Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
Next Post: Rauner announces changes to pharmacy oversight
Posted in:
* From way back in late May of 2015…
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he wants to see how the frenzied final days of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session play out before asking the new City Council to begin the search for new revenue to solve the $30 billion pension crisis that has dropped Chicago’s bond rating to junk status.
“We’re in active discussions on a casino as a funding source to shore up” police and fire pensions, the mayor told reporters after a City Council meeting. […]
Emanuel said he remains hopeful on what he once described as a “mega, mega-deal” that may include a sales tax on services, partial restoration of the expired increase in the state income tax, a Chicago casino and pension relief for police and fire and Chicago teachers.
“We’re now in the final two weeks before the end of the session. And as you know, this is usually the time — not just in Springfield, but with legislative bodies [everywhere] — when days are weeks and weeks are like months,” he said.
“There will be a lot of activity. I’m gonna be out there pressing the issues that are related to Chicago and its future [to make certain] Springfield does not make decisions at the expense of Chicago because there’s not a healthy Illinois without a healthy Chicago,” Emanuel said.
And since then? Almost nothing but destruction. And now we have a Senate plan that looks a whole lot like what was floating around a couple of years ago.
It all seems so pointless.
* From today’s NY Times…
At a meeting with the leaders of several construction and building trade unions, President Trump reiterated on Monday his interest in directing hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure investments, some of it from the federal government, union officials said.
“That was the impression I was taken away with,” said Sean McGarvey, the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, an umbrella group, on a call with reporters after the meeting. “That the American citizenry and the American Treasury will be invested in building public infrastructure.” […]
Mr. McGarvey and Terry O’Sullivan, the general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, stressed to reporters their satisfaction at meeting with the president so soon after the inauguration. They said they went the entire Obama administration without being invited to a similar meeting. […]
At the meeting, Mr. McGarvey raised one point of possible discord between the labor leaders and the Trump administration: the so-called Davis-Bacon Act, which requires the federal government to pay contractors and subcontractors “locally prevailing wages,” as determined by the Labor Department, on most construction or renovation projects.
Many conservatives contend that the act inflates the cost of infrastructure projects, and on Tuesday, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, is proposing a bill to suspend it for federal highway construction contracts.
President Trump was apparently non-committal about the proposed GOP changes.
But just imagine how much things could’ve been different in Illinois if our Republican governor had reached out to the building trades right away like Trump just did.
* From Illinois Public Radio…
The [Senate’s proposal] shows there are many areas in which Democrats and Republicans can come to an agreement. But it still leaves one big philosophical question unanswered.
That question is whether a governor can say: “Pass my agenda, and only then will I negotiate on a budget.” […]
“It’s a very dangerous precedent to set,” [Sen. Kwame Raoul] says. “You don’t know who’s going to be elected governor in the future, and if we start to do these types of thing now, every governor is going to want to do that.”
One can imagine a future governor holding out on the budget in exchange something she wants around guns or abortion or some other contentious issue.
And here we are.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session Coverage
Next Post: Rauner announces changes to pharmacy oversight
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==But just imagine how much things could’ve been different in Illinois if our Republican governor had reached out to the building trades right away like Trump just did.==
The weirdest thing is that kind of “divide and conquer” strategy was successfully employed by many of the midwest Republican governors Rauner claims to want to emulate.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:34 am
Trump and Rauner are always compared to each other because they are rich billionaires. I think there is a great deal of difference between two. It’s pretty clear one of Rauner’s chief prorities was to bust up Unions at any cost. I don’t think Trump sees that sort of thing as a priority. I think he is more pragmatic while Rauner more idealistic
Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:37 am
Rauner first and, I argue, most damaging leverage mistake was going to Decatur and begin his term as governor by a full frontal assault on all organized labor.
The play was always to mend fences with Local 150 and the traditional trades, along with first responders. It then allowed Labor itself to decide where it stood with Rauner, while he had both a positive and negative view by the Labor movement as a whole.
Then there was the Lincolnshire nonsense, the RTW Zones, the Turnaround Resolutions and the court case 150 filed…
All needless.
Now Rauner has Labor squarely against him, and while 2 in 5 household voted Rauner in 2014, if Labor can get that to 1 in 6 and make a statewide push now that Rauner will be on the ballot and Decatur is as real as it was when he did it…
All needless.
That’s why Rauner is a Raunerite and not a Republican, while some argue Trump isn’t a Republican either. They both have agendas that fly in the face of traditional 80% agreement and see those opposed to them as… enemies.
What a different landscape it would be now had Rauner embraced the splintering of Labor instead of forcing Labor’s complete demise.
I know I’d look at things differently. I know that. Labor also knows they are all locked in a battle, a battle a governor with a sense of governing and compromise never would’ve engaged in and continues.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:42 am
Rauner’s biggest mistake, by a long-shot, was conflating private unions with the public unions.
I know Trump is seen as a total buffoon by most of this audience, but his emphasis on jobs is right on the money and working with the trades is just smart politics.
Comment by Deft Wing Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:43 am
==“It’s a very dangerous precedent to set,” [Sen. Kwame Raoul] says. “You don’t know who’s going to be elected governor in the future, and if we start to do these types of thing now, every governor is going to want to do that.”==
Is this really an experience that future governors will want to go through? Seems to me like the message this sends is if you play hardball on the budget to get your agenda passed you’re gonna go two years without a budget and end up getting thrown a couple mostly symbolic bones.
Comment by Jason Horwitz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:49 am
Whatever other negatives can be said of Donald Trump — and there are many, many huge negatives — the fact of the matter is, he made his billions building things, while Bruce Rauner made his billions dismantling things that other people built.
