The Blog

Ben, the con-con was voted down at a 2-to-1 clip primarily due to a coalition of well-funded special interests disseminating patently false information regarding state workers' pensions. The specter of meaningful reform on issues like education, taxes, ethics, redistricting, and executive/legislative power scared a multitude of otherwise strange bedfellows to unite with a common purpose. A frightened and desperate populace bought it hook line and sinker. Mission accomplished for the incumbent powers that be. What frightens me most about this vote is that it validates the status quo - you know, wondeful things like rampant corruption, no capital spending plan, a broken school system, crumbling infrastructure, and gerrymandering. All because the average Joe was duped into believing that a con-con would automatically result in their pension being raided. Their constitutionally (that's both state AND federal) protected and mandated pension. There's simply no evidence to suggest that the con-con delegates would have a) created a referendum calling for the dismantling of pensions, b) a majority of voters would have voted in favor of it, and c) such a vote would have been declared constitutional. The irony, of course, is that the only legitimate threat to one's pension is bankruptcy, which is becoming more of a possibility as time passes. Tax reforms enacted via...wait for it...yup, a constitutional convention, was our state's most viable opportunity to put that one to bed. Alas, there's always 2018.

Ben, stick to beating the TIF dead horse. Hard core analysis is beyond your grasp.

I didn't know which way to vote on this issue. Mayor Daley did not have a strong opinion and I always vote the way he wants us to. I try not to think too much 'cause it hurts my head.

Neither the Illinois nor US Constitution guarantees private pensions. But the Illinois Constitution does define state and local government pensions as enforceable contracts which can not be diminished or impaired. That means, for instance, that the legislature can't vote to freeze pension benefits or convert them from defined benefit to 401K plans, both options that have been discussed as a solution to the State's budget mess. This is why AFSCME, SEIU, AFT, etc., opposed Con-Con. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that non-government employees could have lost their private pensions as a result of a Con-Con. And sorry, Doc, but you really miss the concept of a Constitutional amendment in your paragraph on what delegates could or could not do. They could propose amendments to any part of the Constitution they like, and, if passed by the voters in a referendum, the amendment would become part of the Constitution and would therefore be, by definition, Constitutional.

If you stand up a Building Inspector or an all important City Project Manager you will be fine Starting November 12, 2008, missed appointments will be charged a fee Attention Beginning on Wednesday November 12, 2008 all missed appointments will be charged a $150 fee. It is required that anyone who has an appointment with a Project Manager to first check-in with Customer Service before their meeting. Failure to check-in will result in the addition of $150.00 to the Permit Fee. The fee will be added to the permit fee and appear as PERMIT FEE (OTHER FEES) $150.

Kate Please give us relief from paste pot pete,or the serial poster. He/she is definitely not an orginal.

"11th Man November 13th - 11:10 p.m. Kate Please give us relief from paste pot pete,or the serial poster. He/she is definitely not an orginal." As if anything you've ever posted has been 'original'? Just because you move the words around, doesn't mean you achieve originality. In fact, ALL you've ever posted has been a repetition of the same old mantra. You bore me. If I were like you, a girly-man, I'd ask Kate to relieve us of your unoriginal comments. Since I'm not like you, I will simply request Kate to remove nothing. (though she may interpret that request as one referring to your comments anyway.)

Kate, you censor pen is needed again. Please relieve us of these cut and paste jobs

I'm all for free speech, but these cowardly anons don't count. This site needs comment moderation. A loyal reader and current comment hater.

This site has lost its comical value and satire. The coconut vs mcdonut wars were more humerous than the current stupidity being offered by the nuances. Lets face it, when writers in made comments about Louie G by a card carrying Commie, or coconut´s referral to Jack Drunk, or about gangbanger lawyer frank jr being a set up guy to defame others, or mcginnis, or mitchell, or whoever and where ever it was worth reading and often the truth. Now this site is boring and can only get part of the chuckles from coconut´s site.

We need less moderation. Don't kill the Goose who lays the golden eggs.

Thank you for removing any posting that could cause hurt and pain. We need more love and less hate. Lets make a circle and sing kum-bi-ah my lord kum-bi-ah!

Pat McDonough should be banned from this site.

With the low mentality of the readers here at the Reader, it's no wonder they've gone bankrupt.

"Dear Reader blog November 14th - 7:28 a.m. I'm all for free speech, but these cowardly anons don't count. This site needs comment moderation. A loyal reader and current comment hater." How essentially ironic, an anonymous post criticizing anonymous posting. And how cowardly.

