|
Hoist with their own petard
Monday, Nov 17, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller * From Peoria…
I tend to side with Gov. Quinn on this issue, but with a big caveat. * In hindsight, which is always 20/20, the lame duck income tax hike bill was terribly flawed. Yes, the state was facing a “catastrophe” without those revenues. But the bill itself was poorly thought out, mainly because it was thrown together in such haste. A big problem, one even admitted to by Senate President John Cullerton, is that the tax was set to expire in the middle of a fiscal year. The thought at the time was that they could use the threat of looming cuts to overcome 2014 campaign objections about the tax itself. But killing off much of the tax hike in mid-stream caused some real budgetary problems. And, of course, the threat of looming cuts never really worked. * And that brings us to the second big problem: Hubris. The initial step-down from 5 to 3.75 is so big and so sudden that it can’t easily (or even possibly) be absorbed, leading many to figure that the “temporary” aspect was all a ruse from the start. It probably was a ruse, but they could’ve at least started with some baby steps, say half a point every year or two, just in case their plan didn’t work and the Democrats didn’t hold onto the governor’s mansion. Instead, we now have a huge fiscal crisis facing this state and no politically easy way out of it. * The lesson here is that bills with massive impact need to be more carefully considered. Yes, I know that the harsh political calculus often works against that. You come up with something you can pass and then pass it before the bottom falls out. But that calculus depends on rank and file members trusting that their leaders have concocted the right approach. The income tax hike clearly shows that the Democratic leadership utterly failed to do that. The Speaker is often praised for looking at every possible angle before making a move. But he obviously didn’t do that here, and neither did Cullerton and Quinn. As always, they figured they were smarter than everyone else, and it turned out this time that they weren’t. /rant
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:26 am:
If you are going to make it temporary, I actually think they did the revenue hike the right way.
A new general assembly and a new governor will make their mark.
Lawmakers are generally averse to voting to creating new revenue for someone else to spend.
That is true in Illinois, in other states, at city councils and in Congress.
If anyone made a mistake, it was Quinn, who never should have demanded the hike be temporary in the first place.
- too obvious - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:28 am:
LaHood should get the law changed if he thinks a quarter of a term should be to do nothing.
But let’s face it the gop caucus is worthless year round.
- Secret Square - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:33 am:
As a side note: a “petard” was a small explosive device commonly used in the 16th and 17th centuries for things like blowing gates or doors open. So when Shakespeare used the line “hoist with his own petard” in “Hamlet,” he meant “blown sky-high with a bomb that he made/planted himself.” Which, come to think of it, is an appropriate analogy for a lot of our fiscal woes…
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:37 am:
LaHood’s hypocrisy will not be tested for a while but, had any legislation been of to his liking he would not be complaining. On the occasions that I have been in his presence he has not impressed me. He lacks vision and his message is typically along the lines of “it isn’t my fault, I am in the minority party”.
- Tim Snopes - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:45 am:
Give Par Quinn credit for his honesty this past spring session. He wanted to extend the rates last spring. Open. Honest.
Now everyone wants to whine about the lame duck session. Do you think those same brave hearts who refused to support the extension last spring will support a newly minted disingenuous Rauner plan? No way.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:51 am:
Lahood has a solution to a problem. The problem is the cowardice of some to ever make a tough vote.
The 13th amendment passed the U.S. House in a lame-duck session, after failing to get the necessary two-thirds a few months earlier. That had some far-reaching consequences. Would Lahood apply his “principles” there?
- Concerned - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:52 am:
Maybe Madigan was smart–planted a petard that any new Governor would have to diffuse and own. Quinn would have been happy to do that for the sake of the State’s fiscal condition (with Madigan’s help) and now Rauner will have to own a tax increase. Perhpas Madigan was smart like a fox!
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:52 am:
Secret Square -
“petard” has a double meaning in Shakespeare and even now.
The word comes from the French meaning “to break wind.”
