Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Empty populism and missing the point
Posted in:
* As I’ve said before, Pat Quinn’s populist politics are not all that different from Rod Blagojevich’s, except that Quinn is far more honest and sincere. Check this out…
Quinn, in an interview with WGN-AM 720… suggested state lawmakers and other statewide elected officials consider taking a pay cut while the state is in economic distress.
“I really think that government officials in the executive branch where I am and the legislative branch should look closely at doing that,” Quinn said of a pay cut. “It’d have to be a law reducing pay, but I think that’s worth looking at, at least temporarily.”
But aides to Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said such moves would only be symbolic and wouldn’t address the real need to curb a projected $11.5 billion deficit.
Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said that although “everything is negotiable,” the Senate president would say “pay cuts from legislators get us no closer to our goals. It may pay off in PR credits, but it’s not a real solution.”
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said: “All of these nickel-dime ideas don’t serve any purpose” toward eliminating the debt, whether they are suggested by “a political person, a news organization or some self-appointed community civics expert.”
If this was Rod Blagojevich, we’d say he was publicly flogging legislators to shield himself from criticism about his revenue plan. So far, Quinn has been pretty good about avoiding potshots at the GA, but this is not a good sign. It plays right into the anger of folks like this person who sent me an e-mail yesterday afternoon…
…I do not see our elected representatives suffering, or hurting. In fact they have some great benefits, and I have heard nothing of them having to sacrifice anything as of yet.
Expect to hear more of that now.
…Adding… I put this into comments and then realized I should’ve included it here. From the Illinois Constitution…
A member shall receive a salary and allowances as provided by law, but changes in the salary of a member shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.
So, legislative salaries cannot be decreased until their next terms, which for most begins January of 2011. Hopefully, the economy will be out of this mess by then. They could take voluntary cuts, of course, but their salaries cannot be legally altered during this term.
* Meanwhile, Phil Kadner brings up an interesting point…
What if you finally got an honest politician and discovered you really disliked the way he ran the government? Would you rather have the honest politician or a dishonest one, even a crook, who did what you wanted him to do?
He concludes…
I think Quinn is honest. But I’m not sure that automatically makes him a good governor.
I think a tax hike is needed. I don’t like the way Quinn is spending some of that money.
But what do I really want? What do you really want?
Do you really want an honest governor who tries to do the right thing? What if he honestly believes the right thing to do is raise taxes?
Just maybe, the governor we want is the person that we’ve always elected in the past.
People love being told that they can get something for nothing and that somebody else will pay the piper. Rod Blagojevich, like quite a few recent presidents, was great at that game. The “Working families should not be taxed more,” mantra is perhaps the most overused pander in the book. Working families drive on the roads, take the trains, send their kids to public schools, etc. Somehow, they now feel entitled to do all that without paying anything extra.
Here’s most of the rest of that e-mail I received yesterday…
You have a lot of contact with the almighty state government in Springfield. So I pose this question to you. Do they realize that we are sick of having to bail out the state all the time?
The state it seems cannot hold up their end of the bargain on so many things. Then when they are up against the wall when it comes to bills, pension funds, infrastructure, they ask us to shoulder the burden of their mistakes.
Why do we have to suffer for their inability to take care of their own bills, their flagrant spending and general inability to do anything useful with the power given them it seems?
I reminded this person that the state government is him. This state elected Rod Blagojevich twice and George Ryan once. Legislators have been reelected time and time again. “Their” bills are his bills.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* Quinn pledges to find way to fund state historic sites
* State parks fees won’t take effect immediately
* This Is a Joke, Right?
* Illinois Governor Proposes Broad Array of Tax Increases
* About that “50% Increase”
* Quinn targeting cigarettes, but not alcohol, to fix budget
* Income-tax déjà vu—make hike temporary, like in ’80s
* Lawmakers React to Quinn’s Plan
* Who’s buying budget plan?
* Unions, business groups dislike Quinn’s budget
* State employee unions say Quinn needs to rethink budget
* Businesses fear Quinn’s tax bump
* Quinn visits Peoria, says state must focus on paying its bills on time
* Governor Visits Peoria, Pushes Tax Increase
* Gov. Quinn visits veterans home
* Quinn touts expansion of LaSalle Veterans Home staff during visit
* Quinn’s budget would raise admission for State Fair
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Empty populism and missing the point
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Does every road and every school built in Illinois have be done by unions?? Davis-Bacon wages are rather expensive.A question to ponder.
Comment by Steve Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:18 am
…Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said such moves would only be symbolic…
These men are politicians, yet they question the power of symbolism? Who do they think they’re fooling pretending otherwise? Yes, it is symbolic, but that make it worthless. No, it won’t balance the budget - but it would show the kind of public leadership that has been so lacking in this state. Lead by example, gentlemen! As we suffer economic hardships, demonstrate some empathy? You are supposed to represent us, remember? So, do it!
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said: “All of these nickel-dime ideas don’t serve any purpose” toward eliminating the debt, whether they are suggested by “a political person, a news organization or some self-appointed community civics expert.”
Mr. Brown is not alone in conveying this kind of sentiment. Yet, this is exactly the kind of attitude that most of us are tired of hearing. “Nickle-dime” ideas add up, sir! Not only when it comes to cuts, but also when it comes to costs. Do you have any idea how out of touch this attitude is for anyone who recognizes that when you have thousands of “nickle-dime” ideas has been sinking Illinois? Many legislator and agency director sees their budget requests as “nickel-dime” ideas. It is this nickle-dime mentality that has driven us into bankrupsy when they added up to Billions. This entire statement is arrogant and insulting to those of us who struggle with nickles and dimes during these times. Sorry to force you to consider ideas that you feel are beyond your great brains to process!
Blagojevich has been out of office only a couple of months, but some pundits are telling us that honesty isn’t all that it is cracked up to be? I don’t agree. We’ve had a string of liars governing Illinois - let’s try a little honesty, shall we? Before we judge Quinn, let’s give him some time to show us what he can do, OK?
Populism has it’s place. We can have a honest populist as a leader. And we can have an honest populist leader that can effectively govern. Before we start wondering if it can be done - let’s see how well Quinn stacks up to this ideal, and then see how well he does his job.
