Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ametz

The article in the Economist was a good read for the layperson-

Link?

Originally Posted by Alliance

In your opinion (or anyone else can chime in), has Rahm really laid out his positions?

He's laid them out on things that are relevant to me: transit, fixing budget issues, bike expansion... He's been the only one to really touch on the bike thing...

[ametz]

[QUOTE=Nowhereman1280;5158880]Link?



[QUOTE]

http://www.economist.com/node/172489...48984&fsrc=rss

This isn't the article I was thinking of (the article I had in mind was generally about how American politicians are startlingly unwilling to have honest conversations with the electorate about difficult problems, and it focused specifically on the pension problem)....but, this article specifically focuses on the pension obligations and is certainly a good read for the layperson. It makes note of something we should keep in mind: hard core pension reform can potentially clobber low paid employees who aren't gaming the system.

[Steely Dan]

^ speaking of the pension crisis, it continues to spiral completely out of control. it's good to know that 3 of the 4 major candidates have all said that renegotiating existing pension obligations is off the table


New report details scope of public pension shortfalls
Deficit now equal to more than $11,000 per Chicago resident

By Jason Grotto, Tribune Reporter
12:06 a.m. CST, February 10, 2011


Continuing to sound the alarm on local pension funds, Chicago's Civic Federation will release a report Thursday that shows the unfunded liabilities for 10 city and county pension funds grew sixfold from 2000 to 2009, with shortfalls now totaling nearly $23 billion.

Coupled with Chicago residents' share of state pension debt, covering the unfunded liabilities of public pensions would now cost every man, woman and child in Chicago more than $11,934, up from $2,442 just a decade ago, the report found.

The Civic Federation's findings mirror many of those detailed in Tribune stories about Chicago's pensions published in November. The newspaper received an advance copy of the public policy think tank's report, which includes a detailed analysis of every county and city pension fund.


full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3198498.story

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

cost every man, woman and child in Chicago more than $11,934, up from $2,442 just a decade ago, the report found.

So who do I make the check out to?

SSDD

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ speaking of the pension crisis, it continues to spiral completely out of control. it's good to know that 3 of the 4 major candidates have all said that renegotiating existing pension obligations is off the table


New report details scope of public pension shortfalls
Deficit now equal to more than $11,000 per Chicago resident

By Jason Grotto, Tribune Reporter
12:06 a.m. CST, February 10, 2011


Continuing to sound the alarm on local pension funds, Chicago's Civic Federation will release a report Thursday that shows the unfunded liabilities for 10 city and county pension funds grew sixfold from 2000 to 2009, with shortfalls now totaling nearly $23 billion.

Coupled with Chicago residents' share of state pension debt, covering the unfunded liabilities of public pensions would now cost every man, woman and child in Chicago more than $11,934, up from $2,442 just a decade ago, the report found.

The Civic Federation's findings mirror many of those detailed in Tribune stories about Chicago's pensions published in November. The newspaper received an advance copy of the public policy think tank's report, which includes a detailed analysis of every county and city pension fund.


full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3198498.story

Part of the "growth" in what's owed is accounting artifacts due to lower interest rates and recently low investment returns.

If interest rates go up, the discount necessary for estimating the future value of present money will change and the $11,000 will shrink.

I do think that fixed-benefit pensions need to be pared back or eliminated, and the $11,000 number could expediently used to help make that politically possible, but when looking at how that number comes to be people should be aware that in all likelihood the true costs won't be nearly that high. This is part of what happens when you use mark-to-market accounting instead of more long-term averages.

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by emathias

Part of the "growth" in what's owed is accounting artifacts due to lower interest rates and recently low investment returns.

If interest rates go up, the discount necessary for estimating the future value of present money will change and the $11,000 will shrink.

I do think that fixed-benefit pensions need to be pared back or eliminated, and the $11,000 number could expediently used to help make that politically possible, but when looking at how that number comes to be people should be aware that in all likelihood the true costs won't be nearly that high. This is part of what happens when you use mark-to-market accounting instead of more long-term averages.

I've been doing state pension accounting for a real estate investment management firm for about 4 years now. We saw our investments erode by hundreds of millions of dollars during the real estate bubble pop (like everyone else in our field). The funding of those pensions went down a LOT, but just recently we have been starting to write those funds back up as future cash flows and cap/discount rates have recovered with the economy. I just wrote three of my state penion funds up by around $60 million.

If we keep this trend going of economic recover, we could easily see a few hundred million of funding come back "out of nowhere" as these investments return to normal. The pensions have serious problems - but I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of this problem "magically" starts to heal itself in the next few years.

The laws are stupid as written. You can't make taxpayers come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in cold hard cash every time a long term investment wobbles up and down. You need to be certain you are healthy for the future, but it's silly to not expect that your investments are going to go up and down through time.

[MayorOfChicago]

I also loooved how the media yesterday was reporting that the unions have come out in force to declare that they want everyone to vote for ANYONE except Rahm. I just laughed to myself - I think that basically made up the mind of 75% of the residents of this city as to who they were going to vote for. It's almost as if the unions were shooting themselves in the foot with that statement.

[Chicago103]

I believe Jay Levine on CBS has it correct, there was a segment he did on the news last night. Basically he was trying to reconcile the internal polling data from the three major candidates (including Rahm's!) released on Sunday and the poll released yesterday, both conducted at pretty much the same time. His extensive investigation concludes Rahm is short of 50% and it is likely a runoff will be necessary. He puts Rahm at 46% and Chico at 23%. If you look online you might be able to find the video of the segment, I watched it live.

[ardecila]

I too think there will be a runoff. The question is whether Braun and del Valle's voters will go to Rahm or Chico. If Rahm is at 46% in the general, then he should have no problem getting another 4% of the electorate, unless Braun and del Valle's voters are DEAD SET against Rahm - and he's not that divisive in the city. No single group, with the exception of union workers, has a valid reason to dislike him.

[urbanpln]

I'm getting a little tired of Chico accusing Rham of not being Chicago enough. I didn't grow up here but, consider myself a lot more loyal and concern about the future of the City than most of the people I work with who grew up here and who live in my neighborhood (Beverly).

[Steely Dan]

new poll out from the tribune.


Emanuel at 49%, Chico at 19% in Tribune/WGN poll
Moseley Braun drops to 10%; del Valle at 8%

By John Chase, Tribune reporter
8:58 p.m. CST, February 10, 2011


Rahm Emanuel is in striking distance of being elected Chicago's next mayor on Feb. 22, with Gery Chico emerging as the rival with the best chance of forcing him into a runoff, a new Tribune/WGN poll shows.

Gains among African-American and Latino voters in the last three weeks bolstered Emanuel's substantial backing from white voters. His rise coincides with Carol Moseley Braun's precipitous drop in support among black voters and in esteem among voters overall amid campaign gaffes.

Emanuel had 49 percent support to 19 percent for Chico, the former Chicago Board of Education president. Braun fell to third with 10 percent, and City Clerk Miguel del Valle was at 8 percent, according to the poll conducted Saturday through Wednesday.

full article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/e...,4985218.story




FULL RESULTS:

Emanuel: 49%
Chico: 19%
Braun: 10%
del Valle: 8%
Watkins: 1%
Walls: 1%
undecided: 12%


there is still a sizeable chunk of undecideds out there, rahm won't need to pick up many of those people to get over 50% and avoid a run-off.

[ametz]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I'm getting a little tired of Chico accusing Rham of not being Chicago enough. I didn't grow up here but, consider myself a lot more loyal and concern about the future of the City than most of the people I work with who grew up here and who live in my neighborhood (Beverly).

