Chicagoist: Daley Postpones Budget

Albanyparkour

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:27:03 -0600

Liberty must always be protected, even from it's architects. You're not seeing the whole picture with a 2 term limit. You'd have more people running and less of a chance for special interests to get their hooks in. The whole system would chance. Public financing? Bah. Open televised and radio-broadcast debates and web sites cost next to nothing when compared to the current system of bloat and spend. If you aren't fighting a 15 term incumbant with a massive machine in place less wealthy candidates can get into the process more easily. A wider range of opinions, different voices getting heard. As for why can't people just vote out the incumbents, I agree it's a shame people don't actualize the power of their votes. But the game is rigged when it comes to incumbancy. Take for instance a story I heard on NPR the other day about a candidate (a reality show guy) in Brooklyn who is running against a multi-term incumbent. The Reality show guy is working the crowds, on the street, kissing babies and all that. The incumbent? Why he preaches at a mega church (skating the line of politics at the pulpit) and hosts a STREET FAIR just outside the church. Guess who got the permit, police presence and taxpayer funding to do that? And guess whose name is ALL OVER the fair? Vote...the...bastards...out. Even bastards you like, don't give them time to gather niter and rust.

matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:12:53 -0600

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.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:53:11 -0600

Matilda: I knew that about FDR and the republicans, and honestly I'm damn glad they did. Ronald Reagan in '88 anyone? As for the House, I absolutely want them out in two terms. The very idea of the house was to be a lively body that reflected more immediate changes in the society. The senators were meant to be a more removed from trends. There are reps in the house and senate who have been there for over 50 years. Yes. FIFTY YEARS. The city council has aldermen who've serve 39 years. (Ed Burke). That's insane. The founders of this country never meant for people to become career politicians. It's unseemly at best and simply gaming the system at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congressmen_by_longevity_of_service

matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:18:55 -0600

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.

fremo

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:13:40 -0600

I think I should have stated why I think a petition is a good place to start - and I think you hit it on the head about awareness. Most people do not know the aldermen are pulling down that kind of scratch. Most continue to run unopposed, or end up pulling a tactical challenge against anyone considered a threat. Running against the machine would be tough, but I think it can be done. Natarus got beat (finally) the last time. There are several aldermen who are a lot more vunerable than they think. As for Daley, I think once the Olympics are granted/denied he'll start eyeing retirement. I think its time for a new generation to get involved and run.

matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:10:23 -0600

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.

Albanyparkour

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:01:26 -0600

I know you want to get others in here too Fremo, but by GOD are term limits a fine idea. On EVERY level of government. It's sad we need them. That people are too goddamn lazy to vote the bastards out, that incumbents long past their expiry dates hang about accumulating money and mass, and that challenging an incumbent is such a hideously lopsided event most good people would rather wrestle pythons for sport. But draw the line at 2 terms. It's good enough for the president. Think of how many alderman would be GONE if that was in place. And Daley, who's been in there nearly as long as dear old dad, would be splitsville. Even the most honest person, faced with decades of opportunities to game the system, is going to falter.

matilda

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:55:40 -0600

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.

fremo

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:40:46 -0600

An open question for all commenters - besides a pay cut for aldermen, what do you all think about term limits for aldermen, the mayor, and other positions?

Albanyparkour

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:31:33 -0600

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.

fremo

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:59:10 -0600

Albany, I agree - the city is trying to mismanage the waste by increasing revenue. Don't the aldermen make something like 125K a year in salary? At my next block club mtg. I was going to start a petition for all aldermen to take a cut in pay, effective immediately to help offset the budget shortfall. Even if they take a 25K cut, it would save the city 1 million. What do you think?

Albanyparkour

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:36:53 -0600

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.