IL pol unwittingly nukes Democrats woke platform?

[2tonic]

Illinois state legislators took a brief respite from fine tuning their "Unconstitutional Firearm Registration Scheme".... excuse me, " Assault Weapons Ban", to address the notion that the endless grift in IL politics isn't making the Bentley payments anymore. So they voted themselves a 16% pay raise, in a special Sunday session. This is on top of a 10% COLA raise earlier in 2022. This raise is for Governor, Cabinet leaders, Senate and House members.

Sen. Elgie Sims, D-Chicago, reiterated that the raises were meant to help Illinois attract “the best and the brightest.”
........I would love for all of us to be able to be wealthy,” Sims said. “That's just not the case.”

Wait.....what? This member of the party of participation trophies, and not keeping score because "winners and losers" might kick someone in the feelz...... the party that screams for Equity; equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.....that lectures us that intentions are of the utmost importance, not results, says this? I'm confused. Is he saying:

A. "The level of recompense in IL politics has, so far, only attracted a boatload of s**theads, so it needs to be raised".

B. " I'm an egalitarian, and the important job that I spend my time not doing, should pay enough to keep us swells economically insulated from you peasants, what with your stagflation and economic downturns.

C. "I'm a big racist, and I recognize that in every endeavor, there are participants possessing a level of intelligence, education, rationale, and motivation that enable them to succeed where others fail. To adapt and overcome, all while recognizing the inherent value of the humans affected by the endeavor. Furthermore, I acknowledge that the best person for the position may not be a POC, or a woman, or an alphabet soup activist, or non-binary, or gender #45 on the list of 57. Then again, one of those might be exceptional.
But I'm still a big racist, misogynistic, terrorist for even considering the possibility of that".

Help me sort this out, please. My brain....she hurts.

 

[rosejm]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"We don't want a Legislature that's only made up of the wealthy," said House Majority Leader Greg Harris, the legislation's Chicago Democratic sponsor who retires Tuesday. "We want people who can run for office, serve their community, but also be able to pay for their family and kids."

They explained it pretty well. Could you quit your job to hold office for 4 years without your salary? Do you want a legislature made up solely of those who can? I don't begrudge them a salary, and it would be nice if perhaps you had a few more plumbers and a few less lawyers, but I don't think salary is the sole reason that doesn't happen...

 

[HoughMade]

They explained it pretty well. Could you quit your job to hold office for 4 years without your salary? Do you want a legislature made up solely of those who can? I don't begrudge them a salary, and it would be nice if perhaps you had a few more plumbers and a few less lawyers, but I don't think salary is the sole reason that doesn't happen...

I looked up what Illinois legislators are paid. I wouldn't work for that as my sole income. No one likes when politician's raise their own pay, but no one else is going to do it. I'm not saying they "deserve" more, but the publicly known salary is not the issue.

As for the governor, he's a billionaire and a member of the richest family in Illinois. I don't think whatever the bump is matters to him...as he doesn't take the salary anyway.

Pritsker said something about "being competitive". I don't think that's quite the idea. I think BBI's point that you don't want only people who can afford to work for the pay they offer to be legislators. You would end up with people who either think $85k is a great salary and far above what they would make in the private sector (or as a bureaucrat) or those so rich that the salary doesn't matter. This leaves out a lot of people in the middle who could contribute, but have responsibilities.

I would note that Illinois considers its legislators full time while Indiana considers its part time...for whatever its worth.

 

[2tonic]

This raise puts legislators at the 100k level, and cabinet heads at 200k+.
My comment wasn't so much about the raise (they're entitled to whatever they can justify to the taxpayers) though nothing in IL seems particularly well run.
Perhaps I cloaked my sarcasm too heavily; ie. the Dems want the best and the brightest? I thought they were all about intersectionality. Is Mayor Pete really the best Sec of transportation? Is KJP really the best Press spokesperson? Is anyone that the Dems champion really the best, or do they just check off the right number of boxes?
So now Dems believe the better athlete/team deserves to win? The smartest business leader deserves their success? I find these notions disturbingly conservative.
When we apply these principles, we're all racists.

The dichotomy shocked me.
Well, maybe Sims will get cancelled.

 

[spencer rifle]

I would love to make as much as that, for however long they would pay me. And I might get real insurance instead of the crap they force on us now.

 

[Shadow01]

I looked up what Illinois legislators are paid. I wouldn't work for that as my sole income. No one likes when politician's raise their own pay, but no one else is going to do it. I'm not saying they "deserve" more, but the publicly known salary is not the issue.

As for the governor, he's a billionaire and a member of the richest family in Illinois. I don't think whatever the bump is matters to him...as he doesn't take the salary anyway.

Pritsker said something about "being competitive". I don't think that's quite the idea. I think BBI's point that you don't want only people who can afford to work for the pay they offer to be legislators. You would end up with people who either think $85k is a great salary and far above what they would make in the private sector (or as a bureaucrat) or those so rich that the salary doesn't matter. This leaves out a lot of people in the middle who could contribute, but have responsibilities.

