8/31/09
Mary Schmich wrote a column in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune describing the plans of Lincoln Park Zoo to first eliminate the zoo’s docent program and then bring it back in a what some management types call a more “specialized, professionalized” form. People who have been working as docents, including the featured 78 year old Jack Gelfond, who has been working as a docent for 14 years, will have to reapply.
I don’t have strong feelings about the docent program at Lincoln Park Zoo. However, I do have strong feelings about the Zoo, one of the nation’s great zoos. Back when first I, then we, lived downtown, I or we would often walk along the lakefront to LPZ. (It is, after all, free, so the attraction of the zoo for the Quinns is obvious.) It’s a great place to spend time watching the animals, the people, and the spectacular surroundings of one of the nation’s great parks and neighborhoods. The docents always added to that experience with their knowledge of their charges and their enthusiasm for their volunteer jobs. My wife considered becoming a docent, but then we moved away, started having babies…you know the story. It seems to me that the docents will be missed, but perhaps the new program will result in new, improved docents. One suspects, though, that the results of the management types’ tinkering with the docent program will be about the same as the result of Coca-Cola’s managements’ tinkering with the old formula, but, being an expert on neither the operations of zoos or the finer points of sugar water, I just don’t know enough to make that judgment.
What I do know, though, is that, according to Ms. Schmich’s report, someone wrote the following drivel in a zoo document:
“…the antiquated volunteer utilization model…does not enhance the zoo’s strategic initiatives and often does not set up the volunteers for success.”
Hmm…
Someone was actually paid to write such codswallop, in all likelihood some consultant type who spent his or her college or grad school years in some management program learning the latest techniques in substituting gormless gobbledygook for actual management, or actual work.
Is it a mere coincidence that the onslaught of this corporate equivalent the Tower of Babel became popular at roughly the same time our large corporations became bureaucratized and anesthetized and our economy began its long descent into economic hell? Imagine what might have happened had the talent that went toward devising such mumbo-jumbo, and making the decision to hire people to produce such foppish flim-flam, went toward, say, figuring out how to effectively compete with cheap labor in the developing world, actually analyzing the securities the financial types stuffed in America’s (now) collective portfolio, or avoiding ignominious bankruptcy? Perhaps we might have a viable economy today. But maybe not. Maybe the production of such pointless pap in the “mission statements” and annual reports of the bulbous, billowing bureaucracies that used to be our great corporations kept their bumbling managements distracted, thus preventing even more serious damage from those who think uttering such tripe as “antiquated utilization model” and “enhancing strategic initiatives” constitutes management.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
“PENNY LANE IS IN MY EARS AND IN MY EYES…”
8/29/09
It looks as though, despite the death of Ted Kennedy, the most ardent champion of a single payer health system, or something very much like it, and despite talk of a Democratic “go it alone” strategy, we will see no significant changes to our nation’s health care system during this Congress, or for a long time afterward. This outcome was eminently predictable months ago, or even during the presidential campaign, when “health care” was such a hot topic. Why? It has nothing to do with the noisy town hall meetings. It has little to do with the growing Bush/Obama deficits. It certainly has nothing to do with the specifics of the various pieces of legislation or the Democratic leadership’s, both in the White House and on Capitol Hill, political ineptitude. No, major changes (reform, to some) of the health care system, a fervent goal of the left, is nowhere in sight for the same reason that educational vouchers, a fervent goal of the right, are nowhere in sight: the constituency that counts, the suburban, home owning, middle class voter, is happy with both its access to health care and the schools to which it sends its kids.
How can I say that the suburban, home owning, middle class is the constituency that counts? First, it votes. Second, within that broad set of people reside two vital and, paradoxically, intersecting sub-constituencies. The first of those is the swing voter, mostly moderately conservative but who would certainly entertain the notion of voting for a level headed Democrat, often because that voter’s roots, or his or her parents’ roots, are in the city and in the Democratic Party, but not the Democratic Party of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel, or the notion of voting against an incompetent, or seriously troubling, Republican, like George Bush, Sarah Palin, or Alan Keyes. The second sub-constituency is the bedrock Republican voter; indeed, the suburban, home owning, middle class voter is the very foundation of the Republican Party. These voters are not the foundation of the Republican Party because they are the ideological bedrock of the Republican Party; they are not the “true believers” (Though if my conversations with my neighbors are any indication, this is changing as more people have taken up Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as pastimes.) because they don’t buy into any extreme ideology and/or they are too busy making a living to spend too much time agonizing over the finer points of domestic or foreign policy. So it is not ideology that makes these people the bedrock GOP constituency and it is not even their (admittedly fading) instincts that government is not the answer to their problems and their now completely obsolete belief that the GOP stands for smaller government. No, these people are the very foundation of the GOP because, without these voters, the GOP ceases to exist as anything more than a bothersome anachronism. The GOP’s existential need for these folks once made the Republicans receptive and attentive to the concerns of this constituency, long before they abandoned these middle class suburbanites and became the meretricious lapdogs of its Wall Street and defense contracting bankrollers. This abandonment of the suburban middle class homeowner in favor the seven and eight figure CEO and investment banker is the reason that the GOP is probably going the way of the Whigs, but that is grist for another post.
So the suburban, middle class, home owning voter is the only constituency that really counts because it votes and because it is the swing vote, and if it continues to swing away from its former home in the GOP as that party comes to be controlled by the Sarah Palins and the Bush acolytes of the world, the GOP is finished. If the GOP can keep these voters in the fold, it still has a chance. Given that both parties need this constituency, and that this most vital of constituencies is happy with its health care situation, major revisions to the health care system in this country are going nowhere. Likewise, though not as salient at the moment, since the typical suburban homeowner is happy with his or her kids’ schools, vouchers have been off the table for a long, long time and are highly unlikely to make a comeback.
The Democrats had a chance to make this constituency restive about its health care options (See my now seminal 2/15/09 piece, “SICKOS.”) back when the economy was falling apart. (But the guys in Washington and Wall Street have turned that situation around, right? Happy days are here again! Grist for yet another post...or twenty.) But, instead of exposing the typical worker’s vulnerability under our perverse system in which one’s health insurance is tied to one’s type of employment, the Democrats decided to subsidize COBRA payments. While that was probably the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint, from a purely Machiavellian political standpoint, they blew their brief, shining moment of a chance to achieve one of their long cherished, and now distant to the point of invisibility, goals: radically changing the system of health insurance in this country. The Democrats instead opted to keep the suburban, home-owning, middle class voter happy, probably because the Democrats are smart enough to see that they need these voters…and maybe smart enough to see that the Republicans need them far more.
It looks as though, despite the death of Ted Kennedy, the most ardent champion of a single payer health system, or something very much like it, and despite talk of a Democratic “go it alone” strategy, we will see no significant changes to our nation’s health care system during this Congress, or for a long time afterward. This outcome was eminently predictable months ago, or even during the presidential campaign, when “health care” was such a hot topic. Why? It has nothing to do with the noisy town hall meetings. It has little to do with the growing Bush/Obama deficits. It certainly has nothing to do with the specifics of the various pieces of legislation or the Democratic leadership’s, both in the White House and on Capitol Hill, political ineptitude. No, major changes (reform, to some) of the health care system, a fervent goal of the left, is nowhere in sight for the same reason that educational vouchers, a fervent goal of the right, are nowhere in sight: the constituency that counts, the suburban, home owning, middle class voter, is happy with both its access to health care and the schools to which it sends its kids.
How can I say that the suburban, home owning, middle class is the constituency that counts? First, it votes. Second, within that broad set of people reside two vital and, paradoxically, intersecting sub-constituencies. The first of those is the swing voter, mostly moderately conservative but who would certainly entertain the notion of voting for a level headed Democrat, often because that voter’s roots, or his or her parents’ roots, are in the city and in the Democratic Party, but not the Democratic Party of Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel, or the notion of voting against an incompetent, or seriously troubling, Republican, like George Bush, Sarah Palin, or Alan Keyes. The second sub-constituency is the bedrock Republican voter; indeed, the suburban, home owning, middle class voter is the very foundation of the Republican Party. These voters are not the foundation of the Republican Party because they are the ideological bedrock of the Republican Party; they are not the “true believers” (Though if my conversations with my neighbors are any indication, this is changing as more people have taken up Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as pastimes.) because they don’t buy into any extreme ideology and/or they are too busy making a living to spend too much time agonizing over the finer points of domestic or foreign policy. So it is not ideology that makes these people the bedrock GOP constituency and it is not even their (admittedly fading) instincts that government is not the answer to their problems and their now completely obsolete belief that the GOP stands for smaller government. No, these people are the very foundation of the GOP because, without these voters, the GOP ceases to exist as anything more than a bothersome anachronism. The GOP’s existential need for these folks once made the Republicans receptive and attentive to the concerns of this constituency, long before they abandoned these middle class suburbanites and became the meretricious lapdogs of its Wall Street and defense contracting bankrollers. This abandonment of the suburban middle class homeowner in favor the seven and eight figure CEO and investment banker is the reason that the GOP is probably going the way of the Whigs, but that is grist for another post.
So the suburban, middle class, home owning voter is the only constituency that really counts because it votes and because it is the swing vote, and if it continues to swing away from its former home in the GOP as that party comes to be controlled by the Sarah Palins and the Bush acolytes of the world, the GOP is finished. If the GOP can keep these voters in the fold, it still has a chance. Given that both parties need this constituency, and that this most vital of constituencies is happy with its health care situation, major revisions to the health care system in this country are going nowhere. Likewise, though not as salient at the moment, since the typical suburban homeowner is happy with his or her kids’ schools, vouchers have been off the table for a long, long time and are highly unlikely to make a comeback.
The Democrats had a chance to make this constituency restive about its health care options (See my now seminal 2/15/09 piece, “SICKOS.”) back when the economy was falling apart. (But the guys in Washington and Wall Street have turned that situation around, right? Happy days are here again! Grist for yet another post...or twenty.) But, instead of exposing the typical worker’s vulnerability under our perverse system in which one’s health insurance is tied to one’s type of employment, the Democrats decided to subsidize COBRA payments. While that was probably the right thing to do from a humanitarian standpoint, from a purely Machiavellian political standpoint, they blew their brief, shining moment of a chance to achieve one of their long cherished, and now distant to the point of invisibility, goals: radically changing the system of health insurance in this country. The Democrats instead opted to keep the suburban, home-owning, middle class voter happy, probably because the Democrats are smart enough to see that they need these voters…and maybe smart enough to see that the Republicans need them far more.
Friday, August 28, 2009
“…AND THEN THERE WILL BE TEDDY…”
8/28/09
The death of Senator Ted Kennedy this week inspired plenty of news coverage that those of us who have a profound interest in history, especially post-War U.S. history, found compelling. Much of the coverage consisted of hagiography from the left and the “mainstream” media and “all Chappaquiddick all the time” vituperation from the right and its media outlets. Given the historical value, and the continuing salience, of any discussion of Ted’s, and his family’s, role in history and the utter lack of balance from either side in its coverage of the topic, I felt compelled to share some of my thoughts concerning the man who has legitimately and justifiably been endowed with the moniker “The Liberal Lion of the Senate.”
Let me start by saying that I was, and am, to put it mildly, not the biggest fan of Ted Kennedy and never cared much for his brothers or for his entire family. But, as the years have gone by and my perspectives, both political and personal, have come to evolve, I grew to like Ted Kennedy for a number of reasons. So here are the thoughts, both positive and negative, but mostly positive (The man just died; this is no time to emphasize the negative!), of a guy who was neither Kennedy’s biggest detractor (although, at one time, I was right up there) nor his biggest fan, but who believes that attitudes can evolve and that mercy, and slack, are two of the qualities of our Savior that we should, but usually don’t, emulate.
First, not only did Kennedy have entertainment value when he got really worked up over one of his causes (Some call this demagoguery. I would probably agree. But demagoguery is not only entertaining and a sign of passion, but also is relatively harmless in an informed society. To the extent that demagoguery is dangerous, the dullness of the society is as much to blame as the sharpness of the demagogue.), but, and this is closely related, you knew exactly where Kennedy stood on any issue. He was pretty much a down the line liberal. He didn’t try to pretend he wasn’t a liberal, and he didn’t try to hide behind anodyne terms like “progressive,” when being a liberal was not only not cool but, in many cases, a ticket to political obscurity. On virtually any topic, you could guess with amazing accuracy where Kennedy would stand before you heard, and in some cases before he had formulated, his stance on the issue. In that sense, he was an honest man who had some profound and real beliefs. There are so few of us left that I feel a profound kinship with such people, even when I disagree with them on most topics, or at least the overwhelming majority of public policy topics. On one of the few issues on which I nearly completely agreed with Senator, George Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, he was one of the few guys with the courage to take a direct stance against the war when many of his liberal colleagues, who doubtless shared his views in private, cowered and hid beyond innocuous resolutions that provided little but political cover for themselves. Of course, the security of Kennedy’s seat made such courage far easier in his case, but it would have been nice to see at least a few people besides Mr. Kennedy and Ron Paul take a firm stance against this largest foreign policy mistake since, or maybe even including, Vietnam.
Second, while Kennedy was a prodigious Democratic fundraiser, no one in history was better for Republican fundraising than Ted Kennedy. While others, including Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama, have risen to near Kennedyesque heights in this regard, no one can replace Kennedy, with his unabashed liberal outlook, his, er, personal failings (entirely, by the way, in his past), and his usually bulbous appearance, as a focal point for Republican ire and thus for GOP fundraising.
