Details here. Rich Miller has a bunch more here, and his commenters are great.
Discuss if you'd like.
Topinka Budget Plan
Posted August 24th, 2006 at 01:28 PM by Gordy Hulten
Topinka is disappointing me more and more. Someone please remind me, what positions does she hold that make her a Republican?
Well, the property tax relief is certainly a GOP position, as is the opposition to general tax increases, reductions in universal Medicaid eligibility, and the ending of the insanely irresponsible fund sweeps, pension raids, and six-month payment cycles.
a cynical conservative could argue that she would just be a more responsible Democrat
True. But at this point, the other option is a clearly irresponsible, very liberal (pro-abortion, pro-universal health care) Democrat.
RSW,
The question is: what more do we want? We want pensions funded, Medicaid paid, and education funding boosted...but we want tax cuts. That's not a typical forumla for success. I probably wouldn't like this plan if it made an 11th casino license, but she's just allowing for an already provided license to be used. That's not gambling expansion to me. AND...no tax increase, and a property tax freeze. That's as good as we're going to get it on the fiscal conservative side with the current budget crisis.
I'm gonna vote for her, don't get me wrong, but I just can't feel real good about it.
The hard-core family-values folks are out there campaigning against her, because they believe a JBT loss would pull the GOP back to its base.
And don't kid yourselves, any land-based casino is an expansion of gambling, and will establish a precedent that the legislators will lean on again and again when they want to take the easy way out. The camels nose is already under the tent, and he is pushing his way in.
"The hard-core family-values folks are out there campaigning against her, because they believe a JBT loss would pull the GOP back to its base."
- Huh? All the IL GOP has IS its base. That's why the party hasn't been able to win a statewide race. Pretty obvious, isn't it? Fiscal conservatism is the only chance the IL GOP has to regain any traction in this state. That is a base that the party can build from. Wake up Republicans! Religious conservatives, like Obie, driving the party will result in perpetual minority status.
"Huh? All the IL GOP has IS its base."
That's overstating it more than a bit. Jim Ryan only lost by a few points in 2002. Or are you saying the GOP base is enough to get a statewide candidate into the upper 40s?
"- Huh? All the IL GOP has IS its base."
That is what the Topinka camp argued - she was the only one that could win an election in this blueish state. I didn't really buy it during the primary - I don't think you can be opposed to so many planks in the party platform and still get the base out - but we shall see in Nov.
Gordy,
I believe that 2002 was the last year that the ILGOP has any significant statewide support beyond its base. Things have only gotten worse since then. The Ryan conviction was bad enough, but the Keyes disaster caused moderate voters to stampede away from the party in droves. Political sermons of Fire and Brimstone won't bring them back.
"I believe that 2002 was the last year that the ILGOP has any significant statewide support beyond its base. Things have only gotten worse since then. The Ryan conviction was bad enough, but the Keyes disaster caused moderate voters to stampede away from the party in droves. Political sermons of Fire and Brimstone won't bring them back."
2002 was the last statewide election featuring multiple candidates. 2004 had only one statewide candidate - Alan Keyes. My belief is that people stampeded away from Alan Keyes in 2004, not from the Republican Party. President Bush's numbers in 2004, for example, weren't much worse than they were in 2002 despite Obamania. The GOP state legislative candidates in 2004 didn't fare too badly, with the Senate GOP knocking off an entrenched incumbers (Sen. Welch).
I seriously doubt Alan Keyes did any lasting damage to the prospects of the GOP in Illinois as a whole. George Ryan certainly did, but we can measure that damage (2002). But Keyes was an anomaly, a blip, an annoying bit of heartburn.
But if you think GOP candidates in 2006 cannot do any better than Keyes in 2004 ("The base is the only thing they have left...") then I have to disagree.
".....other option is a clearly irresponsible, very liberal (pro-abortion, pro-universal health care) Democrat."
