Tax proposals -- the more progressive, the better

Half of public policy is spending. The other half is taxing.

Progressives tend to spend most of our time on the spending side defining what we want to buy -- doctors, teachers and bus drivers with operating dollars and hospitals, schools and buses with capital dollars.

Right-wingers tend to spend most of their time on the taxing side defining that they don't want their sponsors (high income people or corporations) to be taxed at all.

So, right-wingers tend to get their way. Government taxes on wealth and high incomes continue to fall. (Taxes on work and low-incomes, unfortunately, aren't attacked by right-wingers, so they tend to rise). And we progressives often don't get to buy the things that would be good for the nation because....there isn't any money.

The best group in the country working on arming progressives with analysis to advocate for taxes on high incomes is the Center for Tax Justice. They helped start a blog called Talking Taxes here and their website is here. If you're not a member, join up.

Anyway, in Illinois, we're lucky. We're in the midst of a glorious debate over tax fairness and Governor Blagojevich deserves a ton of credit for launching it. He's got a bold proposal to fund health insurance and education boosts through a gross receipts tax and a business payroll tax. The rhetorical center of his campaign is that business isn't paying enough. And they're almost certainly not -- especially the biggest ones with the most money. We have the lowest state income tax in the nation (3% for individuals, 4.8% for corporations), and people or companies with high profits or income can figure out how to shelter a lot of their income so they don't pay even that small levy. The rest of us, meanwhile, pony up with very high sales taxes and relatively high property taxes. That means taxes our regressive -- we hit low and moderate income hard and go light on high incomes. Not smart, especially since our middle class is getting flattened by other government policies: corporate trade agreements that export jobs, anti-union labor laws, tolerance of millions of undocumented workers without an amnesty and underinvestment in education so that education gets both more expensive and of lower quality.

So the great progressive debate happening this month is, in shorthand, 750 versus GRT. HB 750, championed by Senator James Meeks and cooked up primarily by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, is a straight-forward progressive reform that taxes high incomes more and low incomes less. (By the way, props go out to blogging Representative John Fritchey for representing a higher-income district but publicly recognizing that it's good for the entire state to get away from our poverty-perpetuating regressive tax system and championing HB 750. 750 got out of a Senate committee last year (after adding in some higher education money), and got a House committee hearing last week.

The Gross Receipts Tax is part of the Governor's submitted budget and has raised the ire of just about every business group in the state. (Opposition from the business community often, but not always, signals that the bill is good for most people of the state). However, most legislators aren't biting. As one legislator told me this week: "they're pushing the Kool-Aid hard. But I'm not sipping." The GRT is essentially a sales tax, and that hits lower incomes harder than higher incomes. That's regressive.

The Governor would like to buy some progressive things with the money -- just-about universal health insurance. That's good. But is that enough for Democrats to overcome the regressive aspects of the GRT? Based on the reaction so far, it doesn't look like it.

But again, the Governor has moved the debate in a great direction launching a campaign for tax fairness and an agressive call for change against the champions of the status quo. That alone earns him credit in my book. Now the General Assembly might find a better way of matching his soaring rhetoric.

Barack Obama is a structuralist and a reformer

One of the main reasons I support Senator Obama's presidential campaign is that, at heart, he's a structuralist. He understands that the structure of our politics matters, and while he is currently spending a lot of time trying to change the culture of our politics (replacing a Bush-style approach of muscling through an agenda with a bare majority of votes with honest attempts to reach consensus with most legislators), he understands that the rules of the political game dramatically influence policy outcomes.

His latest move to find a way to keep the 1970s-era presidential public funding law relevant is instructive. Most big time presidential campaigns have the ability to raise far more private money than the amount of public funding available to campaigns in both the primary and general elections. More resources means a more powerful campaign, so there isn't much incentive to forgo raising the private dollars (and accept the obligations, however tenuous or implicit inherent in those donations) to embrace the relative political freedom of public funds.

Instead of merely noting the sad demise of public funding, Senator Obama came up with a novel work-around to his desire to remain competitive with his rivals in the primary campaign: he asked the Federal Election Commission if he could raise private funds for the general election campaign now (as all of the big time campaigns are doing), with the condition that, if he does win the nomination he can still decide to take public funding and can send the money back to the donors.

Very clever! And even though a few fussy D.C. reform organizations submitted comments opposing Senator Obama's move, the Federal Elections Commission granted Senator Obama's request on March 1st. Almost immediately, Senator McCain's campaign applauded Senator Obama and promised to match Senator Obama in foregoing public private funds for the general election if McCain wins the Republican nomination.

No other campaign has expressed any sentiment in joining Senators Obama and McCain in the general election.

Although the Sun-Times described his personal investment policy as a "stumble" in 60 point font on the front page, I found it an innovative (if unsuccessful) attempt to address the ethical concerns of leveraging his public position for private gain while retaining the ability to steer his private investments away from corporation engaging in unethical activities in pursuit of the bottom line. In other words, he recognized that it's not enough for public officials to let someone else make all their investment decisions -- they also need to be responsible for using the power of private capital to influence corporate activities. Thus, he created a quasi-blind trust. While the effort did not pan out as hoped, his attempt to find a better structure for private investments by public officials deserves applause, not knee-jerk denunciations.

One of my lines during Senator Obama's primary election is that he would join Senators McCain and Feingold as the leading reformers in the nation, working to reduce the persistent clout of corporations and wealthy people who skew our public policies towards enriching the rich and impoverishing the rest of us. His innovative and intelligent move to update presidential public funding to stay relevant with modern conditions is bolstering his reputation as one of the republic's leading reformers.

Daylight Savings Time extension might be the greatest accomplishment of the GOP Congress

How bad was the do-nothing Republican Congress of 2005-2006?

It very well may be that their greatest accomplishment was a 2005 law that extends daylight savings time an additional seven weeks, starting tomorrow.

It's smart to adjust our work day to when the sun is actually shining, and I'm glad the Republican Congress got this done, but it is sad that it's hard to think of a different bill passed in the last two years that outshines the pragmatic impact of extending daylight.

Pollution tax has passed a Cook County Board Committee

Good news: the pollution tax has passed out of Cook County's Finance Committee by a vote of 10-6. It now, apparently heads to the full Board (even though it looks like all Commissioners are a member of the Finance Committee, or at least, have a vote in the Finance Committee).

Here's the public notice of the meeting. I don't think Cook County has any online legislative database to see vote results.

I heard from a friend working this ordinance that the vote was:

Voting YES: Sims, Quigley, Beavers, Maldonado, Butler, Murphy, Steele, Collins, Suffredin, and Daley.

Voting NO: Claypool, Peraica, Silvestri, Goslin, Gorman, Schneider

This seems like a smart way to pay for the health costs for people who get sick from pollution.

I also heard that some environmental groups are getting a little wishy-washy on this county tax, because it might (might) mess up the state deal to cut mercury emissions. If that's true, that seems like a very strange reason to oppose a progressive policy. The sooner we can start taxing things we don't like so as to discourage its production, particularly when it comes to air pollution, the better.

I hope Cook County keeps the pollution tax in the mix to finance our public health system.

The University of Illinois will be Chief free! I'm joining the Alumni Association.

Fantastic news. Finally, finally, finally, the University of Illinois is shedding an embarrassing vestige of a racist time and retiring the white dude who jumps around in a Native American costume. Thank goodness someone had the testicular virility to cut off the endless non-debate and modernize our image with one executive decision. I love it.

Progressive alumni of the University, now is the time to reward bold initiative. Send them money. The Alumni Association is here and the University Foundation that will take your gifts is here.

My guess is that the bogeyman of petulant alumni who will withhold their millions from the University are likely to be the people who send the money exclusively to the Athletics Department. And if Athletics takes a hit for a few years, I really don't care. The University's culture and priorities are already too skewed towards the sports teams anyway. Higher education is likely our best economic engine for the next few decades, and we should be pouring resources into higher education to generate economic returns. The dancing Chief was a distraction and worse, a symbol of a less-innovative, less-modern and less-progressive state -- particularly in East Central Illinois where we have the opportunity, still far from fully realized, to attract global talent and capital for technology-driven businesses -- than Illinois actually is.

Congratulations to Chairman Eppley (assuming he goes through with it). Today is a good day for the future of Illinois.

ACLU growth shows how the most invested board members can forget the purpose of an advocacy organization

The ACLU is the world's largest public interest law firm.

It has a budget of $28 million with 573,000 members. Join them here.

The Bush Administration's toxic combination of incompetence, arrogance and secrecy has sparked Americans to push back by supporting the ACLU. The organization has roughly doubled in size since 2001.

With that stupendous growth came an old-fashioned board fight, as many 501(c)(3) organizations face when they grow. The Director is Anthony Romero who is credited with much of the organization's growth and muscular focus on attacking the Administration's many over-reaches. Calling for his resignation is the former Director, Ira Glasser, and some of the Board members who have been involved with the ACLU for decades.

This, by the way, is courtesy of a fantastic article in New York Magazine by David France here. For anyone working in advocacy, I recommend reading it for the insight into board-staff dynamics. Some of the dysfunctional attitudes of board members jumped out at me as they are all too common in advocacy organizations.

Some board members, labeled dissidents by Mr. France with their positions laid out on their Save the ACLU website, argue that the organization is crushing internal dissent and railroading policies or decisions through in secret without consultation with the Board. They blame Director Romero for lying and steamrolling over Board members and call for his replacement.

The majority of Board members disagree (else Mr. Romero would be out of a job) and they have their website called Voices for the ACLU to make their case.

It's a very instructive debate, because it shows how people can lose sight of the purpose of an advocacy organization. The purpose of any advocacy organization is to advance the mission. It is not to create an internal decision-making process that represents an example for the government to follow. It is a tool, not a microcosm.

The dissident board members look to be making that crucial mistake. They are holding dear to the principles of the ACLU, writing that "believe strongly in the ACLU" and condemn the "failure to practice what we preach" -- meaning, a lack of internal transparency and an aggressive attempt to crush dissent within the organization.

No advocacy organization should be a home for an activist. No advocacy organization should be a place where people feel comfortable to express themselves in internal debate over the direction of the organization. That's a waste of time and a cancer to the energy and momentum of an advocacy organization. It's internally-focused when any advocacy group needs to be relentlessly outwardly-oriented to advance the mission.

This happens a lot. Sometimes the people who are the most dedicated to an organization (defined as spending the most volunteer hours in a position of leadership) inflate the value of internal debate and thus incorrectly calculate that the resources of the organization are better spent in internal activities than in external work. Often the person's personal identity is closely connected with their role in the organization and they invest their emotional energy in their internal role, clouding their judgment.

Those people should, as a general rule, step aside or be forced out without delay. And whatever grievance they have with the new direction or new leadership of the organization should be remedied by starting their own organization.

That's the beauty of the freedom of association. Everyone has the freedom to disassociate -- including the majority of the organization with the minority of the organization.

Whenever someone talks about process or principles to justify their activities within an advocacy organization, they are usually wrong. Leaders of advocacy organizations should ruthlessly focus on advancing the mission, and when board members, donors or long-time activists get in the way of staff's conception or direction to implement the mission, staff should isolate and remove them as soon as possible. If the staff is really doing a poor job, then the board should fire the staff. If the board wants to keep the staff, then get out of the way.

Organizations that are structured differently -- those that force staff to attend countless board meetings and build internal consensus -- are wasting resources that should be spent on advancing the mission. The job of a board member is to raise resources and hire the staff leadership. That's it. Anything else is self-indulgent.

Donors to advocacy groups ought to insist on that board structure to ensure that staff time -- 80% of the expense of any decent organization -- is spent on advancing the mission. That's a good lesson to learn from the ACLU's board current public 'debate'.

Al Franken's running for the Senate. Good for him.

Today, the flagship talk radio host for progressives announced he is running for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota.

The stuffed shirts are rolling their eyes.

Well, I say, good for Al Franken.

I'm not sure he'd be the best U.S. Senator, but I know he's among the best communicators we've got. He's very good at articulating progressive policies well, and we need more of that. Listen to him tell his story and hear how he defends the value of government: keeping the vulnerable alive, paying for most of college and making life better for all of us. That's common-sense storytelling that connects with people and exposes the libertarians for what they are: salesmen with a bad product.

One thing I learned from his website is that he wrote the screenplay for "When A Man Loves A Woman." That movie is fantastic. And, it's set in one of best cities in North America: Zihuatanejo. Anyway, good for Al Franken. I hope he has a big event in Chicago this summer.

Very interesting proposal for Cook County: tax pollution

We should tax things we don't like as much as we can.

We don't like pollution. It kills people.

So I was glad to hear the some members of the Cook County Board, while trying to figure out how to balance the budget without raising the property tax, have come up with a neat idea: tax pollution.

They would focus on the two power plants in Cook County that, under current plans, will continue to spew out pollution for another decade or so.

And they would tax each ton of pollution emitted.

Here is a Chicago Public Radio report on the proposal, introduced by Commissioner Roberto Maldonado. The Commissioner's website has a Daily Southtown article that includes reference to a $400 per ton of sulfur dioxide tax.

This would be a good thing. Cook County residents largely pay the cost from air pollution generated in Cook County, especially when poor people go to Cook County hospital for their asthma treatment, or when they die from cancer caused by air pollution (and we pay the cost of the coroner), so it seems right to tax the pollution that imposes these costs on us.

Quick reflections from Obama's Chicago rally at the Pavilion

I went to the Obama rally at the Pavilion tonight with around 7000 other people. There were a lot of legislators and electeds in the crowd.

Instead of a rally, Barack had more of a wonky discussion as is his style.

There were two important themes that came out from his discussion and one tactical shift.

The first political tactic: he's getting tougher on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. The phrase about the Iraq War is now "a war that should never have been authorized." That's a clear dig at the U.S. Senators who did not share his foresight about the predictable results of invading Iraq and that's a challenge that Senator Clinton has not responded to well. I don't think she ever will. Senator Edwards, to his credit, has come clean by admitting he was wrong to vote to authorize the invasion.

One of the themes of his conversation was a point Senator Paul Simon was fond of making: the policy solutions to our big problems (a dumb health care financing system, a dumb reliance on foreign oil that funds the bad guys and a dumb public education system that still runs on the agricultural calendar) are (a) not particularly technical, (b) fairly well-known and (c) generally opposed by special interests. They are nuts-and-bolts solutions.

That's important to recall, because otherwise it's easy to think that the problems are intractable and investing in solutions is not only pointless but dangerously naive. That's certainly what the special interests like the peddle.

The other theme of his conversation was that he is an imperfect vessel for a movement to ensure that the solutions discussed earlier are put at the heart of the D.C. agenda. Because today, it isn't our agenda that's discussed. For health care, it's the agenda of the drug companies, the insurance companies and, to a lesser extent, the hospitals at the center of the discussion. For that to change, we'll have to have millions of people become better citizens to force the non-special interest agenda on to D.C. That's how we'll win that next battle. And that's one of the core purposes of the Obama presidential campaign.

The inexperienced candidate has the foresight few others exhibited

A progressive Nashville blog cut to the heart of the matter on the debate between D.C. experience (defined by conventional wisdom, apparently, as having been around the capital during the disasters of the last half-decade or so).

The blog post from Nashville for the 21st Century is here.

Check it out.