Illinois has a long process to challenge the petitions of anyone who files for office. It is often used to keep “outsiders” off the ballot either by ensnaring them in hypertechnical offenses or simply bog a candidate down in thousands of dollars in legal fees and bury their campaign by attrition. Vote fraud is difficult to undertake on a large scale and requires many people and resources to accomplish quietly. Why resort to fraud when you can simply ensure the voters don’t have a choice to begin with?

As an example, if you file your petition paperwork with a paperclip instead of a staple, that is cause to remove you from the ballot. As a historical note, President Obama won his first election to the Illinois State Senate by removing every opponent, including the incumbent, from the ballot–thereby running unopposed. This process has been used to dramatic effect to settle elections long before voters have a say. What good is the right to vote if you don’t have any choices?

However, this system has now broken down with every candidate for president in Illinois having their paperwork challenged and all the flaws for each candidate are apparently fatal. Several candidates didn’t use their home addresses on their petitions, one didn’t use an Illinois notary to notarize their paperwork and another put in “statewide” for the district they were running in instead of “Illinois”. Even Obama was challenged, but I assume those are birther challenges and we’ll just move past those.

On one level, it is embarrassing that a presidential campaign simply missed some of these obvious mistakes. While your local school board candidate should have some leniency with the minutiae of electoral law compliance, a higher standard should be expected of an aspirant to the most powerful office of the world. That said, I fully place my trust in the voters in how they weight that information and not some unelected board of insiders who will make the choice for me and millions of other voters.

Imagine the national embarrassment if Illinois is the only state that doesn’t have a presidential nomination race because our election code is so broken that it prevents it. And it wasn’t like this problem couldn’t have been avoided. There was an attempt to at least reform the way the Illinois Republican Party selects presidential delegates but that was ultimately derailed.

Election law reform is a boring topic that is highly technical which makes it difficult to talk about on the campaign trail. However, it has been a pet issue of mine in several of the attempts I’ve made to reform the laws and constitution regarding the election process in Illinois. Hopefully now the voters will see how broken the system is and demand an election system that puts them firmly in charge of their public officials instead of the other way around.

That was the stated goal at least.  Now that the first report has been issued by the Budget for Results Commission, we see that it wasn’t about spending reform at all.  It’s about yet another attempt to justify increased mandated and structural spending at a time when Illinois has already passed a 67% income tax hike and is still operating a deficit.

Here is what the commission says about their goal:

Budgeting for Results changes the way the State allocates resources across government agencies. Rather than setting budgets agency by agency based on historic funding levels, BFR allocates resources based on state-wide goals.

…

Measurement is crucial to accountability and transparency. Reliable data and analysis are essential to inform funding decisions and make sure taxpayers see the impact of their tax dollars.

It all sounds good, so far.  In fact, it sounds downright reasonable.  Government has to do things and spending should be calibrated to do those things as efficiently as possible.

So what was the very first recommendation of this august panel to deal with a state that has a chronic and uncontrolled spending problem?

Recommendation 1:

Establish a seventh Result to acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all Illinois residents have access to quality, affordable health care, and to recognize medical assistance distinct from the human service goals. Separating costs will provide greater transparency to spending on Medicaid and spending on other human service activities. The newest Result area recommended is:

All Illinois residents have access to quality affordable health care.

You read that right.

The first recommendation of this panel is not to adopt any system of measurement of programs.  It isn’t to specify where programs could be combined or eliminated.  The first recommendation is to establish a permanent spending mandate of what is, in effect, universal health care.

Let’s skip past whether or not this is an appropriate goal for a moment.  The state already operates a medical benefit program to ensure access to health care by the poor: Medicaid.  The eligibility for this program is quite broad; many programs are available under Medicaid for a family of 4 with a household income of $80,000 a year.

How is the state doing with this program?  Well, it’s a case-study in governmental failure.  In order to “balance” this year’s budget, the state simply deferred $1 billion in payments to doctors and hospitals to next year.  In other words, we can’t pay for the program we have.  And Medicaid is also scheduled to grow by another half billion next year.

Illinois also does not require ANY copayments to be made for any services rendered under Medicaid.  The net result is overuse of an underfunded system.  In fact, quite a few (and there is no study that I’m aware that has an exact number) of participants who also have private insurance but use Medicaid as a way to avoid paying any copays while the insurance picks up the rest.

As a result of this, doctors and hospitals have dramatically reduced their Medicaid patient rolls which has created an access to care problem.  No business would deal with a customer who won’t pay and Illinois is the biggest deatbeat state of them all.

