Can someone explain to me why we have an SOTS and a Budget Address? If I’m naive, please forgive me, but I don’t get the idea of having what has evolved into a good news speech and a bad news speech.
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
Comcast seems to be lost in the past in regards to today’s budget address. Their info for the channel says “Budget Address (2005) Gov. Rod Blagojevich delivers the state budget address.”
Lo and behold here’s Rich Miller on the screen talking about Gov. Quinn’s address!
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?
Spending Caps…..nice touch. This is something the GOP demanded during the last tax increase & we’re smart enough to realize they set the limits way too high.
- A modest proposal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:25 pm:
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?”
Oy. The speech was fine but Quinn just opened himself up big time to the tax-and-spend rhetoric that Rauner loves to bandy about. Never hand a sledgehammer to a rich guy who loves TV commercials.
Talk about digging a hole to kick off your campaign.
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:
OldDog:
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.
Yeah. i was just looking at the difference in the income tax line item. I compared the “not recommended” to the recommended by the governor for income tax only.
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.
- Empty Chair - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 11:56 am:
Can someone explain to me why we have an SOTS and a Budget Address? If I’m naive, please forgive me, but I don’t get the idea of having what has evolved into a good news speech and a bad news speech.
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:02 pm:
Comcast seems to be lost in the past in regards to today’s budget address. Their info for the channel says “Budget Address (2005) Gov. Rod Blagojevich delivers the state budget address.”
Lo and behold here’s Rich Miller on the screen talking about Gov. Quinn’s address!
- Saluki59 - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:03 pm:
Incestuous den of vipers
- MrJM - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:04 pm:
Doing a shot every time Pat says “the People of Illinois”.
See you in April.
– MrJM
- So. ILL - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:09 pm:
nervous or out of breath from the walk down the plank?
- Union Man - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:10 pm:
The snakes are all assembled on the stage!! Now the bite!
- Just a Citizen - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
Not related at all to the budget address, but Happy Birthday Rich! Sorry the budget address comes on your day this year.
- Anon - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:12 pm:
Um, we cut the use of pagers? Aren’t they obsolete?
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:14 pm:
250,000 private sector jobs? Not what Rauner is saying.
- Saluki59 - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:16 pm:
Funny how kids, seniors and mentally ill are always first ones to be affected by budget cuts.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:16 pm:
Here comes the income tax…
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:16 pm:
Added 250,000 new private sector jobs.
- A guy... - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:17 pm:
It’s just too painful to watch live. Can you ask again tomorrow Rich?
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:18 pm:
No new unfair tax burdens.Won’t tax retirement.
- Y-man - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:18 pm:
Quinn won’t tax dogs or seniors…his two bases of support.
- Saluki59 - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:18 pm:
Don’t think he could tax social security benefits anyway. One of those federal things.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:18 pm:
Read my lips. No new taxes…yikes.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:19 pm:
I am the great and powerful Quinn!!
- Saluki59 - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:20 pm:
Define “permanent”
- Nearly Normal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:21 pm:
Property tax relief = income tax increase becomes permanent?
- A guy... - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
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?
- Saluki59 - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:22 pm:
Quinn quoting Reagan and Edgar? I’m confused.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
Invoked “Edgar, 1997″
That Edgar was a popular governor…
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:25 pm:
Spending Caps…..nice touch. This is something the GOP demanded during the last tax increase & we’re smart enough to realize they set the limits way too high.
- A modest proposal - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:25 pm:
It’s a populist proposal…
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:26 pm:
Sorry I meant to say……weren’t smart enough to realize they set the limits way too high.
- Itsmyopinion - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:28 pm:
It’s a better speech than I expected. He’s doing a good job. No references to American Eagles……yet.
- Union Man - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:30 pm:
Same crap. Higher taxes, spending caps, help schools and seniors. He cannot get anything done without the two sharks behind him!
