November 18, 2006

Two of three local lawmakers vote against giving themselves near 10% pay hike. Can you guess which?

As reported via the AP in the Dispatch/Argus:
With the election behind them, Illinois senators voted Thursday to accept raises that would mean a 9.6 percent increase next year in the paychecks of lawmakers and other top state officials.

Their salaries have not increased since July 2001, and some lawmakers defended the additional pay as long overdue.
...
The raise applies to lawmakers, the governor, agency directors and other high-ranking officials, although some -- including Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- say they will reject the extra money.

Lawmakers get a base salary of $57,619, which would jump to $63,143 with the raises that are being allowed to take effect. Most lawmakers get extra pay for chairing committees or serving in leadership positions. All are entitled to $125 in expenses for every day of session, plus a mileage reimbursement.

The governor's salary would climb from $150,691 to $165,138.

No one's paychecks will actually increase unless lawmakers set aside the money -- estimated at $4 million -- to cover the increases. That could happen later this month or early next year.

Officials also are entitled to two other cost-of-living increases that took effect on paper but never were accompanied by the necessary government funds. Those increases, if funded, would bring total raises to 15.6 percent.
...
Legislation to block the raise needed 30 votes. It failed 25-21, with six senators voting "present." Of the 21 senators voting to accept the raises, 19 were Democrats and two were Republicans.

The Illinois House voted in April to reject the raise, but the Senate delayed action until after the fall election.

Under Illinois law, the Compensation Review Board reports every two years on whether officials' salaries should be adjusted. Its recommendations take effect automatically unless both legislative chambers vote to reject them.

In addition, officials get annual cost-of-living increases unless, as has been the practice recently, lawmakers withhold the money.

Jones has defended the additional money, saying lawmakers need cost-of-living increases like everyone else. When asked about Illinois residents who don't get regular increases, he said, "You ought to quit who you're working for."

Sen. Rickey Hendon, D-Chicago, chided lawmakers who claimed they would reject the extra money.

"You know you're not going to do that because you want to stay happily married and you want to avoid problems at home," Hendon said.

But other lawmakers said they couldn't support the increase when many mid-level state workers aren't getting raises.

"We have professional people in this government working right now who have not had a cost-of-living raise in four years," said Sen. Dale Risinger, R-Peoria. "We need to give those people that are working hard, doing a good job for the state of Illinois, their cost-of-living first."

How nice. We have a Senate president who's attitude demonstrates his complete disconnect with reality by snapping that those folks who don't get automatic pay raises and can't simply vote to do so should just quit our jobs and go work somewhere else. How nice.

Reminds one of Sen. Jacobs when his reaction to the protests of residents whose property values would tank when a hog plant was built nearby was to esssentially say that they should have expected a gargantuan industrial slaughter plant next door when they decided to live there decades ago.

Add to that the goof who made the sexist crack about how no one could dare turn down the pay raise because they wanted to save their marriage, as if women are simply money-grubbing shrews who would never understand someone turning down a raise on principle.

But have you guessed who voted for this raise and who didn't among our local political representitives?

Only one made it his first order of business post-election to say "show me the money".

I'll give you a hint. He's the same one who several comments have praised for his expensive suits. That kind of gives it away right there.

Yes, our rookie Sen. Mike Jacobs was one of 21 senators voting against rejecting the report recommending the pay hike.

On the House side, Rep. Pat Verschoore actually jumped on the bill to reject the pay hike as a co-sponsor, and Rep. Mike Boland voted yea to block it as well.

If funded, the new pay raise would give lawmakers roughly $5260 a month, though they're only in session part of the year, with the $125 per day walking around money when they are in session and a milage allowance which goes to pay for gas, a car, and insurance one would assume.

Though I don't have it in front of me, I feel it's safe to assume that they enjoy insurance that most people could only dream of as well as more than generous pension plans (in addition to the big $ they can make as lobbyists after their stint as lawmakers)

Add to that some piles of campaign cash at their disposal and "perks" from interested parties, and you're living pretty large.