That’s a good point, and I think the idea that a person “isn’t Chicago enough” is ignorant at best and xenophobic at worst. Chicago didn’t become a major player on the world stage by looking inward, and we should hope that our politicians aren’t so myopic. I understand that there’s a segment of the population that bleeds Chicago blue for whom all things all things outside the borders are to be looked at with suspicion but, as Steely Dan can’t abide by political rhetoric that panders to the unions (whether or not the candidate is sincere), I can’t abide by this rhetoric.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ametz

That’s a good point, and I think the idea that a person “isn’t Chicago enough” is ignorant at best and xenophobic at worst. Chicago didn’t become a major player on the world stage by looking inward, and we should hope that our politicians aren’t so myopic. I understand that there’s a segment of the population that bleeds Chicago blue for whom all things all things outside the borders are to be looked at with suspicion but, as Steely Dan can’t abide by political rhetoric that panders to the unions (whether or not the candidate is sincere), I can’t abide by this rhetoric.

Are there any families in Chicago who can actually trace their roots back to being in Chicago in 1830?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by emathias

Are there any families in Chicago who can actually trace their roots back to being in Chicago in 1830?

i can almost get to the 1830s. my great-great-great grand father came to chicago from germany in the early 1850s. we've been here ever since, but my parents decided to move from rogers park to wilmette right before i was born, so apparently i'm as "un-chicago" as someone from timbuktu according to chico, despite having roots in this city that go back 6 generations.

chico's "you're not "chicago" enough, rahm" bullshit from last night's debate is really the last straw for me. his desperate rhetoric is REALLY turning me off. thank god he won't win.

[ametz]

Not only that, but someone made a point in this thread that maybe we don't want someone who's too ensconced locally. Maybe someone with half a foot in the rest of the world is preferable (and yes, that's my preference, and that's one reason why i'm in Rahm's camp).

[Chicago103]

Is Chico himself really saying these things or is it some of his supporters? I for instance never heard Chico say he was against Rahm because he went to New Trier, in fact he was not big on the residency challenge unlike the other candidates. The worst flack Chico has given Rahm for being un-Chicago is for having a Hollywood fundraiser, which really isn't that out there.

Wait a minute what debate was there last night? I knew of one on Monday with Chicago tonight and another one by one of the major networks next week but I didn't know there was one last night.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Is Chico himself really saying these things or is it some of his supporters?

chico himself said it. here's a direct, on the record, quote from chico after last night's debate:

“He [Emanuel] went to the wealthiest high school in the state of Illinois [New Trier]. I do not see how you can relate to the people of the city of Chicago when you have not walked these streets and lived here. If you come from Wilmette, Winnetka, Lake Forest, that’s what you think like. I didn’t go to some elite high school. I went to Kelly high school.”

source: http://www.suntimes.com/news/3765098...al-debate.html


you might wanna take another look at your man chico. apparently he doesn't think you can relate to the people of the city of chicago because you spent a large amount of your childhood growing up down in decatur and "have not walked these streets and lived here". chico is pandering to some of the lowest of common denominators.

[Thundertubs]

I agree that the "not Chicago enough" rhetoric from Chico is an eye-roller. This is a huge, complex city, full of people like me who grew up elsewhere. Knowledge about how the rest of the world works is a good thing, Chico.

I understand not wanting to elect someone who parachutes in, not knowing the Blue Line from Blue Island, but Emanuel is not that guy. Chico is playing up provincialism to appeal to his base, but it comes off as myopic and unsophisticated to everyone else.

New York was secure enough in it's New Yorkiness to elect a guy from Boston, a Red Sox fan, of all things...

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you might wanna take another look at your man chico. apparently he doesn't think you can relate to the people of the city of chicago because you spent a large amount of your childhood growing up down in decatur and "have not walked these streets and lived here".

I am sensitive to that of course and am actually watching the debate online as I type.

[Chicago103]

Well I watched the entire debate. First of all I like the fact that this debate had all six candidates that are on the ballot, perhaps some former and/or reluctant Braun supporters will consider Walls or Watkins both of whom in my view are better candidates than Carol Moseley Braun.

