( Chris Walker, Chicago Tribune / March 7, 2011 ) Tom Donovan, left, former CBOT CEO, greets Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton before Cullerton spoke at a City Club of Chicago luncheon at a Chicago restaurant.

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton denies that he ever called for a tax on retirement income. Even though the evidence (compiled by the Illinois Republican Party) could make one think otherwise. (Here, here, here, here and here.) (See the Cullerton speech at the City Club here.)

But, speaking as someone who lives partially off retirement income, might I ask: Why is this a bad thing? Why shouldn't income from any source be taxed, at progressive rates (i.e. low-income folks pay a smaller percentage)? 

by John F. Di Leo

Living in the Ring

So, your boss – let’s call him Joe – is just sitting at his desk, diligently working on his computer… trying to see if his business can make it through another year of this painfully long recession without having to lay off any more people...

…when, all of a sudden, this guy in an ill-fitting suit walks in, plunks down his state ID, and starts punching Joe in the face.  Not constantly, but regularly.  About 10.9 times per hour.  Finally, at the end of the day, at about 6 or 7 pm, Joe puts on his coat and goes home.

A different state employee is there waiting for him.  He presents his state ID, and enters the house alongside Joe, and starts punching Joe in the face.  Whatever Joe does – sitting in the dining room eating his cold dinner, sitting with his family watching television, dressing for bed, trying to sleep - that state employee is always there, regularly punching him in the face.  You could set your metronome by the rhythm, as the punches land at a steady rate of 5.25 times an hour.

10.9 at the office, 5.25 at home, it never stops.  But the state employee in the ill-fitting suit is always ready with a smile, and a reminder of the bright side of the situation: after just four years of this, it will stop.  Well, not exactly stop, but it will slow back down a bit, to somewhere higher than it was before, but not this high, at least.  Joe is used to being punched in the face.  The guys in Springfield figured that a slight change in the pace wouldn’t make much of a difference to him.  He’d adjust.

And so it goes, day after day, as Joe tries to save his business.  He’s not alone, of course; his employees are getting punched too.  Hard to get a productive day out of employees being knocked silly all day long… his vendors are missing deadlines, producing low quality parts, parts out of tolerance, parts that have to be rejected again and again, causing Joe’s own on-time delivery record to slip. 

Some of his customers – not all, but some – are understanding; they know what he’s going through.  They endure it themselves; they’ve learned to live with it.  After a while, they barely notice it.  It’s an economy full of punch-drunk fighters, of course – they can’t see clearly enough, or hold their hands steady enough, to do anything right – but since they’re all in the same boat, they figure it’s survivable.  Someday it has to stop, right?  Someday the guys in the ill-fitting suits will tire of it, and find some other hobby, right?

One day Joe comes home to find his wife in more pain than usual.  Black and blue.  She’d been shopping, buying the Christmas presents, buying the groceries for Christmas dinner, restocking the bar for the friends they were going to have over on New Year’s Eve (one couple had to cancel; they’d decided at the last minute to go house-hunting in Texas).  The men in ill-fitting suits were there too, at the mall, at the grocery store, at the liquor store.  Seven punches in the face for this product, eight punches for that one, ten punches for this order…  Some products didn’t get you punched at all, but there weren’t many of those; you’d like to be grateful for the break, but frankly, you can barely catch your breath to notice it.

The next day, when his other customers call – the ones who “didn’t understand” before – and tell him that there’s another way, he listens.   And he starts to spend some time on real estate websites.  Indiana and Wisconsin, Texas and Alabama… there are states where you don’t get slugged nearly as often, where both employer and employee, both spouse and child, are secure in their homes without being attacked day and night by a hostile government that views them as no more than cash cows to milk as long as they can, then put out to pasture when they’re dry.

Too Strong an Analogy?  

When confronted with a scenario like Illinois’ current debate, a writer asks himself, “How far should I go?”  Really, what is a reasonable approach, one that will make the point without going overboard, without giving cause for a reader to dismiss the article as ”extremist” or “inflammatory?”  Are high taxes any less a deterrent than a local burglary problem, a gang problem in the neighborhoods, a pickpocket problem downtown, an epidemic of muggings in the alleys?  

Or is that perhaps exactly the right analogy, and maybe we’ve gotten in the mess we’re now in precisely because we’ve softened our rhetoric and downplayed the destruction for too long?

Illinois is already a high-taxing state.  Not the highest, perhaps, but high.  And it’s in a high-taxing nation, as well.  Add the property taxes, sales taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, and every other tax, big and small, from mosquito abatement districts to workmen’s compensation programs, and then pile all that on top of the federal taxes, from Medicare and Social Security to income taxes and capital gains.  Illinois is already a tax hell, a place that no sane business would move to, a place that companies only remain in if they must, or if they haven’t yet thought it worthwhile to evaluate other options.

This is not to say that Illinois doesn’t have its pluses.  A vibrant arts community in which you can see Broadway-quality productions in world-class downtown theatres if you have an arm and a leg to spare… a skyline of architectural marvels to enjoy if you can afford the rent… a booming, centrally-located transportation hub if you don’t mind its traffic jams, ten-minute stops for freight train crossings, lengthy airport delays, and roads so full of potholes that one wonders if the resurfacers were really aiming for that lovely swiss cheese effect or if it was just a lovely and unexpected bonus…

Seriously, Illinois remains a great state in many ways.  But for every positive – the four seasons, the culture, the diverse cuisines, the employment opportunities – there are also negatives.  The high cost of living, the crippling taxes, the crime, the traffic, the corruption.  

Illinois is a transportation hub; food and retail goods should be cheaper here, not more expensive.  It’s the cumulative effect of those taxes.    Illinois has a well-educated population and 150 years of corporate history; it should be chock full of employment opportunities… but Chicago’s unemployment level is consistently higher than the national average, higher than many comparable cities.  It’s the taxes, the regulation, the crime, the bureaucracy… driving away jobs, driving away investment, driving away anyone with sense.

Patriotic Americans, terrified of losing all our manufacturing to Asia, are relieved at least that Indiana is next door with a rational governor, that Wisconsin just elected a fantastic governor, that Kentucky to the south remains welcoming, that even Michigan is moving in the right direction (though those poor souls have the greatest challenge of anyone, away to their southeast).

A state can overcome negatives if it has enough positives.  The inconvenient peninsula of Delaware manages to survive through a regulatory climate that welcomes incorporation.  People have long tolerated the crushing congestion of Los Angeles and New York because that’s where the jobs were; or tolerated the scarcity of jobs in Vermont or Montana to enjoy their wonderful skiing.

But the greatest equalizer of all has been and remains a favorable tax climate.  Millions tolerate the miserable humidity of Florida, and the heat of Texas, to enjoy their low tax rates.  You can forgive a great deal if thousands of dollars per year of certain savings is thrown into the bargain.

Think too of the advantage when comparing the way that sales and income taxes are constructed:  the more you earn, the more you’re taxed.  This works conversely too:  after you move your family or your business to a lower-tax state, the more you earn, the more you save.  A five percent savings on $50,000/year is $2500; that same five percent savings grows to $5000 if your salary rises to $100,000… it grows to $7500 per year if your salary rises to $150,000. Now think of the cumulative savings delta over ten years, or even twenty!

The more potential you believe you have in your career, the more that geographical move makes sense.  If you believe in yourself and your prospects, you should move… unless of course your career is dependent on living in Illinois.  How many such careers are there?  More importantly, how many such careers will there be in the future, if Springfield continues its practice of punching every employer in the face – eight, nine, ten, eleven times an hour?

They claim that this increase is just to get us out of the current hole, but they do nothing to reduce the spending that dug the hole; they only want to tax us more to fund it.  They promise it will be temporary, just four years or so, and then it will drop again.  Somewhat.

But we can only judge the truth of such a promise from history.  What is Illinois’ experience with temporary income tax increases?  Anyone remember?

History Does Repeat Itself.

In the early 1980s, Springfield passed a temporary increase from 2.5% to 3%.  They let it expire, then soon revived it, calling the 3% “temporary” for several years before finally declaring it permanent in 1993.

The people of Illinois must remember this precedent; Illinoisans must therefore assume that if an increase is allowed, it will, most likely, be made permanent at some time soon.  Get used to that new personal rate of 5.25%, and that new combined corporate rate of 10.9% (8.4% plus the existing 2.5% "replacement tax"), folks; once Springfield is used to those numbers, they’ll be here to stay.

The politicians make a terrible error in thinking that people and businesses don’t react to such hostility.  They think that our population has stayed, despite a 3% personal rate, so why not a 5.25%?  Our business community has remained despite a 7.3% rate, so why not a 10.9%?  

