It couldn't get any better for Cook County Board reformers.
We won!
Today's Sun-Times has this report on yesterday's non-vote on Stroger's tax-hiking budget.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
47% for Matt Gonzalez -- amazing progressive force in SF
The Matt Gonzalez for Mayor of San Francisco campaign -- as progressive a big-city mayoral candidate as the county has seen -- earned more than 100,000 votes and 47% of the total votes cast.
This blog from the San Francisco Bay Guardian summed up the power of progressive campaigns and the only way we build power: one precinct at a time.
The link is here, the poster is "capt matt" and I'll let the post speak for itself (although I prefer the term 'precinct organizer' to 'precinct captain')
suddenly i get it.
i have protested oil wars. i have signed petitions. written letters. made phone calls. posted signs.
but i have never been as involved in an electoral campaign as this one. i wrote campaign materials, gave money, and -- here's the key thing -- was a precinct captain.
in the course of doing that, a very hard 24 hour slog of knocking on doors, making calls, visiting the polling station, and doing it all over again, i saw probably thirty people vote for matt who either wouldn't have voted for him, or wouldn't have voted at all.
i saw results for the work I did, and all of a sudden i GET thinking globally and acting locally. i GET the power of neighborhoods. i GET "you can make a difference" platitudes. because i did, and i can.
and next time i'll be better at it. and inevitably, our time will come. harnessing the energy for positive social change we have here in the engine of local politics will bring about great things. it already has, and we're just beginning.
stay involved, and stay watching...
Posted by: capt matt at December 10, 2003 02:08 AM
...and my precinct came in at over 85% for matt.
together we can, indeed.
Posted by: capt matt at December 10, 2003 02:09 AM
This blog from the San Francisco Bay Guardian summed up the power of progressive campaigns and the only way we build power: one precinct at a time.
The link is here, the poster is "capt matt" and I'll let the post speak for itself (although I prefer the term 'precinct organizer' to 'precinct captain')
suddenly i get it.
i have protested oil wars. i have signed petitions. written letters. made phone calls. posted signs.
but i have never been as involved in an electoral campaign as this one. i wrote campaign materials, gave money, and -- here's the key thing -- was a precinct captain.
in the course of doing that, a very hard 24 hour slog of knocking on doors, making calls, visiting the polling station, and doing it all over again, i saw probably thirty people vote for matt who either wouldn't have voted for him, or wouldn't have voted at all.
i saw results for the work I did, and all of a sudden i GET thinking globally and acting locally. i GET the power of neighborhoods. i GET "you can make a difference" platitudes. because i did, and i can.
and next time i'll be better at it. and inevitably, our time will come. harnessing the energy for positive social change we have here in the engine of local politics will bring about great things. it already has, and we're just beginning.
stay involved, and stay watching...
Posted by: capt matt at December 10, 2003 02:08 AM
...and my precinct came in at over 85% for matt.
together we can, indeed.
Posted by: capt matt at December 10, 2003 02:09 AM
Sunday, December 07, 2003
Stroger tax-hiking budget might not pass. Fantastic.
In this report from the Sun-Times comes word that there may not be nine votes to pass the tax-hiking budget on Tuesday. Which is great news.
Raising the sales tax and setting up a lease tax is the last thing we should do for this bloated county government. Instead we should be cutting patronage jobs and directing more of these precious public resources into services that help everyone.
Not coincidentally, the Sun-Times had a great report on how the forest preserve is turning into a patronage preserve. This kind of stuff is toxic to earning the support of swing voters for increased investment in the commonwealth (that is, higher taxes to fund smart infrastructure). I'm so glad the reform commissioners are crusading against it.
(I wonder why this isn't happening as visibly on the Chicago City Council, or for that matter, in the Illinois General Assembly.)
Raising the sales tax and setting up a lease tax is the last thing we should do for this bloated county government. Instead we should be cutting patronage jobs and directing more of these precious public resources into services that help everyone.
Not coincidentally, the Sun-Times had a great report on how the forest preserve is turning into a patronage preserve. This kind of stuff is toxic to earning the support of swing voters for increased investment in the commonwealth (that is, higher taxes to fund smart infrastructure). I'm so glad the reform commissioners are crusading against it.
