Grading The Gubernatorial Candidates On Taxes
Yesterday, the Illinois Policy Institute released an assessment by Chad Shaffer on the Gubernatorial candidates and taxes. The candidates were judged along the lines that voters traditionally judge candidates: retrospectively, prospectively and their general view of the issue. The results were surprising -- at least to me:
Bill Brady: A
Jim Oberweis: A-
Rod Blagojevich: B-
Ron Gidwitz: C+
Judy Topinka C-
Edwin Eisendrath: F
What Chad looked at and how is explained in the brief report. It's a really good read.
8 comments:
Very interesting post, thanks!
Tax relief is my top issue. Brady is the best choice overall as well.
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/
2006/03/brady-new-generation.html
Greg,
Is the article all you guys are releasing? Did anyone even supervise this research intern?
You guys have some problems with this, first of which is your static scoring of any Republican governor with a Democratic legislature. It totally ignores partisan friction. Would a Republican Governor let the Democratic GA have its way, or vice versa? So much for rating Rod higher than Judy/Ron.
Second is publishing data straight off the selectively factual Gid/Rausch press release. Knock Judy for her tax swap proposed rate hike, but no offsetting credit for tax reduction in the swap- then state that Judy hasn't proposed any lower taxes! That's consistency (/sarcasm).
Pardon me, but your bias is showing.
Directly from Edwin Eisendrath's website under "Issues" www.eisendrath2006.com
"I am fiscally conservative and will push for a budget that encourages private sector growth.
According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, Illinois is in the bottom quartile when it comes to year end balances as a percentage of state expenditures.
I agree with those who say the Illinois revenue system needs an overhaul. However, while I believe all options should be on the table, tax hikes must be the last option. My goal is to balance programmatic needs, fiscal realities and the drivers of economic growth.
One of those drivers is a stable, balanced budget absent the jarring effects of repeated, one-time fixes. I will shrink the gap by refusing to sign budgets that increase the use of one-time revenue sources. I would never have signed the bill that authorized the $2.3 billion pension raid. It was a terrible idea with financial and performance consequences that will last for years.
As for budget priorities, mine are programs that keep us safe and invest in our future, like education and infrastructure.
Greg,
This piece continues the excellent work that your organization does.
I hope to see you leading the charge of Republicans for Blagojevich in the general election against Topinka.
Greg, the headline refers to the broad category of "taxes" and not the narrow category of "pro growth" taxes used to defend your hit piece.
Your analysis of SB 1040, if your associate ever printed it or read it, shows your bias. The quote didn't come from the source sited- it didn't come from the proposed legislative language. It came from a Gidwitz press release.
I like the quotes from Mr. Norquist- the guy who took millions from Jack Abramoff- they add credibility to your report.
Greg:
1. Where did the quote from footnote 14 come from? Hint: not from the source cited.
2. Your "pro-growth" qualification of your "tax" headline is not explained in your article. The Wall Street Journal crtieria takes this to mean cuts in tax rates at the margin.
Using this definition, your extra credit to Brady for property and motor fuel tax is puzzling. Your refusal to credit Topinka for similar non-margin tax loopholes for seniors, etc. is inconsistent. It may be simple error on your part, or bias. In this politically charged pre-primary season, I presume the latter.
The real error here is assigning some tax cuts as "good" and therefore worthy of credit, and others tax cuts as "bad" and unworthy of mention. This logic will lead you to conclude that some tax increases, as long as they are not "anti-growth", are good, and that only the "anti-growth" tax increases are bad. The truth is, every tax increase is bad, and every tax cut is good. And should be credited- be consistent.
3. Guilt by Association... hey, that's what your friends are trying to do to Judy over BK and the Gay Parade.
Suggestion: Hire economists as interns, not political scientists.
I see you can't defend the quote that references footnote 14. Interesting.
Your comments on tax cuts and tax hikes are astonishing and contradictory coming from the Executive Director of an organization whose purpose is "Free enterprise and limited government for a better Illinois". Hint: If your goal is limited government, then all tax increases are bad.
And no, a tax hike during a war is not a wise idea. This crackpot idea sounds like a special interest dream cooked up by think tanks that promote DoD spending. The wise idea is to make the war pay for itself, such as the First Gulf War, and as was the goal in this Iraq War. Both Bush administrations realized the error of trying to increase taxes during wartime.
You should know, as head of a public policy outfit that war is a big government program-"the health of the state"; that taxes never revert to pre-war levels; that belligerents resort to conscription (confiscation of labor) to man mililtary establishments; and result in billions of dollars in property destruction. All of these are against your stated goals of "Free enterprise and limited government for a better Illinois".
The idea that "Bad tax cuts damage government revenue and do nothing for economic growth" is equally absurd. Frankly, I expect this argument to be made by public officials. Reminder: Individuals- not government- are entitled to the fruit of their labors. Government gets revenue (theoretically) by consent, not entitlement. The idea that economic growth should be a basis confiscating one's wealth and property is the underlying rationale for the US Supreme Court's erroneous Kelo decision.
I agree that rate reductions are good, but if they are not possible, then loopholes will do in the interim.
You state "credits and tax relief for this special interest or a particular industry or group is little more than rent seeking. They are also inefficient and unequal. That's why JBT doesn't get credit for them -- nor the Gov." But Bill Brady does gets credit for proposing selective tax repeal and relief. While I agree with both his proposals, your credit to Brady is inconsistent.
I'm willing to admit that you were wrong, and not intentionally biased. But I don't think I'm wrong on who your friends are.
To the point of your post about the IPI Article: The report includes this quote and footnote: “Increased the state tax rate on food and nonprescription medicines, drugs and medical appliances.” [14] The footnote states: [14] LexisNexis; 88th General Assembly 1993-94, S.B. 1040.
The quote did not come from the source footnoted. The past tense language should have stood out like a sore thumb to a proofreader, editor or supervisor. Either the quote is wrong or the source is wrong. Which is it?
Answer: Just change the source to the Gidwitz campaign and admit the error.
On taxation, I am familiar with Bartlett and Bartley (I agree with your comments on "The Seven Fat Years"), and am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's $50 tax rebate gimmick. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with rate cuts, but will take the loopholes in the meantime. A word of advice to you: Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If seniors get to keep more of their money, but mine is still taken in taxes, I'll rejoice with the seniors.
We have a word for wanting to tax those we perceive to be doing better than ourselves at higher rates- envy. That's Bill/Hillary Clinton style politics, not free market stuff.
On war, yes, I'm familiar with Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini, Mahan, and Boyd. You again narrow your definition of Total War to "when the existence of the state is threatened." It could be argued that has happened only once under our present constitution- the War Between the States. (Of course, to accept that war as a threat to the existence of the state you must believe that Geo. Washington was a threat to the existence of the British state. And no, sinking ships or attacking Hawaii is not a threat to the existence of a state either.) The infrequent incidence of such a threat then is to make your claim speculative.
As a practical matter, though, having foreigners pay for a war on their soil may not necessarily be a good thing, but it sure is more in keeping with IPI's masthead goal of "Free enterprise and limited government for a better Illinois" than "war socialism".
On friends and associations: I'm sure I don't have a clue, just postings on another blog. I don't think I've ever commented on your willingness to work with JBT or anyone else. There was someone on another blog using IPI's name, though, and I take your word for it that they were misrepresenting their association with IPI.
Your point well is taken about giving or taking personal criticism- it is far easier to give and more difficult to receive- but the standard should be truth and accuracy, no matter whose feelings are hurt. Please do not take the it personally-just admit the error about footnote 14.
Post a Comment