Let's say that you are the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate.
Let's also say that you think the State ought to issue some bonds to finance roads, transit and schools for the first time in three years. This requires a 3/5 vote, so Republicans must vote for the bond.
Finally, let's say that the growing specter of the gubernatorial election leads to increasing calculation by Republican strategists to vote against any bond, based on the hope that a Republican candidate will beat the Democratic incumbent.
What can you do to either (a) put the pressure on Republicans to vote for the bond or (b) educate the electorate that the Republicans are to blame for the lack of a bond?
That's the dilemna facing Speaker Madigan, President Jones, their respective staffers and strategists and Governor Blagojevich and his team.
On the policy side, it's almost certainly the right thing to do to issue a bond and finance some transit, school and road projects. Governor Blagojevich tends to frame the debate in terms of generating construction jobs, but I think the more compelling policy reason for the bond is the investment in our infrastructure that benefits all of us. I'd say there's a rather strong consensus that the State should implement a capital plan this year.
So, how can the Democrats leverage that very strong consensus on the need for a capital plan to either force Republicans to support one or successfully assign blame to them for the lack of a capital plan emerging?
There's a tremendous amount of civic education that accompanies any attempt to cast blame on the GOP. The requirement for a 3/5 legislative vote in both chambers for any capital bill is not widely known, so it isn't widely known (among the electorate) that Republicans have a veto over any capital bill. That suggests that the average voter will likely blame the incumbent just as much as the Republican legislators for the lack of a capital bill -- to the extent any average voter is moved by the lack of a capital bill.
However, the best way to explain that dynamic to voters is to force a vote on a capital bill and give Republican legislators an opportunity to either implement a bill or vote against it.
'No' votes are crucial for any Democratic attempt to blame the Republicans for the lack of a capital bill. If there is no vote on a capital bill, it's very hard to make the case that the Republicans are at fault. If there is a roll call, it's a bit easier.
With a roll call, Republicans must calculate the extent to which they will be blamed by presumably unhappy voters with the roads not paved, the transit not expanded and the schools not built. And with the message discipline that the Blagojevich campaign has shown, it's certainly conceivable that they will figure out how to successfully pin blame on the 'do-nothing Republicans.'
I think that's why the Blagojevich Administration is so energetically selling the projects in the proposed capital plan -- if they can successfully convey to voters that the Republican legislators are denying them something they want (this road, this particular bridge, that particular school), then the legislators might need to defer to the governor's Democratic-friendly plan in order to avoid a local backlash. It's hard to do, because they are trying to make people feel like the Republicans might take something away from them that they don't actually already have.
It reminds me of an old psychological trick. Let's say you've got a 100 dollar bill in your pocket. Someone approaches you and offers to flip a coin -- if you win, you get $100, and if you lose, you have to give them your $100. Generally, people shy away from those 50-50 odds, because they feel like they at risk of losing something.
Now, imagine you are walking down the street and you find a $100 bill on the street. Before you pick it up, someone else steps on it, and offers to flip a coin -- if you win, you get the $100 bill on the street and if you lose, he gets it. Generally, people are more open to that game, because they don't feel they are at risk of losing something they have.
It's illogical, since the odds are the same, but people are not fully rational. In other words, people are more averse to losing something of value than they are attracted to the possibility of winning something, even when the odds are exactly the same. It just depends on how people perceive the game -- possible losing something important (very bad) or possibly gaining something important (pretty good, but not nearly as bad as losing something).
Somehow, Blagojevich and the Dems must convey to people that they are at risk of losing something of value -- the specific projects in the capital plan -- in order to bring Republicans on board or generate a base of angry voters who blame the legislators who voted no to take away their projects.
And I think it's easier to do that with roll call votes. Maybe that makes the Democrats appear weak or unable to deliver, but I think it's better to lose a vote because of Republican opposition and attempt to make that issue a significant part of the general election debate.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Revenue options -- Voices for Children has a good white paper
Here is an excellent white paper on ten revenue options for the Illinois General Assembly to finance school construction dollars.
Some interesting ones include a new single family home construction fee of $1,000 or so, because new single family homes generally means new kids and that means new schools; capping or means-testing all of the tax breaks that currently flow to the wealthiest of us and the big kahuna (sp?) taxing services purchased by households.
