Friday, September 14, 2007
Comments on CTA Tax Hike Article
Below are the last comments as of Friday, September 13, 2007, on my Illinoize article entitled, " So Much Heat Over RTA Sales Tax Hike Plan from a Typo."
You can read the rest of the comments below the article here.
At 3:36 AM Pat Ryan said...
How can Chicago run the Olympics if it can't run a World Class transit system?
We keep on focusing on more money, which is a current reality BUT we have not yet talked about (or Daley and Blagojevich have not yet talked about):
The board is political.
The contracts are fixed and political.
The jobs are political.
The pensions are huge.
AND THEY WANT MORE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!
I agree with Mass Transit--I agree that low income people should have a way to get to work--WORK IS GOOD--TRAINS AND BUSES ARE GOOD--I think less gas, less cars on roads, less traffic, less congestion, less air pollution--ALL GOOD
WHAT IS BAD IS
At 4:50 AM, Anonymous said...
47W,
You indicated that the Hamos Bill had "bi-partisan support".
While there was no publiched roll call, reports indicated that only 5 House R's supported the bill when it came before the Illinois House.
This is not to suggest that no more than 5 may actually support it either now; or in the future, but when given the best opportunity to demonstrate their support, it would seem an overwhelming number of the House R's refused to do so. On its face, that does not seem to be very "bi-partisan", but rather just the opposite.
The measure when served up alone; and defeated as it was, seems to be nothing but partisan, by both D's and R's.
The R's seemed to have determined that you will not "get yours" until we "get ours" also, and they simply helped to defeat the measure as a means to a more comprehensive "bipartisan solution" to a broader range of issues.
I think what Cal is suggesting in a referendum, is that both the R's, and the D's might be surprised to find that there could be considerable opposition to the bill from average citizens that lean either way politically but are not entrenched in the system.
It looks to me however like the measure as proposed only has "bi-partisan support" as part of a larger budget compromise, and does not enjoy "bi-partisan" support on its own.
Not only that, but given the Senate's cancelled session, it appears as though it does not even have unanimous support from the D's in that chamber, which would be sufficient to send it back to the House. Instead of the absence of "bi-partisanship" there, the objections would seem to be geographic, rather than political ideology.
In essence you could say then that this measure not only falls short of bi-partisan support, but also doesn't have sufficient "partisan support" even from a veto proof majority partisan group.
Without one; "let them eat cake"
It looks to me
You can read the rest of the comments below the article here.
At 3:36 AM Pat Ryan said...
How can Chicago run the Olympics if it can't run a World Class transit system?
We keep on focusing on more money, which is a current reality BUT we have not yet talked about (or Daley and Blagojevich have not yet talked about):
1. Patronage at the CTA, lots of hacks in painting, administration, construction including convicts or ex convicts, people fired from the city, politicalSo the workers are political.
2. A politically appointed hack board.
3. Contract cronyism at the CTA, remember that Victor Reyes stole the contract from Gery Chico to represent the French design company of the euro-chique yet expensive CTA waiting stations downtown that Daley like--lobbying for them WHILE HE WAS ON THE BOARD!!!! lots of other contracts too
4. Pensions that are sky high and you could never find in the private sector.
5. Drivers and other employees (admittedly you can get some tough passengers too) who are rude, bad drivers, ignorant etc.
6. The elimination of service that made no sense. There were cuts in Hispanic areas where an illegal probably para transit jitney system exists that you can find by going to 26th Street at starting about 4 AM and seeing people from 4AM to 7 AM riding vans with other people going to work--it exists elswhere too. When I lived in Washington DC the El Salvadorians had their own non government regulated "bus" and cab system. For all the Mexicans working at night and weekends, and yes not to stereotype--but maids, janitors, chefs, busboys, waiters, dishwashers, nannies, construction--who work nights and weekends--public transit was the way to go--they a lost a lot of ridership.
7. Too much money spent on new downtown stations, and beautification of downtown and north-south lakefront lines
8. No people who know transit.
Isn't former Alderman Mike Wojcik--the guy who didn't finish his Physical Education degree from UIC or Northwestern have a 6 figure job in Public Affairs--maybe his grammatically correct press releases--or IT--he probably took a lot of computer classes in PE major.
Fire Mike Wojcik before you talk about money.
9. WHAT DOES RON HUBERMAN KNOW ABOUT THE CTA OR MASS TRANSIT????!!!!!!!
Why is he so brilkiant again???!!!!
Was he the one who cleaned up the City???!!!!
Was he the one that cleaned up the Police force???!!!
What is his resume???!!!!!
10. Cal, didn't you serve with Sam Panyototayovic in the State House--wasn't he known as Edward Vrdolyak's guy?? I think he was even a Republican State Rep until Clem Balanoff beat him.
How was his wife qualified to be on the CTA board???!!!!
Did she know transportation??
or finance???
or mass transit???
or computers
11. There is no VISION, NO PLAN, NO PHILOSOPHY, NO MISSION STATEMENT
12. Daley likes to go to other countries--what can we learn from other countries with good trains and buses
13. Can we privatize anything???
14. With gross mismanagement, patronage jobs, idiots like Mike Wojcik, 11th ward hacks, Victor Reyes on the board, State Reps wives on the boards (these boards make $35,000 a year with pension, and health benefits--hell--I would do it for FREE just for the PENSION AND HEALTH!!!!)
The board is political.
The contracts are fixed and political.
The jobs are political.
The pensions are huge.
AND THEY WANT MORE TAXPAYER MONEY!!!
I agree with Mass Transit--I agree that low income people should have a way to get to work--WORK IS GOOD--TRAINS AND BUSES ARE GOOD--I think less gas, less cars on roads, less traffic, less congestion, less air pollution--ALL GOOD
WHAT IS BAD IS
- WASTEFUL PATRONAGE
- BAD PEOPLE IN JOBS
- LOTS OF WASTE
- IDIOTS IN JOBS
- POLITICS RUNNING EVERYTHING
- CRONYISM IN CONTRACTS
- BAD CHOICES TO SPEND MONEY
- HUGE PENSIONS
- BAD EMPLOYEES
- OUTDATED TECHNOLOGY
- AND ALWAYS WANTING TAXPAYER BAILOUTS
- OR HIGHER FARES
At 4:50 AM, Anonymous said...
47W,
You indicated that the Hamos Bill had "bi-partisan support".
While there was no publiched roll call, reports indicated that only 5 House R's supported the bill when it came before the Illinois House.
This is not to suggest that no more than 5 may actually support it either now; or in the future, but when given the best opportunity to demonstrate their support, it would seem an overwhelming number of the House R's refused to do so. On its face, that does not seem to be very "bi-partisan", but rather just the opposite.
The measure when served up alone; and defeated as it was, seems to be nothing but partisan, by both D's and R's.
The R's seemed to have determined that you will not "get yours" until we "get ours" also, and they simply helped to defeat the measure as a means to a more comprehensive "bipartisan solution" to a broader range of issues.
I think what Cal is suggesting in a referendum, is that both the R's, and the D's might be surprised to find that there could be considerable opposition to the bill from average citizens that lean either way politically but are not entrenched in the system.
It looks to me however like the measure as proposed only has "bi-partisan support" as part of a larger budget compromise, and does not enjoy "bi-partisan" support on its own.
Not only that, but given the Senate's cancelled session, it appears as though it does not even have unanimous support from the D's in that chamber, which would be sufficient to send it back to the House. Instead of the absence of "bi-partisanship" there, the objections would seem to be geographic, rather than political ideology.
In essence you could say then that this measure not only falls short of bi-partisan support, but also doesn't have sufficient "partisan support" even from a veto proof majority partisan group.
Without one; "let them eat cake"
It looks to me
Labels: Chicago Transit Authority, CTA, RTA Referendum, RTA Sales Tax
# posted by Cal Skinner : 11:13 AM