Maybe you think this is cherry-picking a report to find some criticism. Well, the entire purpose of this commission (as stated above) was to create spending priorities, measurements and having some intelligent criteria by which to make spending decisions.  Here is what the commission has done on that front:

The Commission finds that, until better performance data about state spending and programs is collected and analyzed, it is premature to recommend specific allocations of projected revenue across Result areas. Appropriate allocation across Result areas will require a complete, detailed and metrics-based assessment of all programs’ effectiveness. Additionally, all goals and sub-goals must be fully developed before meaningful allocation recommendations can be made.

In other words, on its primary purpose or its sole function for existing, the Commission comes up with… nothing.  Yet they deliver a report suggesting another spending mandate.  That’s the Chicago Way of budget reform, throw more money around (and complain you have a revenue problem).

There is one line in the report that illustrates where the Illinois budget problem is found and can be cured.

The Illinois budget process is subject to nearly 1,700 specific spending mandates: 100 federal, 1,460 state, 80 both (state and federal), and 40 court orders.

You read that right, 1,460 state mandates created by the state legislature.  That is where budget reform must start its work, not with more mandated spending.

One way Quinn has continued the culture of corruption is by stacking state boards and commissions, many paying lucrative salaries for little to no work, with political allies.  For instance, pro-choice activist Terry Cosgrove was appointed to the Human Rights Commission and has been a lifelong friend of the Democratic Party of Illinois and Quinn.

Quinn, however, has a new twist on board appointments.  Many of these bodies are restricted by state law from having too many members of one party on them.  This modest requirement is an attempt to ensure decisions are made on the merits instead of on the politics.  Governor Quinn has gotten around this requirement by having Democrats label themselves as “Independents” when it comes to board appointments in an apparent end-run around the law and what likely is illegal behavior.

How prevalent is this problem?  Here is a list of boards and commissions I examined to see if Quinn was following the law.

• Capital Development Board – 4 Democrats maximum, 6 Democrats serving and no Republicans
• Housing Development Authority – 5 Democrats maximum, 7 Democrats serving
• Board of Education – 5 Democrats maximum, 7 Democrats serving
• Board of Higher Education – 7 Democrats maximum, 14 Democrats serving and no Republicans
• University of Illinois Board of Trustees – 5 Democrats maximum, 6 Democrats serving
• Southern Illinois University Board of Trustees – 4 Democrats maximum, 5 Democrats serving
• Human Rights Commission – 7 Democrats maximum, 9 Democrats serving
• Health Facilities and Services Planning Board - 5 Democrats maximum, 6 Democrats serving
• Educational Labor Relations Board – 3 Democrats maximum, 4 Democrats serving
• Medical Disciplinary Board – 5 Democrats maximum, 6 Democrats serving
• Judical Inquiry Board – 4 Democrats maximum, 5 Democrats serving

These are boards with real power that either spend a good deal of taxpayer dollars or wield great sway over the voters.  You can view the official party affiliation at the state website appointments.illinois.gov.  To verify true party affiliation, I checked state voting records.  Under state law, if you vote in a primary for a party, you are a member of that party.  That is how I discovered many “independents” on these boards are really lifelong Democrats, many giving a good deal of money to Democrats for office.

As another egregious example of this apparent corruption, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees was ousted a few years ago in the wake of a patronage admissions scandal.  In response, Gov. Quinn was able to appoint a new board to the University and proceeded to stack the board with Democrats in violation of the law.  It gives the appearance of trading one set of patronage for another.

Some of these officials may be good public servants.  However, the law exists in an attempt to ensure these bodies operate in a bipartisan manner.  Gov. Quinn has decided the law just doesn’t apply to him.

Illinois deserves better than a governor who apparently engages in a pattern of deception to hide information from the citizens in an attempt to stock government.  The law is clear and by engaging in this behavior, it calls into question the legality of any decision made by these bodies.

Update: The Quinn administration has responded by saying one of the Capital Development Board members left in April.  Until this morning he was still listed on the website.  Even with that vacancy, 5 Democrats serve and only 4 are allowed by law.

Like most major companies, the State issues corporate cards to employees to charge travel expenses and other charges related to their work. In the case of the State, this has to be done via your typical procurement processes. The below e-mail shows that Bank of America is fed up with the State and they have yet to find a willing sucker bidder willing to deal with the State’s payment cycle.

Here is a copy of the e-mail (emphasis mine):

Folks:

Not to send panic, but just a heads up to each of you as to what’s happening.

Bank of America is cancelling the contract with the State of Illinois effective April 22, 2011. They will not do another contract extension for the State of Illinos. So what does that mean? On April 23, 2011 at 12:01 a.m., the cards currently held by IDPH employees will no longer be valid. The State has been trying to finda new vendor, encourage BoA to give us a few more months, but as of this writing has been unsuccessful on all fronts. So what does this mean to our travelers? Most establishments will not direct bill especially conferences, (prior approval needed by travel office for this process) so persons required to travel will have to put charges on their personal charge cards or set aside personal funds on prepaid travel card, or pay cash out of pocket. For those who are non-GRF [General Revenue Fund] this should be not big deal, but to those traveling on GRF, this could have an impact.

One additional details are received. I will share that information with you so that you can share with our travelers.

Unti then . . . this is just a heads up!!!!

The state has for several years run budget deficits. As Illinois can’t print money and they’ve run out of cash, they have resorted to simply paying bills later and later. Some vendors have stopped doing business with the state, some vendors simply will not do business with the state or seek state business.

Bank of America is likely tired of having a customer owe millions and insist on paying on a Net-270 (on a good month). The fact that they can’t find other bidders shows that everyone knows the score here.

Now, if you were a state employee, would you be willing to use your personal credit cards or cash for state business? Not if you didn’t want a one-way ticket to bad credit town.

What isn’t clear is whether this effects just the Department of Public Health or the State as a whole (calls to government spokespersons have yet to be returned with answers to those questions since last week).

All of this despite a 67% income tax increase has still left the State of Illinois unable to pay its bills on time and a Governor who insists cutting spending is just plain wrong.

This week is Sunshine Week, a week dedicated to promoting the cause of governmental transparency. It should come as no surprise that transparency is needed in Illinois. However, the Illinois Municipal League and Lord State Senator Ed Maloney believes that is the problem, not the solution.

They have introduced Senate Bill 1645 which would allow local government officials to label any individual who files more than 15 Freedom of Information Act requests in a year, or more than 5 in a month, “vexatious”. This would then allow them to summarily reject any and all FOIA’s filed by that person. There is no judicial review of this designation nor any right to appeal. You see, us taxpayers who want to know more about our government are annoying so they want to be able to shut us down.

To give you an idea of what kind of politician Lord State Senator Ed Maloney is, he earlier this year was embroiled in a controversy for sponsoring legislation that would require all home schoolers to register with the government. His stated purpose was that he was worried that people who homeschool their kids were not accountable to any government officials. You read that right, he views his job as enabling government to hold private citizens accountable for their private conduct.

The bad news is that SB1645 has already passed out of the Senate Executive Committee (the committee where “important” legislation is considered and fast-tracked) by a 10-4 margin. Disappointly, this included two Republican Senator votes (John O. Jones and Dave Luechtefeld). We can just call this coaltion the “Pay up and shut up” Coalition for their support of the public’s right to know.

Interestingly enough, the Illinois Legislature does not publish committee votes without a FOIA (would that be “vexatious” too?). Apparently 10 Senators believe that the public has a right to know what their tax dollars are being spent on… as long as they don’t want to know too much about how they are being spent.

In a rush to get this bill passed and out the door, Lord State Senator Ed Maloney forgot to put a press exemption so the media won’t be labeled vexatious too. It is a humorous twist to an extremely dangerous law.

Freedom of Information Act laws were passed in the wake of Watergate and, oddly, there is no real requirement for government bodies to give taxpayers and voters information on what the government is doing. Without these laws, the public would lose a significant tool to force governments to disclose how their money is spent. Apparently, disclosure of these records is a problem for these government officials at the Illinois Municipal League.

During the hearing, many mayors and other local officials took their sob stories to the Legislature and whined: “It costs too much”, “it takes so much staff time”, and “the taxpayers have to foot the bill for these troublemakers”. At the same time, this same group opposes Senate Bill 37 which would require units of local government to publish financial information and other documents online thus sparing the expense of FOIA’ing these documents to begin with.

In a state known for corruption, anyone contemplating keeping more records under seal because someone is “too nosey” in how their tax dollars should be spent should be rendered politically radioactive. It certainly does tell us the level of regard they hold voters in (i.e. not much). However, we shouldn’t expect much better from Chicago Democrats. After all, where do you think the President learned his dedication to transparenct from. His colleagues in the Illinois Senate.

In the days following, Dupnik doubled-down on his rhetoric, naming Rush Limbaugh by name. The mainstream media piled on laying clear blame on the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and the Republican Party in general. It must be news to me, but I didn’t realize saying “cut taxes” meant “go shoot someone in the face.”

