Many will see the proposal outlined in my previous article as a ridiculous fantasy and politically impossible. To them I’d say that almost everything is politically impossible until it is made politically possible. Selling a plan will be hard work, so we will need leaders with a genuine work ethic to start the process. (They can learn that political work ethic by watching President Donald Trump.)

You know what’s already politically possible and, in fact, quite easy? Bowing to the powers of the government unions, keeping the public in the dark about just how bad things are, and allowing the state to go forward into bankruptcy. Don’t doubt me on this: bankruptcy is in our future. That has been my view for many years, but I do have to thank Mark Glennon of Wirepoints for bringing this to my attention at a recent press conference:

William Isaac knows insolvency when he sees it, and how to deal with it. As Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from 1981 to 1985, he was on the forefront of the banking crisis at the time. He founded The Secura Group, a leading consulting firm in financial regulation, and is a respected voice in the world of finance.

Bankruptcy, not just for Chicago, but for Illinois as well, he says.

“The city and the state should act now to restructure their liabilities and put the fiscal mess behind them. This can be accomplished by utilizing Chapter 9 and other tools Congress just gave Puerto Rico,” wrote Isaac in an opinion piece published Thursday in The Bond Buyer.

Tax increases and spending cuts won’t work, he wrote:

In the short run tax increases can partly bridge the deficits, but even this benefit will prove pyrrhic. Recent tax increases have already made the state and the city less competitive venues. As for expenditures, there’s still fat that can be cut from the budget, but it’s difficult to see this making more than a dent.

Why is his opinion a watershed? He’s the first major financial figure to outright call for bankruptcy. Others have said to start thinking about it or that it might be needed eventually — for Chicago. Pass the needed federal legislation now, says Isaac. Federal legislation would be needed to allow a whole state to file for bankruptcy. “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

The above is from an article from almost two years ago. (Wirepoints is excellent. Readers should sign up for their email newsletter.)

Here is the simple and easy-to-remember order of upcoming events that could save our state:

1.)  Bruce Rauner loses and J.B. Pritzker wins and finds out there is no money to fund all his promises. (Of course, J.B. already knows that, right? He can’t be that uninformed, right?)

2.)  Republicans privately fund what Jeanne Ives couldn’t get publicly funded last year—a serious study of how we can tax ourselves in a sane manner here in Illinois. This study need not be expensive or take long to accomplish. Let’s look at all those states that manage to have schools and police officers without taxing people out of their homes.

3.)  “Big and bold” becomes how Republican legislators and candidates think and act and the GOP starts winning more elections.

4.)  Illinois fiscal reality is reckoned with, and the causes of the current mess aren’t kicked down the road any longer.

Tax reform. School choice. Taxpayers freed from funding exorbitant pensions that now eat up 20-25 percent of the state budget. (Private sector companies have been getting out of the pension business for decades. It’s time for government to follow their lead.) Bankruptcy. Illinois stops being a national laughing stock and instead gets a fresh start. And families and jobs move here instead of away.

Laugh if you want, but William Isaac nailed it: “Once a financial mess of the first order is at hand, as is the case with Chicago and Illinois, it can be far better to act decisively by restructuring rather than prolonging the pain.”

---

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Back in the 1990s, Illinois conservatives watched as Republican governors cooperated with General Assembly Democrats to lay a foundation for our state’s current fiscal disaster. Today, as 25 percent of the state’s budget goes to paying overly-generous pensions for government employees, some sleepy slow-to-learn Republicans are waking up to the fact that something is amiss.

The good news is that Democratic candidate for governor J.B. Pritzker has a plan to solve our state’s revenue problem. Of course, I’m kidding: we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

A proposal for a graduated income tax in Illinois is being sold in comical fashion by the comical Center for Tax and Budget Accountability (CTBA) — a group that is never without a plan to take more money from hard-working Illinois families and hand it over to the government.

In Crain’s Chicago Business, liberal reporter Greg Hinz writes that CTBA has found a progressive income tax proposal that would “boost state income $2 billion a year while reducing taxes for 98 percent of individual filers, anyone with an adjusted gross income of less than $300,000 a year.” And if you believe that one, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Last year conservatives warned their fellow Illinoisans that the income tax increase that became law would not be the last tax increase. A progressive income tax wouldn’t be the last either — it would just be the next. When 25 percent of your state’s budget continues to fund retired government employees, while those pension funds are mathematically insolvent, it is foolish to think otherwise. And pension fund “debt” isn’t the only debt the state has amassed.

Wait, there’s more! There will be tax cuts under CTBA’s proposal. And their miracle plan asserts that “raising rates will not induce many higher-income individuals to move out of state”!

