April 19, 2006

Hare solid on issues

The D/A is doing a series of pieces where they interview prospective candidates to be selected to step in and run in Lane Evans' stead. Today's interview was with long-time Evans aide Phil Hare, and he touched on a variety of issues.
The Rock Island Arsenal and a new I-74 bridge would remain important priorities for Mr. Hare. He would continue to help attract private business to the Arsenal and believes the arrival of the 1st Army headquarters, under the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommendations, could be a boost for the facility.

"I want to stay vigilant on the Arsenal," he said. "I want to be a cheerleader for the Arsenal."

He disagrees with previous trade agreements like NAFTA, saying they have hurt U.S. workers. He said he was furious with Maytag's decision to abandon Galesburg for a plant in Mexico.

"Negotiated agreements should include looking out for workers," Mr. Hare said. "We should provide tax breaks to corporations that stay here."

If selected as the Democrats' nominee and he wins the election, Mr. Hare said he would dedicate a member of his staff to economic development in the district.

"You need someone to put their ear to the ground and get a feel for what is going on," he said.

He wouldn't meet with just business people, but also teachers and others who could inform him on issues throughout the district. He said the first term would be one spent learning, referring to himself as "a quick learner."

"You learn by sitting down with people," Mr. Hare said.

Working closely with U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama also would be a key component in helping the district, he said, by tracking to get money for local projects through the House and the Senate.

Mr. Hare thinks No Child Left Behind is underfunded and said Head Start programs need more money. He called the current health-care system "a complete mess."

He said a national health-care plan could be paid for through repealing the tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000, tax cuts President George W. Bush wants to make permanent. He also suggested some type of tort reform to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits.

He supports the McCain-Kennedy bill in the Senate, which offers amnesty to some illegal immigrants while increasing funding for border security.

Mr. Hare said he is "in sync" with Rep. Evans on most issues, but his views vary slightly on some others. He is pro-choice, but opposes partial-birth abortion except if the life or health of the mother is endangered. He also favors parental notification for minors seeking abortions.

He also thinks a timetable should be created to withdraw troops from Iraq.

"The Iraqis have to be put on the spot to defend their country sooner rather than later," he said.
Hare appears to be in step with Evans' positions, ones which I personally agree with for the most part. I'm particularly encouraged by his interest in getting out of Iraq and his wanting to end Bush's disasterous multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. (though I think it should be targeted towards people with $1 million plus incomes rather than $200,000. There's trillions lost just from tax cuts to the top 1 percent of incomes in the country and the ridiculous "estate tax" repeal alone, more than enough to fund universal health care.)

NAFTA and CAFTA certainly need some work, but a candidate can't get much accomplished by just demanding protectionism anymore. The economic landscape has shifted so vastly that it will take a lot of creativity and work in other areas of society before the middle class and labor regain what they've lost over the past few decades, if ever. The onus rests on corporate behavior and investment, and as far as government can influence that, it should, though actually accomplishing it in the face of the Republicans (and Democrats) handing coporations nearly unlimited power will be difficult at best.

And more than lip service should be given to national health care. It would be a difficult transition, but programs on the state level have proven successful and could be expanded to the federal level, and Hare is correct in saying that the country could certainly afford it if it is done right and the reverse Robin Hood policies of this administration are stopped or curtailed.

His views on gun control were not mentioned.

Based on this interview, what are your impressions or feelings about Phil Hare as our candidate for congress?

NOTE: The QC Times posts a letter to the editor in support of Hare. It begins with the unfortunate statement, "Phil Hare is going to be the Democratic congressman from the 17th, because Lane wanted him to be the next congressman.", and goes on from there. That's a pretty rickety reason someone should be or will be selected. Doesn't that sell Hare short? It makes those who will be making the choice sound like mindless lemmings.

51 Comments:

At 4/19/2006 7:36 PM, Anonymous dogboy said...

Not mindless lemmings, but more loyal soldiers. We have followed Lane for 24 years, fought battles with him and won. Now people think we are supposed to ignore Lane's last wish and NOT APPOINT Phil Hare as our COngressman.

The fact is Phil is tough as nails and is ruthless enough to win this race. Congress isn't a place for lemmings!

 
At 4/19/2006 7:44 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

To avoid confusion, my point is that there should be other reasons for someone to support Hare other than simply because Lane said so. That may be a good and valid reason for some folks, but all I'm suggesting is that it shouldn't be the only one.

And yes, if you want someone who's expected to be most like Lane, then I guess it would follow that you'd support Hare. Though if you looked around, there may be someone else who more closely fits your views or who you feel may be a better candidate.

I just advocate people keeping an open mind on this.

 
At 4/19/2006 8:57 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

TID,

Your point really wasn't that subtle. A few of us rank and file lemmings may have moved our lips while we read it, but we did get it. It's fun to watch the wrong debate being joined endlessly. Must be the Kool Aid. It's got a funny taste.

 
At 4/20/2006 10:39 AM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

Dope,

If I wanted someone like Lane Evans, I'd want a veteran or someone with a JD or other advanced degree. I'd want someone with youth and energy and the ability to debate smartly and without losing cool.

Phil Hare just isn't any of that. He just speaks the issues well, and after 22 years of serving Lane, he ought to by now.

If I put a parrot in my office for 22 years, he'd learn to spout off the same words as me. I wouldn't want the parrot to be a congressman.

I'm very concerned about Phil Hare's body language during his TV interview with Chris Minor the other night. There's a lot more to this "endorsement" than meets the eye. So add integrity to my list in the first paragraph...

 
At 4/20/2006 11:29 AM, Blogger rope-a-dope said...

the papers declaring Lane Evans incompotent to run his own business affairs (filed by his brothers) was filed on April 4

Lane's letter endorsing Phil (the thrill) Hare was dated after that.

Are we really supposed to believe Lane isn't competent to pay his own bills but can be trusted to pick our next Congressman???

it's no longer "thank heaven" - this whole deal "stinks to high heaven"

 
At 4/20/2006 11:40 AM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

Huck did you ever think he worked for Lane Evans because they held similar views as Lane? Second Phil is a veteran, and if you say that reservists aren't veterans, you tell that to all the families of soldiers that have been killed in Iraq that are reservists. From what you say lets put up a guy who's got a pretty face and good camera presence but bad on the issues like let's say John Sullivan. From the article in the Dispatch he lines up with George W. Bush pretty much on everything from pro-life to the war in Iraq, but you know what he has a pretty face and can speak very well; he should go to Congress! Huck, you truly are an idiot. I want a Congressman to go to Washington to stick up for the progressive views of our district, not someone who can just like pretty on camera. If I wanted just a pretty face I would have ran myself or my buddy SympothyforleDevil.

 
At 4/20/2006 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Endorsement or no, degree or no, Phil Hare is an intelligent, tough-minded Democrat who best represents the interests of the majority of working people in the 17th District. He is extremely knowledgeable on the issues and knows how to get results. For those reasons I will work vigorously for his election.

 
At 4/20/2006 12:22 PM, Anonymous Spike said...

When Lane comes to thebig meeting and say, "I appoint Phil Hare for Congress" that is going to end the speculation.

I think your personall attack against Phil hare is wrong.Any suggestion that Lane doesn't support Phil is false.i nw for a fact that Lnwants Phil to take his place in congress.

As for the Dope's assertion that people shouldn't vote for Phil because Lane endorsed him, but what better source would provide loyalmachine Democrat voters their que? Lane Evans is the 1,000 lb Democrat in the room. What he wants is what we want. Why the Dope, Bydler and the Dispatch and Times don't get that, I'll never understand.

I think what bothers the DOpe, Bydler, the D/A and the Times, is that they don't run the community and we do. Sorry fellas, but that is the way the cookie crumbles!

 
At 4/20/2006 12:42 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Spiky, my boy, I think you're giving yourself waaaaaaaay too much credit.

The reason I don't feel that Dems should jump ONLY on the basis of Lane's recommendation is that the same applies for everything.

If you want to pick a physician because one of his buddies tells you he's a good doctor, that's fine.

But I'd personally take that into consideration, and then do a lot of further study and find things out for myself.

That's all I'm sayin'

I would hope that committeemen don't close up their minds and be good little soldiers and by doing so, hand over their ability to judge for themselves to others.

And by the way Spikey, are you a committeemen? Otherwise you don't control anything, and even if you were, you'd let others control you, so it wouldn't matter.

I find this ridiculous little meme that's going around that bloggers somehow are out for power and control to be downright hilarious.

 
At 4/20/2006 1:19 PM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4/20/2006 2:50 PM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

" Second Phil is a veteran, and if you say that reservists aren't veterans, you tell that to all the families of soldiers that have been killed in Iraq that are reservists"

Come on, youngdem503. When was Phil Hare a reservist? The reserves were not even mobilized when Hare was in uniform. Today, you're absolutely right that reservists do plenty, serving on at least one deployment overseas...and every reservist serving today knows that. And every reservist from yesteryear knows how little the reserves, especially army reserves, did before 2001. To even call Phil Hare a veteran is idiotic.

And I'm not looking for pretty faces, I'm looking for someone that can make a good arguement on the Hill with other congressmen and doesn't look and sound like a frumpy bum or get angry everytime someone disagrees with him.

He has no experience on the Hill or in any other argumentative forum. The other congressmen will see him for what he is: poorly dressed, undereducated, and stubborn. And he will be ignored.

 
At 4/20/2006 3:20 PM, Blogger the underground said...

rope-a-dope,
The Evans letter endorsing Hare that were received in Adams County had a April 14th postmark. This is ten days after the papers were filed in court.

YoungDem503,

Sullivan bad on issue's? Just because he does not represent you viewpoint, he is bad on issue's? What is the demographic makeup of the 17th District? Are the entire districts views more in line with Hare or Sullivan.

Just an question. Not taking a shot at Evans (whom I respect). Are his brothers going to have to sign off on his official resignation from Congress?

 
At 4/20/2006 5:03 PM, Anonymous Thecatinthewindow said...

Dope,
DOPE ,

To suggest Democrats like Evans, Gianulis and Jacobs don't control the politcal process in NW Illinois is reediculous. These men are working hand-in-hand behind the scenes to clear the path of power for Congressman Phil Hare. You and your little blog friends might not like it, but that is a fact.

Huck,

For you to adopt the moniker of "Huck Finn" and call others "poorly dressed, and undereducated" shows a clear misunderstanding of our culture. Are you sure you are not looking in the mirror? Come on M. Boland, you can do better than that!

 
At 4/20/2006 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schweibert would talk for so long everyone would fall asleep!

 
At 4/20/2006 8:49 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

CAt.... I'm serious. You people have GOT to stop imagining things.

WHEN in the HELL have I EVER suggested that "Democrats like Evans, Gianulis and Jacobs don't control the politcal process in NW Illinois"?? Huh? Where??

Maybe you better take a few deep breaths before your urge to jump on me leads you to have to imagine stuff to attack me on.

I think YoungDem put it well when he wrote:
"You guys are hurting Phil way more than you are helping. I'm supporting Phil Hare but my decision is based on the fact that Phil is correct on the issues. Now stop acting like our democratically elected positions are inherited items and start thinking independently. By saying that you should support Phil strictly on the fact that Lane wants it to be so is saying that you do not have ability to independently think or think at all for that matter. Now let’s start supporting Phil Hare because he's a good Democrat that has earned this spot through his tireless work for the party."

I've explained my point about 7 times already, and numbskulls keep misinterpreting it and reading crap into it. But I'll explain it ONE MORE TIME.

I'm just saying that those voting on the candidate for 17th district should remain independent, and vote according to what they feel is best. If they want to give their decision making power to others, then they will. But at least in this instance, by the rules, a handful can't control the many.

That is not to say that they won't find a way to scam the system, or otherwise control enough votes to ensure that they get their way. It's just that, at least on paper, it's supposed to be up to hundreds of committeepeople, not one county chair.

As to Hare, I'm neither for him or against him. I think it's totally unfair to suggest his lack of a college degree makes him unqualified, but at the same time, I don't think he deserves anyone's vote simply because Lane supports him. That alone shouldn't be enough to justify support in my opinion.

But.... if someone truly adores Lane enough that they'd vote for anyone he picked, no matter who, then I suppose that's what they'll do.

