YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE FEAR

 HERE’S A SPOOKY OUTCOME THREE DAYS AFTER HALLOWEEN: NO OUTCOME

 

Let’s face it.  After the last four years and the exclamatory ending called Covid-19, we can’t imagine anything getting worse than what we have endured.  Right?

 

Sorry…

 

Blame it on the Founding Fathers, if you will, but if you’ve been wondering why 79 days exist between election day and the swearing in of the new Commander-in-Chief, it’s more than just organizing a vote in December by the Electoral College in case of an inappropriate and harmful choice by the country’s populace.  That vestigial process didn’t work well last time, but what if there were NO OUTCOME.  In other words, what if a tie in the popular vote too close to call and an actual tie in the Electoral College: 269 to 269 votes?  

 

I know, not probable, but, still, possible.  And after this year, well, why not?

 

And, believe it or not, the Founding Fathers and a later Amendment or two make that convoluted selection process of a new President and Vice President somewhat clear and slow-moving.  And the process indicates just how dreadfully important each down ballot for Senator or Representative in each state will be.  “Vote like your life depends on it?”  

 

While the polling may indicate a substantial lead for the Biden/Harris campaign right now, Biden campaign handlers warn that the election may be closer than anyone thinks; after all, they’ve seen a snake bite before.  And Tom Edsall in the New York Times indicates that data shows in some key states Republicans are registering to vote in numbers far greater than Democrats

 

Most of this nightmare emerges from an unsettling possibility reiterated by Elaine Kamarck in a review of the unlikely process for the Brookings Institute.  Here’s what happens:

 

“The Constitution is pretty clear on how this plays out. If there is no winner in the Electoral College, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 states that the decision goes to the House of Representatives while the Senate picks the vice president. But the voting in the House is different from the Senate. In the vote for vice president, each Senator has one vote. But in the House each state has only one vote for president—regardless of its size—and a presidential candidate needs 26 states to win.”  Illinois has, for instance 18 Representatives in the U. S. Congress – 13 Democratic and 5 Republican (at this time).  

 

“If the presidential race should end up in the House the outcome would depend on which party controls the state’s delegation. As it stands Republicans are in the majority, with control of 26 state delegations.  Democrats control 23 state delegations and one state, Pennsylvania, has a tied delegation: 9 Democrats and 9 Republicans. But the Congress is sworn in before the Electoral College votes are read out in the Senate. In the case of a tie it will be the next Congress not the current Congress that votes on the presidency, and a handful of 2020 congressional elections could decide the presidential election.”

 

The next Congress?  The battle that is taking place before us these last weeks and the next very few days.  But is it really likely?  Only in our recent lifetime has America had two elections where the winner of the popular vote did not become the President because of the Electoral College. And the danger in holding to an antique and obsolete notion of distrust for the people’s vote makes possible that this undermining of democratic processes could repeat again.  

 

Need something to watch carefully Tuesday evening?  Kamarck gives us several:

 

Pennsylvania: “Start with Pennsylvania, a state that is already getting outsized attention—it was very close in 2016 and looks to be close again. Since its congressional delegation is tied now, if Democrats hold their seats and win only one congressional seat they will control the delegation. According to the Cook Political Report the most likely seat to flip is Pennsylvania’s 10^th Congressional District, located in the south central portion of Pennsylvania. The Republican incumbent Scott Perry is running against State Auditor General Eugene de Pasquale, a Democrat. The district has a PVI score of +6 Republican, meaning that in recent elections it tends to vote for Republicans. But recent polling suggests a neck and neck race.”

 

Florida: “Next is Florida where the Republicans have a one-seat advantage over the Democrats. If one seat switches from Republican to Democrat, control of the Florida delegation moves to Democrats. Democrats have to hold all the seats they have and pick up one seat. Their best chance is Florida’s 15^thCongressional District, northeast of Tampa. It’s an open seat currently occupied by Ross Spano, who was defeated in the Republican primary. In the general election race Democrat Alan Cohn, a former ABC News anchor, is running against Republican Scott Franklin, a Navy veteran and city commissioner. Like Pennsylvania’s 10^th Congressional District, Florida’s 15^th tends to be Republican. But Cohn is running slightly behind Franklin and within the margin of error.”