Campaigning in 2014, Bruce Rauner was vague about his claim that he could balance the state budget. Wisely, J.B. Pritzker is playing the same game in 2018. Though time will tell if Pritzker foolishly claims, as the CTBA does, that “98 percent of taxpayers would get at least some cut,” while “Those earning more than $300,000 a year would pay more, with rates rising to up to 9.85 percent for those with taxable income of more than $1 million year.”

Tax the rich! Too bad that never works out.

Mark Glennon, the founder and executive editor of Wirepoints, answers the CTBA:

CTBA’s New Progressive Tax Proposal Makes Our Case Against it

We’ve written here often that Illinois can’t count on a progressive income tax to solve much, if anything, in its fiscal crisis. That’s why many proponents, including gubernatorial candidate J.B. Pritzker, won’t get specific about what they spin as the primary solution to our problems, which we wrote about recently here and in Crain’s.

Well, the union-friendly Center for Tax and Budget Accountability just made the case for us.

They released a specific proposal and concluded it would raise just $2 billion in additional revenue. What that really does is prove the futility of thinking tax increases are a way out of our mess.

For some perspective on why $2 billion wouldn’t go far, consider just the additional funding required to meet “adequacy” under the new school funding formula. That alone will consume that $2 billion within six years.

Two billion dollars wouldn’t even cover the shortfall in unpaid interest that effectively accrues on pensions, much less begin to reduce their unfunded liability.

What about the rest of the deficit we’ve been running, which has averaged $11.7 billion over the last ten years, according to the state’s own financial statements?

How about something from the state to relieve suicidal property taxes so many municipalities are levying? Forget it.

And what about gubernatorial candidate J.B Pritzker’s list of promised goodies that so many progressives want?

“I think we all know what’s going on here,” Glennon writes:

Hurray, a tax cut for 98% of us so let’s get that constitutional amendment needed for this progressive tax proposal.” That’s what the CTBA and other proponents are hoping will be the response. After that, it will be, “Oops, wasn’t quite enough of a tax increase so….”

The entire article is worth your time — it can be found here.

In an article, Cole Lauterbach and Greg Bishop answer the question “Do Illinoisans support a progressive tax?” “It depends upon who you ask, they explain:

Jim Long, director of legislative relations for the Chicago-based think tank (the Illinois Policy Institute), said nearly everyone would support a progressive tax without the reality of math.

“It’s like asking a kid if they want ice cream for dinner. Everybody’s going to go for that,” he said. “We put [our poll] through the grinder of economics.”

Meanwhile,

All but one House Republican signed on to House Resolution 975 opposing a progressive tax ballot question, effectively killing the measure for this session. Rep. Jerry Costello became the first Democrat to sign on to a resolution opposing a graduated income tax when he was added as a chief co-sponsor to Rep. David McSweeney‘s similar House Resolution 891.

As always, readers must decide who to believe. Those defending and promoting excessive always-increasing taxes and government spending, or those calling for less of both.

For more on the topic, here are three recent articles of interest:

Taxpayer Victory: Progressive Tax Effectively Dead This Legislative Session

Fifty lawmakers are taking a pledge to fight a progressive income tax in Illinois, denying progressive tax proponents the support needed to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Illinoisans can’t afford another middle-class tax hike. But that’s exactly what proponents of a progressive income tax were seeking this legislative session.

Here is a news item about the first Democrat to publicly oppose a progressive tax hike:

Costello Stands With Taxpayers, Signs Resolution Opposing Progressive Income Tax

Calls to protect Illinoisans from a progressive income tax are now coming from both sides of the aisle in Springfield.

State Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Smithton, signed on as chief co-sponsor to House Resolution 891 on April 27. The resolution was filed in March by state Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, and states that Illinois should not scrap its constitutionally protected flat income tax.

Given Illinois’ reckless spending habits, a graduated, or “progressive” income tax is the last thing the state needs. While sold as a tax on the rich, a progressive income tax could have disastrous consequences for middle-class Illinoisans while failing to address the state’s misplaced spending priorities.

The Painful Push for a Progressive Tax in Illinois

Instead of pushing for further tax hikes on tapped-out taxpayers, lawmakers should rally behind a bipartisan effort to limit state spending.

The push for scrapping Illinois’ constitutionally protected flat income tax is greater than ever, with Democratic gubernatorial nominee J.B. Pritzker making it a key pillar of his campaign.

A progressive income tax is one of the most foolish policy choices Illinois could enact at a time when residents are experiencing crushing tax burdens, sluggish economic growth and high levels of outmigration.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to send a message to your state senator and state representative.  Springfield hasn’t earned a right to additional tax resources. They have been utterly reckless with what they already get… more revenue simply will not improve their imprudence. Ask them to vote against any legislative proposal that would increase tax burdens for Illinois citizens. Ask them not to take much needed resources away from responsible family budgets to boost imprudent spending of Illinois government.

