EXTRA: It’s only 7 cents!

Considering how irate some people got over when Cook County government imposed a penny-per-ounce tax on the price of a bottle of pop, perhaps it shouldn’t be a shock that some people are getting outraged over the possible fee to be charged for plastic bags.

Will this bag cost 5 cents outside of Chicago

It’s already been done in Chicago. The city charges such a tax on each bag used by a shopper – to the point where many people buying anything within the city limits go out of their way to refuse to use the bags.

MEANING THEY’RE NOT paying the tax, but also aren’t using as many plastic bags – which are a serious problem when it comes to trash disposal and recycling.

For what it’s worth, Illinois state government now wants to impose a similar fee. Which means most likely that people in rural places are getting all upset – mostly because they didn’t think of this idea first.

Meaning they’re not collecting the money that does get raised from such a tax.

Now as Gov. J.B. Pritzker puts it, he sees the state tax as a 5 cent fee per bag, with people being given the choice of whether or not they want to buy the bags. Meaning they could avoid paying the fee altogether if they bring their own canvas totes, or some other form of reusable shopping bag.

Trying to reduce these landfills is the point of the tax

PRITZKER ALSO SAYS the state tax would not apply to purchases in Chicago or any other municipality that has its own bag fee. Meaning places such as Evanston or Oak Park – suburbs that like to think they have a progressive character about them that makes life superior within their boundaries.

Which also means that many people are going to diss such a tax as some sort of elitist concept. The Age of Trump type of people probably will claim they’re fighting some holy crusade by refusing to plop down a few pennies for their bags.

Ironic what I do with plastic bags from high-end stores

Although after seeing how such a tax works in Chicago, it seems to me that the kind of people who don’t want to pay it manage to find ways to get out of it. Mostly by carrying their small purchases out of the store in their hands.

Or by becoming the kinds of people who take a tote bag or two with them when they go shopping!

OR YOU COULD be just like myself and decide that 7 cents is a petty fee to pay for the convenience of a bag.

Which I’ll admit sometimes gets me an astounded look from cashiers who have gotten used to people going out of their way to refuse the bags altogether!

Because I’ll admit that I have no problem taking the bags home and finding uses for them. As in I’m recycling them in ways meant to reduce the amount of non-degradable waste that winds up in landfills.

Although I must also admit that many of those bags do wind up getting put to a particular use – as in I keep a few of them in my pockets whenever I take the dogs, Rocco and Carmelo, out for a morning walk around the neighborhood.

THE DOGS ARE well-trained in that they know to “hold it in” and not make a mess while inside the house. They wait for their walk, and in fact the dogs have actually developed a ritual where we walk to a particular front yard where they seem to particularly feel comfortable depositing their “poop.”

Carmelo (left) and Rocco help me with plastic bag re-use

Which causes me to slip a plastic bag onto my hand as a crude glove – and use it to pick up the mess and deposit it into another bag. With all the bags then winding up in the trash outside and hauled away when trash pickup takes place each week.

Maybe it means I’m creating many dozens of doggy-poop missives that will wind up in area landfills. Or it could mean my 7 cent purchases are helping to ensure I’m in total compliance with municipal ordinances concerning the cleanup after one’s own dog.

Which is something I take seriously, because there’s nothing I find more disgusting than someone who thinks they can leave their dog’s poop just lying around. Something I find more disgusting than paying 7 cents for whenever I buy something at Walgreen’s.

  -30-

Who will get hit with political blame as pop, beer prices rise in coming weeks?

It was with some interest that I read reports about how the price of a can of pop or beer will go on the rise in coming weeks due to the rising cost of producing the aluminum for the pop-top cans that are the all-too-popular way of selling such beverages.

Cost of the cans could boost price of the pop/beer

The tariffs being imposed by President Donald Trump are expected to result in rising costs that will be passed along to the consumer.

IT SEEMS THAT both Coca-Cola and MillerCoors are saying they’re going to have to boost the price of buying pop or beer respectively because they will need to recover the costs of producing the cans.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the cost of a case of beer could rise by $1. A hike that could be copied by many other manufacturers of canned beverages.

We all saw last year the outrage that some people got worked up when Cook County tried to impose a tax on sweetened beverages – particularly pop. The carbonated beverage industry made sure to let people know that the prices went up due to government officials.

They also inspired the political outrage that wound up pressuring many of the Cook County Board members who voted for the pop tax (which as I recall boosted the cost of a bottle of Coca-Cola by about 20 cents) to vote to rescind the fee.

THERE WERE PEOPLE who were seriously worked up into a frenzy over the very notion that anyone would try to boost the cost of their pop bottle by anything!

Now, we could have the cost of cases of pop back on the rise not all that long after people thought they had somehow forced the price to drop back down. Considering that there also are hints that Cook County officials may wind up considering to restore some version of the sweetened beverage tax once Election Day has passed and incumbents will be safe from the wrath of gassy pop drinkers for four years, it’s likely that the price we now pay will shoot up soon – and significantly.

TRUMP: Will costs from tariffs cause outrage

So what happens?

Will the wrath be directed entirely upon county officials? Will we have some people who will want to blame the aluminum-related part of the cost increase on the county as well?

OR COULD WE wind up seeing this Age of Trump taken down by the Wrath of Beer-Guzzlers. How dare you do anything that causes the cost of my Bud to go up?

I could see where people who don’t get concerned about all the legitimately-stupid things Trump has done as president would get offended by something trivial; we all have a selfish side to us – and will only get worked up when something purely personal impacts us all.

Or could the Teflon nature (as in no-stick) of the Trump presidency continue to apply here. People will whine and complain about the higher prices they have to start paying for their favorite beverages, but won’t be capable of bringing themselves around to blaming The Donald.

It would amuse me if certain types of people wind up figuring out mental contortionist tricks allowing them to justify blaming Cook County for any price increases that occur on beverages of all types.

PRECKWINKLE: Will some be eager to blame Toni

AFTER ALL, THERE were people all geared up to do a serious campaign against county Board President Toni Preckwinkle based off the tax pop issue. Only they wound up having a political mediocrity like Robert Fioretti to back; which means she cleaned his clock with ease back in the primary election cycle, and there’s no one challenging her come Nov. 6.

Either that, or else they’ll just down another beer or a few while complaining about the additional cost they had to pay in order to put themselves in a state of intoxication.

  -30-

EXTRA: Oops! I almost skipped casting my vote for Toni Preckwinkle

I went to an Early Voting Center on Monday to cast my ballot for the upcoming March 20 primaries and I almost made a gaffe.

When I thought I had completed my ballot, I was informed that I managed to skip over one post – I somehow had left the position of Cook County Board president blank!

I WENT BACK and filled in the blank, making it for the record that I support the re-election of Toni Preckwinkle to a third term in the position. Even though her support of the pop tax last year was supposedly going to be the issue of outrage that would cause Chicago and the inner suburbs to revolt against her.

Remember all that?!?

People were so worked up over the sweetened beverage tax that they were making significantly-inconvenient trips to Lake County (either the Illinois or Indiana versions) to buy their cases of pop and avoid paying the penny per ounce tax rate.

Perhaps it’s because the gubernatorial primaries of both major political parties have caused enough scandal and outrage that people are focusing their attention on those issues.

MAYBE THE OUTRAGE of the electorate is more focused these days on the re-election chances of Cook County Assessor Joe Berrios and trying to dump the political insider in favor of a governmental amateur. Or maybe it’s just because Preckwinkle’s opponent, former Chicago alderman Robert Fioretti, is one step above a fringe candidate like gubernatorial dreamer Robert Marshall.

But when was the last time you heard anyone rant or rage about the pop tax; except for maybe the political crackpot-types who are determined to complain about something no matter what happens.

Is our political attention-span that limited? Most likely!

  -30-

Hoosier booze on Sundays; cheap(er) pop in Illinois. Freedom? Or $$$!

As one who was born in the part of Chicago and raised in the part of the suburbs where the Illinois/Indiana border was nearby and Hoosiers were a different (although not quite alien) species, I have long been used to having to remember who can buy what (and when) on which side of State Line Road.

You won't have to cross the state line ...

The issue received some prominence last year when Cook County tried enacting a special sales tax on pop and other sweetened beverages – resulting in some Illinoisans making special trips to places like Hammond, Munster or Dyer to avoid paying the tax.

WHILE ALL ALONG, some Hoosiers were making a trip westward every Sunday if/when they wanted to purchase alcoholic beverages – and just couldn’t bring themselves to wait until Monday.

The “pop tax” went away a couple of months ago, although some people who long had been in the habit of buying cheap pop in Indiana continue to do so. Personally, I feel like it’s their gasoline they waste for such a trip – although they probably justify it on the grounds that gas is cheaper in Indiana ($2.42 a gallon, the last time I bought some Friday in Hammond a couple of blocks from Illinois).

Now, the liquor ban – which actually dates back to Indiana’s earliest days as a state two centuries ago – is also withering away.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed into law this week a measure eliminating Sunday restrictions on alcoholic beverage sales, and it takes effect with this Sunday. Heck, Holcomb plans to have a “cook-out” at the governor’s mansion in Indianapolis to celebrate.

UNDER THE NEW law, liquor sales can start at Noon – which means you can’t skip out on going to church to get yourselves liquored up. But you can buy your booze after church services.

This is an idea whose political time had come, because for many years the lobbyists for the liquor industry opposed Sunday sales. Small liquor stores feared people would go to supermarkets with well-stocked liquor aisles and big-box retailers with sizable liquor departments to make such purchases.

But it seems that the mood of the public was such that the liquor industry took up the cause of the bigger retailers. Holcomb himself said of the move, “Today is a big day… it’s all about the consumer.”

... to buy your booze Sunday afternoon

So my guess is that the entity that will take a hit will be some of the Illinois-based retailers who were getting Sunday sales from people living near the state line who just couldn’t wait to consume some alcohol – some beer or booze, some hooch or whatever other snazzy term you use to describe it.

MY GUESS IS that there are enough Illinois-based boozers who will continue to make their Sunday purchases that our state’s retailers won’t take on a total financial loss.

Will we now have to find some other product that Illinois and Indiana residents can quibble over, or find some sort of moral grounds to dispute?

We in Illinois should be honest in not trying to claim some sense of superiority about liquor sales, because there are communities which have harsher laws governing liquor sales within their boundaries

I remember when I first moved to Springfield a couple of decades ago and discovering that I had to wait another hour on that particular Sunday before I could pick up a six-pack of beer.

ALTHOUGH IT’S MY understanding that the Illinois capital city has since eased its own standards on liquor sales.

HOLCOMB: A 'kegger' at guv's house Sunday?

There’s money to be made by letting someone buy some beer on Sunday – instead of having to wait a little longer. Heck, it seems that even Indiana has come to its senses with its new laws that will allow people to walk into the Jewel-Osco or the Strack & Van Til supermarkets to pick up the liquor they think will enliven whatever party or other weekend gathering they happen to be holding.

Just one question – is part of the reason for expanding liquor sales to the east of the state line that one needs to have a bit of a buzz going to be able to spend that much time living in the land of Hoosierdom?

Which may be like the people from Illinois who used to go in search of cheaper pop and cited high-minded moralistic points, when all the carbonation in the pop ensured they were full of gas (as in the belching kind)!

  -30-

Ego brought down to Earth – Stroger to seek water district, not county president

Todd Stroger, the one-time state legislator and alderman who will forevermore be remembered for his stint as Cook County Board president and his effort to raise the county portion of the sales tax, will go about thinking to himself that he could have been re-elected to that post – IF ONLY.

STROGER: Water dist., sted of president

Stroger on Facebook this weekend was boasting of the Sunday night campaign event where his nominating petition circulators would gather together the results of their work.

THAT WOULD ALLOW Stroger himself (or more likely some flunk on his behalf) to file the petitions Monday to get him a place on the ballot for county board president come the March 20 Democratic primary.

But instead, Stroger on Monday decided to instead file the nominating petitions he had originally collected to get himself on the ballot for a seat on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.

Which under typical circumstances could be considered a government post of some significance – one that would allow Stroger to go around thinking of himself as a government official. Rather than a political has-been – which is what he’s been in recent years.

Stroger aides were honest in admitting he was unable to get enough signatures of support to get himself a place on the ballot with just over 8,200 valid signatures of support. There wasn’t enough time, since he only began his county board president talk just over a week ago.

WHEREAS HE HAD been using the past several months to gather signatures for the ballot slot for the water district.

If Stroger had gone ahead and sought the county board president post, there’s a very good chance that his petitions would have had the appearance of a rush job; as in sloppy and flawed.

It happens, particularly since the rules governing the process are so vague that who’s to say what will ultimately be determined to be a flawed signature.

PRECKWINKLE: One less primary challenger

Meaning it would have been likely that some supporter of incumbent Toni Preckwinkle would have filed a challenge to Stroger – and he likely would have suffered the ignominious embarrassment of being kicked off the ballot!

IT’S MORE LIKELY that his water district petitions are more legally sound and less likely to be challenged.

Although it’s always possible that someone motivated by spite will go ahead and challenge Stroger’s water district candidacy on the grounds that he had a hell of a lot of nerve to think he could run against Preckwinkle.

If that line of logic sounds incredibly petty and absurd, keep in mind we’re talking about electoral politics. It’s all about the egos for these people.

Including for Stroger, who probably has some resentment that voters dumped on him for his sales tax initiative that was meant to stabilize the county government finances – but instead caused resentment because the increase in the county portion of the sales tax caused the overall tax in Chicago to exceed 10 percent.

THEN AGAIN, THERE are others for whom Stroger’s real offense was being picked by his father, the late John Stroger, to succeed him as county board president.

Todd may have been a one-time state legislator and alderman, but the people who were somehow willing to accept all the generations of Daleys, Madigans, Cullertons, Lipinskis, etc., who have been a part of the local government scene were somehow unable to accept it when the Stroger family tried to follow suit.

John Stroger must settle for county hospital named in his honor, rather than being a political family like the Daleys

I don’t doubt that a Stroger candidacy for Cook County Board president would have drawn a certain amount of negative energy. He would have been a long-shot to win, regardless of what he thinks about Preckwinkle and her ‘pop tax’ effort to balance the county budget.

Although I wonder if his couple of weeks as a Preckwinkle challenger will merely elevate Todd’s profile to the point where the people who eight years ago chanted “Don’t Vote for the Son” as their mantra will suddenly take an interest in the water district race to ensure he doesn’t win that seat either.

  -30-

EXTRA: Pop tax falls flat, while judicial temperaments soar sky high

Friday was the day that the Cook County tax on sweetened beverages (a.k.a., the pop tax) came to an end. With it being a new fiscal year for county government, a new budget takes over the finances.

Cost declines 21 cents

And this is the budget that made some $200 million in spending cuts to replace the revenues that were expected to be raised during Fiscal 2018 through pop sales.

A GREAT MANY people are trying to pass off the county’s action to rescind the tax as some heroic measure by which the Cook County Board listened to the electorate and took away that tax of 1 penny per ounce.

Which usually boosted the price of one of those plastic pop bottles by about 21 cents.

But there are those who are upset by the fact that the entities that comprise Cook County government got their spending cut. One of those is Chief Judge Timothy Evans (remember back when he was supposed to be Harold Washington’s successor, but wound up losing to Richard M. Daley?)

Evans is suing Cook County government, and in fact a hearing was held Friday on that lawsuit – although Friday’s hearing which will resume Tuesday was on the merits of bringing in a judge from outside of Cook County to preside over the case.

EVANS CONTENDS THE Cook County Board has no legal authority to cut employees from the courts payroll. He wants some 100 people restored to his payroll, and the county to find somewhere else to cut the $26 million it contemplated whacking from his portion of the county budget.

EVANS: Suing his own home county

Although county officials argue that the cuts they made to balance out the Cook County budget for Fiscal 2018 does not impact any front-line employees of the state’s attorney or public defender’s offices.

This is likely to be an ongoing argument. So for any of you who thought that the issue was resolved by reducing the cost of a bottle of pop back to previous tax levels, you appear seriously misguided.

And for what it’s worth, I’ve heard from some potential voters who say they admire county board President Toni Preckwinkle for at least trying to find a solution that didn’t involve cuts in government services.

PRECKWINKLE: She tried!

I DON’T KNOW exactly how this will all be resolved in the end – other than to say there are bound to be a few individuals for whom essential services wind up being whacked at in the name of balanced budgeting.

Just something to think about when you get all excited about saving 21 cents on a pop bottle – or 64 cents on those two-liter jugs some people like to buy!

  -30-

Do knee-jerk pols put any thought into votes they cast on govt. business?

One of the things that dismays me as a reporter-type person observing various levels of government is that our elected officials are the equivalent of sheep.

Daley's 'rubber stamp' council not odd, even today

The rank-and-file aldermen, commissioners and legislators (Congressmen, too, if you want to be honest) are supposed to be the bodies that give their approval to the proposals put forth by the chief executives (mayors, governors, etc.) they’re supposed to monitor.

YET LET’S BE honest. They usually do whatever they’re told to do. They “get with the program,” so to speak. The occasional public official who actually makes a point of trying to study the details and think for themselves on each and every issue winds up being regarded as a troublemaker – if not a downright huge pain in the derriere.

It is something I have seen at so many levels of government that I don’t doubt its truth. Reading a recent analysis prepared by the Moody’s Investors Service only helped to reinforce it in my mind.

The analysis was meant to study the long-range impact of the recent debacle Cook County government went through in enacting, then repealing, that penny-per-ounce tax on pop and other sweetened beverages.

Those pennies do add up – to the point where people were outraged at the increased cost of a case of pop. Even the county admits it expected to raise some $200 million per year from all those pennies. It wasn’t cheap change!

THE ANALYSIS SAID that public outrage, stirred up by the lobbying efforts of the American Beverage Association with its “Can the Tax” campaign, is now intense enough that the public will be skeptical of any government proposing any kind of tax increase – regardless of the reason.

“The political backlash against the pop tax highlights the practical limitations on raising taxes, even if a government is legally permitted to do so,” Moody’s officials wrote.

“Any future tax hikes in the wake of the pop tax repeal will likely be met with some political opposition, exacerbating budget pressures for Cook County and other area local governments,” the service wrote.

Let’s be honest. When most of the officials who voted to implement the tax did so last November, they really didn’t think much about it. They just voted “aye” because they felt they ought to do so. Likewise, most of them were just as quick to want to jump on board the repeal effort made earlier this month.

I COULDN’T HELP but see some truth in the view of commissioner Deborah Sims, D-Chicago, who complained about being forced to vote to repeal. I think I would have respected her view if she had held her ground, instead of going along with the repeal.

It is the reason why the two county commissioners I gained some respect for out of the pop tax debacle were Jerry “the Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago, and Larry Suffredin, D-Evanston. They were the two who held their ground and voted for the pop tax – then against its repeal.

The others went with the whims of following the way the wind blows – and when it blew in ways telling them to suddenly change their stance, they did so; regardless of whatever it is they really think about the issue.

Although for all I know, they may be more than willing to go with the program – either putting their faith in the elected leadership so that they want to be part of the overall organization. Or maybe they’re really just that indecisive.

NOT THAT COOK County government’s behavior is unique. Aldermen and legislators are just as inclined to follow the whims of the mayor or the Democratic leadership of the General Assembly – who admittedly have staffs of analysts who can discuss the intricacies of any measure that goes before their respective governing bodies.

So are we now going to have knee-jerk “no” votes on anything that involves the revenue by which our government’s operations are funded? That would scare me, because we already have some people willing to act in such a manner on measures they have ideological opposition to.

Thinking they can get government out of its obligations to the people merely by cutting off the funding. Will similar people stir up trash talk against the Uber and Lyft transit fees being considered to help balance out the Chicago city government budget now under review?

It’s not high-minded or responsible government by any means. It’s more about being more interested in holding on to one’s elected office at all costs – even though the individuals probably don’t have anything in mind to do with the post once they have it.

  -30-

Balancing the budget; what will we cut?

It will be interesting to see just how Cook County government manages to balance out their budget for the upcoming fiscal year; what with the fact they now have a $200 million hole.

PRECKWINKLE: Looking for pop tax alternative

That is the amount of money the county would have expected to receive from the soon-to-be defunct pop tax, the penny-per-ounce charge on purchases of pop and other sweetened drinks.

AFTER NOV. 30, that tax won’t exist. So when the new fiscal year begins Dec. 1, there’s going to be a short-fall in anticipated revenue.

Are we merely going to see the county try to concoct some sort of alternative tax to replace the revenue they were expecting to get from the pop drinkers of the Chicago area? Or are we going to get some county agencies and programs get their funding levels cut to the point where essential services will be slashed?

County board President Toni Preckwinkle hinted throughout the barrage of propaganda put out by the American Beverage Association against the pop tax that health care services the county provides would suffer.

But Cook County Board members largely were not swayed by such arguments. In voting overwhelmingly to repeal the same pop tax that many of them voted last year to implement, they called Preckwinkle’s bluff.

TOBOLSKI: Eager to slash Cook budget

THEY’RE GAMBLING THAT there really is enough “fat” in government budgets that things can be cut without impacting essential services.