Shakespeare was a bawdy fellow, and he wrote for everyday audiences.
- goose/gander - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:57 am:
i wonder whether rauner supports this legislattion? only if he can act decisively through executive orders……except that he can’t. lots of things have been done in lame duck sessions, death penalty abolition anyone? wasn[t white sox park a lame duck deal? this idea makes great sense if you are going to be part of a permanent minority but not if you expect to govern.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 9:58 am:
Hindsight is 20/20!
No one expected our economy to still suck seven years after the Recession. No one expected we would still be seeing such poor job numbers. No one expected our national economy to still be barely breathing.
It wasn’t the least odd to pass a temporary tax hike when we’ve always had an economic rebound that brought in the tax revenue to offset it’s expiration.
The problem wasn’t it being temporary. The problem was that our economy still stinks. What we’ve been dealing with economically is long-term flat-line growth. We are today in 2014, barely recovered from what we’ve lost in 2008-2009.
No one foresaw our economic malaise lasting this long, so no one really imagined that we would have needed that 5% income tax hike by the time it expired.
Or, at least to have had our economy grow well enough that by the time we had a governor suggest that the temporary tax hike be made permanent, voters would have had enough confidence to support that extension. That is what happened when Edgar made the temporary tax hike permanent during his administration. Remember?
It isn’t all about political maneuvering or communication. It is also about everything else. If voters are still feeling frightened by our economic situation, they will no be in a position to favor losing more of their wages in taxes. Voters are not seeing an increase in their economic power - the opposite has happened. Consequently, they are not in a similar mood as back in the early 1990s after that decade’s earlier 1991 recession.
Expecting a repeat of what we saw twenty five years ago, isn’t realistic.
No one imagined that we would be still depending on that 5% - back when it was passed during lame duck session.
We are in a worse situation than we seem to be willing to admit today.
- goose/gander - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:00 am:
wow Word, that was good!
- 47th Ward - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:18 am:
===Hindsight is 20/20===
In your case VanillaMan, the benefit of hindsight doesn’t apply because you’re dead wrong about everything in that post.
Edgar campaigned in 1990 to keep the temporary tax, well before the recession hit bottom and started recovering. It was a gutsy move and Hartigan almost beat him because of it but it was the right call and it enabled Edgar to govern effectively.
Prior to raising the income tax “temporarily” in 2010, a structural deficit existed in Illinois, regardless of the economic situation. We were spending more than we were taking in, and shorting the pension funds to make ends meet. That began well before the Democrats took the Mansion, and well before the economy went into the tank.
The fact is, in order to meet the state’s obligations, including to its pension funds, the income tax needed to be raised. Calling it temporary was a cynical, goofy gimmick that never should have been considered.
Your attempt to re-write history to align better with whatever fantasy is going through your mind is weak and people here have long memories. Everyone who voted for the 5% income tax knew it needed to remain permanent.
The economic recovery has been slower than expected, that much is true. But a faster economic recovery was never going to repair the structural imabalance inherent in our state’s budget problem, it was never going to generate enough money to make the full pension payment and pay back what has been borrowed from the pensions for so many years. Period.
- Dave - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:26 am:
>>>”The initial step-down from 5 to 3.75 is so big and so sudden that it can’t easily (or even possibly) be absorbed…”
- walker - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:28 am:
VanillaMan: You’ve got part of it right, and it’s an important part.
During the decision process on the tax increase, a roadmap was shared by which it might be able to be temporary, that included a (COGFA?)long-term revenue forecast which was conservative and based on history, but still turned out to be overly optimistic.
Other key parts of that plan, like debt restructuring, did not come to fruition because of partisan legislative blockage. What was within the Governor’s power to do, Quinn did.
At the time, a few Dems argued for “permanent” labeling as more realistic, with the opportunity to lower it when available. Others did not trust that route.
- Ducky LaMoore - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:38 am:
Long seen as a do-nothing, Senator Lahood finally finds the motivation to propose a bill that can make everyone as unproductive as he is.
