Lincoln never said that, according to three top Lincoln scholars.
* As Hannah Meisel just pointed out on Twitter, the fake Lincoln quote has reappeared at an Illinois State Fair tent…
DoIT is all set-up at The Governor's Tent at Illinois State Fair! We're looking forward to meeting you and talking up the digital transformation revolutionizing the state.
Wanted to send this your way based on the post from earlier today. As you know, this quote has been widely attributed to President Lincoln for many years. We have checked with our partners at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and confirmed there is no evidence that he indeed said it. We will be replacing the sign with the verified quote below.
“If we never try, we shall never succeed.”
Abraham Lincoln - October 13, 1862 in a letter to Major General George B. McClellan
* Organized labor in Missouri collected 310,000 signatures (more than three times the minimum requirement) to repeal that state’s so-called “right to work” law. The referendum was scheduled for an August vote because the GOP thought they’d have a better chance of beating it than they would in November. But labor spent millions and won the referendum 67-33. The Illinois Policy Institute’s Austin Berg tut-tuts the whole thing…
Is this a sea change for unions in the Midwest? A signal that worker freedom will forever be squashed in non-right-to-work Illinois?
No.
In fact, the union strategy in Illinois’ southwestern neighbor should leave some rank-and-file members scratching their heads. The victory was expensive, potentially short-lived and may even cut against some of the unions’ other political priorities. […]
The union-backed We Are Missouri Coalition raised more than $16 million from labor organizations and spent nearly $7 million on ads in July alone. They outspent two opposing groups combined by a nearly 5 to 1 margin, according to the Wall Street Journal’s analysis of state filings. […]
Unfortunately for union members who saw millions of dollars in dues money flow to this fight, that gamesmanship is still very much on the table. If Missouri Republicans hold on to their supermajorities in November, which is not unlikely, a right-to-work bill will certainly bubble up yet again in 2019. […]
Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill is perhaps the most vulnerable Democratic senator in the country. Millions of union dollars that flowed to the right-to-work battle will no longer go to support her. And millions of dollars that weren’t spent trying to outmaneuver unions in that fight will flow to her opponent, Republican Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley.
Despite the right-to-work proposition being the star of the primary election, Missouri Republicans cast about 60,000 more votes than Missouri Democrats statewide. That’s not a good sign for McCaskill.
So at the end of the day, what did union members get in exchange for millions of dollars?
An opportunity for union officials to pat themselves on the back, a weaker position in a key congressional race and a few more months, though possibly years, of compulsory dues.
Um, if Republicans cast 60,000 more votes than Democrats, that means a whole lot of rank and file Missouri Republicans sided with organized labor in the referendum. And when labor achieved the same sort of result in an Ohio “right to work” referendum, the GOP backed off their attacks on unions.
…Adding… From Austin Berg…
Hey Rich, I’m aware of the Ohio comparison and don’t take it lightly. The return of a right-to-work vote in Missouri was simply the mood among Republican operatives I spoke with for the column. This KCUR story also says as much. Re: turnout, agree to disagree on the implications for the Senate race.
This was obviously a win for Trumka and Co., but as the column says, it was expensive, potentially short-lived and could cut against other priorities. I wish all workers there had a choice on whether to fund fights like this.
In a year that is expected to draw far more Democratic voters to the polls than the typical midterm election, Republicans in blue states will depend on the Democrats who helped them win in the first place, and who might be tempted to split their tickets this time. To woo them, most have signed on to policies that appeal to those voters. […]
A possible exception is Illinois, where Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has adopted a largely combative stance against the state’s Democrats. At the same time, he has annoyed his own party so much with his moderate social positions and budget woes that he barely survived a primary in the spring, inspiring a third-party bid from a conservative candidate.
“Bruce Rauner thought he could be Scott Walker when he got elected,” Thomas Bowen, a Democratic strategist and former political director for Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, said, referring to the Republican governor of Wisconsin. “He forgot that Walker had a supermajority in the state legislature and he did not.”
“There was a playbook for how to be a Republican in Illinois that’s been replayed over and over,’’ Mr. Bowen said. “Be fiscally astute, compromise and don’t pick fights unnecessarily.”
Thoughts?
…Adding… Former Gov. Jim Edgar appears to agree with Bowen…
JIM EDGAR: “You don’t go out and call a person a crook today and then tomorrow think you’re going to sit down and solve problems. That’s a huge mistake we’ve seen some politicians make in this state."
