KAREN LEWIS, THE HUMAN MONOPOLY GUY: SOME QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN’T BEEN ASKED

8/14/14

We learned through the Chicago media yesterday that Chicago Teachers’ Union (“CTU”) President and potential mayoral candidate (See TONI PRECKWINKLE RULES OUT A RUNFOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO…MY READERS YAWN, Rant Lifestyle, 7/15/14 and the posts to which it will direct you.) Karen Lewis owns….

--a house in the very expensive Kenwood neighborhood (where the President purports to live but to which he has no intention of returning once he finishes his current gig; how ya’ gonna get ‘em back to Kenwood once they’ve seen, well, everything?  But I digress.), purchased in 2007 for $405,000.

--a summer home in Union Pier, Michigan that has been in the family since 1961.

--a condo on the big island of Hawaii, bought in 2011 for $240,000,

--two time shares in Hawaii,

--a time share in New York

--a time share in Mexico, and

--a time share in Colorado.

The predictable reaction was swift:  Karen Lewis is a hypocrite, who spends her time decrying “people of wealth and privilege” who “don’t have a clue about poverty” and castigating Mayor Rahm Emanuel as “Mayor 1%” while claiming that she, Ms. Lewis, is ‘not egotistical or rich.”  The first part of that last argument was comical even before the news of Ms. Lewis’s vast real estate holdings leaked, but, again, I digress.

Several other, more rational but not as obvious, responses came immediately to yours truly’s mind, one with the help of his wife:

One response could be that making $200,000 per year (Ms. Lewis’s combined salaries as CTU President and executive vice-president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers (“IFT”)) makes one comfortable but does not make one rich.  No level of income makes one rich; being “rich” is a balance sheet concept, a measure of wealth.   Getting “rich” involves not only making money but saving and investing that money.   Income is an income statement concept, a measure of how much one makes in a given period of time.   Large incomes do not necessarily, and often don’t, correlate with wealth.  Lower income people who know how to save can be far richer than high income people who fritter their money away on desperate attempts to fill the holes in their souls on the latest gimcracks that the rest of the herd tells them they simply must have.  Apparently, for all of Ms. Lewis’s vast education, she didn’t take, or pay much attention in, Accounting 101 or much beyond the rudiments of Finance or Economics.  Neither did most of the people who make their livings commenting on politics or economics, but that is another issue.

Leaving the rich vs. high income misconception aside, $200,000 is indeed high income but is nowhere near the Rahm Emanuel/Bruce Rauner income leagues.  If you make $200,000, good for you and God bless you; you are doing very well.  But I have news for you:  $200,000 is not an especially high income in today’s world.

A few other responses could be born of Ms. Lewis’s defense of herself.  She argued that she is highly educated…

“You are supposed to go to school, become educated.  I have an Ivy League diploma.  (I thought they were called “degrees” in college; “diplomas” are issued by grade schools and high schools.  Or so I thought.  But I don’t have an Ivy League diploma or degree so what do I know?   Okay, how to digress, but what else?)  I have two Master’s degrees.   I’m a board-certified teacher.”

There are so many things wrong with this reply that I, even without benefit of an “Ivy League diploma” hardly know where to begin.  Ms. Lewis more than implies that the purpose of education is to make lots of money.  Yours truly understands that getting employable, even rich, is certainly most people’s object in going to college and I am no exception; I majored in Accounting and got an MBA with a Finance concentrations, hardly scientia gratia scientia.  But one, and especially one in the education business, like Ms. Lewis, would like to think that there is more to education than improving one’s income potential; after all, it’s called “college,” not “trade school.”  But apparently Ms. Lewis has dispensed with the idea that the value of an education transcends job preparation.

Further, if one is interested in making money, the education field is not the first field that comes to mind.  If Ms. Lewis feels entitled to make lots of money because she has an “Ivy League diploma” and “two master’s degrees,” and if making money was her goal in pursuing these degrees, perhaps she should have gone to law, medical, or business school.   Being a “board-certified teacher” does not normally put one in a position to buy homes in Hawaii and Union Pier and time shares in New York, Hawaii, and Colorado.  Apparently, though, it worked for Ms. Lewis.

Even further, if one wants to get rich and buy homes in Hawaii, one generally doesn’t, or at least ought not, go into the business of running a union.   Yes, I know this sounds, and is, naïve, but the idea of becoming a union big shot should be to defend the interests of your fellow members against the otherwise overwhelming powers of their bosses.   Ms. Lewis, however, has decided that she is entitled to make more than any of her members and to “earn” a considerable multiple of what her average member makes.   This makes her not at all unique among union bosses, but could she and those union nabobs at least show a little shame?   Apparently not.

Ms. Lewis, in her own awkward defense, went on to point out that she makes more than even the most highly paid teacher because she is paid for a full working year, not the 39 week year her members put in. 

Hmm…

It is standard cant among the education profession that one should not pursue a career in that field because one “wants summers off.”  Colleges of Education drill that into their students.   The commercials run by teachers’ unions constantly emphasize that teachers work tirelessly, year round for “our children.”   Now Karen Lewis comes back and tells us that this is all a bunch of baloney, that her members don’t deserve to make nearly as much as she does because, after all, they only work 39 weeks a year.  It’s that shame thing again, a concept with which Ms. Lewis has little if any familiarity.

As my wife and I considered the Lewis story, my better half brought up another point.   Ms. Lewis says that she works very hard.  Even though she is paid for a 50 hour work week,

“I wish I were working 50 hours.  My day usually starts at 7 in the morning, and, if I’m lucky, I’m home by 10 at night.  I work really long hours.”

Where, my wife asked, does such a busy woman find time to visit all of her homes, time shares, etc.?   Something doesn’t add up.