We’ve tried liars, let’s try something else.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:25 am
I’m reminded of the scene in the movie “A Few Good Men” where the Jack Nicholson character winds up blurting out “you can’t handle the truth.” Frankly, I don’t know why people think that this is the one time in history the voting public could handle the truth.
Nobody wants to pay for the sins of the past or the inequities of the present, but someone will need to and that someone is us. There are a lot of really bad options out there and we are stuck picking one of them.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:25 am
I was going to comment on Rich’s question, but to me Steve raises an interesting point. Why do we have to negotiate with the unions if they refuse the pension plan and other benefit changes? Seems to me there are plenty of unemployed people who would love a state job right now even at lowered benefits. So if the unions balk, I say let them walk and lets fill the halls of governement with some new people. The biggest obstacle to fixing Illinois right now besides certain members of the GA (Ricky Hendon types of what’s in it for me) is the unions. I’ve always been a fairly liberal Dem, but these unions have to blind if they think they can get away unscathed from the terrible situation we are in. From the reaction I’ve seen so far from the unions, it appears they are not only blind, but deaf & dumbs too.
Comment by Niles Township Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:26 am
Rich, your emailer talks about bailing out the state all the time? I’m wondering when those many times were. The income tax hasn’t gone up in 20 years. Actually, taxpayers looked the other way time and time again while legislators skipped pension patments and ran up the debt. We’ve been living on credit for decades. This person doesn’t seem to get that because we elect them to represent us, we must shoulder the burden of their mistakes. How else would it work?
Comment by DC Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:27 am
“Nickel-dime ideas”: my grandfather, who was the youngest member ever elected to the Nebraska legislature (early 1920’s), always said, “If you watch the nickel and dimes, the dollars will take care of themselves.” Oh, I forgot, the leaders haven’t been watching them and that’s why we’re in this mess. Everything should be fair game for cuts; it’s necessary.
Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:27 am
Vanilla man - You wrote my thoughts. Thank You.
Comment by little lady Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:34 am
As voters we should hopefully remember that some of the “leaders”, for lack of a better term, don’t really seem to want to be a part of the solution that they themselves created.
Comment by 618er Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:34 am
==Would you rather have the honest politician or a dishonest one, even a crook, who did what you wanted him to do? ==
The crook, obviously! The state did pretty well when George was governor.
Comment by Bill Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:34 am
The “Working families should not be taxed more,” mantra is perhaps the most overused pander in the book. Working families drive on the roads, take the trains, send their kids to public schools, etc. Somehow, they now feel entitled to do all that without paying anything extra.
When people feel they are not getting a value from their governments, they do not want to pay more for that poor value. Over the past several years, we have been witnessing a segregation among citizens as to who pays, and who does not. It has grown outrageously to a point where we have a significant percentage of our population that does not pay taxes, except for the goods and services they consume. We know that people will not “buy into” supporting an organization unless they actually “buy”, so what we have been creating via good intentions is a voter base alienated from government. Consequentially, a new kind of spoiled citizen has been created.
In an attempt to be “fair”, taxpayers are being dealt with unfairly. They know this, and see it. As our government crumbles under the costs of feeding this spoiled voter base - naturally you will see frustration and anger from those expected to pay for these social costs. Hence, they experience poor value for their tax dollars, and no longer wish to be taken advantage of by others.
Blagojevich wasn’t stupid. He tapped into this. It exists. You can either pretend that all these millions are delusional, or you can open your eyes to their situation and address it fairly.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:35 am
But aides to Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said such moves would only be symbolic and wouldn’t address the real need to curb a projected $11.5 billion deficit.
but asking state employees for furlough days has a dramatic effect on the deficit.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:36 am
I’m not sure how relevant Quinn is to this year’s budget process now that he has put a plan out there. Especially, as so many believe, he is going to be a less-than-two year governor. He can project an image of good intentions, honesty, and a personal modest lifestyle, unlike our Blago, but that’s about it. If this is a sword falling exercise, he’s already fallen.
It’s up to the legislature now. And that’s a problem, given the present state of campaign finance reform (not). When AFSCME and various
corporate interests start reminding legislators of the state of their campaign chests, they are going to listen. They are likely to listen far less to their constituents, especially, as is so often the case, they have always run virtually unopposed. First, stay in office, is their motto.
It’s a great gig.
Peronally, I’d like to see more furlough days (California had 2 per month, I believe) and a higher deduction amount (to $10,000 instead of $6000). As I’ve said many times, I don’t believe that a family of four making $100k is well off, especially if they lack the plush benefits that come with government jobs. Raising the number of furlough days might bring some compensation parity during this economic crisis.
But I’ll take my tax increase as long as everybody else shares the pain. But if corporations, state government employees, and
other powerful interests get off the hook…I hope there are some Blue Dog Democrats out there I can support in the next election.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:39 am
I lay the blame with Blagojevich. When he was elected, the Republican party was in shambles. He could easily have pushed through an income tax increase during better economic times and helped fix the problems with schools and infrastructure at the same time. Because of the political problems of the Republicans, Blagojevich would have survived his reelection bid easily. He had enough political capital and a weakened enough opponent to get it done. He knew it needed to get done. At that time the deficit was around $3.5 billion, which seems sort of small by today’s standards. It wouldn’t have fixed all of our troubles and we would still be dealing with deficits today, but we would be in much better shape. Why didn’t he do it? To preserve his electability as President. Laughable, I know, but I really think that’s the reason.
Comment by chiatty Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:41 am
===Why didn’t he do it? To preserve his electability as President. Laughable, I know, but I really think that’s the reason.===
Um, he promised a kabillion times during the 2002 campaign not to raise taxes. He kept that promise in 2003. Whatever you think of the fiscal soundness of his decision, it was a major campaign promise that he kept back then.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:43 am
In other words, blame the voters for electing a guy on a no tax hike promise.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:43 am
Rich - He also promissed “not to balance the budget on the backs of state employees”. We all know how well he kept that one.
Comment by tanstaafl Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:44 am
Taxpayer, meet Pogo!
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:46 am
It is intesting that they speak about the symbolism and not making a difference what they really meant was “DON’T TOUCH US WE ARE ABOVE YOU.
I think voters have seen enough of our elected officials thumbing their nose at us “little people” with all their perks, nearly full funded pensions systems, pay raises, per diem for an hours work, and other games they play, and that is just the State legislature. I won’t get into the Congressional perks.
The response by the legislative spokes persons shows they don’t care if they take money away from ANYONE ELSE, just don’t touch their pockets or perks.
Reciently, the Treasurer said ALL the pension systems should be one (including the Leg. Pension System and Judges Pension System) the legislature basically laughed at that idea. Unfortunatey it was a GREAT idea that makes sense.
The arogance of elected officials will eventually catch up to them. The Voters need to wake up.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:47 am
Pat Quinn prounounces “the drunken sailors need to give up some of their own salary”.
Comment by Balance Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:52 am
I reminded this person that the state government is him. This state elected Rod Blagojevich twice and George Ryan once. Legislators have been reelected time and time again. “Their” bills are his bills.
Thoughts?
I give Ronald Reagan credit for convincing many Americans that government is not “us.”
It’s probably the greatest disservice ever done to our Democracy.
Instead of a nation of voters and an engaged electorate, we’ve created a nation of talk show listeners, cable t.v. watchers, and blog commenters.
We’re completely passive, and we’ve got the government we deserve for it.
Now, we have three choices.
We can take responsibility for the mess we’ve stood by and watched pile up as we’ve neglected our civic duty. We can own the mess and fix it.
We can spend 30 minutes in the next election voting to “throw the bums out” and think we’ve done our civic duty, even though as their bosses we just stood by and watched them do it for three decades, pat ourselves on the back, go back to loading our i-pods, and let the mess start all over.
Or, we can continue to whine.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:56 am
Niles Township
===Why do we have to negotiate with the unions if they refuse the pension plan and other benefit changes?===
I think the answer is because IL has a contract with AFSCME. IL certainly has to up hold its contracts, I mean that is a cornerstone of the role government. (so that means no hiring of “scabs”) Also, states are not allowed to file for bankruptcy because a state can always raise taxes to cover its financial obligations. So apparently your problem is with the unions.
The IL and the U.S. support a workers right to form unions. So unless I am wrong, you are advocating that we (IL) de-unionize the the public sector.
LOL. Good luck with that
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:59 am
After Blago was arrested, pundits, reporters, comedians, and ordinary people all over the nation asked the question, “How did a jerk like this get elected TWICE?”
My answer is, “Because he told the voters what they wanted to hear.” And, to a lesser extent, because he convinced voters that his opponents (Jim Ryan and JBT) were just as crooked as he was.
Elections have consequences. The longer those consequences are delayed, the worse they will be when they finally happen.
I never voted for Blago, but I did vote for Ryan in 1998, mainly out of misguided loyalty to the Republican Party. Without Ryan, there would probably have been no Blago, and the Illinois GOP would be much better off. So I see the tax hikes, pay cuts and furlough days I may end up having to take next year as my penance for casting that vote.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:07 am
Steve Brown said “some self-appointed community civics expert.”
I would take offense to that, but I think he was referring to you, Rich. Snap!
Comment by George Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:08 am
hmmm, interesting. So does this mean I can volunteer Cullerton and Madigan for two of hubby’s furlough days and Cassandra (since she prefers more) will volunteer for, oh, let’s say 5, that’ll she’ll send in cash to cover. Great. Tell the state I’m signing up for 7 days.
Comment by Princess Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:12 am
Kadner asks an age-old question.
I think throughout history, people have been willing to tolerate or even expect a measure of corruption, injustice, or even despotism, if the government will provide basic services at a reasonable cost.
But if government is not delivering the goods, or if it’s taking a bigger chunk out of your wallet, “honesty” becomes an atrractive virtue again. Whether it gets the garbage picked up or makes the trains run on time is open to debate.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:13 am
One of my pet peeves is state employees who believe that legislators and statewide officials are also just state employees like themselves.
Not true.
For instance, regarding compensation, here’s the Illinois Constitution…
=== A member shall receive a salary and allowances as
provided by law, but changes in the salary of a member shall
not take effect during the term for which he has been
elected.===
Get yourself elected if you want that constitutional protection. Or, perhaps you should’ve voted for a constitutional convention last year.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:15 am
===I would take offense to that, but I think he was referring to you, Rich. Snap!===
The other 2 types of individuals mentioned by Mr Brown (political persons and new organizations) could certainly apply to Rich. I have no comment on civics expert
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:15 am
IL certainly has to up hold its contracts, I mean that is a cornerstone of the role government.
—-
AIG had contracts…that had to be upheld too, didn’t they? I’m certain than that you agree that all AIG employees should receive their full bonuses given how strongly you feel about the eunion contracts.
I do understand somewhat your point about the contract. I am suggesting that it be suggested that when the union contract comes up next, there won’t be a need for a negotiation. The benefit plan being offered is the only that should be offered, take it or leave it. Scabs may be a problem but most industries do hire them. I would have no problem with IL doing the same.
I am a liberal Dem who has supported union rights for a long time, but what I see now is several greedy unions who won’t empathize with a state in disarray with thousands upon thousands of unemployed private sector workers, and with the worst economic condition our state has been in since the depression. So while I normally have no issue with unions, you bet I do now with the way they have been acting lately. A storm is brewing against the cabal that has become the unions and our city, (Cook) county & state governments. Read the Declaration of Independance to see what happens when the citizens feel their rights are not being preserved.
Comment by Niles Township Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:17 am
===I’m certain than that you agree that all AIG employees should receive their full bonuses given how strongly you feel about the eunion contracts.===
More stupid populism. Contracts are contracts. You can’t get around that fact.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:20 am
Yes, Quinn is a honest person who has come to honestly understand that an $11.5 million deficit can only be covered by huge tax increases coupled with huge cuts. One or the other by itself will not do the trick. Skipping additional pension contributions does not count as a cut. That would constitute “Blagojevichian” thinking.
Comment by One of the 35 Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:23 am
Given the reality, tax increases are necessary, and while most people hate that reality, they would almost hold their nose and go with it non-violently IF they thought the burden would be shared fairly, AND once we are truly on a balanced budget, there was some confidence that the greedy/incompetent *$#&^#(’s that got us here to begin with wouldn’t put us RIGHT BACK HERE in short order…ala Sysiphus.
