Daley Postpones Budget

Oh and let's not overlook the "2 strikes and you're booted" plan that Mayor Chipmunk is trying to get in there. The Sun-Times story caught my eye this morning. Reading quote after quote after quote from Aldermen and even COPS about what a bad idea this is all I can think is "Thankfully the mayor can just ignore all these people and do whatever his little heart wishes!"

Maybe the city should spend less time and resources trying to squeeze people for every goddamn dime it can and clean out the graft and waste?

Nah, just hike up the "untaxes"!

And for those who would come on and say "Oh, but I bike everywhere". On roads paid for by city stickers on vehicles, and maintained by the most inept crews they can find. 10 men to fill a pothole? Please.

Or those who say "Oh, but I use the CTA" which is a mess of galactic proportions and only getting worse.

The government wants your money to waste. And it will come with a boot in one hand and a gun in the other.

Considering that most of the aldermen in this city are already wealthy and/or running other businesses (sometimes even business that have very 'friendly' relationship with the city) I'm all for hacking their pay.

100k a year is MORE than sufficient. The argument they'll make is "you need to have a competitive salary to get the best people". Which is hogwash. No politician is doing it for the salary.

I say any city employee earning in excess of 100k should have their salary evaluated by an independent auditor. Are they worth it? In some cases (highly skilled, technical postions) the answer is yes, and perhaps they even deserve a raise. But I'd wager a Hot Dougs hot dog that the bulk of City Government earning north of 100k a year can barely tell you what they do, let alone prove their worth in an audit.

I love all these ideas--petitions, indie review--but let's be realistic. The first line of attack needs to be getting better people in these offices. That is a WWII-style battle of attrition and saturation bombing, given the Machine's control of election law, judges and administration. And we need to get fellow citizens to quit acting like sheep when they vote. Too bad we don't do uprisings anymore against hopelessly corrupt officials and their systems that are designed to steal as much as possible from taxpayers. I guess all of us have become too civilized to stand up for ourselves in such a manner.

If Fitzgerald can work his ass off and still leave City Hall not only standing but still doing things it should not be doing, ideas for citizen-led petition drives are unlikely to do much. Let's just consider most of the current crop of alderman as hopeless as dying dogs and work to elect a better class of people. Given that this is Chicago, that's big work, indeed. We basically need to resign ourselves that nothing much will change unless the current system is all but rebuilt. Nipping at the edges with petitions is a decent thing but unlikely to result in real, lasting change in Chicago. (Then again, perhaps petitions will increase awareness of the problems, so what do I know?)

That said, pay cuts--or, more realistically, pay freezes--are a great idea for all the local elected positions, as well as stronger ethics/contributions laws. Don't favor term limits only because elections serve that purpose, and it is up to voters to make sure term limits do happen when warranted.

Albany: Two terms for House of Reps, too? That's a mere four years. Unless you put serious campaign-finance reform along with term limits--that is, make it possible for elected officials to spend less time raising cash and more time on policy and governing--I think you might get a bigger mess than hoped for.

And, as you probably know, the presidential term limit was passed in large part because the GOP of the FDR era was tired of being out of power. I am not saying I want a 20-year president, just giving an FYI.

Fremo: OK, good point about the petition stuff. It would seem you are the type of person who actually puts work behind your words, and as one citizen to another, I thank you.

Albany: Fair enough. But you won't get term limits in the House as you desire with, I think, a strong push for public financing. One can do only so much in 2 years when one is spending a good part of that time running around begging for money. A Senator has a easier go. And yes, I know the intended difference between the two bodies.

And yes, I am aware of the time some our officials have spend in office. Byrd, T. Stevens, et al. But voters have always had a chance to vote them out, haven't they? Why haven't the voters taken this up themselves?

The founders may have said many things and even meant most of them but their actions said a lot, too. Jefferson was always scheming to get back into office or have influence whenever he was out, for instance. He was very much a career politician, at least by the standards of the time. So, in one sense, was J. Adams. And Washington, whose work as head of the Continental Army was as much overtly political as military (and whose later political work helped him benefit from his land investments). Hamilton. Franklin. Patrick Henry. The list goes on. I respect the founders and am in awe at their courage and work and wisdom, but I don't treat their words as holy gospel, at least not without considering their actions.