Some interesting ones include a new single family home construction fee of $1,000 or so, because new single family homes generally means new kids and that means new schools; capping or means-testing all of the tax breaks that currently flow to the wealthiest of us and the big kahuna (sp?) taxing services purchased by households.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Mangieri versus Giannoulias primary a fascinating look at the Democratic Party
Statewide primaries are fascinating exercises. They illuminate the different types of people who define the party. Elected officials, who usually have a finely-tuned sense of the political consensus in their area, as well as a very good read on the wishes of the higher-ups in the party, are great symbols for how different parts of the state are thinking.
The only vigorously-contested statewide primary Democrats have this year is the open seat for Treasurer. Judy Baar Topinka, the Republican with the most cross-over appeal, is running for Governor. Her heir apparent is another suburban woman legislator, Christine Radogno, who managed to clear the GOP field. She'll be a formidable candidate for whichever Democrat survives the primary.
The two men competing for the slot are Knox County State's Attorney Paul Mangieri (campaign website here) and Chicago banker Alexi Giannoulias (campaign website here).
The best thing one can say about Mangieri's campaign is that he is backed quite strongly by Speaker Michael Madigan. The second best thing one can say is that he had the fortitude to run for the office early when the Republicans were flirting with Jim Edgar and conventional wisdom suggested that Judy Baar Topinka was likely to run for re-election (along with every single other statewide official). A run for Treasurer against Topinka was considered about as much of a kamikaze mission as running against Jesse White or Dan Hynes or Lisa Madigan (at least, that's my view of conventional wisdom last summer), and Mangieri was essentially the only elected official willing to campaign for the job.
Once the Republican ticket shook itself out and Topinka relinquished her seat, progressives found themselves a bit out of sorts. Mangieri has been a pro-life official, and after Barack Obama's stunning 70% plus victory in the last statewide primary (a race he wasn't supposed to win), these was a lingering sense that another progressive ought to get the seat -- or at least, not just concede that precious post to a pro-lifer without a primary.
Populist Representative Mike Boland and blogging Representative John Fritchey (both of whom would be considered progressive) flirted with a run, but Speaker Madigan convinced Boland to run for re-election in his increasingly Republican district and Fritchey, for a number of reasons, decided he didn't want to run either.
That left....no one.
Into the void stepped an unlikely candidate: Alexi Giannoulias. The son of Greek immigrants who started the very successful Broadway Bank in Chicago, a young, good-looking former semi-pro basketball player and a bit of a man about town, Giannoulias had the money and connections to put together a fairly impressive campaign in short notice. One very important connection: Barack Obama's political man in Illinois, Dan Shomon, who played a crucial role in creating the candidacy. (At least, I credit Dan, but I'm just a third-hand observer, and not a participant in the campaign).
Speaker Madigan's main motivation in supporting Mangieri, according to press accounts, is the desire to avoid a Chicago-only ticket. All statewide Democrats live in Chicago. That's not a great message to send to Downstaters, who tend to place a higher degree of importance to a candidate's domicile than people from the city. (One quick anecdote: a College Republican from Champaign County told me in 1998 that he'd be happy with the Salvi-Durbin U.S. Senate race no matter what, because either the Republican would win or a the Downstater Dick Durbin would win. This is from a fairly partisan guy.) I recall seeing faxes in 2002 showing a map of Chicago with the residences of all the Democratic statewide candidates (including Tom Dart), calling for an end to Chicago dominance of Illinois politics. I'd imagine that message resonated a bit Downstate.
Sensing a possible problem for the 2006 re-election campaign, Speaker Madigan moved to fill the gap by supporting a Downstater.
Progressives (however defined) are far less motivated by the risk of a Chicago-only ticket. The endorsers of Giannoulias (read them here) are essentially the base of the Obama coalition: white north side progressives and south side blacks. Pro-choicers and the gay community are early supporters as well.
Because Mangieri doesn't have a campaign website that lists his endorsements (symptomatic, I think, of his supporters, who value a hard-working precinct campaign far more than a fancy website), it's hard to say exactly who his endorses are. But I do know that Speaker Madigan has made it a point to work on collecting supporter for his primary campaign, so it's safe to say that there are far more elected officials who support Mangieri than Giannoulias, as Obama certainly inspires affection and devotion from the electorate, but Speaker Madigan earns more political deference from elected officials.