Comment by You Go Boy Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:25 am
Rich, That is part of my point, I wasblinking an eye when I typed that, but all contracts are negotiable even durign a term. When you talk about what might happen after the current term ends it gives you leverage to open it up now. I’ve done it counteless times.
Comment by Niles Township Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:27 am
Rich “One of my pet peeves is state employees who believe that legislators and statewide officials are also just state employees like themselves”.
I don’t think that at all, but I do remember Ryan taunting AFSCME back in 2002 that he’d give up his pay raise if the union would. Which was a nice public gesture, which really meant nothing.
Comment by Princess Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:28 am
Legislators and statewide officials may not be “just” state employees, but they are leaders, and I believe leaders should be the first one out the door, and share the sacrifices like everyone else. They shouldn’t act like pampered princes.
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:37 am
“One of my pet peeves is state employees who believe that legislators and statewide officials are also just state employees like themselves.”
Rich: This attitude above is also part of the problem. Elected officials receive compensation from the state even though they may be “more than just employees” as you put it. But if they don’t take a cut themselves they remain insentisized to the problem. Cuts remain abstract concepts if they don’t personally experience the pain of a compensation reduction. Lead by example and don’t expect others to accept what you are not willing to accept yourself. You can disagree with this point of view but it does not make it any less valid in the minds of most Illinois residents.
Comment by One of the 35 Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:37 am
==I have heard nothing of them having to sacrifice anything as of yet.==
Rich this emailer think that legislative salaries will be exempt from the new tax structure. The full time legislators will see an increse in taxes aside from Rep. Joyce because he has 20 kids. The wealthier legislators who have other jobs will obviously pay more in taxes–I think that is the exact sacrifice that everyone is being asked to make. Having said that I think they should cut their own pay for political reasons; raising taxes is the right thing to do, but there will be political backlash–this move would lessen that backlash.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:38 am
I give Ronald Reagan credit for convincing many Americans that government is not “us.”
You must have been asleep from 1975-1980, when Jimmy Carter ran as our first anti-Washington presidential candidate.
When Jimmy Carte ran for president in 1976, he ran against Watergate, bureaucracy, red tape, the arrogance of power and the establishment. All of this was conveyed in a single code word, “Washington.” Carter’s decision to run against Washington was a brilliant bit of political positioning…It gave him the populist edge that carried him to victory over the well-liked Gerald R. Ford.” - Chris Matthews, Hardball.
So, if you wish to blame a president, start with the first anti-Washington one, Jimmy Carter. OR, blame Richard Nixon for making an anti-Washington candidacy in 1976 a possibility. OR, blame Andrew Jackson who also claimed in 1828 that Washington didn’t represent the “common man”.
Face it, being anti-Washington is how the “out” party gets “in”. Reagan not only won the presidency with this, he, like Carter and Jackson before him, publically ran his adminstration in a way that complimented his campaign message. Like Jackson, but unlike Carter, Reagan was successful as president, and like Jackson, consistently ranked as one of our best presidents in historical polls, (Carter ranks near the bottom).
So, you want to blame Reagan for being successful?
It’s probably the greatest disservice ever done to our Democracy. Isn’t that over-reaching in light of the fact that we just empowered Washington to spend more money we didn’t have in our entire national history up to this day?
Greatest disservice? I wasn’t too keen on the Fugitive Slave Law, but then, that’s just me and about 60 million Americans alive at that time.
Instead of a nation of voters and an engaged electorate, we’ve created a nation of talk show listeners, cable t.v. watchers, and blog commenters. Now, I know your last posting doesn’t sound very engaging, but we’re willing to cut you some slack - we think you are thinking!
We’re completely passive, and we’ve got the government we deserve for it. You sound so German!
Now, we have three choices.
We can take responsibility for the mess we’ve stood by and watched pile up as we’ve neglected our civic duty. We can own the mess and fix it.
We can spend 30 minutes in the next election voting to “throw the bums out” and think we’ve done our civic duty, even though as their bosses we just stood by and watched them do it for three decades, pat ourselves on the back, go back to loading our i-pods, and let the mess start all over.
Or, we can continue to whine.
You’re having a tough day, aren’t you?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:39 am
The best way to give legislators a pay cut is to vote them out of office. If that is too hard, make them work a little harder, a few more hours,
trying to rectify the problems they themselves have created. They could really study the bills they are voting on, try to represent their constituents instead of Madigan/Cullerton, or they could spend more time investigating and bringing about change in state agencies which are not performing well or efficiently.There are a lot of those.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:45 am
AIG could have gotten out of its contracts by going bankrupt. The Wise Men of Money thought that would lead to a collapse of the worldwide financial system, so they got propped up. AIG has had all the leverage all along.
A state cannot go into bankruptcy and obviously must honor its contracts. We have lawyers and courts to interpret contracts.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:45 am
The best way to give legislators a pay cut is to vote them out of office.
Agreed! But this is Illinois. When you step into the polling place with your ballot you will see a Democrat, and a…uh, anyone? anyone? Buehler?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:47 am
===A storm is brewing against the cabal that has become the unions and our city, (Cook) county & state governments. Read the Declaration of Independance to see what happens when the citizens feel their rights are not being preserved.====
I don’t really care one way or the other. But I don’t see a storm a brewing. Might be a few clouds but consider how many people work in public sector jobs with unions.
Teachers, fire fighters, police, bus drivers, garbage men, the list goes on and on because every public service job has a union. Its not just bureaucrats who work for the state and local governments and state agencies.
AFSCME would say no to your take it or leave it ultimatum and they would win because it would be a bluff. Both sides would have to negotiate. IL is not going fire all AFSCME members if they strike. That is just reality.
So like I said, good luck with that.
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:48 am
More bad news on the revenue front for the State: the Empress Casino in Joliet is on fire.
Comment by GA Watcher Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:52 am
Mike M. - One problem, AFSCME members can not strike. There is a no strike / no lock-out clause in the contract. Before AFSCME could begin to consider a strike, there would need to be a breach in contract on the State’s part.
