CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in More on pork

Re: More on pork

Southern Illinois iPhone — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:01:35 -0000

Phelps, Reitz, and Granberg... you stand with Blago, you stand against Southern Illinois, not to mention the rest of the state.

Re: More on pork

anon — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:11:13 -0000

repubs. got member money too...funny how that was not mentioned. i guess their projects are not pork.

Re: More on pork

It's Broken — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:06:26 -0000

I'm an Equal-Opportunity Blamer. Wouldn't really miss any of 'em.

Re: More on pork

True Comparison — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:30:25 -0000

For those of you blaming only Madigan for this, get real. You are showing where your interests lie. No mention of the Gov's or Jones' "pork".

Madigan would be in good company. How do you think Springfield became the capitol? Anyone hear of the "Long Nine"?

Re: More on pork

A Citizen — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:03:47 -0000

To provide the gov with a Lump Sum capitol budget of 6 or 7 billion would be simply incompetent. He can't be trusted. They will carefully craft a cap. budget bill with all elements directed and nailed down so gov can't play his usual games. I am pleased they did not RUSH to give him billions in a lump sum. Maybe that was Emil's deal with the gov, maybe not. So far the gov has zero flexibility with the funds in the budget and that is prudent. Of course he can go haywire on the veto game, but the only power he seems to have left is negative and potentially very destructive of the state's best interests.

Re: More on pork

Pot calling kettle — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:28:38 -0000

BLAH -- We gotr what you say you want. One person, Gov Rod, WAS insisting on controlling all of those $$$. The Reps and Sens took back the control. If you look at the items listed in the budget, most are for very specific projects, and the work is spread pretty evenly around the state, as it should be. If the 8 who voted no did not see the need for projects in their district or wanted to count on the governor's largess, so be it.

Now we have the capitol bill...the real road block to that is the gov does not want to list any projects so can can hand out the money to the few friends he has left. The Leg wants to know where the money is going. That's what we send them to the patch to do.

Re: More on pork

BLAH — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:11:05 -0000

It's not that member initiatives aren't necessary. Of course I think they should get funding for fire equipment, libraries and parks. It's the fact that there is NO debate on a $60 billion budget and if a member votes no they get nothing for their district.

How exactly is Madigan looking out for the people of Illinois if his spokesperson comes out and says - if they vote no their people get nothing??

Last time I checked one person shouldn't be in that much control of 12 million.

Re: More on pork

Way Down State — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:08:02 -0000

Don't feel too sorry for Brandon Phelps, at least his support for the governor will help Uncle Dave keep his cushy job at IDOT (where he and his brothers can be heard singing in the background of the latest Be Safe in Workzones PSA), Brother Brock as he goes back and forth between state jobs and the Laborers Union, and of course don't forget about Cousin Luke's contracts with IDOC.

I'm probably missing a relative or two, but you get the point.

All he's doing is trying to keep up with the Joneses. So what if he screws his district with his vote. It won't be the first time he put family first.

At least State Rep. Dan Reitz, whose wife got a job with DNR shortly after Hot Rod took over, got the $50 million plus World Shooting & Recreation Complex now operating in his district.

Who needs these minor pork projects when a "Branson-like" development is looking at his district. The governor will certainly support whatever is needed for a project that big.

Too bad for Brandon. At least he's announced his re-election already rather than take on Gary Forby for the state senate. Smart move since Gary will have plenty of pork dollars to spread over the south half of his district, each time a reminder as to who it was really able to bring home the bacon.

Re: More on pork

Pot calling kettle — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:59:34 -0000

The discussion seems to be missing the point of the "earmarks." For years, Gov Rod has insisted on doling out the dollars himself; some districts did quite well, others, not so much. It wasn't based on need, unless you count the Gov's need for control. He's just mad because the Reps and Sens finally got fed up and put in a list that spreads the money around the state.

Re: More on pork

It's Broken — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:12:43 -0000

If I'm CSU I'm naming my next building after Madigan just to hedge my bet.

Re: More on pork

Eliot Ness — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:50:25 -0000

It's a shame Steve Brown has nothing better to do with his time than defend the indefensible. Just like with the IPA bill that they shoved down the General Assembly's throat with no time for analysis or debate, this kind of mafia (make you an offer you can't refuse) tactic is just what you'd expect from the Capo regime of Don Madigani.

Re: More on pork

MOON — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:22:31 -0000

Sad

You are sadly mistaken. The Gov.has nothing to do with running this state. If he did he would be looking for compromise and working with the other leaders. Stop and think the harm the Gov. plan would have on the economy of this state if it was enacted. Jones only interest is himself. I forsee the Dems in the senate changing leadership. With regards to the Speaker, he is a realist and pragmatic. Madigan's interest are for what is best for the entire state, not a few selfish people. I would agree he has his own self interest to consider, but, I have never know him to put his interest before what is best for Illinois.

