GOV. JAMES R. THOMPSON had just finished his first legislative session when he gave this July 6 interview. He's proud of what passed and is determined to push his crime package through in the special session this fall. And, of course, he talks about his political ambitions.
Q: With your first legislative under your belt, how would you your first six months in office?
A: I'm pleased. I said from the beginning that my first legislative priority was and is a balanced budget. And the General Assembly gave me a [nearly] balanced budget. I think that's a remarkable achievement. I also compliment the General Assembly for the job they did on their own in bringing in a truly balanced budget, because in addition to adhering fairly closely with my recommendations, they also passed a number of revenue-producing proposals, like the out-of-state income tax and the speedup of the inheritance tax, that weren't in the March budget book.
In terms of criminal justice legislation, I'm disappointed at the failure of Class X. I know I had the votes for Class X, I just know it. And I know that people of Illinois wanted Class X. And I think the media of this state, which have been pushing HB 1500 [sponsored by Rep. L. Michael Getty, D., Dolton, after two years of study and work] don't understand what HB 1500 is all about. I was willing to compromise all session. I never said it was Class X or nothing. I said I would take the best parts of Class X and HB 1500. We had a bill to do that. It was killed in the House. House people said it was 1500 or nothing. And I think it was wrong for the speaker to rule the bill out on germaneness. He had never used that power on any other piece of legislation, so clearly he was reaching.
Q: What was your initial reaction when you learned what Speaker Bill Redmond done?
A: I was angry.
Q: Did you see that coming?
A: Sure, I knew it was coming. I knew they didn't have the guts to call it on its merits. I knew Redmond was offended that HB 1500 was sent back to commit- tee in the Senate. But I wasn't directing Senate strategy. It's my guess that 1500 was sent to committee in the Senate because our good faith efforts to attempt to combine Class X and HB 1500 were scuttled in the House. Getty, Katz [Rep. Harold Katz, D., Glencoe] and that crew had such pride of authorship and had the blind allegiance of the Chicago press editorially. Out boomed the editorials from Chicago saying that Class X was just a cheap publicity shot of the governor and HB 1500 a well-thought proposition. Well, the plain fact is those newspapers hopped on HB 1500 early and were embarrassed to get off it. But I understand how the newspaper business works. That's okay, that's fine. In October we'll put in a new bill and it will be voted up or down on its merits, I assure you.
Q: Is it. your aim to keep the veto session until you get your crime bill?
A: You bet your life. I think the implicit promise of this session of the General Assembly has been rational criminal justice sentencing legislation. That's what all the editorials have been saying. They said it's been a pretty good session, with the exception of HB 1500 not getting passed, and Thompson having his glamorized version of Class X in there, you know, Thompson should mend his ways. Well, Thompson's not going to mend his ways.
Q: What about your other priorities?
A: Energy, another one of my proposals, is one that, I admit, I'm a little bit in the dark on. Most of my energy package had been languishing in committee, and I was willing to accept it again in October. I thought we could afford to wait and see what the design of the federal energy program is.
In the field of ethics, I was disappointed. In retrospect, I think I made a mistake in putting in an ethics proposal that was too sweeping, too complicated. I bit off more than I could chew and thus
4 / September 1977 / Illinois Issues
violated one of my cardinal rules of a rookie governor: Don't bite off more than you can chew. I bit off more than anybody could chew, probably on either side. And it went down in the first committee it hit on a party-line vote.
Q: You say it was a party-line vote as if that's what sunk it. You are aware Republicans joined Democrats in criticizing the bills?
A: I know, they didn't like them, but they voted for them.
The other priority was efficiency or sunset legislation. I backed the Bartulis [Rep. A. C. "Junie" Bartulis, R., Benld] bill because I thought it was the best. I helped draft it. There are two competing Democratic proposals, and as I understand all three will probably come out in October. Maybe we can get a combination of the best.
The October session has to be taken into account. It won't be so much a veto override session, because I don't anticipate many vetoes and very few fights about vetoes that are made. But it will be a time to generate new legislation or
Q: You have gotten almost all of what you wanted from the legislature, your press for the most part has been good — you seem to be sailing along. Surely, there must have been some disappointments in the first six months.