* Republican attorney general candidate Erika Harold on WLS AM…
Rauner says he’s investing $4M to chip away at Speaker Madigan’s House majority and $1M to Harold because she’d prosecute Madigan for corruption.
That would be hard to do because she’d be barred by law from convening a grand jury to consider political corruption, but she told Bill Cameron on a recent “Connected to Chicago” program, how she’d get around that.
“There is statutory authority under the current law that enables the attorney general to conduct investigations if any of the inspector generals find evidence of misconduct. I would use that authority and that ability robustly.”
The full audio is here. I asked Harold’s campaign yesterday afternoon for the statutory citation and never heard back.
* But this is from the attorney general’s office…
1) For non-criminal ethics act actions, that’s correct. If an IG wants to bring an action before the EEC (or LEC) we handle those cases. And even if the IG does not want to pursue an action, there are a few very narrow routes where we can still push the case forward. We use that authority robustly and have worked very closely with all of the Executive IGs. But this work requires referrals from the IG or EEC/LEC. The idea of originating/initiating investigations using that authority - separately and independently from the IGs - is incorrect.
2) When an IG has a complaint/is conducting an investigation and believes he or she has identified possible criminal conduct, the ethics law requires a referral to an appropriate prosecutor. The IG can choose to refer to a US Attorney, a State’s Attorney (in the appropriate county) or our office. But if we get that referral, we have to ask the permission of the appropriate State’s Attorney to use his or her grand jury - which means we have to ask permission to handle the case and if the State’s Attorney wants to take it or do it jointly with us, we do not have an option. If the idea is that the ethics law/IG referral process somehow gives us access to a grand jury that we otherwise do not have or expands the criminal law and gives us original/primary criminal jurisdiction that we otherwise do not have, that is incorrect.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From the Harold campaign…
Erika never suggested in her interview with Cameron that the AG has prosecutorial authority under the Ethics Act. Rather, Erika said this to Bill Cameron: “There is statutory authority under the current law that enables the attorney general to conduct investigations if any of the inspector generals find evidence of misconduct…” That authority is found within the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act (linked/copied below), and those are the statutes Erika was referencing in her interview with Cameron. Accordingly, your assertion that AG Madigan “[shot] down” a “prosecution idea” from Erika based on those statutes is incorrect.
One final note, contrary to what anyone else says, Erika has been clear for quite some time that she will not use the office to punish political opponents: “…And by public corruption, I’m not talking about using the office as a way to punish political opponents…”
* And here’s Lt. Gov. Evelyn Sanguinetti on WTAX today…
REPORTER: Yesterday we’ve been running a story this morning that the governor said he’s given money to Ericka Harold and if she wins, she should prosecute Mike Madigan. What are your thoughts on that? Does that put Ericka Harold, should she win, in kind of an awkward position that the governor says, look I donated to her campaign here and she should prosecute Mike Madigan?
SANGUINETTI: Well, Ericka Harold is a fine young woman in her own power, and I admire her a lot, she is a wonderful attorney and I am sure she is going to be an amazing attorney general. And I know she will have a focus on corruption because Illinois, unfortunately, is popular for that very reason and that’s the whole reason why Bruce Rauner and I signed on. We’re simply tired of being known worldwide as the state that has all the corruption, so I’m very happy that Ericka Harold will focus on that and I know she will be completely independent.
REPORTER: So you agree with the governor there?
SANGUINETTI: Well I agree that we have a corruption problem and the governor is spot on in that regard. You know Michael Madigan has been around since I was three months of age. That’s a lot of time in which to amass power, have people around you and have the sort of clout, the sort of power that he has, and it simply has to stop because we need to look out for all Illinoisans, not just his special interest powers.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Gov. Rauner made good on his pledge to contribute $1 million to Erika Harold’s campaign. Click here for the A-1.
As JB has said since he decided to run, Illinois’ tax system is unfair and needs to change. JB believes people like him and Bruce Rauner should pay more to help solve the state’s budget problems and fund education while lowering the tax burden on the middle class and those striving to get there. The large majority of states in America have fair tax systems in place and there are many ways to institute one here in Illinois without asking middle class families to pay more.
