How To Keep An Economy Down

Starting January 1, 2011, new tax rates will kick in across the board, raising taxes on American families and small businesses by a staggering $3.8 trillion, from those in the lowest tax bracket and continuing all the way up the economic ladder.

If you haven’t been paying attention to the tax cut debate yet, you need to take a few minutes to find out how Democrat Leaders in Congress are set to deliver a one-two punch to the American public in the form of higher taxes on families and small businesses.  At this time of economic uncertainty and sluggish growth, an across-the-board tax increase on families and individuals promises to keep the economy on its knees.

Starting January 1, 2011, new tax rates will kick in across the board, raising taxes on American families and small businesses by a staggering $3.8 trillion, from those in the lowest tax bracket and continuing all the way up the economic ladder.  The Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, independent research organization estimates that an average family of the Sixth Congressional District will see their income taxes increase $1,972.  At a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, this misguided policy will take more money out of the pockets of individuals in order to fuel more of the wasteful government spending that is on track to triple our national debt.

Under current law, the lowest tax bracket, at 10%, will be eliminated.  That rate will rise to 15%, costing almost 100 million families who can ill-afford it an extra $500 in taxes next year.  Similar increases will affect each of the other marginal tax rates, all the way up to a top effective personal income tax rate of 41.6%.  Just as troubling for many families will be the reinstatement of the marriage penalty and cuts to the child tax credit.

According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), Congress’s official scorekeeper, reinstating the marriage penalty will cost 35 million married couples an average of $595 in higher federal taxes in 2011.  The same study finds that cutting the child tax credit in half, which is scheduled to take place automatically on the first day of 2011, will cost 31 million families over $1,000 in higher taxes next year.  Raising taxes on parents and married couples is no way to jump start our flagging economy.  Giving the federal government more rope with which to hang itself will only lead to the further wasting of your hard-earned dollars.

As I engage with residents throughout the Sixth Congressional District, I hear from families and individuals making tough economic choices to cope with the realities of a slow economy.  Unfortunately, the current Congressional leadership is spending money at a ferocious pace and looking around ravenously for new sources of revenue.  In fact, despite forecasts for above-average tax revenues for the next decade, the President’s own Office of Management and Budget (OMB) still reports a soaring deficits in the next 10 years.  How do higher tax revenues square with record budget deficits?  Uncontrolled spending.  Put simply, even with $670 billion in tax increases the last 18 months, spending under this Congress continues to explode at an unsustainable rate.

Congressional Democrats’ gaze has already settled on businesses large and small, and now they think it’s time for you and your family to pony up in order to continue the spending frenzy.  What Washington can’t seem to understand is that the surest way to stimulate economic growth and job creation is to keep in place the much needed tax relief of the last decade.  Letting families and individuals decide how to spend their own hard-earned income fuels economic activity and consumer confidence.

Eighteen months of stimulus spending and $670 billion in tax increases later, the economic agenda put forth by Democrat Leaders in Congress has not worked.  It’s time to put our nation’s economic health front and center and advance a common-sense agenda of continued tax relief, reining in out-of-control spending, and eliminating the burdensome government regulations that block business growth and job creation with red tape.  Keeping taxes lower for all Americans incentivizes the work and investment that will help grow our economy and create new jobs.  It is past time to give families and small businesses the tools to flourish and get back on the road to prosperity.

Winfield United’s Failed Self-Serving Agenda

Like the Dukes who tried to corner the market in frozen concentrated orange juice in the film Trading Places, Winfield United is getting its comeuppance now.

Today, as Winfield is in disarray and continues to slide, the directors of Winfield United have taken over from their board members. And those directors are running from the realities of their agenda all the while trying to minimize the damage their organization has done — just as the movie’s orange traders did 27 years ago.

We have long known Winfield United would put our community at great risk with their anti-growth, self-serving agenda and Winfield would face the difficult times we are now experiencing. And we remain of the view that a renewed level of instability is upon us because Winfield United’s control is exacerbating our current situation.

All the way back in 2004, we were cautioned that Winfield United’s dirty little secret was absolutely no-growth, no progress, and no new ideas, which displaced old-fashioned tried and true methods of building a viable, successful and happy community. Further adding to Winfield’s woes was Winfield United’s Deborah Birutis’ stated position that development would sow the seeds of our own destruction. Read Deborah Birutis’ flawed “White Paper Report”  True Cost of Development.

Since the beginning of Winfield United in 2004, we have witnessed the morphing of the town into a shell of itself. As Randolph Duke reminded us in Trading Places, they took a “perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an honest, hard-working man (Winthorpe) into a violently, deranged, would-be killer!”

