Illinois has only two choices, raise taxes higher or cut services

www.illinoispolicy.org...

Pritzker’s address presented a false choice to lawmakers and residents. The governor claimed there were only two ways to close the state’s daunting $3 billion deficit: massive tax hikes or slashing core government services such as education, public safety and social services.

This is the exact problem with Illinois, New Jersey, Pennslyvania etc.
Why get rid of public safety? We need firemen, and policemen, how about we get rid of some aldermen, some politicians!!

I remember many many years ago. I lived in Lake County Illinois. For those that don't know, it has always been one of the highest property taxed areas of the entire United States. It's not even that great of an area, just typical suburbia. My son was in kindergarten. I remember the teachers striking on the streets. They asked "do you want your kids to have art and music?". If so you better vote for the referendum and more taxes. I was a newer mom, and of course I wanted my child to have art and music. Teachers are good, and they must know what they are talking about right? There can't be a way to have art and music without more money?? WRONG. I'm convinced the entire state has this mentality. How is this madness still going on? The people are being held hostage on so many level, it is so wrong.

Why is the answer NEVER re-budgeting, and looking at all the ways money is being wasted? Why not stop the bleeding? If a person needs a new roof on their house, the first thing they think of isn't going to be, hey I need a raise. No of course not. It is going to be one of two things, do I have the budget, or what can I do to budget this in, or how can I fix this until I have the money. That has never been the answer in Illinois.


That example is what Illinois has been doing for decades. I left about a decade ago and nothing has changed in several decades. They keep doing it.
For whatever reason the people of Illinois keep taking it. Those that couldn't stand it anymore have left or are trying to leave.



I write a lot about Illinois. It is close to my heart. It is a home that I can't move back to. It is so sad, the state has chased away so many people the last decade. Illinos is like that addict friend that you love and just want to shake but they keep doing the same thing over and over...

originally posted by: JAGStorm
www.illinoispolicy.org...

Pritzker’s address presented a false choice to lawmakers and residents. The governor claimed there were only two ways to close the state’s daunting $3 billion deficit: massive tax hikes or slashing core government services such as education, public safety and social services.

This is the exact problem with Illinois, New Jersey, Pennslyvania etc.
Why get rid of public safety? We need firemen, and policemen, how about we get rid of some aldermen, some politicians!!

I remember many many years ago. I lived in Lake County Illinois. For those that don't know, it has always been one of the highest property taxed areas of the entire United States. It's not even that great of an area, just typical suburbia. My son was in kindergarten. I remember the teachers striking on the streets. They asked "do you want your kids to have art and music?". If so you better vote for the referendum and more taxes. I was a newer mom, and of course I wanted my child to have art and music. Teachers are good, and they must know what they are talking about right? There can't be a way to have art and music without more money?? WRONG. I'm convinced the entire state has this mentality. How is this madness still going on? The people are being held hostage on so many level, it is so wrong.

Why is the answer NEVER re-budgeting, and looking at all the ways money is being wasted? Why not stop the bleeding? If a person needs a new roof on their house, the first thing they think of isn't going to be, hey I need a raise. No of course not. It is going to be one of two things, do I have the budget, or what can I do to budget this in, or how can I fix this until I have the money. That has never been the answer in Illinois.


That example is what Illinois has been doing for decades. I left about a decade ago and nothing has changed in several decades. They keep doing it.
For whatever reason the people of Illinois keep taking it. Those that couldn't stand it anymore have left or are trying to leave.



I write a lot about Illinois. It is close to my heart. It is a home that I can't move back to. It is so sad, the state has chased away so many people the last decade. Illinos is like that addict friend that you love and just want to shake but they keep doing the same thing over and over...

The problem is that it is relatively easy for a politician to just vote themselves a "raise" to pay for the additional spending. In addition, there is no mechanism in place to force them to make trade offs. Ok, so you want to spend money on X, but now you need to cut Y.

Politicians also have no incentive to cut spending. Cutting some constituents' pet program could get them voted out of office, but raising taxes on someone else or kicking a budget can down the road isn't likely to cost them their job.

Finally, it is too easy for politicians to convince voters to raise taxes on someone else to pay for all the new demands.. i.e, the rich.

a reply to: Edumakated

The other thing is the amount of aldermen. Why are they even needed? Other states don't need them!

It's taught to future politicians in thier political major program in college.

Theres a process involved in getting the people to raise taxes on themselves.
If a politician was to threaten laying off assistants, cutting wastefull spending, and running more efficiently, as a consequence of not passing the lastest emergency tax hike the people would say, "cool, do it!!".

Instead, they have to threaten the things the people want first, sports programs, music, not fixing potholes, etc. Gotta hit the people where it hurts to squeeze out the money.
Never threaten to reduce government waste.

There is a third choice. It involves matches, and kerosene.

Not that I advocate arson in the litteral sense, but in the figurative sense, burn it down. Vote out every pol, and start again.

a reply to: JAGStorm

They could probably take care of that deficit within one quarter if they would cut welfare and food stamps.

originally posted by: Mach2
There is a third choice. It involves matches, and kerosene.

Not that I advocate arson in the litteral sense, but in the figurative sense, burn it down. Vote out every pol, and start again.

Totally agree but will never happen there, too many people drinking the koolaid

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Edumakated

The other thing is the amount of aldermen. Why are they even needed? Other states don't need them!

