Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x2 - Radogno responds * Mission not accomplished

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* At today’s City Club luncheon, House Speaker Michael Madigan was asked, “How high do you think taxes need to go?”

Here’s Madigan’s response, which is at about the 1:08:37 mark on the video…

“OK, let me avoid creating a headline for tomorrow’s newspaper. [Laughter]

“I’d say that a good place to begin - good place to begin - would be the level we were at before the income tax [increase] expired. Starting there you can go in whatever direction you want to go.” [More laughter]

* The AP’s story is headlined: “Madigan: Illinois income tax should be restored to 5 percent”…

House Speaker Michael Madigan says the state’s income tax should be restored to the 5 percent level it was at until January.

The Chicago Democrat told a City Club of Chicago crowd that the state’s multibillion-dollar deficit demands a tax hike.

A four-year, temporary increase from 3 percent to 5 percent expired last winter with the blessing of incoming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner. It dropped to 3.75 percent.

Madigan says the 5 percent level would be a “good place to begin.”

Sheesh.

*** UPDATE 1 *** More headlines…

* Tribune: Madigan: Raise income tax rate back to 5 percent, for starters

* Reuters: Illinois House speaker eyes return of 5 pct income tax rate

* WCIA tweet: BREAKING: IL Speaker Michael Madigan said he would support raising the state income tax back to 5 percent

*** UPDATE 2 *** Press release…

In response to Speaker Madigan’s call for a 33% income tax increase “as a good place to begin,” Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno:

“It’s a busy time of year for most families, but taxpayers need to pay close attention. The powerful Democrat leadership is proposing a whopping 33% income tax increase – with no reforms to change the way we do business in Illinois. It’s outrageous and shows what we Republican legislators and Governor Rauner are up against in the state budget negotiations.

The citizens of Illinois want structural reforms that will lead to a more competitive Illinois economy and middle class economic growth, while protecting the taxpayers.”

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:04 pm

Comments

MJM knew it would be taken and spun, but he gave an honest answer about the neighborhood the State needs to be in with a flat income tax.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:07 pm
“Madigan says the 5 percent level would be a “good place to begin.” ” Translation: IL needs more than 5% tax in order to meet its obligations (bills). Whoa…

Comment by Mama Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:08 pm
===Translation: IL needs more than 5% tax in order to meet its obligations===

You’re jumping to the same false conclusion as the AP.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:09 pm
If it wasn’t taken out of context or loss the meaning…

This mission was doomed from its utterance.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:11 pm
Rich, what do you think Madigan answer means?

Comment by Mama Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:13 pm
Who needs Scott Reeder when you have the AP?

Comment by Dirty Red Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:15 pm
I was there. It was a good question too. He simply said that, as far as the income tax goes, the conversation should start at 5%. Then you could take it from there, up or down.

Left unsaid (but clearly understood in my opinion) was that it is negotiable. That was sort of the point of his entire presentation. Other than lowering wages, everything is negotiable.

What isn’t negotiable is holding out for non-budget items. The problem is the budget, matching revenues with spending. That’s what he’d like to be discussing instead of prevailing wage and collective bargaining.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:16 pm
Mama, it’s in the post;

“Starting there you can go in whatever direction you want to go.”

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:16 pm
Should have just stuck with the arithmetic answer. “Too early to tell. After we agree on spending cuts, and update the current revenue forecast, we will know how much gap still remains.”

Shouldn’t get trapped into leading with a tax rate, as if that were the Dem’s core goal. It’s not. But lazy reporters will use that gloss.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:17 pm
I agree with 47th Ward’s analysis. Madigan wasn’t saying that 5% is the floor for negotiations. Rather, that would be the beginning offer for negotiations.

Comment by Betsy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:18 pm
“The problem is the budget, matching revenues with spending.”

I agree, let the budget cuts commence and layoffs begin!

Comment by Tone Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:22 pm
Uhgg. Mike. What are you doing?! I am starting to think you indeed have met your match.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:24 pm
Why is raising the taxes on middle class families and lowering their effective wages and standard of living ok but the corresponding adjustments to workers comp, prevailing wages and collective bargaining that he said would do the same thing forbidden?

