That’s all you’ll ever find on any ballot. It’s in the job description.
So what are Garcia’s plans to fund all of his proposed spending? What taxes are going to go up?
In very general I’m-not-Rahm terms, that is addressed here .
It really isn’t. Other then taxing “big corporations” and wealthy people an unspecified amount (which ones and how much?) there is nothing there that explains how he is going to fund anything.
Well, maybe he’ll be asked about it in one of the three candidates’ debates (03/16/15, 03/31/16, TBA).
Seems like a policy of that level of importance you would want to have down in writing. A 30 second to 2 minute debate response isn’t good enough.
My bet is that he has no idea how to fund any of his proposals.
Lochdale:
Seems like a policy of that level of importance you would want to have down in writing. A 30 second to 2 minute debate response isn’t good enough.
My bet is that he has no idea how to fund any of his proposals.
Well, I can’t find anything about tax policy or how to pay for things on Rahm’s campaign website either. But look, Garcia has been an alderman, he’s been a state senator, he’s been a county commissioner, of course he knows how to fund proposals, it’s done all the time; and he is also entirely familiar with all the debates over who’s ox gets gored, how a tax will affect the local economy, etc. You’re talking about him like he’s an amateur, he’s not, he’s been involved in city affairs since Washington was mayor.
And, looking closer, Garcia has at least given some thought to financial matters:
Financing the City’s Public Transit System
Transit infrastructure currently has a profound impact on the City of Chicago’s economy and residents. During 2011- 2015, transit infrastructure was projected to need nearly $10 billion in capital funding and it is expected that over the next 30 years, $385 billion in federal, state and local funds will be available for regional transportation investments. The current administration has endorsed transit’s future and renovated two lines, the Red Line and Blue Line, but much more is needed.
I will adopt transit-oriented development as the preferred development pattern for Chicago and champion innovative ideas for financing and expanding the city’s public transit system including the development of public partnerships and partnering with Cook County and other counties to secure a regular and sufficient revenue stream for the stable funding and development of the regional transit system.
As Transit Future envisions, I will look to for other funding sources including state, federal, and private streams. I will also explore the possibility of imposing a transit impact fee on new development and advocating at the state level for an increased gas tax to be used for transit.
Securing a Larger Share of State and Federal Transportation Funds for the Chicago Region
The Illinois Department of Transportation has historically directed 45 percent of transportation funds to the Chicago region and 55 percent downstate, even though the Chicago metropolitan region represents 70% of the state population and generates 78% of the Illinois gross state product.
The state’s policies result in high household transportation costs, growing congestion that costs businesses time when employees and delivery trucks are stuck in traffic and less leisure time for residents with their families as they drive longer distances between home and work. Lack of expansion of transit means that Chicago residents have poor access to growing job centers in the region (e.g. Schaumburg, Oak Brook, etc.).
As Mayor, I will advocate for a larger share of transportation investment in Chicago and the entire northeast Illinois region.
I don’t see how anything more numbers-specific than that would be appropriate for a campaign website.
So what about pension liabilities and other infrastructural projects?
Otherwise he is going to lobby for more Federal transportation money, despite having no federal experience and unlikely to have the same connections Emmanuel has in DC.
Again, this does not appear to be thought out.
A siting decision for the Obama Presidential Library is on hold until after the runoff: Chicago Tribune: Chicago news, sports, weather, entertainment - Chicago Tribune
Lochdale:
So what about pension liabilities and other infrastructural projects?
Otherwise he is going to lobby for more Federal transportation money, despite having no federal experience and unlikely to have the same connections Emmanuel has in DC.
Again, this does not appear to be thought out.
:dubious: ISTM you’re not holding Emanuel and Garcia to the same standard. I wonder why not?
Garcia does in fact have an impressive track record in office, and better than Emanuel’s, particularly WRT fiscal matters.
To the majority who voted against Emanuel in the first round of the mayoral elections on February 24, this probably came as welcome enough confirmation of their judgement. Others, though, are asking the reasonable question: What’s Rahm’s opponent Jesús “Chuy” García done to prove he’s up to the job of governing the third largest city in the nation?
