Yesterday newly-elected Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot gave her “State of the City” message and, well, there’s a hole in Chicago’s budget of nearly $1 billion. The Chicago Tribune reports:
Carrying signs reading “Lori Lightfoot’s Broken Promise†in the style of her “Bring in the Light†mayoral campaign logo, homeless advocates criticized her for not living up to a pledge to fund affordable housing. Others urged her to cut off funding for the controversial taxpayer subsidy for the proposed Lincoln Yards development.
Lightfoot then took the stage in the library in front of hundreds of invited guests and said the key to digging out of an $838 million 2020 city budget hole lies largely in getting help from Springfield this fall. Lightfoot was unable to extract much help from the same legislature during its spring session that loosened the revenue purse strings for a variety of other big-ticket programs. And, since her Thursday night speech, some legislators have reacted with skepticism to her call for statewide cooperation.
The new mayor now faces the unenviable task of trying to convince Downstate legislators to join forces with Chicago to tackle “shared problems†like huge unfunded pension obligations, while also showing progressive grassroots organizations in the city she’s a true break from the politics of the past and that they were right to support her candidacy.
Mike Madigan, god-emperor of Illinois, has shown little interest in extending a helping hand to Chicago. It’s no skin off his nose. As long as a few thousand people in his district keep voting for him, as they have for the last 40 years, he’ll keep his job as Speaker of the Illinois House.
The mayor went on to say that everything was on the table. I’ll reserve judgment but my bet would be that everything is on the table except reducing city payrolls or amending the state’s constitution so that legislators could restructure public pensions into something that could actually be paid.
A key problem for Chicago is that it’s now a city of 2.5 million people with a city government footprint for a city of 3.5 million. That’s how much the city’s population has declined since 1970. The 2020 decennial census may reveal that Chicago’s population is now below 2 million.
Down another .5 million eh? Depending on how you look at it, that’s a 25% loss in taxpayers, or a 14% decline vs the cost footprint. I could be genteel, but…….Chicago is fucked.
I understand Madigan. A crook in pursuit of filthy lucre. But what do his constituents get in return for continuing and ruinous support of this monster? Faster garbage pick up?
People vote for a candidate based on his looks, personality, and, most importantly, race/religion. Policies and platforms play no role in the voting process, nor do outcomes.
Many years ago, at a family picnic, my mother (RIP) had a rant about the evils of some policies coming out of Washington. They were being pushed by Ted Kennedy, whom my mother adored. She was unable to make the connection between Ted’s evil policies and Ted the beloved.
I don’t think I’d phrase it quite that way. I think I would say that people are encouraged to vote for candidates based on looks, affect, race/religion and many do.
I don’t but I recognize that many people do. Many voters vote strictly based on affiliation—the party to which the candidate belongs. IMO one of the culprits in voting for superficial reasons is television advertising. Not all democratic countries allow political advertising on television and some limit the period during which it can be run. We could, too. We won’t because it provides an advantage to candidates whose appeal is superficial (most of those presently in office).
I realize some do, Bob. But I think you overstate the case. Trumps looks? Religion etc? And have you ever seen Madigan?
Mine was a leading question. They vote for Madigan due to affiliation. But it’s a vote, election after election, for a coming train wreck. And fo what? Politicians may move on, but many residents do not.
Late again. @Drew cites good examples, but I think they are outliers.
Humans do not like to hear it, but we are animals. As such, there are innate reasons for many of the choices we make, and many of them are for the perpetuation of our species.
To process large amounts of data, our brains have evolved to retain a small amount of data, but we are able to process a much larger amount of data through interpolation.
We fill in the blanks for missing data, or we change seemingly incorrect data into what we think is correct. Most optical illusions are based upon this. We also use this for other decisions.
An expert in one subject is assumed to be an expert in an unrelated subject. We trust famous people more than ordinary people. Being attractive and famous, Paris Hilton must know more about the tastiest burger. A lab coat means medical or scientific knowledge.
Brands work the same way whether the product is goods or politics. Most people do not have time to become a subject matter expert in all areas, and without some subject matter knowledge, there is no way to determine which expert is right.
With little or no scientific knowledge, one cannot know what is science and what is theology. When the doctor tells you that smoking is not harmful, he/she must be right because of the white lab coat. When the politician tells you something, it must be right because he is in your party, and your party must be right because you would not be in the stupid party.