A: Lack of time. I really didn't understand how much time I'd have to spend with the legislature on a one-on-one basis with individuals. You simply have to. Legislators have quite legitimate concerns, and they feel sometimes the only way they can make their views known is to come in here and talk to me. And they're entitled to. I campaigned on the promise that they could come through that door. That took a lot of time, especially in the last weeks of the session, just as cabinet selection took an awful lot of time during the first part of the administration. Just presiding over the Senate for six weeks took an awful lot of time. So I was left during my first six months with a sense of frustration that I wasn't reading enough, that I wasn't keeping enough on top of policy matters within the administration. And then I was damn glad I had selected as good a group of cabinet members as I had, because they were essentially running the day-to-day operations of government while I tended to the budget and legislative duties. I haven't been in on the detail of program development as I would like. I felt a sense of frustration about not being able to fill as many boards and commissions appointments as I have. And I haven't had chance enough to look at other governors and see what other states are doing. I haven't had time to look into the universities of this country to see what they're thinking. I'm going to try to make that up.
And I haven't had enough chance to be with my family. I haven't had a chance to be at home, to see my mother and father, or brothers or sister. It's going to change. I'm going to review the summer schedule and if we're over-scheduled for county fairs and stuff like that, I'm cutting back. After six months of daily grind at this desk, my family deserves some consideration. This is not an election year. There's no reason on earth for me to be driving myself and Jayne day after day when we've worked hard the first six months. People don't have any conception of how hard public life really is. But you're foolish to push yourself, because then your efficiency diminishes. If I'm strung out, I can't be a good governor.
Q: Back to the legislative session. You managed to get by the spring without any major tax hikes. Can you do it again next year?
A: Yes. In the first place, because we had a balanced budget this year, we'll be going into fiscal year 79 with a surplus in the treasury to bring the available balance up. We don't have hanging around our necks anymore the deficit that Walker left. He left a $78 million deficit which built into the base for fiscal '78, and there was no way to avoid that. That means when I start constructing the fiscal '79 budget this winter, we start $78 million ahead just by having rid ourselves of the deficit base. That's $78 million in new money. It will enable us, for example, to fully fund the schools next year, for the first year. And that's not money I've been hiding. I've said all along if they'll pass a balanced budget
September 1977 / Illinois Issues / 5
this year, we would get rid of the Walker deficit base and start out $78 million to the good. And, if growth and revenues come in as we anticipate, the lottery picks up, and the revenue comes in from the new General Assembly measures, I'll be in a position to allow for some program growth. I wasn't in a position to do that this time and I was sorry for that, but we didn't have the money. So we'll fully fund the schools next year, we'll build a couple of prisons, we'll make major capital improvements. Fiscal year '79 ought to be a good year.
Q: Is there any chance for some significant tax relief or tax reform for Illinois in the immediate future?
A: Well, I've asked the Illinois Fiscal Commission to examine long-term revenue and appropriations for Illinois and to take a look at the distribution of the tax burden and to make suggestions to me. But I don't see any immediate tax relief. The difficulty is that in order for tax relief to be meaningful to people, it would be so costly to the state in a tight year that we'd be trapped. For example, there was a proposal by Totten [Rep. Donald Totten, R., Hoffman Estates] to index the income tax exemptions according to cost-of-living raises. I couldn't support it; I told Don that. I favor it in principal, but it would have offered each taxpayer and their spouse about $1.50 in tax relief and cost the treasury millions. Even Carter's $50 rebate was laughed at as meaningful tax relief. How the hell could I come in and offer a buck fifty?
Q: What about some local property tax relief? A measure that died in the House would have allowed local school districts to levy an income tax.
A: That was a trial balloon largely, and I thought it was worthwhile — as a trial balloon — to see what folks thought about substituting district income taxes for district property taxes. But major steps of that kind ought to await the Fiscal Commission's report on total tax burden. There's constant pressure to remove the sales tax on food and drugs. [A bill was introduced again this session, only to die early.] Sales tax is regressive, and to remove the tax is a worthy social goal. But the revenue loss in removing the tax on food and drugs is about $340 million, and nobody has any notion about how to replace that, except with a rise in the income tax.
