Has anyone else noticed that the constant drumbeat and critique about wealthy candidates seeking public office lately?
Is the gripe really that a candidate such as Bruce Rauner made his wealth in the private sector or just not as a public servant?
Let’s not forget how well all too many elected Washington officials did after they sought and won elected office.
Now the greatest surprise is when the establishment of the Illinois GOP (known by many to embrace financial success and represent its interests) now are using a very transparent strategy to turn the heat on Bruce Rauner regarding his wealth.
Is this an obvious attempt to symbolically assassinate the man on the front page of the newspapers for horror of all horrors, his personal wealth?
It is highly unlikely that any candidates seeking Illinois’ highest office are necessarily “poor.”
Has anyone been on a road trip to visit the homes other supposedly poor Illinois Governor candidates lately?
To be fair there appears to be only one candidate and some insider Springfield associates that buy ink by the barrel taking the most potshots at Rauner’s independent of politics wealth.
Rauner responds that his wealth makes him less corruptible. Perhaps he is taking a page from a few other that used that very same approach to defend themselves after similar attacks.
And nevermind the’ headline headaches’ his campaign is receiving for a candidate preference for a rancher’s coat, a Harley and yes, the worst of it all…an old watch.
Does the Chicago Tribune remember giving a pass to some past millionaires that ran for office without this same scrutiny in regard to their private wealth?
Are those politicians that have or will retire as millionaires (thanks to federal and state taxpayers) criticizing Rauner, those that proclaim that they drive 12-year-old vehicles or made a sacrifice (?) when they decided to run for public office not a little worried that their re-creation of history (not to mention the financial truth) makes the risk of any personal investment a very sure thing.
How many of us could invest less than $150,000 and have that same amount worth $1.8 million twenty some years later? And receive an additional $60,000 plus annually in addition to a six figure existing income? Really are the times so tough for them?
Is money made in the private sector from smart and sound investments less tasteful than receiving a potential retirement windfall of a of an 18 to 20% return. Guaranteed. And fully funded?
Thank God for successful elections and generous taxpayers. Yet public employees and education pensions are the published focus of critical analysis by those few politicians professing to be so clean. Perhaps someone else should be placing the bullets in the respective critical shotgun?
Can we name a few that entered as regular guys yet left as millionaires? Someday perhaps a word search puzzle could be assembled with the names of those that came into office making $60,000 yet left as multimillionaires?
Does it not appear that privately made money is worthy of more criticism than politically earned and invested income?
Let Candid be perfectly clear.
Success is good. Shouldn’t one want to emulate success in any venture or pursuit?
And actually it is baffling that those Republican politicians running for the top job in the state of Illinois now find financial success so offensive?
Yet when millionaires in the past elections sought the Governor’s mansion or statewide office that money wasn’t open to the scrutiny that Mr. Rauner’s money now is. I guess that their millionaires aren’t quite as much of a concern as this millionaire. What else are we supposed to think?
The Business As Usual Bunch assembled downstate must be painfully aware that with a Rauner GOP Primary win the private sector will be making decisions rather than the 1% of the 1% that are getting all the best ‘arrangements’ now.
Of course a primary against Pat Quinn will be interesting should someone capable of spending $10,000,000.00 on a gubernatorial bid do so. And that is one heck of a lot of zeros! It has been spent before, albeit without the scrutiny it is now receiving. It brings back memories of the successful primary run by US Senator Peter Fitzgerald, the same guy that was supported by those griping about that nasty money today!
But wait a minute…how many Illinois millionaires have sought public office that happened to be millionaires when they entered office?
Names like Percy, Foster, Lincoln (in his day and thanks to his spouse), Wood, Salvi, Giannoulias , Emanuel come to mind.
Heck, the 113th Congress became even wealthier as their Freshman class entered office.
The congressional freshman class has a median net worth of $1,066.51 about $100,000 higher than the average of their other Congressional counterparts.
Regularly, political parties (both Democrat and Republican) seek out millionaires because of their wealth to run for public office. These days campaign funds are more difficult to raise and restrictions on campaign finance rules can be challenging.
In fact, this year the Louisiana Republican Party courted the Duck Dynasty Robinson family to run for public office. Everyone knows how wealthy they are due to their intitial business successes. What does the GOP have to say about private wealth in this instance?
Is anyone really sure that the voters in Illinois are not more concerned with runaway taxes, unfunded pensions, unemployment and rules that apply to some but not others than the criticism of one’s wealth? Perhaps more than a candidate’s choice of a watch or a rancher’s jacket?
Someone in Illinois must be seeking that proclaimed distasteful wealth when the purchase of lottery tickets are soaring?
Even when winning the Big Lotto offers one about a 1 in 259 million chance of a payout it does not discourage those playing the phenomenal odds.
Illinois is ranked #10 in lottery payouts so maybe the odds are, let it be noted, a little better. Either way, wealth is not such a negative if so many people aspire to it. When would the Republican Party now want to run from those achieving financial success???
People around are wondering if perhaps the plan all along was to support, boost and bolster the odds of one other candidate winning the primary?
And what are the odds that the attractiveness of a candidate intending to come from the outside business arena with no political experience being elected to the highest office in the state of Illinois?
Let’s be honest. In this era of political surprises would anyone be willing to ante up a fortune to bet against it?