The Blog

Mick, you actually read the comments made! Thank you. Now, if only you'd find it interesting enough to do an article on the number of city, county and state residents who are eligible to vote, the number of same who are registered and the number of same who've actually voted, in, say the last city, county and state elections. I'd like to see some analysis of the possible reasons people give for not voting and not even registering to vote. Maybe even invite the Reader's readership to participate in a survey of same. I know it may sound as if I'm naive about the nature of things, but that's only because I think like a scientist, and making assumptions, however valid and true they may prove to be, cheats one out of knowing all there is to know about anything. How about it? An open invitation to all Chicago Reader readers to both select from some pre-written reasons on why they either are registered but don't usually vote, or why they've chosen not to register at all, and to write whatever they please explaining, in their own words, the same. Something to attempt to stimulate interest in thinking about why it's necessary to stimulate interest in participation in the political processes. Please, pretty please?

The really interesting specifics of the 'requested' itemization is found in the $$$$ salary amounts and the job descriptions. And, of course, th employee names. Perhaps the last item is 'protected' from public release by privacy laws, but the rest of this information should be public knowledge, albeit, made difficult to acquire. Just asking.

Our VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT blogger is so shocked that Mick reads reaction to his coverage. It’s kind of nice to have an idealist out there blogging. Perhaps Mick can explain how you can go down to the library and get a detailed budget that list by department the employee names and salaries at the reference desk. PS - I'm not being sarcastic, I really did think your reaction was cute - I hope you don't get discouraged by all the cynicism on this blog. We need committed idealist in Chicago.

Nobody's called me 'cute' since both my grandmothers passed, so thanks. I'd hope you were a 'cute' 20-30 something woman, but I've never been that lucky. As to my idealism, it's anything but. The proposals I've been posting are practical and extremely effective ways for all of us to take back our country from those who have exploited their freedoms to deny us ours. Socially, legally and economically, we've been manipulated and conned out of many of the things we are being assured we still 'enjoy'. We have become economic slaves, debt slaves, slaves to the many laws based on religious and social zealots, slaves in every way unconceivable to our founding fathers, by doing next to nothing, we have allowed ourselves to effectively lose our rights. My request for the details of the city's budget isn't that important, as, like those many 'cynics', I KNOW what I will find. And, the budget for city employees doesn't begin to cover the vast expenditures of contracts and sub-contracts and sub-sub-contracts, where much of the spending of our tax dollars is well concealed. And then there's the county of Crook. And the sad State of Illinois. Yep, there's a whole lot of shaken going on, we're all being hung upside down and the gravity of taxation is emptying our pockets. Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy. I'd much more like Mick and Ben to stimulate interest and participation and thinking in their readers, by conducting the above, poorly worded suggestion of a survey on why people who could vote, don't. Maybe if a few more commenters were to request the same, Ben or Mick might think about actually doing it.

"And, the budget for city employees doesn't begin to cover the vast expenditures of contracts and sub-contracts and sub-sub-contracts, where much of the spending of our tax dollars is well concealed." That information is also public record and available to anyone that is not so lazy and willing to look on the City's Procurement Office website. But some folks just want everything handed to them with a pretty little bow on it. As for da Mick's bombshell disclosure about jobs, ho-hum. His life must really be lacking if he is interested in skimming through a 500 page document and posting that stuff as news. That may explain why a 20 something year old cute girl does give him any compliments. 5'7" (and I think that is generous)pencil necks rarely get them.

Orion finds anything that doesn't lavish praise on Daley to be boring. He wants the media to investigate nothing while taking their orders from Jackie Heard. When an outlet like the Reader refuses to do so he lashes out.

Fuck you.

like chickens ask the fox if it's safe to come out of the coop

Actually, I am kinda impressed. One of the things that bothers me most about modern journalism is the tendency to take the easy way out; write up a press release as news, rely on coinophilia and prejudices for background; the whole panoply of abuses that have lead to the decline of the journalism profession. Real journalism is legwork like this; slogging through lots of boring stuff to figure out how some process actually works before writing about it. The numbers didn't look at all unlikely for a city the size and complexity of Chicago, , did anyone spot anything that looked unreasonably large? I agree that contractors are more likely where you would find corruption if there is any to be found. What you need to find out is what contracting agencies have a higher percentage of hires in a particular department or area. That could indicate favoritism or corruption. Or it might not. The city is pretty much self policing in that respect, though. If one group starts getting too much of the pie, competing groups yell their head off about it. There are several cases where preferential treatment to some contractors is proper, for example disadvantaged and minority businesses in highway construction. The cities payroll is for more than just providing services, it is used to engineer changes to provide incentives for social goals, as well. But lets assume something crooked is going on. It won't be obvious from a cursory examination; nobody is that stupid, not in this day and age. Contracting and consulting is a complicated process; take time to understand the infrastructure, how the industry works, and you should not have too much problems determining legitimate from illegitimate activity. I know it is a lot easier to point at something that looks suspicious and play on emotions, but any fool can do that. Real journalism requires a lot of hard and boring work, but thats why it is both rare and highly valued.

> The city is pretty much self policing ... Is it the Burge case, or the recent bartender being beat up, or that incident on Rush street, that led you to believe that this city is self policing? Was it the heroin dealing in the Water Department? How about the years and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on opposing the Shackman decree? Was it the park department’s millennium cafe deal that tipped you off on contracting fraud? How about the Degnan daughter working in purchasing? Or maybe it was the hired trucks and the many federal convictions that led you to think "nobody is that stupid, not in this day and age." Even when you think you’re giving a compliment to the real journalism that Ben and Mick do, you are defending the very pieces of shit who defraud the taxpayers. You're a real piece of work Randy. This city is hardly self policing or committed to social engineering goals, and because of folks like you who continue to apologize for the ethically challenged and incompetent 'leadership' provided to the taxpayers, we have settled for a blotted bureaucracy and shaky financial standing that is the City of Chicago/Cook County/State of IL. Yes - most of it looked unreasonably large, except for the board of ethics and the IG office - you need more than 60 folks trying to weed out the corruption of nearly 40,000 others.

"BOARD OF ETHICS: 9" Those nine workers must be REALLY busy...

See how much can be understood from thinking about even the meager information doled out by those 'in power'. And all those events listed by "Hey tool" are just the ones that have come to light, what to speak of the ones still hidden under the rocks, the ones that those well-skilled at deception have so far kept out of sight? For all of randy's smooth talking, he does stimulate the 'fire-in-the-belly' necessary to stimulate honest posters to post here. Keep up the good work, randy, before long, your comments will have garnered exactly the opposite of what you intend them to.

> employee names....Perhaps the last item is 'protected' from public release by privacy laws No, the names of public employees, their titles, salaries, and dates of employment are specifically public information in Illinois. Open Government Guide - Illinois http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php?op=browse&state=IL

These numbers are fascinating, thanks, but wasn't one of the points of part 1 that the City doesn't have an accurate idea about how many people they are employing, and that they don't consider accuracy in this area to be important?

You're not including Chicago Public Schools as a city department? Is it considered a separate entity?

The head count is not what's disturbing. It's the fact that so many of them are unqualified, incompetent, semi-ghost free loaders that get way too much time off and are locked in for outrageous pensions. The baby boomers have carried the freight so far, but they'll soon be fleeing for the sun belt. Look for the sale of public assets to accelerate.

And the CTA - another separate entity. And don't forget that Cook county (the jail and hospital) has significant presence in Chicago - and the Water reclamation board and MACPeir (I think that is what it is called) the convention and navy pier commission - quite a little enterprise the mayor gets significant say in. Bowey has it correct though - it's not the sheer number - it's that so many of them are patronage positions filled by hacks who don't merit their positions and will get huge pensions (remember how temp pres Bobby Steele got her life pension) and the fiscal mismanagement that has gotten little attention (Ben has done a great jobs on the lack of transparency or accountability with TIF's, but the grossly under funded pension obligations should scare the hell out of every taxpayer). Keep exposing the fraud that is our governance Mick and Ben!

MARA GEORGES SHOULD BE INDICTED. CLEAN OUT THE CORRUPT LEGAL DEPARTMENT DOLING OUT LAW CONTRACTS TO POLITICALLY CONNECTED RACIST INCOMPENTENT TAX EATING FIRMS. MARA GEORGES SHOULD BE IN JAIL. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE HATE LAWYERS. Scandals' legal fees cost taxpayers $13M CITY HALL | Clout-heavy law firms cash in on corruption probes June 25, 2007 BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com The Daley administration doled out more than $13 million in legal fees to politically connected law firms from Jan. 1, 2006, through mid-May of this year, thanks to federal corruption investigations, the long-running Shakman case and the police torture case against former Lt. Jon Burge. The law firm of Shefsky & Froelich rode the legal gravy train to $1.9 million in fees over the 16• ½-month period. The firm represented the city on matters ranging from the fight to save Chicago's minority set-aside ordinance to Police Board hearings and a class-action lawsuit involving alleged towing and parking violations. » Click to enlarge image Jon Burge's torture cases cost the city more than $2 million in legal fees last year. (Sun-Times file) Shefsky & Froelich counts among its partners the city's former Corporation Counsel Brian Crowe. Crowe's successor and protege Mara Georges decides which firms get legal work that cannot be performed by her $27.1 million-a-year department and its 345 full time attorneys and clerical employees. Rock Fusco LLC, the law firm founded by former state Senate President Phil Rock, took in nearly $1.6 million over the same period, defending the city in a series of cases, including a wrongful-conviction suit. Georges is the daughter of former Circuit Court Judge Peter Georges, a friend of Rock's. Rock's law firm once employed both Crowe and Georges as partners. Last year, special prosecutors Edward Egan and Robert Boyle concluded that Burge and his Calumet Area cohorts tortured criminal suspects for two decades while police brass looked the other way. The report concluded it was too late to prosecute because the statute of limitations had passed. Burge legal fees draw fire Twenty-six aldermen have co-signed a resolution that calls for City Council hearings on what critics call the "whitewash" report. Aldermen and civil rights attorneys have also blasted the city for continuing to pay fees of lawyers representing Burge and other police detectives in five civil rights lawsuits. Documents supplied by the city in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show $2.04 million in Burge-related legal fees in 2006 -- and $399,416 more during the first 5½ months of this year. A large chunk of those fees went to Dykema Gossett PLLC. The 2005-2006 Sullivan's Law Directory lists the firm's "government relations professional" as William Lipinski, the former Southwest Side congressman and longtime Mayor Daley ally. The law firms of Greene and Letts, Itasca-based James G. Sotos & Associates and Freeborn & Peters also shared in Burge-related fees. Freeborn & Peters is a heavy contributor to Gov. Blagojevich. One of the firm's partners is Roger Bickel, a former state ethics commission chairman and riverboat casino lobbyist who was George Ryan's top lawyer during the convicted former governor's days as lieutenant governor and secretary of state. The law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw was paid $213,537 over the 16• ½-month period to represent Daley in the Shakman case settled with the creation of a $12 million fund to compensate victims of the city's rigged hiring system. Former Illinois Attorney General Tyrone C. Fahner represented the mayor. Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw partners once included the mayor's brother and still include two former Daley chiefs of staff. 'Criminal enterprise' Chicago taxpayers coughed up $251,314 in legal fees in 2006 to represent city employees drawn into federal investigations of the mayor's former patronage chief -- convicted last summer of rigging city hiring to benefit pro-Daley political workers -- and of former Streets and Sanitation Commissioner Al Sanchez. The law office of Mark L. Rotert was paid $15,199 in 2007 to represent former Buildings Commissioner Stan Kaderbek in a racketeering lawsuit that accuses political operatives with ties to Daley of shaking down a developer. The developer, Thomas Snitzer, has called the 11th Ward Regular Democratic Organization a "criminal enterprise." He contends Daley's former political enforcer Tim Degnan and the mayor's brother Cook County Commissioner John Daley have control over development in the 11th Ward and that they conspired to shut down Bridgeport Village after demands from Degnan and developer Thomas DiPiazza were not met. The firm of Franczek Sullivan P.C. took in nearly $352,000 in legal fees over the 16• ½-month period. Jim Franczek is the city's chief labor negotiator.