- RNUG - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:45 am:
- 47th Ward - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:18 am:
Actually, the first Gov after the 1970 Constitution to short the pension system funding was Dan Walker (D). See IFT v Lindberg case.
THAT was the root of all the pension funding problem. Yes, Edgar contributed to it with the backend loaded 1995 “ramp” bill. Blago made it worse with his pension holiday / borrowing / repayment scheme.
Today we are paying for the sins of most the Gov’s since 1972.
- walker - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:01 am:
47th ward: Your points are well-taken.
One of the magic beans in the mix in 2010, that could justify this being actually “temporary” was a proposed pension “reform” that would have significantly slowed the growth in pension obligations. That forecast has also proven to be wrong.
Those who wished that the tax increase somehow could be temporary, did grasp at the straws that were floated.
Enough history. The truth remains that given our tax structure, the state income tax is probably at the correct rate now, to sustain our public needs and obligations. The lesson might be not to continue to grasp at myths, and unlikely future decisions.
- AFSCME Steward - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:03 am:
Senator Lahood
Would you be in favor of this concept if the GOP was in the majority?
- A guy... - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:07 am:
Nobody outside of government likes Lame Duck legislation at any level of government. I would argue that fiscal issues took such a huge place in this cycle that given appropriate time in districts to have open houses and town halls to garner good support for a solution that might include a plan to reduce rates over a longer period of time. Rich is absolutely right. I would add that by nature, lame duck legislation is almost always a hasty effort.
- Dave - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:28 am:
Let me try again:
>>>”The initial step-down from 5 to 3.75 is so big and so sudden that it can’t easily (or even possibly) be absorbed…”
It must be pointed out that initial step-up from 3 to 5 percent was equally sudden and more radical for Illinois families. If anyone thinks that the majority of Illinois taxpayers were able to “easily” absorb the tax increase — which was equivalent to the loss of a week’s pay — he/she is out of touch with reality.
Illinois government is here to serve the people, and not vice versa. The priority of our lawmakers as they return to Springfield should be on tax relief for Illinois families instead of funding irresponsible spending.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:32 am:
@RNUG- at the time the 1970 Constitution was ratified the pensions were funded at 40-42% of obligations. The gist of what you are saying is spot on, I only add that it was going on much, much longer.
- RNUG - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:06 pm:
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:32 am:
Totally correct about the funding re 1970 and earlier. The point was that the authors of the pension clause hoped it would cause future Govs and GA’s to be responsible about the funding. Walker and that GA session blew a hole in it almost immediately.
- But... - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:45 pm:
When the tax was increased from 3% to 5%, there was a corresponding decrease in the Social Security tax from 6.2% to 4.2% so most Illinois families did not feel the increase. (At least initially, the SS tax was eventually increased back up to 6.2%)
- VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:09 pm:
Everyone who voted for the 5% income tax knew it needed to remain permanent.
Not true. They might have wanted it to be permanent, but they didn’t believe it would have become needed. There were a lot of Democrats pressured to make it permanent that stuck with their original promise when it was passed. They might have wanted it kept, but they recognized that making it permanent after not seeing the economic rebound originally expected, would threaten their constituent’s budgets so also threatened their reelection chances.
- JS Mill - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:27 pm:
@RNUG- Well put, very much in agreement.
Another take away is that the governor’s and legislatures have proven, over time, that they will ignore the constitution and statutes as it suits them.
- anon - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:44 pm:
== Everyone who voted for the 5% income tax knew it needed to remain permanent.==
Agreed! I felt at the time it was a mistake to make temporary a funding source we knew needed to be permanent. At 47th said, the deficit and the unfunded pension liability were so huge that normal economic growth would take half a century or more to bail the state out.
Sen. LaHood: Do you also condemn the lame-duck GOP legislature that in 1997 took away voter choice to cast a straight party ballot with one punch??
- Demoralized - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:46 pm:
==The priority of our lawmakers as they return to Springfield should be on tax relief for Illinois families instead of funding irresponsible spending.==
That’s a nice talking point but you offer very little substance. Which “irresponsible spending” do you want to get rid of to plug the multi-billion budget hole? And don’t give me the “waste, fraud and abuse” crap.
Which do you want cut:
Medicaid
Education
Pension Payments
Social Programs
Prisons
Those are the big items. So which irresponsible spending is it?
- anon - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:08 pm:
We’ll see if the Representative continues to talk that way after Gov. Rauner introduces his budget. I have the feeling that he and his colleagues will undergo a rapid reality check on state finances now that a GOP governor will demand their support.
- VanillaMan - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:12 pm:
The priority of our lawmakers as they return to Springfield should be on tax relief for Illinois families instead of funding irresponsible spending.
The priorities haven’t changed. Quinn lost. Everyone else got reelected. Expect the same.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:02 pm:
VMan is already positioning himself to avoid any positive contribution.
How are you not a GOP candidate for the GA?
Seriously, dude, do you have no thoughts at all about moving the ball forward within the constitutional system? A young risk- taker like yourself, resigned to have your vision just be the scrape off Virginia’s shoes?
- cover - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:21 pm:
Wordslinger @ 9:51 am:
= The 13th amendment passed the U.S. House in a lame-duck session, after failing to get the necessary two-thirds a few months earlier. =
One major difference between a lame-duck Congress and a lame-duck Illinois General Assembly is the number of votes required to pass a bill. The passage thresholds never change in DC. In Illinois, a bill with an immediate effective date would require a 3/5 margin either in overtime (past midnight June 1) or during veto session. In the lame-duck, only a simple majority is required. This allows some non-ducks to stay off controversial bills, thus avoiding negative mailers or even a primary challenge come next election cycle.
- cover - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:27 pm:
= wasn’t white sox park a lame duck deal =
Goose/gander, that was actually an overtime-that-wasn’t session, the Speaker unplugged the clock to avoid triggering the 3/5 requirement of an overtime session. If memory serves, that bill actually passed sometime after 3 am on July 1, 1988 (a few years before the Constitution was amended to move the session deadline to the end of May), but was recorded as having passed on June 30.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:29 pm:
Cover, seriously, who cares? You’re elected for a term. There’s no double-secret probation.
LaHood keeps throwing out red meat to the crazies to protect his right flank because his old man worked for Obama. End of story.
- cover - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:47 pm:
Word, I’m not defending Sen. LaHood’s position, but I think it’s worthwhile to note that a lame-duck session provides a greater opportunity in Illinois than in Congress. I agree that a term is a term, it shouldn’t end prematurely. If Sen. LaHood is serious about ending lame-duck sessions, he should introduce a constitutional amendment to seat a new General Assembly in December, while the 3/5 majority is still needed for bills with an immediate effective date. That wouldn’t stop all legislative action by lame ducks, but it’s definitely not easy to muster a 3/5 vote - even Speaker Madigan can’t make that happen at will.
- Mighty M. Mouse - Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 6:28 pm:
===The Speaker is often praised for looking at every possible angle before making a move. But he obviously didn’t do that here, and neither did Cullerton and Quinn.===
Quinn wanted the tax hike to be permanent but Madigan and Cullerton wouldn’t agree, so I don’t think Quinn deserves criticism for the decision to make it temporary.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 6:04 am:
If someone examined the record, we might find that, taken as a whole, the bills passed in lame ducks are more responsible than legislation passed in the regular session.
They are passed in the lame duck because they are bills that are controversial, but necessary. As long as the number of backbones in the Capitol is smaller than the number of legislators we will continue to have important bills passed in the lame duck.
There is more irresponsible legislation passed before the election than after.
Anyone who thinks we can have a responsible budget without an extension of the tax increase will be in for a rude awakening if Rauner lives up to his original promise to get rid of it.