* The Tribune editorialized on two topics today, both of which were directed at Gov. Pat Quinn and one of which was the temporary tax hike…

Keep the promise that the income tax hike would be temporary.

This was the second time since mid-April that the Trib addressed this issue…

Quinn already is hobbled by his flip-flop attempt to make permanent the supposedly temporary Quinncome tax increases that are set to roll back in January.

I don’t think the governor ever specifically “promised” - in public, anyway - that the tax hike would be temporary. He was always pretty vague on that topic until his budget address. Tons of articles were written over the past few years about how Quinn wouldn’t talk about what should happen with the tax. When he finally decided he was for making it permanent, that was really huge news.

And here’s how Quinn responded to a question about whether the tax hike would stay on the books the day after the tax hike bill passed…

“We will deal with this one day at time, one week, one month, one year at a time,” Quinn said then. “I think our job now is to take what was passed last night and carry it out.”

But Bruce Rauner has accused Quinn of breaking his promise, and the Trib has now officially sanctioned that line of attack.

…Adding… The Rauner campaign points to statements Quinn made soon after the bill passed where he called the tax “temporary” several times. But he made no specific promise that the temporary tax wouldn’t be made permanent once it partially expired this coming January. Indeed, he was specifically asked whether he’d support making it permanent that day and that’s when he gave his “We will deal with this one day at a time,” comment from above. Watch the video by clicking here. The question was asked at the about the 15:00 mark.

* The rest of the editorial was about pensions, particularly local pensions. The paper reiterated its demand that Quinn sign the Chicago pension reform bill. This is the third time the paper has made that demand, and it has not opposed a property tax hike…

Given the terrible finances of the city’s pension funds, Gov. Pat Quinn has no responsible choice other than to sign the bill, and the aldermen have little choice but to raise taxes. Barring the miraculous appearance of some substitute plan, the likeliest (and unimaginable) alternative is to let city pension funds deteriorate even further — and to send Chicago’s credit ratings even closer to oblivion.

No, we’re not happy with the prospect of higher taxes. But over the years Springfield and Chicago politicians created huge pension obligations that the funds have nowhere near enough money to pay. The consequence for taxpayers is clear. The consequence for the politicians who promised more in pension payments than Chicago could pay is … yet to be determined by voters increasingly stuck with the cost of all the pols’ retirement giveaways to public employees.

* All that despite repeated and emphatic promises by Rahm Emanuel to never raise property taxes to solve the city’s pension problems. From February, 2011…

Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday ruled out a property tax increase of any size […]

Emanuel’s pledge not to entertain a property tax increase of any size came in response to a question about how he planned to solve the city’s pension crisis.

A bill approved by the Illinois General Assembly over Mayor Daley’s objections would saddle homeowners and businesses with a $550 million property tax increase in 2015 unless pension concessions are negotiated or another new revenue source is found.

During the campaign, Emanuel ruled out raising property taxes that much, which would amount to a 90 percent increase. On Wednesday, he was asked whether he would entertain a property tax increase of any size. His answer was an emphatic no.

Hmm.

* Keep in mind that just about every penny of the income tax increase has been used to make the state’s pension payments. Whatever was said during the time it was passed, taxes were in reality jacked up so the state could responsibly meet its pension obligations. And just as the Tribune has been warning about what could happen to Chicago’s bond ratings if the pension bill isn’t signed into law and taxes aren’t raised, Wall Street pushed Illinois hard to raise taxes to stop its rapid fiscal decline.

So, an income tax hike to make long-neglected pension payments is a bad thing, while a property tax hike to make long-neglected pension payments is an acceptable thing?

And no specific promise of a temporary tax is labeled as a broken promise, while numerous promises never to raise property taxes to make pension payments is jettisoned into a bottomless memory hole?

I’m confused.