Why Somebody, Anybody, Needs to Run for Mayor

This Salon article nicely sums up some of the most significant issues with the current mayor. I  appreciate that Salon has a national audience, and this article can play a role in a media counter-offensive that will hopefully arise post-Time cover.

But can I say . . . I’ve had enough of articles that list the numerous crimes of the current mayor, than almost as an aside point out he has no challenger, in any sense of the word.  How can he be losing control when every single thing he proposes happens-when at least half of the city council immediately says everything he proposes is great-and most of the other half votes for it anyway? Yes, I know it’s stating the obvious but the fact is that he can’t be voted out unless somebody else runs. And no local politician is going to do it. There is simply no upside for any aspiring politician to run against a nasty, power-hungry, politically-connected-on-a-national-scale incumbent. In another city, you know where they have TWO parties; you might have an aspiring Republican try to make a name for him/herself by running for a mayor. But the dirty secret, which the Salon article alludes to, is that for all intents and purposes the mayor IS a Republican who has been pushing policies that do not differ from a standard Republican platform. This, coupled with policies that are nothing short of direct hand-outs to various corporate interests, means that the moneyed elites have no need for anybody else.

It has been the usual suspects that have complained the loudest, and have promoted #OneTermMayor. But, the fact is, this mayor has not given anything to anybody who didn’t already have something. What’s more, what he’s given to the 1% has come directly from the 99%, whether it be public school funds to charter schools, TIF funds (that would otherwise go to schools) to corporations who are already here, or just setting up an office, or auctioning off city assets in perpetuity to private corporations. There may be large projects worthy of closing public schools, but building a stadium for a private school is not one of them. More recently, it’s come out that the city negotiated a billboard deal appears to give up more then 600 million dollars for an immediate fifteen million. Fifteen million? Really? That’s pocket change available from any TIF district fund.

The sheer mismanagement of the city, in terms of policy and finances should outrage everybody. Whether you though schools should be closed or not, the process that went down should have upset you. There are examples of urban education reform that don't involve mayoral control-they usually everybody involved talking to each other, and working with each other. I have yet to hear anybody but absolute lackeys praise anything the mayor has done or proposed (Depaul, Navy Pier, etc.), nothing he's suggested/implemented can be described as a positive economic policy for most of the city.

Perhaps the most offensive part of the current mayor’s rule is the complete lack of accountability. Put together a proposal for reevaluating TIF districts? Yes, and then completely ignore it. Closing 50 schools, time to go on vacation! Firing 800+ people-go overseas! The mayor can and does push every crazy-ass idea that he thinks up; save for a handful of aldermen, nobody pushes back. Why can he do this? Because he knows nobody will run against him-he doesn’t care about being liked, in fact he takes pride in being "tough". Funny how being tough is always against popular interests, actual people, as opposed to corporate interests. As long as core group of people with a lot of money support him, coupled with just enough white people who don’t like unions and actually think he wants to do the best for the general population he’s good.

So for those of us who do not want to see every last part of the city auctioned off, to see every decent job traded for a crappy, minimum wage one, what to do? The most logical thing is to pick out a dozen or so wards with bad alderman-which would be almost all of them-for whom a strong candidate can be fielded. And by strong candidate I mean anybody who’s committed and is willing to articulate a basic vision which could be:

1) open the TIFs-no more
2) No large-scale projects without independent, outside cost-benefit analysis
3) elected school board
4) community-driven police accountability board

A solid, motivated candidate should be able to get at least 30% of the vote, with strong voter registration drives it could go up to 40-50%. In addition having a mayoral candidate, who would not have significant financial resources almost by definition, could run an effective campaign coordinating with a reform slate of aldermen. Such a candidate probably, however, couldn't win. So, why bother?

Well for sure, some of aldermen challengers could win, which would be where the real fight would be, but if there is no mayoral race all the mayor's money will go to sitting aldermen, making those fights that much harder.

But there is a larger purpose as well, it's clear the mayor lives in a Romney-like bubble, having an election where 30-45% of the public demonstrates in a real kind of way-with numbers-that there is substantial opposition to his policies could be helpful. It would weaken in as a potential candidate for anything else-a big city mayor who can only capture a fraction of the minority vote is not taken seriously in Democratic circles. More importantly, such a show of opposition, and it could empower some aldermen to oppose him more. It's not even obvious that the mayor is capable of actually campaigning-that is can he operate out of the sealed environment he lives in? Anything that could force him out, make him respond to the consequences of his actions, would be helpful.

