Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Caption contest!
Posted in:
* From a press release…
Republican candidate for Governor Kirk Dillard issued the following statement regarding Gov. Quinn’s comments on raising the minimum wage in Illinois.
“I know families are struggling out there, and times are tough. But Governor Quinn is just trying to cover up the fact that since he’s been governor, our state’s business climate has sunk to historic lows. We need to bring good paying, real jobs back to Illinois — jobs that have a future — jobs that families can build a life on. Raising the minimum wage as an election-year stunt won’t do that.”
* Erickson…
But Dillard, who is running for governor in 2014, voted in favor of raising the minimum wage in 2006 when it was being pushed by now-imprisoned former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican, was among eight GOP senators who said “yes” in November 2006 to a plan to bump the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour in 2007. It topped out at $8.25 an hour in 2010.
Two of Dillard’s opponents in the GOP race for governor — state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington and state Treasurer Dan Rutherford of Chenoa, who then was a state senator — voted “no” on the 2006 minimum wage hike. […]
Dillard did not immediately respond to questions about his switch in positions Wednesday evening.
Sigh.
*** UPDATE *** The story has been updated with a react…
Dillard spokesman Wes Bleed said Dillard has been a consistent opponent of minimum wage increases, but was persuaded to support the 2006 boost because the economy was in better shape.
“For the most part, he has opposed increasing the minimum wage,” Bleed said.
Dillard also voted “Present” on a minimum wage bill in 2006…
State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, said he did not have a problem with increasing the minimum wage, but felt it should be handled at the federal level.
That’s quite a few positions over the years.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 8:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Caption contest!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===Sigh===
Indeed.
The question to ask “Today’s” Kirk Dillard is pretty easy;
“The man you describe, who was the Chief of Staff to Jim Edgar, a Jim Thompson staffer, that person you wax poetic about… would that person vote for ths 2014 Kirk Dillard?”
Kirk Dillard knows its “ok” to be consistant, and look like a responsible adult too … “Right”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 8:41 am
Is this a paid add for Bruce rauner?
Comment by William j Kelly Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 8:58 am
What’s the the republican definition of a good paying job? $14 an hour and no benefits?
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 8:59 am
maybe it’s not backtracking or flip-flopping or whatever. it’s just a refinement of an earlier policy position?
Comment by PoolGuy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:02 am
He’s showing the desperation of a fish out of water. It is flip-flopping and it won’t be long before the final moments in Dillard’s aspirations for higher office.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:08 am
**Is this a paid add for Bruce rauner?**
Here is the thing… Kelly doesn’t need to pay for ads against Dillard. Dillard does it to himself.
Plus… Dillard is the least worrisome GOP candidate to Bruce Rauner.
Comment by dave Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:09 am
**Here is the thing… Kelly doesn’t need to pay for ads against Dillard. Dillard does it to himself.**
Heh… “Kelly” should be “Rauner” in the above comment. Oops..
Comment by dave Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:11 am
Nah, this ain’t a paid Ad for Rauner, Rauner signs all his Ads.
Please pay attention, it might help with the Snark.
Even as a “drive by” at least make it sporting.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:14 am
Remember Joaquin Phoenix’s fake flame-out on Letterman three years ago?
Sadly, that’s the Dillard campaign today / this whole election season. Minus the “fake.”
Comment by Linus Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:16 am
Bruce Rauner would, maybe, fear the 1900s Kirk Dillard. I am pretty sure the 2014 Kirk Dillard is just as confusing to Bruce Rauner as he is to the rest of us.
Scared and confused are too different things, like the “Two Dillards”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:17 am
Dillard sees his path to nomination as going all in on the ALEC agenda. The minimum wage is just this side of universal suffrage for adults and vivisection to that crowd.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:20 am
I can understand why Kirk Dillard abandoned all of his political principles in pursuit of the GOP nomination.
But just I don’t understand why he abandoned all of his political skills.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:24 am
Different time period, different economy, different position
Comment by PhoenixRising Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:27 am
I actually hope that Dillard cracks 25% in primary polling so that Rauner decides to produce a negative ad, call it “Dillard vs. Dillard.”
With Rauner’s money and Dillard’s flipflops, we could be in for a long-version 30 minute Dillard vs. Dillard debate.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:34 am
===Is this a paid add===
One “d” in “ad,” doofus.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:37 am
===Raising the minimum wage as an election-year stunt won’t do that.===
Issuing this press release to let the primary base voters know he is now opposed to a minimum wage increase, is somehow not a political stunt?
Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:39 am
OK, maybe “doofus” was a bit over the line.
As Humphrey Bogart told Lauren Bacall in the “Big Sleep” when Bacall said she didn’t like his manners…
“I’m not crazy about yours, I didn’t ask to see you.
“I don’t mind if you don’t like my manners. I don’t like ‘em myself. They’re pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQPz432NvRs
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 9:39 am
so if you’re a Democrat who voted for the income tax hike, but oppose further hikes you’re a flip flopper?
