Skip to main content

View Diary: Betrayal in Massachusetts (293 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But it was an option.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soros, neroden

    How many times did the Governor call for a progressive income tax?  How many times did he call out Citadel's Ken Griffin, worth billions, for not paying his fair share?  Why didn't he propose a wealth tax, even if it did necessitate a constitutional amendment.

    Didn't the governor of Illinois recently eliminate the death penalty?  If he did that, why is he not so bold as to champion progressive taxation in Illinois?

    I'll tell you why.

    He's more comfortable increasing the tax burden on the working and middle-class than on the really wealthy.

    Think about it.  Over the last decade, the working and middle-class have seen a real wage decline.  The governor of IL exacerbated this wealth inequality through his tax hike.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

    by PatriciaVa on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:02:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Without checking to be sure certain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      neroden

      I believe amending the IL constitution requires a constitutional convention -- the governor or even the governor together with the general assembly cannot modify the state's flat income tax.

      I know there was a ballot measure in 2008 calling for just such a convention -- I voted yes -- but it lost pretty handily (worse than 2 to 1, IIRC).   In fact, it was Pat Quinn who has at various times been one of the state's biggest advocates FOR a constitutional convention.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:09:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, my above isn't quite right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PatriciaVa, neroden

      The convention is the main mechanism -- however

      The General Assembly can initiate a constitutional amendment, but it requires passage by 3/5 of each house.   Once passed, it must then to go a statewide ballot where the electorate must also consent to the change.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 04:13:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm, 3/5.... (0+ / 0-)

        That sounds tough.  But maybe do-able.  It would require a whip count to see if you're even close.

        Read pp. 1-7 of Krugman's _The Great Unraveling_ (available from Google Books). NOW.

        by neroden on Wed Apr 27, 2011 at 08:51:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (122)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (23)
  • Elections (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Bernie Sanders (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site