But they don’t see the hidden consequences of even these existing rates, because those consequences are gone, out of sight, hundreds of miles away.  Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee, Louisiana… all these states and more are the new home of businesses, employees, and retirees who moved there because they gave up on Illinois; they got tired of being robbed every day of their lives, and finally reached the point at which the trouble of moving was worthwhile to them.  

Just imagine – there’s no telling how many more jobs Illinois would have, how much stronger its economy would be, how much more vibrant (and, frankly, how much richer would be the state treasury) if only Illinois’ tax burden were low enough to be an attraction, rather than a repulsion, to the business community at large.

Perhaps giving up the four seasons, the wonderful culinary and arts options, and nearby friends and family just wasn’t worth the savings at 3% or 7.3%.  Try 5.25%, though, and 10.9%, and you’ll see people and businesses ready and willing to move who you never dreamed would budge an inch.

Besides, you’re not really leaving your friends, family, and clientele behind, if they’ve already left, ahead of you.  A lot of us may find ourselves sitting alone at the Christmas party a year from now, realizing that all the people we stayed here for have already moved into their new digs in Dallas.

Copyright 2011 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer.  In his travels around this great nation, he’s always happy to return home… but, like so many others, he also finds his friends in Texas mighty welcoming these days…

Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the byline and IR URL are included.  Follow me on LinkedIn or Facebook.

In this race, I am the only candidate standing up for tax and budget reforms aimed at restoring health to the public sector, especially education.

I am the only candidate who stands with the Responsible Budget Coalition and its campaign to fix our broken tax system and raise more revenue by making it more progressive, the campaign supported by your union.

I was the only candidate who stood with you and your brothers and sisters in the IFT on April 21st when we protested for a responsible budget in Springfield.

And I am the only candidate who brings to the table new and innovative ideas for raising more revenue, such as a tax on speculative trading in Illinois, which could readily raise billions of dollars to restore health to the public sector, and a state bank, which will enable our government to raise additional revenues without raising taxes more than necessary.

Read more at the Beachwod Reporter

Watch Video Here

• The wheels fell off that “misconstrued” explanation Friday when the Capitol Fax Blog posted a video recording of Bloomberg’s interview with Vaught. His words: “We fully expect that we’re going to pass a tax increase in January. We think it’s going to be substantial.” Asked to define “substantial,” Vaught explained Quinn’s support, variously, of a 2 percent hike and a 1 percent hike and concluded, “To me that’s the range of possibilities.” Then John Sinsheimer, Quinn’s director of capital markets, made 2 percent sound like Quinn’s true goal: “The overseas investors we talked to, when we told them we could balance the budget with a 2 percent increase in individual and corporate income taxes, that pretty much raises about $6 billion, slightly less than that — that’s the deficit.” The overseas investors, he added were impressed. “They looked at us and said, ‘Only a 2 percent increase?’ They were amazed by that.

More at the Chicago Tribune

Why? Because guns don’t vote, but people do. By playing to people’s fears, Daley hopes to win a few votes from those who have lost loved one to violence.

The only thing a gun ban does is to insure that the bad guys have guns and the good guys do not. The bad guys don’t obey the law, nd they know decent homeowners will not have a weapon to defend themselves. The bad guys only pick on the defenseless, and Daley has made Chicagoans defenseless.

You don’t see much home invasion in rural downstate Illinois. That is because the bad guys know that the farmer on the other side of the door will have a weapon to shoot back.

The ironic thing is that Daley points to the dozens of shootings every week as a reason why guns should be banned. But why are there so many shootings, since gun ownership has been banned in Chicago for 20 years?
Guns are outlawed and yet shootings abound. Maybe the problem isn’t the guns. Maybe Daley’s leadership, and his lack of addressing the real problem of violence, is the problem.

The Supreme Court told Daley that Chicago is still a part of America and still has to obey the Constitution, even the Second Amendment. Daley was told he cannot tear up the Constitution the way he tore up Meigs Field.

And do not take heart in the latest poll that shows Daley at 37 per cent popularity. By the time all the city workers and the people in the cemeteries vote on election day, Daley will end up with 70 per cent of the vote again.

It looks like Blagojevich has two main defenses — insanity and ineptness. It is a back-door insanity defense, saying that Blago blows his top and says crazy things, but doesn’t mean it. His lawyers plead ineptness, saying that he didn’t make much money from his dirty deals. This defense will go only so far.

Blago pleads that he doesn’t have enough money to send his daughters to college. Please. When has Blago ever thought of anyone besides himself? Even the majority of the $400,000 he spent on clothing was for himself, not for his wife. His dirty deals were to get money for himself, not for his wife or his daughters. Stupidity and ineptness is not a proper legal defense.

The Blago tapes remind me of the Nixon tapes. We have top officials talking about such petty and vindictive matters. When do these politicians have the time to do their jobs?

An increase in the minimum wage is one of the Democrats’ favorite means of pandering to voters. They portray it as compassion to the poor, something to which they claim to own the franchise. While it is good for those who get a small increase, it is not good for the economy. Or for those who lose their jobs because of it.

Unlike the government, businesses cannot print money when they need it. Nor can they just take it from the pockets of people, as the government does. Every dollar of increased costs has to come from somewhere. When they pay their employees more, they money comes from laying off other workers — and from not hiring additional workers. Business owners — especially small business owners, who feel it more than big corporations — know this.

No one is against people making more money and doing better in life. But let us have a little more honesty and a little less hypocrisy. Raising the minimum wage to help the economy is like raising taxes to help the economy. It does just the opposite. But the voters sure do like it.

Remember the scandal the media created when gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady announced he didn’t pay income taxes one year because his business lost money? It was a legitimate reason, but the Democrats acted like he was a tax evader. We aren’t seeing the same outrage now that Democrat Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias announced he didn’t pay state and federal income taxes last year because of losses with his family’s Broadway Bank. In fact, Giannoulias is getting a $30,000 tax refund.

His opponent Mark Kirk noted that he bank’s failure cost the FDIC $394 million, not to mention the $73 million in college savings Giannoulias lost due to poor management. On top of that, Giannouilas favors tax increases for the rest of us.

Why are Brady’s taxes a scandal and Giannouilas’ taxes are not? Ask the Democrat media.

**

Jim Ridings is an author and regular contributor to the Chicago Daily Observer

In what’s left – Cook County’s northwest, west and southwest suburbs – the Republicans are suddenly competitive. With two-thirds of the county, including all of Chicago, underwater, how can the Republicans lose?

Answer: They can and they have. In the Board of Review’s 1st District – the area west of Mannheim Road, comprising the one-third of Cook County largely devoid of minorities and white liberal enclaves, and designed to elect a Republican, a Democrat, Brendan Houlihan, won the commissioner’s race in 2006.

How can a Republican not amass one-half of the vote in the one-third of the county with the fewest Democratic voters? That’s just one-sixth the countywide vote. But the obscure Houlihan, bearing the same surname as the county assessor (Jim Houlihan), upset the inept Republican incumbent, Maureen Murphy, by 14,076 votes (51.4 percent).

Never underestimate the ability of Cook County Republicans to be utterly irrelevant. In 2006, the party’s 6 countywide candidates averaged 23.6 percent of the vote; in 2008, the 3 candidates averaged 24.7 percent.

2010 is looming as a banner Republican year, nationwide as well a locally, but in a county won in 2008 by Barack Obama by a margin of 1,141,288 votes (76.9 percent), a Republican resurrection is a fantasy. In the Board of Review’s 1st District, however, it’s a possibility. The Republican nominee, Wheeling Township assessor Dan Patlak, is poised to ride 2010’s generic Republican “wave,” as Houlihan rode 2006’s Democratic landslide.

The Board of Review is obscure but powerful. It consists of three commissioners, who are paid $100,000 annually and have a staff of 20: Houlihan (D), elected from the suburban 1st District; Larry Rogers (D), a black elected from the South Side and south suburban 3rd District; and Joe Berrios (D), a Hispanic elected from the Northwest Side 2nd District. Berrios is the 31st Ward Democratic committeeman, county Democratic chairman, and current candidate for county assessor.

The Board has extraordinary power – namely: the ability to adjust the Assessor’s assessed valuation on the county’s 1.8 million property parcels, of which 1.2 million are residences. It can reduce property taxes. This year, over 400,000 complaints were filed with the Board, seeking reductions, a 30 percent increase over 2009. According to Patlak, over 50 percent of the residential complainants got a tax reduction, but commercial owners, by hiring clout-heavy law firms (headed by such Democrats as Mike Madigan and Ed Burke), got more and bigger tax breaks.

In an era of declining property tax values, there is “an increasing shift of the tax burden from commercial to residential” property owners, said Patlak. “We must stop the practice of Democratic (Board) commissioners giving tax breaks to commercial property owners represented by Democratic lawyers. We must stop the practice of lawyers donating huge sums to the commissioners who give their clients the reductions. And we must have some balance in county government…not just Democrats everywhere.”