It’s a telling difference.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:53 am
@Jason Horwitz
Nobody ever said that the people who actually want the job of governor have any brains.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:57 am
I am not a fan of Trump but he is actually governing in his first few days. Rauner has never started.
Comment by illinoised Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 9:58 am
Trump tower was erected with union labor at the same pay scale government work is done
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:05 am
OW I’m profoundly worried about the Trump Trades meeting. They learned from Illinois. Seduce the trades then go after AFSCME and SEIU, IFT. Our leadership still isn’t listening to the base. Forgive me my leaders. I will grant that I was truly listened too by Roberta and my regional. Truly. It’s international that concerns me. We jumped in with Clinton really fast. The trades are getting seduced by Trump. He’s going for a choke hold then he’ll kill prevailing wage. Just watch. National RTW then BAM. Prevailing will fall. These are perilous times which call for prophetic leadership. But Rauner totally screwed up by taking us all on
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:07 am
I’ve thought for 20 years we needed a new CCC.
I listened to Trump’s Victory Speech on Election Night where he talked about restarting infrastructure projects.
I didn’t vote for him and I’m not in the labor movement but I really believe this is important for the nation to expand roads, rebuild bridges, etc. Accomplishing this is a win for the country.
And while we’re doing that we need to make sure that LOTS of these jobs are filled by minorities - not exclusively by white guys.
The best way to really unite the country is to have economic success and prosperity that ALL are sharing in
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:07 am
Illinoised makes the same argument Pritzker seems to be making about himself in comparison to Rauner.
I absolutely love that he’s so incompetent as a chief executive that Trump looks good in the same light.
Comment by AnonInTheQC Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:15 am
Of course, Rauners hostage holding sets a dangerous precedent. A future Governor with a passionate opinion on gun control or global warming could easily argue (rational or not) either issue is directly tied to our budget. Rauner should respect the democratic process and embrace the concept of co equal branches.
Comment by GOP Extremist Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:15 am
As perhaps a follow up to yesterday’s QOTD about comparing Rauner to Trunp, maybe the comparison isn’t to show how similar they are, but to show how Rauner is actually worse than Trunp. That way Rauner is loathed by both the anti-Trunpsters and the pro-Trumpsters.
Comment by Henry Francis Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:16 am
Any body else read “Trump: The Art of the Deal”?
Comment by weltschmerz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:16 am
==Is this really an experience that future governors will want to go through?==
Ask this question again in December 2018.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:17 am
Yes the Governor is doing his part to make sure these opportunities are filled by women and minorities- not exclusively white guys
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-illinois-governor-met-0120-20150119-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-minority-businesses-met-0120-20160119-story.html
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:17 am
So yesterday you asked if putting Rauner’s name on Trump Tower was effective. I was torn. But then you say this…
“But just imagine how much things could’ve been different in Illinois if our Republican governor had reached out to the building trades right away like Trump just did.”
That right there is effective. Not “Rauner = Trump,” but “Rauner = ineffectual Trump.” Woof.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:18 am
Folks / the Dems left Rainer a bankrupt cesspool. Not a State. We lag behind virtually every other State in the country for jobs, growth, pension funding etc. Maybe it’s time to actually admit what was done until now wasn’t ideal and try another way. What does Illinois have to lose. Maybe public sector workers will have to give stuff up but really why do we all have to drown for their benefit?
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:19 am
Before everyone goes nuts finding that Trump is preferable to Rauner, remember that giving trade unionists the impression that he’ll go on a massive infrastructure building binge isn’t the same as doing it. Paul Ryan hates the idea, and even Trump’s own plan isn’t public investment in public infrastructure, but tax breaks for corporations building privately.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:19 am
- Lucky Pierre -
So you’re saying Rauner is going after the trade due to racial underpinnings?
I want to be clear since your link(s) and…
===…filled by women and minorities- not exclusively white guys.===
…seems to make “clear” it’s racial and gender issue(s)
Please explain.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:22 am
But just imagine how much things could’ve been different in Illinois if our Republican governor had reached out to the building trades right away like Trump just did.
An apples and oranges comparison. Illinois cannot print money and run a deficit of over 500 billion dollars like the Federal Government did last year. We can run big deficits but Illinois budget restraints are far more restrictive than the Federal Government.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:23 am
==Maybe it’s time to actually admit what was done until now wasn’t ideal and try another way.==
Then Rauner should try something new. But: Budget drama, feuds with Madigan, increasing bill backlog, this stuff is all old as the hills.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:23 am
the word CASINO is proving to be quite distracting to me. there is much to note on this which is serious, with revenue and infrastructure implications, but I just keep thinking about the movie Casino and recasting it with Chicago figures. amusing.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:23 am
===An apples and oranges comparison. Illinois cannot print money and run a deficit of over 500 billion dollars like the Federal Government did last year. We can run big deficits but Illinois budget restraints are far more restrictive than the Federal Government===
So… where does prevailing wage, collective bargaining and RTW fit in?
Your words make a swell paragraph but it lacks in real substance to the matter.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:26 am
OW once again twisting yourself in a pretzel and putting words in someone else mouth. Where did I say Rauner was going after the trades die to racial underpinnings?
Disgraceful race baiting on your part that you should be ashamed of. I was responding to the comment at 10:07
“I’ve thought for 20 years we needed a new CCC.
I listened to Trump’s Victory Speech on Election Night where he talked about restarting infrastructure projects.
I didn’t vote for him and I’m not in the labor movement but I really believe this is important for the nation to expand roads, rebuild bridges, etc. Accomplishing this is a win for the country.
And while we’re doing that we need to make sure that LOTS of these jobs are filled by minorities - not exclusively by white guys.
