I'm with Dan on this. Potluck is pretty much on it's last legs and is only going to continue to head downhill. Clearly the Naperville Sun had a great opportunity to engage the community and chose instead to squander the opportunity rather than leverage it to any serious journalistic or even commercial advantage.

Potluck likes to bill itself as a forum, but it really has never been a true forum and likely never will based upon the horrible user interface and the unacceptably long lag time between when topics and discussion comments are posted. Clearly maintaining Potluck on any kind of timely basis is nothing more than an afterthought in some ones job description. I guess if there is something more important going on at the Naperville Sun than posting comments promptly after receiving them then their is going to be a lot more important things going on with me than continuing to support Potluck with discussion content.

I don't know if there are any other Naperville forums... Yahoo groups, etc. I'll be looking for another online venue to contribute to on local events in the future... if I can find one... and if I can't maybe I'll just start one up. Potluck has just gotten to the point where it isn't even worth the effort for me any more. All of the silliness about not having any discussions about issues or candidates before local elections was pretty much the final straw. I don't need the Naperville Sun to tell me what I can and can not discuss or when. So if I find a new discussion group or start one up giving users the freedom and control over discussion topics will be my first priority.

It was kind of fun while it lasted, but for me it's time to move on. Thanks to all who shared so passionately on various topics. We may not have always agreed but we did get to appreciate various opinions and viewpoints. All the best to one and all!

Dan D:

Regarding your frustration with this blog, I share your pain (finally, something we can agree on!). But please stick around, there's still so much to discuss and so much drama on the horizon, namely the debt ceiling. And we haven't even addressed the elephant in the room--the budget deal and near government shut down.

I like your Elton John example. You're right, the crux of the issue is that people will always act in their own best interests. I bet when Elton was a young man looking at a career in banking, you couldn't have dragged him out of the UK. At that point he was benefiting more from their socialist structure than he was paying in. He had all his needs met--the UK educated him, provided medical care so he grew up healthy, etc. But the instant he's worth millions and facing the prospect of paying in more than he'll ever get back, he's outta there. That's gratitude for you.

But this is what people do. So hold that thought and apply this standard of behavior to the problem of health care for the elderly. This behavior is precisely why expecting seniors to pay the market rate for their care won't work and would actually exacerbate the health care crisis.

Let me explain. Seniors are the most expensive demographic, and the majority are on fixed incomes, so they have the least discretionary income. Seniors are high maintenance but low in resources.

You believe that people should pay for their own services, and if older people have more medical costs, they should pay higher insurance premiums. If senior's insurance premiums actually reflected the cost of their care, their premiums would be astronomical, probably several times that of younger people. Not too many seniors would be able to pay these rates. If seniors had to make a choice between paying their insurance premiums or paying for food and shelter, food and shelter would win. Seniors would drop their insurance because doing so is in their immediate best interests.

So what happens when they have a medical crisis? They call 911 and end up in the emergency room. And since it's against the law to deny anyone life-saving medical treatment based on their ability to pay, they will get the care they need anyway. And if they couldn't pay astronomical insurance premiums, they sure won't pay an astronomical hospital bill. So the hospital will jack up their prices on you and me to pay for it. This is precisely the mess we're in today. I didn't see Ryan's budget as solving this problem, but making it worse.

You say then the government could put a lien on senior's assets to get paid back after their deaths. That would be effective IF the seniors had assets, but many don't. You may want to look into what percentage of senior citizens have nothing to their name but social security. They no longer have savings or own property.

2010 data shows that "almost 70 percent of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for 50 percent or more of their income. Social Security is the sole source of income for 15 percent of beneficiaries."

Read more: http://www.disabled-world.com/news/seniors/social-security-checks.php#ixzz1JWRcO7qa

My 94-year-old father-in-law is in this boat. He sold his home over two decades ago to live off the equity, and that's pretty much gone. All he has is SS, Medicare, and he lives in a HUD supported rent reduced senior citizen apt. building. He has no other assets, we help him out when needed. Ryan's voucher program would be useless for him, there is no way he could pay for any kind of insurance, especially a market value one whose price would reflect his age and medical history of prostate cancer, skin cancer and glaucoma. You and Ryan may "want" seniors to pay the price for their medical care, but in reality, very few would or could.

Having an ideology is fine, but it is self-defeating to adhere to beliefs that have been shown to not work when applied to the real world. The human drive of self-interest is why Ayn Rand, despite her life-long rhetoric against socialism, altruism and the welfare state, lived off of social security and Medicare when she was dying of lung cancer. No kidding, the hypocrisy blows your mind. Rand chose personal survival over ideology.

Self-interest was why Bush threw out his free market, small government and personal responsibility ideology in favor of a government-controlled, socialist, bailing-out-the-irresponsible solution when he was faced with the reality that sticking to his ideology required him to jump into a deep, dark chasm of a second Great Depression. Self-interest will trump ideology just about every time; it's what people do.

So in order to find solutions to our current problems, we really need to put aside ideology and look for workable, read world solutions. Ryan's budget plan was great at adhering to his ideology, which is why so many Republicans loved it, but in practice it would have been a disaster. I saw the failings in it, there were massive gaps of logic in his plan that were glaringly obvious.

I don't dislike the Medicaid block grant idea as you claimed; it would just have to specify how much these block grants would be. A block grant that doesn't come close to meeting state's needs would be worthless. As a governor, I would feel very uncomfortable about supporting such a plan without knowing the dollar amount I would be getting.

Two comments.

1. This blog is simply not maintained well, so this is one of my last posts. If anyone finds a better forum, please advise.

2. To your points. You simply ignore my point. A program cannot be successful unless it is fiscally sound. The concept for everyone paying 3% of their wages to support senior citizens to pay less currently isn't viable. Everyone should have to pay 5 to 8%.

But then the liberals say, no. let's just have the "wealthy" pay. OK, instead of taxing the wealthy at 40 to 50% (when you factor in all of their taxes), people want them to pay even more. Now rememeber, the middle class is paying 15 to 20%. So it isn't that the wealthy are getting a tax cut, they are being asked to carry even more of the burden.

The outcome? Let me respond rhetorically. Why does Elton John live in Atlanta? Because it is nicer than London? No way. He does not want to pay the confiscatory taxes of the UK. But the wealthy in the US are more innovative than Elton John. They transfer their assets to corporation and then move the profits to Ireland and the Caymens. If they need money, they can borrow against their equity. But they do not pay taxes on large portions of thier wealth. And the Federal tax code cannot tax the money that they park off shore no matter how hard they try. Simply no legal basis.

So who pays? The people between $100,000 and $2 million. So taxes will go from 50% to 70%. The outcome? More business will be shipped off shore. People might actually leave. And the result? A continued decline of the American economy.

I really detest the rhetoric that the wealthy are getting huge tax breaks. Maybe Obama feels lucky that he made that money, not many others share his opinion. But the populism that he advocates has destroyed the Soviet Union adn the Eastern Bloc (that is what these programs mean, old fashion socialism, take from the rich and give to the less rich).

And to be clear, I have long advocated that people pay for their own services. I am approaching retirement. Do I want my children payint 15 to 20% of their salaries to support me? Do you want that for your children? That is the status quo and the amounts are simply not enough.

Now don't disparage Ryan, just be clear that he wants seniors to pay the cost of their health insurance if they can. And if older people have more medical costs, they should pay higher insurance premiums. Just like bad drivers pay higher premiums. On the other hand, Obama wants the government to control and distribute. We really should have had this debate when Social Security and Medicare was being established.

And you don't like the Medicaid block grants? Did you know that if Medicaid paid the prevailing market rates, 75% of the hospitals in Chicago would close? So we are not paying for medical care, we are supporting bankrupt hospitals.

There is a choice, between market efficiency and socialism. I know my selection.

Dan D:

As I said, you are hard pressed to find anything in Obama you would like, because you disagree with his ideology and policies. Which is why it's hard for you to see that he is a better example of a shining American success story than the likes of Trump, whom you really seem to admire.

People like Trump and W. Bush, born into wealthy families, had all the advantages that wealth brings--the best schools, the best contacts, networking with other wealthy and powerful people, inheritances, families to bail them out of trouble, etc etc.

Obama had no money. He took out student loans to attend college, including Harvard Law, and worked. Trump and Bush never had to take student loans or work their way through college; everything was paid for them.

So what if Obama's books raked in the most money after he became a presidential candidate? Trump and Bush didn't publish their books until AFTER they had achieved celebrity status; Obama got his first book published when he was a virtual nobody in 1996, and it got published on it's own merits, not because of Obama's celebrity. The second was published in 2005, before he planned on running for president. So Trump and Bush published after attaining celebrity, when they knew there would be a market for their books. Obama got published twice BEFORE. And he wrote them himself.

You may admire wealth, but I admire integrity, and how someone attains wealth is more important to me than just the fact that they have it. Obama is an example of the American success story, someone who started with nothing and became successful through hard work and perseverance.

And yet you see nothing ironic in the fact that someone like Trump, who has been able to rest on the laurels of family wealth his entire life, denigrates someone who epitomizes the American ideal of rugged individualism, hard work, and self-sufficiency, the very virtues that you claim is so important in making America successful.

It astounds me that you can keep these two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time and not see the hypocrisy of it.

And seriously, I couldn't care less what Trump says or thinks. He is not a serious candidate. His birther obsession brings nothing of value to the conversation; his belligerent attitude toward other nations diminishes what our country stands for. In the end, he will stick with what he knows--real estate and reality shows. Like Newt, he has too much personal baggage--too many marriages, cheating scandals, bankruptcies and questionable deals. One has to be able to tolerate the media looking up one's posterior with a flashlight to run for that high of an office, and Trump is too arrogant to stand for this kind of scrutiny into his personal life. And he probably wouldn't pass scrutiny anyway. All the money in the world can't buy integrity.

So you can admire Trump; I'll stick with O.

I'll respond to your other points later, you brought up some good stuff.

I will focus on a couple of issues.

1. Failure of Bush. I think you summed it up well. When faced with the tough choices, he shrunk. Just like politicians do all the time. While he was a success for 9/11 and solving the 2000 recession (Clinton if you choose to pin a recession on a President--but unlike Obama, you NEVER heard Bush say that). Unfortunately, it was downhill from there.

2. TARP. We have discussed this numerous times before. The program was to buy troubled assets to take them out of the financial system. NEVER HAPPENED. So instead, they forced strong banks to take their dirty money and propped up weak banks. They let Bear Stearns and Lehman fail, but supported Citigroup, Goldman, and Merrill. Did Obama reverse this trend? No, he made it worst. He supported GM and Chrysler. (On the last two, I favored bankruptcy for these two entities, that is what they did. But the employees should not have been given preference to the bond holders and essentially change law). So Obama was just as despicable as Bush. Wow, two losers.

3. Obama successes. His book revenues did not materialize until he became President, marginal before that. So was it his results or his run for President. As Trump told NBC, Obama's success was running a good election. If I follow the rest of the successes you list (by the way, he was the first Harvard Law Review editor to have never have written an article), then we should elect Tony Robbins as president. He pails compared to Reagan, Eisenhower and others.

But this comment goes deeper than just comparing politicians. It goes to the very concept of a politician. Historically, it has been a separate group of people who pursue elections. For the success of our country, we need the best and the brightest to make the tough decisions. The same way that the wealthy go outside of their families to hire professionals to run their companies.

4. I vigorously opposed TARP. My alternative proposal was to provide 4% mortgage money for five years to all people for 80% of the value of their houses. The current mortgage holder could retain a 15 to 45% second lien interest (this concept needed some brighter minds. On one hand, a borrower should not profit, but on the other hand, I don't know if people would have stayed in houses if their debt is more than the value). If an existing mortgage owner did not accept this new plan, then the owner could move out and give the house to the mortgage owner. The goal, get everyone back to a mortgage they could afford, clean all the old mortgages off the books (that were the reasons that financial companies failed) and start over. One criticism. This might maintain the "bubble value" of real estate.

But my plan would have done in one to two years what will now take at least a decade. And I wrote McCain, Obama, my congresswomen, and senators (Obama got two letters!!). Response, an automated latter from Judy.

This plan was better than TARP, but instead we bailed out Goldman Sachs rather than Main Street. Both the Democrats and the Republicans. BOTH!!

5. Arab League. Again, you are correct. But you miss the point. They would have taken our support if they had to pay for it. Just as we depend on them for their oil (although I heard that our dependence on foreign oil is lower today than ten years ago--supporting your criticism of domestic oil companies), they depend on us buying it. (By the way, let’s drill in Alaska and end imports!!!! AND work for alternatives to oil.) So we both have a stake, but we are wimps and give it away.

6. China. Same concept. If we banned all Chinese imports, China goes bankrupt. What are they going to do--invade us to be repaid. Take a look at the last country that followed the same policy--Japan. They are bankrupt, they bought bonds from us that devalued almost immediately. They bought Pebble Beach for almost a billion dollars and sold it later for $200 million. Our debt is only worth anything to them if we are a viable economy. Own any GM Bonds? We are not talking about an Obama styled GM bankruptcy; we are talking about a Ford resurgence.

In short, I do not repeat the popular GOP or Tea Party sounding points. Instead, we need a real debate in our society. On another blog, you question the Ryan budget, even repeating the false statements made by the left. In previous posts, I have stated that all Federal programs are a failure because they are fiscally unsound. Medicare is based on a false premise, have somebody else pay for senior health care (through the payroll tax). Why not have seniors pay? I think the proposal was that if they could not pay the difference, they would be able to get welfare to do so. One of my friends proposed that when people die, their estates should FIRST pay back all Medicare payments made on their behalf for which they did not pay for.

In summary, we do need change. Not the bozo change that Obama has proposed. Yes, I was never going to like him because he has more than lived up to his wrong policies that I voted against. And I would have been disappointed with McCain as well. I am excited about Ryan and Cantor, even more impressed by Noem of South Dakota, What new blood do the democrats have? Schumer??? Durbin?????

One last thought. My impression about Obama and it is captured in a political cartoon in the Tribune today (4/9/2011--who knows when this gets posted) is that starting after the elections, he is once again campaigning (just as Trump said!!!!). Even in this shutdown, total rhetoric, no substance (because he does not want to be pegged to a position). He has failed to lead since all he knows is how to pontificate. From the Wall Street Journal, “Many Democrats are also dissatisfied with Mr. Obama's decision to keep a relatively low profile during much of the debate, only to surface at the end and try to position himself as the adult.” FAILURE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

Dan D:

Howard Dean? I remember the name and the face but not what he did. Fine, despicable me. But I have no tolerance for partisan rewrites of history, you know this is my crazy button. If you are a partisan to a successful United States without ravaging others, then let's not ravage reality in the process.

Bush abandoned his small government, free market and personal responsibility ideology when it was tested because he did not want history to remember his presidency as the one in which a second Great Depression occurred. He admitted as much on Rush Limbaugh, he wasn't going to allow it to happen on HIS watch. Someone else's, perhaps, but not his. So did he enact TARP to save the country or his place in history?

Between TARP, his administration's out of control spending and the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, I really feel at this time Bush 43's presidency rates as much more of a disaster than Obama's. But Obama still has 6 years to go (assuming a reelection, which I really think he will get), so there's still plenty of time for him to screw things up to the Bush 43 level.

You've never supported Obama, so his disappointing you is a given. You would probably consider him a horrible president even if he were relatively successful, because you disagree with his ideology and policies. But true partisanship does not recognize reality, it strives to manipulate it. True partisanship never admits it's own errors or concedes that one's opponents are correct in anything, even when they are. You don't do this, so I apologize for my despicable-ness.

Regarding Trump, he's taking the easiest route to populism by appealing to the fringe with his birther stuff. Coming out as a birther is a rite of passage for anyone vying for the Republican nomination. But it diminishes credibility among independents.

Having Trump demand the Arab League write us a check for our military services ignores the fact that the Arab League controls our oil supply. Trump's position on China ignores the fact that China holds hundreds of billions of our debt and we are dependent on them to keep buying our Treasury securities. Trump's belligerent "me first and screw everyone else" rhetoric may feel good but ignores the reality of how interconnected the U.S., the Arab League and China are. The U.S. needs them just as much, if not more than, they need us.

And Trump does not "run" his reality show any more than the air heads on Jersey Short run theirs. If having a reality show is an indication of presidential ability, then you should support Snooki, the Situation, or any of the Real Housewives of New York for president also.

What did Obama accomplish prior to becoming President? Well, let's review. Opponents always denigrate Obama as a "community organizer", but in reality he only did this for three years between graduating from Columbia College and starting law school at Harvard. He graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Good beginning.

Worked as a civil rights lawyer in the private sector, taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, wrote two best selling books, one in 1995, the other in 2006, from which he made serious money, to date 5.5 million. The Obama's net worth in 2011 is $10.5 million. Obama doesn't have as many millions as Trump, but Obama is, in the truest sense of the term, a self-made millionaire. Trump started out with $35 million in inherited wealth; Obama started with absolutely nothing and made his own wealth.

Then we get into his political career. You can check it all out here: www.biography.com/articles/Barack-Obama-12782369 - Cached - Similar

Compare that to Trump's and Bush 43's born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-their-mouths bios. Seriously, out of the three, who best represents the American make-your-own-way ideal?

Also, the federal government did not implement an income tax to finance expanding government, but to finance wars. It was discussed in 1812 to finance that war and was done in 1862 for several years to finance the Civil War. A national income tax was established in 1913 to replace the very unpopular tariffs, which Americans hated because it increased the price of goods.

What the?

You have simply reverted to your old ways, that of Howard Dean. Personal attacks rather than expressing your view. Totally dispicable.

But yes, I am partisan. Partisan to a successful United States without ravaging others.

And to JQP, yes, I am disgusted with Obama AND Bush. While hindsight is 20/20 vision, he should have shut down the government back in 2006. All of this spending is ridiculous. I think we are a laughing stock that we will spend money and then clamor for the rich to pay more.

But this did not start in 2006. This has been going on since the Civil War. Government has expanded and then looks for money. How did we come up with an income tax? Because government expanded and needed new revenue.

And I can't put my hands on the numbers right now, but while discretionary spending is "ONLY" 15% or so of the Federal spending, it has increased by 20% annually under Obama while inflation is flat.

Let's put Obama's hypocrasy into perspective. He criticizes Bush for running up deficits, then he increases discretionary spending by $100 to $200 billion. Unless there is some new math out there, all of that increased spending adds to the deficti.

But there is a second side to this discretionary spending madness. Part of the stimulus (up to $300 billion) was increased Federal spending. My ijmpression was that these were one time infusions. But as I follow the issues, it seems as though the additional stiumulus spending has been added to the baseline Federal spending.

And remember how the Federal budget works. Baseline spending is last years plus inflation (even though there is none). So a $100 billion dollar program in fiscal year 2009 AUTOMATICALLY becomes a $105 billion program the next year. Then the government adds new programs. So in a period of ZERO inflation, the government increases spending by 7 to 10%!!!!

The Federal government should take a cue from the Naperville City Council. Give a 5% salary increase, then cut 5% of the employees. No spending growth. That is how private industry has been working since they cannot print money.

But to be clear, Bush was a failure and Obama is failing worst. In the last 100 years, the only good Presidents we had were Reagan and Clinton. The rests were either frauds or "caretakers".

Ok, Trump has had business failures. At one time, he was totally broke. But how many protests did he organize as a community organizer? Name one accomplishment of Barak Obama prior to being president. Trump successfully running a prime time television program is more of an accomplishment than organizing a protest to get handouts.

As Obama fumbles with Libya (as Bush fumbled with Iraq and Afghanistan), Trump provides a refreshing viewpoint. The Arab League wants our support to create stability in THEIR part of the world. Fine. Write a check. Otherwise, let these people from Syria, Gaza, Lebenon, Jordan and even Isreal kill each other. We cannot introduce civility where people are not civil.

His position on China. A 25% tax on all Chinese iimports. Forget the WTO. Drop out. As Trump points out, the Chinese will not resist, they will negotiate. They make $300 billion profit off their dealings with the US. They will negotiate since we are building their country.

I do not know if Trump is the right person, but I do agree that we need to elect somebody who is not a wimp. Even Clinton was a wimp. Look at what Reagan accomplished, we need to right the process. Yes, despite all of his faults (which are in the eye of the beholder, by the way), Trump provides an alternative view that is not in the publc debate.

Now there are far more ideas to review than could possibly be outlined here. So comment and don't act small in simply sniping (JQP and What The?). Rather be constructive.

Donald sucks all of the resources and assets out of these multi-layered corporations and then files for bankruptcy. Typical fat cat approach to sticking it to the little guys who he owes money and uses the "legality" of the courts to get away with it over and over and over again.

To figure out how many times he's gotten away with it you would have to research all of the different corporations he owns or controls, especially the "paper" ones. Three times isn't even close to accurate and despite all of the bankruptcies he still has a ton of "personal" wealth.

And Donald thinks we should elect HIM president? I can't think of a worse possible candidate that doesn't have a felony conviction. All of his employees hate him and are in constant fear of being fired. The only reason they work for him and put up with his ego is because he dangles so much cash in front of them... but as they all find out soon enough... it wasn't really worth it in the end... and the end always comes sooner than they think it will.

I'd actually vote for Gaddafi for president before I'd vote for Donald. Donald runs his companies like a friggin dictator. No one wants a dictator running the US. At least with Gaddafi you know up front what you are getting and if we are hell bent on having a dictator for president I'd rather go with someone like Gaddafi who has a lot more experience at being ruthless. Now that would finally be something that would shut those crazy North Koreans up!

I think Dan D threw in Obama just as a matter of habit, because that's what partisans do. They throw all the crap they can at a wall and hope something sticks. And if the person looking at the crap doesn't know any better, mission accomplished.

Trump Enterprises has filed for bankruptcy three times that I know of. One of them, the one related to the Taj Mahal Casino, almost wiped him out personally as well, but since banks and investors involved stood to lose millions, they worked with him in reaching a resolution.

Still, repeated bankruptcies show he doesn't always make the best decisions and probably takes too many risks. Combine that with a big ego and a big mouth and the implications get pretty scary. But given the way many Americans worship the wealthy, he probably will get a following. We already went through this once with Ross Perot.

Who the:

I'm glad to see you finally agree that BofA paid no federal taxes in 2009. And I'm impressed that you manned up and admitted your mistake, that's not an easy thing to do. Kudos!

Dan D.- Thanks for clearing up your point. I inferred you were talking about Obama as you used his campaign slogan.

Clearing up? You mean when he said he didn't mean to suggest that Obama was responsible for the mess, and then laid the blame on Obama again in the very next sentence?

Dan D.-
Thanks for clearing up your point. I inferred you were talking about Obama as you used his campaign slogan. I'm not a financial expert, so do not have the background to say whether they actions taken were the correct ones. The actions seem to have benefitted the large banks, but average Americans are still hurting. Many people I know are severly underwater on their houses. These are people who purchased at the top of the market, put money down, got fixed rate mortgages and had full doc loans. Maybe we would be better off if the government had let AIG fail, maybe not. Andersen, a huge accounting firm, failed. You would think it would have been tragic to the economy, but only seemed to be a blip on the radar.

As far as Donald Trump. My biggest concern is he had had to declare bankruptcy on multiple businesses. I understand people make mistakes, but to repeatedly make mistakes, especially large financial mistakes, is a concern given our economic climate.

Oops, forgot:

Remember Bush met with both presidential candidates and got their ok on TARP. Both Obama and McCain agreed it had to be done. So McCain would have continued the same Bush policies in the same way Obama did. The only thing McCain wouldn't have done was the stimulus. But it did appear in your previous post that you were saying the economic collapse of 2008 and it's subsequent unemployment was Obama's doing by using it to ridicule his campaign slogan.

And did you hear Caterpillar is staying in Illinois? And 19 counties in Wisconsin that went red in the midterms just went blue again, ousting one Republican incumbent and necessitating a recount in another race. Voters just ping pong between apathy and anger.

The last two years of Bush was really the first Obama/Pelosi/Reid term? What? You're still trying to lay the last two disastrous Bush years on anyone but Bush? Obama voted for TARP, like most everyone did. Everyone was moved by Boehner's teary plea to please save the country by saving Wall Street. But Obama was not in a position to force BoA to buy ML, only the Bush administration was.

You can't seriously be considering Trump. The guy is making a fool out of himself with his "screw you" foreign policy. I knew his bullying rhetoric would probably appeal to reactionary conservatives, but I thought you had more sense.

Taking Iraq's oil for payment of our unprovoked invasion would have been a direct admission of why the U.S. really went there--for nothing but to get their oil. That would not have played well throughout the rest of the oil producing countries. The U.S. is not Rome, an invader and conquerer of any country whose resources we want. And Trump's belligerent "America will be respected again" attitude is just the excuse the highly paranoid and nutcase dictators in Iran, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, etc., need to start conflicts.

I'm amazed by people who are so impressed by wealth that they think that just because someone is successful at making money, then they'd be successful at running a country. You're also aware that Trump is not a self-made millionaire, aren't you? He started out with a $35 million inheritance from his father. If money translated into ability, then you should be promoting Paris Hilton for president. She's worth millions in inherited wealth also.

Not to worry, Trump will never get the Republican nomination. Maybe the Tea Party nomination, but not the Republican. The Tea Party field is crowded with enough clowns already.

I did not mean to infer that Obama was responsible for these messes, although he voted for them.

But the last Bush term (at least the last two years) was really the first Obama/Pelosi/Ried term (or Obama is the 3rd Bush term). Bush started this maddening spending spree, we should have controlled spending to 2002 levels and there would be no talk of overtaxing the rich at 45% or more like the Democrats want or deficits.

And we (taxpayeers through the Federal government) should not have paid the claims against AIG by Goldman Sachs and the French banks. They did not have contracts that required additional cash collateral, they should have borrowed or gone out of business. Instead, Paulson, a Goldman Sachs alumni, lent money to AIG at 15% to pay Goldman and then lent Goldman BILLIONS more at 0.25%. Goldman shareholders including the Japanese, Chinese, and Warren Buffet should have been wiped out instead of the AIG shareholders (I do not own either stock).

And Freddie and Fannie should have started liquidation in September 2008, they are still in business.

Bush was an utter failure, but Obama continues his failed policies. Even worst. More spending, regulating successful businesses rather than dealing with the real problems.

I really like the idea of Donald Trump, he knows how to go bankrupt and shut down mistakes. And comes out ahead.

Did you like his reaction to Libya? The Arab whatever wanted the United States to act. OK. Put down a $300 million deposit and fund the action. If not, let your fellow whatevers (do not want to be accused of being racist or religiously biases) kill each other. That is your world.

And his response to Iraq? Where is the repayment? To the victors go the spoils.

That is a refreshing alternative to both Bush AND Obama.

Dan D:

Seriously commented:

"You might want to check the dates of when these businesses ceased to exist. Indy Mac was seized in July 2008. WaMu was seized in Sept. 2008. Bear Stearns was sold to Chase in Sept. 2008. Lehman collapsed in Sept. 2008."

And you can add that BoA bought Merrill Lynch on the same day Lehman collapsed in Sept. 2008. All when Bush 43 was in office, before we even knew who the current president would be.

If BoA was forced by Paulson to buy Merrill Lynch, remember BUSH was in the White House at that time FREAKING OUT about a financial collapse on HIS watch and throwing unaccounted for billions at Wall Street. BUSH enacted TARP. BUSH was behind Paulson forcing BoA to buy Merrill Lynch.

And here you conservatives are again, trying to revise history to suit your narrative. This was definitely a Bush "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" moment.

I expected more integrity from you, Dan.

You might want to check the dates of when these businesses ceased to exist. Indy Mac was seized in July 2008. WaMu was seized in Sept. 2008. Bear Stearns was sold to Chase in Sept. 2008. Lehman collapsed in Sept. 2008.

Obama was not the president at the time, George Bush was. If you are going to use a President's slogan at least use the correct one, George Bush's, "Mission Accomplished."

Who the:

"It is a very simple logic leap to say that the reason you still harp is that you, deep down, do not think they are paying enough taxes."

Maybe in your own galaxy, but not this one. I directly stated what I think. If you're "leaping" to other conclusions, that's your problem.

BoA did not pay federal income taxes in 2009. End of story.

Only one comment. You categorize Bank of America's "tax break" to purchase Merrill Lynch as a cozy favor to them. NO WAY!!!!!!!!

B of A was FORCED by Paulson to buy Merrill Lynch so the Federal governement would not have to fund another loser like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, and Indy Mac. They would have loved to back out of this deal and pay income taxes.

And just think, all of these companies no longer employ people or pay taxes. That is Change We Can Believe IN.

Anon- Why the need to call people Democrat Union Hacks? Can you be republican and be in a union? Can you be democrat and work for a corporation or own your own business? There is no need to name call or demean to get your point across.

You are correct that Charlie Rangel is selling out to GE. You can thank our Supreme Court for that. As long as they rule that corporations have greater rights than citizens in terms of donating to political campaigns, the corporations are always going to win and the ordinary citizen is going to lose. Hence, the Koch brothers' interest in Wisconsin.

Can someone please explain to me how depressing wages for teachers, government employees and "union hacks" is going to help our economy? Once they see that they can get away with it in the unions, who theroretically have stronger backing, do you not think they are going to go after the average worker: secretaries, custodians, middle management? Who wins in this scenario? Not small businesses or the average worker.

Yep, Ronald Reagan did close many of the loopholes big businesses were using at the time. In fact, Reagan said to the treasury secretary that he "didn't realize things had gotten that far out of line", and he closed loopholes and raised the corporate tax rate to somewhere around 32%. Reagan would be derided as a socialist by the standards of today's Republican Party.

And the Rangel/GE payoff was discussed earlier on this thread.

Who the?

If you take a minute to absorb what I posted, you will see that the articles also mention 2009, which is why I posted them. Specifically:

"In 2009, the bank had an overall tax benefit of $1.9 billion, counting federal, state, local and foreign taxes, because of losses that year, too."

And the one to Dan D.:

"Company spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said that although Bank of America made billions in profits in 2009, it had losses in the United States, and when it purchased Merrill Lynch, it was able to apply that company's past losses to its tax liability."

It's because of these kind of special deals and privileges that BoA has lobbied for over the years, that despite a 30% federal corporate income tax rate per your claim, what BoA was refunded actually exceeded what they paid in. Net cost to BoA: 0.

What you're doing here is a T Paw. Maybe you haven't seen this video, where Tim Pawlenty is asked by a reporter to comment on why BoA paid no federal taxes in 2009, and all Pawlenty could repeat was that the corporate income tax rate was too damn high! The reporter kept saying, "but they paid nothing, how can nothing be too high?" and T Paw just kept repeating the same talking point over and over. This is what you're doing, repeating the same talking point over and over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utdm6QMKO1g

Now if one were serious about getting rid of all the special favors and exclusions that big businesses have secured for themselves over the years, then the corporate tax rate could go much lower. Getting a little bit of something is better than nothing. But you and I both know that those businesses will lobby just as fiercely to keep those privileges even with a much lower tax rate, and they will probably succeed. A corporation's allegiance is to it's shareholders, and paying nothing in taxes will always take precedence over paying ANYTHING, no matter how small.

BTW, your comment "So we are all clear: what the? thinks a 28 to 31% income tax on corporations such as BAC is too low!" was a complete fabrication, since I clearly have no position on tax rates. This behavior shows you to be dishonest. An honest discussion is fine; if you prefer to make things up as you go, then I won't waste time with you.

Exactly right, and when they are finished driving down the public workers - who do you think those same corporate money machines will go after? The pockets of those very same middle class bloggers who are defending them now. If you follow the money, you'll see who is getting rich here, and it's not the public workers. The same people who want to take away pubic workers rights will be happy to drive down salaries in every other sector of the workforce given half a chance. If you don't mind working for $10 an hour instead of your current wage, or you want your kids to aspire to $5 an hour and 60 hour work weeks, then standing up for those who are buying their power is a great idea. If not - look at whose interests are being represented here, and who these governors are being funded by, and don't make the mistake of believing that any of that public money is going to end up in your pocket, or bring any of these states budgets into balance.

Seriously?

Given today's economy, no. Make that hell no. Any savings from eliminating collective bargaining will go directly into the pockets of the big business sector in the form of more tax breaks, as long as Republican governors rule the roost.

Completely different economy when Bush lowered taxes. Some would argue his actions resulted in the situation we are in currently.

Given today's economy do you think any of the politicians who are trying to restrict collective bargaining and cut pensions going to refund the money to individual taxpayers?

Who the?

The only thing clear here is that you are fabricating a position for me. I do not have a position on what an appropriate income tax rate for corporations would be. Dan knows this; he has asked me the same question in the past, and I've given him the same answer. If you two like hashing over numbers, then you can discuss the joys of a 28% versus a 31% tax rate. And you can try egging someone else into arguing with you. I'm not interested in doing that either.

Dan D.:

Did you run for the school board a couple years back? I don't remember seeing your name.

The following is the current Federal tax payments (refunds) by Bank of America for the last three years (in millions).

2008..............................$5,075
2009...............................(3,576)
2010...............................( 666)

Net taxes paid in last three years $833 million

And Bof A lost $1.3 billion in 2010 and still accrued almost $1 billion in tax expense.

They get numerous writeoffs including some writeoffs from prior years amounting to almost $20 billion they have not been able to use. I think B of A (or for that matter, most financial institutions) are a bad example since they have shouldered the burden of the economic losses in the last three years. I still question if B of A is a viable institution.

Just some thoughts.

Update: Governor Walker says he will comply with the court order and halt implementation of the bill.

Yes, the language of the court order did forbid only the Secretary of State from publishing the bill. But the order also included the statement "the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 is enjoined", which means implementation of the bill was forbidden.

Sumi clarified the language in the original order and admonished those in the Walker administration who have gone ahead and acted as though the legislation was now officially enacted. Her comments in court said it all:

"Now that I've made my earlier order as clear as it possibly can be, I must state that those who act in open and willful defiance of the court order place not only themselves at peril of sanctions, they also jeopardize the financial and the governmental stability of the state of Wisconsin. Apparently that language was either misunderstood or ignored, but what I said was 'the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 is enjoined.' That's what I now want to make crystal clear."

So since Walker has already implemented the bill's changes, he technically is already in contempt of court. If he does not cease implementing the bill immediately, then he is making the choice to willfully defy a court order.

Who the?:

I asked Dan D to weigh in on your comments. He's another "mechanic" on this blog who knows more about corporate taxes than I do and likes to talk numbers, but it doesn't look like he's interested. Not to be rude, but I'm not interested either. Bank of America paid no U.S. federal taxes in 2009. This is common knowledge, and even BoA doesn't dispute it.

If anyone else here wants to pursue this with you, fine with me. I'll be happy to "listen" in.

Ponce:

Can you actually believe Wisconsin? It's not what is happening but HOW it is happening. First the Republican legislature violates the Open Meetings Act then pulls an end run around a court order to get their law into effect. The judge has reiterated her ruling and has told the Republican governor to stand down. We'll see if he does or is held in contempt of court.

What is noticeably absent is all the screaming from the right wing talking heads. Bachmann, Palin, Gingrich, all those Republican presidential hopefuls, senators and congresspeople, have not spoken an ill word about Scott Walker violating the Wisconsin constitution, ignoring a court order, thumbing his nose at the system of governmental checks and balances. Basically, acting like a dictator flaunting the law and doing as he pleases. Nothing but silence from the people who, if Scott Walker were a democrat, would be screaming about gangsta government, nuclear options, shoving this down the throat of the people, ignoring the will of the people, fascism, communism, Nazis, blah blah blah. Not even the conservatives on this blog will go there.

What this says to me is that conservatives are fine with elected officials violating the constitution and breaking laws when it gets them what THEY want. What is that old quote, "when fascism comes to America, it will be holding a Bible in one hand and a flag in the other"? Looks like we're witnessing it.

Seriously?:

"Do any of you . . . really think the legislatures will refund the money to the tax payers if there is a surplus?"

W. Bush did it when he first took office.

They do have a lot in common that's for sure .... though the Governor hasn't started suing his own taxpayers (yet).

T.B.:

I first read it here, a place where few dare to tread:

"Meanwhile, the share of corporate tax revenue funding the state government has fallen by half since 1981 and, according to Wisconsin Department of Revenue, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/15/wisconsin-state-workers-p_n_823476.html

So I looked into it, and found this study, Wisconsin's Revenue Gap: an Analysis of Corporate Tax Avoidance, which stated:

"Almost fifty thousand corporations filed tax returns with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue in 2005. Two out of three returns showed a bottom-line tax of zero dollars."

http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/publications_pdfs/tax/wi_revenue_gap_12_2007.pdf

I also found this partisan facebook entry online:

Why 2/3 of Corp's pay no taxes in WI. - Great Rebutal (sic) to the "fact" spewing liberal!

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=175773709136157

I know small businesses can choose to count their profits as personal income and pay taxes on it that way, but there's definitely a lot of big businesses in that 2/3 number as well. For example, see Harley Davidson and Rockwell Automation­ in Wisconsin.

Aside from this facebook post, I have not seen anything that refutes the 2/3 statement, so I'm sticking with it. Here's a link to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, you can look into it further if you want:

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/report/index.html

Enjoy!

Hey Dan, Caterpillar is already leaving the state. The pompus a$$ Quinn said in a television interview they are not going anywhere. He had that glassy "I am a liar look" in his eyes and frankly, you know he is lying. In the last 5 years they have opened plants in Texas, Arkansas and Tennesse. (right to work states, part time legislatures and welcoming to business and JOBS) The reality is CAT is leaving the state in an incremental business plan. The question is will they retain ANY other mfg. operations and their corporate headquarters in Illinois? My guess is no given the trajectory they are traveling. The other side of the story is the supporting small machine shops and toolmakers and other suppliers of Caterpillar are also leaving with them. So it is not just CAT we are losing. And finally who can forget the One, Obama giving a speech in the CAT plant touting the fortunes of CAT and how wonderful they are. Liberal democratic economic policies are driving them out of Illinois and the same failed economics have driven them to open assembly operations in Brazil and other countries around the world. But then who needs greedy big business types when we can embrace crooked machine politicians with their shovel ready projects for you and me which generally move a lot of BS.

Here is a good Wall Street Journal article on how states that rely on the wealthy for tax receipts are having the largest issues.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html?KEYWORDS=state+tax+revenues

Interesting how economic fortunes for this group are most effected by the economy. The California state legislator who owns luxury car dealerships has his income cut in half, which is still very generous. He can live well, but he is not generating enough for the state.

And of course, as I predicted on this blog, Catepillar is looking to leave the state. The interesting dynamic is that the state will bribe them to stay and those of us with small businesses will subsidize them. That is WT concern.

So who is at fault in that one? Poor tax policy (corporate taxes in Illinois are too high) or the corporations?

We should move to recall Quinn. Republicans need 5 (or 10, not sure if there needs to be house and senate members of each party) to sign the action to start the signatures.

Smarter yet, let's put through the $6 billion in Republican cuts, cut the tax increase back to 4% for individuals and eliminate the corporate tax increase altogether. That would be better than more corporate welfare of Blago and Quinn.

Dan D:

Re this: "And to your further real issue is with the tax credits. Ok, advocate that all of them be evaluated and discussed with the idea that all should sunset unless extended. Have a "transparent" debate about each deduction."

And who's going to advocate this? Any of our elected leaders?

You saw what happened between GE and Rangel when GE had a tax deduction that was about to expire. GE got their deduction renewed, Rangel got 30 million. This is how our government works. You know very well there will never be "transparent" debates about tax deductions. Both legislators and big business like it that way.

Also, everyone knows that BoA did not pay any federal income tax in 2009. What is Who the? going on about? He's obviously missing a couple of pieces. Do you know which ones they are?

WT,

You lament on breaks and fairness. But you do not have a specific plan or amount.

What I said made sense, have corporations pay a tax, say 20% on net income as they report to the public. But have all shareholders report the income and a tax credit. To your point, then we would eliminate the double taxation.

And to your further real issue is with the tax credits. Ok, advocate that all of them be evaluated and discussed with the idea that all should sunset unless extended. Have a "transparent" debate about each deduction.

This could occur on the personal side as well. Should people be able to reduce their taxes for mortgage interest and local taxes? There was a big deal about reducing AMT, but the major benefit of that easing is to give taxpayers in Blue States with high local taxes a greater tax break. So taxpayers in Texas have to subsidize those in New York and California.

This issue is very complex and everyone advocates for a position for somebody else to pay more taxes. And it is not just the wealthy.

Dan D:

Yes, I understood that eliminating the gas tax would apply only to the Federal level. The federal gov has done an excellent job with the interstate connection road system, I don't see why you want to fix something that's not broke. The federal government allocates money to the states to build roads, nearly the full amount, and the states build, own and operate the roads. It's worked fabulously so far.

Interestingly, Eisenhower favored a toll superhighway network, but it was believed that revenue from tolls on most segments would not support the bonds issued for their construction. Congress eventually decided that the country needed a toll-free express highway network. Since federal highways are paid for with gas taxes, I don't know what you mean by this system stealing from the rich to give to the richer.

I do think you have a pronounced bias against anything the federal government does. You say things like "local governments do a better job" and "the government does nothing right, they encourage bad behavior". This is far from true, the federal government does many things well and more economically than the private sector could. Not everything, far from it, but definitely some things. The fact that you continue to deny this just shows me that you mind is shut to the possibility.

And I caught the sarcasm this time on the Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes. See, I can be taught!

"I think conservatives expect everyone to pull their weight. In doing so, we don't need the nanny state. Only to catch the down and out, temporarily."

I detect a lot more meanness in this than just "pulling your own weight". It's more like a return to the law of the jungle, the strong eat the weak. I had hoped we'd evolved past that.

A hundred years ago (according to my kids) when I was a college freshman, my first major was social work. I volunteered at the dept of social work to get experience, and realized in a matter of weeks that social work, as it was being administered at that time, was not for me. I had never seen so much enabling in my life. There were social workers who had worked with the same dysfunctional people and families FOR YEARS. These people were simply gaming the system, and the social workers allowed it. I couldn't stand that, so I switched my major to public health and got out of there.

I'm saying I understand your annoyance at people who don't pull their own weight, they are definitely out there and always will be. They exist in every culture on the face of the earth. But I'm not jaded enough to condemn everyone who can't pull their own weight, I've also known a lot of people who have had bad things happen to them that they don't deserve. There but for the grace of God go I. So I'm not arrogant enough to think that just because I do everything "right", I'll never find myself in their shoes. My impression from your writings is that you never think you will be. Just another difference.

Yep, Obama and GE are sympatico. But since 2/3 all of U.S. corporations pay no federal income tax, GE is not the whole problem, just part of it. This continual granting of tax breaks for wealthy corporations, when the country is carrying such a huge deficit that lawmakers are ending tax breaks for low income earners and services for the poorest among us, is obscene. If these companies paid SOMETHING, even if it wasn't their entire fair share, that would be better than nothing. Compare the special tax consideration the mega corps get to what small businesses don't get, and it makes your head spin. Small business gets lip service while big business gets tax breaks!

Fun to see we all caught the same NYT article!

Anon ONE: If a plant relocated to, say, Wisconsin, it would help the state tax base because the workers would be paying state income tax on their earnings, but the business wouldn't be. States competing for businesses by offering lower or no state taxes and other incentives really are just cannibalizing each other. It shifts the work force around but doesn't add to it.

My comment about eliminating the gas tax applies to the Federal level, not the state level. Local governments do a better job. The Federal government does not build as single road. Instead, they take money off the top for "administration" and make complicated allocation methods, most of which steal from the rich and give to the richer (Illinois is a net exporter of Federal tax dollars; our money goes to the Sun Belt).

My comment about toll roads is to address the concern that states would not build critical connections to the interstate highway system. For example, if a state like Wyoming blocked interestate highways, the Feds could build the connection (with not exit ramps) to connect two states. But the road would need to be a toll road, so that no general taxation is used to funrd the road.

And you laid out B of A's tax deductions. Local governments would have to pay more for capital projects, B of A supports them. Affordable housing would cost more; the tax credits support them. Change the law, do not provide affordable housing. Or make more public housing like we had at Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor homes, major successes!! (being sarcastic).

I think conservatives expect everyone to pull their weight. In doing so, we don't need the nanny state. Only to catch the down and out, temporarily. We have had this discussion. The government does nothing right, they encourage bad behavior.

ICU:

True enough, I did do that. But if you go back and look, the taunting "my, my" reply only came out after you went off with the blue underlined post. After that I was out of it, so I think your comments, while sincere and welcomed, focus on me a bit too much. But let's move on.

"What exactly is a "fair share"? By this I mean a hard, real number.

I have answered this before, and will do so again: I have absolutely no idea. But this I do know: it should be greater than zero.

A tribute to WT, please note that Obama is a big GE supporter. The travesty is that small businesss cannot match GE in tax breaks. So small business is the backbone of our economy and they are paying the freight, not GE!!

How G.E. made $5.1 billion in the U.S. tax-free
Company is arguably the most masterful at limiting how much it pays General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010. The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bespectacled, bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009. Yet many companies say the current level is so high it hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals. Even as the government faces a mounting budget deficit, the talk in Washington is about lower rates. President Obama has said he is considering an overhaul of the corporate tax system, with an eye to lowering the top rate, ending some tax subsidies and loopholes and generating the same amount of revenue. He has designated G.E.’s chief executive, Jeffrey R. Immelt, as his liaison to the business community and as the chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and it is expected to discuss corporate taxes.

“He understands what it takes for America to compete in the global economy,” Mr. Obama said of Mr. Immelt, on his appointment in January, after touring a G.E. factory in upstate New York that makes turbines and generators for sale around the world.

A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.

Company officials say that these measures are necessary for G.E. to compete against global rivals and that they are acting as responsible citizens. “G.E. is committed to acting with integrity in relation to our tax obligations,” said Anne Eisele, a spokeswoman. “We are committed to complying with tax rules and paying all legally obliged taxes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to our shareholders to legally minimize our costs.”

The assortment of tax breaks G.E. has won in Washington has provided a significant short-term gain for the company’s executives and shareholders. While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.

But critics say the use of so many shelters amounts to corporate welfare, allowing G.E. not just to avoid taxes on profitable overseas lending but also to amass tax credits and write-offs that can be used to reduce taxes on billions of dollars of profit from domestic manufacturing. They say that the assertive tax avoidance of multinationals like G.E. not only shortchanges the Treasury, but also harms the economy by discouraging investment and hiring in the United States.

“In a rational system, a corporation’s tax department would be there to make sure a company complied with the law,” said Len Burman, a former Treasury official who now is a scholar at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “But in our system, there are corporations that view their tax departments as a profit center, and the effects on public policy can be negative.”

The shelters are so crucial to G.E.’s bottom line that when Congress threatened to let the most lucrative one expire in 2008, the company came out in full force. G.E. officials worked with dozens of financial companies to send letters to Congress and hired a bevy of outside lobbyists.

The head of its tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.

G.E. officials say the donation was granted solely on the merit of the project. “The foundation goes to great lengths to ensure grant decisions are not influenced by company government relations or lobbying priorities,” Ms. Eisele said.

Response to WT comments.

"My understanding is that federal highway funds are used for A LOT of road building, maintenance and repair."

Yes, but those funds are derived from the Federal gasoline tax, not the income taxes. My opinion is that the Federal gas tax should be eliminated and state and local governments should take 100% responsibility to fund roads. If the Federal government feels that a road should be built, then they should do so and make it a toll road. No cost to the taxpayer at all.

"I do know that in 2009, many corporations such as Bank of America, ExxonMobil, and General Electric made huge profits but paid nothing in income taxes. "

First, a caveat. I have not done exhaustive studying of the financial statements of these companies. But a couple of comments. Bank of America almost went bankrupt. They have enough loan losses that they can go years without paying taxes. I bet they would have been happy not to purchase Merrill Lynch, not incur the losses, and pay taxes. But they were forced by the Federal government to take the losses and now they do not have to pay taxes. Once they use up these losses, then they pay taxes.

General Electric lost money on loan plus they were given the tax writeoffs for creating new jobs and investing in new equipment under the Obama stimulus. And ExxonMobile was granted special tax writeoffs for depletion allowances to encourage US oil drilling.

They are not paying taxes because they had lost money or are addressing public policy passed by Congress. They are complying with the law. If there is a problem, fix the law. That is being proposed. End these special tax breaks and lower the tax rate to 20%. I say 0%.

Dan D:

"Did you notice the contradiction in your post? Initially, you rhetorically question whether corporations pay their fair share. Then you comment that it would be difficult, maybe impossible, to allocate costs of government activities to beneficiaries."

Yes, it would be nearly impossible to identify the beneficiaries of every single government service and bill everyone separately. You're talking about 400 MILLION people, the entire population of the U.S. Can you imagine the size and scope of the government that would be needed to do this? I thought conservatives were for smaller government, not gargantuan government. That's why general taxes are used instead, and as a result, some people pay for services they don't directly use. That's the system we chose, because the alternative would be nearly impossible to do. I don't see this as a contradiction at all; it's common sense.

"Not to put words into your blog (mouth), but you lament that corporations have these vast amounts of funds that are being hoarded and government is entitled to these funds."

I think you are putting words in my blog! This is the second time you have said that I am complaining about corporations "hoarding" cash, when I haven't mentioned this at all. I haven't even alluded to it. I don't care about that. I'm talking about corporations not paying their fair share to support the infrastructure that they use.

But for "general government services", that should be shared by the people, all of the people. Since they do not relate to the production of goods and services, why layer this on top?

I'm not sure I follow this statement. If "they" is general government services, then you're saying that general government services are not related to the production of goods and services. I completely disagree. Corporations DO use general government services, and a lot of them. Their businesses could not function without these general government services. If corporations had to build their own water lines and sewers, their own electrical stations and power lines, build and maintain their own airports and roads, buy their own garbage trucks and take their refuse to the dump themselves, maintain their own police force and fire stations in case of an emergency, etc etc, these corporations couldn't afford to do business. In fact, they most likely wouldn't exist. And yet many corporations pay no state or federal taxes towards the maintenance of our infrastructure. That's my point.

Dan D:

Forgot. About this comment "No income tax is intended to be used for roads so they are paying their fair share."

My understanding is that federal highway funds are used for A LOT of road building, maintenance and repair. Local money for roads comes from things like gas and property taxes. State income tax is not intended to be used for roads, but federal dollars are used and that comes from federal income tax.

I do know that in 2009, many corporations such as Bank of America, ExxonMobil, and General Electric made huge profits but paid nothing in income taxes. Bank of America posted a $4 billion profit in 2009 yet paid not a dime in federal income tax. That same year, ExxonMobil posted the largest annual profit in U.S. history, $45.22 billion, and yet paid not one dime in federal income taxes. The list goes on and on.

So if these mega corps are not paying state income taxes or very little (depending on the state) and no federal taxes at all, how can they possibly be paying their "fair share"? And per your last post, it looks like corporations are also trying shenanigans like the property tax swap to get out of paying their fair share of property taxes as well. Can you really look at this picture and tell me there's nothing wrong with it?

I think the comments all come down to what role you think governement should have. Did you notice the contradiction in your post? Initially, you rhetorically question whether corporations pay their fair share. Then you comment that it would be difficult, maybe impossible, to allocate costs of government activities to beneficiaries. Just noting.

Not to put words into your blog (mouth), but you lament that corporations have these vast amounts of funds that are being hoarded and government is entitled to these funds. Again, not true. There are shareholders who are entitled to this money, it belongs to them.

I reiterate that companies should pay their fair share. Even if it is not precise. Like all of the oil regulation costs should be paid by the drillers. Medical costs for work related issues should be paid by companies, not general health insurance. Etc.

But for "general government services", that should be shared by the people, all of the people. Since they do not relate to the production of goods and services, why layer this on top? Further, depending on how you assess the cost could create unintended economic consequences. just a thought.

Dan D:

Individuals pay fuel tax and vehicle registration fees and FICA also. I recognize that there are probably other regulatory fees that corporations pay that individuals never see, but if we don't know what they are much less if they are sufficient, how can we judge if corps are paying their fair share or not? I've never heard about any other fees or taxes that corporations are required to pay being a burden on their business like state, federal, and property taxes are, so my impression is that these other regulatory fees aren't much of an issue for them. So if corps can avoid the majority of state and federal taxes, it seems that if they're not getting a totally free ride, they're still getting a mighty cheap one. Much cheaper than individual taxpayers get.

I did think you were serious about the property tax swap; missed the sarcasm on that one. I was appalled when I read that the Chamber would support such a thing, but I probably shouldn't have been. Doesn't the C of C act like a sort of union for big business? Businesses join the Chamber and pay dues, don't they? And the Chamber lobbies for business interests, even at the expense of the individual taxpayer, as the property tax transfer idea shows. That's something to think about.

And I know if you impose taxes, those costs, like everything else, is passed on to the consumer. But that's not a good enough reason in itself to not tax at all. Shouldn't we allow these price increases to be worked out competitively in the marketplace?

National defense benefits BOTH individuals and corporations. A shaky country scares away investors. It would be convenient for every cost of government to be assigned beneficiaries and have just those people pay, but implementing this would be impractical if not impossible. It would create an accounting nightmare and a huge government bureaucracy to go along with it. General taxes are a lot easier to keep track of and collect.

Dan D:

I'm surprised Williams didn't clarify this, that the poll he cited wasn't of all likely Wisconsin voters but just likely Republican voters, and that it wasn't a poll of how popular Walker is in Wisconsin, it was a poll of how popular he is compared to other possible Republican presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. Compared to those folks, he had the highest approval rating, 55%. This poll had nothing to do with how favorably Walker is viewed by Wisconsinites as opposed to his union rivals, so it was a misrepresentation to use it in that context. This is precisely why you need to be cautious of opinion poll results.

It probably is very easy to bias an opinion poll; who you ask and how you ask the question can give very different results. I was watching Bill O'Reilly one night during the Wisconsin stand-off, and he cited an opinion poll that said the majority of Wisconsinites were supportive of Scott Walker's actions. I can't remember what poll he was referring to, but what I do remember is Bill saying that this poll was "proof" that the left, which cited different polls and results, continued to lie to the American people. I think the real truth is Bill's poll was probably just as biased and just as big of a lie as the polls cited by the liberal left he disparages.

This is why I brought forward the Rasmussen results. This is the most recent poll that specifically addresses the Walker/union issue, plus other conservatives on this blog have used Rasmussen Poll results to support comments, so I think Rasmussen is viewed fairly well on both sides of the isle.

But given how easy it is to skew poll results, and how quickly public opinion can change, it is dangerous to consider opinion polls a "de facto" method of voting by the American people. This is why no one in their right mind would govern by them. Bush and Cheney didn't, and Obama isn't either (remember our previous discussion on this?).

Regarding Alvarez, the collective bargaining raises were just the last straw in a long line of offenses that angered Miami voters. Alvarez also gave hefty raises to all his inner circle staff. And he had the insensitivity to drive around town in a BMW 500i Gran Turismo, which taxpayers helped subsidize. His message of tough times and shared sacrifice clearly didn't apply to him or his staff, and the raising of property taxes was the final blow. I don't think it's so much a matter of voters waking up to the evils of collective bargaining. In lean times, people simply care more about their own personal budgets than they do the government's.

As far as the recall efforts against Walker and the governor of Michigan, only time will tell.

I think that corporations pay separately for the services that they consume. For roads, they pay motor fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, and interstate commerce charges. No income tax is intended to be used for roads so they are paying their fair share.

Many of the other uses of infrastructure by corporations are funded through property taxes. And corporations do pay. They pay FICA. They pay other regulatory fees that an individual never sees.

To the extent that these separate taxes or user fees are insufficient, then I guess they get an indirect subsidy. But the answer is not in raising general taxation, rather raise the specific taxes and user fees to fund the service.

And you misinterpretted or overlooked two comments I made. First, you could tax a corporation, but then provide a pass through credit for such taxes to the ultimate recipiant (an individual stock holder, a pensionnaire, etc.). If the ultimate owner was not an American taxpayer, then there would be not credit.

II also do not support the property/income tax swap since it would result in corporations not paying their fair share as you alluded. I was being sarcastic in the nice swap comment.

And who does national defense benefit? People or corporations? Again, taxes on corporations are a pass through. Either higher prices to consumers or lower return to providers of capital. That is why I oppose a value added tax (national sales tax). It simply increases costs.

I think that every cost of government needs to be assigned a beneficiary and the benefactor should finance. In the old days, people paid insurance premiums to support fire departments. If you did not pay your insurance, the fire department did not fight the fire. INow we have general taxes.

While I hope this clarifies my positoin, I will admit their are gray areas that get lost in the debate.

More to an Anon -

Lastly, your remarks sometimes are personal and insulting. Please express your opinion without personal attacks. It's not helpful to the forum and takes away from your credibility.

T.B.

----------------------

It would be appropriate to give the same advice to ICU.

Not sure what post started this - but ...... I agree in principle, except that saying that all Democrats consider bigger government the answer is exactly the same as saying that no Republicans care anything for the poor or or the working poor. While it is certainly true that the extremists on both side appear to feel that way - there are plenty of people who can lean toward one party or the other without relying on big government or being heartless and greedy.

I didn't intend to say that Rush wasn't an example of what Dan was saying, I was simply saying that he is a bad example to use if someone wants to be taken seriously. The use of Jimmy Johns, or any other company that moves due to taxes they find too constrictive would be fine - understandable and make the point beautifully. ANYTIME Rush Limbaugh is used to make a point, in my opinion, that point get's lost. As soon as that name comes us - I see a greedy pandering idiot who does nothing but damage to the country by promoting anger and fear by twisting facts and telling outright lies. The point Dan made was fine, but it was lost in the example instead of made clearer by it.

I admit to getting a bit too angry at some times ..... comments like those of ICU are offensive to me, and I get so tired of people like him that sometimes I can't help but retaliate. This topic is personal for me - not because I am a member of a public union - but simply because I think the big picture here is VERY VERY dangerous if it is allowed to continue. I get that there are two sides to every issue - but too often on this topic all I hear is the side being dictated by those like Gov. Walker. I have nothing but respect for anyone who has TRULY considered both sides of the situation - but I don't hear much of that right now.

No, actually, I was sincere - I wanted to know what poll it was - but some people, and apparently THIS anonymous are a little paranoid I guess. I honestly believed that Dan had seen a poll that reflected the figures he sighted - I had just heard something so very different, I was wondering if either his points, or mine, were coming from a more or less reliable source.

My my - some people become so cranky when their lack of sense is pointed out to them.

Since we are playing let's say it again "Just as it is a waste of time to try to engage the brain dead in a rational discussion, especially a deaf dumb and blind GOP hack like yourself.

Was that supposed to be fun? I got the impression you got a kick out of it, but I don't see the thrill.

It's great you supported Clinton - I voted for the FIRST Bush, and was seriously considering McCain until he decided to sell out and start appealing to the lowest common denominator - much like the GOP you are following now do on a daily basis.

Opps, I guess that means YOU are the lowest common denominator doesn't it. Sad, but not at all surprising.

Dan D:

If my comments about corporations reflect a certain philosophy to you, I'm not aware of what that philosophy is. My comments do reflect what I see about the way things work. You don't think corporations should pay any taxes, because the profits of a business are passed to individuals, which results in double taxation. I suppose it could mean this, but only for those individuals who get income from the corporation. But there's one thing I can't get folks that think as you do to explain to me.

I mentioned this in my last post, but again it was side-stepped. Here it is: any corporation cannot exist or do business without a functioning infrastructure in place. As I said before, businesses need roads, airports, electricity, water, garbage pick-up, etc, etc. These services are provided by the state and paid for from tax revenue. If a corporation's building catches fire, the fire dept., paid for by tax revenue, puts it out. If a crime is committed that involves the corporation, the police, paid for by tax revenue, are called. Businesses need a functioning state court and legal system which is paid for by, you guessed it, tax revenue. And most important of all, the corporation needs a safe country in which to conduct business and thrive, which requires national defense, paid for by state and federal tax revenue.

Corporations also use a disproportionate amount of these infrastructure services, and by disproportionate, I mean they use a lot more of them than individuals do. Corporations run up a much bigger tab than you and me. So why in the world do you think they should be exempt from paying any share of maintaining the infrastructure, without which they could not exist?

One thing I've noticed about conservatives is how they resent paying for anything they don't use or directly benefit from. Yet this is exactly what you endorse in regards to letting corporations off the tax hook. You want to pass their share of infrastructure maintenance to hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who in no way have anything at all to do with that corporation, who don't benefit in any way from what the corporation does.

Look what you have endorsed in #3 of your last post. You said corporations lobbied to have property taxes decreased by 50% and have this paid for by increasing income taxes. You call this a nice swap because it shifted the responsibility of taxes to individuals. You bet the CofC supported it, I would love such a deal too! I would love to have my property tax decreased by 50% and have all Illinois taxpayers pay for it through increased taxes on their income. How can you possibly consider this "fair"?

Corporations do pay other taxes, but so do individuals. We pay all kinds of other taxes too besides state and federal taxes. But I resent footing the tab for big businesses who make millions or billions in profits yet feel they should not pay a drop towards repairing the street in front of their building, or paying for the firefighters who come to their place of business in an emergency, or pay for repairs to the electrical substation that gets damaged by lightening, even tho they often get service restored before the individual taxpayers who are actually paying for the repairs.

And in addition to benefiting from the state infrastructure for free, they also get a pass on federal income taxes also, which means they don't even help support the national defense on which their existence relies.

You said that everyone should pay for government, that free rides result in corruption. Yet everyone to you does not include corporations? Some of the biggest corporations in the U.S. are getting a free ride, both on the state and national level. Any wonder why we currently have so much white collar corruption?

I heard this poll from Juan Williams, formerly of NPR and a Democratic sympathizer, who quoted it on the Don and Roma show Friday morning. I did some checking and this poll was of likely Republican voters for presidential elections.

The other polls were conducted about a month ago and seemed very partisan.

I found this quote from Real Clear Politics (I confess, I do not know what position they reflect).

"But Democrats and labor may be overly optimistic. Their base is energized, but so is the Republican base. There are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals in the state (Wisconsin), according to Gallup.

A Rasmussen poll March 8 indicated likely voters in Wisconsin opposed weakening collective bargaining rights, 57 percent to 39 percent. But the same poll showed support for Mr. Walker on specific provisions. For instance, only 19 percent think school districts should be required to buy health insurance from a union-owned company.

This suggests the more voters learn about the issues in controversy, the less they support the unions. A Gallup poll Feb. 22 showed 61 percent opposed weakening collective bargaining for public employee unions. But in a Gallup poll March 9, Americans supported, 49 percent to 45 percent, "changing state laws to limit the bargaining power of state employee unions," although the question was worded a bit differently."

Another quote

"The primary purpose of public unions today, as ugly as it sounds, is to work against the financial interest of taxpayers," said Mark McKinnon, a self-described "centrist" who's worked for both parties.

Taxpayers are catching on. In Miami Tuesday, 88 percent voted to recall Mayor Carlos Alvarez because he raised taxes and then gave public employees a big raise.

Again, I was repeating what I heard on the radio. If you Google Scott Walker polls, you find bias information taken during the debacle. Nothing current. Only time will tell.

On your last point about Limbaugh. I was not quoting his opinion, rather noting his action. He relocated his operation totally out of New York to avoid the punitive New York taxes on the wealthy. Just like Jimmy John's is proposing.

And I did not limit the example to Limbaugh. I also noted that Depository Trust has moved many of its operations to Florida and Singapore. Citibank's credit card company is located in South Dakota due to taxes and regulation.

For those people with residences in Illinois and Florida, I think that many will change there legal residence to Florida to avoid the Illinois tax. In fact, some I know are simply abandoning Illinois altogether.

Use California as an example. California is losing population. If they did not count the illegals, they would have lost representatives. No different than many of our ancessors abandoned Europe to come to the United States to avoid government oppression and lack of opportunity. Democratic rule is destroying this state and it probably cannot be repaired.

First, Ms. What If?, a very cordial response.

Some thoughts on your comments.

1. Corporate taxes. This is a very loaded issue. First, I do not think corporations should pay any tax. Ultimately, their profits are passed to individuals and that results in double taxation. Now there are some flaws in my comment. Pension plans don't pay taxes, but pensionaires do. Foreign stockholders might not owe taxes. Maybe a system where shareholders get a credit on their tax returns for taxes paid by a corporation (so foreigners would not get the benefit).

2. Corporations generally don't pay taxes since they lose money. Your comment should be that tax breaks that contribute to losses should be eliminated. But those tax breaks were integral to the Obama stimulus (the ability to expense capital expenditures immediately, for example). You can't have it both ways.

3. Corporations do pay other taxes. Fifteen years ago corporations were lobbying to reduce property taxes by 50% with a corresponding increase in income taxes. Nice swap. Corpoartions pay 50% of property taxes through the state adn 15% of the income tax. So the Chamber supported it since it would have shifted taxes to individuals.

4. In short, your comments about corporations reflect an "philosophy" (I purposely did not want to use the word attitude to keep the standards of this post up) that somehow they hoard wealth (in contrast to cash). That is not the case. Rather, if a company sits on hoards of cash, they will be taken over by Wall Street sharks to get that money. Probably the biggest change I have noted in the last 20 years is that the risks are higher and returns lower. So many companies really want to give up. Carl Icahn just recently returned $2 billion to his investors and said it was not the time to invest in American business.

5. I think that everyone should pay for government. Free rides result in coruption. But saying that, when I looked at the history of the income tax (going back to 1916), I was surprised that it was implemented to make the rich support the masses. It was not until Reagan cut the top rate to 28% that madness stopped (for example, under Roosevelt, tax rates were 90% on the wealthy. Interestingly, they stopped earning income!!!). Except for the real rich (I don't know the cutoff, but it is at least $1 million in earnings if they have no debt, more with debt), all people struggle, just to diferent degrees.

Again, that is the dirty secret. The Federal government raises an additional $1 trillion if they increase the incremental tax on people making more that $250,000 to 40%. They raise far less if the cutoff point is $1 million.

6. To your last point about incentives. First, if a person can never pay back the bill (either through the 10% tax surcharge or from their estate when they die), then they never pay back. When welfare was a loan (as recently as the 1940's, by the way), the recovery ratios were 50 to 70%. But people did not flaunt the system.

You are right, there will always be people who cannot pay (and only a small percentage of them will be deadbeats). My thoughts are that if you promote responsibility, people wil becomce responsible.

7. One observation on pensions. Public pensions were generous since public employees were paid below the level of their counterparts in the private sector (I know there is a debate on this issue, but that was the reason. One way to check would be to take median income and compare it to public sector. In Naperville, median worker income was $72,000, teachers were not far off. A historical review might be insightful). In fact, it was generally perceived that they were paid 20 to 40% less. Now that they have closed this gap, their pensions remained in lockstep, so they have gone up 20 to 40%. If public pensions had limits like social security, then I do not think we would have this crisis.

But note, nobody is willing to discuss this issue rationally, Maybe now that Wisconsi Public sector salaries are competitive, they need to pay something.

And lastly, the employees pay union dues based on "forced" withholding imposed on the government. The unions are fearful that people will not pay without this forced withholding. Just to be accurate. Collection and participation rates in private sector service unions without such coercion are not at 100%.

Where are your poll numbers on Walker taken from? I haven't been doing research, but the last time I heard anything 64% of the people in Wisconsin supported the workers. I'm just curious how numbers could change that much in the small amount of time since the attack was forced through.

OH, and Dan, I do support Obama, but I am anything but a big fan of Quinn. I absolutely would have voted for any decent Republican candidate in the last election, but Brady was just too far from sane. I am tired of supporting the lesser of all evils in every election, so if Illinois ever wants to put up a Candidate that has an ounce of sense or integrity, I won't care at all what party they are with, I'll be thrilled to run to the polling place to vote for them.

Just one tip though too - in any debate, be it with What the .... or me ..... or basically anyone with a functioning brain, don't use the fact that Rush Limbaugh did anything in support of any idea you want taken seriously. Only the truly dense and easily frightened believe a word that comes out of that overblown idiots mouth. Find an example that isn't repulsive in every possible way, and you could be taken seriously.

Dan:

"Second, listen to what is happening in Wisconsin. After the brutal assault on Scott Walker, his ratings came in last week. Approval 55%, Disapproval 11%. Obama would love these numbers. Despite a one month ambush by the liberal left media, he won."

I know how much you like tying your wagon to opinion polls, but the poll that you are referring to was a phone survey by a group called Public Policy Polling from March 10-13. The 55% approval rating you quote was found among REPUBLICAN VOTERS ONLY! When you consider that Walker has only a 55% approval rating among his own base, with 11% disapproving, that leaves 34% still undecided. And you're not even counting non-Republicans yet. So I would hardly call these numbers a "win" for Walker.

We've discussed this before, you need to be cautious with opinion poll results. I've seen opinion polls that claim 55% DISAPPROVAL of Walker. Results largely depend on who you ask and how you ask the question. I've seen Fox News and MSNBC cite different opinion polls with very different results nearly on the same day. Conservatives cite polls that support their narrative, and liberals do the same.

The latest Rasmussen Poll of ALL WISCONSIN VOTERS shows Walker's approval rating at 43% and disapproval rating at 57%. You said Obama would love a 55% approval rating. Well, guess what? He has that in Wisconsin. This same poll shows Obama's approval rating STATEWIDE at 55%! So Obama DOES have these numbers. Scott Walker doesn't. Hardly a "win" at all:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/wisconsin/wisconsin_governor_walker_43_approval_rating

Anon reflects a "real" Democrat, the people who vote for Obama and Quinn even though they do not know these guys are "using" people like him/her.

First, I agree.with all of his comments. Most importantly, the comment about fair. Taxes should be fair, pensions should be fair, salaries should be fair.

Second, listen to what is happening in Wisconsin. After the brutal assault on Scott Walker, his ratings came in last week. Approval 55%, Disapproval 11%. Obama would love these numbers. Despite a one month ambush by the liberal left media, he won.

Third, I am ok with taxes. But let's have a rational debate. The big issue for the oil companies is the depletion allowance. I know this generally, but not intimately. This is why they get "tax breaks". This was implemented to encourage American oil production. Instead of bombast by opponents, put forth appropriate changes. Nothing will be accomplished by just complaining.

By the way, this bombast is true of government accross the board. The Illinois Republicans proposed $7 billion of spending cuts and asked Quinn and his boys to pick $5 billion. Quinn's response, "i don't talk to those guys."

Look at the Democratic tax increase. It is drving business out of Illinois (why would any company within 15 miles of the Wisconsi or Indiana border locate in Illinos?). But more interesting, it hits the typcial family of 4 makiing $50,000 with a $900 increase. This Flynn lady said that was "needed". To sustain or expand a welfare state, EVERYBODY has to pay. The wealthy cannot support it.

My last comment. Taxes drive businesses out. We know Rush Limbaugh has moved to Florida to escape New York taxes. More interesting, the main clearing house for bond transactions have moved major portions of their operatons from New York to Floriday and SHANGHAI. The New York Stock exchange as well. Do you see why Cuomo is not raising taxes any more?

Just some thoughts.

Dan D:

The situation you pose in your question doesn't exist. The government does not collect union dues. Dues come from government workers, but the unions themselves are not run by the government. So the government is not acting as a collection agency for union dues. This may make a fine talking point, but it isn't factual.

As for your other points, I can't say I entirely disagree with some of them, but I do think we're talking about separate things.

Class warfare is exactly what's happening right now, and the war has been started by several Republican governors. To deny this would be dishonest. Scott Walker came into office with a surplus, which he immediately granted to the business sector in the form of tax breaks, creating a deficit which then needed to be filled by raising costs on public sector workers. A transfer of wealth from the lower economic class to the upper economic class. If Walker hadn't spent the surplus on tax breaks for business first, this wouldn't be seen as class warfare. But one can't cry poverty with a surplus, so he created a deficit to justify going after the unions, the dismantling of which will also make it harder for Obama or any other Democrat to win Wisconsin again, at least Republicans hope. To deny this would also be dishonest.

Gov. Rick Snyder of MI wants to reduce the tax burden on big businesses by 86 percent and pay for it by removing tax breaks for the working poor. He wants to end his state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, cutting a $600 per child tax credit for lower income families and cutting credits for seniors, while also reducing funding for public schools by 8-10 percent. Another transfer of wealth from the lower economic class to the upper.

This isn't about expecting the rich to pay ALL taxes, it's about expecting them to pay SOME taxes. Currently in Wisconsin, 2/3 of all big businesses pay NO state taxes. Nada, zilch, zero, nothing. Why should they be allowed to pay nothing while individuals have to? Those businesses use the infrastructure too, the roads, the utilities, the sewers that have to be maintained so their businesses can operate. They use the court system and get fire and police protection, and my guess is businesses use a larger proportion of these infrastructure services than individuals do. Why should the working poor in MI have to give up their tax breaks to big businesses?

I'm saying a highly regressive tax system, which seems to be what is forming in these states, is doomed to fail in the long run. The more government attacks people's personal budgets, the less those people are going to care about the government. And there's lots more of them than there are wealthy people, and they vote. Rick Synder of MI is eligible to be recalled as early as this July, so we'll see.

I will address one of your ideas tho, which you've mentioned before here:

"Make all unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other benefits loans. People pay them back with a 10% income tax surcharge for income over $50,000. And the government has first claim on their estate for any upaid amount. Not eliminating the social net, making it a loan rather than a gift we cannot afford."

Let's say UC became a loan program. While high income earners could afford to pay back such loans, many lower income earners could not. Someone out of work for a year, which was common in the last recession, could be looking at paying back a hefty amount. At what point does having to repay a large debt not make it worth returning to the work force at all? Wouldn't this kind of debt encourage people to stay unemployed indefinitely, thereby avoiding ever having to pay it back? I think such a loan program would actually discourage re-employment for lower income earners. How would you avoid this for people making under $50,000/yr?

Just as it is a waste of time to try to engage the brain dead in a rational discussion, especially a deaf dumb and blind GOP hack like yourself.

Do you really think any of your comments are useful? Even you can't be stupid enough to think they are funny.

ICU, stop wasting space and try getting an education.

Seems someone is definitely PO'd. Underlined AND all in blue! You guys sure don't like it when facts get in the way of your talking points. All I did was bring those facts to your attention. If you're going to cite FDR, you should cite him correctly.

BTW, I'm not asking you for a discussion. The Michigin governor IS acting like a dictator. Since you like throwing around the "commie" label so much, I'm surprised you missed this prime opportunity. But the MI gov is a Republican, and in the words of Gaylord Parkinson: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. (Ronald Reagan made this quote famous, but it did not originate with him, just so you know.)

Ok, will teachers making $100,000 want to pay the $1,000? Yes, until their last year. Here is more of the irony. The teacher making $100,000 pays the same union dues as the teacher making $40,000.

Question. Why should the government be a collection agency to fund political campaigns?

The rest of your comments are pure class warfare. How about all the rich people move to another country and let the rest fend for themselves? You and I have had this debate. You want all the benefits, but no responsibility.

Two interesting points (that you will of course disparage me).

1. Cullerton's proposal to tax pensions. If all pensions were taxed, the state would collect $1.6 billion (assuming nobody left the state!!). However, if only over $50,000 were taxed, the tax revenue falls to $276 million. If only over $100,000, then it is $70 million.

As you can see, taxing the wealthy has its limitations. There are similar statistics for Federal income taxes. If you taxed everyone making over $250,000 100%, Obama still has record deficits. The wealthy simply cannot pay all of the taxes.

2. Please explain why income should be taxed above 33%. Seriously. Did the prosperity under Clinton come about because taxes were at 28% and when he increased them to 39.6% that created the 2001 recession?

I do not know why people should expect social security and medicare if they do not pay for it. The entire program is terrible, make our children pay for us.

Simple plan.

1. After you recover all of the social security taxes you paid (over your lifetime), then 100% of additional social security benefits are taxed.

2. Work to convert social security to a real pension plan over the next 100 years (it will take that long).

3. Let people drop out, but then subject them to 100% taxes that include losing ALL of their assets if they have to borrow from the governement.

4. Make all unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other benefits loans. People pay them back with a 10% income tax surcharge for income over $50,000. And the government has first claim on their estate for any upaid amount. Not eliminating the social net, making it a loan rather than a gift we cannot afford.

5. Establish a premium for Medicare capped at a percent of income. Why should seniors get free health insurance at the expense of others.

6. When people die, the government would have a first claim to recover all payments that an individual did not make. Unreimbursed unemployment payments, Medicare premiums, everything.

While I am not a millionaire, I have more dignity than to ask others to pay for me. This is Real Change we can Believe In!!!!!

"Do you think that teachers making $40,000 want to voluntarily give these guys $1,000 so they can have power?"

Hey, Republicans have been calling that $40,000/yr teacher one of the working "elite". I thought the whole argument was they make too much money anyway, so $1000 shouldn't be too much to ask. It seems odd that in one post you're blasting union workers for making far too much, and in the next your sniggering about how someone making a paultry $40,000/yr won't be able to afford to part with $1000 for union dues. Which is it?

Just about everyone believes in balancing the budget IN PRINCIPLE. But average people are more interested in balancing their own personal household budgets than they are government budgets. I think any plan that increases the tax burden on the middle and lower-middle class while simultaneously reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and corporate classes is doomed to failure. There are a lot more people struggling to make ends meet, especially in a recession, than there are wealthy corporate ones.

Check out what's going on in Michigan, that's a even more daring union busting power grab, bordering on totalitarianism. What the Michigan governor proposes to do is exactly what Russia's Putin did when he came to power. Putin fired all the democratically elected local officials and replaced them with his lackeys. Where's all the Tea Partiers protesting about big government overreach now? Why isn't ICU on here calling the Michigan governor a commie?