Let them know that you oppose any new tax increases when they refuse to cut government waste and bloat. You can also call your lawmakers’ Springfield offices through the Capitol Switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

PLEASE ALSO CALL THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE at (217) 782-0244 and/or (312) 814-2121.

Surprise, surprise, liberal administrators and community members oppose and censor conservative viewpoints at a public school.

A controversy has been percolating in the affluent communities served by New Trier High School on Chicago’s North Shore. It’s a controversy that has implications for public schools all over the country—and not just high schools—so I hope taxpayers in other communities pay attention.

Taxpayers should pay attention to the activity that generated the controversy, the admirable actions taken by courageous community members who are fighting for intellectual diversity, and the reactionary obfuscation of administrators and community members who strive to censor dissenting resources.

Two weeks ago I wrote about the upcoming “All-School Seminar Day 2017” being held at both New Trier campuses on Feb. 28. Here is a brief excerpt from that article:

A perusal of the list of workshops being offered at this mandatory event reveals a Leftist dream for “education.” No need to travel to the next White Privilege Conference. New Trier parents can just send their kids to school for a smorgasbord of ideologically non-diverse seminars on “Understanding Today’s Struggle for Racial Civil Rights.”

An article in the Winnetka Talk, a local Pioneer Press paper owned by the Chicago Tribune, illuminates the problems corrupting public education in general and New Trier’s anti-diversity day specifically (all quotes are from this article):

District Supt. Linda Yonke said students must attend the keynote speech and a 50-minute homeroom presentation, but students who are uncomfortable with anything in the sessions will be able to leave.

Setting aside the reality that the vast majority of high school students would not admit to being uncomfortable even if they were (well, maybe some safe-space snowflakes would), the central issue is not student comfort. The central issue is ideological diversity. The central issue is whether both “progressive” and conservative perspectives should be presented through the materials and speakers included on Seminar Day.

Wilmette father Mark Glennon accurately described the seminar offerings as “flagrantly and unquestionably politically extreme.” Winnetka Talk cited Glennon’s wish for the seminar, a wish that all parents of children in public schools should share:

“What I’d like to see happen is simple: just some balance in what’s presented,”… [Glennon added] that debate among New Trier parents and residents has caused strife in an otherwise friendly community.

Strife develops whenever conservative community members finally reach their tipping point with regard to the egregious bias that infects academia at all levels.

“Progressives” drunk with their own power, presumptuously believing they alone know what is good and true, and accustomed to imposing their views with abandon don’t take kindly to resistance.

Winnetka Talk reporter Kathy Routliffe writes that “Seminar supporters…say the planned speakers and discussions will allow New Trier students to make up their own minds in a balanced manner on a crucial American social issue.”

How does an imbalanced seminar facilitate a “balanced manner” in which students can make up their own minds on a crucial issue?

But there it is. There’s the argument I predicted would emerge when I first wrote about the brewing brouhaha:

School administrators and faculty often respond to parents who challenge obvious bias and viewpoint discrimination by saying that students are free to express dissenting views, but that’s a red herring. The central issue is not whether students are free to express dissenting views. The central issue is whether all students should have their views challenged by the voices of experts or just conservative students. Should all students have the opportunity to have their views reinforced through reading and hearing the voices of experts or is that opportunity reserved just for “progressive” students?

New Trier father Paul Traynor is adamant about the importance of this non-diversity day:

“Not only is this a great lineup of programming, but an essential day for our kids….My sense is that this day is overwhelmingly popular across political lines, and that the opposition, although clearly well organized and very vocal, is very small.”

I wonder if Traynor’s “sense” about the bipartisan popularity of this ideologically-biased day is a sixth sense or if he’s polled a broad cross-section of New Trier community members, making sure that conservatives and “progressives” are equally represented.

While one can reasonably argue that it is essential for public schools to discuss race in America, this particular “programming” is decidedly not essential. If it were “essential,” (i.e., “absolutely necessary”), what does Traynor think about the quality of education New Trier students received prior to 2016 when this “essential” programming was introduced for the first time?

Traynor apparently believes that the size of the group opposing the ideological imbalance on non-diversity day justifies the administration’s dismissal of their views. So, what does that say about Traynor’s commitment to diversity and minority voices?

I would agree with Traynor on this one point: non-diversity day is in reality a “programming” day.

According to the Winnetka Talk, Superintendent Yonke is amazed at the positive response to non-diversity day:

I have had well over 300 phone calls, emails, and letters of support saying “Don’t change it, it looks fabulous….The direct communication we’ve had has been far more in support than in opposition. In fact, I’ve never seen this kind of outpouring of support on an issue in my life as an educator.

Notice what Yonke did not say. She did not say Seminar Day was ideologically balanced. She did not deny that Seminar Day is tipped precariously leftward.

I would submit that the reason Yonke has never seen this kind of “outpouring of support on an issue in her life” is that conservatives rarely organize or oppose the kinds of offenses against sound pedagogy that have been poisoning public education over the past few decades. The outpouring of support for non-diversity day at New Trier likely began after some parents started questioning and publicly criticizing the stunning absence of intellectual diversity on Seminar Day. There’s nothing quite like the bracing antipathy of a “progressive” challenged to include conservative viewpoints.

So, why doesn’t this kind of organized opposition to leftist curricular and extracurricular shenanigans happen more often?

First, many taxpayers don’t know what’s taking place in their children’s schools. They remain blissfully unaware of the curricular resources, supplementary resources, activities, teachers’ classroom comments, and professional development “opportunities” that districts provide on the public dime that promote “progressive” positions on a host of controversial cultural issues.

The second reason why opposition to the use of government schools for promoting “progressive” dogma is revealed in the comments from a Northfield mother:

Another supporter, Northfield resident Laura Shala Balson, whose son is an elementary school student, said she was “horrified” when she read the opposition group’s website.

“I’m a transracial parent. My husband and I are white and one of our children is black…I know we live in a well-off community that’s largely homogenous [sic] and white, but this is just the total opposite of the 10 years we’ve lived here. People have been kind and welcoming, just the opposite of this opposition.”

Please note that “transracial” parent Balson asserted that this “homogeneous and white” community is a kind and welcoming community—not a bigoted, hateful community.

It’s passing strange that Balson would be “horrified” that some New Trier parents would seek to include diverse voices on the topic of race, or that she would suggest that those who seek such diversity are unkind and unwelcoming. I would think the failure of seminar organizers to include speakers and resources from diverse perspectives would be far more horrifying to anyone who values diversity in education.

But that’s what many “progressives” do if their ideas are challenged: hurl epithets. While “progressives” claim to value diversity, they call names when conservatives suggest that commitments to diversity and critical thinking on complicated issues entail exposure to the best thinking on all sides of those issues. Including the perspectives of, for example, Ben Carson,  Larry Elder, Mia Love, Star Parker, Jason Riley, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Carol Swain, Stephanie Trussell, or Allen West—all of whom are black—does not constitute being unkind or unwelcoming.

Another mother assumes this biased event will foster critical thinking:

Wilmette resident Ruthie Swibel…said her support for the day “is based on giving students the benefit of the doubt of thinking critically about issues. If we canceled events because we didn’t want to talk about complicated issues, what message does this send to our school’s students?”

The parents who seek inclusion of additional perspectives on how to think about race, racial reconciliation, and the problems that affect minority communities do not seek to avoid events or discussions on “complicated issues.” Rather, they seek to have students exposed to the voices of experts from diverse perspectives on complicated issues.

Winnetka Talk cites New Trier’s All-Day Seminar website which tries to affirm the day’s nonpartisan bona fides:

The seminar day has a budget of $30,000, and “will not portray any political party as good or bad or promote the views of one party.”

Seriously? Okay, fine, the seminar day teachers and speakers will likely avoid using the words “Democrat” and “Republican,” but can anyone read the session descriptions and say with a straight face that they don’t reflect Democratic positions? Enquiring minds would love to know how many of the invited speakers or authors of resources vote Republican.

Paul Traynor is satisfied with not only the content of the seminar but the degree of involvement the administration provided to the community:

Traynor said the district did involve parents, and gave them plenty of time for input: “They sent out an email before the holiday break saying ‘Here’s the game plan.’ … so these folks who say there was no consultation, no outreach, that’s just false.”

I would challenge Traynor’s claim that an email sent out after the event was planned constitutes parental involvement, “consultation” or “outreach.” It would be more accurate to say that parents were notified about the planned event just before the busy holiday break. Parents were not included, involved, or consulted during the planning stages. I wonder if the game-plan email expressly told parents that most if not all seminar offerings espouse “progressive” views on racial (or “trans”) issues.

Perhaps the proximate cause of this community kerfuffle was parental opposition to the biased content of Seminar Day, but the ultimate cause was the biased content of Seminar Day.

---

Read more recent articles from Laurie:

The Radical “Trans”-Formation of America

Corrupt, Nonsensical Legislation Reintroduced

Highlights Magazine for Children Affirms Homoeroticism

---

Join IFI at our Feb. 18th Worldview Conference

Don’t miss our third annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Frank Turek on Sat., Feb. 18, 2017 in Barrington. Dr. Turek is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

This is a wonderful opportunity to enhance your biblical worldview.