(I wonder why this isn't happening as visibly on the Chicago City Council, or for that matter, in the Illinois General Assembly.)
Saturday, December 06, 2003
Nice tax justice report for Illinois
Voices for Illinois Children put out a nice report here on the basics of our state tax system.
We have a flat 3 percent income tax rate (which is about a week and a half of work), which kicks in after one makes only $2000.
We should not let the tax kick in until one makes $12,000, and then raise the rate to 4%. Everyone making less than $40,000 gets a tax cut.
We have a flat 3 percent income tax rate (which is about a week and a half of work), which kicks in after one makes only $2000.
We should not let the tax kick in until one makes $12,000, and then raise the rate to 4%. Everyone making less than $40,000 gets a tax cut.
Friday, December 05, 2003
Cook County budget -- showdown coming Tuesday
Looks like the vote on the new Cook County budget (with, potentially, an inexcusable raise in the regressive sales tax) might be next week.
I admit, I read it in Sneed. Yes, I read that column. Go ahead. Make fun. I'm thisclose to reading it tomorrow!
And President John Storger is apparently getting a little bit weirder. This Tribune news article, which Zorn pointed out on his blog, has Stroger preparing for the showdown vote by suggesting the reform commissioners are pulling a Council Wars. There's some odd part of the political culture in Chicago and Illinois that is based around absolute deference to political leadership (see the way the House members followed Speaker Madigan's deal regarding the Bush on the ballot bill), and Stroger seems like he is put out that the commissioners are not just following his lead and passing the budget he crafted. I really hope we can find nine votes to block the sales tax increase. Man, we're really under-organized in this town. I'm not aware of any real grass-roots movement to block the tax hike. Just imagine if Stroger proposed an income tax for Cook County! The place would be PACKED with people.
Back to Sneed, she suggests that Earlean Collins is the swing vote. Well, if that's true, then call her office at 312.603.4566 and ask her to vote against the sales tax increase.
Commissioner Carl Hansen says that the county is stuffed with patronage. He says in this article that there are 100 extra doctors at County Hospital, that Provident Hospital should be closed and that 85% of the county's costs are personnel. I wonder: is 85% ridiculously high?
And I further wonder: doesn't it make one a good, solid progressive Democrat to RAIL against patronage and wasteful spending, so that we can spend more of our money on services that benefit everyone?
In this article, five of the reform commissioners (Claypool, Suffredin, Quigley, Goslin and Peraica) have a budget that cuts costs by 6 percent or so, shaving off the $100 million deficit that the Stroger tax hikes would pay for.
If you add Hansen, that's six. We need three more commissioners to block the Stroger tax hikes.
Who will it be? Bobbie Steele? Collins? Iceman?
Well, the Daily Southtown has a good editorial that lays out the political situation, calling on the Board to reject Stroger's tax hikes. Now, why is it that South Side Democrats are supporting Stroger's budget? I wonder what Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. thinks about this -- maybe he can help influence the two Southland regular Dems to vote no.
I admit, I read it in Sneed. Yes, I read that column. Go ahead. Make fun. I'm thisclose to reading it tomorrow!
And President John Storger is apparently getting a little bit weirder. This Tribune news article, which Zorn pointed out on his blog, has Stroger preparing for the showdown vote by suggesting the reform commissioners are pulling a Council Wars. There's some odd part of the political culture in Chicago and Illinois that is based around absolute deference to political leadership (see the way the House members followed Speaker Madigan's deal regarding the Bush on the ballot bill), and Stroger seems like he is put out that the commissioners are not just following his lead and passing the budget he crafted. I really hope we can find nine votes to block the sales tax increase. Man, we're really under-organized in this town. I'm not aware of any real grass-roots movement to block the tax hike. Just imagine if Stroger proposed an income tax for Cook County! The place would be PACKED with people.
Back to Sneed, she suggests that Earlean Collins is the swing vote. Well, if that's true, then call her office at 312.603.4566 and ask her to vote against the sales tax increase.
Commissioner Carl Hansen says that the county is stuffed with patronage. He says in this article that there are 100 extra doctors at County Hospital, that Provident Hospital should be closed and that 85% of the county's costs are personnel. I wonder: is 85% ridiculously high?
And I further wonder: doesn't it make one a good, solid progressive Democrat to RAIL against patronage and wasteful spending, so that we can spend more of our money on services that benefit everyone?
In this article, five of the reform commissioners (Claypool, Suffredin, Quigley, Goslin and Peraica) have a budget that cuts costs by 6 percent or so, shaving off the $100 million deficit that the Stroger tax hikes would pay for.
If you add Hansen, that's six. We need three more commissioners to block the Stroger tax hikes.
Who will it be? Bobbie Steele? Collins? Iceman?
Well, the Daily Southtown has a good editorial that lays out the political situation, calling on the Board to reject Stroger's tax hikes. Now, why is it that South Side Democrats are supporting Stroger's budget? I wonder what Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. thinks about this -- maybe he can help influence the two Southland regular Dems to vote no.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
GOP's national redistricting power grab might come to a halt.
But we're relying on the Supreme Court (and the five partisan Bush v. Gore justices) to do it. That's the bad news.
The good news is that there's the first major effort in 20 years to rein in ultra-partisan redistricting that makes almost every general election a foregone conclusion. In Illinois, not one congressional seat is competitive. Not one. Out of 435 congressional districts, more than 400 are locked up for one party. That means almost all of us get NO SAY in which party is running the House of Representatives. No wonder turnout plummets.
Anyway, the Supreme Court on December 10th is hearing oral argument on a fantastic case challenging the GOP's gerrymander of Pennsylvania. The information the partisan gerrymandering case (courtesy of Jenner and Block) is here.
And Jeffrey Toobin, author of Too Close To Call (a really great read), has a fantastic article in The New Yorker here called The Great Eleciton Grab. Also worth a read.
The Illinois angle is, as I see it, a chance for Democrats to reject the incumbent protection plan that the congressional delegation created in 2001 (and left David Phelps with nothing) and push through a non-partisan redistricting regime. The Peoria Journal-Star is editorializing on this issue here (and is unfair to Senator Cullerton). Perhaps other papers will too.
The good news is that there's the first major effort in 20 years to rein in ultra-partisan redistricting that makes almost every general election a foregone conclusion. In Illinois, not one congressional seat is competitive. Not one. Out of 435 congressional districts, more than 400 are locked up for one party. That means almost all of us get NO SAY in which party is running the House of Representatives. No wonder turnout plummets.
Anyway, the Supreme Court on December 10th is hearing oral argument on a fantastic case challenging the GOP's gerrymander of Pennsylvania. The information the partisan gerrymandering case (courtesy of Jenner and Block) is here.
And Jeffrey Toobin, author of Too Close To Call (a really great read), has a fantastic article in The New Yorker here called The Great Eleciton Grab. Also worth a read.
The Illinois angle is, as I see it, a chance for Democrats to reject the incumbent protection plan that the congressional delegation created in 2001 (and left David Phelps with nothing) and push through a non-partisan redistricting regime. The Peoria Journal-Star is editorializing on this issue here (and is unfair to Senator Cullerton). Perhaps other papers will too.
Monday, December 01, 2003
Senate floor debate -- a bit too long to transcribe
I received a CD today from the state senate on the floor debate on SB 82 (the Bush on the ballot bill). That's quite a nice service the Senate staff provides (only 6 bucks for the debate on CD).
However, the debate is more than 30 minutes long, so I don't think I'll transcribe it.
Here are the highlights:
The Republicans had a field day on this bill, with Senators Lauzen, Roskam, Petka, Geo-Karis and Watson speaking against the unethical nature of letting the Board of Elections waive fees assessed against campaign committees in exchange for changing state law to accommodate the NYC September convention.
Democratic Senators Hendon, Welch and Jones defended the bill and attacked the Republicans. Senator Welch did the best job of nailing the Bush campaign for taking advantage of the 9/11 attacks. I hope more Democratic Senators follow Senator Welch's lead next time the bill is debated.
However, the debate is more than 30 minutes long, so I don't think I'll transcribe it.
Here are the highlights:
The Republicans had a field day on this bill, with Senators Lauzen, Roskam, Petka, Geo-Karis and Watson speaking against the unethical nature of letting the Board of Elections waive fees assessed against campaign committees in exchange for changing state law to accommodate the NYC September convention.
Democratic Senators Hendon, Welch and Jones defended the bill and attacked the Republicans. Senator Welch did the best job of nailing the Bush campaign for taking advantage of the 9/11 attacks. I hope more Democratic Senators follow Senator Welch's lead next time the bill is debated.
The GOP's explanation for the September New York City convention.
From Paul Froehlich, Republican state representative and Schaumburg township committeeman, a request to consider the other argument from Republicans about how the convention got scheduled in New York City in early September.
According to this explanation, the Bush campaign didn't really want to hold their convention in September. But they were forced to by. . .. the Democrats!
According to this post on the Illinois Leader, when the Democrats picked the last weekend of July to schedule the Dem convention, it left the Republicans with no choice but to pick September in New York City for their convention. Otherwise, they'd have to go before the Democrats in July, or hold their convention in early- to mid-August before the Olympics are held from August 13th through the 29th. (Then again, who watches the Olympics anymore?)
So that's the story. It was . . . just a coincidence that a partisan political rally for a campaign that is centered around the "War on Terrorism" will be held a few miles from Ground Zero a week before the third anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. Whatever.
This was a ruthless, calculated plan by the Bush bigwigs to put the convention in New York City in September. I can't imagine that the most partisan Administration and campaign in my memory didn't plan to take maximum advantage of the tragedy. They will do anything to win.
According to this explanation, the Bush campaign didn't really want to hold their convention in September. But they were forced to by. . .. the Democrats!
According to this post on the Illinois Leader, when the Democrats picked the last weekend of July to schedule the Dem convention, it left the Republicans with no choice but to pick September in New York City for their convention. Otherwise, they'd have to go before the Democrats in July, or hold their convention in early- to mid-August before the Olympics are held from August 13th through the 29th. (Then again, who watches the Olympics anymore?)
So that's the story. It was . . . just a coincidence that a partisan political rally for a campaign that is centered around the "War on Terrorism" will be held a few miles from Ground Zero a week before the third anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. Whatever.
This was a ruthless, calculated plan by the Bush bigwigs to put the convention in New York City in September. I can't imagine that the most partisan Administration and campaign in my memory didn't plan to take maximum advantage of the tragedy. They will do anything to win.
Tom Roeser calls Dems "arrogant" for not caving to GOP exploitation
I like to read Tom Roeser's columns in the Sun-Times. He's a red meat Republican partisan and a good writer.
His take on the Bush ballot battle is fairly skewed, blaming the "unsurpassed arrogance of power" of Illinois Democrats not rolling over for Bush by -- heaven forfend! -- cutting some deal in exchange for changing state law to benefit the Bush campaign.
Roeser's suggestion is to "Let the heat go to those who seek to deprive Illinoisans of their right to vote for president", counseling the Republicans to abstain from any deal with the Dems.
I would suggest that the those who seek to deprive Illinoisans of their right to vote for president are those people who knowingly scheduled a political convention in New York City in September in order to milk the tragedy of 9/11 for Bush's partisan gain. And I hope the Dems message on this point will get sharper over the winter and spring as this battle heats up.
His take on the Bush ballot battle is fairly skewed, blaming the "unsurpassed arrogance of power" of Illinois Democrats not rolling over for Bush by -- heaven forfend! -- cutting some deal in exchange for changing state law to benefit the Bush campaign.
Roeser's suggestion is to "Let the heat go to those who seek to deprive Illinoisans of their right to vote for president", counseling the Republicans to abstain from any deal with the Dems.
I would suggest that the those who seek to deprive Illinoisans of their right to vote for president are those people who knowingly scheduled a political convention in New York City in September in order to milk the tragedy of 9/11 for Bush's partisan gain. And I hope the Dems message on this point will get sharper over the winter and spring as this battle heats up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)