"I suppose I shouldn't assume the results mean people are content with our system. It's more likely that they feel the doofuses I can see are less scary than ones I can't see. Or something like that." Actually, it's more likely that, having enjoyed the material benefits of living in a more free country, few remain alive who know, all too well, how fragile and fleeting those freedoms have been throughout human history. When people eat regularly, enjoy the freedom to pursue the personal pleasures that flow from relatively ample economic opportunities, and have had no actual experience of true poverty, true hardship or despair, their understanding of what can constitute real life is meager. The fact that we've been enjoying said freedoms via massive personal and corporate debt doesn't enter into most peoples' consciousness. The fact that some of their fellow citizens do not enjoy said freedoms and good fortune is, to those who do, meaningless and of no interest. The fact that, as average human beings, most are capable of incredible levels of self- deception, astounding leaps of over-simplification and self-indulgent ignorance, motivated by an inherent inclination to mental laziness, exacerbated by the enabling economic crutch of heretofore easily obtainable credit, and further reinforced by an educational system seemingly designed to produce an absence of thoughtful consideration, is it any wonder that the citizens fail miserably to act intelligently, honorably and honestly, in any area of their lives, let alone on election days? The truth is that NO 'system' is immune to the harmful effects of those operating that system being fundamentally stupid, lazy, self-deceptive, dishonest and egregiously selfish. We claim we want honest leaders and then continue to elect/reelect dishonest liars. We claim we want honest, efficient and only essential government, yet reliably elect/reelect dishonest, inefficient, incompetent, and wasteful knuckleheads to ruin our governments. We claim we want lower taxes, (at least those of us who actually pay taxes), yet demand that our governments of elected/reelected, crooked idiots continue to dole out those tax dollars, as long as a few of us are, or, in the future, might be, the recipients of same. We, as citizens, are the definition of an oxymoron.

"The same could be said for you, you coward." Only if I were criticizing anonymous posting. I'm not. You are.

The former head of the CTA is going to run our nation?

Pres just figured out how dirty Valarie is. Therefore he will not give her a cabinet position,instead he will make Jarrett his advisor. Valarie Jarrett ran Daley's secretly owned company Habitat. Habitat made big money from H.U.D and the Municipal pension fund, gentrifying Chicago. Valarie was the perfect choice to run Daley's secretly owned company. Valarie Jarrett's job was to remove poor and Middle class Blacks from Chicago. Also one of her duties was to keep Non wealthy patients from using the University of Chicago's Emergency room,or Facilities. Valarie hired Pres wife Michelle Obama to accomplish the task of dumping patients without blue chip insurance. What a world

Hey To all you haters, Valarie is OK. She ran the CTA fairly,and avoided fare increases. We the riders have now have to pay. Without our Mayor we would be further in the hole and without a Homeboy from President.

Didn't Valerie Jarret also head Department of Planning for Mayor Daley? With Michelle Obama? Didn't they push low income people out of the city and the same people who claim Obama as one of "theirs"?

Valerie Jarrett, Sonya Malunda, Martin Nesbitt, John Rogers, Linda Johnson Rice, Cheryl Jackson ,etc, etc ,are all part of the Black elite that get big time crumbs from Massa's table to do his dirty work, but keep low-class blacks in check. It is a group that hates the Jesse Jackson's of the world.

Emil Jones is your next US Senator , bank on it!

Hey my friend its called BOULE. Greek for advisors to the king. Jesse is also part of this group too. The White ruling elite created this group almost a century ago. Also Emil is a safe choice. He will be nothling more than a seat warmer. Pres can't say no to a man who cover his game. Blogo would also view Emil as a safe choice. Done deal.

Oreo, Do you sit naked in front of your computer at 4:30 am ? When do you sleep creep?

I don't sleep a whole lot. My online search for topless John Daley pictures ain't gone well. Anybody got some? I'll give you $5 a pop.

You stand for freedom of the Press? I write again, Ron H. of CTA stood at the podium with a large cluster of herpes on his lower lip. Where did he get it? Why is this unacceptable to you left wing fruitcakes?

"What a Joke November 15th - 4:03 p.m. You stand for freedom of the Press? I write again, Ron H. of CTA stood at the podium with a large cluster of herpes on his lower lip. Where did he get it? Why is this unacceptable to you left wing fruitcakes?" Uh, one place we can be confident he didn't get 'it' from is a vagina.

