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-

Cook County ‘pop tax’ upsets political structure’s sense of who matters

If you think about it, it’s really not surprising to learn that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, doesn’t think much of the penny-per-ounce pop tax being charged by Cook County government.

Is Preckwinkle's 'pop tax' really a threat ...

Republican political operatives are gloating at the very notion that Madigan, who usually is supportive of Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, is trying to concoct measures by which the pop tax would go away.

WHETHER THAT MEANS Madigan putting the strong-arm tactics to certain members of the Cook County Board to get them to shift their support from the tax that, in part, is supposed to help the county cover the cost of maintaining its hospitals and health care programs.

Or by having the General Assembly pass a law that would supersede the county’s ability to impose such a tax.

It could be either tactic. We’ll have to wait and see by which means Madigan attempts to undermine the county’s ability to use its taxing authority to raise money for itself.

In one sense, it could be perceived as the state meddling in county government business. But the reality is that all the layers of government do wind up getting intertwined. And other officials are now deciding to get involved in the pop tax because they’re fearful voters determined to vote “no” on the tax will wind up voting “no” on everything and anything.

IT WAS KIND of like a few years ago when then-county board President Todd Stroger tried balancing out the Cook County government budget with a boost in the county’s share of the sales tax.

... really a threat to Madigan majority?

Which combined with the state tax and any local taxes charged by municipalities. As many critics were quick to point out, the county’s increase drove the whole sales tax within the Chicago city limits to just over 10 percent.

Since the local political perception is that Chicago city government is most important and that Madigan’s long-time influence puts state government at a next rung, it means that the county had to assume a position of lesser importance.

Its sales tax hike had to go in order to get the overall sales tax in Chicago below 10 percent.

JUST AS NOW Madigan is fearing that his rank-and-file legislators in suburban Cook County might have their lives complicated when they run for re-election next year, IF the pop tax remains in place.

How quickly would Wrath of Rahm reign down on Toni?

So Cook County government, as an entity, may have to sacrifice its tax, because the carbonated beverages lobby (I refuse to use the label “Big Soda,” it just sounds so lame) doesn’t like the idea of anyone else making money off their products. People are just as offended by the 7-cent-per-plastic bag at stores in Chicago, yet nobody's telling the city they have to drop it!

I have to admit the pop lobbying effort appears more successful than that of the healthcare advocates, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who failed to take on pop in his own city by restricting the sale of those 32-ounce cups of pop – which really are vulgar is you think seriously about such a portion.

My own thought is that, while I agree with the premise of the tax and think that trying to benefit a public health goal is noble, seeing vending machines reading “kidney failure” and “Type 2 Diabetes” is just a bit too phony – and just as lame as the “Big Soda” label.

SO NOW MADIGAN is going to get involved, for his usual reason – self-preservation. There have been many noble concepts throughout the years that have died political deaths because Madigan felt his Illinois House leadership would be threatened by such efforts. Although there is some legitimacy to the converse position -- you can't accomplish anything if you lose the prior election.

How phony Illinois GOP rhetoric can be at times

Of course, I found it somewhat ridiculous to read the Republican response Friday to this issue – they want us to believe that any Democrat who NOW votes against the pop tax is merely being “Madigan cronies simply following the leader.”

Not that I ever expect Democrats (or any Chicago interests) to be worthy in the minds of the Illinois Republican Party. It’s usually best to ignore the perception of GOPers who, at times, seem embarrassed to be from the “Land of Lincoln.”

All I know is that it is just as likely that if this tax does die a month or so from now and does result in county funding cuts for health care services, I fully expect many of those same people will shift their ire to the health care cuts! Some people are just determined to complain – no matter what the issue.

  -30-

Retailers get defensive about pop prices

I stopped the other day at a place to get myself something to eat – a hamburger and Coca Cola (I took a pass on the fries) – and wound up getting into something of a quarrel with the manager over the price.

There might have been fewer questions if all posted the pop tax data as clearly as this McDonald's franchise did. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

Admittedly, when I heard how much was being charged, I tried to question the cost. Which caused the manager to go into a long diatribe about how this “damned tax” on pop and other sweetened beverages was causing him to jack up his own prices.

ACTUALLY, I WAS curious about the cost of the burger, and it took me a couple of minutes before I was able to cut off the manager and inform him I wasn’t questioning the cost of the soft drink.

He eventually gave me the straight answer about the burger price, and it seems the high price of the bill was due to the hamburger. Which means that, from my perspective, I now know of a place I won’t try to eat at again.

It was expensive, a bit too much for just a burger and Coke!

