CBS2 Chicago: “Momentum Appears to Grow for Tax Hike”
I know Bill Brady would like to make the gubernatorial election a referendum on a tax hike. But the help he is getting from news organizations such as CBS 2 Chicago and Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago) is astounding.
A poor economy and high unemployment means the money isn’t there for higher taxes. The electorate is upset with government as it is, and higher taxes aren’t a big seller in an election year. Yet, the media and the liberals from Chicago persist.
It all has to be gratifying to the putative GOP gubernatorial nominee. The tax hikers are making Bill Brady’s case for him on the anti-tax front.
I’ve begun to draft an op-ed for Illinois papers on why the election should be a referendum on tax hikes. Apparently, the pro-tax side agrees. I’ll have to re-work the piece to more accurately reflect their position.
You can’t tax your way to prosperity. New York, California and New Jersey prove that. Heck, we tried tax and borrowing as a way to solving budget whole for the last six years. The situation is worse not better. The problem was that Springfield took the money and spent more. Now, they want to take even more. The Civic Federation’s tax proposal is the next child of GRT. It’s a more than Gov. Blagojevich’s $7.2 billion gross receipts tax. $6 billion 66% tax increase plus another $1.5 billion on seniors’ retirement income with absolutely no assurance that spending will be controlled.
The response on higher taxes to balance the budget should be: ”Been there done that. It didn’t work when in 2003 we raised taxes and borrowed more to close a budget gap. In fact, things were made worse by the spending binge it fostered.”
By all means, let’s make 2010 a year of tax fights.
Civic Federation of Chicago: Hike Taxes By 66%
Just as the Federal Reserve begins to show signs of confidence in a US recovery, along comes the Civic Federation of Chicago to try and ensure that Illinois lags behind — just as Illinois lagged behind when Gov. Blagojevich hiked business taxes to nip the last recovery in the bud.
You’d think people would learn. We hiked taxes in 2003 to close the budget gap. Illinois lagged behind and the lo and behold, these budget gaps persisted and grew larger. A few years later, some taxes were hiked. The economy lagged behind and the budget gap… guess what? Yep, it grew. Because those policies were soooo successful, the Civic Federation says that $6 billion needs to go to Springfield and this time…yeah…this time they’ll really use the money to close the budget deficit.
This time the General Assembly won’t use the revenues to expand government and add new programs. Nothing will be earmarked for member initiatives. No one will expand medicaid, there won’t be more money going to “education,” and employee pay and pensions. Nope, this time Springfield will be responsible.
Yeah, and pigs fly.
Twitter Weekly Updates for all4growth
- So much for peak oil theory. The world still swims in black gold. http://bit.ly/bfRoaa #
Powered by Twitter Tools
Legislators Shouldn’t Get to Pick their Voters
It should be the other way around. And finally, someone is taking steps to do that. House GOP Leader Tom Cross and Senate GOP Leader Christine Radogno have introduced the Fairmap Amendment.
Top Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly say it’s time to overhaul the system for redrawing legislative districts – the same system that’s been pretty good to Democrats.
Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont and House GOP leader Tom Cross of Oswego this week proposed to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would remove the map-drawing power from the legislature and give it to a nine-member commission.
The four legislative leaders would each choose two members to serve on the commission. Those members would choose the ninth member.
The commission would draw up House and Senate maps, and each chamber would vote on its own map. Approval would require a two-thirds vote in the affected chamber.
If no agreement can be reached on one or both maps, the chief justice of the Supreme Court and a justice from a different party would choose a “special master” to make a final decision.
That’s flipping around the current system, in which lawmakers and the governor take the first shot at drawing new legislative districts after each U.S. Census. If they can’t reach agreement, the job falls to an eight-member commission. If that panel splits on partisan lines, a ninth commission member is chosen by lot to break the tie.
You can find out more here.
Maybe He Has A Solar Covered Pool
From Instapundit. I think he’s calling NY Times columnist and best selling author of books undergraduate International Relations students could write Tom Friedman a hypocrite or something….
Dog bites man.
AFP: “Tell Your State Legislator That Illinois Needs Budget Reform”
This just crossed my transom. It’s something that the Alliance for Growth has been following and hopes to become involved with. From Americans for Prosperity:
“Our budgetary process is broken, we can no longer pretend Illinois has a balanced budget and we can no longer give Illinois politicians the power to obscure their accounting games.
In October of 2009, AFP-IL announced its partnership with the Institute for Truth in Accounting. AFP-IL is happy to announce that we have worked with Representative Mike Tryon (R- Crystal Lake) to sponsor legislation on behalf of the Institute’s “F.A.C.T (Full Accrual Calculation Techniques) based budgeting” concepts.”
Read the whole thing here. Take action. Get involved.
Champaign Says “No” to Fed Funds
Here’s something you see every day. A left leaning member of the media criticizes the Champaign City Council for taking a step towards responsible governing:
“* Here’s something you don’t see every day. The Champaign city council voted to reject a small federal grant to expand underage-drinking enforcement. The reasoning may surprise you…
Prior to the vote, council member Tom Bruno said he would vote against acceptance of the grant because it raises questions about “the morality of accepting federal grant money for local purposes.”
Bruno said he has heard comments questioning the practice of taking dollars from nationwide taxpayers for a project that only benefits the local community.
Even the mayor voted to reject the grant, and hinted that he might also support rejecting a far larger, $30 million federal grant for high-speed Internet infrastructure…
Mayor Jerry Schweighart’s comments prior to Tuesday’s denial foreshadowed an anticipated vote on whether the city should accept a much larger grant to build a high-speed Internet network.
“We should be careful in accepting this grant in a small amount or a large amount like $30 million that’s coming down the pipe,” said Schweighart, who also voted not to accept the grant.
The irony here, of course, is that the area is awash in state and federal money because of the University of Illinois. All the K-12 schools get state and federal money. Champaign gets its portion of local government revenue sharing from the state.
So, if the Champaign city council wants to take this to its logical extreme, they’d start funding everything locally. One wonders what they’ll think about “outside” funding if a natural disaster ever strikes.”
Allow me to take strong offense.
Why is it ironic that Champaign is refusing a small grant from the feds because the University of Illinois is awash in federal dollars? Rich, did I miss something? Has the Champaign City Council taken over the University of Illinois? Are they in control of the University’s budget? Can they stop the University from taking money? If so, I’m moving there and running for city council!
And why must we take Champaign’s small, but responsible step to a logical extreme? According to Rich’s logic, Champaign — because it won’t take federal money to fight underage drinking — shouldn’t take federal aid during a national disaster because it would be hypocritical? Is that accurate?
If I am correct and I use Rich’s “logical extreme” meme, I guess the people of Champaign should be left to what? Die in the event of a natural disaster? Starve? Isn’t it obvious? Rich Miller wants the people of Champaign to die. I mean that’s the conclusion you draw if we take his argument to its logical extreme.
I guess a man drowning who has a particular set of core beliefs that are pretty in line with the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t be saved by the US Coast Guard or he should simply let himself drown to be logically consistent. There you have it. Rich Miller believes that people who support Federalism, Conservatism or whatever you want to call it should die or are somehow less than other citizens who support federal largesse, earmarks and big, intrusive government. Maybe conservatives are like African Americans prior to the Civil War or Civil Rights or perhaps Jews in pre World War II Germany, heretics in Middle Ages Europe or non-Muslims in some Islamic Nations? I mean if we are going to carry an argument to its logical extreme to make a point Rich Miller thinks conservatives should die.
Of course I’m being ridiculous. Rich Miller doesn’t want anyone to die nor does he believe that certain groups are less than other groups of citizens. There are probably few around the statehouse as generous with their time, patience and open mindedness. Just let me suggest that open mindedness extends to principles as well.
What about the revenue sharing between the state and Champaign, you say?
That’s the state’s rules. Local communities have to live by them and the state strings attached. Some organizations have called on the state to abandon the revenue sharing portion of the state budget to balance it. They don’t recognize that the state would keep the money, spend it on other things while cities would be forced to hike taxes. (If I have a prejudice, it’s against Springfield’s ability to take the money and run). Many local communities would go bankrupt. Now, if the state cut taxes, left the money to citizens to then pay higher or lower local taxes depending on the services they wished to have that would be awesome. That’s how federalism is supposed to work. But until Champaign citizens get their state tax money back, Champaign is stuck with taking the money.
I don’t have a problem with Rich’s lefty-libertarianism. We’ve discussed it. He knows it. I chalk up to pluralism. Besides, we share a common love of John Jameson.
The intellectual problem I have is on both sides of the aisle. It’s taking a position on a given issue, an arguing to its logical extreme because the original argument — let’s face it — isn’t all that controversial. Health insurance mandates are bad policy because they raise the cost of health insurance with out that many gains in health is a fine, accurate argument. It’s not nearly as sexy as, “Health insurance mandates are socialized medicine,” which is taking an intervention to its logical extreme. I have called the Health Facilities Planning Board a paean to Soviet styled central planning, but it’s early champions said it was central planning to control costs. There is a difference.
It’s far more common phenomenon on the left, however. Let me say that. If you adhere to free markets or are of libertarian stripe you don’t believe any government. Right? No. That’s anarchy or nihilism. Milton Friedman often pointed out that government should help those in need. The question he wrestled with is where do you draw the line? Cradle to grave entitlement states, Medicaid for people making $60k per year are abusing that idea. Adam Smith made the same argument. Had Smith foreseen how that sentiment would be abused by the modern left, he would’ve left that out of the Wealth of Nations.
Remember the budget fight last year? If you don’t give us more money, we’re going to screw the human services providers who receive grants from the state to provide community services to the disabled and mentally disabled. That was the liberal argument. They are going to spend $31 billion on road construction, billions wasted on poorly administered Medicaid program taking care of people who don’t need it; new swimming pool liners for the dolphins at Brookfield, and a whole host of other things. Police, fire, prisons and humans services? If you want those you have to give us politicians in Springfield more. They aren’t paying for those first, because that doesn’t help them. If you say no to higher taxes then its because limited government types and Republicans don’t want you to have those. Does this sound familar?
Under Milton Friedman and Adam Smith public safety and those social services would come first. Not last. That’s the difference between conservatives, libertarians versus liberals and Springfield. Of course the libs have to blur the line, change the argument to all or nothing to get what they want. Of course, with Rich’s help, when they do get power…well…we’re seeing the results in Washington today. In the end, they get repudiated.
Whew… I’ll get off my soapbox now. Sorry to use you as the bad example, Rich.
I applaud Champaign in rejecting the federal money based on principle. I hope it becomes a shining example for the rest of Illinois — hell, America.
And just to note there is a practical reason for Champaign walking away from this grant. There is movement among college presidents to lower the drinking age in an effort combat binge drinking, illegal parties and activities inappropriate for a family blog to mention. Put the kids in the bar where they can be cut off if over served. The unspoken truth is that while appealing to principle, something far more practical may be occurring.
UPDATED: State Senate “Bi-partisan Caucus” to Get Around Open Meetings Act
Today, NCSL is meeting with the two caucuses. It’s a double secret meeting of the state senate. Party Caucus meetings can be held privately. A session where the parties meet must be open to the public according to the Open Meetings Act. So, the state senate is holding a private “joint caucus” to be briefed by NCSL. The briefing is supposedly covering what other states are doing to get out of their budget messes.
I doubt, “Stop spending,” will be the takeaway from the event.
If they get away with this, look for more um…”caucus meetings” in the future sessions.
Update: Oh… I spoke too soon. It’s unconstitutional as well. Rich Miller at Capfax has more.
Dog Bites Man — Poll: Americans Disagree With Supreme Court
Maybe the Democrats think this issue will save them this fall. Realistic ones won’t:
“Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent “strongly” opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.”
No one will vote on this issue. The ruling in the near term is unlikely to change much. Besides, the Supreme Court often makes rulings against public sentiment.
Much ado about nothing.
How many times in the 70’s and 80’s did rulings supporting the ACLU go against public opinion?
Rolling Back Transparency Reforms in Illinois?
I’ll let readers be the judge. The Springfield State Journal-Register highlights bills being introduced just weeks after FOIA reforms in Illinois went into effect. Here’s a list of the legislation:
*SB 2978: Would make several changes, including easing restrictions on fees that can be charged for records; allowing agencies that aren’t conducting criminal investigations to refuse records by citing investigations; allowing agencies to withhold records in employee disciplinary cases absent criminal convictions; making awards of attorney fees optional in cases in which requesters successfully sue public agencies.
*HB 5069: Would increase the amount agencies could charge for public records.
*SB 3040: Would prohibit the disclosure of performance evaluations for police officers
*HB 5007: Would create the Juvenile Justice Mortality Review Team to review deaths of juveniles in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice and exempt the team’s records from disclosure. Would also exempt the team from the Open Meetings Act.
*HB 5154: Would exempt performance evaluations for all public employees from disclosure.
*HB 5143: Would prohibit disclosure of “files and personal information” regarding people who receive social, educational, vocational and other services from public agencies. Would also prohibit the disclosure of “files and personal information” collected by any public body from any applicant for a professional license, or from any licensee facing discipline. Would also bar disclosure of names, addresses and other personal information of participants in park district, forest district and conservation district programs.
The article is very much worth a read. One school superintendent from northern Illinois filed FOIA requests with the Attorney General’s office seeking personnel evaluations because under the law teacher evaluations were fair game. She only pulled the request when the teachers’ unions strong armed the General Assembly into making those exempt. The AG’s office went ahead and released the evaluations to the press.
I don’t know why school districts would be soooo shy about having such information public — even if the names and addresses of teachers were redacted because I’m sure we’d all find, that just as in mythical Lake Wobegone, MN, all the teachers are outstanding.
You can read the whole story here.