Oreo, Why didn't you say so. I'm in Washington now with BO, he looks like JJ from Good Times with his shirt off. I can send you that one or , send you one of Axelrod with his off, he looks like Austin Powers!

e. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of his vault or long version birth certificate. f. Mr. Obama refused to consent to release of any records by any hospitals g. Maternal grandmother remained silent and never refuted the statements that Mr. Obama was not born on /Hawaii and no access was ever allowed to any reporters to ask Mrs. Madelyne Dunham one single question: "in what hospital on Hawaii was Mr. Obama born?' h. Even if Mr. Obama would've been born in Hawaii (all the evidence states otherwise), he would've lost his citizenship by virtue of moving to Indonesia and obtaining Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship and Ms. Ann Dunham- Obama-Soetoro had to relinquish her son's US citizenship in order to gain Indonesian citizenship. i . In 1981, during the ban on travel to Pakistan for US citizens, Mr. Obama had travelled to Pakistan. The only reasonable explanation, is the did it using his Indonesian passport and using his prior name Barry Soetoro. Based on all of the above Mr. Obama was never a Natural born citizen, that he would've lost it even if he had it by virtue of getting an Indonesian Citizenship and that he has divided allegiants and cannot become the President of the US. We demand that you investigate these acts and refrain from certifying the vote or signing the Certificate of Ascertainment (to be signed by the Governors and Secretaries of States before the December 15 vote by the electors.) We demand that proper investigation would be done and, if the above facts and allegations are found to be true and correct, Mr. Obama be de-certified of the ballot.

Get over it! He is elected for 4 years. Look at Bush, he should be impeached for what he did to this country!

Read this and weep spingolli head http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6508037&status=ok Jesse is the future.

I wish I had been invited to take part in the threesome with Mayor Daley and Kruei of CTA

Who was trying to get Con con passed? Some people who wanted an easy fix to their dead end political careers, some people who could not get anything passed through the legislature, other fools. I would like to see the list of politicians who wanted a yes on this con con. So I can make sure never to vote for them again.

The current system sucks and will cause a pension crisis.

"Roy November 16th - 12:23 p.m. The current system sucks and will cause a pension crisis." It's not the system that sucks, it's the current individuals who've manipulated and mismanaged the taxpayers' dollars who've sucked and who are responsible for the pension 'crisis'. TIF diversions of our property tax revenues, daley's malfeasance in corruptly steering pension monies into the greedy hands of his relatives' and cronies' pockets, attempting, by the use of blatantly deceptive and egregiously divisive propaganda, to try to bullshit the voting public, yet again, into granting even more carte blanc power to the very crooked thieves who've created this 'crisis', just to name a few of the many actual reasons. Sorry, roy, but the system is rarely the problem. It's more often the operators of the system that reek economic havoc and cause so much harm to the taxpaying public. But you know that.

The system is and can be a problem. Compare economic growth rates in Free Market v Socialistic countries. The system is why immigrants from one country are able to suceed in a new and different system. The genius of the US American experiment is not in the individual leaders but the system--that it provided checks and balances and limitation on power. The current system in Chicago and Illinois does not work--you need things like mandatory pension payments (or reform) and term limits.