In 2004, we were warned about the consequences of allowing the special interest group Winfield United to control and unwind our town and the volatility that would follow.

The Dukes traded in orange juice; Winfield United has an overzealous love affair for power and their own agenda. Winfield United convinced as many people who would listen their agenda was the right one and they, Winfield United would take Winfield to the big dance….that is until the music stopped.

Over the last few years, the pain in Winfield has become as thick as the fog rising from Shinneock Bay in the Hamptons this morning. Fear of rising losses, higher taxes, a depletion of essential services, the lack of new ideas and a loss of community has many residents nervously biting their finger nails hoping and praying for change.

The Case for Voting NO’ on the Winfield Road Referendum TAX

This an archived article from February of 2010

This fall our village is putting to a public vote a referendum for $3.3 Million in order to fix the most decrepit roads in our town. After that, we need an additional $705 Thousand Dollars per year just to maintain the remaining roads. The initial tax will show up on your property tax bill as an extra $243 charge if your house is worth $300,000. If your house is worth more, your tax bill will be proportionally more. The tax will continue until the bond is paid off in 20 years. (Daily Herald, 12-18-09)

Note: The $243.00 does not include the additional cost of  the $705 thousand dollars for the next 20 years. In reality you are looking at approximately a 200% tax increase on the Winfield side of your tax bill.

An Epic Failure of Leadership

If you have been a resident for a few years, and if you watch the newspapers, you are probably aware  Winfield has had many opportunities to develop and grow our commercial tax base, which alleviates the financial pressure put on residents in the form of property taxes. Commercial real estate creates higher land values, puts no additional pressure on our schools, and they pay higher taxes per square foot than residential real estate does. Commercial developments also have the distinct advantage, if done right, of creating sales taxes. This town’s politicians for years have actively denied growth opportunities that would create net tax revenues for our town. (Daily Herald 3-25-09) If we had taken even a few of them, we would not find ourselves in such dire straights.

Lost Annual Transaction Tax

It is impossible to truly know how much sales tax revenue Winfield has forgone. I checked with the Illinois Department of Revenue and they tell me specific numbers are confidential. I have general numbers, and they are in the millions of dollars.

Currently, our heaviest traveled corridor is Roosevelt Road. The land along Roosevelt is zoned residential. Roosevelt Road has a traffic count of 30,000 cars each day. Of all the opportunities our village has to generate revenue in order to provide services like road maintenance, there is no better opportunity than Roosevelt Road.

“Winfield has lost every opportunity to raise tax revenue without raising taxes on our people…”

An Epic Failure of Government

During the last election cycle we were assured that Winfield Village President Deborah Birutis was a financial wizard that had spent 5 years on the finance committee and all was well with the budget. Glenn VadeBonCoeur and Jack Bajor also served with her on the finance committee and still do. Jack Bajor and Joel Kunesh are long time Winfield Trustees. One has to wonder, given their financial prowess, how did they NOT see this coming? In that same election cycle we were assured the budget was balanced and there was nothing to worry about. We should all be disappointed that we have arrived at this juncture in our town’s history; out of money and worse, out of ideas that do not revolve around raising taxes on the residents of this great town. The next step for these politicians is apparently to outsource our police department. The way I see it, if you boil the village’s responsibility to the residents down to its core, the local government is responsible for delivering clean water, disposing of sewage and garbage and providing police protection. If Village President Birutis doesn’t think Winfield should provide police protection anymore, then what, really, are we paying a local government for? If disbanding the police department is really an option, then disbanding the Winfield’s Village government should be too.

Why I ask you to join me in voting NO for the Winfield Road Referendum.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, the roads need to be fixed and Winfield is in a very bad spot because of monumentally bad management. But unless we take this opportunity to set the town on a path to fiscal responsibility, you can rest assured your politicians will come back to you in a few years from now to ask for more money for something else that is lurking (or should I say lacking) in our budget. However, we must vote NO for the Winfield Road Referendum UNTIL such time as they adopt reforms such as changing the zoning on Roosevelt Road to create the possibility for future revenues and outline a plan for developing a sustainable revenue stream. If our elected officials can put together a cogent plan with vision that clearly demonstrates a path to sustainable revenue, then we should change our vote to YES. I am not looking at a complete denial of the fact the roads need to be addressed, just a pause in doing what needs to be done. A pause just long enough for our current elected officials to do the right thing, to remember they are the stewards of the entire town and they manage the resources for the benefit of all the residents. I ask you to vote NO until a clearly defined plan has been devised to never have to come back to the residents again for more tax dollars.

Questions to Ask Your Elected Officials

1. President Birutis, Trustee VadeBonCoeur, with your 5 years on the finance committee, how long did you know that Winfield was out of money?
2. Did you know we were going to have to go to referendum for the roads during the last election cycle?
3. All your campaign literature said that you had “Balanced the Budget”. Tell me, is the budget really balanced when you are robbing from the road maintenance fund to cover operating expenses?
4. If getting a “Yes” vote for this referendum required changing the zoning of land in Winfield’s control on Roosevelt Road to commercial zoning would you do it?
5. Would you support leasing the Metra Commuter lots to a private company in order to raise $1 Million dollars?
6. Why did you vote against video gambling in Winfield that would have raised $45,000 per year?
7. Why did you not support the proton treatment center and its estimated $450,000 of tax revenue in the TIF district?
8. If we had the opportunity for a major commercial development to go in on Roosevelt Rd would you support it and the millions of dollars it would make for the Village?

“…the village needs to realize that there is a correlation between having an anti-development mindset and paying increased taxes …”

Video: More Hot Air From Romanelli

Steve Romanelli is the president of the political action committee Winfield United which has a legacy of failure and incompetence, first with the Rudy Czech administration and now with the equally dismal Deborah Birutis administration.

Romanelli’s defense of his hand-picked village board members is laughable especially since the facts reveal a completely different story. For someone who has stated publicly on more than one occasion his organization has no control over Winfield’s village government, it is puzzling as to why Romanelli finds it so necessary to continually defend this pitiful village board.

Winfield United’s politics and their results can be summed up in one word: FAILURE.

It should come as no surprise Romanelli and his organization Winfield United oppose Districting Winfield into 6 separate and equal voting districts. It is all about power and control with Winfield United and Districting would strip Winfield United of the power and control Romanelli’s organization so badly covets.

At this difficult time in Winfield’s history, the community simply cannot afford to turn the page back to another failed Winfield United run government. We can’t let Romanelli and his organization fail Winfield again.

Obama and the Trouble With Voting ‘Present’

Weak and radical, the president looks more like Jimmy Carter all the time.

When Barack Obama announced he was running for president in February 2007, Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report wrote “Obama’s history of voting ‘present’” in Springfield, Ill.—even on some of the most controversial and politically explosive issues . . . raises questions . . . Voting ‘present’ is one of the three options in the Illinois Legislature (along with ‘yes’ and ‘no’) but it’s almost never an option for the occupant of the Oval Office.”

Mr. Gonzales’s words were prescient. Barack Obama may now be president, but at times he appears to be merely present. That has been the case with his response to the environmental catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The president was late recognizing the disaster’s magnitude, late in visiting the region, late in approving requests by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and late in feigning outrage. He has never offered an independent plan to stop the leak.

Mr. Obama also seems disinterested in hearing from experts about the spill. The White House’s “Deep Water Horizon Response Timeline” doesn’t list a single meeting between Mr. Obama and industry experts, though he did send Energy Secretary Steven Chu and others to Houston May 12 to meet with BP and others.

Yet while the president says his Noble Prize-winning energy secretary has been “examining every contingency,” Mr. Chu was clueless about BP’s plans to install a cap over the well to funnel oil to a vessel on the surface. As the New York Times reported last Saturday, “After the cap was successfully placed, Mr. Chu wondered aloud why oil was still spewing.” BP engineers had to explain that oil was still coming from vents that “would be closed very slowly to ensure that mounting pressure would not force the cap off.”

Even now, Mr. Obama looks like a spectator, albeit an angry one, barking at White House aides to “plug the damn hole” (now that’s a good idea no one has thought of) and telling NBC’s Matt Lauer he’s in search of an “ass to kick.”

But the main political behind that’s being kicked is Mr. Obama’s. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll says Americans give the federal government a 69% negative rating for its handling of the spill, compared to a 62% negative rating for Washington’s handling of Katrina in August 2005.

This pattern of being merely present has been apparent almost since the first days of the Obama presidency. He may unveil his mighty teleprompter to help pass what Congress has drafted, but this White House seems strangely disconnected from crafting legislation. For example, last year’s stimulus was largely drafted by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin, one of Congress’s most liberal members. As a result, what passed was a wasteful spending bill rather than an economic growth package.

And faced with a growing mountain of debt, Mr. Obama passed the issue off to an ineffectual commission whose report is due after the election. After growing the size of the federal government by a quarter in just over a year, he now says he’d like agencies to try to find 5% cuts in their budgets.

On other controversies—the attempt of high-ranking aides to entice candidates not to challenge incumbent Democratic senators, the details of cap-and-trade legislation, the resolution of big conflicts between the House and Senate versions of financial regulation, and the drafting of comprehensive immigration reform—Mr. Obama appears to be removed, distant and detached, unwilling or unable to provide the adult supervision Washington requires.

