77 Comments - Try-4-Truth - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:39 pm: It’s fair, but I don’t think very effective. Did anyone in the State of Illinois really believe that the tax would sunset? The damage of the tax increase is done. I don’t think that it will inflict anymore. - William j Kelly - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:40 pm: Now if only the Illinois Republican Party had a candidate that a self respecting human could actually vote for. - Geronimo - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:45 pm: Yes it’s fair. But anyone who actually believes what any politician says to be true is not dealing with a full deck. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:47 pm: How in the world can anyone conclude it is unfair? Looks like the Bustos team and the Quinn team are singing out of the same hymnal. Life is temporary. I think I’ll ask Pat Quinn to make mine permanent. OY. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:47 pm: Is it fair considering the full context? No. However, so many legislators fed the “temporary” thing to the media, that it is legitimate to believe it was temporary. Where things stand today, the truth is that it is temporary. - Very Fed Up - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:49 pm: If there was ever any intention to roll back tax rates plans would of been in place to adjust spending accordingly. To me Quinn is missing an opportunity to be more specific in how he could provide property tax relief with the funds. The perception out there is that he just needs the funds to pay into public pension funds which is not popular. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:49 pm: Voted “Fair”, it’s beyond fair, and is Spot On. Note; As Bruce Rauner hammered and shook the vote to stop making the past level of income tax stay, at least through fiscal 2015, and revisit lowering it as governor, how will a Governor Rauner get his ideal tax “reduction through increasing” strategy through the next General Assembly? Governing …is hard. I hope a Governor Rauner remembers the bluster, and Candidate Rauner’s own history in this, while counting noses. - ChrisB - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:50 pm: It was sold as a temporary tax increase. Whether or not you believe that is a different matter. - Tim Snopes - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:51 pm: Not even close to fair. When did he ever say the words, ” I will never/not support an extension of the tax increase.” If he had said those words, this would be a “read my lips” moment. But it’s not. And for main street media to allow it to be an issue? How immature. - anon - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:51 pm: Quinn left the door open. So no dice for the IRP. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:51 pm: NO ONE Absolutely NO ONE Thought that after four years, our state economy would still need that temporary increase. NO ONE could have imagined that our economy would still struggle, the middle class would continue to lose income and that property values wouldn’t rebound to where they were before. When Quinn made these proposals, he did indeed expect them to be temporary. What he couldn’t have foreseen - but few did - was that Illinois would not recover enough to no longer need those increases. Those are the breaks. - Ahoy! - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:55 pm: I don’t understand how this is an unfair hit at all, therefore, I obviously voted that it’s fair and like Oswego Willy, believe it’s spot on. You might not like the hit, but it’s absolutely fair. - Gooner - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:57 pm: Yes, and it would be effective if Rauner would share with us his ideas as to tax rates. Instead, all I’ve read from Rauner (and people can correct me if I missed something) is a vague plan to reduce income taxes over a number of years. I’ve read no details at all. Tough to make the argument of “tax rates will be at 5% for next year” if you can’t answer “If our guy is elected, tax rates will be at X%.” - Tim Snopes - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:58 pm: It is quite peculiar that the main stream media are not calling on Rauner for supporting a tax increase extension when he has so clearly stated he believes it should be extended. Let’s go one step further. If the tax is extended per Rauner’s suggestion, and the state still needs the revenues after the next extension, will Chairman Schneider go after Rauner for going back on his word? For that matter, why is Schneider not calling out Rauner for already going back on his word? - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 1:59 pm: If you aren’t promising it will be temporary, don’t use the word “temporary” repeatedly. Doesn’t matter if anyone believed you or not. - orzo - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:01 pm: If someone makes two contradictory statements, it’s fair to comment on that. Did he really say that to the Herald? Wow. Why not just say that was our intent, but the state’s financial condition required us to continue to review the issue. - Gator - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:03 pm: Big deal, a politician lied (again). I’m more concerned about the other guy who bankrupted multiple companies and caused some deaths in the process. Rauner’s attacks on Quinn are soooo amateurish. Nothing is sticking. If you can’t find anyhthing to effectively portray Pat Quinn as a buffoon, you probably just stepped foot in Illinois this morning for the first time. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:09 pm: I didn’t vote because I don’t understand the issue. Much of the increase will expire unless it’s extended. Quinn has publicly called on it to be extended. The GA has not done so. If they don’t pass it, Quin can’t sign it. –NO ONE Absolutely NO ONE Thought that after four years, our state economy would still need that temporary increase.– That’s absolute nonsense, no matter how many capital letters you use, and it has nothing to do with the economy. It has to do with funding your pension, VMan. That’s where the tax increase goes. What would you rather do? Go back to shorting the funds year after year? And keep in mind, your crazy 25-year “temporary” income tax on retirement benefits idea (set to expire when you retire, I’m sure) is not an option. It’s just crazy. - wak - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:12 pm: I voted that it is fair but really I think it is only partially fair, it does not appear the Governor ever promised, operative term promised, that it was temporary he just that was the plan and how it was designed and then seems to have refused to promise anything regarding what happens when it is up for expiration. - Mason born - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:12 pm: Absoultely Fair. Quinn made the bed when he stated it would be temporary. You can’t use the promise of “temporary” to help mitigate public opinion and then say it’s unfair to be called on it. Yes most people knew he was lying his keister off. Which coincidently happens to be exactly what the spot is pointing out. Either he lied when he said “temporary or he is lying now when he says he never called it “temporary.” - Tim Snopes - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:18 pm: So if When the GA passed the tax increase that it should have been permanent, would everyone feel better? But since the GA passed a temporary increase, should Quinn have vetoed it and said it should be permanent? Politicians like to put their opponents in a box. - Skirmisher - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:19 pm: Absolutely fair. Quinn was lying when he characterized the increase as “temporary” and virtually everyone knew it at the time. Quinn told the lie, so he gets to wear the collar. But although it is a fair hit, it is also hypocritical because had a republican been in Quinn’s position he would have told precisely the same phony story and everyone knows it. No one these days characterizes a tax increase as permanent. - Tim Snopes - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:22 pm: Oops on the above typos…trying again… So if When the GA passed the temporary tax increase, and Quinn had said it that it should have been permanent, would everyone feel better? But since the GA passed a temporary increase, should Quinn have vetoed it and said it should be permanent? Politicians like to put their opponents in a box. - anon - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:24 pm: Actually, if you want to talk about lying that’s what Bruce Rauner has been doing when asked about this nursing home scandal stuff. - Responsa - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:26 pm: Not only is it a fair hit it is a mandatory hit against Quinn. Unlike many other issues being raised, the “temporary” tax increase affected the pocketbook of nearly every adult living in the state of IL. It was sold as a temporary tax increase. By him. On the record. For him to deny that now is crazy stupid politics on his part. - Sir Reel - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:27 pm: Fair. He said what he said. And it doesn’t matter what Rauner said or says. And it doesn’t matter that the increase should have been permanent. - Keyser Soze - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:27 pm: It is remarkable that some commenters think it fair but then say “but who believes these guys anyway?” Huh? Do I sense cognitive dissonance? Whoever said that you cannot have your own facts hit this one on the noggin. It is what it is, the truth that is. - bored now - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:32 pm: sure it’s a fair hit. but i don’t think anyone thought it was going to be temporary. this verbage was specifically designed to pass the thing at the time, not to be a “campaign promise”… - VM - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:33 pm: How in the world can anyone think this is fair? The claim is that Quinn promised the income tax increase would go away, right? The thing is, it was passed as a temporary increase. That is an accurate description of the law as it stood in 2011. In response to the direct question, will you leave the law (temporary increase) in place, his response is essentially “I don’t know.” (OK, maybe it’s “I won’t tell you.”) Claiming that his (accurate) description of the law is a promise to never change the law is unfair. On the other hand, if the charge was a little different — a tax increase billed as temporary under false pretenses — the attack might be harsh and skewed, but within the bounds of fairness. However, that’s not the attack they chose. They chose to say — pretty much explicitly — “Quinn promised that the tax hike will be temporary.” I don’t see that promise, in fact I see a quote that directly shows he was equivocal about the future of the tax increase. - circularfiringsquad - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:37 pm: Voted Not Fair Since Schneider’s pay master wants the same rate next year as PQ (plus the new sales tax) we would suggest he doesn’t get into a lather. Perhaps a quick lap through the car wash to cool off. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:38 pm: It’s fair, but I guess I’m missing the “hit” here. Read the law. It included a sunset provision, automatically lowering the tax rate from 5% to 3.75%. The fact is that 1.25% was a temporary increase. I don’t know what Quinn told the Daily Herald, but I do know Quinn was pretty upfront last Spring about cancelling the sunset provision and keeping the rate at 5%. In fact, I’m pretty sure the budget he proposed included projected revenue from making the temporary increase a permanent increase. Also, ever since Illinois established the income tax in 1970, each time the rate has been raised it was done as a “temporary” increase. So historically, Illinois leaders from both parties have had some trouble with this. We call it temporary to get it passed, but anyone with a calculator knows the budgets are predicated on those being permanent increases. - Skeptic - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:40 pm: I voted Not Fair because you know the IRP is full of a bunch of lawyers who would, if the roles were reversed, would find a way of parsing the whole thing to twist it the way they wanted. If Law A does something temporary and is replaced by Law B permanently, then is Law A permanent? Nope. (you know a lot like the “It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty” arguement.) Now, that said, you can say that Law A is “effectively” permanent, and also I didn’t believe for one second that the tax rate would go back down. But the “He’s Lying” “No he’s not” argument is just election year noise. - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:45 pm: 47th Ward hits the nail on the head. The law Pat Quinn signed in 2011 included a sunset provision. Pat Quinn did not and does not have the power to unilaterally extend the 5% rate. Therefore, when Pat Quinn signed the law the tax increase was indeed temporary. When asked in 2011 whether he would seek to extend the 5% rate Pat Quinn said: “We’ll deal with one day at a time, one week, one month, one year at a time.” - Joe M - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:46 pm: I voted not fair. Things change. Things don’t always work out as planned. If the IRP has some better alternatives or solutions to balance the current and/or future budget, other than tax hikes, then they should put them forward. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:51 pm: These are really interesting comments. Rationalizing “unfair” has taken on a completely new meaning. It’s a pretty straight forward question. And it only has to do with one guy and one issue with one publication. All I can conclude is that for some of you it’s OK if your guy lies to you. That’s a good position, considering he’ll do it again and again because you not only let him. You encourage him. - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:55 pm: Oh, A guy, give me a break. He left open the door that it might not be permanent. He said it was temporary. That can’t be denied. And it’s a more than fair attack. But give me a break with this lying crap. Your guy has put out numerous lies and I haven’t seen you belly ache about that. - Mason born - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:58 pm: While i understand the arguement that things have changed and the analysis needs to change that is PQ’s job to make the case. It is completely fair of IRP to make the hit. If they can get Quinn to spend time and Money explaining then it becomes a succesful hit. - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:59 pm: Also @A guy, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say that he lied at the time. How in the world do you know he didn’t intend for it to be temporary. Things change. It’s obvious it needs to be extended. Quinn has had the guts to admit that it does. At least he isn’t living in the same fantasyland that Bruce Rauner lives in with his dopey budget plan that somehow magically raises spending while reducing revenue. - wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:01 pm: A Guy, is the 5% rate not scheduled to roll back? Can Quinn unilaterally stop that? The argument is juvenile, anyway. When it comes to laws, everything is temporary, nothing is permanent. Any GA and governor can get together and change them at any time. - Linus - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:02 pm: I voted “fair,” although I largely agree with 47th Ward at 2:38. I don’t think this is really much of a “hit,” and - as others have noted - it’s pretty striking that the media don’t seem to be calling-out Rauner on his own acknowledgement of the need to extend higher, expiring rates a bit longer. Also, to VM’s observation: – NO ONE Absolutely NO ONE Thought that after four years, our state economy would still need that temporary increase.– I guess my new name is NO ONE, and I suspect I’m not at all alone in that regard. - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:02 pm: Excuse me. My prior comment should be that “he left open the door that it might not be temporary” - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:02 pm: Demo, I actually expected OW to drop in that fast with these comments. Your words, “He said it was temporary. That can’t be denied.” Case closed. Question answered. Live on to fight another day on another issue. If you’re willing to die on every hill, you’ll never get to the real battle. I see public employee unions who have been betrayed over and over by the guy that’s able to do it. And they have queued themselves up for it to happen again. This question had nothing to do with anyone else or any other issue. Just this one. And at the moment, 37% believe it’s unfair to hold him accountable for what he said. on tape. several times. Really man? - Illannoyed - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:02 pm: This is a pretty significant unforced error that comes at a bad time for the Quinn campaign. The Quinn campaign wants to press the narrative that Rauner had some dubious business dealings. Instead, the faux paux throws the Quinn campaign on defense by allowing Rauner to question the Governor’s veracity while reminding people how much they don’t trust Springfield and disapprove of the tax increase. - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:04 pm: I remain amused by Bruce Rauner’s stance on this: “If elected, I will ask the General Assembly increase the tax back to 5% so I can be the one to phase it out.” - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:04 pm: ===it’s OK if your guy lies to you.=== Can you help me out? What was the lie exactly? That he said he never promised the income tax would be temporary? He didn’t have to make that promise, the bill he signed made it temporary. Heck I remember Quinn asking for a 4% rate. The General Assembly rejected that and sent him a bill hiking it to 5% (and sunsetting all by .75% of the increase). Then, as the time neared for the tax rate to sunset, Quinn called for extending it. It was in all the papers, including the Daily Herald. Maybe I’m dense today, but my reaction to the GOP statement is, “so what?” Where is the lie? - Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:04 pm: @A guy: No answer to my assertion that you called Quinn a liar while giving your own guy a pass on his obvious lies? At least be honest in the discussion @A guy. You risk being relegated to Raunerbot land if you can’t at least be honest. You are failing the honesty test right now. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:04 pm: ===wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:01 pm: A Guy, is the 5% rate not scheduled to roll back? YES Can Quinn unilaterally stop that? NO The argument is juvenile, anyway. When it comes to laws, everything is temporary, nothing is permanent. Any GA and governor can get together and change them at any time. YOUR PRINCIPLE ARGUMENT IS WITH THE PERSON WHO POSED THE QUESTION, NOT ME. I AM, HOWEVER HAPPY TO ANSWER YOURS. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:08 pm: === Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 2:59 pm: Also @A guy, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say that he lied at the time. ==== Demo, I believe the Daily Herald is saying that his lie is now. - Living in Machiaville - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:09 pm: Quinn was using the old “bait and switch”. Quinn should be called on it of course. Did he think at the time it would be temporary, no flipping way. So he lied. What standard does he want to be held to? I suggest the Blago standard. Fair enough? - zatoichi - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:09 pm: It’s a fair hit because he did use the words ‘temporary’ multiple times related to the income tax hike. He also said during the budget addresses: here are recommended and not-recommended financial options with detailed likely outcomes for both sides. The GA did not go with the recommended route. As 47 says the 3.75% is in the law. Split the semantics any way you want of who said what on which day, reality remains there are huge bills to pay, not enough cash, and gigantic ripple effects regardless of what gets done. What goes away and what stays? Focusing on the fact that Quinn used ‘temporary’ simply ignores the hungry gorilla in the corner. - JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:11 pm: Fair as it gets. He/they sold it as temporary, I doubt there were many people that believed it would be at that time, but that is exactly how it was presented. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:11 pm: ===You risk being relegated to Raunerbot land==== Can you say with absolute honesty, there is such a place, Demo? - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:12 pm: Any Republican member of the General Assembly who whines about Senate Bill 16 and simultaneously refuses to extend the 5% rate is guilty of far worse than what Pat Quinn is accused of in this post. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:16 pm: Wow Mr. White, any other legislation you want to throw into that argument or just this SB 16? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:16 pm: - A Guy… -, I was letting it fester out there… The reality is being a Raunerbot… ===All I can conclude is that for some of you it’s OK if your guy lies to you. That’s a good position, considering he’ll do it again and again because you not only let him. You encourage him.=== …is delicious irony with your Dopey statement and it reminds me…your defense of “your guy”..,is either lemming-like ignorance..,or willfully “adding sugar”, as you have said you do when you don’t like the answer you need to give. The idea that “your guy” is attacking this is fair… The idea that “your guy” has a plan to raise back the rate to lower it, while stopping the sun setting is just a reminder that Rauner is not ready to govern. I read what you commented. I was shocked you wanted to talk about lying, lol - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:17 pm: Nope, I’d good with SB16 for now . . . - Skeptic - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:19 pm: “The Stevenson Expressway will end.” (500 miles later) “Hey, you said the Stevenson Expressway will end!” “Yes, it did. You’re on I-55 now.” - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:24 pm: I’m sorry Willie, was there another question I missed up top, or is your pontification merely Oswegoese? - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:26 pm: == Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:17 pm: Nope, I’m good with SB16 for now . . .==== Alrighty then. I’ll pass your thoughts up the line. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:29 pm: ===I’m sorry Willie, was there another question I missed up top, or is your pontification merely Oswegoese?=== You basically call me out git not responding to your Dopiness, I then respond… and you reply…that? What is your point? - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:36 pm: Thanks, A guy . . . Also tell the guys upstairs: If we add ~$470 million to the education budget, the cuts in SB16 can go away. As was stated by CHSD 99: == SB 16 is modeled after an effort in Massachusetts. Their General Assembly provided $1 billion in new money. There is no new money in SB16. This legislation is a redistribution of current resources. == A willingness to add revenue to school funding is inherently intertwined with the SB16 issue. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:42 pm: Relax Willie. I didn’t “call you out”. I merely expressed surprise that Demo jumped in so fast where you’d normally be, saying what you’d normally say. You tell me regularly that Rauner’s a liar, no integrity, no ethics, no principles, etc, etc. Then you extend those attributes to me. I think in the world of politics (not bean bag sez you) all kinds of things get said by incumbents and challengers alike. Then they try to finesse the answers as cleverly as possible. Challengers are especially more likely to say what they’d do, because they don’t have the onus of actually doing it. Many times they’re operating on a theory rather than practical experience. Sometimes they have a great idea that the lumberjacks in the forest just can’t or won’t see. My point is that they may take too much advantage of political poetic license. The incumbents have an advantage of saying what they’ve tried and couldn’t get to work. They too dabble in political poetic license a great deal of the time. This argument above is between a Governor and a newspaper that taped an interview. He’s telling the press something different than they already know. My guess is that the DH was predisposed to supporting PQ. Now, they have a pretty big dilemma, don’t they? This isn’t some beat reporter (although it is one tweeting), it’s the editorial board he’s telling that he didn’t say something they’ve got him on tape saying. Odd place to play a semantic game, no? Could’ve cost him. I’ve never predicted anything beyond a close race here. Today’s lesson is how to do something to help you lose a close race. Rauner’s turn in the barrel will come with the DH. Hopefully he learned something from today’s experience. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:47 pm: Got it Mr. White. Good analysis. (serious) First smart research team that finds 470M could wind up being heroic. It doesn’t seem impossible. But you’ve identified the right equation. - Peoria guy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:49 pm: Fair. - DuPage Bard - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:52 pm: I thought the tollway was “temporary”? - Jerry Hubbard - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 3:58 pm: If the Rauner camp puts a TV ad out about this, it will be effective. This is even worse than Bustos’ misstep about the 10% pay cut. Many of you may disagree with me on that, but here’s my reasoning… Her failure to give back $17,500 (approx. 