Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stop calling the cops for stupid stuff
Next Post: More promises, more vague revenue plans
Posted in:
* It’s still a free country and everyone is entitled to think how they want, and I strongly disagree with this analysis…
The latest Democratic mailers are accusing state Rep. Lindsay Parkhurst of voting against programs for veterans and the elderly.
That’s misleading. The Democrats have provided no proof she targeted those programs in particular. […]
The Democrats are using a similar tactic against Rep. Jerry Long, R-Streator, in La Salle County. A recent flyer accuses Long of opposing money for programs that track sex offenders, citing the same budget bill that he joined Parkhurst in voting against. The programs tracking sex offenders consume only a tiny fraction of the budget, which is tens of billions of dollars.
My own opinion is that if you vote “No” on a bipartisan compromise budget that’s signed into law, this is what you can expect. Yes, it’s ugly, but their vote is their vote. Those who voted “Yes” have had to answer for whatever’s in the bill, like money for the Obama presidential center.
So, while Parkhurst and Long may fully support those state programs in their own minds, their actual voting record is the only thing that truly counts. It’s public record. It’s fair game.
But I know from previous posts that many disagree. So…
* The Question: Is it fair game to ding legislators over the details of a bipartisan budget that they officially opposed or supported? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
…Adding… I should add that some of these mailers (that the Dems do all the time) can backfire on their candidates. As well they should. But that’s also part of the campaign process. Your opponent goes too far, you benefit. Saying somebody supports rapists or child molesters or whatever because they voted against a budget can cause the accuser problems if the hit isn’t believable.
But the overall point still stands.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:23 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stop calling the cops for stupid stuff
Next Post: More promises, more vague revenue plans
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Absolutely fair. If you “support” something, but not enough to vote for it, your support isn’t very meaningful.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:26 pm
Yes.
In a society where questioning any aspect of education spending elicits the response, “Why do you hate children?”, politicians should expect such binary analysis of their actions.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:30 pm
Yes, but it’s still misleading. Saying they don’t like these programs or want to defund them is technically false; saying they didn’t think funding these programs was important enough to trump their other reservations would be more accurate.
Mailers can’t really do nuance, and whatever their reasons, they voted against funding these programs (along with funding for almost every other program in the state, if I’m understanding correctly).
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:30 pm
Of course it isn’t fair. It’s also dishonest. Politics doesn’t have to be fair, but the same party that promises that they stand for fairness, shouldn’t insult voters with this kind of unfair deceit.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:30 pm
Yes. Details matter. Budgets show me more than any lip service you provide.
I’ll add that it’s fair for legislators to provide nuanced reasoning for why they oppose/support bipartisan budgets. That is to say, they should be given a chance to form their thoughts fully.
Comment by ChicagoJ Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:30 pm
Of course it’s fair. Geez, some of these Mushrooms don’t want to be accountable for their own votes.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:31 pm
Fair game. If you vote party line and by what Rauner wants this is what happens. You obviously chose Rauner over veterans.
Comment by Real Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:32 pm
Yep. It’s fair. If you vote against funding, you vote against funding. Doesn’t matter if you felt bad doing it.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:33 pm
Sure. Your vote is your vote.
Comment by thunderspirit Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:33 pm
=== or want to defund them is technically false===
Um, voting against the budget is voting against their funding. So, you vote to defund them when you vote no.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:34 pm
No, it’s petty and shallow and completely ignores any context at all. That is destructive to a informed citizenry and there destructive to an intelligent, honest representative government.
Further, the long-term effects of decades of “compromise budgets” and similar ilk is a huge part of why we don’t have enough money to properly fund key services anymore. Shallow ads like this rewards short-term thinking, and builds up a political environment in which only the “now” matters. Long-term math is hard enough (as plenty of major business failures can attest)–why on earth would we want to reward nuance-free hackery?
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:37 pm
Yes. Just don’t characterize them as a waitress.
