The "education bill we've been waiting for," a.k.a. the "tax swap" was approved 6 to 3, and, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones has signed on as a co-sponsor. For more background, see my earlier post.
Because it has passed the education committee, in theory it now goes to the full Senate for a vote. Per Bethany (all bolding is mine):
Jones' spokeswoman, Cindy Davidsmeyer, said the Senate president has said and continues to say that he will not call this type of controversial measure for a vote on the Senate floor unless it has enough votes to pass - that's 30 to pass and 36 to override a governor's veto. Considering all the work that needs to be done to complete the legislation and all the GOP recruiting that needs to happen before the measure has a veto-proof majority, it's optimistic to think that the bill could be called for a vote before May 31, as Meeks would like.
On the spending side, the measure lists general initiatives but doesn't specify where the money would go. Also absent, so far, are "accountability" measures, or safeguards for how state and local governments spend the money as intended. That's a necessary component for Democratic Sen. Susan Garrett of Lake Forest. She voted "present" in committee to symbolize her concerns. "There has to be oversight. It's not going to happen with this magic wand. I could never support this, especially from my area, without some major, major reforms."
Meeks said those reforms are going to be drafted after collecting ideas in a series of public hearings, which is particularly important when "nobody trusts us to do what we say we're going to do."
Yet Sen. Dave Luechtefeld (R-Okawville), a former teacher and coach, said the proposal represents a "sea change" in funding that he is reluctant to support given the state's massive debt.
"It would be hard for any state senator to vote for a huge tax increase if we can't at least solve the biggest problem the state has by far, I think, and that is our debt problem," he said.
How's that for a fascinating example Republican "logic"? "We can't consider increasing revenue because we have too much debt." Wow. And I get that there are structural problems that need to be fixed that helped cause this debt, but as Meeks very colorfully says in the Tribune article, "You can't make brick without straw."
One reason why I support a raise in income tax (both personal and corporate) is because it is one of the most fair ways to levy taxes -- people pay according to their means. This is in direct contrast to pretty much every other option that is on the table. A sales tax increase results in the same price hike on a loaf of bread whether you work at Burger King or own it. Property taxes are even worse -- a homeowner who looses their job gets, if you will, an automatic "reduction" in income taxes, but their property taxes continue unabated. And if they happen to live in a gentrifying neighborhood but do not happen to have a gentrifying income? Forget about it. And don't get me started on what I think about an expansion of casino gambling ... !
It's time to stop playing around and do what needs to be done.