But what caught my attention about the incident was the quickness of the fast-food franchise manager to come to the aid of his cashier and engage in such a quarrel. I sense that many people are complaining about pop prices and are haranguing the hired help about the tab (and no, I don’t mean the soft drink Tab, which I honestly can’t recall the last time I saw it for sale anywhere).

ARE RESTAURANTEURS GETTING that touchy that they feel the need to defend themselves against complaining customers, many of whom admittedly are just cheapskates who likely will look for any excuse to complain about the price? Which is how I perceive the We Ask America survey showing 85.94 percent of people wanting the tax repealed, and 77.59 percent less likely to vote for county board President Toni Preckwinkle's re-election.

It is with incidents such as this in mind that I am not surprised to learn that the Can the Tax Coalition is going around citing statistics saying that beverage sales are on the decline by 47 percent in Cook County.

I’m sure the coalition, which gets its money from the American Beverage Association and other support from the Illinois Food Retailers Association, wants us to believe that this is a matter of people making special trips to surrounding counties or out-of-state (if they live near the Illinois/Indiana border) to buy their pop.

Some of it may be.

BUT I ALSO wonder if some of it a matter of people deciding that with the potentially significant boost in price due to the penny per ounce tax on such beverages, perhaps there just isn’t as much of a need to consume so much carbonation.

Which would mean that the county tax may be serving one of its stated goals – to help boost the public health by reducing the level of sugar that people consume. Although I’ll be the first to admit that the purpose of any tax is to raise revenue – and not to reduce consumption of anything.

Not even the taxes that get assessed on tobacco products that can make the price of a package of cigarettes so absurdly high that it’s a wonder anybody bothers to smoke.

But they still do!

NOW I DON’T know for sure how much of this so-called decline in pop sales is due to people just drinking less pop. It may be wishful thinking on my part. I’m also sure that some people will start thinking of their consumption of carbonation as something resembling a revolutionary statement.

Which is sad, if that’s really the biggest issue they have to get so worked up over.

My point here is to say I’m skeptical about this latest statistic, which the pop industry lobbyists touted on Wednesday as part of their effort in coming weeks leading up to the Cook County Board’s finance committee reviewing a measure to repeal the tax.

We’re going to get a lot of rhetoric from all sides of this equation from people who claim they’re looking out for our personal freedoms, but only care about them so long as they match up with their own financial interests!

  -30-

We’re in for a month of Hell; a slew of ads warning us of pop, tax evils

I’m sure the people who are all outraged over the price of pop these days, what with the cost added due to the Cook County tax on sweetened beverage sales, feel a great injustice was done on Wednesday.
 

Heart Association wants pop tax

For the Cook County Board, after listening to hours of debate from people arguing both the merits and drawbacks of the pop tax, decided that the way to handle a proposed ordinance repealing the tax was to send it to a committee.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNTY board’s Finance Committee will hold a hearing on the issue, and only then will the measure come before the full county board for a final vote.

The crackpots who are upset that the cost of a 2-liter pop bottle is now about $0.65 more than it used to be probably had fantasies that the county board would immediately take a vote on the pop tax repeal ordinance, and that the tax would be ancient history by now!

I mock their line of logic in that our way of government is meant to be deliberate and slow – things don’t just get rammed through the process into action. Or at least they’re not supposed to be.

So the fact that we have to wait for the Finance Committee to have its next meeting scheduled for Oct. 10, with the next full county board session set for the following day? That’s the way things are supposed to be.

WHICH MEANS THAT, Yes, it’s true that the tax will remain in effect for at least one more month. But that could mean the political momentum could continue to build to a point where a majority of the county board will feel compelled to approve a repeal of the pop tax.

Or maybe the healthcare interests that want such a pop tax on the grounds it would discourage people from drinking so many carbonated beverages will be able to make their case to the point where county board officials will feel compelled to leave well enough alone and let the pop tax remain in place.

That’s the democratic process in action. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. As for the people who are upset that the county board couldn’t be strong-armed on Wednesday to giving them what they want?

 

Retailers don't want to collect tax for Cook County

All I can say is that such talk sounds downright un-American!

I’LL ADMIT TO finding it annoying to open my mailbox to see the assorted fliers being sent to me to try to spin me and others to believe their side of the issue. It’s feeling like an Election Day is pending, and at a time when we’re bracing ourselves for the level of partisan nonsense we’re getting from the gubernatorial dreamers.

It’s like we never get a break from the politicking. Which is, I’ll admit, a hell-ish sense to have to feel.

But I’d be more bothered by strong-arm tactics. The sense that the process will allow both sides to make their arguments, with the majority sentiment prevailing, does provide a sense of relief.