Who is going to do this? Obviously CTU is trying to do this, where they are in the process is anybody's guess. But for this to happen it needs to be all interested parties-progressive groups such as the Greens, but also civic groups as well, like I stated before the number of people coming out ahead under the mayor is low. It should be a large coalition, and we don't have to agree on everything all the time, but the points I articulated are broad enough that most people could support.

The larger fight needs to be on creating structures outside of politics that encourage democratic participation to make the city work for us, or not be in at all, depending on the topic. In the meantime we have to fight to keep what should be properly public stay public. We need to look at changing the structure of city government, to create a genuine system of open, transparent processes that the people have some input on-that is not dependent on who the mayor is.

Save Our Schools march day 3--rally at Daley Plaza

So many people here who are not directly effected-here for support

Really-what more is there is say?

Karen Lewis CTU president "We are going to register 250,000 people to NOT vote for that man-he likes Washington so much let's send him BACK!"

Surrounding the belly of the beast-City Hall

Yep-and we pay more taxes then most corporations-you're welcome!

It has been HOT these last three days-better then rain but still . . . 

CPS kids-told by CPS not to come by the way "Ain't no power like the power of the people cuz the power of the people don't stop!"

How Income Re-distribution Happens: the Local Version

That personal income has been steadily moving up for the 1%, and down for the 99%, for the past 20 years or so is not in doubt, by anybody. Most people think this is a bad thing, although you can always find a few social Darwin types around if you look for them. The real questions come about with how it happened and how to fix it.  These past few weeks in Chicago have been a demonstration of sorts of how this happens, specifically how public money that we all put in—and in fact the upper classes put proportionately less in—winds it way to the top. 

First, there has been the revised parking deal.  The Mayor has said time and time again it was a bad deal, he wasn’t go to pay for it and so forth.  Well as the revised parking deal shows, he is going to pay for it, and it would seem we are all going to pay for it, plus some more. The fact is, if the Mayor was serious about revising the parking deal he would have not undercut the lawsuit against the deal. He would have had an entire legal team on it trying to get out of it, that’s how serious people negotiate. It’s amazing that in a city that can pay so much to defend police officers who have either acted egregiously or committed crimes there is apparently no will in the city to revise a crappy financial deal that would ultimately help every person who drives a car.

As the final decisions are made regarding the CPS school closings WBEZ released an amazing piece, essentially showing that just about every CPS talking point on this issue is false or patently misleading. The most important lie is that that it will “save money’—it certainly will not in the short run and it’s highly questionable it will even in the long run. This is a vital point. The idea that we have to destroy part of CPS to “save” it is not any different than the idea that the only way to “save” Social Security or Medicare is to cut them.  I’m sure this is the biggest reason something so draconian is seemly supported by voters, and it’s not true.

Also this last week the Mayor rolled out what passes for economic development around here—big spending on large projects that few people who live here will hardly benefit from and in fact might not be utilized by anybody else. The idea that the city and state should pay for a private school's stadium, one that the school itself will only use 18 times a year, is completely insane.  (I’d also like to think students at DePaul, who I am sure pay hefty tuition, have to wonder if that is the best use of DePaul’s resources). The idea that an entire shopping-entertainment-district can be supported so close to the United stadium, does not make sense.  The city also announced plans for a $115 million “upgrade” to Navy Pier—toned down mind you from the initial plans of a swimming pool with a beach.   As pointed out here this is for an attraction that (in terms of the outdoors) gets used maybe six months.  And just to cap it off the end game is coming for gambling bill in Springfield. Short version is that a casino will be built in Chicago in a closed-door process, the city of Chicago will completely control it with no oversight. But it's all good because the public schools will get the revenue-hey when have we heard that before? Even the guys in Vegas can’t follow that one.
A general theme that runs through these issues is that although it's advertise to be for our benefit, really it involves diverting money from the public purse to a chosen few. The connected, the wealthy, the ones who always come out ahead. This administration has yet to give anything to somebody that didn't already have something. By taking money out of the public sphere into the private means less for most of us.
In addition there is a lot to be said here about the best way to spur economic development, it probably isn't through big shiny things. Nevertheless it should be easy to agree that before over 300 million of our money goes out the door to any project there needs to be some analysis and review. Can anybody remember the last time a good deal was signed by the city? No, ok then let's instead of 48-50 aldermen saying yes can we get 26 to say no?

Save Our Schools March day 2-North side

Moment of Prayer/silence in front of the Mayor's house

The Mayor's House

Occupy Rogers Park

Chant master!

down Clark street 

Trumbull school, beginning of march

Ashland and Montrose

Save Our Schools-West side march day one

We Do Not Need 50 of You to Say Yes

So every once in a while the Tribune gets it right and they did this week, pointing out the need for an independent body—an independent budget analysis office, something like a city GAO—to properly evaluate large financial deals struck by the city. Already it’s clear the new parking meter deal is bogus but it’s telling that, almost immediately after its release 24 aldermen praised it. Because the original deal was so good that there is really no need to read it right?