Sometime our income tax is going to have to go up. We've not had an increase in the seven years since it's been imposed. There has been no increase in the sales tax in that time either. No other major industrial state has gone seven years without a tax increase of some kind. We've been lucky in Illinois. We can go another two years without any kind of tax increase. At least that's what I'll propose: no tax increase this year, no tax increase next year. Sometime, somewhere in the future somebody's going to have to impose a tax increase of modest proportions. I think the people will live with that. They don't expect to go forever without a tax increase. They're smarter than that. But there's no point rushing into it before it's needed. The easy way to run government is to raise taxes to raise as much revenue as you want to spend, but I don't believe in doing it that way.
Q: Is there any chance of changing the income tax to a progressive rate? It's now regressive since it is a flat 2 1/2 per cent rate on all persons, regardless of income,
A: No. It would take a constitutional amendment to do that, not just the action of the legislature. And I don't believe the people of Illinois are ready for a graduated income tax and neither am I.
Q: Switching gears; who are the key people you have relied on in the administration?
A: Fletcher [Jim Fletcher, deputy to the governor]. His role in the first six months of this administration has been largely overlooked. And it's been one of an extraordinarily critical nature. It was Fletcher who worked out the settlement of the AFSCME negotiations in what I think was a precedent-setting labor contract for public employees, one that left Republicans and Democrats shaking their heads in amazement. It's a veryfair, realistic contract that says, "If we have the money, we'll give it to you. If we don't have it, we don't give it to you. We're not going to make false promises to you." Fletcher played a key role in that. Fletcher played a key role in the Crosstown agreement; Fletcher played a key role in the last several weeks of legislative negotiations. He is by nature and by instinct a negotiator and a compromiser, a good man to bring people together, and he's had legislative training. So I rely heavily on him. I would say Fletcher, Mandeville, Schilling are key policy advisers. Then there's Paula Wolff and her people. [Robert Mandeville is director, Bureau of the Budget; William Schilling runs the governor's Springfield and Chicago offices, and Wolff works on reorganization.]
Q: Does Fletcher or anyone else have free rein to make decisions and take action? Do you communicate constant-
6 / September 1977 / Illinois Issues
ly with him?
A: He has free rein to put a package together. And then bring it to me. I don't think there is a day that goes by that I don't see or talk to Jimmy Fletcher.
Q: Your last cabinet appointment, of John Kramer, a 28-year-old Democrat whiz, originally drew quite a harsh reaction from Republican legislative leaders. Yet, after you finally named him, you seemed to relish the fact that he's not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.
A: No, I didn't relish it, but I was a little put off by the fact that when I originally planned to announce his appointment, a number of Republicans objected on the grounds he wasn't a Republican. Because, in their words, it was the biggest plum of the administration and it should go to a Republican. Now, I want to be very precise about this. First of all, I understand that feeling and I'm not putting it down. Republicans have a right to expect that when they nominate and elect a governor that some of their people will be put into sensitive policymaking positions which are part of the administration team. And it's been very frustrating for the Republicans of Illinois to see so many holdovers. But that was a problem that had to take second place to the legislative session and getting the budget through.
I thought John Kramer was the best person available to me in the nation. So when Republicans say to me the post should go to a Republican, I say to them, "Do you want good transportation?" They say, "Yes." "Do you want good roads in your district?" "Yes." " Do you want to be able to recommend people to the Department of Transportation for patronage positions and see them hired because the department's running smoothly because Thompson's in control of it?" "Yes." And I say to them, "You just let me pick the secretary of transportation then. As long as he's a Thompson man now, I don't care what he was before or will be after."
Q: You've repeatedly said people want less government interference in their lives. You've even that you felt you would be reelected as long as you did nothing to people in the two years. Has that your approach to the office so far?
A: That's a bit of an oversimplification, I should clear that up. We were kicking around this legislative session and trying to come up with what the
issues would be in 1978. And I said I didn't know, but I didn't do anything bad to the people. That sounds like a gross oversimplification, but people are so fed up with government intruding in their lives that at some point they have said, "Hey, we're competent adult persons, we don't need government telling us what to do all the time." I think there's a feeling out there that if you can just relax government a little bit and let people run their own lives, they'll be happier. So I'm not one who thinks we should be charging in with 2,000 new laws every year to tell people what to do. Save money and get off the people's backs. I think maybe that is the issue. Give us a little peace and quiet.
