CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

roman girl — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 00:22:09 -0000

justice--I wasn't going for warm or fuzzy. You misinterpreted and then didn't pay attention to the fact that I said that there are public servants-let's debate that with "Disgusted"-who have knowledge earned through years of service who shouldn't be ousted. But by calling me a hack -definition--someone who deals or copes with or crony--from the Greek "khronios" or long lasting sure you're right. But not in the way you define it. I've been in state government through several administrations. And I made some decisions to work for administrations that I believe in. I worked in MSI issues-- nobody really even knows what it did to the little people. Those eligible for Medicaid had to pay their own bills because that company Id'd them with insurance--car insurance,life--didn't matter--but they got stuck with their bills because the billing cycle is only a year, and it got stalled long enough that they were stuck. How's that for justice buddy? And with your claim that you should campaign just for the simple feeling of accomplishment of your action to improve government but by not getting personal gain through employment--how do you get past the fact that people who are working in government in the first place are probably those most interested in the political process? That's where they want to work, in the issues! So get off your Trojan High Horse!

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:24:26 -0000

As long as people are satisfied to suckle at the teat of government they will not be free. The whole welfare system was set up to encourage that dependency -- to encourage people to stay in place rather than to move to where there is work.

Get your hackles down. I did not say that the welfare system did no good, merely that the politicians gamed and structured it to their benefit.

Inadvertently perhaps, but the systems assisted in the breakdown of the traditional family -- the most effective unit of governance and the only one able to provide its members with a moral code, the only one able to stimulate the effort needed to achieve interclass mobility.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:53:20 -0000

To roman girl - Thursday, Sep 7, 06 That sure sounds innocuous enough and makes me warm and fuzzy all over. Just knowing that campaigners can be rewarded, not by the simple feeling of accomplishment of their action to improve government, but by doing so for personal gain in the winning administration. This reward in almost all cases over the bodies of those faithful, dedicated, hard working career employees. You make it sound as if that is the route to improve our lot in life. Are you kidding. It is the fact that people with no hard work and dedication of working their way up through the ranks, and no long term experience should be given jobs over others who have sacrificed, that makes any administration condoning such an embarrassment to a democracy. It is the person that steps over others because of a short sprint to a political goal and feels they should be set on a silver platter that corrupts the system. There are positions in the upper ranks, double exempt positions, into which the governor can place his people, his advisors if you will. But this governor has abused that privilege and made a mockery of it. But hey, you feel a campaigner has a right to a jobÃ¢â‚¬Â¦..perhaps you should talk to the US Attorney. You sure donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t to knock on my door! I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like hacks and cronies and you sound suspiciously like both!!

Re: Question of the day

Disgustedf — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:37:37 -0000

From Reddbyrd's post:

fixing test scores Ã¢â‚¬â€-wrong BUT STILL BEING DONE, DESPITE THE CURRENT VET. PREFERENCE PROBLEMS.

asking for a contribution to get a job Ã¢â‚¬â€ wrong BEING LOOKED INTO BY THE FEDS RIGHT NOW.

offering a donation or payment to get work Ã¢â‚¬â€ wrong - THAT'S HOW LOBBYING WORKS.

using govt resources for campaign wrong Ã¢â‚¬â€ GOING ON IN STATE PRINTSHOPS EVEN AS WE SPEAK TO THE TUNE OF 100'S OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR THE WORK and THE POSTAGE. WATCH YOUR MAILBOXES FOR THE LATEST ONSLAUGHT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ALLKIDS.

ALL ARE CRIMES ALREADY - Amen to that, but does anybody really care? That's the sad part of it all. People forget that the expense for all this comes right out of their pockets but they don't seem to care.

Re: Question of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:37:08 -0000

I also think Reddbyrd has it right. There will always be some favoritism to friends, however slight, when governmental contracts and jobs are to be doled out. As long as the goods are delivered "as advertised" and there is no corruption or illegal discrimination going on (as in wholesale skirting of Rutan, or pay to play), I think most people can live with that.

However, to uncover those things that are "wrong" usually requires 2 things:

1. Someone in a position to see the wrongdoing, with the ability to document it (not just hearsay from a co-worker of a co-worker).

2. Same person actually going to the authorities (assuming the *ahem* authorities are not crooked, too) and being the "whistleblower".

#1 is rare enough, the combination of #1 and #2 even rarer.

Re: Question of the day

roman girl — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 23:04:48 -0000

referencing a great book about politics "It is customary for those who wish to gain the favour a prince to endeavour to do so by offering him gifts of those things which they hold most precious," He wrote his volume as a gift. In other words, he gave at the office. Those who are trying to take politics out of the hiring process completely are in effect seeking to undo history. I think that there are several improvements necessary to our hiring processes but my message is that by taking away an administration's power to choose their advisors--and not necessarily just top advisors--they are undermining that elected official's ability to achieve their goals. Because the people that work for them by first campaigning and then going in to do the day-to-day administration are those dedicated to better government. "He should encourage his citizens to follow their callings quietly, but he should offer rewards to whoever does these things, and to whoever seeks in any way to improve his city or state." That's not a partisan statement, it's a statement about how an official, elected by the populace can have representation in the workforce. I do believe that there are many dedicated public servants who have years of knowledge who should be secure in their jobs. However, a change of the guard once in awhile means that there is a chance of new ideas in government and it prevents complacency.

