The View from Right Field

Illinois Might Have an Emergency, But Don’t Expect the Legislature To Do Anything

The President of the Illinois State Senate, Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park, was really excited about the election results.  Even with the defeat of the Fair Tax, he said, in a comment in our local newspaper, the Wednesday Journal, “We did it.”  Now, however, with Illinois facing a financial crisis because of the defeat of the Fair Tax and facing another coronavirus wave, Senator Harmon is saying, “We can’t do it”; i.e., the legislature can’t meet for its fall session.  It wouldn’t be safe, he says, with the virus surging in Springfield and around the state.

Doctors and nurses are working.  Police officers and firefighters are there for us.  And grocery stores and drug stores are open, and their workers are helping us with our food and medicine.  But the state legislature meeting to pass laws to deal with these crises?  It’s too dangerous.¹

Hey, Springfield: We Don’t Trust You

There are lots of stories in this election, some of which have not yet been fully told.  But there is one thing we know in Illinois: Illinois voters don’t trust Springfield.  Governor Pritzker spent millions supporting an amendment to the Illinois constitution allowing a progressive income tax.  The supporters said, over and over, it would only affect the rich, just the top 3%.  But they failed.  

What is interesting is why they failed.  The opponents of the amendment did not argue the merits of a flat tax versus a graduated tax.  Rather, they just asked Illinoisans whether they could trust the politicians in Springfield to limit the “Fair Tax” to just the top 3%, as they promised. 

Illinois Government: “Fair Tax” or Not, What Comes Next?

On Tuesday (or so), we will know the results on the Illinois “Fair Tax” proposal.  More interesting, however, will be what happens next year in Springfield.  Regardless of whether the Fair Tax passes or not, Illinois taxes will be going up.  The state has had billions of dollars of unpaid bills for a decade (don’t try this at home) and an unpaid pension deficit of either $137 billion or $240 billion (depending on whom you believe).

Governor J.B. Pritzker sent his Lieutenant Governor out last month to say (threaten-?) that if the Fair Tax was not passed, the flat rate state income state would go up from 4.95% to 5.95%, and the Governor said it would be the Republicans’ fault.  So, taxes are going up.  The real question is what happens after the increase.  Will the legislature and the governor use the extra money to finally pay the unpaid bills and pay down the unfunded pension liability?  Or will they all of a sudden say that Illinois has lots of unmet needs (besides paying its bills and funding its pension promises) and that the money needs to be used for new programs and expanded benefits?

Honesty In Taxes: We All Have to Pay

There is a trend in tax increase proposals around the world.  Voters in Illinois this November will vote on a “Fair Tax,” i.e., a constitutional amendment to allow the Illinois legislature to pass a progressive income tax.  The key selling point in the campaign for the amendment, other than the name that the PR people gave to it is that only 3% of the people in Illinois will pay a higher tax.  Everybody else will pay less.

In New Zealand, which had an election last weekend, the Green Party proposed a wealth tax, but said it would only apply to the top 6% of people.  The center-left Labour Party rejected the wealth tax idea, but they did propose increasing the tax on income above NZ$180,000, which includes about 2% of taxpayers, from 33% to 39%.

What the Fair Tax Needs Is New Politicians in Springfield

We are told that the solution to the problems in Springfield is the “Fair Tax.”  I would suggest that what we need more than a new tax is new politicians.  Illinois’s main problem isn’t that the state doesn’t have enough money.  It’s that the people in Springfield don’t know how to use the money they already have – and haven’t known how to use it for years.  Which is why we are in the mess we are in.

Giving more money to the politicians we have now will not result in better programs and more things done well.  It will, rather, result in more of what we already have: Poorly-run government that spends too much and accomplishes too little.

Donald Trump’s Federal Income Taxes

Media reports are that Donald Trump, in spite of supposedly having a net worth in the billions, paid no federal income taxes in ten of the last fifteen years and paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and the same amount in 2017.  Two comments:

First, if President Trump has followed the tax laws and has not engaged in any scams or lies in order to reduce his federal income taxes,¹ then I have no problem with what he paid.  In that case, the problem is with the Internal Revenue Code, not President Trump’s individual returns.  Democrats who are appalled that President Trump paid no taxes should be telling us how the tax code should be changed.  And I am not talking about some campaign press release or position paper.  I’m talking about detailed legislation.  They should propose a bill.  They should vote on the bill and pass it.  They should tell us what they want to do by actually doing it.  The House of Representatives would be a great place to do this.

