ALDERMAN AUSTIN PRESENTS YOURS TRULY WITH AN OUTSTANDING BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY!

7/30/14

Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s 911 phone tax (CHICAGO’S PROPOSED PHONE TAX INCREASE:  RAHM EMANUEL’S IDEA OF “CONSTITUENT SERVICE”, Rant Finance, 6/26/14), which all but the most shamelessly disingenuous admit is a way around a property tax hike in an election year, advanced out of the City Council Finance Committee yesterday in a unanimous vote.   Dick Daley is probably looking down in awe on Mayor Emanuel’s control of his bleating sheep council, but I digress.

So how did the sycophants in the Finance Committee sweep aside the fact that a family of relatively modest means will pay more with the proposed phone tax increase than it would have under the property tax increase the phone tax is designed to obviate?  Or how do they get around the fact that the wealthier a family is, or at least the more expensive home a family has, the more money it will save under the 911 phone tax vs. the now delayed property tax?   How do the aldermen, most of whom represent constituents of more modest means, go along so obediently with a tax scheme that clearly favors Rahm Emanuel’s much more well-heeled core constituency?

Here was the answer from Budget Committee Chair Alderman Carrie Austin of the 34^th Ward:

“Even though it may cost more because you have more lines with phones, I’d rather come up with an additional $5 or $10 than to come up with $150.  It may not be as much pain monthly as it would be at one time.” (sic)

Yours truly would have to agree; I, too, would rather come up with $5 or $10 per month than $150 annually, mostly because $10 per month is only $120 annually while $5 per month is only $60 annually.  

Okay, okay, so Alderman Austin is a bit arithmetically challenged; who can expect the Chair of the Budget Committee to be able to perform such complicated calculations as multiplying by twelve?   Further, we have no idea where the Alderman got the figures she cites.   But let’s forgive her lack of dexterity with the numbers, look at the Alderman’s logic, and apply it to realistic numbers. 

Say a family of four lives in a $250,000 house.  They have a land line and four cellular phone lines.  These are far from outrageous assumptions on either point.   Under the original property tax increase proposal, they would have seen a $50 increase in their annual property tax bill.  The 911 tax increase comes to $1.40 per month per line.  For the five lines, that’s $7.00 per month.  That’s $84 per year.   $84, for Alderman Austin’s benefit, is $34, or 68%, more than $50.

Using the Alderman’s logic, a family should be happy to pay the additional 68% because they’d be able to pay $7 “monthly” rather than $50 “at one time.”

Hmm…

Perhaps it isn’t Alderman Austin’s job to do arithmetic, but it is her job to know her constituents.  (At least theoretically; apparently, she, and just about every alderman, sees his or her  primary job to be pleasing Mayor Emanuel, but I digress.)  If she is correct and her constituents and, indeed, all Chicagoans, would rather pay $7 per month than $50 per year, I am going to start a business:

I will collect $7 per month from each of Alderman Austin’s constituents, and everyone in Chicago, who would see a $50 annual increase in his or her property tax liability.   In exchange for this $7 per month, I will pay the $50 annual increase in the tax liability.   I will then pocket the additional $34 per year I will collect from the payers, earning a return in excess of 68%.  I get a great return, and, if Alderman Austin is right, the people of her ward, and of Chicago, will be delighted because of the convenience of being able to pay “monthly” instead of “at one time.”  I wouldn’t have to limit this service to increased property tax bills; I could apply this “easy payment” plan to any liability of anybody who lives anywhere and, at a 68%+ return, I would be delighted to do so.

If you think people are as financially obtuse as Alderman Austin presumes they are, this plan should work.  I think I’ll try to get on Shark Tank with this one!

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

PAT QUINN VS. BILL DALEY: “THIS GUY DOESN’T THINK THIS IS A SHOW; HE THINKS IT’S A FIGHT!”

7/16/13

Now that Attorney General Lisa Madigan has opted out of the Illinois governor’s race (See today’s other post, LISA MADIGAN WON’TRUN FOR GOVERNOR:  WOULD YOU WANT THE JOB?), we are left, for now, with a one-on-one Democratic primary race featuring Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) and ex-White House Chief of Staff, ex-Commerce Secretary, ex-corporate bigshot, ex-everything Bill Daley, who also happens to be the son and brother of Chicago’s two longest serving mayors.

Mr. Daley’s chances in the upcoming primary have increased markedly, some might say infinitely (See 6/6/13’s “GOVERNOR BILL DALEY…SENATOR BILL DALEY.   THERE JUST WASN’T THE TIME…”), with Lisa Madigan’s exit, which was more or less forced by Mr. Daley’s entry into the race; again, see today’s other post.   While yours truly would certainly not argue that Bill Daley’s chances of becoming governor are a heck of lot better than they were yesterday, I would not count out Governor Quinn.  (See my 7/10/13 piece, PAT QUINN SUSPENDS  LEGISLATORS’ SALARIES:   FOUR MORE YEARS? and the posts to which it will refer you.)   Don’t misunderstand me; I am not predicting a Quinn victory.  I am simply NOT, for a number of reasons, among those who are saying the man has no chance at re-nomination or re-election.

Cousin Pat (not really, but I like saying that more of late) is the incumbent governor.  In the first quarter, he raised more money than either Bill Daley or Lisa Madigan.   Further, he is running a populist campaign that, while loaded with what some might consider silly, or irresponsible, stunts, like suspending legislative salaries, seems to be striking a chord with the typical voter.  Further, if Mr. Quinn can get the appropriate inspector general off the dime and quickly conduct a review, both of which are big “if”s, he can pull another such maneuver by firing the entire Metra board.  (See another post from yesterday, WE ARE SHOCKED…SHOCKED!...TO LEARN OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT METRA and the posts to which it will refer you.)   If you think the voters liked suspending legislative salaries, think how they will react to firing the legion of toadies, lackeys, hacks, has-beens, and wannabes that comprises the Metra board.   And Quinn just might to it.

Further, everyone speaks of Bill Daley’s fundraising prowess, but I wonder.  Now that his brother is no longer mayor and thus cannot deliver a near instant return on donors’ investments, is Bill Daley the “prolific fundraiser” that he is made out to be and indeed once was?   One suspects that Mr. Daley would not embark on this race unless he was confident he had the ability to raise a lot of money, so I might be wrong here, but even Mr. Daley has made miscalculations in his career.  Further, people don’t give political donations in this state, or just about anywhere, because they like the candidate or the party to whom they are giving.  They give because they expect a return on their investment, and the return here is not immediately obvious unless the donors are certain Mr. Daley will go to Springfield.  But they can’t be certain of that unless he gets a LOT of money; you can see the chicken and egg problem here.  While this problem is faced by just about all political candidates, it might be especially acute for Mr. Daley, given his background and his reputation as a “prolific fundraiser.”

One person that I have heard nothing about in regard to the governor’s race is the Mayor of Chicago, that idol of the consanguineous media, Rahm Emanuel.  Mr. Emanuel may protest publicly that he is not taking sides in the gubernatorial primary, but, c’mon, Mr. Emanuel staying on the sidelines of any political race?   And if you were Rahm Emanuel, would you want a potentially very strong Bill Daley to be governor?   Wouldn’t you prefer the weaker Pat Quinn?   Don’t try to argue that Mr. Emanuel has, or feel he owes, some sort of loyalty to the Daley family, which went a long way toward making him what he is today on a number of fronts.   Loyalty counts for little for Mr. Emanuel, unless it is to himself.  Ask the Clintons.

So suppose that Mr. Emanuel, secretly or perhaps not so secretly, puts out the word that he would rather not see Bill Daley in the governor’s office.  What will that do to Daley’s ability to raise money?

All that having been said, one can never factor out two things…the electorate’s general level of disappointment with Governor Quinn or the deal making skills of the Daley family.  On the latter, I smell what one might call a rat, or two rats, if I didn’t have some genuine admiration for what some might call underhanded political tactics.  See, for example, chapter 8 of my first book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics.  What such seemingly malodorous tactics might one be seeing in the upcoming gubernatorial primary?

As of now, the Democratic gubernatorial primary is a two person race.  However, as soon as Lisa Madigan opted out of the race, talk of two other potential candidates started.  The first is state Senator Kwame Raoul of Chicago who is a something of an up and comer among black politicians.   The other is state Senator Dave Koehler, who is from Peoria.  

Hmm…

Pat Quinn’s strongest, most loyal constituency is black voters, primarily in Chicago.   Wouldn’t it be nice for Mr. Daley if Mr. Raoul, who has been known to play political ball, were to enter the race and take at least some, and probably more, of the black vote from Mr. Quinn?

Mr. Quinn is also expected to run well downstate in the primary, not so much because the Governor is so well liked in the “other Illinois” but, rather, because the Daley name is like a pox down there.   Wouldn’t it be nice for Mr. Daley if, say, Mr. Koehler or another downstater were to run and take some of that downstate vote from Mr. Quinn?

I am starting to smell something like current ward of the federal government Rod Blagojevich’s first run for governor in 2002.   His main opponent in the primary, Paul Vallas, had great strength in the black community, largely due to the relatively good job he had done as head of the Chicago Public Schools.   A third candidate, Roland Burris, an at times amiable hack from the south side, emerged to drain Mr. Vallas’ strength in the black community and thus hand the primary to Mr. Blagojevich, who eventually repaid Mr. Burris by appointing him to Barack Obama’s U.S. senate seat when Mr. Blagojevich’s back was against the federal wall, but that is another story.  Did Alderman Dick Mell (See my 7/7/13 and 7/6/13 posts, respectively, DICK MELL USED OUR MONEY TO PAY PEOPLE TO SLEEP: “THEY’RE GONNA SAY…WHAT A GUY!”  and FAREWELL, DICK MELL…SORT OF) have anything to do with Mr. Burris’s entry into the 2002 gubernatorial primary?   Are the White Sox a lousy baseball team?

Similarly, should Mr. Raoul, Mr. Koehler, and/or someone else who is black and/or from downstate enter this race, would Mr. Daley or his minions have had anything to do with his sudden desire to be governor?   Are the Cubs a lousy baseball team?

This is going to be a far more interesting race for governor, even without Lisa Madigan, than most people think.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics.