Do knee-jerk pols put any thought into votes they cast on govt. business?

One of the things that dismays me as a reporter-type person observing various levels of government is that our elected officials are the equivalent of sheep.

Daley's 'rubber stamp' council not odd, even today

The rank-and-file aldermen, commissioners and legislators (Congressmen, too, if you want to be honest) are supposed to be the bodies that give their approval to the proposals put forth by the chief executives (mayors, governors, etc.) they’re supposed to monitor.

YET LET’S BE honest. They usually do whatever they’re told to do. They “get with the program,” so to speak. The occasional public official who actually makes a point of trying to study the details and think for themselves on each and every issue winds up being regarded as a troublemaker – if not a downright huge pain in the derriere.

It is something I have seen at so many levels of government that I don’t doubt its truth. Reading a recent analysis prepared by the Moody’s Investors Service only helped to reinforce it in my mind.

The analysis was meant to study the long-range impact of the recent debacle Cook County government went through in enacting, then repealing, that penny-per-ounce tax on pop and other sweetened beverages.

Those pennies do add up – to the point where people were outraged at the increased cost of a case of pop. Even the county admits it expected to raise some $200 million per year from all those pennies. It wasn’t cheap change!

THE ANALYSIS SAID that public outrage, stirred up by the lobbying efforts of the American Beverage Association with its “Can the Tax” campaign, is now intense enough that the public will be skeptical of any government proposing any kind of tax increase – regardless of the reason.

“The political backlash against the pop tax highlights the practical limitations on raising taxes, even if a government is legally permitted to do so,” Moody’s officials wrote.

“Any future tax hikes in the wake of the pop tax repeal will likely be met with some political opposition, exacerbating budget pressures for Cook County and other area local governments,” the service wrote.

Let’s be honest. When most of the officials who voted to implement the tax did so last November, they really didn’t think much about it. They just voted “aye” because they felt they ought to do so. Likewise, most of them were just as quick to want to jump on board the repeal effort made earlier this month.

I COULDN’T HELP but see some truth in the view of commissioner Deborah Sims, D-Chicago, who complained about being forced to vote to repeal. I think I would have respected her view if she had held her ground, instead of going along with the repeal.

It is the reason why the two county commissioners I gained some respect for out of the pop tax debacle were Jerry “the Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago, and Larry Suffredin, D-Evanston. They were the two who held their ground and voted for the pop tax – then against its repeal.

The others went with the whims of following the way the wind blows – and when it blew in ways telling them to suddenly change their stance, they did so; regardless of whatever it is they really think about the issue.

Although for all I know, they may be more than willing to go with the program – either putting their faith in the elected leadership so that they want to be part of the overall organization. Or maybe they’re really just that indecisive.

NOT THAT COOK County government’s behavior is unique. Aldermen and legislators are just as inclined to follow the whims of the mayor or the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly – who admittedly have staffs of analysts who can discuss the intricacies of any measure that goes before their respective governing bodies.

So are we now going to have knee-jerk “no” votes on anything that involves the revenue by which our government’s operations are funded? That would scare me, because we already have some people willing to act in such a manner on measures they have ideological opposition to.

Thinking they can get government out of its obligations to the people merely by cutting off the funding. Will similar people stir up trash talk against the Uber and Lyft transit fees being considered to help balance out the Chicago city government budget now under review?

It’s not high-minded or responsible government by any means. It’s more about being more interested in holding on to one’s elected office at all costs – even though the individuals probably don’t have anything in mind to do with the post once they have it.

  -30-

Could ‘Dubya’ wind up having his rep resuscitated in this Age of Trump?

It’s pretty obvious that one of the priorities of our current presidential administration is to erase any trace of his immediate predecessor – the people whose objections to the days of Barack Obama were racially-motivated probably would like it if none of the Obama policies were to survive into the future.

BUSH: Will we detest him less, due to Trump?

Kind of like the old Soviet way of rewriting history to eliminate happenings that were considered undesirable; and there definitely are people in our society who feel that the fact a majority of us ever wanted Obama in office is something shameful.

