Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign roundup
Next Post: Here we go again
Posted in:
* Today is the one-year anniversary of the income tax increase. The Illinois Policy Institute is holding a Chicago press conference with House Republican Leader Tom Cross and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno at ten o’clock this morning. The live stream will be posted here. I’ll update this post when the presser begins.
Later today, IPI will host a free reception for Statehouse reporters at Boone’s Saloon. I’m not sure who is attending, or if I’m going.
Anyway, your thoughts on the tax hike anniversary?
* OK, let’s start the ScribbleLive feed. Blackberry users click here. Everyone else can just watch…
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign roundup
Next Post: Here we go again
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How would the bond sale have gone if we hadn’t had it?
Comment by Bon-bon Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:39 am
1) When Tom and Christine complain that the tax hike did not “fix” the state’s budget problems, they should be asked how, exactly, that was supposed to happen in one year.
2) When Tom and Christine state that the increase was unnecessary, they should be asked for a specific list of cuts they would make to bring the budget into balance.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:42 am
Will there be cake?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:43 am
We won’t be going out to celebrate. Instead we are staying home and enjoying corned beef hash.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:53 am
Drink Old Milwaukee, Stones. It’s cheap. Happy Birthday taxpayers. At least all of our problems are solved.
Comment by Old Milwaukee Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:56 am
Step 1: Get extra $7B/year in tax hike.
Step 2: Add to structural deficit.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit.
Comment by George of the Jungle Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 9:59 am
You’d have to be pretty hard up for a free one if you’d drink with Colin and Mark and the boys.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:01 am
What’s the point of another press conference? Where was the alternative, put down on paper and introduced as legislation?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:01 am
wordslinger,
I hate to say it, but the legislative GOP, is big on pressers. Legislative docs, not so much.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:04 am
I’m gonna get me a Rum and Koch Bros.
Comment by Fredbyrd Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:06 am
You’ve got to give credit to Cross for one thing. He may not be much of a leader or legislator but he sure knows how to pander.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:18 am
So Radogno and Cross want to make hay out of the ONE tax increase they didn’t support. And even that’s not true. They wanted that tax increase as much as the Dems. Just wanted Dems to pass it so they could have the money AND make hay out of it.
So sleazy.
Doesn’t the IPI have better things to do like making up phony arrest charges against Democrat state representatives and then doing weak apologies?
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:20 am
The tax hike was only one part of the proposed fix. The other part - restructuring the debt - wasn’t passed. So guess what, we still have budget problems. Why should this be a surprise?
Comment by Both Sides Now Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:21 am
Oh there goes McCarter on twitter with his cheap shot. Hes good at those but not so much at running against a veteran gop member in a primary.
Comment by vandalia Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:26 am
I don’t think at midnight on January 11, 2011 the Dems wanted nor asked for a GOP plan. Each caucus has presented spending cuts and budget options, but Dems ignored them. Medicaid reform–ignored by Quinn. Pension reform–not called. our 2 major budget issues ignored by majority.
Comment by Easy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:27 am
===but not so much at running against a veteran gop member in a primary.===
Um, he’s pretty good at that, too.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:27 am
I always get a kick out of the IPI billing themselves as “non-partisian”.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:28 am
Cross, weakly, comlpaining about not having enough votes to do anything, while standing around $1k worth of food is a bit pathetic.
It’s one thing to rail on something, it’s another to complain you are useless to stop it, while offerning nothing as an alternative to get some hay made, while not looking like a whiner and inept. Nothing is weaker than complaining about things around you, while your actions in the past show you have done nothing (winnig a majority) to change those surroundings.
Am I upset about the tax, yeah.
Am I encouraged that this presser and this weak, “well, I don’t have enough votes even if I put all republicans on it” quote will show an alternative? Nope.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:28 am
==The tax hike was only one part of the proposed fix. The other part - restructuring the debt - wasn’t passed. So guess what, we still have budget problems. Why should this be a surprise?==
I’m not sure how restructuring would help when the state didn’t even bother to pass a balanced budget.
Restructuring does no good when you take on billions in new debt (over and above the billions in new revenues).
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:30 am
Instead of selling groceries, why didn’t they have charts with number showing how they would construct a budget with a rolled-back income tax and try to sell that.
That’s the role of opposition — to present alternatives and sell it to the public. It’s not enough to whine that you don’t have the votes.
Come to think of it, the whining and lack of alternatives might be the reasons they don’t have the votes. They’ve grown to be quite content in that position. You never have to make tough choices.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:36 am
The problem that the Republicans have is that you cannot fix the budget on cuts alone. The gap is too big. The state needed more revenue to meet the expectations of pretty much everyone in the state. Ask a Republican to be specific on serious spending cuts, and they go all squishy.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:40 am
The Senate Republicans did offer a plan AFTER the last election. The “highlights” included (1) eating our seed corn ($1B in cuts to education), (2) higher property taxes (gutting LGDF), and (3) bad math.
Comment by Think Big Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:41 am
==Later today, IPI will host a free reception for Statehouse reporters at Boone’s Saloon.==
Whatever else I may think, IPI certainly knows how to grab the Capitol press corps’ attention. That should be one of the best-attended pressers this year.
Comment by Northsider Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:41 am
Wordslinger,
Hey! No one can cut the dogleg on a long Par 4 on Election Day like Minority Leader Cross, so back off.
So grabbing the gravel is not a top-top priority, but whining seems to be. I know I, for one, am impressed he got a tee time that day, it was gorgeous out.
I am not impressed with theses pressers …
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:44 am
1. Moody’s applauded the tax hike.
2. Illinois leads the Midwest in job creation.
3. We must not be that broke…Cross and Radogno just voted to give away more than a billion over the next decade to two companies.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:45 am
=Restructuring does no good when you take on billions in new debt (over and above the billions in new revenues).=
The restructuring is not new debt! I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained…..this is a liability regardless of if we owe it to a bank or a vendor.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:48 am
Cross is the only one advocating pension reform and HGOP are the lead on medicaid reform. We can all resort to our usual homer talking points of the Republicans are do nothing. But on the major issue–on the major pressures on the state budget–it’s the Republicans with the major reform plans.
Comment by Easy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 10:56 am
Easy - You can’t have one of your major soundbites be “I could put every Republican on it and I still couldn’t pass it.” and be seen as a “leader” in any way.
Your main talking point can NOT be “I would like to, but I am inept.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:00 am
= The restructuring is not new debt! I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained…..this is a liability regardless of if we owe it to a bank or a vendor.=
Yes, and the vote on SB 72 was nearly unanimous. This proves that everyone (except Lauzen) understands the basic point but that some choose to ignore it for the sake of political expediency.
Comment by Think Big Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:01 am
I propose paying off our past-due bills by zeroing out current appropriations for:
- Northern Illinois University
- Eastern Illinois University
- Illinois State University
- University of Illinois at Springfield
- Every corrections facility in a Republican House and Senate District
Who is with me?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:06 am
(1)THe average family of 4 hasn’t felt anything from the tax increase (yet) because it is offsett by the federal payroll tax cut. Timing could not have been better.
(2) Is there any possible chance at all that yesterday’s uber-succesful bond sale stimulates an appetite for bond sale/debt restructuring? Please.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:08 am
The new debt may very well just create more funds that will be spent and gone on so many things instead of paying existing bills.
In view of that my thoughts are the debt restructuring will acomplish nothing.
As for the tax hike party Im sure the CBOT and Sears will be there as will an assortment of so called Illinois poor invited to keep the ballot box stuffed
Comment by Informer Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:10 am
OW-
That doesn’t make any sense and putting the cheap shots aside, I think the point is that there is a caucus ready to advance key reform measures, but they will need some bipartisan support.
Comment by Easy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:14 am
Easy -
“That doesn’t make any sense…”
If you ever heard someone say, “I would like to do something but I can’t”, how serious do you take them???
Cross might as well say, “I have this plan, its written on beatuiful paper, in a side saddle of this unicorn, escorted by flying pigs and will be written a glitter gold and sunshine … I could put every Republican on it and I still couldn’t pass it.”
That is what it seems could have been said … when you always fall on the crutch of … ‘I could get …’.
At what point do you TRY to take the leadership to either work a real plan to run on, AND get the gavel to see it through if you can’t get Dems to see your point of view?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:21 am
There is no possible way that Cross could put every Republican on a pension reform bill, so why even bring this hypothetical up? He will be hard pressed to come up with half of the votes needed. Given that this will need bi-partisan cooperation, he should focus on working on a solution that can receive the required votes in both houses instead of holding press conferences with organizations that have little credibility due to their constant public gaffes.
Mr. Cross & Ms. Radogno, get to work on legislation and stop being media hounds. Hold a press conference after you get something done.
Comment by Ahoy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:24 am
And IPI is “non-partisan”???
About as much as political pressers help solve the fiscal problems.
Still, Radogno is a much better source on the budget than the IPI, or than other spokesfolks for our GOP, and Cross figured out how to really support the new budget process, created by our Dems.
There are good reform ideas pushed from both sides of the aisle, and most good ideas have at least some bi-partisan support, when not distracted by political activities.
Comment by mark walker Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:26 am
I believe the Republicans put out a plan to make the tax go away. Where is the Democratic plan to make it go away. Or are we all conceding that they have no intention of making it go away? Because that’s not what they are saying. And if that’s what their plan is, why are they not saying it?
Comment by Old Milwaukee Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:29 am
=The new debt may very well just create more funds that will be spent and gone on so many things instead of paying existing bills.
In view of that my thoughts are the debt restructuring will accomplish nothing.=
Actually that’s the opposite of true. By paying these old bills with bonds, they are actually putting these obligations “on budget” and making them impossible to ignore.
What I mean is that debt service payments fall within the spending caps, therefore, for every dollar you increase debt service, you must cut a dollar of operational spending. Currently, the GA & Gov don’t have to address the backlog because they can pass a balanced budget, ignore the backlog & still be compliant with the constitution because backlog repayment spending isn’t included in the spending caps……so they just carry it forward each year rather than making cuts. It’s the very definition of kicking the can down the road. As I said, bonding this debt would force the GA/Gov to make real cuts.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:31 am
===I believe the Republicans put out a plan to make the tax go away===
They introduced a bill to repeal it, yes. They did not introduce approp bills to show where the $7 billion in cuts would be made.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:32 am
==The restructuring is not new debt! I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained…..this is a liability regardless of if we owe it to a bank or a vendor.==
I didn’t call restructured debt “new debt.” I said that restructuring doesn’t solve the problem so long as the state continues to take on new debt.
Deficit spending is taking on new debt. Even if we restructured our old debt, the problem wouldn’t be solved because we’re still spending more than we’re taking in every year. So that new debt gets added to the old debt.
The state has to stop making new debt before restructuring “solves” anything.
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:33 am
===Even if we restructured our old debt, the problem wouldn’t be solved because we’re still spending more than we’re taking in every year.===
You’re forgetting something important. A seven-year bond would require roughly a billion dollars in annual payments. That billion comes right off the top. It cannot be shunted aside. And that billion would not in any way reduce current structured spending.
So, the billion would be extra money that had to be paid. It would, because statutes require bonds to be paid first, necessarily require a billion dollars in budget cuts. And not one-time budget cuts, either, because we’re talking seven years here.
So, yeah, bonding for old bills could actually force the state to cut its budget.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:39 am
Harold, you talk just like the GOP…platitudes o’ plenty.
Please take out your red pen and show us what you’d cut and how much.
Comment by Peter Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:41 am
===They introduced a bill to repeal it, yes. They did not introduce approp bills to show where the $7 billion in cuts would be made.===
I might even bother to pay attention if they offered a detailed budget proposal. You can’t just propose part of the equation. “Cut Taxes!! - Cut Programs!! (but not in my district)”. This budget thing needs to add up. Simple math. Money in. Money out. They have not shown how Illinois can do this with all their propaganda.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:42 am
When the Republicans want to repeal the act of temporarily raising taxes to slightly below the Midwestern average, what I want to know is this — how exactly do they propose to pay for the repeal? Simply to make things sustainable at their current level and avoid further increases, you need to deliver pension reform and hope that federal health reform achieves its goals of stabilizing health care costs. The bottom line; Illinois can’t deliver Minnesota services on a Mississippi budget, even if you throw every single government-feeding crook in jail, and it’s time for Republicans to stop pretending that it can.
The Republican stance is even more glaringly off-base when you consider the complete lack of suggestions of any tax reform to boost business activity in a sustainable way. Increasing the personal exemption, given that the poor and middle class have suffered more than the rich in this recession? A more balanced sales tax instead of the absurdity of almost 10 percent on our declining sales of goods and nothing on our booming services sector? One flat rate for corporate taxes instead of one special interest giveaway after another? Crickets.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 11:48 am
==So, yeah, bonding for old bills could actually force the state to cut its budget.==
So would passing a law saying full pension payments and Medicaid bills must be appropriated up front. I wouldn’t call that a long-term “solution” in itself, even if it did scare legislators into enacting needed reform.
The solution is the reform; it is not an indirect mechanism that may (or may not) make reform more politically palatable.
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:10 pm
I don’t remember the GOP members complaining about the revenue from the tax hike when they voted to restore funding for the prisons and developmental centers in their districts.
And despite the higher rates it appears someone had enough leftover cash to go out and fill a table with political props.
Maybe they could donate the diapers to the crying babies over at the Civic Committee and Trib editorial board.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:26 pm
This whole bit about leading the Midwest in job creation is a little silly. We are the most populated state and home to the 3rd largest metro with a global city. Let’s be real. If we were anything but first, that would be the story.
No less, I’m “celebrating” twice for the anniversary since Quinn doubled his tax increase promise.
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:37 pm
Cross and Radogno continue to be so helpful with regard to the budget. Let’s repeal the tax increase and make the budget situation that much worse again. They are absolutely pathetic. When are they and the rest of the members of the General Assembly (both parties) going to even remotely take any of the budget situation seriously. This continuing partisan crap has got to stop. I’ve had it with all of them. Do something constructive or shut up and get the hell out of the way for people who can.
Rant concluded.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:50 pm
Note to commenters:
When you post a comment that includes the phrase “I don’t care what is in the worthless constitution,” you’ll probably be deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:52 pm
That midnight tax hike by lame ducks was a dastardly cowardly act. Yes, huge budget cuts must be made. I have no idea why starting at an across the board cut is unreasonable. Govt bureaucracies have plenty of fat in them. Cut staff, cut salaries, bennies, cut social services, eg, by limiting eligibility and gauging needs more rigorously. Yes, it’s all subjective, but the point is to cast a narrower net, given our fiscal condition. If we taxpayers have to fork over some more, those dependent upon (or profiting from) the state must give a little too.
Comment by Peggy R Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:53 pm
Richard:
I agree with you about cuts. But if we are going to talk about it people need to get specific. The kind of cuts were are talking about here (I’m assuming) are going to mean lots of pain and the end of services. Which services should go away? Which Departments should be closed? And I’m assuming you were hinting at pensions in your comment. What would the pension system look like? These are the discussions that have to happen. You can’t just say MAJOR cuts.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 12:55 pm
We could always close 7 facilities and lay off 1900 state employees.
Wonder what the Republicans would think about that.
Oh, I guess we already know. They don’t like it.
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x462608905/Follow-Gov-Quinns-budget-news-conference-here-at-noon
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:15 pm
=So would passing a law saying full pension payments and Medicaid bills must be appropriated up front. I wouldn’t call that a long-term “solution” in itself, even if it did scare legislators into enacting needed reform=
Again you are uninformed. Last spring the General Assembly did exactly that. They passed the debt service & pension payment approp bills weeks before the end of session. This showed the members how much they could actually spend on the operating budget (aka discretionary items)with on the remaining resources after those 2 big budget pieces were funded.
I agree with you, it is a very good way to handle things. However, this practice happened last year & all that happened is that the GA severely unfunded certain agencies, rather than enacting real reform, and had to return in November/December in order to fix their mess.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:21 pm
==Again you are uninformed. Last spring the General Assembly did exactly that.==
If this were true, Medicaid wouldn’t be underfunded to the tune of two and a half billion dollars this year.
==all that happened is that the GA severely unfunded certain agencies, rather than enacting real reform==
That’s my whole point. It won’t work. They’re operating with an annual deficit. New debt adds to old debt. Even if you take care of the old debt problem, you’re still facing billions in new debt every year unless you actually reform something.
Rich says that restructuring will solve the spending problem because it will scare lawmakers into enacting reforms. It won’t. It won’t put any more pressure on the GA than requiring pension payments, interest, and Medicaid bills be paid first.
The solution is reform. The solution is NOT “put pressure on them so they enact the reform.”
Pressure may be necessary, but it’s not the end goal.
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:38 pm
===Rich says that restructuring will solve the spending problem===
No, I didn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:40 pm
==No, I didn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth.==
Fine. Rich says that restructuring COULD solve the spending problem.
See here:
==bonding for old bills could actually force the state to cut its budget.==
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:46 pm
-=-Fine. Rich says that restructuring COULD solve the spending problem.
See here:
==bonding for old bills could actually force the state to cut its budget.==
Harold, you’re still wrong, as those of us who can read can plainly see.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:48 pm
==Harold, you’re still wrong, as those of us who can read can plainly see.==
Please explain. What are you taking issue with?
Are you saying that “bonding old bills” is not the same as saying “restructuring old debt”?
Or are you saying that “forcing the state to cut its budget” is not the same as saying “solving the spending problem”?
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:55 pm
–Or are you saying that “forcing the state to cut its budget” is not the same as saying “solving the spending problem”?–
Bingo.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 1:58 pm
==Bingo==
Unless Rich was suggesting the state would need to raise additional revenues, I don’t see what you’re getting at.
Cutting the budget requires either more revenue or less spending. Less spending requires reforms that “solve the spending problem.”
So, if Rich was calling for higher taxes: fine, I apologize for misstating his position. If not, I’m not sure what big difference you think is there.
Comment by Harold Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:09 pm
Harold,
If you check back, at least one of the older pension reform bills required the pension payment be made before any other monies were appropriated from the GRF.
How did that work out? It didn’t, because a current legislature can’t legally bind future legislatures. The only way you can come close to it is by putting the actual funding obligation in the State Constitution in clear language … (the payment obligation is already there).
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:15 pm
Anyone who takes the repeal pledge should also have the testicular fortitude to specify exactly where to slash $7 billion and also pledge to vote to slash $7 billion from the budget. Keep in mind that 90% of the budget comes from 4 areas: education, health care, social services and public safety.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:15 pm
Free beer isn’t enough to get me out in the snow. What’s the point of being retired if you can’t avoid that white stuff?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:20 pm
How can the GOP claim the tax hike was a “failure.”
What would they do without it? They’ve aruguably benefited more from it than anyone else. Their employment centers stay open and they get a campaign issue.
It’s like Madigan spotted them the H, O, and R in a game of HORSE.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:24 pm
Given the history of “temporary” tax increases in Illinois, one would have to be totally naive to actually believe they will be temporary.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:28 pm
@reformer
Exactly……the state would be looking at 20-30% cuts (probably more) in these essential state services in order to get to $7B in cuts….this is neither realistic nor acceptable.
GOPs appear to be saying that they could afford to repeal the income tax increase if they could just pass pension reform & Medicaid reform…..and that’s just not possible unless their definition of reform is to completely eliminate pensions & Medicaid.
The fact is that even if pension reform & Medicaid reform were to be enacted (& deemed constitutional by the courts) this spring, the tax increase is still needed to pay old bills & to maintain the social safety net.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:29 pm
===Given the history of “temporary” tax increases in Illinois===
Before this one, there were two temporary income tax hikes. One was allowed to expire, the other was made permanent.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:29 pm
===GOPs appear to be saying that they could afford to repeal the income tax increase if they could just pass pension reform & Medicaid reform===
Yeah, and Cross’ pension reform bill increases the state contribution by a billion dollars next fiscal year.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 2:31 pm
=Yeah, and Cross’ pension reform bill increases the state contribution by a billion dollars next fiscal year.=
Wow, I was unaware of that. Thanks for then info.
So let’s summarize: No debt restructuring, repeal the $7B in tax revenue, & $1B increase pension contribution in the short-term. These folks are out of their minds.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:34 pm
Someone please correct me, I remember something last fall where the SGOP was all in a huff and was going to do “this and that”, but when Rodogno was asked about the specifics, she had none and tried to walk it back, just saying the Caucus was against “it”. Was it the Income Tax?
Sorry, I am in & out today, shoveling out Oswego one house at a time, and my mind is failing me, and unlike the Minority Leaders, I am admitting I dunno what I am talking about, and asking for some help.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 3:37 pm
Good to know Radogno and Cross have nothing better to do than buy groceries for cheap publicity stunts.
No wonder voters didn’t give the GOP a seat at the map drawing table. Wonder how many seats they’ll lose this year and more importantly, will anyone care, or even notice.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 4:51 pm
Rich posted a link to the Moody’s Rating statement on the Illinois downgrade. Here is what it said about the tax increase:
1. “It remains to be seen whether the state has the political willingness to impose durable policies leading to fiscal strength, though in the recent past it has reached consensus on difficult decisions, such as temporary income tax increases enacted last year that stabilized state finances and reduced the state’s need for non-recurring budgetary measures.
2.”WHAT COULD MAKE THE RATING GO DOWN - Early phase-out of 2011 tax increases without offsetting binding expenditure actions, increasing the structural gap”
I watched the blueroom and do not recall having heard any of the presenters discuss these aspects of the Moody’s statement issued just last week.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Jan 12, 12 @ 5:19 pm
With the debt rating drop Illinois just got hit in the you know where regarding its plans to borrow its way out of debt
Time for a new plan. Perhaps building a new casino or, heavens help us all, how about taxing farm ground at its fair market value instead of its productivity value? Nothing like spreading the hurt around equally is the way I see it
Comment by Informer Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:08 am