Health care and child care workers joined community advocates in rallies outside the district offices of State Representatives Jim Brosnahan, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Zalewski Thursday at the first of many statewide protests aimed at members of the Illinois House of Representatives who voted against an increase in the state’s income tax.
“Representatives Brosnahan, McCarthy and Zalewski let Illinois families like us down when they voted against the revenue needed to protect the programs we depend on,” said Tosha Kelly, a child care provider from Chicago. “Tens of thousands of working parents are going to lose the child care assistance that allows them to provide for their families and keep their children safe – all because these representatives put politics before people. They need to right their wrongs before it’s too late.”
Billions of dollars in cuts to critical human services programs are set to take effect July 1st – leaving 80,000 working parents without child care, over 40,000 seniors and people with disabilities without home care and countless other families devastated by drastic cuts to the programs they depend on.
“Where do legislators like Representative Brosnahan think seniors like me are going to go when we lose our home care?” asked 67-year-old Gloria Logan Brewer from Chicago. “I’ll be forced out of the home I love and into a nursing home I don’t need and can’t afford. These representatives need to come to their senses and tell their leaders that the better way to address this crisis is through a fair income tax increase, not a budget that will destroy families.”
“Time is running out for working families,” said Rebia Mixon, a home care worker from Chicago. “If Representative Zalewski and his colleagues don’t fix this, we’re looking at tens of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities on the streets, massive layoffs and rising unemployment at a time when we should be getting Illinois back on track. Our representatives need to stop playing games with peoples’ lives and get to work.”
Thursday’s rallies are the first in a series scheduled around the state in coming weeks. Protestors are calling on representatives to urge their leaders to return to Springfield to stop the cuts and pass needed revenue.
© 2010 Campaign For Illinois' Future |
Brad says:
Does IL really need more revenue or do we need senators and representatives that know how to be fiscally responsible?? Last time I checked, our revenue stream was higher than most other states in the Union…time to start putting the blame where it belongs: SPRINGFIELD!
dave says:
Brad… yes, IL really does need more revenue.
First, Illinois is facing a huge reduction in expected revenue due to the struggling economy. The lower than expected income taxes alone make up approximately $3 billion this year.
Second, in a time of economic recession, state provided services become even more necessary, as demand increases due to shrinking income levels, higher unemployment, etc.
As for Illinois’ revenue stream, you are correct that the State brings in more revenue than most states. But that is also because it is bigger than most states. You cannot simply compare total revenue state by state, as different states have different avenues to bring in money and different needs that the revenue must fund.
As for being fiscally responsible, Illinois already has the lowest number of state workers per capita in the country, one of the lowest spending levels in the country, and one of the lowest tax burdens in this country.
You are correct that the blame lies in Springfield. But for different reasons than you think. Illinois does not have a spending problem. It has a revenue problem that politicians have refused to fix because they fear it threatens their hold on power. We need to let them know that we will not stand for these service cuts, and that we want our taxes raised.
So yes, Illinois really does need more revenue, and it needs significant revenue that can only be obtained through raising the income tax. Illinois simply cannot afford to do otherwise.
Jerry says:
I am a local citizen and Mike Zalewski is my representative. I saw a protest in Brookfield the other day and couldnt help but stop and ask what our state representative was going to do. I was then approached by some of the people and was told that he said that he did not want to make a decision too soon because he was “NEW” and didnt have much influence. My reply was that I thought the reason that we vote for a representative is to elect someone to make decisions on our behalf. I also said that a representative was NOT supposed to make their decisions based on what other politicians tell them to do, but what the people tell them they want them to do. As for his influence he was endorsed by Mike Madigan, Dan Lapinski, and his Dad is a Chicago Alderman. I also said that if we could afford state luxuries like fancy street lights, holiday decorations, landscaping etc… that we could afford HOME CARE FOR AMERICANS that need help from their own people. Afterall we take care of so many that arent AMERICAN. I DIDNT THINK THAT TAKING CARE OF AMERICANS IN DESTITUTE WAS AN OPTION TO BE VOTED ON. For those that are in this horrible situation there are people out there who hear you and will keep fighting for you.