Two cheers for Reps. Boland and Vershoore for sticking to principles.

~~~~
The bill in question is HJR121

The Senate roll-call vote is listed here, and the House vote is here.

70 Comments:

At 11/19/2006 12:08 AM, Blogger demgorilla said...

In fairness to Sen. Jacobs, it wasn't his decision to have the COLA increase bill brought to the Senate floor -- it was Senate leadership. It's not fair to say, therefore, that was Sen. Jacobs' first priority upon heading to Springfield. That shows a lack of understanding of the legislative process.

Second, if truth be told, most legislators are 1000% in favor of COLA increases but rarely possess the honesty to say that and vote that.

Verschoore and Boland and most others will gladly accept the COLA increase, but won't have the courage to vote in accordance with their wishes.

Jacobs was honest about the issue, which is something other legislators can't say for themselves. They're for it, but they won't say it. That's Springfield payraise politics 101.

And there is something else about this issue. Unless you want the Illinois House and Senate to be filled with millionaires, we have to be ready to pay modest salaries that reward them for a tough job.
And if you don't think that job is tough, Ms. Dope, walk in their shoes for a month.

 
At 11/19/2006 12:13 AM, Blogger demgorilla said...

Oh, by the way, the only way Reps. Boland and Verschoore are "sticking to their principles," as you say, is if they return every dollar of the COLA increase back to the state treasury.

I don't think Mike Boland has done that once in his career. Would someone check into that? He plays the politics of hypocrisy -- votes against the pay hike to give himself political cover, then accepts every pay hike. It's a sham and a shame.

And Mike Jacobs has probably given more campaign money to charitable causes during his first 18 months in office than Mike Boland has during his entire 12 year in the Illinois House.

Don't lecture us about COLA increases and the hypocritical politics of pay hikes, Mr. Dope.

 
At 11/19/2006 12:44 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

DemGorilla, Jacobs isn't paying you, is he?

Anyway, I guess that's none of our business.

First of all, neither I nor anyone else is saying that legislators shouldn't be paid a reaonable salary.

It's the raise we're discussing.

Your defense of Jacobs seems a bit tortured to me. If everyone's a hypocrite on this measure, why wouldn't Jacobs do the same thing? Would it kill him to vote against hiking his own wages? I mean, if it's true that they're going to get it anyway, why not? At least make a figurative gesture for the right thing.

Who exactly is he helping by voting for it? Besides himself of course?

And you know, I'm sure the legislators work hard. How much of that work is for the purpose of holding on to their seats and doing favors and how much is of actual benefit to the public is a matter for debate.

But truly, do you think other very hard working folks around here would be damn glad to have over $5000 a month PLUS having their insurance paid for, their car paid for, and getting $125 every day they show up for work?

Are you really saying they just can't function for less than that?

Don't try to cry poor on that. I don't think it'll work.

You know, I'm thinking really hard, and I can't recall the last time I saw a politician that looked like they were doing anything but just fine financially.

And I think it's a little late to be worried about politicians being millionaires, don't you?

Besides the fact that that argument is full of beans.

Campaign cash is what these politicians run on, and that doesn't come from the taxpayer (though maybe it should)

It doesn't take a damn millionaire to live comfortably and support their families on $56,000 a year with full paid benefits, car expenses, and $125 a day for showing up.

Are you actually trying to suggest that unless we pay these guys over $5250 a month only millionaires will run for office?

Wow! If you are on the payroll, you're worth every cent.

 
At 11/19/2006 12:45 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

In response to DemGorilla at 00:13, I didn't say that Vershoore and Boland were "sticking to their principles", I said they were "sticking to principles", which may seem like a slight difference, but it's a difference.

By voting against a pay raise, they're sticking to the priciple that they represent the people and feel they don't need to get compensation increases which the majority of their constituents don't.

Now as to the hypocrisy and all the rest, I won't argue with that. It's all a game and if they can figure a way to get the increase while voting against it, they will.

But I fail to see how Jacobs voting for the increase is some portrait in courage. Sorry.

It's a bit like saying that a person who lets you know he's taking more of your money and putting it in his pocket before he does so is somehow more honorable than those who just take it from you. I guess you have a point there.

As to how much Boland and Jacobs have given to charity, I have no idea. I know that Denny often did and I've seen charitable contributions in Mike Jacobs' finanacial reports on several occasions. You may be right on that, but it's hard to tell.

And of course, in all of this, people can take different views on whether this pay hike is necessary, needed, or a waste of the 5 million odd bucks it's going to cost the cash strapped state.

That's what comments are for.

 
At 11/19/2006 6:20 AM, Blogger Benton Harbor said...