These are two different positions on two different amounts for the minimum wage. It’s nonsense to think that voting in favor of a bill but opposing further extensions of it is hypocritical. You could apply that sort of faulty reasoning to just about every budget bill if you wanted. It’s part of the idiotic gamesmanship that polarizes politics.
Comment by Past is Past Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:02 am
Bugs Bunny to Elmer Fudd in “Slick Hare” (1947)in which Humphrey Bogart orders rabbit for Lauren Bacall. Fudd, as playing the waiter, fails to secure said rabbit and fears for his life. Bogart shows only disappointment and orders a ham sandwich. Bugs hears this and says the immortal words -
“Remember, garçon, the customer is always right! If it’s rabbit Baby wants, rabbit Baby gets!”
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:08 am
To the post - perhaps Dillard was ok with the first round of minimum wage increases but felt the most recent round was excessive.
I am no longer a supporter of Dillard - just pointing out a possibility.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:10 am
No Dillard fan, but attacking him for consistency on this issue is not justified. Raising the minimum wage at this time is not good for the economy. The minimum wage hurts those at the lowest job levels.
Kind of reminds me of the Obama’s position on gay marriage changed just in time for the election. Now, that is a flip flopper, since the timing of a position on gay marriage has nothing to do with the economy, but everything to do with votes and campaign contributions.
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:12 am
–The minimum wage hurts those at the lowest job levels.–
LOL.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:15 am
I don’t disagree with the Dillard defenders here. Y’all make plausible excuses.
However, why wouldn’t he answer Kurt’s questions? Why wouldn’t he explain this himself? Why does it fall upon y’all to do what he should’ve done in the first place?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:15 am
@dupage dan,
That’s not what he’s saying in the above statement.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:15 am
===Why wouldn’t he explain this himself? Why does it fall upon y’all to do what he should’ve done in the first place?===
And…
===Kirk Dillard knows its “ok” to be consistant, and look like a responsible adult too … “Right”?===
That is my point. Explain that you are being consistant in the rationale, and it doesn’t look like a flip-flop, if you have justified it … yourself. Having others do it is not being the responsible adult. Being consistant means that when the vote was taken, circumstances dictated “this”, and now, circumstances dictate “THIS”.
Responsible adults explain. Dillard of the past would have “sold” us on to the change, this new “Dillard” leaves that up to everyone else, giving the impression of pandering.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:24 am
Dillard did well when the field was larger in 2010. Now the field has changed to include a multi-millionaire and the three candidates aren’t sure how to handle him. New positions on old issues seem to be his new plan.
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:38 am
@ Wordslinger
=–The minimum wage hurts those at the lowest job levels.–
LOL. =
As of Oct 2013
Chicago Minimum wage $8.25 Federal minimum wage $7.25
Chicago unemployment rate 8.3% Federal unemployment rate 7.0
Whose laughing, Now!?
Comment by Downstater Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:41 am
The argument that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment, reduces hiring, or somehow hurts those at the bottom of the economic ladder is bunk. There is no credible evidence that it has any of these effects. No increase in the minimum wage since it was created has resulted in an increase in unemployment. Ever. So let’s dispel that fallacy.
That aside, I don’t think opposing an increase is a smart move for any candidate, including the Republicans. According to a recent Gallup poll, 76% of Americans support an increase, including 58% of Republicans. Once again, Dillard is running in the wrong election and is behind the times.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:42 am
Downstater, I’m still laughing.
Please enlighten us as to the direct connection between the minimum wage and the unemployment rate, as well as how higher wages “hurts those at the lowest job levels.”
I’m sure it will be a belly laugh.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:47 am
Mythical economics abound, linked more to political ideology than to evidence
A bit like saying: “Global warming? Humbug. Look at the snow outside my window.”
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:51 am
@Downstater:
Yes, because that $8.25 and hour is excessive. I prefer to think that your buddy Bruce’s $53 million in earnings is excessive compared to $8.25 an hour but that’s just me.
Also, glad you can get a laugh out of the unemployment rate. Classy my friend.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:05 am
The Lard Man changing his story again. Shocker.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:15 am
=Is this a paid add for Bruce rauner?=
Geez, everybody got a little sensitive about this comment, eh? I thought it was funny…
And more to the point, I feel like the punchline of his joke was in line with the spirit of Rich’s post?
Comment by Then again... Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:17 am
Dillard had experience carrying out decisions made by Gov. Edgar.
There is a distinction between carrying out a decision by a boss and being the boss making decisions. I think that might be Dillard’s weak area. When asked about “what would your policy be on (issues a, b, or c)”, he is undecided.
