|
Question of the day
Wednesday, Jun 3, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller * House GOP Leader Tom Cross urged the governor Monday to sign the capital bill even if the state doesn’t have a workable budget. Watch for more context… * The Question: Should the governor agree to sign the capital bill before the budget talks are concluded? Explain fully, please.  …Adding… And, yes, I already know that Senate President John Cullerton filed a motion to reconsider on the bare-bones budget. I told subscribers about it today. The AP follows up…
Both capital projects bills were also stalled with similar parliamentary holds. However, the question still stands.
|
 |
|
|
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:04 am:
As much as it pains me to say this, no he should not. I think we need that capital bill now to help the economy. But we also need a real budget with real revenue streams to over the costs of operating the State. Since the GOP wants to bring the capital bill carotts back to their districts, it becomes a strong negotiating tool to get them on board with the State budget.
- Bill - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:08 am:
No! No pork until the Budget is balanced. If you want a project vote for the taxes necessary to get the state on solid footing. Who on earth would want an Illinois bond now?
- Reformer - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:11 am:
Ghost is right. Republicans badly want their pork. Quinn should’ve tied the capital to the budget upfront.
- GA Watcher - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:13 am:
No. The Governor is going to need all the poker chips he can get as he plays against the four leaders.
- Steve - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:14 am:
Pat Quinn shouldn’t sign any bills where there’s no money budgeted for. But, heh it’s Illinois.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:21 am:
No pork for piggie while piggie plays.
- Anonymous45 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:21 am:
Absolutely positively not…his political skills need to become more deft as of yesterday…besides,not giving the cowards in the legislature their pork will send them squealing from the trough…
- WOW - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:25 am:
Yes he should sign it. But he should amendatorily veto any project that benefits anyone who didn’t vote for the budget fix. He should then transfer that money into the GRF to help pay the state bills along with the insane amount of $400 million for High Speed Rail. Every penny counts this year.
- Erickson - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:26 am:
I agree with Ghost. He should not sign it until a balanced budget is passed that doesn’t gut health and social services.
By the way, I believe the Governor may concede to Cross and others calling for a managed care ASO or MCO to contain Medicaid costs. I don’t look forward to that, but I believe he’ll concede on that point.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:27 am:
Sure, he can sign it and then stand naked before all of Illinois. He’s given away almost all of his leverage so far, and the Capital bill is now like a g-string, just waiting to be rolled down his leg and flipped into the crowd of gawkers. And then there is nothing left to the imagination.
If I were Quinn, I’d tease them for a while longer and hope they’ll throw some more dollar bills on stage. Skin to win.
- Obamarama - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:32 am:
Agree with Reformer. If the GOP wants its pork badly enough, it will give them an incentive to play ball on a tax hike vote. It’s still ok to say “play ball,” right
The math doesn’t lie; the GA cannot pass a tax hike without GOP support. Read: carrot vs. stick
- Skirmisher - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:33 am:
Absolutely “No”, he should not sign any capital bill without a responsible, balanced budget. The man has managed to blow it every step of the way so far, and I would almost bet next month’s rent that he will get rolled this time also. However, the pork-laden capital bill is the last good card he has left in this game, short of really, really slashing programs. He needs to hold onto it.
- Collar Observer - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:38 am:
The capital bill is not pork - BUT Quinn is right - and I pray he doesn’t sign that bill until a balanced budget with fair and responsible new revenue - is done and signed. The capital plan should NOT be funded with regressive revenue like gambling - but with revenue that is based on the wealth in this state - not our poverty. Corporate Illinois uses our state roads and transit lines to create profit - it is all tied together - Quinn is right about the common wealth needs to go for the common good.
Democrats and Rebpublicans alike need to get on that income tax increase and expansion of the sales tax to include services - and they need to do it right now - before they get their capital plan -
- Legaleagle - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:39 am:
Quinn should veto the capital bill. The state needs to start acting as if there is a financial crisis. Use the new $1.2 billion for the operating budget instead; put off capital for a year. Many social service programs will have to be put on hold for a year. Bureaucracies can be cut. Health care and pension entitlements must be slashed. For years the state got by without most of the social programs which now cost so much. Things are tough for everyone, but the producers - taxpayers - come first. No income tax hike is needed. What happened to the $8 billion in federal stimulus money? Isn’t that capital?
