Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED - Did Cohen pay supporters? *** Cohen says “Shoot all the elected politicians” to balance budget
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* The biggest problem in negotiations between Gov. Quinn and the two Democratic legislative leaders over the past two months has been the governor’s adamant refusal to back off his income tax hike. With session drawing to a close, Quinn is now starting to budge, which isn’t at all surprising considering the reality that his tax hike plan has no chance at all…
Gov. Pat Quinn is signaling that he could support higher cigarette taxes to help prevent deep cuts in education spending.
Quinn said Tuesday that a budget built around cigarette taxes and borrowed money to avoid $1.3 billion in education cuts is “getting in the right direction.”
He’s gonna need more than that cig tax hike and borrowing to close the hole, however. Quinn has already rejected a tax amnesty program, but that could wind up back on the table, as well as temporarily eliminating some business tax breaks and stuff like this.
Can you predict any more Quinn flip-flops for the rest of the week?
* Speaking of flip-flops, Mark Kirk’s new TV ad (displayed below) touts his fights against BP’s pollution of Lake Michigan. The ad is timely because of BP’s current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
It’s quite true that Kirk has played a big role in those local battles. But as NBC5 points out, Kirk was also pro BP as long as it didn’t involve our own beautiful lake…
Kirk’s attitude toward oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico is a different story.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, he joined his party’s “Drill Baby Drill” wing by endorsing oil exploration in the Gulf, arguing that if we didn’t do it, the Cubans would.
“It makes no sense to allow the Chinese to drill on the Cuban side of the line in Florida without us tapping into the very same oilfields,” Kirk said on WLS’ Don Wade and Roma Morning Show. “We’ve got the Venezuelans, the Dutch and the Chinese all drilling in the gulf under leases from Cuba. It makes perfect sense for the United States to make sure our team gets that same oil before Castro does.”
We’re getting that oil all right. It’s about to wash up in New Orleans. As long as the slick doesn’t spread to North Avenue Beach, Kirk probably won’t have any complaints.
* As I told subscribers this morning, Senate President John Cullerton has given up his Chicago-based state car and instituted new rules for Senate-owned vehicles…
Two new rules will be imposed under the policy change. Logs will be kept to record how the vehicles are used, and the vehicles can no longer be stored at private residences, according to Cullerton’s office.
More here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED - Did Cohen pay supporters? *** Cohen says “Shoot all the elected politicians” to balance budget
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How about some full disclosure Rich. The “NBC5″ story you cite is misleading. It is a blog posting by a regular Kirk critic. It is not a news story either on broadcast TV or on the station’s news site so don’t make it out to be more than it is.
And using the phrase “flip-flop” is ridiculous. Kirk vocally fought BP’s increased emissions from it’s facility in Indiana. Fact. He favors oil exploration in the Gulf (not specifically BP). Fact. How are those contrary? How in the world is that a flip-flop? You are tough on Kirk. Fine. But this is a ridiculous stretch.
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:21 pm
Fact, he opposed BP dumping pollution into the lake. Fact, he supported BP and others drilling in the Gulf, which has led to far more pollution than that BP thing ever would’ve.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:22 pm
Also, fact, that NBC5 guy does posts whacking both candidates. They get a whole lot of traffic over there. Deal with it.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:23 pm
May the legislature can eliminate the tax break for large corporations who file their sales taxes on time. This would add $60 million in revenue if it only covered the largest corporations.
Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:37 pm
which isn’t at all surprising considering the reality that his tax hike plan has no chance at all…
and which isn’t at all surprising considering the reality that Quinn flips more than a porpoise on acid.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:42 pm
=== flips more than a porpoise on acid.===
I gotta remember that one.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:42 pm
==Can you predict any more Quinn flip-flops for the rest of the week? ==
How about identifying any position on which he will NOT flip before the general assembly goes home for the summer?
Comment by Pat Robertson Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:46 pm
as opposed to alexi’s bank which just flopped.
