Most recently
named "Legislator of the Year" for 2002 by both the
Illinois Health Care Association and Illinois
Enterprise Zone Association, Illinois State Sen. Dale
Righter (R-Mattoon) believes that although he has just
gone from state representative to the Senate, not much
has changed other than the size of his district. "Your
duties back home are really not any different. I’m
still a legislator working to serve my constituents,"
he said after a long day at session.What exactly
are these "duties?" Besides fighting for economic
development, education, health care and governmental
accountability, another one of them, according to
Righter, is bringing the glory of past politics back
into Illinois government today.
"I have read a great deal of history. I’ve read
books on Harry Truman, who while he was not a
Republican, many would say that his philosophies more
match the Republican philosophies today than the
Democratic philosophies, and Teddy Roosevelt - I’m in
the middle of a second volume of his biography right
now," Righter thinks.
"You see in both of those gentlemen certain values
and principles they stood for. Even though the party
might disagree with them, they stood up for what they
believed was right, and they were very forward
thinking. They didn’t just worry about the next
election cycle; they worried about the next decade and
the decade after that. To me, that is something that
all public officials here in the General Assembly need
to do. It’s not bad to read up on officials like that
to be reminded of the standards that we should try to
live up to."
Q: What did you do today in
session? Was there a particular issue discussed that
you have been thinking about most?
A: Well, it’s Agriculture Day here at the Capitol,
and we had many constituents visit us. On the Senate
floor, as you know, the Democrats control the Senate
now. There are 32 Democrats, 26 Republicans, and one
independent. The one independent caucuses with and
votes with the Democrats, so effectively, it’s 33 to
26. In my opinion, we’re seeing a great number of
pieces of legislation being forced through the Senate
that are not necessarily good public policy. A couple
today – one was a bill that punched another hole in
the tax caps that were passed back in 1995. Since
session convened, we’ve had this kind of run of bills
brought by Democratic sponsors to create exceptions to
the tax caps for local government entities. If this
continues, we will be at a point where there wasn’t
much purpose in passing the tax caps for people in the
collar counties, or adopting them downstate, because
we keep creating these exemptions.
Another example that was passed today that I felt
was a poor piece of legislation was a tax amnesty
bill. This has been attempted before in the General
Assembly, and to my understanding, it has not passed
in recent years. This bill simply gives a window of
time for individuals who have chosen not to pay their
taxes to avoid the interest or penalties that are due.
But the Department of Revenue testimony on this bill
is that it will not result in new money that would
otherwise not have been collected. Also, what does
this say to most of our citizens who pay their taxes
and do so on time?
The new majority is moving legislation which we
don’t have money to pay for, and that is a very
troubling trend for us, because the Governor hasn’t
given his budget address yet. That will happen April
9, so we don’t know what the Governor’s budget looks
like, how much money he thinks he can spend, how he’s
going to come up with the money he wants to spend, and
where he wants to spend it. But in the meantime, these
commitments continue to be passed. In my view, that is
not very responsible. Constituents will expect these
programs to be there because the sponsor of the new
program sent out a press release proclaiming it. And
that’s unfortunate, because it’s likely there will not
be the funds available to pay for it.
Q: You recently made the move
from the House to the State Senate. Have you noticed a
difference between the two halves of the legislature?
As a newly-elected senator, what are your goals for
this legislative session?
A: Your duties back home are really not any
different. I’m still a legislator working to serve my
constituents. Now, I represent a much larger area. I
covered all of parts of five counties in my House
district and now represent all of parts of 12 counties
in my Senate district. Here in Springfield, the job’s
a little bit different. The most significant part of
that is that I’m one out of 59 members of the Senate
as opposed to one out of 118 members of the House. You
have more of a voice in the chamber, you tend to have
more time to study some of the proposals. The workload
increases, but the time you’re able to spend with each
measure is increased, and I do enjoy that.
One of my goals for the legislative session is to
help defend the taxpayers and help minimize the
increased spending for which there is an urge to put
out there. The Senate Republicans are trying to bring
some measure of moderation here by saying, "Listen, we
have to be responsible. Not just in the money we
spend, but in the promises that we make about how much
money we can spend."
My two most significant pieces of legislation were
not allowed out of the Rules Committee by the Senate
Democrats. The first was a Budget Containment Act.
This would allow yearly increases in the state
spending to no more than four percent. Additionally,
if in any one year the General Assembly or state
government would receive in tax receipts more than
four percent above and beyond the year before, that
excess would be placed into a budgetary reserve fund.
With the wild spending bills that have been passed,
it’s understandable to see why that wasn’t let out of
Rules.
