Can the tax hike trump the Democratic map?
Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
Last year, the state Senate Republicans tested anti-tax messages in their campaigns without much success. While almost all Senate Democrats had voted for a large income tax hike along with an expansion of the sales tax to services, the Republican message just didn’t work because the tax bill the Democrats backed never became the law of the land.
But now that a tax increase has actually been approved, with all the resulting hype surrounding it, there could very well be a different outcome next year. The tax increase has become a part of the public consciousness, and not in a good way, either.
The tax hike vote itself has received a ton of publicity, but the circus ever since has further burned into voters’ minds a highly negative and toxic message. There was Gov. Pat Quinn’s infamous flip-flop, first claiming he’d veto anything over a one percentage point increase and then signing a two-percent hike. Then came the flood of high-profile bashing of our tax hike by Republican governors throughout the country — all of whom pledged to poach our corporations and our jobs. We had the widely reported but false stories about Caterpillar considering leaving and the statewide nervous breakdown which resulted. On top of all that, the state still has severe budget problems despite the cut in everybody’s take-home pay. Then, obviously, there’s the problem of rising Illinois unemployment since the tax hike took effect.
This was also the first purely partisan tax increase since the state’s new Constitution was adopted two generations ago. In the past, tax hike roll calls were carefully structured in a bipartisan manner and the two parties generally avoided dealing with the issue during the following campaign cycle. Republicans and Democrats worked closely together two years ago to raise taxes to fund the state’s infrastructure program, for instance. Nobody heard a peep about that vote on the campaign trail last year. But the income tax is an entirely different matter. No Republican votes were on that bill.
To make matters worse for the ruling Democrats, 2012 is a redistricting election year. Most legislators have lots of new constituents who don’t know who they are and won’t be prepared to cut them any slack.
And, on top of everything else, a large number of state House Democrats ran last year on anti-tax platforms. House Speaker Michael Madigan even refused to recruit candidates who barely hinted that they’d vote for a tax hike. In the Quad Cities, for example, Madigan rejected his former staffer Porter McNeil in the primary when McNeil tried to stake out a middle ground between the more aggressively pro-tax Democrat Jerry Lack and the anti-tax Dennis Ahern. Madigan injected himself into the primary and backed Ahern, who turned out to be a total dud of a candidate whom Madigan eventually dumped. McNeil might’ve been able to hold former Rep. Mike Boland’s seat, but Madigan was so anti-tax at the time that McNeil wasn’t considered viable.
Two months after the election, of course, Madigan completely switched gears and muscled through a 67 percent income tax hike. Democrats who followed his lead in both directions now find themselves in a serious pickle. They promised (or came right up to the line of promising) not to vote for a tax hike and then did it anyway before they were even sworn in for another term.
The Republicans are now preparing to move in for the kill. And at this point their battlefield is quite large. President Barack Obama’s presence on the ticket will be a problem for the Republicans in some areas, but the president is now quite unpopular in many of the districts he won three years ago. If the economy doesn’t improve and if the national Republicans nominate a sane presidential candidate, then the House and Senate Democrats will have to find a way to win downstate and suburban and exurban areas without his coattails.
And the same thing goes for Democratic state legislators trying to move up the political ladder. At least two former legislators and one current legislator are running for Congress right now. All three voted for the tax hike. If they think that the national Republicans are going to give them a pass on that, then they’re dreaming. Heck, their Democratic primary opponents would probably be wise to use the issue as well.
* But one of those three Democratic legislators has the surprising support of a major Peoria bigshot…
State Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Peoria, is gearing up for another fundraiser in the Peoria area to bolster his campaign coffers as he makes a run for Congress in the newly drawn 17th District. […]
Perhaps most eye-catching among the names is Doug Oberhelman, the CEO of Caterpillar Inc. He and his wife, Diane, the chief of Cullinan Properties, are included. […]
It was the Caterpillar CEO’s letter to Gov. Pat Quinn earlier this year that launched a debate over the impact of the corporate and personal income tax increases on the business climate in Illinois. Koehler voted for that tax hike.
Both individually and as a couple, the Oberhelmans have been frequent political donors. However, campaign records indicate that the lion’s share of the money they’ve given has gone to those running on the GOP side of the aisle. And it was just last year that they hosted a fundraiser at their home for U.S. Rep. Aaron Schock’s re-election bid that boasted former first lady Laura Bush as the marquee guest.
Nevertheless, Koehler has described himself as close to the Oberhelmans, calling Doug Oberhelman “a longtime friend” and “one of my first donors.” He’s said that he’s “very proud of the fact that I have a bipartisan group of donors” in the primary campaign.
Discuss.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:24 am:
Lots of moving parts to this year’s election, huh. I have been saying since the remap was announced that there is a huge opportunity for Republicans in this cycle. The real question is not whether the Republicans are aware of the negatives the Democrats face (Quinn, the tax, and to an arguable sense, Obama), but if Republicans are nimble enough to take advantage of the opportunity. There has been no evidence, yet, that this is the case.
- shore - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:24 am:
I said when duckworth announced that it isn’t just springfield democrats that have reason to be worried about their party’s failure it’s the democratic party as a whole. For democratic candidates next year running for congress they have a president from their home state who most americans believe failed with his economic agenda according to polls out this morning. So if you are duckworth or some other democrat running for congress you are basically going to have to either break with the president or face voters who say-we tried your economic plan the last 3 years and it has not worked for us.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:25 am:
–The Republicans are now preparing to move in for the kill.–
Illinois Republicans? The Brady Bunch? Kill some time golfing?
–If the economy doesn’t improve and if the national Republicans nominate a sane presidential candidate, then the House and Senate Democrats will have to find a way to win downstate and suburban and exurban areas without his coattails.–
You’ve got that right. If a year from now, there’s not a general perception of a strong economic recovery, it’s katie-bar-the-door for the Dems.
If that happens, God help us and today’s Joe Walsh-GOP. Never has there been a crew so bankrupt of intelligence or competence to govern.
I’m going to volunteer in Indiana next year for Sen. Lugar if he gets a Tea Partier challenger.
What strange times.
- Aldyth - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:38 am:
Rich, your column is probably the most astute summation and analysis of the political fallout situation in Illinois to be found anywhere.
All it is missing is a statement about the stuff is hitting the fan.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:45 am:
“Never has there been a crew so bankrupt of intelligence or competence to govern.”
Except for the liberal Democrats now in command.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 8:59 am:
Cincy, you’re a one-trick pony and you don’t do it all that well. Who are the “liberal Democrats in command,” anyway?
- Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:02 am:
Luckily for the Dems, the GOP should go far right in most of these races and screw things up.
The Dems can’t govern and the GOP can’t win elections.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:10 am:
Wordslinger,
Talk about a one trick pony. Bash, bash, bash, the GOP and well ignore the lies and broken promises by Quinn Madigan and culler ton that have bankrupted this state. Neither side is blameless but the GOP is just not really relavant in Illinois right now. Hopefully that changes. But voters will believe whatever lie Quinn and Madigan tell them. Ie I will veto any tax hike above 4%, or I support the death penalty. Even the unions have found out that Quinn cant be trusted after he took their money and endorsement he forgot the promises he made them. Quinn is in many ways just as corrupt as his mentor Blago.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:21 am:
Fed Up, it’s not my fault that the GOP has flipped its lid. I also feel no compulsion to treat its anti-knowledge outlook as reasonable.
Like I said, I plan on volunteering for Lugar. This country and state is desperately in need of a Republican Party, and it’s high time that the Main Street Republicans cast out the Elmer Gantrys, Billie Sundays, Dusty Roads and Wall Street hustlers who are ruining the party that was born — right here — in the cause to end slavery and save the union.
- fred - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:21 am:
The direct answer to your question is NO. Simply put, a tax hike cannot trump a Democrat drawn map, nor can clueless Republicans. Fact is, Cross is a fool and Radagno is an idiot. Enough said.
- shore - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:46 am:
“cross is a fool and radagno is an idiot”-this has been the half decade of bachmann’s schillings walsh’s scott lee cohen’s and others coming out of nowhere and winning races no one thought they would win or even compete for simply because the country was in such bad shape and people were so fed up that they were willing to vote anyone else in.
- Son of a Centrist - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:46 am:
Issues rarely outweigh a good map– and for the dems, this is a good one. Besides, the tax hike was out there in 2010. Answer: no.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 9:48 am:
It’s going to depend on where the economy is, pure and simple.
- just sayin' - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 10:17 am:
It’s so cynical. A lot of the Rs wanted that tax increase as much as the Ds. The Rs just wanted the Ds to be the ones to pass it. Now the Rs bash the tax increase at the same time they praise the new budget that relies on that same tax increase.
In any case, there is no environment, scenario, or opportunity that the IL GOP can’t screw up. Never under estimate the ineptitude.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 10:42 am:
Joe Walsh took the anger and mistrust of government and won election by less than 300 votes with no money and against a strong, well funded Democrat.
Since that election, anger and mistrust of government has grown. The political debate and language used is harsher than ever. I would expect more upsets this election cycle, no matter who tried to gerrymander legislative, state senate and state rep districts.
- Oscar Meyer - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 10:55 am:
No matter how hyperbolically big it was as a percentage increase, there has been way too much weenie roasting about the size of the state income tax — not really a “hike”, but a half block walk — increase.
- just sayin' - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 10:56 am:
“Since that election, anger and mistrust of government has grown.”