 

A clear landslide on either side dampens any arguments moving the outcome toward this kind of scenario, although Trump will always be the wild card in the aftermath of dog whistle/electoral/judicial reviews of his outraged complaints.  And if Trump says it could go on for a very long time?  Well, he may be the last to have read the United States Constitution, but it’s a possibility: “What if the tied Electoral College race results in a tied race in the House of Representatives? The House keeps voting until someone gets 26 votes. If the House can’t elect a president by Inauguration Day, the person elected vice president by the Senate becomes the acting president until the House manages to select a president.”

 

And the House must continue its voting until it finally the deadlock finally breaks…until the deadlock finally breaks. 

So, grab your popcorn and handkerchief…or something decidedly stronger, and settle in for a long, long evening on Tuesday.

 

Wishing us all the best.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herd Mentality

 Heterophemy (noun): The use of a word different from the one intended.

 

“You’ll develop like a herd mentality,” Trump said, almost certainly meaning herd immunity. “It’s going to be, going to be herd-developed and that’s going to happen.” (Trump speaking at a Townhall: September 15, 2020) NY Magazine

 

 

Herd Mentality*

 

Two dozen or more people have come to the Trump Administration from Fox Media or left the Trump Administration to join Fox Media.  And many, who have never left Fox but remain as network employees, also currently act as advisors to the President who monitors their programs on television and speaks often with them by phone.  

 

The latest added associate has been Dr. Scott Atlas who, having found a willing ear for a Hoover Institution senior fellow’s medically pedigreed endorsements of reopening schools, opening businesses, and ignoring aspects of careful social distancing as well as behaviors earlier advanced by Drs. Birx and Fauci, is finding a regular place on the dais with President Trump.  

 

According to Media Bias/Fact Check: ”Overall, we rate (Stanford’s)Hoover Institution Right-Center biased based on economic positions that align with the conservative right, coupled with left-leaning libertarian social stances. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.”

 

A YouTube Q & A with Dr. Atlas and the head of the Hoover Institution at Stanford will give you a possibly clearer look at how his particular take on the economic policies and medical philosophies merge: 

 

As for the medical faculty at Stanford, the response to Dr. Atlas’ descriptions of needed policies in the White House left them with what they believed no choice but to respond – and strongly.  On September 9, 2020, nearly 100 members of the medical faculty signed a published letter to criticize the proposals and involvement of Dr. Scott Atlas with the Trump Administration’s revised direction for addressing the pandemic. 

 

September 9, 2020

 

As infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists, epidemiologists and health policy leaders, we stand united in efforts to develop and promote science-based solutions that advance human health and prevent suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. In this pursuit, we share a commitment to a basic principle derived from the Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere (First, Do No Harm). 

To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy. The preponderance of data, accrued from around the world, currently supports each of the following statements: 

•  The use of face masks, social distancing, handwashing and hygiene have been shown to substantially reduce the spread of Covid-19. Crowded indoor spaces are settings that significantly increase the risk of community spread of SARS-CoV-2. 
•  Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 frequently occurs from asymptomatic people, including children and young adults, to family members and others. Therefore, testing asymptomatic individuals, especially those with probable Covid-19 exposure is important to break the chain of ongoing transmission. 
•  Children of all ages can be infected with SARS-CoV-2.While infection is less common in children than in adults, serious short-term and long-term consequences of Covid-19 are increasingly described in children and young people. 
•  The pandemic will be controlled when a large proportion of a population has developed immunity (referred to as herd immunity) and that the safest path to herd immunity is through deployment of rigorously evaluated, effective vaccines that have been approved by regulatory agencies. 
• In contrast, encouraging herd immunity through unchecked community transmission is not a safe public health strategy.  In fact, this approach would do the opposite, causing a significant increase in preventable cases, suffering and death, especially among vulnerable populations, such as older individuals and essential workers.