Q: to the budget. How did you convince the legislature to give you a balanced budget when no other governor in recent memory could do so?
A: They could see it. I began hitting the pavements early and saying, "Hey, friends, we're estimating that at the end of fiscal '77 we've got $48 million in the bank. Now, if you overspend in the same proportion in fiscal '78 that you have for the past three years, we're going to be broke. It's not there." The first reaction on the Democratic side was "Thompson's hiding revenue." You can't hide revenue. And I kept driving that point home. But they said Bakalis [Comptroller Michael Bakalis, a Democrat] said it's going to be $110 million at the end of the fiscal year, rather than $48 million. And I said Bakalis was wrong. And the fiscal year caught up with him. He went from an estimate of $110 million last spring down to a low estimate of $52 million, which is what we came up with. We said $48 million all year long. So we were $4 million off. That's not bad on a $10 billion base. So Mandeville was a genius and Bakalis was wrong. And as the year went on, it became clear Bakalis was wrong.
They finally woke up in the legislature and said, "Hey, if we appropriate based on Bakalis' figures we may look like fools next year." And when they finally understood the basic economic fact that when we finally get rid of the deficit base we'd have a better year, well, they're people of integrity. They aren't going to spend money that's not there. And when they found out we were willing to compromise with them on issues that were important to them, like the Crosstown expressway, they saw they had a governor who was willing to accommo
date them. That's part of the legislative process; the nature of the process is to compromise. And I think they took that in good faith. I think my conduct in presiding over the Senate had a great deal to do with acceptance of my programs. I didn't screw them with kinky parliamentary rulings. I played it straight; I got to know them. I didn't hesitate to pick up the phone and call Hynes or Madigan or Redmond [legislative leaders].
Q: How much did the intransigency on both the governors part and the legislature's part the past four years have to do with your apparent success at, working congenially with the General Assembly this spring?
A: I think it had a lot to do with it. I campaigned on the notion that we had to end the confrontation. If people started talking at the beginning of the session about the paucity of my legislative program, well, it wasn't lean. It was appropriate, I think, for a rookie governor with a Democratic legislature. Balanced budget, ethics, crime, energy and efficiency. That's not bad. That's a five-point program. I don't have to have 2,000 bills to have a legislative program. Some of the good bill ideas can come from the legislature. That's what they're there for. I'll take what I want and reject what I don't want. That's part of the process. But I deliberately sought to diffuse the atmosphere and accommodate people.
Q: What about the criticism that you compromised too much? That Cross-town was nothing more than. a politically expedient deal at the expense of Downstate and Cook County suburbs?
A: Of course it was a politically expedient deal. That's my job, to respond to the things that need to be done. If you have a chief executive or a legislature that won't respond to the public's needs, well, then they're not politicians in the true sense of the word. People have the right to have things decided. That thing had dragged on for 15 years. Look at what's been achieved as a result of that deal. There'll be an immediate infusion of $115 million into Downstate for the road program. It will go in next year, Congress just voted it. So Downstate's got nothing to complain about; they got their money first. The Burnham Corridor will be a long time building. And the size and extent of it, and how much it will cost are in the future. So the city took it on the come.
September 1977 / Illinois Issues / 7
Downstate people who complain about it have a hell of a nerve complaining about it because the city was willing to take second place. The money on the table went Downstate. The Burnham Corridor's got to go through environmental impact statements; it's got to go through litigation. It takes time to plan a highway of that magnitude, and I don't know where it's going to go or how long ifs going to be, but I know I got my money for Downstate.
Q: What about the feeling among some suburban legislators that their districts got overlooked?
A: Hell, they got the major benefit out of the Crosstown transfer. By law, the $115 million designated from mass transit to the highway fund has to be spent in the Chicago metropolitan region. So the statistical metropolitan area around Chicago benefits from the Crosstown agreement. I know some collar county senators are upset about the RTA [Regional Transportation Authority], and so am I. I'm auditing the CTA [Chicago Transit Authority], and I've warned Chicago Democrats and the RTA that if they don't get the RTA house in order — in terms of plowing back money into the suburbs — they're going to find themselves with legislation gutting the RTA, and it will be their fault. But I don't think that's ire that should be directed at me. I wasn't here when RTA was signed. That was Walker.
