-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2009/09/11/loyalty-and-protection-the-springfield-way/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
But I would love to hear the Speaker tell Rich to go home and "get his shinebox" at a future press conference!
(not legislation)
No, wrong. Just because the greedy and powerful, backed by money (and their own cynical political skills, of course) have crafted a system designed to benefit themselves at the expense of anything approaching democracy, does not mean we should just grin and bear it. I am so sick of the shrugging attitude toward all this from many of my fellow (so-called) citizens. If you'd rather live in something approaching rule by cabal, just admit it and get on with your life. There is nothing all that new in human history or nature with wanting to be ruled by others, of wanting to be a subject instead of a citizen (which is hard work that must be sustained over most of one's lifetime).
Remember, we are paying dearly for all this, even as most of us struggle with lay offs or pay and 401(k) reductions, and face higher taxes as services decline significantly in all parts of this state. Read the Sun-Times article about the pension mess for further evidence.
We just haven't found the winning combination of laws to combat this, so I say we keep trying.
"Mr. Corleone never asks a second favor once he's refused the first, understood?"
But you have to maintain the raw power to keep loyalty bred of fear. Once the federales struck at Blago, everyone knew he lost his powers of punishment and reward, so every "friend" he ever had in politics gladly participated in taking him down.
"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."
Term limits would help solve this inbreeding.
If the state House and Senate are dictatorships, the dictators probably don't want to lose their
loyal minions and contend with new, unknown, legislators, so they do have pay some attention to
helping them retain their seats. So if the legislators are getting a lot of mail or calls about an issue, the dictators have to pay some attention to that.
But how many people know who their legislators are and how to e-mail them or where to write them a letter. How many of them actually write those e-mails and letters. You many not have a lot of respect for these folks, but they are the only legislators we've got. And pressure on them means pressure on the big bosses, if it gets strong enough. You have to work within the system while trying to change it. Or do something, not nothing.
That's why the designers of the American system created separation of powers, checks and balances.
One of the problems we have in state government is that the great majority of citizens are indifferent to its workings. That allow those who show up -- whether at the polls, or in campaign contributios, or in lobbying -- to exert a disproportionate influence on how power is exercised.
What's the percentage of the voting-eligible population you have to persuade to win a primary? Bupkis.
Is it hopeless, can you beat the system? Absolutely. Jane Byrne did. Harold Washington did. They did so with massive voter turnouts. Decisions are made by those who show up.
Um, didn't those two sentences contradict each other? Re-read the column, please.
Both Illinois and the old Soviet Union are one party governments in a decaying economic environment. Since 1976, more people move out of Illinois, than move in. The state's economy is stagnated. The national economic booms are either non-existent or fall far shorter here than in most other states.
After 35 years, we have a government that is focused on protecting what is left of the economic pie. When these things happen, you get top-down government decision making, few reforms, and little economic growth. The people in power, remain in power. They pass their power onto family members. What you are describing as gangster-minded organizations, is what we have seen repeatedly through history when an economy stagnates - it forms these kinds of governments.
The immediate solution isn't a government solution - because the government is the problem. There are no viable solutions capable of coming from governments in this situation. This is why we have seen the budget gridlock repeatedly since 2005. Reality is meeting political lies.
Feeding this organization with more money will also not work. The problem of reduced revenue is due to the perpetual economic stagnation, not due to low taxes.
Pro-government supporters don't get it. We have a broken government which has failed to keep the economic success that was Illinois throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries. Illinois government got insular and started focusing on internal monetary redistribution instead of external monetary gain. The lacked the foresight previous Illinois governments had, so when the Industrial Age slowly petered out - so did Illinois.
While it is not wrong to be concerned about how the stagnating economic pie is being divided - not focusing on growing that economic pie is the real problem. We have been stagnating for a generation. It took that long to eat up all the extra, because Illinois was that successful!
With our stagnant economy, we have stagnant Soviet-style government.
The solution will require that we allow this corrupted, broken state government to bottom. Stop bailing it out. Let it crash. Rats don't leave until the ship sinks. In our case, if we don't want the rats to continue running Illinois, the only way to get rid of them is to allow this ship to sink.
And MSM coverage of this particular issue, which I consider to be of the most import, has been woeful.
I think the end of Casino might be a more appropriate analogy. Where if the mob ceases to control the casinos, another force, like the corporate entities just grows in power. Power abhors a vacuum. If the legislative leaders didn't have the power, the special interests would.
Even when someone is left swinging in the wind, the remaining members have to decide whether it's worth it to go alone...it's not. Since the leaders control both the bulk of the campaign cash AND the leadership positions and committee chairs (which add to a member's pay and boost fund-raising potential), it would be really stupid to go against the flow. You'll notice that the extra pay for leadership remained intact even in this year's tight budget.
These locally elected officials react to local issues
Any leader who does not respond does not stay leaders very long.
a strong caucus can yield a strong leader who can stand up to well financed, special interests --- be they banks, utlities, insurance, gamblers. sloopy doctors or shoddy manufacturers.
Without strong leaders who runs the show? Crackpots like Blagoof? Media darlings?
Special interest stooges?
Term limits will only serve those masters
Be careful in following Motehr Tribune too far down the road.
The latter was tried and used to get rid of the GOP Congress. Editorial boards accross the country held nice 7 term legislators accountable for iraq, spending, corruption despite how well they had lead and or voted on things like health it bills and pork brought home.
You have the option to change things, and it starts with being a real political columnist and naming and shaming these members you say are the foot soldiers-the hamos's, may's, garrett's, schoenbergs, who somehow aren't accountable for the springfield cesspool.
You forget that local voters also like the idea of someone who brings the bacon home. Local issues are important but a rep who is (or perceived to be) a powerful figure in the legislature will be re-elected. Everyone likes term limits for the other reps in other districts. That's why it is difficult to enact term limits.
VM, Perfect analysis. While I agree with the description of the power structure that Rich presents, you describe with devestating accuracy the overall milieu in which it operates.
I wonder, is there anything us comrades can do to accelerate the process?
You mean when Cross substituted members on a committee last spring to help kill a pension reform bill?
lol
Pre-Blagojevich, it was understood by all the major players that a legislative session would end in a grand, compromise deal negotiated by the leaders. The rank-and-file legislators had some input on the final result with respect to specific issues of particular interest to them. Also, the mere process of compromising forced the leaders to accept some opposing positions. Now, it appears that the the leaders are no longer willing to compromise, and there will be no more final deals.
The analogue is DEAD on- the population at large does not operate from fear but apathy- it is easier to say "it's their fault..."
I also forgot to ask what grand service, program etc would become available in IL with the weak caucus, weak leader era that will come with term limits:
--- more sloppy doctors
--- nuke plants on the lakefront (opps they got that lsst time)
I think you get the point and understand how far off the mark the Capt Fax was this a.m. Fortunately it was lost in the Sun Times discovering that pensions are expensive.
Good thing most of us will never collect one
Their insidious presence in institutions like Lehman Bros., AIG, and the SEC for their own enrichment is the untold scandal of our time.
The text edited out of my previous post was inspired by the movie "A Bronx Tale," which is a story about a Mob Boss named Sunny and an impressionable young neighborhood boy he befriends. Sunny and Mike Madigan are very similar. Just sayin' .
Ron Mexico,
Other states have term limits and are doing quite well. California is an extreme case on just about everything, so it is not fair to use it when making comparisons.