Where are the reforms with the county sales tax hike?
I apologize in advance for this post, which is just slightly off topic. But only slightly.
There was plenty of opposition early this year to the one-quarter of one-percent sales tax hike to fund mass transit in the Chicagoland area. But certainly I was a big supporter of that solution. One reason I supported it is because there were plenty of transit reforms built into that bill. They include more fiscal and planning accountability for the RTA, and CTA pension and retiree health care reforms.
And mind you, that was for a quarter of a percentage point incease to the sales tax.
So now we have the Cook County Board increasing its sales tax rate a full percentage point -- from 0.75% to 1.75%, And in Sunday's Tribune, Chicago Civic Federation rightly notes that the "county's increase is four times greater than the sales-tax increase granted to the CTA, which agreed to a series of "comprehensive and historic" reforms."
"There is no reform tied to this," said Msall. "There is nothing here the taxpayers can look forward to. ... Nothing in this budget that gives the Civic Federation confidence that the millions collected [under the tax increases] are going to be spent any differently than the other $3 billion in the budget."
To me, that's an important difference between the two increases. And I'd really like to know what those 1,000 new jobs in Cook County government will be. Dang!
OK, I'm done with that slightly off-topic mini-rant. Back to our regular programming.
How classy of them to jack up taxes late on Friday night before a holiday weekend (Pulaski Day). By Tuesday we'll all have forgotten about it.
Already there is nothing in the papers about it. Instead we're treated to Drew Peterson updates. What a joke.
Posted by: Colin | March 03, 2008 at 08:07 AM
I guess its true... you cant fight city hall.
Posted by: Johnson | March 03, 2008 at 08:23 AM
The Sun-Times reported that they stopped the clocks in the board room at 11:55 PM, but that everyone's watches showed 12:14 AM.
Perhaps there might be a court challenge by someone who has some money or a lawyer that will do that pro bono!
Posted by: Unindicted Co-conspirator | March 03, 2008 at 09:21 AM
On the news late Friday night, they were projecting that the meeting could go until 4 am.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | March 03, 2008 at 09:59 AM
No need to apologize for the comment; it is hardly off topic since it concerns delivery of public services and the inequity of transit funding. There is a minor reform included in the new budget in that County health system operations will now be monitored by an independent panel, nine of the 20 positions being chosen by Stroger with final approval going to the County Board approval. This has yet to be implemented, however, and could suffer from the same gridlock and enmity that prolonged the budget process. CTA pension and health care reforms were negotiated in advance of passing of transit legislation. Whoever thought we'd see the day that local government could learn a thing or two from management at the CTA? On a related note, there was major gridlock at Howard on Saturday morning due to construction at the station and a power outage. The platform was full of CTA management keeping passengers informed and providing info about alternates. The trauma of the old days is beginning, slowly, to recede into memory.
Posted by: Martha | March 03, 2008 at 02:35 PM
In exchange for the sales tax increase, the county board president gave up control of a huge swath of county government (the health care bureau) and an independent board will be put in charge for three years.
One can argue about whether that's a good or bad thing or enough of a reform, but it's hard to see how it's not reform.
Posted by: irk | March 03, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I think the Tribune did a good job at answering how it is not reform in an editorial on Sunday: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0302edit5mar02,1,2160389.story
Posted by: MK | March 03, 2008 at 11:18 PM
The Tribune doesn't "answer" anything - it's entire analysis of the new governance of the health bureau consists of the unexplained speculation that Stroger's control over the bureau will continue through the selection of five "patsies." If the Tribune knows who's going to be selected or has a reason to believe that the nominations will be rigged in some way, why doesn't it bother to report on that?
The answer to that question is because the Tribune has no idea what it's talking about on this issue, and simply allowed its (justified) frothing at the mouth about the tax increase to carry over into its commentary on the health bureau reform.
At a minimum, any reasonable person would have to agree that the jury is out on the new governing board. It hasn't even been picked, for pete's sake!
Posted by: spot | March 05, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Spot:
Did you notice this sentence?: "Civic, health and labor groups will nominate 20 candidates;" Do you think that civic, health , and labor groups (the latter especially) are going to objective and not worried about political pressure? Of course not. There is going to be a number of backroom deals and/or threats that make sure that these groups nominate people who fit Stroger's vision of bloated and ineffician government. And even if some of these groups manage to do the right thing and nominate people good for a county it won't matter. Stroger just needs five out of the twenty to support him. If this were to really be a good process then there is no doubt that labor groups, for Christ sakes, should not be involved.
Posted by: MK | March 05, 2008 at 12:56 AM
And obviously I meant to say "inefficiant", not "ineffician".
Posted by: MK | March 05, 2008 at 12:58 AM