Governor Blagojevich won't increase the 3% state income tax to fund education and lower local property taxes, even though most legislative districts would come up a net winner under the plan (at least, conceptually). This general plan, once known as the Netsch-the-candidate-Edgar-the-elected plan, is now known as HB/SB 750. (That was kind of neat of the the House to reserve House Bill 750 to match Senate Bill 750 from last session).
Conventional wisdom, as expressed here by Eric Zorn, is that Governor Blagojevich's firm opposition to the plan essentially vetoes any chance to implement it. (Thanks to the link to my from-the-Rotunda report on John Bradley's boat rollback bil, EZ).
But isn't that what veto session is for?
I remain convinced there are 36 Senators and 72 Representatives that (a) would be re-elected after voting for a 5% income tax if the money improved schools (b) represent people (largely not the most affluent in the state) who would benefit from the 5% income tax and (c) understand that the people of their district would come out a winner under a 5% income tax.
If that's true, then they ought to pass 750 in May of 2006, well after the March primary (when most of them would then be safely ensconced for the 2007-2009 term, having survived their own primary challenge, if any, with only the other-party candidate to contend with -- not a factor in 75% of the districts). Let Governor Blagojevich veto the bill in June or July. Let him get re-elected in November as a friend of the taxpayer and a keeper of promises. And then a week after the General Election, override the veto and pass that puppy into law. Everybody wins.
My assumption is more stretched in the Senate than the House (I'd imagine). But advocates of investment in education don't need a flip-flop from Blagojevich. We just need 60% of the Members of the Illinois General Assembly.
2 comments:
What does it say about Chicago when CPS keeps talking about how broke they are, but only one Chicago Senator (del Valle) and one Chicago Rep (Fritchey) have the stones to be sponsors of the bill?
Good points. I don't know why Madigan's share of a structured roll call should stay at 55%. I would think there are more than 40 Dems who could/should/would ideally sign on. So are there 22 Republicans and 50 Dems? That ratio seems more likely. And anon, that's a great point about Chicago reps. Why don't we have more co-sponsors on the bills? In the Senate, however, we've got: James T. Meeks - Miguel del Valle - Kwame Raoul - Jacqueline Y. Collins - Mattie Hunter, M. Maggie Crotty, Iris Y. Martinez and Donne E. Trotter. Raoul, Collins, Hunter, Martinez and Trotter are all from Chicago.
Post a Comment