may need to look at revamping how we utilize the (funding for) schools.
But at this point I’m hesitant to go down that route as it is a slippery slope, you dilute the whole system of public education.
Q: The bottom line, if you were serving in the house at the moment? Would you support the bill as written?
Ann Williams: I don’t have all the details of it. I haven’t heard how the program will be implemented.
But in terms of the students in those low performing schools, the way you get them to be better schools is to look at creative solutions. I’m not comfortable how I’d vote at this point. As a policy matter I support the public schools and support public education.
Q: Gov. Pat Quinn proposed cutting the Illinois State Police by 464 positions, it would actually affect about 600 positions. In the City of Chicago we see them as being primarily a patrol function of the Interstate Highways. But in rural areas of the State, they provide critical functions such as crime lab services.
Ann Williams: We need to go through all the programs, agency by agency and see where we need to cut. In terms of the law enforcement that’s an area you need to be extremely cautious. One of the top concerns of the role of government is to protect its citizens. That’s an area I’d give especially close scrutiny too assure that the cuts that are made do not adversely affect public safety.
The way you posed the question, that it would impact the communities Downstate is a concern. I’d want to be sure that isn’t the case before being comfortable.
We need to look at the budget in its entirety.
Q: Did you have any other observations?
Ann Williams: The good news is that the media and the voters are starting to see the impacts of the budget crisis. At one time it seemed as though people didn’t get how serious and dire the situation was. It’s easy to see, once we see the ramifications, how dire the situation is. That’s a positive because it will push the legislators to (address) it instead of sweeping it under the rug.
Q: And the movement was bi-partisan?
Ann Williams:Absolutely.
The pensions was the biggest thing that’s been on my mind in terms of budgeting. Hopefully we’re (headed in the ) right direction and get the savings that are predicted and (we can) take a look at the budget and see what else can be cut.
Q: Thank you
Ann Williams: Thank you and take care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Adam Robinson is a resident of Edgewater running as a Republican for State Senate.
Q: A lot of things happened in Springfield this week. The State Senate passed a bill by Sen. Meeks about vouchers. What was your reaction?
Adam Robinson: SB 2494 was a victory for parents that are stuck sending their students to the same under-performing schools every year. I believe SB2494 only impacts the bottom ten percent of schools. Those represent the parents that are sending kids to the most failing schools in Chicago.
I strongly support that bill. It has large bi-partisan support. Everyone feels Chicago Public Schools are not getting the job done. Regardless of what side you’re on, its important to give parents choices if their kids are going to a school that is not getting the job done.
It was a good step forward. I’d like to see a voucher program statewide.
Public school choice is a policy goal I’d like to see enacted. I think if parents have the chance to change they win. I think this is an important first step.
A: I believe there was a report by the Cato Institute in 1996 for New York inner city children. It was about a program funded to the same size, about $6,000 per student. It indicated that $6,000 was inadequate funding for inner city parents to receive that much, That was ten years ago in New York. Is $6,000 enough?
Adam Robinson: I’m not familiar with that study. What I do know is that the Chicago Catholic High Schools and (primary) schools are overwhelmingly supportive and will help out. I can’t speak to whether it is adequate— it might not have been adequate for New York City. I’d be willing to look at the report to make the voucher program affordable in Chicago.
We have a willing partner in the private schools in Chicago.
I’d also point out that the voucher program in the Milwaukee system is largely successful model. And that is good for that school system, despite repeated attempts by politicians to kill that program.
I think it’s important to note that my opponent, Sen. Heather Steans voted no on the voucher program. She had a chance to vote on the side of parents and she choose to vote on the side of the teachers union. While I think that was politically expedient, she (essentially) voted to say ‘in the worst performing Chicago Public Schools those parents should not have the opportunity to send their kids somewhere else, we should keep them stuck there.’ I think that’s a terrible policy.
Q: The Senator said she didn’t vote for it because there wasn’t adequate funding for special needs children in the voucher program.
