50 Comments - logic not emotion - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:30 am: “not just isn’t cricket.” That type of behavior is partially why many of us would really like to vote for “None of the Above” and why politicians in general have such low approval ratings. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:30 am: I think they’re trying to bait someone in the media to ask Rauner to go through the whole dizzying series of flip-flops. - A guy... - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:35 am: When you’re a “one trick pony”, you need to be able to perform the trick. The media they’re sending these statements and releases to already know what we all know. The position has been corrected and refined from it’s first iteration. No one’s paying attention to it. Asked and answered. Those strategy sessions at Team Quinn must really be amazing exchanges, eh? - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:36 am: The “vulture capitalist” tossed in there for good measure is another nice touch. Not. What happened to all those out of state bigfoots that were gonna take over the clown show? - William j Kelly - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:46 am: Until rauner tells us what he really believes and or plans on doing, it is only fair to believe he shares the views of the people he gives or receives millions of dollars from. So that would include iPi, ken griffin, the late/great jack roeser and otherS. Until rauner tells us wait he believes it is only fair to assume he shares all of THEIR views on the minimum wage and other issues - RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:48 am: we all know it. But when you have so little to run on bang the drum you have. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:54 am: I read recently about a World Court case where Google was ordered to delete some old info because the plaintiff was aggrieved that people were still remembering it (involved loss of a home over some non-payment issue). These are the sorts of things that lead to those kinds of cases and rulings. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:55 am: I think we are reaching a point where things are done, not for a usable result, but for the good feelings created by doing it. Government tries to do the right thing, but since there has been unintended consequences and programs and policies are often just damn wrong, no one wants to be accountable for the results anymore. This has been happening for so long our politicians have resorted to telling voters what their intentions were. How often are we debating conspiracies and intentions, instead of results? How often are we debating the meaning of some results? How often are we passing bills, expecting the lawyers to determine if the bill is even legal? We are doing these things because government is being reduced by it’s politicians and leaders to being all about good intentions and good feelings - not getting a damn thing done. So who cares if a candidate says this or that? It seems that how he is dressed, how he smiles, how he makes you feel - has replaced concrete results or solid policy proposals. And consequently, how do you counter a smiling phony who makes voters feel good? You go after the feelings he generates among voters, not counter his facts with yours. We have a government without accountability filled with empathetic legislators and leaders who want you to know that they really feel your pain, as they maladministrate, short-change, and half-implement craptastic policies which lawyers and judges determine aren’t meeting the law. Instead of muddling through with policies which sometimes work, we are seeing the muddling through of the muddling through. That is one of the reasons I’d like to see a candidate run on the results of their leadership. Tell voters what they’ve done to make their lives better. I sense that voters are dying to be told how an incumbent has done something that worked. All this “feeling” campaigning is doing is generating mass cynicism. That cynicism gave us two jailed governors. We knew both were flawed to the point of incarceration - yet everyone who should have been there to prevent these men from being nominated and elected, stood silently - or worse - signed up as their co-chair. Both campaign staffs need to be better connected to what Illinois voters want to be told. It is high time to stop the stupidity passing as campaign messaging. Dump the irrational and immeasurable emotional contents and give us some concrete numbers - even if they aren’t complete. - Levois - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:59 am: Quinn is in it to win it! Got to use the ammo you got! - Cassiopeia - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:59 am: Team Quinn needs some new material…or maybe just a few practical adults. - Walker - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:02 am: Standard stuff of campaigns. Either you are stuck with an old statement, that you subsequently disavowed, or you are said to be a flip-flopper. Not worse than Rauner claiming he has a “plan” to save $1Billion. Both are obviously false and misleading — but will get votes. Fair call out by Rich on both. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:07 am: ===- A guy… - When you’re a “one trick pony”, you need to be able to perform the trick.=== Like “Shake up Springfield” and “Bring back Illinois”, and rolling out stale talking points and Chickens? Pot, Kettle…lol - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:09 am: It’s still early. The real blows will come in the middle-late rounds–it’s not the statement that’s so bad, it’s the flip flop or, perhaps more appropriately but equally damning, the flip remark that he later backs away from. Same thing when he gave SJR one account of clouting his kid into Walter Payton and said something else to the rest of the world. It’s going to be very easy to paint this guy as an opportunist who can’t be believed when he says something, and the more he talks, the easier it gets. - Frenchie Mendoza - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:10 am: I’m not seeing an issue here — and if there is one it’s not Quinn’s problem. The point is that we don’t know what Rauner believes — and at this point, there’s no reason to trust him when he “backtracks” as he apparently did with the minimum wage comments. If Rauner wins, he’ll have drastically, drastically different positions — his real positions. No social agenda? Of course he has a social agenda — and he’ll do whatever he needs to do to get it enacted. At that point, we’ll learn that (a) Rauner lied repeatedly in the lead-up to the election and that (b) Rauner will attempt to do considerable damage to the state in order to get his various agendas enacted. He’s about as transparent as they come — and the fact that he’s apparently bamboozling a good deal of blue voters is astonishing. Truly astonishing. - A guy... - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:13 am: === Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:07 am: ===- A guy… - When you’re a “one trick pony”, you need to be able to perform the trick.