Q: Did you, as some legislators and Bakalis and Redmond and some news papers claimed, get a pass on your budget as a result of the Crosstown deal?
A: I think that's an oversimplification. Democrats organized the House and Senate. They had the votes; they had the horses. You have to accommodate them to get your programs passed. So you have to make agreements that give them some of what they want to get some of what you want. The first thing people forget is that jobs and revenue in Chicago mean jobs and revenue for the rest of the state, too. Chicago's part of the state. Now, when Chicago leaders come down here and say they want things for Chicago out of proportion to what the state is getting, I say "no." That's where I draw the line. That's the difference between me and a Mike Howlett sitting here. Or me and a Mike Bakalis. They're much more likely to go along. I, at least, make them strike the deal. They recognized the realities of power; they're not fools, they recognized the delicate balance between votes in the Assembly and the veto and the override. That's the way the process works. And I think it worked out well.
It was important that I went to the educational establishment early and said, "Here's the governor's bottom line for education. Start preparing for it in your budget." And there's not a school district that can't live with the budget I gave them because they are prepared for it. And it was important that I made 21 speeches around the state defending my budget. Twenty-one goddamned grinding speeches, over and over again, with the charts, until I was sick of them and was seeing them in my sleep. But they had an affect. It's the only way to do the job.
Q: The past session was almost unanimously hailed as one getting tough on crime — a doomsday for criminals. Do the get-tough measures, including yours, we have given up the on crime's root causes are now turning our emphasis to punishment and retribution?
A: I don't take that approach. But some things have to be considered. First, while the root causes of crime are serious, it's foolish to say we're going to go after the root causes of crime. But until we solve them, we're going to continue to go out in the street and get hit over the head. That's just nutty, really. To say that until we eliminate poverty and ignorance and lack of employment and lack of adequate
housing, we're not going to do anything about putting bad guys in jail is just plain nuts. And I'm not going to have any part in that. We have more crime now with all our social welfare programs and our extraordinary commitment in billions of dollars to our welfare programs, than we did in the midst of the great depression, when we didn't have any programs. Those programs were not meant to fight crime. They were meant to fight poverty, ignorance, lack of housing and employment, and to a greater or lesser degree they are doing that. But crime continues. That ought to teach us something. That ought to teach us that we can't eradicate all the root causes of crime in one or two generations, and that maybe we don't know as much about the root causes of crime as we think we do. It's an awfully easy shuffle to say, "Hey, it's all just poverty, ignorance, lack of employment and lack of housing when guys standing around on a corner decide to go hit somebody over the head." We've got to continue our social programs to try to alleviate what people think are the root causes of crime, but at the same time we've got to treat the symptoms, the hitting over the head. The only way I know of doing that is to take those people out of society and put them into jail. And if it costs a little more money to take those people out of circulation to protect ourselves, then people are willing to spend it. They don't want a prison in their backyard, of course, they want it out in the country, but even that can be achieved.
Q: For the part, you've received favorable press, even laudatory. How have you responded to the criticism, though? There were very critical editorials last spring, particularly from Rockford Lindsay-Schaub.
A: Oh, I got mad, like any other human being. I thought the Rockford editorials were unfair. I thought the first one made a valid point. It said 1 shouldn't have gone to the Kentucky Derby. Well, I don't think that was any great cosmic issue. But after I got the word from some friends who thought I the same thing, I stood up at my dinner and apologized. That should have been the end of it. The rest of that editorial was filler. The next time, they came out and blasted me twice as hard, but this time, I thought, unfairly, because they, just dredged up all the old stuff again. I don't know why. Who knows what compels people to write editorials? The
8 / September 1977 / Illinois Issues
Chicago papers have, I think, been unfair in their assessment of House Bill 1500 and Class X, but I understand why. But, by and large, I think the press treatment has been fair. Where the criticisms have been, I've tried to respond to them. Some of it's overblown; some of it's my fault. I had to open my big mouth during the campaign and talk about a big car to get my big legs in. So that was hopped on as a symbol, and we spent months agonizing over what kind of cars to get. Finally, I decided I'd order the Checkers, and to hell with it. I shouldn't have allowed myself to get into that position, but that's part of being a rookie. That won't happen to me next time. But I also came into the office with the impression that if you were up front with everything, you were safe. That's not necessarily true.