Bruce Rauner’s a failure. So, instead of talking about his own record, he distorts mine. When it comes to taxes, Illinois has the most unfair income. tax system in America and. It’s time for that to change.
A fair income tax will raise taxes on people like Bruce Rauner and me to support education and help solve the state’s budget problem while reducing the burden on the middle class. Don’t believe Bruce Rauner’s attacks. Let’s make our tax system fair and bring real change to Illinois.
…Adding… Rauner campaign…
What’s unfair is that JB Pritzker is a tax cheat pushing tax hikes. Pritzker hides his money in the Bahamas to avoid paying income taxes and has ripped toilets out of his mansion to dodge property taxes. It’s unfair to hardworking taxpayers that JB Pritzker plans to raise taxes while dodging his own.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Pritzker’s ad references a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. He did the same sort of thing last year and we took a look at it…
* There’s a problem with Pritzker’s analysis.
If you look at ITEP’s Illinois analysis [click here], you’ll see that the share of family income going to the state’s personal income tax is actually quite a bit less for the lowest 20 percent of earners than it is for the highest earners. That’s likely because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The real culprits are sales and property taxes. The bottom 20 percent pay 7.1 percent of their family income to the sales tax, compared to 0.8 percent for the top 1 percent. And the bottom 20 percent spend 4.9 percent of household income on property taxes, compared to 1.8 percent for the top 1 percent.
So, while he’s right that our tax system is unfair, his solution won’t do anything about the really regressive taxes.
The study, Who Pays?, provides insight into the drivers behind the unfairness encoded into Illinois’ existing tax system. Illinois relies heavily on taxes that are not based on ability to pay, but rather on a flat rate. Further, unlike most other states, Illinois does not have an income tax where taxpayers with higher incomes pay a higher rate and taxpayers with lower incomes pay a lower rate. As a result, the income tax doesn’t bring more balance to the overall tax system by offsetting the higher share of income that poorer taxpayers pay in sales and property taxes.
One positive aspect of Illinois’ tax system is the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, which lets low- and moderate-income working families keep more of their earnings to help pay for things that help them keep working, such as child care and transportation. To improve tax fairness in Illinois, lawmakers should increase the value of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Rep. Martwick…
Recently, my progressive tax proposal has been the subject of discussion on the blog. In defense of JB Pritzker, I’d like to offer the following: First, my bill was developed in late 2016 and filed in early 2017, long before JB announced his run. My bill was conceived during the height of the budget impasse as I couldn’t believe that we were limping along accumulating $6 billion of debt per year while literally killing people who were denied critical social services. There was not a single proposal to fix any of problems, except for the much panned and silly IPI proposal. Everyone knows that we would have to amend the constitution in order to adopt progressive rates and as such, I had no delusions that my bill was going anywhere. What it was designed to do was begin a discussion about how we could possibly solve our problems by changing the structure of how we raise and spend money. I specifically chose the Wisconsin tax structure because it is the flattest and most predictable of the progressive rates structures, and it is from the state that we are often told to be more like. I used the revenue to fund education, pay down our pension debt, create the biggest property tax decrease in the history of the state, lower property tax rates, and re-invest in higher education and infrastructure. This addressed nearly every major problem we have in Illinois (even our business climate, as lowering property taxes is the single most effective way to improve the bottom line of every single business in our state). My proposal was based on math, the realities of our condition and it addressed problems. In other words, it worked. Does that mean it was the best solution? Not at all. We can debate about that. But it was A solution and it was offered when no one else, especially the Governor, could be bothered with such a task. The Governor and the Republicans demanded to see a rate structure and as soon as one was provided immediately criticized it, and of course they only ever talked about the income tax increase, without ever mentioning the record property tax and sales tax reductions. Now they want to tie my proposal to JB and that is nothing short of deceptive. Yes, the rates matter, but those can be and should be determined by the legislature. Clearly, JB wants to accomplish the same things I tried to accomplish and every single Illinoisan should want: restoring financial security by paying down our debts, and lower property taxes through more equitable school funding. That can be done by an infinite combination of rate structures, including ones that lowers the overall tax burden on the middle class while requiring those who have been so successful to pay a fair burden. I’m happy to have that discussion on what exactly the best rate structure is, but I can only do that with a Governor who is open to a progressive tax so that we can fix our problems and reform the 5th most regressive tax state in the country. JB is ready to have that discussion. Rauner is not.
