Would Trump approve health insurance reform if it could be named after him?

I have always suspected that the real objection most Republican political officials have to the Affordable Care Act is that it is something that soon-to-be former President Barack Obama will get credit for.

After all, many of these people want to believe that Obama is evil incarnate and that everything he may have brought about during his presidency needs to be abolished. History needs to be rewritten so that we can deny there ever was such a presidency.

THE IDEA THAT Obama came up with a proposal that provided for health insurance benefits for people who – for whatever reason – didn’t have any is something that just cannot be allowed to remain in place.

Yet the reality of the situation is that having those millions of people who used to be uninsured going around without any way of paying for medical care they may need IS a serious problem for our society.

Those people were a drag on us all – particularly if they were having to show up at hospital emergency rooms for medical care and sticking the hospitals with the bill. Which they, in turn, found a way to pass along to the rest of us.

Republicans have made it clear there are measures they will desperately do away with the instant they take control at 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, 2017 – Obama’s immigration reform measures that were implemented by executive order are likely gone until the day a future Democratic-leaning president reinstates them.

AS FOR THE Affordable Care Act, that was approved by Congress, and even approved in basic concept by the Supreme Court of the United States. So Congress will have to take on an act to repeal it – which they have tried repeatedly to do only to be vetoed by Obama.

It is presumed that a “President Trump” will be more willing to sign such a repeal into law.

 

Is "Trump - the Insurance" in our future?

Yet Trump is going to learn that there were some serious benefits to having such a plan in place – largely that a straight-out repeal would wind up restoring many of the problems that used to exist from having so many millions of people uninsured.

He’ll also find out that once one gets beyond the partisan politics, the public largely supported the basic idea – with the exception of the ideological crackpots who wanted to believe it wasn’t their concern whatsoever to help provide anyone else insurance.

UNLESS TRUMP WANTS this to be the issue for which the public eventually turns on him and begins kicking themselves in the rear for casting ballots for him in the first place, he’s going to have to come up with an alternative program.

He may even wind up realizing that it won’t be radically different from what the Obama administration provided us – a measure that provided some financial assistance for those who otherwise would have trouble covering the cost of an insurance plan for themselves.

Because the reality is that many companies view the expense of providing insurance for their employees to be something they wish they could cut. It would help enhance their financial bottom line!

A simple abolishment would be about as reckless an act as Trump could commit against our society.

I HAVE TO confess to having a personal stake in this. Working as a freelance writer means I haven’t had a traditional job for 11 years now – which also means I haven’t had an employer willing to cover the cost of an insurance policy during that time.

Ideologues branded Obama, now want to repeal

My own insurance these days is from a plan for which the Affordable Care Act provides me a tax subsidy that covers just over half the cost – with the other half of the bill coming out of my own pocket every month.

It also was during the past year of having such a plan that I have discovered my own condition (high blood pressure) for which I am on a daily regimen of three different pills whose cost would be prohibitive if I had to pay the full bill out of my own pocket.

Yet I doubt I’m the extreme – there likely are people who will be in worse shape if Trump winds up making a moot point of all the paperwork I’m going to be filling out later this week to ensure my own insurance policy is renewed for another year.

WILL THE KEY to the public good be to letting the political partisans craft a plan that can be given a new brand – perhaps following the lead of how Trump the real estate developer named so many of his buildings after himself.

As in “Trump, the healthcare!” We may have to get used to it.

  -30-

Trump one-upped by New Yawk Times

I have no doubt that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is p-o’ed these days at the New York Times.
 

Even the Daily News felt compelled to play the story

Because the New York real estate developer who has made a big production out of refusing to play by the political rule that he willingly disclose his income through public release of his tax returns now has that very information publicly known.

THE TIMES MANAGED to get a copy of the joint return filed by Trump and then-spouse Marla for 1995. The return showed that Trump’s business losses were so extensive that they enabled him to take advantage of tax write-offs so large that he wound up owing the federal government nothing in the way of taxes.

Literally, the Trumps lost some $912 million that one year – which was far more than most of us have managed to earn during the course of our whole lives.

The newspaper also speculates – without knowing for sure if this is true – that Trump may have used similar tax tactics to cancel an equal amount of money off his tax bill in future years.

Donald Trump, the newspaper tells us, may not have paid federal taxes for nearly the past two decades! Wow!!!!!!

ACTUALLY, THIS SHOULD not be at all surprising to anybody in the know. For the very wealthy often get that way by taking advantage of tax laws and exemptions meant to benefit them.

Trump-loving Post thought Mets were more important

Trump himself told ABC News earlier this year, “I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.” Then elaborated to a question about his actual tax rate, “It’s none of your business.”

Besides, I’m sure that someone who is as much of a control freak as is Trump views this as a matter of having a right to determine who ought to get information about himself.

Even though most people seeking government office go out of their way to make the information public because they think it somehow enhances the image that they’re (sort of) regular people.

AS IN SOMEONE who actually needs the money from their bi-weekly paycheck in order to cover their daily expenses of life.

Sun-Times relegated Trump tax return to lower right corner

But that is not a role that Trump could even pretend to play. Which is why he so adamantly refused to let anything become publicly known, and in fact now is issuing statements implying that the New York Times is trafficking in stolen goods.

Which is how Trump would like to think of his tax return being. I’m sure he’s anxious to have people think in terms of someone prosecuting New York Times editors with criminal charges for actions that made it worth someone’s while to steal the Trump return.

In fact, by the time you read this, the conservative ideologues who back Trump so vehemently because they think Trump is just like themselves will be spewing that rhetoric so intensely you’ll already have a headache.

THE PROBLEM IS that Trump really is nothing like anyone else – and thank goodness for that. It would be excruciatingly nauseating if there were more than one person with the overbearing gaucheness of Donald Trump!

Not that I expect the people backing Trump will see the tax return to suddenly see these figures and experience an epiphany. Those people have made up their minds long ago, plus the fact that they are so hard-core opposed to the notion of Hillary Clinton. Nothing will change their minds!

But for the real masses who might feel a touch of apathy and believe that there’s no real difference between the two, we should keep this in mind. Trump is someone whose significant wealth has come from being able to use the business establishment rules in his favor.

Regardless of what you think of Hillary, anybody who thinks Donald is any different is being foolish. Then again, Trump has been counting on the masses being foolish all these years to make up with our tax payments what he has been able to avoid paying out of his income.

  -30-

What exactly is a “pro-business” state?

I’m sure that a segment of society – the part that calls itself “economic conservative” and “pro-business” – is gnashing its teeth and seething with rage at the thought that a major company deliberately chose to locate in Chicago.

Even though state government specifically refused to give the company – Archer Daniels Midland, Co., of downstate Decatur, Ill. – a tax incentive that it claimed was essential to making the move economically viable.

ADM, A PROCESSOR of crops into food and other products such as fuel, has long been the staple of the economy in Decatur. But life in central Illinois isn’t cosmopolitan enough for the corporate executives who run the company.

Which is why, earlier this year, ADM officials let it be known that they want to move their corporate offices elsewhere – under the guise of wanting easier access to airline flights for their executives to travel the world on business.

That made Chicago, with its O’Hare International and Midway airports, a natural.

Except to those who are determined to believe that nobody could possibly want to be associated with Chicago, They were the ones who were pushing the idea that Illinois would lose ADM unless it got with the program, so to speak, and started making concessions to businesses even if they made no practical sense.

IN THE CASE of ADM, they wanted to be given a tax incentive totaling $24 million during the next two decades. Which really is laughable – a tax break over just over $1 million per year for a corporation that does billions of dollars of business per year world-wide.

The real issue was one of a corporate entity thinking that government somehow exists to serve it exclusively – even if those interests contradict those of other people. Personally, I always thought the point of government was to keep the interests of everyone balanced.

As it turned out, the Illinois Senate took a vote in favor of the ADM request. But the Illinois House of Representatives never got around to it.

They stayed

Other issues always managed to pre-empt it from coming up for a vote – particularly the matter of pension funding reform that the Legislature acted upon earlier this month in special session.

IT SEEMS THE allure of Chicago was too much for the ADM officials to pass on – even if they technically reduced their offer and are now merely moving some executive positions to the Second City, rather than following through on their original thought that they would also develop a technology center where great scientific advances in agriculture would have been developed.

That would have been an interesting piece to have in Chicago; probably moreso than the presence of a few dozen suited executives who will now work in the downtown area and will be lost in the masses of the millions who flood into the Loop each day to earn a living.

Although if the dollar figures work out, it wouldn’t shock me to learn that ADM develops that piece of their corporate puzzle in the future.

But denying us that piece, for now, is probably ADM’s way of “punishing” Chicago for making them otherwise “lose face” in that they demanded financial concessions and wound up getting nothing.

NOTHING, THAT IS, except for the knowledge that they will be located in THE major city of the Midwestern U.S. and have access to the wonders that are Chicago.

So even though there are people who are speculating politically that the winners were Gov. Pat Quinn (who released a statement Wednesday talking of the “continued partnership as this dynamic company invests and grows in Illinois”) and his allies.

I’d argue the real winner is ADM itself for staying. And the people, because we rejected the notions of the ideologues who think we have to give and give and give. That would have been the real loss!

  -30-

We lost Office Depot. Some fear ADM is next. Where is Illinois headed?

Officials with Office Depot, Inc. – the company that resulted when the Office Depot and Office Max chains of office supply retail stores merged into one entity – dumped on Illinois on Tuesday.

Not that it was unexpected. In fact, anybody with sense could predict that the move was going to happen. Although the ideologues of our society are going to be more than willing to concoct their own reasons to appease themselves.

FOR THE RECORD, Office Depot, Inc., let it be known that their corporate headquarters will be in Boca Raton, Fla. –the city where Office Depot had been.

Office Max had its corporate offices in suburban Naperville, and those offices will be abandoned. So Illinois lost a business to Florida. Some 1,600 jobs in Illinois are suspected will be lost.

Admittedly, the company had expressed a willingness to be based in the Chicago suburbs IF the Illinois General Assembly were to grant them certain EDGE tax credits. But in the wake of being obsessed with approving a measure to resolve pension funding programs, the Illinois House ignored the issue.

So with no tax breaks, the new Office Depot chain will be a Florida-based business.

THE HONEST TRUTH is that this merger basically sees Office Depot take over Office Max. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that their corporate culture will be the predominant one in the newly-enlarged company.

It would have been a bigger jolt if they had made the move to DuPage County. I’m not sure that such tax credits would have been appropriate. If Office Depot, Inc., can’t fully appreciate the benefits of being a part of metro Chicago, I’d argue it’s their loss.

There ought to be limits as to how far our political people go to do the equivalent of bribing businesses to come be amongst us.

Of course, this issue is going to crop up again, since the Decatur-based Archer Daniels Midland company also wants the same type of tax credits. They say they want to be in a bigger city than their current corporate home, and would like to keep an Illinois tie by moving to Chicago.

BUT THEY’RE DEMANDING the same EDGE tax credits, which really don’t amount to much money toward their financial bottom line.

It really comes down to a business entity thinking they have the right to demand things of government, just because they can. “Corporate welfare” is the label some people like to put on these kinds of deals, although there are times I wonder if “corporate blackmail” is more accurate.

Yes, there are political people who are claiming the loss of Office Depot, Inc. – which we never really had in the first place – is evidence that we’re too inept to hang on to ADM. They may well wind up in St. Louis or Minneapolis – although I’d suspect the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is more likely because they have an airport and flight connections that can compete with what’s available at O’Hare International and Midway airports.