Re: Question of the day

Freddbyrd — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:47:59 -0000

Workable solutions or not, at least Cindi Canary is unafraid to put her two cents in on issues... unlike Reddbyrd's sugar daddy.

Re: Question of the day

Cook citizen — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:02:18 -0000

As long as government has the power to make people rich or break honest businesses with meddling regulations, it will be tainted by corruption. As three decades of campaign finance "reform" has proven, no amount of new rules or laws will change that fact. Want less corruption in government? Make it less powerful.

Re: Question of the day

exasperted — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:32:02 -0000

I have to agree with "Justice" we do not need more laws-the laws are already there! What "We the People" need to do is to become more pro-active! Has anyone read the Declaration of Independence? It is our responsiblity to hold policitians accountable and we aren't doing that. "That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

People it isn't the politicians that aren't doing their job-it is We the People that aren't doing our part!

Re: Question of the day

Fearless Freep — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:24:47 -0000

Here is my suggestion of what to do: NOTHING.

Why? Years and years of reforms and regulations have done nothing but encourage loopholes, bundling, and cheating. I am being honest when I say that we need to lower our expectations and accept the fact that shadiness and corruption is inevitable and it is part of our culture.

Do I sound cynical? Ask yourself, how many candidates run every 4 years on the promise of "cleaning up state government", blah-blah. It rings hollow. It is disingenuous or incredibly naive. And as voters WE are naive for expecting "honest government".

I have also learned (the hard way) over the years that real reformers cannot get elected and stay elected and also that well-intentioned citizens with REFORM ideas cannot fight the machine. That's just a political fact of life in Illinois.

Re: Question of the day

Criminal Enterprise Called Ill — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:20:02 -0000

Cassandra has sunk to a new low, even for her. I happen to know both Marty Cohen and Cindi Canary. They are honorable people as are most consumer advocates. What a low, stupid blow. She should try doing some constructive work toward the world she envisions and join those of us who are working for, not just whining about better government in Illinois.

Re: Question of the day

NumbersGuy — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:33:35 -0000

This is quite a thread here, gents. I feel pretty good myself that I finally understood every single word that Reddbyrd and agreed with it.

To the question: I just think the Canary chirps too loudly. Let's enforce all the myriad of ethics, procurement, disclosure, lobbying, FOIA and other laws already on the books before we go out and further muck up the already herky-jerky motion of government In Illinois in memory of Uncle George.

Re: Question of the day

Pat Hickey — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:14:44 -0000

Yep, I got an old lefty book that talks about what a sweet guy Joe Stalin was as well.

Here's lind of a newer book that's a good read-

"Death In the Haymarket brings these remarkable events to life, re-creating a tempestuous moment in American social history. James Green recounts the rise of the first great labor movement in the wake of the Civil War and brings to life the epic twenty-year battle for the eight-hour workday. He shows how the movement overcame numerous setbacks to orchestrate a series of strikes that swept the country in 1886, positioning the unions for a hard-won victory on the eve of the Haymarket tragedy.

As he captures the frustrations, tensions and heady victories, Green also gives us a rich portrait of Chicago, the Midwestern powerhouse of the Gilded Age. We see the great factories and their wealthy owners, including men such as George Pullman, and we get an intimate view of the communities of immigrant employees who worked for them. Throughout, we are reminded of the increasing power of newspapers as, led by the legendary Chicago Tribune editor Joseph Medill, they stirred up popular fears of the immigrants and radicals who led the unions.

Blending a gripping narrative, outsized characters and a panoramic portrait of a major social movement, Death In the Haymarket is an important addition to the history of American capitalism and a moving story about the class tensions at the heart of Gilded Age America. "

Swill - pigs love it! That's an homage to our Stockyard past - Old Joe croaked by the time of the big strikes 1904 & etc.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:52:33 -0000

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Medill worked tirelessly for the election of Abraham Lincoln as president and grimly set himself and his newspaper to support the savage war that followed Lincoln's election. Ray left the paper in 1863 and in 1874, Medill purchased a controlling interest. Two of MedillÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s brothers were killed in the Civil War and in the decades following, Medill's Tribune sided with the working man in battles against such high-handed industrialists and monopolists as the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, I honored Pat! Call it swill if you want to, but swill it aint!

Re: Question of the day

Pat Hickey — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 17:24:42 -0000

You don't know the half of it! LOL

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:58:08 -0000

It all becomes much clearer now. The whole death row pardoningwas no more and no less than an attempt to make him look like a humanitarian in case the investigation started to burn his toes.

Dan Webb announces an appeal. More pro bono work from W&S. I almost wish him success so that we can retry Ryan and get a more appropriate sentence for this political equivalent of a Mafia capo -- except that a convicted capo would get a heavier sentence than one of his soldiers.

Whcih would put Thompson, Webb and Winstron and Strawn in the neat position of having to provide another several million of pro bono at the new trial.

Re: Question of the day

Angie — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:46:32 -0000

Term limits will make the crooks steal faster? Oh gosh, I love that (in a sarcastic way). Libertarian satirist P.J. O'Rourke has joked that "Term limits aren't enough. We need jail."

Maybe in addition to term limits, the jail time ought to be made considerably longer. Right former Governor Ryan, who only got about 6 years? Jail time ought to be at least three times the amount of time of 1 corrupt term spent in office. At the very least! As in, as a baseline starting point.

Re: Question of the day

chicago buddies — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:13:27 -0000

As long as the chicago machine backs guys like Ryan and Blago; great candidates like Poshard and Vallas don't have a chance.
Term limits will stop reformers andmake the crooks steal faster.
Move the state elections back to the presidential years so more folks will vote.
Give the Auditor General more powers.

Re: Question of the day

Troy News Guy — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:47:32 -0000

Two words: TERM LIMITS. Good people get elected and then succumb to the vices of power, or get worn down and plead "that's the way it's always been done in Illinois." A contstantly rotating crop of decent people could make changes without worrying about their next election, which for reps is always less than 2 years away.

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:45:14 -0000

Since this is a representative democracy. Why not eliminate the 'elected' officials and have our representatives determined by lottery. Just like jury duty.

Re: Question of the day

Ashur Odishoo — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:05:05 -0000

I think there are 2 major problems. The first is most good people don't want to run for public office because they don't want to ask for money. Public officials are basically beggars. Second, we have no reasonable campaign finance rules. If we legislated against raising money from people with conflicts of interest, it would change things significantly.

Sadly, I don't see the political will to change this situation, but happily I don't see the US Attorney going anywhere either.

Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District

Re: Question of the day

ZC — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:30:00 -0000

To take her ideas one by one:

> Their answers should include restrictions on how much can be contributed to candidates and a ban on direct contributions by corporations and labor unions.

I don't have a problem with big caps, like say if someone wants to drop $100,000 on a candidate or a party. But the devil's in the details. Just what are the monetary limits? Put them too low, and ONLY rich folks are going to be able to have enough cash to run ads. Also, what's with singling out corporations and labor unions? I know why she does it, it's in the Supreme Court law, but at a theoretical level, I see no reason to unduly single out only labor unions and corporations as the source of corruption in our politics.

> Decisions about state employment and contracts should be based on merit and not decided by contributions and politics.

Again, an outcome more than a policy. Is she proposing to extend the Shakman concepts to ALL state hiring? Will future governors not be allowed to select chiefs of staffs based on partisan considerations? Devil's in the details.

> We need reasonable restrictions on how campaigns are financed and a strong regulatory system that will enforce those laws. And we need more disclosure about lobbying practices, as well as increased sunshine on all levels of government.

As far as better disclosure laws are concerned ... GO CINDY GO. People who say there have been no improvements on politics since the 1970s reforms leave out the salient benefits that stricter disclosure reforms have provided. That said, and I'm sure he has more specifics for all this, I'd be curious just what she has in mind.

So ... I wouldn't call many of these actual policy reforms. They are more in the way of outcomes. They're admirable outcomes, mostly, but in campaign reform, it's always how do you actually get from point A to point B.

I wish we could get more creative in terms of how we think about campaigning. How about the idea of "sliding contributions" - to let good people gather enough cash to be competitive and thus collect more contributions, why not pass a law saying that there are contribution caps but people can START with bigger self-funders - say your first set of 50 donors can give bigger gifts, $20,000 each say - and you have to disclose all those, and THEN you have to start getting smaller contributions. That might allow for good people without great means to reach the million mark get themselves in the game, and then above a million they have to start getting a lot of smaller contributions. That might balance out some of the pluses and minuses of unlimited donation versus total command-and-control of election finance.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:29:30 -0000

OK, let's tone it down a bit, please.

Re: Question of the day

Hickey Wannabe — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:20:57 -0000

Hickey's on a roll today. Better than usual. Will anyone in the mainstream media ever call out Jack Kass on his profound silence in regard to the many transgressions of his old fishin' buddy, Ed Vrdolyak? You would be hard pressed to find any Medillian pointing that out. Even a hard-working, up-by-the-bootstraps scibbler like our host, Rich Miller, seems to have missed it.

Re: Question of the day

Truthful James — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 13:20:41 -0000

Pat H.

Don't be bashful, Pat, say what you really, really think.

Peter F. was the only person able to break through the combine on the Rpublican side. He had to pay to play, was beholden to nobodand won in a blue state.

He had to go out and convince voters that he was not/more than a millionaire banker

He had to win both primary and general, I daresay that he attracted some Democrat voters.

I guess you would prefer multimillion dollar lawyers -- like Dan Walker. Or this guy Jon Corzine in New Jersey.

Their money did not buy elections, it bought them a hearing.