Re: More on pork

Sad — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:30:27 -0000

This overtime session has really shown how sad it is that this State is really run by just three men (Blagojevich, Madigan and Jones). Okay if that's the way it really is then let the voters elect not just the Governor but the Majority Leaders also. Forget minority leaders, reps, and senator their really irrelevant.

Re: More on pork

Steve Brown — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:14:16 -0000

On Black:
The budget was drafted by the four caucuses I believe staff kept members advised. I also believe a certain rep from Danville made a late breaking recommendation for a spending increase and the request was accomodated --- a suggestion that he might had some inkling.
On free thinking lawmakers & blackmail:
I have always found it amusing to listen complaints about member spending ideas that make it in the budget versus agency spending ideas that make it in the budget.
Which police car, fire truck, park, not for profit grant is better? Member or Agency?

Some might think legislators care about a few local ideas. The ones I know make recommendations on billions of dollars or spending year and year out.
Some might think Agency spending is pure and wholesome.
As you can guess I don't buy it.

Re: More on pork

steve schnorf — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:47:12 -0000

A legislative leader's job is primarily to exercise his caucus' will on legislation. He didn't seize power. They elected him Speaker, and they re-elect him, so they must believe he does a decent job of reflecting and advancing their will. To do this he must pass or defeat bills and that takes votes.

Re: More on pork

cicero — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:43:13 -0000

How are member projects different from federal earmarks? Almost all members of Congress want and get earmarks for their districts. Is that somehow immoral too, or is it only when state legislators do it?

Re: More on pork

operator 63 — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:40:12 -0000

I'm so mad I made mistakes...

Here's what I meant to say...It's too bad the Gen Assembly doesnâ€™t have people that can think and vote for themselves. Madiganâ€™s blackmail tactics show just why it is bad to allow a man that has only been elected to a state rep seat have so much influence. Shame on the lazy members who do not create their own identities and war chests. As for the Senate repubs, why deny us a capital budget? Watson should have been thrown out when he lost so many races to Jones. Now, that he is being lead around by a Chicago democrat, we should recall HIM now.

Re: More on pork

FED UP — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:38:15 -0000

Calling money for votes blackmail is the same as calling campaign contibutions bribes true enough but just buisness as usual in illinois

Re: More on pork

It's Broken — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:14:52 -0000

In some parts of the world they call it blackmail.

Re: More on pork

BLAH — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:05:24 -0000

So what he is saying is that if you disagree with Madigan you get zip for your people.

What happened to encouraging people to be independent thinkers...oh wait, this is Illinois, we go along with everything that two families say - the Madigan's and the Jones'.

Re: More on pork

FED UP — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:50:48 -0000

& million for chicago state they must be running up a big bar bill there. The last audit at chicago state showed that the school admin spent money on bar bills, cruises, first class air fare, tickets to musicals and large amount just not accounted for at all. Emil Jones must have family employeed there. Emil knows no shame a senate revolt is in order.

Re: More on pork

It's Broken — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:48:31 -0000

So when Black voted no stating he didn't know what was in the budget, he was lying. What he meant to say was "the state doesn't need to spend any money". And if Blago vetoes the budget he'll be doing it because "the state doesn't need to spend any money" despite his calls for universal healthcare coverage, etc...

Spin Spin Spin

Re: More on pork

Steve Brown — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:24:09 -0000

When is a"no" vote something other than a vote against spending money.?
I wonder if It's Broken" thinks the closed door is really open or the unlit lamp as bright as the sun? Great logic. Hope you don't work in public safety.
BTW GRod called yet another special ---w/o legislation --- for 2:15 p.m. today on the CTA.

Perhaps IB also thinks the legislature can create programs or fund services without voting to enact legisaltion. I think I may be understanding the "action plan" while LOL Loudly

Re: More on pork

It's Broken — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:14:18 -0000

â€˜If they are saying the state doesnâ€™t need to spend any money, why would you waste any time asking for their spending ideas?â€™ Brown said.

The statement assumes that people voted against the budget because they felt "the state doesn't need to spend any money". That's a good political spin, but it's a ludicrous claim. The state doesn't need to spend money? Who are you trying to kid, Brown?

Re: More on pork

Napoleon has left the building — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:13:35 -0000

Whether or not you agree with pork. Everyone should be able to agree that using state dollars to fund a project that you name after yourself is plain wrong and inappropriate. The Jones building at CSU, The Thompson Center, and Stroger Hospital come to mind.

The practice of naming buildings that are paid for by the taxpayers after a legislator is disgusting to me and it should be flat-out illegal. Step two would be removing Blago's name from the Open Road Tolling signs. He didn't pay for the roads, we did . . .

I actually think there is some merit to pork, but the self-naming is part of it that makes me want to vomit. Doesn't make it any better that it's Emil's late wife either.