This afternoon, Congress failed to override the President’s veto of SCHIP Funding.

See the voting results at:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll982.xml [url]

Posted by: julieheun

Baby Steps

Reforming the health care system is a huge undertaking that may not succeed in the near term. But, in my opinion, there are smaller victories to be had on this topic.

Like many Americans, I have lots of experience in dealing with the deny, deny, deny approach that insurance companies frequently take toward legitimate claims. Sometimes the basis of the denial is so thin that it’s hard to believe that it’s anything but an overt business strategy. In other cases, the denial comes from the morass of complicated details that exist in our current system.

To cite my most recent experience, last year my daughter broke her arm, including a fracture of her “growth plate.” She was in great pain and the hospital wanted to keep her overnight until the orthopedist could perform a specialized semi-surgical procedure the following morning.

The first problem came with a coding error; she was coded as an “outpatient” which resulted in denial of each of the five or six separate bills that resulted (e.g. hospital, orthopedist, anesthesiologist, etc). In each case I had to fight a separate battle to correct the error. But that wasn’t the worst of it.

My insurance initially stood firm on their denial of the orthopedist bill. In doing so, they seized upon the fact that there were two orthopedists in the room and that my policy only allows one. In order to avoid this situation I would have had to (1) have read all of the fine print in my policy, (2) remember that fine print when I was trying to deal with my child’s injury, and (3) stand guard at the operating room door and grill each person who entered to make sure that there was only one orthopedist. After hours of fighting back and forth between the insurance company and the orthopedist’s office, I got the insurance company to pay for the first doctor and got the orthopedist’s office to eat the second charge.

I have other examples of this sort of thing but the bottom line on all of them is that insurance companies are getting away with setting complex “denial” traps that they can spring on their insureds and profiting from this abhorrent strategy.

My suggestions for shorter term health care reform include the following: (1) Require health insurance companies to send their insureds a letter each year that, in simple bullet-point terms, outlines each and every exclusion, hoop, loophole, coverage limitation, etc. And if it’s not in the letter, or if the terms of the letter are not easy to understand, denial of coverage would be illegal. (2) Set up a regulatory scheme that would deter bad-faith denials as a business strategy and/or provide consumers with recourse for such denials.

Of course, comprehensive health care reform could easily solve the problems I have described but it remains to be seen if so-called “socialized medicine” can get through the Senate (even if a Democrat wins the Whitehouse). On the other hand, I’m guessing that there are plenty of Republican constituents who have experienced deny, deny, deny and who would support legislative efforts to deal with this.

Posted by: Greg Brownfield,  Bartlett, IL

It is the fall before the election year and that means one thing; candidates need signatures to be on the ballot. This time-consuming task is one of the first step towards running for political office. In Illinois, the only way to get on the ballot is to collect signatures. The number of signatures depends on the office sought as well as the party registration in that district. So, in a heavily Democratic district, the candidate will need more signatures than the Republican and the opposite is true in Republican districts. The amount needed for each race is spelled out in a document from the Illinois State Board of Elections.
The question is do you want your name on the ballot? Many people think only of running for office as running for state or federal level office. However, there are lots of other opportunities to run for office.
The key to all offices is the precinct committeeman. This is a party position that allows you to be a spokesperson for your party in the precinct that you live or in some cases a near by precinct. It is the building block of politics because as the saying goes all politics is local. With the exception of Cook County, this is an elected position in Illinois. If this is something that interests you contact the chair of your township party and ask if there is already a precinct committeeman and make a decision to run. It might be that someone holds that function, but if you have not met them then are they really doing their job? Perhaps, it still makes sense to run for this critical office.
The other opportunity is to run as a delegate for a Presidential Candidate. On the ballot there will be not only the Presidential Candidates but also a list of people that would be delegates to the Political Party’s National Convention. The slate of delegates is committed to vote for their candidate at the convention. The delegates are organized by Congressional districts. The Presidential Candidate has to get a certain percentage of the vote in order to send a delegate to the convention, but with so many players this year who can tell what will happen?
Of course there are lots of local offices that you can run for as well. For many people serving on the school board or library board of their community can be a rewarding experience. So if you are interested in public service this may be the jumping off point.
At a minimum, consider getting involved by gathering signatures. It is a great way to get to know the neighbors, support a candidate that you want on the ballot and get involved in the political process.