I just hope the process is open, fair, and that various people don't game the system and take the decision away from those who are supposed to vote on it.

 
At 4/20/2006 9:09 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Here are my concerns with Mr. Hare:

1. Phil Hare doesn't LOOK like a congressman or a candidate. I don't mean to sound trivial, but in this business we all know that perception is reality and that physical appearance is important. Just look at a picture of Phil Hare and you will see what I mean. We'll let it go at that.

2. I am not convinced that Phil understands the problems facing rural America. He lacks the personal background and the knowledge to understand farmers. (Driving past a cornfield on 1-74 doesn't count) It's a fact that Lane Evans quit the House Ag committee after 1 term because he found it "boring" and it's a fact the Farm Bureau never supported Lane. Why will Phil Hare be any different?

3. Phil says he wants to be of service in the federal government. Has Phil looked for employment in the Social Security Office or at the Arsenal or something that is a better match for his abilities?

4. Phil lacks name recognition. If you did a poll of likely voters (ordinary people- not political junkies) I'll bet he would be in single digits.

I do not have a favorite in this race. But I do know that this is no time for amateurs.

 
At 4/20/2006 9:12 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico... you're welcome to your opinion, of course, but I don't know that you can get away with calling Hare an "amateur". The guy has been on the inside of politics both locally and in DC for decades. Say what you will, and he may be untested as a candidate, but he's certainly not an "amaeteur".

 
At 4/20/2006 9:23 PM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

Dope, Hare ran a district office in Moline. How much actual time has Hare spent inside the Beltway?

 
At 4/20/2006 9:36 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Huck, fair question, but one which I don't have a precise answer for.

To borrow a phrase from another politician, I think it's safe to assume that Hare "knows where the bathrooms are" in D.C.

There again, since none of the hopefuls have actually served in office in D.C., none of them have extensive experience there, or any at all, for that matter.

Out of all the hopefuls, I imagine Hare probably knows his way around better than most. He certainly understands the process, committees, how things work behind the scenes, etc. as you can't spend 20 some years at the side of a congressman and not pick anything up.

And, as I've said, since none of the people have experience in D.C. other than Hare, it's kind of a non-issue as to how well they know their way around in the Capitol.

In that respect, I'd wager that for about 95% of new congressman, being elected amounts to on-the-job training.

It's got to be pretty daunting, as it's pretty much sink or swim. They get a little training and orientation, and then it's paper hat time until they learn the ropes.

I can't imagine that many new congressmen or women arrive in D.C. knowing exactly what to do and how to do it.

 
At 4/20/2006 10:08 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Mark Kirk and Ray LaHood are excellent examples or staffers who were promotable. Although I still cannot quite see Phil Hare in a league with those two.

Phil's involvement locally was not exactly a plus. If Lane only knew the crap his local people pulled while he was away. They were always meddling in local campaigns where they had no business... from dogcatcher to judge. As a federal employee and as a congressional staffer, Phil's role should have been to stay "neutral" in local affairs. He was supposed to focus on important things like Social Security casework and flag requests. With people like Phil Hare, you have to "set boundaries". Unfortunately, Lane didn't.

 
At 4/20/2006 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You state that you like Hare because he is right on the issues. What issues are you tlaking about. He is not going to be appointed on issues. He is going to be appointed because Lane Evans said that he wants him appointed and don't even try and say it has anything to do with issues. Lane wants to make sure that he gets Phil and Phils congressional staff several more years of service. Only Lane Evans can decide who will fill his shoes. This is over and done with. The rest is Don Johnston and M Boland dragging this thing out and hoping that Hare will be hit on the head with an acme safe. This is the only chance that anyone has of stopping Hares appointment. I think it is cute that you people think that your comments can make a difference. You people need to grow up and get with the program.

 
At 4/20/2006 11:01 PM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

Dope, you're probably right...it's a non-factor. Not sure how much he would have learned by osmosis from Lane, though.

I'll give Hare more credit than knowing where the bathrooms are; but if he was a real staffer, he'd probably also know that the Tiber Creek pub is just cross corner from the office bldg and that they serve yards of ale and have a free buffet after work.

Instead, he probably knows the current name of the revolving-door Mexican restaurant around the corner from the Moline offices better than anyone inside the Beltway.