Another thought that came to me concerned Ms. Lewis’s qualifications for the job of mayor of Chicago, to which she aspires but which she will never hold.  I don’t care what the polls are saying now; no one is going to beat Rahm Emanuel in 2016.  He has all the money and all the organization and can buy all the votes he needs in all the demographics he needs.  There, I’ve said it again…and did so in yet another digression.  Getting back to my point, one would think that the mayor of our once great city would know something about finance and investing.  Ms. Lewis, though, betrays her financial ignorance not only in her confusion of the concepts of having a high income vs. being rich but also in her apparently heavy investment in time shares; she apparently owns four of them.  Until someone comes up with navel lint futures (and who knows, in this era of brilliant “financial innovation,” our deep thinkers in the investment/trading industry might come up with such a useful financial tool), time shares will remain the worst investment out there.  Yet Ms. Lewis has apparently backed up the truck on this load of financial excrement.  How much judgment does that show?

Finally, my biggest concern about Ms. Lewis’s three homes and four times shares is another worry that no one, as far as I know, has mentioned.  It centers on both the concept of wealth vs. income and, more saliently, Ms. Lewis’s financial judgment.  I fear she is financially severely overextended and fear even more intensely that it is her lack of financial acumen that has dug her into this hole.

Think about it.  Ms. Lewis makes $200,000 per year, a very nice income.  But $200 grand is not enough to support a $405,000 primary residence, two secondary residences, and four time shares, none of which, with the possible exception of the Mexico time share, is in an especially affordable area.  And what about the costs of flights to Hawaii, Mexico, etc., to use her properties?  Being a financial person, yours truly’s first thought when I read of Ms. Lewis’s amateurish attempts at real estate moguldom was Ms. Lewis’s probably, er, highly leveraged financial condition.   Then I thought that maybe her husband had some dough, but he is a retired CPS gym teacher.   This is Chicago, and anything is possible, one supposes, but retired gym teachers aren’t generally rolling in dough.  

One can come to two possible conclusions concerning Ms. Lewis’s personal financial situation:   Ms. Lewis is not disclosing all of her income or Ms. Lewis has spent herself into oblivion, displaying a complete lack of financial acumen and showing, at least in this respect, a remarkable similarity to our former Governor Rod Blagojevich.  I’d bet on the latter, but neither bodes well for Ms. Lewis’s possible political aspirations...or her leadership of her union.

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. 

TIO HARDIMAN IS IN THE ILLINOIS GOVERNOR’S RACE: HEY, HE’S NOT A CONVICTED FELON

8/17/13

Former Cease Fire director Tio Hardiman has announced he is throwing his hat into the Illinois gubernatorial ring.   Mr. Hardiman is likely to have a hard time gaining traction; his past includes a guilty plea to a misdemeanor domestic batter charge and an arrest for another domestic battery.  His wife dropped the charges on the latter, along with her plans for a divorce, saying she “want(ed) to work on her marriage.”   That was enough to keep Mr. Hardiman out of the hoosegow, but not enough to allow him to keep his job; Cease Fire announced just after his arrest that his contract would not be renewed and his wife’s dropping charges apparently has not persuaded them to reconsider.

When asked about his troubled past, Mr. Hardiman came up with a reply that both clarified things and drew a distinction between Mr. Hardiman and our two most recent former governors:

“The media, they like to bring up things from my past.   But I’m not a convicted felon; let me make that clear.”  (Emphasis mine)

Only in Illinois is not being a convicted felon considered a salient qualification for governor.  And only in Illinois does such a non-status make one a breath of fresh air.

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. 

FAREWELL, DICK MELL…SORT OF

7/6/13

Dick Mell announced last week that he will be leaving his post as 33^rd Ward alderman after 38 years on the job.  The Chicago media, generally hostile toward guys like Dick Mell, are, predictably, falling all over themselves with accolades for the City Council’s second longest serving member and something of a living relic of a bygone era, a time depicted in my books, The Chairman and The Chairman’s Challenge.  The press’s apparent hypocrisy, though, is understandable; gentlemanliness, or gentewomanliness, is almost always to be applauded and one of its manifestations is finding something nice to say about people at such milestones in their lives.

As you might guess, yours truly has some thoughts on Dick Mell who, despite being a self-made millionaire even before entering politics and despite running one of the most effective ward machines in this most political of cities will always be known first and foremost as Rod Blagojevich’s father-in-law.  (See my 6/19/13 post MIKE MADIGAN, JOHN CULLERTON, AND PENSIONS:   SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR? for some background on the relationship between Dick Mell and his infamous son-in-law.)

First, Mr. Mell would like his daughter Deb Mell, who is currently a state representative, to replace him.   Mayor Emanuel has instituted new procedures for selecting replacement aldermen that are made to look fair, transparent, and representative.  But one suspects that Mr. Mell would not have left without the fix being in for his daughter, so Ms. Mell will probably have no trouble ascending to the post her father has held since she was seven years old.   She does have at least nominal competition for the job, however, in the person of State Senator Iris Martinez.

Note that I used the verb “ascending” when describing a move by Deb Mell from the state legislature to the city council, and that was no mistake.  Perhaps only in Chicago would a move from state representative or state senator to alderman be considered a promotion.   But this follows a proud tradition.   For example, back in 1973, when Roman Pucinski was effectively moved from the United States Congress to alderman of the 41^st Ward, he, probably rightfully, considered it a promotion and thanked Mayor Daley, and not at all disingenuously, for moving him up the ladder.   We take our aldermen seriously in Chicago.   Sometimes one wonders why, but I digress.

Second, the Chicago Sun-Times should have been more careful in its article about Mell’s retirement (“On way out, Mell talks family ties,” 7/6/13, page 6).   Deep into the story, the Sun-Times says

Mell operated (emphasis mine) one of the strongest ward organizations in Chicago, one that relied on precinct captains even after court rulings loosened the stranglehold the Democratic Machine had on government hiring and weakened other ward organizations.

Even though he is leaving his aldermanic seat, Mr. Mell will remain Democratic committeeman of the 33^rd ward and thus will continue to operate “one of the strongest ward organizations in the city.”   The post of committeeman isn’t what it used to be for a variety of reasons, but a ward’s committeeman controls the party apparatus in that ward.  Mr. Mell is not giving that up, at least not yet.

Third, in his parting comments, Mr. Mell had a few, and one suspects as few as possible, things to say about his infamous son-in-law, to wit…

“People loved him on the campaign trail.  He was phenomenal.   But when it came to actually governing, he was a problem.”

Hear, hear, despite the understatement in the second sentence.

Mr. Mell also said that if he could do it all over again, Blagojevich

“…would have never gotten out of state rep.  He would never have went (sic) to Congress.  He would have been a state rep until he decided to quit or be a lawyer or whatever.”

That’s great sentiment in retrospect.   But you can’t tell me, or anyone remotely sentient, that Mr. Mell only discovered the deep character flaws in his son-in-law only after Blago was elected to Congress and then to the governor’s mansion, both of which would have been impossible without Dick Mell’s help.   Many of us could see what a popinjay Mr. Blagojevich was long before he got to the governor’s office.  (In a later post I will tell you of the time yours truly and then Congressman Blagojevich sparred for an hour on a talk radio program…and will especially note Blago’s parting words to yours truly.  It’s a good story, but not as good as it sounds.)  Dick Mell is no fool and he was far closer to Blago than any of us who followed Blago’s career, so he had to be aware from pretty much the get-go of the poltroonishness of his son-in-law.  Yet Mr. Mell still used all of his powers and all of his abilities to put Blago first in Congress and then in the governor’s office.  For all his hemming and hawing now, and for all his other accomplishments, Mr. Mell’s foisting his son-in-law upon the people of Illinois (And I am by no means absolving our misinformed or simply uninformed, voters; anyone who has read just about anything I’ve written knows that.) will remain his most salient “achievement.”

Fourth, Mr. Mell went out of his way to be not all that uncharacteristically sycophantic toward Mayor Emanuel:

“Of all the mayors I worked with, I really like this guy (Emanuel) because he’ll make a decision based on what he believes is right.”

Mell went on to laud the Mayor’s “courage” in reworking the parking meter deal (See RAHM EMANUEL AND THE PARKING METERS:   “GOT TO MAKE THE BEST OF…A BAD SITUATION”, 4/30/13)…

“You think if I were mayor I would have touched those parking meters?”

It could, of course, be that Mr. Mell genuinely likes Mr. Emanuel and has enjoyed working with him, or at least that he has liked working with nominal north sider Emanuel more than he liked working with south sider Rich Daley.  But one suspects that Mr. Mell is following a not so proud tradition of the supposed tough guy aldermen, committeemen, and other pols around this town:  being shameless suck-ups to whoever happens to be occupying the Fifth Floor at the time. 

Perhaps the esteemed aldermen have no choice.   Beginning with Richard I and continuing with Richard II and Rahm Emanuel, Chicago mayors have almost completely emasculated the ward organizations, so the aldermen have to beg for the crumbs that fall from the Mayor’s table.   In this case, Mr. Mell really needs something from Mr. Emanuel:  the appointment of Deb Mell to the 33^rd ward city council seat.   One wishes, however, that these Chicago pols would stop masquerading as tough guys when, in reality, they have been reduced, and more or less willingly, to lap dogs and lickspittles.

Last, readers of my books, the Chairman and the Chairman’s Challenge, liked to try to guess who Chairman Eamon DeValera Collins is in real life.  When they aren’t guessing Ed Burke, Mike Madigan, Ed Vrdolyak, Bill Banks, or Rich Daley, they are guessing Dick Mell.  People ask me frequently if Collins is one of the aforementioned gentlemen, and Mell’s name comes up a lot.   My answer is the same for Mr. Mell as it has been for any other suggestion:  Chairman Eamon DeValera Collins is nobody in Chicago politics and he is (almost) everybody in Chicago politics.  He is one man who embodies the characteristics of many men.   Collins, as Don Vito Corleone was for the New York Mob of the mid twentieth century, is an amalgam of characters in Chicago politics of the latter part of that century.   Chairman Collins, like Alderman Mell, is an intriguing, enduring character, but, unlike Dick Mell, Eamon Collins is fictional.

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. 

A MADIGAN FAMILY FEUD?: “DON'T EVER TAKE SIDES WITH ANYONE AGAINST THE FAMILY AGAIN. EVER.”

6/20/13

Michael Sneed reported in yesterday’s (Wednesday, 6/19’s, page 4) Chicago Sun-Times that there is some “tension between House Speaker Michael Madigan and his daughter, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, over the state’s pension crisis.”  Lisa Madigan will need union support in her presumed run for governor and the unions, or at least the public employee unions, don’t like Mike Madigan’s proposed solution to Illinois’ existential unfunded pension liability problem.  See my 5/2/13 post,  MIKE MADIGAN’S PENSION REFORM PLAN:  “THE BEST THAT (WE) CAN HOPE FOR IS TO DIE IN (OUR) SLEEP.” for more background on the Mike Madigan plan.

Ms. Sneed may be making more of this than really exists.  Yes, Lisa Madigan needs union support in her run for governor.   But where else are the public employee unions going to go?   Both Governor Pat Quinn and Bill Daley have endorsed Mike Madigan’s pension reform plan.   As of now, Lisa Madigan is the ONLY Democratic candidate, or presumed Democratic candidate, who has NOT endorsed her father’s pension plan.   Yes, it’s difficult for anyone to distinguish Lisa from Mike Madigan, given that the Speaker has made his daughter’s career (See one of yesterday’s posts, MIKE AND LISA MADIGAN:   WHAT’S A DAD TO DO?), but the facts remain:  Pat Quinn has endorsed the Madigan plan.  Some even say that the Governor is pursuing a strategy of courting private sector unions through his generous, at least for the times, public works programs while writing off the public sector unions as lost due to his efforts to address the public pension problem.  Bill Daley has endorsed the Madigan plan.   Lisa Madigan has not endorsed the Madigan plan.