Third, I get the impression that Kennedy was genuinely a nice guy. If we are to believe the reports of his letters to the families of those residents of Massachusetts (Massachusians? Massachusettians? How about Bay Staters? Does anyone out there know what one calls a resident of Massachusetts, other than overtaxed?) who died in the 9/11 attacks, his personal calls to many of the affected families, and his attendance at countless funerals of fallen American servicemen, this was a man who was genuinely concerned with people and who, for obvious reasons, could empathize with those who suffered immense personal tragedy. One could argue that Senator Kennedy’s more selfless actions were really political stunts, but what political motivation did the man who occupied perhaps the most secure seat in the United States have for these very thoughtful, and very Christian, deeds? And, even if you are a dyed in the wool conservative, who would you rather have dinner or a beer with, Ted Kennedy or Chuck Grassley? C’mon!
Fourth, some will castigate Ted Kennedy for his “fierce partisanship.” I, for one, like partisanship, usually the fiercer, the better. The only people who are big fans of bipartisanship are members of the party that is out of power. Partisanship springs from deeply felt ideas. Those who, like yours truly, are dismayed by the cynicism and hypocrisy of what has come to be the governing class in this country have no business decrying partisanship. Indeed, one of the things that bothered me about Ted Kennedy was one of the qualities for which he is being most cloyingly praised in the wake of his death, i.e., his ability to “reach across the aisle.” I don’t want these guys “reaching across the aisle;” when they do so, they are sure to be cooking up a scheme to use our own money to dip their considerable probosces further into our affairs. I want these guys figuratively at each others’ throats because political combat and strife in Washington is the surest safeguard against intrusive government, other than an informed electorate, which left the building, never to return, a long time ago.
That having been said, while I like to see our public servants at each others’ throats on political issues, it would be better for everyone if such strident policy differences did not have to become bitter personal hostility. I yearn for the days when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could fight like hell over policy and then share amiable drinks at the end of the day. On that front, too, Kennedy seemed to have an admirable record. He had plenty of personal friends, and few personal enemies, on the Hill. Sadly, though, as the political has come to be personal, a sign that even those “conservatives” who routinely decry “big government” have come to see politics and political views as the be all and end all of one’s existence, I am sure that the number of those personal enemies of Mr. Kennedy has grown.
Perhaps it is hypocritical for the guy who invented monikers like “Preppy Timmy Geithner” and “Obsequious Ben Bernanke” to speak of not letting political differences become personal differences, but I, like Reagan, who used his share of barbed and well aimed zingers, genuinely enjoy the company of those with whom I disagree on political, and perhaps even more significant, issues. Those who know me know this is true. After all, it IS only politics. Ronald Reagan knew that…and so did Ted Kennedy.
The death of Senator Ted Kennedy this week inspired plenty of news coverage that those of us who have a profound interest in history, especially post-War U.S. history, found compelling. Much of the coverage consisted of hagiography from the left and the “mainstream” media and “all Chappaquiddick all the time” vituperation from the right and its media outlets. Given the historical value, and the continuing salience, of any discussion of Ted’s, and his family’s, role in history and the utter lack of balance from either side in its coverage of the topic, I felt compelled to share some of my thoughts concerning the man who has legitimately and justifiably been endowed with the moniker “The Liberal Lion of the Senate.”
Let me start by saying that I was, and am, to put it mildly, not the biggest fan of Ted Kennedy and never cared much for his brothers or for his entire family. But, as the years have gone by and my perspectives, both political and personal, have come to evolve, I grew to like Ted Kennedy for a number of reasons. So here are the thoughts, both positive and negative, but mostly positive (The man just died; this is no time to emphasize the negative!), of a guy who was neither Kennedy’s biggest detractor (although, at one time, I was right up there) nor his biggest fan, but who believes that attitudes can evolve and that mercy, and slack, are two of the qualities of our Savior that we should, but usually don’t, emulate.
First, not only did Kennedy have entertainment value when he got really worked up over one of his causes (Some call this demagoguery. I would probably agree. But demagoguery is not only entertaining and a sign of passion, but also is relatively harmless in an informed society. To the extent that demagoguery is dangerous, the dullness of the society is as much to blame as the sharpness of the demagogue.), but, and this is closely related, you knew exactly where Kennedy stood on any issue. He was pretty much a down the line liberal. He didn’t try to pretend he wasn’t a liberal, and he didn’t try to hide behind anodyne terms like “progressive,” when being a liberal was not only not cool but, in many cases, a ticket to political obscurity. On virtually any topic, you could guess with amazing accuracy where Kennedy would stand before you heard, and in some cases before he had formulated, his stance on the issue. In that sense, he was an honest man who had some profound and real beliefs. There are so few of us left that I feel a profound kinship with such people, even when I disagree with them on most topics, or at least the overwhelming majority of public policy topics. On one of the few issues on which I nearly completely agreed with Senator, George Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, he was one of the few guys with the courage to take a direct stance against the war when many of his liberal colleagues, who doubtless shared his views in private, cowered and hid beyond innocuous resolutions that provided little but political cover for themselves. Of course, the security of Kennedy’s seat made such courage far easier in his case, but it would have been nice to see at least a few people besides Mr. Kennedy and Ron Paul take a firm stance against this largest foreign policy mistake since, or maybe even including, Vietnam.
Second, while Kennedy was a prodigious Democratic fundraiser, no one in history was better for Republican fundraising than Ted Kennedy. While others, including Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama, have risen to near Kennedyesque heights in this regard, no one can replace Kennedy, with his unabashed liberal outlook, his, er, personal failings (entirely, by the way, in his past), and his usually bulbous appearance, as a focal point for Republican ire and thus for GOP fundraising.
Third, I get the impression that Kennedy was genuinely a nice guy. If we are to believe the reports of his letters to the families of those residents of Massachusetts (Massachusians? Massachusettians? How about Bay Staters? Does anyone out there know what one calls a resident of Massachusetts, other than overtaxed?) who died in the 9/11 attacks, his personal calls to many of the affected families, and his attendance at countless funerals of fallen American servicemen, this was a man who was genuinely concerned with people and who, for obvious reasons, could empathize with those who suffered immense personal tragedy. One could argue that Senator Kennedy’s more selfless actions were really political stunts, but what political motivation did the man who occupied perhaps the most secure seat in the United States have for these very thoughtful, and very Christian, deeds? And, even if you are a dyed in the wool conservative, who would you rather have dinner or a beer with, Ted Kennedy or Chuck Grassley? C’mon!
Fourth, some will castigate Ted Kennedy for his “fierce partisanship.” I, for one, like partisanship, usually the fiercer, the better. The only people who are big fans of bipartisanship are members of the party that is out of power. Partisanship springs from deeply felt ideas. Those who, like yours truly, are dismayed by the cynicism and hypocrisy of what has come to be the governing class in this country have no business decrying partisanship. Indeed, one of the things that bothered me about Ted Kennedy was one of the qualities for which he is being most cloyingly praised in the wake of his death, i.e., his ability to “reach across the aisle.” I don’t want these guys “reaching across the aisle;” when they do so, they are sure to be cooking up a scheme to use our own money to dip their considerable probosces further into our affairs. I want these guys figuratively at each others’ throats because political combat and strife in Washington is the surest safeguard against intrusive government, other than an informed electorate, which left the building, never to return, a long time ago.
That having been said, while I like to see our public servants at each others’ throats on political issues, it would be better for everyone if such strident policy differences did not have to become bitter personal hostility. I yearn for the days when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could fight like hell over policy and then share amiable drinks at the end of the day. On that front, too, Kennedy seemed to have an admirable record. He had plenty of personal friends, and few personal enemies, on the Hill. Sadly, though, as the political has come to be personal, a sign that even those “conservatives” who routinely decry “big government” have come to see politics and political views as the be all and end all of one’s existence, I am sure that the number of those personal enemies of Mr. Kennedy has grown.
Perhaps it is hypocritical for the guy who invented monikers like “Preppy Timmy Geithner” and “Obsequious Ben Bernanke” to speak of not letting political differences become personal differences, but I, like Reagan, who used his share of barbed and well aimed zingers, genuinely enjoy the company of those with whom I disagree on political, and perhaps even more significant, issues. Those who know me know this is true. After all, it IS only politics. Ronald Reagan knew that…and so did Ted Kennedy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
“…WOIKIN’ FOR THE MAN EVERY NIGHT AND DAY…”
8/26/09
The Chicago Sun-Times reports in today’s (i.e., Wednesday 8/26’s) issue that workers at SK Hand Tool, a relatively small company with operations on Archer Avenue in Chicago and in McCook, Illinois, learned that their health care coverage had been cancelled only after inquiring about the absence of deductions from their paychecks for insurance premia. No notice, no nothing. Just something like “Sorry, you no longer have health insurance.” In response, an unfair labor practices strike has been called by Teamsters Local 743, which represents SK workers, and, as of this writing, is ongoing.
The legalities of the situation are murky. While labor law has long established that benefits, like health insurance, are a legitimate bargaining issue, the contract between the workers and SK Hand Tool had expired in February. No new contract has been reached. The union argues that there was absolutely no discussion of health care benefits before those benefits were dropped. The company does not deny the lack of discussion, but does say that dropping the benefits was not its decision. SK argues that cancellation (again, without notice; one can make the case for dropping health coverage, but for doing so without notice? That is reprehensible.) was “due to a third-party’s decision to remove coverage, which was beyond our control.” While that might be true, the very turbidity of that statement, along with its not making sense even if it were as clear as crystal, makes it awfully hard to believe.
While the legality of SK’s actions may be subject to debate, the morality of discontinuing people’s health care coverage without giving them notice is not. Not only do people count on their employer provided health care coverage, many employees at SK, like people everywhere, were in the middle of some form of medical treatment or regimen and, having found out that they weren’t covered, after the fact, are out thousands of dollars. Given that the average hourly wage at SK is $14, the decision to cancel health insurance without notice has resulted in the financial ruin of some SK employees and the potential financial ruin of the rest. Maybe, as SK argues, cancellation without notice wasn’t the company’s decision. But someone did something despicable.
What is even clearer than the morality of this case is the support it provides for the utter inanity, if not insanity, of tying health insurance to employment. As loyal readers know from every post I have produced on the “health care” (See, inter alia, my 8/23/09, 8/13/09, and 7/1/09 posts.), I am truly agnostic on this issue, a genuine rarity for yours truly. But I am certain, or at least as certain as I can be about anything, that any genuine reform of the health care insurance system has to at least move in the direction of breaking the tie between employment and health insurance coverage, a relic of yet another government misstep, the price controls of World War II. The case of the workers at SK provides further evidence that trying to reform health care through “employer mandates” or “employer subsidies” will not go to the heart of the problem.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports in today’s (i.e., Wednesday 8/26’s) issue that workers at SK Hand Tool, a relatively small company with operations on Archer Avenue in Chicago and in McCook, Illinois, learned that their health care coverage had been cancelled only after inquiring about the absence of deductions from their paychecks for insurance premia. No notice, no nothing. Just something like “Sorry, you no longer have health insurance.” In response, an unfair labor practices strike has been called by Teamsters Local 743, which represents SK workers, and, as of this writing, is ongoing.
The legalities of the situation are murky. While labor law has long established that benefits, like health insurance, are a legitimate bargaining issue, the contract between the workers and SK Hand Tool had expired in February. No new contract has been reached. The union argues that there was absolutely no discussion of health care benefits before those benefits were dropped. The company does not deny the lack of discussion, but does say that dropping the benefits was not its decision. SK argues that cancellation (again, without notice; one can make the case for dropping health coverage, but for doing so without notice? That is reprehensible.) was “due to a third-party’s decision to remove coverage, which was beyond our control.” While that might be true, the very turbidity of that statement, along with its not making sense even if it were as clear as crystal, makes it awfully hard to believe.
While the legality of SK’s actions may be subject to debate, the morality of discontinuing people’s health care coverage without giving them notice is not. Not only do people count on their employer provided health care coverage, many employees at SK, like people everywhere, were in the middle of some form of medical treatment or regimen and, having found out that they weren’t covered, after the fact, are out thousands of dollars. Given that the average hourly wage at SK is $14, the decision to cancel health insurance without notice has resulted in the financial ruin of some SK employees and the potential financial ruin of the rest. Maybe, as SK argues, cancellation without notice wasn’t the company’s decision. But someone did something despicable.
What is even clearer than the morality of this case is the support it provides for the utter inanity, if not insanity, of tying health insurance to employment. As loyal readers know from every post I have produced on the “health care” (See, inter alia, my 8/23/09, 8/13/09, and 7/1/09 posts.), I am truly agnostic on this issue, a genuine rarity for yours truly. But I am certain, or at least as certain as I can be about anything, that any genuine reform of the health care insurance system has to at least move in the direction of breaking the tie between employment and health insurance coverage, a relic of yet another government misstep, the price controls of World War II. The case of the workers at SK provides further evidence that trying to reform health care through “employer mandates” or “employer subsidies” will not go to the heart of the problem.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
BEN IS BACK; BASH BEN!
8/25/09
Hey, tough guy, free marketeer, get the government out of my life, if only people would show more personal responsibility types on Wall Street! Did put your employer through a tough patch by applying the latest “risk mitigation” techniques and creating a FrankenCMO out of a bunch of mortgages that never should have been made, dismissing out of hand the old adage that putting a bunch of small piles of excrement together can only result in larger, even more malodorous pile of excrement? Did you put your bank into insolvency by stuffing its portfolio with the aforementioned piles of fast rotting garbage that your classmates at Yale put together? Did you put the retirements of your fund’s shareholders on permahold by using the modern financial techniques you learned as a justification for loading their portfolios with the dyspeptic discharge of your frat brother from Columbia’s trading desk? Did you fall and suffer a figurative or literal owwy knee? Well, your worries, to the extent you ever had any worries, are over! Uncle Ben will remain at the ready to pick you up, dust you off, kiss your wounds, and make everything better! Your shareholders may have seen their shares go to zero. Many of your “lesser” employees may be out of work, and out of luck. Your investors may be looking for work as Wal-Mart greeters, but you won’t have to sell any portion of the east coast fleet of Ferraris. Uncle Ben will make it all better!
Obsequious Ben Bernanke has shown that he is willing to fit yet another supercharger to the printing press at the Fed and put uncountable billions of taxpayer dollars at risk in order to make life as easy as possible for the Wall Street types whose approval, and potential access to future lucrative employment, he so desperately seeks. By reappointing him as Fed chairman, President Obama provides yet more compelling evidence that the Obama administration is nothing more than a dissolute and rudderless extension of the Bush administration. “No investment banker left behind” neatly encapsulates the Bush/Obama policy toward the economic and financial world.
Of course, the experts, most of whom have been direct recipients of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke Succor for the SuperRich approach to financial policy, will scoff at my failure to jump on the Bernanke float at the victory parade. What would have happened, they sneer, if Obsequious Ben had not turned on the turbocharger and “saved” our financial system? The answer is we don’t know; there is no certainty that we would be wallowing in the dystopia of a ‘30s redux if Obsequious Ben had not sycophantically kissed the rings of his future employers and potential (“Can I come? Can I? Can I? Can I?”) dinner party companions on Wall Street. It is at least as likely that we would have been much further along on the path of recovery, hopefully with a set of players distinctively different, and more circumspect, than the walloping wonderboys, and their nursemaids in Washington, that got us into this mess in the first place, if the situation were just left to work itself out with the Fed providing only ample liquidity rather than regular morning, afternoon, and evening feedings with either fiat or taxpayer cash and micromanagement of the financial system. We also don’t know, but I would be willing to bet, and have done so by taking long positions in gold, oil, and TIPS, that Mr. Bernanke’s efforts to dry the tears of the tough guy, rugged American individualist types on Wall Street will lead to an utter debasement of our currency, a rampaging inflation, and a decided acceleration of what looks like America’s inevitable economic and financial decline and fall, all while providing only temporary economic relief, almost none of which will be felt on Main Street.
Let’s see: Treasury Secretary Preppy Timmy Geithner. Fed Chairman Obsequious Ben Bernanke. Change we can believe in, indeed.
Hey, tough guy, free marketeer, get the government out of my life, if only people would show more personal responsibility types on Wall Street! Did put your employer through a tough patch by applying the latest “risk mitigation” techniques and creating a FrankenCMO out of a bunch of mortgages that never should have been made, dismissing out of hand the old adage that putting a bunch of small piles of excrement together can only result in larger, even more malodorous pile of excrement? Did you put your bank into insolvency by stuffing its portfolio with the aforementioned piles of fast rotting garbage that your classmates at Yale put together? Did you put the retirements of your fund’s shareholders on permahold by using the modern financial techniques you learned as a justification for loading their portfolios with the dyspeptic discharge of your frat brother from Columbia’s trading desk? Did you fall and suffer a figurative or literal owwy knee? Well, your worries, to the extent you ever had any worries, are over! Uncle Ben will remain at the ready to pick you up, dust you off, kiss your wounds, and make everything better! Your shareholders may have seen their shares go to zero. Many of your “lesser” employees may be out of work, and out of luck. Your investors may be looking for work as Wal-Mart greeters, but you won’t have to sell any portion of the east coast fleet of Ferraris. Uncle Ben will make it all better!
Obsequious Ben Bernanke has shown that he is willing to fit yet another supercharger to the printing press at the Fed and put uncountable billions of taxpayer dollars at risk in order to make life as easy as possible for the Wall Street types whose approval, and potential access to future lucrative employment, he so desperately seeks. By reappointing him as Fed chairman, President Obama provides yet more compelling evidence that the Obama administration is nothing more than a dissolute and rudderless extension of the Bush administration. “No investment banker left behind” neatly encapsulates the Bush/Obama policy toward the economic and financial world.
Of course, the experts, most of whom have been direct recipients of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke Succor for the SuperRich approach to financial policy, will scoff at my failure to jump on the Bernanke float at the victory parade. What would have happened, they sneer, if Obsequious Ben had not turned on the turbocharger and “saved” our financial system? The answer is we don’t know; there is no certainty that we would be wallowing in the dystopia of a ‘30s redux if Obsequious Ben had not sycophantically kissed the rings of his future employers and potential (“Can I come? Can I? Can I? Can I?”) dinner party companions on Wall Street. It is at least as likely that we would have been much further along on the path of recovery, hopefully with a set of players distinctively different, and more circumspect, than the walloping wonderboys, and their nursemaids in Washington, that got us into this mess in the first place, if the situation were just left to work itself out with the Fed providing only ample liquidity rather than regular morning, afternoon, and evening feedings with either fiat or taxpayer cash and micromanagement of the financial system. We also don’t know, but I would be willing to bet, and have done so by taking long positions in gold, oil, and TIPS, that Mr. Bernanke’s efforts to dry the tears of the tough guy, rugged American individualist types on Wall Street will lead to an utter debasement of our currency, a rampaging inflation, and a decided acceleration of what looks like America’s inevitable economic and financial decline and fall, all while providing only temporary economic relief, almost none of which will be felt on Main Street.
Let’s see: Treasury Secretary Preppy Timmy Geithner. Fed Chairman Obsequious Ben Bernanke. Change we can believe in, indeed.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
PRESCIENT MR. PONTIFICATOR
8/23/09
This morning on Face the Nation, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, chairman of the DNC, and medical doctor was making the case for the “public option” in whatever health care reform emerges from our current game of legislative chicken. He made his argument extremely poorly, displaying a knowledge of finance and accounting roughly equivalent to that of my eleven year old, who ceaselessly proclaims that he has no interest in, and certainly no intention to study, “that boring stuff daddy teaches.” Among other things, when decrying profits as “wasteful,” Dr. Dean confused the payout ratio with the retention ratio and assumed that both were calculated on total revenues, rather than net income. Now, I don’t expect most people, or even most of my readers, who are smarter than the average bear and are more attuned to financial matters than most, to understand that the retention ratio and the payout ratio are complements of one another and that they are calculated on net income. But most people, unlike Dr. Dean, do not pontificate on such things as if they actually had some remote idea of what such high falutin’ terms mean. But I digress. It wasn’t that Dr. Dean delivered what amounted to an execrable imitation of Norm Crosby when he attempted to argue that health care reform without a public option is not health care reform at all that inspired this post. The point of this post is what came next, which has, over the last few years, become a standard line of all those who believe that sufficient government intrusion in our lives, and shares of our earning power, are the sure path to nirvana. Dr. Dean stated (and I have to paraphrase here; I heard, rather than read, Dr. Dean’s words and so can’t quote them, but this is VERY close):
The Congressional Budget Office scores the House proposal at $600 billion. That comes out to $60 billion a year, less than we are spending (or perhaps he said “have spent;” it makes little difference to the larger point) in Iraq.
Why did that contention especially pique my interest? Because it is wrong? No. Factually, Dr. Dean is absolutely right. Whether the numbers work out that way (They never do when the other people’s money is at stake.) is another issue. But the Iraq war has been more costly than current projections for health care reform with a public option, and certainly more costly than the public option itself. What made Dr. Dean’s comment tickle my eardrums is the fact that over two years ago, when the Pontificator (the column, not the writer) was in its infancy, I put up the following post:
7/10/07
ANOTHER COST OF THIS WAR
This morning, The Wall Street Journal, apparently exhausted from its ceaseless marathon of Bush cheerleading, took a break to report some actual news: A report to Congress has put the total cost of the Iraq war at $400 billion, so far.
This got me to thinking that critics of the Iraq war are ignoring one of the more enduring (albeit, compared to the truly stunning loss of life, utter destruction of a sovereign nation, and creation of a hotbed of terrorist activity that will plague us, and the entire world, perhaps for centuries, not the most salient) costs of the Iraq war. I am speaking of the fiscal costs of the war, but not “only” the $400 billion we have blown so far. I am speaking of the long run ramifications of this, to use a woefully inadequate word, counterproductive spending.
In the past, when someone, usually, but certainly not exclusively, a Democrat, proposed some asinine spending bill, those who still believed in fiscal prudence, usually, but certainly not exclusively, Republicans, could counter that, as desirable as the program might be (usually with a well deserved roll of the eyes), we simply could not afford it. Now, however, the proponent of the pointless program can counter “Well, if we could find $400 billion to spend on the Iraq war, we can find money for (Here insert the name of the program that will not only raid the treasury but have ghastly unintended consequences that will “require” yet another fiscal abomination to “solve.”).” Such an argument will become the Third Millennia equivalent of “If we can put a man on the moon, we can (Here insert whatever the speaker wishes the taxpayers to fund in order to fortify the spondulicks of his or her campaign contributors or some utopian goal that bears absolutely no relationship to putting a man on the moon.).”
One of the last arguments against runaway spending and kudzu-like growth of government has thus been destroyed by that self-proclaimed champion of “conservative” values, President Bush.
The Pontificator
Dr. Dean’s perfectly legitimate argument is just the latest case in which the above prediction came true.
As loyal readers know, health care is one of the few issues on which I am genuinely agnostic. Even the sub-issues involved leave my straddling the fence. (See my 8/13/09 post, “TAKE A DEEP BREATH” and my 7/1/09 post “SPEAKING OF INDEPENDENCE…”) For example, excluding people with preexisting conditions from coverage renders a large portion of the population uninsurable, but how can we expect legitimately profit seeking companies to cover people that they know will lose them money, EVEN IF everyone is forced into the pool? I know that runaway litigation is a major contributor to the surge in health care costs, but I also know that, without a healthy and vigorous tort system, more rigorous and intrusive regulation will be needed to protect patients from shoddy medical work, and rigorous and intrusive regulation is a commodity of which our country has plenty. I know our current health care INSURANCE system stinks, but the serious alternatives presented so far are not only philosophically repugnant to people who think like I do, they are also flawed from a practical standpoint; the government does not have a great track record at running much of anything, and that poor performance has its origins in irretractable human nature, not the ability or the intelligence of those charged with executing the designs of the governing class. So I’m not here to argue vigorously for or against anyone’s conceptions of health care reform.
However, I am here to argue that George Bush’s disastrous Iraq war, in addition to its massive immediate financial costs and, more tragically and saliently, costs in human life and to our standing in the world, and hence to the security Mr. Bush used as an excuse for this abominable war, has given the big spenders ammunition in arguing for any program. As I said above, you can hear, and have heard, the big government types: “If we can spend (insert ultimate dollar amount…now well over a trillion of your dollars) on Iraq, we can surely spend (a similar amount) on (name some inane program that serves mostly to reward some poltroonish pol and those who enable him or, in rare cases, some worthwhile program that we simply cannot afford and/or that the government has no business sponsoring and funding).
It is the Iraq war, among many other things, that gives George Bush his eternal place in the pantheon of pathetically parlous presidents, right alongside LBJ and Jimmy Carter. And for my conservative friends, no matter how bad Mr. Obama may get by, as he is doing now, simply continuing and perhaps intensifying Bush financial and foreign policies (and he has a long way to go before he reaches Bushian heights of disaster), he can NEVER be as bad as Mr. Bush, simply because without President Bush there would have been no President Obama, so Mr. Bush is doubly responsible for the disasters that have befallen, and should continue to befall, this country in the first two decades of the new millennium.
This morning on Face the Nation, Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, chairman of the DNC, and medical doctor was making the case for the “public option” in whatever health care reform emerges from our current game of legislative chicken. He made his argument extremely poorly, displaying a knowledge of finance and accounting roughly equivalent to that of my eleven year old, who ceaselessly proclaims that he has no interest in, and certainly no intention to study, “that boring stuff daddy teaches.” Among other things, when decrying profits as “wasteful,” Dr. Dean confused the payout ratio with the retention ratio and assumed that both were calculated on total revenues, rather than net income. Now, I don’t expect most people, or even most of my readers, who are smarter than the average bear and are more attuned to financial matters than most, to understand that the retention ratio and the payout ratio are complements of one another and that they are calculated on net income. But most people, unlike Dr. Dean, do not pontificate on such things as if they actually had some remote idea of what such high falutin’ terms mean. But I digress. It wasn’t that Dr. Dean delivered what amounted to an execrable imitation of Norm Crosby when he attempted to argue that health care reform without a public option is not health care reform at all that inspired this post. The point of this post is what came next, which has, over the last few years, become a standard line of all those who believe that sufficient government intrusion in our lives, and shares of our earning power, are the sure path to nirvana. Dr. Dean stated (and I have to paraphrase here; I heard, rather than read, Dr. Dean’s words and so can’t quote them, but this is VERY close):
The Congressional Budget Office scores the House proposal at $600 billion. That comes out to $60 billion a year, less than we are spending (or perhaps he said “have spent;” it makes little difference to the larger point) in Iraq.