Will Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx Lose in November? No, Democrats Won’t Allow It.

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx has been having a rough time.  A special prosecutor, Dan Webb, who is a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, found there were “substantial abuses of discretion” in how Ms. Foxx handled the Jussie Smollett matter.  Ms. Foxx pretty much let Mr. Smollett, a famous TV star (I guess), off the hook on charges filed against him because he had made a false report of a racist and homophobic attack on himself.  She has also come under criticism for how her office has dealt with all kinds of other matters.  Some people have even gone so far as to look at the Republican candidate for State’s Attorney, Patrick W. O’Brien, in the fall election.  Except they don’t need to waste their time doing that.  No matter how bad Kim Foxx is, the Democratic Party is not going to let the Republican candidate win.  If things get really bad, they might try to replace Ms. Foxx with another candidate.  But if she is on the ballot in November, the Democrats will make sure she wins.  They can’t afford to have her lose.

The last thing Democrats in Cook County, and Illinois, want is a Republican State’s Attorney in Cook County.  The Democrats are having enough trouble with John Lausch, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, investigating public corruption.  They can’t have a Republican State’s Attorney in Cook County working with him.

A “Fair Tax” for a Poorly Run and Corrupt State

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has an idea to solve Illinois’s financial problems: a progressive income tax.¹  Illinois currently has a flat-rate income tax, but in November, voters will be able to vote on an amendment to the Illinois constitution allowing a graduated income tax.  In pushing for the change, Governor Pritzker assures us that only 3% of us would pay more under his plan. (I would say that, if you believe this, you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but that would be unfair to the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.  They’re real compared to the chance that, within five to ten years, only 3% of us would be paying more under the Fair Tax.)

Illinois’s main problem is not its unpaid bills or huge unfunded pension liability.  It is, rather, that it is so poorly run and so corrupt.  So much of the money that Illinois government gets is wasted, and there is no reason to think this would change just because Illinois gets more money.  More money would just mean more money to waste.²

Little Sisters of the Poor and Free Birth Control

There was considerable outcry earlier this week when the Supreme Court upheld Trump administration regulations under Obamacare that provided the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other religious groups, did not have to provide free contraceptive services under their health plan.  Well, actually, it was more complicated than that.  The Obama administration had not required the Little Sisters to provide free contraceptive services; it required the Little Sisters’ health plan to provide free contraceptive services, without charging the Little Sisters for the services.¹  The problem for the Little Sisters was, as I understand it, that they did not feel comfortable with what they had to do in order to opt-out of providing free birth control.² 

Apparently, 70,000 or more women could be left without free birth control under the Trump administration regulation, which bothers (outrages) a lot of people.  But the point is, which a lot of people seem to miss, is there is a simple way to make sure free contraceptive services are provided to all women without forcing groups like the Little Sisters to violate their religious principles: Have the federal government pay for it.  If free birth control is that important, just pass a law and provide for it.  Nobody’s religious principles are violated,³ and women get free birth control. 

What's Better? Something or Nothing? Police Reform In an Age of Polarization.

I’ve been writing a lot about baseball lately, mostly because baseball, even with people like Rob Manfred and Tony Clark unable to negotiate anything, is better than politics today, which says something.  But it’s back to the real world.

A big issue in Washington is police reform.  Your first thought about Washington and police reform might be like mine: Huh?  Police, like schools, seems like the epitome of a state and local issue.   We need police reforms (for one of my ideas, see here), but what’s the federal government got to do with it?  State governments, local governments.  Police reform is their issue.  Congress can’t pass laws telling state and local governments how to run their police forces.  About all the federal government can do (with one exception I will get to below) is cut back on the money it gives to state and local police departments if they do things the federal government doesn’t like.  It’s not much, but it’s something.  So the people in Washington are talking about a police reform bill which would increase or decrease the amount of money Washington gives to state and local police departments.