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.
No, it's the opposite. The states that get good grades (i.e. B/Cs) are ranked high for accountability, transparency, and attempts at reform (according to this study). Good grades are good; bad grades are bad.
Which is why Illinois has one of the better grades in the country. It has a deep seeded history of corruption, which is why over the years it's been forced to put in place tons of laws to try to put an end to it. Hence now you still have that history of corruption, but all these idiots who try to do "business as usual" don't understand that it isn't just business as usual. They keep getting busted and sent away. Just last week some politician received $7K in gifts or business for assigning a $50K contract to the person who supplied the gift.
This stuff happens all over, but here they've finally developed more system to track it down and make it transparent so they can quickly go after the people doing wrong. The new thing that's creeping up is to put an end to the patronage.
Like others said...if Illinois had a grade of F then they probably wouldn't be cracking down on everyone and putting them in jail or firing people.
Just because a state isn't in the news for corruption or have it out in the open doesn't mean they are free of corruption. It very well could just mean they don't have any systems in place to locate the corruption in the first place. There's a lot more corruption in the USA than you hear about. You only hear about the people getting caught.
Which is why Illinois has one of the better grades in the country. It has a deep seeded history of corruption, which is why over the years it's been forced to put in place tons of laws to try to put an end to it. Hence now you still have that history of corruption, but all these idiots who try to do "business as usual" don't understand that it isn't just business as usual. They keep getting busted and sent away. Just last week some politician received $7K in gifts or business for assigning a $50K contract to the person who supplied the gift.
This stuff happens all over, but here they've finally developed more system to track it down and make it transparent so they can quickly go after the people doing wrong. The new thing that's creeping up is to put an end to the patronage.
Like others said...if Illinois had a grade of F then they probably wouldn't be cracking down on everyone and putting them in jail or firing people.
Just because a state isn't in the news for corruption or have it out in the open doesn't mean they are free of corruption. It very well could just mean they don't have any systems in place to locate the corruption in the first place. There's a lot more corruption in the USA than you hear about. You only hear about the people getting caught.
No, it's the opposite. The states that get good grades (i.e. B/Cs) are ranked high for accountability, transparency, and attempts at reform (according to this study). Good grades are good; bad grades are bad.
New Jersey was found to be the most corrupt state in the union a few years back, so how did it get that "B+" on the map for accountability, transparency, and attempts at reform?
How is getting an "F" for corruption bad and an "A" good? The subject graded is corruption, not accountability and transparency; basically a what choice out of the four is FALSE?
New Jersey was found to be the most corrupt state in the union a few years back, so how did it get that "B+" on the map for accountability, transparency, and attempts at reform?
How is getting an "F" for corruption bad and an "A" good? The subject graded is corruption, not accountability and transparency; basically a what choice out of the four is FALSE?
The title stated for the study is "Grading the nation: How accountable is your state?" which is the strongest metric they were using.
As many people pointed out, if those states (NJ, CA, IL, LA) truly failed at accountability, do you think that they would be known across the country as states that indict and jail politicians? True corruption would mean they get away with it...
In any event, I'm just telling you that the article makes it clear: the states that are ranked with better grades (i.e. Bs and Cs) performed better (in the estimation of this study).
The more corruption a state (or government in general) has, the less likely your taxpayer money is going to get to where it is supposed to go (like infrastructure).
Many southern states have less infrastructure, plus as mentioned the transparency laws haven't yet been enacted.
So NJ may get a better grade, only because more audits are now being done.
The title stated for the study is "Grading the nation: How accountable is your state?" which is the strongest metric they were using.
As many people pointed out, if those states (NJ, CA, IL, LA) truly failed at accountability, do you think that they would be known across the country as states that indict and jail politicians? True corruption would mean they get away with it...
Exactly! New Jersey was/is seen as one of the MOST corrupt because they make a concerted, actual effort to catch politicians. You wont find any corruption if you don't turn over any stones. Most states love to take the stance of "plausible deniability".
Responsibility, accountability are seen as negatives. Deny, deny, deny.
Perception & public relations are more important than dealing with the issue upfront.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.