86 Comments - Toure's Latte - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:19 am: Here we go. Everyone have their popcorn? - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:20 am: Protection from the unions? Oh please… People need protection from the government. - walker - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:24 am: ===”the right not to pay tribute to union bosses”=== Oh, so that’s what this is all about. The circus has come to town. - Aldyth - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:25 am: National Right to Work for a Whole Lot Less Money and Benefits With Fewer Personal Rights might be a more accurate name for the organization. - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:26 am: When people ask me about rallies at the Statehouse I’ve seen, I always point to the largest one I’ve seen being when Daniels was running the Scaffolding Act legislation through the House. I think I may see some just as large this year. Hope SOS guys are ready for the Big Show. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:28 am: === I always point to the largest one I’ve seen being=== Dwarfed by the 1982 right to work protest. - Archiesmom - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:32 am: One word: orchestrated. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:33 am: ===Hope SOS guys are ready for the Big Show.=== If the Big Show happens, Rauner wins. Don’t boo him, you’ll make him a hero. Laugh at him and show the state why he’s a clown. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:41 am: Funny thing. Unionized Public Employee groups always claim they’re paid less than their non-unionized private sector brethren, yet when Right to Work legislation is proposed to empower public employees the same right as the “higher paid” private sector workers to negotiate on their own behalf, they claim doing things the private culture’s way is for “less wages and benefits” LOL Be consistent in your arguments, folks…either the right to negotiate on your own behalf gets better results for the workers in the private sector, or the unionized public employee system makes for higher wages and benefits. For gosh sakes, CHOOSE ONE! - Give Me A Break - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:46 am: Wish I had seen the 82 one, but was tied up at SSU trying figure out why Larry Golden was trying to make my head explode in Con. Law. - The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:47 am: Average middle class workers who support “right to work” would be like being lead to the gallows and saying to your executioner, that rope looks heavy, can I carry it for you for a while. If Rauner and those who think like him are ultimately successful in accomplishing their objective, which is the end of Unions in this country, salaries will decease, working conditions will worsen, and workers will have no recourse to having their grievances heard. Rauner says he is concerned about workers being treated unfairly by having to pay those fair share dues. Trust me, he’s not doing this for that reason. - walker - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:50 am: AB: For gosh sakes try to make some sense. You know that the economics of private sector wages and public sector wages differ, because sales revenues are not taxes, and spending them have different restraints and expectations. Try comparing identical jobs in the private sector, between union and non-union shops, and you will see that unionized employees regularly make more. - cimry90 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:50 am: Will we look back on the election of Rauner as when the middle class in Illinois “jumped the shark”? - Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:50 am: Oy vey. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:53 am: We could talk about who funds the large Right-to-Work organizations, but they do not disclose their donors. I wonder why? Could it be that disclosing massive financial backing from billionaires would show that their “long history of assisting employees seeking to exercise their Right to Work rights” has an ulterior motive? - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:54 am: ==Dwarfed by the 1982 right to work protest== Maybe the goal is just what is happening. Make this fight bigger than Illinois, make his name bigger than Illinois. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:55 am: Spot on Arizona Bob. Problem is people don’t like to admit they’re overpaid and that they achieve these inflated wages/benefits through group/political manipulation. So, as you point out, they claim in one breath they’re underpaid and the second their monopoly hold on labor is threatened the truth begins to come out in their next breath. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:01 pm: Econ Prof You overpaid? If not, why not? It amazes me the glee that people get when talking about how much SOMEBODY ELSE is overpaid and that those SOMEBODY ELSE’S wages should be cut. It’s utterly disgusting. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:03 pm: Bob: You’re incredibly naive if you think that there would be any individual bargaining for wages or other benefits in the public sector (at least in Illinois government). The state doesn’t bargain with people not in the union. Ask any non-union member how many times they’ve asked for wage increases and see what they say. They all can’t be bad workers, so that’s not the reason. The state ain’t paying more money unless they have to. Those are just the facts. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:06 pm: Demoralized- My response is that I recall AFSCME chanting “raise the taxes” in downtown Springfield. Which then happened, followed by additional raises in their next contract. You being overpaid resulted in my family retaining less of our hard earned money. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:08 pm: ===You being overpaid resulted in my family retaining less of our hard earned money.=== And there is the substance of the anti-public union argument (or lack thereof). Shorer Rauner: “Let’s you and him fight.” - Anthony - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:12 pm: Where are all the other elected officials and representatives at? The holiday weekend is over. I want to hear from you. - Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:14 pm: You must not be much of an economics professor if you still believe in supply side economics. - HL - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:16 pm: The most surprising thing about this debate is that people are surprised. The guy campaigned to kill unions and now people are surprised that he is doing what he said he would do. But look at the bright side. Apparently Republicans have decided that they love Executive Orders After all. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:25 pm: ==The most surprising thing about this debate is that people are surprised. == Some moderate candidates will move to the right during the primary and then abandon some of those positions for good. With Rauner, there was hope that his anti-union positions were a primary mantle. Now it is becoming clear that his general election positions were the mantle to be cast off. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:26 pm: Jorge- what is your argument? Did AFSCME not petition for the income tax to be raised? Did they not succeed? Where is the supply-side theory in what I posted? - Under Influenced - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:28 pm: Let me see if I have this straight… Government employees are overpaid and need protection (from something). Union bosses are to blame. Lucky for you, Bruce Rauner has a solution! Help him free you from the shackles of corrupt union bosses. The result. Cheaper government and “fair” wages for all….right? - Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:31 pm: You aren’t much of an economist if you actually believe the drivel you are saying is my point. There is no empiricism that supports conservative economists and their views. Just sayin. - Mouthy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:33 pm: I like the words “may give” like a commercial that says product X “may give” you relief from that nagging bunion. It may not too. In 1982 I’d think the large protest would be the “Right to Life” protest not work. Best protest around that time was when the Harleys came to town and rode down Capitol, 2nd to Edwards and then to to the south of the Stratton building. This was in protest to a helmet law proposal. I was working in the capital building at the time and it was impressive. With all the noise being made about the unions by the gov is everybody supposed to cut him some slack on fixing the woes of the state? Good luck with that… - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:38 pm: Jorge- so when your union successfully lobbied to raise the income tax it had no affect on me or my family? That’s the problem with your bizarre economic view, you claim some faceless millionaire or corporation is the enemy, but you hurt working families. And in IL you do it disproportionately for wildly inflated government worker benefits. - lovecraft - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:39 pm: Right to work= Right to beg for scraps from the food laden table of the 1%. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:40 pm: Econ Prof As has been noted here by Rich Miller, and Dan Rutherford on April 23, 2012, the income tax increase solely went to the pension payment ramp-up as required by the 1995 law. Not for new programs, raises, etc. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/04/23/rutherford-tough-road-ahead-for-quinns-pension-plan/ - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:42 pm: And of course, to the extent that the drop in revenue is going to result in layoffs and salary cuts, that’s going to hurt working families, too. To the extent that it’s not, then this is not and has never been about fiscal sanity, it’s just about snarling at state workers and unions. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:42 pm: Anyone Remember- thanks for the link. Remind me, who benefits from the generous pension payouts? I don’t receive one. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:43 pm: Not just layoffs or salary cuts- pension benefit cuts, health care premium increases, etc… - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:43 pm: “who benefits from the generous pension payouts?” Working families. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:54 pm: Where does one work as a professor and not have some kind of retirement benefit? - Amalia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:54 pm: ah, the NRTW group. looked them up on line. all I need to know can be found on the front page….the National Right to Work Act was introduced by Rep. Steve King. (huge omg factor with that guy on so many levels.) then there’s a massive amount of bashing of Franklin Roosevelt. wow. how about how much it costs to be a member? whatever you want but $59 is suggested cause, you know, “what are the contributions used for?” sounds like a union, right? and there’s all sorts of history of connection to Koch and John Birch Society folks and ALEC, so, we know what is up. and it’s bad. - Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:00 pm: The announcement on this issue came in late yesterday but I tried to read many of the comments. Still am confused about the legality of this EO. Is it pretty clear that he can do this or will the unions take this to court with a reasonable expectation of winning? Anybody have any insight? - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:02 pm: @ Federalist It pretty much directly contradicts the Aboud decision, but the current SCOTUS is also pretty uncomfortable with Aboud. I’d say it violates existing law, but it may be just the case necessary to get SCOTUS to change the law. - Very Fed Up - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:11 pm: Econ Prof at 12:06 - This is exactly why public opinion of public unions has dropped so low. Could not of cared less how the income tax hike affected the rest of us long as they continued to receive pensions unavailable to the rest of us. - Mokenavince - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:13 pm: With unions down to about 11% of the work force. It seems normal they would start being attacked in Illinois. And paying union due’s by people and kin who are taking care of old folks is not right. Then it becomes extortion. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:15 pm: If I don’t like my taxes going to pay for the defense department, do I get to opt out of paying for it and just be a free rider on everyone else paying for my protection? - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:16 pm: ==the income tax increase solely went to the pension payment ramp-up== iirc, the tax increase generated an additional 26B in net revenue fy11 to fy14. The entire pension contribution from GRF was only 19B fy11 to fy14. The increased pension ramp payments adds up to even less, since we were already making some pension payments. That money obviously went to something more than ==solely== the higher pension payments. Even by including reductions in the bill backlog, the math still does not total 26B. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:18 pm: ===Could not of cared less how the income tax hike affected the rest of us long as they continued to receive pensions unavailable to the rest of us.=== And if that guy behind the counter at Burger King was only making $3/hour, my Whopper wouldn’t cost so much. What is wrong with some of you? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:22 pm: Econ Prof You know everybody’s taxes got raised, right? Also, people WORKED for those pensions. It was part of what they signed up for. You sound a little: 1. jealous; or 2. bitter. Either way it’s pathetic. By the way, there is no “you.” I’m not even in a union. Dope. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:22 pm: ==What is wrong with some of you?== Exactly. It’s absolutely disgusting the glee that people get out of wanting to cut somebody’s wages or advocate that people should make less. Dopes. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:24 pm: Formerly Known As… So, you’re saying Rich and Rutherford are wrong. Would you please provide the citations for your data? - Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:25 pm: Rauner seems to like to create a lot of fuss and attention to himself. Is he trying for a VP slot in 2016? I am not saying that ‘fair share’ is not an issue. What I am saying is that ALL energies should be directed at getting the budget in order. That is paramount. ‘Fair Share’ is a side show in comparison. If the state does not improve its balance sheet everyone who works and pays taxes in this state is going to be in for a rough wide. When Rauner proves himself a master of being able to pass and implement a successful state budget then he will have enough stature to go after some of his other ideological goals. Until then, I am not impressed. - Scamp640 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:27 pm: Unions protect capitalism from the capitalists. Without a union-supported wage structure, there would be no middle class to purchase stuff and thereby perpetuate capitalism. Eliminate unions, the middle class shrinks, and the United States becomes Brazil (without the beaches). - Anthony - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:37 pm: Just wait until Rauner uses the pension payments to avert the budget crisis. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:42 pm: ===Problem is people don’t like to admit they’re overpaid=== You enjoying yourself down in sunny Naples, Florida, “professor”? - low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:04 pm: The argument that they are being forced to support candidates they don’t approve of is incorrect. You must be a FULL dues paying member for that to occur. That is why it is called “FAIR” share. Those members who do not want their dues being used for political purposes pay their fair share of Union costs on bargaining, grievance and other matters. That is why it is called “FAIR” share. You start work being a fair share member and only become “FULL” share after signing a card authorizing full share deductions. FAIR share dues do NOT go to political activities. Anyone that suggests otherwise is uninformed. That is how it works. - Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:12 pm: @Arsenal, Thanks for your comment. - Neveranonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:15 pm: Where are all these state employees seeking right to work protection? For that matter, where is even one? All this fuss is over a problem that doesn’t exist, except in ideologues’ minds. - Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:20 pm: ” As has been noted here by Rich Miller, and Dan Rutherford on April 23, 2012, the income tax increase solely went to the pension payment ramp-up as required by the 1995 law. Not for new programs, raises, etc.” Well, that is one way to look at it. But one can also say that the money not paid into the pension funds was used to fund an expansive Medicaid program and/or other govt. expenditures all those years. Rather of a which came first, the chicken or the egg. The reality the state is quite inventive about moving money around and then coming up with some excuse. Remember all that gambling money to be directed toward education. - Joe M - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:29 pm: Does anyone think that Gov Rauner coordinated these attacks