Gotta agree with you totally on this, Dope!

The comments by some of the "senior management" are belittling to the mid-level people, at best.

I don't ever begrudge someone for getting a raise... if it's deserved. But automatic raises (unless voted down) just don't cut it, especially when you factor in the $125/session walking-around money (another $6500 from now through April).

Dope hit it on the head with the line "cash strapped state." The State owes my doctor nephew almost a quarter million in Medicaid payments and it quit making payments because it doesn't have the money.

Illinois doesn't have the money to pay for Blago's pre-school and childrens' insurance programs and it wants to set aside another $5M for raises?

Perhaps we voters should demand an end to the per diem pay before we agree that the lawmakers should get a pay raise.

 
At 11/19/2006 7:02 AM, Blogger nicodemus said...

What is the Bill number on this? I want to look it up the roll call vote on the General Assembly website. Thanks.

 
At 11/19/2006 8:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Boland going to do with his raise?

 
At 11/19/2006 8:23 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico,

I've added that info to the post.

 
At 11/19/2006 8:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon, 8:06.

Who are you asking? Wouldn't you stand a better chance of finding an answer if you wrote Boland's office or Boland himself?

Or are you more concerned with getting the question out there than in actually finding the answer?

 
At 11/19/2006 8:42 AM, Blogger diehard said...

At least Jacobs is admiting he will take the money.
Verschoore and Boland , I'm fairly sure won't return the money to the treasury.
But they will get credit for looking like a couple of stand up guys ....puhleeease!!!!

 
At 11/19/2006 4:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope,

Do you advocate outsourcing the Illinois Legislature to India?

Wouldn't you rather improve Boland's pay than have him steal from you?

Given the measure failed by several votes couldn't Jacobs have voted for it and then taken the raise when the static dies down? Why do you think he didn't do that? Wouldn't he have saved himself all this trouble and just taken the increase?

 
At 11/19/2006 6:32 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Listen, this isn't "Ask Dope"...

All of your questions but the last are for laughs, obviously.

Firstly, I think things probably couldn't get much worse and may actually get better if we did outsource the lege to India. Imagine, idealistic politicians working for the benefit of all. It would be great until the lobbyists got to them, which would be in about two seconds.

Your second question baffles me. Talk about a false choice! Wow. Now a person either supports raising politician's pay or Boland will steal it from us? Very creative framing there, I must say. Not sure it has anything to do with reality. And it's interesting that Boland would apparently be the only one "stealing" this money, while I assume, Jacobs wouldn't be?

You're last observation is valid. I'd like an answer to that too. I have no idea why Jacobs wouldn't just cast a vote for tossing out the pay raise recommendation simply on principle.

Your guess is as good as mine. It makes no sense to me unless he DID cast his vote on principle, the principle that he wanted more money and truly feels that it's a good idea to put more money in his bank account rather than use it for some other critical use.

 
At 11/19/2006 8:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boland voted against the pay raise because he didn't think he desereved it. After a quick review of his record, I agree with him.

 
At 11/20/2006 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we are to attract good law makers we need to pay them well. I am a salesman and havb a collage education and I could not afford to quit my job and be a legislator because of the low pay. If we were to not pay these people then we will end up with underqualified people.
Worse than underqualified would be to have rich people that can afford to not get payed to run the country.
Rep Hare will make $150,000 compared to $56,000 for Mike Boland. I believe that the state is underpaying. Mike Boland is a friend and to say that he is overpayed is a joke.

The average joe turning a bolt at deere maskes more than Boland. He deserves this raise even if he didn't vote for it.

 
At 11/20/2006 1:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Mike Boland Pat Verschoore and senator Jacobs deserves the raise. I am suprised that our state pays so much less than the national govt.
No onder why Boland wanted that congressiponal seat.

I feel that Boland does every bit as much as work as Hare will do and deserves to be payed likewise. These jobs should pay at least $100,000.

I agree the last thing that we need is Lawyers running the state part time.

I give Jacobs credit for voting to make government better.

 
At 11/20/2006 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These paid stooges writing in their transparent attempts to cover for Jacobs are hilarious!

You could fill up the Mark 5 times over and you couldn't find two people among the crowd who think that politicans are underpaid!

Between their salarys and all the unbelievable perks they get or have available, it's tough to cry poor.

Besides, is legislator supposed to be something you go into to make money? I thought it was to serve your constituents and your state, not to have a swimming pool and a Porshe.

