CTA Tattler

What did he MEAN with the "hold your nose" comment? It was in connection with a statement about poor people not being able to ride for free, so I've been wondering if he meant that homeless and poor people stink, and that other people should hold their noses to spare themselves the smell.

If he DIDN'T mean that (I hope not, how offensive), then I have no idea what that phrase is supposed to convey. That riding for free stinks?

Check out the fact sheet. This isn't the CTA bailout bill, this is the Gold-plated Metra Train bill. $107 million annually in new money to an agency with a $10 million deficit (Metra), only $132 million to an agency with a $110 million structural deficit that's growing at 10+% per year (CTA)***. This is such a great deal for the suburbs, and they STILL hemmed and hawed over supporting it.

***And this is ignoring the CTA pension fiasco, whos liabilities will be bailed out by the real-estate transfer tax, e.g. seperate revenue stream from the sales tax.

This is a really bad bill for CTA, but it's the only game in town so they have to grin and bear it and look forward to many more years of structural inequity in their funding relative to Metra.

I think he meant something along the lines of "suck it up" if you don't agree with it. Or: if you think this plan stinks, hold your nose while hopping on for free.

Still an idiot. I bet he didn't expect such a hard sell on the "wonderful" idea.

If this thing fails, is there anyone willing to get arrested? I feel an urge to egg the gov's house if our transit is cut, to show up at late and early hours and protest and shout and do whatever to make his life a bit more uncomfortable. I can afford the bail.

I know he is not the only one to blame--I'm looking at your, Mayor Munchkin, with your incompetance finally shining through--but Blago the Great is the prime villian now.

Our state and city are slipping, and significant damage is being done, and yet we keep taking it. It makes no sense. Why are we so patient? Why are we so docile? Are we that fearful of a few hours in jail?

Sign me up for egging the "Governor's Mansion North." The other day I saw a CTA money transfer truck driving west on Wilson Ave. near his house. I really wanted to hijack it and drive it into his house. The irony and inconvenience to his Goobernatorial Majesty would be worth the jail time.

Monkey: As much as I'd like to attribute an offensive comment to Blago, it was in reply to a senior raking Blago across the grill saying he didn't need a free ride and there were poor people who did. So "hold your nose and go onto it" was basically shorthand for "I know you're upset, but hold back your anger and give it a try."

Kill the bill!
I will suffer as several buses I take will be cut.
Many others will also suffer, it doesn't matter.
I don't care, Blago must be destroyed!
If the override kills the bill, Blago will take all of the blame.

I told my Rep and my Senator to go ahead and vote against it even though they were original sponsors of the bill. Or vote for it, whichever way they wanted to go, I wouldn't be holding it against them.

I'm not for this amendment. I think it's the worst of both worlds. It just leaves another budget gap.

Is there any way to recall this moron? Seriously.

"Check out the fact sheet. This isn't the CTA bailout bill, this is the Gold-plated Metra Train bill. $107 million annually in new money to an agency with a $10 million deficit (Metra), only $132 million to an agency with a $110 million structural deficit that's growing at 10+% per year (CTA)***."

The suburbs have a growing population and the city's, last I checked, was shrinking. It makes sense for this bill to make Metra more financially sound. That will happen when the funding is distributed in an equitable way, rather than artificially. It never makes sense to distribute money simply based on who supposidely needs it more. That just discourages government agencies from being efficiant.

anyone want to take any bets? if the bill passes, Blago is going to find something else he wants and we'll see yet another ammendatory veto.

no bet, wwc. I think he's against public transit all together, but the one thing rattling around in his head is that actually saying so would be true political suicide.

As the sample "commentator" referenced in Kevin's blog post, I feel I should clarify something:

The editorial that was also linked in Kevin's posting suggested that some sort of "handshake" deal about a capital bill should be offered in exchange for Republicans agreeing to vote to override the amendatory veto.

While I do think overriding the veto would be the best outcome, it should have nothing to do with the capital bill. The existing capital bill does nothing for transit and needs to be a separate debate in order for there to be any hope of improving it.

I would never advocate overriding the amendatory veto if I thought accepting the capital bill was the price for doing so.

If that were the case, it would be better to just approve the amended bill and then hope that the legislature will quickly pass Rep. Hamos's bill to impose a means-test on the seniors-ride-free plan, as separate legislation. Surely there is enough support in the legislature to pass such a bill and override the inevitable veto.

While I hope that the operating funding bill makes it, we cannot lose track in all this of the dire capital funding needs of the CTA and, to a lesser extent, Metra and Pace.

So keep your typewriters warmed up - there will be more to write to your legislators about very soon!

In our rush to blame Blago, let's not forget the idiots in the legislature who waited until the last minute to send anything to the insane meglomaniac. As insane as Blago is, it should not have been unforseen that something like this would happen if they waited for the last minute.

Anyone who's ever worked with an insane idiot knows you do everything you can to avoid letting them have a chance to mess it up, and you leave enough time to clean-up their mess, too.

Blago is obviously insane, and he should not escape any responsiblity for his part in this mess. But nor should any legislators who failed to act in a timely manner escape.

And anyone who voted for Blago, or didn't vote at all, should also be hanging their heads in shame over this mess. Government, after all, is nothing more than a reflection of the collective of people it represents, so there are plenty of people out there who had a part in creating this mess.

after watching the video at http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/01/blagojevich-to.html, I'd have to say that Blago says a lot there that makes sense. For example, he prefers the gas excise tax funding over a sales tax: and that makes a lot of sense. He also said, rightfully, that transit ought to be free for everyone and this is just a first step towards that. Again, he doesn't sound like someone hostile to transit riders or their interests, but quite the opposite. He sounds like someone who's doing the right thing. He would have preferred the other funding bill that the house also endorsed, but that the senate couldn't bring itself to pass. By adding the free fare for seniors (something supported by the transit agencies), he's making a flawed bill a little better.

I see that Rob is one of these people who gets impressed with a good speech even if it clearly flies in the face of all the actions that the person has done. That is how Blogojevich got elected twice. He has the power to pretend that he is compassionate and reasonable and there is a huge amount of voters who fall for that type of thing. They don't care about a person's actions or the reality based effects of what they are talking about. As long as they sound like they are a compassionate person fighting for the "common folk", everything is terrific.

By the way, since you agree with Blagojevich that public transportation should be free for everyone, I'm curious if you think private transportation should be as well. Should everyone be given cars and gas?

MK -- I'll stand up for the governor this once, and one time only, and on a technicality; given the crises we face with global warming, congestion, energy costs etc., free transit for all is a good idea.

Now, back to the real matter of business, impeaching Blago, if Blago expects us to actually believe he is getting us closer to laudable goals like that he needs to get back to his mirror, a place I know he loves . . . . OK, scrub that idea, he needs to get back to what he has and hasn't done.

1. As long as he blocks an income tax increase, how can be plausibly think that he is defending the poor from nickel-and-dime sales and property tax increases and user fee increases and tuition increases and service cuts? The income tax, which falls mostly on the rich (especially if they would make it progressive in this state) is the only thing that can prevent all those other things, seeing as we're already $1.7 billion in arrears, $2 billion in deficit, and behind the rest of the Midwest on spending. There's nothing to cut except the corruption and even that won't fill the hole.

2. Does he seriously expect us to believe he favors a gas excise tax, when he has point blank refused to come up with any means of paying for that either? I'd prefer a gas tax for transit too over the distorted sales tax we have in this state, taxing the living daylights out of goods while letting services go totally free of tax. But I don't think for a minute that the governor is actually serious about it.

And when I refer in my post to the gas excise tax, I mean the diversion of funds from the existing gas tax for transit, not a new tax, which Blago has already made clear he doesn't like.

I voted for Vallas.

And I voted Green party for gov.

It makes one wonder about the city councils
motives. When the mayor's property tax
increase came up for a vote they had no
problem deciding to dip their hands further
into the taxpayers pockets but now that the
transfer tax increase is coming up for a vote
to fund mass transit they are suddenly getting "conscience" pangs to vote against it. What gives ?