Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Union defers half of next year’s raise, but preserves pension bump
Next Post: Call these gas plant bills what they are: Taxation
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** Rockford is getting passenger rail service for the first time since 1981…
The Illinois Department of Transportation today announced the selection of the proposed southern route for Amtrak’s new Chicago-Rockford-Dubuque service from Chicago’s Union Station to downtown Rockford. The $60 million service will create 650 construction jobs, with trains running by early 2014.
* Illinois will get some of the high speed rail cash rejected by Wisconsin and Ohio, but not a huge amount…
In a move announced Thursday by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Illinois will get a $42 million share of the $1.2 billion that had earlier been earmarked for Wisconsin and Ohio.
It remained unclear Thursday exactly how the new money would be used in the Land of Lincoln, which already has received $1.2 billion in federal funds to upgrade the Chicago-St. Louis line to allow for 110 mile per hour passenger trains.
The route, which roughly parallels Interstate 55, includes stops in Lincoln, Bloomington-Normal and Pontiac.
“Illinois will be able to use this funding to break ground on projects that were included in the state’s application for high-speed rail along the Chicago to St. Louis corridor, but not funded earlier this year,” said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. “Improvements to this route will decrease travel times even further and create jobs that our state badly needs.”
* Even so, we may now be able to steal a Wisconsin manufacturer…
Talgo Inc., the Spanish manufacturer of high-speed train cars, will abandon its plant in Milwaukee in 2012, according to Nora Friend, a spokeswoman for the company.
The decision was made after U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced Thursday that the federal government was rescinding the $810 million allocated to Wisconsin. Wisconsin Gov.-elect Scott Walker had strongly opposed the state’s high-speed rail plan.
“We can’t stay and manufacture in Milwaukee without the high-speed rail to Madison,” Friend said. “This is terrible news.”
Friend said the state’s decision to back away from the high-speed rail project sends a terrible message to businesses considering locating in the state.
Gov. Pat Quinn, you will recall, sent a letter to Talgo during the campaign urging it to move to Illinois if Wisconsin rejected the money. That’s looking more likely.
* Most of the money originally meant for Wisconsin and Ohio is going to California and Florida…
Most of this high-speed wealth was spread to California, which will receive up to $624 million for its trains. Transportation Nation reports that the bulk of this sum — $616 million — will be used to extend the first segment of the state’s bullet line, which will now stretch from Madera to Bakersfield, rather than ending in Corcoran. Florida will get up to $342.2 million of the pot; Washington (state), $161.5 million; Illinois, $42.3 million; and New York, rounding out the top five, $7.3 million. (A full list of the recipients, including $2 million to Wisconsin for its Hiawatha line, can be found here.)
* But there’s still a small chance that Illinois could get more money because Florida’s Republican governor-elect isn’t 100 percent sold on the idea, even though he’s happy for the cash…
Governor-elect Rick Scott is pleased with the federal government’s commitment of $342 million more to Florida’s planned high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando.
But the Republican indicated he’s still not committed to it in a statement released Thursday by his transition office in Fort Lauderdale. The latest allocation would give Florida nearly all of the $2.6 billion needed to build the route.
Scott, though, first wants to review its feasibility “in terms of return to Florida’s taxpayers” and find out the private sector’s interest in funding it.
* This new governor-elect in Wisconsin is a bit on the clueless side…
Even though he remains opposed to a high-speed rail corridor from Chicago through Milwaukee to the state capital in Madison, Wisconsin Governor-elect Scott Walker did not rule out the possibility of state financing for other new rail projects during a Milwaukee Press Club-sponsored luncheon held Dec. 7.
Walker envisions a continuing role for railroads as part of intermodal transportation budget priorities in his administration, he said.
“I don’t have a problem with rail in general. Funding for the Hiawatha between Chicago and Milwaukee, and the train to Minneapolis is fine,” he said. “Freight rail offers a great opportunity to build up our [shipments] of grain and iron ore.”
The dirty little secret of this high speed rail program is it’s a direct subsidy to freight carriers to update their tracks. If Walker wanted money to help freight carriers transport grain and iron ore, he should’ve taken the federal cash. And “the train to Minneapolis is fine”? Um, that was the stated purpose of the Wisconsin grant. Sheesh. At least Wisconsin will get a couple of mil to upgrade the Hiawatha…
Wisconsin now will receive up to $2 million to improve the existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line. That amount won’t cover the more than $19 million needed to renovate the shed at Milwaukee’s downtown train station or the $52 million needed to build a maintenance facility for new trains. Those improvements would have been covered by the original $810 million awarded to the state.