- MIghty M. Mouse - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:33 pm:
It’s the best speech I ever heard him give.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:33 pm:
And we’re done.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:34 pm:
Wow. Pretty short for Quinn…
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:38 pm:
See my post at 10:33 on the fact check thread.
Credit to Team Quinn for emphasizing PRIVATE sector job growth.
- SAP - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:39 pm:
==Invoked “Edgar, 1997″
That Edgar was a popular governor…==
Trying to scoop up the voters who supported Dillard in the primary.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:40 pm:
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.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:40 pm:
The react will be interesting.
Do you go typical talking points? Go and react to income tax and Edgar?
What is going to get the best soundbite?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:43 pm:
lol
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 12:54 pm:
===Credit to Team Quinn for emphasizing PRIVATE sector job growth.===
It’s working YDD. Good job, now just type louder so they don’t miss anything.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:07 pm:
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:
Sorry, the post at 1:07 pm was me.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:11 pm:
I find it beneficial to my mental health not to listen to any more of Gov. Quinn’s “speeches”.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:13 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.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:13 pm:
Sorry, I meant IS in the cards.
- Downstater - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:13 pm:
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?”
- Jorge - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:17 pm:
Quinn, ” I just need a little more time?”
It doesn’t matter who is governor. Our fiscal situation is going to take years to fix. Unless Rauner is going to bail out the state himself.
- Toure's Latte - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:23 pm:
Oy. The speech was fine but Quinn just opened himself up big time to the tax-and-spend rhetoric that Rauner loves to bandy about. Never hand a sledgehammer to a rich guy who loves TV commercials.
Talk about digging a hole to kick off your campaign.
- Archimedes - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:26 pm:
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.
- Wally - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:28 pm:
Let’s see, Pat has had 5-6 years and Blago had 5 years. Obama has had 5 years.
How much more time do these sterling leaders and managers want??????
- Anon - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:28 pm:
Can Madigan get to 60, given his targets and his conservatives (Franks, etc) who will vote no?
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:29 pm:
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.
- Bill White - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:32 pm:
Per a Rich Miller tweet
Madigan and Cullerton “on board” for income tax extension.
https://twitter.com/capitolfax/status/448885348371009537
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:32 pm:
47th Ward -
With luck, someone will follow up on Rich’s column Friday, and I won’t have to type louder.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:34 pm:
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.
- Gene Debs - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:37 pm:
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.
- PMcP - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:42 pm:
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.”
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 1:53 pm:
@david starrett
***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.
- DuPage - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 2:58 pm:
steve schnorf@ 1:53
I think your right, not 97, it was 93.
- Johnson's Corner - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 3:13 pm:
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.
- Johnson's Corner - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 3:17 pm:
I meant “Pension”. There was an error in my typing.
- archimedes - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 3:18 pm:
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.
- Gene Debs - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 3:21 pm:
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.
- TCB - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 3:26 pm:
archimedes,
The difference in revenue for FY15 is about $3.64B and the difference in FY16 is about $6.81B
Check out the Governor’s website, it includes both scenarios (tax increase expires or extends) on both revenue/expenditure for the next 5 years.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 4:05 pm:
We spend more and more per pupil every year for education and all politicians say is we need more revenue. How about real educational reform.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 4:08 pm:
===How about real educational reform.===
What does that even mean? Enlighten us professor, what exactly would you reform to make public education better and less expensive?
- olddog - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 4:18 pm:
@ 47th Ward –
===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:
OldDog:
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.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 4:37 pm:
Thanks olddog, you might be right, but who knows?
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?
- olddog - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 5:00 pm:
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.
- Archimedes - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 5:36 pm:
Tcb,
Yeah. i was just looking at the difference in the income tax line item. I compared the “not recommended” to the recommended by the governor for income tax only.
- Mokenavince - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 7:21 pm:
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…!
- Donkey Dem - Wednesday, Mar 26, 14 @ 8:33 pm:
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
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 27, 14 @ 6:03 am:
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.