* David Yepsen on Speaker Madigan’s proposed income tax surcharge on income over a million dollars and Bruce Rauner’s term limits proposal…
Rauner’s term-limit push reinforces his theme that Illinois government is in shambles because it is overrun with career politicians. Madigan’s plan, however, may provide a way for disillusioned Democrats to come home despite their frustration with the Democratic-sponsored, Quinn-signed law to curb public employee pension benefits.
“I can see people voting for both (proposed amendments) — screw the rich people and throw the bums out,” Yepsen said. “But this is a way Democrats can get a piece of that anger.”
* From the Tribune editorial board…
House Speaker Michael Madigan, who helped create the Quinncome tax hike, now wants to change the subject. On Thursday he said he’ll ask lawmakers to put on the November ballot an income tax increase of 3 percentage points on personal income that exceeds $1 million. Seven weeks earlier, though, Madigan proposed to cut in half the state income tax on corporations. But a month before that, he complained that some companies “don’t pay their fair share.”
Go figure. If Madigan hasn’t yet offered a tax policy you like, give him time. Will he and other Quinncome taxers now raise rates or cut spending?
* Mark Brown on Rauner’s term limits proposal…
Based on the emails I’m receiving, I think many voters will be surprised to learn it wouldn’t bring the immediate end of Madigan’s reign, but would immediately give more power to Illinois’ next governor. (Now, who might that be?) […]
The other provision would make it more difficult for legislators to override a governor’s veto by increasing the required 3/5 majority vote of both chambers to a 2/3 majority. The obvious purpose is to strengthen Rauner’s hand against Madigan, which isn’t a good reason to tinker with the state Constitution.
Did any of you feel Rod Blagojevich wasn’t given enough power? Do you think Illinois would be better off today if only Blago could have kept the Legislature in better check with his veto? See what I mean.
The strangest part is that neither of these proposals were the result of public clamoring or offered by some good government think tank. Instead, both were dreamed up by Rauner and his lawyers in hopes of cobbling something together that would help the term limits amendment pass muster with the Supreme Court.