It could be CPI plus 1%, haven't checked. But any pay raises over that would need to be approved by the voters through a referendum. I remember we did that here in Naperville many years ago--and it passed.

That's exactly right What The .... With the GOP right now, it is all about winning, they sure don't care if they hurt the middle class or the teachers or the guy who drives the snow plow. Those people aren't the support base they count on - it's the big corporations and the elite lobby groups who put money in their pockets.

Wisconsin should turn out to be a fatal mistake for them - so long as enough people take their noses out of fox news long enough to see who is hurt and who living high on their tactics. I know I won't be fooled into voting for one of these self promoting pretenders anytime soon - can only hope there are enough people out there who get it to crowd out the bloggers here who are too dense to look beyond the sound bites.

I posted this two days ago, but it didn't appear. So I'll try again:

Now that unions in Wisconsin can do nothing for their members but bargain for wages up to the CPI , there is little incentive to pay $1000/year in dues to a union that can do nothing else for you. At least that's what the Republicans are hoping for:

Scott Fitzgerald, Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader, told Megyn Kelly on a March 9 Fox News interview: "If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin."

This is the REAL reason for Republicans going after the unions, not only in Wisconsin but all the other states that went red this past election. We'll see how union members, which includes Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, feel about becoming collateral damage in the Republicans' quest to deny Obama a second term.

TB

I agree with you.

But as the commercial notes on Fox News and MSNBC, the president of the NEA says his union is not about educating students, rather the power they have in forced union fee collections. Imagine if these fees were optional. Do you think that teachers making $40,000 want to voluntarily give these guys $1,000 so they can have power?

And what party benefits from this power? And how has that helped the economy?

TB, Given Local and State Government Leaders today, there is no one who NEEDS a Union more than the Public Sector! If you worked for people who lie cheat and steal for a living, wouldn't you be looking for any protection you could find? I sure wouldn't my families well being determined by people like the Governor of Wisconsin, or the "leaders" right here at home.

Yep, just like that.

Gotta ask - does it hurt to have your mind slammed shut that tight? You really believe, even for a second, that your precious Governor is going take the money he steals from those public workers and use it to do things that make your life better? You are aware that that vast majority of Wisconsin businesses pay no taxes at all right? That's right, zero - so I guess that wasn't the concern when this small minded fear monger decided to break the Unions.

The Unions made concessions in this situation, and Walker wasn't interested in that - he wasn't interested in balancing the budget - his interest was to break the Unions, and whether you like it or not, the people who being punished in all this are no different than you - ok, maybe a little different - they weren't hateful bloggers with limited information trying to tell other people to think like them ..... but otherwise, they are very much the same.

Can't wait until the self promoting idiots you are so supportive get around to taking from you - it shouldn't take long.

"Now get off your narrow behind and get up to Madison and pitch in and clean up a magnificent structure you and people who think like you damaged to the tune of millions of dollars."

Millions of dollars! Typical Republican hype--like the $200 million a day state visit to India. The total clean up bill came to $350,000. Not a small amount to most of us, but far from "millions of dollars". You people will repeat anything that feeds into your biases. Suckers!

ICU:

Regarding this statement:

"FDR was absolute in his stance on unions for public employees ~~ he was AGAINST it!"

Not accurate. FDR was in favor of unions for public employees. What he was against was the right of public employees to STRIKE. Here is a link to his letter to Luther Steward on the Twentieth Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which is the document that serves as the standard bearer for FDRs stance on public unions.

In it, he writes he supports the right of public employees to organize:

"Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical."

FDR wasn't even against collective bargaining of public employees per sae, as this is what unions do. But he did understand that collective bargaining as it was applied to the private sector could not be transferred as is to the public sector, that the process of collective bargaining had special restrictions when applied to the public realm:

"Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. . . . The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress."

FDR was specifically against the use of strikes by public unions against government:

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

Most federal workers have their pay and benefits set by Congress, but they can collectively bargain over terms and conditions of employment besides pay and benefits. And federal employees are not allowed to strike.

http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/fdrs-letter-to-union-president-luther-steward-regarding-public-unions/

Yep, I KNOW what FDR's stance WAS, but if you had the capacity to look beyond your own swill, you would see that things today are not what they were then. FDR wasn't a bought and paid for politician like your plastic idol from Wisconsin. Government workers didn't have to protect themselves against people like FDR - but today? The vast majority of politicians would sell their own mother if they thought it would buy them a few votes and put some money in their pockets. Today, there is a better case for public unions than some areas of the private sector - most private sector employeers know they need qualified people if they are going to produce a quality product - but the faction of the GOP that is doing what Walker is couldn't care less about the quality of the product they give their citizens - they only care about themselves, their wallets, and who they can take from next.

ANNON: after reading and thinking about your 3/11 8:14 pm post, it is clear to me that you are unable and unwilling to grasp what is happening before you. Simply, the effort is to re-size the cost, size and scope of government. Taxpayers be they especially private citizens or corporate taxpayers can no longer afford the costs of government labor nor can the corporate taxpayer, from whom I earn my livelihood afford what unionized labor and its leaders are extorting from us under threats of strike, shutdowns, death threats against public officials AND their family members or other historic tactics they use to cost me more money from the budget of my family. In todays world we have reached a saturation point. I am not going to work hard and have more and more of my income taxed for the benefit of government, public employees and other financial follies at the hands of liberal politicians without a fight. Your rant about wealthy people and weathly corporations who enjoy their wealth is of no consequence to those of us who work hard everyday to keep our heads above water while our so called leaders ignore our plight. You can trash Gov. Walker all you like but he is exactly the kind of politician who had he been on the scene decades ago may have resulted in WS not being in the financial shape that it is with about 200,000 private sector jobs lost and moved elsewhere in the past 8 years. Complain all you care to about egomaniacs on this blog. Your gravy train is off the tracks and the reality is what happened in WS is actually of great benefit to the working class taxpayer little guy like me. Now get off your narrow behind and get up to Madison and pitch in and clean up a magnificent structure you and people who think like you damaged to the tune of millions of dollars. Another debt that will have to be born by the little guy taxpayer thank you very much.

UCI:

That's why the right to assemble is constitutionally protected--so it's not left up to a single individual's assessment of what's considered peaceful. Being obnoxious is not unlawful. If it were, most protesters would be in violation of it. And that includes the Tea Party.

Dan D:

How do you know what the real truth is if you don't know what's in the bill?

Here's a link to Senate Bill 11, the Budget Repair Bill:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

This is about more than just wages. It limits collective bargaining to base wages only; employees can no longer bargain for working hours, conditions or safety issues. It limits collective bargaining agreements to 1 year with no extensions. Members can no longer have union dues automatically deducted from their paychecks; in fact, members don't have to pay dues at all. And no public workers can strike. There's more when it gets to the pension and health care system.

Some of these things seem good but can be double-edged swords. For instance, a good thing is teachers can no longer strike and hold kids hostage to their demands. A not so good thing--teachers can't control the number of students per class anymore. They used to bargain for this. If the state now wants to increase class size way beyond optimal limits to save money, they can do that.

The Wisconsin people have already shown they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer. Two years after the end of the disastrous Bush administration, they vote in a Republican governor and legislation, who are now literally eating their lunch. Chances are by the next election, they will have forgotten again. Or not, there could be lots of blow back from this that will ensure a Democratic majority next time. We'll have to wait and see.

FDR would be turning in his grave if he knew what they did in Wisconsin. Let's see, workers who are at the complete mercy of corrupt politicians for the day to day livelyhood. Who needs a Union MORE than these people? Keep on telling yourself it's about an election, or that it's about a budget crisis. Truly, anyone who could believe that is too stupid to help. In Wisconsin, the Governor was bought by big business (Koch brother for starters, but of course there are more as well). Big business .... you know, the group that in Wisconsin pays no tax at all? The same group that once they are finished destroying the schools and the rest of the local services, will look to reduce the minimum wage - the same group that will eventually decide that you shouldn't make as much as you do.

Anyone who thinks that what happened in Wisconsin is anything but a disaster for the entire middle class is a complete idiot. Take a look back in History - take a look at what is happening today. Guess what. During the Great Depression, the wealthiest 10% of people accounted for almost 50% of the earnings - leaving only 50% to be split between 90% of the population. Guess what Skippy - those percentages are almost the a same today! Destroy the Unions, Public or Private, and that percentage will grow. If this is allowed to happen, next thing you know, that same 10 percent will control 55%, then 60%. I guess it depends on where you fall, but unless you are at least in the top 20% - there isn't going to be much left for you either.

BUT HEY, it's great - go get those greedy teachers, cops, firefighters, clerks, and equipment operators who are stealing ALL your money. Don't worry one BIT about the guys who are handing your money over to the mega corporations, or who are being bought by insurance industry lobbiests .... OF COURSE they have your best interests at heart.

The complete lack of common sense, compassion, or basic human decency on this site .... primarily attributed to a few condescending egomaniacs, is sickening. 90% of the problems this country has right now can be traced directly to people just like you. It isn't a case of being fiscally responsible - that can be done without devestating and eliminating the middle class. This is about being so self involved that you can't see beyond what the fringe element of the GOP shoves down your throats via Fox News and similar garbage on a daily basis - and see that your friends and neighbors are being put in jeopardy every day this is allowed to continue.

Dan - more like Fox news has NEVER reported anything accurately. Believe what you want about Brown - but if anyone who believes his drivel ever wakes up and realizes they have been taken for a ride - and that by harming the people who serve the City/State in favor of tax breaks for Billionaires and other self interests who contribute to guys like this in order to enrich themselves, I doubt he will become Mr. Popularity. Course, that won't happen in time to save most ...... it will be a few years before people like your beloved Gov. run out of public workers to steal from and decide you don't deserve what you earn either. Maybe when half the people who jumped on the stupidity bandwagon are working for $5 an hour 12 hours a day they will start to realize this might not have been the best move they ever made.

It's really very sad, some people will believe anything - and today, if it is mixed in with a little hate for anyone who isn't you - even more people will believe it.

ICU:

You're late to the discussion, so I'll fill you in.

At issue here has been the imagery displayed by the protesters signs. The imagery on those signs is the exact same stuff the Tea Party has been using. No conservatives complained about it here when the TP did it, but look how conservatives are howling now that the "left" is using those same signs!

And this isn't just the "Left" doing it, as Observing claimed. Many of those protesters are registered REPUBLICANS, therefore "Righties". Many of those protesters who are teachers, nurses, EMTs, etc., voted for Scott Walker and his legislators. Whether they make THAT mistake in the next election remains to be seen. But this isn't a left vs right issue, union members are not only Democrats, but Republicans and Independents as well. And the Wisconsin legislature has managed to alienate them all.

As for your comment, "Can you imagine TEA party people stroming a state house, going through windows, banging on windows and doors, using megaphiones indoors, etc?"

No, I can't. Many of them are too old to storm anything. Seriously, you've seen the crowds. There aren't many youngsters in that group, like at the WI rallys. The majority of TP people are age 46-64.

What the WI protesters are doing may not be your cup of tea (pun intended), but they have the right to "peaceably assemble", and they are exercising that right. Scott Walker called them "passionate protests" just last Sunday. No one has been arrested. Are they obnoxious? You bet. Are they acting illegally? No. That's what peaceful assembly is.

Question for all on this post.

What was the real wording of the proposed bill?

Collective bargaining was not eliminated. Instead, if a collective bargaining agreement resulted in a cost increase over cpi, it would have to be approved by a referendum. The bill does not allow governments to force taxpayers to pay more.

There are many approaches to addressing spending controls. For example, if a government cannot afford a contract, allow them to go bankrupt and void the contract (like in California and Rhode Island).

When the real truth gets out, Walker will be even more popular.

Not even Fox News has accurately reported this matter.

Oops. Sever, not severe.

What the WI legislature did was severe the union busting stuff from the "Budget Repair Bill". Under the State constitution, they needed a 3/5s forum for anything relating to the budget, but not for anything non-fiscal. So they separated out the union stuff and voted on it separately, not needing the Dems to be present. Whammo!!--unions busted. How awesome is that? Talk about using the "nuclear option" to "shove this down the throats of the Wisconsin people". Where's Michelle Bachmann complaining about "gangster government"?

So all you Republican union members--how you liking your leadership now?

This is a lesson the WI people shouldn't soon forget. And if they do, they deserve what they get.

Everyone lost in Wisconsin last night. Some will see it today, some will see it later, but at least it's a great day for Koch brothers and the politicians they bought!

Here is my post from March 1 (go check it!!)

"I have heard that if there is not agreement today, the unions keep their benefit and the collective bargaining issues become law. I heard this on MSNBC!! That is where the future is."

How can the Republican action tonight be a "surprise"? They took their cue from MSNBC!!!

Thanks Rachel, great idea!!! Keith is rolling in his empty Al Gore studio.

Very funny.

Observing . . .

Like I already said, there are bad apples on both sides. What is your "dangerous violence" is Scott Walker's "passionate protests" and David Gregory's "inappropriate". I'd be with the "inappropriate" group on this one.

So enough with the tit for tat on which side is more to blame, it's getting childish. They both are to blame. Both the Tea Partiers and the WI protesters use the same imagery. But the next time the TP does it, I hope I see you post some outraged blogs about it!

TB,

For those who know me, I have certain "tenants" I live by. Two are relevant for your comment.

1. There is no such thing as a disagreement; rather a different understanding of the definition of terms.

2. It is important to understand why you disagree and then agree to disagree.

And in our more advanced society (at least technologically), we need to figure this out "collectively" or we will fail.

I would like to address the issue that you identified and seems to be at the center of the Wisconsin controversy. Teachers unions.

The original teachers unions were formed by teachers to promote standards within their profession. Just like the guilds for trades in the middle ages. It was not until the sixties that such unions went from being quality control among their members to wage advocates. And to some degree they needed to do this because salaries were low compared to other professions.

But the events of the late 1990's and early 2000's in Naperville really turned this entire situation with questionable outcomes. Don Weber's contract was not renewed by the Board (to this day, why they hired him after he destroyed Lockport is questionable, but who knows). He teams up with Tim Costello, a militant union representative in Salt Creek school district (supposedly there was a restraining order preventing Costello from entering the schools at the height of union battles in that district) and works to elect union controlled Board members.

Once this union slate was elected, two actions. First, Webers contract was renewed. Second, the Naperville teachers union was awarded a lucrative contract, one that the District could not afford. And then we had the 2002 referendum, the overtaxation, and the secret 2007 contract.

My concern? While school taxes have increased double the rate of inflation, ours have gone up substantially more. The affordability of Naperville has suffered. All of this for a single special interest group.

My preference would have been to adopt a teachers contract with full transparency and since it required a referendum to fund, hold the referendum BEFORE it is finalized. Just like in the private sector, this would level the playing field. Teachers would have to agree to a fair contract with the hopes that the taxpayers would be fair. This is what Wisconsin needs. Allow collective borrowing, but require any contract that exceeds the financial resources of the local government to require a referendum. Same for all public unions.

Instead, this ruinous process started by Weber and Costello continues. Make no mistake. The unions get out their vote. They win as long as turnout remains 20% or lower. They count on the apathy of the Naperville voters and deceptive practices such as "It's for the kids" (Here is an example of my "definition of terms". It is not for the kids, it's for the UNION!!).

And after $150 million of overtaxation ($5,000 for the average taxpayer in the last seven years), the current UNION controlled District 203 board continues to over tax. To respond to our questioning of the over taxation, they establish a "Financial Advisory Board" to "legitimize" their actions. They say, your reserve goal should be $20 million (remember, the Board had $30 million deficit cause by Costello and Weber in 2002). Now they have $38 million. Pay back the $18 million!!

No, they continue to tax to the max because if they give the unions more in the future (and maybe as soon as 2012??), they won't have either the money or public support. Nothing to do with what is correct and does the public support it, just make sure there are plenty of funds to support the union.

