The Illinois spiral (Isn't the rookie Hussein from there, sort of?)

History often occurs with such bombast that we couldn't miss it if we tried: a climactic battle, a pivotal court decree, the inauguration of an African-American president. Other times, history evolves quietly via the Law of Accumulation: Little things add up.

Illinois is suffering one of those subtler but game-changing passages today. Our state is in a downward spiral that, yes, still can be reversed. First, though, we have to admit that we are not the Illinois that was — the muscular producer and processor and manufacturer that could stare a stranger in the eye and convincingly boast: Move here and prosper!

Few of us, or our ancestors, gravitated to this state for its prairie scenery or bipolar climate. Illinois instead promised near-unrivaled opportunity: its rich soil, its wealth of industries, its human hustle frenetic to make a buck.

Today, though, we are losing employers. Nearly half a million of our jobs are gone. We export many of our educated young people to futures out of state.

We can wait, paralyzed, and hope that economic recovery eventually means full employment recovery. Or we can make structural changes now that would welcome the makers of jobs.

We need to lower costs. Our governance infrastructure has become overgrown and overpriced. We have 7,000 often redundant governments, far more than any other state. We populate those governments with armies of employees, and give them duties — some essential, some make-work. Many politicians of both parties enlist these workers as their allies in a cozy paradigm: If you help us win re-election, we will reward you with adequate salaries today — and fabulous retirement benefits tomorrow.

Three pager @ the link above.

From the Maha -

Story #7: Chicago Tribune Editorial: The Illinois Spiral

RUSH: We have a huge story on this and there is an editorial that ran two days ago, ran Sunday in the Chicago Tribune, and I'm going to read parts of this editorial to you because this editorial could be written in every State of the Union. That it is written in Obama's hometown paper is all the more interesting, and it is dead on. Listen to this.

"History often occurs with such bombast that we couldn't miss it if we tried: a climactic battle, a pivotal court decree, the inauguration of an African-American president. Other times, history evolves quietly via the Law of Accumulation: Little things add up. Illinois is suffering one of those subtler but game-changing passages today. Our state is in a downward spiral that, yes, still can be reversed. First, though, we have to admit that we are not the Illinois that was -- the muscular producer and processor and manufacturer that could stare a stranger in the eye and convincingly boast: Move here and prosper! Few of us, or our ancestors, gravitated to this state for its prairie scenery or bipolar climate. Illinois instead promised near-unrivaled opportunity: its rich soil, its wealth of industries, its human hustle frenetic to make a buck.

"Today, though, we are losing employers. Nearly half a million of our jobs are gone. We export many of our educated young people to futures out of state. We can wait, paralyzed, and hope that economic recovery eventually means full employment recovery. Or we can make structural changes now that would welcome the makers of jobs. We need to lower costs. Our governance infrastructure has become overgrown and overpriced. We have 7,000 often redundant governments, far more than any other state. We populate those governments with armies of employees, and give them duties -- some essential, some make-work. Many politicians of both parties enlist these workers as their allies in a cozy paradigm: If you help us win re-election, we will reward you with adequate salaries today -- and fabulous retirement benefits tomorrow." And that's exactly right. That is precisely what has happened in the every State of the Union, with the SEIU people, other government employee unions, we're going to get you salaries, you help us get reelected and we're going to take care of you in retirement like you will never dream, except they're not.

Now, we've just mentioned that many politicians of both parties enlist government workers as their allies in a cozy paradigm: You help us win reelection we'll give you adequate salaries today and fabulous retirement benefits tomorrow. Except they don't because all those retirements are now underfunded. "These politicians treat the public sector with fawning reverence while ignoring, or even scorning, a private sector that supplies their lifeblood revenues. Why so? Because the [politicians] and their allies have a good thing going, and no incentive to disrupt it. So, unlike in scrappier states, there is precious little talk in Illinois of curtailing teacher tenure, or reducing benefits for current public employees, or capping government expenditures, or exterminating townships and other costly relics, or demolishing obsolete institutions." Only one state is doing any of that, and that's New Jersey with Chris Christie.

"Recession, though, has forced a reckoning: Our shrinking and salary-squeezed private sector work force cannot adequately support many of our state's households -- let alone sustain our antiquated overlays of taxing bodies. This should be a time of tremendous opportunity for leaders who, rather than hiding from recession, exploit it to reinvent Illinois. To radically reshape the state's present and its future. To capitalize on employers' problems in other high-cost states by making Illinois their low-cost place to do business. To grow jobs. Instead, our Statehouse brims with defensive, small-think pols hoping to survive another election. We speak of this Illinois spiral not as fatalistic Chicken Littles but as true believers who fiercely don't want this to be New Michigan or New California. Those places tried to stem their declines by marshaling taxation, regulation and future spending obligations in ways that left many employers thinking: Hmm. Expense and hassle. Plenty of other states would rather have these jobs," and they leave.

"You haven't heard Illinois leaders confront a November warning from advisers to the legislature's economic think tank -- the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability -- that while half the states would recover from their job losses by mid-2013, 'Illinois would not recover its peak employment level until 2014 or 2015.' In the meantime, '... 10 states, including Illinois, are expected to suffer unemployment rates in excess of 9 percent.' Nor have you heard Illinois leaders, in their to and fro over an income tax hike, confront a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states --" get this, now "-- with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates." That is a startling stat. Doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that somebody looked it up and they actually published it here. This is the Chicago Tribune reporting this. States with no individual income tax rate created 89% more jobs, 32% faster personal income growth than states with the highest income tax rates.

"The report also analyzed 15 policy factors that influence a state's growth prospects -- tax burdens, debt service, tort climate, mandated minimum wage, spending limits if any -- and ranked Illinois' economic outlook as an alarming 44th in the U.S. Nor have you heard Illinois leaders confront this state's devastating rank in job creation, 48th, and ask how they can be friendlier to present and potential employers. Illinois -- with its overspending, its borrowing and its worst-in-America pension crisis -- faces massive obligations that give potential employers pause. Add to this toxic mix Illinois' high cost of workers compensation and its 49th-in-the-U.S. bond ratings. How surprised, then, are we that since 1990 Illinois has underperformed the U.S. in job growth?" And who's been running the place? Who's been running Chicago? Meaning who's been running the state. This is the Chicago Tribune, a lead editorial on Sunday.

Interesting companion story from Reuters: "Virginia's richest 1 percent of residents got on average $1,595 each from federal tax cuts in the 2009 stimulus law signed by President Barack Obama -- the biggest average benefit for affluent taxpayers in the US." Virginia's richest 1% of residents got an average of $1,595 each in federal tax cuts. Now, who lives in Virginia? Members of Congress, their staffs, and a lot of federal employees. But it doesn't just stop there. "The study found that the best places for the wealthy to live when federal tax burdens were assessed were: Maryland, New York, California, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey." What do those states in have common? They have the largest congressional delegations in Washington.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041310/content/01125104.guest.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.