The best way to really unite the country is to have economic success and prosperity that ALL are sharing in”
A positive comment about the Governor’s programs that agree with this comment is all that a rational person would infer.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:29 am
===And here we are.===
We’re only here because the Republican legislature hasn’t abandoned him and his efforts to dictate his will upon the state. He brought them money and he brought them some pretty hollow victories, but they’re not as insulated as he is and they certainly aren’t as wealthy.
In the next few months maybe something will cause them to realize that Rauner is less their friend than he is the Democrats. While the attacks from the Illinois Policy Institute might serve as a shot across the bow, it also serves as a declaration of hostile intent.
Maybe some of them will realize they’ve invited the wrong one in.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:31 am
The point is the Federal Government can afford to pay more for projects than Illinois and it’s local governments can.
Do you see that Trump has more flexibility than our Governor?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:32 am
===The point is the Federal Government can afford to pay more for projects than Illinois and it’s local governments===
Since this is a Labor issue, you think those in the trades and unionized workers make too much?
It’s a yes or no, thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:33 am
–It all seems so pointless.–
The point was squeeze-the-beast. That’s been “successful,” to a large degree.
It’s a little heartening to see some media finally questioning the legitimacy of refusing to engage on a budget — and all the destruction that entailed — for a personal agenda.
The ability of Rauner to get away with that for two years has been his greatest “accomplishment” to date.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:36 am
The new President is getting some, even begrudging praise here today for his approach yesterday. Blue collar people certainly understand that “building things” creates jobs. Good paying jobs. So, he’s off to a decent start and hopefully will continue down this fruitful road.
Just a day ago…not even a full day…there was an argument about tying Rauner to Trump to make some political hay. I suggested that might be a risky strategy if the President accomplishes some things. If he keeps heading in this direction, that strategy is beyond risky.
We don’t know yet. But we’ll see.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:36 am
OW read the comment at 10:07 and then my links and tell me how you can you can infer that
“So you’re saying Rauner is going after the trade due to racial underpinnings?”
You could win an Olympic event with that kind of leap of logic.
It could just be the Governor agrees with the comment at 10:07. But that would be hard for you to admit
.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:36 am
@Sue
I have always hated the argument “what do we have to lose?” There is always something to lose.
Setting fire to the house just because you think you could build a better one on the ashes isn’t considered by most people to be a reasonable plan. Why do people think that would be any different with an entire state?
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:39 am
===Yes the Governor is doing his part to make sure these opportunities are filled by women and minorities- not exclusively white guys===
Ok…
===Disgraceful race baiting…===
I forgive you. You made it about “white guys”, I didn’t, and by doing so, with Labor, you’re actually saying Labor isn’t doing their part. That may be actually true, but if you want to say it, say it. I wanted clarity.
===A positive comment about the Governor’s programs that agree with this comment is all that a rational person would infer.===
Nah.
How do I know?
Look how many words you needed to make something “so clear”, lol.
Also, note, your links, again, are the governor going after labor with racial underpinnings, with claims against Labor.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:39 am
Lucky Pierre, the minority business program was always a sham. ADME was a farse for several reasons. Odom had no idea what he was doing. I’m not trying to be a jerk but the program died on the vine. Odom was then shuttled off to Intersect Illinois where it again didn’t go anywhere. Programs don’t run just because you “know people”. Failed again. Now Odom has been moved to CMS as assistant director under Hoffman. I’m sure that move has to do with procurement and the “sheltered markets” Rauner set up. If I were institutions business I would sure be careful. Even companies with good contracts haven’t been paid. How are you going to do paid?
Comment by Jeremiah Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:40 am
“Reagan Democrats” have been replaced by “Trump Democrats”. In my opinion, many “Reagan Democrats” went Republican and never came back. I think you’ll see the same thing with “Trump Democrats”. I wouldn’t count on rank-and-file private-sector union members automatically voting Democratic anymore. Anyone who assumes that Rauner is toast because of his war on unions is mistaken. I think Rauner will get a lot of support from rank-and-file private-sector union members in 2018.
Comment by Old Shepherd Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:40 am
Where were all these infrastructure champions the last 4 years? Obama submitted infrastructure proposals every year during his second term, but something about Kenyan socialism kept them from happening.
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:41 am
- Lucky Pierre -
Link one…
“…Rauner did not say what consequences would result if trade groups and contractors failed to report on their apprenticeship and training programs in the required 30-day period, acknowledging that some contractors already are supposed to submit similar reports but many fail to do so.”
Link two describes nothing on Labor or trades.
I asked you to clarify. Rauner is going after trades and Labor with race and gender issues.
These aren’t random “groups” cited, even by you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:45 am
- Sue - Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:19 am:
What about Illinois as a top 20 GDP worldwide…a world class education system and one of the best public universities in the country…a transportation system sought after by businesses and some of the highest private sector wages in the country…and Chicago as one of the top economic cities in the world. Maybe public sector workers shouldn’t have to give up anything?
Comment by Consideration Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:47 am
–An apples and oranges comparison. Illinois cannot print money and run a deficit of over 500 billion dollars like the Federal Government did last year.–
That “print money” line, did you hear that from some yakkers on the cable box? It does not mean anything in this context.
The federal government finances its deficits by borrowing in the capital markets through the sale of Treasury securities.
State government, historically, has financed its operational deficits by borrowing from pension funds via shorting payments and state vendors via late payment of bills. State government also finances some infrastructure by borrowing in the capital markets via GO or revenue bonds.