Posted by: Christine

How we change the parties from the grassroots?

I agree with the importance of people who care about changing governmental policies getting involved in the electoral process at the local level.

Becoming a Precinct Committee(wo)man (PC) is an important step to changing the platforms of the political parties because PCs, at least in some counties like DuPage, are the only ones who can elect county wide party officials.

Many of us are dismayed by the way the National party agendas do not reflect what Americans think is most important. It was through this kind of disconnect that Tammy Duckworth was shoved into the DuPage County race by pro-war Rahm Emanuel and then lost the general election largely because disaffected anti-war party supporters would not support a candidate who was pro-war right up to the day she was recruited to run and who did not even live in the district – nor had she ever lived there!

In DuPage County alone there were hundreds of unfilled precincts as the result of weak local leadership in a county where 3 out of 5 state wide party candidates won, but not a single local or congressional party candidate won.

By strengthening the local party, we have more ability to oppose edicts from the national organizations as to who our representatives should be. We should be openly selecting and electing our own representatives, not being told who they must be by a centralized leadership.

Posted by: Connie

Unusual Opportunities in Illinois this Year

While President Bush has low approval ratings the US Congress led by the Democrats has even lower ratings. The events of the past week with US Congress failing to do anything significant towards ending the war in Iraq add to the feeling that it does not matter who we elect because the policy does not change. Democrat or Republican it really does not matter.

It was primarily that argument that there was no difference between Gore or Bush that lead many people to vote for Nader. Though there was far more than just the Nader vote that determined the outcome of the Presidential outcome of 2000, I doubt many people today believe we would have gone down the same path in Iraq if Gore had been president. Still in 2000 the differences between them were not as stark as they seem in retrospect. We now are hearing the same about representatives.

From the New York Times Editorial on September 21, 2007

“The Democrats don’t have, or can’t summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush’s increasingly narrow agenda.
On Wednesday, the Senate failed to vote on two major bills. One would have restored basic human rights and constitutional protections to hundreds of foreigners who are in perpetual detention, without charges or trial. The other was the one measure on the conduct of the Iraq war that survived the Democrats’ hasty retreat after last week’s smoke-and-mirrors display by Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush.”

This pretty much summons up the lack of commitment to get something done by our current elected officials.

We have a very unusual opportunity here in Illinois because there are three open seats for the House of Representatives this year. There are also a number of other seats that should be competitive. If we are to elect representatives that do have the political will to make a difference then we have to select them in the primary. The Nader argument that there is not much different between the Democrat or the Republican only holds water depending on who is on the ballot.

The primary in Illinois has always been early but this year it has been moved to February 5th. The early primary presents a number of challenges for the grassroots candidate. It is a terrible time to go door to door, prolongs the expense and length of the campaign season and requires a lot of funding. The alternative though is that we get a representative that does not have the political will to make a difference.

Because we in Illinois have a chance to make a huge difference with new leadership in the House of Representatives we also have the responsibility to get involved in these races now in the primary season when it really matters.

Posted by: Christine

The Art of Bird-Dogging

“Just as a bird dog flushes a bird out and pins it down, political bird-dogging involves forcing a candidate to address a particular issue and answer it with specificity.
“If you simply go in there and say, ‘What do you think about health care? What do you think about Iraq?’ the candidate can pretty much say anything and have it sound like it’s a good answer,” said Arnie Alpert, the program coordinator in New Hampshire for the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group”
Bird-dogging in N.H. and Iowa by Sarah Wheaton NYT March 1, 2o07

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/bird-dogging-in-nh-and-iowa/

As a candidate the first thing you are taught is to remain general and also to answer the question you wish you had been asked. Many of us have been brought up to politely ask our question and to accept what ever answer is given.

Most people will not ask a follow up question even if the original answer is unsatisfactory.

So you go to a candidate forum and ask “What is your position on immigration?”

The candidate states that we must protect our security but also realize that the United States owes its economic growth to the immigrants that have made this country great.

It is a good answer because both statements are true. Everyone wants a secure America and immigration has been the backbone of economic growth in the United States but it does not tell us the position of the candidate.

Policy questions need to be specific and there needs to be follow-up.

Do you support the Dream Act?

Do you support a path to citizenship for undocumented workers in the US?

If so what are the conditions for citizenship do you support?

If not how would you handle immigration and specifically the millions of undocumented workers here currently in the United States?

Keep asking the follow-up questions until the candidate is on record with a specific stance.

Most candidates, especially those adept one dealing with the media, will be able to give answers that sound good but are meaningless in the long run.

It also helps if before the meeting several people agree on the questions and the follow up questions so that if one person does not get an answer there are other people in the audience that can ask the follow up. This is similar to what you might see at a press core briefing.

Several people can also bring the same questions up in different forums. This helps raise awareness of the issue and forces it to become part of the campaign’s message.

One of the goals of the Greater Chicago Caucus is to help citizens become more savvy voters.

The GCC would like to offer sessions on the art of bird-dogging. If you are interested please contact us at admin@greaterchicago.org. Let us work together to make sure we understand where the candidates really stand and to get our issues heard.

Posted by: Christine

Peace Be Upon You

To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands, to commit to too many projects, to want to help everyone in everything is itself to succumb to the violence of our times. Frenzy destroys our inner capacity for peace. It destroys the fruitfulness of our work, because it kills the root of inner wisdom which makes work fruitful.
Thomas Merton Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander

We are approaching the holiday season when there are many demands on our time with family and friends. At the same time there is much unrest in the world. With the rhetoric towards an armed conflict with Iran, the continued and what appears to be never ending funding of the war in Iraq, tension between the Kurds and Turkey, and the tensions in Pakistan there is just so much to do. Domestically healthcare and education are high priorities for change. Global warming is coming at us faster than predicted and our political will for real change is stalled.

The next year will be filled with challenges. The election cycle is under way and many of us hope for a new direction for our country and for our world. There are a multitude of concerns foreign policy, healthcare, global warming, trade, education and others. Each will in the next year pull our attention in different directions. It is important to remember that frenzy does destroy our capacity for inner peace. The challenge for all of us in the coming year is to stay focused on the change we want, to limit our activities to what we can achieve and to cultivate the inner wisdom that makes our work fruitful.

As the great philosopher Arlo Guthrie said “You can’t achieve for someone else what you can not achieve for yourself”

“Peace be upon you”
“Peace and All Good”
“Peace on Earth and Good will to all”
Messages of peace we give to one another may they enter our hearts as move into this season.

Posted by: Christine

Econonic Stimulus?

The more I read about the stimulus bill, the more I am concerned about its lack of focus on things that will quickly increase consumer spending and/or provide immediate help to folks who really need it.
I am a legal aid lawyer who advises about 1,000 low-income clients per year and, in the past year or so, I’ve seen a huge increase in the number of hard-working folks who are falling from the middle class into poverty. In the most extreme cases, people who had six figure incomes are facing the prospect of moving to homeless shelters. And contrary to what some may suggest, this tragedy is almost always the result of an uncontrollable event such as losing a good job or a serious illness.
Based on my experience, I believe that middle class and low income folks who have lost their jobs are the best bet for pumping money directly into the economy. Generous unemployment benefits would serve this purpose and would also help the foreclosure crisis by keeping more folks in their homes.
Now is not the time for pet projects or knee-jerk adherence to political ideologies (left or right). Now is the time for politicians of all stripes to put this nonsense aside and focus like a laser beam on solutions, such as generous unemployment benefits, that have the sole purpose of preserving the American dream for more of our families.

Posted by: Greg Brownfield, Bartlett IL

This article was printed in the September 4 Issue of the Christian Century Magazine http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3643

by James M. Wall

When Congress returns from its month-long vacation in September, President Bush will ask members to agree to a package of more than $63 billion in military aid and weapons to our “allies” in the Middle East. Why such generosity? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explains that the money will “bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.”

Anthony DiMaggio, professor of Middle East politics at Illinois State University, finds this a spurious argument. He writes that although “the aid initiative has been billed in the media as a major effort to stem terrorism, promote stability, and further cement American power in the region, . . . there is no available evidence suggesting that states like Iran or Syria have plans to attack any American allies in the region” (Counterpunch, August 5).

It is wrong to claim that Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia face an immediate threat from Iran; they do not, except in the minds of the people who brought us the Iraq war. Nor could Hamas and Hezbollah be described as regional threats. Their quarrels with Israel are as political factions fighting for their share of political power.

Through this aid package the U.S. seeks to extend hegemony over the oil-rich region and benefit loyal U.S. allies. Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson (August 1) reports that in addition to the $30 billion scheduled for Israel over the next decade, the Bush administration wants to give $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as $13 billion to Egypt. None of these Arab states are paragons of democratic virtue.

The cash flow to U.S. supporters in the region indicates “a bipartisan craziness that never ended despite the end of the Cold War,” says Jackson. In fact, he adds, both the first President Bush and Bill Clinton aggressively promoted U.S. arms sales and raised these sales to more than twice the level of the last years of the cold war.

Why should Congress supply arms to oil-rich Saudi Arabia when the country already has more munitions than it can handle? Israeli historian and political activist Uri Avnery answers this question in his blog post “White elephants” (see www.avnery-news.co.il):

The Saudis are selling oil to the Americans for dollars. A lot of oil, a lot of dollars. The United States, with a huge gap in its balance of trade, cannot afford to lose these billions. So, in order to make it possible for the U.S. to carry this burden, the Saudis must give back at least a part of the money. How? Quite simple: they buy American arms that they don’t need.
Avnery has lived in Israel since 1933 and knows the Israel/U.S. “two-nation dance” well: “Every arms deal made by the White House needs the assent of Congress, which is in the hands of the ‘friends of Israel’—the Jewish and the Evangelical lobbies. Any senator or congressman can forget about being reelected if he offends one of these lobbies.”

When Congress takes up the aid package in September, the White House will promise Congress that the deal will bring “regional stability.” Then, when Israel’s political supporters protest, the New York Times and other media will explain that in order to maintain “the balance of power” and Israel’s “qualitative superiority over all the Arab armies combined,” the aid package should be accepted as good for Israel.

Avnery knows the script. “Together with the $20 billion deal with the Saudis, President Bush decreed that the American yearly grant of military assistance to Israel should be raised from 2.4 billion to 3 billion. This means that in the coming ten years, Israel will receive arms to the value of 30 billion dollars,” nearly a 43 percent increase over what that nation received during the past ten years. With a few exceptions, Israel’s purchases will be in the U.S.

When aid package makes it through Congress, U.S. arms merchants will show their gratitude by making additional political contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. And as an added bonus, they will see their products tested in actual conflict.

Avnery reports that in a recent television interview, an Israeli general said that “under an American-Israeli agreement, the Israeli army is obliged to report to the American military establishment on the effectiveness of all kinds of arms. For example: the accuracy of ‘smart’ bombs and the performance of airplanes, missiles, drones, tanks and all the other instruments of destruction in [Israel's] wars.”

Even the results of a “targeted killing” in Gaza or the effectiveness of fragmentation bombs in Lebanon can be relayed back to the U.S. arms producers. This information, in turn, allows the manufacturers to improve the effectiveness of their weapons. It is all there in a $63 billion aid package, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

James M. Wall is senior contributing editor at the Century.

Why did I participate in the first Chicago Summit on African Immigrants and Refugees?

A few years ago while visiting Accra, Ghana and the final resting place of W. E. B. DuBois, American-born advocate for social justice, I recommitted myself to the cause of the poor, the oppressed and people suffering under unjust economic and political systems (including our own).

While standing inside the slave dungeons of Elmina Castle, a fort built by the Portuguese in 1482 on Ghana’s coast which later became one of the most important stops in the Atlantic slave trade, I felt a new connection and sense of pride in my African ancestry and what my people, once considered a commodity, not only survived but overcame so that I might be here today. My fingers ran over the walls and felt the impressions where enslaved people literally attempted to dig through stone and mortar in search of freedom before passing through “the door of no return”.

The Church, too, was complicit not only through the issue of Papal Bulls but constructing chapels inside the forts as is illustrated by the Portuguese Church.

These experiences have led me to look for every opportunity to positively impact the lives of Africans in the Diaspora.

One of the most overlooked parts of the immigration issue today is the consideration of African Diaspora immigrants and refugees. A recent study revealed that African immigrants are the most highly educated of all immigrants to the United States including European and Asian immigrants. Likewise, frequently left out of the immigration debate is the treatment of Haitian migrants who perish in our waters each year in comparison to Cuban migrants who benefit from what is commonly called the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” Policy. Despite the academic success of African immigrants and the just cause of African refugees they are not on equal footing in the debate of immigration policy or refugee status. The Church which played such a significant role in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and perpetually engages in racial and class stratification must confess and repent of the sins it has committed by word, thought, or deed in the things that it has done and the things that it has failed to do.