Adam Robinson: That’s fine. That’s something she may have felt about that one piece of it. However, this was an important bill that she could have supported that would have supported that would have benefited a lot of parents. If parents of special needs kids wanted to keep their kids in these school no one was going to say they couldn’t go there. So, the parents would have the choice to keep the kids in the schools if that was the case.
She should have voted yes if she wanted to vote on the side of parents.
Q: Moving to the pension system, there was a big reform sent to the governor?
Adam Robinson: It was an important step that addresses future liabilities that are not yet accrued. So for all State employees hired after a certain date we’ve provided a much more affordable way to provide pension benefits to them. But it’s done next to nothing to change the fact that we have almost $90 billion in currently unfunded pension liability and the fact that it does nothing to address the system for current employees (which) is unsustainable, unaffordable and is bankrupting our state.
Everyone agrees that the bill was a good bill in the sense that it addresses the future not yet accrued liability. I absolutely say it did not go far enough to make an impact.
Sure it may address things in the future and may save us money next year however, by some estimates applying these reforms to existing state employees could have saved us $3 billion next year. This is a year when Gov Quinn is proposing a $1.3 billion cut to education or a one percent tax increase to working families. We could have doubled the savings from the education cut or the tax increase by reforming our unaffordable, unsustainable pension system.
Citizens have to look at this and say ‘they chose not to do this.’ So they clearly chose to protect the public sector employee unions like AFSCME and SEIU over regular working folks in the State.
It did not go far enough. They should have shown stronger leadership in an election year.
They played it safe.
Q: Supporters are saying they couldn’t apply this to current employees because they feared a constitutional challenge.
Adam Robinson: That is a convenient claim that they like to trot out. As a matter of fact the talking point you’ll see Gov. Quinn and Sen. Steans make is when someone says ‘why not apply this to current employees?’ They’ll say there’s some questions about the constitutionality of that.
My response to that is let’s answer that question. That’s a question worth $3 billion to answer. Shouldn’t we do everything we can do as legislators to answer that question? Just last year Sidley & Austin (issued) a brief on that topic and put out a very compelling case based on prior case law that it is in fact constitutional that a contract entered into isn’t required to be valid in perpetuity.
The State has an opportunity to change a contract from a point in time forward.
Once accrued,– can’t touch it, but from a point in time, you can. The notion that a contract entered into must be honored in perpetuity is not a reasonable interpretation of that law. If people were serious about reform, let the courts tell us if it’s unconstitutional. The state legislators are not constitutional scholars. Let’s make the reform and make the courts make that decision. I think they gave themselves a free pass by making that statement.
Isn’t that worth answering in a year when we’re $13 billion in the hole?
Q: Gov Quinn announced he would be cutting 464 out of the State Police. We tend to see the State Police in the Chicago area as a patrol function, but in South Suburban Cook County and in the rural parts of the state their services for example as evidence technicians is important.
Adam Robinson: (My) comment is about the situation in general at the State level. We don’t have enough revenue to cover the expenses that are proposed, the current spending level. The Governor proposed a $32 billion (budget) on revenues of $27 billion and has yet to explain how we’re going to close that $5 billion gap.
So there are questions whether this is even a legal budget. He hasn’t laid out a plan. We are presuming he’s going to borrow the $5 billion. In the context of that situation the State has to prioritize its funding.
As a State Senator I would put public safety dollars at the top of the list. If the choice is ‘cut teachers and police but (protect) our bloated pension system,’ I’m going to cut our pension system not the teachers and cops. That to me (is) the policy that puts the greatest good for the most people. Education and public safety dollars are more important than preserving the status quo for public sector unions. I think that’s a no-brainer.
If Gov. Quinn thinks cutting teachers and police are more important than that, he can defend that policy. I disagree with that, but he can make that case.
Q: He’s choosing the first line people, the cops on the beat, the teachers in the classroom are feeling the brunt first, the cuts should come from somewhere else first?
Adam Robinson: That’s right. (Why) are you making your cuts in the classroom? This isn’t a budget, it’s a political document. The strategy seems to be let’s scare the heck out of parents and get them to support a tax increase. It’s a false choice.