The other piece of legislation was one that would
end the diversions from the Illinois Road Fund. The
Illinois Road Fund is primarily funded through the
Illinois motor fuel taxes, the 19.3 cent per gallon
tax that you pay for gas or diesel fuel that you buy
here in Illinois. Over the last decade or so, it’s
been a habit of the General Assembly to divert money
from the Road Fund into the General Revenue Fund. The
Road Fund is supposed to pay for our roads and
bridges, and we tell our constituents that complain
about the high cost of gasoline and the high taxes of
gasoline that the money goes directly to improving
road bridges and improving road safety. Well, when we
divert money out of the Road Fund, that’s only
partially true. This bill would set in place a process
to decrease over the next few years the diversions and
bring them down to zero. Those state agencies that are
currently spending Road Fund dollars would be required
to find their money elsewhere.
Q: What do you feel is the
most rewarding part of your job? What questions do
constituents usually ask you, and how do you try to
bring their issues onto the Senate floor?
A: First, the most rewarding part of my job is the
constituent service we provide. State government is a
$53 billion monster, and when someone has a problem,
whether it’s getting their refund check back from the
Department of Revenue or getting their daycare license
from the Department of Children and Family Services,
often people don’t know where to go. We hope those
people come to us, and we can act as their guides
through state government. There’s nothing better than
being able to help a constituent who came into your
office not knowing where to turn, and being able to
assist them in a meaningful way.
Constituents ask me a myriad of questions on a wide
variety of subjects. One of the most common questions
is about the way we fund schools, and people who want
to see a change in the funding formula sometimes don’t
understand why that change has not taken place. We
spend time with them and walk them through the fact
that the principle reason is based on political
diversity. There’s a great disparity here, in regards
to some of the wealthier areas and some of the poorer
areas, some of the more urban areas and some of the
more rural areas. It’s a political and geographical
issue. That’s just one example, but most people ask
questions like that.
How do I bring their concerns to the floor? Most of
the time, the concerns that are brought to me from my
constituents are issues that are not necessarily those
that we would bring to the Senate floor, in terms of
legislation. It would be more along the lines of
working with a state agency such as the Secretary of
State’s Office or the Department of Natural Resources
or whoever it might be. There have been occasions
though where constituents have come to me and we’ve
talked about an issue and did in fact find out that it
required a change in the law. We’ve done that
successfully too, and that’s a very good feeling.
Q: What are your thoughts on the
war on drugs in Illinois? What could be done to fight
our state’s drug problem that is not being done? What
do you see as the most dangerous drug for Illinois
young people to become involved in? What about a
dangerous drug for older adults?
A: All drugs are dangerous; some are dangerous to
different degrees. Right now, the most dangerous drug,
in my view anyway, is methamphetamine. Before I became
a member of the House of Representatives, I spent five
years as a felony narcotics prosecutor and have pretty
good firsthand experience of dealing with people who
have run into problems with using drugs and addiction
to drugs. Methamphetamine is so dangerous; because you
never know what people are putting in it when they’re
making it...I would say that’s the most dangerous drug
for older adults too, because it has the same effect
on the body, regardless of age.
My thoughts on the war on drugs in Illinois? I
think that it has to be to two prolonged efforts:
treatment and prevention issues and enforcement
measures. You have to have, I think, a carrot and
stick approach to this. You have to move people who
are addicts into treatment to try to help them, but
you also have to make sure that they understand that
if they’re not serious about their treatment, if they
continue to sell drugs on the street, ramifications
for them in terms of criminal charges and prosecution
are possible. We’ve had some success at that. There
are a lot of good ideas floating around about taking
first time, nonviolent drug offenders – especially
those who may be misdemeanor cannabis users and
similar cases – and not necessarily trying to put them
in the criminal courts immediately but try to work
with them and put them in another system that
encourages them to get that treatment with the
understanding that if they don’t work through their
problems with our help then we’re going to have them
go to the criminal court system. These individuals
should understand that a felony conviction on your
record is something that can end someone’s career and
someone’s ability to provide for a good living that
they otherwise would have been able to achieve.
Q: In a "Spotlight" interview
in early March, Missouri House Majority Leader Jason
Crowell told me, "I don't think Missouri operates in
the same dynamic as say, Illinois with Chicago,
because I believe that if everybody who was elected
from Chicago got together, they would have a majority
to do whatever they wanted. Now, if everybody got
together in St. Louis, they still wouldn't have a
majority to do what they wanted, irrespective of what
the rest of the state thought...They don’t have a
majority so that the state of Missouri operates solely
at the interest of Kansas City or St. Louis." You
received your law degree from St. Louis University.
While there, did you see anything different about
Missouri politics than Illinois politics? Would you
say that Missouri politics has changed since you were
there?
A: Illinois is vastly different than any of the
states that surround it. Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin,
Indiana, and Kentucky can fairly be characterized as
large industrial states like Illinois is. Chicago is a
big part of that, obviously, because of the size of
the city, the large manufacturing base that we have,
and a large labor union population. That makes us very
different from the other states. I am someone who
represents 12 counties, five of them on the
Illinois-Indiana border, competition issues in terms
of economic development are critical.
Illinois has been, especially for the last 30 years
or so, historically uncompetitive when it comes to
workers’ compensation. Job creation is much easier in
Indiana than in Illinois. There are two reasons for
that.
First, is the basic nature of the state. Again,
Illinois is a large industrial state, and Indiana is
not. Our workers’ compensation rates are going to be
higher because the nature of the population we have in
Illinois, again, which is largely due to the
industrial base we have in the Chicagoland area. If
you compared Illinois’ workers’ compensation rates to
other large industrial states, Illinois is very
competitive, but since we’re not surrounded by any of
those, so that really doesn’t matter.
The other reason our workers’ compensation rates
are so uncompetitive is because after Watergate and
the elections of ’74 and ‘76, you saw the Democrats
largely take over in Springfield, and that's when the
first wave of real workers’ compensation enhancements
took place. It did raise many of the awards and the
benefits and obviously, the taxes that employers pay
out. That has never been reassessed, and I think the
sluggish economy that we’re experiencing now is
aggravated by it.
Our state is one of the most diverse in the
country. You can go from north to south in Illinois
and again, travel through some of the richest areas,
some of the poorest urban areas, and some of the
poorest rural areas in the entire country. Therefore,
Senators and Representatives that come to Springfield
come from very, very different backgrounds and very
different points of view. Not necessarily on what we
need to do as a state, but how to do that and how to
get to that goal. This is what makes the state very
difficult to govern. In the five and a half years that
I’ve been in Springfield, I’ve learned a little bit
more about members’ backgrounds, where they come from,
and what their attitudes are.
Q: How did you first begin in
politics? What do you believe was the first thing that
truly influenced your political views? Also, was there
anyone who had inspired you?
A: When I was a freshman at Eastern Illinois
University, my first presidential election I could
vote in was in 1984. I took that seriously. My parents
always taught me that you should always vote and take
every opportunity to have your voice in government,
and that is the simplest thing, obviously, you can do
to have your voice. I did my homework listening to
Walter Mondale, the Democratic nominee, and President
Ronald Reagan, the Republican nominee. I think that
when I went down to the church that was just south of
Eastern’s campus to vote and voted for Ronald Reagan,
that was probably how I first got my roots into
politics, as far as how I felt about issues and what
my political philosophy would be.
With regards to anyone inspiring me, I don’t know
if there was then. I can tell you that since then, I
have read a great deal of history. I’ve read books on
Harry Truman, who while he was not a Republican, many
would say that his philosophies more match the
Republican philosophies today than the Democratic
philosophies, and Teddy Roosevelt - I’m in the middle
of a second volume of his biography right now. You see
in both of those gentlemen certain values and
principles they stood for. Even though the party might
disagree with them, they stood up for what they
believed was right, and they were very forward
thinking. They didn’t just worry about the next
election cycle; they worried about the next decade and
the decade after that. To me, that is something that
all public officials here in the General Assembly need
to do. It’s not bad to read up on officials like that
to be reminded of the standards that we should try to
live up to.
Q: Where do you see yourself
politically in ten years? Would you ever like to run
for a higher office, such as governor or U.S. senator?
A: I’m 36 years old, and because of that, some
assume I carry an agenda for higher office. I am asked
on occasion, "Well, do you want to run for Congress or
an office like that?" But, my wife Terri and I have
two little boys; and they’re in first and second
grade. John is 8, and Ben is 6. I can’t imagine going
to Washington or traveling statewide and missing that
additional time with them. I see the time and
commitments that some of these statewide candidates
make and the time, therefore, that they’re away from
their families. That would be a very troubling thing
for me, especially with the kids the age they are now.
Q: Most members of the
legislature are from the Chicago area. What is it like
representing a district completely opposite from the
city of Chicago? Is it sometimes more difficult to
pass the legislation you want?
A: Certainly, it is, in part because everyone here
in the General Assembly is busy. They all have not
only the constituents that they have to care for, but
they have their own private lives and their own
private businesses or other occupations as well. It’s
not easy to get people to understand what it is like
in your part of the state as opposed to their part of
the state, because we don’t always have the time to
just sit down and spend a couple of hours chatting
through those things.
I’ll be the first to say it: many times,
downstaters complain that folks in the Chicagoland
area, whether it’s in the city or the collar counties,
just don’t understand how it is downstate. No doubt,
that is true. However, I also believe downstaters
should be careful about that and maybe look in the
mirror. I’m not sure that we always have a very good
grasp of the way things are in the city or collar
counties. Sometimes there are discussions of, maybe in
the summer, legislators going north or legislators
coming south and spending a couple days in other
legislators’ districts to try to get a feel for what
is going on there. I think that is a good idea. The
key there is just setting aside the time to do that.
It’s certainly, because of the diversity issues I
mentioned earlier, getting more difficult to pass a
piece of legislation that is going to change policy
statewide, because oftentimes it may have a different
effect in other areas. They may not have the same
needs or see the same issues that you see.
Politics
Today 
Politics
Today: State Sen. Dale Righter
(R-Mattoon)