CHICAGO—In a devastating blow to millions of unsuspecting Americans, newly elected president and international con man Barack Obama fled the country Wednesday with nearly $85 million in campaign funds. According to FBI investigators, Obama's sudden disappearance was discovered at 6:15 p.m. when the former Illinois senator failed to arrive at a gala event in Lincoln Square, prompting several aides to rush back to his campaign headquarters. At 6:23 p.m., flight logs at O'Hare International Airport confirmed that two passengers, a male carrying two silver briefcases and dressed in a perfectly tailored Brioni tuxedo, and an African-American female wearing a fur coat and speaking in a thick Russian accent, were seen boarding a private plane. Enlarge Image Click to read the note left behind by Obama, in which he claims the American public "never stood a chance." Obama's campaign office, sources said, was completely vacant aside from a discarded Abraham Lincoln portrait, behind which was an emptied safe that his aides claimed never to have seen before. In addition, three unconscious Secret Service agents were discovered at the scene, along with two lit cigarettes still burning in an ashtray, and Obama's daughters, who authorities now believe were taken from an Alabama foster home six years ago. The only item found inside the metal safe was a letter, handwritten with a fountain pen and titled "An Explanation, My Dears." "To my tender little pawns, the all-too-trusting people of America," said FBI lead investigator Ray Hilland, quoting the letter at a press conference Wednesday. "If you are reading this, then I have already left your silly country in my private jet, and am right now sipping fine champagne with my lovely associate, a woman you have come to know as 'Michelle.'" "I assure you, this was the most pleasurable and fulfilling con I have ever pulled off," the note continued. "Not since the Moroccan elections in 1984 have I taken so much joy in raising, and then crushing, the hopes and dreams of so many pathetic, disenfranchised, and downtrodden people." "It's been an absolute delight doing business with you. Rest assured, your generous contributions will be well spent," the note concluded. "Fondly yours, Ψ." After initiating a further search of his campaign office, officials found more than two dozen counterfeit passports inside Obama's desk drawer. Authorities suspect that this is not the first time that the man who inspired millions has preyed upon a leadership-starved country, raised a record amount of money by running for office, and then vanished without a trace. "This explains Portugal in '86, Finland in '94, and Greece in '90," CIA director Michael Hayden said. "He used the same faultless cover in those elections as he did here—a dead mother, a runaway father, a grandfather who fought in Patton's or Järnefelt's or Papdopoulous' army, and his signature calling card: change." Multiple translations of Obama's books Dreams From My Father and The Audacity Of Hope were also discovered at the scene, each seemingly authored by a different world leader, including former Malaysian president Mohamad Mahathir, former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, and the 14th Dalai Lama. Of particular interest were the titles Les Rêves De Mon Père and L'audace D'espére, both of which feature a cover photo of French president Nicolas Sarkozy, a man Paris officials claim hasn't been seen or heard from in nearly eight months. According to investigators, it appears that over the past 15 years, Obama has been elected president or prime minister in nearly 45 countries, many of them African. Officials estimate that since 1983 Obama has amassed more than $2.3 billion in stolen campaign financing. "He's good, real good," Hayden said. "Sometimes he'll have three campaigns going on at once. Recently uncovered video of him in Bangladesh, Ukraine, and Italy in 1989 shows him shifting seamlessly between three languages. And no matter what dialect he speaks, he speaks it passionately. He also abides by a flawless formula: a desperate country, plus hope, plus the promise of a bold new tomorrow equals big bucks." "Hell, even I donated the $2,400 to his campaign," he added. Obama's closest aides, including head campaign strategist David Axelrod, admitted that they never once suspected their candidate was anyone other than who he claimed to be. Nevertheless, Axelrod said that the recent revelation did explain why he once overheard Michelle Obama tell her husband that "the time had come for their coup de grâce." "He completely suckered me," said a visibly dejected vice president-elect Joe Biden, who estimated that he raised over $10 million for Obama. "I trusted him. Change, 'Yes We Can,' a new kind of politics, bringing the nation together, valuing an open dialogue about the issues—I trusted all of it." Added Biden, "I should have known it was too good to be true." Everyday Americans, whom Obama referred to as "so many unwitting chess pieces in my elaborate game," also expressed shock Wednesday. "I'm devastated," Pennsylvania resident and Obama donor Denise Bell told reporters. "I just hope he comes back soon so he can be our president."

"Sylvia UoC November 17th - 11:09 a.m. The system is and can be a problem. Compare economic growth rates in Free Market v Socialistic countries. The system is why immigrants from one country are able to suceed in a new and different system. The genius of the US American experiment is not in the individual leaders but the system--that it provided checks and balances and limitation on power. The current system in Chicago and Illinois does not work--you need things like mandatory pension payments (or reform) and term limits." Susan, you seem to be confusing systems based, in letter and in spirit, upon our Constitution and Bill of Rights, with 'systems' more accurately described by the word 'schemes'. Or even 'scams'. Our Constitutionally based system only provides those 'checks and balances' IF the citizens understand, embrace and dedicate the necessary portions of their energies to ensuring that those other citizens they elect to manage said system are also citizens who understand, embrace and are dedicated to the spirit of same. The success of Representative Democracy depends upon the citizens of that democracy holding, through the power and authority of their votes, those thus elected, to be their representatives, accountable for the results of their actions. Term limits exist; they're called elections. The fact that citizens have failed to do the due diligence required, when deciding whom to cast their votes for, is one causative of our present, less than desirable circumstances. The fact that the citizens have failed to insist, by the use of their power to not purchase, that our nation's 4th Estate, the various forms of news medias, are, in fact, reporting the vital, true informations needed to have those truths to consider, when casting their votes, is another causative. The fact that the citizens have, apparently, chosen to be more concerned about their own, personal, day to day comforts, than the actual means by which those comforts are obtained, is yet another causative. The fact that the citizens have been complacent, and, thus, complicit, in the dumbing down of their offspring, via the absurd, and deliberate, oversimplifying of the complexities of the processes of learning, commonly referred to as education, is, also, another causative. Your brief comment is an excellent example of said oversimplification of the complex. I presume your intent was to be concise. I also presume that you, at present, do not understand the difference between being concise and being vague, and, thus, irrelevant. While there may be a limit on the length of posted comments, you haven't even begun to approach the outer boundaries of that limit. Since you seem to consider yourself to be a person of some thoughtfulness, perhaps you will take this opportunity to share some of your thoughts with us, and not merely post a Reader's Digest version masquerading as thoughtful commentary.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2212237871378380200&hl=en

In a recent press conference prior to the 2008 general elections Daley said “Every homeowner understands that higher property tax bills this year are also the result of our state's over-reliance on property taxes to fund education. Every homeowner also understands that as long as the legislature in Springfield doesn't fundamentally reform the way education is funded so that local property taxpayers don't unfairly carry the burden, there will be year to year pressure for our schools to increase taxes." But where was Daley’s stand on con con that could have been the key to reforming our property tax mess and our under funded school system? Hopes for long-overdue reforms in Illinois property taxation, school funding, and stronger political ethic laws were dashed with the defeat of the Illinois Constitutional Convention Referendum. But yes Chicago and Cook County is ready for reform. Despite the prejudicial wording on the ballot measure confused voters, and opponents sewed the seeds of fear that killed the initiative – the 1,442,196 yes votes for a Con Con was, at the very least, a demand for a more equitable tax system to better educate our children and to keep our property tax bills payable. These yes votes translated into a whopping 60% increase from the 990,109 yes votes in 1988. While dusty politicians, union and political lobbyists suggested that the best way to institute needed reforms was to wait on our legislators or elect new legislators to grapple with these issues---only 2 legislators were retired this election. We should trust that these legislators will not be influenced by special interests or be subject to the leadership, as the architects of perpetual gridlock. Prominent thinkers endorsed a vote yes on calling a citizens convention. Paul Vallas, nationally recognized former CEO of the Chicago Public Schools for raising test scores and balancing budgets. And Cook County Assessor James Houlihan and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr.---all know a thing or two about the dire need for more equitable systems for taxation and school funding. Unfortunately, their support, along with the efforts of under funded grassroots organizations (left, right and center), was not enough to bring the national mandate for change in alignment with local needs for action. Chicago minority communities strongly supported the referendum, while communities with higher number of union and public employees tended to oppose it. In Chicago, for example, minority communities cast the highest number of yes votes for the constitutional convention ---between 48% to 55% of the electorate. The highest votes ---50% or greater voted yes for a con con referendum in communities like Englewood, West and East Garfield Park, Lawndale, Chicago Lawn, Chatham, and Greater Grand Crossing. These are neighborhoods with citizens that have seen first hand the inequities of our school funding and tax systems. These communities voted on faith and not fear in spite of a $600,000 radio and TV anti-Con Con ads. In communities like Rogers Park, Logan Square, Village of Cicero, etc 49% cast yes votes for con con---- largely do to the excellent grassroots political canvassing and organizing of United Power for Action and Justice. Look out for this incredible force in any public policy legislation or referendum! In Mt. Greenwood and Jefferson-Edison Park, with heavy populations of public employees and retirees, voters heard their pensions might be threatened, and they voted against Con Con by 70%. In Chicago there was a 47% increase in yes votes compared to the last con con election in 1988. There was a 23% drop in the city’s no votes compared to 1988 election. In Cook County there was a 52% increase in yes votes and a 58% increase in Cook suburban townships. A huge price was paid for the no vote stealthily orchestrated by union bosses and well connected political consultants. That price was a continuation of under funded public school system in areas that have low to modest priced homes and of course, higher property tax bills in the future. Let's see how our civic leaders, teacher unions, mayors and legislators solve the largest district-to-district educational funding gap in the nation in the coming years. My crystal ball sees a lot of finger pointers rather than solutions. But I do smell change in the air for Illinois.... Andrea Raila www.VoteYesOnTheConCon.Com