Comment by shore Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:50 pm
It’s not realistic to be against developing as much oil resources as we can in this country while buying oil that is being developed in other parts of the world which results in very bad ecological damages (see Nigeria). Who do we think we are, anyway? Developing any type of energy is going to bring with it potential for damage to the environment. Any. Type. Our job as consumers is to hold the producers to high standards and expect/demand they follow thru with proper planning as well as fixing things when they go wrong. To think that we can have energy without incidents like this one NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF ENERGY WE DEVELOP, is naive. Even a campfire next to a tent made from recycled RodB hair cut clippings can cause problems.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:51 pm
As for the BP thing..
For an Illinois Voter a oil spill in the gulf is a little sad…
Bad stuff in Lake Michigan is really, really bad
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:51 pm
Rich you said “Fact, he opposed BP dumping pollution into the lake. Fact, he supported BP and others drilling in the Gulf, which has led to far more pollution than that BP thing ever would’ve”.
I assume from your comment you oppose ALL drillling off shore. I hope you are ready for $12.00 a gallon gasoline.
Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:52 pm
Okay, let’s accept up front that I’m cynical. The kid takes the car while drunk, and the Senator says it was without permission. No doubt he never said, “Hey, sure, drive drunk.” But there’s a convenient presence of detail on what wasn’t permitted, while leaving out what was permitted. Why did the kid have access to the keys at all? Or did he hotwire it? Either Cullerton was pretty lax with the controls, or the kid damaged state property. As long as Cullerton is commenting at all, he should tell the whole story, including the part where he did something to create the situation.
And come to that, now the whole Senate has to bear the burden? Unless I missed it, we haven’t had the part where Cullerton said, “Here’s what I did wrong: (insert details here).” But now other people have to change their behavior to suit his needs.
Disclose or don’t, but this halfway business is a bunch of bull.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:53 pm
Apples and oranges. Kirk wasn’t trying to stop BP from producing more energy because a possible accident might result in more pollutants in the lake. He was stopping them from planned dumping. Supporting responsible drilling does not mean you allow or support a terrible accident that results in an oil spill.
That NBC5 thing annoys me to no end! It tries too hard to be clever by half and usually just comes across as mean spirited without adding much in the way of value to the political discussion. I enjoy snark as much as the next, but I’d much rather get it from the readers here, who are funny, smart and articulate, than from that yabbo who is not.
Comment by 10th Indy Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:53 pm
Sorry, you lost me.
BP is a huge organization composed of dozens and dozens of smaller global business operations. What BP does in Whiting isn’t the same BP that is drilling in the Gulf. BP isn’t even American.
If Kirk has a problem with Venezuela and Cuba drilling, then why would he think it is OK for the Brits and the Dutch to drill in the Gulf? As far as we know, he isn’t BP’s fan regarding either Whiting or Gulf drilling.
So, where’s that flip-flop again?
He favored Gulf drilling, but was opposed to BP’s Whiting request?
Don’t we drink from Lake Michigan? Isn’t granting BP’s request like letting them pour crap into our tot’s sippy cups?
Since when do we drink Gulf water?
This isn’t the same. It is the same global operation - BP, but we’re discussing entirely different things here.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 2:59 pm
–now the whole Senate has to bear the burden–
pfft. It’s not a ‘burden’ to take care of a vehicle that does not belong to you yet has been assigned to you and to enter a log record. Won’t hurt them a bit.
Comment by Cindy Lou Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:03 pm
There’s a fine line between flip-flopping (Brady’s “i won’t release my tax returns”/”ok, fine I’ll release my tax returns) and considering other means to get the Illinois budget crisis fixed (Quinn examining multiple means to fix the budget crisis). I also don’t see any evidence that Quinn “backed down” from the income tax proposal…saying something goes in the right direction is totally different from that.
Comment by jonbtuba Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:06 pm
Agree with VanillaMan here.
We should also keep in mind that supporting off shore oil drilling is much different than stopping a refinery from polluting in our fresh water system. If the drilling operations were knowingly polluting into our drinking water, I would expect Mark Kirk would go after them for that as well.
We should also remember that the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is currently an accident, not an expected outcome that we should have prevented. If we find that BP did something that knowingly created this hazard or situation, we all know they will likely be severely punished.
