Roland Burris for governor (Chicago, Springfield: appointed, house, school districts)

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Well, if there's some "back room deal" to delay pension reform until a Madigan governorship (which is speculated by at least a few notable analysts), at least Lisa would have no excuse for not working with her father to get this done.

I'm tempted to vote for a Republican this time around, but we need same-sex marriage passed and not repealed. The Illinois GOP would be really wise to run a moderate who is "socially liberal".

Isn't that amazing? You'd rather see your state with high unemployment, bad credit rating, high crime, loss of civil rights... Than risk the idea that marriage for a very few people who really have no need of it might not happen.

With that kind of priorities as the motivation for whom to vote for... Why would you expect anything but absolute disaster in the body politic, economy, and real life?

[pnwmdk]

When I read these kinds of threads, I eventually get seriously irritated. For one, much of which gets argued just amazes me as wholly irrelevant, but more on point, is that what is needed gets ignored.

If you want a prosperous state, the single most important thing is to have as many people as possible doing productive work. There's no better social program, ever, than a job. But "jobs" are not useful unless they contribute to the creation of, preservation of, or improvement of wealth. What is "wealth"? It's not "money", it's the production of goods or services that improve life, have actual economic value. Hiring 50,000 people to dig holes and 50,000 to fill them up again may "hire" 100,000 people, but they will be doing nothing of value, and the money confiscated from those who DO work at something productive will result in yet others becoming unemployed.

EVERY dollar taken from the people or enterprises of a state by that state is a dollar that WILL NOT BE and CAN NOT BE used to hire someone productively. And, when that money is scarce, it is the least productive people who lose their jobs - the unskilled, the new entrants to the labor force, the uneducated, the inexperienced, etc.

Every dollar the state, city, county, township, etc, spends, needs to be weighed with the question "Is what we're doing with this money more important than the welfare of the lowest on the economic rung?" If not, then it should not be taken and spent.

There is SOME cost to having essential services - roads, bridges, courts, police, etc - and that's unavoidable. After that, every dollar needs to be weighed, not by political calculations, but by sober and careful judgment as to whether it's better to have the employed and employers have it, or the politicians. Simple analysis says that we get VERY LITTLE value from what the politicians spend. You make your money go vastly farther in obtaining value than politicians do. Quite simply, they didn't work for it, and their only real motivation is getting you to vote for them. That kind of calculation just doesn't get "bang for the buck" in terms of what you as the citizen get in return for what you worked for but had taken away.

I'm not making this about "party", or even political ideology - just about the math of dollars and sense.

What does the voter care about? If the voter cares about implementing social agendas (gay marriage) but cares nothing about the financial well-being of the individuals who live in the state... don't be surprised when taxes spiral wildly out of control, businesses flee, crime is rampant, and politicians say "just vote for me and I'll make sure YOUR agenda is implemented" but then blame someone else for the problems.

As for "just how smart do politicians need to be?"

The answer is "not very". The only value being "smart" is in a politician, is that the higher the level of smarts, the more he or she can deceive, mislead, obscure, and deflect responsibility. Generally, the decisions aren't all that difficult to understand. Like your own budget and your own decisions concerning money, the "hard " part is not the math, nor seeing what the obvious answer is. The "hard" part is self discipline, not spending, not wasting, not going into debt for transitory or instant gratification (or much of anything at all), etc.

You don't need "smart" politicians. They have no ability to run things no matter HOW "smart" they are. You merely need ones with integrity, who will do those "hard" things, like not spend without value, not waste, not borrow, not buy your votes with snow jobs and outwitting the voter to get more money. Ones who are not smart enough to calculate the manipulation of the public and who are not so greedy they conspire to enrich their friends and impoverish the public.

In that grand scheme of things... "Gay marriage" just doesn't even measure on the "richter scale" of importance.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by IRV007

Talking about the 75 year old guy? Hope not. If this is the best Illinois can do....

When Blago put him in he was ready to be put out to pasture.

Nothing against the guy really, but hang it up, enjoy retirement.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

When I read these kinds of threads, I eventually get seriously irritated.

Then don't read them.

[gardener34]

No more madigans and no more daleys... how about we try that for a while and see how it goes!!
Quinn means well but is a highly ineffective governor. I like Burris but he would not be an effective gov either.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Then don't read them.

Why should anyone care about things like economics, educaction, civil rights? Have a beer! Go listen to a band! Everything is FINE....

Burris was, as others that pay attention to things that matter have pointed out, a desperation appointment of one narcissistic incompetent by another.

Bill Daley is a guy that has the good qualities of an effective insider -- knowledge, experience, efficiency and an unfortunate mantle of being asociated with his less effective family. His ties to mainline Democrats and deep pocket donors could make he a formidable challenger to anyone from his party and a great candidate against any potential GOP opponent.

Sadly the most likely Democrat challenger, Lisa Madigan, while bright and personable is unlikely to do anything to publicly challenge the status-quo that her father has cravenly worked to create -- a situation that continues to see the massive Unfunded Liabililty of broken promises to state employees / union represented government workers / judges / lawmakers grow by an eye popping $17M a day.

On the GOP side the internal party drama of competing "friends to lobbyists" vs reckless outsiders vs desperate traditionalists is unlikely to produce a front runner that can appeal to a broad swath of voters.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Why should anyone care about things like economics, educaction, civil rights? Have a beer! Go listen to a band! Everything is FINE....

Burris was, as others that pay attention to things that matter have pointed out, a desperation appointment of one narcissistic incompetent by another.

Bill Daley is a guy that has the good qualities of an effective insider -- knowledge, experience, efficiency and an unfortunate mantle of being asociated with his less effective family. His ties to mainline Democrats and deep pocket donors could make he a formidable challenger to anyone from his party and a great candidate against any potential GOP opponent.

Sadly the most likely Democrat challenger, Lisa Madigan, while bright and personable is unlikely to do anything to publicly challenge the status-quo that her father has cravenly worked to create -- a situation that continues to see the massive Unfunded Liabililty of broken promises to state employees / union represented government workers / judges / lawmakers grow by an eye popping $17M a day.

On the GOP side the internal party drama of competing "friends to lobbyists" vs reckless outsiders vs desperate traditionalists is unlikely to produce a front runner that can appeal to a broad swath of voters.

Like you, I don't really drink much beer. I'm more of a montrachet man.

If the governors race is between Daley and Rauner, I will be very happy.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

...

If the governors race is between Daley and Rauner, I will be very happy.

I think Daley has a lot more motivation to fix things and not be a seat warmer like Quinn.

Rauner has too little experince to really take him seriously. Making money in the financial markets is nothing like understanding how to twist arms in politics to get things done.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by chet everett

I think Daley has a lot more motivation to fix things and not be a seat warmer like Quinn.

Rauner has too little experince to really take him seriously. Making money in the financial markets is nothing like understanding how to twist arms in politics to get things done.

I agree! It's just the other republicans are losers that would be no better than Quinn.

[pvande55]

It would make for an interesting primary. This time next year, after Quinn failed to get pension reform enacted, he will be the pariah - if he even runs. At least two candidates will claim to be the "anti-Quinn," who can get things done. His opponents will point out how Blago put Burris in.