10% of her annual salary) translates to just 9 cents per household. QUINN’s failure to take that extra revenue (a week’s pay from each taxpayer, a family that earns $50K, has been separated from $1,000 of their hard earned income, and given to a guy with no business sense) for 4 YEARS to use the money wisely to pay down our state’s debt, while at the same time driving out people and businesses that produce an economic value in this state. Quinn sold it as TEMPORARY. Whoopsie, we still need your money! Sorry! Makes me mad as hell…not gonna take it anymore! - MrJM - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:01 pm: Fair. – MrJM - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:08 pm: ===He’s telling the press something different than they already know. === And… ===This isn’t some beat reporter (although it is one tweeting), it’s the editorial board he’s telling that he didn’t say something they’ve got him on tape saying.=== I adamantly adamantly agree! You said… ===All I can conclude is that for some of you it’s OK if your guy lies to you. That’s a good position, considering he’ll do it again and again because you not only let him. You encourage him.=== So, you’re advocate lying if you can get away with it, but if they have you on tape bald face lying, you are not cool with that… …and “your guy” seems to do that constantly, but on that, you defend him, I can question your own hypocrisy, considering you are making a point, ethically, that calling Quinn out is “fair” but your rationale for “your guy” … isn’t. - A guy... - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:20 pm: No. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:25 pm: I think what no one can believe is that given four years, legislators couldn’t find a solution to the state’s pension funding problem that was constitutional, nor could they find agreement on additional revenue. Lawmakers found pretty widespread agreement on program cuts. But from a revenue respect at least, economic growth has been fairly spot on. Am I correct, Schnorf? - walker - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:33 pm: It is “fair” to criticize Quinn as labeling this increase as “temporary” in general communications. It is absolutely wrong and “unfair” to claim Quinn deliberately “lied” to the voters, and didn’t have a plan by which the tax increase could sunset on time. Quinn put forth at that time a five-part plan, that included the tax increase, statutory spending ceilings, debt restructuring, pension reforms, and an achievable economic forecast for the general state recovery. If all parts were passed and worked on time, then the numbers worked and the tax increase could sunset on time. To say he didn’t have a plan that could have worked fiscally is wrong. In fact the first piece was passed, the second piece passed, the debt restructuring was foolishly blocked in the legislature, pension reforms were partly passed but mostly legally delayed (or killed), and the recovery was somewhat (not a lot) slower than the original forecast. That was true across the US. Why still a “fair” criticism IMO? Because it was too optimistic to think that all these things would actually occur on time. The more prudent statement would be that the tax increase would likely have to be extended (as Rauner now plans), and be publicly called “permanent.” Then if things really got better as planned, it could still be removed on time. I held out for “permanent” labeling at the time, thinking the fiscal forecast held too much risk. Others said that was politically naïve. I finally voted Yes, because we simply had to have an increase at that time, as virtually everyone who could add and subtract realized. - Bill White - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:35 pm: This should not be overlooked: . . . the debt restructuring was foolishly blocked in the legislature . . . - Esteban - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 4:39 pm: It was sold as “temporary” with an expiration date. That doesn’t sound like anything but a temporary tax hike to me. - Wensicia - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 5:21 pm: Fair doesn’t cover this. It was a good hit. - Anon - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 6:54 pm: I agree with walker that it was a mistake to make the tax hike temporary in the first place. It was pretty clear by Jan. 2011 that the state would not be able to forego the revenue hike in four years. Now the state faces a budget crisis starting Jan. 1, and there is no clear fix in sight. - sal-says - Thursday, Sep 25, 14 @ 8:25 pm: Fair / not fair? Times change over the years. If ‘fair’, what’s the irp solution ??? - Eric - Friday, Sep 26, 14 @ 9:12 am: Very Fair.. Why have a sunset date in the “BILL” if temporary does not actually mean temporary? Out of the, what 30 plus billion extra monies from the temporary tax hike, only 10% went to what Quinn said it was going to be allocated against. The severely abused temporary tax increase is proof that the IL gov’t can not be trusted and ought to find more ways to cut spending to make up the 1.5% they will no longer have. http://www.illinoispolicy.org/policy_posts/illinois-31-6-billion-tax-hike-where-did-the-money-go/ Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.