=== Like “Shake up Springfield” and “Bring back Illinois”, and rolling out stale talking points and Chickens? Pot, Kettle…lol==== By my count, you’ve identified at least 3 tricks. A little slow on the uptake today. You’re better than that. Catch up with your outfit man. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:14 am: ===Same thing when he gave SJR one account of clouting his kid into Walter Payton and said something else to the rest of the world.=== Attention Quinn Crew; Said this before, but rolling out those chickens… Have someone in a chicken suit, with a T-Shirt on, Bears Blue, orange block letters - “Payton Prep” on the front, with a Carhartt jacket, open to expose the t-shirt, and a Flavor Flav clock around its neck, hanging. It’s teed up for you, hit the ball. - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:15 am: Agree with Frenchie totally. - William j Kelly - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:21 am: Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask what ken griffin’s position is on minimum wage and other issues since rauner is ken griffins candidate? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:21 am: - A guy… -, It’s the same trick Rauner tries over and over. Raunerbots think all these slight of hands are different. One trick; get lemmings, make them Raunerites, get the most lemming Raunerites to be Raunerbots. The rest is the blatant fooling of the voters. One trick. - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:31 am: At this point, would most people rather have the wealthy venture capitalist running this country or the current guy? Would a majority of people rather have the wealthy venture capitalist running this state or the current guy? The wealthy venture capitalist’s have a very successful track record. The other guys????? - Steve - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:31 am: You can’t blame Quinn for this one. Quinn knows most people haven’t taken an economics class so all of this stuff sounds good. Many Quinn voters believe the government can mandate a $20 wage or a $23 wage without any decrease in employment. - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:37 am: Thanks for asking Wally. I’d rather have anybody but a venture capitalist who thinks you can run government like a business. - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:38 am: And Steve, let’s boost it to $15 and split the difference. - MrJM (@MisterJayEm) - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:39 am: Nothing in his record gives me any reason to take Bruce Rauner at his (latest and most expedient) word. – MrJM - Steve - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:42 am: - PublicServant - Why not $25 an hour? Why not make it illegal for anyone to work for less? Minimum wage advocates tell us about the wonders of all that extra purchasing power?? Don’t you believe in it? - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:44 am: – Many Quinn voters believe the government can mandate a $20 wage or a $23 wage without any decrease in employment.– Where did $20 or $23 come from? Strawman. If you want to make a case for eliminating the minimum wage based on that cool “economics class” you attended, make it. Otherwise, an increase to make up for inflationary losses over the years is more than reasonable. Or, perhaps, there could be tax surcharges on low-wage employers to pay for the SNAP, EITC, Medicaid, etc., subsidies the rest of us are ponying up for their employees. - Steve - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:48 am: - wordslinger - No strawman here. The empirical evidence is overwhelming in the top peer reviewed economic journals. Anyway , since you don’t believe wages are determined by marginal productivity : why not ban unpaid internships ? They are working believe minimum wage. - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:52 am: I do Steve, but your picking of a minimum wage number that no one has proposed is a reductio ad absurdum argument. Using extremes does nothing to refute the arguments in favor of raising the minimum wage. - Steve - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:57 am: - PublicServant - Not at all. Once, you admit a high minimum might to harm : you’ve lost the argument. You also forget that wage doesn’t include mandated benefits and other taxes like FICA. So, compensation is higher than the currently stated minimum wage. Illinois has one of the highest minimum wages and used guessed it… one of the highest unemployment rates in America. - William j Kelly - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 11:57 am: If rauner won’t say what he believes/plans maybe we should ask what iPi’s position is on minimum wage and other issues? After all why would rauner give iPi millions if he doesn’t share their views? Do you contribute to people and organizations who share your views or people who don’t? - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:02 pm: ===Once, you admit a high minimum might to harm : you’ve lost the argument.=== So you believe a minimum wage that keeps up with inflation will do harm right? I don’t. In fact it will do the opposite. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:03 pm: –No strawman here.– Try again. Who’s advocating $20 or $23? Quinn has come out in favor of a raise to $10.10. I’m sure from your economics class and the empirical evidence you can see the difference between $10.10 and $23. How much are those SNAP, EITC and Medicaid corporate subsidies worth to you? Or should those programs be eliminated as well? - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:04 pm: Public Servant, you currently have the “other” choice. How is that working???? - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:06 pm: Wally, better than Rauner, if you can believe it… - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:06 pm: PS, what to you honestly think the minimum wage should be in IL? What impact do you think it will have on employment? Serious questions. - Steve - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:08 pm: - PublicServant - I don’t believe central planners can determine wages. I know this might shock those who don’t know much about economic history but… employment and economic growth was much higher without a minimum wage (in the U.S.). Even some countries have learned this. Look who doesn’t have one: Norway, Sweden and Denmark. http://www.worldcrunch.com/eyes-on-the-u.s./u.s.