Illinois State Senators suggest Chicago be make its own state

[downtown]

"Two Republican Illinois lawmakers "say Chicago-style politics are dominating the state and they have a solution," the State Journal Register reports.

"They've proposed Cook County, which is the second most populous county in the U.S., to become one state and the other 101 counties in Illinois to become another."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/11/23/lawmakers_propose_making_chicago_a_state.html

Folks in NY have floated this idea about making NYC it's own state too. It's obviously political posturing, but could it be a good idea? Chicago doesn't have that much in common with downstate.

Would this be good for Illinois? Should the new Chicago-State be able to take some of it's suburbs as well? Should other states that are dominated by a single city look into this?

If Cook County was made into it's own state, 3 of of the top 5 biggiest Illinois cities would still be nearyby Chicago suburbs.

 

[Disgustipated]

Just deal with it. This isn't the only case like this, although it is probably the biggest. You will find this in many states that have one large city (which tends to be democratic), and the rural areas that tend to be republican. My state of Nevada is like this. Las Vegas is democratic, while the rest of the state is Republican. We can't separate every large city into different states, the flag would become too cluttered with stars.

 

[Cutlass]

Basically, such proposals fall into 2 camps. 1) Dilute the political influence of one area or the other by creating more US Senators, who presumably would be more likely to vote in the way the proposer thinks they should. And 2) get a free ride for the proposer by cutting loose the financial drain of the city. And so they would get the economic benefits of living in proximity to a city without the financial costs of doing so.

I was talking to a friend the other day who told me that there is a (small) movement on Long Island to declare independence of New York state because of the costs of being associated with New York City. Same thing.

In Illinois there may be a 3rd consideration, greater control of the State government by the more conservative elements of the population.

 

[downtown]

Personally, I think this would end up being a pretty terrible gig for Illinois. Losing Chicago would cost them possibly MILLIONS of jobs, not just from Cook County, but from government work in Springfield.

I imagine the main reason for doing this would be to push state politics towards the right, but Illinois would still have a punchers chance of electing Democrats statewide, as there are still pockets of Dems in southern illinois (around Metro St.Louis and with unions), and in the Chicago burbs.

The Chicago Suburbs might benefit if they were in a different state, but overall, I think this would be pretty dumb for everybody.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Is the setup anything like NYC?
That is, money flows out of Chicago?
Then let them leave!

 

[downtown]

Is the setup anything like NYC?
That is, money flows out of Chicago?
Then let them leave!

I believe Chicago sends out more money than it takes in, but I might be wrong.

 

[warpus]

Wouldn't Illinois losing Chicago mean a lot of lost tax revenue for the state, budget cuts, etc?

There has been similar talk here in Ontario. Toronto dominates the province.. Every once in a while there is talk coming from Toronto about this, every once in a while from secondary cities in the province (Ottawa, Hamilton, Mississauga, Niagara Falls, London, etc.)

 

[strijder20]

Yay, America is breaking apart.
Glad my region isn't the only one with that problem.
Separatism and division are not the things which make a country great, and most Americans seem to have a large amount of national pride.
I'm not a fan of nationalism (which you could have derived from my title), but the smaller the region is you support, the worse, I think.

 

[Patroklos]

I can understand the issue of influence, but I think other considerations make this a bad idea.

 

[downtown]

Wouldn't Illinois losing Chicago mean a lot of lost tax revenue for the state, budget cuts, etc?

It would. I imagine they think they could make up some of the difference by cutting taxes drastically, attracting more businesses to the larger suburbs outside of Cook County. Indiana also tried that with their suburbs of Chicago, but they're still pretty crappy.

The state's expenses would almost plummet if Cook was off the books. The new state would resemble something like Nebraska or North Dakota.

 

[Winner]

I support anything that will mess up the American flag...

 

[warpus]

Why would the flag have to change anyway? Is this something in the constitution? I say leave the flag the way it is now - it looks fine!

 

[Joecoolyo]

Hmm, I don't really know how to feel about this, mainly cause I'm not really sure of the consequences. If Cook were to break off, I would be a part of the new state (Cook County is really huge, it's a 40 minute train ride to downtown Chicago from my town), but what would the benefits be of creating a new state out of the county?