The best political shorthand for the pre-primary battle is Obama versus Madigan. I'm not suggesting there's any sort of a fight between these two men, but they are both good symbols of the wings of the party that are backing each candidate. I have heard that Obama's endorsement (his first really high-profile endorsement since his election to the Senate) has been worth its weight in gold (and the web designer for Giannoulias certainly thinks so). So this will be a really interesting six weeks.
Perhaps the most interesting question for progressives is whether it's a smarter move to back a Downstater in order to help solidify the Democratic Party's standing Downstate generally (and perhaps marginally improve Blagojevich's re-election chances) or to support a Chicago progressive who can help escalate the progressive wing's internal clout in the party, but perhaps marginally hurt the other statewide's relection chances.
After seeing the inspiring litany of bills that the Democratic majority in the General Assembly have been able to pass in the last three years, I'm growing more sympathetic to the Speaker's sense of strategy. I might be over-valuing the importance of a non-Chicago-only ticket (or put another way, I might be overestimating the risk of a Downstate backlash to a Chicago-only ticket), but I'd like to dampen the potential for a Chicago-only ticket backlash any way possible.
The only vigorously-contested statewide primary Democrats have this year is the open seat for Treasurer. Judy Baar Topinka, the Republican with the most cross-over appeal, is running for Governor. Her heir apparent is another suburban woman legislator, Christine Radogno, who managed to clear the GOP field. She'll be a formidable candidate for whichever Democrat survives the primary.
The two men competing for the slot are Knox County State's Attorney Paul Mangieri (campaign website here) and Chicago banker Alexi Giannoulias (campaign website here).
The best thing one can say about Mangieri's campaign is that he is backed quite strongly by Speaker Michael Madigan. The second best thing one can say is that he had the fortitude to run for the office early when the Republicans were flirting with Jim Edgar and conventional wisdom suggested that Judy Baar Topinka was likely to run for re-election (along with every single other statewide official). A run for Treasurer against Topinka was considered about as much of a kamikaze mission as running against Jesse White or Dan Hynes or Lisa Madigan (at least, that's my view of conventional wisdom last summer), and Mangieri was essentially the only elected official willing to campaign for the job.
Once the Republican ticket shook itself out and Topinka relinquished her seat, progressives found themselves a bit out of sorts. Mangieri has been a pro-life official, and after Barack Obama's stunning 70% plus victory in the last statewide primary (a race he wasn't supposed to win), these was a lingering sense that another progressive ought to get the seat -- or at least, not just concede that precious post to a pro-lifer without a primary.
Populist Representative Mike Boland and blogging Representative John Fritchey (both of whom would be considered progressive) flirted with a run, but Speaker Madigan convinced Boland to run for re-election in his increasingly Republican district and Fritchey, for a number of reasons, decided he didn't want to run either.
That left....no one.
Into the void stepped an unlikely candidate: Alexi Giannoulias. The son of Greek immigrants who started the very successful Broadway Bank in Chicago, a young, good-looking former semi-pro basketball player and a bit of a man about town, Giannoulias had the money and connections to put together a fairly impressive campaign in short notice. One very important connection: Barack Obama's political man in Illinois, Dan Shomon, who played a crucial role in creating the candidacy. (At least, I credit Dan, but I'm just a third-hand observer, and not a participant in the campaign).
Speaker Madigan's main motivation in supporting Mangieri, according to press accounts, is the desire to avoid a Chicago-only ticket. All statewide Democrats live in Chicago. That's not a great message to send to Downstaters, who tend to place a higher degree of importance to a candidate's domicile than people from the city. (One quick anecdote: a College Republican from Champaign County told me in 1998 that he'd be happy with the Salvi-Durbin U.S. Senate race no matter what, because either the Republican would win or a the Downstater Dick Durbin would win. This is from a fairly partisan guy.) I recall seeing faxes in 2002 showing a map of Chicago with the residences of all the Democratic statewide candidates (including Tom Dart), calling for an end to Chicago dominance of Illinois politics. I'd imagine that message resonated a bit Downstate.
Sensing a possible problem for the 2006 re-election campaign, Speaker Madigan moved to fill the gap by supporting a Downstater.