to go with his executive order? Or are these groups just responding to the EO? I would hate to think that a Governor would be leading such conspiracies? - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:52 pm: Federalist - From FY 2008 to FY 2014 GRF pension contributions increases 400%, $1.5 B to $6.0 B. Dwarfs any other increases - see page 11. http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/budget/Documents/Budget%20Book/FY%202014/FY2014BudgetPresentation.pdf - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:55 pm: “And if that guy behind the counter at Burger King was only making $3/hour, my Whopper wouldn’t cost so much.” You don’t go to jail for not buying the Whooper, you do for not paying taxes. - Das Kapital - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:00 pm: The top 100 payments to pensioners in IL go to non-Union employees. IL has a higher median household income than Ind, Mo, Ky and the other Right to Work states. Argue against that fact…. - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:03 pm: Weather is great down here Mr. Miller, a bit windy today. I’ll show you some pictures the next time we cross paths. Demoralized- I know everyone’s taxes were raised, but not everyone received the 14% raise with it. Further, if the tax was jacked simply to honor pensions as others argued above, that was to the benefit of state workers no? I never argued state pensions were a hand-out, but let’s all take a breath and put things on perspective. - too obvious - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:22 pm: Borrowed from somebody: A tea partier, a union guy, and Bruce Rauner are sitting around a table. In the middle is a plate with 20 cookies. Rauner eats 19 of the cookies and then looks at the tea partier and says, “the union guy wants your cookie.” - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:29 pm: ==that was to the benefit of state workers no== And? It’s an obligation of the state. What would you suggest? Ignoring it? I don’t understand this anger over pensions. I cannot help it if you think you have been shirked on your pension. That’s your problem. Maybe you should get (or should have gotten) a different job. Instead the answer is to gripe about someone else’s pension and how it isn’t “fair.” Fair to who? You because you don’t get it? So what. It’s completely fair to the people who were hired under a system that guaranteed that pension. Get. Over. It. - Gabe - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:30 pm: A bit windy, indeed, Econ Prof. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:34 pm: I am saying that your representation or understanding of what Rich and Rutherford have said is wrong. My reply with links is stuck in moderation, so here are a few citations without links Total Net New Revenues from Tax Increase fy11 to fy14 $25.76B / page 6 COGFAA 3-year Budget Forecast fy15-fy17 General Funds Pension Contributions fy11 to fy14 $18.9B / page 11 GOMB fy14 Budget Briefing - Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:39 pm: econ, why bother? The tax hike benefited the investmention houses that manage the states pension funds. - John Birch - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:47 pm: Rauner, the new Buffalo Bob, leading the Howdy Doody show. If this is his “agenda” we are in for four years of whipped cream pies in the face. Dan Walker on roids. Where is that recall petition ! - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:02 pm: Formerly Known As… IF Rutherford was wrong, and only part of the income tax increase goes to the pension ramp-up, what else will be unfunded with the expiration of the temporary tax increase? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:13 pm: @FKA You have a tendency to make things far more difficult than they are. The effect of the tax increase was to: 1. allow the state to make full pension payments; 2. allow the state to pay down a backlog of bills, or at the very least prevent that backlog from growing even higher. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:17 pm: ==the income tax increase solely went to the pension payment ramp-up== The pension payment itself from fy11-fy14 is nearly $7B less than the new revenue created by the tax increase. $25.76B in net new revenue. $18.9B in general funds pension contributions. - Federalist - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:24 pm: @Anyone Remember, As I said the state laundered money from pension contributions for decades to fund other areas of government. Naturally when you don’t pay your bills, you get a big credit card debt later on with a lot of interest due. But I guess they have fooled you into the phony economics that the tax increases were used to just fund pensions. Do not know whether you cannot understand such basic fiscal realities or just don’t want to. It certainly is one or the other. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:32 pm: @Demoralized If so, it is not intentional to be difficult. There are a few Billion missing in that math to the best of my knowledge. That does not mean anything ==sneaky== is going on. It just means that we should know where that money went. If $18.9B went to pension payments (which is being generous, as we were already making some pension payments), and $3B went to paying the bill backlog (down to $5.9B as of December), that still leaves at least another $3B to $4B out there that went ==somewhere else==? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:38 pm: I’m not sure where you come up with the $3 billion figure. It’s not as simple as taking the bill backlog at a specific point in time and then looking at what it is later on. You have to know the volume of bills coming in and what the backlog would have been absent the increased revenues. I think you are trying to make a case for something that isn’t the case. But, I don’t think I can provide you sufficient answers that will change your thinking. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:59 pm: Demoralized Thanks. That is an important reminder re the $3B backlog number. I pulled it from the difference between an old Hynes report and the December 2014 report. It is not be the best number to use, but was the best I could come up with on the fly. I don’t think we would be able to come up with a clear breakdown even if we spent the next few hours here working on it together. But somebody should at some point. Enjoy the rest of your day. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:04 pm: I mean Topinka, not Hynes. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:23 pm: To Econ Prof (& others) - I asked this earlier, but no one answered: Why is it that the higher union wages (or pension costs) for public employees get the blame for your higher taxes? First, the burden could have been placed elsewhere or spread around; however, numerous groups (inc. corporations, millionaires, service providers, retirees) lobbied to keep the burden off of them. Second, everyone benefited (in the short term) from years of lower taxes when the GA and Gov agreed to put off making pension payments, thus incurring a larger payment be made to make up for lost interest on a reduced principle. Employee wages are part of the overall cost of government. If the union has been able to negotiate a higher wage for members, that does increase the overall cost of government, but by how much? (Not much.) It is interesting that this report from 2012 (Report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force: ILLINOIS REPORT), does not mention salaries as one of the big fiscal issues facing the state: http://www.statebudgetcrisis.org/wpcms/wp-content/images/2012-10-12-Illinois-Report-Final-2.pdf Bottom line: your taxes went up to pay for what you got, but did not pay for, over many years (including unpaid pension costs, which are incurred as a consequence of having a state government) as well as for Medicade increases. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:34 pm: Federalist I do know natural revenue growth for the income tax was not going to increase by $4.5B between FYs 2008 and 2014, a 33.5% increase on FY 2008 receipts of $13.4B - page 29 http://www.ioc.state.il.us/index.cfm/resources/reports/cafr/cafr-archives/fy-2008/ By the way, the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator for the same period shows $13.4 increases to $14.7B (9.7% increase), 29% of the $4.5B increase required. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 6:29 pm: Wait till the gov. is done with them they will wish they had a union. Worse part is the state employees that voted to cut there own throat. Good move. I am a retired State employee. Afraid of loosing the pension and insurance I earned and in area bought thru pay roll deductions. - fly on the wall - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 6:50 pm: Just look at the budgets not to bury folks in numbers. Roughly Medicaid 35%, Transportation 30%, k-12 education. That is where the money goes. Do some research on Medicaid growth over last decade. Keeps going up, education spending has gone down. - fly on the wall - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 6:51 pm: 20% k-12 education - Econ Prof - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:02 pm: “Why is it that the higher union wages (or pension costs) for public employees get the blame for your higher taxes?” First, what other group chanted “raise the taxes?” Second, no, not everyone benefited from what you AFSCME people call low taxes those years. Do a total analysis of IL taxes and I’ll agree, we don’t have the worst, but we are certainly higher then some of our neighbors for cost of government. To your final point PCK, the bill is due, you’re absolutely correct. It seems that current pensions will be off the table due to court rulings. So I predict Rauner, will stick the tab on current employees (Via wage/benefit cuts) with a mix of minor tax increases (less than AFSCME’s 67% hike, probably in a sales tax form). - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:51 pm: U.S. Congressional Republicans just introduced two identical national right to work bills, one in the House and the other in the Senate, using the same talking points as in Illinois, that workers are forced to join a union to get and keep a job. Rand Paul is the senator who introduced this bill. Rand Paul, of libertarian small government, wants the federal government to overturn states’ laws on union rights and negotiated contracts. He wants to turn a large segment of workers into freeloaders. Would a Republican ever do such a thing? Shocking, I tell you. “https://screen.yahoo.com/congressional-republicans-introduce-legislation-143308630.html” - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:59 pm: ==what other group chanted “raise the taxes?” == They were asking the GA to be more responsible than they had been for decades. Is that a bad thing? Everybody loves their state services, but nobody ever seems to want to pay for them. - Jorge - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:16 pm: Econ Prof, 65% of Illinois civilians approved a progressive income tax in 2008. Sounds like to me there was more than AFSCME saying raise taxes. There’s a reason a university won’t hire you. - Jorge - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 1:53 am: Econ, come on. You’re a disappointment for a Raunerbot. - low level - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 7:19 am: Jorge - I was just thinking the same thing. Econ Prof is a disappointment as a Raunerbot and an out of state one to boot. Arguments straight out of the Right to Starve movement. Clearly no one is signing up for his classes any longer. Maybe tuition is too high where he’s at? That’s why he’s overpaid. LOL. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.