We can make cuts without making cuts to cops in the squad cars and the teachers in the classrooms.
Why not attack the bureaucracy, combine school districts? Why not do things like address current employee pensions, address bureaucracy at the State level? Instead we’ve chosen to scare people to vote for a tax increase. I think voters see right through that. It’s not effective. It’s the style of government that has driven our state into the ground and it’s not effective.
Q: Is there anything else you’d like to comment on?
Adam Robinson: The mandatory helmet law failed. Her party (Sen. Steans) and the entire caucus on the Republican side voted against that. That too was a victory for parents. Being allowed to raise their kids the way they see fit.
Would I choose to put a helmet on a child riding a motorcycle. Absolutely I’d make them do that. But that’s my choice.
Do I want the State telling parents that they’re forced to wear a helmet? I don’t think that’s wise. It’s an affront to choice and personal liberty. The pattern on this with Sen. Steans is ‘I’m going to take choice away from parent in raising their kids. I’m going to take choice away from parents on where they send their kids to school. I’m going to vote with public sector unions that are financed by working class people everywhere and the private sector and I’m going to vote on the side of red-light camera lobbyists so we continue to fleece our citizens in the seventh district.’ That is a pattern that would tell me that she’s just managed to codify why she’s the wrong choice for the seventh. I just don’t think those policies do us any good.
Q: What’s your take on the red-light camera bill coming out of the Senate?
Adam Robinson: It was a bill written by the lobbyists from the two red-light camera companies. There was marginal but largely meaningless reform in that bill. I think it was a total cop-out. The Senators that supported real reforms all voted against it. It was an insult to citizens.
I’ll tell you this fun fact: the red-light camera at Sheridan and Hollywood takes in $30,000 a day in tickets or $1.3 million a year. That’s disgusting.
You tell me why they wanted to keep these cameras. (Senate President) Cullerton wants the cameras because he loves the money. Citizens hate these things. Let’s prosecute people for running red-lights but let’s not take advantage of people by violating due process.
Q: A Chicago Tribune report noted that all Chicago intersections should be timed at three seconds. Yet there is evidence that if you increase the length of the yellow it is safer. Should the city increase the time of the yellow?
Adam Robinson: I’d like to see a four second yellow light
In addition to increasing safety, a four second yellow would likely remove all profit motive from the equation. I believe in Georgia they increased the yellow to four seconds and 80 percent of the fees were gone (please check on that for me) because people have a chance to drive through the intersection.
What I would have liked to seen, why not study the issue. Find out if red-light cameras increase accidents? Study it for a year, not lobbyist data, actual data that we can all agree is impartial and make a decision.
Q: Is there anything else?
Adam Robinson: No, that covers it. It was the busiest week in 20 years.
You’ve got a governor who is about to ask the commercial paper market for $5 billion, our bonds were about to get downgraded, and our paper borrowing costs were going to skyrocket. The bond markets look at future trends, not just the current year but in the future. So I think the pension reform came because we were going to have trouble borrowing the money. They had no choice unless they wanted a total melt-down of the state.
Q: It was bi-partisan
Adam Robinson: It was a good bill that had wide support on both sides. It did a great job of addressing new employees. It does nothing to address the unsustainable, unaffordable plans we’ve given people. It’s not the fault of our public sector employees. I applaud their service to the public and the State. Nor is it the tax payers fault that we’ve created programs we can’t afford.
But we have to do something about it.
Thank you
Q: Thank you sir.
Related posts:
It’s great Sen. Steans opposed the Meeks voucher plan and is sponsoring legislation to allow teachers to live where they choose – not be forced to live in Chicago. But she’s wrong to sponsor SB 3822, the Care of Students with Diabetes Act. This bill requires principals to assign a
non-licensed “volunteer” to give injections at schools that don’t have a nurse and perform other nursing acts prohibited by law. These bills mandate sub-standard care for children with a major chronic illness at school and place an unfair burden on teachers and staff.