Quote:
Originally Posted by Adi from the Brunswicks
It seems to me like politicians in both states concentrate their developmental and positive efforts to a specific portion of the state, while rest of the state has to pay up and gets peanuts in return. Is it true that the mega cities of NYC and Chicago are sucking away funds for development meant for rest of the state. Because both cities are booming, yet other areas in each state are suffering from neglect. It seems to me like Albany, NY and Springfield, IL are just puppet capitals. To me, it looks like Chicago and NYC truly control the politics in NY & IL respectively. Is anyone else able to draw such comparisons between the political conditions in both states.
|
I don't know how similar the politicians or the political culture is but I know that both states, Illinois in particular, are similarly mismanaged. New York is in considerably better shape with regards to their state pensions, but ultimately they'll likely be in the position that Illinois is assuming the pension system won't ever be reformed because of heavy union interests. The state of Illinois is often cited as either the, or one of the worst managed states in the country.
Regarding the distribution of tax revenue...politicians focus a lot of attention in those areas (CHI and NYC) because thats where the money and the population is. So it makes sense that most of the funds stay there for those that generate the wealth. These portions of the state are under the most infrastructural stress. And you're right...Albany and Springfield are just locations selected because of their proximity to the rest of the state. The political, cultural, and financial capital of both states are clearly in their respective cities.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