Now as I have written before, I support the idea of this particular tax because I realize Cook County government has financial obligations to meet and needs the income. I suspect that people will really start complaining if those obligations, particularly the ones related to providing health care services to the public, are not met.

SO WHILE I am not enthused about the idea of a tax, the alternatives strike me as being worse.

Besides, the reality is that if sentiment against this tax is really so intense, then there will be a future chance to express ourselves. Because there are those future election cycles in which county board President Toni Preckwinkle and the county board members who voted for the tax will have to face re-election.

Political people who backed the pop tax could easily find themselves out on their keisters come the 2018 election cycle. It’s a political risk that elected officials have to take with every single vote they cast.

Turning out a politician who disappoints us? That’s about as all-American a concept as we have!

  -30-

There have always been people seeking to save a penny or two on pop buys

I can’t help but wonder what my late mother would be saying these days, what with the Cook County tax on sweetened beverages that has boosted the price of pop significantly.
 

Outrage! Really?. Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

There are the people who are getting all hysterical about the fact that some people are choosing to shop at supermarkets and other stores just across the Cook County line – giving a boost to stores in suburban Lake and Will counties and even over in Lake County, Ind. (which is the only surrounding county that actually borders Chicago proper).

BUT THE IDEA of making a trip to stock up on pop was nothing new for my mother. It was an idea she had been doing for decades.

I can remember as a small child having to accompany my mother when she and a friend (who owned a truck) would make special trips to those shops that exist right on the Illinois/Indiana state line.

They’re the ones that boast you can avoid paying Illinois taxes when you stock up on your cheap cigarettes and fireworks, along with assorted carbonated beverages.

For my mother, the latter was always the attraction. We’d stock up on several cases which usually would last several months. My mother always felt the cost savings made the trip worthwhile.

EVEN IF IT meant one had to get used to generic brands of pop to drink. Although when one is a kid and pop is mostly something sweet that gives you gas, it doesn’t really matter too much.

But I suspect if my mother were confronted with the people who now are behaving as though they have discovered a new concept by traveling to a place like Highland Park or Hammond, Ind., in order to buy pop and avoid paying the penny per ounce tax, she’d snicker at them.

They’re merely doing something she (and people like her) had been doing for years.

People have been coming for decades to places like this for cheap pop

About the only difference is that these shops (which still exist) deal in those generic brands. If you want to buy the name brands of carbonated beverages with sugary taste to them, you need to find a full-fledged supermarket. Although even some of them are trying to score points amongst would-be pop shoppers.

PERSONALLY, MY THOUGHT is that some people are determined to claim they saved a few cents on their purchases, no matter how miniscule the savings turn out to be. It might be over-stating it to say they’re just cheap, but there would be truth to that attitude.

The idea that if Cook County were to rescind this pop tax that they’d suddenly stop making such shopping purchases elsewhere is silly. Besides, the county has financial obligations it must meet – the public outcry would be worse if county health services were slashed due to a lack of revenue. We're likely stuck with the pop tax!

If anything, I’d be more interested in seeing if anyone is keeping track of fast-food joints and other restaurant-type places that provide pop as a drink to go along with their meals.

As recently as Tuesday, I stopped off for lunch at a White Castle. Three cheeseburgers and a Coca-Cola – and my receipt indicated that the pop had a $0.21 tax added on to the total bill because of the pop.

SHOW ME EVIDENCE that people are now demanding water or some other non-sweetened beverage to go along with their fast food and maybe I’ll be convinced that this tax is having an impact.

How much would people whine if Cook Co.cut services?

Particularly if it persuades people to eat less last food. Although that might actually be something for their own good, and that of society's public health, to tell you the truth.

But until that occurs, I’m going to be convinced that the people most outspoken about the pop tax are the ones amongst our society who are just inclined to complain about everything – particularly how much more things cost now compared to their childhood.

My mother was doing this years ago, and she didn’t have a pop tax to complain about.

  -30-

Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they’ll also complain about lack of services

There’s a scene in the 1995 film “My Family” in which actor Jimmy Smits’ character marries a woman from El Salvador to bolster her efforts to avoid deportation, then tries to dismiss his parents’ disapproval of such cynical behavior against the sacred institution of marriage by sarcastically saying, “I’m a god---n revolutionary.”

Who'd have thought political statement being made?

I can’t help but think the same sarcasm applies to many of the people who these days are getting offended over taxes – particularly the one that is drawing the national attention to Chicago in the form of the pop tax.

JUST ON TUESDAY the Chicago Tribune reported about one of the latest lawsuits filed in Cook County Circuit Court. There’s a man from suburban Schaumburg who’s upset that when he went to his local Walgreens store to purchase bottled sparkling water, he was hit with the tax.