Comment by tanstaafl Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:53 am
Critics should avoid using this crisis as an excuse to simply bash government activities across the board. It wasn’t productive at the national level and it isn’t productive here. We are in a historical moment of economic challenge, but we can still hope to create a just and caring society. We can still actively show our concern for and faith in each other. Illinois went as long as possible, actually way too long, on a very low, flat-tax revenue system. Now, even after eight years of the self-described business/wealthy-friendly Bush Administration’s “leadership,” the national economy sank, taking our state revenues down with it. And we regret our era with “no-new-income-taxes” Rod B. So now the time has come to, yes, cut the budget where efficiencies can be found, but also to raise new state revenues. As a decent and productive society, we need to do what is necessary to pay the overdue bills, to preserve state services, and to invest for the future in infrastructure projects. Governor Quinn deserves credit for his multifaceted approach: identifying more than a billion dollars of budget cuts, proposing beneficial job-producing investments, and seeking the necessary revenues we need to pursue our common goals. Plus his approach still gives us an income tax which remains lower than most of our neighbors.
Comment by Common Goals Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:55 am
Populism has merit when done in a timely and judicious fashion.
The anger from the general public is out there and our elected officials are not taking it as seriously as they should. Yes, they are worried, but in reality they should be panicked. Populist messages will probably work in the short term for any politician looking to score points. It won’t fix the problems being confronted on multiple levels of government.
Responses I am getting going door to door for municipal and township candidates include: (1) a loud and angry NO to any tax increases, (2) they should return their pay increases, cut back on their perks, (3) where are the mass layoffs of government workers in all levels of government, (4) they want us to pay for their screw ups.
Want two examples? Cutting back on snow plowing this winter, not filling pot holes right away right now, and the parking meter fiasco in Chicago with the “sale/lease” of public parking places on public streets. People talk about this stuff because it directly impacts them.
With regards to just saying “no” they have no problem with that at the moment, although I don’t see that populist strategy working very much longer unless you use the children example and equate it to legislators, aldermen, commissioners, etc. and say “no you can’t stay out until three in the morning” and “no TV until you do all your homework” etc. etc. etc. They want their services to continue and they want someone else to pay for them.
And yes, they are detached from their governments right now and feel that government is imposing on them. Those politicians who thrived in that environment will continue to thrive for the short term. That can’t be helped at the moment.
Not pretty. Not very pretty at all. And for those who think that tossing Blagojevich under the bus protects them, well . . . stay away from bus stops and depots for a while.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:55 am
The real problem is that for years the voters jumped at the idea of funding government on gambling, cigarettes and other “sources” besides taxes. We hav been so afraid to pay for the services of goverment, that we have brough tthis donw on our selves.
All these private citizens demanding the government not come to them to pay for government are just pushing the free loader mantar many of them also rail against. For some reason they like to think governemtn is a private buisness that should just cease operation if it can not operate on whatever they choose to toss its way. Taxes and rveneu for governemtn should not be based on what we fell like paying, despite the populist appeal of the mantra of those who want free government. Taxes should be set to coer the cost of the services provided. Insetad of running on what we want to pay; and in place of empty comments of cut expenses without idnetfying what is to be cut; we should go service by service an identify what is a function we do not want performed by governemnt. There is this public myth that governemnt is choked down by large unneccessary expenses. I would suggest that the private business model, lauded by so many, contains far greater wastes in expnditures then the State of IL. There are poor decisions and places where better spending decisions should have been made. Thats the funny thing about us humans, we can make mistakes. But overall i would put IL spending up against any other buisness of the same size for its leaness and justifiable expenditures.
the time has come to pay the actual costs of government. platitudes from those who want free governemn or dont want to pay the actual costs serve no one.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 10:58 am
===(3) where are the mass layoffs of government workers in all levels of government===
They say that now, but when it hits them that massive layoffs means a a massive cut in services many of those same people will also demand that the state not cut services. I don’t know which they prefer more, but I don’t think they have thought about it much.
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:03 am
I would suggest that the private business model, lauded by so many, contains far greater wastes in expnditures then the State of IL.
Most businesses fail within the first 3 years of their inception. The ones that don’t drive the nation’s economy. Government is, by necessity, propped up not to fail, even when it is inefficient. Its inefficiencies are sometimes corrected over time as the pendulum of public opinion shifts, new needed services are added and old ones that don’t meet needs are phased out. But it is a slow process that doesn’t react as fast as the market does.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:12 am
There will be a fiscal crisis in government Federal, State and Local until these people handleing our tax dollars are required to use a “zero” budget process. Start fresh with a cleran sheet of paper every fiscal year and justify what is needed and what is spent.
Comment by Dan S, a Voter, Taxpayer and Cubs Fan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:20 am
====One problem, AFSCME members can not strike. There is a no strike / no lock-out clause in the contract. Before AFSCME could begin to consider a strike, there would need to be a breach in contract on the State’s part.===
Ok so strike was a bad word. But my point is still valid. When it comes time to renegotiate the contract the state will not just say here are these massive cuts in benefits, take it or leave it.
If the state tried that I don’t know what would happen. If AFSCME can’t strike, what would happen if they choose to say no to a take it or leave it ulitmatum? Would they have to quit their jobs, or would it just simply be the death of AFSCME? But no way in hell the state does not renew its contract with AFSCME when the time comes.
My point is simply that I think it’s politically impossible for the state to just force its will on AFSCME and other unions. It may come down hard and will probably get most of what it wants, but there will be give and take on both sides.
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:30 am
=== what would happen if they choose to say no to a take it or leave it ulitmatum?===
I do not believe that the state can unilaterally reopen the contract and then unilaterally force the union to take cuts.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:33 am
AFSCME and the other unions can certainly strike by state law, when their collective bargaining agreements run out and no new agreement is in place, as well as if the state breached their contract. There are exceptions for public safety jobs.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:35 am
–I do not believe that the state can unilaterally reopen the contract and then unilaterally force the union to take cuts.–
Wouldn’t be much of a contract if it could! That’s something you ask a bankruptcy judge to do, and that is not an option for any state.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:36 am
Louis G. Atsaves == (3) where are the mass layoffs of government workers in all levels of government ==
George Ryan being George Ryan, instead of mass layoffs we had an Early Retirement Initiative (ERI). 65 thousand state employees under the Governor in 2002, 57 thousand after the ERI in 2003. Overnight a 12% reduction in headcount. Very few have been replaced (except political hires). Compulsory overtime for Correctional Officers. And state employees doing double / triple duty since. AFSCME has a tin ear, and an attitude, but can you show me any large private sector firm that reduced headcount by 12% 6 years ago and has maintained roughly the same work level?
