Glenn - it's good you have taken up the challenge of running for State Senate. At a time when our "leadership" has failed us so profoundly, no incumbent should run unopposed. I know you face an uphill battle - but it is a battle that is worth fighting - regardless of who wins the election. You are making people aware!

I must disagree with on point, though. You say only 200 people - the governor and our state legislators are responsible for our mess. I contend - and a cornerstone of my own candidacy for state rep - is that the voters are equally culpable. The voters have enabled the Culture of Corruption we have in this state. They have accepted and re-elected politicians who either spearhead this Culure or who have accepted its benefits. Voters have accepted this corruption as "business as usual".

It sounds radical and inappropriate to talk about "Corruption" - but this is not just a rant by some guy from Evanston. The corruption has been disclosed by books, newspaper articles, blue ribbon panels, criminal investigations and convictions of our politicians - more than 1,500 since 1976.

The problem is Illinois has accepted it's position as one of the most corrupt states in the country.

It has been documented that this corruption imposes a substantial "tax" on Illinois. Until voters get out of the chairs on Nov 6 and say "no more" they are just as guilty as the most corrupt politician.

It troubles me that you are already refering to people as "taxpayers" in your statement/column above, as if you already feel that you are more entitled or above them.

You may have the best interests at heart. But I'd be more encouraged if you said you chose to run on your own, rather thatn learning the Republican Party asked you to. and I myself lean more to the right, in general, yet vote simply based on a person's qualifications.

It's good you can identify the problems in the state. But fighting the machine that exists by yourself is an impossibility. Soon you too will likely be swept up into the political rhetoric and nonsense that goes on at nearly every government level.

Good luck to you though, Glenn.

One look at the village of Glenview just 10-15 years after the government donated the huge amount of land they owned to the village, and what they did with it (overdevelopment, etc) is a perfect microcosum of exactly what is wrong with America today.

The result has been greedy developers, huge corporate profits, overburdened schools, poor roads....all in the name of alleged "progress."

Until people truly understand how this (overpopulation/overdevelopment/greed) is as big of a problem as any, nothing will ever ever change.

Also, why does everyone running for office say "I'm going to do this, or that."

A politician's job is to serve the people....to do their bidding. And I haven't met one politician in the last 20 years that's simply shut up, listened and said "Hey, I'm going to do what people who've voted for me (or the majority of them) ask. It's always voting along party lines, or doing what the majority of people do.

And don't get too happy that I'm making this comment to a Republican, Liberals.

You are all the ones in Illinois who caused the vast majority of this financial disaster...or at least it's been under your watch for ages.

Clark, thanks for taking the time to respond. We will only recover from our current situation if more citizens (and taxpayers) get engaged and oversee their elected officials. For too long, we have let the political class make decisions on our behalf while we tended to our careers and families. I got involved precisely for this reason, and approached the Republican Party in Dec 2011 to help other candidates get elected. When a candidate dropped off in April, I was ready to take the reigns. No one coerced me into this race, and I moved forward with conviction. And when I us the word "taxpayers" it is with the utmost respect, as nothing in government is possible without the productive labor of the private sector. Democrats, in particular, seem to forget this truth, and operate as if the fruits of the private sector are owned by the politicians and can be dispersed at their will. And I can emphatically say that I will not be "swept up" in the gov't nonsense, as I don't "need" this job (unlike my opponent). I am in this to balance the books and try to return as much power to the people (taxpayers) as possible. And I would hope that you understand that profits are necessary to operate businesses and also pay for every service the gov't delivers. Corporations, both large and small, employ the vast amount of workers in the country and if not done illegally, are entitled to their profits. Our political class (along with uninformed voters) have done the real damage.

What damage to this State has the political class done that hasn't been surpassed by the banking and financial industry? So nothing is possible in government without the private sector? Where would the private sector be without the government? How would all those defense contractors be doing? How would trucks get to warehouses without an interstate highway system, which was built by the government? What would happen in the eventn of a natural disaster? Who would educate our childrent to make them qualified to work in the private sector? Get a clue, the private sector and the government cannot function without each other. The problem with guys like you is you go to the legislature and become servants of the private sector. There was a time when I would vote for a Republican. Not anymore. Your rhetoric, derived straight from a Tea Party pamphlet, is the reason why.

