Open Thread (2/5/2010)

Has anybody around here actually considered what the impact these furlough days at our area's largest employer will have on the rest of the community?  I haven't heard much about what local businesses think about or are doing to prepare for the fact that 40,000 of their potential customers are getting a 3-5% pay cut over the next several months, which means that belts will be tightened and less money will be coming into the doors of their business.

For a group that supports trickle-down economics, I'm surprised you're not up in arms about this and would rather call employees, who weren't getting raises when things were good, whiners about now having to take a pay cut.

-----
Bars are not serving minors. - "B is for Business" on 2009-12-28 @ 7:29am

 Troll convention today IP?

On the other hand, the exact amount of money that is not paid to professors will not be confiscated from tax-payers, allowing them to spend that much more.

Or did you think that the state magically creates the money that it uses to pay its employees?

No, poorly stated, Anon.

The reason for the furloughs is that the state doesn't have the money to pay the employees because it didn't "confiscate" it from taxpayers.  This doesn't return money to the general taxpayer at all; it just takes money out of the hands of the employees (who are tax payers themselves).  Nobody will have more to spend.  It also shows your general lack of understanding of the university when you refer to this money being paid to professors, who only make up around 25% of the UIUC employee base.  This also impacts reserachers and academic/support professionals, and will eventually imact the civil service staff once they get it negotiated into the system.

The only employees this will not impact (for now) are those on contract funding, meaning none of the money for their position comes from state taxes.

-----
Bars are not serving minors. - "B is for Business" on 2009-12-28 @ 7:29am

On the other hand, the exact amount of money that is not paid to professors will not be confiscated from tax-payers, allowing them to spend that much more.

But we are not going to raise taxes to pay the State's unpaid bills. It may mean that the State will not have to borrow quite so much or default on a few less bills but pay cuts won't put a cent more in the taxpayers' pockets. Any tax savings would go primarily to Cook and the Collar Counties where most Illinois taxes are paid.

In any event money that would have supported local business and landlords won;t be there. And, by the way, it isn't just professors who will be taking the hit but academic professionals. electricians, carpenters, plumbers, janitors, and food service workers as well. They are all, no matter what their positions, customers and patrons of local business. It is just the snowball rolling down hill and picking up steam as it heads for the bottom.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

"I don't recall too many liberals being up in arms when Blago was ... proposing Gross Receipts Taxes ..."

Actually, there were a number of us whom you would no doubt consider "liberals" who were quite actively and loudly opposed to the Gross Receipts Tax.  Some of us publicly spoke against it on this very site.  It was in large part because so many "liberals" opposed it that it never passed.

If we are going to default on money, why not start by stiffing the banks rather than stiffing the workers?"
Probably because we need to keep borrowing their money. They're not idiots, if we stop paying them, they won't loan us any more money.

Besides, the banks are doing their share. Consider the plight of the CEO of Goldman-Sachs who saw his salary frozen at $600,000.00 per and his annual bonus cut to a mere $9 Million! How can you expect a man to work for such poverty wages?

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

They're taking the easy route.  It's damn hard to cut spending.  Grants for favorite programs and projects get cut.  Parks close, people lose their jobs. People call their congressman to complain.  People don't vote for him in November. 

A tax increase hurts everyone in less direct but more far more painful ways.  You just don't see the results as easily because the private sector is harder to quantify. 

But.a business never opens, a couple never buys that home, a kid never goes to college, and the small town store owner never does get to that point where he can expand.  

Raising taxes is a cop-out.  Our legislators need to man up and do the right thing; the longer they take, the more painful the cuts will become. 

Tax and spend liberals have taken their game to a new level and have executed an effective strategy: spend whatever they want and figure out how to pay for it later.

Let's start cutting now. Slogan's won't cut it. We need specific programs to eliminate.

Shell we start with Medicaid? Simply default on the payments owed the Doctors and Hospitals and then cut future spending to the minimum allowable. No more money for Carle, Christie, and Provena!. That would save a bundle.

Let us eliminate all pensions for State and Local employees who are paid salaries of more than $50,000.00. And while we are at it cap public salaries at $50,000 per year for all State officers and employees.

More to the point, Let's renege on George Ryan's Build Illinois Bonds and not spend any more on roads and bridges and turn the State Highways into toll roads.

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

Tax and spend liberals have taken their game to a new level and have executed an effective strategy: spend whatever they want and figure out how to pay for it later.

You obviously missed the Medicare Part D legislation passed in 2003.  An annual mandatory expenditure of over $40 billion that was passed by a Republican controlled Congress filled with soon-to-be pharmaceutical company lobbyists:

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress

A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.

There was no funding mechanism put in place to deal with this increased expenditure.  Your local, so-called conservative Representative Timothy V. Johnson supported this bill and was actually one of the key votes ensuring passage.  But, of course, this was during the days of Tom DeLay when Johnson was eager to do "The Hammer"'s bidding in exchange for campaign contributions to the tune of at least $25K.

Liberals? 

Translated: "I got nuthin'."

Oh wow, Brady's the 10% cut guy?

When Governor Brady cuts 10% of Illinois' electricity costs who does that impact?

When Governor Brady cuts 10% of the Department of Corrections budget, how many prisoners will he have to release back into society?

When Governor Brady cuts 10% of the Department of Transportation budget how many miles of highway will remain snowpacked and ice covered in the winter?

When Governor Brady cuts 10% out of the common school fund how many teachers will have to be laid off?

When Governor Brady cuts 10% out of health care expenditures how many nurses will Carle have to fire?

Three Score and Ten Plus One

Keith Hays

What is a suprise and a major disappointment is that so many Democrats again voted for such a gawdawful candidate over an obviously better one.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  I am really surprised and confused about my Dem friends who hosted Quinn signs in their front yards before the primary.  Huh?

That said, I'll probably vote for Quinn.  He may be sleazy, but he's not running on a plan to blindly slash spending regardless of the consequences.  There are too many people in this state who will be negatively impacted by this kind of lunacy.  And Republicans (imo) have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand the impact of their ideological positions on the real world.

I'm really disappointed in the apparent choices for governor but this isn't the first time.  I ended up voting for Dillard and I was really hoping for a match between Dillard and Hynes.  There is no way I can see myself voting for Brady.  What he did with his piece of the capital bill was totally irresponsible and shows that he is unfit to be a state senator let alone governor.

I'm not your anon, but I think those are all great ideas Keith. 

When I was a kid, we had 34 kids in the first grade.  I still learned how to read.  Why is the state funding local schools anyway? 

Let's cut transportation.  We don't need 6 lanes to Mahomet. 

Illinois children can be taken care of by their parents, just like they used to be.  If you're worried about them, maybe make a donation to a free clinic or volenteer. 

Slash unemployment benifits to a minimum.  Encourage people to take any job they can. 

Cut colleges, and education across the board.  I've seen some terrible examples of waste ($300 office chairs with $300 custom upolstery at Lakeland, for instance). 

Defaulting on debt is an option, but we need to make that a last resort. 

Oh wow, Brady's the 10% cut guy?

Blago, Quinn and the Democrats who run the General Assembly have so badly miss managed the state budget all of our Public Schools the University of Illinois and many state departments have received little of their state appropriation for 2010 say a 90% cut? This is a much greater cut then 10% Brady is talking about to put the state Budget back into balance. Quinn has chased business out of this state with tax increases which has cut tax revenue and jobs.

There are so many reasons for some sanity in the Governors office, I have never seen the budget managed so poorly that DSC was underfunded while the Governor was still flying back and forth to Chicago rather then living in the Mansion like he said he would. 

Scott Cohen dropped out:

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/speaker-madigan-met-with-cohen-urged-him-to-quit-.html

Sarah Palin uses a "telepalmter" :

www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m2d7-Video-Sarah-Palin-uses-telepalmter-in-the-form-of-notes-on-her-hand-during-Tea-Party-speech

As a lifelong Republican who has met Bill Brady on several occasions, I will not be voting for a Republican for governor in 2010.

"As a lifelong [insert disliked party], I [insert opposition statement]."

This is hardly an original approach, though it seems to be happening more frequently thanks to internet anonymity that allows such claims to be unverifiable. For a relatively new poster (at least under this handle) who has generally bashed the party you've supposedly been a lifelong member of, it's not very believable. You indicated not so long ago that you were more of a "former" than a "lifelong" Republican who, given the specific criticisms, probably hasn't been for years.

Perhaps you're more of a Ron Paul style "Republican" that wishes it was like the LP (would certainly explain the animosity towards both major parties) while hoping having an R next to your name means people within the party will listen and be concerned enough to change into what you like. Heck, even Paul tried to claim to be a "Reagan Republican" recently even though he left the party over his animosity towards him back in the 80s. His superficial party identification doesn't give his criticisms any more weight within the party though, but it sure appeals to the LP folks. Perhaps I've been goofing off on the internet too long, but the tactic just comes off as concern trolling to me.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed