Illinois Policy Institute’s Pension Plan Proposal is Unworkable, Unconstitutional and Unfathomable

IPI pension plan critique

Mission Possible?  No, it’s more like “Get Smart”

Illinois Policy Institute’s Pension Reform Plan is Unworkable, Unconstitutional and Unfathomable

(Springfield, Ill.) Labeled as “Fully funding Illinois’s state pension while respecting hardworking taxpayers,” Illinois’ formerly free market think tank is calling on the state to “responsibly” borrow nearly $18 billion to bailout the state’s five underfunded state pension plans.

To put that “responsible borrowing” in perspective, Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s doubled the state bonded debt in 2003 with a “mere” $10 billion borrowing plan.

In exchange for opening up this borrowing binge, the “Mission: Possible” report proposes laudable spending limitations that they claim will reasonably restrain the growth in government.  However, given the obstacles those efforts would face, the program is far more likely to open Springfield’s spending spigots rather than solve any crisis.

“Responsible Borrowing?”

The plan written by J. Scott Moody and R. Wendy Warcholick, both of New Hampshire, is proposing that Illinois cap state spending at the rate of population growth plus inflation while simultaneously borrowing approximately $18 billion over 15 years to make the state’s portion of pension contributions.  The idea, known as, “The Pension Funding and Fairness Act,” ostensibly, is a tradeoff for Springfield.  The deal is this:  Lawmakers would trade spending limitations in exchange for cover to borrow nearly $20 billion.  In effect, the Institute is proposing to buy off the Illinois General Assembly.  They get out of the pension crisis and taxpayers get a taxpayers bill of rights.

Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman calls the measure “responsible borrowing.” The problem is that borrowing money is nothing more than spend it now and tax me later.  That’s why economists such as Milton Friedman have always argued that the issue isn’t how the government raises money — through taxes, through borrowing or through printing it –  but how much the government raises.

The idea also offers lawmakers the chance to spend the money then pass reforms in stark opposition to the House and Senate Republican Leaders who have refused to address taxes (another form of raising money) without significant, meaningful reforms first.

Ahem…a Few Problems Here

The Act is fatally flawed both constitutionally and politically.  The proposal can be legislatively undermined, it absolves politicians of their responsibilities and it’s goals are misguided.  Below are the specific shortcomings of the proposal:

• The “Pension Funding and Fairness Act” is unconstitutional.  As the authors describe it, the act violates the State Constitution’s single subject rule.  It combines spending restraint with borrowing.  Borrowing itself requires separate acts of giving the executive the authority to float the bonds, authorizing the spending on pensions and then appropriating the money.  In addition, the tax expenditure and limitation “provisions” are not logically related to borrowing money.  The provisions can’t be in the same legislation and that leads to the second problem.
• That any spending limitations passed as law can be undermined or ignored by the General Assembly and a compliant governor. Without the force of a constitutional amendment a tax expenditure limitation act would lack teeth.  During the sausage making process any number loopholes allowing the General Assembly to spend the money and ignore the reforms could be adopted.  Illinois all ready has a Balanced Budget Amendment that is routinely flouted by Springfield.  The authors as much as admit the limitations of their proposals in the pre-amble of their appendix outlining the model tax expenditure limitation act when they say, “This Act would initially be implemented statutorily and then referred by the legislature to voters for consideration as a constitutional amendment.”If voters reject the tax expenditure limitations, will Springfield give the borrowing up?  Unlikely.  This plan puts a huge amount of trust in the General Assembly, trust that the General Assembly has continuously betrayed in the past.
• It absolves lawmakers of their responsibilities. Right now the means of addressing pension ills exist, it’s called the General Assembly.  It’s the responsibility of the General Assembly to prioritize the state’s spending.  Under the 1970 Constitution the state must pay pensions first.  The fiscal irresponsibility of the Ryan-Blagojevich years now finds the General Assembly in a fiscal straight jacket.  With pension payments ballooning as a result of the last two pension fixes, policy makers are faced with the reality of their uncontrolled spending. This will require spending cuts or tax increases.   By borrowing the contributions, instead of using existing money earmarked for pensioners, the General Assembly would be freed to spend an additional $18 billion over the next 15 years to grow the size and scope of government and engage in social experimentation. There is little doubt that Springfield will take the nearly $20 billion and ignore reforms.
• Illinois neither wants, needs nor can have fully funded pensions. One of the most misguided aspects of this proposal is the idea that at the end of the process pensions will be fully funded and that this is a worthy goal. This goal isn’t well thought out. The dire straights of the current pension crisis tamps down public employee unions’ ability to lobby for more generous benefits.  As Illinois’ pension obligation picture improves, unions will pressure lawmakers to sweeten benefits. In order to purchase votes and enrich political friends tied to operating the states five pension funds, free spending legislators will be thrilled to oblige.   Because of the lobbying prowess of these interests, Illinois will never fully fund pensions and nursing the system along — instead of allowing it whither on the vine and die or implementing major reforms — is a non starter.