 
At 4/21/2006 12:10 AM, Anonymous SympathyForLeDevil said...

Huck Finn, I hope I speak for most when I say this is not the time nor the place to bad mouth Mr. Hare or the Evans staff. It is apparent you have a strong dislike for Phil, but honestly you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole by picking apart characteristics of Phil that seem to have no connection to his run for congress. Basically, if you have a problem just say it, quit beating around the bush and make some sense, because what you have posted so far in just garbage.

 
At 4/21/2006 8:20 AM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

My point is that we're making Phil Hare into something he's not:

1) He's not a veteran of any conflict. He wore a reservist uniform at a time when people joined the reserves or stayed in college to avoid the draft.

2) He has plenty of experience in the Moline district office, but that doesn't translate to experience on the Hill other than to visit. He has no experience in DC and so many here make the incorrect assumption that he does because he worked for Lane.

3) He does not present himself well. His temper, stature, and dress are all poor. Congressmen may refer to him as "the distinguished gentleman from Illinois" on CSPAN but as a freshman he won't have any credibility. He'll be out of his league.

We're making Hare someone that he is not and we make assumptions about his qualifications and experience because he had a job working for Lane in Moline for 22 years.

It's clear that folks like SympathyForLeDevil and others don't share my experiences and perspectives. After 16 years on active duty, 2 tours in combat, four years on staffs in DC, I'm not looking for someone that can strong arm unions and campfollowers within his political pond in RI county. No, I want to keep a guy like that right where he is, doing the things he does best.

DC's a completely different animal than the union halls and the 17th district office and we need someone that will be effective in DC. Hare is a candidate that will drown in the sea on the Hill. If you want to try to prove me wrong, put the blinders on, campfollower, and see where this road takes us.

 
At 4/21/2006 10:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Everyone's talking about how Lane's "entitled" to pick his replacement, but the courts have decided he's not even competent to handle his own finances.

Doesn't anyone else have a MAJOR problem with that picture?

 
At 4/21/2006 11:16 AM, Blogger diehard said...

Did you ever notice you never see Huck Finn and Rob Mellon in the same place?

 
At 4/21/2006 11:23 AM, Anonymous SympathyForLeDevil said...

May I ask you Huck Finn then...who do does deserve this spot in your eyes? Obviously he has to follow "your" qualifications.

 
At 4/21/2006 11:25 AM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

anonymous 10:03, obliviously you don't know how to handle the legal affairs of someone who has a disease that can take a turn for the worst within a matter of days. It could be that his brothers want to be prepared if something were to go wrong, we did this for my father when he started to become ill. Even if Congressman Evans is unable to perform his duties we would still have to have a special election to elect someone to finish out the job which would take awhile. Now for Mr. Finn, oh where to start. First Phil can change his tie the others can't change there beliefs, second no one running has experience on Capital Hill (although Boland would probably say he has because he took a tour), strong arming what? It’s called LEADERSHIP, temper what temper? if you have a problem wanna fight about?

 
At 4/21/2006 11:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An incompetent Lane Evans is more qualified than a competent Republican (YOU) are to determine who our next Congressman is.

Lane isn't crazy, he's sick! He needs help wrting his bills, making major financial decsions. Not determining who he wants to carry on his legacy in Congress.

Lane Evans has worked for us for 24 years, the least we can do is give him what he wants -- Conmgressman Phil Hare

 
At 4/21/2006 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Lane needs help making personal financial decisions, how can he be competent to make decisions concerning MY financial decisions??? (and believe you me - the choice of our next congressman will effect our pocketbooks)

 
At 4/21/2006 6:43 PM, Anonymous Bigmex said...

How many candidates don't seem ready for prime time when they are running for an office? Funny how the office elevates their stature in so many eyes once they hold it.

Besides, I'm sick of blow-dried phonies who can talk the talk on the campaign trail, but can't walk the walk when they get the job. Boland is a great example of this. He's done nothing but campaign and self-promote for 11 years. He does great for 20 seconds on the evening news, but can't produce as a legislator. Heck, he can't even TIE a real tie....has to wear clip-ons!! LOL

Then there's this ambitious Sullivan. Evidently he's very appealing to Republicans in the remote, sparsely populated, parts of the district. Two problems there...the 17th may cover some turf, but it's basically several urban pockets connected by smaller amounts of these types of voters. The other problem is he'll VOTE like a Republican as a Congressman as well. We need that like we need a 3rd term for GW. Forget it!