This supposed Madigan family feud may be a case of a head fake on the part of the Madigans, one of those situations in which a Potemkin feud is concocted in order to distance, in the public’s eye, two politicians who are normally figuratively conjoined at the hip.  Unlike some much-hyped arguments of the present and past that appear to be or were genuine, this intramural Madigan tussle may be a situation in which the supposed disagreement is indeed a complete work of fiction (See yesterday’s other post MIKE MADIGAN, JOHN CULLERTON, AND PENSIONS:   SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR?), meant to allow Lisa to cultivate the public unions who have nowhere else to go.

This would not be the first time political operations have planted stories in the newspaper, and especially in Ms. Sneed’s column; I highly recommend Golden: How Rod Blagojevich Talked Himself Out of the Governor’s Office and Into Prison by Jeff Coen and John Chase for examples of Ms. Sneed’s column being used in this manner.

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. 

MIKE MADIGAN, JOHN CULLERTON, AND PENSIONS: SOMETIMES A CIGAR IS JUST A CIGAR?

6/19/13

The Chicago Sun-Times today ran a page 6 story, trumpeted on page 1, asking a question I asked back on May 8  (See my post of that date, THE CULLERTON PENSION PLAN:  “THE (PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS) FAMILY DON’T EVEN HAVE THAT KIND OF MUSCLE ANY MORE”???):  Is the House Speaker Mike Madigan/Senate President John Cullerton disagreement over the solution to Illinois’s public pension problem a genuine “feud,” as the Sun-Times put it, or, as I called it on May 8, “part of some Machiavellian dance to avoid doing anything about our pension problems” in order to somehow give Lisa Madigan a boost in her run for governor?

 

Not knowing either Mike Madigan or John Cullerton, and being quite sure that even those who know either gentleman are not privy to such inner thoughts, I don’t know whether the two legislative leaders genuinely differ on pensions or are trying to pull some sort of elaborate maneuver to discredit Pat Quinn and help Lisa Madigan.  I suspect, however, that the disagreement is genuine.   Mr. Madigan is too smart to try to pull something so likely to backfire in his face and that would seemingly involve too many people (more than one) to keep very far under wraps.  Furthermore, perhaps I am naïve, but I genuinely don’t think that Mr. Madigan is so callous, so uncaring about the direction of the state, and/or so silly that he would further imperil our state’s nearly broke finances in order to hand his daughter an even more hopeless set of circumstances should she run for governor and should he be able to deliver the office for her.

The speculation that the whole Madigan/Cullerton thing is a Potemkin feud, though, gives me the opportunity to tell a story about the last time I thought two Chicago pols were putting on a fake fight worthy of the WWE….

In early 2005, Governor Rod Blagojevich shut down a landfill operated by Frank Schmidt, a cousin of Blago’s mother-in-law, Marge Mell, the wife of Dick Mell, one of Chicago’s then and now most powerful aldermen and committeemen.  The Governor contended that the landfill was taking illegal material while Mr. Schmidt was assuring shady customers who thus violated that law that there would be no trouble because of Mr. Schmidt’s connection to Mr. Mell.  This set off a public feud between Mr. Blagojevich and his father-in-law, and political Godfather, Dick Mell that reached epic proportions.

I suspected that the Mell/Blago feud was an elaborate ruse, designed to distance, for the naïve, the Governor from his father-in-law, whose reputation as a take no prisoners, old time ward boss from Chicago didn’t play well in the suburbs and downstate.   Blago would be running for reelection in 2006 and a charade of a crusading environmentalist young governor standing up to an old time, favor dispensing ward boss at enormous personal and political cost to himself would enhance his chances downstate while not hurting him in the city due to the winks, nods, and “say no mores” that would be part of such a ruse.

However, I started to hear from people who knew and worked with Mell in the 33^rd ward that the father-in-law vs. son-in-law feud was very real.  I sort of brushed off these assurances as part of the play.  One evening shortly after the fireworks started I was at a function at my old high school and heard from a Jesuit priest who was active in politics on the northwest side that the Mell/Blago feud was very real.   While this claim had more credibility, I have long adhered to my trusted formula of not trusting anybody whom I have not known for at least twenty years, and then not completely, and still thought Blago and Mell could be jerking everyone’s chains.

When Dick Mell several weeks later accused his son-in-law’s new best friend, Chris Kelly, a corrupt contractor who ultimately committed suicide at least partially due to the troubles that grew out of his association with Blago, of trading commission appointments for “$50,000 campaign contributions,” we all knew, or soon would know, that Messrs. Blagojevich and Mell were not playing some game of three card monte.   All doubt was removed by Mr. Mell’s comments regarding Mr. Kelly, which Mr. Mell doubtless regretted later and which ultimately led to his son-in-law’s taking up residence in federal housing.

That incident may have nothing at all to do with what some, including the Sun-Times, are labeling the Madigan/Cullerton “feud.”  But that quick, and wrong, presumption of Machiavellian machinations did reinforce for me something I have long known but that the more sensationalist among my fellow Chicago politics aficionados can’t seem to grasp:   sometimes things are as they seem, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…even in the labyrinthine world of Chicago politics.

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. 

THE PENSION DEBACLE IN ILLINOIS: MR. MADGIAN AS MACHIAVELLI, MR. EMANUEL LOSES A ROUND, OR MR. QUINN GOES TO SPRINGFIELD?

6/3/13

Some comments on the close of Illinois’ legislative session  and the resultant hastening of the state’s now nearly certain journey to financial oblivion are in order.