-minimum-wage-compare-it-to-the-rest-of-world/state-of-the-union-minimum-wage-workers-labor/c5s14866/#.U58kD7GmVPU - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:10 pm: –Look who doesn’t have one: Norway, Sweden and Denmark.– I’m with Steve. Let’s adopt the domestic policies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:13 pm: Wally, I think the minimum wage should have always had an inflation component in it. If it had, there would be more money in the hands of people who would spend it, increasing demand, and fueling additional employment to keep up with that increased demand. We’ve got a consumer-driven economy, Wally. Not the other way around as the “job creators” would have you believe. Business exists to make money. When they can’t meet the demand for their products, they hire. Those new employees, in turn, increase demand too. As Wordslinger said, $15/hr would be where the minimum wage would have been if it had kept up with inflation. Let’s get it there ASAP. Thanks for asking. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:47 pm: See, Steve, while you were chasing your tail, you used as examples three countries that do not need a minimum wage simply because they have cradle-to-grave social welfare systems that make the United States look like a Hobbesian state of nature. Can’t argue it both ways, at least outside the dorm room. - MrJM (@MisterJayEm) - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:47 pm: “employment and economic growth was much higher without a minimum wage” And before the darned ol’ Civil War!!1! – MrJM - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 12:52 pm: Thanks for answering PS. So, in your opinion, if the wage went up, say January 1, to $15/hour, there would be little to no impact on employment in IL? So, if a business has 30 employees making $9 an hour and they are FT, and the wage goes to $15/hour, the business will incur weekly wage increases of $7200. $7200 x 4.3 weeks = a monthly increase of $30960. Throw in the additional FICA/Medicare employers match which is $2368 for a grand total of $33,328/month additional expenses in just wages. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 1:29 pm: ==Today marks the 457th day== Reminds me of the Nightline tracker during the Iran hostage crisis. - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 1:34 pm: $15 times the IL sunset rate of 3.75% = 56 1/4 cents $8.25 times current 5% rate = 41 1/4 cents - liandro - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 1:37 pm: Word is right that there is a massive difference between advocating for $10.10/hr and $20/hr–more so depending on the region. Seattle’s $15 experiment, for example, with have less negative impacts than $15 minimum would in my town of Dixon (by a wide margin). Seattle’s economy is already scaled much higher, so it’s not as big of a jump. That said, there ARE negative impacts to *any* rise in the minimum wage (including for those making minimum!). The debate is whether, or at what price-point, they overtake benefits in any given region/ecnomy. When proponents start talking like it’s all gravy and benefits to have MW goes up–well, they expose their own ignorance. If you don’t know the downsides and risks of your own policies, I would never trust you to implement them efficiently! Quinn is firmly in that category. That latter point is also why I am so anti-tax in IL–I would never willingly trust the people running our government with more of my money, just like I wouldn’t give a bad investor more of my money. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 7:04 pm: My wife just got back from Denmark and Sweden (among other places). She says prices are really high there (and she had a hard time findng a glass of coke with ice in it). - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 7:10 pm: The argument over the minimum wage is less an economic debate and more of a social and moral debate. I would argue that a society where one man makes $400 million a year on which to raise his family of four while 1 in five Illinois children is living in poverty is unsustainable. Nearly 70,000 people living in poverty in DuPage County, more than the population than all but around a dozen Illinois cities. That is not morally, socially or economically sustainable by a long shot. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 7:11 pm: Schnorf, income and consumption taxes are very high in Scandinavia. I’ve had cousins come visit and thought North Michigan Avenue was an outlet mall. They pay a lot in taxes for an expansive social welfare state. Relatively small, homogeneous populations make consensus on national priorities much easier than here. - Mighty M. Mouse - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 8:11 pm: ===Look, I get that using somebody’s quote is perfectly legit. But saying he’s definitely for something when the overall record shows he’s not just isn’t cricket.=== Rich, I think Quinn’s point is your point, only he thinks that either Rauner should have to make that point himself, but then also have to explain the discrepancy, or else he can just suffer Quinn only pointing out the half of Rauner’s 180 degree pivot that he likes to point out Rauner said. If it isn’t entirely 100% correct Rauner has plenty of money to spend on advertising to say so. - Soccermom - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 9:07 pm: Steve, I don’t know where you took that econ class. But here’s what they taught me at the University of Chicago’s School of Public Policy. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf - Wally - Monday, Jun 16, 14 @ 10:03 pm: YDD, my example of the minimum wage becomes an economic debate IF you are the employer. I feel for people in tough situations. But, aren’t there opportunities for learning available now that were not available 20-30 years ago. Community colleges offer trades, if you are low income, probably at little to no cost. Online classes are available. Mentors are available. People need more skills to earn more. What do you think happens to the business in the scenario I presented at 12:52? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.