Clearly, They aren’t “getting it.”

What’s clear is that the Institute is failing to understand the political history of pension reform in Illinois, the 1970 Illinois State Constitution as well as incentives of political actors.  The balloon payments coming due as a result of the mid-1990’s reforms coupled with the abandonment of those reforms under the Blagojevich-Quinn administrations are all ready beginning to force some tough choices in Springfield.  Policymakers are beginning to take steps to understand the challenges ahead.  The stark choices of reforming or reducing state spending versus higher taxes will give voters ample opportunity to hold Springfield’s political class accountable.  Why undo that?

Pouring more revenue into the system further delays the reckoning.  Under the current regime, the choice is between rewarding public employee retirees versus pork barrel spending, creating welfare dependencies, and enabling Illinois’ famous graft. Overpaying public employee retirees is clearly the lesser of the evils. The high cost of pensions puts Illinois in a fiscal straight jacket and keeps Springfield accountable.  If lawmakers hike taxes, they’ll pay the price at election time.  This leaves public employee unions and the other tax eaters to fight for scraps.  It’s the proverbial next to last scene in life boat movies.

Last year, the Institute launched an effort to pass “Paygo” rules in which every member of the House Republican Caucus has co-sponsored a proposal that would open the door to tax increases.   Now, the organization is floating a plan to borrow nearly $20 billion for a pension fund bailout.  This is a proposal one would expect from the Obama Administration — spend now while only giving lip service to fiscal responsibility.

The Bottom Line

The Illinois Policy Institute is seeking legislative support to introduce this plan. Supporters of fiscal responsibility and free markets should hope they don’t find any takers.

# # #

About Greg Blankenship

Greg Blankenship is President & Founder of the Illinois Alliance for Growth.  From 2002 to 2008 he founded and was President of the Illinois Policy Institute.  He has degrees from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and Loyola University Chicago.  He resides in Springfield, Ill.

TAXPAYERS = THE GENERAL INTEREST NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS, MR. RYAN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:  Greg Blankenship | 217.544.4759 | gkblankenship@all4growth.org

Ryan Shouldn’t Place Himself above those he wishes to represent; Putting Taxes “On the Table” will undermine Anyone’s Plan for Spending Reforms

(Springfield, Ill.) The Illinois Alliance for Growth today denounced gubernatorial candidate Jim Ryan’s comments to the Suburban Daily Herald calling taxpayers just, “another special interest.”

In remarks to the Suburban Daily Herald, today, former Attorney General Jim Ryan called the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a pledge to constituents to oppose any and all tax increases, a “phony pledge” and its keeper, Americans for Tax Reform, “another special interest.”

“Ryan’s remark that taxpayer advocates are just “another special interest” tells us what he really thinks of taxpayers and that’s not much,” said Illinois Alliance for Growth President Greg Blankenship. “It’s not fair to the tax paying public to equate them with trial lawyers, public employee unions and big business.  The governor is supposed to represent the public interest not put himself above it, but that’s what Jim Ryan is doing, here.”

Earlier this year, Governor Pat Quinn’s disastrous attempt to hike the income tax was averted when members of Ryan’s party unanimously refused to give political cover to a 50% income tax increase.  Overwhelming majorities of Ryan’s party, 89%, in the latest Chicago Tribune poll are in opposition to tax increases.  A bi-partisan group of 34 Illinois legislators have signed the Pledge as well as five of the seven other gubernatorial candidates –  Andy McKenna, Bill Brady, Bob Schillerstrom, Dan Proft and Adam Andrzejewski.

Only Ryan and Kirk Dillard have refused to put their opposition to higher taxes in writing and off the table, thus forcing the state to reform spending and services delivery.