Progressives (however defined) are far less motivated by the risk of a Chicago-only ticket. The endorsers of Giannoulias (read them here) are essentially the base of the Obama coalition: white north side progressives and south side blacks. Pro-choicers and the gay community are early supporters as well.
Because Mangieri doesn't have a campaign website that lists his endorsements (symptomatic, I think, of his supporters, who value a hard-working precinct campaign far more than a fancy website), it's hard to say exactly who his endorses are. But I do know that Speaker Madigan has made it a point to work on collecting supporter for his primary campaign, so it's safe to say that there are far more elected officials who support Mangieri than Giannoulias, as Obama certainly inspires affection and devotion from the electorate, but Speaker Madigan earns more political deference from elected officials.
The best political shorthand for the pre-primary battle is Obama versus Madigan. I'm not suggesting there's any sort of a fight between these two men, but they are both good symbols of the wings of the party that are backing each candidate. I have heard that Obama's endorsement (his first really high-profile endorsement since his election to the Senate) has been worth its weight in gold (and the web designer for Giannoulias certainly thinks so). So this will be a really interesting six weeks.
Perhaps the most interesting question for progressives is whether it's a smarter move to back a Downstater in order to help solidify the Democratic Party's standing Downstate generally (and perhaps marginally improve Blagojevich's re-election chances) or to support a Chicago progressive who can help escalate the progressive wing's internal clout in the party, but perhaps marginally hurt the other statewide's relection chances.
After seeing the inspiring litany of bills that the Democratic majority in the General Assembly have been able to pass in the last three years, I'm growing more sympathetic to the Speaker's sense of strategy. I might be over-valuing the importance of a non-Chicago-only ticket (or put another way, I might be overestimating the risk of a Downstate backlash to a Chicago-only ticket), but I'd like to dampen the potential for a Chicago-only ticket backlash any way possible.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Rich are getting richer; the rest are getting by
A recent study confims that the wealthiest are getting richer faster than everyone else. Here's the Trib article on the subject.
So if you aren't rich now, you're unlikely to become rich. And if you are rich now, you're likely to get even richer.
Why?
Well, largely because we don't spend nearly enough money (wisely) on education. College tuition is ridiculously expensive in the United States and free -- yes, free -- in most of Europe and Japan.
We ought to tax incomes above $100,000 at a higher rate and put that money into education available for everyone.
So instead of the GOP policy of lowering the tax rates on the highest incomes (above $300 grand), which is their basic policy, we should go back to the Clinton rates on the highest incomes.
And in Illinois, we should raise the 3% income tax rate (the lowest income tax rate in the nation) to 6%, and exempt the first $25,000 earned from the state income tax altogether, so that the people who can afford to pay more (the people who are getting richer) do pay more.
Ask around on this one. My sense is that this resonates with people. But ask around. If the money goes to education (with a focus on higher education), ask if people think we should raise the income tax rates on any income above $100,000.
The government -- and basically, tax policy -- creates a middle class. Without a tax policy to invest in education and infrastructure (taxing the people who can most afford to pay), not only does the entire nation suffer from a less vigorous economy, but the middle class in particular shrinks.
Even the right-wingaz agree that we need to invest more money in education. And the people that are getting richer every year should pony it up -- so long as we left-wingaz make sure it is spent well.
So if you aren't rich now, you're unlikely to become rich. And if you are rich now, you're likely to get even richer.
Why?
Well, largely because we don't spend nearly enough money (wisely) on education. College tuition is ridiculously expensive in the United States and free -- yes, free -- in most of Europe and Japan.
We ought to tax incomes above $100,000 at a higher rate and put that money into education available for everyone.
So instead of the GOP policy of lowering the tax rates on the highest incomes (above $300 grand), which is their basic policy, we should go back to the Clinton rates on the highest incomes.
And in Illinois, we should raise the 3% income tax rate (the lowest income tax rate in the nation) to 6%, and exempt the first $25,000 earned from the state income tax altogether, so that the people who can afford to pay more (the people who are getting richer) do pay more.
Ask around on this one. My sense is that this resonates with people. But ask around. If the money goes to education (with a focus on higher education), ask if people think we should raise the income tax rates on any income above $100,000.