Although it was designed to be a check on executive power everybody knows the city council is a joke, with the exception of the Washington years the past thirty year or so the city council has been nothing but a rubber stamp on the mayor’s policies, whatever they may be, whoever the mayor may be.

My favorite part of the trib editorial was the suggestion—and they did not really put this forth seriously—was to pay for such an office by decreasing the number of aldermen. This is an issue that gets tossed around as a joke but it should not be. The fact is, 50 aldermen to tell the mayor, any mayor, he is right is not necessary. As detailed in the editorial the majority of things voted on by the council are administrative details like parking permits and the like. There is the prevailing attitude that the aldermen simply do not have the ability to evaluate large deals. This is probably true but this has become an important component of job now, it should be simply unacceptable that Ald. Toni Foulkes (15^th) could tell people “ . . . we (aldermen) don’t know a lot about TIFs”.  It’s funny how for all the talk about getting young people/the unemployed the ability to “win the future” i.e. develop needed, marketable skills, this trend does not apply to local politicians. Deciding on the best course of action for the economy of the city is vital, as federal and state money decreases every decision made by the city to allocate resources increases in importance. We need people in those offices to be focused on the economic security of the people—as opposed to corporate payouts that benefit the 1%. If this is too much to ask from the current city council members we need to get new ones.

Considering the history of the city it is probably impossible to expect city councils members to ever have the capability to judge economic decisions objectively, so in the meantime there is no reason why the city council could not be cut in half. That extra money going to pay for professionals, isolated from the political process, to do this work. It should be noted that 50 council members is a lot-New York has 50 but is much larger, Los Angeles gets by with fifteen. Isn’t this something we can all get behind? 

Why You Need to be Against CIPSA

Last week the U.S House of Representatives passed CIPSA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, for the second time (288-127) despite a veto threat from the president. You can read the whole list of those who voted for it here but it includes Luis Gutierrez and Mike Quigley, of the 4th and 5th districts in Illinois. Groups included in the coalition against CIPSA included the ACLU and the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF).
In the coalition's letter opposing it they used some of the White House's own talking points including this:
"[H.R. 3523 repeals] important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards. For example, the bill would allow broad sharing of information with governmental entities without establishing requirements for both industry and the Government to minimize and protect personally indentifiable information".
You can read the whole letter here.
Privacy, even in this age of Facebook, twitter, and the constant internet, is something we don't always think about past passwords and usernames. I think many people think, well I have nothing to hide, why does it matter? But do you really want the government-or corporations (trust me if one can have it the other probably can too) to know everything about you? To have all information to do what they want with it? In many ways, we have already given up a lot, the fact that the internet is "free" is a prime example. We don't pay for most internet content, or email, or many other computer/internet applications. But while we do not exchange money for these goods and services somebody is making money to sustain the system and profit. This is generally gained from information they get from us. You can see this in the banner ads posted on the websites you go to or the offers you get via email. So we know we are compromised, but that doesn't mean that everything is up for grabs, certainly not legally. Many privacy provisions in place to protect us and give us some legal recourse would be gone under CISPA.
Many of the groups against CISPA were against SOPA, however while SOPA was stopped dead in its tracks CISPA has struggled on, in part because the same corporate groups who were completely against SOPA are more divided on CISPA. This is probably because a part of CISPA decreases companies liabilities--i.e it will harder if impossible to use them for misuse of person information. The list of representatives includes plenty of Republicans and Democrats--including freedom lovers Darrel Issa and Jason Chaffez who insist CISPA is nothing like SOPA which they did vote against.
As Derek Khanna noted on twitter its difficult to reconcile the GOP opposition to gun legislation on the basis of privacy-but GOP silence on CISPA privacy issues. Khanna, a Republican, even though he was fired from this RSC staff position for writing a memo calling for major copyright reform has a terrific article about CISPA and related issues here.
CISPA will go on to the Senate, modified in some way, and be put to a vote. It's possible a veto could be overidden, with the current numbers.  However the hope is that between now and then the bill can be modified significantly, or, the same lawmakers who voted for in once can be convinced not to vote for it again.
As a fun aside, Mike Rogers, the chair of the committee, who refused to engaged with the detractors of the bill in any way looks to-this will come to a shock to you I am sure-personally benefit from the deal. Freedom!