None of these wannabe's salivating to grab this political prize know the 17th district or are as capable and informed on federal matters as Phil Hare. He'll do just fine.

 
At 4/21/2006 8:06 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I said it before and I will say it again: Phil Hare does not understand rural America. He simply lacks the personal background and the knowledge.

Ag concerns and farmers drive the 17th district economy. Now let's take Lane Evans off the pedestal for a minute and look at the facts: 1) The Farm Bureau never supported Evans. 2) He quit the House Ag Committee after 1 term. Bottom line: Evans was a piss poor representative for farmers. Tell me, how will Phil Hare be any better ??

 
At 4/21/2006 11:13 PM, Anonymous Bigmex said...

Well, Nico...he doesn't have to be. The Farm Bureau's track record at defeating Evans speaks for itself. ;)

I wouldn't worry about politically rewarding a group that were never supportive, especially in a district that is far less rural than before. Besides, the Farm Bureau is a joke. They're much more interested in pushing the agenda of corporate farming, big agribusiness and chemical companies than they are with the small, family farmers...many of whom DID support Evans.

 
At 4/22/2006 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hal Bayne has emerged from the shadows to become the anti-Hare. Bayne a retired doctor, front-line Vietnam veteran, world traveler, is now poised to take the congressional reigns for two years and resign before the next primary allowing voters to vote for who they want in congress to represent themselves!

 
At 4/22/2006 12:39 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Let's sum up, shall we?

Hare, Boland, Schweibert, Bain, Sullivan, Stockwell, Rob Mellon, (and Jacobs though no one was asking) are all sterling examples of leaders and have exactly what it takes to be the very best possible pick to run for congress.

Hare, Boland, Schweibert, Bain, Sullivan, Stockwell, Mellon, and Jacobs all are incompetent boobs with no qualifications and fatal flaws, they all suck and don't stand a chance.

There you have it.

That's what makes the world go 'round though, right? That's politics.

It's up to readers to weigh the arguments and evidence.

 
At 4/22/2006 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe that any one of these people has the potential to be the strongest Democratic congressional nominee since Tom Hand.

 
At 4/22/2006 1:44 PM, Anonymous Huck Finn said...

If we accept that they all suck, in absence of a perfect candidate, let's make a knowledgeble decision and find the least incompetent, least unqualified boob without relying on blind followership.

The Emperor is not wearing clothes, there is an elephant in the corner of the room, and no correspondence has been personally approved by Evans since before early March.

 
At 4/22/2006 8:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Finn,

Lane has all his cloths and he's about to let Phil Hare borrow them!

 
At 4/24/2006 10:01 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

The Farm Bureau doesn't support Lane because they are vehemently free trade, and Lane opposed things like NAFTA and CAFTA. Lane cares about other agricultural issues such as supporting ethanol, and assisting family farmers. But even if Lane (or potentially Phil Hare) agreed with the Farm Bureau on every other issue, the NAFTA position would prevent the Bureau from supporting him.

 
At 4/24/2006 4:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NAFTA was 10 years ago. It's okay to move forward highboy!

 
At 4/24/2006 11:32 PM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

We still are still losing American jobs because of it therefore we cannot move forward jerk, that's right I'm not above name calling.

 
At 4/25/2006 12:53 PM, Anonymous truedemo said...

Why don't you try rolling-up your sleeves and competing in the world market. Are our young men so soft they can't compete?

All these young kids want to do today is sit around and feel sorry for themselves. When I was a young lad I was not above working hard for a living. Now these young bucks think they are too good to work at a pig plant. When John Deere started his tractor plant in Moline, it was a setp above a pig plant with no OSHA standards.

Today young people are often lazy and unwilling to work hard. If they do work they think they should be the boss from day one!

I am afraid that my generation has raised a bunch of spoiled, rotten, soft kids!

 
At 4/25/2006 1:38 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

This is getting a little far afield from discussing Hare, but at any rate I can't help but responding to truedemo above.

Aside from being nostalgic for the days of severed limbs and horrific working conditions, I'm not sure you make a very convincing case for the "good old days".

While it's certainly true that in a vague, general, unproven way, it seems that some people are "soft" these days, I'm not certain that's accurate.

Sure, they've tried to move away from being considered replaceable pieces of meat at their jobs, though the fact is that many still are, and the climate under Republicans is moving rapidly back to those good old bad old days.

Maybe enacting workplace safety rules (which the Dems have done to protect workers) enabling workers to bargain for wage and health benefits (Dems and unions) and the resulting rise in disposable income and free time isn't a bad idea, despite the fact that Republicans gut OSHA enforcement and try to destroy unions every time they get in office.

I think younger people these days work their asses off. Things are vastly more competitive, and I see younger and younger kids being pushed into dozens of competitive things like being involved in multiple sports, and a dizzying number of activities.

There's intense pressure to compete in school, and parents start drilling their kids in how to pad their resumes beginning with geting into the "best" pre-school.

Not only do I not know how the kids can handle it, I can't figure out how the parents manage either.

They're all on a giant treadmill spinning faster and faster and everyone thinks that if they're not, their kids are disadvantaged somehow.

But they're likely just creating the Zanax users of tomorrow, an army of unstrung neurotics in training, facing enormous stress from age 2 on and likely to crack somewhere along the line.

Young people work very hard in school, they face many times the dangers and temptations that past generations have, they're inundated with a non-stop media onslaught urging them to be perfect, act like promiscuous bimbos and heartless jackasses and buy everything they can get their hands on or risk being "uncool". Kids even get beat up for not wearing the right clothes.

I don't see them being too soft. They have to be pretty sharp just to survive without going nuts.

I imgagine there were a lot of "soft" kids back in your day too. You probably called them the "rich kids" because they actually didn't have to drop out of school and risk their lives and smother their creativity and kill their soul working in a dank, dangerous factory just to get by.

I have no nostalgia for horrid diseasees, no job benefits, and getting hands mangled in machinery or blinded by chemicals or dying young from inhaling polutants or being exposed to poisons on the job, and then getting thrown out on the street with no compensation for your trouble.

And I likelwise think the view of young people being soft is nothing more than the fact that they come from more prosperous families in general. The standard of living has greatly increased since those wonderful days of cholera, typhoid, polio, and tuberculosis, no workplace safty regulations, the 80 hour work week, and all those other things you pine for.

After all, some might considered that progress.

Frankly truedemo, you may just get your wish sooner rather than later.

The policies of this administration, including their reckless economic policies, and the crushing debt they are leaving for future generations just might ensure that we don't have any "soft" kids down the road.

They'll all be plunged back into the economic hell where people are forced to sacrifice their health and their dignity just to put food on the table. Where the fight to survive causes them to abandon any struggle to retain their rights, and where coporations and business owners treat workers like disposable cattle.
And where politicians of both parties, dependent on support from the wealthy and corporations, won't do a damn thing to help the workers.

So long middle class, nice knownin' ya.

We're rapidly returning to the dark days of a century or more ago. I can imagine how good this makes you feel.

 
At 4/25/2006 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to our local Republican newspaper, 49% of Moline's school children are from families that earn less than $19,800 a year. So if you don't mind, please explain why you and Bydler are so opposed to the pig plant?

I can't wait to hear this!

 
At 4/25/2006 3:49 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

OH, you have some plan to give jobs to heads of households who make $20K a year? Otherwise, your statitic has NOTHING to do with the hog plant and more to do with the national economy, globalization, NAFTA, federal economic policy, and local elected leaders who can't think beyond bringing in the biggest, stinkiest, undesirable industry and bribing the hell out of them to do so in the process.

We want jobs, but not hog slaughtering jobs, and the fact of the matter remains that after this hog plant is up and running, very few of it's workers will have come from the area anyway. You know it, I know it, the company knows it, and so do the politicians.

To suggest otherwise is nothing but a con job on residents and voters.

I oppose the plant because of the damage it will do in exchange for the benefits it will offer (in reality, not in the bullshit projections, estimates, and "hoped for" figures given out by supporters of the plant.)

I oppose the plant because of the bribes, hand-outs. breaks, and tax avoidances that governments are lined up to give Triumph in exchange for putting more burden on our municipal services, while at the same time putting a huge dent in government revenue due to tax abatement schemes, and turning the area where they are to locate into a industrialized, polluted no-man's zone.

I simply feel that the costs outweigh the benefits.

How's that?

As to Beydler's views, you'd be better off asking him. I can't say what they are, nor can I speak for him. But I'm sure that he has more reasonable and knowledgable reasons for holding his views than you do, in all liklihood.

 
At 4/26/2006 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please explain what kind of jobs you are willing to work?

 
At 4/26/2006 6:39 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Please explain who you're asking, then come up with a serious question.

 
At 4/26/2006 10:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What bribes are you talking about Dope. These are very heavey accusations to plant. I didn't see who you were leveling them at.

 
At 4/26/2006 11:52 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'm referring to tax abatements, waiving fees, and all the other numerous breaks, bonuses, and other ways public money is spent for the sole benefit of a private concern, namely Triumph.

This included everything from work done to improve the property, provide extra heavy infrastructure to handle the intense and heavy traffic to and from the plant, all the way down to kissing their asses by offering to rename the road to Barstow from Barstow Road to "We Love Triumph Parkway" or whatever it is to be.

You may call them "incentives", I call them bribes as it amounts to a very few (elected officials) voting to give the money of the many (taxpayers) in the amount of millions of dollars in tax breaks, which amount to giveaways, infrastructure paid for by taxpayers, and increasesd cost to government services that the plant will create, and untold cuts in future tax revenue from the little understood and unpublicized schemes to allow Triumph to not pay their fair share of taxes for years to come.

This has become pretty standard practices these days, where corporations start a bidding war to see which community is most willing to give them incredible "incentives" to locate in their community.

The result is that the winner has usually promised so much and given away to much that they find years down the road that they still are no where near to breaking even on the deal. And the happy talk and promises made are all broken and the reality is that the presense of the company is a drain on the community rather than an improvement.

Of course, some people profit handsomely from it, and they are usually the people pushing the hardest for the deal, because after all, they're using the public's hard earned money to subsidize, essentially, a company from which they stand to make a large amount of money.

For politicians, greasing the skids for the company will likely ensure generous campaign support in the future and it amounts to nothing but a "one hand washes the other" situation with the public standing off to the side with their pockets turned inside out.

I think simply thinking that these deals must be all good simply because they provide jobs is sticking your head in the sand.

Those who support the plant can't seem to bring themselves to even acknowledge the many potential negatives to the deal, while opponents at least acknowledge that there may be some benefits, but the negatives outweight them.

The supporters also seem to be deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to the intangible negatives associated with such businesses, such as the effect on quality of life, which won't be positive for some people at all.

And once the company is here, it's game over. They can go back on promises with impunity. What? Are the politicians going to call them on it? Hardly.

So they can pollute, import workers, and pretty well do whatever they damn well please, and there's nothing the community can do about it, and those who might be able to, simply wont.

But in the meantime, the corporation has the various governments locked into an airtight deal. The corporation can go back on any number of assurances, promises, or "expectations", but the taxpayer is locked into a losing proposition no matter what. They're already giving up tax revenue, they've already forfeited the money which would have been made from building supplies and permits, etc.

It's too late for them.

I perceive the situation as being fundamentally unfair and unbalanced, and I see precious little acknowledgement or even concern over the very valid and serious concerns of those who oppose the plant from any of the boosters, politicians included.

 
At 4/27/2006 12:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Using the term "bribes" is highly irresponsible and suggests a significantly illegal activity on the part of community leaders. How about toning down the inflammatory rhetoric to something like, "generous tax giveaways," or "liberal incentives to business owners" or something like that.

"Bribes" are far too toxic and inaccurate to use in this situation, ms. dope.

 
At 4/27/2006 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As someone whos undoing came from accepting a "gratuity," you should be carefull what you claim. A "bribe" is against the law. If you no of anyone taking a bribe please inform us. If not, you might want to drop the term before you are called into the State Board of Election Enforcement Division and asked what you know!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home