Former Governor Jim Edgar today endorsed Sen. Kirk Dillard, his former Chief of Staff, in the race for Governor:
"I am proud to endorse Kirk Dillard for governor because his experience and leadership will help steer our state through its current budget and ethical crisis," Edgar said at news conferences held in Chicago and Springfield. Edgar, the popular two-term Republican Governor from 1991-1999, left office with the highest voter approval ratings of any Illinois Governor in modern history.
Dillard, elected four times to the Illinois Senate, was Edgar's first chief of staff in the Office of Governor. "Kirk knows what it takes to lead in tough times. As my Chief of Staff, he played a key role in our success during my first term as Governor. His in-depth knowledge and effective leadership were essential in helping me to restore fiscal discipline to the state," said Edgar, who was re-elected Governor by the largest margin in Illinois history.
The press release is here, and we'll have video, photos and news coverage collected there throughout the day as well.
(Disclosure: I'm helping Kirk Dillard's campaign for Governor. Please volunteer or donate today!)
Its official, income taxes will go up under Dillard.
And property taxes.
And sales taxes.
And fees.
You hear that sucking sound to the east? That's all our jobs, talent and wealth going to Indiana.
The success of Indiana and Iowa to lure economic development as opposed to Illinois was also mentioned last night at the Democratic fall dinner. I have not studied why the other two "I's" are successful. Can some posters shed some information on this?
Pattsi Petrie
Sen. Brady says that it has to do with the need for Tort reform which means higher worker comp cost for Illinois Business then Iowa and Indiana. Having a Governor like Brady who is a business person and a legislator would do a lot to fix many of the problems of this state.
Yes, Gary, Indiana is just licking its chops waiting for Illinois jobs, talent and wealth to flee across the border into its arms.
On October 12th, 2009 at 11:43 AM, pattsi said:
The success of Indiana and Iowa to lure economic development as opposed to Illinois was also mentioned last night at the Democratic fall dinner. I have not studied why the other two "I's" are successful. Can some posters shed some information on this?
Pattsi Petrie
Lower wages, a anti union state, property tax that is at 1% of the value of the home, workman comp issues that are lower, pensions for government workers that are way lower than Illinois to just name a few.....
Indiana--the land of milk and honey.
David-I didn't say it was a land of milk and honey. I said it has a lower cost of Workers Comp. for business. Workers comp. is about a third in Indiana of Illinois and yes business go where it's easier to stay in business which means jobs and tax revenue, Illinois could use all of those.
And, despite a recession/depression, Indiana has managed to put away $1 billion for a rainy day, as opposed to Illinois, where the deficit runs anywhere from $9 billion to $15 billion, depending to whom you are listening. Interesting article on the front page of the News-Gazette this morning about how the state can't even pay for renters insurance for Mike Frerichs' office (among other things).
pattsi---in addition to lower property taxes, higher workman compensation costs and lower public pension costs, both Iowa and Indiana have open bid contracting unlike Illinois political patronage contract distribution. Both IO & IN have significant less governmental agencies/bodies. Also their county governments seem to need only about 1 elected representative per 25,000 voters where here in Illinois we can barely get by with less than 1 per 10,000.
So it really is quite simple, more competition by biding public equipment/services and less people on the public dole equals less costs for everyone, especially the business community.
Yea! Robocalls for Dillard started tonight!
FWIW, Indiana gets a much better deal from federal spending versus federal taxes collected than does Illinois. In 2005, Indiana saw $1.05 in federal spending for every federal tax dollar collected while Illinois saw only $0.75. Iowa had an even better deal with $1.10 in federal spending per tax dollar collected. So the next time you talk to a friend in Hoosierland or the Hawkeye state be sure and say "you're welcome!".
Yea! Robocalls for Dillard started tonight!
No robocalls here yet but did get a polling call for the senate race last week - probably sponsored by the Kirk organization based upon the questions.
Thank you to all who have shared information on economic development related to IN and IA.
Pattsi Petrie
Actually, Poor Richard, my friends in Hoosierland and the Hawkeye state say "you're welcome!" to me for all the federal money continually expended year after year in Illinois on political corruption investigations and prosecutions. I doubt you have added in these expenditures although they definitely help improve our quality of life, something we cannot seem to do very well through our state government.
I doubt you have added in these expenditures although they definitely help improve our quality of life, something we cannot seem to do very well through our state government.
Well I didn't add up the expenditures, the Tax Foundation did, so I can't say for sure. My purpose was merely to show that there are donor states and states that tend to be on the "dole". Indiana and Iowa tend to be on the "dole" although they are far from the worst in this respect. Illinois is definitely a donor state.
The state seems impotent to solve the corruption problems so I welcome the feds investigations.
So when are Dillard's issue papers going to be up on the web site?
What exactly does Jim Edgar do for his six figure U of I salary besides endorse Republicans? I know he doesn't teach any classes.
Does anyone actually appreciate robocalls? I'm happy to hear from live people, but not this crap.
Dillard helped Edgar leave office with a surplus and high approval ratings didn't Dillard leave Edgar’s administration in 1993 and Edgar leave office in 1999?
For those of us claiming that income taxes will go up under Dillard let us not forget that as a young Senator Kirk Dillard opposed Edgar's tax increases not once, but twice.....that's all I'm saying
It's probably a safe bet that the gop candidates will mortally wound the campaigns of whatever front runner remains the "last man limping" from the circular firing squad, whether the attacks are accurate or not. Since the public has shockingly seemed to have almost instantly forgiven Quinn for supporting and even vouching for the integrity of one of the most publically exposed corrupt US politicians in recent history... well, let's just say I'm feeling pretty pessimistic. And since the democrats didn't have the backbone to challenge Blago when they had the chance, and since most share just as many, if not more, histories of sticking with Blago as Quinn, I doubt they'll challenge him over such issues as opposed to pray that the public attention span allows that to remain swept under the rug... sigh...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Quinn wants a 50% income tax increase, while Hynes wants to change the Constitution so we can have steeply progressive income tax rates ("soak the rich").
GOP candidates need to come out with very specific plans for what can be cut from the budget to avoid such tax increases and let the voters decide whether we want to be high tax/high services or not. Public worker pensions, health insurance programs, grant programs, early childhood programs...it should all be on the table.
GOP candidates need to come out with very specific plans for what can be cut from the budget to avoid such tax increases and let the voters decide whether we want to be high tax/high services or not.
Exactly, I want to see specifics and not just from the GOP. And proposals like some percentage decrease across the board just don't do it for me. The problem is, the budget needs to be fixed now, not after the next election.
It's probably a safe bet that the gop candidates will mortally wound the campaigns of whatever front runner remains--
Well in this case it will be the Dillard’s own history of Public service that will do damage to his campaign for governor.
MJC you could be right Dillard might have been against tax increases after he left the Edgar administration in 1993 but while there he helped Edgar make Jim Thompsons tax increase permanent one that Dillard worked on when he worked for Thompson. So which will it be this time the Dillard for tax increases or against tax increase? We have a much greater Budget issue then we had 20 years ago when Dillard worked for Edgar and Thompson.
He’s dodgy on the issues. His website lists a whopping 4 issues and no details are given (you have to give him your name and email and I guess his people will send you something with more details).
Sorry, but the website is clunky and vague. Why not just post his positions on the issues on his website rather than playing games about it?
You want my vote then you better be clear and upfront on the issues. I’m not getting that from him right now.
Though you can find Dillard on some issues here:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=6253#826
"Senator Kirk W. Dillard repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff. "