"…and the lights all went out in Massachusetts…"
With apologies to the Bee Gees, the lyrics to their song from a few decades back could easily have been intoned by Democrats on all levels as a result of the special election to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by the death of Sen. Ted. Kennedy and captured by the Republican Party. Regardless of whether the Democratic loss was due to a bad candidate or unpopular policies, the result has Republicans emboldened and Democrats scurrying on both the national and state levels. Those results in Massachusetts could have major repercussions in Illinois as the General Assembly begins a new legislative session on February 3.
Illinois Democrats will be trying hard to avoid a replay of 1994 when the political stars were aligned just about the same way as they are in 2010. Then, newly elected President Bill Clinton’s botched push for health care reform caused support for Democratic candidates in that off-year election to plummet. The result was an election debacle in Illinois that cost Democrats every major statewide office, and a 13 seat loss and control of the House. With Democrats poised to control the redistricting machinery for the first time ever in 2011 if they maintain control of the General Assembly and the Governor’s office, it’s not a great year to crash and burn at the polls.
Republicans, on the other hand, also remember 1994 and can be expected to do anything that will enhance their fortunes both for their candidate for Governor and for legislative candidates in advance of the November elections. Desperately needing to capture one of the three elements that comprise the redistricting triumvirate, Republicans will attempt to maintain the spirit of the “message of Massachusetts” by forcing legislative Democrats alone to solve the state’s fiscal mess and provide adequate revenues to fund programs. They would love nothing more than to be able to use the bludgeon of a Democratic tax increase to “bring home the bacon” in November.
In fact, because 2011 is a redistricting year nationally where all congressional districts throughout the United States will be redrawn, so expect more of a battle royal than cooperation in Washington, D.C. when addressing issues of controversy. Despite President Obama’s plea for a truce Republicans hope that an anti-Democratic surge occurs that trickles down to state and local levels in November. Power is at stake and the (political) game is afoot.
February 2 and beyond
Strategies for a successful November for each political party won’t be determined until after the ink has dried on this week’s primary election. There will be massive pressure on the candidates from the top two ballot races to be credible and make the case for themselves and to help create additional coattails for other candidates down the ballot. Since straight party voting in the general election no longer exists in Illinois, voters have to select candidates individually as they move down the ballot. In 1994 Republican Governor Jim Edgar was on the re-election ballot and was renominated easily. Democrats nominated a weak candidate (Dawn Clark Netsch) to oppose him and offered no other strong statewide candidates to move voters to the Democratic column. As Tuesday’s winning candidates head toward November there will be one appreciable difference in 2010. Electoral heavyweights Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Secretary of State Jesse White will be nominated by Democrats and may serve as “momentum breakers” as voters peruse the ballot if their top of the ticket falters.
With just hours left before primary election ballots are cast it appears that the fields have narrowed in the top of the ticket races:
According to published polls Republican Congressman Mark Kirk and Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias appear to be headed for nomination in the U.S. Senate race. Expect millions to be spent on both sides to retain or capture President Obama’s seat in the fall. Both may have to overcome negatives that could impact retention of their base voters. Long shot Democratic Senate candidate David Hoffman, former Chicago Inspector General, has been receiving many newspaper endorsements but has a minute war chest. Should he somehow upset Giannoulias it could make for an interesting race in the fall and could thwart the GOP plan to win that seat.
In the gubernatorial primary election marathon it’s a race to the wire among five candidates:
Governor Pat Quinn and Comptroller Dan Hynes have been slugging it out for months and, according to polls taken last week, Hynes has closed a 20 point gap and the race right now is a classified as a dead heat. Polling shows that Quinn’s approval ratings appear to have dropped like a rock since the recent prisoner release program fiasco. Trends and newspaper endorsements have been pointing Hynes’ way, but will Democratic voters on Tuesday do the same?
On the Republican side there appears to be a tight, three way battle for the nomination between former Attorney General Jim Ryan, State Senator Kirk Dillard and former state GOP Chairman Andy McKenna. Recent polls have shown each of the three in the top spot at various times. McKenna has skipped recent debates and has been chided by other candidates for doing so. He also has been chastised by the state GOP that he once chaired for doing an early poll on gubernatorial candidates and including himself, without receiving permission from the party executive board. Dillard, endorsed by former Governor Jim Edgar, is receiving criticism for having allowed himself to be in a pro-Obama primary election commercial in 2008. Ryan has been under attack from other candidates for jumping into the race late after having been invisible since his 2002 defeat by Blagojevich. None of the three candidates has offered specifics on how they would put the state back in the black during their primary campaigns. Whoever emerges had better come up with something good and detailed because the public will be demanding that by November.
One year ago, Republicans were gleeful about running against Blagojevich, Burris and Stroger. That glee has been dampened by Blagojevich’s removal from office, Burris’ decision not to seek election to the U.S. Senate seat he was appointed to, and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger’s presumed defeat in Tuesday’s primary election. Stroger enacted a hugely unpopular 1% sales tax increase in Cook County and has been incredibly inept in his handling of his office. As his approval rating plummeted to just over 10%, Republicans were licking their chops, dreaming of capturing an office that they hadn’t held since the 1960’s and cutting Democratic vote margins Cook County. Winning or even being competitive in that race in the fall would be a certain game changer. But, Democratic primary voters in Cook County will apparently end that fantasy on Tuesday by dumping Stroger and nominating a reform candidate to replace him.
February 3 and beyond
As mentioned previously, the spring session of the General Assembly begins this week with major uncertainties and no answers in sight to the question of resolving the state’s $12.5 billion fiscal hole. Legislative leaders have targeted May 7 for adjournment … three full weeks early and a sign that not much else but the budget will be considered. Expect any proposals to spend new dollars or create new programs to be non-starters. But, with a perceived jittery electorate at home, will the legislature provide any new revenues or will they try once again to put together a budget using gimmicks and one-time fixes? Yes, but the number of creative fixes beyond sweeps and borrowing have greatly diminished … and the stimulus funds that helped last year will no longer be available.
Is it possible that they will continue last year’s scheme of passing a lump sum budget, washing their hands and telling the Governor to manage as best he can? Yes, but as in the last scenario it would mean that no steps would be taken to close the revenue shortfall.
Could they adopt a six-month budget and then wait until after the November election and determine the next steps based on who the winner of the gubernatorial contest is? Yes, especially if the winner in November is a candidate that has pledged cuts and no tax increases. It’s entirely conceivable that the legislature could approve a budget that gets the state through January and then forces that individual to face a harsh reality from the get-go.
Or, will the legislature use the shortened session to seriously address the ever worsening budget hole? Yes, but expect that it will not be easy, no matter how bad the picture looks. It will take a herculean effort from the “bottom up” to get the revenue stalemate broken. And remember, even if a tax increase is approved a few billion in cuts will be necessary. That’s not a pretty picture. In a system that likes to reward winners, they will be few and far between this year.
Bill Introductions
February 11 is the deadline date for the introduction of new legislation. It is expected that the number of bills introduced this year will be significantly less than in other years due to the fiscal crisis. However, because there are thousands of bills that were introduced last year that are currently inactive, it is very possible that any of those can be resurrected in order to accomplish an objective.
Government Strategy Associates
Illinois Section AWWA
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
JOBS Bill - need letters to senators
Please look at the above alert and take action ASAP. Right now, some senators are drafting an $80 billion jobs bill. Two senators are seeking $3 billion for drinking water infrastructure and $3 billion for wastewater infrastructure in the bill. We are trying to help their efforts. There has been some skepticism on the Hill about being able to move water infrastructure funds quickly enough. If you are able to, please describe the projects you have that could be started soon if the money was available. We realize that one reason water projects can’t move real fast is the requirements or procedures or vehicle (SRF) Congress has mandated, but we can discuss that with them further down the road. We are not taking a stand on the jobs bill itself, just seeking funding for water infrastructure should a jobs bill move in the Senate.
Two leaders in drinking water issues in the U.S. Senate are attempting to generate support for funding for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in a jobs bill being drafted right now. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a member of Cardin’s subcommittee and of the Budget Committee are the ones leading
this effort. They are circulating what is called a “Dear Colleague” letter in the Senate seeking signatures for a letter they will send to the Senate leadership asking for the funding. (see below)
Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois are the lead writers of the $80 billion jobs bill. It has not been introduced yet, so there is no bill number.
• Call, e-mail or fax your senators and ask them to co-sign the “Dear Colleague” letter being circulated by Sens. Cardin and Whitehouse seeking funding for water infrastructure in the jobs bill. There have been doubts expressed that the funding can be used in a timely manner, so if any of you have projects ready to go, mention these to your senators, not with the intention of seeking an earmark, but as an illustration that the money can be used by water utilities very quickly.
You can find contact information for members of the Senate at www.senate.gov or you can contact me in the AWWA Government Affairs Office at 202-326-6128 or by cell at 202-326-6128 or at tholmes@awwa.org.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Our Planet, Our Stuff, Our Choice Video Competition
The stuff you use every day affects your environment, your community, and your planet. EPA is sponsoring a video competition to raise awareness of the connection between the environment and the "stuff"
people use, consume, recycle, and throw away. We need your help in creating videos that will inspire community involvement, spread information and lead to action. Your passion, your creativity, and your ideas can make a difference. After all, it's our stuff, our planet, our choice
Last day to submit entries is February 16, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/wycd/video.htm
people use, consume, recycle, and throw away. We need your help in creating videos that will inspire community involvement, spread information and lead to action. Your passion, your creativity, and your ideas can make a difference. After all, it's our stuff, our planet, our choice
Last day to submit entries is February 16, 2010.
http://www.epa.gov/waste/wycd/video.htm
AP Enterprise: Feds mull regulating drugs in water
AP Enterprise: Feds mull regulating drugs in water
By JEFF DONN
Federal regulators under President Barack Obama have sharply shifted course on long-standing policy toward pharmaceutical residues in the nation's drinking water, taking a critical first step toward regulating some of the contaminants while acknowledging they could threaten human health.
A burst of significant announcements in recent weeks reflects an expanded government effort to deal with pharmaceuticals as environmental pollutants:
- For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency has listed some pharmaceuticals as candidates for regulation in drinking water. The agency also has launched a survey to check for scores of drugs at water treatment plants across the nation.
- The Food and Drug Administration has updated its list of waste drugs that should be flushed down the toilet, but the agency has also declared a goal of working toward the return of all unused medicines.
- The National Toxicology Program is conducting research to clarify how human health may be harmed by drugs at low environmental levels.
The Associated Press reported last year that the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans contains minute concentrations of a multitude of drugs. Water utilities, replying to an AP questionnaire, acknowledged the presence of antibiotics, sedatives, sex hormones and dozens of other drugs in their supplies.
The news reports stirred congressional hearings and legislation, more water testing and more disclosure of test results. For example, an Illinois law goes into effect Jan. 1 banning health care institutions from flushing unused medicine into wastewater systems.
The EPA's new study will look for 200 chemical and microbial contaminants at 50 plants that treat drinking water. The list includes 125 pharmaceuticals or related chemicals. This research will help federal water officials decide if regulations are needed.
In the first move toward possible drinking-water standards, the EPA has put 13 pharmaceuticals on what it calls the Contaminant Candidate List. They are mostly sex hormones, but include the antibiotic erythromycin and three chemicals used as drugs but better known for other uses.
They join a list of 104 chemical and 12 microbial contaminants that the EPA is considering as candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No pharmaceutical has ever reached the list in its 12-year history, but medicines now make up 13 percent of the target chemicals on the latest list "based on their potential adverse health effects and potential for occurrence in public water systems," the EPA said.
They take a place beside such better-known contaminants as the metal cobalt, formaldehyde, the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, and the disease germ E. coli.
"I think this does signal a change in the regulatory and research approaches," said Conrad Volz, a University of Pittsburgh scientist whose research raises questions about the risk of eating fish from waters contaminated with sex hormones. "What's happening is pretty amazing."
Several scientists within and outside government tied the stronger focus on human health to the Obama administration and the president's appointment of Lisa Jackson, a highly regarded former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, to run the EPA.
"I think we are trying to be as aggressive as we can. We understand it's a major national issue. We understand it's a major public concern," said Peter Silva, the new water administrator at the EPA.
However, making the candidate list provides no assurance that a chemical will reach full-blown regulation. In fact, no chemical on the list has ever been made subject to a national water quality standard, EPA officials acknowledge. They intend to make preliminary decisions on some of the latest contaminants by mid-2012.
"They've made a lot of good first steps, so now were waiting to see those carried through," said Nneka Leiba, a researcher at the Environmental Working Group in Washington.
Water utilities and drug makers are wary of the federal moves. Difficult scientific questions remain over the possible threat posed to humans by minuscule concentrations in drinking water, where drugs are typically found in parts per billion or trillion. That's way below medical doses.
However, some researchers fear that very small daily amounts of unwanted drugs in water could do cumulative harm to people over decades, possibly in combination with other drugs or in sensitive populations like children or pregnant women.
Alan Goldhammer, a vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said such trace amounts "really do not pose a human health issue."
"We do get concerned if we think that somebody is going to require that the consumers spend money and not get any health benefit," added Tom Curtis, a lobbyist for the Denver-based American Water Works Association.
The U.S. Geological Survey first began taking notice of pharmaceutical contamination several years ago. But until now the federal government has focused on the presence of pharmaceuticals in rivers and streams.
A recently released EPA study found more than 40 pharmaceuticals - everything from antibiotics to heart medicine to antidepressants - at nine publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. The drugs appeared in concentrations measured in parts per billion and trillion. Many passed right through the plants.
Linda Birnbaum, who is director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and also oversees the National Toxicology Program, said some program research is focusing on how much environmental pharmaceuticals can reach animal blood and tissues and how that might compare with humans.
Waste pharmaceuticals reach the environment when people take medicine and excrete the unmetabolized portion. Millions of pounds of waste drugs also escape into waterways from hospitals, drug plants and other factories, farms and the drains of American homes, the AP has reported.
On its new list, the FDA, which regulates medicines, says only 10 active ingredients in controlled-substance drugs need to be flushed to keep them away from children, abusers and pets.
At the same time, the agency announced it is working with partners to develop programs to return unused drugs instead of flushing them down the drain. The agency wants "to encourage their development and future use for all drugs," declared Dr. Douglas Throckmorton, deputy director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Returned drugs are usually incinerated, which destroys most active ingredients. Community drug takeback programs have increased considerably since the AP's PharmaWater reports.
The recent announcements have been striking in their speed and breadth. Just last year, Ben Grumbles, Silva's predecessor at the EPA Office of Water under President George W. Bush, said only one pharmaceutical was under consideration for the list of candidates for water standards. And it was the heart medicine nitroglycerin, better known as an explosive.
Yet some environmentalists say the government should take even bolder action. "Identifying the nature and scope of the problem is not the same thing as addressing the causes of the problem," said George Mannina, an environmental lawyer in Washington.
He said the EPA should do more to keep drugs out of the nation's water supplies and not rely on expensive filtering systems at water treatment plants.
Jon Holder, a vice president at Vestara, a seller of equipment to manage waste drugs, said the EPA should be more aggressive about enforcing hazardous waste laws that already apply to some drugs used by hospitals.
"We applaud the light that's being shined on it, but we also recognize that the simple enforcement of existing law would go a long way," he said.
By JEFF DONN
Federal regulators under President Barack Obama have sharply shifted course on long-standing policy toward pharmaceutical residues in the nation's drinking water, taking a critical first step toward regulating some of the contaminants while acknowledging they could threaten human health.
A burst of significant announcements in recent weeks reflects an expanded government effort to deal with pharmaceuticals as environmental pollutants:
- For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency has listed some pharmaceuticals as candidates for regulation in drinking water. The agency also has launched a survey to check for scores of drugs at water treatment plants across the nation.
- The Food and Drug Administration has updated its list of waste drugs that should be flushed down the toilet, but the agency has also declared a goal of working toward the return of all unused medicines.
- The National Toxicology Program is conducting research to clarify how human health may be harmed by drugs at low environmental levels.
The Associated Press reported last year that the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans contains minute concentrations of a multitude of drugs. Water utilities, replying to an AP questionnaire, acknowledged the presence of antibiotics, sedatives, sex hormones and dozens of other drugs in their supplies.
The news reports stirred congressional hearings and legislation, more water testing and more disclosure of test results. For example, an Illinois law goes into effect Jan. 1 banning health care institutions from flushing unused medicine into wastewater systems.
The EPA's new study will look for 200 chemical and microbial contaminants at 50 plants that treat drinking water. The list includes 125 pharmaceuticals or related chemicals. This research will help federal water officials decide if regulations are needed.
In the first move toward possible drinking-water standards, the EPA has put 13 pharmaceuticals on what it calls the Contaminant Candidate List. They are mostly sex hormones, but include the antibiotic erythromycin and three chemicals used as drugs but better known for other uses.
They join a list of 104 chemical and 12 microbial contaminants that the EPA is considering as candidates for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. No pharmaceutical has ever reached the list in its 12-year history, but medicines now make up 13 percent of the target chemicals on the latest list "based on their potential adverse health effects and potential for occurrence in public water systems," the EPA said.
They take a place beside such better-known contaminants as the metal cobalt, formaldehyde, the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate, and the disease germ E. coli.
"I think this does signal a change in the regulatory and research approaches," said Conrad Volz, a University of Pittsburgh scientist whose research raises questions about the risk of eating fish from waters contaminated with sex hormones. "What's happening is pretty amazing."
Several scientists within and outside government tied the stronger focus on human health to the Obama administration and the president's appointment of Lisa Jackson, a highly regarded former head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, to run the EPA.
"I think we are trying to be as aggressive as we can. We understand it's a major national issue. We understand it's a major public concern," said Peter Silva, the new water administrator at the EPA.
However, making the candidate list provides no assurance that a chemical will reach full-blown regulation. In fact, no chemical on the list has ever been made subject to a national water quality standard, EPA officials acknowledge. They intend to make preliminary decisions on some of the latest contaminants by mid-2012.
"They've made a lot of good first steps, so now were waiting to see those carried through," said Nneka Leiba, a researcher at the Environmental Working Group in Washington.
Water utilities and drug makers are wary of the federal moves. Difficult scientific questions remain over the possible threat posed to humans by minuscule concentrations in drinking water, where drugs are typically found in parts per billion or trillion. That's way below medical doses.
However, some researchers fear that very small daily amounts of unwanted drugs in water could do cumulative harm to people over decades, possibly in combination with other drugs or in sensitive populations like children or pregnant women.
Alan Goldhammer, a vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said such trace amounts "really do not pose a human health issue."
"We do get concerned if we think that somebody is going to require that the consumers spend money and not get any health benefit," added Tom Curtis, a lobbyist for the Denver-based American Water Works Association.
The U.S. Geological Survey first began taking notice of pharmaceutical contamination several years ago. But until now the federal government has focused on the presence of pharmaceuticals in rivers and streams.
A recently released EPA study found more than 40 pharmaceuticals - everything from antibiotics to heart medicine to antidepressants - at nine publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. The drugs appeared in concentrations measured in parts per billion and trillion. Many passed right through the plants.
Linda Birnbaum, who is director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and also oversees the National Toxicology Program, said some program research is focusing on how much environmental pharmaceuticals can reach animal blood and tissues and how that might compare with humans.
Waste pharmaceuticals reach the environment when people take medicine and excrete the unmetabolized portion. Millions of pounds of waste drugs also escape into waterways from hospitals, drug plants and other factories, farms and the drains of American homes, the AP has reported.
On its new list, the FDA, which regulates medicines, says only 10 active ingredients in controlled-substance drugs need to be flushed to keep them away from children, abusers and pets.
At the same time, the agency announced it is working with partners to develop programs to return unused drugs instead of flushing them down the drain. The agency wants "to encourage their development and future use for all drugs," declared Dr. Douglas Throckmorton, deputy director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Returned drugs are usually incinerated, which destroys most active ingredients. Community drug takeback programs have increased considerably since the AP's PharmaWater reports.
The recent announcements have been striking in their speed and breadth. Just last year, Ben Grumbles, Silva's predecessor at the EPA Office of Water under President George W. Bush, said only one pharmaceutical was under consideration for the list of candidates for water standards. And it was the heart medicine nitroglycerin, better known as an explosive.
Yet some environmentalists say the government should take even bolder action. "Identifying the nature and scope of the problem is not the same thing as addressing the causes of the problem," said George Mannina, an environmental lawyer in Washington.
He said the EPA should do more to keep drugs out of the nation's water supplies and not rely on expensive filtering systems at water treatment plants.
Jon Holder, a vice president at Vestara, a seller of equipment to manage waste drugs, said the EPA should be more aggressive about enforcing hazardous waste laws that already apply to some drugs used by hospitals.
"We applaud the light that's being shined on it, but we also recognize that the simple enforcement of existing law would go a long way," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)