Why did that contention especially pique my interest? Because it is wrong? No. Factually, Dr. Dean is absolutely right. Whether the numbers work out that way (They never do when the other people’s money is at stake.) is another issue. But the Iraq war has been more costly than current projections for health care reform with a public option, and certainly more costly than the public option itself. What made Dr. Dean’s comment tickle my eardrums is the fact that over two years ago, when the Pontificator (the column, not the writer) was in its infancy, I put up the following post:
7/10/07
ANOTHER COST OF THIS WAR
This morning, The Wall Street Journal, apparently exhausted from its ceaseless marathon of Bush cheerleading, took a break to report some actual news: A report to Congress has put the total cost of the Iraq war at $400 billion, so far.
This got me to thinking that critics of the Iraq war are ignoring one of the more enduring (albeit, compared to the truly stunning loss of life, utter destruction of a sovereign nation, and creation of a hotbed of terrorist activity that will plague us, and the entire world, perhaps for centuries, not the most salient) costs of the Iraq war. I am speaking of the fiscal costs of the war, but not “only” the $400 billion we have blown so far. I am speaking of the long run ramifications of this, to use a woefully inadequate word, counterproductive spending.
In the past, when someone, usually, but certainly not exclusively, a Democrat, proposed some asinine spending bill, those who still believed in fiscal prudence, usually, but certainly not exclusively, Republicans, could counter that, as desirable as the program might be (usually with a well deserved roll of the eyes), we simply could not afford it. Now, however, the proponent of the pointless program can counter “Well, if we could find $400 billion to spend on the Iraq war, we can find money for (Here insert the name of the program that will not only raid the treasury but have ghastly unintended consequences that will “require” yet another fiscal abomination to “solve.”).” Such an argument will become the Third Millennia equivalent of “If we can put a man on the moon, we can (Here insert whatever the speaker wishes the taxpayers to fund in order to fortify the spondulicks of his or her campaign contributors or some utopian goal that bears absolutely no relationship to putting a man on the moon.).”
One of the last arguments against runaway spending and kudzu-like growth of government has thus been destroyed by that self-proclaimed champion of “conservative” values, President Bush.
The Pontificator
Dr. Dean’s perfectly legitimate argument is just the latest case in which the above prediction came true.
As loyal readers know, health care is one of the few issues on which I am genuinely agnostic. Even the sub-issues involved leave my straddling the fence. (See my 8/13/09 post, “TAKE A DEEP BREATH” and my 7/1/09 post “SPEAKING OF INDEPENDENCE…”) For example, excluding people with preexisting conditions from coverage renders a large portion of the population uninsurable, but how can we expect legitimately profit seeking companies to cover people that they know will lose them money, EVEN IF everyone is forced into the pool? I know that runaway litigation is a major contributor to the surge in health care costs, but I also know that, without a healthy and vigorous tort system, more rigorous and intrusive regulation will be needed to protect patients from shoddy medical work, and rigorous and intrusive regulation is a commodity of which our country has plenty. I know our current health care INSURANCE system stinks, but the serious alternatives presented so far are not only philosophically repugnant to people who think like I do, they are also flawed from a practical standpoint; the government does not have a great track record at running much of anything, and that poor performance has its origins in irretractable human nature, not the ability or the intelligence of those charged with executing the designs of the governing class. So I’m not here to argue vigorously for or against anyone’s conceptions of health care reform.
However, I am here to argue that George Bush’s disastrous Iraq war, in addition to its massive immediate financial costs and, more tragically and saliently, costs in human life and to our standing in the world, and hence to the security Mr. Bush used as an excuse for this abominable war, has given the big spenders ammunition in arguing for any program. As I said above, you can hear, and have heard, the big government types: “If we can spend (insert ultimate dollar amount…now well over a trillion of your dollars) on Iraq, we can surely spend (a similar amount) on (name some inane program that serves mostly to reward some poltroonish pol and those who enable him or, in rare cases, some worthwhile program that we simply cannot afford and/or that the government has no business sponsoring and funding).
It is the Iraq war, among many other things, that gives George Bush his eternal place in the pantheon of pathetically parlous presidents, right alongside LBJ and Jimmy Carter. And for my conservative friends, no matter how bad Mr. Obama may get by, as he is doing now, simply continuing and perhaps intensifying Bush financial and foreign policies (and he has a long way to go before he reaches Bushian heights of disaster), he can NEVER be as bad as Mr. Bush, simply because without President Bush there would have been no President Obama, so Mr. Bush is doubly responsible for the disasters that have befallen, and should continue to befall, this country in the first two decades of the new millennium.
Friday, August 21, 2009
“I FOUND IT ALL…ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO…”
8/21/09
Mike Sneed, famed gossip columnist/political reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times who has long had a habit of regularly scooping most of her colleagues on the local political beat, reports this (i.e., Friday 8/21) morning that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart was approached by what she describes as a “top top Dem” to “seriously consider running for the U.S. Senate seat once occupied by President Obama.” Ms. Sneed further says that she confirmed the report with the “top Dem” who “has heavy influence” in Cook County and the Obama administration, two traits that seem to go hand in hand of late.
Tom Dart would be a strong candidate for the Senate. With Chris Kennedy dropping out of the race after a long imitation of Hamlet the Dane, the Democratic field is left to State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Urban League honcho Cheryle Jackson. Both are weak candidates. Giannoulias is very young, has little record of accomplishment, other than being born after his father and having played basketball with President Obama and professionally in Greece, and has a background in the (family) banking business, not a good perch from which to seek high political office in the wake of a financial crisis that had its origins, at least in the public’s mind, in the greed of the banks. Cheryle Jackson has a record of accomplishment that makes Alexi Giannoulias look like Dwight Eisenhower and is tainted by her close association with former Governor Rod Blagojevich, for whom she was chief of staff. As a partial result of the malodorousness of these two candidates, Republican Congressman Mark Kirk in ahead in the early polling in the Senate race. In a heavily Democratic state, this is earthshaking, so the Dems need someone other than Giannoulias or Jackson to bear their standard. Given Dart’s experience in the legislature and his recent (some might say shameless) headline grabbing in connection with his suspension of certain apartment foreclosures, the Burr Oak cemetery hornet’s nest, and his attacks against Craigslist’s more lascivious listings, he would be a more serious, or at least a more viable, candidate than the current reincarnations of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum the Dems with whom the Dems are currently stuck.
Anyone who follows our fair city’s, or our fair state’s, politics, though, sees an immediate problem with Sheriff Dart’s candidacy. Mr. Dart is of Irish-American origin. Many of us have little problem with the Irish, though perhaps not the aforementioned Irish, ruling the world, but more objective observers do, including God, who gave the world whiskey in order to prevent such an eventuality. Already, state government is run by people named Quinn, Madigan, Hynes, Madigan (again), and Cullerton. Will the electorate want a guy named Dart to join his Celtic cronies in statewide office, especially when City of Chicago and County of Cook government and politics is dominated by people with names like Daley, Daley, Houlihan, Burke, Burke, Joyce, Madigan, O’Shea, etc., etc.?