Comment by Phenomynous Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:37 pm
Said no for one reason. A compromise in Springfield is not your normal compromise. The majorities are so dramatic (currently) that the compromise is massively skewed. Add to that, these bills are crafted specifically to create these “hit mail” opportunities. It’s not a pretty way to govern or legislate. So, with that caveat, no. Otherwise, I’d likely be a yes.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:38 pm
Absolutely fair. You voted for something or not. Now you have to explain it to your constituents. But “X hates children” is not an hit that is going to resonate with me, anyway.
Comment by JIbba Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:38 pm
“In a society where questioning any aspect of education spending elicits the response, “Why do you hate children?”, politicians should expect such binary analysis of their actions.”
So we double down on the darker aspects of politics obsession with winning at all costs? Take the Donald Trump route? Nah.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:40 pm
Totally fair. Still waiting on the mailers against House Republicans for all voting ‘no’ on the property tax freeze bill from last year.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:42 pm
Yes. So many others hit my points, I’ll only add: If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:43 pm
Its all cookie cutter crap. Thats why the walking matters ao much.
Comment by I don't have a job Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:43 pm
Let’s assume there is an appropriation bill with 10,000 separate items in it. You are for one of them and opposed to the other 9,999. According to Rich you must vote for the whole bill or be faced with the criticism “Why did you vote against that one thing you support?”
Comment by Reality Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:44 pm
This reminds me of a statement I saw yesterday in a state-sponsored email from the Governors office. Yesterday our Governor signed a bill in Champaign that is intended to help insure that our students would be able to enroll and graduate from our state supported Colleges and Universities.
Sen Rose was taking credit for getting this bill signed into law while failing to acknowledge that he voted repeatedly to kill much needed funding for his Alma Mater and all of Higher Ed. Same with Rep Barickman the day before. Hypocrites.
Votes do matter and they mean more than the pious platitudes we hear far too often from our elected officials.
Comment by illini Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:47 pm
Fair game. You vote against the budget, you vote against the funding. So yes, it’s totally fair.
You want to blast the other party for the revenue, but you want your local programs to get funded ?
Comment by siriusly Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:47 pm
If this isn’t fair, then tying every Dem up and down the ticket (including the Dem opponents to these two) isn’t fair either. Geesh!! These guys need to get a thicker skin or get a new job.
train111
Comment by train111 Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:49 pm
Cheap…maybe. Fair…yes. It is, after all, public record. Now go explain or introduce a separate bill to fix the part you support.
Comment by Exit 59 Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:50 pm
“Yes”
Just as Rauner’s vetoes “means”…
Rauner refuses to fund Higher Education, for example.
Sorry.
Your votes reflect things that can be “unfair” but also can be “true” to an end result, a result that may not reflect true viewes.
Sorry, if I’m a believer that Rauner’s vetoes say the same, then those bad votes get the same treatment.
1,000% “Yes”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:50 pm
===You are for one of them and opposed to the other 9,999===
By all means you should vote no. But just don’t whine when the hit comes.
If you vote against a bill, you are on the official permanent record opposing whatever is in that bill. That’s life.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:54 pm
This is precisely how we get folks who are soft on rapists and criminals and hate child care and love diseases that affect different groups of people. If it were limited to funding questions, maybe. To prove you like and appreciate Veterans, you’ve got to vote for everything else that may do the state great harm overall? Some system…
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:56 pm
===To prove you like and appreciate Veterans, you’ve got to vote for everything else that may do the state great harm overall?===
If you find that perfect world out there, lemme know ASAP.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:57 pm
Yes. All part of the game.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 1:57 pm
“To prove you like and appreciate Veterans, you’ve got to vote for everything else that may do the state great harm overall? Some system… ”
Exactly! As a Veteran myself, all I have to say to all the “leaders” who voted for compromise budgets over the decades: thanks for nothing. You left our state a financial mess.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:00 pm
I had a professor at UIS who told the us every single class… “Budgets are not accounting documents… They are value documents.. You fund what you value and don’t fund what you don’t value…”
In my career, I have found that to be true. Rep. Parkhurst and Rep. Long hated the tax increase more than they valued the programs it would fund.
You can spin it all you want, but that’s pretty much the end of the debate.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:02 pm
Yes.
They had their chance to vote yes, but they didn’t. They had a chance to support these programs, they chose no. The consequence of their vote, had it prevailed, would be the destruction of programs they claim to support. Maybe next time (if there is one), they’ll wise up.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:03 pm
===Some system…===
Yeah. You would think the people in it would know how it works by now, right? Actions have consequences. Shocking that works in politics like it works in the real world. Instead we get, “how dare you use my record against me.”
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:05 pm
Shoulda voted Present.
Comment by Anton Cermak Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:06 pm
Fair, but it is also unfortunate that voters don’t do nuance.
Comment by SAP Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:18 pm
===“Budgets are not accounting documents… They are value documents.. You fund what you value and don’t fund what you don’t value…”===
This.
This is the most fundamental thing to know about government and budgets.
Budgets weigh and measure, in this instance, for the governor, the commitments to policies, agendas, and beliefs.
Sadly, Rauner has refused to do the work of a governor.
The legislature has told the Executive how the legislature sees the agencies, policies, and the worth of them… to a governor.
That’s why Rauner fails… that’s why budget votes mean something, as a whole and parsed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:22 pm
== I should add that some of these mailers (that the Dems do all the time) can backfire on their candidates. As well they should. But that’s also part of the campaign process. Your opponent goes too far, you benefit.==
This. We except the (mostly non-existent) rules to do too much, and are too afraid of just practicing politics.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:24 pm
I voted Yes. It’s also part of the reason seniors get carte blanche at the state and federal levels.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:29 pm
Sadly so many miss the point of the question and forget the Quinn tax increase passed in the middle of a cold January night was to sunset…that promise was broken and the dems continued to tax and spend in order to keep their power via the wallets of those that actually work in this state. It has to stop somewhere, but sadly it will not. I will be walking out of this awful state soon, too.
Comment by Taxedoutwest Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:30 pm
Fair.
To paraphrase OW: “Votes matter.”
Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:32 pm
Yes, I am again reminded of the sheriff in “Blazing Saddels”, “Don’t make me shoot me”. Malarky…Interesting with Long, he rented to a sex offender.
Comment by wondering Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:33 pm
–This is precisely how we get folks who are soft on rapists and criminals and hate child care and love diseases that affect different groups of people.–
I’m not seeing any “precisely” in that fever-dream rant.
I do know that for quite some time it’s been SOP in Springfield for GOP GA members to vote against every spending bill, then run home and take victory laps for any spending that they like.
Is that (weep, weep, weep) fair?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:34 pm
It’s fair. It’s also the reason these women and men go to Springfield in the first place, to vote. There are a lot of tough votes in Springfield. You then need to go home and explain why you voted the way you voted to the people who sent you there.
If Parkhurst and Long (and everyone else) doesn’t like to be miscast as anti-school or anti-veteran or anti-whatever because s/he voted no on something, then they need to explain why they voted no. If they do this with a modest degree of sincerity I think they’ll find the voters will understand their position. They might not like it, but they’ll understand.
And that’s what it’s all about. Legislators vote. If they can defend their votes, they get to continue. If they can’t, maybe they shouldn’t be there.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:34 pm
===Sadly so many miss the point of the question and forget the Quinn tax increase passed in the middle of a cold January night was to sunset…that promise was broken and the dems continued to tax and spend in order to keep their power via the wallets of those that actually work in this state. It has to stop somewhere, but sadly it will not. I will be walking out of this awful state soon, too.===
When your done yelling at the clouds, and the kids on your lawn, and the U-Haul is packed… when you’re done…
Did you vote yes or no?
- G’Kar -,
I’ll be the first to readily admit, I need editors to cut me to the quick and help me say what I want, and with less flourish.
I thank you.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:40 pm
Yes. 1. Anything on public record is fair. 2. Distorting said record is a large part of why people hate politics.
Comment by perry noya Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:40 pm
No and this kind of crap is why people are so fed up with politics.