From a perspective of economic soundedness, I don't understand the perspective of people who are encouraging or even potentially legislating others to carry unwanted children to term. Why would any society want to carry the financial burden and social costs of unwanted children....let alone perperpetuate the human misery that children who come into the world unwanted face.
Also, with regard to health care, we face the worst of both worlds....high government spending through medicare and medicaid....high spending and increased costs by businesses through outrageously priced health insurance premiums.....large out of pocket expenses even for many of the insured.....medical care that is unavailable and not affordable for many of the uninsured.....and now, the latest indignity, long waiting lists for medical services for even those who pay their $300...$400...$500....per month insurance payments.
Don't you think that there is just a little something wrong with this picture?
"From a perspective of economic soundedness, I don't understand the perspective of people who are encouraging or even potentially legislating others to carry unwanted children to term."
Those who oppose abortion don't do so from an economic perspective - that might be the basis of your misunderstanding.
"Why would any society want to carry the financial burden and social costs of unwanted children”¦.let alone perperpetuate the human misery that children who come into the world unwanted face."
I cringed when I read this. Just cringed, that children can be reduced to a cost/benefit analysis for a society that is the greatest on earth.
There are parents who don't want children, but there are no unwanted children.
"... let alone perperpetuate the human misery that children who come into the world unwanted face."
I didn't realize we were able to foresee people's lives so well.
While I think the sort of children you describe will possibly face more obstacles than might others, I also think society should help that child as much as possible (if he/she needs it) to succeed. And who knows, perhaps he/she won't need as much help as we think. We don't have crystal balls, and we can't see into the future to know exactly how someone's life will play out.
I think that giving someone a chance is better than having no chance at all.
So far I've heard several good arguments toward adoption of "unexpected" children.
Even though I oppose outlawing abortion, I would do my best to try to convince anyone in that position to carry the child to term and put them up for adoption.
So why can't we just agree to the philisophical difference, and try to *convince* others not to abort fetus' instead of trying to legislate our moral opinions?
Right - "I don't want to pay for it". Okay, remove that. Just make it legal, but don't allow govt $ to pay for it, unless it's under extreme circumstances.
Staunch Republicans here like to discuss how Democrats are always dictating behavior - how is this different? Because of Religion? Because your opinion of "when life begins" is different than mine, or hers?
Sorry, like I needed to open yet another kettle of worms *here*.
(shifting gears)
Why didn't Freirichs take care of this?
CheapEngineer
Because your opinion of “when life begins” is different than mine, or hers? Yes
Because you say so?
some people held the opinion that it was ok to own other people - we had to fight a war to settle that dispute of opinions.
Just thinking,
I'll bet your certainly glad that if you were an "unexpected surprise" that your parents didn't reduce your entire life down to a cost/benefit analysis
Judy BT just earned my vote for governor. Freezing property taxes for two years is a great idea and her message addresses two major issues (1) property taxes (2) education funding, but I wish she would have suggested long-term property tax caps for the entire state.
From the Trib:
"The plan is aimed at appealing to homeowners who bear the overwhelming costs of public schools under the state's funding system, which relies largely on real-estate taxes. The two-year freeze is designed to force lawmakers to come up with a more comprehensive education-funding proposal during the midterm of a Topinka administration."
Gordy,
"President Bush's numbers in 2004, for example, weren't much worse than they were in 2002 despite Obamania."
- I don't think that voters' opinions of the national party are a reflection of their opinions of the state party. For example, if Illinois voters were asked to evaluate the ability to articulate a clear message, motivate citizens, or demonstrate political competence, I believe that the national party would score much higher than the state party. Actually, even if only Republicans were asked I still believe that the national party would score higher.
"The GOP state legislative candidates in 2004 didn't fare too badly, with the Senate GOP knocking off an entrenched incumbent (Sen. Welch)."
- Obviously, there are many parts of the state where the GOP is still popular and successful, but it takes a much broader political reach to win a statewide race.
But if you think GOP candidates in 2006 cannot do any better than Keyes in 2004 (”ÂÂThe base is the only thing they have left”¦”ÂÂ) then I have to disagree.