Yes, and now Joe Walsh is the Poster Boy for what voters mistrust and are angry about, i.e. yet another phony politician who said he was something he’s not.
- Son of a Centrist - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 10:59 am:
Joe Walsh is the exception, not the rule. For every Joe Walsh out there who won by 300 votes, there are three republicans who got blown out due to the map. And whatever gains the GOP might manage to make in 2012 (if any), they will likely be erased in 2014. It’s the map, the map, the map.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 11:05 am:
===whatever gains the GOP might manage to make in 2012 (if any), they will likely be erased in 2014===
Yeah, well, if Obama is reelected then 2014 will be his second midterm election. The first one didn’t go all that well, as I recall.
- Son of a Centrist - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 11:22 am:
Actually, Rich, it went very well indeed for the IL house and senate dems. Sure, there were a couple scares and surprises, but the dems were left standing. These maps will make them stronger.
- ZC - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 11:32 am:
It’s not the tax increase, I suspect, it really is the economy.
Sure, the tax increase is going to hurt in some places, but I’d like to see more public opinion surveys to this point. Tea Party remonstrations aside, the US electorate at large has been far more open to increasing taxes on the wealthy, to prevent a total budget meltdown, than GOP primary voters are. Obama is going to run on a tax increase vs Rick Perry, and polls I’ve seen suggest he has public opinion on his side (though intensity may be a problem).
Bottom line, if the economy’s better, the tax increase will bite less. I’m also a little leery here because, with Obama’s 2% payroll cut, a lot of median Illinois voters won’t have even really seen their taxes increase, right? You’d need be earning over $100,000 per year. Fail to extend that payroll cut, however, and we’ll see the sudden bite in our wallets, and I would expect the tax increase to matter more. But in which case, if we fail to keep the payroll tax cut, it will be because the DC GOP blocked it. Odd times …
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 11:33 am:
===it went very well indeed for the IL house and senate dems===
6 lost House seats is “very well indeed”? The Democrats kept the House mainly because the Republicans targeted the wrong areas.
- just sayin' - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 11:51 am:
Rich, I don’t disagree with anything in your column and your analysis is solid.
Would only point out that pretty much all the state rep, state senate, and congressional seats won back last year were seats originally drawn R and which shouldn’t have been lost by the gop in the first place. (Schilling of course a big exception and real pick-up.)
Would also point out the gop lost the gov’s race to Blago’s former running mate who PROMISED to massively raise the income tax. And it’s hard to imagine a more pro-GOP yr than 2010.
- Son of a Centrist - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 12:01 pm:
Rich, I acknowledge it didn’t go perfect. But, the ultimate objective is to maintain control, and that objective was achieved.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 12:04 pm:
Rich,
The only thing holding back the GOP is the GOP. Quinn, Madigan &Cullerton have harmed this state in real ways. The problem with the GOP is that they can’t get their act together before harming themselves in the primaries. Brady should never of been the nominee. Quinn was given the election by bad GOP management on primary night. Quinn still almost lost. I have little faith in the GOP putting together a good slate of candidates but if they ever did they would retake the house.
- Ding Ding Ding - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 1:00 pm:
The tax increase is so hated downstate, anger over it could be enough to beat guys like Sullivan, Frerichs, and Forby.
- Esquire - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
This is one of the best weekly columns that Rich has written in quite sometime. I think that his instincts are correct. The nominating process will determine whether or not this scenario comes to pass. It depends upon which candidates are running, but the Democrats are in an uncomfortable position which is unusual for Illinois.
@Wordslinger: Did you miss the memo? The liberal and moderates who have dominated party affairs helped run the Illinois GOP into the ground. The Reagan revolution largely bypassed Illinois compliments of James R. Thompson.
A mere handful of right wing candidates (like Brady and Walsh) have been nominated or elected in recent times, but only when the primary field was crowded to the point where the establishment Republicans failed. What were there margins of victory? Under 150 votes for Brady in the primary and less than 300 votes for Walsh in the general.
They were the exceptions to rule.
The Democrats own most of the dysfunction in Illinois. The Republicans have mostly irrelevant for the past dozen years.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 1:40 pm:
Lugar does have a tea party challenger and Club for Growth and that ilk are pouring $$ into the state to knock him off in the primary.
- MidGround - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
Much ado about nothing. Fact is, Sullivan, Frerichs, and Forby will all win reelection and even if the don’t - Democrats will still control the Senate.
Everyone wants to make things more complicated than they really are. Obama will win easily and drag Illinois Democrats with him. Republicans don’t even have a candidate and have literally no chance in defeating Madigan or Cullerton’s minions.
As long as Democrats are left “to do battle” with
a clueless Cross and Randagno they will maintain the driver’s seat! And I don’t care how much cash anyone pours into the hopper!