Shit, you've got the basis for one hell of a movie here, just work up a rough outline of every event you can remember and turn it over to a pro writer and you'll be in the money!!! Maybe not Oscar material, but, who knows, with the right casting, it could be a huge hit, especially for the white, suburban audiences. Go for it!

Too bad all this shit didn't come out in one big avalanche BEFORE the elections, maybe mayor mumbles wouldn't be mumbling us all into the poorhouse. The major media SHOULD have been pouring this shit out on the front pages and as the major news every broadcast BEFORE the election, they're so the bought and paid for cheap whores. Where the fuck are those lily white, holier-then-thou motherfuckers from the DOJ, FBI and AGO BEFORE the elections?

The link that Hugh posted doesn't actually provide any information, does it? It looks like a reference site on how to access public information. The only publicly viewable document (that I'm aware of) identifying the names, titles, salaries, department, and start date of all 40,000 city employees is in the Municipal Reference Section of the Harold Washington Library. You can view the 500+ page binder, and you can make copies for 15 cents/per page. It would be interesting to do a multi-year analysis of which Wards are most heavily represented for different departments, and to track the salary trajectories of city workers from those wards.

Library Lover, If what you say is true, let's pass the hat and all chip in a few bucks and pay somebody to copy and then scan the entire binder and post it on the internet.

Now we're getting somewhere. You'd think that the Trib or the Times would have done this long ago, as the public service they, as our champions of free speech, would be expected to do. Maybe the Reader would step up and finance this. With this info posted on the Net, you'd get hundreds, if not thousands of analysts pouring over this data, far more labor than even the major media could devote to the task, even if they had a mind to. How about it?

The only publicly viewable document (that I'm aware of) identifying the names, titles, salaries, department, and start date of all 40,000 city employees is in the Municipal Reference Section of the Harold Washington Library. well if this is a print-out of a spreadsheet it might be cheaper to FOIA the computer file

So, Mick & Ben, how about this as an easy to produce article, requested by your readership? :)

Anyone else notice? "That may explain why a 20 something year old cute girl does give him any compliments. 5'7" (and I think that is generous)pencil necks rarely get them." Apparently this orion character can't read any better than he can write.

If someone is going to seriously undertake this, I have a few more suggestions: First, try the dual approach of FOIA'ing the computer file and copying the hard copy. Realize that the electronic file will be in some 35-year-old mainframe language and the copying at the library must be done WITH COINS (Don't expect the type of standard Kinko's card and you cannot leave the Municipal Reference section). Second, be prepared to request ten years worth of this file because all of the fun will be tracking how various staff have moved in and out, around, up and down. Third, there are lot's of nice free online databases (view only), so that Mick and Ben can harness the the collective wisdom and energies of all us whack-jobs that visit this blog entirely too frequently.

Hmm, perhaps I ought to explain my use of the term "self policing"; Chicago has had scandals, now, and throughout it's history, as has every other political entity that ever existed on this planet. Several times in the past, it hasn't been self policing, such as when Elliot Ness had to be brought in to clean up the corruption decades ago. There is no such issue today. There have been corrupt politicians, and they have been been brought to justice, from the lowest alderperson to a former governor. In short, we have a court system and it is working. Now, there are people wo think that some politicians are going unpunished, but, when I hear such things, I ask myself one question, and it is one every reader should ask themselves as well. Would you like to live in a world where accusation is conviction? Where mudslinging replaces due process? Think about it. Have you ever offended anyone, even unintentionally? A police official once told me that over 10,000 accusations a day come into police departments all over America, from disgruntled workers, politicians, businesspersons, reporters and anyone else who thinks the police's job is to persecute those they accuse. We have very strong defenses against that happening, whether it was the the Salem Witch trials in our early days, or the prosecution of soccer players a few months ago. So, ask yourself, just how valuable is that protection to you? Is it worth giving it up to prosecute a few more officials? How about the police torture case? A District Attorney obce said he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to. I believe him, I am Jewish, and long ago, the Ham sandwich was not only indicted, but convicted, and is now illegal (technically, it was non kosher or trafe) It is easy enough to accuse people, especially from anonymity. A little spin, a few well chosen phrases, some reference to a popular urban legend or prejudice. If you encourage and tolerate this, well, remember that you set the rules of the game, and you are going to have to live in a world governed by those rules. The human race rejected this approach thousands of generations ago, read Aeschylus, for example ( http://www.humanistictexts.org/aeschylus.htm ) Yet there are those who urge that we keep on revisiting that decision. Whenever we have, the excesses, whether it's communist witch hunts of the 1950's or the latest "enemy combatants", the definition has always eventually widened to include everybody else. I am not saying you should not try to find evidence of wrongdoing, just be careful to distinguish between accusation and conviction., between a personal vendetta and the workings of our court system.

"....the workings of our court system." You mean the court system whose members are either slated by the two dominant political parties and elected by their loyal followers, who show up at election time in swarms akin to locusts, or appointed by these very same dominant party members? You mean the court system that includes the awesome power held by the government persecutors, I mean prosecutors, also slated and elected or appointed in the aforementioned manner? You mean the court system that applies the laws written by all of those slated and elected or appointed by the two dominant political party members? Is that the court system you propose we put our faith in?

We're talking about patronage positions added for the election, remember. Your “Abu Ghraib was caused by a few lowly enlisted persons on the night shift” rational isn't going to cut it with me given Chicago's history were clout rules, and merit takes a back seat. By court system, do you mean Alderman Burkes wife’s Supreme Court? Or perhaps you mean were our Department of Justice decides that Patrick Fitzgerald is mediocre, and fires prosecutors who aren't prosecuting 'election fraud' or throwing taxpayers off the voters’ roles? I'm so glad you have faith in our justice system. Thanks for the input, Tool.

A browse-able, search-able online database of City employees, salaries, titles, and hire dates would be great fun. "HEY! He works for Streets & Sans? Isn't he that asshole precinct captain???" I'm thinking back on all the fun we had when the Trib posted Daley's "clout" list when it was introduced at Sorich trial.

