Second-guessing the campaign for the ‘fair tax’ that went so foul
Tuesday’s defeat of the referendum calling for a state constitutional amendment to allowfor graduated income tax rateswas so resounding that it’s doubtful any one change or even a raft of changes in the effort by proponentswould have altered the result. But here are a few things they could have done that might have made the result a little closer.
1. Sharpened the choice. When voting last year to put the referendum on the ballot, lawmakers also passed accompanying legislation that established the new tax brackets thatwould go into effect if the referendum passed.
Their ideawas to clarify just what itwas that Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other proponents had in mind— to reassure voters that they’d only pay more if they made more than $250,000 a year, and to provide an enticing estimate of the extra annual tax revenue in the offing (itwas around $3 billion).
But what lawmakers failed to dowas add to the accompanying legislation a hike in the current flat income tax rate thatwould kick in if the referendum failed. Lt. Gov. Juliana Strattonwarned in September that if the so-called fair tax amendment failed, everyone’s income tax rateswould have to rise some 20%, fromthe current 4.95% to nearly 6%.
If that late-hourwarning— or threat if you prefer— had been written into lawback in 2019, the proposition could have been rebranded the “Choose Your Tax Rate Referendum.” And themove would have insulated current members of the General Assembly fromhaving to take a politically problematic vote for a tax hike in thewake of a suffocating defeat of a tax referendum, which at this writing seems to have been rejected by 55% of the electorate when it needed supermajority support to pass.
2. Made the proposed middleclass tax cutmeaningful.
The carrot held out for voters who earned between $10,000 and $100,000 a yearwas just about the smallest and least tasty root vegetable imaginable— a rate cut from 4.95% to 4.9%, enough to pay for one family dinner at a chain restaurant, basically.
Between $100,000 and $250,000 a year, the rate remained unchanged. The point, proponents told me, was to realize substantial new income while still keeping the very top rates on the very top earners under 8%. But if you’re going to soak the rich, people, soak the rich! Among neighboring states, Iowa and Minnesota have higher top graduated rates, and statewide polling in Illinois has long showed theoretical support for making higher earners pay more.
3. Enacted some good-faith measures suggesting a commitment to fiscal discipline.
After each of the many columns I wrote in futile support of this amendment, I heard from scores of voters saying theywould sup
port a switch to progressive taxation if they had any faith that Springfieldwould be responsible with the extramoney.
I understand the sentiment, even though the truth is that for fundamental services, Illinois is not a high-spending state. There’s not very much fat that can be painlessly cut fromthe budget, as fiscal hawks tend to discover when they try to swoop in for the kill. And during the pandemic, more and more struggling people are relying on the state for help.
But sure, there are redundancies and excess layers and units of government that could be consolidated and trimmed. While Pritzkerwas spending tens of millions of dollars of his own money promoting the referendum, he did little to nothing substantial or even symbolic to suggest that hewas serious about enacting comprehensive efficiencies and looking for othermethods beyond just taxing of the rich to address our budgetarywoes.
“Pension reform” is a common demand given howsuffocating our long-term retirement obligations have become. And although it’s much more complicated legally, morally and financially than the slogan suggests, politicians behind the referendum erred by not repeatedly expressing a commitment to reducing pension debt inways thatwent beyond paying it down with new tax money.
4. Ousted veteranDemocratic House Speaker and party chairMichaelMadigan.
Yes, Pritzker and Illinois’ Democratic U.S. senators, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, came out after the election to suggest the controversialMadigan relinquish at least some of his power. Itwas too little, too late, a reminder of their cowardice rather than a display of spine.
Madigan is a steely tactician who has maximized his party’s control in Springfield over many decades, but he’s come to symbolize all that isMachiavellian and untrustworthy in the state’s political class, particularly since hewas identified earlier this year as the main target of sustained efforts by Commonwealth Edison to bribe his associates and influence legislation favorable to the utility.
He has not been charged in that case and denies all wrongdoing.
If I had $10 for every reader who invokedMadigan when explaining why theywere voting against the referendum, I’d be rich enough to have opposed it for purely selfish reasons.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, I know. As soon as the blame game is over, opponents and supporters of the referendum must nowturn to the new question on the table: Nowwhat?
Voters say ‘Jussie who?’
I correctly predicted the tax amendmentwould lose in last weekend’s column but, unlike readers, I also predicted that
Democratic Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxxwould lose to Republican challenger Pat O’Brien because of voter unhappiness with her squirrelly, opaque handling of the Jussie Smollett case.
Yes, itwas a minor alleged crime— police said the “Empire” TV actor falsely reported a hate crime against himself— but it got a lot of international attention, and theway Foxx’s office abruptly and without explanation dropped all charges against him prompted serious questions about her integrity and judgment.
Serious but evidently not substantial. Foxx trounced O’Brien by about 14 percentage points according to the latest results at this writing. The Smollett story will make more headlines when the charges against him— revived and nowbeing handled by a special prosecutor— come back to court, and it certainly might become an issue should Foxx ever seek higher office.
But the people have spoken. It’s no big deal.
For more reflections on the election, listen tome and my Tribune colleagues Dahleen Glanton and Lisa Donovan on this week’s episode of “TheMincing Rascals,” aWGN-plus podcast hosted by JohnWilliams.
Re: Tweets
The winner of thisweek’s reader poll to select the funniest tweetwas surprisingly apolitical. “Me: Do youwant something to eat? Daughter: What aremy choices? Me: Yes or no,” by @ServiceTech_.
The poll appears at chicago tribune.com/zorn where you can read all the finalists. For an early alert when each new poll is posted, sign up for the Change of Subject email newsletter at chicagotribune.com/newsletters.