1. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 30, 04 @ 9:20 am:

   So any clue as to how big of a budget hole the state is looking at for the remainder of this FY and next? What retailiation do you think will come of this?




2. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 30, 04 @ 9:50 am:

   Never mind the previous comment. The suit only placed the WC fee in esgrow but did declare the others unconstitutional. However, since the suit only dealt with this particular fee, that was the only one to be placed in the protest account.




3. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 30, 04 @ 9:59 am:

   First, congrats — none of the Chicago media, nor AP has run with the story as yet, and from my perspective it’s a blockbuster!

   Now, a comment.

   Although a significant ruling, it will undoubtedly put added pressure on raising the state’s income and/or sales tax. The judge’s ruling gives Governor Blagojevich the excuse he needs to violate his pledge not to raise either tax.

   Regardless, knowing the administration’s penchant to toss the conventional out, it wouldn’t be surprising if the administration proposed service taxes on “selected” businesses.

   What’s even more intriguing is that when the 93rd General Assembly returns to session on January 10, it needs only majority votes for passage of bills, not a three-fifths super majority.

   Oh, what a splendid web to weave…




4. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Nov 30, 04 @ 12:48 pm:

   The court indicated the administration’s position that there was no difference between a tax and a fee and that they are interchangeable items!

   Be prepared to see that one on campaign mailings and flyers in the future!

   Not only did they lose this case (which can be and I am sure will be appealed) but the Blagojevich Administration through his budget director argued in front of that court that there is no difference between a tax and a fee!

   Has the Blagojevich administration been inadvertantly outed on this issue?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.