Sheriff Dupnik played a critical role in bringing an all-time low to American politics and drove a wedge deep between right and left. At a moment when we all should have come together as a country to denounce the attacks of a mentally ill individual (one whom, I might add, was known to be mentally ill by Sheriff Dupnik’s office and who was previously investigated for making threats on others by Sheriff Dupnik’s office), Dupnik stood center stage and began the national blamestorming discussion.

The fact that a politician does not even possess a residue of character isn’t surprising, unfortunately. However, for a law enforcement official to demonstrate such a lack of integrity is unacceptable. Calls for his resignation are completely appropriate, however, the citizens in Pima County have something else in mind: they have begun the process to recall the Sheriff.

Recall is the ability of voters to fire a public official when they cease to serve the public. Sheriff Dupnik’s behavior is an extreme example of why such a remedy is necessary. The man is out of control and has given up the trade of law enforcement for that of MSNBC commentator (perhaps he can take Olbermann’s place). His demonstrated lack of integrity has shattered the public trust and he can no longer effectively continue in his role.

Americans Against Immigration Amnesty has taken the lead in organizing the recall drive. I believe it is a splendid opportunity for the citizens of Pima County to take a stand against their law enforcement officials brazen antics in the wake of this tragedy. They are asking for volunteers and donations to gather 110,000 signatures in 120 days. Anyone can circulate petitions (per First Amendment) but only Pima County voters can sign. Having participated in signature drives previously, this is no small undertaking and if you are fed up with the left-wing blamestorming session, get in contact with Americans Against Immigration Amnesty and volunteer or donate to help out.

For instance, most people do not pick their own insurance companies. Their employer does. The customer then isn’t the consumer, it is the business that contracts them to provide insurance for their employees. Patients don’t pay the doctors, the insurance companies do. In fact, the medical industry collects maybe 30% of the bills that aren’t sent to an insurance company. So their customer isn’t the patient, it’s the insurance company (or the government in the case of Medicare/Medicaid).

What you have is a system that puts all the control in people who aren’t the primary two parties in a health care relationship: the doctor and the patient. Is it any wonder why the system sucks? We’ve taken everything we know about economics and done the opposite.

However, for their part the doctors and the insurance companies have more access to legislators (due to campaign contributions and lobbyists) than patients do. The result is a regulatory system that is skewed away from patients, affordability and choice.

Illinois provides a great example of this.

Currently there is a debate on legalizing specially trained nurses to give birth outside of a hospital setting. This legislation is SB3712.

Currently, the interpretation of the Department of Professional Regulation is that attending a birth is “practicing medicine” and must be supervised by a doctor. Illinois is a judicial hell-hole, so liability insurance for doctors is already at least four-times what it is in neighboring states so you won’t find a doctor willing to attend a home-birth (unless you have a crap-ton of money).

So you have doctors (and more accurately) their liability insurance companies who are setting the terms of birth for women who might want to have birth at home. Many people might find the concept of a home-birth not for them. That’s fine. It isn’t for everyone. It certainly isn’t for high-risk pregnancies but many pregnancies aren’t high risk.

However, let’s examine the costs. A homebirth costs around $2,000. A hospital birth with no interventions costs about $25,000. In fact, if you go into labor quickly and can’t get to the hospital in time and have birth at home or in route to the hospital, the hospital charges still run about $20,000 for doing little more than cutting the cord.

27 states currently license homebirth midwives. Illinois isn’t one of them. Many women are pushing to make that licensing legal in Illinois so they can have birth on their terms. There is one obstacle, the Illinois State Medical Society.

They give lots of cash to legislators, so they have access. They say things like “it’s too dangerous” and legislators bow to their wishes. In reality, it’s about income protection. Low-risk, low-maintenance mothers are an “income stream” because they can be charged the full price for giving birth in a hospital where the staff basically sits around and does little.

But shouldn’t medicine be about “informed consent” where the patient decided their standard of care and not some lawyer or bean-counter they never interact with? Not to the Illinois State Medical Society. They also think that doctors who sexually abuse their patients shouldn’t immediately be suspended from medicine. Go figure.

This is somewhat a personal issue for me. My wife has had 2 of our three children at home and the other attempt we transferred into the hospital due to complications. My wife asked me if I was ok with her giving birth at home. My only condition was that I didn’t have to be the one to catch the baby.

Each time, the midwife was professional, well-trained and gave my wife the standard of care she wanted.

However, in Illinois, the ISMS wants to impose their standards on my wife without so much of a discussion. And that standard is written by lawyers who, understandably, are concerned about Illinois’ hellacious tort system.

Regulations should not be designed to limit choice. They should be limited to only what is needed to protect consumers and prevent abuse. In Illinois in the coming weeks, we’ll see if politicians side with women or side with industry lobbyists who simply want to buttress their cashflow.