A Downers Grove resident left two voice mail messages on my phone system yesterday regarding my column this week about the ongoing budget fiasco we have in Springfield, and he sounded like he didn’t agree with my take on the matter.
In my column, I highlighted a recent debate between Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, and Brian Wesbury, chief economist for the Wheaton-based First Trust Advisors. They discussed their preferred approaches to closing the multi-billion dollar budget deficit.
Wesbury said the usual practice in Springfield has been to approve additional spending on new programs without coming up with viable funding sources. Martire argued that the problem isn’t with over-spending, it’s with under-taxing.
I wrote that Martire is off-base about Illinois residents not paying enough in taxes. Legislators created this mess by creating new prorgrams without having a way to pay for them.
If a spending plan is not approved by June 30, state agencies may have to start cutting services to balance the budget. Lawmakers must identify the most crucial spending priorities and start cutting other items, I wrote in my column.
The reader’s first message he left was that I should identify the $7 billion in cuts in the budget that I’d like to see made. He said I join other pontificators in calling for cuts while not stipulating where they can be made, concluding, “It’s a waste of my time” before hanging up.
My new friend’s second message was on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-10th District, of Highland Park to pass tougher penalties of up to 25 years in prison for people who smoke a potent form of marijuana. The Downers Grove reader wanted to know if I could provide a cost-benefit analysis of such an idea.
To address this reader’s concerns, let me comment on the second issue first. The drug laws in this country are absurd, and I believe drug use should be legalized. While people who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs should be prosecuted, criminalizing drug usage has been disastrous.
Other than that, my friend’s point about Kirk is slightly off-target. Kirk is a federal legislator, not a state lawmaker. So any proposal he made regarding issuing tougher penalties for marijuana users wouldn’t impact the state budget, which was the topic of my column.
People accused of breaking federal laws would be tried by federal prosecutors in federal courts and sent to federal prisons if convicted. This would entail spending money in the federal budget, not the state budget.
As to his first issue, in my column I called on lawmakers to identify the social services we needed the most. Once they priorized what we absolutely needed and what’s less important, they’ll know where they can begin cutting.
But the Downers Grove reader raises a valid criticism of the approach I took in my column. Just as I challenged lawmakers to articulate what services are most needed, he challenged me to identify what services are least needed.
His point to me was that it’s easy for people like me to sit back and criticize others while not offering solutions ourselves, and he’s right. So I have a few ideas of things I’d cut from the budget, and here they are:
Let’s stop paying the salaries of all statewide public officials and cease funding their benefits and perks. This includes Gov. Pat Quinn, members of the Illinois Hosue of Representatives and Senate as well as all constitutional officers.
They can still serve as public officials, we just won’t pay them for it any longer. If they need to spend money on something, it will have to come out of their pockets.
In addition, we can stop paying the pension benefits of all retired public officials. Many of them helped get us into this mess, so the revenue faucet will be turned off. You’re on your own, folks.
Cutting off spending in this area should make a big dent in the budget, so let’s start there. If public officials balk at the prospect of not getting paid, let me ask them this: How does it feel to have your source of funding eliminated?
No one makes this proposal when talking about what may get cut from the budget. They always threaten to slash services for poor people, single mothers and school children.
This amounts to extortion, and people who advocate it should be ashamed of themselves. They always look to other people to victimize when they talk about how budget cuts will hurt, but they never put themselves in the line of fire.
That’s because voters will become more animated to save the funding for poor people, single mothers and school children than they will for public officials. These compassionate souls will then put pressure on lawmakers to pass tax increases because these cuts would hurt the most vulnerable.
If the cuts started with the public officials themselves, I doubt many people would raise an eyebrow. This shows how cynical and deranged this whole process is and why we shouldn’t fall for it.
That’s my idea. Is legislators can’t break the stalemate over the budget, let’s break out the scissors and start with their salaries. Snip-snip-snip!
Stumble It!
