QUOTE: [Chicago Tribune editorial - see Footnote 1]
TITLE: By 6:15, it was over
Subtitle: Garcia doesn't make a case to unseat Emanuel
You knew it would come, everybody knew it would come: How can City Hall make a mandatory $550 million payment to police and fire pension funds? Sure enough, kaboom, first question. What followed was Monday evening's mayoral debate, reduced to its essence:
Mayor Rahm Emanuel's staccato recipe for fixing City Hall's pension crisis leapt from higher employee contributions [Chicago's powerful unions will resist this or will want a pay raise to soften the blow] to a broader-based sales tax, to a city-run casino, [If a casino is that important, why hasn't Rahm managed to conjure one up in his first term?] to TIF surpluses. [TIF money is supposed to be used to upgrade economically depressed communities.] He concluded with an overarching rationale: Financial stability will give people "the confidence to bring jobs and people back to Chicago [So why, under Rahm's leadership as mayor over the last four years, has Chicago's bond rating sunk five times, so it's now only two steps above junk status?]
And Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia? The first words from his mouth: "It depends." Because his team has to "open up the books to understand what the real finances of the city are." Garcia didn't answer the question [Garcia did answer the question. It seems the Tribune failed to realize the huge advantage enjoyed by the incumbent in that only Rahm knows what's in the books.] but did get in an off-topic jab about Emanuel subsidizing rich people.
OK, we thought, he'll find his footing. Soon came a question many Chicagoans ask: property tax increase. Discuss.
Emanuel flicked at his earlier answer and said, "Everything I'm doing is to avoid a property tax increase." [That doesn't mean that, once re-elected, Rahm won't ram such an increase through the City Council - a Council known to be Rahm's rubberstamp.] But Garcia doubled down: "You cannot move forward until you show the taxpayers of Chicago where the money is going." Ouch. [What do you mean "Ouch?" Chuy's right on this point. Maybe this would have been a good time for the Trib to mention their bias - that they had already endorsed Rahm.] A second admission from Garcia that, nearly five months into his campaign for mayor, he doesn't talk even to the nearest billion about City Hall finances. [How can he talk, until he sees those books?] The closest he got was a shot at Emanuel for failing to get Chicago's house in order, and "now talking in a sophisticated way about how he's going to do it." The obligatory next line - Here's how I'm going to do it - never arrived. [This line couldn't have arrived since, again, one cannot offer a plan without knowing the detailed financial records at Rahm's disposal. As for Rahm, he's had four years to "do it," but hasn't.]
On it went: Garcia, asked how he would replace the $70 million in revenue from the red light cameras he promises to remove? "That is part of the challenge." With each wan answer from Garcia [Garcia's simply repeating an inconvenient truth - one which the Tribune doesn't like since it favors the strongman model personified by Rahm], Emanuel filibustered anew about his plans to right Chicago with a mix of reform and revenue. ["filibustered" is a strange choice of words here. But it can't mask why Rahm hasn't managed, in four years, to implement these reforms and obtain those revenues.]
Fifteen minutes into the hour, the debate was as good as over. The longer the men talked, the more obvious it was that this was a debate about one, and only one, candidate's ideas. ["Ideas" which Rahm had four years to implement but hasn't. "Ideas" which Garcia honestly admitted he couldn't offer unless he had access to the same secret financial records enjoyed by Rahm.]
One cliche of this race is that Garcia's sole platform plank is: "I'm not Rahm."
That's not fair; Garcia plainly loves Chicago and wants to revive its moribund neighbors. [If we know that much about Garcia, that's all we have to know. Rahm cares more about his buddies in high finance - that much we do know.] But given a wide-open chance to explain the financial plan that will make his dreams possible, he stuck to platitudes. ["Platitudes?" Another strange choice of words. Garcia simply admitted he needs more information upon which to base a plan.] We watched every minute. But we didn't have to.
:UNQUOTE.
Apparently whoever had written the editorial quoted above in its entirety wasn't aware of the following or chose to ignore it. Here, I make no comment:
QUOTE: [See link on Footnote 2 to see complete version of this Sun Times article]
- The decision by Moody’s Investors Service to drop Chicago’s rating for a fifth time under Mayor Rahm Emanuel — from Baa1 to Baa2 — may cost the City of Chicago tens of millions of dollars.
- He noted that even before the downgrade, the state of Illinois had the lowest credit of all 50 states, and the city of Chicago had the worst credit rating of any major municipality except Detroit.
:UNQUOTE.
Many of Chicago's voters will be over-impressed by the recent announcement that the Willis Tower (formerly the Sears Tower) has been sold for a record $1.3 billion. They'll conclude, "It seems someone is so bullish on Chicago that they'd sink that much cash into obtaining this property." Maybe the truth is, these investors are bullish on Chicago's established business district but - there's a lot more to Chicago than this.
The next article doesn't have anything to directly do with Rahm or Chuy, but will give you an idea of the political culture at the state level they'll have to navigate once elected. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy.
Again, I comment in green what I highlight in the article in yellow:
QUOTE: [Chicago Tribune lead story, see Footnote 3]
TITLE: Lobbyist sues to boost pension for 1 day as sub in classroom
By: Ray Long
A union lobbyist who qualified for a teacher pension windfall by subbing at a school for one day is suing a state retirement board because his benefits were scaled back once his sweet deal was exposed.
Retired Illinois Federation of Teachers lobbyist David Piccioli, 65, is arguing that lawmakers violated the state constitutional provision that says a pension cannot be "diminished or impaired" once it is set.
Piccioli is already collecting $31,485 from the Teachers Retirement System. If he wins his case, his teacher pension could increase by more than $36,000, the Tribune estimated - more than doubling what he gets now.
["more than doublnig" based on one day served as a substitute teacher - and that will be for life!]
[more follows]
:UNQUOTE.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of the
Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Footnote 1:
Chicago Tribune, March 17, 2015
Footnote 2:
http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/7/71/401903/moodys-drops-chicagos-bond-rating-another-notch-two-levels-junk-status
Footnote 3:
Chicago Tribune, March 19, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment