Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Kirk wants huge penalties for alleged “super pot”
Posted in:
[Bumped up for visibility and comments opened.]
* According to a new Rasmussen poll, 58 percent of Illinoisans don’t think the General Assembly can balance the state’s budget without an income tax hike…
How likely is it that the Illinois legislature can balance the state budget without increasing the state income tax?
11% Very likely
25% Somewhat likely
40% Not very likely
18% Not at all likely
6% Not sure
Because of the somewhat awkward wording of the question, it’s difficult to know whether the majority has no faith in the GA’s ability to do this without a tax hike, or they understand the budget problem better than most people think (and better than many newspaper editorial writers do). Or both.
The poll surveyed 500 likely voters and was conducted June 9th. MoE is +/- 4.5.
* On to politics. You can click the image for a larger view, but here are favorable ratings for Lisa Madigan, Roland Burris, Pat Quinn, Chris Kennedy and Rod Blagojevich…
Lisa Madigan continues to be one of the most popular politicians in Illinois. A 65 percent favorable rating is pretty darned good.
* Should Lisa Madigan run for Governor or Senate?
21% Governor
23% Senate
56% Not sure
No help there.
* Gov. Quinn’s numbers are still super soft…
* Should Pat Quinn run for re-election as Governor of Illinois in 2010?
32% Yes
34% No
34% Not sure* How would you rate the job Pat Quinn has been doing as Governor… ?
13% Strongly approve
44% Somewhat approve
23% Somewhat disapprove
18% Strongly disapprove
2% Not sure* How likely is it that Pat Quinn will be reelected as Governor?
8% Very likely
48% Somewhat likely
28% Not very likely
4% Not at all likely
13% Not sure* If Quinn runs for re-election as Governor, would you definitely vote for him, definitely vote against him, or would it depend upon who was running against him?
13% Definitely vote for him
23% Definitely vote against him
63% It would depend on who was running against him
2% Not sure
* If anything in this poll gets covered, it’s likely this question…
* To win his appointment to the United States Senate, how likely is it that Roland Burris was involved in unethical pay to play politics?
50% Very likely
27% Somewhat likely
9% Not very likely
2% Not at all likely
12% Not sure
Read the rest of the questions here.
* Rasmussen led its narrative with this, however…
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Illinois voters now say they would definitely vote against Democratic Senator Roland Burris if he runs for a full term in 2010, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.
That result is up from 54% back in April. Burris was named to the Senate by since-impeached Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the seat vacated by Barack Obama.
Only six percent (6%) of voters would definitely vote for Burris, while 32% say their vote would depend on who runs against him.
Burris has not yet said whether he intends to seek a full term in the Senate next year, but 74% of Illinois voters say he should not run. Just 13% say he should.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 8:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning shorts
Next Post: Kirk wants huge penalties for alleged “super pot”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The General Assembly’s Doomsday budget is a public admission of what lawmakers from both parties have been saying all along: if we’re going to preserve the state’s vital infrastructure of community-based services — like rape & domestic abuse prevention, child abuse intervention, home care and pharmaceutical assistance for seniors — SOME sort of tax increase is needed.
Bipartisan cooperation is needed to make that happen.
Democrats have already publicly expressed a willingness to cut spending, which they have the moral authority to do. The Senate tax increase included $2 BILLION in spending cuts, and my bet is that they’re willing to do more.
But Tom Cross and the GOP need to start negotiating in good faith, because raising taxes is going to require the GOP’s moral authority. Compared to the $2 Billion in cuts backed in the Democrats, the GOP hasn’t publicly expressed support for even 2 cents in new revenue. Instead, they say “keep cutting, and we’ll be willing to consider a tax increase.”
That’s not a recipe for success for either party.
Here’s what I think Tom Cross (and the Chicago Tribune for that matter) need to say if we’re really going to avert disaster:
“We’d be willing to support a temporary tax increase of $# billion if Democrats can support $# billion in cuts to non-essential programs.”
Everybody’s happy, everybody’s a winner, and most importantly to the General Assembly, everybody get re-elected.
Because let me assure you of one thing: when the public sent state government in for a liposuction, the did not expect lawmakers to remove a kidney, a lung, and amputate a leg.
But that’s exactly what these cuts do.
And if lawmakers think they can stand for re-election having cut funding for rape services, 120,000 college scholarships, child abuse intervention, closing 4 veterans homes, and a whole host of other cuts on the mantra of “You told me not to raise taxes, and to cut waste instead,” they are deluded.
If these budget cuts stand, I’m willing to wager that 8 Republicans and 14 Democrats will lose their seats.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 9:23 am
The Kennedy numbers are interesting.
For all the moaning that he’s trying to be anointed Senator on the basis of his name, a 29-25 favorable/unfavorable suggests it cuts pretty closely both ways.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 9:30 am
YYD “But that’s exactly what these cuts do.”
And at least one of the Republican Senators does not seem to want to even listen to the people/workers in his district and to their concerns of how these cuts may impact them. Nope, way too busy to meet no matter what time nor day suggested.
Comment by Princess Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 9:36 am
Once again, supermajority requirements cause trouble. Madigan’s approach of blowing off a tax increase until after the 60 percent rule kicks in, in order to make Republicans take some responsibility, might have worked in the political culture of 30 years ago. But in today’s political culture, Illinois simply turns into California after May 31, where everybody shifts responsibility to somebody else and we head down the road to fiscal gimmicks and ultimately a trainwreck. Like it or not, we now have what political scientists like to call “responsible party government” in this country (as in, if you own it, you’re responsible when it gets broken), and the supermajority requirement simply enables the opposition to unload more blame onto the majority. Madigan’s lack of sophistication in understanding this compared to the Republicans has consigned the state to fiscal disaster, and we all get to wait on the sidelines while it unfolds. The Republicans will gain from being obstructionist and they know it.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 9:37 am
YDD, if those seats flip parties, that’s a net gain of 6 for the GOP under your scenario. As Angry Chicagoan says, “the Republicans will gain from being obstructionist and they know it”.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 9:54 am
Don’t forget to add that Illinois is a low tax state, YDD.
Comment by Leroy Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:17 am
I’d like to see a polling done on Stroger!
Comment by first hand Monday, Jun 15, 09 @ 10:20 am