CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

What a scumbag.

He was the head of the Senate Labor Committee. Think about that. The head of the labor committee was being ghost-payrolled by...Labor.



I can’t wait to tell Illinois politicians “Fuck You” by voting no on their Blank Check Constitutional Amendment in November 2020.

How is it a blank check? The process to change the tax rates would follow the same process it does today and I’ve never heard anyone refer to that as a blank check.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

How is it a blank check? The process to change the tax rates would follow the same process it does today and I’ve never heard anyone refer to that as a blank check.

It's a "blank check" in the sense that, without fiscal discipline, you're gaping down a dark hole of never ending tax increases

[maru2501]

seems like the typical thing..


Illinois marijuana growers spent about $600,000 on political giving leading to the pot legalization vote. Here’s where the money went.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...pmi-story.html

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

It's a "blank check" in the sense that, without fiscal discipline, you're gaping down a dark hole of never ending tax increases

Which would remain true with or without the amendment, no?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

^ Which is easier?:

A) X% income tax hike on 100% of the population.

B) X% income tax hike on 5% of the population.

Option A is 20X more like to hit someone than Option B. Its obviously harder to pass a tax that hits everyone, which still isn’t the same as a blank check. I’ve never heard anyone refer to Iowa or Wisconsin’s income tax as a blank check and they have the same set up.

[the urban politician]

^ Looks very blank check-y to me

Or does Moorhosj only play the data hawk when data vindicates his obviously leftist world view?

[BrinChi]

Maybe Apple will buy us lol

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Looks very blank check-y to me

Or does Moorhosj only play the data hawk when data vindicates his obviously leftist world view?

"Everyone who doesn't agree with me is a leftist."

When you think all the world has gone "leftist", you aren't in the middle. There are only two viable parties to choose from in our elections. Can you share the Illinois Republican Party's plan for fiscal responsibility with me? All I see them focusing on is identity politics and state succession.

If the Democrats want to raise taxes, they will have to face the music at the voting booth. That is not a blank check, that's politics in a democracy. If Illinois Republicans come up with a better plan for state finances, they might have a chance to get out of super minority status in Springfield.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Can you share the Illinois Republican Party's plan for fiscal responsibility with me?

^ I don't care much for political party nonsense, but I believe that an important step towards saving this sinking ship, shared by plenty of others, includes a Constitutional Amendment.

I mean, in order to get this spiraling disaster under control, we have to contain the costs. And that means an end to the Constitutional Pension guarantee. It's a step in the right direction but Pritzker, Madigan and the rest of the union hack patrol won't let it happen. Sad....

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I don't care much for political party nonsense, but I believe that an important step towards saving this sinking ship, shared by plenty of others, includes a Constitutional Amendment.

I mean, in order to get this spiraling disaster under control, we have to contain the costs. And that means an end to the Constitutional Pension guarantee. It's a step in the right direction but Pritzker, Madigan and the rest of the union hack patrol won't let it happen. Sad....

I completely agree! What I don't agree with is how you squarely lay the blame on Democrats. We know that Democrats are more likely to advocate for increased taxes than reduced spending. That is baked into their identity. What I don't understand is why you seem to give Illinois Republicans (specifically, Rauner) a complete pass on this topic. He never laid out a pension plan as Governor. He never once advocated for a Constitutional Amendment. He never used his line item veto to lower spending levels. If he spent a little more time trying to actually solve problems instead of just constantly attacking Madigan, maybe he would still be Governor.

I voted for Rauner (so much for your "leftist" claim), but he never once stuck out his neck with an actual plan to handle the pension crisis. As much as I don't want my taxes to increase, at least Pritzker has laid out a plan to get there.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

What I don't understand is why you seem to give Illinois Republicans (specifically, Rauner) a complete pass on this topic. He never laid out a pension plan as Governor. He never once advocated for a Constitutional Amendment.

See below, particularly the bolded part:

The pension clause in the Illinois Constitution is the reason Senate Bill 1 – the reform bill the Illinois General Assembly passed and former Gov. Pat Quinn signed – is tied up in the courts. And it’s the reason the state will be sued if it does anything other than increase pension benefits, as Gov. Bruce Rauner noted in his recent meeting with the Tribune editorial board.