The government -- and basically, tax policy -- creates a middle class. Without a tax policy to invest in education and infrastructure (taxing the people who can most afford to pay), not only does the entire nation suffer from a less vigorous economy, but the middle class in particular shrinks.
Even the right-wingaz agree that we need to invest more money in education. And the people that are getting richer every year should pony it up -- so long as we left-wingaz make sure it is spent well.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Campus (and young, however self-defined) Dems: come to Springfield on Wednesday, February 8th!
Are you a young or college/campus Democrat and wondering how to get more involved? Would you like to meet some legislators, staffers and other young Democrats in Illinois? And maybe you'd like an event to kickstart your college Democrats chapter at your school?
How about a road trip to Springfield on Wednesday, February 8th?
That day college Dems from around the state are converging in Springfield to check out the Illinois General Assembly in action (the House and the Senate are in session). And from 6 to 8, the Fund for Campus Democratic Party Organizing (I'm the treasurer, and Rocket Richards is the director/president) is having a party at Floyd's in downtown Springfield. Address is 210 S. 5th Street. It's free, but a cash bar (and sometimes legislators will pick up the tab).
We'll likely try to organize a lunch as well, but since this is all volunteer, a lot of it is do-it-yourself.
However, this is (I hope) a good opportunity to meet other Democrats, including staff and legislators, to see what a Democratic-run government is all about.
Our first event was last week and it was a success. Thanks to our donors, Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, Senator Martin Sandoval, Assistant Majority Leader Lou Land and Representative Naomi Jakobbson for making this possible. And if you'd like to donate to or volunteer for a (very small) PAC designed to help organize campus Democrats in Illinois, email me at dan@djw.info . We've also got a new blog here and we are looking for campus bloggers to start filling it up.
Hope to see you in Springfield!
How about a road trip to Springfield on Wednesday, February 8th?
That day college Dems from around the state are converging in Springfield to check out the Illinois General Assembly in action (the House and the Senate are in session). And from 6 to 8, the Fund for Campus Democratic Party Organizing (I'm the treasurer, and Rocket Richards is the director/president) is having a party at Floyd's in downtown Springfield. Address is 210 S. 5th Street. It's free, but a cash bar (and sometimes legislators will pick up the tab).
We'll likely try to organize a lunch as well, but since this is all volunteer, a lot of it is do-it-yourself.
However, this is (I hope) a good opportunity to meet other Democrats, including staff and legislators, to see what a Democratic-run government is all about.
Our first event was last week and it was a success. Thanks to our donors, Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, Senator Martin Sandoval, Assistant Majority Leader Lou Land and Representative Naomi Jakobbson for making this possible. And if you'd like to donate to or volunteer for a (very small) PAC designed to help organize campus Democrats in Illinois, email me at dan@djw.info . We've also got a new blog here and we are looking for campus bloggers to start filling it up.
Hope to see you in Springfield!
Neat Illinois bill on saving us money (so corporate interests are likely to fight it)
Representative Kathy Ryg (D-Vernon Hills) has a bill backed by Illinois PIRG that implements state energy efficiency standards for appliances. The federal standards (remember those yellow cards on home furnaces) haven't been updated in 20 years or so, so if states want to ensure their citizens save money on energy costs, they've got to implement their own standards. If not, we'll be stuck with energy-guzzling appliances.
As I understand it, more efficient appliances cost more up front (either marginally or significantly, hard to tell) and save a ton of money over the life of the product (either 10 times the marginal cost of the product or, with $1.00/therm natural gas prices, maybe 100 times the cost). So to the extent there is a higher cost with state efficiency standards, that cost is one of the best investments a consumer can make based on saved energy costs.
It's in the state's interest to make Illinois residents richer. These appliance standard will do that, by ensuring that Illinois residents send less money to the for-profit energy companies (which means they are ultimately owned by non-Illinois people -- people that the Illinois General Assembly shouldn't really care about).
I'm sure corporate interests will fight HB 4455. You can track its status here. And you can send a letter to your legislators through Illinois PIRG's website here. (If you aren't a member of Illinois PIRG, they are the group that hires all the summer canvassers to knock on your door and ask for $45. They also consistently lobby for great bills in Illinois, and now the Chicago City Council as well, so I'd recommend that you join them, either in person or online. Strength through numbers....).
