A Chicago Blog

John McCarron writing in today’s Tribune, seems to be endorsing the Civic Committee’s tax increase plan over the “tax swap” proposed last year. The Civic Committee plan in fact proposes a number of key public service reforms for Illinois that conservatives would be happy to endorse. The problem is, these reforms are tied to a tax increase, which may be hard to swallow … especially since Illinois’ tax burden has gone up considerably over the last five years thanks to local property tax increases.

The political risk here is that this “compromise” plan will be gutted of its key reform elements: defined contribution pension plans, expanded access to charter schools and Medicaid finance reform and Illinoisans will be left with tax increases with no substantial reform to government budgeting or expenditures.

So I think it’s unconscionable for the Civic Committee to become open advocates of a tax increase. We all know a tax increase is on the table. Responsible opposition would push reforms and leave the “compromises” to Springfield. The Civic Committee has a bully pulpit and while they castigated the state for its irresponsible management of tax dollars, advocating a tax increase diluted the message. But I guess it gives city Dems cover for voting for a tax increase without fear of business backlash … perhaps this was the real purpose all along.

The Blogosphere’s collective ego was bruised yesterday when Joseph Rago penned a rather poignant, if misguided, column about blogs and their contribution to society, the written word, civic discourse, etc.
Read Rago’s column.

Then note the reaction.
The best being QandO.

The letter I sent yesterday to Rago and to the WSJ:

Dear Editor:

Joseph Rago’s criticism of bloggers ["The Blog Mob," Dec. 20] for hastening the “decay” of the written word is completely misplaced, though understandably so.

The blog is to writing what the point-and-shoot camera is to photography. While the one is serious and thoughtful, the other is spontaneous and playful. In the one we look for insight, in the other we look for a memory or a connection. In the one permanence, the other temporality.

But the snap-shot hasn’t debased the photographic arts. If anything, it has brought them down to earth, opening non-traditional routes to the profession and giving faces to the crowd. Most importantly, the snap-shot has become its own phenomenon, with meaning and relevance unique to its form.

Likewise, the notion that blogs could put an end to the whole profession of journalism is patently absurd, delusional bloggers notwithstanding. But the technology is serving to keep professional journalists grounded and mindful of an audience that not too long ago had no face.

But even if there were no Mainstream Media, people would still blog because at root it is an expression of our natural drive to communicate and connect. So in a very important sense, blogging is something new that must be judged apart from its genealogy. It may not be high art, but that doesn’t make it devoid of cultural value.

Another example of government taking private property in the name of the “public good.”

The Tribune’s expose on the mysterious appearance of surveillance cameras at Millennium Park was based on posts by these two bloggers, Chicago Carless and Looper. Hats off guys.

Update: The spy cams have been yanked already! Score one for Chicago bloggers!

Possible reasons Daley would want to spy on those children playing in the fountains at Millenium Park:

a) Jihadists come in small packages.
b) He’s under pressure from the unions to make sure there’s no “cleaning” (i.e. trash pick up) being conducted by non-union/civilian workers.
c) Daley loves the little children, all the children of the world.
b) He owes Cardinal George a favor. (ouch!)

The Tribune says the Department of Homeland Security paid for these cameras, so we know someone is watching, we just don’t know who.

Lynn Sweet’s column today paints 2008 as a potential battle of “Goliaths,” with the consummate insider, Hillary Clinton, taking on the media darling, Obama. She even suggests that David Axelrod, Obama’s most important strategist, will be a key force in this battle since he has seen the underbelly of New York politics (I can’t imagine it stink any worse than ours).

True enough, Axelrod’s dismantling of both the Blair and Ryan campaigns was impressive, even if it undermined the democratic process along the way. There’s no reason to think Axelrod wouldn’t be a serious part of the Obama campaign or that he wouldn’t go after Hillary with the same expert ruthlessness.

The question though, is can the Democrats afford to let this “battle of Goliaths” take place. There’s no doubt Obama and Hillary are two of the most important faces in the Democrat Party. Letting them bloody each other’s noses in a knock-down, drag-out primary would risk turning the amateur Obama into damaged goods or reminding the public that Hillary was damaged long ago.

Of course, the decision to run is up to the candidate. The party doesn’t have borg-like control over its leaders. However, one can’t help thinking that Obama mud wrestling with Clinton in New Hampshire next spring would be a bad idea.

Not to mentioned that it may inadvertently lead to neither one winning the nomination. Nothing ruins “elect-ability” like mud slinging … just ask Howard Dean.

PS: Another interesting item in Sweet’s column is a poll in which 50 percent of Americans claim they think the “nation is ready” to elect a woman or an African American. But what does it mean to be “ready?” Is this akin to saying “it’s about time,” or is it really an appraisal of whether the respondent thinks other respondents, i.e. “the nation,” would actually vote for a woman or an African American.

This is not just an academic distinction. On the one hand, I could be ready for a woman president, but on the other not really have faith that enough Americans feel the same way. If so, I probably won’t vote for Clinton or Obama in the primary for fear of disadvantaging my party’s chances for victory. I’m only going to vote for Obama or Clinton if I really believe the nation has progressed to the point where race and sex doesn’t matter and that’s a tall order.

I’m not saying the poll is wrong, but I think it would be naive to think race and gender won’t affect the voting of even the “tolerant” liberal types.

Just to get you in the mood for the game. Make sure you watch all the way to the end … they save the best for last:

Ralph Martire makes the case in today’s Sun-Times that Illinois’ budget problems are caused by the so-called “structural deficit.” According to Martire “Illinois’ tax system fails to raise sufficient revenue to fund the public services provided today.” The logical fallacy here is pretty obvious. Martire assumes public services are something constant and unchangeable whereas the tax rate is variable. The truth is services are equally variable; Blagojevich has added free preschool and expanded health care access in just the last year or so.

All deficits are deficits of choice. To paint ours as one over which have no control is dishonest.

More troubling is Martire’s claim that Illinois is a low-tax/low-spending state:

Cutting spending won’t solve the problem. Illinois is a low-spending (42nd) and low-tax (48th) state, despite being fifth most populous. The ongoing state deficits are caused primarily by revenue shortcomings, not wasteful or profligate spending.

Martire is not lying out right. If we look only at the state government, Illinois’ tax-rate is one of the lowest in the country. But this is not the complete picture. We pay taxes to more than just the state government. Illinois has some of the highest local property taxes in the country (9th highest) and our federal income tax burden ranks 10th in the nation.

When we consider all the taxes that Illinoisan pay together, Illinois has the 10th highest tax burden in the country!

The same goes for spending. The only way spending in this state ranks low is by looking ONLY at the state’s expenditures. We’d have to ignore the largess in the city of Chicago, the Stroger Regime, the school districts, and various other taxing bodies in the state.

… not there’s anything wrong with that. The Washington Times has a pretty good editorial [hat tip Powerline] alerting us to Obama’s track record as an Illinois Senator. But they leave out a key point, which is that Obama appears to be a supporter of universal health care. While in Illinois, Obama supported SB 1850 that would have “temporarily” capped insurance premiums.

He also supported the Bernadin Amendment, which included the language:

Health care is an essential safeguard of human life and dignity, and there is an obligation for the State of Illinois to ensure that every resident is able to realize this fundamental right. On or before May 31, 2002, the General Assembly by law shall enact a plan for universal health coverage that permits everyone in Illinois to obtain decent health care on a regular basis.

Full disclosure: I know all this because in the days after Jack Ryan’s implosion I set up this site to keep Obama honest. It has since been neglected and infested by spam. But there’s still some interesting info on it.