More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Ormsby

David Ormsby

Posted: November 9, 2010 02:38 PM

This is simple.

Governor Pat Quinn won the election. But he won no mandate to raise the Illinois income tax.

Quinn beat State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) because liberal and moderate voters in Chicago and suburbs were turned off by Brady's right wing positions on social issues, such as abortion and gay rights. Quinn and key allies, like Personal PAC, battered Brady bloody in direct mail and in TV ad on these social issues.

However, neither Quinn nor his allies trumpeted the governor's plan to hike the Illinois income tax rate from 3% to 4%. When confronted by reporters in debates, Quinn retreated to pleasant-sounding "investment in education" rhetoric by way of explaining his tax position.

He survived the election in spite of this tax hike pledge, not because of it.

Still, fresh from victory, the governor is now claiming that the election gave him a mandate to raise the Illinois income tax. In addition, he wants the Illinois General Assembly to approve an increase in the fall veto session, which will be full of dead-duck lawmakers, in a couple of weeks.

"I think our message of investing in education was supported by the people," Quinn told the Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson and Monique Garcia for a story published four days after the election. "I think that is a really strong mandate that I got. I know from the campaign, people made that pretty clear to me, and I think the election returns said the same thing."

Wrong.

On October 18, the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute released a survey of 1,000 Illinois voters and questioned them on Quinn's latest tax hike plan -- and the results revealed that voters clearly rejected the proposal 56.2% to 40.9%.

In fact, Quinn's base -- the City of Chicago -- opposes the tax increase more than the suburbs or Northern and Central Illinois. Chicago voters oppose the increase 56.8% to 38.3%, compared to suburban voters who reject the measure 55.3% to 42.0%, and northern and central voters, 54.3% to 43.2%. Only Southern Illinois opposes Quinn's plan more, 62.8% to 35.5%.

African Americans, who gave Quinn 91% of votes, oppose the tax hike more than whites, 56.0% - 39.6% to 55.8% - 41.4%, respectively. Hispanics, who backed the governor with 64% of their vote, reject his tax proposal even more, 56.5% to 43.5% in favor.

There was no dramatic about-face on the tax issue on election day. Social issues won it for Quinn. Period.

The lack of mandate in no way mitigates the need for an income tax increase. Illinois unquestionably needs the dough to help plug a $13 billion budget hole. However, it means that the Illinois General Assembly approves a tax hike in the near future only at the political peril of adding to the dead-luck lawmaker body count in the 2012 elections.

Instead of pushing for an income tax increase in the next couple of weeks, Quinn should spend at least the next two years cultivating public opinion to produce a genuine mandate, and then go for it. But not a millisecond sooner.

 

Follow David Ormsby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@DavidOrmsby

This is simple. Governor Pat Quinn won the election. But he won no mandate to raise the Illinois income tax. Quinn beat State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) because liberal and moderate voters ...
This is simple. Governor Pat Quinn won the election. But he won no mandate to raise the Illinois income tax. Quinn beat State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) because liberal and moderate voters ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
06:34 PM on 11/22/2010
Good grief -- 2 years? Can Illinois survive for 2 years without raising taxes? It is obvious that a huge sales tax base was lost, and I have no issue with replacing it. Maybe it could be temporary.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
04:04 PM on 11/17/2010
George Dubai Bush lost in 2000.  I didn't see HIM wait until 2004 before acting like he had a mandate.
 
We elected Quinn to be a leader.  So I, for one, support having him lead our state.
 
If you voted for Brady, get over it.  You lost.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marcar72
09:44 AM on 11/13/2010
Cut government to minimum requirements. Close as much as possible . Workfare not welfare for the physically able.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
04:05 PM on 11/17/2010
Yeah, Gooptards tried that for over 30 years.  How's the Second Great Depression the conservatives created been treating you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
patg00
2 is the odd prime
04:08 PM on 11/11/2010
Since when do you need a "mandate" to do anything? Nobody likes taxes, but everybody likes sewers.
09:38 PM on 11/09/2010
The simple fact of the matter is this: Pat Quinn is weak.

Even before the recession, Illinois was shedding businesses, jobs, and residents. Now in the aftermath of the recession, we must be RELENTLESS on (a) retaining and (b) recruiting businesses and people to IL. We can do this through incentives.

With neighboring states like Indiana offering lower living costs and better schools overall -- and a governor, in the case of IN, who's actually brought positive change to the state -- we must do EVERYTHING possible to ensure the best possible situation for our residents. Pat Quinn continues to pander and claim we need more money, e.g., in the education system, but we've all seen the results of that reasoning nationwide -- e.g., more money ≠ better performance. Hence, his justification of an across-the-board income tax hike is, like his leadership, weak.

His entire myopic perspective on the budget can be summed up in his puzzling insistence that we NOT cut the entire "free rides" for seniors program. (Nevermind the rides aren't free -- just passed to paying customers.) That he's so weak as to be unwilling to cut an entitlement program for even wealthy seniors is just another reason Illinois will yet again regret the election of yet another governor.
03:58 PM on 11/09/2010
What's the big deal about raising the state income tax from 3% to 4%? Illinois needs the money to fill the budget gap. **shrug**
02:39 PM on 11/11/2010
How about this -- if it's not a big deal, why don't you voluntarily send the state more money before April 15th? They certainly would not reject your offer.

The problem is on an aggregate level. At an absolute level, what does an income-tax hike tell residents and business owners both inside and outside the state? That IL is a pro at mismanaging its fiscal situation, and that its leaders, when faced with out-of-control entitlements and spending, simply demand us to "pay up" without much thought. At a relative level, it suggests IL may be less attractive than neighboring states.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
04:05 PM on 11/17/2010
How about this- if you can't afford a 1% tax increase, you just leave the state?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Semper Fidelis Tyrannosaurus!
04:06 PM on 11/17/2010
It's not a big deal, but shrill and puling whinging is all conservatives have.
ChangeAgent007
Changing the world everyday
03:03 PM on 11/09/2010
So how do you propose the deficit be addressed? There is no way to cut our way out of it. Republicans site job creation, but all indicators point to this being a very slow recovery. You have to have a revenue enhancement as part of the plan. It can't be the only thing, but it must be a portion of it. And it must be done sooner rather than later. Otherwise the hole will continue to grow larger.

Had this been addressed a year and a half ago, we would be in much better shape than we are today. Waiting two more years is not an option.
photo
PalaceOfWisdom
Obama signed away habeus corpus
04:26 PM on 11/09/2010
Agreed. Punting on our budget problem is how we've reached this point. The solution is a fairly simple one: we need to start paying our bills in full and on time. Sadly, decades of political campaigns based on claiming the other side engages in wasteful spending have convinced taxpayers that they're paying enough already, if only it were spent more efficiently.