As I understand it, more efficient appliances cost more up front (either marginally or significantly, hard to tell) and save a ton of money over the life of the product (either 10 times the marginal cost of the product or, with $1.00/therm natural gas prices, maybe 100 times the cost). So to the extent there is a higher cost with state efficiency standards, that cost is one of the best investments a consumer can make based on saved energy costs.
It's in the state's interest to make Illinois residents richer. These appliance standard will do that, by ensuring that Illinois residents send less money to the for-profit energy companies (which means they are ultimately owned by non-Illinois people -- people that the Illinois General Assembly shouldn't really care about).
I'm sure corporate interests will fight HB 4455. You can track its status here. And you can send a letter to your legislators through Illinois PIRG's website here. (If you aren't a member of Illinois PIRG, they are the group that hires all the summer canvassers to knock on your door and ask for $45. They also consistently lobby for great bills in Illinois, and now the Chicago City Council as well, so I'd recommend that you join them, either in person or online. Strength through numbers....).
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Wages are flat, and that's why most wage-earners should vote for Democratic candidates
Business publications tend to do the best job at cutting through some of the fog.
The best way to judge the strength of the economy is not the price of U.S. stocks or the general growth of the economy, but the growth in wages.
If wages are going up, then most people are better off because they have more money to raise their quality of life.
If not, then they don't.
And in 2005, wages were basically flat.
This Business Week article by Michael Mandel lays it out well.
And what I take away from this is that we should quit taxing wages so highly and start taxing wealth and pollution more.
The payroll tax (13.6%) on income less than $90 grand that is paid by working people should not be a lower rate than the capital gains tax (10%) that is paid by wealthy people.
That's backwards. Because higher wages generate more wealth.
The Republican Party (especially in D.C.) is designed around the principle of not taxing wealth. The Democratic Party is not, and that's the best reason to vote for Democrats -- especially those willing to talk about wealth.
Here's a good part of the article:
WHY FOLKS ARE SOUR. Most people, however, have been lucky to keep up with inflation. Look at a new set of wage numbers buried deep in the Web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These data report fourth-quarter median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers for different occupations (median means that half earn more, and half earn less).
The first thing that jumps out is that both the 3.2% yearly wage gain for managers and the 2.4% gain for professionals fell short of the 3.5% increase in the consumer price index. That goes a long way to explain why people are so sour about the economy. Strong growth and low unemployment don't mean much if your buying power is declining.
Also not keeping pace with inflation were those who work in service occupations (a broad category that includes police and firefighters, cooks, janitors, home health aids, hairdressers, and child-care workers), production occupations, and maintenance and repair occupations.
The best way to judge the strength of the economy is not the price of U.S. stocks or the general growth of the economy, but the growth in wages.
If wages are going up, then most people are better off because they have more money to raise their quality of life.
If not, then they don't.
And in 2005, wages were basically flat.
This Business Week article by Michael Mandel lays it out well.
And what I take away from this is that we should quit taxing wages so highly and start taxing wealth and pollution more.
The payroll tax (13.6%) on income less than $90 grand that is paid by working people should not be a lower rate than the capital gains tax (10%) that is paid by wealthy people.
That's backwards. Because higher wages generate more wealth.
The Republican Party (especially in D.C.) is designed around the principle of not taxing wealth. The Democratic Party is not, and that's the best reason to vote for Democrats -- especially those willing to talk about wealth.
Here's a good part of the article:
WHY FOLKS ARE SOUR. Most people, however, have been lucky to keep up with inflation. Look at a new set of wage numbers buried deep in the Web site of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These data report fourth-quarter median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers for different occupations (median means that half earn more, and half earn less).
The first thing that jumps out is that both the 3.2% yearly wage gain for managers and the 2.4% gain for professionals fell short of the 3.5% increase in the consumer price index. That goes a long way to explain why people are so sour about the economy. Strong growth and low unemployment don't mean much if your buying power is declining.
Also not keeping pace with inflation were those who work in service occupations (a broad category that includes police and firefighters, cooks, janitors, home health aids, hairdressers, and child-care workers), production occupations, and maintenance and repair occupations.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
CTA has got to start selling Chicago Cards at stations
I'm all for modernization of transit system, and moving people away from cash fares is a great step.
