Remember when Gov. JB Pritzker warned of drastic tax increases or spending cuts if his proposed “fair tax” increase were to be defeated last November? And Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton said that all residents of the state could see an income tax hike of at least 20% if the fair tax went down?
Well, the tax went down in flames. And yet none of what they warned about happened.
Now lawmakers are at it again. Illinois House Majority Leader Greg Harris (D-Chicago) said Thursday, “If we do have to cut $1.3 billion. I mean, nothing is left unscathed. I mean, education will be cut, colleges and universities will be cut, severe cuts to our human services. It’s a very bad scenario.”
“We have two choices here,” Harris told the Chicago Sun-Times. “We can either vote to support closing loopholes on the wealthiest of corporations that Gov. Pritzker proposed in his budget. If people don’t want to vote for that new revenue, then we’ll have to go to the cuts.”
That’s even more silly now because the state is flooded with the federal cash bailouts, including over $7 billion under the American Rescue Plan, and revenue has been coming in far better than expected. We wrote about that most recently here and an our earlier special report gave the details.
What Harris, Pritzker and their allies want are changes to what they are calling “loopholes.” They are business tax incentives designed to make Illinois more competitive. Republicans say Pritzker is “breaking his word” by calling for the repeal of the incentives he supported two years ago. Closing the “loopholes” would in fact amount to a tax increase of about $1 billion.
They will never have enough. They still haven’t figure out the voters just don’t trust them with new money – for good reason.
– Mark Glennon
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
“University’s will be cut”? Uh hello… the University’s student population levels have been cut for a long time.
You poor and filthy animals. You exist to put money in my pocket. Thanks for your tax dollars! Thanks to the Contracts Clause, you can’t touch my pension! Sucks to be you!
Your response makes me believe that you actually are a public union employee.
And, the “Contracts Clause” doesn’t mean what you think it means. (Hint: it has nothing to do with pensions)
Fireman?
“And, the “Contracts Clause” doesn’t mean what you think it means. (Hint: it has nothing to do with pensions)” Pensions are protected by the contracts clause. (Hint: The Illinois Supreme Court has stated that pensions are not only protected by section 5 article 13 but also protected by the contracts clause of the Illinois and US Constitution). Pensions are a contract and as such protected by the contracts clause. The “Contracts Clause” doesn’t mean what YOU think it means. I’ve heard many dumb arguments regarding pensions but very few people actually make the claim that pension protections have nothing to… Read more »
It appears you and many in the establishment are intent to go on repeating what’s blatantly untrue about the Contract Clause. It is not an automatic bar to reforming contracts. Countless cases for decades have made it absolutely clear that contracts can be reformed as long as the reforms are reasonable under the circumstances. We and have laid out that legal background repeatedly. If you have any case purporting to show that contracts can never be adjusted under the Contract Clause, let’s see it. Or go away.
I think you are over-reacting here in that he likely was saying something less firm—perhaps saying there are at least two well known strong impediments to creating such changes. That’s not necessarily saying changes can never occur. I think his position as I interpret it is valid as is yours. You are both right as I see it.
Where did I say it’s an “automatic bar to reforming contracts”? Nice job trying to move the goalpost. I responded to IE who stated that the contracts clause has nothing to do with pensions. That’s blatantly untrue and you know it. The ILSC has specifically stated that pensions are protected by the contracts clause as well the pension protection clause in the Illinois Constitution. While I believe contracts can be adjusted for certain circumstances, not wanting to raise taxes isn’t one of them. In addition, because the state’s self-interest is at stake whenever it seeks to modify its own financial… Read more »
How far does your argument extend? If your stars align and the legislature and the governor approve a 33% pension COLA are the taxpayers stuck with that ad infinitum? If payment of pensions requires laying off all the teachers in Chicago, would the ILSC direct closing of the schools? In other words, how does the legal system mediate among constitutional obligations when a governmental entity can’t sustain them all? Apparently the legislative power to act in a financially reckless manner retains the power to block municipal bankruptcy. It’s a slippery slope to extinction and the only brakes can be found… Read more »
Ok, Pensions, then let’s discuss bankruptcy. Ever heard of it? Do you know what happens to contracts in bankruptcy? A judge decides which ones get kept and which ones fall by the wayside. Number two, let’s discuss things like “eviction moratoriums” and “foreclosure moratoriums.” In those cases, the government overrode private contracts for “the public good” at property owner’s detriment. They didn’t even make a provision to make the property owners whole, just simply decided to…completely negate those contracts. There is no provision to restore what they’ve lost. That’s a broken contract. At the federal level, all businesses are subject… Read more »
So you were wrong in your original post. What you meant to write was that the contracts clause is not absolute and may not offer the protection that “Your Master” thinks he/she has.
Your first response made it sound like pensions and contracts are omnipotent entities. Scaling back your original premise shows that there may be hope for you. Of course ‘woke’ lefties sometimes known as Democrats believe that they know what’s best for us and that’s how they govern.
Well it’s easy…. total budget/1.3 billion = % – start with a flat tax of everything legally able to be cut + act added to the remaining defpartment cuts and it’s done. If a department wants to argue about needing more money, they have to argue why another department will loose it or the cut is done. Time to play like a real business!
tax and spend dumbocrats,never enough,more taxes and fees but this p.o.s state is still broke,cant blame just the democrats,the republican reps are a joke also!!
Unions claiming not-for-profit status is a corporate loophole.
One of those “loopholes” is to limit the losses of small businesses. In a pandemic year.
Losses are losses. They are not fake, nor are they “accounting gimmicks” like what the government does with its fake “fund accounting.”
But I know, this is all about the big, bad “wealthy corporations.”
Liars.