As far as Chico's comment that Steely Dan mentioned yes I agree that it was over the top and unnecessary and without that one sentence he would have made his point just fine. That's now how I would have worded things if I was running for mayor of Chicago but at the same time it's not a deal maker for me and let me explain why. The reason that I was a Chico supporter early on is because of his views on education, business, jobs, taxes and city bureaucracy, and policing issues. Those issues of his have not changed from early on as was shown in this debate. What Chico addressed in the segments on jobs, education, crime (sans the Rahm attack) are spot on to what I believe in.

As far as the economic issues. I have a hatred for bureaucracy, I have been screwed over by it a number of times and Chico is the only one who goes out on a limb to say that the city can be its own worst enemy when it comes to job creation, the fact that it takes businesses months to get a permit for a sign, etc. Chico by far had the best answer in that segment, granted I think that Rahm got a crappier question about minority owned business contracts but still Chico has been strong on this issue all along. I am not saying that I believe Rahm will be a bureaucratic stooge but he hasn't taken that issue head on enough. Chico also in my view has the most comprehensive jobs plan and really the most visionary of all the candidates. I think it is legit for Chico to have a discussion about Rahm's tax plan because he is not clear about it, he says he wants to reduce taxes and then he wants to add all these other taxes that would pretty much bring things back to where we started.

In the education segment Chico also shined. You want to talk about unions, well the union I hate the most by far is the teacher's union and Chico is the only one that seems to have the guts to have positions contrary to what they advocate. Many of you know about how often I get into debates about how families can live in the city but the biggest argument I have to work against is when they talk about the condition of the public schools. I believe there are options for children in the city but apparently there aren't enough out there. Gery Chico is the only one who supports vouchers, now I know some people don't like them but at the same time many parents won't wait for the public schools to get better and they need options if they are to stay in the city, otherwise I am stuck arguing with people that the more difficult path is better simply because you are a city resident, well most people aren't as devout as me to staying in the city so its a harder case to make. We need all of the above; vouchers, charter schools, magnet schools and yes improving the neighborhood schools. Gery Chico is the only one with direct experience with the CPS and I think he would be a great education mayor, one of the most pressing issues facing our city.

As far as crime I also think Gery is right, if we just move our budget around 2-3% we can get 2,000 more police officers on the street and Gery was part of getting more police officers in the 1990's. Rahm had some experience in getting more police officers via support from the federal government but it says more to me what someone has done on the local government level.

So there you have it. I don't think Rahm has bad ideas, I agree with much of what he says but some of it is watered down ideas that somewhat mirror Gery. On almost every issue I agree with Gery Chico more than the other candidates. Now when it comes to the pension issue I agree more with Rahm Emmanuel and when it comes to the residency issue for city employees I agree with Miguel Del Valle's position. Should I change my vote based on one of these two issues alone? I suppose you can never have 100% agreement with any candidate you vote for otherwise I might as well write in myself for every office I vote for. A poster not too long ago made a remark to the effect that once the economy improves part of the pension issue will correct itself, and he works in the financial industry with these issues directly as I recall. Gery and Rahm have the same view on the residency issue and they are only putting it on the table not pledging to get rid of it and I think they would side with keeping the residency requirement if enough citizens spoke out in favor of it.

Last but not least I still strongly believe that this city needs a runoff badly in part because I think Emanuel and Chico should go head to head to discuss many of these important issues head on. Rahm Emmanuel has not been open enough about a number of issues and has dodged community forums, to me that shows he is not worthy of an outright victory. For that reason I believe in supporting anybody but Rahm on February 22nd. Now since an Emmanuel-Chico runoff is likely I don't anticipate my vote changing for April 5th but I am more likely to consider Rahm in that round and accept him if he becomes mayor. The fact of the matter is I like to think of myself as an informed person and I have read a lot of Rahm's platforms and while some things make sense much of it does seem a bit shallow to me and I would like more time to get to know what he really stands for. Honestly I care more about a runoff happening even than I do about liking Gery or disliking Rahm, this runoff system was set up for a reason and if it doesn't happen now then its pretty worthless. I usually am not the type to beat the drum about Chicago having corrupt politics but I seriously would lose faith in the intelligence of the average Chicago voter if there is not a runoff.