The CTA has introduced a Chicago Card, which is a smarter version of the 'regular' transit card. Only users of the Chicago Card avoided a fare hike this month of about 15% -- everyone else pays $2 per ride, while Chicago Card users pay $1.75.
But the CTA's Chicago Card program has a major flaw: you can't buy them at transit stations.
You can buy them online here.
Or you can buy them at currency exchanges (when they aren't out of stock, as they have been for most of January, triggering a lawsuit against the CTA), for a service fee.
But you can't buy them at CTA stations. Even though there are usually CTA personnel at the stations. And even though there are machines that will take money and spit out a regular card, for whatever reason, you can't buy a Chicago Card.
That's absurd, in my view.
If we want most commuters, not to mention tourists, to use the Chicago Card, then they must be available where most people that want to use public transit will go -- the stations themselves.
I have no idea why CTA personnel who staff stations can't sell the cards. I also have no idea why the machines that dispense the 'regular' cards can't also dispense a Chicago Card.
But these policies ought to be changed.
The CTA has introduced a Chicago Card, which is a smarter version of the 'regular' transit card. Only users of the Chicago Card avoided a fare hike this month of about 15% -- everyone else pays $2 per ride, while Chicago Card users pay $1.75.
But the CTA's Chicago Card program has a major flaw: you can't buy them at transit stations.
You can buy them online here.
Or you can buy them at currency exchanges (when they aren't out of stock, as they have been for most of January, triggering a lawsuit against the CTA), for a service fee.
But you can't buy them at CTA stations. Even though there are usually CTA personnel at the stations. And even though there are machines that will take money and spit out a regular card, for whatever reason, you can't buy a Chicago Card.
That's absurd, in my view.
If we want most commuters, not to mention tourists, to use the Chicago Card, then they must be available where most people that want to use public transit will go -- the stations themselves.
I have no idea why CTA personnel who staff stations can't sell the cards. I also have no idea why the machines that dispense the 'regular' cards can't also dispense a Chicago Card.
But these policies ought to be changed.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Hope from history on the lack of naturally aggressive nations
The best thing George Bush has ever done is to proclaim that all people -- especially Arabs -- want democracy. That's the noblest sentiment from his Administration.
That idea -- that all men and women are created equal -- contrasts with the notion that some people are just bad. They are war-mongering hateful monsters and always will be.
Some people believe that about some 'races' or nations or religions.
Of course, they are wrong. And the long view of history shows it.
Here's an excerpt from a listserv I'm on (www.delanceyplace.com) that captured the hope from history well:
"The first half of the twentieth century was drenched in the blood spilled by German and Japanese aggression, yet only a few decades later it is hard to think of two countries more pacific. Sweden spent the seventeenth century rampaging through Europe, yet it is now an icon of nurturing tranquility."
Robert M. Sapolsky, A Natural History of Peace, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006, pp. 119-120.
Arabs and Muslims are just like the rest of us, and don't let anyway tell you differently.
That idea -- that all men and women are created equal -- contrasts with the notion that some people are just bad. They are war-mongering hateful monsters and always will be.
Some people believe that about some 'races' or nations or religions.
Of course, they are wrong. And the long view of history shows it.
Here's an excerpt from a listserv I'm on (www.delanceyplace.com) that captured the hope from history well:
"The first half of the twentieth century was drenched in the blood spilled by German and Japanese aggression, yet only a few decades later it is hard to think of two countries more pacific. Sweden spent the seventeenth century rampaging through Europe, yet it is now an icon of nurturing tranquility."
Robert M. Sapolsky, A Natural History of Peace, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006, pp. 119-120.
Arabs and Muslims are just like the rest of us, and don't let anyway tell you differently.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Anderson on Illinois ignored by presidential elections
John Anderson had this piece in Sunday's Chicago Tribune explaining how Illinois voters simply are not part of picking the president and calling for a national presidential election.
Here's the link and the full column.
By John B. Anderson
Published January 1, 2006
Here's the link and the full column.
Presidential elections all but ignore Illinois
By John B. Anderson
Published January 1, 2006
Some of you might remember that I served Illinois as a Republican in Congress and then in 1980 I ran for president as an independent. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life, traveling around the nation speaking with voters of every stripe and color--from labor unions to business owners, single mothers to local Rotaries.
Today candidates for the presidency may feel that they crisscross the nation, but a careful study of their actual schedules reveals a much smaller itinerary. In the last five weeks of the 2004 election, 33 states were left without a visit from any of the major party presidential and vice presidential candidates. Nor did they run television ads for every voter to see; more was spent on ads in Florida alone than in 45 states and the District of Columbia combined.
A recent study by the organization I chair, FairVote, quantified the presidential campaign. In terms of campaign visits by the candidates on the national ticket and dollars spent in television markets for campaign ads, Illinois tied with Texas for dead last with a zero for both measures.
This means that the 12 million people in Illinois were not important enough to warrant any significant effort from presidential candidates and the votes of Illinois were simply written off.
Safe states like Illinois are literally left off the political map as the candidates battled in only a few lucky states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire.
The system is so skewed that Matthew Dowd, a campaign strategist for President Bush, admitted they only polled in 18 states for the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election.
The opinions and concerns of Americans in 32 states simply were not considered by the president's campaign team.
What if the upcoming gubernatorial campaign in Illinois occurred in just 10 counties--if the people in the other 92 counties, including most of the biggest, never saw a candidate, received a single piece of campaign literature in the mail or had a knock on the door from a campaign volunteer?
If the campaign worked that way, I think most of us would agree the system was broken and in need of serious improvement.
So why do we elect the president of the United States this way?
A presidential election should leave every voter with a sense of our nationhood--i.e. we are not voting as states each with its own parochial interest but expressing the fact that in electing a president we are speaking with one voice as a nation.
When I was in Congress, I was proud to be joined by Democrats and Republicans alike, including Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, in calling for presidential elections under the golden principle of one-person, one-vote that dictates every election but one in this country. My Illinois colleagues were particularly strong in making this case for a national presidential election. I trust my home state again can lead the way on this vital reform to our republic.
----------
John B. Anderson was a Republican representative in Congress from Rockford from 1961 to 1981. In 1980 he ran for president as an independent and currently chairs the board of FairVote--a non-partisan, non-profit election reform group based in Takoma Park, Md.
Today candidates for the presidency may feel that they crisscross the nation, but a careful study of their actual schedules reveals a much smaller itinerary. In the last five weeks of the 2004 election, 33 states were left without a visit from any of the major party presidential and vice presidential candidates. Nor did they run television ads for every voter to see; more was spent on ads in Florida alone than in 45 states and the District of Columbia combined.
A recent study by the organization I chair, FairVote, quantified the presidential campaign. In terms of campaign visits by the candidates on the national ticket and dollars spent in television markets for campaign ads, Illinois tied with Texas for dead last with a zero for both measures.
This means that the 12 million people in Illinois were not important enough to warrant any significant effort from presidential candidates and the votes of Illinois were simply written off.
Safe states like Illinois are literally left off the political map as the candidates battled in only a few lucky states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and New Hampshire.
The system is so skewed that Matthew Dowd, a campaign strategist for President Bush, admitted they only polled in 18 states for the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election.
The opinions and concerns of Americans in 32 states simply were not considered by the president's campaign team.
What if the upcoming gubernatorial campaign in Illinois occurred in just 10 counties--if the people in the other 92 counties, including most of the biggest, never saw a candidate, received a single piece of campaign literature in the mail or had a knock on the door from a campaign volunteer?
If the campaign worked that way, I think most of us would agree the system was broken and in need of serious improvement.
So why do we elect the president of the United States this way?
A presidential election should leave every voter with a sense of our nationhood--i.e. we are not voting as states each with its own parochial interest but expressing the fact that in electing a president we are speaking with one voice as a nation.
When I was in Congress, I was proud to be joined by Democrats and Republicans alike, including Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, in calling for presidential elections under the golden principle of one-person, one-vote that dictates every election but one in this country. My Illinois colleagues were particularly strong in making this case for a national presidential election. I trust my home state again can lead the way on this vital reform to our republic.
----------
John B. Anderson was a Republican representative in Congress from Rockford from 1961 to 1981. In 1980 he ran for president as an independent and currently chairs the board of FairVote--a non-partisan, non-profit election reform group based in Takoma Park, Md.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)