The debate over Illinois’ pension clause boils down to this: Should pension benefits be treated just like other contractual obligations or is the pension clause absolute – meaning benefits cannot be changed under any circumstances?

The Illinois Policy Institute filed an amicus brief with the Illinois Supreme Court earlier this year arguing in defense of the former. The clear purpose of the pension clause is to protect the state’s government pension benefits to the same extent the contract clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution protect all other contractual obligations. And although that protection is strong, it is not absolute.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied all requests from outside groups to file briefs on the case. While the state waits for the Supreme Court’s SB 1 ruling, Gov. Bruce Rauner and other lawmakers are working up a plan B.

Rauner announced recently that he plans to put a constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot that would allow the state to move forward with pension reform.

To appear on the ballot, the amendment would first need to pass out of the General Assembly with a three-fifths majority in the both the House and Senate. It would then need to be approved by either a majority of those voting in the election or three-fifths of those voting on the amendment itself.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/raune...-constitution/

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

See below, particularly the bolded part:



https://www.illinoispolicy.org/raune...-constitution/

This is IPI speculating about something Rauner was "going to do". Not an analysis of anything he actually did, because he never followed through.

If you can find a news source that provides the actual language he introduced, anything that identifies an amendment as a part of his campaign platform, or footage of him supporting an amendment please share it. Bonus points if your source is anything other than IPI, a think tank that provided multiple Rauner administration staffers.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This , or footage of him supporting an amendment please share it. Bonus points if your source is anything other than IPI, a think tank that provided multiple Rauner administration staffers.

^ You are moving the goal post. This is what you said, which I responded to:

He never once advocated for a Constitutional Amendment.

Anyhow, I have no obligation to keep providing you more and more evidence that Rauner set out to do more than what you initially stated, which was simply that he "Never once advocated for a Constitutional Amendment". Well, others are clearly saying that he did:

Rauner pension amendment could be tough sell
Kurt Erickson The Southern Springfield Bureau May 12, 2015 0

SPRINGFIELD — Gov. Bruce Rauner wants to amend the Illinois Constitution to make it legal to alter state employee retiree benefits.

https://thesouthern.com/news/local/g...b073130bf.html

[the urban politician]

^ Also dug up this quote from that very same article:

Rauner's idea of amending the constitution emerged Friday after the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the state's 2013 pension law, which was crafted as a way to address years of underfunding by state lawmakers and previous governors.

"What is now clear," a Rauner spokesman said, "is that a constitutional amendment clarifying the distinction between currently earned benefits and future benefits not yet earned, which would allow the state to move forward on common-sense pension reforms, should be part of any solution."

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

It's important to understand why we're raising $3.4 billion in new taxes. What is this being used to pay for?

Only $200 million is for pension debt. I've heard the majority is for Pritzker's Medicaid Public Option. Does Illinois need new spending programs at this point?

It's a Blank Check Amendment. We don't know what we're spending the money on.

Pritzker has said and it has been widely reported that the income tax change is in order to fix the structural budget deficit of around $3 billion annually.

A fair tax system will allow us to eliminate the structural deficit that has plagued our state for nearly two decades.

I would have personally much preferred using the marijuana legalization and gambling expansion to cover the deficit (along with some targeted budget cuts), but he did campaign on this exact plan and won in a landslide.

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

We don't know how long the initial rates will be in effect.

Again, no different than today. If Democrats want to increase it, they would first have to get the votes to actually do it. Keep in mind that it will be hard to convince the Dems in Lake and DuPage counties to go along. And if they do manage to pass the bill, Republicans will have ripe material for the next election and can present their plan to fix things without increasing the tax. It only becomes a "blank check" if they do actually increase it and Republicans can't present a better plan to voters.

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

It's not needed. Illinois is one of five states that doesn't tax retirement income. Taxing retirement income over $100k is a no-brainer. We could also tax services.

We don't need to give Illinois politicians a Blank Check.

Taxing retirement income and adding sales tax to services is absolutely the better answer. Those things plus an amendment changing the automatic annual pension increases from 3% down to 2.5% would fix our state's finances immediately.

To be honest making a truly progressive tax would be preferable for me (but wouldn't raise enough money). I'm talking something that gives a real cut to the working class. Something like:

3% on income up to $75k
5% on income from $75k to $400K
7% on income over $400k

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You are moving the goal post. This is what you said, which I responded to:



Anyhow, I have no obligation to keep providing you more and more evidence that Rauner set out to do more than what you initially stated, which was simply that he "Never once advocated for a Constitutional Amendment". Well, others are clearly saying that he did:



https://thesouthern.com/news/local/g...b073130bf.html

And nowhere have you shown Bruce Rauner advocating for an amendment. You have a spokesperson making one comment on it and a think tank saying he might do something. He never did anything, it's ok to admit. He had likely had a spokesperson and IPI float the idea, found that it was not well received, and immediately forgot all about it.

If he was so in favor of an amendment why wouldn't there be video or audio of him talking about it at some point? Meanwhile, all of your "examples" are from 2015. He floated the idea, then ditched it. That isn't advocating for anything.

[the urban politician]

He clearly wanted a Constitutional amendment and probably thought he wouldn't get the votes. Hell, he couldn't even agree with the legislature on a budget, so who could blame him?

Whether or not that fits your rigid definition of "advocacy" isn't something I'm going to waste my time on.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

“We achieved something that has eluded state government for decades. We passed a real balanced budget,” Pritzker, a Democrat, said at a Wednesday news conference. “Just a few years ago simply passing a budget was considered nearly impossible, and for years before that the budget included gimmicks and tricks and was balanced in name only. Those days are over.”

- JB Prizker, June 14th, 2019


If JB just signed a balanced budget how is there a $3 billion structural deficit?

What is the Blank Check Amendment funding?

He inherited a $3.2 billion deficit.

It was balanced with one-time funds and an assumption of skipping the pension payment ($1 billion). So, not even really "balanced" in the way a normal human would consider balanced. The Edgar Ramp means pension contributions are stepping-up, so that adds significantly to the structural imbalance going forward. They are also still paying down the $7 billion bill backlog from the budget wars (down from $15.7 billion), which increases spending in the foreseeable future. Bond Buyer says that roughly 1/3 of new revenue was from one-off sources.

• Revenue from one-off taxes of roughly $1.1 billion
• Unexpected high income tax receipts of about $900 million, thought to be due to national tax law changes and tax withholding quirks
• Paying down bill backlog, not sure the amount
• Increased pension spending due to Edgar Ramp, from $9.1 billion this year to $9.55 billion next year. $450 million more spending

That's about $2.5 billion that needs to be found to balance next year's budget.

[Halsted & Villagio]

On a side note, I have had the pleasure of meeting our new mayor twice in recent weeks. First, while working on something for a client at City Hall, and second, by pure happenstance, my wife and I ran into her and her wife (and her many bodyguards) while at the Cubs/Padres game (on a Sunday) a few weeks ago.... in each of those instances... whether at work (City Hall) or play (the game) one word came to mind.................... INTENSE.

Super small lady though (Lol)... even smaller than I originally envisioned... but just as I was surprised by her stature, I was equally (if not more) surprised by her intensity. While others might be glad-handing it around, soaking up their monumental achievement, being the toast of town and/or taking the position for granted, I have ZERO doubt that any of those would ever be a fitting characterization of this woman. I mean, this woman was even intense at the game (Lol)... but not overwhelmed if you understand what I am getting at... there at a fun event, but not there... focused on what she wants to get done while doing the wifey thing that day.

None of this necessarily means that she will be successful. She has A LOT on her plate. But I do, at least, rest easy knowing that she appears to be working on the issues facing this city, day and night, seemingly 7 days a week. I know that look, just like you guys I have seen it many times. What I took from it is that she is essentially bringing the same kind of intensity that served her well in the legal profession (pulling all nighters, etc.) to the mayor's office. Time will tell whether that will work or not but after meeting her, I do feel like this city is in good hands.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Awesome, I hope I have the pleasure of bumping into her soon given I live like 3 blocks north of her.



On another note, Carrie Austin's staff filed a bunch of revisions to her campaign finance reporting. All of it was done immediately AFTER the FBI showed up lol...