Dan, The public sector (gov't) exists to serve the people (private sector) and not the other way around. And yes, nothing is possible in gov't without the private sector. Where do you think the money that the gov't gets to spend comes from? Without the private sector, our great politicians would have no one to govern. It takes about 20 private sector jobs to enable 1 public sector job, so guess which side we need to embrace if we want to have a successful economy. Yes, they need to work in partnership, but the Democratic leadership in this state and at the Federal level are the ones that are clueless. By supporting the private sector I am supporting the majority of the citizens who pay the taxes so that gov't employees can have a job. The Democrats want to make everyone servants of the gov't, and that is not what this country is founded on. They have done a great job of making more and more people dependent on gov't handouts, with 50% of the population not paying taxes and 1 in 7 on food stamps. My rhetoric comes straight from me and no one else, except maybe the founding fathers. Maybe you should read a little more history and re-read the Constitution.

Glenn, A superpac has you in their eyesights. They will destroy your integrity. You know what I am talking about. This is a small political office but you have made quite a few political enemies. God Bless!

Actually, Glenn, by supporting the "private sector," you are not supporting the average working family. You are supporting "for profit" entities that exist only to maximize profits for themselves and their shareholders. That's not a bad thing necessarily. However when government seeks only to appease these "for profit" entities, as you seem to indicate is so important, the government loses sight of its watchdog role. You also run the risk of living in this fantasy world that as long as business make profits everyone else will be fine. That's kind of the problem right now in the financial industry. No one is watching the crooks on Wall Street. And, people will still need government services, even if businesses make profits. Those serivces cost money. Those services should be paid for by those profiting most from the system. You support the private sector? Do you support UNION PACIFIC? If elected, how would you handle investigating its role in the collapse of the bridge at Shermer and Willow? How would you work as a legislator to ensure us that would never happen again in our community? Or would you support UNION PACIFIC, as an elected representative of us? That wasn't a government bridge that collapsed. That was a good old fashioned private sector bridge. Would you lower their taxes after this bridge collapse to make them more "free?" Or would you finally admit that perhaps government needs to protect us from entities like UNION PACIFIC?

Mr. Pritzker, when I decided to run for office I understood the risks. But without ethical people trying to change Illinois gov't we might as well all just give up and move to another state. My integrity will outlive their smear attempts, and if I am making enemies I know I am on the right track.

Mr. Walsh, your logic is confusing. The "average" family works in the private sector. Without it, they would have no paycheck to help take care of their families. And if the company they work for does not make profits, they close and they employees lose jobs. It's that simple. As long as it is done legally, "maximizing" profits are what businesses are supposed to do. And if they don't treat their employees fairly, those employees will seek other employment and take their skills with them. And those profiting the most from the system already do pay the most, whether you use a flat tax or a graduated tax. Wealthy people pay the overwhelming amount of taxes the gov't collects. Capitalism, however, is not a zero sum game, despite Mr. Obama's attempts at making us think so. Capitalism has created the highest standard of living in the world for those living under it. Would you prefer Cuba, Venezuela or Russia? Are there crooks here? Absolutely, and they will be here until the end of time, no matter what type of country you live in. Our govt's primary job is national defense, followed closely by regulating industry. By supporting and promoting free enterprise, we are not "appeasing" it, but letting it flourish. For those politicians who undermine the system and overly ingratiate themselves at the expense of the taxpayer, they should criminally prosecuted. Ditto for corporate execs who game the system and put the rest of us in jeopardy. And as for the bridge ...

Nobody needs to smear, the facts will speak for themself. Former schoolmates, associates, friends and past romances came forward or were researched. This will be as easy as apple pie. I hope you explain yourself once the issues start coming out at a slow pace....Drip Drip Drip. You must of been choice 87 to run for this office. The Republican Party didn't even try to field a qualified candidate. Hello September and October mailers and phone calls. You have no business being in office, you have no business even sitting in an office. The voters will see why and you cam squirm, I mean explain your decisions.

at Willow/Shermer, if the investigation finds that Union Pacific is at fault they should, and will, pay dearly. It will not bring back the couple who lost their lives there, but every tragic event can lead to better laws/regulations. I will withhold judgment against the company until the investigation/facts are in. But at the end of the day, and no matter how many laws/regulations we have, there will always be accidents. The gov't can never protect us from every tragedy or unforeseen event, as much as we hope it could. And giving them more power in the hopes of preventing all evils is just wishful thinking. Striking the right balance between free enterprise and over-regulation will always be an ongoing struggle, and that is why we have elections.

h joy, another Tea Party candidate. Let the fun begin.

Mr. Farkas, you're absolutely right that the average family makes its living from the private sector, however, you're unsurprisingly incorrect about a number of other things. First, maximizing profits is NOT the goal of a business in general. The goal of a business is to produce a good or service and trade that for money or another good or service. Beyond that, it's up to the business owner(s) what to do. Many want to maximize profits. Other want to just make a decent living for themselves and/or their employees. It's not always about profits. The goal of public companies is to maximize its profits for its shareholders. Is that who you cater to, or all of the private sector?

Even if a company's goal is to maximize profits, should they be allowed to do everything within the law to do so? You have no problems with companies using accounting trickery to shift profits and losses around the world so they don't have to pay taxes? You don't have a problem with companies offshoring jobs to other countries? Would you support getting rid of what few regulations we have to prevent such chicanery, all in the name of letting the private sector "flourish"?

<continued>

<continued from above>

As to taxes, yes, you're right - those who make the most pay the most. First of all, so what? I'm not going to get into a huge debate about progressive taxes and cost of living as my post will surely be long enough. Secondly, your point about standards of living ties in nicely. The U.S.A. no longer has the highest standard of living by pretty much any measure. We're anywhere from 4th to 17th depending on the ranking.

And when we were number one, before 1980? The tax on the upper classes was, at its peak, 94% towards the end of WWII and down to 70% in 1981. Corporate tax went from ~37% pre-WWII to ~52% at the start of the Korean War and stayed above 45% until the mid-80s. That period is known as the Golden Age of Capitalism, so I'm pretty sure the private sector wasn't being overburdened with taxes. Maybe taxes aren't so bad for the economy?

Is there corruption and mismanagement of money in the government? Absolutely. But to claim that the solution is to get rid of taxes and programs that help people and free the private sector to make all the money it wants in the hopes that it will deign us lower classes worthy of a decent living is complete nonsense.

I sincerely hope that you will one day realize that, as members of a society, it is our job to help each other. And that means everyone, not just those with money and/or power.

Tea Bagging Glenn Farkas, I have a question? When you sell your soul to the Fortune 50 do you sign with your blood or the blood of poor people?

Glenn, the average person works for the private sector and the average person needs protection from the private sector. The Willow/Shermer bridge collapsed because the private sector company who owned it cared more for profits than people. And do you think the average person can just leave his or her job when he or she feels they have been treated unfairly? That's ludicrous. Most people are tied to their job because of debt and family obligations. And why don't you address my questions about the importance of government? Government provides important services such as police, fire, water, sewer, education etc. And we all pay taxes to support those things. Every time we pump gas or buy groceries, not to mention all the other taxes, property etc. How does the private sector survive without our taxes that builds the roads they ship their goods on, the education system that trains their workforce, the police and fire protection that protects their property? So do I think government is more important than the private sector, yes. If you don't think the private sector owes the government, you are not basing your thoughts in reality. Try having a private sector where there is not a government. Move to Nigeria and start a factory. It will be run over by pirates in a matter of minutes. Government and the world we live in are not simple, but you are a simple man with simple ideas. As George HW Bush once said, you are proposing "voodoo economics."

Ok Tough Guy, maximizing profits means different things to different people. Some want to make $100k, some want to make $1 mil. It's a free country, and the people can decide how much effort they want put into their career. I cater to no one, but prefer to offer all companies (public and private) the chance to build their businesses unencumbered by over regulation and gov't bureaucrats who have never experienced private sector work. I don't know what you are talking about with accounting tricks. If it is illegal, prosecute them. If it is not, then advocate for changing the law in what you think it should be. Do you want to make it illegal for companies to send jobs to other countries or open up offices/plants there? If so, should we make it illegal for companies from other countries to locate plants here as well plants that employ US workers (ie Toyota, BMW, etc)? Don't you think your so called Golden Age of Capitalism was only dominated by the US and a couple of other countries. How many companies would stay here in the US today with tax rates that were in place 30-50 years ago. Don't you understand we are in a global competition and the world will never go back to your high tax rate nirvana? And how many of those countries with better standards of living than the US are Socialist and/or Communist Dictatorships? And who said I was advocating for getting rid of taxes and programs to help people? I will advocate for a lower and flatter tax system which .....

will help all people. I sincerely hope that one day you will realize there are no angels in the gov't and your best chance of making it is relying on yourself, your family and friends. And along the way, do what you can to make life easier for all those around you and never rely on gov't as you will most always be disappointed.

Politicians should have public debates not private ones. Glenn, you are a politician who feels that what is good for business is good for everyone. But we all have different needs. What's good for business is good for people like Glenn Farkas, but we have a much more diverse community. If there's enough Glenn Farkas types out there, you will win. I personally want some one to represent me who represents other ideals than just a "pro-business" approach. Although, I too want business to flourish. It's just a complicated world, one that due to your naivety, you don't or can't see. You spout off numbers that you don't know are accurate nor could you ever prove, such as it takes 20 private sector jobs to support 1 public sector job. I give you credit for telling whoppers, but that's ridiculous. But stop and think about it for a moment. If you were choosing a place to live, and you had to make a choice, would you rather live around 20 private sector workers, or 20 public sector workers. What would be more stable? The 20 private sector workers would be less likely to have a pension, more likely to have their firm shut down, less likely to have a union, and in short in less stable jobs. So I think you would be in a more stable place with 20 public sector workers. Also, your statistic about the 20 private sector workers doesn't consider that government employees keep private sector workers employed by consuming products made by the private sector. It's not so simple.

Oh, great, that tired argument. All you need is hard work and you can make it. Such a load of crap. Attitudes like that have no foundation in reality. I'm sure everyone reading this knows of people who work their butts off and don't become rich and people who barely lift their finger and are wealthy. Not everyone is on an equal playing field and that's why we have the social safety net. To attempt to lift everyone up.

As per the account tricks, I'm talking about reporting profits in tax havens and losses in high tax countries. Read the summary of this: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40623_20100604.pdf

How many companies would stay in the US at the former tax rates? Very few, if given the chance, but that's only because they've been spoiled by low tax rates and value profit above everything else, most particularly what they owe society for the benefits it provides them. Companies thrived when taxes were higher and all of society benefited, which allowed companies to benefit. When companies take more from society than they give, everyone suffers except the upper classes.

As to how many countries with higher standards of living are socialist/communist, if you're strict about the definition, very few, but then there are very few socialist/communist countries at all. However, if you look at high tax countries with socialist policies, there are countless. All of Scandinavia, Western Europe, Canada, etc. Face it, when countries take care of everyone, everyone benefits.

Deadcatbounce, when your sources are the New York Post and the Drudge Report, you merit no response.

Mr. Deadcat Bounce: I need your enthusiasm and persistence on my team. Email me at info@farkas4illinois.com. thx

Deadcatbounce, please tell me what practical experience Milton Friendman ever had. Did he ever run a business, run a government, run an educational institution? Or was he always an intellectual ivory tower think who taught at the University of Chicago for his entire academic life? Also, deadcatbounce, tell me where Milton Friedman's economic theories were implemented and were found successful or has that just not happened yet? They haven't worked here in the US. So have they worked in Europe, Asia, or Africa? Some planet perhaps I don't know about. Milton Friedman was also the guy who Alan Greenspan based his entire economic theory on, which Alan Greenspan admitted was completely erroneous and the biggest mistake he made as head of the Federal Reserve. He blamed the economic collapse on his misguided reliance on the same theory that Milton Friedman espoused. In sum, Milton Friedman may have said things you like to hear, but he has no practical experience and the implementations of his theories have proved dismal failures. Prove me wrong.

Guido, tell me how the defense industry survives without the government. Tell me how the airline industry survives without the FAA. Tell me how businesses protect their patents without the US Patent office. Tell me how those businesses get their workforce educated trained without the government. Tell me how those businesses get their product without the waterways, highways, and railways built and managed by the government. Please explain how private sector greed would do these things. How would greed assist parentless children, AIDS victims, Huricane victims, any victims? Wouldn't greed see these people as exploitable?

How would greed assist parentless children, AIDS victims, Huricane victims, any victims? Wouldn't greed see these people as exploitable?
Dan you would be surprised to here this, but there is such as thing as charity. Places such as Misericordia, that by the way is owed $3M by the state of IL.

So deadcat, your answer to how greed would help assist victims and would thereby render the government's help unneccessary is to point to a charity that relies on government money to survive? Do you even see how ridiculous that is? But I asked that question to "Guido." I asked you DEADCAT to defendant MILTON FRIEDMAN. I contended he was someone without practical experience and that his theories have been called a failure by Alan Greenspan and that his theories have never worked anywhere. I asked you to prove me wrong. So prove me wrong.

What about Chile ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703411304575093572032665414.html

Deadcat, I never listed to Alan Greenspan, but Alan Greespan listed to Milton Friedman and that was part of the problem. As far as Chile goes, it had no place to go but up since its days of Pinochet. But did you know that Chile has national health insurance, (kinda like Obamacare) the government owns and operates the entire copper mining industry. That's socialism, not free market enterprising. And, there are both socialist and communist representatives in parliament. It's hardly a government formed on Ayn Rand principles or Milton Friedman's philosophies. But what really troubles me is the article you quote. There's no byline, in other words no self respecting writer would take credit for that meaningless piece of drive. It's printed by the Wall Street Journal which was once a reputable newssource. However, now is a part of Fox News Corp. In typical Fox fashion, the article provides no facts or statistics or comparisons but merely states its conclusions in support of its tribute to Milton Friedman, and apparent dislike of Naomi Klein.

Deadcat, go ask Misericordia if they would turn the government money down. I think you would be surprised what you hear. Misericordia could not do one tenth of what they do without government funding. They rely on government funding. Payments by the State of Illinois may be late, but Misericordia has received millions of tax dollars from the State of Illinois in the past. If you don't believe me, go ask Misericordia.

Take a look at this Deadcat. You may begin to see that Misericordia is not the self sufficient charitable organization that you think it is. It's not something that is funded by the donations of enlightened self-interested people, or greedy people as you might also call them. It's main source of revenue seems to be from Medicare and Medicate payments, not charitable donations. http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/IL/Misericordia-Home.html

Interesting too, deadcat, according to the above-web site the employees at Misericordia have a pension plan. That means your contributions help fund the employees' pension fund. That sounds really socialist don't you think?

deadcat's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_-XWpUFmU&feature=fvwrel

Deadcat was recalled by The Kremlin and won't be back is my guess.

Deadcat, are you at least conceding then that nearly half of the revenue is taxpayer supported funding from Medicare and Medicaid and other government funding sources? That takes Misericordia out of a self funded charity (funded by good greedy people) and into the realm of a government contractor. Your point therefore that victims, the sick, the elderly, the indigent can be assisted by Misericordia (and other charities) without government assistance or taxpayer funds is not entirely accurate. Will you take back the following statement that you made: "Sorry Dan, Misericordia does not rely on government money to survive. as you can see the government owes them $3m. I have to ask, are you just clueless and just say anything that pops into your little brain. Misericordia has no problem fundraising, I think it's the state of IL that has a problem with their finances." Now that you know Misericordia receives nearly 30 million in government funds are you willing to take back your previous statement, like a man?

Deadcat, I haven't read all your posts on this thread, but I do want to respond to the comment you made about the Minnesota bridge collapse. First of all, the bridge was built in 1967 so it was forty years old at the time of the disaster. The design flaw occurred at the time it was built. Infrastructure has long been an area that republicans do not want to fund- there is no debate on that point- and Pawlenty and his administration in power from 2003 to 2011, were no different. Surveys conducted before the collapse had shown the bridge to be structurally deficient, but there were no funds available for meaningful repair. Instead, bandaid approaches were used just in order to prolong the time before a disaster occurred. This republican party has not shown the foresight to try to prevent any future catastrophes under the guise of "we can't afford it right now". At some point, the future will be now
and more infrastructure disasters will occur. Republicans can only hope it doesn't happen under their watch. U fortunately Pawlenty was in office during the Minnesota incident, so he had to appear to be troubled. He could have put more emphasis on infrastructure when he came into office in 2003, but he didn't. The point is, when you say "the government" derogatorily as you do, you are including republicans as well as dems. Don't pretend this is only one party's fault.

Deadcate, I think charity is fine. It's just, in my humble opinion, insufficient to deal with complex problems of a modern industrialized nation. As far as this discussion goes, it just seems every time you lose an argument, you engage in personal attacks. So I take it you won't walk back your original statements about Misericordia being sufficient, without government help, to deal with the homeless, the sick, the elderly. They just are glad to accept available government help in the tune of thirty million a year?