So why did I participate in the event? To paraphrase the psalmist:

“If I forget you, O Africa, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Africa above my highest joy.”

Based on Psalm 137:5-6

Posted by Chris Pierson

THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE

As we move forward to another critical election year, our country faces a huge challenge with the immigration issue. What is needed is for us to help keep the discussion rational and reasonable so the subject is not used as a wedge issue for political reasons, something that will only divide and further polarize us.
We should also not allow ourselves to be distracted from focusing on what is going on with other key issues such as Iraq, education, global warming, and healthcare.

Some want us to turn our backs on the 12 million “illegal aliens” that reside in the country today. I am always taken aback by the term illegal alien. Is an alien an extraterrestrial being as Webster suggests? Also, what does illegal mean? A person who is guilty of a crime, a criminal? Crossing the border without documents carries but one penalty and that is deportation by the federal authorities. It is a civil offense not a criminal act.

In 1886 our country dedicated the Statue of Liberty. Over the next 22 years the country experienced a large influx of immigrants. In 1908 a young girl came over from Poland and landed at Ellis Island. Welcomed, although only 15, she signed in as an 18 year old. At the time documents were not required. None of the people she was with or herself came with papers or documents. Yet my grandmother was welcomed because our industrial and capitalistic society was, in a sense, mainlining on these people to help build our needed railroads, stockyards and factories.

Later during the Great Depression and in the early thirties, the country, under Hoover, passed the Mexican Repatriation Act that resulted in the deportation of 500,000 men, women, and children, many of whom were legal Mexican Americans. When WW II broke out, FDR had most of these people returned to the US. It then took us another 60 years until the State of California, in 2005, issued a formal apology to these folks and their descendants. So what has changed over the last two years in our country and maybe even over the last six months that is getting worse everyday?

Today the rhetoric has become hysterical in nature because of people like Lou Dobbs. People like him are attempting to convince us that no one should be rewarded for breaking the law. Interestingly, one great American hypocrisy is how we drive on the interstate, exceed the speed limit, are rewarded by getting to our destination faster and without adverse consequence.

One recent example of a Dobbs’ tirade was against The Dream Act. This bill was defeated without compassion, without reason and without objective and honest dialogue. Senators were pressured by Dobbs’ advocates to vote against high school seniors, who are educated here, accomplished, speak the language, and would be some of our best hope for professional achievement. The message instead, was to get out!

In-state tuition as well as grants and scholarships were denied to these high school seniors. Denied by advocates pressing for a new war, a war on immigrants. A war that would be counter productive to everything that is American.

What these hate and war mongers are exploiting is our ignorance. Not being informed on issues allows the Dobbs’ crowd to use half truths and lies to make their case. Information that is taken out of context and misdirected so as to cause us to become more vulnerable to our emotions and fears. If ultimately the voting booth is our checks and balance system then it only works if we vote informed and our vote is counted.

We can avoid being exploited if we frame the dialogue. One example is the use of the term amnesty, which means to pardon without consequence. The truth is, no one is for amnesty. We are being misled because the proper term is “earned legalization.” Most of the public favors this approach. It means that there would be a path to legal status that would include being here for several years, payment of fines, learning English, having no criminal record, and being of good character. And, a process that will take years.

That is not amnesty. No one is asking for a pass or a free ride. It is all lies. Let us change the dialogue. We need to implement earned status, don’t let it be abandoned.

Why are these folks coming here? Instead of answering that question we are going to build The Great Wall of America that will precipitate new cottage industries – longer ladder companies.

The primary reason why people are coming here is to work. Even by closing the border we are only addressing about 50% of the undocumented since about half are here with visa overstays and did not come across the border. The 911 terrorists were all overstayers and none came across the Mexican border.

It is important for us to respond to myths with facts. For example, immigrants contribute about $100,000 more resources in their lifetime than they use. Over $20 billion is collected from immigrants and sent to social security. None of this will come back to the unauthorized worker. These funds are counted on by the federal government to pay out benefits to the rest of us.

