BTW, if it is in fact your birthday, a very happy birthday to you. I read your horoscope: Martin Short shares your birthday. You are responsible, dependable and self-sufficient. Despite the sterling qualities, you are spontaneous and childlike. You like to work at your own pace, which is relatively relaxed. You are an excellent problem solver. This year something you’ve been involved with for the last 9 years will end or diminish to make room for something new to enter your world.
Rather nice message. Has Oscar been a sire?
Edgar 97? Income tax up but property tax should go down? The property tax did NOT go down, local spending went up. This time the plan is a $500 property tax refund. At least that’s $500 more then we ever got back from the 97 deal.
In Jack Tichenor’s interview with Mike Madigan, MM said he would be willing to support Quinn’s idea of the income tax. Also it would only need 60 votes to pass his chamber. I think that THAT might be the biggest news of the day - Madigan supports it.
- East Central Illinois - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:09 pm:
Probably too inside baseball for some, but I heard Quinn say he’d oppose a tax on certain services such as veteranarians/laundry/day care. Makes me wonder if a sales tax on other services isn’t in the cards.
A sales tax on country club memberships wouldn’t surprise me.
Voters of Illinois have heard this same BS message for the last 4 years. The result of Quinn’s failed leadership has been to make the income taxes permanent, spend more money, and there is hope just over the horizon. Quinn, ” I just need a little more time?”
Hey, we built this boat with the Pension Ramp, deficit spending, and on and on. Everyone, including the Commercial Club, has said we would not be able to survive the tax sunset - even with pension reform.
Now Quinn put it out there in the open. As OW said, if not the income tax then lay out your cards for cuts that add up to $4 billion. One cent income tax is $4 billion, only halfway there with fy 2014-15.
Everyone knew the tax hike was permanent. What we really need is a progressive rate.
- david starrett - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
The mere fat that it is even possible to suggest that Rauner could bail the entire state out unilaterally is a sad enough statement in itself.
I found it interesting that everyone seems willing to give Quinn a pass on the requirement that he assume only existing law in the presentation of his budget. Maybe it’s because the increase will lapse in the middle of next Fiscal Year, but will be in effect for the entire TAX year. That would mean that Income Tax revenues coming due beginning 15 April, 2015 will still have been assessed at current rates. If I’m right, the real problem hits in FY2016.
What will be interesting to see is if the Republicans, who will not support the extension of the tax increase, will identify and/or accept any reductions to spending. I’m guessing it will be cut spending . . . just not the spending I support. Making the tax increase permanent or at least extending it is the responsible thing to do.
Maintining the 5% flat tax will not pay for what Quinn is promising to education. Flat taxes place the greatest burden on those with the least ability to pay. i.e. low and middle class families. Lower income wage earners can’t save for retirement when they have been losing disposable income for 40 years. Without savings to draw on, tax payments must come out of the grocery money. That hurts the local economy, causes layoffs and reduced state tax revenue. Is there more to his plan, such as something that brings in more revenue from people with the ability to pay?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
That said, I expect the message about private sector job creation will be totally lost in the tax hike stuff.
Quinn did mention private sector job creation in his state of the state, in paragraph 35.
- PublicServant - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:38 pm:
So, if Rauner is our next governor, how many hours will it take him to solve the “sky is falling” mess that is single-handedly Pat Quinn’s doing according to you “Anybody but Quinn” supporters? Also, when providing your hours estimate, please provide explanations as to how Lord Brucey will accomplish his agenda, and how much each act will save. Heard the hate, now waiting for the solutions and specific budget savings of each solution. With, or without the current tax structure. Thanks in advance.
I am pleasantly encouraged by the fact that the people in charge have stated their support for the obvious (extending income tax hike) during an election year. Perhaps gerrymandered districts do have a benefit.
In the words of Churchill “we can always expect the Americans to do the right thing after exhausting all other possibilities.”
***I found it interesting that everyone seems willing to give Quinn a pass on the requirement that he assume only existing law in the presentation of his budget.**
I don’t believe that’s true. The budget address is & should be a proposal which includes both spending & revenue proposals. I think you might be confusing this with the language in the tax increase law which requires the Governor to give a 3-yr forecast in January of each year using only laws currently on the books. The budget proposal on the other hand always has & should remain a proposal/recommendation that includes expenditures & revenues. The only requirement is that it is balanced, which Quinns appears to be.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:53 pm:
This was the best speech I’ve ever heard Governor Quinn give. He was focused, stayed on point, he had the tight serious tone. I don’t think there’s any doubt he met the statutory requirement to present a budget based on current law: look at the budget “book”
None of the cut numbers should have been surprising to anyone. You may quibble around the edges of the numbers, but the cuts will have to be very large if the tax revenue isn’t extended or replaced. To anyone who says otherwise, simply ask them to give you a balanced budget without the current revenue. Can’t be done without huge cuts or assumptions like 7 or 8% natural revenue growth. Math is pretty inflexible that way.
Now comes the hard part. Tax or cut, there will be pain either way, just a question of how and to whom it is apportioned. That’s the reality we face.
BTW, DuPage, I’m not shocked that you didn’t get property tax relief from Governor Edgar’s ‘97 proposal, it didn’t pass. Jesus
- david starrett - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
I haven’t looked at the 500-odd page budget book yet Steve, but existing law does sunset the tax increase. I’m guessing that because it will be in effect for the entire tax year, revenues can be assumed stable, but only until the next-following tax year.
I agree that this was a pretty straight-shooting speech, and very much to the point. You know better than I the level of reductions which would be needed to allow the tax increase to lapse without $billions in replacement revenue, but it won’t be pleasant….
It’s heartening that no one seems to be coming right out of the box swinging-wildly. Perhaps that’s being left for Rauner.
The big question left is if Penaion reform is thrown out. Brucey Bruce will be elected with a bigger budget crunch. If it is not tossed by the courts then Quinn might win with a less serious budget problem. Personally, I believe that the Pension reform is unconstitutional but what I believe doesn’t change anything. They will need to come up with the money and they will and nobody will be happy in the end.
OK - after reading some of the proposed budget it is pretty clear what the projected revenue from the income tax is. In FY 2015, the budget is $2.6 billion greater if the income tax is left in place. For FY 2016, you would double that to $5.2 billion greater income if the income tax is left in place.
So - that is the choice. Keep the tax, or find $2.6 billion in cuts this year and $2.6 billion more next year (total of $5.2 billion in cuts).
Oh - and that is with a General Fund budget of $32.2 billion.
Quinn is making promises he can’t keep. My guess is that the court will throw out the pension bill and they will have to pay. Rauner has nothing, unless he plans to tap the .01 percenter community he’s in with.
===How about real educational reform.=== What does that even mean? ===
I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I think he means more neighborhood school closings and more giveaways to Rauner’s charter school cronies.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 4:27 pm:
Charter schools are funded through the same formula as traditional public schools, so you can presume that any increase in school funding would thereby increase charter school funding.
Rauner, on the other hand, is for vouchers, which drain money away from both traditional and charter public schools.
Diverting money from public education to fund private schools has never been a real winner at the polls come general election time, but it is an issue Rauner will have a tough time pivoting out of if he wants Meeks in his corner.
I’m just tired of bumper sticker slogans from partisans instead of an honest discussion about the best way to pay for public education and other services Illinois has to fund to be a functioning, sovereign state in the year 2014.
Anonymous 4:05 wins for being the most irritating comment I’ve read today, and I’ve read a lot of them. It was stiff competition, but that comment wins for being equally brief and vacuous. If you’re going to say nothing, saying it with fewer words is always a plus. Why do you think Twitter is so popular?
Thanks,YDD. I plead guilty to repeating a talking point there, i.e. that charter schools siphon off money that would be better spent in the neighborhoods, especially in large urban school districts. I think Rauner’s involvement in corporate school reform is going to be an issue this year, at least with educators, and I need to study up in more detail on how it’s played out in Chicago.
All Quinn needs is a yellow brick road. He is after all the true Wizard of OZ.
They will cut Rauner off at the pass.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 8:07 pm:
Well done. Good Speech. Honest, forthright, to the point. And I REALLY like that Permanent, Annual $500 Property Tax Credit to be placed directly into my pocket idea down the road, thanks to PQ…takin’ care of/giving back to the millions of Illinois Homeowners (and Voters!) who pay through the nose already for that biggest chunk out of one’s Tax Dollar…!
If the pension reform contest loses in a Democratic controlled Supreme Court this State is doomed, tax increases or not. Get real everyone…this tax increase represents peanuts if the pension reform program get tossed out in the Supreme Court.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 10:16 pm:
No, DD, the state isn’t doomed, and there are plenty of other adequate approaches that might even have a better chance of being held constitutional
Thanks for that Steve. The state can’t declare bankruptcy, but if they did, even then they couldn’t get away with modifying just a single set of creditors while holding the other groups (Bondholders/Backlogged-bill businesses) whole. I firmly believe that the bill will be overthrown in its entirity, and, I agree, there are other much less punitive alternatives to the minority of annuitants and active state employees than SB1, and those alternatives aren’t just window-dressing but will actually allow the state to pay back its debt over time.