- Keyes was the low point for the state party. I don't think any Republican candidate can do worse than Alan, but that whole fiasco was more than just a political blip. Do you really believe that voters perceptions of the party automatically reset to pre-Keyes levels after the election? I was one of the people questioning how the party could go from being represented by someone with the stature of Edgar to someone like Keyes in a span of just a few years. Where does the GOP want to take Illinois? That's what this election cycle is about, or at least should be. Its an opportunity to redefine the party objectives and principles, which will require more than religious rhetoric. I actually like the whole bus tour the GOP slate is on now. It may be campy, but its projecting a unified message based on fiscal responsibility that will connect with a broader range of voters. Even if the GOP falls short this time it will be something the party can further build on for future elections. Now, if the religious conservatives try to derail this effort as some sort of power play, then they will end up with a socially conservative and regionally-limited state party.
"I don't think that voters' opinions of the national party are a reflection of their opinions of the state party. For example, if Illinois voters were asked to evaluate the ability to articulate a clear message, motivate citizens, or demonstrate political competence, I believe that the national party would score much higher than the state party. Actually, even if only Republicans were asked I still believe that the national party would score higher."
I don't think very many voters, especially general election voters, make any distinction.
"Keyes was the low point for the state party. I don't think any Republican candidate can do worse than Alan, but that whole fiasco was more than just a political blip. Do you really believe that voters perceptions of the party automatically reset to pre-Keyes levels after the election?"
Yeah, pretty much. I don't think anyone took Keyes seriously enough for him to do any lasting damage - he was a desperate, transparent joke, and everyone knew it - and so knows not to judge the entire state party based on the strength of his three-month candidacy.
"I was one of the people questioning how the party could go from being represented by someone with the stature of Edgar to someone like Keyes in a span of just a few years. Where does the GOP want to take Illinois? That's what this election cycle is about, or at least should be. Its an opportunity to redefine the party objectives and principles, which will require more than religious rhetoric."
Topinka's plan lays out in much-greater-than-typical detail what her plans are for the state. I don't think Alan Keyes was mentioned, and I don't think a single Illinois voter, when reading about her plan, thought about Alan Keyes.
"I actually like the whole bus tour the GOP slate is on now. It may be campy, but its projecting a unified message based on fiscal responsibility that will connect with a broader range of voters. Even if the GOP falls short this time it will be something the party can further build on for future elections. Now, if the religious conservatives try to derail this effort as some sort of power play, then they will end up with a socially conservative and regionally-limited state party."
Most of the religious conservatives I know are at least voting for Topinka, if not actively campaigning for her. She may lose some of them with this plan, but not much.
But remember how this discussion started. You said, "All the IL GOP has IS its base." And that is just incorrect. There are plenty of independent and moderate voters who will support various GOP candidates this fall. Maybe not enough to win, but certainly more than zero.
JBT is going to freeze property taxes for two years? Great!
The line on my Illinois Income Tax form where it says "Property taxes to be paid to the State" will be frozen!
How is she going to do this? I think it's great to freeze State of Illinois property taxes!
JBT would freeze the education portion of your property tax for two years, by having the state pay directly to the schools districts for any increases during those two years.
I fail to see how this plan will restore the state to fiscal health. We need tax increases and/or massive spending cuts and she's proposing neither. Squeezing a few more drops of blood from the turnip with a get-rich-quick casino scam ain't gonna cut it. If I'm ever going to vote for a Republican governor, this is the year, but I'm not hearing anything that's making me enthusiastic. Topinka has terrific political cover at this point to justify major economic action ("Blago raided the pensions, swept all the fees, and gave away the store, now we've got to make sacrifices to clean up the mess he's leaving behind") and all she's offering is the same old pandering and the same old shell game.