Comment by A.B, Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:07 pm
Um, here’s the flip-flop:
Either you’re for clean water, or your not.
Or you’re Mark Kirk.
Call him a NIMBY or call him a Pander Bear if you think “flip-flopper” is inconsistent.
But if you’re going to brag about how you stood up to the oil industry, be prepared for someone to point out that you also bent over for the oil industry.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:07 pm
And I present to you the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Mark Kirk.
He runs to Sarah Palins Side in the Primary trying to get an endorsement, then wont show up to a major fundraiser featuring Palin.
Kirk votes for cap and trade, then says he was just voting the ideals of his district.
Now Kirk was for drilling before he was against it.
Good to see Kirk is a man of principle.
Comment by Moving to Oklahoma Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:10 pm
Those wind spills are what scare me the most.
Comment by George Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:10 pm
And if that isn’t enough for you, keep in mind that the proposed Lake Michigan refinery “modernization” project was so that BP could increase its import of Canadian heavy crude oil.
So much for “energy independence.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:10 pm
@George
Hilarious.
I also worry about all of the sun spills from solar panels, and the infamous geothermal spills we’ve all been reading about.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:12 pm
Does it bother you, Rich, that the DSCC is trying to raise money off of the gulf disaster? Will Alexi refuse money from them now?
Comment by Hipster Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:12 pm
=Why did the kid have access to the keys at all? Or did he hotwire it? Either Cullerton was pretty lax with the controls, or the kid damaged state property=
We keep the keys to all the cars on a hook for everyone to get at if needed. You need to have access so cars can be moved etc. I think you’re dig is unwarranted as far as Cullerton being “lax with the controls.”
Comment by Just Wondering Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:15 pm
You mean, asking for money to help prevent that type of thing from happening in the future? Sounds like a pretty decent fundraising strategy.
Comment by George Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:16 pm
Any indication of when Madigan and Cullerton plan to share their budgets with the other 13 million concerned parties, especially if they’re bailing by Friday?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:18 pm
The rules reguarding a large Fresh Water body of water and a really huge salt water (good luck drinking that) body of water are a bit different and really should be.
Also up until this point, can you recall a major spill from a catastrophic failure of a drilling platform?
Finally last time I checked, it was President Obama who decided to open up large chunks of water for offshore drilling. I seem to think back when he was a senator he asked for a review of the Whiting plan.
So obviously President Obama is a huge flip-flopper on this as well…
Fianly as to this fine piece of snark
Who is one of the parties fighting the offshore wind power out east? That’s right the Kennedys since it might have an impact on the view from their family compound.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:21 pm
George, tell me how exactly you harness the wind to make power? Then tell me how you get that power from the source to the consumer. If you look at the techological issues involved you wouldn’t make such a naive comment - you basically just proved my point. We ain’t livin’ in tepees back in the garden, man. We are living in a complex interconnected world…man.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:21 pm
Do you honestly not how you harness the wind to create electricity?
And that electricity gets carried over high voltage lines from the “wind farms?”
And that it then is distributed by ComEd to households?
Which then is often passed through filament to create light?
Seriously? You did not know that this technology exists?
Comment by George Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:24 pm
George, you’re not paying attention. The President supports gulf drilling. A contribution to the DSCC won’t stop any oil spills. Why isn’t DSCC asking it’s donors to contribute to the cleanup?
Comment by Hipster Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:25 pm
I was going to mention the fine Kennedy family but thought the explanation would be too technical for this crowd. The Kennedys have been fighting the windmill project off Hyannis Port for many years. Their arguements about the environmental impact of these monster machines are well known. Talk about 2 faced. Good, clean, pure wind energy available and these yahoos are fighting it tooth and nail. Hey, YDD, Hey, George, why don’t you ask them what the big problem with wind energy is? Don’t listen to me, talk to them.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:26 pm
Let’s not try to minimize the ongoing 5,000 barrels per day oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico. It is shaping up to be one of the worst environmental disasters in the history of our country. The Gulf is probably the nation’s most productive fishery. In 2008, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains eight of the top twenty fishing ports in the nation by dollar value. Satellite images indicate that the oil slick has increased significantly in size over the past few days. If it can’t be controlled, the oil could eventually make its way into the Gulf Stream and head toward the Atlantic.