BUT IT MAY also turn out that Trump will wind up impacting the way we remember another of his predecessors. Remember the dunce-in-chief days of George W. Bush; when the bulk of us used to seriously wonder how we could ever pick someone so insipid to be our nation’s chief executive?

It seems we now have both Bush-the-younger and Obama going about questioning the intellect of Donald J. Trump – wondering what it says about our society that he was able to gain control of the launch codes. And all the other perks and responsibilities that go along with the presidency.

Bush this week made one of his few public appearances since leaving the White House (he’s mostly been even more invisible than Obama during his post-presidential years), and he let it be known he didn’t think much of the way racial politics have taken such an ugly turn during the Trump time in office.

OBAMA: Paired with Bush in Age of Trump?

“Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,” Bush said. While taking care not to say by name who he was talking about, the implication was clear. Although he’s the same guy who supposedly described Trump’s inaugural ceremonies as “some weird” poop – so to speak.

WHAT MAKES THIS somewhat ironic is that I remember the days (it hasn’t been that long, although the agony of enduring the Age of Trump makes it seem like he’s been around forever, spewing his nonsense-talk everywhere he goes) when the kind of people who are the base of the Trump supporters were similar to those who gave us George W. as president – and are the ones who think it somehow just and proper that Al Gore’s majority popular vote of 2000 didn’t result in an Electoral College victory.

TRUMP: Bush's unnamed target?

Of course, Bush-the-younger had his share of verbal gaffes that often left people confused as to what he was trying to say, and he was living proof that having an education at Ivy League schools does not automatically mean one is intellectual.

But many of the Bush gaffes came across as something we could laugh at – how could we let this boob into office. Even though it was often clear his amenable personality meant he was someone you could have a talk with – provided the ideology didn’t get in the way.

Whereas in this Age of Trump, “the Donald” seems determined to remind certain people in our society that they’re beneath him – and he’s more than willing to play into the hateful nature of some in our society to advance his own goals.

I DON’T THINK George W. Bush ever meant to hurt anybody; his vacuous nature meant some got harmed accidentally.

Whereas I don’t doubt Trump is more than willing to take down people if it benefits himself and his goals. Which may not actually be too deep.

I don’t doubt Trump probably regards the details of running the federal government to be boring; something to be delegated to the little people. He’d rather be the guy getting the nation all worked up over all those football players who have the nerve to think their position gives them a forum to express views on social issues – particularly those involving race.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not singing the praises of the Bush-the-younger years. Anyone who bothers to reread the commentaries I wrote in the early years of this weblog will see just how little I thought of those days when they actually occurred.

BUT I ALSO remember that a large part of why the conservative ideologues turned on George W. Bush was when he tried, toward the end of his presidency, to implement serious reform of the nation’s immigration policies.

The ideologues wanted nothing to do with reform – they just want venal policies meant to abuse individuals who aren’t exactly like themselves.

So the idea that Bush-the-younger is now somehow on the side of sense and compassion? It shouldn’t be too surprising.

Personally, I always thought that George W. (a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team) was someone I’d like to go to a ballgame with someday. Whereas I suspect going to a game with Trump would be a miserable experience – he’d be the obnoxious guy who peeves everyone sitting around him and security winds up having to eject from the ballpark for being a boor.

  -30-

EXTRA: Back to 'Wait 'til next year?'

Are we back to flying the 'L' flag?

The dreams of Chicago Cubs ball clubs capable of winning championships in two consecutive seasons are now down the toilet -- the Cubs' 11-1 loss Thursday ensured the Los Angeles Dodgers will be the National League champions for 2017 and will go to the World Series beginning Tuesday.

It's a low blow to those Cubbie fanatics who were delusional enough to think their fave ball club is now among the league elite and was somehow entitled to a second-straight World Series appearance.

ALTHOUGH IT REALLY shouldn't be. Winning two straight championships in professional athletics is difficult. There are a lot of teams that would consider winning one championship (the way the Cubs did in 2016) to be significant. Nothing takes away that accomplishment.

It will be curious to see now the Cubbie faithful react to losing. Will they become obnoxious in their whining that somehow they were entitled to victory in 2017? Such arrogance is considered tacky when it comes from New York Yankees fans, but then again, the Yankees back up such talk with winning ways.

What I don't see is something along the lines of Bill Veeck during the 1940s stint that he owned the Cleveland Indians. He had them when they won their last (to this date) World Series ever in 1948, and when it became mathematically impossible for the Indians to repeat as champions in 1949, he conducted a ceremony in which he buried the World Series championship banner the Indians had flown that season.

Implying that the championship days were over, and it was time to focus on the future.

WHICH TO THIS date are still World Series-title-less -- to the point where I'm sure Cleveland baseball fans would be thankful to have come as close as the Cubs did this year to repeating (rather than losing to the Yankees in the Division Series round of this year's playoffs). Or Pittsburgh Pirates fans who made playoff appearances, but have been unable to break their own streak of four decades without a championship.

Kike matches Reggie's 3 homers

What I'm more inclined to expect is Cubbie fan whining along the lines of how 2016 is supposed to live on forever -- and how 2005 (the year the Chicago White Sox won this city's first World Series title in this century) is a year to be forgotten.

It will be this obnoxious attitude that will fuel the dislike that fans of Chicago's two ball clubs have for each other.

And could be the impetus of what could become an ultimate World Series, from the Chicago perspective -- a rebuilt White Sox with a Cuban connection at its core against the Cubs, perhaps by 2019. Which would be the centennial of that World Series that lives in Chicago baseball infamy and is in desperate need of erasure.

  -30-

Only the rich can run for office – is that our political trend of the 21st Century?

I remember once hearing a debate of sorts (it was actually just a couple of political operatives being cranky and arguing amongst themselves) over the appropriateness of would-be government officials paying for their own campaigns.

KENNEDY: The political pauper of 2018 cycle?

One was all for it – feeling that it was somehow wrong for a person to expect other people to come up with the cash for them to afford all the trappings of a successful campaign.

WHILE THE OTHER was convinced that something essential to our existence was being lost if we relied on big money guys for political candidates. “Do you really want a system where only the rich can run for office?,” he asked.

For better or worse, it seems that is the direction we have turned to.

Take our state’s upcoming election cycle for Illinois governor – where we’re more than a year away from Election Day, yet the candidates have already spent some $102 million collectively on their efforts to put their own names forward while also taking down the reputations of the people daring to challenge them.

With some 12 ½ months remaining before the Nov. 6, 2018 elections, who’s to say how much the final total spending will amount to? The academics who devote their attention to politics and government already are calling this the most expensive election cycle in U.S. history, with candidates acting as though they think the election is this November rather than next.

PRITZKER: Entirely self-funded

THE SITUATION IS so outlandish that Chris Kennedy, a member of the not-quite pauperish Kennedy political family, is going around semi-jokingly saying he “thought” his family was wealthy – until he saw the kind of money his would-be opponents for governor were putting in on their own behalf.

Consider that the $3.4 million Kennedy has come up with for his own campaigning thus far buries all the other fringe political candidates with dreams of being the “big shot” of the Statehouse Scene.

But Kennedy himself gets lumped into the fringe candidate category because he doesn’t even come close to the kind of money the top two candidates for the gubernatorial post offer up.

RAUNER: Practically funding entire GOP

J.B. Pritzker, of the family that includes amongst its financial assets the Hyatt Hotels chain, has come up with some $28.2 million – all of which comes from his own money. He’s not raising anything from the public.

WHICH IS WHY the Democratic Party political bigwigs (including state party Chairman Mike Madigan) like him – he makes it possible for them to focus their fundraising efforts in support of other candidates – including the state attorney general fight that it seems Republicans are focusing their efforts on in order to win something, anything, come the November 2018 elections.

But before one can go around saying the Democrats are the big-money guys out of touch with the “real people,” one has to contemplate Gov. Bruce Rauner – who has some $70.9 million available for his campaign. With the bulk of that ($50 million) being his own money.

Personal donations he has made to himself to bolster his chances of re-election, and the election chances of other Republicans wishing to run for seats in the General Assembly.

The state Legislature has been the entity that has kept Rauner from implementing his alleged “reform” agenda – most of which really is nothing more than measures meant to whack at the influence of organized labor within government. Rauner hopes he can buy a more favorable Legislature to support his political desires.

ALL OF THAT money is the reason that Rauner can’t be counted out, despite the fact that he has peeved a significant segment of the Republican electoral base with issues they perceive as violating their social conservative principles. Rauner hopes he can buy enough votes come Election Day to win “four more years” in office.

Times have changed since Daley & Uncle John

While Pritzker hopes he can spend enough to overwhelm any potential competition, then take advantage of the significant number of Illinoisans (most of whom admittedly live in and near Chicago) who are thoroughly disgusted with the 2 ½ years we’ve had of the Rauner Administration and want him gone come January of 2019.

Which reminds me of that long-ago quarrel at the Statehouse. “Do you really want a system where only the rich can run for office?”

It seems that is exactly what we have – at least for the top posts. Perhaps someone without personal wealthy can still run for city Clerk or Illinois treasurer. In the end, it seems the wealthy can be just as much political hacks as those without.

  -30-

Will Chgo mystery bid entice Amazon?

It was with much fanfare, combined with secrecy, that Chicago city officials this week officially submitted their bid to Amazon.com, offering up a proposal by which the company would build its second corporate headquarters somewhere in the Second City.

What kind of bid concocted at City Hall ...

I emphasize “somewhere,” because city officials weren’t eager to share any details of what it is they’re offering to the Internet retail giant to entice them to want to come here, rather than to Atlanta, St. Louis or any other city that plans to get involved in the bidding process.

OF COURSE, CITY officials were eager to make grandiose statements about how Chicago has the “talent, transportation and technology” to be a worthy site for the new corporate offices that Amazon wants to build to supplement their existing Seattle-based facility.

But for anyone expecting a definitive answer as to whether Chicago is offering up the old Post Office downtown, the former Michael Reese Hospital site on the South Side or a site somewhere along the north branch of the Chicago River, forget it.

That’s a secret. City officials fear that somehow letting it be known publicly what they’re offering up will somehow hurt the city. Almost as though they think some other city will magically be able to duplicate what Chicago offers up as part of their own bid.

Which is highly unlikely, to tell the truth.

PERSONALLY, I WONDER about the possible re-use of the hospital or post office facilities. It would be nice to see such one-time prominent locations in Chicago be put to use – recycled, of sorts, in ways that will continue to keep them relevant for years to come.

Somehow, I suspect that Amazon types will want to think new and shiny, and if they’re contemplating Chicago at all would most likely be swayed by the artistic architectural drawings that could be created for any new site along the river.

... would attract Amazon.com ...

I suspect they’ll be scared away from thinking in the least about Chicago’s South Side – and probably would be equally terrified of those people who talk up the idea of Gary, Ind., as an Amazon site that would be very close to Chicago without actually having to endure the so-called drawbacks of city living.

Although I also think people who want to criticize urban life most likely are missing the whole point of why Amazon wants to build a new facility in the first place.

I MUST CONFESS to finding some of the speculation from other cities intriguing. Such as the Georgia municipality near Atlanta that is willing to approve the de-annexation of more than 300 acres of land for an Amazon site.

That would literally allow for creation of a new community that could be called Amazon, Ga. – they could be their very own city and govern themselves. They wouldn’t have to listen to any government officials. They could become, in a sense, the ultimate corporate town.

Would Amazon.com truly like to be the masters of their own domain, so to speak? Or is that just an old “Seinfeld” gag that the younger-minded of Amazon.com executives (it is a 25-year-old gag) wouldn’t appreciate?

Or could it be that the last thing Amazon.com officials would want to do is have to manage their own local government? Having to worry about one’s own trash pickup or street maintenance? Easier to have someone else worry about such tasks while they focus on the business of making goods available for sale at competitive prices.

BECAUSE OF THE city secrecy, I can’t even begin to speculate as to how Chicago’s bid competes with the inevitable collection of tax breaks that municipalities will offer up – seeing how much they can sacrifice short-term to Amazon.com in hopes that the company’s financial benefits will help them long-term.

... to want to come to the land of the Picasso?

That 50,000-jobs total is going to be tossed out repeatedly in coming years, even though the reality is that it would take many years for the number of local employees working at a new Amazon.com facility to equal the tally.

Maybe we’ll learn more once the application process is complete by Thursday – although just when Amazon.com officials plan to make their decision remains to be seen.

Ultimately, Chicago and the other cities interested in becoming the home address for the Amazon.com facility are at the corporation’s whim, and they’ll tell us what they’re going to do whenever they feel like it – not exactly a comfortable spot for Chicago to occupy.

  -30-

Should we respect people who want to use “Merry Christmas” as a weapon?

I have my own reasons for being upset with President Donald J. Trump and his attempt recently to use the upcoming winter holidays as another weapon in his ideological war for the mood of the nation.

Would the Macy's department store on State Street offend the presidential sensibilities for winter holiday celebrations. Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

It’s that Trump is just as guilty of watering down the Christmas spirit as those people he thinks he’s lambasting.

FOR TO ME, part of the problem with people losing the meaning or point of the Christmas holiday is that we start taking up its trappings so early. We’re not even at Halloween yet, but there are some people already preparing for the onslaught of Santa Clauses, reindeer and snowmen.

Trump, by bringing up this issue so early, is just as bad!

It’s too early to be thinking about Christmas, particularly since it’s still too early to be giving the Thanksgiving holiday much regard.

That bothers me just as much as the fact that he’s trying to turn the concept of “Merry Christmas” into a weapon that people hurl at those who happen not to share in their beliefs.

SOMEHOW, I CAN’T help but think the true concept of the birth of Christ, with all the significance it carries to those of Christian religious faiths, is grossly disrespected by using such an image to taunt other people.

Does the holiday menorah in Chicago have to go in a Trump-inspired world?

For the record, Trump made his holiday-related rant to a gathering of the Values Voter Summit, put together by the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. He let it be known he’s all for “stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” which is how he wants to perceive those people who use “Happy Holidays” as an all-purpose greeting to accommodate everybody’s particular winter holiday.

Odd that an attempt to include everybody is somehow seen as a taunt by those who want their own perceptions to prevail over all in our society, and our society to dominate over all that exist on this Planet Earth.

Sufficient religious display for people about to embark on airline flights?

Which makes me wonder if life is ever found to exist on other planets throughout the galaxy, will the people in support of this Age of Trump that we’re now in try to start up a crusade to ensure that alien races acknowledge and properly worship the so-called superiority of Donald J. Trump?

THE WHOLE EFFORT sounds absurd when you put it in those terms. Then again, absurdity has never stopped the Trump types from spouting out their latest ridiculous rhetoric.

Including the president’s own desire to make “Merry Christmas” a priority. Will this rank up equally with making sure those ingrate pro football players stand at attention during the National Anthem? Or is that article in The New Yorker where Trump criticizes Vice President Mike Pence evidence that he's already moved on to something else?

Does it all mean that Trump has the attention span of a gnat, and has become bored with that issue and needs a constant influx of confusion and mayhem to keep himself amused?

Sufficient holiday adornment for our govt. buildings?

The whole while ignoring the real problems that confront our society and our planet. Which he probably thinks of as boring details that could better be delegated to someone else so he’ll have time for another Mar-A-Lago-style weekend with golf.

BUT BACK TO the Christmas crusade, which may also be an effort at misdirection on the part of Trump, who was getting some criticism for even attending the gathering of religious-oriented individuals.

Trump is the first U.S. president to ever attend the group’s gatherings, and some activist-types were quick to point out that many of the people inclined to attend were those who use their religious beliefs to justify their white supremacist attitudes towards life.

As in “God Hates You” because you’re not a white Southern male – an attitude I have trouble accepting as being a part of any legitimate religious faith.

Just as I can’t believe that anybody seriously believes in using “Merry Christmas” as their winter holiday weapon of choice, when the attitude they’re really expressing with such talk is something more along the lines of, “Bah, Humbug!”

  -30-

Cubbies create nothing but a yawn from me, but White Sox offer no guarantees

I am a life-long Chicagoan interested in baseball who must confess that the presence of the Chicago Cubs in the 2017 baseball playoffs trying to get themselves a second-consecutive World Series berth leaves me emotionally flat.

