Comments on: Madigan responds point by point to Tribune series

by: Jeff Trigg

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:03:37 +0000

Pot calling kettle - That’s a fair point to make for election years, so why do they all stay on the payroll during non-election years when they are out of session? If they went off payroll every year, instead of every other year, your point might be valid, but they only go off payroll during election seasons every two years. Apparently, there is enough work to keep them on payroll during non-election years, but not enough work during election years? That doesn’t make any sense at all and is why you won’t hear Brown/Madigan make that excuse for this lousy practice.

Also, why are they classified as full-time employees, with pensions/healthcare/vacation/…, if they are actually part-time employees who are only needed when there isn’t an election going on? If you are sincere about wanting to save money, we could save a ton by classifying them as the part-timers they really are during election years.

I get your point, but it looks to me like it is just more evidence that they are giving state job rewards to people who do campaign work for them every two years. Because they don’t go off payroll every year when session is out, your justification of this practice fails.

by: Yellow Dog Democrat

Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:12:06 +0000

I should add that even when Republicans had a huge fundraising advantage during the 90’s, Madigan still won 4 out of 5. On their map.

@Jon - Go Cards!

by: Jon Bauman

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:10:17 +0000

Steve Brown wrote-”today is a favorite time of year because in certain markets AM radio just preempted Rush for Cardinals baseball”
Now there is one thing Steve wrote with which I heartily agree. Well said Steve.

by: Yellow Dog Democrat

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:25:04 +0000

@Oswego Willy -

Funny.

by: Oswego Willy

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:02:51 +0000

===@Oswego Willy -

I believe that’s how the Speaker closes all of his letters, for what its worth.===

I think I was just mocking that ANY letter signed by MJM …

with ANY closing from MJM, just be careful.

by: Pot calling kettle

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:41:28 +0000

==Staffers don’t occasionally go on and off the state payroll to do political work, they do it routinely, every election cycle like clockwork. ==

I see this as efficient and something that probably saves the state money while keeping experienced staff from flying to another state. The GSA is in session from Jan-May. Then what? The work for staff drops off a cliff. No bills, no committee hears, etc. They move onto the campaign side, off the state payroll and continue to work develop policy, etc. When campaign season is over, veto session starts and they go back to GA staff. The alternative would be to pay them and give them make-work stuff for 5-6 months; which would be a waste of taxpayer money.

I have no problem with staff going back and forth. It’s two sides of the same job.

by: Just Because

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:28:09 +0000

sounds to me with all the federal indictments, he might be trying to cover his butt. he is the speaker, no bill gets called if he says NO. Plus he is the party chairman with all the money. Nice try but I am not buying it….

by: John Galt

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:27:19 +0000

Oh, and as for the 117-1 votes: how much of that is theatrics and how much of that is also fear-based? As I said, I’m not a Springfield guy, but once the hard count is done, I’m assuming the rest is just Kaubuki theatre….

by: John Galt

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:25:11 +0000

I guess the Speaker wants us to believe that by voting no or present he has no influence on what bills pass or don’t pass. How about making party caucuses subject to the open meeting acat?
==

Ditto. Although I don’t think it’s reasonable to make caucus meetings subject to the open meetings act, I think it’s silly that just because MJM isn’t voting–or is voting “present” on an issue–that somehow his influence isn’t being wielded. I’m not a Springfield guy, but I’ve got to assume that every day or each week MJM has a strategy session w/ his top staff & legislative floor leaders. His people know how he WANTS it to go, and I’m sure they communicate that to the rest of the caucus. And even if MJM doesn’t literally spell it out to his staffers, I’ve got to assume at this point in his career he’s basically mind-melded with a few of his most trusted people and they can basically run the joint on auto-pilot according to MJM’s wishes in most circumstances.

by: Colossus

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:09:52 +0000

@Professor X - glad to have another nerd here. If we find ourselves a Banshee and a Storm, we’ll be halfway towards a Giant Size #1 worth of commentary!

by: Rocky 7

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:08:54 +0000

I guess the Speaker wants us to believe that by voting no or present he has no influence on what bills pass or don’t pass. How about making party caucuses subject to the open meeting acat?

by: Yellow Dog Democrat

Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:41:58 +0000

And by “wrong line of work,” I mean that when you lose - especially so consistently - you don’t blame your opponent. You look in the mirror.

Frankly, I’m not sure what line of work you’d belong in.