The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, by methods that are a little more complex than “printing money” and has nothing to do with how the federal government finances its debt.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:50 am
Old Shepard is right. Labor must fight for every member, to retain and to gain. That’s totally my fight. That is my front line.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:51 am
- Honeybear -
I hear ya, and your not wrong, but the “Traditional” relationship(s) with Republicans and Labor begins with respect for the Trades, the working with Capital and Labor to build thing, fix things, create things, and first responders, and trying the knot with conservative/libertarian governing agreementing.
While public service Labor is the same with wages, work rules, safety… the differences between the trades and public service Labor, (excluding first responders) is the window Republicans see through in how Labor is “same but different” and allows the splintering to occur.
Right now, Rauner despises all Labor, thus changing the Republican ideal to the Raunerism demands.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 10:57 am
I think OW is right that Rauner made a big strategic mistake that’s going to cost him union votes (votes he can certainly make up somewhere else, understand).
But I also think Honeybear’s right, unions should compete for every member. Frankly, I’ve long wondered if they should devote more resources to recruitment rather than advocacy (though I don’t know the numbers devoted toward either, and I understand that right now, advocacy is pretty damn important).
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:06 am
===“Reagan Democrats” have been replaced by “Trump Democrats”. In my opinion, many “Reagan Democrats” went Republican and never came back. I think you’ll see the same thing with “Trump Democrats”===
You can virtually guarantee they won’t go back if their own party continues to ridicule them. It’s been a relentless chorus.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:08 am
–You can virtually guarantee they won’t go back if their own party continues to ridicule them. It’s been a relentless chorus.–
Where are you hearing this relentless chorus of ridicule, specifically?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:13 am
Sling, are you serious?
Have you not heard, read on every news source, every social media site and in conversation those phrases? Blaming specifically white blue collar workers for electing this @#$%#. They have continually referred to them as stupid, ignorant, mindless, rubes, religious fanatics, gun creeps, etc.
These folks will not come back if that doesn’t cease.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:18 am
==Where are you hearing this relentless chorus of ridicule, specifically?==
Whenever he says what Democrats do, bet on the opposite and make a lot of money.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:23 am
“Since this is a Labor issue, you think those in the trades and unionized workers make too much?”
No, but are they a special protected class, that the government should intervene? And if so, is the answer to take money away from others who earn approximately the same or even less? I say the answer is no, although you seem disagree on that point.
It’s pretty much a zero-sum action. For the government to artificially inflate one segment’s wages, it generally has to take away from another segment’s. I’m not a fan of corporate welfare, and I’m not a fan of prevailing wage–but both are very ingrained into the system. Both should be, at a minimum, reformed in a way that minimizes their negative impacts on the general population.
Also, I think the best way to increase trade union wages is to have a healthy budget that properly invests in infrastructure and new construction year after year. That would also produce more (great) jobs in total. Rising tides and all that…
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:30 am
- Liandro -
You and I have had this discussion before, where you think union labor makes too much money.
Here again…
===Both should be, at a minimum, reformed in a way that minimizes their negative impacts on the general population.===
So, again prevailing wage is too high, labor makes too much.
Correct?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:33 am
I think what happens to Trump voters is going to depend on if he can deliver. That’s a pretty big if.
Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:33 am
== I think the best way to increase trade union wages is to have a healthy budget that properly invests in infrastructure and new construction year after year.==
I agree, and I wish the Governor hadn’t made cutting people’s pay a prerequisite to getting such a budget.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:34 am
===And if so, is the answer to take money away from others who earn approximately the same or even less? I say the answer is no, although you seem disagree on that point===
“They make more than me, they can’t make more than me.”
You could learn a trade, join a union, no one is stopping you.
Whatever you think, percentage-wise, you think is too high, why shouldn’t you lose, 5-10-15% if I think you make too much.
It’s an agreed prevailing wage…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:36 am
==I think what happens to Trump voters is going to depend on if he can deliver.==
Absolutely. It’s silly to think it’s going to come down to, whatever, intemperate Facebook posts. We hear these promises of permanent realignment after every Presidential election. The next one that takes will be the first.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:47 am
===These folks will not come back if that doesn’t cease. ===
Totally agreed. People need to knock it off.
But HRC got 71K more votes here in Illinois than BHO did in 2012. And DJT got only about 11K more votes than Romney.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:50 am
==But HRC got 71K more votes here in Illinois than BHO did in 2012. And DJT got only about 11K more votes than Romney.==
We’d probably want to drill down into union household numbers, but this is the thing, “Trump Democrats” just weren’t a thing in IL.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:57 am
==You can virtually guarantee they won’t go back if their own party continues to ridicule them. It’s been a relentless chorus.==
Why does this ridiculous double standard exist? Being to the left of Reagan opens a person up to all sorts of vile name calling. I’ve been called a lazy communist thief my entire life just because I advocate for center-left policies. But heaven forbid some unemployed trade guy get called a name by some meany college girl. It starts a revolution apparently
Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 11:58 am
–Blue collar people certainly understand that “building things” creates jobs.–
Yes, which is why many argued that there should have been a much larger national infrastructure package in 2009, and why it should have continued after the GOP took control of Congress in 2011 and shut down everything.
That’s when unemployment was still 8%-10%, not the 4.7% it is today.
Still, long-term infrastructure planning is critical the overall economy. The key word is “planning,” so you can prioritize needs and accelerate infrastructure spending in times of recession and rising unemployment.
Trump didn’t discover Macroeconomics 101, but maybe he can beat do-nothing GOP majorities into accomplishing something other than renaming post offices and dozens of repeal Obamacare votes. But let’s see the plan.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:00 pm
– not exclusively white guys–
as a mechanic in teamsters (32 yrs) for every white guy we hire we hire 3-4 Hispanics or Filipinos guys cause white guys don’t want this kind of work
Comment by jon r Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:01 pm
Pardon, 12:00 was me.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:02 pm
OW do you think property taxes are to high in Illinois?
Like your question it is a simple yes or no
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:03 pm
OW, you start your comment by assigning motives to me that are explicitly the opposite of what I commented. That makes the discussion very hard.
The very first word of my comment was “no”, meaning I do not think trade wage is to hard. If you cannot understand that by “no” I mean “no”, what is the point of your comment? To attack me personally and call me a liar?
No, I do not think trade unions make to much–but I also don’t believe the government should artificially inflate their income. I don’t think the government should artificially inflate the income of CEOs, or truck drivers, or doctors, or lawyers, or janitors, or pilots, or bank clerks, or accountants.
I believe this because the solution is to take away from others to get it. I am completely fine with raising wages trades…through market forces that don’t requite raising taxes on all the other segments of society.
So no, Willy, labor does NOT make too much. I hope the economy takes off the they make more, and the pace of jobs picks up on top of that. That way not only are they making more per hour, but they have less down time between jobs (one of my army buddies just was off brick-laying for a full week).
I just don’t want to raise taxes on my citizens. Why can’t you understand that? And why do you need to assign me false motives to attempt to make a point?
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:06 pm
Sorry for spelling/grammar. I was talking on the phone and typing at the same time. This is why texting while driving is illegal….
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:07 pm
===… do you think property taxes are to high in Illinois?===
My property taxes are NOT too high, given the quality public education and services I receive that are broken down with my property taxes.
Oswego 308 has built countless grade and junior high schools, and an additional high school since the expansion here in Kendall County began.
I knew when moving here my property taxes are going to be taken and used by an elected school board(s) that have been committed to better education for children in the community and, even with the housing bubble, property values based on the school system here have been able to hold true, allowing the home to be an asset for homeowners.
Due to the funding mechanism Illinois uses for K-12 school districts, Illinois will be higher in property taxes to other states that fund schools by different measures.
I don’t think prevailing wage and collective bargaining are at a measurable impact to reducing my property taxes to much lower levels, otherwise those specific numbers, 2 years ago, would’ve been rolled out by Candidate Rauner and later Governor Rauner.
This Post is about Labor issues. The measurable savings of my property tax bill measured by prevailing wage, collective bargaining and right to work has not been a measurable seen with real dollars to lower my property taxes to the lowest of low levels.
When Rauner can show by just ending prevailing wage and collective bargaining will get my property taxes significantly lower and still have District 308, which the state owes money to, fulfill its charge by continuing to be a fine school district, then you’ll have my attention.
===… do you think property taxes are to high in Illinois===
My property taxes are in-line with my expectations for education funding I expect to keep my property value.
If you like to have the discussion where we measure the “property taxes to local schools” removed and compare, then I’ll have that argument.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:17 pm
The fact that Illinois was never in play for Trump almost certainly increased HRC’s margins here.
Many voters in states that were in play like Wisconsin where Trump lost the primary by a lot held their nose and voted for him. In Illinois that was not the case. I will be curious to see if Trumps approval/ disapproval spread in Illinois is wider or narrower than the other states in the Midwest
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:20 pm
===No, I do not think trade unions make to much–but I also don’t believe the government should artificially inflate their income. I don’t think the government should artificially inflate the income of CEOs, or truck drivers, or doctors, or lawyers, or janitors, or pilots, or bank clerks, or accountants.===
Who made you the income arbitrator.
If you’d like, I’ll pull up past comments you made where you make clear that labor makes too much, similar to…
===I also don’t believe the government should artificially inflate their income.===
It’s an agreed prevailing wage.
You want it lowered. You think it’s artificial. So, again, I can read fine, thanks. You have made clear, labor make too much.
You may not like facing what you’re saying, but you are, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:21 pm
–But HRC got 71K more votes here in Illinois than BHO did in 2012. And DJT got only about 11K more votes than Romney.–
Nationally:
Clinton 2016: 65.8M
Obama 2012: 65.9M
Trump 2016: 63.0M
Romney 2012: 61.0M
Obama and Clinton were a push; the two-million bump spread across all the right places allowed Trump to pull an electoral-college inside straight.
Real numbers would seem to indicate that Trump’s victory was due to bringing in new voters (which was every GOP candidates’ plan) rather than any defections of “Trump Democrats” because the Democratic Party was calling them nasty names. Most politicians don’t call their voters nasty names.
Unless Guy, you have some any facts at all to support your contention.
I kid. Facts aren’t your thing.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:22 pm
OW. I just don’t know if anything is traditional about republicans given that now Russia is our buddy. Republicans praising a despot! It’s not hard for me to conceive of a trades betrayal by republicans. You’ve seen me trying to reach out towards fiscal conservatives with my EDGE comments. Tipsy turvy world
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:34 pm
OW with the second highest property taxes in the US, property tax reform is one of the most important issues in Illinois.
According to the Sun Times:
In Chicago and the rest of the state property taxes are increasing to fund pensions. The median income is lower ($47,831) in Chicago than the average pension benefit for CPS ($51,454).
Former Chicago Schools Supt. Manford Byrd was identified as the pension kingpin, the study shows.
He collects an annual pension of $190,634 — with an estimated lifetime payout of more than $2.5 million — even after paying just $126,561 into the fund during his long career with the Chicago Public Schools.
The highest estimated lifetime payout of more than $6.1 million will go to Kevin Huber, former executive director of the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund. Huber gets an annual pension check of $91,541. During the course of his career, he made $235,332 in pension contributions, only 4 percent of his “lifetime payout,” the study shows.
Increasing property taxes to fund increased pension benefits is a non starter OW.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/group-warns-of-more-property-tax-hikes-for-teacher-pensions/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:40 pm
- Honeybear -
Trump and Rauner are not “Traditional” Republicans, and can be argued that neither are Republicans at all, even if in narrow circumstances they mirror “Traditional” Republican ideals and mores.
My GOP from 2012 is “over”, given Rauner in 2013 in Illinois and that Raunerism takeover, and Trump steamrolling 16 GOP candidates and winning the nomination and riding that win to the White House.
This craziness of what Trumpism (including the Russian fascination) and Raunerism (Turnaround Agenda driven) have defined what a “Republican” is in Illinois and nationally is one crazy ride.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:40 pm
I hate it when companies artificially inflate CEO salaries! Make what the average American family makes equivalent to an eighth of an inch. Now walk that tape measure out 27 feet. That’s where the average CEO is. Rauner makes 90000 an hour from investments. He didn’t “earn” that. Do some you bum. Start by doing your job as governor.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:44 pm
“Who made you the income arbitrator.”
The irony of your comment is that I’m trying to get government OUT of being the income arbitrator, and you’re fighting to keep government AS the income arbitrator. You realize that, right? You’re making a point against your own argument!
Further, you can pull up all the comments you want, but my point was never that labor makes too much. My point was that it makes no sense for government to pull from people who make less in order to inflate their salaries.
For example, I’ve never said CEO’s make too much money. I do think it’s ridiculous that government bailouts take tax money from people who makes LESS than CEOs, and then CEOs end up getting bonuses out of it. By your logic, that means I think CEOs makes to much. No, Willy, that’s illogical. CEOs can make all they want–they can double their salaries for all I care. I just don’t want any of it to be taxpayer money from bailouts.
So, we both want labor wages to go up. However, we have two difference solutions:
Willy: raises taxes on everyone, and then force a prevailing wage concept to give them a raise!
Liandro: get a healthy budget, dramatically strengthen our commitment to infrastructure investments and new construction, and get a better business climate!
Again, my point is that they make too much to deserve taking tax money from others who make less—NOT that they make too much in general. They can make all the money they want, and I’ll proudly support other policies that help that cause.
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:46 pm
Have to agree with the sentiments on Trump, but isn’t it amazing that Rauner actually makes Trump look good?
Comment by wondering Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 12:52 pm
===The irony of your comment is that I’m trying to get government OUT of being the income arbitrator, and you’re fighting to keep government AS the income arbitrator. You realize that, right? You’re making a point against your own argument!===
Nope. The agreed prevailing wage, you don’t agree. You feel, I guess as an elected official, that those in Labor make too much…
===Willy: raises taxes on everyone, and then force a prevailing wage concept to give them a raise!===
No, the wage IS the wage. You think they make too much. That’s on you.
===Liandro …and get a better business climate===
Read, like Bruce Rauner…
Cripple Labor and prevailing wage.
I can read fine…
===better business climate!===
That’s Rauner-speak to Labor, lol
===…my point is that they make too much to deserve taking tax money from others who make less===
“You make more than me, I can’t have that.”
I can read fine. Anyone can join a union and reap their work, including prevailing wage.
Otherwise, why have unions that won’t protect workers, trades?
===…NOT that they make too much in general.===
… and yet you want it reduced? That makes no sense.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:02 pm
===In Chicago and the rest of the state property taxes are increasing to fund pensions.===
The General Assembly has been told that pensions need to be paid. Everyone has been told pensions have to be paid.
If property taxes are an element, than Rauner as governor should find pension relief that’s constitutional and can get 60 and 30…
… but the ILSC made clear, pensions need to be paid.
If your jealous of those pensions, be a teacher, the pension is guaranteed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:07 pm
Willy, there’s no more to say. I’m sure you’re smart enough to see how illogical your comments on my motives are–you are just choosing to blind yourself to it. You can say “You think they make too much” as much as you want, but you’re lying. There is no other way to phrase it: you’re lying about me.
Not only am I fine with union labor making more money, I actually WANT them to. I’d be thrilled to see my union buddies making more money. I just think prevailing wage is a poor policy to accomplish that goal. I think there are other, better ways to accomplish the same goal.
“You can make more than me, I can’t have that”. You put quotes on something I said–another lie, and flat wrong on several levels. Also, that you think a “better business climate” is a bad thing shows how fixated on Rauner you are. I see a phrase like “better business climate” and I don’t fill it will political motivations like you do. Neither do most average people. You’re so fixated on politics now that you can’t see beyond it.
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:18 pm
==The irony of your comment is that I’m trying to get government OUT of being the income arbitrator==
Why would you want to do such a thing? In a prevailing wage situation, the government is the employer. It should get a say in how much it pays.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:28 pm
- Liandro -
Using “artificial” to describe prevailing wage is saying, with artificial, that Labor makes too much.
You say it. You don’t like that you say it, but you say it.
No, “business climate” and prevailing wage is Rauner speak for diminishing labor.
Again, you may not like how real that is, but it is real.
You know “artificial” means fake. You chose artificial, and you aren’t saying that “artifical” wage is too low, LOL!
You think Labor makes too much. That’s fine. You think the protection of prevailing wage is too high for your liking, taking monies out of Laborers’ pockets, I can read, I get it.
You explained in previous comments months ago your desire to lower the prevailing wage to be “in line” with what people make in your town…
Remember?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:28 pm
==You’re so fixated on politics now that you can’t see beyond it.==
I’m not sure you’ve completely wrapped your arms around this blog.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:30 pm
==I kid. Facts aren’t your thing.===
Sling, continue your selected analysis. Trump DID pull the “inside straight” to the tune of 35 States, all but 2 of the big ones. The electoral college ensures that “inside straight” will be there.
Let’s be specific and close to home; PA, OH, MI, WI, (almost MN, for God’s sake!)
Are you selling the notion those were ALL new GOP voters? C’mon dude, stop drinking so many Neat. Cut back and add ice.
The Democrats mobilized a lot of new voters. Their trouble was they weren’t everywhere they needed them- too many in the wrong states.That pads the total.
Rich said it best, “they need to knock it off”. They do. Trump’s job is to make those middle income blue collar people comfy in his new version of the GOP. He does that, and the D’s are toast for 8 years. And there will be coattails the next time around.
If the D’s insist on demonizing their own natural constituency (i.e. the entire South in the 80s) they’ll lose these Midwestern states for a generation too.
Illinois is the outlier…for now.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:36 pm
==Are you selling the notion those were ALL new GOP voters?==
100k voters flipped WI, MI, and PA. Even if it’s a 50-50 split between new Republicans and flipped Dems, that comes to 50k Dems, so you are, not atypically, extrapolating quite a lot from quite a little. Especially considering that “Seriously, Sling?” isn’t an answer to where this constant abuse is coming from.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:42 pm
–The Democrats mobilized a lot of new voters.–
The Dem 2012 and 2016 votes were virtually the same. The 2016 GOP vote was up by 2 million.
Any time you want to counter facts with something other than tantrums will be a first.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:48 pm
Tantrum?? Add ice man.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:52 pm
Yes, guy, insults and lack of substance equal tantrums.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 1:56 pm
“Using “artificial” to describe prevailing wage is saying, with artificial, that Labor makes too much.”
This statement is completely illogical. I think government bailouts created artificial profits for some companies. That doesn’t mean I’m against those companies profiting–I want them to. It’s means I’m against artificial profits from the taxpayers–go earn those profits in the market.
Why not just constantly bail out companies as a economic boost? Why not just take taxpayer money every year and give every struggling business in America an extra $100,000? According to your (il)logic, saying that’s a bad idea means you’re against businesses being profitable! And that, Willy, makes no sense whatsoever.
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:03 pm
==Yes, guy, insults and lack of substance equal tantrums.===
Glass house…meet stone thrower.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:10 pm
- Liandro -
===“You can make more than me, I can’t have that”. You put quotes on something I said–another lie, and flat wrong on several levels===
Your comment, Wednesday November 23, 2016…
===You still haven’t answered my question. The per capita income in Dixon is less than $25,000, but perhaps the household income is a better mark. Why do you support a policy that gives tax money to private workers money in a way that hurts fellow private workers who make less (on average)?
You want my motive, Willy? Why the heck should the less privileged families inflate, above local market rates, the incomes of those better off? The trades work hard and get paid well; explain to me (without baseless ad hominem) why they need to take away after-tax income from others to boost it higher===
Today… Up top.
===You can say “You think they make too much” as much as you want, but you’re lying. There is no other way to phrase it: you’re lying about me===
I’m not lying about you.
Your own words refute you.
Lying is a strong word, especially if there is no lie.
I can continue if you’d like…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:11 pm
To suggest wordslinger posts comments without substance is one of those “alternative facts” I’m hearing so much about. And at least his insults are reserved to tone, whereas yours, a guy, are explicit.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:25 pm
Willy, I wonder if you would answer a question for me that might help illuminate my position:
Do you support a “prevailing wage” for lawyers?
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:27 pm
- Liandro -
I’m sure I have an answer.
As you think I’m a liar, I doubt ANY answer I give to you will be accepted as truthful…
So there’s that…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:30 pm
If attorneys organized themselves as Laborers do, the question would have merit.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:32 pm
Fair enough. However, in my world view being organized doesn’t add any merit to the lawyers’ demands of a “prevailing wage”–that is a difference between you and I. That said, I’ll move on to my point.
If lawyers got a “prevailing wage”, Dixon would almost certainly spend more money. Taxpayers would absorb that hit, despite not making (on average) anywhere near the average lawyer’s pay. Giving inflated wages to lawyers makes about as much sense as giving lawyers welfare–which is, not much.
As a general rule, I oppose artificially boosting business profits through bailouts. I oppose artificially boosting pay of anyone (lawyers, trades, whoever) through “prevailing wages”. And I oppose it very strongly when the net result is that people less well off get reduced after-tax wages to inflate the after-tax wages of someone who makes more.
It’s reverse Robin Hood. It makes no sense to me, and despite all our discussions I still have no idea why it makes sense to you.
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:41 pm
Arsenal. Money time and resources to front line stewards. It would solve a ton of prpblemf
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:46 pm
Arsenal. Money time and resources to front line steward. It would solve a ton of problems. I have had to push and connive to get trained and supported.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:48 pm
==Money time and resources to front line stewards. It would solve a ton of prpblemf==
That’s what I thought, but like I said, I didn’t know the numbers. For all I knew, unions already spend double on recruitment than they do on lobbying. So I didn’t want to crap on them.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 2:50 pm
Liandro
Labor has a much, much more concentrated set of data points when it comes to wages from which to calculate a prevailing wage. Lawyers make from the multiple millions to the low 5 figures, and a million well-spread out data points in between. Calculating an hourly wage the majority makes would be, in my estimation, an exercise in futility. Not to mention that ignores attorneys who do quasi-legal work that does not exactly constitute practicing law but is nonetheless work typically reserved for attorneys.
It’s a long-winded way of saying that the point you’re trying to make is based on a completely false parallel.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:09 pm
I hope somehow that Trump is different with unions than so many Republicans, particularly those at the state level. I do have ill feelings about his Labor cabinet pick. Eliminating prevailing wage and enacting RTW are big priorities of many of today’s Republicans and their gigantic-money backers, so that’s worrisome.