If anyone thinks they need $100,000 before they'd serve, they shouldn't serve to begin with. They already get a fat package of benefits and can live quite comfortably as it is.

Hell, you couldn't walk into the Blue Ribbon without seeing Jacobs there for a while. He ate there like most people eat at McDonald's.

Crying poor cracks me up!

Boland does seem to live modestly, though he finally sprang for a Caddy a year or so ago, which almost seems forgivable considering that he probably logs more miles on the road than most truck drivers.

Verschoore certainly isn't flashy either, and seems to live modestly and comfortably.

Only Jacobs who seems to need to live large.

 
At 11/20/2006 2:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are these great perks that you are talking about?

Jacobs as anyone has the right to eat wherever they want. If you think that it is so glamerous to make $56,000 then I suggest you run anon 20/11/06 13:43.

As for Boland he has a government pension and this great $56,000 glamerous job that you talk about. His Caddy is OK with you. He is pushing flex fuel and drives a Caddy. Don't forget the $300,000 house that Mike Boland lives in in an exclusive neighborhood. Real simple.

I think that Boland should be able to drive what he wants have as many state pensions as he wants and go and eat wherever he wants to eat.

Why are you so jealous when it comes to Mike Jacobs?

I only can hope that you anon 20/11/06 13:43 will have the guts to run for this glam job.
Somehow I think not.

 
At 11/20/2006 2:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You make my point. Thanks.

Boland lives comfortably, probably more so than 90% of his constituents if what you say is true. So does Jacobs.

I'm not jealous, but if they're going eat $50 meals 10 times a week, then can the crap about needing a raise!

The state is going broke and these bastards are wanting to stuff MORE money in their greedy pockets. Enough!

It's got nothing to do with jealousy, and for you to say so shows how shallow you are, as does the goofy idea that someone has to run for office or they can't comment about the greed of their representitives.

 
At 11/20/2006 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First: You didn't tell me about the great perks. What are you talking about. Living out of town in the great vacation home of Springfield for months at a time or the being away from your family or the great pancacke breakfasts that you get to attend?

Second: you should run if you want this great pay and great perks.
You make it see like a dream job. You don't have to run but why wouldn't you run. You seem like a great candidate.

Third: Most important is that there is a state constitution that does not allow for legislators to raise their pay. Are you aware of that? If so then are you saying that the constitution is wrong about this. Would you like for Legislators to get to vote to increase their pay?

Forth: Do you feel that the congressional seat that Hare has is worth $150,000? Do you condem these federal folks for making three times the rate of Local rep's?
If so I would like to know why.

Thanks and think about leaving your current job to run for these great jobs.

What do you make by the way?

I stated that I make more than $56,000 do you?

 
At 11/20/2006 2:43 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I have to say that the comment of Anon 14:08 is particularly offensive and a good example of the attitude at work with certain local politicians.

How callous and greedy does one have to be before they go to accusing people opposed to this pay hike as "jealous"?

Do you think the widower on a paltry pension with barely enough to buy prescriptions is "jealous" of Big Mike Jacobs if she'd rather have some of his pay hike go towards helping her?

People in this area go hungry, and Jacobs dines like a king and wants more tax dollars to put in his pocket, and you think anyone who takes a dim view of this must be "jealous" or should run for office themselves?

Stop and think how dumb and truly unenlightened that way of thinking is.

I certainly don't begrudge politicians having enough money to live comfortably. But the fact remains that they very much do so already.

It's like you're saying that because politicians can vote their own pay raises they should. They're certainly not lazy and must work hard raising funds and during the time they're in session. They're very busy and have a very busy schedule.

Fine.

But to suggest they should somehow get paid more as if they're working for a for-profit operation is wrong, in my opinion.

If they have enough money to provide for their family, live very comfortably and have insurance and benefits up the yazoo, then it's hard to understand why they'd need yet more money.

Besides, isn't their hundreds of thousands of campaign cash there for a reason?

Are we to think they never dine on that money? That they never take care of personal stuff with it? C'mon!

Campaign cash pays for cars, office stuff, staff, and lots and lots of meals and drinks.

Bottom line, stop trying to piss on people's legs and tell them it's raining. These guys have everything provided for them, and enjoy a deal that most people would think they'd died and gone to heaven if they could have a set up like that.

And how much of their work is actually for the benefit of the general public and not themselves and their careers is debateable.

I'm afraid wanting to grab a pay raise is going to be a hard sell and tough to justify beyond simply saying it's needed. You don't have to be a political genius to realize that.

 
At 11/20/2006 4:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In one context we can see that Mike Jacobs HAD to vote for a pay increase.

Please remember Mike Jacobs took a pay cut to become Senator, his patronage job with the SOS actually paid more than he's getting now.

So it was a simple answer, vote for the pay increase or sleep on the couch. It's good to see that the women in the Jacob's family are finally putting their feet down and demanding an end to their enforced economic servitude!

 
At 11/20/2006 5:20 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Now now now.... that's not fair. I'm sure that the Senator wasn't forced to do anything. His wife is gracious enough to support the Senator no matter how he voted on this.

But you do raise an interesting angle in this. Using the reasoning of a previous commenter, I suppose we could say that Senator Jacobs knew what the pay was when he accepted the appointment. If it wasn't enough to survive on, he could have gone into another line of work or stuck in his patronage job which he reportedly could do from home.

 
At 11/20/2006 5:45 PM, Blogger demgorilla said...

We're back to the original point Big Dem Gorilla made -- when it comes to COLA adjustments, lawmakers typically vote NO but gladly accept the COLA adjustments.
That's a game, that's "politics-as-usual." What Sen. Mike Jacobs did was call them out on it, he voted with honesty.

That's rare in the world of COLA adjustment politics.

That is the only point worth repeating in this entire thread.

 
At 11/20/2006 8:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The jealous nature of this site is so against Jacobs it is not funny.

Mike Jacobs never said that he was poor or needed the extra money or he would be bankrupt.

It is important to pay this position so that we can attract more educated and professional people to the legislature.

Any local Mike that you want to talk about doesn't need the raise. It is important that the state as a whole, and that goes for people that make minnimum wage at Wal-Mart are able to run for the legislature.

Anyone can run for office. That is the great thing about this country. To make this such a personal attack against the Mike's of the area is rediculous.

This is not a personal issue. It doesn't matter that these men have advanced degrees or not in the case of Pat Vershoore. It doesn't matter if you have a $300,000 house or a Caddy or several state pensions or eat fancy dinners or wear nice suits or draft dodge or get the job from the Chairman or get the job from the same chairman in the same manner because of your union ties.

What matter is that these men are the men that have stood up to be counted and should be paid.

 
At 11/21/2006 1:54 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You sound like the guy who thinks any woman who rejects him must be a lesbian. Try to wrestle your out of control ego to the ground there, Pancho.

And Gee. Wonder where this comes from, with all the idiotic Jacobs praise and obsessive Boland bashing?

And of course, the entire comment doesn't contain any argument which makes sense, and only says, "They should get paid."

Again, stupid.

They're already getting paid quite well.

Forget the pay hike.

 
At 11/21/2006 2:24 PM, Blogger demgorilla said...

There you go again, back to the politics of personal destruction, Ms. Dope. Instead of dealing with the issue, you challenge and smear the character or family or personality or whatever of those sending in posts.

This is one of your least favorable and fair traits. Please look deep into your soul and start sounding more decent toward those who participate in your blog real estate because a little bit of honey goes a long way. Just ask Winnie the Pooh.

 
At 11/21/2006 2:49 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're trippin' Dem.. I didn't attack anyone's family. Try reading a little more critically before making your accusations.

Where did I attack anyone's family??!!

As to giving someone hell for what I think is a dumb statement, I reserve that right.

Maybe after about 4000 comments attacking me personally for my views, I kind of feel like it's justified for me to do the same?

 
At 11/21/2006 6:56 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

As to the notion that we need to increase lawmaker's pay in order to "attract" better qualified candidates....

First of all, yeah, that would be nice. Not one of our local representitives in government is exactly a bright light in the night. Not that you need to be an academic star or ivory tower intellectual to be effective, but .....

Secondly, the argument is kind of thin.

People should run for office out of a sense of duty, not for the paycheck.
To suggest otherwise is kind of weird.

If they want a paycheck, stick to the private sector. If they want to serve and enjoy politics, then they get plenty of pay and plenty of benefits as it is.

Beyond that, are you suggesting that those who are drawn to run for office would do what.... go to a state which pays legislators more and run there? That ain't gonna happen.

It's not like we're in competition with other states as to how much our legislators get.

So I've not heard a single rational or valid argument for why a pay raise is needed for these folks who not only get a decent salary, but have their every need provided for, from medical care to auto expenses to generous pensions and lucrative job offers after they hang it up or get defeated.

And this goes double for legislators who live outside the Chicago area, where living expenses are much higher.

 
At 11/22/2006 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Dope are you saying that only civic minded people that have the means to run should run for politics. This is the kind of thing we tried to get away from when we broke from England. The rich ruling class.
Why would anyone say that we should have this kind of rich rule system. People that are in power do do it for the right reasons. They don't do it for the money but unfortunatly dope you need money to live except in you rich rule style of government.

By the way Dope. We have highly educated representation in the state. Both Boland and Jacobs have advanced degrees and got their degrees with honors so you are wrong there.
Phil Hare it is true has little formal education but he makes $150,000 a year. His education came at the knees of Lane Evans and that is worth it's weight in gold.

 
At 11/22/2006 8:10 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

How about arguing against what I actually say rather than making shit up?

I didn't say we should have a system where only the rich run for office.

Back up and read my comments and the others who think this is nothing but needless greed.

The point is, these guys ALREADY are well provided for, OK?

Stop trying to make it sound like if they don't get a fat 10% raise they'll be working for nothing. That's a cheap attempt to distort things, which after all, is the only way you can actually argue in favor of this.

Where did Jacobs get his degree again? Western Florida State or Florida Western State or something? I forgot what his degree was in.

And I find it ironic that you and others hold up U.S. Rep salaries as supposedly some sort of argument for a pay raise for lesser offices.

If anything sounds like jealousy, that does.

Secondly, that's like a member of the Quad City Swing whining and arguing that since major leaguers get huge multi-million dollar salaries, he should too.

It's comparing apples to oranges and makes no sense.

Besides that, US Reps have much larger districts and represent many more constituents and have much larger expenses associated with their jobs.

 
At 11/23/2006 12:31 PM, Anonymous cut said...

Are you saying Phil Hare shouldn't make more money then Jacobs, because Sen. Jacobs earned a Master's Degree and Hare only went to high school?

Rock Island County offical Lou Ann Kerr makes $89,420 per year and Terronez takes home $157,386. Shouldn't their pay go down too, or just Jacobs?

Given Sen. Jacobs' District is twice as big as Boland's and has many many expenses associated with the job, do you think Jacobs should be paid twice as much as Boland ($114,000), or do you think Boland should make half of what Jacobs earns ($28,500)?

By the way Dope, where did you graduate from college, or more likely high school?

 
At 11/23/2006 2:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're absolutely stupid. Just look at how you make stuff up! Where's this thing about Jacobs making more because he got a degree?

You sound like you could be the senator himself with everyone's salaries memorized and bitter about it all.

And the best is when you write, "Shouldn't their pay go down too, or just Jacobs?"

Spoken like a true deceptive politician (or whoever) Their pay isn't going to "go down" and you know it. It simply wouldn't go UP by nearly 10%.

It's not up to me to settle all the greedy struggles among politicians over who gets paid what. You figure that out, that's your job.

But if their salaries were tied to the size of their districts, perhaps by population or someting, that would seem fair to me.

I'm very proud of where I graduated, but as an anonymous blogger, I hardly think I'm going to tell you where.

Readers are free to judge my intelligence or lack of it, as I'm sure they do.

 
At 11/24/2006 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No1 No! I feel that Phil Hare is deserving of everything that he gets. The point is so does Boland Vershoore and Jacobs.
I still want to know why you talk bad about Western Florida and not upper Iowa where Boland went to collage. I still find Western Illinois to be a good school. It was wise to leave off my post where you were against Western Illinois.
I don't believe that you ever went to collage Dope.

 
At 11/24/2006 12:09 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Reading your comments makes me stupider. I was never against Western, and I didn't know you could go to collage. How do you go to a collection of pictures arranged together?

Really, if you think your comments are are somehow witty, I think you should listen to the teacher and stop eating the paste.

 
At 11/27/2006 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey dope, if it's a change of pace you're interested in, you should check out the chamber's website. Apparently Paul Rumler is in the area (I'm sure Jacobs would like you to believe that he was in DC the whole time). Wonder what's next for him.

http://www.quadcitychamber.com/news/story.php?file=2006324112705.2000249142536

 
At 11/27/2006 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul who?

 
At 11/27/2006 10:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually anon 27/11/06 12:25, Mike Jacobs gave the nod to young Paul Rumler for the job. If you don't think that this wasn't passed by Jacobs then you are only kidding yourself. It is a nice Republican organization for Rumler to be a part of. I think that a life in the political organization is a good fit for Rumler.

 
At 11/28/2006 7:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Mikey does the Chamber's hiring now? Doubtful. Are we to believe that Jacobs makes all decisions in the Illinois Quad Cities?

Dope, I thought you were the only one that was omniscient?

I'm glad to see that Rumler will continue to be active in the community.

 
At 11/28/2006 2:24 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 7:42.

Thought I am all-knowing, according to comments I get on a daily basis, there is apparently at least one person who believes that Jacobs makes the sun rise and set.

They also think that this is their blog and that I should give it to them. Of course, they're too cowardly to write me by e-mail where I could respond, much less let me know just who I'm supposed to give up the blog to, which is revealing in itself.

They also seems to have a very disturbing obsession with every detail of my personal life, or at least what they imagine my personal life to be, and at least this provides some amusement.

Is it Jacobs himself? We report, you decide.

 
At 11/28/2006 3:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish Jacobs would make the cold weather hold off a little longer, I've got to get my Christmas lights up.

 
At 11/28/2006 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you saying that the chamber makes it's decisions without party leadership recomendations. If you believe this I have swamp land to sell you. Jacobs may not have made the final decision but I can assure you that he was definately consulted. Jacobs is not a petty man and likes keeping young tallent in the QC. It is good for the area and that is what Jacobs is all about. Jacobs gave kind wods about Rumler after the election and only wants the best for Paul.

Try and make it a fued but Rumler is not as pettyas Boland.

There is no fued.

 
At 11/28/2006 9:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more day of weather was all that he can grant.

Not nice but OK!

 
At 11/29/2006 2:02 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Whew! I sure are glad there is no fued.

 
At 11/30/2006 8:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that you all enjoyed the extra nice day of weather yesterday that was granted compliments of Mike Jacobs.

 
At 11/30/2006 9:10 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Cold, wet, and now below freezing. Geeze. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

I'm sure that we should all be grateful for this dip into the 20's because... um.... Jacobs believes that a variety of weather is what makes this area so special and that he'd gotten some campaign dough from the ice fisherman's lobby so he thought he'd see if he could freeze things up for them... or maybe not.

But I do know that Jacobs would want us to know that if you don't like this cold weather, you're some horrible person that hates children because kids like to skate and you can't skate without freezing weather.

Oh yeah, and Boland sucks because he's never changed the weather, not even once in 11 years.

 
At 11/30/2006 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe that explains why Jacobs ran up 63% general election win!

 
At 11/30/2006 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or maybe it's because he had a joke opponent and a fat campaign account? Maybe?

 
At 11/30/2006 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that Rumler an awarded student and worker for the whip or an Aeorontical engineer from West Point that is an eagle scout that works in international business firm are a joke. Maybe you would see that this was a mandate for Jacobs. He is the peoples choice.

Why you Dope would stoop to calling these two men a joke is beyond me. You need to stop with the name calling. I know both Rumler and Beals and they are not jokes. Either on of these men would have beaten Boland.

 
At 11/30/2006 2:40 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

If you say so. But I didn't make that comment. Sorry Mike.

 
At 11/30/2006 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here you go again name calling. My name is not Mike. I find it interesting that you don't let me call you by name and yet you call me by the name that you want me to be. I suggest that you don't call me a name that isn't mine. Dope you say that you won't give up peoples identity then there you are albeit wrong doing it. You need to quit the name calling and quit posting anon. We all know it is you.

 
At 11/30/2006 4:29 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

HA! I put out the bait and you took it hook, line, and sinker.

I simply called you Mike because A. You probably are, and B. Because you came at me accusing me of writing the comment from anonymous above when I had nothing to do with it.

I thought I'd give you some of your own medicine and see what happened. Now we see. You performed excellently! Better than expected.

And yes, you're right. It is me.

And I'll go out on a limb and guess that you are you as well.

 
At 11/30/2006 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You must be drunk if everyone that thinks you are a light wieght is someone else. get over your self. Jacobs is senator and you work at Frito Lay! CongraTS!.

 
At 11/30/2006 11:19 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

And you're the what? Heavy-weight? The person who never has any worthwhile information and can't do anything but bitch, bitch, bitch?

And thanks for letting me know where I work. I'm always the last to know.

 
At 12/01/2006 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 30/11/06 13:59, you may not think Rumler is a joke but after seeing Paul Rumler and the chamber come out against the minimum wage increase I was glad that as someone that voted for him that he lost to Mike Jacobs. People said he was a republican but until now I didn't believe it.

 
At 12/04/2006 8:55 PM, Anonymous The Dope's Elf said...

"You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't....I felt a lot of pressure from the unions, so I just closed my eyes and voted for it"?

Ladies and gentlemen, or State Senator: Mike Jacobs (referring to his vote to increase the minimum wage).

 
At 12/04/2006 9:52 PM, Anonymous Truthiness said...

Guess that's better than deciding based on which side of the glass the olive floats to.

Jacobs doesn't have any ideology to speak of, and seems to not really care about higher priciples or ideals or party ideology. He just votes for what he thinks will be best for himself and his large contributors, which includes unions, as anyone familiar with his stances can tell. He's union friendly, but not overly so, and he's far more friendly to business and large contributors.

 
At 12/05/2006 8:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Unions are against the minnimum wage. You don't know what you are talking about.

 
At 12/05/2006 10:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs has the highest AFL-CIO labor rating in the area. Period. End of story!

 
At 12/05/2006 11:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now I'm confused.

The unions are supposedly against the minimum wage. (complete lie)

Labor loves Jacobs. (dubious)

But Jacobs voted for the minimum wage.

Hmmmm. Someone's messed up.

 
At 12/05/2006 1:13 PM, Anonymous prounion said...

65% of the voters love Jacobs, we know that much! I assume some of them must be labor people.

You are wrong, we love Big Mike jacobs. Afterall, he is the only legisltor in the state that has belonged to three seperate unions!

 
At 12/05/2006 1:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Point of clarification, 65% of the tiny fraction of the population who actually voted preferred Jacobs over an unknown with some pretty strange positions whose campaign was nearly invisible.

I'm aware of several people who chose to vote for neither, including myself.

 
At 12/05/2006 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Ronald Reagan was the head of a union at one time. wow

Some places, you don't have a choice as to whether to join the union or not.

 
At 12/05/2006 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe you should see how people vote. This is the real test. If Jacobs has the highest union vote then he has the highest union vote. You can not argue with that. If he does have the highest union vote then I would believe that the unions do love Jacobs.

63% of the vote against a West Point Aeronautical engeneer that is an eagle scout and a successful business man is a good victory no matter how you cut it.

Very impressive.

 
At 12/05/2006 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 15:30 and elsewhere,
Do you lie every time you open your mouth, or just when you comment here?

During the campaign you were screaming bloody murder about Beals shaky work history, tearing him appart for his service and everything and anything else. Now you're trying to make him seem like a real tough opponent for Jacobs?

You are the biggest liar I've run across in a long time. You constantly try to sling around figures and say they mean this or that when it's a huge stretch to even think they do for one minute.

I guess that's the way you're used to dealing with people, eh? Just lie your ass off and try to pull the wool over their eyes? Treat them like they're idiots who will fall for it?

Tut, tut.

 
At 12/05/2006 8:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jacobs also faced a weak primary opponent. Althoug Rumler graduated Magana Cum Laude and worked for the Democrat Whip in the United States Congress, Paul was no match for the former laborer, garbage man, factory worker and son of a politcian (Mike Jacobs).

Jacobs was lucky not to have to face the unemployeed guy from Savanna or the washed-up newscaster that ran against Lane and lost so badly. These are "real" opponents. Anyone can graduate from West Point become an Aeronautical Engineer and a successful international businessman! It takes a real slug to do that!

 
At 12/05/2006 9:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. It takes a real slime to be able to spin things 180 degrees from where they were spinning them during the campaigns. Back then, Rumler was an unemployed bum and Beals was some insane guy who made up his resume.

Nice illustration of how far your camp will go in stretching the truth and beating it around almost beyond recognition.

 
At 12/06/2006 8:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome to politics son!

 
At 12/07/2006 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again you have proven that printing stories about BIg Mike Jacobs results in many many many many many comments. thanks !

 
At 12/07/2006 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, HIS!

 
At 6/04/2007 12:47 PM, Anonymous Patrick McDonough said...

John D'Amico a rep. is making $85,000.00 a year in his full time job at the Chicago Department of Water Management. He is a District Forman the processes "Utility Hits". How did he vote on the pay raise for his part time job?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home