Sadly, your post is, in it's own way, as deceptive as the deceptions you accuse others of perpetrating. And, as is typical these days, you attempt to deceive more by what you omit, than by what you include. Also typical, you use 'the children' in the same manner as do daley and his ilk. Let's see if we can shed some light onto your deceptions by omission. "....con con that could have been the key to reforming our property tax mess and our under funded school system?" Well, Andrea, let's try to define 'our property tax mess' and 'our under funded school system'. Shall we begin with your principle erroneous, and deceptive, presumption, ie., 'our under funded school system', (which I assume refers to the CPS)? The CPS isn't under funded, it's over funded. It just appears to be underfunded due to the ongoing mismanagement, much of a fraudulently criminal nature, of it's already ample funding. What's that, you say? How dare anyone dispute your claim of under funding? Why, everybody knows that the CPS is woefully lacking in the necessary monies to properly educate 'our children'. After all, everybody also knows that all it takes to 'educate the children' is money, and lots of it. Taxpayer money, that is. Which brings us to your breakdown as to who voted 'yes' and who voted 'no' on con-con. And, not so coincidentally, one of your many erroneous and deceptive presumptions. "The highest votes ---50% or greater voted yes for a con con referendum in communities like Englewood, West and East Garfield Park, Lawndale, Chicago Lawn, Chatham, and Greater Grand Crossing. These are neighborhoods with citizens that have seen first hand the inequities of our school funding and tax systems." Ah, the old and tired lie of 'inequities'. And the lie by omission? Why, it's your deliberate omission of the total amount of property taxes paid by those residents you refer to, along with the total portion of those property taxes being used to fund the CPS. Which, of course, would give us the total amount of monies that the residents, whom you credit with being intimate observers of your presumed 'inequities', have contributed to the financing of the educations of their offspring. An additional, and interesting, statistical piece of data would also be the total number of these referred to areas' children enrolled in the CPS, the total number of those enrolled actually attending school for, say, a minimum of 80% of the school year and the total number of those enrolled who are successfully promoted to the next grade level each year. (We shall not address the quality or usefulness of the present educational models dominating the CPS curriculums, at least not just yet) Further, your presumption of under funding is supported by what method of reasoning? You don't say, so may we assume that you don't know? Moving on to your selected comparative areas. "In Mt. Greenwood and Jefferson-Edison Park, with heavy populations of public employees and retirees, voters heard their pensions might be threatened, and they voted against Con Con by 70%." Hmmmmmm. Shall we also seek to know the same, missing from your comment, numbers concerning these areas' property taxes and offspring enrollments? So we may determine the same ratios of property tax dollars paid, and disbursed to the CPS, to children enrolled? Just so we can consider a few reasons, other than your deceptively presumptive one, for that 70% 'no' vote on con-con. Of course, one might not like the implications potentially to be drawn from the above interesting numbers, no, one might not like them at all. Which is, of course, why you omitted them. Moving onward, we come to this rare little admission of limited truth: "Let's see how our civic leaders, teacher unions, mayors and legislators solve the largest district-to-district educational funding gap in the nation in the coming years." Ah, the mystically difficult to understand 'funding gap' rears it's ugly head. Along with the unspoken assumption that, as always, some folks seem to think that money solves all problems. Including the 'problems' assumed to exist within our own CPS version of educating our children. To some, a CPS education is an oxymoron. Sadly, many of those 'some' are: 1. currently enrolled in the CPS 2. currently employed by the CPS 3. currently parents of those currently enrolled in the CPS 4. currently financing the operations of the CPS without having anyone they care about enrolled in the CPS (being those with or without school aged children) 5. currently financing the operations of the CPS (by paying those pesky and egregiously high property taxes) 6. currently not financing the operations of the CPS (by not paying property taxes consistent with the benefits they receive or not paying property taxes at all) 7. anyone with a brain that works To backtrack a bit: (it's a challenge to keep track of all of your many deceptions, both by omission and commission) "A huge price was paid for the no vote stealthily orchestrated by union bosses and well connected political consultants. That price was a continuation of under funded public school system in areas that have low to modest priced homes and of course, higher property tax bills in the future." Since property taxes are determined first, by an assessment of a given property's fair market value, and second, by determining the total required amount of funding 'needed' by all of the many governmental agencies funded with property tax revenues, (the CPS included, and being the greatest percentage of the total), then proportionally calculating each, individual property owner's share of that burden, according to their individual property's adjusted market value, how is it that you have the audacity to state that there will be "...higher property tax bills in the future." in the areas you also state to "...have low to modest priced homes..." and to be areas that are being subjected to an "...under funded public school system..."? What evidence did you deem it appropriate to post supporting your claims of 'under funded schools'? What reasoning did you find compelling enough to share with us, concerning how you've reached the conclusion that certain schools are 'under funded'? What is your definition of an 'under funded school'? And by what criteria did you come up with that definition? We haven't even begun to get into what constitutes an effective, beneficial and successful system of education, or the levels of funding needed to acheive same, though, the relevance of doing so is crucial to the issue of how, and for what, are out taxes being expended. And yet, you seem to presume that everybody has already figured that out and concluded that all that is lacking is more money. Gee, when, where and from whom, have we heard that before? I have no crystal ball, Andrea, just the brain God gave me and empty pockets. And my brain, and empty pockets, are telling me you are no less of a liar than those you accuse of being liars. Especially when you lament so enthusiastically about 'the children', yet make no mention, whatsoever, of the parents responsibilities concerning the children they bring into this world, nor the responsibilities of those children to learn, in and out of school, nor the responsibilities of those who grossly mismanage the ample funding of the entire CPS system, nor do you address the basic forces that, contrary to your apparent mindset that more money is all that's needed, would, if allowed and encouraged to be brought to bear, actually improve the education of all of our children, at substantially less of a cost to taxpayers, said forces being those of the consumer's demand for quality at a competitive price. If all of those constituents, which you give as examples of being the recipients of 'inequitable' treatment, were to insist, to their elected representatives, both city, county and state, upon receiving the opportunity of enrolling their children in the school of their choice, with the refusal to act resulting in those same, elected officials being voted out of office, by said constituents using their brains and actually doing so in the next election, we wouldn't need the leap of faith that holding a con-con would have been. Faith being the only thing one would have, if one chose to place our state's constitutional alteration into the hands of the primarily corrupt politicians currently wielding power and control over us all. All of the deceptions being pandered by both sides of the con-con question are worthy of being recognized by the voting public for what they were. If only the voting public had brains that worked. And if only the public had access to information other than what those driven and motivated by less than honest agendas regularly produce and claim as truthful.