I do realize that not gaining a corporate headquarters is a blow to the state. It would have helped burnish our rep if we could have stolen it, in a sense, from Florida. But it’s not exactly the end of the world.

PERHAPS AS EVIDENCED by the statement Gov. Pat Quinn was able to issue Tuesday about the boost Illinois received from the Standard & Poor’s credit rating agency. The quality of the state’s bonds rose from “negative” to “developing.”

Having our state Legislature get off its collective duff and act on pension funding was a significant step in the direction of significant improvement of our state’s economy.

“The change reflects the consensus reached on pension reform, which we believe could contribute to a sustainable path to fiscal stability,” Standard & Poor’s credit analyst Robin Prunty said of Illinois.

More sustainable than any concoction of EDGE tax credits could ever achieve for Illinois.

  -30-

Did Pat Quinn just give St. Louis a jolt in their desires to attract ADM?

Perhaps Pat Quinn thinks his gubernatorial re-election bid will benefit with solid voter turnout from Madison and St. Clair counties – the parts of Illinois that also are part of the St. Louis metropolitan area.

QUINN: A dangerous political mix

That’s about the only line of logic I can think of that would make me comprehend why the governor would create a link between the issue of trying to keep Archer Daniels Midland Co. in Illinois AND trying to fix the funding flaws in pension programs overseen by state government.

FOR THE RECORD, ADM officials have said they want to move their world headquarters from Decatur to a large Midwestern city. They have hinted Chicago is their preference, but St. Louis and Minneapolis also have been mentioned in the mix.

To the goal of ensuring that Chicago comes out on top, the Illinois General Assembly is contemplating whether they should approve something resembling tax breaks for ADM IF they stay in an Illinois city. Such tax credits could come up for consideration during the veto session that begins later this month.

But Quinn is telling the Associated Press that he’ll use his veto power to kill off any such tax breaks – UNLESS the state Legislature also manages to approve an adequate plan for fixing pension funding mechanisms.

Whether or not pension funding will be addressed is questionable – some legislators are confident it can be addressed during the same veto session, while others say the sides are too far apart and that nothing will happen until next year AT THE SOONEST!!!

HOW WOULD IT play if Quinn wound up killing off a bid to keep one of rural Illinois’ major companies within the state, while also giving Chicago’s corporate presence another major player?

CULLERTON: A political balance?

Would it seem like Quinn is playing politics in ways that would encourage ADM to give one of those other cities more serious consideration?

The presence of O’Hare International Airport may be a major advantage, but if it meant avoiding the political games, I suspect ADM officials would learn to live with Lambert Airport in St. Louis.

Which might somehow mean that a few of those ADM executives who leave Decatur for the new world headquarters would wind up living in the St. Louis Metro East area. Or maybe not. Maybe they’ll all decide to live on the Missouri side of the Mississippi River? Or maybe Quinn fantasizes that they'll use high-speed rail to commute from Chicago TO St. Louis?

I COULD EASILY see this issue being spun into a negative that Quinn was willing to let a rural-based company leave the state, AND into a negative by Chicago interests that he thwarted local efforts to try to attract that company.

Could political gamesmanship make Lambert look better?

The last time I checked, Madison and St. Clair counties had solid Democratic Party organizations, but not strong enough to overcome opposition everywhere else in Illinois.

Which is why state Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is trying to make an appeal to both regions; what with his talk that the estimated $20 million worth of tax breaks being sought by ADM to move to Chicago should be balanced off with something to compensate Decatur for any jobs it loses due to the move.

I’m not sure I see what Quinn gains by linking the two issues – particularly since the General Assembly has made it clear on so many occasions that they’re not willing to do the political heavy-lifting required to resolve the pension problems.

HOW MANY “DEADLINES,” how many drop-dead dates, have come and gone with nothing being done on the issue? There’s plenty of blame to go around the General Assembly on this issue.

Quinn’s latest tactic comes across as the governor himself trying to grab a share of the blame, rather than letting the Legislature take the hits!