1rep·re·sen·ta·tive
Pronunciation: \ˌre-pri-ˈzen-tə-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: serving to represent
2 a: standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority b: of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election
3: serving as a typical or characteristic example
4: of or relating to representation or representationalism
— rep·re·sen·ta·tive·ly adverb
— rep·re·sen·ta·tive·ness noun
— rep·re·sen·ta·tiv·i·ty \-ˌzen-tə-ˈti-və-tē\ noun
Michael Zalewski says:
Jerry,
Whomever told you I stated I didn’t vote for a tax increase because I was “new” is sadly mistaken. I’ve made my position on a tax increase crystal clear. I voted no because my district, on the whole, didn’t want one until we fixed the way we spend money in Springfield. If you’d like to discuss the matter further, contact me at (708) 782-5280. Otherwise, do us all a favor and attach your last name to comments made without the requisite knowledge to make them. Thanks.
Sara Groves says:
Luckily, we live in a place where voters get to make comments whether or not they have the “requisite knowledge” to make them.
Incidentally, our representatives also don’t need “requisite knowledge” to be elected– just the ability to do the right thing by the people who count on them.
I support fixing the way we spend money. Absolutely.
But that should not be done on the backs of the people who can least afford it. The people who use social services are not leeches, as I’ve heard them crassly referred to during this ugly budget debate. They are our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, our brothers, and our children.
We must increase taxes now by a little bit, or we’ll be paying the cost down the road in a much bigger way.
dave says:
Representative Zalewski … I am curious what spending needs to be fixed?
Illinois already has very low spending levels relative to other states. Illinois already has a very low number of state employers relative to other states. Illinois also has a very low tax burden relative to other states.
Do you think that social service spending should be slashed? Is that the spending that your district doesn’t like? Or do they not like seniors and people with disabilities receiving home care, allowing them to stay out of nursing homes (and by doing so costing the state less money)?
Illinois does not have a spending problem. Illinois has a revenue problem. Part of this problem is that Illinois relies on fluctuating incomes to provide consistent revenue for state operations and grants. Part of the problem is that Illinois, the country, and the world is facing a recession and causing revenues to plummet. And part of the problem is that Illinois’ tax system is simply broken, and places too much weight on the lower and middle classes while not bringing enough money.
Lets fix the revenue problem instead of pretending there is a spending problem.
Michael Zalewski says:
Sara-do you believe, like Jerry, that I stated somewhere along the line that I stated I was “new” and, therefore, couldn’t vote for a tax increase? Because, if so, you are wrong. Someone mislead Jerry, and is misleading you, if they represented my vote in that way. I do commend you on attaching your last name to your comments. I also respect and appreciate your comments about the budget situation as they appear to come from a thoughtful and well informed constituent. Furthermore, I think it was disgraceful that social services became the focal point of the budget negotiations. There was a strategy employed, and, unfortunately, those most vulnerable became a pawn.
With regard to your and Dave’s comments: Dave, I respectfully disagree with you. We do have a spending problem. We have several continuing appropriations in our budget (pensions) that we ignored for six years, we do top-down budgeting instead of zero-based budgeting, a technique that revealed itself as fatally flawed this year, and yet we increased spending every year. All of the social services you mention in your post are worthy of the funding they receive, but to say we do not have a spending problem is, in my view, inaccurate.
I hear over and over again in my district: We know there is a revenue problem, we do not want to see social services cut, but please, please, fix the way the state does business before coming to us to raise our taxes.
Families, in the last year, have had to make tough choices. They forgo more, spend fewer dollars, and are, in many cases, afraid to go to the mailbox. They made tough choices. Why shouldn’t we as a state government? Why shouldn’t we take a look at a two-tiered pension system to relieve some of the burden on our checkbook? Why shouldn’t we ask state employees (including Geneal Assembly members) to take some furlough days? If we do those things, then I’ll be happy to re-evaluate my vote.
I am not ignorant of the fact that the state needs more revenue. I get it. Trust me, I get it. But if we raise more revenue without a major overhaul of how we spend money, we will be right back where we are in the near future? Do you want to go though all of this again? I certainly don’t.
Again, thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss these issues in this forum. And please, please, know that whoever stated I said I couldn’t vote for an income tax increase because I was “new” is wrong. I never said that. Ever.
Michael Zalewski says:
Also, I invited you to attend my town hall on August 4 at the Riverside town hall to further discuss these issues and others.
Jonathan Knox says:
Representative, you are being paid to make decisions and to be the first to solve problems. You have not fulfilled your duties of balancing a budget. You have not joined the Republicans to figure out a way to balance the budget w/o borrowing. You have let the leadership tell you what to do. Being new is not a valid excuse. You have failed us. We need someone to fight the good fight, write editorials, anything to further your cause. You have not done so.