“I’ve been a reformer,” asserts Houlihan, who said that he has conducted “over 200” outreach sessions in the county’s suburban townships, held in local government facilities, with he and his staff giving advice to homeowners as to the appeal process. “I do my utmost to help people reduce their taxes. I’ve done a good job.”

In addition, Houlihan claims that he has helped “modernize” the Board, introducing computerization of appeal files, and expects that those appealing their taxes can soon do so on-line, and not have to file physically at the Board’s office in the County Building or at the six suburban offices.

“What’s he done in four years?” asked Patlak of Houlihan. “He’s the Invisible Commissioner. He spends more time at the Board of Trade than he does at the Board of Review. And,” sniffs Patlak, “if he’s ‘done a good job,’ then why can’t complaints be filed on-line now?”

Houlihan admits that he “works part-time” as a staffer for a Board of Trade brokerage firm, but insists that his staff is present at all Board of Review hearings on tax reductions, that he “attends every Board meeting” to approve the dispositions, and that he “spends countless evenings and weekends” at his outreach sessions. There are 27 suburban townships and two Chicago wards in Houlihan’s 1st District. “I’ve had an outreach in every one in every year since 2007,” said the commissioner, which “totals more than 100” sessions. Also, said Houlihan, he adheres to the county’s new ethics rules, and limits contributions to $1,500 from lawyers who practice before the Board.

“I will be a full-time commissioner,” pledged Patlak, promising to quit as township assessor if elected. “I will devote all my time to helping my constituents reduce their taxes.” Yet Houlihan is the norm, not an aberration. Rogers is a prominent attorney, and Berrios is a Springfield lobbyist for the video poker industry and Democratic chairman. If 24/7 means all day every day, then the three BOR commissioners probably average 2/5 – two hours a day, five days a week. With 20 staffers each, they can delegate plenty of responsibility.

The outlook: A Board of Review commissioner is more obscure than a county commissioner, and at least as obscure as a Metropolitan Water Reclamation District commissioner. Despite 8 years of incumbency, Murphy failed to entrench herself.

As he completes his first term, Brendan Houlihan is no household name, and is only slightly better-known than in 2006. He benefits from the fact that Irish surnames always run well; that Jim Houlihan, the outgoing assessor, is popular, and voters may confuse the Houlihans; that Patlak is totally unknown, and is relying heavily on the district’s Republican organizations, which are, to be charitable, puny and powerless, especially in the southern townships; and that, geographically, Houlihan’s southern base may generate a greater plurality than the Republicans’ northern base.

But Patlak ranks as the favorite, simply because, in 2010, the vote will be generic: More people will vote Republican than Democratic, and the 1st District has slightly more Republicans than Democrats.

The 1st District includes all or part of 27 townships, with 1,661 suburban precincts. In the north are the upscale, historically Republican townships of Barrington, Elk Grove, Hanover, Palatine, Schaumburg, Wheeling, Maine, New Trier and Northfield (plus slivers of Niles and Evanston). In 2006, those 11 townships cast 228,061 ballots, and Murphy carried them by 6,445 votes.

In the south are the upscale, mostly white townships of Bremen, Lemont, Lyons, Orland, Palos and Worth. Farther to the south are Thornton, Rich and Bloom, which have black majorities. In 2006, those 9 townships cast 172,558 ballots, and Houlihan carried them by 12,800 votes. The key was Rich Township, which contains Olympia Fields, Flossmoor, Chicago Heights, Matteson, Richton Park and Park Forest — an area with an exploding black population. In 2006, Houlihan beat Murphy by 10,432 votes in that township.

In the west are the Democratic-leaning townships of Berwyn, Cicero, Leyden, Norwood Park, Proviso, River Forest and Riverside. In 2006, those 7 townships cast 47,201 ballots, and Houlihan carried them by 11,675 votes.

And there are parts of three Chicago wards: The Southwest Side 19th Ward (30 precincts) and the Northwest Side 41st Ward (37 precincts) and 45th Ward (one precinct), for a total of 68 precincts. In 2006, those wards cast 21,254 ballots, and Houlihan won them by 3,357 votes.

The 2006 turnout in the district was 476,378, and Murphy got 231,151 votes (48.6 percent). Overall, Murphy, from Oak Lawn in Worth Township, won just 12 of 27 townships, losing 5 of 9 south suburban townships in her base. In the 2002 election, Murphy was unopposed, and got 380,624 votes. In 1998, when commissioners were first elected by districts, Murphy won by 199,647-173,940, in a turnout of 373,587, a margin of 25,707 votes.