Speaking of which, the GOP's gas tax relief plan (cut taxes so we can pay a little less for gas) seems equally silly, since (1) the state is still hemhorraging money like a drunken sailor and (2) the high gas costs are hitting state agencies just like they're hitting consumers. Yeah, it stinks having to pay $3 a gallon for gas, but it stinks more having the state in a tailspin toward bankruptcy.
JBT is proposing massive spending cuts. Read the plan.
OK, I read the Tribune article you linked to. MSM, but if you say it's right I'll believe you.
It is an incredibly dumb idea. The State will pay for any increases for two years. So, school districts everywhere will increase the tax bill. If the legislature doesn't play ball, we pay right away. If the legislature does play ball, and if the tax increases are not CONTINUED to be covered by the State, the increase in years 3, 4 and beyond fall back on the local homeowner. Also, it doesn't seem to take into account that some districts have tax caps, and some don't, screwing those that do, such as Urbana.
And it requires funding by a casino license sale and proposed increased gambling revenue.
Very very bad idea.
JBT is proposing massive spending cuts. Read the plan.
Yeah, I did. I saw the part that said "billions of dollars in cuts" but I couldn't find the part that listed one single program that would actually be cut.
Uneducated guess - Allkids, $500 tuition grants, stem cell research grants, minor league ballpark grants - not billions, but a start
Actually, the billions come at least partly from cuts and restructuring to Medicaid, I believe. Much of the construction/capital stuff would come from a capital plan - bonded debt with a dedicated revenue stream.
RSW's cuts are "a start" in the sense that sticking a shovel into the ground is starting to dig to China. Every candidate for Governor in my lifetime has claimed "billions in spending cuts." Where are the details? Examples of details would be things like "freeze state employee hiring for four years" and "defer all new capital projects for two years" and "lay off 25% of State Police offers" and "freeze state worker salaries at 2006 levels for four years" and "furlough all state prisoners with less than two years on their sentence." Details would be a list of airports, highways, state parks, state offices, state universities, and state programs (hopefully including all pork programs and boondoggles, but plenty of worthy programs as well) that are going to be closed or mothballed since we can't afford them. A list of construction projects that aren't going to happen. Are any of these great ideas? No, most of them are probably terrible ideas. But if you want to restore the state to fiscal health without raising taxes, then get to it. It'll be good practice for what we're going to have to do 10 years from now at the Federal level. When you're adding $5,000 to the family credit card every month, only an Illinois voter would be stupid enough to believe that financial salvation lies in getting more credit cards and switching to generic toilet paper. Decades of incompetent governance have run the state into the ground and it takes more than rescinding AllKids to fix it. But as expected and as usual, JBT seems to be promising all gain and no pain.
Every journey start with but a single step. If you can't get rid of even the smallest little expenditures, you have no hope of tackling the bigger ones.
"JBT seems to be promising all gain and no pain"
Rod has raised every "fee" possible, swept every special fund imaginable, sold state assets, and underfunded pension obligations, and found the time and energy to add all sorts of new programs and grants - who is the "all gain no pain" candidate?
who is the “all gain no pain” candidate?
Maybe Blago and JBT could join forces and run the state into the ground together! Bipartisanship at last!
"From a perspective of economic soundedness, I don't understand the perspective of people who are encouraging or even potentially legislating others to carry unwanted children to term. Why would any society want to carry the financial burden and social costs of unwanted children”¦.let alone perperpetuate the human misery that children who come into the world unwanted face."
I am an "unwanted child" who was placed for adoption, and I don't consider myself to be a financial or social burden on the world.
I have a questiosn for those willing to allow people to kill unwanted children before they're born: wouldn't it be better to allow all children to be born and then only kill the truly unwanted, burdensome children at, say, age 2, 3, 5 or 8 (I'll leave determing the exact age to those who think that death is the best solution for unwanted children) after it is confirmed, rather than just presumed, that the children are unwanted and burdensome? Perhaps that would solve the poverty problem--just kill off all those deemed to be living in misery.
[Note to people who cannot detect sarcasm: the above was an attempt at sarcasm to make a point and not a serious proposal to kill poor children.]