He argues the packaging clearly indicates the water is unsweetened, while the so-called pop tax applies to sweetened beverages.

The man who filed his lawsuit last week said he wants a jury trial (probably because he wants a court ruling based in public sentiment rather than the technicalities of the law) and class-action status, which would allow for other people who have objections to the Cook County pop tax to pile on.

Why have one lone person suing someone over the penny per ounce fee the county wants to charge on pop and other sweetened beverages if you can have many?

THIS IS ABOUT people wishing to make a stink over an issue which basically amounts to them feeling a bit cheap and not wanting to pay an additional cost every time they buy their 2-liter bottle of pop (which can come to about $0.65 more).

In the case of Walgreens, the Tribune reports that the company admits it screwed up when coding the products it sells – which means that when the cashier swipes the water bottles at the register, it comes up with the pop tax added on even though it’s not supposed to.

And since it’s programmed to do that, the cashier has no authority, or ability, to take it off. Walgreens officials say they’re working to fix the situation. Which is about all we should expect to happen.

PRECKWINKLE: Arousing cheapskate anger?

I think the people who are hoping to go after Walgreens as a way of attacking the pop tax itself are just more interested in hearing themselves yell and scream. Of course, they’ll scream even louder whenever government fails to provide the services they expect as part of their life’s routines.

THEY’RE BEING ‘REVOLUTIONARIES’ against the issue of about 20 cents being added on to the cost of a single-serving sized plastic pop bottle. All of which is meant to help balance out the Cook County government budget.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been making an effort for the past year or so to reduce the amount of carbonated beverages I consume (I enjoy an occasional Coca-Cola too much to totally give up the habit, but it certainly doesn’t have to be a daily purchase), but this particular pop tax just strikes me as being yet another increase in the cost of daily life. Nothing is as cheap as it used to be when I was younger.

Yet some people are determined to carry out this petty fee and their disagreement to an extreme. Maybe it’s because the more serious taxes are too complex for them to go after.

Similar to how some Chicago residents get all worked up over being charged 7 cents for the cost of a plastic bag whenever they buy something.

PERSONALLY, I VIEW that fee as a cost of convenience for not having to carry my own bags to the store. Although for those who have their own canvas totes or whatnot to bring with them when they shop, more power to them!

Yes, I’m aware of the new poll showing 87 percent of those questioned hate the pop tax. Then again, how many people are going to do anything about it? This is one tax that gradually is going to become a part of the daily routine – no matter how much some retail groups try to challenge it in court and how petty Cook County gets with their counter-lawsuits against them.

Personally, I’d feel like a phony revolutionary if I claimed I was opposed to either of these taxes (pop or plastic bags) on some high-minded principle involving the legitimacy of taxation.

It would be more honest if the people who are complaining were to just come out and tell the truth – they’re feeling cheap!

  -30-

Cook: Somebody must pay pop tax

Cook County Board officials estimate that some $17 million in revenue was lost during the month of July – which is when the courts considered legal actions that challenged the legitimacy of the penny-per-ounce tax on pop and other sweetened beverages.
 

Must be vintage if bottle only a dime

So now that the courts have ruled that the pop tax has legal legitimacy, county officials are talking about forcing someone to cough up the amount of cash they were denied during July.

SPECIFICALLY, THE COUNTY has filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Retail Merchants Association – one of the groups that was supportive of the effort by anti-tax activists to challenge the legitimacy of a pop tax.

The one that was supposed to raise some $67.5 million through the rest of 2017, and another $200 million for the 2018 fiscal year that begins Dec. 1.

Money they insist is needed by the county if its budget is to come out balanced in the end.

So losing a month’s worth of revenue is a significant loss to the county, so much so that it wants to file the legal action that many see as purely punitive towards any group that would dare speak out against the county.

PERSONALLY, I DON’T expect the county ever will get any money from this lawsuit of theirs. I think it is more of an intimidation tactic.

As in when one considers that when a Cook County judge last week handed down the ruling that upheld the pop tax’ legitimacy, the retail merchants association made a point of saying it was “weighing our legal options,” then earlier this week filed their own appeal of Judge Daniel Kubasiak’s ruling.

One that was meant to get an appeals court to strike down the pop tax once again.

 

PRECKWINKLE: Willing to fight for pop tax

I suspect that when their appeals disappear, the county’s lawsuit against the association will also wither away.

SUCH TACTICS MAY be strong-arm tactics that border on intimidation – although to tell you the truth, it’s not like business-oriented groups such as the association aren’t capable of deploying their own collection of goons to try to intimidate government entities into going along with their demands.

