Quote:
Originally Posted by Local2ED
Brady liked to say how he was going to cut spending,everybody rejoiced he was going to save Illinois. Sounded great until that pesky question was raised in at least one debate I saw and other interviews; "How do you plan to cut spending?" What was Brady's answer, " I DON'T KNOW".
Gov. Quinn made no attempt to DENY he wanted to raise taxes through his whole campaign, He said he would veto anything over 1% but I did read in a few articles he felt 2% was what was needed.
Both the Dems. and the Rep. have been reluctant to adress this problem in the previous years but this was what Gov. Quinn recieved when he took office. I read an article recently about the bond rating of the state and how he had no choice but to do what he said he was GOING TO DO THROUGH HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN.
Maybe you would be more comfortable electing some who tells you he will cut spending, but doesn't know how only to later raise our taxes but I applaud Gov.Quinn's honesty. NO dought it was political suicide.
I don't know where that $600 figure, wev'e been kicking around came from, But I know I'll be paying much more than that, Oh well
So far Gov. Quinn has been quite open as far as his intentions.
|
Gov Jello open as far as his intentions.
Geesh on top of the 600 hundred you owe me, share what ever you're smoking.
Remember BEFORE the election Gov Jello pounded the table that his 1% increase was the solution, he'd veto anything thing else, his 1% increase was the solution, he'd veto anything thing else, his 1% increase was the solution, he'd veto anything thing else, his 1% increase was the solution, he'd veto anything thing else, his 1% increase was the solution, he'd veto anything thing else.
I think he threatened the death penalty to anyone that opposed it, which is why they repealed it.
AGAIN if the Poli's would do something to curb the spending I might not oppose this, but this is nothing more than given a crack addict an extra pound and saying he'll quit after this. YEAH RIGHT.
They owe billions to non profits, why are they giving to non profits ??
Then, and here's where you better worry.
There is legal opinion that if the Politicians are shown to NOT have acted in favor of the voters that they are supposed to represent versus the pensions to the Unions. The pensions are invalid, in orther words the Poli's MUST put their consituents first.
Even Rahm made the comment that we can't take away what we've promised the employee's.
He's putting the wrong people first, and coming right out and saying it.
A good legal challenge could all but invalidate the Chicago union pensions.
Oh the 600 $ figure is based on the average 56ish k income in the state.