Rostenkowski Doesn't Answer the Phone?

Dan Rostenkowski was the Representative for Illinois's 8th congressional district from 1959 to 1993 eventually rising to become Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and by all accounts was a solid supporter of his home city of Chicago and Illinois in general to the extent of securing billions of dollars in federal money for them. Whilst that's not exactly a figure to sniff at - as the saying goes 'A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money' - could he have done even better? At the 1968 Democratic National Convention which was being televised House Majority Leader Carl Albert was apparently running events when the delegates started getting out of hand and he wasn't able control them, Rostenkowski who was manning the phones on the podium at the time received a phone call from an angry Lyndon B. Johnson telling him to take over and get control of things which he did. Whilst not Rostenkowski's fault this heavily embarrassed Albert who held a grudge, so that when he became Speaker of the House a short while later he blocked Rostenkowski from gaining a promotion picking Tip O'Neil instead who leapfrogged over Rostenkowski. This in turn later allowed O'Neil to become House Majority Leader when the incumbent died in a plane crash and then Speaker of the House when Albert himself resigned in 1977.

On the face of it Speaker of the House seems like the more powerful and influential position, however the Ways and Means Committee of which he was Chairman is the one that has sole jurisdiction over all tax, tariff, and revenue-raising measures. So which do people think would be the most advantageous position, Speaker or Chairman, that would allow him to work the system to direct the maximum amount of government funds to Chicago and Illinois? If he had become Speaker, butterflies notwithstanding, how long could he have reasonably retained the position? O'Neil lasted for a record ten years in the post until he retired from politics in 1987, Rostenkowski however was only forced to resign in 1994 due to a scandal which is a possible seven more years.
 
Small error I have to point out-Rostenkowski didn't resign OTL, he kept going until the 1994 election and was defeated then.
 
Oh hey, a Representative POD. I'm intrigued.

As to your choices I suspect Ways & Means would gain Chicago more money, especially under a Democratic President (not-Carter, perhaps Church?) if one can be arranged for more time than OTL.
 
I like the fact that instead of big questions of philosophy, it hinges on small questions of personality. And shit, no one likes being embarrassed.
 
Small error I have to point out-Rostenkowski didn't resign OTL, he kept going until the 1994 election and was defeated then.
Bugger, you are indeed correct.


As to your choices I suspect Ways & Means would gain Chicago more money, especially under a Democratic President (not-Carter, perhaps Church?) if one can be arranged for more time than OTL.
Whilst it might have some interesting political knock-ons if he became speaker this was mostly secondary to which was the better position to channel government spending, I'm in the middle of scheming a scenario to try and have Chicago do better than our timeline.


I like the fact that instead of big questions of philosophy, it hinges on small questions of personality. And shit, no one likes being embarrassed.
Yeah, whilst the big points of divergence can be nice sometimes it's the small ones that can be just as interesting.
 
Whilst it might have some interesting political knock-ons if he became speaker this was mostly secondary to which was the better position to channel government spending, I'm in the middle of scheming a scenario to try and have Chicago do better than our timeline.

Ways and Means then, trade off Chicago funding for a few other people's pet projects. It'd just be a lot easier under a Democratic President to get the kinds of funds you may be thinking of (high speed rail, for instance, would cost tens of billions and Chicago is an obvious hub, but you'd need a Dem as President who is spending money).
 
... high speed rail, for instance, would cost tens of billions and Chicago is an obvious hub...
Eh, I'm still somewhat unconvinced by high speed rail in the US outside of a few specific areas such as the Northeast Corridor and even there you'd generally need to wait until the 1980s for the train technology to develop. I was mainly thinking in terms of things like expanding the L and other public transport, bridges and freeways, parks, public housing, improving O'Hare etc., the really big and expensive things that allow development to be built on them.
 
Top