Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Attorney General Raoul tries to stop lawmakers from collecting back pay
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Posted in:
* Mark Brown wasn’t impressed with Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s speech last night…
“Yes, some of our solutions will be hard. Yes, they may involve putting ourselves at risk. And if it means that I sacrifice myself politically, so be it in pursuit of the right thing,” Lightfoot said.
Chicago could use a politician who says that and means it. So could the whole state of Illinois.
And when she shows she’s willing to make that sacrifice, I would like to be in her corner.
But for now, it was just a speech.
* Tribune editorial…
It’s Chicago’s curse that Lightfoot had to give this speech. Decade after decade, Chicago and Springfield politicians raised taxes and fees yet raised spending even more. Mayors, aldermen, governors, legislators — the people who caused the public finance debacles in Chicago and Illinois — weren’t at the microphone Thursday night. Just a newcomer who says the downward spiral stops now.
Sensibly, she said she wouldn’t follow the old playbook of “historically large tax increases,” or “a massive borrowing scheme,” or shortchanging payments into the city’s pension system.
Our immediate takeaway from her address: What’s significant here is a matter of degree — that looming deficit ― and a new mayor who’s willing to speak hard truths and own a big share of this mess. She’s decided she has no choice but to ask all of us to help her clean it up.
So, the Trib is for making the full pension payments now?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 9:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Attorney General Raoul tries to stop lawmakers from collecting back pay
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I suspect the ramp to funding will be
extended, actuary folks will adjust tax
targets down and the can will get kicked
down the road.
Everyone will say this is a huge step in fixing the pension problem and our grandkids and great grandkids will be paying the bills we pass on to them.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:09 am
Rahm minus four inches. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.
Comment by BR91 Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:12 am
It essentially is a campaign speech. There are a couple hints at how she wants to solve the budget deficit, but nothing close to a complete plan. It is mostly rhetoric and blaming people from the past for the problem. That is not false, but it does not matter now because Mayor Lightfoot is the current mayor.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:16 am
She needs a much better speech writer and it she could have improved her performance if she had practiced more. Easily the most important speech she’s had to give as mayor, and it was a mediocre (at best) performance.
If you ask TV stations to carry your speech live, you’d better knock it out of the park. She didn’t.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:18 am
Let’s call it like it is.
Chicago needs to either kick the pension can down the road again or get a state bailout.
The “solutions” outlined last night (casino, cannabis, congestion pricing, graduated real estate transfer tax), will only cover half the $838m deficit. And that’s being optimistic.
Throw in a a tax on high-end services and you may chip a few more million off the deficit, but you still have a considerable gap to fill.
And it only gets worse next year…
Comment by Speculator Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:19 am
Hear me out here: historically large tax increases (on the Pritzkers of the world, the merely-rich-but-not-Pritzkers of the world, the companies they control, and the transactions those people and companies like to engage in) are exactly what is needed.
Slashing funding for cops would be a good idea too. Sending them 41% of the city budget just isn’t sustainable.
Also, I keep hearing from the downstate folks about how Chicago’s interests are massively over-represented in the state legislature. If that’s true, surely it will be no trouble to have those legislators, who historically vote to send Chicago-generated tax revenue elsewhere, to redirect some of those dollars back to the city to pay down the debt.
Comment by Quibbler Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:24 am
Let’s all hope , for the good of Chicago’s finances , there isn’t a recession anytime soon. Chicago needs all the revenue it can without a downturn.
Comment by Steve Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:25 am
I mean… a whole bunch of Chicago’s current financial problems (and CPS’ more recent budget problems until the funding formula bill) can actually be directly traced to former Mayor Daley’s decision about 10 years ago to not do an annual property tax increase at the amount of inflation.
When you choose to do that. You can’t catch up since your property tax extension can only be increased a certain amount. So even if you go to the cap in subsequent years. You are forever behind, especially when union contracts increase pay at least at the rate of inflation. And pension costs increase more than the rate of inflation.
Because when you forgo that inflation increase in property taxes, you are automatically in a whole, and then you have to start nickel and diming people through all kinds of fees or gimmicks (parking meters, red light cameras, speed cameras, pop tax, fines and fees) that people hate more than a slight property tax increase.
Comment by Ok Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:25 am
Why are they not talking about an income tax for residents and workers in Chicago (similar to NYC)? Income tax increases supposedly cure all ills.
Democrats, in full control of Chicago, are never afraid of income tax increases. I, for one, look forward to them showing us how increasing income taxes on their residents and workers can build economic momentum.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:27 am
Time will tell as to Lightfoot. Chicagoans need deeds, not words.
“Scoop and Toss” Emanuel was a big disappointment as mayor. During his first term, he continued to kick the can down the road. He was so focused on reelection that he wasted four years in which the toxic waste clean up ought to have been underway.
During his final mayoral term, he made some tough calls, but he was effectively toast. Of course, there was always magic money for his pet projects too.
Comment by Practical Politics Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:31 am
- Downstate -
Explain how a city income tax in Chicago would be possible.
What would have to happen.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:33 am
30 days from now when CPS strikes will show Lori’s true colors.
Comment by Arron shocked Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:43 am
OW,
From what i understand, Springfield would have to pass legislation allowing the city of Chicago to impose an income tax on residents and/or workers employed in the city. That shouldn’t be a heavy lift as the Springfield and City of Chicago all sit on the same side of the political table. O
Once the law is enacted, City of Chicago could impose an income tax on residents and those who work there.
That is what has been explained to me.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:51 am
===That shouldn’t be a heavy lift as the Springfield and City of Chicago all sit on the same side of the political table.===
You think there’s 60/71 and 30/36 and Pritzker will sign it?
What do you base this on? Sincerely.
If you say “because they are all members of the Democrat party”, that’s not showing me those numbers, that is just partisan passive anger and bias
===Once the law is enacted, City of Chicago could impose an income tax on residents and those who work there.===
So, where are all these members clamoring for it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:56 am
==Why are they not talking about an income tax for residents and workers in Chicago (similar to NYC)?==
Good idea. Let’s talk about this a lot, especially between now and next November.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 10:57 am
Just raise the local sales tax; we already are 1st so a few more percentage wont hurt.
http://altondailynews.com/news/details.cfm?clientid=17&id=289246#.XWlITyhKjcs
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:00 am
===Good idea. Let’s talk about this a lot, especially between now and next November.===
Talk is cheap, this budget is still with a hole.
Unless you have the numbers, or a push to get the numbers… what exactly are you talking about.
It’s no different than Lightfoot’s own speech.
Talk is cheap. Show me the leadership and knowledge to work to get 60, 30, and a governor on board.
Then you have my attention.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:00 am
“What do you base this on? Sincerely.”
Well, both chambers just passed the progressive income tax agenda. Senate (36-22) and the House (73-44). That would suggest that the Democrats don’t even need all their members to put allow the city of Chicago to enact an income tax.
I don’t see a downside in giving the Chicago City Alderman all the tools possible to dig out of their fiscal hole.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:03 am
===Well, both chambers just passed the progressive income tax agenda. Senate (36-22) and the House (73-44). That would suggest that the Democrats don’t even need all their members to put allow the city of Chicago to enact an income tax.===
Pritzker ran on it, Democrats ran on it too.
Which of these folks in the “Democrat” party ran on a city income tax?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:05 am
== what exactly are you talking about.==
Do you think talking about another income tax convinces more people to vote for a graduated income tax? I don’t. I’m sure JB doesn’t either.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:06 am
===I don’t see a downside in giving the Chicago City Alderman all the tools possible to dig out of their fiscal hole.===
Than a Republican legislator in both chambers should sponsor such a bill… letting locals have control and all.
Why won’t they?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:07 am
===Do you think talking about another income tax convinces more people to vote for a graduated income tax? I don’t. I’m sure JB doesn’t either.===
(Sigh)
No, talking about half-baked ignorance that can’t pass is wasting time. It’s what makes Madigan in a very-very narrow window a great Speaker when it comes to voting for things when they are ripe.
A city income tax isn’t ripe.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:11 am
Desperate times call for desperate measures. The dreaded Financial Transaction Tax could become more palatable as Chicago debt spirals out of control. The impact would hit traders at Chicago Mercantile Exchange; the Chicago Board of Trade; or the Chicago Board Options Exchange so the GA would feel an obligation to push the funding towards Chicago.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:14 am
OW,
“Than a Republican legislator in both chambers should sponsor such a bill.”
Cute. But this is a Chicago problem. It was created by the Chicago Democrats and can only be solved by them.
State wide, the vote on a progressive tax increase shows that Democrats believe tax increases won’t damage our economic prospects, nor drive residents from the state. I beg to differ. But their overwhelming support for the idea is testament to their beliefs.
Hence, like the state, I’m certain that Chicago Democrats are not afraid that a city income tax would derail economic progress or cause job creators to flee the city. Again, I think they are completely wrong on this. But since they control all the political levers they can implement the changes immediately.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:17 am
Disappointing. I read the speech and not one mention of the sacrifices of Chad and Trixie who continue to carry Chicago’s financial burden squarely on their well-defined backs.
So, here’s to Chicago’s favorite profit center, Chad and Trixie, for their continued devotion to paying high rents, pricey dinners, and moving to the suburbs before their kids reach CPS age. Your Audi Q5 awaits…
Comment by City Zen Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:18 am
=Chicago needs to either kick the pension can down the road again or get a state bailout.=
Or they can raise enough revenue to pay the bills. State bailout won’t happen since the state has it’s own pension issues.
= can actually be directly traced to former Mayor Daley’s decision about 10 years ago to not do an annual property tax increase at the amount of inflation.=
As it pertains to CPS it goes back even further to the time the city got control of CPS and the pension. Daley traded labor peace in the form of pay increases for pension payments. At the time the CPS pension was about 105% funded.
=Why are they not talking about an income tax for residents and workers in Chicago (similar to NYC)? Income tax increases supposedly cure all ills.=
Or they could cut the downstate subsidy and claw back all of the revenue they are losing. I wonder if they could get the votes for that?
I am sure you would support something like that because you are opposed to subsidies right?
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:20 am
Donnie, the markets would leave Chicago in heartbeat if a financial transaction tax was imposed. Why would they stay?
They have already sold the buildings and are leasing them because of the uncertainty.
The markets are largely electronic anyways and thus are highly mobile
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:21 am
===But this is a Chicago problem. It was created by the Chicago Democrats and can only be solved by them===
So… you argue it’s about local control, but Republicans won’t vote to give that local control?
===State wide, the vote on a progressive tax increase shows that Democrats believe tax increases won’t damage our economic prospects, nor drive residents from the state. I beg to differ.===
… and as you “differ”, Dems have the largest majority in the legislature, the largest number of House Dems even since Madigan has been the chamber’s Speaker.
Voters, seeing Pritzker running on graduated income tax, beat the sitting Republican Governor by a margin not seen in 100 years.
Friend, you are out of step with the political climate.
===I’m certain that Chicago Democrats are not afraid that a city income tax would derail economic progress or cause job creators to flee the city===
Really? Where are 60.., how about 20 House Dems for this?
You’re angry, I get it. But politics, Dems ran on a progressive income tax, sit 74/40 and have every statewide office.
Raunetites were opposed… have not a single statewide office and are at levels so low… they are almost marginalized to a regional party.
It’s not cute… your argument was for local control.
‘Nember?
===I don’t see a downside in giving the Chicago City Alderman all the tools possible to dig out of their fiscal hole.===
Wonder why now you think a Republican won’t vote for it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:25 am
LP is right, Donnie.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:25 am
- Donnie Elgin -
The odds of a LaSalle tax being enacted and collected is greater than you waking up tomorrow and being 7 feet tall. 1) Congress would first have to approve the tax. 2) The Illinois state legislature would have to approve the tax 3)Chicago’s City Council would have to approve the tax. 4)The CME’s main server isn’t even in Chicago and the CME has already told Mike Madigan they will move to Texas, although Park Ave. is where most of their big customers want the server located (if they were to be taxed). In conclusion, your odds of getting 4 numbers on the Powerball are probably better than seeing money from a LaSalle Street tax.
Comment by Steve Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:25 am
“the vote on a progressive tax increase” Completely glossing over the fact that for 97% of the state it’s not a tax increase…
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:34 am
Charge a fee to take a picture with the 7-foot tall Mike Ditka Bobblehead. Everyone loves DA COACH.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:34 am
===Completely glossing over the fact that for 97% of the state it’s not a tax increase…===
That’s where i was going next…
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:36 am
“the vote on a progressive tax increase” Completely glossing over the fact that for 97% of the state it’s not a tax increase…
Exactly. They should hit the same group with a city income tax.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:37 am
OW,
Since Democrats seem generally opposed to looking reductions in spending. The problems in Chicago will only be solved with increased revenue (ie taxation). Just curious as to what revenue sources you think should be tapped?
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:39 am
===They should hit the same group with a city income tax===
It it’s about local control, seriously, answer why Republicans would be opposed.
You know why, why won’t you say it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:42 am
===Since Democrats seem generally opposed to looking reductions in spending.===
… yet Rahm was in favor of closing 50… that’s 50 schools… that was not a cut?
Hmm.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:43 am
===you think===
We’re talking about those members of the “Democrat” party that tax, tax, tax, yet you can’t come up with 20 House members willing to say a city income tax is needed, and you say it’s for local control, yet you can’t see Republicans voting for it.
Are you being honest with yourself to the politics here, or do you just want to say Dems tax?
The answer is going to be found, if it wants to be found, by Lightfoot, the GA and the Governor… not just “Democrat” folks… working to find something that makes sense for Illinois economic engine to get healthy, governmentally
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:48 am
==The dreaded Financial Transaction Tax could become more palatable as Chicago debt spirals out of control.==
Per AD Quig from Crains’s Q&A with Lightfoot this morning:
Q: What kinds of policies drive business out of the city?
A: A Lasalle St. tax – if we try to put a tax on transactions, companies will literally flip a switch and do business elsewhere and there will never be another trade in the City of Chicago. I don’t think that’s a bluff.
https://twitter.com/ad_quig/status/1167458706856042496
Comment by City Zen Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:48 am
“You know why, why won’t you say it?”
In all sincerity, I’m not sure what you are looking for. Democrats have super majorities in city and state. They don’t need the Republicans to solve this. I really don’t know what you are looking for here.
There is nothing to impede the Democrats from enacting every type of tax increase they might want to solve the budget nightmares of the city and state.
I’m seriously interested in seeing their solutions. There’s nothing to stand in their way.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:48 am
===In all sincerity, I’m not sure what you are looking for.===
Because only Dems raise taxes, and Republicans don’t bow for tax increases?
Maybe? No?… Probably.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:50 am
“Are you being honest with yourself to the politics here, or do you just want to say Dems tax?”
If the coming measures, enacted by the Democrats, are going to produce economic prosperity, then they should absolutely want to own that decision.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:51 am
===There is nothing to impede the Democrats from enacting every type of tax increase they might want to solve the budget nightmares of the city and state.
I’m seriously interested in seeing their solutions. There’s nothing to stand in their way.===
You are arguing like a child.
If you don’t think Dems also know voting for things that aren’t ripe hurts, than your partisan silliness is shining through.
Again, you can’t name 20 HDems that publicly favor this, but here you are saying how easy it is.
Why?
That “Democrat” party.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:52 am
LP did a good job in a few words covering the problem
on a transaction tax.
Chicago is a global financial powerhouse and is also a great place to live.
I trade stuff. The markets are very competitive.
The quality, education and professionalism of the financial community is world class. They already pay taxes. Folks will instantly figure out a way to trade somewhere else. Why push an idea that just won’t work.
While the idea may sound good. It is not practical.
Folks will trade somewhere else.
Change the ramp. If you really want to “totally fix” the problem then raise the amount taxpayers and employees put in their pension systems now and quite complaining about past mistakes by voters, employee representatives and politicians.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:52 am
The Chicago delegation is obligated to stay united on any new Chicago revenue that needs Springfield approval, in my opinion at least. This cannot be like the pre 1970 Constitution days when the City would have to give up an arm and a leg simply to manage its affairs properly. If the City has to negotiate with the Eastern Bloc or even the Republican caucus just to raise revenue, they are going to make an absurd ask to put votes on the bill. Frankly, I think it is a constitutional oversight the City has to ask Springfield to raise any kind of local revenue.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 11:57 am
For a Chicago income tax to be somewhat politically viable . Some big changes would have to occur.
1)A progressive income tax would first have to become part of the state constitution.
2)Chicago’s City Council would have to approve a progressive city income tax because they probably wouldn’t want to tax lower income people.
3)The tax probably would only be allowed by the state legislature if it applied only to residents of the city of Chicago (not suburbanites). If not , Wilmette would be tempted to tax Chicago residents working in Wilmette.
4)Why would some Republicans , in the state legislature , vote to allow Chicago to have an income tax? Because it would weaken Chicago in the long run visa vie the rest of the state and with it its’ political power.
5)A city of Chicago income tax probably couldn’t be administered by Chicago because they don’t have the ability given the manpower it takes. So, the tax would have to be administered by Illinois Department of Revenue .
Comment by Steve Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 12:08 pm
OW - What revenue “sources” should be tapped?
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 12:24 pm
An income tax on income earned in the city is not going to happen.
Lightfoot’s best best would be to push for a broad-based, low rate service tax, coupled with a slight reduction in the traditional sales tax.
This could be coupled to pension fund consolidation.
Every municipality in the state has pension funding problems. Service taxes are a vast, completely untapped revenue source, and every local municipality would get a share, including Chicago.
Comment by Thomas Paine Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 12:32 pm
===What revenue “sources” should be tapped?===
Whatever the Mayor, the legislative leaders, and the governor see as helpful to Chicago.
I have no idea when the casino will even be ready… to be ready.
I dunno when the gambling revenues will be realized.
I have no idea besides Lightfoot passively telling folks in the media her game plan.
I need to see more.
I need to see more like… the GA Leaders and the governor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 12:40 pm
=There is nothing to impede the Democrats from enacting every type of tax increase they might want to solve the budget nightmares of the city and state.=
Based on that logic there’s nothing to impede the Democrats from changing the way revenue is distributed throughout the state. You do realize that Chicago are sends more to Springfield than it receives in return? Be careful what you wish for.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 12:51 pm
===There is nothing to impede the Democrats from enacting every type of tax increase they might want===
Bruce said that for two years.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 1:08 pm
OW - In other words, you have no suggestions as to realistic, politically, feasible (60/30), revenue sources.
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 1:18 pm
===In other words…===
… I explained how I would go about it, and what my goals and what I’d want to achieve, and I’m not going to entertain in my own thoughts dorm room fantasies or ideological partisan sniping.
Unlike the Mayor, the governor and the legislative leaders haven’t suggested much too… ‘cause… what is the plan that makes most sense is figuring out first what Lightfoot’s real priorities are, and how she wants them achieved.
I’m not the Mayor.
Anything else?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 1:24 pm
“Bruce said that for two years.” Well, so did Blago.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 1:39 pm
When was the Trib ever against making full pension payments?
The opponents of real reform (ie. constitutional amendment) are the ones who don’t want to make full payments. They want to pretend the existing insufficient payments are okay and/or reduce them further through schemes like pension obligation bonds or “reamortization” (i.e. kicking the can and making the debt bigger).
The whole point of structural benefit reforms is to match the size of benefits with the FULL PAYMENT we can actually afford.
Comment by Phil King Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:01 pm
OW - Since you explained how you would go about it, what your goals would be and what you would want to achieve, you must have identified at least one revenue source for the city. What is it?
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:08 pm
=== Since you explained how you would go about it, what your goals would be and what you would want to achieve, you must have identified at least one revenue source for the city. What is it?===
I am not the Mayor.
Which word(s) confuse you?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:10 pm
OW - You can assume Mayor Lightfoot’s goal is paying the bills.
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:11 pm
OW - “I’m not the mayor” is not an answer. I know - sniping is more fun
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:14 pm
===You can assume Mayor Lightfoot’s goal is paying the bills.===
No, I actually can’t.
We’re told there’s a $838 million hole.
Ok.
What priorities and cuts and revenues and plans do we know?
I have no idea what’s on any agenda except find… $838 million, and neither do the Leaders of the GA or the Governor.
Are you missing why there’s a disconnect with Lightfoot and everyone?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:14 pm
===“I’m not the mayor” is not an answer. I know - sniping is more fun===
You think the Mayor of Chicago and me…are … “equal”?
For the love of Pete, Lightfoot not having a plan is $838 million worse than you hearing any of my plans, ‘cause…
I’m not the Mayor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:16 pm
OW -”hearing any of my plans” That’s what I would like, if you would care to share. Who knows, you might have good ideas you are hiding under a bushel basket.
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:24 pm
Why doesn’t a member of the City delegation just put in a bill that designates the money your municipality/county sends to Springfield is the amount of money they receive back?
If I remember Rahm told Bruce Rauner he’d love to have the billion or so back that is taken out of Chicago and placed all over the State.
Bill Foster was pushing for this years ago on a Federal level as well. Illinois is a donor state, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky and many others that oppose Chicago/Illinois values are welfare states. Same can be said about the Eastern bloc vs Chicago. Chicago donates to the Eastern Bloc, they represent welfare counties. Just take it back you’ve got the votes, as many keep saying.
Comment by Dupage Bard Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:29 pm
===That’s what I would like, if you would care to share. Who knows, you might have good ideas you are hiding under a bushel basket.===
I’d like to hear what the elected Mayor of the City of Chicago thinks her plans are.
Use the google. I’m sure a search or three you might find a plan or two I’ve written.
It’s not about me.
If Lightfoot and her Crew are too inept to understand what they’re doing is “doing it wrong”, no amount of choices I make is gonna help her.
I do suggest she looks at how she’s going about her business.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:29 pm
- Looking down the Road -
I’ll do you a solid;
Here’s my plan.
1) Decide on options you want to discuss with the GA Leaders and this governor.
2) Actually talk with… the GA Leaders and the Governor… first… like not say silly things publicly then hope they get “hints” or “drifts”
3) Get strong old hands that understand process and the politics to them both to meet with GA Leaders’ Crews abc the Governor’s too.
4) Whittle down to actual options all can agree to, and then discuss how to plan… to move the whole plan… with the small steps to achieve success.
5) Now… talk to the press.
The details are in the private meetings, discussions, and staff interactions.
Since none of the other players… the Governor, the four Legislative Leaders… and all their Crews really care what I think… cause I ain’t the Mayor… I’m pretty sure none are gonna agree to meet with me as this phony mayor.
So… if Mayor Lightfoot would like to use my game plan, good luck. I can think off the top of my head quite a few folks I’d take advice from before me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 2:44 pm
OK. Good plan as far as it goes. What are the “options” you would discuss with the GA?
Comment by Looking down the Road Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 3:07 pm
===What are the “options” you would discuss with the GA?===
Mayor Lightfoot has a whole staff, kitchen cabinet, friends…
I’d suggest she and her Crew start there.
AWillyWord Consulting closed, friend.
Poke around, you might find an idea or three hanging about.
You’re very… “kind”… to ask… but I’ll let my words as they are stand.
Frankly, Mayor Lightfoot, getting a list like this, tells me, if I’m reading, she needs to work far more on process than policy.
Maybe call Leader Durkin. They’re friends.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 30, 19 @ 3:18 pm