First, one supposes it would be too much to argue that the Illinois state legislature did nothing in the session that ended Friday night.  The legislature did

• Pass a budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
• Pass a concealed carry law, finally bringing the state of Illinois into compliance with the Constitution and into the modern age by joining its 49 brethren in allowing its citizens to  carry their guns into areas in which they would be most useful as tools of self-defense.
• Add 340,000 low income residents to the Medicaid rolls as part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
• Authorize Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to build a basketball arena for DePaul, or to have DePaul subsidize Chicago’s latest manifestation of Mr. Emanuel’s bread and circuses approach to government, depending on how one approaches this latest boondoggle.  (See my 5/17/13 post DEPAUL AND THE McARENA:  WHERE’S THE RETURN ON DEPAUL’S INVESTMENT IN CLOUT? and my 5/16/13 post AN ARENA FOR DEPAUL AND ELEVATING CHICAGO:  “FRAU BLUCHER, ELEVATE ME!”) for more on this latest Emanuel Knows Best project.

So whether one agrees with any of these actions, it wouldn’t be fair to say the legislature did NOTHING this session. 

However, despite Democratic supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, the session failed to take action on gay marriage, casino gambling (See my 5/30/13 piece CASINO EXPANSION IN ILLNIOIS:   WHAT’S THE POINT? and the posts to which it will direct you.) and, most importantly, Illinois’ $98 billion pension liability.  (See my 5/8/13 piece THE CULLERTON PENSION PLAN:  “THE (PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS) FAMILY DON’T EVEN HAVE THAT KIND OF MUSCLE ANY MORE”??? and the posts to which it will direct you.)

The legislature does not convene again until November.   Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) says he will consult with legislative leaders to try to work out something on all three of the major “failed” issues, but especially on pensions.  Progress, however, is doubtful and, even if the Governor, House Speaker Mike Madigan, and Senate President John Cullerton can work out something, any plan will have to muster a 3/5 majority in both houses since the legislative session has ended.  

Second, some fans of conspiracy theories think that Mr. Madigan sabotaged progress on casinos, gay marriage, and especially on pensions, the latter by espousing a plan he knew the Senate wouldn’t pass.  His motivation, according to such theories, could be a desire to please the public employee unions by doing nothing to disturb their pension Valhalla or, more likely, to make Governor Quinn look impotent and thus enhance the case for the candidacy of his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, for governor in the 2014 Democratic Party.

Yours truly enjoys a conspiracy theory nearly as much as the next guy, unless the next guy is Alex Jones.   And, as anyone who reads my musings knows, while I somewhat grudgingly admire Mr. Madigan as perhaps the most skilled practitioner of his craft certainly in this state and probably anywhere in this country, I am no fan of his approach to government.  Further, no sort of Machiavellian machination from Mr. Madigan would surprise me.  

However…

At the risk of sounding naïve, Mr. Madigan can’t be that callous, that uncaring about the future of this state, as to drive us to and perhaps over the precipice of financial ruin just to elect his daughter or to curry the favor of the public employee unions…can he?   Besides, it doesn’t look like the public employee unions have the juice they once did (Again, see that 5/8/13 piece.) in Illinois politics, so, even if we assume that Mr. Madigan cares about absolutely nothing but power and wealth, engaging in such a game of financial chicken would make almost no political sense.  And even if Mr. Madigan doesn’t give a rat’s hindquarters about the financial viability of the state, he (almost) never makes a dumb political move.

--Another of the measures that failed, a measure that didn’t completely escape notice, but nearly did, was Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to have the Chicago Public Schools (“CPS”) extend for two more years the pension payment “holiday” that began in 2010.   If passed, the measure would have allowed the CPS to skip its otherwise required payments into the teachers’ pension system.   Mr. Emanuel said he needed this measure because of the CPS looming $1 billion deficit.  Since the measure failed, CPS will now have to (Horrors!) meet its obligations like all private sector, and most public sector, entities.

At the risk of sounding obvious, such pension holidays are a big part of what got Illinois into the pension quicksand in which it is currently sinking.  Promising pensions that it couldn’t possibly pay, thus nearly forcing such holidays, is the major reason for our wallowing in this quagmire, but I digress.  And even our somewhat dense legislators realize this; note the comments of Republican Representative Dave McSweeney of Barrington Hills, who, commenting on Mr. Emanuel’s bill, stated “This bill is a joke.  Stop the madness.  Vote no.”  Amazingly, enough of Mr. McSweeney’s colleagues agreed and gave Mr. Emanuel an unaccustomed slap on the hand, albeit a minor one.

So why did Mr. Emanuel propose a plan for a pension holiday in the very session in which the state was supposed to deal with the debilitating consequences of prior pension holidays?   Simple…the rules don’t apply to superior beings like Mr. Emanuel.   Super Rahm transcends the basic rules of finance, economics, or, one supposes, physics.  If one is to believe the Chicago, and national, media, he is the reincarnation of Zeus…or perhaps merely (but don’t tell Mr. Emanuel) Zeus’s gift to the benighted people of Chicago.  

--Governor Quinn (no relation) is looking pretty good right now, certainly relative to the legislature.  Even yours truly, who agrees with Mr. Quinn on nearly nothing beyond the virtues of the Catholic League and the utter beauty and seriousness of our common last name, is getting to kind of like and respect the guy.  Nearly all, even those of us who think Mr. Quinn suffers from never really having had to breathe private sector air and consequently lives in a fantasy world in which all that is required for nirvana is wise manipulation of the levers of government, agree he is something of an earnest fellow who despises the normal workings of Illinois government…except during those period in which they are working in his favor. 

Mr. Quinn is a pretty decent politician and a smart guy.   He can, and probably will, conduct a sort of Mr. Quinn Goes to Springfield type of campaign in 2014, in which Mr. Quinn, a lifelong politician who has played “get along, go along” for the last 40 years, will be cast as a sort of St. George who battles the dragons of Mike Madigan and his minions.   The voters of Illinois might go for it; they have certainly gone for much more preposterous notions; see, as only the most salient example, the governorship of the man whom Mr. Quinn served as Lieutenant Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

So if this whole legislative debacle was an effort by Mr. Madigan to enhance the chances of his daughter in her near certain efforts to topple Mr. Quinn (Again, I’m not willing to entirely concede this point.), the Speaker may have been too clever by more than half.  

