Illinois stuck in a ‘historic, epic’ budget crisis
Illinois government is staring down the barrel of an explosive financial mess, and perhaps nothing frames the danger better than two big numbers.
The first is $26 billion, the grand total that lawmakers have allotted this year for the meat of what the state does: funding education, health care, child welfare, public safety and the machinery of government itself.
The second number is $13 billion, the total of red ink in the state's main checking account that, by law, has to be erased — at least on paper — before a penny can be set aside for day-to-day operations in the fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2010.
Let me try to understand the situation. The State of Illinois thinks it must spend twice as much money as it is able to collect to pay for the things it wants.
For all you doubters that claim that Barack Hussein Obama had no experience in politics before attempting to destroy the United States, I think you are wrong. Barack Hussein Obama was educated to politics in Chicago, the most corrupt city, in the most corrupt state in the United States. Barack Hussein Obama participated in unbalancing the budget for the most reckless spending state in the country. Barack Hussein Obama learned that bankruptcy is not to be feared, but it is the normal way of life in Illinois. This is the experience that Barack Hussein Obama brings with him. So how can you expect Barack Hussein Obama to balance the federal budget (where he can print as much money as he wants), when he couldn't be bothered to balance the budget in his home state.
"Any elected official or candidate who says you can solve this without a tax increase is either incredibly math-impaired or intentionally deceiving voters," said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, another Illinois budget watchdog.
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? The only solution is to RAISE TAXES??
What would be wrong with CUTTING SPENDING??
Oh, you already did that? Where? So why is the budget even bigger than before??
Maybe start with all those welfare payments. If the people on welfare were out earning a living, they'd be _paying_ taxes instead of _using_ tax dollars. Oh, there aren't any jobs for them? If you didn't tax "the rich" (the people who PAY WAGES) and their businesses into the ground, maybe there'd be more jobs for the welfare types.
Of course, if you take away their dole, the welfare types won't vote for you anymore, and no big-city Democrat could get elected without his welfare constituency behind him. Maybe people on the dole shouldn't have the vote, for exactly this reason: the dole is BUYING VOTES. Isn't that supposed to be illegal??