I'm sure it made sense back in the day, but yeah I don't get why the city needs so many. They also wield way too much power as well resulting in the abuses of power and corruption like we see with Ed Burke.

Because the Public Sector Unions would throw their support behind an opposing candidate.

I don't understand how we pay more and more taxes and the politicians keep f!cling it up.

Nice thread though, I like your analogy. The whole state needs a rebudget with leaders willing to fire people.

I just don't see it happening..

I've said here and other places, giving the government more money is like giving a hard-partying college freshman cash to pay off the credit card debt he's accumulated from his partying. You know how that'd end.
:

originally posted by: incoserv
I've said here and other places, giving the government more money is like giving a hard-partying college freshman cash to pay off the credit card debt he's accumulated from his partying. You know how that'd end.
:

That party money is running out, the parents are almost broke. It will be interesting to see what happens when it does. It is coming sooner than later.
Illinois probably should have jumped on the pot bandwagon sooner like Colorado, too late now.

a reply to: JAGStorm

The problem with New Jersey is we have too much corruption in local government. Every local government in NJ hires all their relatives at 6 figure incomes.

In New Jersey, we don't even need local governments. We would save billions by just having county governments. But making sense when it comes to right wing communism never flies. Right wing because they all vote Republican. It's funny how the people who are the most outspoken against socialism benefit from it the most!

They will make cuts to necessary things like fire and police and anything essential or widely used to get people to agree to higher taxes. If they were to eliminate programs that do not effect many people, many pet projects of politicians, nobody would vote to increase taxes. Roads are a good way of raising taxes, we need roads so add taxes to gas then take the money the state gives to roads and blow that money on other programs that want extra money. Here the new Democratic governor wants to add forty five cents gas tax, then take half a billion the state gives to roads to schools to waste. That half a billion dollars could fix a lot more roads. Teachers will demand more wages since funding will increase, especially the ones who have been there for a while. Of course the new teachers who are paying off college debt will get hardly no extra.

This tactic is used often in all government, including local communities. Make cuts that can impact the most people so they vote to increase taxes, sometimes to fire departments...but the cities then take away funding from the general fund, so the fire departments do not get hardly any more money, it is used to put in a new park that hardly nobody uses.

a reply to: rickymouse

In my town, we have 3 police departments. One that works and the other 2 are retired. Police in my town retire at 40 and then collect a juicy pension for the rest of their lives. My neighbor is retired policemen who suns himself on his driveway everyday. Where as I have to go to work so I can pay my $1100 per month local taxes. He's a staunch Republican who believes in small government. Rather than complain I guess I could ways move to another country. But it just seems to me he is perfectly capable of working until he is at least 60 years old. I don't understand why the police get such juicy pensions at such an early age. It seems to me this is some kind of corruption.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

In my town, we have 3 police departments. One that works and the other 2 are retired. Police in my town retire at 40 and then collect a juicy pension for the rest of their lives. My neighbor is retired policemen who suns himself on his driveway everyday. Where as I have to go to work so I can pay my $1100 per month local taxes. He's a staunch Republican who believes in small government. Rather than complain I guess I could ways move to another country. But it just seems to me he is perfectly capable of working until he is at least 60 years old. I don't understand why the police get such juicy pensions at such an early age. It seems to me this is some kind of corruption.

To be honest, I don't really have an issue with police and fire pensions given the physical / mental stress they endure. My dad was a cop for about 30 years. He retired at like 52... he was dead of a stroke at 54. I've never understood why teachers have pensions and other public employees.

The problem is that people live longer and are typically in better health now. 50 is like the new 40 or 30. So when someone is able to retire nowadays at 50, they are far younger physically/mentally than a 50 year old a generation prior. The pension rules have never kept up with changes in society. It is just based on years of service.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

In my town, we have 3 police departments. One that works and the other 2 are retired. Police in my town retire at 40 and then collect a juicy pension for the rest of their lives. My neighbor is retired policemen who suns himself on his driveway everyday. Where as I have to go to work so I can pay my $1100 per month local taxes. He's a staunch Republican who believes in small government. Rather than complain I guess I could ways move to another country. But it just seems to me he is perfectly capable of working until he is at least 60 years old. I don't understand why the police get such juicy pensions at such an early age. It seems to me this is some kind of corruption.

They can retire with twenty years of service, just like many other government employees can. After putting up with people's crap for twenty years I think that they deserve retirement. School teachers can retire after twenty years too, but they start to boost their salary after that, they should be forced to retire after twenty years, that way the new teachers could get better pay.

a reply to: rickymouse

After putting up with people's crap for twenty years I think that they deserve retirement.

I have to agree with that. I think police men especially deserve it. They deal with the worst of society.
I think it would take a long retirement to shake all the crap they have to put up with during their careers. I don't know if any of them really get over it.

It would be interesting to force retirement on teachers (but that is against the law, for age discrimination)
but I know many teachers are hanging on, and they really aren't suitable to teach sometimes. I remember having a teacher that by all account was legally blind and half senile. There is no way he should have been teaching.

a reply to: JAGStorm

How about cut pensions and payroll.

Govt workers work incredibly hard.

As efficient as they are, I'm sure no one slacks off for days on end.

Don't Illinois have a carbon tax or something? Considering it's a Democrat state.