Actually, it’s not a hard case to make—and the heart of it is that very financial free-fall. When the Chicago Tribune endorsed Emanuel for reelection, their argument was almost entirely fiscal: “He has kept spending in check”; “He has balanced the budget four years in a row”; “He passed reforms in Springfield to the municipal and laborers pension funds.”
The Chicago Sun-Times argued similarly: “For months, Rahm Emanuel has kept his feet flat on the ground, addressing Chicago’s very real problems despite the political fallout, while his opponent in the April 7 mayoral runoff election, Jesús ‘Chuy’ García, has floated above reality.”
Leave aside how Moody’s, which specified the irresponsibility of Emanuel’s alleged pension fix as a key justification for their move, has just humiliated those claims. Let’s talk about Chuy—and how talk like this betokens the Chicago establishment’s own flight from reality.
As the savvy and level-headed Curtis Black explained in the Chicago Reporter, “The reality is, Emanuel has a record of fiscal recklessness, and Garcia has been a key member of the two most fiscally responsible administration in recent history.” It was the mayoral administration of Harold Washington’s, with García as a key aldermanic ally, that trimmed the city’s patronage-inflated workforce by 15 percent and, a year before his decisive 1987 reelection, raised property taxes taxes by double digits. (Emanuel, the guy the Trib and Sun-Times claim has the courage to support tough decisions, used that 1986 city council by Garcia vote as a political attack.) More recently, Chuy has been floor leader for Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, when she balanced the county budget for the first time in years while also lowering taxes.
Budget messes are a tough issue for progressives. Solving them often seems to demand austerity measures—just the kind of austerity measures mandarins like the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board enshrines as the sine qua non of political courage—that hurt the most vulnerable. But they do not have to. Preckwinkle, with García as her deputy, achieved her balanced budget while maintaining the loyalty of most progressives. That makes mincemeat of the arguments of the big Chicago papers—and also that of the Washington Post, in a March 6 love letter to Rahm, who claimed the mayor “opted for the general welfare over special interests and as a result incurred their wrath.”
Garcia’s financial plans for the city couldn’t be any worse than the current one, which seems to be “hand Rahm’s buddy’s cash.”
Now that’s the Chicago Way!
You quote In These Times? A magazine that is utterly partisan? Forgive me for being sceptical.
Here is how The Economist sees things:
Again, how Garcia going to deal with the pension crisis? How will he fund 1,000 more police?
Other than begging the Federal government for additional transportation funds he does not appear to have a plan.
There are systemic issues facing Chicago and Garcia doesn’t appear to have any idea how to deal with them other than promise freebies he can’t fund.
Emmanuel may not be the ideal candidate but at least he appears to recognise the problems facing the city.
So what? It’s an intrapartisan election, between two Democrats. And ITT is also utterly Chicagoan.
It’s a parisan magazine that has always been anti-Emmanuel.
Most importantly though, they did not explain how Garcia is going to fund his proposals.
Can you explain how he will?
Lochdale:
It’s a parisan magazine that has always been anti-Emmanuel.
Most importantly though, they did not explain how Garcia is going to fund his proposals.
Can you explain how he will?
Not my responsibility. And it is not Garcia’s responsibility even to decide that until after he’s elected; there are ways and ways to fund things, and he has been in government long enough to know them all.
Why don’t you give us some estimate of what his proposals will cost? You seem to be simply assuming it will be a lot by municipal standards and that the city budget under Garcia will be bigger than under Rahm, but you have given us no actual reason to think so.
Yes it is. When he runs on a platform of lavish spending then he has to justify said spending. He has not. Ask yourself why he hasn’t. Where will the money come from to fund the extra police and higher wages? Even if the budget stays the same under Garcia, the pension liabilities will continue to mount until becomes untenable for the city to borrow more money.
And frankly I hold The Economist to a much higher standard of impartiality then ITT and I doubt I am alone in that.
You have yet to show that.