It is time that this ten year run of madness caused by Costello and Weber be brought to an end. The teachers are paid very well; there are 1,000 applicants for every open position. I wish that the District would direct two policies for union negotiation. First, for the STATUS QUO, total compensation stays within CPI for the next five years. That means controlled tax increases for taxpayers.

Second, establish changes that are needed to further education. This includes longer school day for the elementary district (a Jaensch issue that he has not acted on in four years by the way), foreign language (another Jaensch failure), and whatever else is out their (and their are MANY options). And look at multiple options selecting the ones that provide the most value for the lowest cost. Just like the private sector.

In fact, why not convert all District schools to charters, bid them out to private enterprises and let parents select the school best suited for their students. Introduce the American capitalistic system to make schools compete and teachers working to make their schools successful to keep their jobs.

And if there needs to be another recalibration of District revenues, ask the voters.

I do not hear any of this. Just tax and spend. I marvel when parents question the public schools and they are told to shut up. The District response, "It is our way or the highway."

We can do better.

Nice comment TB.

I do not know if I should take your comment as a compliment or a criticism. But the purpose of these comments is to share ideas. The more, the better. We all learn, at least I do. Hopefully, we are better off later.

T.B.:

Just wanted to respond to your last paragraph about why police and firefighters were excluded in Walker's bill. If you refer to the Gregory/Walker interview I linked for Observing, you will see Walker say police and firefighters were exempt from his bill in order to "preserve public safety". This starts at about 5:04 on the tape:

http://different-kitchen.com/2011/02/video-david-gregory-interviews-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-on-meet-the-press/

I've also heard it said from many sources that Walker made a deal with the police and firefighters that they would be exempt if they supported Walker's election. Many of them did, so there has to be some truth to this.

Now you may believe that "police and fire retirements are apples and oranges compared to other public sector jobs", but Ohio doesn't agree. They have a similar bill going through their legislature, and it does not exempt police and firefighters. These workers are lumped in with all other public employees, Ohio's bill treats all of them the same. Imagine how those police and firefighters must feel!

Calm down. You're sounding a bit rabid.

The simple truth is this: no one was on these blogs complaining about the Tea Party's behavior when they were doing many of THE EXACT SAME THINGS. In fact, many right wing media sources were denying it was ever happening; still do to this day.

For example, check out Sean Hannity's February 23, 2011 broadcast.

On this show, Hannity attacked Wisconsin protesters for carrying signs comparing [Governor] Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler and claimed that "the tea party movement was accused of" Nazi imagery "but there was no evidence" to support the claim. In reality, Nazi imagery has appeared at multiple tea party protests and evidence of it can be found anywhere on the internet. I don't have to look it up, I caught it all the first time around and remember it very well.

Sure, those things are wrong wherever they're done. But no one on this blog cared when the Tea Partiers were doing it. Like I said, since the protest shoe has moved from the right to the left foot, NOW conservatives are complaining about it. Oh, the humanity!!

Re your statement: "Now, after all the threads on here, she tries to validate the dangerous violence by the left in WI (Gregory’s words) because some HER little talking heads tried to get the rest of us to believe the Tea party was initiating violence in their gatherings (despite the proof that all the DOCUMENTED physical violence was perpetrated by the left)?"

The dangerous violence by the left in WI--Gregory's own words? What dangerous violence are you saying Gregory was referring to? For clarification, here is a link to the interview David Gregory did with Scott Walker this past Sunday, Feb. 27. Here is Walker's statement on this in HIS own words, and Walker denies there has been any violence. It's at the end of the interview, about 10:15 on the tape:

DAVID GREGORY: In the course of this prank, this crank call that you got, it was suggested by someone who was a liberal blogger that you might think about planting troublemakers into the crowd. And you said, quote, "We thought about that." Is that right? You really thought about trying to bust up physically these protests?

GOV. WALKER: No, we thought-- as the call continues, and I have said repeatedly, we-- we-- we rejected that. But we have people all the time who contact us for and against this bill. And you can imagine people with all sorts of ideas and suggestions. And-- and we look at everything that's out there.

But the bottom line is we rejected that because we have had a civil discourse. We had a week ago 70,000 people, we had more than that yesterday and yet we haven't had problems. We haven't had disturbances, we've just had very passionate protests for and against this bill and that's okay, it's a very mid-western thing.

http://different-kitchen.com/2011/02/video-david-gregory-interviews-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-on-meet-the-press/

So what violence are you referring to exactly? Scott Walker obviously doesn't know. Please post your source here, because I can't find anything where David Gregory is calling the Wisconsin protests violent. He did, however, use this phrase when talking about LIBYA.

As for the rest of your comment about Tea Party violence being staged by members of the left--and I'm sure you know a "lefty" in a crowd when you see one, they have little "L"s branded on their foreheads--I remember when these rumors were circulating, I discussed it on this blog. There never was any violence at any Tea Party rally caused by lefties; there wasn't any violence at any TP rallies period. Just the usual racist, rude, Nazi fear-mongering stuff. Like we're seeing in Wisconsin.

I'd love to see your DOCUMENTED PROOF of lefty violence at Tea Party rallies. I'll be waiting with bated breath.

Glock:

Why are you compelled to drag me into every one of your posts? Can't you write a single paragraph without me?

I've called you many things, but not selfish yet. Small in spirit, yes; mean natured, yes; selfish, not so sure. I think even behavior that appears altruistic on the surface probably has it's roots in selfishness of some sort, whether we're overtly aware of it or not. But such a discussion wouldn't interest you, plus it would take time away from your daily dose of right wing propaganda. Wouldn't want to do that.

"And we are no longer willing to be in debt for the enjoyment of others." Geez, really? I'm no fan of unions, but this is an infantile statement that doesn't even come close to addressing the issues involved here, so I'll just let you get back to Rush Limbaugh and your next martini.

BTW, Indiana pulled out, did so days ago. Get up to speed. And New Jersey has Chris Christie. I suggest you google this before you bring up NJ again.

Faux News and other far right radio people, such as R. Limbaugh, just denied such Nazi symbolism was ever present at any Tea Party rallies. Even as the pictures circulated across the internet and are still available for viewing to this day. What's being seen in Wisconsin is no different from what was seen at any Tea Party rally in the past two years. It's just bothering you follks now because the shoe is on the left foot instead of the right. That's life.

P.S. I couldn't care less what Glenn Beck says, I don't go near him. I find insanity disturbing.

He's definitely trying to make a name for himself with the far right. Whether that name becomes mud or not remains to be seen.

I don't feel sorry for what Wisconsin workers are going through right now; after all, they voted in these people. The same goes for all the other states where collective bargaining is now under assault. I wonder how much they care about those deficits now?

It is sad, however, to see Wisconsin workers fighting each other over the scraps their governor left them after giving millions to the business sector. Instead of being angry about the giveaway to business, they're angry that their neighbor may get a bigger piece of that one last cookie. Truly pathetic.

Thank you. It's a gift.

"A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, "Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

xxxxxx

Good One Anonymous,

Actually, the CEO gets 5 cookies, the union employee gets 4 and the Tea Partier gets 2. The union employee contributed enough to earn 1 cookie but everyone else pays extra so they get their union mandated 4. The CEO is just greedy, and the Tea Partier is told to be quiet and just be happy to have two.

btw, None of them realize that they only took 11 of the 12 cookies because they are all products of the public school system!

ba da bang

...and yes, wages are also depressed by the fact that the employer directly must pay into SS. Not so for the TRS, since some other magical entity has to pay for it. Let's spend other peoples money!??!

If the state TRS obligation gets shifted to the districts, a wage freeze/cut will have to happen.

-1

Congrats What the ? You totally convuluted my entire post. You have an uncanny ability to do this repeatedly regardless of the topic. It is not bizarre, rather it is amazing.

You hit the mark, What the? This is more of a political issue than a sensible approach to dealing with the budget problem. I consider myself a Republican, but not whacked out like Walker. His approach is all about starting a movement and "look at me." I'm ashamed of him. Fiscal responsibility is all of our responsibility, which is why I went on a crazy rant about NO Unions at all. Why should just a couple of groups be singled out? It's about attention, that's why. He loves this.

He was able to pit people in this very blog as private vs public employees. He's pitted Reblicans vs Democrats with his extremism and there is no need, but his point is who is better? I've heard some of the most ridiculous information on the radio lately about the little guy being the only one that has to shoulder the costs of teachers pay and pensions. Oh the drama. Not true. Businesses pay property taxes and support schools in their districts. Listening to some of these people you would think that only $12K per year residents without air conditioning and running water are the only ones paying up. The drama and misinformation is sometimes too much.

We can all do better together, but let's not attack just one group of American workers. We can only solve the issues by reasonable and responsible dialog. The unions agreed to concessions. Not good enough for Walker. This is really all about him and I bet he loves the fact that his proposal has driven the country crazy. Walker is like the Charlie Sheen of the Republican Party. Please stop trying to represent us. You're making us look like idiots, not more responsible or "better" as you want to portray!

ANON:

Crazy busy weekend.

So the issue for you is that these unions collect dues and the money is used for political purposes? I'm assuming you're not making a partisan argument here, that if money collected in this way went to support mostly Republican candidates, you'd still oppose this.

If paying dues were voluntary instead of mandatory, would this be fine? Or if all government workers didn't pay dues at all but instead chose to donate a part of their income to support whatever political party they wanted, would this be alright? I hope you're not suggesting that public workers should be prohibited from donating to political campaigns simply because their pay comes from the taxpayers. After all, the Citizens United ruling established that money is a form of free speech, and to block campaign donations is blocking free speech. So to forbid government workers from individually making campaign donations would be unconstitutional and disenfranchise an entire group of people from having their "voices" heard.

But I still don't see the logic in the statement that "unionized public workers are an attack on the middle class taxpayer." I know it's a popular talking point used by many politicians, but it doesn't make sense.

These unionized public workers ARE the middle class as well, so that's saying they are attacking themselves. Plus it's not just the middle class that pays taxes, everyone does to varying degrees. So why are these public workers specifically singling out and attacking the middle class? They're not. Plus, I was responding to a previous blogger who said that these unionized public workers are an attack BY GOVERNMENT on the middle class. How specifically is the government attacking anyone in this way? This makes even less sense.

Finally, re this comment: "And Obama HAS NOT stayed out of this. He stepped in the water briefly but then got out and is working behind the scenes utilizing his "Organizing for America" mob as his surrogate."

That sounds more than slightly biased. I know OFA is a murky area that feeds the right wing belief that Obama controls it, but the OFA is operated by the DNC specifically because it would be illegal for it to be run by the White House. Of course the right believes that Obama is complicit in everything OFA does anyway, but there is no evidence at all that Obama is directing OFA's actions in Wisconsin or any other states.

I've read some comments here that display a pretty bizarre point of view, like how Obama should stay out of what's happening in Wisconsin, a sovereign state, and instead get involved in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, etc. Obama is the President of the United States, and Wisconsin is one of those states. Wisconsin is his responsibility more any sovereign foreign country. Truly bizarre.

In numbers:

Assume 9% for TRS, 6% for SS, 28% tax bracket 5% state.

9% of paycheck disappears (not usable to worker) for TRS

For SS: 6% disappears, but that gets counted as income so 33% of 6% or 2% also disappears due to SS.

8% of paycheck disappears due to SS.

Yes, I understand that neither number (TRS or SS) is exactly correct and the exact percentage of the monies collected which is supposed to be allocated to pure retirement benefits is different between the two, but a simple 3:2 ratio does not tell the full effect.

As was mentioned before, neither of these benefits is treated as income by the state when received.

-1

Glock:

Sounds exactly like old Tea Party footage!

-1

I admit, there is something to your argument. It's a combination of factors. The basis for my argument is that the payment of the funds due are known, real amounts. The assumptions of what your expecting to make are... assumptions. When you skip credit card payments, and hope your 401k will rise to pay off the card in the future, skipping the payments is the main issue-I think. I'm wondering, this is TRS only, what about the other funds?

Something else, how is it that actuarial studies are done every year, we see the liabilities and assumptions, don't make payments to fund the pensions, and think it will work out? What spreadsheet are they using? I want it for myself!

I'm saying that adjustments should have been made years ago. They weren't. Now, everyone wants to punish the everyday, ordinary people that get pensions. That, is wrong.

Here you go:

http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/pubs/cafr/fy10/actuarial.pdf

Page 90 (10 of 19)

In 2001 the state was $16B behind in payments.

In 2010 the accrued liability from the deadbeat state was $22B.

So a $6B increase in deadbeat state contributions.

The accrued liability for payments went from:

$23B to $55B (adding present employees and pensioners).

The value of the assets went from $23B to only $37B. And the latest asset numbers are inflated due to accounting tricks which give a 5-year smoothing of losses and gains.

Anyway, YES Illinois is a deadbeat payor. However, the large increase in accrued liability is due to an increase in ...well..liabilities.

If you just look at the unfunded liability in 2001, it was entirely due to the deadbeat state, whereas now there is $17B in unfunded liability unrelated to the deadbeat state. So even if Illinois coughed up $23B today, there would still be $17B in unfunded liabilities (although that number is probably higher if the smoothing was not used).

Other findings: It looks like the average payment to a NEW TRS pensioner last year was $43,291 (p91 using $247,234,501/5,711 ) whereas the MAXIMUM social security payment is about $28,400 per year.

I will repeat. I have NO problem with these pensions if they are properly funded via correct actuarial assumptions and the employee pays a reasonable share. The (benefit):(employee cost) ratio seems to be out of whack compared to other retirement benefits.

Let's look at it another way. If the state had made all of its payments, there would have been a $16B surplus as of 2001 which would have dwindled to $4B today. That is due to investments not being what we thought they were going to be combined with increasing rolls. (Note: I am arguing for you saying the entire problem is the deadbeat state..However, the trend is into oblivion even with an instantaneous $22B infusion of state money unless there is a HUGE swing in investments.)

-1

La Cucaracha.

Hey I agree that the state should have paid. I will try to find the TRS link again. If you just add in the missed payments and correct for what the value would show now..that aint the majority of the problem. Primarily blaming the state for missing payments is a convenient excuse. It certainly contributed to the problem, but...

The assumptions underlying the system are not good.

I will try to repost the link. Please read it and report back.

-1

What the ? Actually I saw a number of news video clips with belligerent, red faced, screaming pro union demonstrators carrying some very very offensive signs containing symbols and verbage I will not repeat here or to a woman who does not discuss smut in public. LOL Hopefully those signs were carried by unionized sanitation workers and not the unionized teachers. I found them to be offensive and threatening. While I would not describe them as violent, they were across my definition of orderly conduct. Probably there was some posturing for face time in front of the camera but you should suspect as these people become more frustrated at the futility of their protest and when the pension benefits cannot be paid at the level they were promised, you will see something along the lines of Greece; unionized workers clashing with unionized police. Now that should be an interesting turn of events for the police.

I'd like to respond fully, but you make no sense.

Allow me to say this, what is "advertised" and what is contractulally obligated are two completely different things. Obviously, you don't understand the difference.

You should have been a teacher, except, I'm guessing that you could not have got the degree and got certified.

Minus One,

I've seen your constant rant about missing payments not being the problem, or missing a few payments not being a big deal.

That is the primary reason for the pension problem. The payments were due by law and not paid. If there was a problem then, and there was, then fix it then. You, and others, fail to realize that it should have been fixed 10 years ago. The legislators didn't mess with pensions because they want the public sector votes.

Anonymous replied to comment from anon | February 25, 2011 5:08 PM | Reply

Sorry, I keep forgetting how many people here in Naperville are self righteous idiots who believe they know all, and understand all, and are somehow better than everyone else - regardless of whether they have any personal knowledge of the people they are judging.