Chicago baseball fans debate ...

I honestly could care less what the Cubs do this year. And not just because my interest in the local baseball scene focuses on the chances that the Chicago White Sox’ rebuild, with an intense “Cubano revolution,” will result in success.

BECAUSE OF THE White Sox interest, I’m an American League fan – one whom I must admit as a kid enjoyed the New York Yankees ballclubs of the mid-1970s and still remembers that two of their preeminent ballplayers were former White Sox Bucky Dent and Rich Gossage.

... which World Series relevant

I went into this year’s baseball playoffs focusing attention on the Cleveland/New York matchup, figuring that I’d wind up rooting for whichever team prevailed in that early round to go all the way to win the American League championship – then the World Series.

As for the National League? I check the box scores , but really don’t care which team wins. I only want them to ultimately lose to the American League champions.

If there is Yankee success in '17,...

I only saw the last two innings of that final Chicago/Washington playoff game – and will always believe the Cubs were downright lucky to get that 8^th inning pickoff play ruled in their favor because it put to rest the rally that WOULD HAVE resulted in a Washington victory (and the Cubbie faithful crying in their beers).

BUT REALLY, I’M not rooting against the Cubs at this stage of the playoffs Eventually I’ll root for either New York or Houston to beat up on either Los Angeles or the baby blue Bruins of the North Side – whichever prevails this week.

... it could be due to a trio ...

The part of me that roots for the White Sox during the regular season almost wouldn’t mind a Houston/Chicago matchup. It would be downright funny if the Astros – who only once in their history ever made it to the World Series; losing to the White Sox of 2005 before transferring leagues in 2013 – beat up on the Cubs!

White Sox fans mostly are apathetic about the playoffs (even though Cubbie faithful is deluded enough to think the whole world is obligated to root for their ball club), but would get a kick out of history recording the Houston Astros losing to their team, while beating the Cubs.

... of ballplayers with Chicago ties

Not all of Chicago is getting all worked up over Cubbie-mania. There are those of us with real lives, and those of us who are still living off the memories of that aforementioned ’05 World Series victory that was the first for a Chicago ball club in this century

JUST AS REGARDLESS of what happens with the Cubs against the Dodgers this week, Cubs fans will still have their memories of 2016 how they nearly blew a Game 7 lead to the Cleveland Indians, but managed to win in extra innings.

If Jose Lobaton hadn't been picked off ...

It’s the inherent character of Chicago baseball that fans have their team to root for – and the other might as well not exist.

The only way we’d ever get Chicago united over a post-season round of baseball playoffs is if we were to ever get the proper circumstances for an all-Chicago World Series.

Which is the goal of the White Sox re-build, to put their ball club in contention for a World Series berth at the same time that the Cubs may still have ballclubs in contention. That would be a circumstance that would create memories Chicagoans would talk about for the rest of their lives. Which when you consider how young some baseball fans are these days could easily stretch to the final days of the 21^st Century.

... it's likely the 'L' flag would be flying in the minds of Cubs fans

OF COURSE, THERE’S there’s always the problem that there are no guarantees in baseball – just like there’s no crying (remember the film "A League of their Own?"). Nobody knows just how the baseball season will play out until the ballgames are actually played.

It was just a couple of years ago the Pittsburgh Pirates had contending teams that were supposedly going to end decades of losing. Yet they haven’t won a thing – and their window of opportunity may now be over. Similar to those Seattle Mariners teams of the late 1990s to early 2000s – including the 2001 team that still has a record for the most wins in a season, but no league championship or World Series title to show for it. There also are many American League teams throughout the years that represented Boston, Chicago or Cleveland -- to name just a few examples of teams that came so close to winning it all.

A revival in Chicago?

Or maybe the story of coming years will be the resurgence of the Yankees (who haven’t won a World Series since 2009). What if the Yankees were to beat the Cubs in this year’s World Series, and have continued success that prevented the White Sox from winning a World Series birth in the near future?

Could the “Damned Yankees” be the uniting factor for both sides of Chicago baseball in years to come!

  -30-