 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. 

REDFLEX’S EXCELLENT CHICAGO ADVENTURE: THE STORY THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

3/2/13

This morning’s (i.e., Saturday, 3/2/13’s, page 1) Chicago Tribune reports that Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., the Arizona based U.S. arm of Australia’s Redflex Holdings, has fired three more executives in the fallout from the scandal involving Redflex’s exclusive contract to provide red light cameras in the City of Chicago.   (See my now seminal 2/8/13 post  REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS:   CHICAGO POLITICS CLAIMS A “VICTIM” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD and the appended thereto 10/18/12 post REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS AND CHICAGO POLITICS:   TRUTH NEARLY AS INTRIGUING AS FICTION for early and extensive reporting on the shenanigans surrounding the Redflex deal.)   Redflex Traffic’s president and CEO Karen Finley, general counsel Andrejs Bunkse, and CFO Sean Nolen have now been given the boot.   They join former Redflex Holdings Chairman Max Findlay and board member Ian Davis in having been shown the door.

This story, on which I reported and opined much earlier in its germination (Again, see the above posts.), is far from over, one suspects.   This latest bout of scapegoating, er, sorry, firings, is not about to end the story but does bring three thoughts from yours truly.

--Interestingly, this morning’s Tribune describes Marty O’Malley, 13^th Ward and St. Bede Parish denizen, heavy contributor to Speaker Mike Madigan’s 13^th Ward Regular Democratic Organization, and “consultant” to whom Redflex paid $570,000 in connection with the Chicago red light camera contract, as “a longtime friend” of John Bills, the city purchasing manager in charge of the contract, 13^th Ward and St. Bede Parish denizen, and all-around heavy in the Speaker Mike Madigan’s 13^th Ward Regular Democratic Organization.

In prior stories on this scandal, Mr. O’Malley denied having known Mr. Bills.  As I said in the aforementioned 10/18/12 post:

Mr. O’Malley denies having known Mr. Bills, or Mr. Madigan, before he and Mr. Bills started working together on the camera project.   Mr. O’Malley’s not having known Mr. Bills is plausible, given their ages; Mr. O’Malley is 72, Mr. Bills is 51.   But, for those of you unfamiliar with the mores of the southwest side, one’s parish is a big thing; it often is the center of many of one’s activities, spiritual and otherwise.

I don’t know whether Messrs. O’Malley and Bills have confirmed that they are “longtime friend(s),” but it’s interesting how the story changes when it has such a hard time holding up.

--Redflex is falling all over itself trumpeting its born again approach to ethics and integrity, sort of the political/corporate equivalent of what I think is called something like the “revirgining movement,” in which teenagers or young adults who have lost their sexual virtue declare themselves to be virgins again and promise not to lose that status until they are married.   One suspects the latter has a greater chance of success than the former.

Redflex has declared, according to the Tribune,

“This day, and each day going forward, we intend to be a constructive force in our industry, promoting high ethical standards and serving the public interest.”

Redflex has also introduced reforms such as requiring anti-bribery and anti-corruption training of employees and hiring a new bureaucrat and calling him or her the “director of compliance.”  One can almost hear the late, great Hank Williams belting out “I Saw the Light,” but I digress.

As I tell my students, ethics and integrity are much like another of life’s more salient activities; those who talk about it the most do it the least.   I advise them that when someone begins a presentation telling you how ethical he is, or a corporation spends an excessive number of pages in its annual report telling you how much integrity it has, hang onto your wallet.

--As in most Chicago political scandals, it is the low level worker bees who are being apprehended by law enforcement or other authorities and hung out to dry by who knows what other authorities.  

One could protest that plenty of high level Chicago guys have gone down, but those are the cases we remember, and we only remember them because highly visible people went down.   They are dwarfed in number by the legions of seemingly petty cases of corruption, involving underlings of the guys that matter, that we forget because of the relatively small dollars involved (though not in the Redflex caper; half a million plus is real money, even to, say, a Chicago ward boss or mayoral assistant) or the obscurity of the characters involved.

Further, high visibility, or even holding a seemingly high office, does not necessarily equate to being one of the really important people in the politics of Chicago and/or Illinois.   Look at Governor Rod Blagojevich; he held the title of governor, but he didn’t really matter.   He was, like Frank Pentangeli in The Godfather or Tom Dempsey in The Chairman, small potatoes and very expendable.

Maybe no big guy, a guy that matters, has been touched by the Redflex hanky-panky, or at least not yet, because nobody who matters is involved.   I don’t say that disingenuously; there is a real possibility that this scandal doesn’t touch a heavy in this area’s politics because any genuine heavy in this area’s politics is too smart to get involved in, or at least to get criminally caught getting involved in, a scandal like this.  

Further, as I wrote at the beginning of this post and at the beginning of this scandal, the saga of Redflex and Chicago is not over yet.

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. 

A SORT OF DEFENSE OF SANDI JACKSON

2/21/13

When we seek insight into the case of former Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and his wife, former absentee Alderman Sandi Jackson, it is sometimes best to eschew the opinions of the journalists, the pols, and even the bloggers and take a look at what the people in Mr. Jackson’s district, and Ms. Jackson’s ward, are saying.   To that end, consider the opinion, as recorded on page 3 of the 2/21/13 Chicago Sun-Times, of Linda Wetherspoon, who is 54 years old and has lived in the 2^nd District, and (I think) the 7^th Ward since she was twenty:

“He (Mr. Jackson) knew better.   But I feel terrible for Sandi.  She’s a woman.  She’s a mother.  I’m not excusing her.  But they usually don’t charge both husband and wife, because of the kids…So I don’t think it’s right the feds charged Sandi.   They really had it in for the Jacksons.”