“Earlier this week Ryan offered a promising 10-Step Plan to put Illinois on the right fiscal path but he’s deceiving himself if he thinks he’ll be successful with taxes on the table” said Blankenship. “It’s self deceptive for any candidate to believe that he will get spending reforms with taxes on the table because you don’t need tax hikes if you have the reforms.  Anybody who believes they can negotiate any spending reforms successfully with a savvy tactician like House Speaker Michael J. Madigan with tax hikes on the table needs to think again.”

The Illinois Alliance for Growth is a non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer protection group dedicated to economic growth and limited government.  You can find out more about the Illinois Alliance for Growth at www.all4growth.org.

-30-

GOP GUBERNATORIAL HOPEFULS MUST REASSURE ILLINOIS VOTERS ON TAXES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Greg Blankenship | 217.544.4759 | gkblankenship@all4growth.org

9 out of 10 Republican voters want an anti-tax candidate; but only 5 of 10 believe candidate promises against Higher Taxes

(Springfield, Ill.) The Illinois Alliance for Growth today called on Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidates to reassure Illinoisans that they will hold the line against taxes and overcome their credibility gap with voters on the tax issue.

Polling conducted on December 2nd through December 8th on behalf of The Chicago Tribune by the Market Shares Corporation found that 89% of registered Republican voters reported that opposition to tax increases were a critical issue to them.  That same poll ominously reported that less than half (45%) of Republican voters believed that their candidates will keep their promise to oppose higher taxes.

Last week, news reports reinforced that voter mistrust when two leading GOP contenders (both political veterans with 20 plus years in politics) waffled on the tax issue and opened the door to tax increases.  Both claimed that they were against taxes yet both said tax hikes were on the table.  Both have refused to make their commitment against tax increases in writing; yet both State Sen. Kirk Dillard (Westmont) and former Attorney General Jim Ryan (Elmhurst) want voters to believe that they oppose higher taxes.

“When 9 out of 10 of your voters say to hold the line on taxes, then you hold the line on taxes,” said Illinois Alliance for Growth President Greg Blankenship.  “And when half of your own party doesn’t believe you, then you need to step up and reassure them.  Restoring trust on taxes and jobs are paramount.”

Three gubernatorial contenders, State Sen. Bill Brady (Bloomington), Dan Proft (Chicago) and Bob Schillerstrom (Naperville), have signed the Americans for Tax Reform “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” a solemn vow to constituents that they will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes as long as they hold the Office of Illinois Governor. More than 1,100 state officeholders from representatives to governors have signed the Americans for Tax Reform “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”

“We’ve at least three candidates who get it and some who are currently behind the curve” said Blankenship.  “If we’re going to create a stable, healthy business climate then the credibility gap on taxes must be overcome.  The reforms exist to fix Illinois’ state fisc. and economy, but without holding the line on taxes no incentives exist to implement those reforms.  We want to work with everyone to get them on board.”

The Illinois Alliance for Growth is a non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer protection group dedicated to economic growth and limited government.  You can find out more about the Illinois Alliance for Growth at www.all4growth.org.

-30-

Illinois Taxpayer Group Urges the Return/Donation to Charity of Tainted Campaign Contributions

For Immediate Release

Contact: Greg Blankenship | 217.544.4759 | gkblankenship@all4growth.org

(Springfield, Ill.) The Illinois Alliance for Growth announced today that it is urging seven lawmakers to either return or donate to charity political contributions made by SEIU Local 880/Acorn since 2006.

Recipients of the request were House Republican Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) who received $7,500; State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan (R-Des Plaines) who received $4,250; State Rep. Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview) who received $5,500; State Rep. Michael McAuliffe (R-Chicago) who received $250, State Rep. Donald Moffitt (R-Galesburg) who received $1,000, State Rep. Raymond Poe (R-Springfield) who received $2,000 and State Sen. Republican Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) who received $5,000.  Both the Senate Republican Campaign Committee that received $11,750 and the House Republican Organization that received $500 were also urged to return funds or donate them to a third party charity.

In letters delivered to lawmakers last Thursday, legislators were informed that ACORN/SEIU 880 has been at the center of a number of controversies that serve to reinforce the culture of corruption that infests Illinois politics. As a result of numerous recent reports regarding the relationship between ACORN and its affiliates, including SEIU Local 880, the Alliance for Growth is urging lawmakers to take the, “opportunity to demonstrate to the voters of Illinois your commitment to clean up state government and end business as usual in Illinois.”

