A classic stealth candidate, Rauner could never have been elected on this budget, even in the present depressed political climate.
The only thing I have a problem with this article is that voter turnout was really low here during the governor's race. Quinn ran a terrible campaign, but wasn't helped much by party leaders. I think that Lisa Madigan will run in the next governor's election and will be viewed as the savior to save us all from that nut job Rauner!
These are classic austerity proposals...If they haven't learned from Europe what devastation to the working poor and middle class they are proposing, they shouldn't wonder why the voters didn't turn out. There are dems and pukes who are involved in these attempts to cut, cut, cut.
Back in the day, before Reagan declared war on the progressive income tax, the Feds were able to give block grants to states that were in need. The Feds no longer have that option since the Treasury has been drained by over 30 years of tax cuts for the billionaires.
Thanks for that comment as I was just about to say "you voted for him so you deserve what you get". Now I see that possibly you didn't vote for the extremist politics but simply for a change.
OK. So, what's new? First, if you're still in the middle class, by definition, you're doing great -- far better than many people today. Secondly, we've been rolling out the austerity agenda for years. We just choose a slower strategy, implementing it from the bottom up. Think: The US shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. The inevitable has been happening. Consider that each year since Clinton, over 700 impoverished Americans die from hypothermia alone. Liberals have responded with years of vigorously waving the banner for the middle class alone. Today, we watch as the rich do to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor.
The US has used a different strategy for implementing the austerity agenda, doing it slowly (starting in the 1980s), from the bottom up. The Clinton "New Democrat Party" has made the most progress, ending actual welfare aid and taking the first significant steps to end Social Security, starting with the disabled. As a result of Clinton's cuts, the disabled/seriously ill became the fastest-growing group of homeless people by 2000. President Obama did restore disability aid, but the Dems in Congress have made several cuts/freezes since then. Currently, they are either considering, or have already agreed to, extreme cuts in disability aid that will cost many more lives. We have seen how much middle class America is concerned.
Are you saying the Rethogs are the better choice?
Let's see if the people of Illinois care enough and have the courage to do something about this.
No. The hell of our current situation is that The People can't agree on what they want, so it's pretty hard for people to pressure pols to represent them. Obviously, the middle class and the poor have very different perspectives and priorities. The middle class demanded the austerity agenda for the poor.
What we have here (and elsewhere) is morally reprehensible LEADERSHIP. Throw out this so-called governor and the mayor of Chicago too!
Not so. I am middle class and I am not championing poverty for the poor or anyone. It is the bought and paid for politicians in the Democrat party who are employing a divide and conquer approach to put down their own base (right along with the R's.) They are working for the 1%. The American people are suffering in many ways. We need to throw out any politician who does not perform policy to benefit us- or who has been there too long- and we should have impeached Obama and Bush. That would have been the most meaningful action from the folks for the roll out of the 2016 faux election.