The Courier News has an interesting story about Illinois Republican House Minority Leader Tom Cross’ attempt to get a Constitutional Amendment requiring a super-majority (three-fifths) vote in the Illinois House and Senate before income or sales taxes could be increased. While this is cost-free posturing (the Republicans don’t have the votes) about an issue with serious repercussions, the Courier News article quotes suggest something worse. It looks like Tom Cross hasn’t really thought through a proposal that could deprive Illinois voters of necessary programs and services. According to the article, Cross says, “I think we’ve been too quick, in the past, to try to solve our budget problems by automatically looking at tax increases.” He goes on to say, “I think it’s time we said ‘enough is enough’ to that line of reasoning.”
Tax increases have not been a problem with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Administration or Democratic control of both houses under Rod (where fee increases and cuts dominate the budget approach), making Cross’ comments seem oddly timed. As the article notes, “[f]aced with a more than $2.3 billion budget gap last year, legislative leaders were able to stave off tax hikes by upping fees for some businesses and slashing state agency spending by 2 to 4 percent.” In fact, far from cutting, Illinois Republicans actually sought to fast track $280 million in road construction projects as the price of their support for last year’s budget. I’m not passing judgment on the worthiness of these projects, I don’t know their details, but these were significant costs in a budget with substantial cuts threatened to worthwhile programs.
But it gets worse. Cross seems to contradict himself, saying, “Legislative bodies have got to make decisions how far they want to cut and how fiscally responsible they want to be, because cuts, as I said earlier, are not pleasant.” He goes on to say, “The question is whether that political rhetoric [making primarily cuts to balance the budget] translates into political reality, and I don’t know that people are willing to do that.” The question comes up - is even Cross willing to do it? The article paraphrases Cross saying, “The General Assembly…could discuss delaying pension payments and short-term borrowing to pay health care providers, Cross said, but he wouldn’t commit to what cuts he would support to make the budget work.”
Is it fiscally responsible to delay pension payments and institute “short-term borrowing to pay health care providers,” as Cross suggests? I don’t know the answer, I would need to know more, but it certainly isn’t obvious that delaying payment for the future by taking on debt is “fiscally responsible.” Increasing debt to pay for government is the way the U.S. has incurred record debt during the George W. Bush Administration - and that was from a surplus left to us from the Bill Clinton Administration. Is it fair or honest to demand cuts, or even make it harder to increase taxes, if like Cross you can’t or won’t say what cuts you support?
Tom Cross spokesperson David Dring continues the incoherent policy stance, saying, “There come[s] a point when you can’t cut anymore. We don’t know what the Democrats have in mind, but in case they’re thinking about a tax increase, we’ve got this bill to maybe stop them in their tracks.”
That sounds like a proposal for budgetary gridlock, cutting necessary government services and not very good government. I expect better from Tom Cross and my elected officials. If there are reasonable cuts to make then let’s talk about them up front. I believe in smart investment of tax dollars for government services and programs that benefit the public - that’s the right way to serve Illinois taxpayers. At least until we get the necessary work of smart budgeting done, and it isn’t easy, let’s avoid “gotcha” proposals and pointless partisan posturing.
Comments 2
Perhaps you don’t consider the attacks of irrational fees the Governor has made on businesses in Illinois tax increases, but they are.
Posted 31 Jan 2005 at 7:38 am ¶Hi Debi,
Thanks for your comment!
Actually, while I wouldn’t characterize the governor and legislator-approved fees the way you do, I do agree that they act essentially as a form of tax increase. The fees, including ones like the toll highway increases and the increased late fees for vehicle registrations, affect everyone, not just businesses. I would agree with what I take to be part of your (unstated) premise, that it is likely that some state spending is not invested smartly in programs and policies to benefit the public.
My understanding from the news articles is that Tom Cross’ proposed Constitutional Amendment affects only sales and income taxes - not fees. So his proposal would do nothing to curb the fees you and I have just mentioned (something worth noting). But my objection goes beyond the omission of fees. My objection is that Tom Cross, when asked, did not come up with any budget cuts he would endorse - which makes his proposal seem like empty words, since he professed to believe that budget cuts, not additional fees or taxes, was the way he wanted to balance the budget. He said, “The question is whether that political rhetoric [making primarily cuts to balance the budget] translates into political reality, and I don’t know that [legislators] are willing to do that.” That sounds like criticism to me. But Tom Cross seems no more willing to endorse specific budget cuts than those he refers to in his criticism.
Debi, despite a likelihood that we might agree on funding for many state programs and policies, because they are sound investments serving the public interest, you and I might genuinely disagree about others. And either or both of us might have disagreements with Tom Cross or others on the same issue. But I think that if Tom Cross is offering an honest proposal to make sales and income tax investment by the state government harder, he has an obligation to say where he thinks the cuts should be in the budget. Instead he offered no cuts when asked, and only discusses adding to our debt by “delaying pension payments and [initiating] short-term borrowing to pay health care providers.”
How can Cross offer to increase state debt, offer no budget cuts he would support and be treated sincerely when he says he’s against increased fees and wants to legally limit the ability to increase taxes to pay for public investment in this state. The answer is his proposal can’t be treated seriously - because it is fiscally irresponsible and ultimately disastrous. I believe Tom is better than that - and I believe the citizens of Illinois deserve better than that from their government.
Posted 31 Jan 2005 at 8:53 pm ¶Post a Comment