17 Comments - the Patriot - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 9:19 am: “President Barack Obama is thinking of reviving.” He is not thinking of reviving FuturGen. He is opposed to coal and his record proves it. Once Pres Obama gives IL the project, then he can blame Bush for playing politics. Until then the Democrats need to shut up. We have spend over 1.2 Trillion in pork in his first 50 days, not to mention the 800billion in bailout authorized by the democrate congress. If the president cannot get 1.8 to 2.3 billion for his home state to do a project, it is because he is against it. There is no other explanation. - Cassandra - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 9:26 am: If I recall correctly, Huberman made some minor cuts in the CTA bureaucracy, which were probably offset by the addition of scores of young helpers and fans at $100k pay packages. The CPS bureaucracy is still massive but the ranks are likely filled with political hacks so we know they can’t get rid of them. And Chicagoans have always been pretty easy marks so even in a year when income taxes are likely to rise, I suspect the trend will be towards token cuts and big tax increases on the middle class…just as in Democrat-controlled state government. - Travis - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 9:35 am: Besides the hype, it feels like no one’s really talking this week about Michael Quigley’s win in the 5th Congressional District primary. But more needs to be said here. Since last Tuesday, certain media saturation has washed over us that Quigley is a reformer and that is the reason he won. Let’s be real. Quigley is not the change agent the Tribune and other media outlets have painted him to be. He deserves the victory, yes, but this rush to crown him a crusader is absurd. In an editorial last Thursday, the Tribune called Quigley “a genuine agent of change, an independent operator, a reliable opponent of tax increases and patronage-bloated public payrolls and inefficient government.” And like the Sun-Times, they endorsed him, so it wasn’t something truly surprising to read. But by naming him some valiant independent operator, so many people simply ignore what contributed to his win. Like Lynn Sweet in the Sun-Times, a lot of people got this hype rolling by relying on the money his campaign spent. On Election Day, estimates said Quigley was outspent 5-1 by his challengers. The Sun-Times said the total spending of Quigley’s opponents was approximately $3 million, whereas he spent an approximate $550,000. But think about it. A collective $3 million versus $550,000 isn’t that significant. Quigley just spent one-sixth of all the money in a 12-person field. He played his equal part. It was one-sixth. And good for him. He was a major player who figured out a way to win. Just don’t twist the language to make it seem like he won it all on a shoestring budget. Sweet inflated the hype by saying most of Quigley’s fundraising—$350,000 of $400,000—came three weeks before the election. But she failed to mention that the money came at a time when Quigley began receiving assistance from Bill Brandt. Brandt may not be a big player in city machine politics, but he’s a Democratic activist with some huge national fundraising connections. He’s raised money for the Clintons and other key Democrats. He also sits as the Chairman of the Illinois Finance Authority, was a member of the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee in 2000 and served as an Illinois delegate at the DNC last year. Frankly, Brandt is a man who knows who to call when a check needs to be written at the eleventh hour. And by their association in this win, Quigley has emerged as the national Democratic establishment’s candidate. I voted for Quigley. I did it because—conceding a little to the argument of reformation—he has occasionally stood up against machine politics and that does matter. So Quigley is technically my guy. But he’s not the little guy. And this idea that he is some outside populist or underdog or come-from-behind candidate is silly. He was simply the best person out of the field we were given. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 9:43 am: The number of shootings of kids in Chicago is a crisis, but I don’t understand why the Sun-Times insists that the schools have the primary responsibility to provide a solution, as they did in a recent editorial. The schools have a role, of course, but their main purpose is, or should be, reading, writing and arithmetic. They’re not a paramilitary force. Most of the kids are being shot at night off school grounds. What are the schools do do about that? Shouldn’t the lead government agency in combatting this be, oh, I don’t know, the police? - Amy - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 10:11 am: wordslinger got it right on the deaths of the kids. it’s not a schools thing, it’s a police thing. for starters, what percentage of the most vulnerable population….teens….goes to a school other than a public school in Chicago? Catholic Schools are not what they used to be around here. so, of course they are public school students, what else would they be? it’s a pull on our heartstrings to call it a schools problem. i’ll bet if you mapped out the shootings involving public school students it would mirror all shootings in the city. neighborhoods without shootings in general do not have a public student shooting problem. the poorest neighborhoods in our city have a shooting problem. and that violence must be taken care of by the police as we hope that the poverty can be solved. - Laborguy - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 10:24 am: Looks like Lisa Madigan has made up her mind about running for Governor. She has officially come out against an income tax increase that puts her in direct opposition to Governor Quinn. When will the media start to ask Lisa the tough questions like how would she close the $11 billion budget gap without raising the income tax. I think a lot of people would like to hear what Lisa has to say about that, don’t you? - MikeintheSuburbs - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 10:26 am: Thanks for publishing the earmark list. It looks like the bulk of it is for transportation and infrastructure related measures, but there are a lot of smaller amounts for programs that don’t seem to be in keeping with the purpose of the stimulus. What happens when the Sun Times and Tribune go under and people like Lynn Sweet no longer have anyone to pay a salary to them to do this work? Is Rich going to take up the slack? - the Patriot - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 11:06 am: The children dying at school sickens me. But in my town, if kids we dying and the school board and the city did not react, they would be ran out of town. The fact is, the Mayor of Chicago is more interested in his kickbacks for no show trucks then he is in protecting school children. I have been pretty jaded about the people in Chicago getting what they deserve since they keep re-electing bums with failed policies, but the fact this is resulting in school kids being shot, just sickens me. You have one chance. Beg Paul Valas to run for Mayor. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 11:10 am: ===The children dying at school sickens me. === They’re not dying at school. - downsized - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 11:36 am: “They’re not dying at school” Finally someone says it. If you were from out of town you would think all these kids are being gunned down in Algebra class. A kid killed playing dice at 1am who happens to be registered in the CPS is not the school’s responsibility…parental involvement might be nice after school gets out - Lee - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 11:49 am: It would be interesting to see how much smaller the CPS deficit would be if there were no TIFs redirecting tax dollars away from the schools. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 12:10 pm: Lee, where else would Daley get $500 million to play with. The problems with TIFS is that the eyes glaze over when you explain them to taxpayers. Here’s the deal in Chicago: it’s a $500 million slush fund for Mayor Daley to play with. - Amy - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 12:59 pm: Stop TIFs now! a total scam. - jlm - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 1:31 pm: No, kids are not being gunned down at school. But it makes sense for the schools to work in conjunction with the police to stem the tide of violence. If nothing else, schools need social workers to help kids deal with the fallout from shootings that directly impact their communities. Moreover, schools can have an impact on how kids think about and process violence; not to mention, helping kids think about their futures in positive ways. I’m not saying ‘blame the schools.’ I’m just saying the violence is real and schools are a good place to confront issues that take a toll on kids. - Chanson - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 1:55 pm: I don’t own any guns nor do I particularly want any but don’t we have to question the effectiveness of gun control on the law abiding citizens acting as a deterrant to gangs and criminals having and using guns? This is not well written but hope one can get the gist of myy thoughts. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 12, 09 @ 6:44 pm: Jim, I think the schools are working in conjunction with the police. My original point is that, for whatever reason, the Sun-Times has put the problem at the foot of the schools, who have no training or authority to deal with shootings at night off school grounds. It’s crazy. Young people in Chicago are being are being shot and killed at an alarming rate. If you look at today’s map in the Sun-Times, it’s happening almost exclusively on the South and West Sides. I live in a town that borders Austin on the West Side, so I’m no stranger to gang activity or the dangers young people, especially young men, face on the streets today. The great majority, by the way, are doing their best to stay out of trouble, go to school and get jobs. Key word, “streets”, not “schools.”. To make it a school problem is insane, it’s a copout. It’s a crime problem, whether the criminals are adults or minors. If anyone, kids or adult, are regularly being gunned down in your neighborhood, you have a problem that needs to be first addressed by the police and other law enforcement authorities, and then you get into the underlying causes. Even Blago understood last summer that there is a desperate need for a stronger, aggressive police presence in the at-risk neighborhoods. The cops and Daley are at loggerheads over the hubbub about Burge and police brutality complaints. They need to resolve that. Because I guarantee you, the great majority of the kids and adults in those neighborhoods want to see more blue-and-white cars out there rousting the punks that are making their neighborhoods unlivable. If you lived there, wouldn’t you? Who needs to step up? C’mon, he’s been on the 5th Floor for 20 years. He’s the unquestioned czar of the City of Chicago, the Park District, the CTA, the CHA and City Colleges. He probably runs the County, and he’s got huge pull in Springfield, Congress and the White House. Daley is the only one who can make an immediate impact, and who can pull together the public and private sources for long-term solutions. That means unleashing all the city resources in his power, and then using his Bully Pulpit to kick tail from the neglectful parent at Cottage Grove and 63rd to the apathetic banker at LaSalle and Madison to the current occupant of 16th and Pennsylvania. You wanted the power, you got it. What are you going to do with it? - jlm - Friday, Mar 13, 09 @ 10:17 am: wordslinger, i would argue that the schools and police have not been working very well in concert. i question the appointment of ron huberman to cps ceo for a number of reasons, but i do have modest hopes for his ability to bring about a more fruitful partnership. right now, that partnership is basically one in which the cops police the schools. but the shootings are taking place in the streets. so it’s only right that the partnership can stretch out beyond school grounds to incorporate what huberman is calling safe passage zones. i think the sun-times is actually doing the city a favor by pushing on a school system that responds. yes, they should also push on the policing side. but pressure somewhere, anywhwere, is needed. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.