- bored now - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 2:13 pm:
Son of a Centrist: actually, democrats did horribly in illinois. we lost 4 congressional seats — FOUR — including one to a poorly-funded blowhard that no one took seriously. joe walsh is the poster child for how inept illinois democrats are (i’m willing to concede ineptitude on the part of traditional illinois republicans, too).
since steve brown started this ‘at least we stopped the tea party’ meme, i started comparing illinois’ results to other, similar states in the 2010 elections. because of the dpi’s ineptness, illinois ranks with the swing states in results (not the blue states where most people think it should be). in illinois, democrats lost 6 out of 118 or 5% of the total seats in the ilga, but it lost 4 democratic seats in congress (21% of the seats turned over). in pennsylvania — a traditional swing state — democrats lost 13 out of 203 or 6% of the total seats, while democrats lost 5 out of 19, or 26% of pennsylvania’s seats, in congress.
blue states (elsewhere, the failed democratic party in illinois not counted) did much better. in california, democrats added 2 seats out of 80 and NO democrats lost in congress. now that’s a performance to crow about! even in new york, the state house democrats did better than here where no real democratic party exists! 6 democrats lost in a state house of 150 or 4%, while 5 democrats lost their seats in congress, or 16% of their congressional seats.
when you compare illinois with the states who performed in its statistical area wrt the 2008 presidential, the weakness of illinois’ democratic party becomes obvious: in delaware (the state the did just a little worse than illinois in supporting the president) democrats added 2 seats out of 41 in their state house; democrats gained the congressional seat. in maryland (the state that did just a little better than illinois in supporting the president) democrats lost 6 out of 141 seats or 4%; 1 Democrat lost in congress.
it’s really hard not to jump to the conclusion that illinois’ democrats would have done better if it actually had an active democratic party organization and an active and committed party chair. given the state party activity elsewhere, it’s an even easier conclusion to draw…
- Responsa - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 2:44 pm:
==Much ado about nothing. Fact is, Sullivan, Frerichs, and Forby will all win reelection and even if the don’t - Democrats will still control the Senate.==
Is this supposed to reassure and make everybody feel good? Everybody’s satisfied and really happy with the state legislature while it’s been in Dem hands? Their “control” has brought blessings and prosperity and a bright future for Illinois? It’s all goood, huh?
On a separate note: are Illinois Dems going to prevent Quinn from even running for re-election, or do they intend to get him off the ballot via a strongly funded primary challenge? I raise this because I can almost guarantee that the “weak and incompetent and ineffective” Republicans in Illinois are not going to run the wrong gubernatorial candidate next time.
- reformer - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 2:50 pm:
Very few House Dems who voted for the income tax are vulnerable. All of those in swing districts voted No. Many of the Yes votes retired.
The 2010 election nationally was a historic sweep for the GOP, picking up 700 state legislative seats. Just 8 in the Land of Lincoln. The under-peformance of the state GOP was the story.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 5:55 pm:
Why does everyone forget that Illinois GOP picked up two statewide seats during the last election, Comptroller and Treasurer? Then add Barack Obama’s old seat which went to Kirk. Before that election the Illinois GOP could claim no statewide constitutional offices.
- mz - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 5:57 pm:
It could be that Illinois is a bit behind the curve in terms of the national political climate.
If the Tea Party movement starts to wane, perhaps suburban independents will feel less alienated from the GOP. Plus issues like the tax increase were out there in 2010, but the GOP did not really have a coherent message. 2012 will be about members of the GA hammering the Dems on taxes.
It also seems candidate recruitment is going better than in 2010, not to mention a lot more seats are open.
- Nice kid - Tuesday, Sep 6, 11 @ 7:43 pm:
Bored, the post involved the state ILGA map and those races. The congressional map was drawn with GOP influence and the statewide races are obviously never remapped. Despite the GOP storm of 2010, Madigan and Cullerton were left standing and still held most of the cards to boot. I doubt 2012 will yield a different result.
- bored now - Wednesday, Sep 7, 11 @ 7:25 am:
Nice kid: john fritchey was quoted in the article: “But at the end of the day, it’s hard to argue with the party’s overall success.”
actually, john is wrong. because of madigan’s neglect of the democratic party, illinois’ 2010 results (at EVERY level) fell within that of a highly-contested swing state and not that of a blue state. i get the spin, and brown/madigan rely on the fact that no one in illinois pays attention to what goes on elsewhere. so they (madigan/brown) can pretend that they served as the bulwark against the tea party when (in reality) in real blue states, democrats were winning seats — gaining seats. the tea party picked off the weaker states, not the stronger states.
illinois’ democrats are weak. madigan himself is highly reliant on the advances of the 1970s. i agree with the article, madigan simply doesn’t care…