We had fare increases under Jarrett too.

The anoynomous poster Nov 25 spends an inordinate amount of time discrediting my oppinions and name calling....makes me wonder if he or she is writing under the influence of a childless public employee at the age of 62 just waiting for that big well deserved untaxable pension to kick in ....I know both your mother and father love you. Good grief what a world we live in..

Inordinate amount of time? Yep, that's really addressing the issues. Public employee? Nope, just one of the many being taxed into poverty, by those who pander, with the assistance of my tax dollars, to those who live in a world where everyone else's hard earned dollars are seen as a bottomless pit filled with what they attempt to substitute for earning an honest living. Nothing to say about personal, parental responsibility? Or personal, student responsibility? Or the true relationship between learning and the public financing of same? Or the many, available opportunities to learn, outside of the pyramid scheme we call the CPS? Or the responsibility of parents to first learn what they want their children to learn, so that they, the parents, can, like maybe, teach their own children? Instead of foisting their children's education upon the backs of those same, hard working, tax paying citizens, you know, the ones who pay taxes? Or are you unfamiliar with the concept of paying your own way, in this 'what a world we live in...'? Sounds to me it's much more likely that you are, or wish you were, that 'public employee.... waiting for that big...(undeserved).. untaxable pension to kick in...'. Before you dedicate your efforts to picking my pockets, in the name of 'the children', empty your own. And before you display any more of your ignorance, think about bringing just a bit more intelligence and honesty to the table, if you have the capacity for being honest, truthful and/or intelligent. Because merely parroting the agenda driven nonsense you've posted so far makes me think that you are the one doing the finger pointing.