I would note that Illinois considers its legislators full time while Indiana considers its part time...for whatever its worth.

How about we tie politician pay raises to private employee pay raises? They vote in a 10% raise, every employed person in the state gets the same 10%. If employers are not happy, then they need to lobby their representatives to not make raises in their own pay.

we can call it the constituency fairness in compensation act.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How about we tie politician pay raises to private employee pay raises? They vote in a 10% raise, every employed person in the state gets the same 10%. If employers are not happy, then they need to lobby their representatives to not make raises in their own pay.

we can call it the constituency fairness in compensation act.

When minimum wage comes up INGO loses their collective **** because socialism and $15 Big Macs and whatnot. I get you are trying to make some point, but it's lost to me.

Perhaps I cloaked my sarcasm too heavily; ie. the Dems want the best and the brightest? I thought they were all about intersectionality.

Oh, no, certainly not. Nobody wants to pay what the best and brightest can actually command and taking care of buddies and optics matters a lot more than best and brightest. The only thing I disagree with is that it's somehow party specific.

 

[Shadow01]

When minimum wage comes up INGO loses their collective **** because socialism and $15 Big Macs and whatnot. I get you are trying to make some point, but it's lost to me.


Oh, no, certainly not. Nobody wants to pay what the best and brightest can actually command and taking care of buddies and optics matters a lot more than best and brightest. The only thing I disagree with is that it's somehow party specific.

It puts pressure on politicians to put their need for a raise up against their need for the election donations and support from big business that really keep them in office. **** off business enough by forcing them to give outrageous raises to all employees just so you can get your political pay raise could be political suicide.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It puts pressure on politicians to put their need for a raise up against their need for the election donations and support from big business that really keep them in office. **** off business enough by forcing them to give outrageous raises to all employees just so you can get your political pay raise could be political suicide.

So you want only people who can afford to go without a salary, or some very minimal salary, to be able to hold public office? Again, what's your point?

 

[Shadow01]

So you want only people who can afford to go without a salary, or some very minimal salary, to be able to hold public office? Again, what's your point?

With the history of representation we have had over the last several decades, I am fine with no representation for the foreseeable future. Lack of representation creates lack of damage to taxpayers. They get paid. No reason for their pay to be above the state median wage. if they feel they can’t afford to do that job just as anyone else, they can get employment elsewhere. The entire system was setup as you leaving your personal life for a short time and serving. Then returning back to your private life and income. It was never designed as a career and we should not support and incentivize it as a career. Besides welfare and food stamp recipients could step in to those seats at no pay and their lifestyle would not change. People that have the heart and desire to serve would find a way because their moral compass would compell them to do so. We definitely won’t have more crooks serving than we do now.

Is your fear that we would only have rich elite that could “afford” to serve? Is that any different than what we have today?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

With the history of representation we have had over the last several decades, I am fine with no representation for the foreseeable future. Lack of representation creates lack of damage to taxpayers. They get paid. No reason for their pay to be above the state median wage. if they feel they can’t afford to do that job just as anyone else, they can get employment elsewhere. The entire system was setup as you leaving your personal life for a short time and serving. Then returning back to your private life and income. It was never designed as a career and we should not support and incentivize it as a career. Besides welfare and food stamp recipients could step in to those seats at no pay and their lifestyle would not change. People that have the heart and desire to serve would find a way because their moral compass would compell them to do so. We definitely won’t have more crooks serving than we do now.

Is your fear that we would only have rich elite that could “afford” to serve? Is that any different than what we have today?

You can't return to your life and income if you can't afford to go without your salary for 2-4 years. If your goal is simply anarchy, then why hide it under some 10% state wide raise nonsense? Just advocate for anarchy.

At the state level, I'm sure that there are elected officials who are not the "rich elite" for sure. Federal level, still yes but at a lesser rate. Isn't Boebert something of a darling of the right at the moment and was a restaurant owner? Dan Crenshaw was a medically retired Naval officer. Somehow I doubt either qualify as "rich elite". Personally, I'd like to see more of that sort of background instead of 1/3 to 1/2 of the seats held by lawyers.

 

[Shadow01]

You can't return to your life and income if you can't afford to go without your salary for 2-4 years. If your goal is simply anarchy, then why hide it under some 10% state wide raise nonsense? Just advocate for anarchy.

At the state level, I'm sure that there are elected officials who are not the "rich elite" for sure. Federal level, still yes but at a lesser rate. Isn't Boebert something of a darling of the right at the moment and was a restaurant owner? Dan Crenshaw was a medically retired Naval officer. Somehow I doubt either qualify as "rich elite". Personally, I'd like to see more of that sort of background instead of 1/3 to 1/2 of the seats held by lawyers.

Then pay them less than lawyers and the lawyers will decide to move on. The only affective incentive we have to change the attitudes and goals of professional politicians is their pay. Based on the quality of the representation over the last 30 years I’ll take my chances with a new representative that’s paid $100K a year with zero per diem and any possible future pay raises will be on the ballot and not apply to those already in office.