Comment by Going nuclear Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:28 pm
George, What amazes me is that you don’t know the drawbacks and downsides of wind energy. That was what I was talking about. Go read up on the problems involved - T Boone Pickens learned a bit about that after touting that as the solution to all our problems. Naivete abounds.
My family has property in Northern Wisconsin - prime windmill territory. Environmental groups are fighting installation of these windmills with a ferocity that belies their alleged green bonafides. Go figure.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:29 pm
Still Rich, no flip-flop. Abide by your own standards. Kirk opposed increased emissions from Whiting. Still does. Kirk supported exploration in the Gulf. Still does.
You may say they are inconsistent positions, (they aren’t). You may say they are politically motivated, (perhaps). But this does not constitute a flip-flop. You can argue cap and trade is a flip-flop, but Kirk has a point that the issue is different for the Senator from Illinois and the Congressman from the 10th District.
The most apparent fact here is that you are misusing the term flip-flop.
Comment by Adam Smith Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:30 pm
I seriously don’t understand the point of why I need to ask a bunch of rich folks with wonderful ocean views out east whether or not putting up a wind turbine on a farm in central Illinois is better than spilling 5,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day.
Talk about a Non Sequitur.
Comment by George Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:30 pm
dupage dan -
The fact that you are trying to lecture me on electricity transmission and distribution is beyond hilarity.
But let’s go to your original point, before I point you to a nice wikipedia entry on “Moving the goalposts”:
And your evidence of “an incident like this one” for wind energy so far consists of:
1) Rich people getting their views blocked.
2) And another rich person who has yet to get financing to build transmission infrastructure because the place where he wanted to put his turbines didn’t have sufficient capacity.
Comment by George Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:36 pm
I’m in favor of using STAR bonds to build a Southern Illinois complex that recycles STAR bonds into reusable energy. While there are no private developers yet signed onto this project, I do expect Ray La Hood to show up in a recalled Prius for the ribbon cutting ceremony.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:38 pm
OneMan -
Sport and commercial fishing are a $5 billion industry in the Great Lakes, which is exactly why clean water is the issue.
And while its true that we don’t drink sea water, 1/3 of the U.S. supply of fish comes from Louisiana, and we do eat what fish drink.
I don’t know if you skipped over 7th grade and just missed the entire quarter spent on ecosystems, but I recommend adding the Discovery Channel to your presets.
As for precursor events:
1977 North Sea: blowout of well in Ekofisk oil field leaked 81 million gallons.
1979, Gulf of Mexico: exploratory oil well Ixtoc 1 blew out, spilling an estimated 140 million gallons of crude oil into the open sea.
1983 Persian Gulf, Iran: Nowruz Field platform spilled 80 million gallons of oil.
1988 North Sea off Scotland: 166 workers killed in explosion and fire on Occidental Petroleum’s Piper Alpha rig in North Sea; 64 survivors.
2000 Rio de Janeiro: ruptured pipeline owned by government oil company, Petrobras, spewed 343,200 gallons of heavy oil into Guanabara Bay.
Yep, Obama is flip-flopping on this one, and I’ll be the first to admit it. Will that be Kirk’s defense?
And yes, the Kennedy’s are NIMBY’s too.
I assume that’s Mark Kirk’s defense as well?
“I’m just like Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy…except when I’m like Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 3:50 pm
Where is Kirk on Canada tar sand development?
Don’t we Illinoisans burn a lot of that petrol that is causing enormous ecological damage to our north? Sumpin’ just ain’t right about this peekchure. We can blast all these politicians for their environmental policies but we won’t curb our appetite. We all have a pipe in the ground somewhere and it is sucking us dry.
Comment by Vole Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:03 pm
Yellow Dog -
It still isn’t the same issue.
Most of our government officials support using oil and fossil fuels in some form or another, at least for the short term. By your logic, this tragedy means that they are all wrong and should be chastised?
Nothing in this entire conversation has stated that Kirk (or anyone else for that matter) is opposed to alternative fuel options (except a few when it impacts their lives and I am not judging one way or another on that topic).
I remember Kirk pushing for the further development of fuel cells in ‘01 and bringing the first commercially available Honda Hybrid to a town hall meeting to introduce this future technology to the attendees in the same year. Heck, he’s been pushing for higher CAFE standards throughout his time in office. So basically he has looked at the industry and taken different stances on different issues.
Seems like an independent perspective.
The constant here is that he has been pushing to limit our dependence on oil.
Comment by A.B, Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:10 pm
Wow nice little crack at me YDD.. At least your education showed you how use google.
So you give three major oil spill incidents from platforms. A pipeline is not a drilling platform and the ‘88 event, while tragic was not an oil spill.
So the most recent incident besides the current one you can site of a platform failure causing a major oil spill is from ‘83 over 25 years ago. In some ways not a bad safety record.
And yes I understand eco-systems. I also understand dilution. And there are different standards for large bodies of water vs. small bodies of water for that reason.
But even if I give you that entire argument (and I am not but for brevity sake)…
If you feel there should be no offshore drilling anyplace would you be willing to accept the financial, political and social impacts of a reduction of that much of the supply of oil and natural gas? Because wind, solar and the rest is not going to be able to fill that gap immediately no matter how many NINBYS shut up and how much we spend.
If the risk of a major oil spill is so bad and the impact so great should we imediately stop all bulk shipments of oil larger than a gas truck. No more supertankers, no more pipelines, etc..
If Mark Kirk is a hypocrite for being against BP actions in Whiting and in favor of offshore drilling isn’t the President guilty of the exact same thing?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:12 pm
Moving, Kirk isn’t the only one not going to the Palin event. Everyone stated their reasons, and they all seem valid.
Re: flip flopping on Cap&Trade, Adam Smith summed it up nicely in his 3:30 (i.e., “scope” of representation), and it’s been discussed several times.
And as you probably noticed re: drilling, it’s not as clear cut as you’d like to imagine it is based on the posts here. Must be nice to be able “over-simplify”, or “over-complicate”, an issue during debate whenever you feel like it just to make a point.
What term is used to describe that tactic?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:13 pm
OneMan -
I never said there should never be any offshore drilling anywhere, any place.
Quite the contrary, I just think it ought to be done safely.
Which, clearly, it ain’t.
A.B. -
I know it takes a scorecard to keep track of all of the Mark Kirk flip-flops, but he flopped on ‘alternative energy” a.k.a “limiting our dependence on oil” a.k.a. “Cap and Trade” several months ago.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:24 pm
“Let’s not try to minimize the ongoing 5,000 barrels per day oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Um, last I heard it was 20,000 barrels.
But yes, let’s not minimize it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:26 pm
YDD –
So in general it appears to have relatively safe in my book.
So what is your objection? It isn’t safe enough?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:29 pm
YDD, just out of curiosity, how do you define “safely”? I’m asking because I really want to know.
There seems to be risk involved, as in everything else, so based on what you know re: actual occurrences of “incidents” and I’ll call it “return on investment” for lack of a better term right now, what’s “safe” in your mind.
It can’t be completely avoided, can it?
And when determining what the risk levels are, do you consider location at all, or not?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:29 pm
(Just a quick note: Sorry, guys. I’ve lost my “new” handle again. For “accountability” purposes, please assume that any Kirk-related posts under “Anonymous” over the last couple of hours on any threads were mine.)
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:33 pm
For those of you desperate to defend Mark Kirk’s support for the “drill baby drill” policies of his party, keep an eye on Florida. Watch how fast Rubio and Crist move to block new wells now that this spill might wash ashore in the Sunshine State.
Spill baby spill.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:41 pm
Oh, come on, 47th. I clearly was not defending him in my 4:29. I was asking how YDD defined “risk”. As he hasn’t replied, do you want to take a stab at it? I’m seriously curious.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 4:45 pm
I view the acceptance of deep sea oil drilling and oil transport over water as a “necessary evil” of the cost of doing business in an industrialized society. The tighter standards for acceptance in a fresh water system of lakes that serves as the sustenance for maybe 60 million people makes intuitive sense. I can also see (and hope) that this latest little “incident” in the gulf gives each of us pause as we turn the ignition key today.