Either that, or they simply don’t care, or consider those services to be essential to them. They may just not care about the kind of people who actually have to rely on Cook County-funded services to maintain their health.

That certainly was the sentiment of county Commissioner Jeffery Tobolski, R-McCook, who earlier this week said he looks forward to cutting the county budget. “What we have (in revenue) is what we have to work with,” he said. “There are some tough decisions that have to be made.”

SUFFREDIN: Fears future tax hikes

Of course, the counter-point to that view was expressed by Commissioner Larry Suffredin, D-Evanston, who was one of two commissioners (the other being Jerry “the Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago) to vote against repealing the pop tax.

IN A STATEMENT he issued following the Cook County Board’s vote on Wednesday, he pointed out that one part of the pop tax was a promise that Cook County government wouldn’t consider raising any more taxes until at least 2020.

A move he said would have provided significant benefits to people living in the county. Now, they could face whatever alternate tax hike county officials concoct in their minds to try to make up for the revenue lost from the pop tax, which is necessary because, he claims, Illinois government owes Cook County some $186 million in reimbursements it hasn't been making -- which accounts for nearly the entire hole in the county budget.

In my mind, different taxes is a scary thought – one far more onerous than the roughly 20 cents extra I was paying any time I purchased a bottle of Coca-Cola (something I indulge in maybe twice a week).

BUTLER: Voted for pop tax AND against repeal

So now, county officials have the rest of October and November to figure out how to put together a budget that doesn’t leave Cook County government in serious debt come Nov. 30, 2018.

I KNOW COOK County Treasurer Maria Pappas said she offered up her portion of the county budget with a 10 percent cut in everything, and expects she’s now going to have to slash every line-item in her budget by another 2 percent.

Whether enough other officials are capable of taking such a hardline approach is questionable – I suspect many are trying to figure out what alternate item could be taxed. Of course, it has to be something that most people would feel wouldn’t impact them.

Anti-taxer mailings to pressure county commissioners continue, as now the activist-types want to ensure their desired spending cuts get imposed when the Cook County Board approves its 2018 budget sometime next month

Perhaps that is why some have suggested that the medical marijuana purchases now becoming common in parts of our state are a more acceptable item to tax.

It seems the image some people have of “deadheads” being forced to pay up is more acceptable to them than themselves having to pay whenever they buy a bottle of that beverage whose original recipe included a jolt from the coca leaf. Why else would we call it “Coke?”

  -30-

EXTRA: ‘Pop tax’ shifts – you can buy cheaper pop in Cook Co. come Dec. 1

Cook County Board members voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to support an ordinance that repeals the penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages – the tax that was enacted with a tie vote that had to be broken by board President Toni Preckwinkle herself.

SUFFREDIN: Lone remaining tax backer

Which means that the American Beverage Association’s “Can the Tax” lobbying effort was heard loud-and-clear.

IT DOESN’T MEAN that there was really a consensus of thought about this issue – which was supposed to raise some $200 million per year to balance out the budget and ensure that county-run healthcare programs and facilities would be fully funded.

All but one of the county board members who previously supported the tax (Larry Suffredin of Evanston was the lone 'no' vote) voted “aye” in favor of the ordinance to repeal the measure that came up Tuesday during a finance committee session.

But some of the people who previously supported the pop tax made it clear they weren’t happy about feeling pressure to vote to repeal it come Dec. 1 – which is the date that a new budget for the upcoming fiscal year takes effect.

Jesus Garcia, D-Chicago, said government officials will have to deal with potential budget shortfalls when they give approval to that new budget sometime next month.

“RESIDENTS OF COOK County sent a strong message how they felt about this revenue measure we tried to utilize to balance out the budget,” the former mayoral candidate said. “This budget is a statement about our morality, values and compassion, or lack thereof. We still face a revenue challenge to provide services to the needy.”

While Stanley Moore, D-Chicago, said he thinks he should get credit for initially supporting the pop tax. “I have shown I will take the hard vote, if need be,” adding he fears there will be “cut, cut, cut, cut at the expense of the disenfranchised.”

Suffredin, the lone opponent of pop tax repeal, said he believes the county suffers financially because Illinois government is not providing the full amount of reimbursement it is supposed to provide for healthcare programs.

While Deborah Sims, D-Chicago, said she was bothered by being pressured to change her vote. “It’s not fair that nine of us (who supported the pop tax) take the heat, and everybody else walks away free.”

NOT THAT EVERYBODY was concerned about reductions in healthcare services by Cook County government. Jeffrey Tobolski, R-McCook, said he anticipates such cuts in spending.

“What we have (in revenue) is what we have to work with, there are some tough decisions that will have to be made,” he said.

As for the politicking, Richard Boykin, D-Oak Park, said he was “overjoyed and elated this tax is going to go away.” Although Tobolski was most blunt, saying, “I’m glad this damned thing is over.”

Of course, we’ll get to re-do the issue again Wednesday, as the county board will meet as a full board, rather than as a committee, which means that Jerry “Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago, will get his chance to add his thoughts for the record – assuming he shows up for the county board meeting rather than being absent, as he was on Tuesday for the finance committee session.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The official info that Cook County government put forth to try to justify the pop tax they enacted Nov. 10, 2016 that took effect at the beginning of August of this year.

Will ideologues ruin Preckwinkle reputation the way they did Ogilvie?

Presuming that Cook County Commissioner John Daley and three others who indicated last week they changed their minds about the pop tax keep to their word, it would seem the tax meant to ensure the county can cover its financial obligations for health care services and other expenses will wither away.

If signs like this really stirred up anti-pop tax attitudes, will their hostility carry over to hurt Toni Preckwinkle come 2018 Election Day? Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

It creates the potential vote by the Cook County Board later this week of 12-5 (or maybe 13-4) in favor of an ordinance to rescind the penny-per-ounce on pop and other sweetened beverages. Which county board President Toni Preckwinkle will veto – but is a strong-enough vote to over-ride her – if it holds fast.

NOW SOME PEOPLE are not considering this sufficient suffering for Preckwinkle. They’re determined to stir up resentment at the polling place – getting enough people to vote against her re-election bid next year because she had the nerve to realize that the county has financial obligations that must be met.

PRECKWINKLE: Remains firm on pop tax

People in the real world don’t get to tell bill collectors we don’t have the money so we’re not paying. In reality, we have to come up with the finances to meet our obligations. We need to pay up!

Which is why I have consistently thought (and still believe) that this pop tax that adds about 20 cents to the bottle of Coca-Cola I occasionally buy is something we all have to pay – if we really need to have those carbonated beverages in supply.

It also is why I’m not terribly sympathetic to the lobbying efforts of the American Beverage Association – which represents the pop manufacturers who probably don’t want anyone else managing to get a larger cut of the money paid by people when they feel the need to buy pop.

THEY WANT IT for themselves. Understandably, but not a high-minded cause by any means.

OGILVIE: Insisted Ill. needed income tax

The trick is to see how, in coming months, this issue plays out. Will people really hold a grudge against Preckwinkle – and carry out their revenge on Nov. 6, 2018 by voting ABP?

The one thing that Toni has going in her favor is that as of now, the Anybody But Preckwinkle vote literally has nobody else to pick. People who were contemplating seeking the Democratic nomination for Cook County Board president have decided not to do so. As for the Republicans, their political party may get bogged down in the mass of anti-Trump and anti-Rauner rhetoric to put up a serious challenger.

But there are those people who can manage to get worked up at the “T” word just as much as many ideologue-minded Republicans will get worked up at the “A” word tying the governor to abortion.

Is there a 'Dan Walker' type for county?

I’M SURE THERE are those looking back to the 1972 election cycle – the one in which incumbent Gov. Dick Ogilvie lost to Democrat Dan Walker; in large part because one of the major accomplishments of Ogilvie’s one term in office was that Illinois implemented its original state tax on residents’ incomes.

Ogilvie (himself a former Cook County Board president who used that post as a springboard to the Statehouse Scene) argued that the state’s finances had become so unstable that the tax was necessary. Financial experts will argue that the tax turned out to be essential.

Yet there were enough people who voted against Ogilvie because of that tax that he wound up losing re-election.

Could governmental history repeat itself by stirring up enough people p-o’ed by the thought of paying a few more pennies each time they buy pop (which is expected to add up to a few million dollars to balance out the county budget)?

Daley name still influences our government

OGILVIE WASN’T HELPED by the fact that Dan Walker and his walk across Illinois caught the imagination of many as a viable alternative (although I know many of the same ideologues who still denounce Ogilvie’s income tax view Walker as an even worse choice).

As I already stated, as of yet, there is not really a credible challenger to Preckwinkle – although it’s always possible that there’s somebody currently out there passing about nominating petitions to try to get on the ballot for the March 20 primary.

But could she wind up going into our local political history as the woman who pushed for a tax to ensure that Cook County met its expenses – only to be penalized at the polling place?

In a world that could seriously elect Donald J. Trump as president with only 46 percent voter support, anything is possible.

  -30-

Abortion vs. pop tax – which makes for a more unpopular political figure?

The 2018 election cycle will be intriguing to see which one of two high-ranking officials winds up becoming the most unpopular, and if they can manage to win re-election despite the levels of contempt felt towards them by the populace.

PRECKWINKLE: Pop tax provide gas for her demise?

I’m referring to Gov. Bruce Rauner and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle – both of whom I’m sure feel in their hearts they did the “right” thing, but are likely to face their share of crackpots determined to see to it that both of them lose their dreams of re-election.

NOW I’M SURE that in terms of raw numbers, Rauner has more enemies because he’s running for office across Illinois. For Preckwinkle, she doesn’t have to care about what people outside of Cook County think.

But she may have the more intense level of disgust being sent in her direction.

That’s how unpopular the pop tax has become amongst some people. The Capitol Fax newsletter reported Thursday how many people are refusing to sign the nominating petitions for the slate of preferred Democratic candidates running in Cook County because it contains Preckwinkle’s name.

Toni has the advantage of not (as of yet) having an opponent challenging her for the county board presidency. But people peeved because of the pop tax (that one cent per ounce on sweetened beverages) want to make it clear they aren’t fond of the tax that can boost the cost of a 2-liter bottle of pop by about 65 cents.

SOME PEOPLE ARE going so far as to write little messages on nominating petitions so as to express their desire that Preckwinkle go down to defeat.

Now the trick is to whether Preckwinkle can overcome the level of disgust against her between now and the March 20 primary or the Nov. 6 general elections. There is time. And like I stated before, she really doesn’t have a serious opponent yet. Until we know what the alternative is, any talk of a challenge is purely theoretical.

But we’ll have to see what happens Tuesday when the county board’s Finance committee reviews a measure to abolish the pop tax just months after it took place. And if the full county board follows through Wednesday to approve that measure.

RAUNER: Abortion critics and budget blasts?

There is pressure being put by the lobbyists for the soft drink industry on county board members to vote to erase the tax. But there aren’t really many politicos coming out and saying they’d be willing to dump the tax (only commissioner John Daley, D-Chicago, thus far). You’d think people would want to publicly state as soon as possible that they’re changing their vote!

COULD IT BE that the efforts to erase the tax ultimately will wither away, and that the pop tax will remain in place? And would-be voters will have to express themselves by either voting against Preckwinkle or (if she doesn’t ever develop a serious opponent) by merely not voting at all?

I’m sure Republican political operatives want to believe that Preckwinkle is going to be the ultimate drag on the ticket that will lead the GOP to electoral success come 2018. But the reality is that the real drag on the tickets in Illinois will be the Donald Trump persona.

Which is likely to motivate much of metro Chicago into turning out to vote for people they will perceive as being willing to stand up to the crackpot persona of our nation’s current president.

Not only that, but Rauner has his share of hostile would-be voters in Chicago because of the many actions he has taken during his two-plus years as governor that have created the perception of an Illinois government incapable of doing anything.

TRUMP: The ultimate in political unpopularity?

I’M SURE THE rural part of Illinois would be willing to come to Rauner’s defense (“Blame Madigan!!!,” they’ll retort) on the long delays in putting together a state budget or in approving education funding

But many of those people seem determined to turn on Rauner because of the abortion issue. The fact that he signed off on a measure undermining their long desire to restrict Medicaid funds from being used to help lower-income women terminate a pregnancy means he can’t be trusted – in their mindset.

And unlike Preckwinkle, Rauner has serious challengers on the Democratic Party side of the equation – although Republicans seem determined to believe that the Dems in the running are too ineffectual to mount a serious challenge.

Either way, it would seem that ’18 is going to be a campaign cycle filled with hostile rhetoric – with the only question being whether it will be the “Preckwinkle” or “Rauner” name that gets tarred and feathered the most.

  -30-