If asked what time it is, he gives a history of how he made clocks and was in charge of timekeeping in the Edgar administration. When he is done talking he still has not answered the question. That sort of makes you wonder if he knows what time it is.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:17 am
Downstater, you need to get out more. From the Economist:
“Between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the top 1% of American earners rose by 275%, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Those of the bottom 20% rose by 18%. Had the federal minimum wage kept up with productivity gains since 1968 it would have reached $21.72 last year, estimates the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a leftish think-tank. Campaigners gripe that the government should not have to top up the pay of workers like Mr Goytia (a Walmart employee in LA who earns $9.65 but also is on food stamps); this “hidden subsidy” amounts to $7 billion in the fast-food industry alone, according to one study.
There is no consensus among economists about the extent to which minimum wages kill jobs. But recent research suggests that relatively low rates (America’s is 38% of the median wage) are not harmful, and that small increases can be beneficial. They not only lift workers’ purchasing power; they also make them more loyal, and so reduce the amount companies must spend recruiting new people.”
So the rest of spend $7 billion a year because Walmart and other low wage employers don’t pay enough to live on. Only in America.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:20 am
Rich, good point. He probably should have gotten back to Erickson. But Erickson’s wording “immediately” is pretty interesting. This was not “breaking” news and it’s possible that Dillard didn’t put a priority on the call back.
I’d also say that Erickson frames it as others here have, “a switch in positions”. That was unfair in my estimation.
Comment by Past is Past Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:22 am
- Then again… -,
Comment? Nah.
Speaking only for me, my response had more to do with the drive-by nature of the commenter in question.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:24 am
@ - Wensicia - Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 10:15 am:
@dupage dan, That’s not what he’s saying in the above statement. ===
You’re right. He’s calling it an election-year stunt. Which it is, BTW. Nothing wrong with that, frankly. Most of what politicians do is done with an eye towards the next campaign, if they are seeking re-election. It is a simple reality. Nonetheless - Dillard could have legitimately been for the earlier raise in the minimum wage but be legitimately against the new raise without being contradictory or inconsistent.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:24 am
Here’s a link to an article on the minimum wage issue.. it seems to look at both sides of the debate..
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/should-we-raise-the-minimum-wage-11-questions-and-answers/282326/
Comment by Mr. Big Trouble Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:24 am
The economy then and the economy now are completely different. Dillard’s yes vote was likely based on a stable economy, a state with a lot less pension debt and more jobs that needed to be filled. 2013 v. 2006 are two totally different time frames. People seem to be knit picking on this one…
Comment by Everytomdickandharry Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:32 am
47th Ward, is that a recent Economist issue. I think i still have online access, would like to read entire article. thanks.
Comment by PoolGuy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:36 am
–The minimum wage hurts those at the lowest job levels.–
If Dillard believed that in 2006, then how could he justify voting for the hike then? The other possibility is that he didn’t believe it then, but (conveniently) adopted that view now before the GOP primary. Given all his other adjustments, I know which theory is more plausible.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:37 am
December 14 issue.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591616-americas-minimum-wage-debate-has-rolled-round-again-raising-floor
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:39 am
oh very recent. thanks again. I need to re-subscribe
Comment by PoolGuy Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:41 am
Dillard makes an ideal yes man to someone like Jim Edgar. He’s way his expiration date in State government. He would fit in great in any of the Confederate States.
The minimum wage should be raised. He has proved again the only time he says no is to poor folks.
Comment by Mokenavince Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 11:56 am
===State Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, said he did not have a problem with increasing the minimum wage, but felt it should be handled at the federal level.===
Aren’t Republicans supposed to be for “States’ Rights” and states’ decisions? Why would he want to defer a policy decision to the federal government? Maybe he is acknowledging that there are things that the federal government can do better than the states can do.
Comment by Kruse Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 12:17 pm
If you really want to know what Dillard’s position is on the min. wage go look at his answers on all the NIFB questionnaires.
Comment by itsericwithaK Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 2:26 pm
2006 was a different economic climate, 8 GOP senators voted for minimum wage bill then pushed hard by I believe the African American senators. Dillard hasn’t voted for the other attempts to raise it.
Comment by child games Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 2:28 pm
Dillard is being unfairly criticized on the minimum wage issue. As other posters noted, past support by Dillard was during a different economic time. No one wants a situation where workers are being exploited with low wages, but increasing the minimum wage during poor economic times arguably causes more difficulty on small businesses to comply than large corporate employers. The small business owner will be forced to lay off employees.
Comment by Samurai Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 2:35 pm
To Rich’s point, Why doesn’t Dillard just say the right thing to begin with; Circumstances are far different today than when that vote was cast. Some Government policies are a balancing act when an economy changes as drastically and stubbornly as we’ve seen. We can either “marry” a position that we know is wrong for the time, or we can accept the challenge and do the right thing at the right time. Sitting around and doing nothing is almost never a good option. My mind changed with the severity of the situation.
How hard can it be to say this?
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 2:57 pm
Some of you I’m sure remember the old 45 records where you could “flip flop” ‘em Over to play the other SIDE?! Flip-flop. Flip-flop. Sen. Dillard must’ve owned a LOT of those records back in the day ‘cuz that approach seems ingrained in him…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Dec 19, 13 @ 8:17 pm