Last month, Acorn Housing Corporation — one of the many convoluted tentacles of ACORN – was the subject of a six city free lance investigative journalism project that resulted in Acorn Housing Corporation representatives advising free lance investigative journalists posing as a pimp and his prostitute on how to circumvent federal and state laws regarding loan application fraud and tax issues for the operation of a brothel comprising of underaged illegal immigrants.

According to reports, as a result of this investigation a number federal and state agencies have begun cutting ties to ACORN that include the Internal Revenue Service and the Census Bureau.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Treasury have opened investigations.  Efforts to investigate ACORN have mushroomed in six states, as well.  In recent years, several ACORN employees have been charged with elections fraud.

Service Employees International Union –SEIU Local 880– was founded by Wade Rathke while he was president of ACORN. He has described SEIU as “one of the pillars of the ACORN family of organizations.”  ACORN Housing Corporation– another pillar headquartered just one floor up from Local SEIU 880 in Chicago — is at the center of this most recent six city exposé in which its employees counseled the would-be pimp and prostitute on how to break the law and get away with it.  Rathke, as has been widely reported, was removed from his position at ACORN after allegedly covering up a nearly $1 million embezzlement scandal perpetrated by his brother.  Wade Rathke still runs SEIU Local 100 in Kansas according to syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker.

Americans for Prosperity’s Illinois chapter and others have reported that, “A 2008 report from the Illinois Housing Development Authority showed that ACORN’s housing subsidiary received a $100,000 grant from the agency to build its Predatory Lending Database Program.”  Others have reported that half of that grant has been paid and half is still pending.  Defenders have claimed that ACORN no longer exists in Illinois, but a ACORN affiliates or “pillars” such as the housing corporation and the Rathke founded local labor organization are still active in the state.

“While it is reasonable to believe that these legislators were unaware of ACORN’s expansive network of affiliated organizations, the recent scandals and the press accounts untangling the ACORN web should give these legislators pause,” said Illinois Alliance for Growth president Greg Blankenship.  “We hope these legislators take the opportunity to take affirmative steps against Illinois’ culture of corruption, disassociate themselves with this problematic organization by rejecting SEIU Local 880’s contributions.”

The Illinois Alliance for Growth is a non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer protection group dedicated to economic growth and limited government.  You can find out more about the Illinois Alliance for Growth at www.all4growth.org.

-30-

Close Spending Loopholes to Solve Illinois’ Ongoing Fiscal Crisis

Commentary

Contact: Greg Blankenship | 217.544.4759 | gkblankenship@all4growth.org

(Springfield, Ill.) While administering first-aid, the first step is to stop the bleeding. The point of the exercise is to control bleeding to forestall shock or death.  The simplest way to stop the bleeding is to simply plug the hole.

For the better part of a decade state government has been bleeding money.  According to  a recent report by Lee Enterprises statehouse bureau chief Kurt Erickson the bleeding includes $2.1 billion in owed bills from last fiscal year, alone.  A report earlier this year from the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability — Illinois’ version of the Congressional Budget Office — estimated the state’s fiscal hole to be $14.7 billion.

When you consider that the General Revenue Fund in Illinois is about $26 billion for the fiscal year ending next July 1st, more than half the money needed to fund health care, education, humans services and public safety — and other assorted programs — has already been spent.  In other words, Illinois is bleeding, and bleeding badly.

However, few of our leaders –if any– are offering to stop the bleeding.  Instead, they are offering to pump in more blood.  Even though every drop they pump in will continue to bleed out.

The two main contenders for the Democratic nomination for governor are fighting over who can raise taxes more and what constituency they will use the money to purchase votes from.   Gov. Quinn is sticking to his 50 percent income tax increase.  His challenger, Comptroller Daniel Hynes, wishes to impose a graduated income tax to raise more revenue.  His proposal would even require an amendment to the state constitution.

In the interim both Hynes and Quinn want to raise the cigarette tax by a dollar a pack to pay for more spending.  One wants to use the money to support student aid for college students — i.e. subsidizing higher education.  The other wants to use the money to pay off debt.  Of course like the income tax, the cigarette tax in a state where a pack of smokes is approaching more than $10 per pack isn’t sitting well with the General Assembly.