Which further convinces me that if Quinn prevails in next year’s election cycle, it’s going to be more due to the incompetence of his potential opponents than it will be anything positive the governor does himself.

  -30-

We shouldn’t be surprised that Sears closes stores after getting tax break

There are many people these days who are outraged with Sears, using the Internet to vent their rage at the fact that the retailer had the gall to demand a serious tax break from the Illinois General Assembly, then announce that it plans to close stores across the country.

Personally, I can’t get upset – largely because it is exactly the kind of conduct I would have expected. I’m dismayed that conditions are like this, but not the least bit surprised that it could happen like this.

BESIDES, IT ISN’T like any agreement was violated. The actions that happened this month are completely within the “letter of the law.” If anything, Sears’ behavior is perfect evidence of the fact that not every bad thing that happens is illegal.

So let’s look at what happened with Sears, which used its political clout to pressure the Illinois Legislature and Gov. Pat Quinn to back a measure giving the corporation some serious tax breaks.

At a time when Illinois government is looking for every bit of income it can get its hands on, the idea that it would be willing to “give back” some money is a significant act on its part.

But Sears Holding Corp. used political blackmail, so to speak, to get what it wanted. They threatened to leave their northwest suburban corporate headquarters and relocate to some other state (possibly North Carolina, in Charlotte) if they weren’t given financial incentives to stay.

ILLINOIS GOVERNMENT, NOT wanting the national “black eye” of having a company with such history leaving our boundaries, gave in. They got their tax breaks, although it took the General Assembly several tries to get it done.

And some legislators prefer to think that they voted to grant some tax relief to low-income people. Although anyone who is being honest admits that no one would have cared about the low-income people if not for the need to address Sears.

But this week, saying that the Christmas holiday season was nowhere near as good financially as they would have wanted, Sears said that about 120 stores across the country will have to be shuttered. On Thursday, they went so far as to identify 79 locations – with the implication being that another 40 or so yet-to-be-identified stores will also be closed in the near future.

Now this deal doesn’t, in any way, affect the fact that the corporate headquarters will continue to be in Hoffman Estates – which was the only condition of the tax break.

NOBODY EVER PROMISED that all the stores would stay open. So nothing legally improper (a.k.a., criminal) has occurred.

I’m sure the fact that no Sears stores (or their sister K-mart stores) in Illinois are being closed is solely because no one wants to tick off the political people here. But when a little more time passes, there could well be Illinois-based Sears stores that get closed.

In fact, the only Chicago-area store affected by this week’s announced round of closings is a K-mart in St. John, Ind.

That store at the far southeast corner of the Chicago metropolitan area likely is cost some jobs and some will be hurt. But it is on the other side of State Line Road. I’m sure that Sears officials are justifying this one local closing by thinking to themselves, “What has Indiana done for us lately?”

WHICH MAY NOT be an illegal viewpoint for them to have. But it is one that bothers me that we have to accept it as just the way things are done.

It is the reason why I have my problems with the ideologues of our society who like to rant that our governments in Illinois and Chicago are anti-business. We supposedly tax so excessively that no reputable business would want to locate within our area.

Ignoring the fact that access to the Chicago-area, with all its perks and joys, is something of significant value to a business in-and-of itself.

The kind of people who want to think they’re being “pro-business” are really just too eager to give in to the corporate whims that would just as soon believe they should not have to pay any kind of tax.

ALL-TOO-OFTEN, THEY’RE THE same entities that rant about how profitable they could be – if only they didn’t have to pay such ridiculously-high wages to their employees. As though they’d have any kind of product or service to sell for profit if NOT for their employees.

Which means the next time I hear that someone is complaining about how “anti-business” Illinois and Chicago are, I’m going to wonder if they’re the kind of person who thinks it is somehow proper that Sears would whack away at stores and jobs just a couple of weeks after getting a significant business break from state government.

The fact that anyone could think this is acceptable is what I find offensive – much more than the business’ act itself.

  -30-

Corporate tax breaks is reason the Legislature is bothering to come back

There has been a lot of speculation about whether the General Assembly will manage to give its approval to a casino expansion measure that Gov. Pat Quinn will be to sign into law.

There also are other measures desired by various interests, all of which will get a chance to come to life when the Illinois Legislature convenes again on Tuesday for yet another day of its fall veto session.

YET NONE OF this would have been possible, except for a bill that would appear to go to the very heart of what all these Occupy Chicago/Wall Street/wherever types claim is wrong with our society today.

For the reason that our Legislature felt compelled to add another day to the fall veto session (which was scheduled to end a couple of weeks ago) was a measure related to tax breaks for business interests.

The Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange have claimed they are overtaxed, and that they want changes in state laws that will reduce the amount of money they would have to pay for doing business in Illinois. They also have threatened to leave our wonderful city – using the claim that modern technology no longer requires them to physically be IN Chicago in order to do their global trade.

THAT is the reason we’re coming back today. The fact that a whole lot of other issues will also get a chance to gain approval is just a secondary benefit.

NOT EVEN THE idea of casino expansion would have been enough to bring the General Assembly back to Springfield prior to their next official dates of business in January.

So if you are of the type who seriously wants to have more gambling opportunities across Illinois, you should be thankful for the Board of Trade and Mercantile Exchange. Otherwise, you’d be waiting until next spring for any more consideration.

Of course, that’s assuming that anyone has changed their stance on gambling. For all I know, nothing may happen on Tuesday regarding casinos, and we could still be addressing this issue come spring.

So what should we think of this measure meant to benefit those agricultural commodities traders?

ACTUALLY, IT AMUSES me that whenever I hear legislators talk about this issue, they describe it in different terms. For state lawmakers used this same bill to also add in some changes in tax law that relate to Sears Holding Inc. – which has threatened to move its corporate headquarters from the northwest suburbs to some other state if they don’t get tax breaks.

Legislators talk about this bill as the “Sears tax break.” They say they’re just trying to be business-friendly to a corporation that has more than a century of history in our state.

It just sounds better to say “I’m helping Sears” than it does to say “I’m helping the Board of Trade.” The latter really reeks of confirming the suspicions of activists these days that our government officials are only interested in helping the 1 percent of wealthy corporate interests – while maybe the 99 percent of the rest of us shop at Sears.

I suspect if they really wanted to reflect the modern-day consumer, they’d offer up some sort of aid to Target and Wal-mart (where many of us are more likely to shop).

ANYWAY, THIS BILL will be the one that comes up Tuesday in the Illinois House of Representatives and the state Senate. As it was, an Illinois House committee gave the measure its recommendation during a hearing held Monday.

The General Assembly will be asked to provide tax breaks of up to $250 million – with about 40 percent of that going to the Mercantile Exchange, the Board of Trade and Sears.

To try to appease those Occupy protesters (and the regular people who sympathize with them), there also will be $100 million in tax breaks for smaller companies, and another $50 million to cover the cost of expanding the earned-income tax credit for the working “poor.”

In short, we’re seeing that our state does have a sense of being willing to offer aid to corporate interests – despite the claims of certain states with their “Illinoyed” marketing campaign that is trying to draw businesses out of our state and away to theirs.

PERHAPS OUR STATE just has a sense that the interests of corporate and personal interests need to be balanced off – while others (including our neighbor to the east – Indiana) are too willing to play partisan politics (such as persisting with legislation to turn themselves into a “right to work” state) with the issue.

This is the reason our Legislature is back in session. We feel the need to give business interests some aid – even though school officials in the area surrounding the Hoffman Estates corporate headquarters for Sears claim they will lose significant amounts of tax revenue they were receiving from having the retail company in their community.

Even if the Legislature manages to leave town without expanding casino gambling, there likely will be plenty of action that will manage to tick people off -- even though a part of you should be greatful that this issue enabled the Legislature to return to the Statehouse this week to consider your pet cause.

  -30-

RTA lawsuit being turned into battle of ‘Chicago versus small towns’

I’m not sure what to think of the merits of the Regional Transportation Authority’s lawsuit filed against two municipalities on the fringe of the Chicago area.

But the response from those towns (Channahon in Grundy County and Kankakee to the far south) is all too predictable. They want to view this as an incident of Mighty Chicago trying to pick on them.

WHICH IS RIDICULOUS when one realizes that Chicago city government technically has nothing to do with this particular lawsuit – unless you want to adopt the “conspiracy theory” mode that says Chicago is at the heart of everything that is wrong!

So my gut reaction is to think that there might be merit to the lawsuit filed by the RTA – which technically is an entity of Illinois state government. Perhaps the local politicos should be ranting toward Springfield instead of Chicago, although the city did file its own followup lawsuit in support of the RTA late in the day on Tuesday.

The primary lawsuit that got filed says that local governments in Kankakee and Channahon – in their attempts to create tax-incentive programs meant to bring (and keep) businesses within their boundaries – are causing less sales tax revenues to be produced.

Considering that the RTA relies on a share of sales tax revenues to help produce the money that it then assigns to its service boards (the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace) to maintain all those commuter trains and buses, anything that hurts their bottom line has a backlash to be felt across a large area.

THE LAWSUIT FILED in Cook County Circuit Court claims the RTA is losing about $20 million per year, just because those two municipalities are willing to see less taxes charged in order to keep businesses.

There also is the fact that those outer counties have lower tax rates than Cook County, which has led some businesses to relocate their offices to those outer suburbs to get out of having to pay (or charge) the higher tax rate of the city proper.

Which also translates into less money that ultimately flows to the RTA. Although I'm sure they're going to argue (perhaps legitimately) that they have a right to charge less in tax rates (usually because they're offering significantly less in services than large cities do).

Now considering that just about all local governments rely on tax incentives to attract business (playing off of that corporate attitude that seems to believe businesses should not have to pay any taxes), I find it a little greedy for one government to complain that another government’s incentives are hurting them.

BUT THEN AGAIN, there is a certain competitive nature that occurs between municipalities. They’re all trying to attract business, and any one town’s gain goes to the disadvantage of all the communities surrounding them.

So what should we think?

I just have a hard time taking seriously the statement issued by Channahon’s village administrator (the full-time professional who runs the town, with guidance from the part-time mayor and trustees), which tries to make this a ‘Chicago versus us’ type-of-issue.

They claim they were not notified of anything by Chicago or Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Which is true, since it isn’t their lawsuit.

I ALSO GOT my chuckle from the reference to the fact that Channahon’s budget is less than half of 1 percent that of Chicago city government.

If Channahon officials have any legitimate point in their response, it is the fact that the Illinois Department of Revenue ultimately distributes money raised from sales taxes. Perhaps the RTA’s “beef” is really with their fellow state agency?

Which is why those officials are correct when they say they’re following the letter of the law and complying with the state tax code. Then again, the state is merely following the guidelines set by the individual communities when it concerns who gets tax breaks and who does not.

Kankakee officials may have a more telling point. Mayor Nina Epstein told the Associated Press that the businesses her community is able to attract ultimately benefit the entire state of Illinois because those companies – most with single locations – would be located in other states if not for their preference for Kankakee.

WHICH COMES ACROSS as a little more mature than claiming “Mighty Chicago” is picking on us – like we’re hearing from Channahon officials.

Taking the broad approach that benefits us all, rather than focusing on the minutia of municipal matters, is most likely the way to win in the end.

Particularly since this lawsuit is starting out in Chicago-favorable territory of Cook County court – but is destined to wind up in the appeals courts, if not the Supreme Court of Illinois oh so many years from now.

  -30-

Would we really miss Sears if it left? Strategy reminiscent of the White Sox

I have to confess. I can’t recall the last time I actually purchased anything from Sears.