But Wisconsin may have to refund big bucks to the feds and contractors…
t’s unclear whether Wisconsin will need to repay the approximately $9 million it’s already spent on the train project or the more than $5 million it would owe in contract cancellation fees.
“Nothing’s been returned yet,” Walker said when asked about the money. “We’ve had our folks working with federal rail administration folks to sort that out. We’ll be crunching the numbers.”
All this over $7 million a year in new state operating costs. Actually, it might be as low as $700,000 a year.
* Roundup…
* Loss of high-speed rail represents ‘ugly triumph of politics over progress’: Walker is not yet governor. But he has already cost the state $800 million and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs.
* Minn. Gov-Elect Mark Dayton troubled by ‘derailed’ high-speed rail funding
* Milwaukee Biz Blog: High-speed rail in Wisconsin? R.I.P.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Union defers half of next year’s raise, but preserves pension bump
Next Post: Call these gas plant bills what they are: Taxation
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t think high speed rail is going to work if it has to share right of way with freight traffic. The high speed of passenger service will really be degraded by the RR’s desire to give their freight service priority.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:02 am
According to Site Selection Magazine, transportation infrastructure is the #3 most important factor that companies look at when choosing a business location.
Transit has a great multiplier affect for job creation.
BTW, #1 on companies’ minds: Work force skills. Another strong argument for investing in K-U education as well as community colleges.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:11 am
California gets another $624 million and Illinois gets $42 million? I didn’t realize that the president, transportation secretary and #2 in the Senate majority were from the Golden State.
Geez, think LBJ and NASA, or Bush 41 and the super-collider.
And the Florida Tea Partiers are offered $342 million? That state’s already kept afloat with federal money. Please, let’s not try to corrupt these allegedly self-reliant pioneers with filthy lucre for internal improvements (they never wanted those in the South, anyway, but for different reasons).
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:13 am
“Um, that was the stated purpose of the Wisconsin grant.”
Rich, wasn’t the original proposal for a high speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison?
I had to wonder just why this project was ever any kind of priority for federal spending to begin with. Is there a big need for a high speed rail between Madison and Milwaukee? Why not put the money and resources where it could have the most impact? Why not take a more targeted approach where there is a higher population, more densely concentrated, where people are more inclined to use mass transit, and where it would ease congested highways? This shotgun approach to much of the stimulus spending diluted the potential impact that it could have had if the money was concentrated in areas where smart growth is a viable and wanted option.
Comment by vole Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:21 am
High Speed rail can be a direct subsidy to freight rail–or not.
In the case of Metra and its Union Pacific West Line where Metra is chipping in 50% and UP 50% to build a 3rd track in places and to put in universal crossovers so trains can switch from track to track, it is a direct subsidy to freight rail. The UP deifinitely gets more capacity and routing options for its freight traffic.
However a high speed rail corridor between Milwaukee and Madison Wi is a total wash when it comes to freight rail subsidy. If Madison puts out 75 cars of freight per day–1 train, I’d be pretty darned suprised–and the route between Watertown and Madison that is owned by the state and used by the Wisconsin & Southern for freight service sees probably a couple of trains per week–at best. Even though it’s the capitol, I scarcely believe Madison could support the rail line anyways. IF they want the Chicago Twin Cities high speed line, they’d be better off committing to the CP line they already use and entering into a jointly financed project with CP. Yes it misses Madison, but outside of being the state capitol, easy to get lost in, and the San Francisco of the midwest, there just isn’t much there. People can take their cars 20 miles to Portage as they do now. That’s less of a drive than the suburbs to Union Station in Chicago is now!!!
The High Speed Illinois line between St.Louis and Chicago is pretty hard to determine whether or not it will be any kind of subsidy. Union Pacific barely uses the tracks for freight, and right now seems to handle their intermodal business to the new Joliet terminal just fine without it. It remains to be seen whether or not UP commits and freight traffic to the line. As it stands the state is pouring money into it purely for passenger trains–and if they don’t fix the bottlenecks in the Chicago and St. Louis areas then it will all be for naught as those are the time killers. It doesn’t pay to run 100mph in the rural areas just to get stuck for 45 minutes behind some slow drag freight coming into Chicago!! You lost all the time you might have gained from the ‘high speed’ part.
Just my bantering for what it is worth.
train111
Comment by train111 Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:26 am
===I scarcely believe Madison could support the rail line anyways===
That’s not what the study says.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:36 am
vole, the idea is for a line all the way to Minneapolis. That’s just one leg of it.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:37 am
“vole, the idea is for a line all the way to Minneapolis. That’s just one leg of it.”
This was another big weakness of the stimulus spending — it got several pieces started without completing much of anything. These pieces are widely scattered. There just wasn’t much synergy there to get us humping enough to sustain big movements in the directions we need to be going.
Comment by vole Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:44 am
When it comes to passenger service, I think it’s frequency of service that counts more than speed of service. You want trains that go to places like Dekalb or the Rockford airport once an hour at 50mph instead of high speed that gets you to St Louis or Milwaukee at 110 mph (or what ever they’re claiming the high speed is going to be… I think it may turn out to be 80). The real investment ought to be in frieght, by passing the Chicago bottleneck, things like Rochelle intermodel facility… that’s what’s going to bring jobs. I fear high speed service will never be self sustaining.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 11:53 am
We have a train that only exists because of government subsidies, otherwise it is uneconomical.
We get additional subsidies, which really don’t affect the economic equation of the train, it still needs government subsidies, ad infinitum.
We only get a train car manufacturer because of government subsidies. This company would not relocate because of an overall better economic environment in Illinois. Subsidies talk.
Does anyone notice a trend here?
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 12:50 pm
The Milwaukee-Madison link was not a stand-alone project. It was also
A) A first step in upgrading the entire Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor, and
B) An extension of Amtrak’s overwhelmingly popular Hiawatha Service from Milwaukee to Madison, thereby linking the near region’s three largest cities.
Wisconsin’s Scott “Jobs Killer” Walker (and Ohio’s John “Jobs Killer” Kasich, too) has removed his state from modernized transportation. What a stupid move. And what stupidity to have elected him in the first place. Elections have consequences, ya hey dere.
In this matter, at least, Illinois moves forward.
Comment by Northsider Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 12:50 pm
Cincy,
Government also subsidizes each and every road in this state (and country). You want to get from A to B, we pay for it one way or another.
Given a choice of where my tax dollars go for transportation, I’ll pick passenger rail over new highways any hour of the day.
Comment by Northsider Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 12:53 pm
Cincy, we have Phoenix and Las Vegas and electricity in the southwest because the feds built Hoover Dam.
We have suburbs (and an incredibly more efficient, economy-building transportation system) because Ike built the Interstates (which also opened up the southwest) and the country provided college educations and guaranteed home loans under the VA bill.
Yes, there is a pattern, it’s called nation-building.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:17 pm
===Cincy, we have Phoenix and Las Vegas and electricity in the southwest because the feds built Hoover Dam.===
Also, electricity in rural areas pretty much everywhere. Those who say don’t subsidize anything are completely ignorant of history. And not just American history.
Those who cited the fall of the Roman Empire the other day need to look back at what happened when the aqueducts were attacked and/or were allowed to disintigrate.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:19 pm
Gas taxes subsidize roads, which is perfectly acceptable to me since it is a usage tax. Hoover Dam was build as a Depression era project and now pays for itself without perpetual subsidies and benefited from fees assessed to utility companies. Rural electrification was done through federal loans. AMTRAK can not exist without perpetual subsidies, losing billions of dollars per year, and requiring every taxpayer to subsidize the relatively few riders fares.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:38 pm
Uneconomical governmental subsidies? Where have I heard this idea before. Hmmm.
From a January 2007 OAG Management Audit of of IDOT’s Aernonautics Operations:
“The amounts billed by IDOT to users of the State’s aircraft were not sufficient to cover the cost of operating the State’s aircraft for fiscal years 2003 - 2006. On average the amounts billed covered only 14.3 percent of the cost of operating the State’s aircraft over the four-year period. Over the four-year period, costs totaled $19.97 million while amounts billed to users totaled $2.85 million. Since amounts billed do not cover costs, money from other sources such as the Road Fund and the General Revenue Fund are being used to subsidize the cost of air transportation services.”
Comment by Green Line Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:44 pm
===Rural electrification was done through federal loans.===
A simplistic and way incomplete statement.
===Hoover Dam was build as a Depression era project===
Not with private money.
Also, the Corps of Engineers basically redid the entire Mississippi River below St. Louis for flood control and to promote the river as a means of transportation. Still does. The Illinois River doesn’t dredge itself, either.
===losing billions of dollars per year===
The annual federal subsidy for Amtrak is about $2 billion right now. That’s less than a third of the monthly cost for the war in Afghanistan.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:48 pm
Folks, let’s not get carried away on this notion of high-speed rail. Under Quinn and IDOT, we’re never going to see true high-speed rail in Illinois. What we will see is millions and millions of federal and state tax dollars being given outright to the UP and some of the other railroads so that they can improve their private property. Think about it: IDOT and the feds spend millions to improve private RR property. And what do the genius lawyers at IDOT get for us in return, when they negotiate with the UP? Do they get dedicated tracks? No. Do they get an enforceable promise that passenger trains won’t be held up by freight trains? No. Do they get enforceable assurances of on-time performance? No. Someone just wrote that people take trains based on how often they run. In fact, studies show that they take trains based on speed and reliability. But with Quinn and IDOT’s superb ‘negotiations’ that smack only of a corporate give away, we don’t get reliability. And we don’t get speed either. We’ll get 35 mph between Joliet and Chicago, 79 mph to Springfield, 110 mph south of Springfield, then back to 79 to St. Louis. True HSR goes 220 mph, and that’s what Florida and California are building, on dedicated tracks, for fast and reliable service. When the story is told about how the people of Illinois missed out on the chance for true HSR, historians will have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that the freight railroads got millions because of their very strong relationships with (and campaign contributions to) Quinn and Durbin. The roadbuilders tell IDOT and the tollway bureaucrats what to do with highway funds, and the railroads do the same with RR funds. It’s a ttravesty, really, because with RRs running IDOT’s Bureau of the Railroads, taxpayers and passengers get the shaft.
Comment by Mares eat oats Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:49 pm
It’s not an argument about subsidy so much as investing sensibly. Eire canel was a great success. The Hennipen canel (one of the last built) was a loser. The age of canels had passed and the investment was a waste.
The Northwestern used to get people from Chicago to the Twin Cities in 400 mins….once a day service. It used to loop Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison and back to Chicago, once a day too.
Those days of intercity rail service are past though. People just don’t want to be stuck to those schedules. The money should be invested in improving frieght and commuter services if we want to creat jobs. The age of intercity rail service in America’s passed unless we suddenly become a much densely populated land where more frequent service makes sense.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 1:58 pm
===The money should be invested in improving frieght and commuter service===
You’re not reading closely enough.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:00 pm
Cincy, you have a very odd view on the true costs and benefits of infrastructure investment.
I doubt if I-57 from Carbondale to Champaign pays for itself through the gas taxes it generates, and never will. In fact, I’d guess most of the roads in the country do not.
I don’t get your point about Hoover Dam being a “Depression Era” project, either. So what. It never would have been done without the federal investment, and all the benefits it generated never would have occurred.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:01 pm
Wisconsin has a proud tradition of turning down federal funds because of the “cost” of the match and the “cost” of the infrastructure once it is built. What is now I39 north of Portage to Wausau was part of the plan but the state declined to build it due to “cost” and when they got around to actually building it “cost” many millions more. It’s just Wisconsin being Wisconsin. Unlike Northeastern Illinois suburban Milwaukee is not used to using public transportation(trains) its really for the urban poor (busses) so why expand it. When they take a train they use METRA or Amtrak into Illinois, no matter what the last thing a suburban Milwaukee politician wants is to improve transportation from Madison to Chicago even if it would Milwaukee.
So good for Illinois,
Mares eat oats has a good point other than needlessly bashing IDOT.
Comment by Anon Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:03 pm
Also, anyone who thinks that the vast majority don’t pay for the minority’s roads, bridges and highways haven’t looked at the way IDOT breaks up road cash disbursement.
Chicago region drivers greatly subsidize Downstate roads that the vast majority of those Chicago area folks will never even get close to.
I used to live on a country road that maybe had three cars a day drive on it. Maybe. Do you think those three cars’ gas tax paid for that road? Hardly.
Get over yourselves.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:05 pm
- Rich Miller - Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:05 pm:
Also, anyone who thinks that the vast majority don’t pay for the minority’s roads, bridges and highways haven’t looked at the way IDOT breaks up road cash disbursement.
Chicago region drivers greatly subsidize Downstate roads that the vast majority of those Chicago area folks will never even get close to.
I used to live on a country road that maybe had three cars a day drive on it. Maybe. Do you think those three cars’ gas tax paid for that road? Hardly.
Using this logic, one could then expect that a PROFITABLE rail user would use the taxes and fees associated with his fare to subsidize an UNPROFITABLE rail line. This is something I can agree with.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:51 pm
Except that roads are not completely user-subsidized. Check the funding for the capital bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 2:55 pm
–Using this logic, one could then expect that a PROFITABLE rail user would use the taxes and fees associated with his fare to subsidize an UNPROFITABLE rail line. This is something I can agree with.–
You mean like gasoline taxpayers in the metro areas do for rural areas?
Dude, you really don’t get it. By your logic, infrastructure development in the United States would have stopped with the Erie Canal.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:22 pm
Enough with the Hoover Dam misstatements.
It was approved by a Coolidge era 1928 Congress before the Stock Market Crash and before either the Hoover or Roosevelt administration. It was not approved to stimulate but to conserve the water to use Grand River flood water for rural use.
Using the Hoover Dam in the examples described above is as accurate as claimg that Henry Ford invented the automobile.
Read your history or at least Google.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:22 pm
VMan is back and he has no sense of humor.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:29 pm
What new tax do you want to subsidize the choo-choos
How many millions do the surrounding counties pay to subsidize Metra and the RTA?
I do agree that if you are going to do it, a passenger only track is imperative. The way this is being gone is simply flushing money down a rathole. It won’t be fast and it will need eternal subsidies.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:32 pm
- Does anyone notice a trend here? -
Yeah, every time this issue and public sector unions are brought up you feel the need to regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:34 pm
The Return of Vanilla Man, roused from his slumber to defend….. what, again?
–It was not approved to stimulate but to conserve the water to use Grand River flood water for rural use.–
Whatever that means.
They put those power generators in there for kicks, brother? The people of Arizona, Nevada and California would be surprised. What did they expect to use the power for, except stimulate development? You also need a reliable drinking water supply in the desert, I’m told, which the Lake Mead reservoir supplies.
As always, I’m fascinated by your history sources. Lay them on me. But I don’t think the federal government undertook that massive product to provide water for a handful of Nevada chicken farmers.
By the way, this “Grand River,” you speak of — where’s that? Is that the Upper Colorado, located about 600 miles from Hoover Dam?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:53 pm
How about the TVA? It brought electricity to basically the entire southeast part of the country…
Comment by Vote Quimby! Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:59 pm
–How many millions do the surrounding counties pay to subsidize Metra and the RTA?–
What counties are you referring to? Sales taxes collected in the service area and fares pay the freight.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 3:59 pm
Also, remember that the interstate highway system was a national security project. Easier to move tanks around in case of invasion by the Soviets.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:02 pm
In other words, like Hoover Dam, there were reasons and then there were reasons. Whatever the reasons, they weren’t built with private or local tax money.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:03 pm
Not only that, Rich, but the interstates, good roads and trains are crucial for business. Otherwise you’re tying up all you capital in inventory for fear you’ll be caught short.
What are the most successful businesses today? Those that can deliver anywhere, immediately.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:10 pm
From the NYT…
===[federal income tax] parking subsidies for commuters who drive. People already can set aside $230 per month pre-tax for parking. ===
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/10/business/AP-US-Transit-Riders-Tax-Break.html?_r=2&hp
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:28 pm
It’s odd given our history that in 2010 you can still have debates on the necessity or benefits of federal spending on infrastructure.
That good old Springfield Whig, Lincoln, would have plenty to say on that. And he would be amazed at what has been accomplished.
The only real opposition to federal spending on “internal improvements” back in the day was from the oligarchs of the antebellum and later Jim Crow nSouthern states.
They liked things they way they were with slaves and a “free” society dependent upon them.
Once the feds built improvements to open up commerce, they’d lose power. Plus, as JQ Adams said, the free peoples “affections” would naturally turn to the anti-slavery, Northern proponents of federal spending for improvements.
That was the whole basis for “state rights” in both the antebellum and Jim Crow south. It’s amazing we still hear that language today.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:28 pm
The Hoover Dam and TVA: two good examples of federal programs that brought energy, economic development and jobs to key areas of our country. I’m going to add the Bonneville Power Administration to the mix. It was created by an act of Congress in 1937 to bring electricity to the Northwest from hydroelectric dams on the Columbia. One of its first customers was Alcoa, the aluminum manufacturer. Can you imagine the governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana at the time saying they want no part of this federal project? Of course not. It currently provides about 35% of the electricity used in the region.
Comment by Going nuclear Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 4:31 pm
I guess that’s why they call them “Cheeseheads,” at least their new Governor! If I lived in Wisconsin, I’d be screaming bloody murder! A free handout to citizens of one’s home state is THEIR, the taxpayers’ money! Why in Heaven’s name would you hand such a substantial sum of dough, and the attendant hundreds upon hundreds of jobs to help families in your State–right over to your more than happy receiver State to the south, let alone a few more? Absolutely idiotic, and if I lived up in the North Woods, how could you deny, EMBARRASSING? A great kickoff at this rate to maybe ending up a one-termer…meanwhile, hats off to Gov. Pat Quinn for showing quick thinking and bold initiative to do what he says–be the “Jobs Governor” on this one. To the contrary to Walker, his new Administration hits a home run on one of HIS first big at bats in the new Administration–actually makes ya PROUD to be an Land of Lincolner…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Dec 10, 10 @ 6:51 pm