Most employers in Ag in Florida hire workers with social security cards that can not be accurately verified. If we deport the agricultural workers all of us will be severely impacted unless you do not eat. We must not become dependent on foreign food of which only 1% is inspected. We must support safe and healthy American grown fair food. This will mean higher wages and higher prices. Something the retail industry does not support.

Employers should not be asked to check if workers are legal by using the Homeland Security e-verify database because the data is only 90% accurate instead of the 99% needed for effective and efficient implementation. Because of the alarming actions being taken by some communities against immigrants, communities already are seeing businesses close down and economic disasters in the making as immigrants leave for other areas. In the Ag industry wages are not being increased because our society pays the least percentage of income for fresh fruit and vegetables than any other industrialized country in the world. This situation was made worse by NAFTA and CAFTA when many tomato farms moved south of the border so workers could be paid less.

In Mexico 52% of the 100 million people live in poverty and make less than $2.00 per day. Mexico, as an oligarchy, colludes with our government to maintain the status quo. One example of a new Marshall Plan for Mexico would be an economic development plan that would include no interest or low interest micro financing and loans. Actually, privatization has brought micro financing to Mexico, except the interest rate on the money loaned to the poor is 100%

Based on these conditions and if you lived there now and today your family was starving, who among you would not risk your life to save your family by crossing the border to work in a job that nobody else wants that will keep your family from starving to death.

They are Mexico’s best people, courageous people, young and smart people. People we have met and known that work very hard and deserve not the worst that America has to offer, living in the shadows and in fear, being stopped and asked for documents without cause. Is this racism all over again?

Our diligent response is to be informed and to lobby our political representatives. We need to expect both clarity and courage from them and no less.

Richard Nogaj
Wheaton, IL

Today on NPR’s Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Thomas Ricks, senior Pentagon correspondent for The Washington Post and author of the new book, “Fiasco.” In the interview, Ricks stated that what Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were calling peaceful regions are actually areas where we have armed the most powerful local militias, some Sunni and some Shia, helping them wipe out the local opposition and there by establishing some level of calm.

While Ricks was very rescpecful of Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker, he pointed out that the Iraq government is as concerned about this tactic as any mayor would be if police in a major urban city decided to bring peace to some of its neighborhoods by arming and giving badges to the Crips street gang in those areas.

Ricks sees what we are currently doing for peace in the short term as establishing the foundation for an even bigger civl war. If this is the case, then things are even worse in Iraq than imagined.

When will the U.S. learn that when we flood other countries with high tech arms, we are simply creating bigger and bigger problems for ourselves and the world.

Sending more arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel simply ensures that when conflict occurs – it will be bloodier and more disasterous than ever.

Posted by: Connie

Ethnic Cleansing

I am also concerned that this policy has accelerated the ethnic cleaning in neighborhoods that once were peaceful Shia and Sunni mix. Isolating into different neighborhoods and towns does little to build the reconciliation needed for a stable and peaceful Iraq.

This is another unintended consequence of our policies.

Posted by: Christine

 According to data from the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, taxes other than income tax disproportionately impact the poor more than the wealthy.

 One problem with the Govenor’s plan was that it would have continued to put a proportionally unfair burden on the poor by creating an indirect VAT tax (taxing these companies who would then just increase the price of their products).

 The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability proposes tax relief to low and moderate income families to solve this problem with the Govenor’s plan. They have a very interesting report on the Govenor’s Tax plan at: http://www.cbpp.org/5-3-07sfp.htm

 Posted by: Connie

I agree!

 We need to both close corporate loopholes and raise the Illinois state income tax. If we can do an income tax/property tax swap that still provides some relief to renters, so much the better.

 I realize Illinois is stuck with a flat income tax under our Constitution. However, we should do what we can to make the income tax as PROGRESSIVE as possible!

 NOW is the time to work on this — and I’m willing to do so.

Posted by: SusanSPastin

You are right, income taxes are required to be flat by the Illinois Constitution, (and We should work to change this.) but in the meantime, income taxes are the fairest taxes for the poor.

Property Taxes, VAT Taxes, fees and assessments, and sales taxes all have the effect of taking a much higher percentage of income for lower income brackets compared to high income brackets.

The question becomes simply where does the money come from that we need in order to improve education. Does it come from the people who already struggle to meet subsistance levels – or does it come from those who have more than they need?

 Posted by: Connie