- anon - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:43 am:
he shouldn’t sign, seems like deja-vu for me from last year as social service jobs are at risk, issue needs to be settled, it’s unfair to those who need the support and those who provide the support to be in limbo
- BoxingCross - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:44 am:
Yup signerooni asap
it lets govt get busy on video poker rules and internet lottery which will bot happen over night
It allows him to go town to town telling folks he’ll “release” the local project as soon as the budget is done
It is a Win Win for Quinn…..Wow that sounds good
- WOW - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:44 am:
47th Ward — that is the first laugh I have had about this whole situation. Thank you.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:51 am:
of course not.
Why he ever said he wouldn’t link the two is beyond me, and I’d rarely encourage anyone to break their word, but he definitely needs to find a “loophole.”
- And I Approved This Message - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:51 am:
47th- It’s the “Question of the Day,” not the “Create a Mental Image so Profoundly Disturbing I May Never Shake It” of the Day. Thanks.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:57 am:
Nice try, Tom. Don’t look now, but you’re getting awfully close to wearing the jacket for slashing government services and blowing the construction season. I know, it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.
Quinn would be crazy to sign it without a budget. It’s the only card he has to play to get House GOP members on a tax increase.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 11:58 am:
Cullerton originally said the vote on capital would be tied to the budget, and then allowed separate votes on the capital bills.
Quinn originally said capital would not be tied to the budget, then refused to sign the capital bills that Cullerton’s Senate enacted.
Then the house retracted the signed bill in a parliamentary move to not allow Quinn the pleasure of not signing it.
I am in favor of enacting the capital plan whenever the moon, stars and other pertinent celestial bodies can be perfectly aligned, regardless of the timing of the budget, because it’s such a rare occasion and opportunity these days.
- Justice - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:05 pm:
No. We need a balanced budget first and signing the capital bill now would simply delay what has already been delayed far too long, and that is to get our house in order.
Both sides are bitter toward each other and seek to pin blame. Fact is, we the voters have allowed this gamesmanship to continue far too long and now need to swallow the very bitter pill of reality. Our state is broke, our country is broke. We have spent all our collateral, all our equity, and lived off credit and putting off the hard decisions far too long. We need backbone in our legislative leaders but the bitterness is simply too deep.
We must take the pain….and it will be painful. First the legislators will seek out the weak and vulnerable among us, and will go after those with the most need and least lobbying power. They will try and elicit the loudest screams as possible, hoping for their opponents to bleed and give in first. Only when the cry from the public at large is so loud and so demanding, will they finally listen.
We have become a nation of sissy’s for leaders; followers, those pursuing what is best for themselves and those filling their pockets. It is disgusting and pitiful. We need to throw them all out on their ears, and only then will we be heard. Perhaps we do need the doomsday budget, with pain to go around in full measure for all.
- Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:23 pm:
The answer is….” not at this time”….First, the bad press alone for signing a Capital Bill with construction spending while state operations are taking 50% cuts is beyond comprehension. Second, he needs the Capital Bill to add votes to the budget package. The Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda about what Quinn’s previous positions on signing the Capital Bill may have been are meaningless given the budget disaster he’s facing. However, he should not make a high profile threat, but simply say….”Not at this time”
- Erickson - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:23 pm:
“Many social service programs will have to be put on hold for a year…For years the state got by without most of the social programs which now cost so much.”
Put on hold?!? Most of the social programs you refer to are BUSINESSES that employee TAX PAYERS who provide these social services. It will cost much more to rebuild this infrastructure than to maintain it.
Just because we could get by without social services for a year (at what cost??) doesn’t mean we SHOULD. I don’t think we should aspire to be the worst state in the nation in this area…
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:29 pm:
===For years the state got by without most of the social programs which now cost so much===
Medicaid costs have gone up, but social service costs have been pretty steady.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:31 pm:
No to the captial bill as it stands.
Delete all the peripheral spending, parks, non-state functions and then wait u ntil you have a budget.
This how we got in to the problems we have in the state. Candy before nutrition.
- Argonaut - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:32 pm:
He should have tied the capital bill to the budget in the first place. That said, he gave his word that he would not tie the captal bill to the budget. He should keep his word and sign the bill. It may not be as a successful strategy as tieing them together in the first place would have been, but he would win points for helping to restore some trust among the leaders. That said, I think he has already squandered that opportunity with his flips back and forth on the subject.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:36 pm:
Many of the cost cutting decisions are going to cost the State more money in the long run.
Right now, the state relies on a foster system which under reimburses people to take care of most of the kids in the system. Remove those reimbursements and the State will either have to build new faicilties and hire people to provide the care, or contract out with nursing home faiclitites at rates that are 5-10 times more then the current reimbursement rate. ANyway you slice it this cut costs more money.