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:37 am
Before AFSCME could begin to consider a strike, there would need to be a breach in contract on the State’s part.
You mean… like furloughs and increased pension contributions?
Comment by dave Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:38 am
I love how when unions balk at benefit cuts and stick up for their members - which they are elected to do - everyone wants to call them ‘greedy’. The unions aren’t saying they’re unwilling to pay their fair share, they’re saying that, as Quinn’s overall budget is constructed, their members are doing more than their fair share. His solution to years of underfunding the pensions is to have the employees pay more and the state not make a payment for a couple years?Please. If people lightened up on the rhetoric a bit something might actually get accomplished.
Comment by Anon... Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:41 am
Anon… good point. And, FWIW, most (all?) of the unions are strongly advocating for large tax increases, which forces ALL to pay their fair share, not just public workers.
Comment by dave Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:42 am
anon “If people lightened up on the rhetoric a bit something might actually get accomplished”–
good faith bargaining.
Comment by Princess Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:57 am
====AFSCME has a tin ear, and an attitude, but can you show me any large private sector firm that reduced headcount by 12% 6 years ago and has maintained roughly the same work level?====
I agree, but if you talk to state agencies, you will hear a common response that they are understaffed and that demand for services are increasing due to economy. This is especially true of DHS.
Another example, I went to a senate approp. committee hearing on stimulus $$$ and IDOT requested $$$ (I think it was $10 million) for additional staff because it is understaffed as is and it needed the additional staff to get all stimulus projects work done by deadline set by Feds on stimulus $.
Comment by Mike Murray Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 11:59 am
Well, there is the argument that this budget plan does make everyone pay his fair share. But, for the sake of argument, what should happen if AFSCME wins their own argument and the legislators decide not to go with new pension rules for new employees or higher pension deductions for current employees. Who should pick up that slack. Taxpayers, via a higher tax increase? The corporate sector?
I suppose it’s always possible that the $11.5 billion is an inflated figure, offered just in case somebody wins their bid to opt out of the relevant cuts/increases. But mightn’t such an approach backfire? And if there is room to modify the budget plan, shouldn’t taxpayers be the first
to get a break. After all, we are, supposedly, the key to reviving the economy. Everyone in state government seems to have conveniently forgotten that.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:03 pm
After all, we are, supposedly, the key to reviving the economy.
Last I heard… everyone in State government were also tax payers. And last I heard, state employees are tax payers. And not only are they being asked to pay higher income taxes, but they are also getting their benefits reduced.
Comment by dave Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:07 pm
you show me any large private sector firm that reduced headcount by 12% 6 years ago and has maintained roughly the same work level?
———-
Unfortunately, there are more than you know from your apparent government bubble.
Comment by Niles Township Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:14 pm
Smitty, there were also pretty significant lay-offs in that 03 budget
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:16 pm
Ghost -
You have been a pretty credible blogger over the past year, so I will like a couple of answers from you, and whomever would also like to respond.
What percentage of voters do not pay taxes?
If voters are not paying their fair share, what constitutes, in your opinion, a fair share? What if that isn’t enough?
If the majority of voters no longer want to pay for those who do not pay their fair share, does forcing them to do otherwise the right thing to do?
When businesses pay taxes, they pass the additional business cost onto taxpayers. Then taxpayers pay a sales tax on top of that. How many times should taxpayers have to pay?
When is it fair to complain about taxes?
If AFSCME is responsible for it’s members, and Illinois already has one of the nation’s lowest public employee to citizen ratios, members have proven that the shortage is causing problems, shouldn’t AFSCME take a stand against furloughs, cuts, pension theft, and defend them?
(See! Not all my questions are so one-sided in their presentation.) Thank you!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:19 pm
While I understand that legislators are going to be opposed to taking pay cuts, along with everyone else, the idea that this only nickel and dime stuff is flat out wrong in the long run. Sure, it is easy to say that this would only save, let’s say, one million dollars, but if we make cuts like this across the board it will truly add up to something substantial. In the business world, this is what we have to do in order to save money; there is not going to be a magic solution that we can cut and our problems will be solved. Just remember that every nickel and dime you save brings you closer to the goal of a balanced budget.
Comment by Zach Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:28 pm
I think Brown was refering to the budget ideas from folk like the former head of George Ryan’s think tank. His group now wants to “save” by putting the mentally ill into nursing homes with seniors.
I think he also have hope the bloggers would have suggested some real places to look
Maybe the bloggers fear collateral damage.
Maybe there is nothing left to cut
As the Trib noted the entire legislature costs about $50 million. That is about 1/10th of 1 percent spent on oversight on everything else.
Seems like a bargain
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:29 pm
Quinn’s tax increase proposal is the result of fiscal malfeasance during the entire Blagojevich administration. Illinois needed a tax increase in 2003, but didn’t get it. The problems have compounded during the last 6 years.
Everyone,including state legislators, should share the pain of the fiscal mess that the State legislative leadership helped create. The State is/has been desperate for revenue. Quinn may end up being the sacrificial lamb for doing the right thing much like Ogilvie paid the price for supporting the creation of a State income tax.
Comment by Captain America Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:41 pm
SJ-R: Quinn says he will give away part of salary
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 12:42 pm
We all know the State is in a mess and, at least temporarily, needs a big cash influx. The current proposal doesn’t fix all of it and simply pushes at least one problem (pensions) off into the future again.
So why don’t we do a truly honest budget with the full constitutionally REQUIRED pension contributions for this year and next year and pass a temporary two year income tax increase at 6% or whatever level it needs to be to close the gap (and don’t water it down with increased deductions). I think most people would be willing to go along with a big one-time / short-term hit if they knew it would solve the problem.
Once all the roll over deficit spending (late payments and various bills deferred year to year) is cleared out, then have a serious debate about the level of income tax to sustain needed State services.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:00 pm
=== I think most people would be willing to go along with a big one-time / short-term hit if they knew it would solve the problem.===
Right. You’re gonna convince taxpayers outside of Sangamon County to go along with DOUBLING their income tax to fund pensions for state workers?