But then again, I’m also waiting to see what becomes of the 300 or so county employees who were laid off from their jobs last month due to the financial shortfall caused by temporarily losing the county pop tax.

County officials weren’t exactly quick to say when those people would be restored to the payroll – which as far as I’m concerned is a sleazier move than any tax hike being imposed on people who just feel compelled to have their dose of a carbonated beverage as part of their daily sugar intake.

Perhaps this particular tax just doesn’t offend me much because it is for a product that we choose to enjoy, or can decide to do without. And realize that sentence was just written by someone who enjoys an occasional Coca-Cola. Although I also have been making my own effort during the past year to reduce the amount of pop I consume.

WE COULD CONTINUE to engage in a back-and-forth battle over the pop tax. Or maybe we could move on to issues of true significance instead of fighting over the resulting price increase.

Pop tax couldn't wind up here, could it?

Because the reality is that nothing costs the same as it used to. Everything is more expensive these days. Remember it wasn't long ago that gasoline cost less than $1 per gallon?!?

Yes, the idea of having to pay an extra 20 cents for that single-serve bottle of pop ($1.89 at a Walgreens, the last time I bought one) kind of stinks. It makes me think of when I was a young child some 45 years ago having to accompany my mother to a neighborhood laundromat and being allowed to buy myself a pop from the vending machine for about 20 cents.

As in the total price – not just the tax added on! I find that price hike much more offensive.

  -30-

Saving jobs? Or cheap pop!

Are we really on the verge of putting some 1,100 people out-of-work because we want to keep the price of pop and other sweetened drinks as low as possible?
 

Is this worth 20 more cents?

That’s the line of logic being offered up by Cook County government these days, where officials say layoff notices will have to be issued in coming days to a significant number of county employees.

THAT IS BECAUSE the penny per ounce tax increase on the carbonated drinks too many of us consume at too high a rate has been stalled by the courts, meaning it can’t be charged and Cook County government can forget (for now, at least) about raising the revenue it mentally had already spent to maintain its operations.

For the record, the county was expecting some $67.5 million for the rest of their fiscal year (through Nov. 30) and more than $200 million for the next fiscal year – which begins Dec. 1.

That’s a big hole to suddenly have crop up in the budget. I can see where county officials would be dismayed at the various restraining orders that have prevented them from charging the penny per ounce fee they wanted to start collecting back on July 1.

Those restraining orders, as of now, run through July 21 – at which time there will be more hearings in the Cook County Circuit Court and a judge could eventually issue an order that strikes down the pop tax outright.

 

Will county government services need to be cut?

NOW AS ONE who has experienced the “wonders” (sarcasm most definitely intended) of job layoffs, I’m not thrilled about the idea of any worker being let go for any reason – particularly one that isn’t their fault.

But I also don’t doubt that many people aren’t terribly sympathetic to the idea of the county wanting to preserve its operations – which some may have their own ideological hang-ups about in thinking have grown too big.

If you really are the type of person who thinks it’s a good thing that the county will have fewer workers, I’ll say you’re a cold-hearted person.

Having a pop not the same experience of old

But there may be those who view the tax bills they’re already paying and figure they don’t like the idea of paying one penny more.

WHICH IS WHY the notion of this particular pop tax being only one cent per ounce may sound terrible. Besides, that’s about a 20-cent increase in the typical plastic bottle of pop meant to evoke the image of the old glass Coca-Cola bottles we all used to drink from.

And as for the 2-liter bottles that are all so popular, that’s another 65 cents added to the price.

Personally, I don’t that’s overly excessive – although I’ll also admit that I have been making an effort during the past year to reduce the total amount of carbonated beverages I consume.

I still enjoy an occasional Coke, but have to admit to finding ice water equally refreshing, Maybe I’m just getting boring in my old age.

BUT SERIOUSLY, IT would not be the worst thing in the world if people would think twice about the amount of carbonation they feel the need to consume. Which, if you think about it honestly, can create a gassy condition that can’t possibly be good for any of us.

If you think I’m somehow trivializing this issue, keep in mind that this is the essence of all the legalese that eventually will be spewed in open court as attorneys argue on the merits of the county being able to use a pop tax as a revenue-raising source.

At some point, a judge is going to have to decide on the merits of carbonated beverages in general, and the right of an individual to have a Coke (and a smile, according to the old jingle) for as cheap a price as possible.

Is that really a right? In order to properly express my thoughts on that concept, I’d have to guzzle down a Coke or two in order to get the proper tone to my belch!

  -30-