Senate President John Cullerton has been telling some of his members for weeks that he was resigned to an overtime session. The General Assembly likely wouldn't be able to adjourn by the scheduled May 31 deadline, he said. There was just no getting around it, so people should just accept that fact and move forward.

But not long ago, Cullerton reportedly came to the conclusion that if the spring session did go into overtime, Republicans would likely keep everyone bottled up in Springfield all summer long. So now his focus is on getting everybody out of town by the end of May.

May 31 is an important deadline because all bills voted on after that date require a three-fifths majority to pass. That means no budget can be approved, no Medicaid solution can be found, no pension systems can be reformed without supermajorities.

The Democrats control both legislative chambers, but they don't have three-fifths. They're seven votes shy in the House and one vote short in the Senate. One vote may not seem like a lot, but the partisanship can sometimes get so intense in the General Assembly these days that one vote might as well be a hundred.

Shikha Dalmia, writing in Reason ("Are Right to Work Laws the New Slavery?," April 26), dismisses most union objections to "right to work" laws. But she concedes that on one issue - the requirement that unions provide representation for scabs who don't pay dues - unions are "on more solid ground."

But, she continues, unions themselves are partly to blame. "They are required to represent all workers in exchange for monopoly rights over collective bargaining in the workplace. That is the Faustian bargain they made in the Wagner Act."

The problem is that she makes this sound primarily like a perk for the unions. She neglects to mention its value to employers, or more generally the way Wagner reflects the interests of employers.

It is a deeply painful thing to finally admit that the government you thought was your protector and friend is anything but. Or that the politicians charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution - as their oaths dictate by law - not only ignore this nonnegotiable mandate but actually diminish it with conflicting legislation that is largely illegal according to the constructs of America's republic under the rule of common law.

The common law I refer to is informed by the Magna Carta, which developed around two core principles that provide the litmus test for all legislation: (1) Do all you have agreed to do (contract law), and (2) Do no harm to another or his property (criminal law).

All kinds of statutes, administrative procedure, and highly arbitrary regulations have been passed via hidden legislation among hundreds of thousands of pages of bills, approved but not even read by our lawmakers, that do not remotely conform to the above two principles. How many statutes and regulations are adjudicated in criminal and/or civil court without harm to another or another's property? Most adjudication today is nothing more than a means for government and attorneys to generate revenue in the form of penalties and fees for an exhaustive list of contrived violations that harm no one.

Derrick SmithCall it "Blagojevich Lite," or whatever else you want, but it became pretty darned clear last week that the attorneys for state Representative Derrick Smith are planning the same sort of mockery of the system that Rod Blagojevich's legal team did during those dark days after the former governor's arrest.

Much has been published about the penalties imposed upon (now former) Rock Island State's Attorney Jeff Terronez for purchasing alcohol for an underage girl.

"He who makes judgment without hearing both sides, though the judgment be just, is himself unjust." (Ancient legal maxim.)

The Illinois Constitution states: "All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. No person shall be transported out of the state for an offense committed within the state."

We should, first, look at the seriousness of the offense. Have there been others who have purchased alcohol for her? Has she purchased alcohol for herself? How serious was the purchase of alcohol by this offender? Was it merely part of many instances when she acquired alcohol? Is this young girl more mature than her years?

State Representative Derrick Smith (D-Chicago) may have more legal troubles than his federal bribery indictment.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has told the House's Special Investigating Committee that his office's investigation of Smith isn't over yet, which could be an indication that the government wants to pile on more charges.

But the "active" federal investigation also means that Fitzgerald decided to refuse to cooperate with the committee, which is charged with looking into the allegations to determine if any legislative action is warranted. Fitzgerald also asked the committee to not do any investigations beyond what is already in the public record, except for interviewing Smith himself.

What would you be able to accomplish with a staffing budget of more than $2 million? That is the first thing I asked myself when I researched the U.S. Senate staffing budgets at Legistorm.com. Senator Dick Durbin is spending nearly $3 million per year in staff salaries. Senator Chuck Grassley has more than $2.6 million and is employing more than 50 people. Members of Congress, especially new ones, must have to pay their dues in D.C., as Representative Bobby Schilling only had $695,000 to work with in Fiscal Year 2011 while Representative Bruce Braley had more than $1 million to employ his 20 staffers.

The standard operating procedure seems to be to pay chiefs of staff between $160,000 and $170,000 annually. These figures are not bandied about when the incumbents or challengers are vying for your votes every two and six years. Consider that in 2002, members of Congress were paid $150,000, and that today they are paid $174,000 (RCReader.com/y/congress). That's a 16-percent raise over 10 years. Has your job enjoyed such raises over that same time period? And when the top staffer is paid nearly as much as the elected "official," one begins to understand that a person vying for these elected positions is vying for an institution, an enterprise, a heavily funded platform from which to dole out privileges and influence. No wonder so much money is spent on campaign races for a job that pays less than $200,000. When one has a budget of nearly $3 million at one's disposal for staffing alone, one can accomplish quite a bit.

Most people know that there's a wealth of information available online about members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. But while it's not hidden, it's often scattered among several Web sites, and it's hard to make head-to-head comparisons without a lot of clicking and note-taking.

Here is our attempt to bring some of the available data together in one place for members of Congress representing the Quad Cities. We include Representative Bruce Braley (a Democrat who currently represents Scott County in the House), Representative Dave Loebsack (a Democrat whose redrawn district will include Scott County beginning next year), Representative Bobby Schilling (a Republican representing the Illinois Quad Cities), and four U.S. Senators: Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois). All the information was drawn from four Web sites: OpenSecrets.org, Legistorm.com, GovTrack.us, and VoteSmart.org.

Beyond the basics - their ages and professions, how long they've been in office, and when their terms end - we include information on committee assignments and leadership, how many roll-call votes they've missed, personal net worth and investments, earmarks (and earmarks that went to campaign contributors), aggregate staff compensation, top-paid staffers, how campaign contributions break down from individuals and political action committees (PACs), whether they completed Project Vote Smart's survey of candidates, and assessments from various interest groups.

"It's so quiet," sighed Pippin in The Fellowship of the Rings.

"It's the deep breath before the plunge," counseled Gandalf.

"I don't want to be in a battle," said Pippin, "but waiting on the edge of one I can't escape is even worse."

That exchange pretty well sums up the current climate in the General Assembly. It's very quiet. Too quiet. Everybody knows that big, tough decisions are both looming and inevitable, and they're all tiptoeing around Springfield, peering over their shoulders and whispering about the coming fight that deep down, they are starting to realize, they cannot fully escape. The bloodiest of all battles is just around the corner, and they know it.

Retiring state Representative Joe Lyons (D-Chicago) said a debate on the House floor last month was his "finest hour." He was probably right.

Lyons successfully fought off five hostile floor amendments to his bill requiring that women seeking abortions be offered a look at an ultrasound test before having an abortion. The proposal has been a matter of much contention for the past three years, and it came to a head again in late March.

Pages