In addition to all this, last week, the Commission on Forecasting and Accountability released a report examining the expanding of the sales tax to services such as attorney’s fees, hair styling, printing and myriad other services.  By doing so, $7.3 billion could be redirected from the productive private sector into the public sector that produces no goods and services.  It should be noted that fmr. Gov Blagojevich’s gross receipts tax — the largest in state history, or any other state’s history — was $7.2 billion.

Instead of pumping more money into the state budget to only let it bleed out on the other end, maybe Springfield should look at plugging some loopholes.  One such hole is Section 25 of the Fiscal Act.

Section 25 of the Fiscal Act allows a 60 day window in which bills from last year can be paid after the fiscal year has ended and a new budget has begun.  This means state vendors can be paid for work done in the final months of the fiscal year after that year’s appropriations have expired.

As it goes Section 25 spending makes sense.  You need time to collect bills and pay them at the end of the year.  On the other hand, a loophole in the Act allows the state to spend money off budget with no accountability.

Medicaid is the fastest growing and largest line item in the budget.  According to the Commission on Forecasting and Accountability,  “The Section 25 provision allows the State to pay any remaining Medicaid bills from one fiscal year with monies from next years’ appropriations. Because of this, the budget can still appear balanced on a cash basis (or have a lower reported deficit), even though the state may not have sufficient funding for the Medicaid program.”

This allows unfettered spending by Springfield.  If Springfield is $1 billion short for new spending, they can always shift money from Medicaid to other spending and roll over $1 billion in payments to next year.  Don’t have the money next year?  Roll it over again.  The spending doesn’t show up as appropriations.  Therefore the money is hidden and nobody knows the politicians spent it.  On paper Illinois has a balanced budget and the politicians can go home safe in the knowledge they’ve fooled us again.

As long as the patient continues to bleed it makes no sense to pump in more blood products.  Before Springfield even considers taking more of our hard earned money, it needs to start plugging some holes.  Closing the Medicaid spending loophole in Section 25 would be a good start.

# # #

Greg Blankenship is the President of the Illinois Alliance for Growth (www.all4growth.org).  He can be reached at gkblankenship@all4growth.org.

Citizens To Rally Against Cap & Trade in Springfield, Ill.

Climate Change Legislation
being considered in Washington
will cause ILLINOIS CONSUMERS huge economic pain and produce little environmental gain

Legislation approved by the House of Representatives will cost 2 million American
jobs, raise gasoline and diesel prices up to $4 per gallon, raise electric rates, make American businesses less able to compete globally, and reduce America’s energy security.

Join us and voice your disapproval.

Illinois Rally For Jobs and Affordable Energy

Location: Crowne Plaza Hotel, 3000 South Dirksen Parkway, 2^nd Floor Ballroom, Springfield, Illinois

Date: September 1, 2009

Time: Doors open at 11:30 a.m.

Rally begins at 11:45 a.m. (Lunch included)

The U.S. Senate will soon take up climate/energy/tax legislation.

Let our U.S. Senators know they need to oppose the Waxman/Markey House Bill and not make the same mistakes.

Commentary: If You Like Your Insurance, Can You Really Keep It?

Commentary

Contact: Greg Blankenship | gkblankenship-at-all4growth.org | 217.544.4759

(Springfield, Ill.) One of the most common refrains of President Obama during out national debate over who is going to pay for our nation’s health care is that under his plan, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

The line is an attempt to combat one of the main reasons why the Clinton health reform died the death of thousand cuts in 1993.  Then, like today the vast majority of voters who had insurance and like what they had and didn’t want the government interfering with what they had.

The President’s refrain suggests he learned something politically from the early 90’s fisticuffs over health care.  But, stubbornly, the question remains among the electorate.  His plan isn’t popular – but the latest polls show opposition is leveling – and the President simply hasn’t sold, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

And there is good reason for that skepticism.

In any market exchange there is a supplier of a good and buyer demanding a good.   For the seller there has to be a market upon which the seller can profit.   But if the producer supplying the good can’t profit from the sale, then the producer is going to move on to something more productive or goes out of business.

Now, President Obama, being a politician, isn’t going to be the one to interfere with the demand side of the equation.   However, the intent of would be reformers would very much interfere with the supply side of health insurance.  Here are three ways in which you might like your health insurance, but won’t be able to keep it.

Right off the top three million Americans wouldn’t have a choice according to the Congressional Budget Office.  These are elderly Americans participating in Medicare Advantage.  Medicare Advantage is a Medicare plan in which seniors can choose to opt for private insurance coverage instead of traditional Medicare.  About 20% — about 10 million seniors — of Medicare enrollees participate in the program because it provides more generous benefits than traditional Medicare.  Under plans before Congress, the plan would be slashed by $150 billion over 10 years that could drive insurance companies out of the program.

Another manner in which you could lose your current coverage is that your employer could drop your coverage and simply pay a fine.  Under an employer mandate in which businesses provide health benefits or pay a fine, some companies may find it easier to just pay the fine.  It’s the recognition of this incentive that leads critics of the public option to argue that the public option will cost more than the Obama Administration and congressional drafters of the plan claim.

A third way in which you can be denied the health insurance you like occurs when the insurance simply goes away.  This is what happened in places in New York and New Jersey when their state legislators told insurance companies they could no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, had to charge everyone living in the same community the same price whether or not they were young or old, sick or healthy.  Many insurers simply left these markets because they no could no longer make a profit.  Young people and young families decided they couldn’t afford to subsidize the old and infirm and simply chose to go without insurance.  That’s why the fastest rising group today without insurance are families in big states making $75,000 per year or more.

In each of these scenarios you may like the insurance you have and may seek to keep it, but the suppliers of the insurance you like will no longer be willing to provide it.  Or, even worse, it may still be offered to you but at prohibitively higher costs.  No, the President wouldn’t be breaking the his promise that, “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”  Of course he never promised that the insurance you liked will still be there once his health plan was implemented.

# # #

Greg Blankenship is President of the Illinois Alliance for Growth.

Commentary: Mark Kirk’s Sen. Campaign is DC’s Problem, Not IL’s

COMMENTARY

Contact: Greg Blankenship | 217.544.4759 | gkblankenship-at-all4growth.org

(Springfield, Ill.) The unrest among Illinois conservatives is palpable, to say the least, of US Rep. Mark Kirk’s (R-10) entry in the US Senate Primary for Pres. Obama’s former Senate seat. That conservative unrest is understandable, but before resources are used against Kirk, let me suggest that ambivalence may be a more profitable approach to his candidacy.

Conservatives have long disdained the North Shore Republican’s liberal voting record in the House of Representatives. He has gone against the mainstream of his party on pro-life issues, the War on Terror and gun control. He openly admits he is running as a fiscally conservative socially moderate Republican. That is positioning that historically does well in Illinois general elections but is anathema to the center-right.

This attitude in only reinforced by the fact that on the fiscally conservative side of things Kirk isn’t all that conservative, either. According to Project Vote Smart, Kirk received a 60 percent (100 percent being perfect) in 2007 from Americans for Tax Reform. In 2006 he was with them 82% of the time. Similarly, the National Taxpayers Union gave Kirk a C- in its 2007 rankings. As a tax pledge signer Kirk has committed to his constituents to vote against any and all tax hikes. His Cap and Trade vote earlier this summer was clearly at odds with that commitment.

Another credential he seems to rely on is his national security bonafides as a naval reserve intelligence officer. But then again, he was part of a congressional delegation that went to the Bush Administration in opposition to what was a very successful counter insurgency in Iraq. That doesn’t burnish his credentials on the right, either.

While the above may be appealing to those who see Illinois as a naturally purple state, the prairie state does have a vocal and growing conservative movement – at least in terms of its importance in the Republican Primary electorate. The last moderate Republican to win the gubernatorial nomination, then State Treasurer Judy-Baar Topinka won after conservatives split between to more conservative candidates. Conservatives breached 51% in the primary.

Former US Sen. Peter Fitzgerald defeated the establishment’s moderate choice in 1998. In 1996 Al Salvi ran to the right of the moderate establishment candidate, Lt. Gov. Bob Kustra, and defeated him in a US Senate primary. Clearly, if a legitimate center-right challenger were to emerge Kirk would be in trouble. Lucky for him no one has stepped forward and party leaders and elected officials appear to be accepting Kirk.

Kirk was the choice of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The NRSC is a party unto itself whose only job is to win senate seats sans ideology. They made it clear that Kirk was their man because he can raise money and he won handsomely in a district carried by Pres. Obama. Democrats who began running Internet advertisements against Kirk before he entered the contest only reinforced that opinion.

Conservatives however appear willing to mount what would be a divisive effort against Kirk. Many don’t believe he can win a general without conservative, aka the base’s, support. They may be right, but rolling out the circular firing squad this time is probably not a wise use of limited resources.

First, and foremost, Kirk has proven he can raise money and garner support from the NRSC without conservative support and despite his cap and trade vote. If he is the NRSC’s prodigal son and they are willing to fund him, let them. While he won’t be a conservative vote, he’ll be a vote to organize the Senate for the more conservative leadership if miracle of miracles the Senate goes Republican in the next two cycles. He’s a vote in support of a filibuster at best and he isn’t, no matter what anyone says, going to poke a stick in people’s eye like an Arlen Specter (D-PA) or John McCain (R-AZ) seem to relish. And given the long way back to the Senate majority, his socially liberal positions just aren’t a factor.

Second, in Illinois US Senate is a down ballot seat. A moderate NRSC senate candidate frees money and grass roots support for the top of the ballot. Right now, a conservative State Sen., Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), leads in fundraising. His biggest rival is most likely State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Westmont) is less reliable but his voting records suggests he’s more likely to be open to conservatives. Three second tier candidates, State Sen. Matt Murphy (R-Palatine), Dan Proft of Chicago and Adam Andrzejewski, suburban Chicago, are all solid conservatives. And with Andzejewski’s self-funding ability and Proft’s “sharp elbows” there is really no front-runner in the race.

Grass roots support, financial support and oxygen are best spent on winning the governorship not getting lathered up over a minority senate seat. Conservatives needn’t support nor carp about Mark Kirk’s senate race. He’s Washington’s problem. The NRSC can use their resources on Kirk and conservatives are freed to concentrate their efforts to help elect a governor. It’s an efficient division of labor that could be far more profitable for conservatives and Illinois.

Greg Blankenship is President of the Illinois Alliance for Growth.

Tick Tock, Time Running Out on IL Budget Deadline Yet No Inevitable Tax Increase

With legislative leaders and the Gov. refusing to speak to reporters after this afternoon’s leaders meeting, reporters are twittering and blogging that the the outlook for a budget agreement is grim.

Getting to July 1st without a tax increase is a big win for the anti-tax movement.  After being told of doomsday budgets (2 versions); that there was no way we could avoid a tax increases; with former Republican Governor’s telling spouting the same nonsense; with legislators of both parties privately lamenting that they couldn’t get out of Springfield with out an income increase we are about 10 hours from the end of the state’s fiscal year and there is no income tax increase.

And lo and behold, by standing strong against taxes, the General Assembly did manage to restore 70% of the social service cuts (on average) that we were told would lead to mayhem.  It in fact didn’t take a tax increase to do it.  With 73% of voters against an income tax increase and 82% of voters believing the state spends too much Democrat House Speaker Michael Madigan’s caucus has now conceded that there isn’t enough votes for an income tax increase.  We can read that as the Republicans may have learned their lesson and have stopped covering for Democrat tax hikes.  That would change Illinois politics for the better.

Granted, the Capital Bill, which should be vetoed, has been sent forward for the Governor’s signature with $1 billion in new revenue — $600 million of which are tax and fee increases — and the$2 billion pension bond deal is still more spending and a future tax (albeit a voluntary one) so all is not golden.  But the big hit to the tax paying public who right now cannot afford to meet the current insatiable demands of the state government  – thus the revenue shortfalls — is being avoided.

We’ve seen in California and New Jersey that holding the line on taxes is forcing legislators to make cuts, unions to open contracts and governor’s change their stripes (that would be CA where Schwarzenegger has embraced a flat tax).  It seems Nay on taxes means a Yea on much needed reforms.

While the deadline is July 1st, the state doesn’t actually need the money until July 9th for payroll purposes according to news reports.  Before then we can expect another round of scaremongering and extortion threats from the gov, state agencies and service providers.  But, if the anti-taxers in the House continue to stand tall and the world doesn’t end maybe then the Gov. Quinn and Sen. Pres. John Cullerton (D-Chicago) will finally resign themselves on some serious budgetary reforms.  And if they do so — that’s a real big if — it will codify a major victory for the anti-tax movement in Illinois and the Nation.

Illinois Alliance for Growth Urges No Vote On Capital Plan Before Illinois House

Next Page »