Q: You spoke a great deal about reorganization during the campaign you took some action once the session started. What comes next?
A: We've been conducting hearings all around the state. I think we made a good start on Law Enforcement and the Department of Administrative Services. I used the administrative order technique that brought the General Assembly into play on ratification. I'm going to take a look at the transcripts from the hearings and listen to recommendations, but I'm not in a big hurry to change government for the sake of change. Number one, I don't think it's a money issue. I'm not convinced that reorganization is going to save money. I never said so during the campaign, and I'm glad I didn't promise that.
Q: What about your well publicized presidential aspirations? Is that going to be an issue in 1978, that you'll leave Illinois in the middle of your term as governor to run against President Carter? U.S. Sen. Robert Dole [R., Kansas] recently said he you. were going to seek the; Republican nomination. in 1980.
A: He was just being kind. Anytime there's a Republican governor from a major state people say he's going to run for president. There are only 12 Republican governors, we've got to stick together. And I'm a fresh face, and this is the biggest Republican state, so it's just natural.
Q: Yes, but you. certainly haven''t hindered the talk and speculation, You've said that you've wanted to be president since the age of 11.
A: I want to be president, sure. That can wait. I'll let the people decide that. There's an extraordinary difference between the carping of some Democratic politicians that I'm lusting after the presidency and the reaction of people in the street. When I march in parades and people say, "good job," or "we're going to vote for you for president," or "you ought to run for president," I think I'm entitled to take that as one sign that any presidential aspirations on my part are not meeting with a whole lot of opposition out there. And if that's so, I'll assume it will be reflected at the polls in 1978.
If I were to decide to run for president, I don't think the state of Illinois would fall apart. But I haven't decided; it's too soon to tell. I can't tell you what the issues in 1978 will be, or if I'm going to be reelected or by what margin. And the more I study presidental politics, the more I'm convinced that in addition to planning intelligently and perceiving public moods and notions, where the issues are and where the present administration is right and wrong, there's an awful lot of luck involved. I mean, you've got Muskie crying in the snow. Nobody planned that. Romney saying he was brainwashed. Nobody planned that. You've got Jerry Ford saying Eastern Europe isn't under Soviet domination. I hope to hell nobody planned that. You've got Earl Butz telling an off-color racist joke. Nobody planned that. You've got the Ford campaign failing to pay enough attention to southern Ohio and failing to get Reagan to work Texas while we carried Illinois. Somebody should have planned that.
Who knows? You had an obscure, unheard-of ex-governor in a small state in the South go from that position to the presidency in two years. Now, he worked hard in that time. And he's a damn smart politician, one of the best around. Carter is shrewd, cunning, tough, hard-working, with good people. I don't know if he's going to fall on his face in two years. He had a lot of luck, too. So you can't calculate presidential ambitions with preciseness. To give me a shot at the presidency in '80 or '84 or '88, the worst thing for me to do would be to sit here and calculate. The best thing to do is be a goddamned good governor of Illinois, get reelected overwhelmingly, and say, "Hey, maybe there's an alternative down the road" — if people want me to do it. If the people don't want it, it's no big deal.
|
The governor's campaign contribution - a disappointment The contributions included sums of $1,500 from Burton Street Co., $1,500 from Windgate Farm of Illinois, and $5,250 from Thrall Car Manufacturing Co. Windgate Farm raises horses, and the Thrall company makes railroad cars. James McHugh is an officer on the Windgate and Burton firms, and Richard Duchossois is president of the Thrall company. Both McHugh and Duchossois are also corporate officers in the Illinois Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Foundation, which is licensed by the state to run horses on Chicago area tracks. Although it is illegal for an officer of a corporation with a racing license to make campaign contributions, Thompson said the funds in question were legal because they came from corporations, not from individuals. "As I read the law . .. there is no prohibition for a non-licensee [for racing] holding corporation to make a political contribution," said Thompson, adding "under the same circumstances, I would accept the same money again." Even Thompson's critics agreed that he had abided by the letter of the law, but more than one editorial chided him for setting a bad example and perhaps tarnishing his image in the public eye. |
September 1977 / Illinois Issues / 9