Even more to the point, Mr. Dart is not only of Irish-American origin, he is South-Side Irish. Of the aforementioned Irish officeholders, only Illinois Senate President John Cullerton has his origins on the north side. While Comptroller Hynes, Attorney General Madigan, and County Assessor Houlihan may currently live on the north side (And they may not, but I am quite sure they do.), they all have their origins on the south side. Will the electorate, especially the downstate and collar county electorate, want another south side Irishman in even higher office?
Most to the point, especially for the political insiders who can nip Sheriff Dart’s senatorial aspirations in the bud, Mr. Dart not only is South Side Irish, he is South Side Irish from the 19th ward. As readers of my now classic 8/6/09 piece, “I DON’T KNOW WHO GAVE THE ORDER; I DIDN’T ASK, BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS!”, know, the 19th ward seems to be taking over everything, has spread far beyond its more traditional behind the scenes perch, and looks set to accumulate more power. As it stands now, State Comptroller Dan Hynes, a 19th warder, has declared his candidacy for governor. If reports are (or scuttlebutt is) true, State Senator Kevin Joyce, another 19th warder, is thinking of challenging Congressman Dan Lipinski in the 2010 primary for the 3rd Congressional seat. If Cook County Sheriff Dart does run for the Senate, yet another 19th warder will be running for the U.S. Senate. All three of these gentlemen not only, like yours truly, hail from the 19th ward, they still live there. Such a concentration of power in a ward that already boasts behind the scenes power brokers like Jerry Joyce and the Sheahan brothers (Again, see my now classic 8/6/09 piece, “I DON’T KNOW WHO GAVE THE ORDER; I DIDN’T ASK, BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS!”) would be altogether intolerable to party bigwigs from other wards, even, one supposes, such south side Irish suzerains as Mike Madigan and John Daley.
Something has to give; one of the young 19th ward trio of Kevin Joyce, Dan Hynes, or Tom Dart has to temporarily give up his aspirations for higher office and stay where he is for awhile. While I’m not in the business of making political traditions, at present it looks like it makes the most sense for both Messrs. Joyce and Hynes to step aside and defer to their more senior colleague Mr. Dart. His candidacy makes more sense and ruffles far fewer feathers than that of either Mister Joyce (if such a candidacy is more than a rumor) or Mr. Hynes.
Mike Sneed, famed gossip columnist/political reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times who has long had a habit of regularly scooping most of her colleagues on the local political beat, reports this (i.e., Friday 8/21) morning that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart was approached by what she describes as a “top top Dem” to “seriously consider running for the U.S. Senate seat once occupied by President Obama.” Ms. Sneed further says that she confirmed the report with the “top Dem” who “has heavy influence” in Cook County and the Obama administration, two traits that seem to go hand in hand of late.
Tom Dart would be a strong candidate for the Senate. With Chris Kennedy dropping out of the race after a long imitation of Hamlet the Dane, the Democratic field is left to State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias and Urban League honcho Cheryle Jackson. Both are weak candidates. Giannoulias is very young, has little record of accomplishment, other than being born after his father and having played basketball with President Obama and professionally in Greece, and has a background in the (family) banking business, not a good perch from which to seek high political office in the wake of a financial crisis that had its origins, at least in the public’s mind, in the greed of the banks. Cheryle Jackson has a record of accomplishment that makes Alexi Giannoulias look like Dwight Eisenhower and is tainted by her close association with former Governor Rod Blagojevich, for whom she was chief of staff. As a partial result of the malodorousness of these two candidates, Republican Congressman Mark Kirk in ahead in the early polling in the Senate race. In a heavily Democratic state, this is earthshaking, so the Dems need someone other than Giannoulias or Jackson to bear their standard. Given Dart’s experience in the legislature and his recent (some might say shameless) headline grabbing in connection with his suspension of certain apartment foreclosures, the Burr Oak cemetery hornet’s nest, and his attacks against Craigslist’s more lascivious listings, he would be a more serious, or at least a more viable, candidate than the current reincarnations of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum the Dems with whom the Dems are currently stuck.
Anyone who follows our fair city’s, or our fair state’s, politics, though, sees an immediate problem with Sheriff Dart’s candidacy. Mr. Dart is of Irish-American origin. Many of us have little problem with the Irish, though perhaps not the aforementioned Irish, ruling the world, but more objective observers do, including God, who gave the world whiskey in order to prevent such an eventuality. Already, state government is run by people named Quinn, Madigan, Hynes, Madigan (again), and Cullerton. Will the electorate want a guy named Dart to join his Celtic cronies in statewide office, especially when City of Chicago and County of Cook government and politics is dominated by people with names like Daley, Daley, Houlihan, Burke, Burke, Joyce, Madigan, O’Shea, etc., etc.?
Even more to the point, Mr. Dart is not only of Irish-American origin, he is South-Side Irish. Of the aforementioned Irish officeholders, only Illinois Senate President John Cullerton has his origins on the north side. While Comptroller Hynes, Attorney General Madigan, and County Assessor Houlihan may currently live on the north side (And they may not, but I am quite sure they do.), they all have their origins on the south side. Will the electorate, especially the downstate and collar county electorate, want another south side Irishman in even higher office?
Most to the point, especially for the political insiders who can nip Sheriff Dart’s senatorial aspirations in the bud, Mr. Dart not only is South Side Irish, he is South Side Irish from the 19th ward. As readers of my now classic 8/6/09 piece, “I DON’T KNOW WHO GAVE THE ORDER; I DIDN’T ASK, BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS!”, know, the 19th ward seems to be taking over everything, has spread far beyond its more traditional behind the scenes perch, and looks set to accumulate more power. As it stands now, State Comptroller Dan Hynes, a 19th warder, has declared his candidacy for governor. If reports are (or scuttlebutt is) true, State Senator Kevin Joyce, another 19th warder, is thinking of challenging Congressman Dan Lipinski in the 2010 primary for the 3rd Congressional seat. If Cook County Sheriff Dart does run for the Senate, yet another 19th warder will be running for the U.S. Senate. All three of these gentlemen not only, like yours truly, hail from the 19th ward, they still live there. Such a concentration of power in a ward that already boasts behind the scenes power brokers like Jerry Joyce and the Sheahan brothers (Again, see my now classic 8/6/09 piece, “I DON’T KNOW WHO GAVE THE ORDER; I DIDN’T ASK, BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSINESS!”) would be altogether intolerable to party bigwigs from other wards, even, one supposes, such south side Irish suzerains as Mike Madigan and John Daley.
Something has to give; one of the young 19th ward trio of Kevin Joyce, Dan Hynes, or Tom Dart has to temporarily give up his aspirations for higher office and stay where he is for awhile. While I’m not in the business of making political traditions, at present it looks like it makes the most sense for both Messrs. Joyce and Hynes to step aside and defer to their more senior colleague Mr. Dart. His candidacy makes more sense and ruffles far fewer feathers than that of either Mister Joyce (if such a candidacy is more than a rumor) or Mr. Hynes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