The main reason you vote for or against a budget is it’s impact on the state’s finances overall.
It’s downright dishonest to say a vote against a budget is a vote against everything in it.
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:43 pm
As someone noted above, a budget is the ultimate expression of shared values. Voting against a budget that funds what you claim to value is disingenuous and should be called out.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:47 pm
Voted yes.
Of course it’s fair. They voted no. That’s the way things work. If they didn’t want to be attacked for it then they should have voted yes.
==You left our state a financial mess.==
Says the guy from Dixon. lol.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:47 pm
===It’s downright dishonest to say a vote against a budget is a vote against everything in it.===
… and yet, during the entire 99th GA, some voted against overriding Rauner to give Illinois a budget.., “and you know what?”… the state had no budget.
So you vote against a budget, the state may not get to fund anything if enough people vote no… so…
“ It’s downright dishonest to say a vote against a budget is a vote against everything in it.”
… you must’ve missed the whole 99th GA…
That’s fun.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:48 pm
==It’s downright dishonest to say a vote against a budget is a vote against everything in it.==
No, it’s not. They voted against it. In the budget it’s all or nothing. They voted for the nothing side. Don’t vote against it and then whine about being taken to task.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:49 pm
I said yes. Take the good with the bad, its the risks.
Comment by Anonish Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:50 pm
–Sadly so many miss the point of the question and forget the Quinn tax increase passed in the middle of a cold January night was to sunset..–
… and did. Have you been asleep for a while, Rip?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:55 pm
==Long hated the tax increase more than they valued the programs it would fund.==
Budgets merely reflect priorities. A program does not need a tax increase to be funded, merely prioritized over competing programs. Apparently, these programs were not a priority.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 2:58 pm
==If you find that perfect world out there, lemme know ASAP.==
C’mon man. There’s a huge chasm between here and perfect. This the best we can do? Ugh.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:00 pm
–It’s downright dishonest to say a vote against a budget is a vote against everything in it.–
LOL, no, that’s exactly what it is.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:02 pm
OW– Maybe paraphrase was the poor choice of words on my part. I wasn’t trying to paraphrase anything you wrote today, I was modifying something you have correctly said for a long time: “elections matter.”
Comment by G'Kar Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:04 pm
==forget the Quinn tax increase passed in the middle of a cold January night…==
Most people forget on that same night, Obama’s 2% payroll tax reduction went into effect, meaning most folks didn’t feel Quinn’s increase for 2 whole years.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:06 pm
- G’Kar -
I took it with the fun and intent you meant. No worries.
Still, my own confession remains just as true as i wrote it above.
All good. OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:08 pm
Of course “yes”
Any politician that cannot turn this negative into a positive, is not good at their job. Further, they should be able to defend/explain any vote (budget or not) into how they are helping their constituents.
Comment by I Miss Bentohs Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 3:11 pm
Voted Yes agree with Rich you can’t say you voted against the Obama library and then expect to not be hit for things that were in that same bill.
Comment by Frank talks Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 4:30 pm
It’s a pretty simple idea–you didn’t think those program were more important than the other issues in the budget. That’s the way legislating works–is something better than the alternative and in this case, the legislators didn’t think those programs were more important than the other parts of the budget.
Sophisticated voters might take the analysis a bit deeper, but what you vote to budget for is probably the best expression of your political values.
Comment by Archpundit Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 4:31 pm
Yes. Like you said Rich, those that vote yes get to eat it for everything that is in the bill; those that vote no get the same treatment. Classic Illinois politics.
Comment by Shevek Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 4:47 pm
“Says the guy from Dixon. lol.”
Exactly my point. You may be comfortable with the sleaze, but we’ve had our fill.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 4:49 pm
Voted “Yes” because- it was said better than I can say it here….
====“Budgets are not accounting documents… They are value documents.. You fund what you value and don’t fund what you don’t value…”===
This.
This is the most fundamental thing to know about government and budgets.=
Most organizations puts its greatest resources behind their greatest priorities.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 22, 18 @ 5:26 pm