This idea that labor unions are a protected class when the super-wealthy anti-union interests and others have so much power and get breaks of their own is a joke. Here in Illinois, wealthy corporations have received billions in tax breaks over the years. Rauner himself has not had to pay a higher state income tax.
A very good example to me was when a “Grand Bargain” was killed at the national level in 2011, when it was killed by Republicans in part because of the loss of tax breaks for corporate jets or something like that.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:17 pm
===However, in my world view being organized doesn’t add any merit to the lawyers’ demands of a “prevailing wage”===
In that one sentence, you show your ignorance of the decades of Labor struggles, what they fought for in safety and wages, and dismiss things like ending child labor, and unfair labor practices that put the health and well-being of people in harms way and why being organized advanced America and the workers of this country.
===If lawyers got a “prevailing wage”, Dixon would almost certainly spend more money. Taxpayers would absorb that hit, despite not making (on average) anywhere near the average lawyer’s pay. Giving inflated wages to lawyers makes about as much sense as giving lawyers welfare–which is, not much===
You continue to ignore the agreed prevailing wage that is recognized.
You don’t like that it’s more. You think Labor makes too much.
Say Lawyers, doesn’t change the fact you think Labor makes too much in the prevailing wage.
=== And I oppose it very strongly when the net result is that people less well off get reduced after-tax wages to inflate the after-tax wages of someone who makes more.===
The negotiated prevailing wage is where it is.
Again, you complain about people making “more” but it’s agreed. Just say you think Labor should make less and be done with it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:24 pm
- Liandro -
Don’t say “Fair enough” when addressing my comments.
Calling me a liar, you don’t get that passive agreement with me anymore.
Thank you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:28 pm
==Where are you hearing this relentless chorus of ridicule, specifically?==
Hard to believe I forgot the most obvious. There was, like, this really rather large march around the country this past weekend….Most the participants were somewhat critical of those blue collar, white Trump voters. The costumes and hats…yeah, not real subtle.
But you might have missed it.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:29 pm
a guy
Those hats very obviously citizens the President, not his voters. When did we choose to seek so hard to become a victim?
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:37 pm
criticized, not citizen.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:37 pm
Lisandro, government doesn’t set the prevailing rate other than they use the rate negotiated by private contractors with local labor unions. The rate is what those local contractors are willing to pay. It saves the government a whole lot of time and money to not have to negotiate on every road repair, building project, etc.
The Prevailing Wage Act requires contractors and subcontractors to pay laborers, workers and mechanics employed on PUBLIC WORKS construction projects no less than the general prevailing rate of wages (consisting of hourly cash wages plus fringe benefits) for work of a similar character in the county where the work is…
Comment by Sense of a Goose Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:42 pm
==I oppose artificially boosting pay of anyone (lawyers, trades, whoever) through “prevailing wages”. ==
It’s not an “artificial boost”, it’s what the employer- the government, in this case- decides to pay.
If you think it’s too high, OK, but the government doesn’t have the profit motive, so it can take some other things into account when setting wages.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 3:54 pm
–Hard to believe I forgot the most obvious. There was, like, this really rather large march around the country this past weekend….Most the participants were somewhat critical of those blue collar, white Trump voters. The costumes and hats…yeah, not real subtle.–
Hard to believe you think that makes any sense.
Criticism of Trump is inherently criticism of “white, Blue collar, Trump voters?” Why is that? You can’t criticize a politician without extending it to those who voted for him or her?
Out of “most of the participants,” you witnessed, which do you think had the most egregious signs criticizing “white, Blue collar, Trump voters?” Some examples, please.
By that brilliant advance in logic, I take it any criticism of Obama or Clinton was inherently criticism of Obama or Clinton voters? Again, why?
Do you expect to ever have any criticism of Trump? If you do, would you be criticizing yourself for voting for him?
Rather juvenile reasoning, that took you awhile to put together.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 4:13 pm
Gonzo, will due respect my friend, there was plenty of criticism to go around. Well beyond just the Pres.
Don’t mistake me for a victim here. I watched these actions with curiosity. I listened to the legit reasons for the protest march (which I actually admire and defend) I paid no attention to the lewd parts that mixed the message. That’s not being a victim. Of the choices available, I chose the current President. You may think of me as a very cautious…Victor.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 4:25 pm
==there was plenty of criticism to go around==
I’m sure there was, ’cause, whatever, 2-3 million people is a lot.
But to say that white, blue collar workers are insulted by the hats is just silly. How delicate do you think they are?
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 4:33 pm
==But to say that white, blue collar workers are insulted by the hats is just silly. How delicate do you think they are?===
You’re referring to the pink knit hats; called P—- hats. There were others far more vile. You didn’t have to be too…delicate.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 4:36 pm
Guy, as to your contention that criticism of Trump is inherently criticism of “white, Blue collar, Trump voters,” I think a former pre-law (or pre-med) student advanced that line of reasoning much more succinctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_anBMus
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 4:38 pm
To the actual post, I’m troubled that the Chicago casino idea isn’t evaulated more as a regressive tax when considered as a revenue source for the state. Plenty of available data on who’s impacted the most by increased access to gambling. Add to that some evidence of increased crime in the geographic area of casinos and it becomes less clear that there’s any real net economic benefit. Let’s choose a better option.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 5:56 pm
- Liandro -
It’s noted you didn’t acknowledge your “mistake” towards me.
I had thought you’d walk back your words upon seeing your own words again. I’m disappointed.
Oswego Willy
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 24, 17 @ 6:13 pm