Regular, or even casual, readers of this blog know that I don’t “feel terrible” for Sandi Jackson and have less than no sympathy for her.   See, inter alia, my most recent post on l’affaire Jackson, 2/16/13’s LET’S FINALLY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT JESSE AND SANDI JACKSON.   Yet I think Ms. Wetherspoon has a point.   The U.S. Attorney generally doesn’t charge both husband and wife.   The most glaring example of this is the case of the Rod and Patti Blagojevich.   Perhaps the lawyers know better, but it seems to the average citizen, and to those of us who follow these things very closely, that Patti was up to her neck in Rod’s schemes.   Look at all the real estate deals in which those who curried Rod’s favor, most notably Tony Rezko, used Patti as a co-listing agent and paid her big commissions in exchange for very little.  In fact, there was testimony that agents who had such listings, and did almost all the work, were pressured to put Patti on as a listing agent, and thus split their commissions with her, when she did little or nothing on the deals.   It seems that Patti Blagojevich served as little more than a conduit for funneling money to her husband, the congressman and later the governor.  

Perhaps Mrs. Blagojevich did nothing illegal and the suspicious commissions from friends of the governor only appeared to be as hinky as they did.   Maybe there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Mrs. Blagojevich with crimes while there was plenty of evidence to charge Mrs. Jackson.   Or maybe Mrs. Blagojevich was a hardworking real estate agent who earned every dime she earned and never used her connections to get a listing, the last being as likely as yours truly’s managing the triumphant campaign of the Blagojevich/Jackson ticket when these two emerge from the hoosegow and run as a team for the nation’s highest offices. 

For whatever reason, though, Patti Blagojevich was not even charged with a crime.   Yes, she has young children, but so does Sandi Jackson.   So why the disparity of treatment?  I don’t blame people like Ms. Wetherspoon for being more than little suspicious of the government’s motives.

In all likelihood, Sandi Jackson will do no time and will get off with the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist, largely due to the “she is a woman with young children” argument.   Still, being charged with a felony is a big deal.   One wonders…why Sandi Jackson and not Patti Blagojevich?

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. 

GEORGE RYAN AND THE “INABILITY” OF ILLINOIS TO SELL BONDS

1/31/13

The state of Illinois yesterday pulled (The State said “postponed.”) a $500mm bond issue intended to finance a slew of capital projects.   S&P recently downgraded the state to A- from A.  That technically ties Illinois with California for the state with the nation’s lowest bond rating, but since S&P has a “negative” outlook on Illinois and a “positive” outlook on California, our state is, in reality, at the bottom of the heap.  In pulling the deal, the administration of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) cited that rating downgrade and the unsettling effect the inability of our public servants to address the state’s fiscal maladies has had on the market.  So it looks like the Governor is using the state’s inability to raise money in the public markets as a cudgel to prod the legislature (i.e., Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan) to do something about our money woes.  Good luck with that, Governor; who do you think got us into this mess?  But I digress.

There are mixed reports on whether the projects that are supposed to be financed by the deal will go forward; the Wall Street Journal said this (Thursday, 1/31/13, page A3) morning that the projects “aren’t expected to be delayed.”  The Chicago Tribune reported on page 8 of today’s paper that whether the projects will go ahead is “unclear.”  Since when did the unavailability of money stop a politician, and especially an Illinois politician, from spending said money?   But, again, I digress.

It’s not so much the State of Illinois’s inability to raise money that “postponed” this deal.  The State can raise the money; it just doesn’t want to pay the interest rates that it would have to pay on the paper.  According to Thomson Reuters, 10 year Illinois bonds yield about 3.2%, about 120 basis points (“bp”s) over 10 year treasuries.  But on an apples to apples, tax adjusted basis, assuming a 35% income tax rate (not the highest rate after the Obama tax increase, but let’s assume, correctly, that not every buyer of Illinois, or municipal in general, paper is in the highest tax bracket), the Illinois paper yields a touch over 4.9%, or nearly 2 ½ times as much as comparable treasury paper.  Astounding.

Further, one suspects, though one can never know, that the only reason that Illinois can sell bonds at those yields, and the only reason that its bonds are not rated junk (BB+, four notches lower than they are now, or below) is because the market, and the ratings agencies, assume that the federal government will not let a state go bankrupt.   Certainly nothing in the finances of the state of Illinois merits more than a junk rating and a yield at least, just to throw out a number, 100 bps (1%) higher than it is now.

So why does the state of Illinois have to pay so much to bribe (a very appropriate verb for out great state, don’t you think?) investors and/or speculators to buy its paper?  

The raw numbers, most saliently, the now $96.8 billion unfunded pension liability and approximately $8.4 billion owed to trade creditors, are bad enough.   But there is something else at work.  Our politicians simply can’t, or won’t, address the state’s fiscal problems, especially its pension problems   Terms like “unfunded liability,” “actuarial assumptions,” and “assumed investment rate” are abstractions to these pols; they will only feel pressure when checks start to bounce or Mike Madigan says “jump.”  Neither is likely to happen in the near term, though the former may be approaching more quickly than most people think.  Why this reluctance to do anything about our pension problems?   The same reason that we got into this problem in the first place:  As I said in my now seminal 1/9/13 piece at the now defunct Rant Political, ILLINOIS PENSION PROBLEMS:   SEND THE CHECK TO MY KIDS,

politicians have learned that, through granting generous pensions to public employees, they can buy today’s votes with tomorrow’s dollars.

Who is going to surrender such a holy grail?   And so while the politicians are nearly inexhaustibly congratulating themselves about doing something regarding immigration reform  (See WOULD THE LAST GUY TO LEAVE ILLINOIS PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS?, Rant Political, 1/28/13, reproduced below.) and may soon be doing the same about gay rights and maybe even a Chicago casino (See A CHICAGO CASINO:  MORE MONEY FOR THE POLS, MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE TAXPAYERS?, Rant Political, 1/9/13, reproduced below.), they continue to dither about what is clearly the most important and immediate issue:  the looming, if not real, bankruptcy, of the state of Illinois.