I doubt I’m at all unique in that regard. The retailer with lots of history and significance to the Chicago-area economy throughout the years is having its own economic struggles.



Lots of Chicago history. But what is its present value?



SO MUCH SO that the company reportedly is considering locating its corporate headquarters somewhere else. We wouldn’t be able to claim Sears as “one of our own.” That honor (if you believe the reporting of the Associated Press) would fall to Boston or the District of Columbia.

But in light of the fact that so few of us are continuing to shop at Sears, I wonder if we’d really care if they left.

Now as many business-oriented people believe, Sears is letting it be known that they may leave the Chicago area altogether and give our business world a symbolic blow of rejection because what they really want is some sort of concessions from government officials that will help boost their bottom line WITHOUT having to go to the trouble of boosting their sales.

Tax breaks of some sort. Perhaps some sort of financial help in terms of maintaining their properties. Who’s to say what they want, or what the state will be willing to give.

BECAUSE GOV. PAT Quinn has said Illinois is willing to do what it takes in order to keep the Sears “brand” as a Chicago-area based company (their headquarters these days is in suburban Hoffman Estates – which is why it’s now the Willis Tower).

On an intellectual level, I’m sure one can argue that there are limits to what Sears ought to be given by the state. One legislator went so far as to tell the Associated Press that Sears is on “the downswing” and shouldn’t get much in the way of anything in terms of financial concessions.

But still, Sears is Sears. If anything, it might be more of a symbolic blow to Chicago’s image to lose Sears than it was when Marshall Field’s officially became nothing more than the Chicago branch of Macy’s.

If anything, it reminds me of the politicking that took place some 23 years ago when the Chicago White Sox went so far as to sign a lease with officials in St. Petersburg, Fla., to have the ballclub play their games in the (then) newly-constructed Florida Suncoast Dome.

IT WAS ONLY when the General Assembly, with its arm twisted by then-Gov. James R. Thompson, engaged in some creative political maneuvering to approve the measure that resulted in the construction of U.S. Cellular Field.

Which White Sox officials later admitted was their true desire. Threats to become the Florida White Sox were merely to scare Chicago political people into pressuring the Legislature to act – and was actually the recommended strategy to the ballclub of Thompson himself.

Now I know of some political people who voted for the White Sox move back in 1988 because of the sentiment that it would be “too embarrassing” for Chicago to lose such a long-standing baseball franchise (a charter member of the American League when it was created in 1900, upgrading to “major league” status in 1901).

Which sounds way too much like the rhetoric we’re likely to hear in coming months. Losing Sears would be the ultimate degradation to the Chicago-area economy (let alone Illinois).

YET I WONDER just how much Illinois can afford to concede in light of the current economic condition? Or if any of the other cities that are making offers to try to attract Sears to their municipal boundaries can seriously afford to pay for whatever perks they are offering the historic retailer?

Should we regard the idea of a D.C.-based Sears in the same way we think of the Florida White Sox – a cute idea that just isn’t practical?

But on the other hand, if Illinois officials decide to play their hand too much like a sledge hammer, will they wind up offending Sears to the point where the company leaves for another city just out of spite?

Because a Sears move wouldn’t be a cheap one for the company. They would need a pretty significant offer to make a move worth their while. That is something our local politicos ought to keep in mind when contemplating what it is worth to keep the corporate headquarters – which admittedly provides for significant numbers of jobs in the northwest suburbs.



There's a reason it's now called the Willis Tower



I KNOW THAT one of  the legislators who voted for the White Sox stadium (then-state Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch) has since said her vote for her favorite baseball team was one of the “five worst votes” she made during her 18 years in the General Assembly.

If we go too far overboard in trying to concoct an economic package to keep Sears in the suburbs, will we have our current crop of legislators making similar comments someday about the company that once had Hammond, Ind. watchmaker Alvah Roebuck as an equally-prominent part of its name?

  -30-