 

Commitment to science-based decision making is a fundamental obligation of public health policy.  The rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the U.S., with consequent morbidity and mortality, are among the highest in the world.  The policy response to this pandemic must reinforce the science, including that evidence-based prevention and the safe development, testing and delivery of efficacious therapies and preventive measures, including vaccines represent the safest path forward.  Failure to follow the science – or deliberately misrepresenting the science – will lead to immense avoidable harm.

We believe that social and economic activity can reopen safely, if we follow policies that are consistent with science.  In fact, the countries that have reopened businesses and schools safely are those that have implemented the science-based strategies outlined above.

As Stanford faculty with expertise in infectious diseases, epidemiology and health policy, our signatures support this statement with the hope that our voices affirm scientific, medical and public health approaches that promote the safety of our communities and nation.  

98 Signatures followed.

Atlas took umbrage at the idea that he was espousing a pathway to herd immunity which would require the deaths of many more Americans than we are now witnessing.  On the other hand, Atlas has denied advocating the benefits of herd immunity after telling Fox News in July, "These people getting the infection is not really a problem, and in fact, as we said months ago, when you isolate everyone, including all the healthy people, you're prolonging the problem because you’re preventing population immunity. Low-risk groups getting the infection is not a problem. In fact, it's a positive."  

 

Even as we in the Midwest witness surging numbers of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, Dr.Fauci and Dr. Birx have departed stage left, and enter Scott Atlas stage right to echo Trump’s message that we are turning the corner. 

 

In the interim, Dr. Atlas decided to fight back legally.  Retaining a lawyer, Atlas’ legal advisor Kasowitz on September 16 of 2020 demanded “ immediate press release withdrawing your letter and that you contact every media outlet worldwide that has reported on it to request an immediate correction” of the defaming letter or by September 18 we will take appropriate measures…”seek compensatory punitive damages for the harm you have caused.”  

 

It would appear that the medical staff at Stanford was not moved.  The response came quickly.    

 

September 23, 2020

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

We are a group of 105 doctors, scientists, and public health experts and faculty members at Stanford University who, on September 9pth, expressed our serious concerns about statements made by Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and now an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force.  We believe that his statements and the advice he has been giving foster misunderstandings of established science and risks undermining critical public health efforts. 

 

Today, we stand by our September 9^th letter and reaffirm our concerns.  In addition, we are deeply troubled by the legal threats that Dr. Atlas has made against us in an attempt to intimidate and silence us in the midst of a pandemic, as we speak out on important public health issues.

 

We stand together and we reiterate clearly and with great affirmation that public health policy must be guided by established scientific principles and not opinions, especially ones that could harm individuals and the health of our nation.

 

And so it goes on. If Trump finds himself flustered or less adored than the individual standing next to him, he replaces them with one of the herd of sycophants and hangers-on from Fox Media.  They’re faux economists, environmentalists, politicians, money-managers, not competent/caring humans. His bottomless ego is momentarily quieted until he tires of them. Or they gain favored status, and we will start over again – even as hundreds of thousands or more suffer needlessly. 

 

 

“The dark and distant drumming
The pounding of the hooves
The silence of everything that moves
Late at night you'll see them
Decked out in shiny jewels
The coming of the caravan of fools.”

 

 

Musical artist John Prine was one of 225 thousand Americans 

who died of Covid this year.*

 

“DON’T EVER USE THE WORD SMART WITH ME…JOE”

 “DON’T EVER USE THE WORD SMART WITH ME…JOE”

 

In their first meeting, hardly a debate, presidential candidate Joe Biden touched an exposed nerve in Donald Trump’s thin skin which forced an eruption of projected anger. It was one of many outbursts and interruptions which left political pundits shaking their heads and feeling like student teachers on a grammar school recess yard.  Did you repress it?  You can find the angry retort on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOsW3cj53FI

 

Chris Wallace was at a loss too, and he couldn’t restrain Trump’s anger at having his “stable genius” considered, much less questioned.  

 

My suggestion?  Make sure you bring it up again this week, Joe.  Watch him respond like Margaret Hamilton in The Wizard of Oz after being hit by a pail of water.  “All my beautiful dreams…….”

 

And projected anger? “Joe, you said you went to Delaware State but you forgot the name of your college.  You graduated the lowest or almost the lowest in your class.  Don’t ever use the word smartest with me…”

 

As for Trump’s self description, he graduated either number one or with honors from prestigious Wharton College.  However, according to Jonathan Valania , in the City Life section of Philadelphia Magazine, a lot of mystery surrounding Trump’s self-described ascension into academic superlatives at Penn’s Wharton College are quite questionable.  And his responses to those who question his intelligence, his immediate retort is anger and vehemence. 

 https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/09/14/donald-trump-at-wharton-university-of-pennsylvania/

 

“Ahh, the college transcript. Trump famously graduated from Penn’s Wharton School in 1968 — a fact he reminds audiences of over and over again. (Per Penn’s student newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, he publicly name-dropped Wharton 52 times between June 2015 and January 2018.) But despite all his humblebragging about that Wharton degree, Trump has never allowed his academic performance there to be made public.”

 

“’This was a major, major thing with Trump — that people might think he’s stupid,’” Michael Wolff told me around the time of Siege’s publication earlier this summer. “’The focus of that for Trump is the college transcripts, which are apparently terrible. I’ve spoken to friends of Trump from that time, and this was a guy that was obviously not interested in school and possibly never read a book in his life. For everyone that had known him then and years afterward, the assumption was that he had terrible grades, he was a lackluster student at best.’”

 

Remember also that family member and psychologist  Mary Trump in her recent release of Too Much and Never Enough said that it was common knowledge that Donald had paid someone take the college entrance exams for him before entering Penn.  

“In truth, Trump’s Wharton GPA is just one of many mysteries surrounding the 45th president’s relationship with Penn, Philadelphia’s most powerful private institution, which, unwittingly or not, helped unleash Trump on the world. Over the years, there have been rumors about how Trump might have gotten into Penn in the first place, and how much — or how little — he’s donated to the school as an alum.” 

“Perhaps the biggest reason for this shroud of mystery is Penn itself; the school’s sphinx-like reticence about its most famous alumnus plays at times like a silent scream. For instance, Penn has never had Trump deliver a commencement speech or conferred an honorary degree on him. In the wake of his election, Penn tour guides were discouraged from bringing up the T-word and issued simple instructions for handling questions about Trump’s tenure at Penn: Keep it short and sweet — “’Yes, he graduated from Wharton in 1968’” — and leave it at that. Tell Penn you’re writing an article about Donald Trump’s time there, and you’ll get the academic version of name, rank and serial number: “’Donald J. Trump earned a B.S. in real estate, which was awarded on May 20, 1968,’” says Ron Ozio, Penn’s director of media relations, declining my request for an interview. Which is peculiar, given that most universities make a lot of marketing hay out of an alumnus in the White House — and Trump is Penn’s first.

“It’s rare for a professor to disparage the intelligence of a student, but according to attorney Frank DiPrima, who was close friends with professor William T. Kelley for 47 years, the prof made an exception for Donald Trump, at least in private. “’He must have told me that 100 times over the course of 30 years’,” says DiPrima, who has been practicing law since 1963 and has served as in-house counsel for entities including the Federal Trade Commission and Playboy Enterprises. “’I remember the inflection of his voice when he said it: ‘”Donald Trump was the dumbest goddamn student I ever had!”’” He would say that [Trump] came to Wharton thinking he already knew everything, that he was arrogant and he wasn’t there to learn.” Kelley, who passed away in 2011 at age 94, taught marketing at Wharton for 31 years, retiring in 1982.”

“This assertion (that Trump was number one in his class at Wharton) appeared in a fawning New York Times profile of the Trump Organization published in 1973, the same year the Department of Justice sued Donald and his father Fred for housing discrimination for refusing to rent to people of color. Sample paragraph:

“Donald, who was graduated first in his class from the Wharton School of Finance of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, joined his father about five years ago. He has what his father calls “drive.” … “Donald is the smartest person I know,” he remarked admiringly.

“The claim was repeated in another doting profile of Trump in the New York Times in 1976. Noting that practically every article ever written about Trump in the wake of the Times profiles parroted the “’first in his class’” claim, the Times finally corrected the record in yet another eye-roll-inducing profile published in 1984 (“Spending a day with Donald Trump is like driving a Ferrari without the windshield. It’s exhilarating; he gets a few bugs in his teeth”), declaring that the notion that Trump finished first in his class at Wharton was contradicted by the university’s commencement program.

“The program for the commencement ceremony lists the names of students who graduated from Wharton with honors — cum laude, magna cum laude, summa cum laude — and Donald Trump isn’t among them. Nor is his name included on the Dean’s List published in 1968 by the Daily Pennsylvanian. Given that colleges and universities are prohibited by law from releasing transcripts to anyone other than the student in question, and that Trump has purportedly forbidden the school to do so, we’ll have to rely on proof by omission that Trump didn’t graduate with any academic distinction whatsoever.

“Trump himself finally copped to this in a 1988 New York magazine story written by Julie Baumgold. “’Okay, maybe not ‘first,’ as myth has it,’” Baumgold wrote, “but he had ‘the highest grades possible.’”

 “As Trump admitted in The Art of the Deal, all he got out of Wharton was bragging rights: “’In my opinion, that degree doesn’t prove very much, but a lot of people I do business with take it very seriously, and it’s considered very prestigious. So all things considered, I’m glad I went to Wharton.’”

Joe, it’s not a chink in the armor, it’s an opening you should drive through every chance you get.  Good luck this week.  And go get him.  

 

What Does Pension Reform Have in Common with the Fair Tax Proposal? Nothing Really.

 UNDERSTANDING THAT A PENSION REFORM AMENDMENT WON’T WORK TO DO ANYTHING.

 

 

In Sunday’s, October 10, issue of the Tribune Editorial pages and conspicuously placed under the section “YOUR VOICE,” Illinois Policy Institute president Matt Paprocki led off with another argument against the Fair Tax Proposal.

 

The Tribune turns to the IPI, which describes it as a non-partisan research organization, although on-line it is characterized as a libertarian group with strong ties to Bruce Rauner, bankrolling the Mark Janus anti-union case for the ex-governor all the way to the Supreme Court. Mr. Janus is now a senior fellow at the IPI.

 

So, here they are again on my Sunday edition batting clean-up in the Trib’s ongoing effort to stop the Fair Tax Amendment.

 

One deflection that both the IPI and the newspaper engage in over and over is this: “We can say ‘no’ to this newest tax scheme and rescue Illinois by implementing practical structural reforms that would actually fix the problems” (Paprocki). “Instead of taxing…,we could implement pension reform through a constitutional amendment…”

 

With the Tribune and IPI it’s pretty much always the same old falsehood: No matter how many attempts are made to correct the systemic fiscal shortages in Illinois, the culprit will always be the “pension problem” and the unacceptable cost of living rates for retired union members. Please note:

 

THE ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC PENSION BENEFITS HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY THROUGH THE CREATION OF THREE CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES AND CURTAILMENT OF THEIR FUTURE EARNED BENEFITS.

 

Unlike the Tribune or the Illinois Policy Institute, on May 8, 2015, the members of both political parties in Springfield understood the unanimous decision of the Illinois Supreme Court very clearly. And well they should have:

 

“The concerns of the delegates who drafted article XIII, section 5, and the citizens who ratified it have proven to be well founded. Even with the protections of that provision, the General Assembly has repeatedly attempted to find ways to circumvent its clear and unambiguous prohibition against the diminishment or impairment of the benefits of membership in public retirement systems. Public Act 98-599 is merely the latest assault in this ongoing political battle against public pension rights (¶84, p25, Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585).

 

The cost of living benefits provided to all Tier One public pension retirement systems in Illinois are thus safeguarded.  On the other hand, heavy-handed, changes will affect the earnings of hires after January of 2011.   Those hires are categorized as Tier Two.   

 

Tier Two annual annuity increases are NOT compounded.  They are simple increases of a maximum of 3% or ½ of the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. Tier Two members are eligible for the annuity increase at age 67.

 

Tier Three (to be implemented) annuitants will be given an option to join Tier Two, and the annual increases are the same regardless.