Wake up.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:14 pm
Rich, it has to be paid someday
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:16 pm
Rich-
Maybe the state could hide the pension costs in the IL National Guard budget like the Pentagon hides the CIA funding in its budget.
:-)
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:18 pm
Listen, I am the one saying we can’t cut our way out of this. So if I won’t go along with a ginormous tax hike to pay state pensions, then how many outside Sangamon County do you think will?
Y’all are gonna have to pay more and get less. That’s the long and short of it.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:19 pm
I recognize the need for more revenue in lot of areas. I’ve always enjoyed visiting the State parks without paying a user fee other than for the camp site. I used to get ticked off whenever I went to an Indiana park and had to pay their entrance fee and then a second fee for a camp site. But I recognize that if we want to keep the parks going, we need to have a dedicated income source so I’ll be one of the first in line to buy an annual park pass. And I won’t like it with many licensed vehicles including camping trailers, but I’ll pay the increased plate fees. I also expect the various State historical sites I like to visit (if open) will have new / higher fess int he future. We’ll all be paying more for Illinois products and services but all these user fees, with the exception of the plate fees, will only plug small holes in the budget gap.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:40 pm
=== What percentage of voters do not pay taxes? ===
0%, with taxes on sales, gas etc you pay somewhere.
====If voters are not paying their fair share, what constitutes, in your opinion, a fair share? ====
fair share is a misleading term. The Bible suggests that 10% of your gross income would be fair…. What is the fair share of the cost of a house? an apple? of health insurance? of car insurance? We generally do not price any expense in our lives under a “fairness” model. Even the capitalistic model has certain hard points. The cost of a widget reflects what it costs to manufacture and packae the widget and cover the overhead of the producer and seller, including salaries, operations etc. There may be a price at which we will decide we do not want to buy the apple, but if that apple is the only source of food, then that price will be quit high. Government and taxes focused on fairness are discussions built on false premise, that the cost of a service or good is based on fairness. The priceof an item is based on cost. The cost of the services of governemtn are based on the expenses in producing those services. The “fair” price is an amount that covers those expenses, just like the apple.
if we offer for the apple less then the cost of producing it, then eventually we will find we have no more apples. fairness as a pricing model really only works in a communist system where the expense of producing the item is rendered meaningless.
=== What if that isn’t enough? ===
Then you must weight the burden of eliminating the service with the burden of collecting ahigher price, up to a point. We cannot eliminate food from our expenses, we can be picky about what food we buy, but we must have and pay for food. Governemtn is responsible for maintaing the societyal structure in which we live, so there are very few services which are optional.
=== If the majority of voters no longer want to pay for those who do not pay their fair share, does forcing them to do otherwise the right thing to do? ====
Wrong question. it assumes again that fairness is a viable reason. Lets re-phrase the question. If voters whose current income is dependen on a social structure and order maintained and reinfroced by overnemn decide they do not want to support that order, should they? Depends. without the order and structure created by the overnemtn, most of those voters would no longer have the income or livlihood to complain about their taxes. The higher your income the more dependent you are on the social order and structure created by government. Also Consider this, those who think taxing their higher livlihood is unfair are free to surrender their incomes and lifestyles and operate at the lifestyle and level of those they think are so fortunate to not be paying a fair share of the tax load.
=== When businesses pay taxes, they pass the additional business cost onto taxpayers. Then taxpayers pay a sales tax on top of that. How many times should taxpayers have to pay? ====
What are the expense. I note the question does not take umbrage with the company includingin the cost their expnses for crafting and selling the item. The taxes are the expense of operating governemnt.
=== When is it fair to complain about taxes? ===
every moment of ones waking life. I would suggest the point of discussion isnot fairnees, it is an analysis of the expenses of governemtn and a discussion abut which expense should be maintained and which eliminated. keep in mind we pay a lot of money for social programs to try and keep citizens from preying on each other. decrease “handouts” and you increase crims. Increase crime and lock everyone away you increase expenses. It costs about 27k a year to house an inmate. If social programs cost us the same or less then the cost of incarceration then the expesne is worth considering. Food stamps and addiciton treatment are cheaper then building new prisons etc.
==== If AFSCME is responsible for it’s members, and Illinois already has one of the nation’s lowest public employee to citizen ratios, members have proven that the shortage is causing problems, shouldn’t AFSCME take a stand against furloughs, cuts, pension theft, and defend them? ===
technically by law they have a fiduciary duty to do so.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 1:55 pm
Vanillaman -
You misread history and the Presidencies.
Carter ran against a Washington that was out-of-touch and corrupted, but could be made good again.
Reagan argued that government itself was inherently evil.
Since then, conservatives have had one mission: shrink the size, budget, and effectiveness of government.
Except when it comes to the defense budget and propping up corporations or telling people what they can do in the privacy of their own bedroom or doctor’s office.
The result is an American education system that’s failing, the worst health care system in the modern world, the most energy-inefficient country on the planet, and the inability to respond even when a major American city is underwater.
Instead of quoting Chris Matthews, I’ll quote the man himself: Ronald Reagan.
On government:
“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
On education:
“Going to college offered me the chance to play football for four more years.”
On the environment:
“Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
“A tree’s a tree. How many more do you need to look at?”
On the economy:
“Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 2:38 pm
The Bible suggests that 10% of your gross income would be fair
Tithing is not the same as rendering unto Caesar. And with Tax Freedom Day on April 23, it appears most of us are rendering to the latter more than we are rendering to the former:-)
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:16 pm
The higher your income the more dependent you are on the social order and structure created by government.
Hmmm, gonna have to think about that one. Who needs the presence of the cops more, the single mom living in a crack-house neighborhood or the rich widow in a private gated community?
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:21 pm
“Y’all are gonna have to pay more and get less. That’s the long and short of it.” - Rich
Rich, you’re such a killjoy! Why are you trying to break the fantasy that we can have our cake, eat it too and not have to pay for it?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:34 pm
SIx, the single mom in the crack house is statistically not getting very much police protection. How many units do you think get to her house timely after a call?
How many cops do you think respond to an alarm at the mansion? they have to keep those crack moms from breaking in after all.
BUT society and order is more then police and fire protection. it is the regualtion of the wealthy womens finacial markets, banks, credit unions, stock markets, acoutnants, doctors, hospital, betty ford centers, regulation of the electiricans, plumbers, carpenters, vacation providers, rel estate agents, car dealers, boat dealers, jewelery dealers etc…
How many of those industries an services is he crack mom using compared to the wealth wido in a prvate community? The crack mom probably cares little about FDIC, blue sky laws, atorneys, fraud controls and all the regualtions of all the service and trade industries the wealthy wido relies upon.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:35 pm
Pat Quinn is supposed to be a progressive, and he’s raising the taxes of someone making $10 an hour with no benefits to pay for the fat state pensions. Interesting.
Comment by Rambler Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:44 pm
Ghost, you are eloquent today.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 3:52 pm
Apparently I have a subjective fear of the letter g on my keyboard and the proper spelling of government…. or as I like to call it, typing lessons.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:10 pm
Rich,
While I agree I may have to pay more for my pension (and I have been upfront on my willingness to pony up more for my state employee pension) I wonder how it will be that I will get less? Maybe you are referring to new hires but I’ve been sucking on the state teat for 19 years. I have voiced my concerns about the pension in other sections and have been repeatedly re-assured that the state contract re my pension is inviolate. I will pay more but will not get less. Who is going to pay for the unfunded pension obligations to date? What is it, something like 60-70 million in unfunded pension obligations? Sangamon county ain’t got that much scratch. It’s gotta come from somewhere. Maybe selling the Lottery isn’t such a bad idea. Certainly the students never really saw any of that bounty. This isn’t going to go away.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:18 pm
We all want and receive benefits from government. Almost all of us also have the option of “voting with our feet” and moving to a different state or even country if we don’t like the taxes and social order of the place where we reside. There are costs involved in doing so but we can move if we accept the costs.
If we don’t want to move, then the debate is simply about the necessity of the service and the cost (tax $$$’s) of the service. Government service has to be paid for, one way or another. Other than user fees that directly purchase services (license plates, camping fees, hunting licenses, property taxes, etc.) the rest of the debate is not about “fairness” but a political decision of who gets to pay and who gets a benefit. The political decision gets shaped by rent seeking groups (political campaign contributions and other means of influence) but it all boils down to a political decision.
Someone commented that most the groups are mad about something in Quinn’s budget proposal and that means it at least attempts to “tax” all the special interest groups. The debate then moves to a person’s perception of “fairness” which is in the political arena … and everyone has a different slant on that.
We need people in the Legislature with the guts to do the job they are elected to do - make the hard choices … and if they don’t, throw them out. I’ve voted against most incumbents for the past 10 - 15 years and will continue to do so … but there needs to be a lot more people willing to do so. Do I trust the Legislature to act responsibly with any new money they get … hell, no, not even the guys I voted for because they might compromise on spending thinking is is in the best interest of their electorate.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:22 pm
Ghost,
I was referring to need, not results, if you read my little post before you issue a g-challenged response:-) A good case could be made that the rich widow has little “need” for a lot of the government services she receives, even if she gets more of them in the real world. After all, the guards in the gated community could help protect the money hidden in the widow’s mattress, which is not regulated by the FDIC.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:27 pm
===I wonder how it will be that I will get less? ===
Your already earned pension benefits can’t be touched. Your future benefits that you will earn can, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:31 pm
Ahh but thats a clasic cart before the horse. Would she have that wealth if the various finacial markets, insitutions had not existed, or ifher use of them had not been regulated, in the first place. I would suggest she had need of them to both accumulate her wealth and then protect it. Money in the mattress does not earn more money, so she will be headed to poor side. And if their is a big pile of cash in the house, those guards wont be able to protect it for long…Not to mention all those seeking to exploit money by promising to perfomr work or services and just taking her money and fleeing.
But I digress; the accumulation came from needed services which allowed for the accumulation…. and she needs all those regulations which keep her food from being poison and her houehold items from being made from toxic substance. I suppose she could hire a team of regulators to sample and test everything she owns, to run oversight over service activities and to verify credentials all at far greater expense then her taxes. Those royal food tasters have a 20/80 retirment plane with great health and life.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:36 pm
Rich,
That’s not how I am hearing it. I will have to confirm. My understanding is that the defined benefits can’t be changed for current employees.
It still doesn’t change the fact that even if you can lower benefits for current employees we still have an unfunded deficit in the 10s of billions of dollars. How does the state (we) deal with that?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 4:50 pm
But keep in mind, Ghost, that when one person has more income than another he or she is generally giving more to society. The dooctor who makes more than the janitor in the hospital is also giving more value than the janitor. And, if you stop and think it through, you’ll find that is generally the case. Even the trust-fund baby living off inherited wealth is earning a return for the capital that belongs to them and that someone else is paying them to use. There are exceptions, of course, but I posit that there are fewer than the exceptions to the rule that the rich benefit from society more than the poor.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 5:09 pm
===My understanding is that the defined benefits can’t be changed for current employees. ===
For those you’ve already earned. If you haven’t yet earned them, they can be changed, as long as they can get around your union contract or negotiate a new one.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 5:41 pm
Niles Township -
Can you provide names of corporations that reduced headcount by 12% 6 years ago and maintained the same workload through compulsory overtime?
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 7:15 pm
By the way, folks, Six’s original question was about police protection for a “single mom living in a crack house NEIGHBORHOOD.” He said nothing about the mom herself smoking crack or living in a crack house. However, I notice some of you jumped to that conclusion.
Comment by Bookworm Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 7:38 pm
YDD and VMan, you both misrepresent Reagan for your own purposes.
He said some things. He did other things.
As the great John Mitchell said: “Don’t pay attention to what we say. Pay attention to what we do.”
As the great friend of Joni Mitchell said: “Don’t follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.”
If he were alive today, Reagan, like Goldwater, would be honored by old-school liberals like me as worthy, civil opponents in the marketplace of ideas.
Unfortunately, conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan, and old-school liberals like me, have a hard time being heard over the loud-mouth yabbos on cable and radio who think screaming about public policy is “entertainment.”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 9:12 pm
Niles Township -
Can you provide names of corporations that reduced headcount by 12% 6 years ago and maintained the same workload through compulsory overtime?
——————
Overtime, whats that? Exempt employees in the private sector, don’t get it.
Comment by Niles Township Monday, Mar 23, 09 @ 12:18 pm