I also recognize that wind farms and solar panels, to this point, have produced a lot more tax credits than energy, and that equation is not likely to change anytime soon until someone’s bright mind produces a Eureka moment or 2 in the field of energy research. Wind farms are not likely to produce an ecological disaster on the scale of an Exxon Valdez or this latest faux pas in the Gulf, but to this point, they are producing a 19th century-worthy energy output in a 21st century world and are very sporadic in their output, as much of Europe already knows.
Politics, schmolotics. Maybe this incident will help galvanize the energy “Manhattan Project” we’ve seemed to be waiting for for the last 40 years. More likely, it will help unleash a torrent of hot air that a wind turbine could really take advantage of, if it was downwind.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 5:30 pm
Six, Bill Gates is leading the charge rounding up CEOs to greatly increase R&D in energy. Maybe that eureka moment is on the way.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 5:42 pm
Let’s hope so, word. And in the meantime, I will think of Six’s comment as I turn the ignition key today.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 5:44 pm
Is it Groundhog day? What year is this, 2009?
Same GA, same result. Next year it will be “can’t raise taxes….primary coming up”.
We vote ‘em in, we deserve it.
Comment by Park Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 6:57 pm
State agencies also had to change their state vehicle rules. No longer will Directors and Deputy Directors be allowed to take home their state vehicles.
Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 6:58 pm
For the $12 comment; yes Americans are too used to cheap gasoline and thus the producers of it do it as cheaply as possible. We need to start paying the true cost of gasoline; and thus it will start paving the way for alternative fuel sources. If we continue to artificially keep prices low, then we will continue to stifle development.
Comment by Paul S. Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 8:13 pm
Nice to have adults running the state. Cullerton has an embarrasing, kind of inexplicable lack of control and judgment, and he’s going to limit other people’s cars. Whatever. I guess you’re forgiven John…keep your office for another 30 years. Keep those free rides for seniors too.
Folks, we live in an oil economy. Want a revolution?? create a gasoline shortage. You’ll see society disinegrate real quick.
Love windmills? How many windmills does it take to run one new underused office building in the big city? Think you can get Daley to slow down the building?
A uniform, long term energy strategy would be a good idea. How do we get there?
Comment by Park Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 8:32 pm
I think it’s called not in my backyard…and just about EVERY Congressman, Senator have this double talk.
Maybe if the Administration was prepared and took action on day one of the spill…we wouldn’t be here?
Comment by scoot Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 9:13 pm
OneMan & Anonymous:
Safety involves three principles: absolute risk, relative risk, and unacceptable risk.
Absolute risk is a simple calculation of not just the frequency of bad events, but also their severity.
Once you calculate the absolute risk of two competing processes, you can compare their relative risk.
But a process can also have such a severe or unpredictable outcome that — no matter how rare the event — the risk is unacceptable.
That’s the reason that we’re trying to reduce nuclear weapons, drunk driving is generally frowned upon, we question the sanity of religions that embrace snake handling, and oil-drilling in extremely sensitive areas that has the potential to destroy an entire ecosystem should be approached with absolute care.
Does that mean it can’t be done safely? Absolutely not. But clearly we haven’t achieved either the technology or our ability to eliminate catastrophic human errors yet.
Until we do, I don’t think we should be placing our oceans, which produce 90% of our planet’s oxygen, at risk.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 4, 10 @ 9:46 pm
- Maybe if the Administration was prepared and took action on day one of the spill…we wouldn’t be here? -
So you’re saying the government should have to immediately step in and take over when a company screws up? Ok, I’m fine with that, as long as that company pays for it. Otherwise it sounds similar to something you probably despise called socialism.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, May 5, 10 @ 8:54 am
apparently no one here is too concerned with environmental damage. keeping gas cheap seems to be the priority. you think an oil spill is no big deal?
Comment by bobthe atheist Wednesday, May 5, 10 @ 7:32 pm
my mistake. i see that there is a strong environmentalist here on this thread.
Comment by bobthe atheist Wednesday, May 5, 10 @ 7:33 pm