 

Note: Inside each of these plans, revised descriptions of benefits become complicated, conditional, and decidedly less in every aspect. For all of us, retired or readers of the Chicago Tribune, let it be understood that for 9 years now, public sector union workers have been brought in under Tier Two.  

 

THE COST OF LIVING ISSUE IS DEAD TWICE.  ONCE IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AND AGAIN IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

 

Paprocki’s and the Tribune’s longing to flog the public retirees in Illinois with a pension amendment proposal is just for entertainment, a libertarian blood sport.  It’s already been done.  

 

 

From "Breadcrumbs" and written by Ida Wye on Facebook

ARE WE THE MORIBUND IN A RUSSIAN NOVEL?  BREAK THE CHAINS!

Breadcrumbs

September 16 at 3:35 PM · 

Author : Ida Wye 

“I’ve been wondering why this entire
country seems to be under a cloud of
constant misery.
Why we all seem to be Russians waiting in line for toilet paper, meat, Lysol.
Hoarding yeast and sourdough starter
“in case we can’t get bread”, 

Buying stamps so that one of our most beloved institutions might survive.
Why we all look like we are in bad need
of a haircut, or a facial or a reason to dress up again and go somewhere.
Anywhere.

There is no art in this White House.
There is no literature or poetry in this
White House. No music.
No Kennedy Center award celebrations.
There are no pets in this White House.
No loyal man’s best friend. No Socks the family cat.
No kids science fairs.

No times when this president takes off his
blue suit-red tie uniform and becomes human, except when he puts on his white shirt- khaki pants uniform and hides from Americans to play golf.
There are no images of the first family
enjoying themselves together in a moment
of relaxation.

No Obamas on the beach in Hawaii
moments, or Bushes fishing in Kennebunkport, no Reagans on horseback, no Kennedys playing touch football on the Cape.
I was thinking the other day of the summer
when George H couldn’t catch a fish
and all the grandkids made signs and
counted the fish-less days.
And somehow, even if you didn’t even like GHB, you got caught up in the joy of a family that loved each other and had fun.

Where did that country go? Where did all
of the fun and joy and expressions of love and happiness go? We used to be a country that did the ice bucket challenge and raised millions for charity.
We used to have a president that calmed and soothed the nation instead dividing it.
And a First Lady that planted a garden
instead of ripping one out.

We are rudderless and joyless.
We have lost the cultural aspects of
society that make America great.
We have lost our mojo. Our fun, our happiness.
The cheering on of others.
The shared experiences of humanity that makes it all worth it.
The challenges AND the triumphs that we shared and celebrated.
The unique can-do spirit Americans
have always been known for.

We are lost.
We have lost so much
In so short a time.”

These last 4 years we have seen nothing but chaos, nasty tweets filled with lies , insults and hate . 

📌📌Vote Blue in November  #VoteBidenHarris  
Yes we can !  👍

 

TAXING RETIREMENT INCOME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLINOIS FAIR TAX PROPOSAL

WHAT WILL YOU PAY WHEN THE FAIR TAX PASSES? 

 On Friday, October 9, 2020, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board provided an ambiguous and misleading title to his opinion piece: “Taxing certain retirement income would be a benefit of a graduated-rate tax.” 

 Buried deeper in the piece, Eric Zorn reminds us : “…”but I have to admire the successful effort to get us all talking about an issue (taxing retirement income) that isn’t even remotely on the table.” This attach/attempt led by the ultra-conservative Illinois Policy Institute, which is currently leading a legal attempt to revise the state of Illinois’ mailed proposal for the referendum as being confusing for many Illinois citizens. In short, the arguments provided in the pamphlet do not provide enough emphases for the IPI in the “reasons against” section of the explanation. And, of course, one specious argument would include the thought that retirement income would be a part two of the passage of the referendum. 

 

Mr. Zorn recalls having debated the IPI’s Austin Berg about the merits of the referendum to pass a Fair Tax in Illinois. And he reminds his reader that thus far Pritzker has “emphatically refused to put retirement income taxes on the table.” 

 But then, things become muddy. Just the lack of clarity that social media loves to swim in. 

 At first, Eric Zorn in his closing paragraphs seems to endorse the greater need for a graduated tax system for Illinois: “And the devious effort to distract us with talk of retirement income takes our eyes off the real question: Which system of taxation will best protect those toward the bottom of the income scale as we close our massive budget gap?” That’s a seriously good question. 

 Then, in a confusing 180-degree turnabout, Zorn embraces the two positions – one actual and one “not remotely any part of the question” – as the best alternative. “And it distracts us from the right answer: A graduated tax system that includes retirement income.” 

 So much for clarity. 

 Maybe one step at a time? 

Remember: only those earning more than $250,00 will see an increase in their income tax. For 97% of taxpayers, taxes will remain the same or go down; only the top 3% will see their taxes go up. To

find out what your tax would be, go to the Fair Tax Calculator:

https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/gov/fairtax/Pages/default.aspx 

 Yogi Berra once said: “You gotta be careful if you don’t know where you’re going because you might not get there.” 

 Let’s concentrate on the Fair Tax.

 

LAST MINUTE THOUGHTS ON THE GRADUATED TAX IN ILLINOIS

 

 

 

When I fire up the laptop in the morning, I usually see any number of new messages on our local community chat-board.  “Looking for a good hairdresser.”  “Anyone know a cheap roofer?”  “What were all the sirens about last night?”  Now, though, it’s not unlikely to find a daily wave of misinformation about the progressive tax proposal coming this election for Illinois.  

 

“If you vote for (it), all our taxes will be raised immediately.”

 

“Your pensions will be either taken away or reduced!”

 

“You can’t trust our politicians, especially not to raise our taxes at will if we pass (it).”

 

As a public teacher pensioner, I can empathize with that last concern - IF I had not witnessed the crash and burn of Michael Madigan’s, Lisa Madigan’s, and Pat Quinn’s failed attempts to override the Pension Protection Clause of the Illinois Constitution in 2015.

 

Taxes will be raised immediately?

 

The General Assembly has always had the power and ability to raise and lower taxes as they felt necessary. The Progressive Tax Amendment is an attempt to stave off that likelihood given the loss of revenue during the current Covid crisis.  Think of it this way: NO Progressive Tax; more necessary increase in taxes.

 

Pensions taken away?

 

Well, if you’re in a private pension situation, the future fiscal solvency of your company or union will determine that, not the politicians. As for public pensions, the unanimous decision of the Illinois Supreme Court on May 15, 2015, clearly prevents that for all members of Tier One.  Lisa Madigan’s argument for police powers in an emergency was dismissed, and the jurists of the ILSC also reminded those who would attack the pension system that the state of Illinois had never (still does not) make the necessary actuarial payments to support the pension system.  

 

You can’t trust politicians…”

 

Of course, you can’t.  I know from personal experience.  But when Illinois, one of about eight states that still utilize a flat tax system, faces a systemic revenue shortage, they have in the past only one way to go: INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES.  Oh, did I mention that my local chat board is also decorated with a hundred people complaining they’re leaving because the property taxes are so high as compared to Indiana?  

 

Ken Griffin Citadel Investments

So why is Ken Griffin, who is spending over $50 million in advertising so keen to get us chatters to vote NO on the Amendment? Like many of those who are morbidly wealthy, Ken does not mind spending 1/20,000,000 of his billion to stop a fairer tax to help all of us.  Put it on all of them, says, Ken, not me.

 

Right now, Ken pays 4.95% like all of us.  ALL of us.  As of 2016, the poorest 20 percent of families in Illinois pay an average of almost 15% of their income on state and local taxes.  Meanwhile the wealthiest one percent pay just above 7 % (CBTA).  

 

97% of all of us will pay the same or less than we ay currently.  Only those making $250,000 or more – or those small businesses making profits of $250,000 or more – will pay more.  

 

It’s the first item on the ballot, so make sure you vote on it.  If you ignore it, it will count as a NO.  Remember, Ken Griffin is throwing one twenty-millionth of his money to stop you from voting YES:

 

            

 

 

 

                                   VOTE YES ON THE PROGRESSIVE TAX.