Take DOC. Without the current cuts they have “reduced” the number of employees year after year as budget was cut. They then spend more then those positions would have cost on overtime to cover the lack of employees.
The term cutting is misleading. Cutting pending from the budget does not always mean you have reduced fincancial obligations. In many areas, cutting money creates increased costs.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:42 pm:
===Candy before nutrition.===
I usually try to stay out of the question, but that was a remarkably stupid comment.
Operating Engineers Local 150 has over a half dozen food banks for its members now because there is not enough road work to keep people fed.
The construction industry as a whole is dying on the vine and you think projects are candy?
Dispense with the bumper sticker slogans, please. Go somewhere else for that.
- jake - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:54 pm:
I have a different view from most respondents:
He should sign the capital bill because:
1. It has its own revenue stream to pay back the bonds.
2. It passed both houses by veto-proof majorities, so it will either pass into law without his signature (if he does nothing) or he will be over-ridden (if he vetoes it). In either case he is revealed as “all hat, and no cattle”; i.e., taking a position that he can’t back up.
His point of leverage is later in the process. His branch of the government is needed to issue the bonds for the work to proceed. He can hold off on that process if there is not a balanced budget, saying that he must have that in order to get favorable interest rates on the bonds (which will have the virtue of being true).
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:58 pm:
It is more stupid to spend money you do not have for fluff when you cannot take care of your resposibilities.
You obviously did not read the fluff that is in the bill. I did. There are worthy projects, but a heck of a lot of them should be passed over for more road and bridge repair. Who cares if a baseball team has lights on its field for night games? Defer that stuff until the coffers are full. Don’t hold seniors and children hostage so you can brag about what you brought home.
We have so much construction going on in our are its not funny. Half the cars of the workers are from out of state. WI, KY, IN.. That’s not helping the Illinois workers is it?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 12:59 pm:
===You obviously did not read the fluff that is in the bill. ===
You obviously only read one bill. There are two.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:05 pm:
Pluto, unemployment in the state is the highest it’s been in 25 years. Anecdotal “evidence” about license plates doesn’t change that.
- Obamarama - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:14 pm:
===Half the cars of the workers are from out of state.===
Could you substantiate that please?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
Actually, Plutocrat03, I think you need to take a breath.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:22 pm:
Not to mention, those out of state people are spending money here to buy food, gas, lodging etc.
- downhereforyears - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:23 pm:
Absolutely….it’s a rotten shame that we don’t have an operating budget because we are operating by polling data….but lets put some people back to work. The operating engineers are only a small number of the people that would benefit by the capital bill. I say go for it.
- Boscobud - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:38 pm:
Yes, It’s the American way to spend money with money you don’t have.
- Captain America - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 1:56 pm:
Quinn woule be foolish to sign a capital bill before he gets an income tax increase, including enough votes from the Republicans. No reasonable operating budget, no capital spending bill.
- Randolph - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 2:47 pm:
First, to pork — is the road you want fixed/repaved/expanded near where you live pork? Because that’s what’s in the big capital bill.
I guess I’m not sure if the question is what should he do that best serves his political interests, or what should he do that best serves the state’s interests.
If you want to go with the political angle, then he should definitely not sign it. He should dangle it and play the game. We’ve had some govs who were good at that and some who were bad. Who wants to bet which he’ll be?
If he wants to do what’s best for the state, then he should sign it. He’s missing out on construction season. If he signs it, then hundreds of thousands of folks currently unemployed will be added to the tax rolls, which will help the FY10 operating budget. If he still wants to be political, he can veto (full or amendatory) or hold on to the trailer capital bill with all of the member projects. The big bill are things we can all agree the state needs desperately. To put a political spin on it, why would Quinn want to keep hundreds of thousands of people unemployed while further crippling our public infrastructure?
He’s in a trick box and there’s no easy answer. On the other hand, he climbed in the box and closed the lid himself. All Madigan and Cullerton had to do was apply the tape.
- Marty - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 2:52 pm:
He should sit on the capital bill; might need the revenues for operating expenses for essential services, rather than new debt service.
- Randolph - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 2:56 pm:
The revenues and spending in the capital bills are tied together, i.e. if the spending isn’t authorized, then neither are the revenues, so they could never be used for critical state services…or anything else.
- Josh - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 2:59 pm:
Is it beyond comprehension to suggest that Democrats want this capital bill as much as Republicans? A deal was made, and the deal was broken. I just don’t see any of the leaders wanting to work this out without capital first. I see it as something Quinn has to do BEFORE they can come around on a final budget.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:08 pm:
Only if the Governor is a complete idiot (which he certainly is not) should he sign the capital bill before he gets a budget. It’s a carrot and he should withhold it until he gets what he wants.
As for the sticks I would use on the members of the General Assembly, let me just say that Gov. Quinn isn’t nearly sadistic enough for my taste. If I were the governor I would find ways to make some members extremely unhappy, if not very sorry.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:09 pm:
=== If he wants to do what’s best for the state, then he should sign it.====
I am not sure I agree that it is best for th State for the Gov to give away a baragining chip. I would argue that what is best for the State is establishing meaningful revenue to cover its expenses; and if this necessaitates hanging onto the capital plan to ghet the overall package and budget done, then by definition that is what is best for the State.
- state employee - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:10 pm:
Absolutely not. No capital spending bill until a basic operating budget is realistic and workable (properly funding state services). Clearly I see where Tom Cross’ and his parties’ priorities are: construction and spending for their private sector friends at the expense of state jobs, education, and social services. The clearly value money more than people, especially the most vulnerable ones who depend on state services. Once again. Story of our lives in IL. We’re tired of these morally bankrupt priorities.
Do you want schools built at the same time as thousands of teachers will be laid off??
- curly - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:19 pm:
Rich said: “Operating Engineers Local 150 has over a half dozen food banks for its members now because there is not enough road work to keep people fed.”
If the situation is this bad, I hope the unions now have the incentive to come to the table over pension reform, and pressure their house reps to increase the income tax.
The GOP is already grousing and clearly wants those capital projects too.
I agree wholeheartedly with most of the commenters here–that the governor should insist on a balanced budget first. The “candy before nutrition” comment was a perfectly understandable analogy; I was not at all offended by it and don’t see why the author should be reprimanded.
Video poker in every bar and grill with 50% service cuts and runaway pension debt? The Governor should not let this be his legacy. Hold your cards, Governor.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:23 pm:
One of the ways the capital bill was “sold” for an early enactment was to create momentum for solving other long term problems with structural funding, etc., and the “spitit of cooperation” would carry the day and lead to other fixes such as pension, schools 9property tax vs. income tax funding), as well as fixing this year’s budget.
I guess the air is out of that balloon for now.
- Randolph - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 3:39 pm:
I understand the bargaining chip argument, but remember that if he keeps the chip, he’s an obstructionist keeping thousands unemployed, not fixing critical infrastructure, and hurting our economy more.
The governor’s office typically has final authorization on projects. He could sign the big bill and authorize only the projects going into “friendly” districts. That still keeps the pressure on the members waiting for their own projects leaving him with a significant chip. In the meantime, he’s still signed the bill and put thousands to work.
Suggesting that he keep the chip completely is putting tremendous faith in his bargaining ability, a faith that some would say is misplaced given the performance thus far.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 4:00 pm:
Randolph its not that simple. How would you handle a district with a friendly dem rep, but a hostile repub senator or vice versa. Pass the bill and withold money from supporters because the same territotry also has a non-supporter. That gets horrbly messy real quick.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 4:02 pm:
My breathing is fine. I only suggested that they cut out the fluff and whoosh, it is the dumbest idea in the world.
I have no problem with spending on responsible projects, but why do the taxpayers have to contribute to multiple war memorials? If the money is there fix a bridge, roof a school, but don’t spend it on a thing that should be paid for in another way. Why is the State spending money on construction for a local Chamber of Commerce? The list contains millions of dollars that should go the needs, not wants in these tight budget times.
I do not argue that unemployment is up, but it is a false argument to suggest that governmental spending alone will solve the problem. The jobs going away have been mainly private. The state has to create a climate where investors will want to come in and employ people. Raising taxes is not going to help in that equation.
I personally know of an union electrician who came from a nearby state to work on a project in central Illinois because the area’s local did not have anyone from Illinois to supply the jobsite. Do you think that was the only case in the whole state?
The bill should be held and all the member initiatives which are fluff should be pulled and replaced with more worthy projects.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 4:03 pm:
It’s amazing how this issue is being twisted into “capital projects in Republican districts vs. social services in Democratic districts.” There is a need for both in all flavors of districts, and the capital and operating budgets will reflect that. Again, I don’t care which order they get done in as long as they are done. An operating budget will happen regardless of the political posturing…the state must be run. Capital is a once in a decade opportunity, and this year’s flavor has come along at an opportune time given the state’s employment situation.
- Randolph - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 4:39 pm:
Ghost - if you think there’s a solution that isn’t “messy,” then lemme tell you some awesome beach property I have down Shawneetown…
To your scenario, everyone involved knows which projects in the big bill are important to which members, and if you’re the governor’s office and you have to err, you do so on the side of not authorizing, thereby adding the friendly member’s heat to the unfriendly along with all of the interest groups. The problem with this is that there would be some horse trading involved and my understanding is that Quinn is extremely loathe to engage in it.
- Some Rationality--please. - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 4:41 pm:
If Quinn signs the Capital bill he losses his only lever. Good luck getting the House behind a budget when they have already satisfied many of their own interests. The disabled and home bound don’t really get out to vote, if the House wants to use these people as chess pieces, then you must respond in kind.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 5:09 pm:
No, No, No! Don’t sign it. You lose some political leverage, but more importantly from this old number cruncher’s point of view, you may need some of those new funding sources identified for capital to balance the operating budget. Hold firm and tell the people of Illinois, not the GA, what you are doing and why.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 5:22 pm:
Pluto-”who cares” are the folks who have to make the votes to pass the bills. Hardly anyone on here appears to understand that. Leader A: “Bob, I hate to tell you this, but you have to vote “yes” on these tax bills. And because your roads are in pretty good shape, and you don’t have a junior college or a university, you aren’t going to get any projects in your district. But don’t worry, your voters will understand.” Legislator Bob: “Take a hike.”
- 2ConfusedCrew - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 5:27 pm:
Hey what happened to the Twitter Page?
- zatoichi - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 6:53 pm:
Just as the GA is holding out, Quinn has to hold out. If he gives in quick, he loses a big bargaining chip that people clearly want. All the sides are in a bad spot. No matter what they do it will be wrong in many areas or not enough. As long as the revenue keeps sliding, the options keep getting slimmer. As any real cuts start happening in July and the deer in the headlights moments occur, the screaming back home is going to be huge. That’s when the real pressure will kick in. Up to now it is mostly words. Quinn needs the chip.
- this voter will remember - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 7:46 pm:
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The politicians need to grow up and stop playing games. I for one am tried of the situation that has existed in Illinois for the past six years. All the woes were blamed on Blagojevich and now he is gone - why are we not moving forward? The only thing that appears to get accomplished is a lot of nothing.
- PalosParkBob - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 9:02 pm:
Quinn should defintely not sign it until the projects in it are exempt from the “Prevailing Wage” scam that skims about $5 billion of the $26 billion bill to the unions, contractors and campaign fundraisers.
What a great start to reforming “pay to play” that would be!
He should insist that the capital bill be split into three packages. The first package should contain road, bridge and state facility “life safety” projects that have been identified as such by IDOT, IDPH and CDB. The second package would contain those portions of the bill that can be shown to truly be an “investment” that can be shown to earn enough tax revenue that they’ll be paid for over no more than a 5 year payback period. The third package should be made up of the remaining current bill, the gazebos and new roofs for politically connected churches.
He should get the GA on the record for who is willing to support the “Public Safety” package, who’ll support the “Public Investment” package, and who’ll vote for the “Porkulus” package.
OF course, the entire reason for this capital boondoggle is to package “toxic” and unworthy public works with those that have merit, much like the Wall Street scam artists packaged bad mortgages with sound ones.
He should also declare what his rubric for determining the merits and priorities should be for the projects so that the most necessary work is done first.
I wonder, could Quinn use his ammendatory veto to exclude the capital bill work from “Prevailing Wage”? That threat alone is enough to get Madigan, Cullerton and the rest of the “pay-to play” boys to pass his job-killing tax increase!
I know. Fair and reasonable ways of getting capital work done at fair market rates will happen in Illinois when Pigs Fly.
I guess I just have the audacity to hope that there are enough people with power in Springfield to do right by the citizens.
- adolpho - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 9:45 pm:
Being sort of new to this blog, I am wondering if Rich has made clear his political ideology and his favored politicians, does he claim to be purely objective journalist, or is he completely silent in the issue (or is there some other category I haven’t thought of).
Thanks!
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jun 3, 09 @ 9:58 pm:
Thanks for playing Adolpho! We hardly knew ye.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Jun 4, 09 @ 8:30 am:
@Adopho,
Rich’s favorite politician (IMHO) is the one that causes the most amount of people to check out the blog via their actions. This in turn results in more clicks on the advertisers, and sometimes results in a subscription.
Other than that, I have no idea.