"This was precisely the argument made by Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, a supporter of Illinois's 2008 referendum...." The New Republic What Jefferson Said by Nicholas Stephanopoulos The case for regularly amending state constitutions--or at least having the opportunity to. Post Date Monday, December 1, 2008 Americans this year were confronted by a near-record 174 ballot propositions, many hitting the usual hot buttons: same-sex marriage, illegal immigration, abortion, etc. Nearly lost in this deluge were three unusual--and very intriguing--referenda on whether state constitutional conventions should be called. Voters in Connecticut, Hawaii, and Illinois had to decide--as they're required to by their state constitutions every ten or 20 years--whether they were satisfied with their states' foundational documents or wanted to revamp them. All three states declined to hold conventions this time, and in fact most votes of this sort fail. But that's no reason to be dissuaded: Periodic convention referenda help unclog our political process and are worth adopting more broadly. The idea of amending constitutions at regular intervals dates back to Thomas Jefferson. In a famous letter, he wrote that we should "provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods." "[E]ach generation" should have the "solemn opportunity" to update the constitution "every nineteen or twenty years," thus allowing it to "be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time." The Founding Fathers did not, of course, follow Jefferson's advice. Not only does the U.S. Constitution not allow for revision by each generation, but it can be amended only by votes of two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of state legislatures. A number of states, however, proved more receptive to Jefferson's recommendation. Kentucky, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire embraced periodic convention referenda in the late 18th century, and today 14 state constitutions provide for them. About 100 such votes have been held over the course of American history, succeeding a total of 25 times in eight different states. The first argument for periodic convention referenda is the Jeffersonian one: People alive today should have the opportunity to think seriously about how their state governments are structured and their rights allocated. It may be that everything is going swimmingly and that no changes need to be made. But it is also possible that the existing state constitution, drafted in a bygone era, has started to show its age, and that amendments are thus necessary. This was precisely the argument made by Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, a supporter of Illinois's 2008 referendum. "[T]he 1970 Constitution is pretty good, but after 38 years, there are several defects. And that's why a convention ... is needed to remedy those defects rather than let more decades go by without addressing those issues." Concerns about outdated constitutions were also largely responsible for the successful referenda in New York in 1936 and Missouri in 1942. Voters in both states felt that difficult economic times required bold new constitutional measures. Second, and more importantly, convention referenda allow voters to bypass their often obstructionist state legislatures. Legislators are notorious for blocking proposals that threaten the comfortable status quo--term limits, fair redistricting, stricter ethics rules, balanced budget requirements, etc. Constitutional conventions convened directly by the people are a way to enact needed reforms when the usual channels for change are blocked. And unlike voter initiatives, which can address only one issue at a time, conventions can overhaul dysfunctional state governments in one fell swoop. Supporters of the 2008 convention referenda frequently made arguments of this sort. Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Willes Lee, for instance, wrote that a convention was necessary because "[t]ax relief, local school boards, tort reform and many other critical issues get put aside for special interests that reign supreme in the Democrat-controlled Legislature." Illinois's main pro-referendum group similarly pointed out that a convention could "call for major changes to our dysfunctional government" and "bypass the gridlock in Springfield and address decades-old structural problems." Historically too, referenda succeeded in Ohio in 1912 and Rhode Island in 1984 because of legislative ethics scandals, and in Hawaii in 1976 because the legislature had persistently failed to address issues of concern to native Hawaiians. Lastly, convention referenda are useful even if they fail. When the public votes against holding a constitutional convention, it sends a powerful message that it is satisfied with how things are or, at least, opposes the proposals of the convention's supporters. Those supporters can then no longer claim a mandate for their ideas. This year in Connecticut, for example, the referendum's backers wanted to use a convention to ban same-sex marriage and restrict the power of eminent domain. The referendum's overwhelming rejection at the polls was immediately construed as a rebuke of these goals. As one gay rights lawyer declared, "Today Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people. ... It's living proof that marriage equality is moving forward." But Connecticut's 2008 experience also highlights the potential dark side of convention referenda: the danger that they might be used not to reform state governments, but to take away people's rights. This danger should not be overstated, though, given that no referendum has ever passed when its supporters' principal aim was to abridge politically unpopular rights. That referenda merely cause a constitutional convention to be convened, as opposed to directly amending a state's constitution, provides an additional safeguard against rights-restricting mischief. For same-sex marriage to have been jeopardized in Connecticut, first the referendum needed to pass, then the convention would have had to vote to ban same-sex marriage, and then the people would have had to ratify the convention's recommendation. There is also no reason to worry that periodic convention referenda might give rise to excessive constitutional instability. These referenda fail about three-fourths of the time--which means they only succeed on the rare occasions when the public is convinced that constitutional change is necessary. In fact, in only one state, New Hampshire, have convention referenda passed more than three times, and those (13!) successes occurred not because New Hampshire voters love playing James Madison, but because there was, until recently, no other way to amend the state's constitution. The case for periodic convention referenda is thus strong. When they succeed, archaic state constitutions are updated and obstructionist state legislatures are bypassed, while individual rights are preserved. And even when they fail, the public has the chance to reflect on fundamental constitutional issues and to express its satisfaction with the status quo. Do these arguments hold at the national level as well? It would certainly seem so. The U.S. Constitution has also grown obsolete in places (see, e.g., the Electoral College), self-interested federal legislators block just as many needed reforms as their state counterparts, and the national public would benefit too from some deliberation on our country's constitutional underpinnings. Of course, the odds that a constitutional amendment providing for national periodic convention referenda will pass anytime soon are very low. Still, in this season of political optimism, one can hope that when America's next "constitutional moment" arrives, Jefferson's advice, ignored by the Framers in 1789, will finally be heeded. Nicholas Stephanopoulos is an attorney with the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block.