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:25 pm
You can start the deficit math with an income tax increase to 5%, but I don’t see how that comes close to being enough if enacted today…unless it’s retroactive, includes some level of retirement income and/or involves deficit payments spread well into FY17

Comment by COPN Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:28 pm
In my humble opinion, Madigan’s point was that the ANALYSIS should have begun at the level of revenues on 12/31/2014.
Based on the analysis, reasonable adults working in moderation could have agreed on a new rate, up or down from 5%.
Unfortunately, we have a governor more interested in “winning” at whatever cost.
What a Freudian slip by AP.

Comment by Austin Blvd Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:29 pm
He could have said: “We’ve been spending for the entire year as if the income tax were at 5%, and no one has found any cuts that don’t raise all kinds of h-e-l-l. Given that, 5% is clearly the starting point of any discussion.”

I think that also illustrates the difficulty of anything less than 5% unless you find some other significant source of revenue such as retirement income over some floor (say 75K) or expanding the sales tax to services or passing an amendment that allows for a graduated income tax.

It’s really hard to see where significant cuts could be made and passed; harder than taxes. Was there a question about where he saw significant cuts?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:30 pm
===Was there a question about where he saw significant cuts?===

Not exactly. He did highlight what he said was a $400 million annual savings (cut) in Medicaid that the House passed. He raised that as an example of where Democrats have voted to cut spending.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:32 pm
Makes sense to start at the 5%, which isn’t that high. Maybe combine lowering that with taxing retirement. I still think IL needs a personal property tax for motor vehicles like they do in MO. Raises lots of revenue and is very progressive.

Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:33 pm
And when it’s all said and done 5% may be the floor rather than the ceiling - MM will look like the tax cutter at that point! Genius!!

Comment by doofusguy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:35 pm
“I agree, let the budget cuts commence and layoffs begin!” Tone, that is not very nice.
The state needs more workers not less!

Comment by Mama Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:36 pm
The Tribune headline is weird, because I was seated not too far from Katrina McQueary, who sure looked like she was taking notes during Madigan’s remarks. Apparently she heard something the rest of the room didn’t hear.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:38 pm
Lucky Pierre makes an excellent point.

However, since nobody (and I do mean nobody) has any ideas for major cuts, there really isn’t much of a choice on taxation.

There is a choice on lowering wages via workers’ comp, etc.

Plus, why do both?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:38 pm
Am I the only one that sees this as the first Break in the log jam that is the budget impasse? We all know it has to happen - but no one was admitting it. Now it’s tomorrow’s headline. What’s the GOP response going to be?

Comment by Thoughts Matter Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:38 pm
= I still think IL needs a personal property tax for motor vehicles like they do in MO. =

Methinks this constitutional amendment proposal would stand far less chance of passing than would a graduated income tax.

Comment by cover Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:39 pm
47th, she didn’t write the headline.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:39 pm
You’re right Rich. And let’s face it, that headline has been written and waiting for a story to attach it to for almost a year now. Madigan’s comments today were close enough to dust if off and trot it out there.

And it’s not like the Tribune was the only outlet who got it wrong. Far from it.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:42 pm
WTAX Springfield, Barb, just reported the bogus quote on the :30.

Oops.

Shame on AP.

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:44 pm
== I still think IL needs a personal property tax for motor vehicles like they do in MO. ==

You do realize, prior to 1970, Illinois did have a Personal Property Tax? That was swapped / eliminated for the flat income tax.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:45 pm
Madigan stated the truth. But the other part of that truth is that he just had a fitting for the jacket he will be wearing in the upcoming election. Gotta hand it to Rauner, he lined up the tailor and all. Madigan now just needs to pick the wool blend….

Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:47 pm
The 1st place would be on gasoline. Lets talk about cutting the size of our governments before we start to raise any taxes.

Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:48 pm
==Lucky Pierre makes an excellent point==

Not really. Lucky, when you have a non-graduated tax requirement if you take more from one person you have to for all. Yes, because it is non-graduated then it is inherently regressive. But that’s a constitutional limit and not a policy preference as in the case of WC, prevailing W, and collective bargaining.

All of those ideas target middle to lower income workers. And by choice. If the ILGA could raise taxes on only the top 10-20% they would have done it years ago.

Comment by Abe the Babe Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:48 pm
=You do realize, prior to 1970, Illinois did have a Personal Property Tax?=

I did not.

Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:53 pm
Lucky Pierre, if we Fix the Mix*, we don’t have to raise (net) taxes on middle class families and lower their effective wages and standard of living.

* My new slogan (like OW’s “Governors own”) as short-hand for my usual tiresome rant about raising income taxes paired with cuts in sales and property taxes. This would collect more revenue from the wealthy. No constitutional amendment needed; just some leadership.

Comment by X-prof Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:53 pm
I am downstate, conservative, born and raised in Illinois. Lived elsewhere for 20 years in a high tax state and a low tax state, and then moved back. I agree with Madigan Start at 5. For every compromise with Rauner, go .10 or .15. Add in eliminating townships and go up .15. Cap it at 6.5 with some true reform hammered out by the legislative leadership and the governor.

Comment by Motambe Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:55 pm
Lucky Pierre: that is an excellent point on the political rhetoric. My view is that he will in fact be moving some on WC and tort reform before all is said and done.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:59 pm
Sure, the AP and various outlets could have tried to interpret him differently; could have ignored what was obviously the best sound bite from the speech.

But this is the sort of mistake I expect from a rookie legislator, not the speaker. When you know that one particular utterance is going to be the thing that all reporters key on, you craft the sentence. You don’t throw out a tax hike in an offhand way without care for how you’re framing it.

This may be what comes of not appearing in public more often, and of never facing a credible opponent. If he actually had to campaign every two years, or even every 8 years, he wouldn’t make this kind of gaffe.

Comment by some doofus Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 3:59 pm
Nothing new here? He knows Rauner will agree to the tax increase in return for the reforms. But Madigan wants his cake . . . and Rauner gets nothing but a lesson on who is Boss in Springfield (and all of Illinois for that matter.) The staring contest continues.

Comment by Percival Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:00 pm
Tone, if you’re an Illinois taxpayer, you’re “getting a bargain”. Illinois has fewer State employees per capita than any state, “doing more with less” has been the standard for years. Where do you propose to cut? Illinois can’t refuse to administer Medicaid (for most services), food stamps, child support enforcement, child protective welfare services, correctional services and unemployment benefits; all involve federal funding and legal oversight.

Comment by kitty Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:01 pm
=== but the corresponding adjustments to workers comp, prevailing wages and collective bargaining that he said would do the same thing forbidden? ===
Its a good point but raising the income tax 1.25% is chump change compared to a work comp case that gets slashes benefits. Or if there is no prevailing wage the difference in wages could be much more than that. And the tax is spread across all taxpayers and not just taken out on the effected middle class workers.

Comment by Been There Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:02 pm
So, now we know what comprise means to Madigan. My way or the highway. Sorry, Mike. Your way of spending has got Illinois into this financial mess.

Comment by Apocalypse Now Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:04 pm
I’ll be interested in hearing Rauner’s explanation for agreeing to the to the exact Pat Quinn tax hike that he campaigned against. Especially if it is partly retroactive. Seems like politically he has to stay a little under 5 percent. But maybe he could get away with a temporary increase up to the Quinn rate and lots of talk about change taking longer than he thought. He has to say something, tho. Unless he is planning to morph into a Democrat.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:06 pm
===Sure, the AP and various outlets could have tried to interpret him differently; could have ignored what was obviously the best sound bite from the speech.===

Instead, they invented the soundbite.

Only a doofus would take the last few seconds from a question, ignoring all of the context provided by the just concluded 20 minute presentation, dramatically misinterpret the quote (intentionally or not), and then claim it was a gaffe reminiscent of a rookie pol.

Doofus indeed.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm
Re: Radogno.

Boy is she going to look dumb when she votes to hike the income tax. Is she incapable of thinking past the next move on the board?

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:09 pm
47th, when you go to Chicago and talk to the press and don’t give them any easy news articles, this is what happens.

Not excusing the questionable reporting, but MJM shoulda known better than to touch that question.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:10 pm
Rich @ 3:38 pm ==However, since nobody (and I do mean nobody) has any ideas for major cuts, there really isn’t much of a choice on taxation.

There is a choice on lowering wages via workers’ comp, etc.

Plus, why do both?==

Plus, the tax increase hits the rich as well as middle class, but the workers comp, prevailing wage and collective bargaining reforms do not. The tax increase shares the pain a little.

Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm
Leader Radogno,

All 67 GOP GA will indeed be “green” on, at least a 33% tax increase.

Cullerton and Madigan will insist, and Rauner needs his deal.

if the FY2015 proved amything, it proved Rauner owns the switches… all 67

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:13 pm
Conservative Republican City Club Member Chris Robling asked this particular question, so consider that aspect too. He’s an anti-government, anti-Madigan blowhard who fancies himself as a thinking man’s Republican pundit.

But yes, as soon as his name was mentioned, MJM should have objected to the premise of the question. As I’ve said, you’d have to have had your fingers in your ears for the entire presentation to read into this answer what the AP and Tribune have read into it.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:15 pm
A good place to begin the increase in IL state income tax would be at 5%. Then we need to work on a plan to implement a progressive state income tax. Thirty four of the 50 states have a progressive state income tax.

Comment by Enviro Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:16 pm
“Tone, if you’re an Illinois taxpayer, you’re “getting a bargain”. Illinois has fewer State employees per capita than any state.”

That’s a very expensive small workforce.

Comment by Tone Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:16 pm
But, Radogno, didn’t Rauner say his reforms are worth the pain? That includes your agreeing to a tax increase if he were to get his way.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:17 pm
Christine, what reforms, exactly? Make your case for how they will improve the economy. Make your case for their worth vs the suffering. How many map geants lost in your district?

Comment by Langhorne Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:17 pm
I remember Madigan saying a combination of cuts and revenues, and Rauner talking about a service tax similar to other states. What’s the big deal? Taxpayers might actually have to pay their debts first as a starting point? - The horror….

Comment by Qui Tam Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:19 pm
Radogno’s release intro makes it seem like she’s saying 5 percent is “a good place to begin”

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:19 pm
Lucky Pierre because the tax increase take a small amount from everyone, and leaves middle class earners in place. removing the prevailing wage and wages for state workers would reduce the mddle class. there are roughly 560,000 public sector employees statewide in local and state govt. and 100,000 people employed on prevailing wage work. if tou remove.

the tax, which these folks would also pay, reduces income a couple thousand dollars per person. iRauners proposal removes over a halfmillion people from the middle class. big difference.

remove wages for a half a millions spenders in tour economy…. and that money will come out of the pockets of small business and the economy. so apples and oranges.

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:20 pm
Radogno’s release is disappointing. She absolutely knows better, but falls back into her partisan spokesperson role too often. She’s one of the few who can really rise above that with sheer competence.

Let Murphy do the slinging.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:23 pm
Goes to show you that answering a question honestly gets you punished every time. That’s why we normally get dishonest or disingenuous rhetoric like the type expressed by Radogno.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:24 pm
=== Radogno’s release intro makes it seem like she’s saying 5 percent is “a good place to begin” ===

Do we think that is an accident? Nah!

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:27 pm
Disappointing boilerplate rhetoric by Radogno. Try doing something productive instead of regurgitating the same tired lines.

Comment by Roamin' Numeral Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:29 pm
==All 67 GOP GA will indeed be “green” on, at least a 33% tax increase.

Cullerton and Madigan will insist, and Rauner needs his deal.

if the FY2015 proved amything, it proved Rauner owns the switches… all 67== I think it will be all 67 GOP and all of the Ken Dunkin Caucus.

Comment by SAP Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:30 pm
==33% income tax increase==

Take that similarly out of context, and she’d be so confused as to have Madigan proposing a 36.75% income tax.

Comment by AC Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:31 pm
Sigh. More combative talk. This helps how Senator Radogno?

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:32 pm
“Then we need to work on a plan to implement a progressive state income tax.”

That would require amending the Illinois constitution.

“Thirty four of the 50 states have a progressive state income tax.”

Including four of the five states that border Illinois. I think Radogno forgets that whenever she talks about making Illinois competitive with other states.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:33 pm
IMHO, Rich, Update 1 deserved a “Sheesh” as well.

Comment by GA Watcher Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:42 pm
“… no reforms to change the way we do business in Illinois,”

A good place to start making reforms is to cut back on corporate welfare and stop letting corporations keep the state income taxes they collect from their employees.