My prediction: In 2006, Republican Tony Peraica, running for county board president, got 336,443 votes (64.6 percent) in the 1st District, securing 105,292 more than Murphy. Of course, Peraica was running against the flawed black incumbent, Todd Stroger. This year, Houlihan lacks Stroger’s repugnance, and Patlak lacks Peraica’s combativeness and visibility.

Demographics in the district’s west and south areas favor the Democrats, but the Republican vote will rebound dramatically in the north. To triumph, Patlak needs to win by 22,000 in the north – triple Murphy’s margin. And he can’t lose by more than 10,000 each in the west and south. In 2010, that’s doable. Patlak will beat Houlihan by 4,000 votes.

**

Russ Stewart is a political analyst for the Chicago Daily Observer

O’ DemiLords Durbin and Burris, beseech us with your wisdom of phototherapy and discernment of the shame which our eczema has brought. Make us worthy of your mercy and deliver our tanning beds from clutches of the vain to save us from the unsightly blotch.

He has lately ruffled some feathers in his party by breaking with Bill Brady, the Republican nominee for governor, and calling for an income tax increase favored by Governor Patrick J. Quinn, the Democratic incumbent, to help close a budget deficit of $13 billion in the coming year.

Mr. Edgar cringes at Tea Party bombast and “Obama-is-a-socialist” denunciations. He does not listen to Rush Limbaugh. “People listen to this stuff over and over, and they think it’s all true,” he said. “And they get very angry.”

Read more at the New York Times

Illinois is now second only to California in its billions of dollars of debt. But the only thing we hear from Governor Quinn and General Assembly leaders is a push to raise taxes once again. Whoa there! There is another way and it won’t cause even more manufacturers, businesses, and residents to flee the state. Instead of raising taxes, how about calling for spending freezes and cutting a lot of fat from the budget? How about looking into the one issue that is sinking Illinois into more debt every day – the government and public-sector pensions? There is no Fortune 500 company that gives pensions that rise every year despite what the market does. There is no Fortune 500 company that pays retirees health care after they retire – and health care that is more expensive than private health care – without retirees paying a penny for the coverage.

Governor Blagojevich approved huge pay increases for public employees and expanded pensions. Now Governor Quinn talks about tax increases. Businesses are leaving the state, jobs are drying up, unemployment is on the rise, and the Governor proposes raising taxes, which will only worsen the situation.

It is time to find someone in Springfield who will have the spine to speak out against this folly. It is past time for someone to propose freezing new spending and capping the annual increases in pensions. Demonizing the rich and punishing business for the folly of government spending just doesn’t work anymore. Each day, more and more people are waking up to the higher taxes and fees in Illinois.

In the 1950’s Union leader Owen Meany spoke out against the unionization of public sector workers. He saw it as a poison pill which would eventually run government and kill the economy. The difference between private sector unions is that those unions – with the exception of the UAW – have known how much they can demand without destroying their employer. Public sector employees have no such limits. The results are clear: they’re destroying Illinois’ economy. Their pensions are drowning our state just as they are drowning California.

It will take courage in Springfield to speak out about this. It will take someone with knowledge of how business works, how the economy can flourish, and how the public sector unions are hurting Illinois.

The upcoming elections are a good place to start. We need a Governor who knows business, who has worked in a business, hired workers, paid their benefits, met a payroll, and paid ever- growing taxes and fees. We need a Governor who can stand up to the public unions and make them face the stark reality – Illinois can no longer foot the huge bill to compensate their growing pensions and they’ll have to do what private businesses do. We need a Governor who will tell these unions that they’ll either have to accept a pay freeze or cut jobs. We need a Governor who will tell the Teacher’s Union that they’ll have to stop the practice of raising administrators’ salaries the last year of work to collect bigger pensions – a practice that ought to be outlawed. It’s time for a Governor who will act to put the students ahead of the teachers’ union. It’s time for a Governor who will have the courage to address the public pension system in Illinois and change it. If we elect such a Governor, constant calls for new taxes will no longer be necessary.

**

Mary Laney is a Regular Columnist for the Chicago Daily Observer

More from Anne Leary

I guess they’re really diverse at this one–looks like two kinds of signs. [In contrast, Chicago TaxDayTeaParty] Yes, they were bused in.

**

Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer