Shock Poll: Chicagoans Opppsed To Speed Cameras
We can’t believe it.
What a shock.
According to a Chicago Tribune/WGN TV poll, 54% of Chicago voters are against Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s speed camera program.
Wow.
But even mores surprisingly, 69% of the 700 respondents to the poll felt that speed cameras were about raising revenue and not about improving traffic safety. Only 37% believed the program was primarily about improving safety.
Can you believe it? We’re shocked to our core.
Does that mean speed cameras are really not really about the kids?
Here’s the Tribune’s full story, “Poll: City residents don’t want speed cameras.”
Can we just indict all our politicians now? They don’t care about the citizenry of Chicago.
Most city residents are used to being screwed by the political crooks.
Daley was fucking Chicago for 21 years and kept getting elected because ‘amazingly’ the only opposition party candidates were worse than Daley.
The Aldermen like Burke and Austin and Burnett and Cochran are soo entrenched and beholden to the people that got them into office…they don’t dare vote against the company line….because they can’t afford to go back to the job they had before ‘winning’ their first election. Even the newer class of aldermen like Wagespack and Smith and so on are afraid to rock the boat too much because the Mayor of this town can cause them to lose their next election.
I think we could easily get by with 10 members in city council. Why pay 50 when they always do what the mayor wants anyway? Maybe with 10 they’d actually question the mayors proposals.
At the very least we could do with a reduction from 50 to 25.
Combine wards…..and Fire any alderman that has been in Office longer than 3 terms.
Aldermen like Burke and Burnett and Austin and Cochran have made the concept of Public Service a Joke in this city.
Politics isn’t supposed to be a career.
Dor employer suggests that we “fire” all Alderman with more than three terms.
My comment: Why? Term limits simply deprive voters of choice – forcing people out of office contrary to the ill of the people.(for if it were not, they would not be re-elected).
At David, term limits would be great in addition to reducing city council. Most politicians become very complacent after a while and only care about getting re-elected, which they often do because of name recognition. Also, with term limits it would be great to NOT have to pay pensions for politicians. Career politicians are not to be trusted. The system wasn’t designed for it. Our first president didn’t even want the position and he stepped down after two terms. He didn’t have to, Washington said it was a gentleman’s notion. They hadn’t enacted term limits but he did anyway.
Mike Wrote:
At David, term limits would be great in addition to reducing city council.
My Comment:
Term limits do ONE thing. They reduce the choice provided to the voter. Unlike ANY other job, the politician is publicly periodically reviewed for job performance and can lose the job even if they have been doing it well.
Mike wrote:
Most politicians become very complacent after a while and only care about getting re-elected, which they often do because of name recognition.
My comment:
So your real problem is with the election system and the voter. And rather than educate the voter, you want to deprive them of choice.
Mike wrote:
Also, with term limits it would be great to NOT have to pay pensions for politicians.
My Comment:
Even under the most radical forms of term limits (which essentially eliminate competence) you will have people taking on jobs for 10 – 20 years. You are going to suggest that, in addition to being badly underpaid for their job, they also should go without pensions? That’s a great way to ensure that your legislators, mayors, and the like are rich people (from the 1%) with a Romney-esk view of the bottom 50%.
Mike wrote:
Career politicians are not to be trusted. The system wasn’t designed for it. Our first president didn’t even want the position and he stepped down after two terms. He didn’t have to, Washington said it was a gentleman’s notion. They hadn’t enacted term limits but he did anyway.
My comment:
And in the late 1700′s life was far less complex. We didn’t need a “full time” legislature because we didn’t regulate food and drugs so that they would be safe, we didn’t have a highway system, we didn’t have an airline and railroad system, we didn’t have universal public education, we didn’t provide social services for the elderly and the poor, we didn’t have highly complex and technical military units and so on. What we really need is to lift silly things like term limits. Without term limits, we wouldn’t have had Bush, Jr, we would have had Clinton III and life would be VERY different.
David wrote:
Unlike ANY other job, the politician is publicly periodically reviewed for job performance and can lose the job even if they have been doing it well.
Hey, Davey, tell that to the millions of Americans laid off during the recession. Apparently they must have been doing a shitty job otherwise they wouldn’t have lost their job. Only politicians can do a good job and still lose it.
David wrote:
So your real problem is with the election system and the voter. And rather than educate the voter, you want to deprive them of choice.
Considering the Democrat machine in place in Chicago there really isn’t much choice here. The machine picks the players. We are already deprived of choice. To say any different is disingenuous.
David wrote:
You are going to suggest that, in addition to being badly underpaid for their job, they also should go without pensions?
It’s a part time job at best. And they make $104-112k. I would hardly call that underpaid. And that doesn’t factor in other perks (they have multiple people on staff and decent expense accounts). Show me a person in the private sector making $105k that has a FULL time dedicated staff. (So even if you think they are underpaid, then they are also underworked relatively speaking)
http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/tables/alderman-salaries.html
David, you must be new to Chicago or just have a different viewpoint and that’s fine. I’ve voted in several elections and the other guy has won. Term limits would add choice because it would bring in new blood all the time. Daley’s last action of selling the meters could have been avoided with term limits. The mayor and the aldermen are paid very well, and the latter is a part time job. Most of them have second full time jobs. It’s your right to agree or disagree. I’m not happy with politics in the city, county, or state. We don’t have choice because of the machine.
David…term limits do not deprive a voter of choice.
They provide the voters with protection from careerists that are more Chicago Machine orientated than public service orientated.
Term limits do wonders in other cities and states.
Term limits would cripple the Chicago Machines ability to corrupt city and county departments long term because the elected officials wouldn’t be able to be subtle about it and would get caught faster than Ike Corruthers did.
Term limits help the machine. It takes a good deal of time and effort to break-through and defeat the machine candidate. With term limits, the reformer is limited and the machine simply waits and takes the seat back. With term limits, the machine simply puts up a “new” candidate. The machine loves term limits and the gullible think that they reduce the power of the machine.
Not having term limits has worked wonders for Chicago, right David? I think not.
David…..DOR has a Point.
What Reformers have this city seen since Harold Washington?
Reformers either lose their next election or get offered a choice ‘bribe’ or the machine finds leverage to keep them in line without money.
Take Burke…He can’t afford to lose his Ald Position and go back to being a Chicago police officer. Neither can Cochran. Austin is a Daley appointee that amazingly gets re-elected despite blatantly appointing family members to 80k a year jobs in ward positions that are some how not Shackman Covered jobs.
The only aldermen this city should trust are the ones that Just got elected last year….and then I’d only trust them with a job selling Girl Scout Cookiees.