Legislative special session sparks call for study to impeach Blagojevich

Gov. Blagojevich is calling state lawmakers back to the Capitol next week in hopes they’ll pass a series of money-generating legislation that the Illinois House has gone on record as opposing.

The move prompted one of the governor's chief legislative critics to call on House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) to launch impeachment proceedings against Blagojevich.

Despite the governor's call, there are no signs that Madigan and his caucus will take the brick off of Blagojevich's plea to authorize casino expansion, permit a lease of the state lottery, allow the use of restricted state funds or pass a multibillion dollar state construction program.

Another major problem facing the casino piece of Blagojevich's funding equation is that Mayor Daley opposes it.

Given that the new state fiscal year started on Tuesday, Blagojevich has said those steps are necessary to avert a $2 billion shortfall in the 2008-2009 budget that lawmakers sent to him last month.

Since the House Democratic leaders have failed to call the House back to Springfield, "I must do the responsible thing," the governor said in announcing the two-day legislative session, set for Wednesday and Thursday.

Blagojevich said if the House doesn't pass the revenue initiatives, which already have won Senate approval, he will Òbe forced to take all action necessary" on Thursday to eliminate the budget deficit by cutting state programs.

"I hope they won't be part of a process where they write a check they know will bounce," the governor said of the House.

On its final day in session last month, the House used a parliamentary maneuver to kill legislation authorizing a Chicago casino and three others. A lease of the lottery, which could generate billions for state capital needs, died in a House committee.

"We'll be in Springfield next week. But the defects in the revenue bills are still the defects. I don't know there's any more support for this stuff than there was," Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said.

Blagojevich also warned voters that Madigan might be setting up the passage of a statewide income tax increase after the November election or early next year.

"They shouldn't do to the people of Illinois what the County Board did to the people of Cook County --get elected to office and then sock it to the people," said the governor, referencing the county's recent sales tax hike. ÒI'm urging Speaker Madigan and the House Democrats to make it clear what their intentions are."

Brown, Madigan's spokesman, responded that House Democrats ruled out an income tax hike Òa long time ago."

Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), who is one of Blagojevich's loudest critics, belittled the governor's effort to reconvene the General Assembly and said he would ask Madigan today to form a committee to investigate whether Blagojevich should be impeached.

“For decades, Illinois governors have been making hard choices when it comes to the state budget. The difference between our current governor and his predecessors is his attitude toward the process. This is all a game to Blagojevich. He refuses to do his job and has now opened the door for impeachment,” Franks said in a prepared statement.

Brown said this afternoon he did not know what Madigan’s posture would be toward Franks’ push for an impeachment committee. But earlier in the day, Madigan’s spokesman left open the possibility an impeachment effort could gain momentum in the House given Blagojevich’s demand that lawmakers reconvene.

“You never know what anybody could do. The speaker isn’t advocating that,” Brown said. “And he wouldn’t take a position, of course, because he’d remain neutral and impartial because he may have to preside over proceedings.”

The speaker faced criticism earlier this month when an impeachment memo prepared by his political staff surfaced for use by House Democratic candidates questioned about the topic.

The governor also wants the House and Senate to address a “drafting error” in one of the budget bills awaiting his approval that caused the administration to idle 39 ongoing projects throughout the state.

Brown disputed that the language was inserted in error and actually was intended “to prevent the administration from spending out of lump sums for projects that hadn’t been authorized.”