Comment by Enviro Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:47 pm
I imagine while Madigan was driving in to the luncheon today he told himself not to get trapped into talking about taxes. I’m confounded that Madigan slipped up on such a crucial point in the “negotiations”. If this was one of his budgeeters making this mistake he would have distanced himself from such immediately. He’s usually more careful with this stuff. In fact, the last two inaugural platforms he always highlighted the need to curtail costs before increasing revenues. Amazing faux pas.

Comment by Just Saying .... Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:49 pm
An honest answer, complete with adequate caveat. Delivering that at the City Club and thinking the press wouldn’t spin it would be incredibly naive (and the Speaker is not naive). Was it intentional, or just another mistake? I think the latter. Rahm and Trump will own the news cycle today, so it probably all gets list in the day’s news.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:52 pm
…gets “lost”
Apologies.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm
When you are around long enough, you eventually get bitten by the media.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 4:59 pm
When the leaders are in meetings I wonder if Radogno ever says anything positive? Her public comments are always negative. The Governor has mentioned several times this year that the Democrats could go ahead and raise taxes if they wanted. Radogno would love for the Democrats to raise taxes because it has to be done at some point, would immediately alleviate the state’s financial condition, and also the Democrats would then own the tax hike and Radogno would then milk it for all she is worth leading up to the next election.

Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:06 pm
Is it news to anyone that MJM supported a hike in the income tax? Does today’s revelation shock anyone?

Guess what? Governor Rauner supports raising the income tax too. Do you know why? Because math.

This is the weakest “gotcha” moment in politics. I really don’t see a gaffe or mistake or naivete here at all. What I see is the AP and the Tribune trying desperately to pin the tax first label on MJM, regardless of what he actually said today.

Anybody who’s spent more than five minutes on this blog should know that the eventual budget deal will include an income tax hike. If it’s a gaffe for MJM to put something on the table, fine with me. I hope he keeps screwing up with these rookie mistakes all the way until the budget is signed.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:06 pm
Walked right into it, but I am sure that headline had some help from Lance Trover.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:08 pm
So political considerations aside: is he wrong?

Comment by ChicagoVinny Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:15 pm
I don’t think this inaccurate reporting will have any negative impact on Democratic legislators in the next election…tempest in a teapot. How many who voted for the last income tax increase lost their seats because of it?

Comment by Steelerfan Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:19 pm
big goof on Madigan’s part. that being said, why didnt Radogno say these great economic reforms will offset the coming tax increase. she sure can’t specify $5-7 billion in cuts. so who’s really telling the whole truth here? neither from what I can see.

and why have private meetings and pretend the ball is rolling, when they turnaround and attack via press release?

Comment by Poolguy Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:25 pm
Media and public speaking not his friend. Someone needs to tell him before he really screws up. He’s off his game. Or in other words Rauner is in his head.

Comment by Budman Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:31 pm
Madigan was being accurate. They need to implement some type of services sales tax because in our economy thats where the growth is. Its not purchases of tangible goods you put im a sack and take home, its in services (labor) provided to the buyer. Nearly every state that did that is doing ok.

Comment by internal angel Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:47 pm
= I don’t think this inaccurate reporting will have any negative impact on Democratic legislators in the next election…tempest in a teapot. =

Indeed. As of today, there are approximately 11 months available for additional inaccurate reporting before the November elections. This particular example will be long forgotten by then.

/snark

Comment by Bill White Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 5:59 pm
Perhaps an unforced error on the past of MJM, but barely noticed out in the real world….

Question. Does anyone know the raw number of taxpayers in Illinois in 95? 2000? 2005? 2010? Now? My sense is the state has a demographic problem.

Comment by Junior Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:02 pm
===Does anyone know the raw number of taxpayers in Illinois in 95? 2000? 2005? 2010? Now? ===

Retirements alone are crushing the tax base since that income isn’t taxable here.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:06 pm
The Speaker stuck to his very worn script through much of his presentation but was clearly off script for the Q and A portion. His was a candid comment, period. He wants a minimum 5% tax rate which is a 33% increase. Will his members follow?

Big goof on Madigan’s part, indeed.

Comment by Georg Sande Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:06 pm
Interesting how Rodagno and the GOP senators she controls always want to criticize Madigan.
Consistent caucus talking points indeed.
Even the rank and file were bashing Madigan after session this week.

Comment by Austin Blvd Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:14 pm
I don’t think he hurt himself. Just said what everybody knows: when we decide what we’re going to spend, we need to figure out how to get the money. Reporters are worse at spinning than the pols themselves and I doubt the public at large is fooled.

Comment by JackD Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:22 pm
Thanks, Rich. Do either of the parties have a plan to increase the tax base? A shrinking tax base is going to cause continued strife, isn’t it?

Comment by Junior Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:23 pm
What is killing the tax base is the number of people moving out of state, due to the 5% income tax under the former governor.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:36 pm
The state’s population shrank for the first time in years in 2014. It is stuck in a vicious cycle. Ever increasing taxes will only make it worse. Spending must be cut.

Comment by Tone Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 6:48 pm
Oh Chris, this brings me back when you ran against the Dems on an even larger tax increase, and they gained supermajorities.

But keep trying, this time might be the one.

Comment by Daniel Plainview Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:04 pm
Sen. Radogno, tell me more about these “structural reforms.”

You make them sound like a free lunch. With cheese fries. Chili cheese fries.

I am totally down on “structural reforms” that gets you out of borrowing billions from Illinois businesses that are providing services on the cuff, as we are doing now.

Why didn’t anyone come up with these “structural reforms” before? It’s like free money.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:17 pm
Keep your heads in the sand, the state is going down the tubes.

Comment by Tone Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:20 pm
I don’t believe for a second that any one left the state specifically and solely b/c the tax rate was 5%. Prove it.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:24 pm
I think Madigan expressed himself in a rather goofy manner, and shouldn’t have rambled on about it, but I don’t think what he said is real news. Maybe the news is that he blinked first.

Ms. Radogno refers to “state budget negotiations.” How about that–I wasn’t aware there had been any actual talk about a budget.

As for those of you predicting a mass exodus if income taxes rise: there are lots of reasons people might leave. You assume that all these people are mobile and can move on a whim. I don’t think so. Family, stable jobs, friends, community, and the expense of moving are realities that keep people in place. Quality of life, schools, social services, access to government services, infrastructure, and public land are just as important to the public, too. Let all this crumble through cuts and lack of tax revenue, well, just watch our young people leave then.

Of course, if you think people make their decisions about where to live based mainly on income tax rates-we should be a retirement paradise. Illinois is one of the few states that doesn’t tax pensions. Look out, here come the moving vans!

Comment by South Central Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 7:43 pm
It’s possible to make a progressive tax out of a flat tax. All you need to so is factor I. Tax deductions and tax credits based on income. Currently Illjnois is already operating under a quasi progressive income tax with the various credits people get to use on their income tax forms.

Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 8:59 pm
I am shocked that so many people here think that raising income taxes back to 5% is such an easy thing to do. Nearly all my employees live within 50 miles of Chicago.ave salary$50k.do you realize how difficult life is for them? They are not the people who made(or even elected–too young)the unsustainable promises that are part of the problem. These blue collar union people expect some cuts in spending. I talk to them every day. The dems are loosing traction with their base.

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Dec 9, 15 @ 9:59 pm
“These blue collar union people expect some cuts in spending.”

Madigan said he supports spending cuts.

“The dems are loosing traction with their base.”

Perhaps, but union members showed up in droves at local governments to oppose Rauner’s local RTW proposal.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 6:14 am
Our taxes are stifling the Illinois economy, along with antiquated union BS. Anemic job and economic growth arebthe result. Hence population loss.

Comment by Tone Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 7:57 am
Without Chicago, the state would be similar to Alabama.

Comment by Tone Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 7:58 am
How many months a proposed tax hike will be retroactive will be critical and needs to be implemented most likely in January. It most likely still won’t pull the state out of the mess started back with the expiration of the 5% and the failure to use the Amendatory Veto power. However, if it is retroactive to 6 months or more, HUGE chunks are going to be taken out of the average citizen’s paychecks to accomplish even a little gain on the debt. Compound that with April 15, and there will be a lot of pain. No one, politically, it going to come out of this unscathed.

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 8:52 am
Tone, you seem to have memorized a few catch phrases. Do you have any original thoughts? And some substantive analysis would be nice.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Dec 10, 15 @ 9:02 am