 

[timtofly]

The only thing that a separation would "strengthen" IMO, is the Fed. The State in and of itself is already divided. Since Chicago get's more back from the Fed, "probably" more than the State by itself would, it tends to be a logical step that Chicago is "falsly" hoarding all the resources.

If the Fed was smaller and took less money out of the State, you would not see the problem as big as it looks.

The only reason is the flow of money, has nothing to do with politics. We could just change the name of politician to banker, since there is not that much difference in either institution. Except a bank "usually" takes in more than it gives out.

I do think that Downtown would make a fine Senator.

 

[Kraznaya]

smells like a scheme to add 1-2 pub senators to me

 

[madviking]

This is pretty much the same deal with Northern Virginia within Virginia.

 

[downtown]

Hmm, I don't really know how to feel about this, mainly cause I'm not really sure of the consequences. If Cook were to break off, I would be a part of the new state (Cook County is really huge, it's a 40 minute train ride to downtown Chicago from my town), but what would the benefits be of creating a new state out of the county?

The "benefit", for the downstaters, is that the big city will no longer wield as much power in Springfield. No longer will Urbana, Normal and Carbondale residents be compelled to spend money on things like PACE buses or programs that they don't benefit from! Plus, they get can get rid of all that civil union crap.

Plus, Chicago politics ARE corrupt, so I can see why they might be upset.

The only thing that a separation would "strengthen" IMO, is the Fed. The State in and of itself is already divided. Since Chicago get's more back from the Fed, "probably" more than the State by itself would, it tends to be a logical step that Chicago is "falsly" hoarding all the resources.

If the Fed was smaller and took less money out of the State, you would not see the problem as big as it looks.

The only reason is the flow of money, has nothing to do with politics. We could just change the name of politician to banker, since there is not that much difference in either institution. Except a bank "usually" takes in more than it gives out.

I do think that Downtown would make a fine Senator.

I'm not really sure what the Fed has to do with anything here. The issue isn't with DC, it's with Springfield. Central and Southern Illinois residents (or maybe just these two guys, I dunno) think that Chicago wields too much power in deciding state budget and politics.

smells like a scheme to add 1-2 pub senators to me

Yeah, thats obviously one of the big reasons, although I think 1 of them would prob go Democrat.

 

[Cutlass]

Why would the flag have to change anyway? Is this something in the constitution? I say leave the flag the way it is now - it looks fine!

1 star per state. And the number will change at some point in any case.

 

[timtofly]

The "benefit", for the downstaters, is that the big city will no longer wield as much power in Springfield. No longer will Urbana, Normal and Carbondale residents be compelled to spend money on things like PACE buses or programs that they don't benefit from! Plus, they get can get rid of all that civil union crap.

Plus, Chicago politics ARE corrupt, so I can see why they might be upset.


I'm not really sure what the Fed has to do with anything here. The issue isn't with DC, it's with Springfield. Central and Southern Illinois residents (or maybe just these two guys, I dunno) think that Chicago wields too much power in deciding state budget and politics.



Yeah, thats obviously one of the big reasons, although I think 1 of them would prob go Democrat.

I understand what you are saying. Making it a state is putting it into the hands of the Fed. The Fed would have another source of money flow and while Springfield would feel "free" er, it would only solve their problem.

If the money did not have to leave the state, Springfield would have less of an issue. The budget would be distributed fairly on a representative level.

I realize that state and local taxes still play some role in politics, but the problem does have to deal with the Fed, more than is led to believe. Even education is done on a Federal level now. There is very little say on a State level about how funds are distributed. The fact is that Chicago has grown bigger than the State, and it probably would be better on it's own, "Federally" speaking. Basing it on "political views" is the emotional side to make it "sound" better.

Limited government is limited for a reason. The more populace there is, the more limits are needed. In socialism, it is the "large" unlimited government that makes the decisions. In a local "voice" of the people setting, things are more democratic.

Splitting Chicago off is needed to give the State it's "voice" back.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

It just seems like political posturing.