When you think about it, here are a few of the main problems we, the citizens, voters and non-voters alike, have, with the present state of the 'system': 1) Are all these job positions necessary to fulfill the essential, beneficial-to-the-citizens functions of government? 2) Are all of those employed in these positions doing the best job possible, not merely the best job THEY can do, but the best job POSSIBLE? 3) Are these employees being paid only as much as is necessary to keep the best people, doing the best job possible, for the benefit of the citizens, from seeking employment elsewhere? 4) Do the citizens in general have an equal opportunity to be employed in these job positions, so only the best people will be hired to do the best job possible? 5) Are there ANY positions currently being worked, and paid for, that are NOT necessary to serve the citizens in the best way possible? 6) Are there positions that have proven themselves to NOT be for the sole purpose of benefiting the citizens? 7) Do the citizens, voters and non-voters alike, have access to clearly understandable information for them the consider, in seeking to determine the answers to all of the above questions? 8) Does the discovery of connections between city, (and county and state and federal), employees and political party members and membership indicate that the processes of hiring have been unfair, unequal and have resulted in the best people possible NOT being employed? 9) Even if the best people for a given job have been hired because of political connections, do the citizens still feel that the fairness and equal opportunity elements that have not been respected are more important to them than the quality of the work being done? 10) Do the citizens feel that the influence of political connections, in the hiring and budgeting of city jobs, results in a greater expense to the taxpayers, than would be the case without this influence? 11) Do the citizens believe that EVERY service, provided to them by their city government, is necessary, beneficial, efficient and fairly staffed? 12) Do the citizens believe that EVERY expenditure made of their tax dollars is solely for their benefit? 13) Do the citizens have access to clearly understandable information describing ALL the various, specific functions and purposes and performances of ALL the city departments, services and expenditures made in their name and for their sole benefit? If those in the profession of journalism were to focus on gathering the information that could answer the above questions, present their findings to the public, stimulate public thinking about these findings, stimulate responses to same and provide a venue, such as this one, for citizens to express their opinions on same, it would, at the very least, be an interesting exercise in the meanings and applications of our 1st Amendment Rights.

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/2007/01/29/payroll-inches/ Over the last year aldermen have been complaining that Noelle Brennan, the court-appointed Shakman monitor, has practically brought city hiring to a standstill. Since August 2005, Brennan has been responsible for tracking the role of politics in hiring at City Hall. As of November 2006 her work had cost the city $1.3 million and counting. But the city’s own records show that hiring hasn’t stopped. In fact, the payroll has increased since the end of 2005, from 38,688 to 39,637 last July to 39,799 last week. That's an increase of 1,111, or about 3 percent. In 2003 the city's payroll expanded just before the municipal election; the water department alone added hundreds of employees, according to city records. After the election the payroll shrank again. Just thought everyone should be reminded that your elected leaders were complaining that the federal courts were preventing hiring, while they continued to add folks for the election.. The city that works! So much to be proud of.

Hmm, so Chicago's payroll increased by about a thousand people. A better question might be asked. How much more population and responsibilities (and unfunded mandates) did Chicago add over the last year? It would be very surprising, and disappointing, if Chicago stopped growing. Actually, a 3% growth rate is incredibly low, I assume there is some sort of multiplier, because the shear number of births in the city would be much higher than that. AN interesting question to ask is ridership on the metra. How many more people are coming into the city than in previous years, how many more are using up city services? Mr Dumke, if you would care to publish those figures as well?

"A better question might be asked. How much more population and responsibilities (and unfunded mandates) did Chicago add over the last year?" Well, Randall, we all know what 'mandates' are always going to BE funded, namely, the ones that serve the interests of the machine. A really interesting question is why you so consistently avoid addressing those issues that reflect badly on the reign of Daley and his clans and occasionally make feeble excuses for same.

The city is losing population, sorry to disappoint the Tool. They released the census estimates about two weeks ago.

And ya know, I'll bet randy knew that.

Assuming that Mr. Randy's question is legit, here's a link that will help him obtain that information from the appropriate agencies. http://www.rcfp.org/foi_letter/generate.php And to anyone else that wants to help... start drafting some of these and sending them out. (Just remember to add a line saying "please contact me if charges exceed X dollars" or something similar. Saved my butt when I tried to FOI FEMA after Katrina; they claimed that they'd have to charge me $3,000 in labor!)

thankx, tom, this is priceless.

"re stop May 30th - 5:21 p.m. My intended audience, if you're correct, has been focusing on individual, incumbent politicians for decades, buying into the false premise that an incumbent office holder has, somehow, earned the 'right' to be re-elected, unless that person has done something or things to warrant being 'fired'. This premise is what is responsible for all of the lousy 'representatives' we have been burdened with for generations. Before you point out that these 'public servants' were duly elected by the 'people', let's examine that assumption. First, ask the question, 'How many citizens are, at any given moment in time, qualified to vote, ie., 18 years of age or older, citizens, whether born or naturalized and residents of the area holding an election. Think of that number as 100% of all eligible voters. Next, I believe we can safely propose that, as a rule, no more than 50% of the whole are registered to vote at any given time, for any given election. So, we start with only half of all eligible voters are registered. Then, we can also safely propose that, of those 50% who are registered, usually only half of those voters actually show up at their respective voting places and casting their votes. Thus, we see that approximately 25% of all eligible voters actually vote in any given election. Since, at most, a candidate needs only 51% of voters to choose him/her to win, we can safely conclude that a mere 13% of the total number of eligible voters are deciding who are elected public servants are. Granted, many will say that the 50% of eligible voters who don't register are, theoretically, expressing and enjoying their right to vote by not voting, and that the 25% of the whole, who are registered, but don't vote, are doing the same. What I wonder is, why would 75% of those eligible to vote choose not to, choose to either register, but not vote, or not even register at all. I don't believe it is because 75 out of 100 citizens are making this choice voluntarily, at least not as the word is defined in Webster's. I believe, and propose, that most of the 75 out of 100 don't vote, or register to vote, because they have concluded that their vote doesn't matter, won't change anything, isn't important and isn't worth the time and effort it takes to participate. In this, they are substantially correct, as the present public perceptions of the accepted political practices is designed to discourage the majority of citizens from participating in the political process. Your focus on individual candidates is the crux of the problem, however counter-intuitive that sounds. We can only afford to focus on the individual candidates when we have honest, intelligent, ethical and naturally helpful candidates to consider. We waste our time and energies considering and analyzing the 'professional' politicians, as they all, with few exceptions, are cut from the same cloth and want us to believe that there are no other kinds of cloth to cut from. The typical 'professional' politicians are rank opportunists, willing to act in a hurtful/harmful manner as easily as act in a helpful/harmless manner. The typical 'professional' politician is only honest and forthcoming when he/she is forced to be, defaulting to dishonesty, deception, misdirection, stone-walling and blatant double-dealing as the rule, rather than the rare exception. This is what the voters, both the 25% who routinely vote, and the 75% who do not, should be focusing on. This is the fresh, honesty and plain truth presumption that all voters should take with them into the voting booth, every election, with the challenge to the INCUMBENTS to ALWAYS have to convince enough voters that THEY DESERVE to be re-elected. This is why the entrenched incumbents strive to keep the public believing that the challengers should be the ones who have to convince voters to elect them, why the entrenched incumbents promote the wide-spread belief that they have to have screwed up really bad to warrant the voters firing them. Until such time as enough voters open their eyes and realize that, contrary to the 'professional' politicians assertions, THEY are OUR EMPLOYEES, not our 'leaders', 'masters', 'betters', or 'bosses', we will continue to be led, like sheeple, down that primrose path to poverty. In the 'private sector', one's employer requires that the employees efficiently produce value for their pay. In the 'public sector', we, the employers, seem to accept much less value from our employees, our 'public servants', than we would ever think to accept from our employees, should we own a business. We seem to accept much less value for our tax dollars from our 'public servants' than we would ever accept from our local store, contractor, service provider, etc.. The reason we accept paying so much, for so little, is, I believe, to be found in our generational conditioning to see and accept our 'government servants' not as our employees, but as our 'leaders/masters/bosses/superiors. They are anything but...... Focus on firing all incumbents. Use the outlined, mathematical formula. Register to vote and Vote on Election Day. See what will happen when the entrenched incumbents are shown the door. Should the newly elected challengers FAIL to PROVE they DESERVE to keep their jobs, vote THEM out, using the same strategy. REPEAT AS NEEDED, for as long as it takes to inspire honest people to enter what will be true public service. The experience of seeing your vote result in change will inspire more and more citizens to participate, will force any who are elected to be much more responsive to the desires of the people, and will allow us to truly know what a democracy actually is."