Such self-inflicted impotence on the part of our public servants would be bad enough for Illinois’s ability to sell bonds, but there is something else at work:   Illinois’s history and culture, the latter real or perceived, of corruption.   With George Ryan’s having left prison yesterday, only one former Illinois governor is currently living in federally provided housing.   But four of our past eight elected governors have done time, albeit one (Dan Walker) for crimes committed after leaving office.   This is the one area in which Illinois stands head and shoulders above its 49 brethren.  

No one accuses Mr. Quinn (no relation) our current governor, of the types of shenanigans that landed four of his recent predecessors in the hoosegow; his faults lie in the area of competence rather than criminality.  But it is not too much of a stretch to say that, while some people might be surprised, few would be shocked, if virtually any other prominent figure in Chicago/Illinois politics suddenly became the focus of intense federal scrutiny.   This is the legacy left us not only by Rod Blagojevich, George Ryan, Dan Walker, and Otto Kerner, but also by legions of lesser pols throughout the state who have had to become federal guests because of their dastardly deeds.

Further, even leaving aside criminality, the honesty of the whole Illinois political system, and of most of its participants, has to justifiably come into question.   This is a state that repeatedly elects corrupt politicians to high office.   This is a state that nearly revels in its reputation for dirty, dishonest politics, for having the “best politicians money can buy” and where the honesty of a politician is often gauged by his determination to, once bought, stay bought.

Is this the type of state in which you would want to invest?   How much would it take to bribe (again, a very appropriate verb for the Prairie State) you into lending the state of Illinois money?  

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 this subject.

Promised reproduced articles:

WOULD THE LAST GUY TO LEAVE ILLINOIS PLEASE TURN OUT THE LIGHTS?

1/28/13

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) signed legislation yesterday allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses in the Land of Lincoln.   The platform on which Mr. Quinn signed this bill into law was crowded with politicians of all ethnicities and of both parties, as if there were two parties in Illinois, but that is grist for another mill.  

Leave aside the merits of the bill, which are, despite the breathlessness of the press coverage, debatable and certainly not self-evident.   What really stunned yours truly about the signing ceremony was that the assorted pols spoke for a combined TWO HOURS in the wake of the signing.   TWO HOURS of being subjected to the bloviations of self-important politicians is enough to make even the most determined, American dream seeking immigrant turn around and head home.  

What is really illustrative about the two hours of self-congratulations, and perhaps about the bill itself, is what it says about the lilliputians we have elected in the Prairie State.   Our state’s major problem is not illegal immigration which, while affecting the lives of many throughout the state, is a federal issue.   Our state’s major problem is that it is growing broke.   Like most states, Illinois is growing broke because the politicians have figured out that, through granting generous, unaffordable benefits to public employees, they can buy today’s votes with tomorrow’s dollars, (See my 1/9/13 post  ILLINOIS PENSION PROBLEMS:   SEND THE CHECK TO MY KIDS.), hence our $95 billion unfunded pension liability.   The politicians on the dais yesterday, breaking their arms patting themselves on the back over passing into a law a bill of questionable importance and efficacy, are the same politicians who have spent the state into oblivion and the same politicians who lack the spine to do anything about the problem they created; again, see my 1/9 post.

Yet these poltroons and popinjays see fit to endlessly and tirelessly congratulate themselves over the licenses for illegals bill…and feel it necessary to take two hours of people’s valuable time to display their manifest wisdom to those on the receiving end of their largesse.   When do they appear before those on the giving end?

A CHICAGO CASINO:  MORE MONEY FOR THE POLS, MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE TAXPAYERS?

1/9/13

While Illinois legislators continue to look for ways to delay action on the pension time bomb that could soon make our state uninhabitable by any rational person, the secondary, and at least tangentially related, issue of a Chicago casino still lurks very close to the surface.  A deal that will bring a casino to the city of Chicago is a virtual lock, now that Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) and Mayor Rahm Emanuel have done the usual chest beating dance designed to show their constituencies that they are tough yet concerned.   And it looks like the ill-fated, perpetually bothersome, and therefore appropriately named Thompson Center, just north of City Hall, might well be the site of the proposed paean to parlous profligacy. 

But one has to ask what benefit a casino would bring to the taxpayers, given Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) insistence, and Mr. Emanuel’s seeming agreement, that 100% of the tax and fee revenue generated by such a casino be earmarked for school construction and modernization.  If all the money goes to construction of new schools and modernization of old ones, nothing, zero, nada, bupkus will go toward solving Illinois’s $95 billion pension problem, Chicago’s proportionally similar pension woes, or paying the state’s unpaid bills.  All we will have accomplished by opening the Loop, or some other city site, to gambling is to give the politicians more money to spend under the diaphanous ruse of “education.”   And it gets worse…not only will the politicians spend the money the casino generates, but they will commit to long term projects based on casino revenue projections that, if history is any guide, will prove too optimistic, leaving such projects to be funded by already exhausted general revenues in the (not too far) out years.   The casino will not solve Illinois’s, or Chicago’s, fiscal problems…it will at best have no impact on them and more probably exacerbate them.

On the other hand, perhaps the politicians in the Land of Lincoln are being clever enough to realize that money is a fungible commodity.  Then they can fund school projects with casino money and use money that would otherwise have been spent on those projects to pay past due bills and fund pensions.  Those with a sense of the history of our once great state remember that was the approach employed when the Illinois lottery was initiated; all the lottery proceeds went to the schools, leaving funds that would have gone to the schools available for pols to spend elsewhere in their endless crusades to remain on the public payroll.   If the same approach is used with casino revenues, and the newly available funds are used not for spending in areas other than school construction but, rather, to fund pensions and to pay bills, a casino would indeed have a salubrious impact on our state’s finances.   But those are too huge “if”s.   Further, such an outcome would require duplicity on the part of our politicians, but that is one of the few “virtues” our state displays in fulsome abundance.