Just for an FYI - the job she took she took because her children were young, and the City offered the kind of benefits, location, and potential that worked well with raising them. My daughter has an associates degree, along with 15 years of business experience - plus she has something you don't - a shred of human decency.

You obviously live in a very tiny little world and have all the answers. It's probably nice there - for now at least, but Karma's an "itch" as they say - and I hope you can handle yours when it comes back to bite you.

I don't really think most people are supporting outrageously high pensions for anyone - I know I wouldn't. What is funny though is that a lot of the people claiming that they can't afford pensions anymore, are people who are taking some of those pensions even as we speak.

Take a look at the Mayor here in Naperville .... One of Napervilles written "priorities" is pension reform - yet, the Mayor sits there enjoying a generous police pension, pay for his current position, plus other political positions he holds, AND if he is re-elected to this term he will qualify for yet another pension with 20 years of service with IMRF. The Assistant City Manager, Bob Marshall, also enjoys a generous Police pension, is earning well in excess of $100,000 a year a City employee, earning ANOTHER pension, while excepting extravagant bonus's and car allowances. All the while he is doing this, he is working to lay off City workers who make 1/3 of what he does - and supporting the same City Council that is pushing for pension reform.

I for one think pension reform is a good idea - but like all else that is wrong in Government right now, let's start at the top, where the decisions that have caused all of this have been made, and where the true abuses of the system happen. These folks love it that they have the middle class workers outside turning on the middle class workers inside. They stay completely comfortable, and are not being held accountable for their horrific spending and greed.

Reform pensions - make them reasonable given all that has been put in by the average worker, and stop the abuses. It's common sense - and it doesn't require taking away bargaining rights the way they are trying to in Wisconsin, and it doesn't require the City of Naperville to send the lower 1/3 of their work force into extreme poverty (make no mistake, that is exactly what they are going to do).

Fairness and decency are possible - but the extremists like the Governor of Wisconsin, and people like Councilman Furstenau, Wherli, and Krause, don't have any interest in fairness or decency. They all just want to make sure they are getting richer, and they truly couldn't care less what happens to anyone who isn't going to help them do that.

anon, February 24, 2011@8:10 PM,

Sorry, but you lost me with the part about "...and basically all of their rights taken away."

What you and your daughter don't seem to comprehend is that there is nothing related to "rights" associated with this issue. In fact, public workers act like their pay and benefits are an entitlement though they really are not. As we are seeing in WI and elsewhere pay and benefits are a matter of a law or ordinance just like they are a matter of a company policy in the private sector.

If your daughter started at 13 bucks an hour and after all of these years is still making less than 16 buck an hour it sounds like she doesn't have much of an education or skills to be selling to any employer. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers can complain all they want about their lousy job but if they had completed high school or college they wouldn't be doing these jobs. As her parent where were you years ago when she should have been attending college and earning a degree that would have allowed her to support herself and her children? Sounds like she should be really thankful she even has a job more than complaining about her lot in life which is the result of choices she made. Even if we taxpayers doubled her pay to 30 bucks an hour she probably still wouldn't be happy.

The one thing that makes any sense in all of what you wrote is department heads and unabashed double dippers like Marshall being given any kind of a bonus considering the miserable job they have done that led us into the financial mess the city is in. Not one single management, salaried, or executive level city employee should be getting a raise or a bonus until this entire mess is resolved. This entire selfish bunch of lemmings need to learn how to lead by example and share in the pain. The City Council has got to be taken to task for approving any bonus or pay raises. The responsibility and buck stops with them.

The same goes for every single union city employee. It is simply wrong for union employees to take pay raises and non-union employees to get absolutely nothing. Clearly none of these union members learned the basic difference between right and wrong when they were children. The fact that many of them serve as police and fire speaks volumes about their personal values and ethics and only reflects poorly on their profession. Clearly, whatever they can individually suck out of the City of Naperville coffers is far more important than what is right or wrong. Why we would place people who think like this in any kind of position of public trust is beyond me.

Whoever was responsible for such terribly inept union negotiations on behalf of the people of Naperville should be ashamed of themselves and the poor job they delivered. We can put union negotiations down as one more job that should be outsourced because no one in the City of Naperville government can apparently do it competently.

Considering the miserable state of all of this incompetence maybe we should get rid of all of the city council members, then fire all of the city administration and department heads, and just start completely over from scratch as the cleanest and fastest way to chart a new course toward financial recovery in Naperville.

Management incompetence at every level allowed Naperville to get into this mess and once and for all we need to remove all incompetence from Naperville government and start demanding we receive the level of quality and calibre of management that is at least equal to if not more representative of the quality and calibre of tax dollars that are paid in Naperville. The people of Naperville have been short changed for too long and it is time we start getting better value for our tax dollars.

..except that they do not pay STATE taxes on their pension contributions NOR do they pay STATE taxes on their pension payments. ...

The TRS assumptions include 8.5% ROI per year.

8.5%.

The state missing a few payments here and there, while wrong, does not come close to the incorrect assumptions on which the pensions are based.

TRS also assumes 6-11% raises. If raises get too small, there starts to be a shortage of expected income since the pension is, in fact, a huge Ponzi scheme.

Somewhere around here I posted the TRS assumptions.

-1

ANON,

You're right about the rep/dem thing. But you can't tell public sector employees that they have a pension plan, have them pay into it, miss your own payments, then say, oh, this is not sustainable.

Also, what Bernie Madoff did was illegal. Pensions are not. For those of you that continue to use outliers and extremism, come on. You'll get the dopes riled up, but the smart people understand that the vast majority of these pensions are not huge amounts.

These people that get pensions are real people, pay taxes too, and support your busineses. Be careful what you wish for.

NWG, where do you get your data, KMart? So common to spin information in ones favor.

Wistful - Did you know you sounds like an idiot? Never mind, of course you don't - you take whatever facts you can find and twist them to fit your purpose. Typical of the mental midgets who seem to be coming out of the word work on this one.

Please, think what you want, one day you will grow up and learn that just because you hear something on Fox News does not make it true. Just be clear on one thing, you haven't been validated on anything - you and your illiterate buddy up there, the one who must have hit his head with his hammer while pretending to be a carpenter - will see where all the "follow me and make me rich" leadership you are drooling over right now will lead you - right over the cliff.

Here's a shocker for ya. I agree that spending needs to be cut, and yes, I get that when I say CUT it means not just left at this level, but cut. Why is it though that those cuts NEVER come at the expense of people like your bumbling governor or the Multi Million dollar puppet masters whose dollar signs he is selling his state out for?

Can't make cuts to things those Koch guys like, then where would the funding for my next takeover come from! Nope, let's take it from the teachers and the cops and the office workers here in our state - they don't have enough money to buy any votes from us anyway. HEY, and look, there a literally thousands of idiots out there that will believe anything we tell them! Carl Rove was right - the truth is of no consequence.

Look somewhere besides in the mirror, and you might see that real people are the only ones suffering on path you recommend. Your Governor won't be hurt, I have to assume you won't either, in truth, it doesn't change my life one way or another either - it's just a little something called empathy (look it up - I'm certain you've never heard of it much less considered putting it into practice), along with another term the GOP gave up on years ago (Bush #1 was the last time we saw any of it from a Republican leader) ..... it's called Integrity. I know it doesn't line your pockets - but it it still matters to some of us.

The democommys saying is I got mines!

Fox at least tells all the news not just the Palin report

You said it

Thats because they work.

A-men brother!

How about we quit giving people free rides and all these intidelments. See public education and I don`t know how to spell intidelment.

Just like democrats to get paid for not doing there job. Teachers are not doing there jobs and our kids are paying for it! Teachers should not get tenure I`m union and if I don`t work and work fast I don`t get paid... I also like how Obama the dictator told the D.O.J. they don`t have to abide by the law that congress and Clinton signed into law about same sex marriages. Are we in America anymore!

Hey "Man" .... you know who you are talking about with your big bumps and huge payouts and not contributing and no copays etc.??? Nope, not the typical public employee - you are taking about the TYPICAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL! You are talking about the Legislators, the CITY MANAGERS, the Directors, the Superintendents and the rest who are grossly overpaid and largely underskilled to begin with.

You are talking about your Mayor, your City Manager, and especially your Assistant City Manager - the famous Double Dipper who is working on a second pension even as we speak. You are talking about these peoples buddies, the Department Directors and their ilk. All of these people get some or all of the over the top benefits you are referring to.

You know who you are not talking about? You are not talking about the typical City Worker. You are not talking about the men and women who are paid between $15 and $40 an hour, these people do pay social security, just like you. These people do pay into their own pensions. These people do pay more and more each year into their own health care, they do have co-pays - and in this City, those co-pays have doubled. Last year, if you went to the ER you had a co-pay of $150. This year, if that same person goes there, the co-pay is $300. This person pays higher premiums on that insurance than does your Major and City Manager etc.... IF this person works more than 20 years for you - the average pension is $19,000 a year, and don't make the mistake of thinking they won't have to pay for health insurance out of that, because they will.

People like your friend the Governor of Wisconsin don't talk about those people. Neither does your Mayor, your City Councilman (Furstenau, Wherli, Krause and so on),, or the folks at Faux News - but investigate it for yourself. Those who are yelling the loudest about what the workers get are the biggest hypocrites of them all. They all take every benefit from you they can get their hands on, then they blame the people who plow your streets or keep your water running or take your payments at the Counter for the deficits.

So long as we allow these people to dictate the way conversation - and flat out lie to people like you about where the problems truly are - they win, and everyone else, from the worker to the tax payer - lose.

PLEASE, make the distinction, PLEASE don't let these people continue to TAKE from all of us. Deal with the top, the people who truly rip off the system every single day - but PLEASE, don't take it out on those people who are scraping by just like you, the people who are concerned for their families well being should this Governor and this City Council be able to continue to fool the electorate. If they are believed, they win - they get everything, paid for by you and I, and the people who actual work to provide you with the services you need will lose so much, it will be their house being forclosed on at your corner.

Wistful - sadly, this is exactly what it has become - big guy (more like rich guy getting richer) vs little guy (more like the middle class turn to poverty class). Let's not pretend that the motives of idiots like your idol up North are some altruistic political creation. He isn't - he, like so many other, plenty here in Naperville - see's his opportunity to sell a load to the mindless Fox News followers. He wants to clean up the mess the government has made up there on the backs of the people who do the work. He doesn't want anyone like HIM, or any of HIS fellow overpaid beaurocrats to change anything, he wants to take from the middle class so that his fellow millionaires can just keep raking it in. Don't believe that? Then why is it the top 10% is getting richer every year - economy in crisis or not - while the status of the middle class hasn't advanced in over a decade?

Keep believing those who have everything when they tell you it isn't their place to fix the mess they made, that that mess can only be fixed by taking from the people who have so much less ..... they LOVE it you are following them blindly.

Common sense on econ issues? ROTFLMAO ..... is that what you think you have? Take a look around - see who it is whose suffering during the current economic crisis? IS IT the guy who see's no need to compromise since he is the sacred Governor? Nope, he looks just fine doesn't he. It's the other folks job to give up pay and benefits .... not his! He's special - and it appears you think you are as well.

GOP Wisconsin = the place where Greed and Stupidity happily co-exist.

Illinois workers - maybe we spend our vacation dollars anywhere EXCEPT Wis this summer.

Hey Anonymous - do you realize that the Union people, and the other employee's in this city DO CONTRIBUTE to their own Pensions???? In fact, the one person I know well enough to ask how much, says it is approx 4.5 percent of whatever they make, and it is mandatory. Funny cuz that is only slightly more than I contributed to my 401K in the 80's at a local fortune 500 company (4%), and that was optional. Another inconvenient fact? The Wisconsin Union protesters have agreed to contribute to their pensions too - and pay a significant portion of their health insurance - but the Governor, who obviously knows about as much about how to manage a state as you do how to make an intelligent blog comment, isn't interested in that - his ONLY interest is busting the Union. Question? How much of his personal fortune is he willing to sacrifice for the cause? Bet he will have MORE than he needs no matter what - and the same can't be said for most of the Union workers.

Funny too how those of you who only get your facts from Fox News always say they want that 100,000 union job and 80% pension. Lot's of people would, but most of these government jobs don't pay that, and most don't get a pension anywhere close to that. The GOP only tells it's brainless puppets about the extreme cases - they never mention the $40,000 paychecks and $19,000 a year pensions that 3/4 of the employees retire with.

If you want to bash everyone who has something you don't, at least get your facts straight - otherwise, you just look stupid.

Bob, you clearly don't understand Illinois politics. This state is so pro union it will never happen here.

Claimsmark - nice repeat of almost every republican talking point! Shame about the accuracy of most of it though. I didn't hear the part that said that the Unions in Wisconsin have agreed to make concessions with regard to Pension and Insurance contributions that would completely eliminate the budget Gap this "Governor" is supposedly concerned about. That being the case - all this spoiled little rich boy is doing is Union busting. Love the Union or hate the Union, it's illegal. Try to remember how and why Unions got started - Greedy leadership/management leaving workers with nothing, while they took every profit/benefit for themselves. Sounds a lot like the "leaders" we are dealing with right now in Wisconsin, and closer to home, here in Naperville as well.

Bob - what makes you think public workers don't pay their fair share in taxes? Last I saw, the unions in Wisconsin had agreed to contribute to their health care and pensions (and they definitely should - not sure how much this agreement was exactly). These concessions are supposed to be enough to close the gap in Wisconsin. Now, if that's true - what is this Governors point? What I haven't heard is anything about the State leadership giving anything up. It's the same thing over and over - yes, labor has to pay their fair share, but what about the idiots at the top? Where is their contribution. You think they are blameless for the financial crisis and they have your best interests at heart?

Your falling for exactly what these spin Dr's want you to fall for. The workers in question here are middle class workers - this Governor and this legislature - those who are making the decisions that waste your money on an hourly basis, are living business as usual. Money flows in to them hand over fist - but they've got you turned against the guy at your corner and believing he is the problem.

All of you who simply hate the public worker - ask yourself this - is it really the guy making $20 an hour who you have a problem with? How can the same guys who wouldn't accept multi millionaires losing some tax breaks now tell you it's the workers who make too much?

Yeah, it's the guy driving your snow plow that is taking advantage of you. If you really believe that, I hope you enjoy the next segment of Fox news brainwashing.

Fine, Claimsmark, but what is your position on police and fire being included NOW, not in awhile as this approach by the gov to use teachers and other public employees as chum to MAYBE hook public safety into the same meal sometime in the future? He has made no promise to do the same with them. No mention of it.

Bob, do you think that alone is going to solve this states financial problems? Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I sort of read that into your statement with the "rape" and all. "Public workers unions must pay their fair share in taxes and stop raping the taxpayers." Are unions or union workers exempt from paying taxes? Do they get a tax break? And rape in and of itself is generally a spontaneous devious act, not something that has been developed and agree upon over many years. Are you a familiar Bob or just someone who recently learned to write?

I hear you, WT, but that approach usually stalls and NOBODY is next after they've raped the easiest prey. They have zero guts and they are not keeping to their campaign promise at all if they don't throw police and fire in the mxi too. Chicken feces.

Yes, but we can learn from their mistakes, Anon. There is a need for a change here too, but it needs to be all-inclusive. Everyone, not just some. We need to talk and listen and make sound decisions, not just abandon decades of reasoning because things are now tough. And when the changes are made shouldn't the public sector be treated the same as the private sector when it makes its big come badk? Public sector employees didn't get that treatment. No big bonuses (at least for the vast majority). Good benefits and "security," right? Now those are in jeopardy because now it's not sustainable, right? NOW everyone wants public sector employees to be treated like the private sector. Taking advantage of a movement. A convenience to dismantle. You'll get your way, but will you remember this time?