Green stuff
Tuesday, Sep 5, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
Bernie had a profile over the weekend of Rich Whitney.
I assure you,” RICH WHITNEY told reporters in Springfield last week, “I have never hugged a tree.”
Whitney, 51, a Carbondale lawyer, is the Green Party candidate for governor. And he was trying to say that voters will want to look past stereotypes of environmentalists to see if they agree with his views or not.
For example, he would like to see Illinois become a state where it is legal for regular citizens, with training, to get permits to carry concealed guns. It’s not in the platform of his party, but he thinks it’s a civil rights issue. […]
He said traditional conservatives will like some of his stands, including his opposition to state-sponsored gambling. And advocates of working people might well like how he is proposing not only a significantly higher minimum wage, but a “living wage” law. That idea would require every company that gets any state benefit, such as a contract or tax exemption, to pay at least an amount equivalent to the federal poverty level for a family of four - about $8.30 per hour plus health benefits.
And his likely exclusion from the debates was covered in the Southern.
Rich Whitney may have surpassed several obstacles to get himself on the November ballot as the Green Party gubernatorial candidate.
But now, he may have a bit more campaigning to do in order to be included in the Southern Illinois gubernatorial debate tentatively scheduled for Sept. 26.
A recent poll conducted by Research 2000 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Southern Illinoisan found that only 2 percent of those surveyed in Illinois said they would vote for Whitney.
Whitney acknowledged that in order to participate in the debate to be held in Marion, he was to have 5 percent voter support in an independent poll.
“However, it is important to bear in mind this is the first poll I’ve been included in,” he said.
- Leroy - Tuesday, Sep 5, 06 @ 7:13 am:
“That idea would require every company that gets any state benefit, such as a contract or tax exemption, to pay at least an amount equivalent to the federal poverty level for a family of four - about $8.30 per hour plus health benefits.”
Sweet! Pass the cost of the living wage & benefits back on to the state where the taxpayers can pay for them.
But I don’t know why he doesn’t want to enforce this law across the board. Why should a private company that does no business with the state have a competitive advantage over those that do?
The state does have a rich legacy of picking favorites, but this one might backfire.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Sep 5, 06 @ 8:08 am:
Third party candidates like Whitney can showcase new ideas about how to handle various issues and therefore show the electorate that there are
choices other than the tired old ideas presented, election after election, by our elderly and decidedly uncreative Democratic and Republican pols (Blago himself will be 50 this year and, despite his efforts to portray himself otherwise, he’s an old Democratic Machine pol by age and by political philosophy. JBT, at 62, can’t shake the Thompson/Edgar/Ryan legacy).
And boy do we need some new approaches in this 21st century.
Will Whitney be up to the task? Even if he comes up with one or two great ideas, they could survive his inevitable defeat and become part of
the political discussion long after he he gone.
- taxmandan - Tuesday, Sep 5, 06 @ 11:34 am:
Mr. Whitney failed to mention some of his “appealing†ideas about eminent domain expansion and worker cooperatives. In Whitney’s mind, the government is responsible for creating jobs. Who knew a lawyer with one employee would know so much about job creation?
- Squideshi - Tuesday, Sep 5, 06 @ 3:43 pm:
I don’t know if taxmandan is uninformed or intentially being deceptive, but here’s a quote from Rich Whitney’s platform:
“It is well established in our system of law and under our Constitution that a government of the people does have the right to take private property when it provides due process through condemnation proceedings and pays fair compensation and when it is legitimate and necessary for the common good. But it violates the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution when a State government comes in and strong-arms people, taking their property for what is at best a highly questionable purpose, and which I maintain is actually destructive of the common good.”
Also, his economic plan favors small businesses; and that makes sense, because it’s the small businesses that create most of the jobs.
Yes, he is promoting the expansion of alternative economic models, like worker’s cooperatives; and that’s a good thing–we need a bit of economic diversity in Illinois–it doesn’t make sense to put all of our eggs into one basket.
- taxmandan - Tuesday, Sep 5, 06 @ 4:23 pm:
I don’t see where the fair compensation comes into play when I read this statement from Mr. Whitney:
“When corporations do behave irresponsibly by shutting down and/or relocating production facilities, local governments should be authorized to use the power of eminent domain to take control over those facilities and turn them over, either to their workers, organized as a cooperative, or to homegrown small businesses.â€
Rich Whitney wants the state to decide what a “responsible†corporation is. In case Mr. Whitney is unaware there are many small businesses operating as corporations that his communistic proposals would adversely affect.
I posted the following quote a few weeks ago but it is still relevant when evaluating Rich Whitney’s economic ideas:
“The task, the aim of socialism, as we see it, is to convert the land and the industrial enterprises into the property of the Soviet Republic. The peasant receives land on condition that he works it properly.†V.I Lenin Soviet Communist Party March 4, 1918
Is a “homegrown small business” a Green concept? Do you plant the business seeds in the ground a watch them grow?
- M.V. - Thursday, Sep 7, 06 @ 12:22 am:
The way I read Whitney’s statement is that he would discourage a company from abandoning a factory or store and refusing to allow the land to be redeveloped. For instance, Walmart does this, where they will close a store and allow it to sit vacant rather than turn it over to a potential competitor. Not only do these abandoned businesses create huge eyesores, they are also safety hazards, crime magnets and economic drains. So I think Whitney is saying to these companies, if you’re going to skip town, be a good citizen and do something with the land/facilities that will benefit the community. That’s just my interpretation