The result is that he receives a 38% approval and 52% disapproval rating on his handling of the economy in the latest Economist/YouGov poll. The GOP enjoys a nine-point lead over Democrats in Rasmussen’s latest generic ballot.

This is causing the public to revisit concerns it’s had about Mr. Obama since he clinched the Democratic nomination in March 2008. Then the ABC/Washington Post Poll reported that 46% of Americans found him too “inexperienced” to be an effective president, the highest number ever for a major party presidential nominee. In October, just before the election, ABC/Washington Post asked the question again: 44% called Mr. Obama too inexperienced. On issue after issue, Mr. Obama is providing plenty of evidence to validate those concerns.

Americans might hope the president’s diffidence when it comes to the hard work of government might mitigate his more extreme liberal tendencies. No such luck. Mr. Obama is an odd mixture of passivity and radicalism. He’s happy to be a cheerleader for policies (like nationalizing health care) that many Americans find dangerously liberal.

The country has had another president both weak and radical at the same time: Jimmy Carter.

Winfield’s Road Referendum Won’t Benefit Residents

The residents of Winfield are currently agitated by the specter of having to pony up $3.3 million and another $14 million over 20 years for deferred road maintenance. So far, there have been three town hall meetings, one hosted by the village and two hosted by me for the purposes of educating the people about the referendum.

There is another issue that runs hand in hand with the road referendum and that is the Winfield politicians’ disinterest in finding sustainable revenues through retail sales taxes and commercial real estate taxes to help take some of the burden off the citizens of this town. Six out of seven of our politicians are either members of the Winfield United Political Action Committee or are hand-picked by President Deborah Birutis, who was elected as the candidate choice of Winfield United.

When you consider that Winfield’s best opportunity for creating sustainable revenues is on the Roosevelt Road corridor, it calls into question the motivation of the members of Winfield United. Based on records from the state, I have compiled a list of Winfield United political donors and where they live. Not surprisingly, they all live in a one or two block radius of Roosevelt Road.

The choice to not develop Roosevelt Road into a commercial district that can be harnessed to alleviate some of the financial burdens associated with running a village represents a wealth transfer payment. The wealth transfer is from all of the other 9,000 people who do not live along Roosevelt Road to the few people that do. It is a miscarriage of justice that Village President Birutis is using her political station not to the benefit of the whole village but to the benefit of a small cabal of landowners who have paid $32,000 in political donations for a small town village election to make sure their backyard view never has to change.

NIMBY stands for “not in my backyard”; this self-serving attitude is a sad commentary on the state of Winfield politics when our elected officials run the town for themselves and their cronies at the expense of the rest of the residents. The $32,000 represents a small amount of money to pay to buy an outcome to an election that ensures the rest of the town gets taxed for $18 million over 20 years.

I am writing to you today to let you know that as you cover the story of the Winfield Road Referendum which will be on the ballot this November, there is a back story that explains the motivations of this referendum. I would also like you to know that I plan to have on that same ballot, an opportunity to vote to district the Village of Winfield so that each section of Winfield is represented and the needs of the whole town are considered when planning this towns future.

Will Red Light Cameras Really Prevent Accidents in Winfield?

Or is installing sneaky red light cameras just another way for Deborah Birutis & the Village Board to “TAX” the residents?

“Red Light Runners Compilation”

Warning the video compilation may contain content that is inappropriate for some users. Click the link below to view video.

YouTube – Red Light Runners Compilation

Also Read:

Winfield Village Board Considers Red Light Cameras – Safety of Trap?

CDH ‘welfare’ idea typical myopia

Just the Facts?

The late, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously asserted, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” The senator was wrong. Of course, for those of us who still believe that objectivity is objective, a fact is still a fact, though the heavens may fall.

The key word here is “entitled.” Today in Winfield, not only does the political action committee Winfield United believe the community is entitled to pay for their self-serving lifestyle. Winfield United feels they are entitled to their own facts to support their claim, to their own entitlement to the residents money to support their narrow positions.

Not only that, they believe they are entitled to their own facts to describe the character and conduct of their political opponents. In the last election, Winfield United used The Winfield Register to collectively smear candidates who opposed their hand-picked candidates in the absence of a single verified fact to support their outrageous claims.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. –John Adams (“Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,” December 1770).

Though Adams may have been correct technically — the facts cannot be altered in the eyes of God — he was wrong to the extent that the facts cannot be altered in the eyes of the public.

Winfield United repeatedly told the community their endorsed candidate for village president, Deborah Birutis, was a “financial genius” and because of her “financial insight” over the previous four years, the village was “financially sound.” But here we are barely one year after the “financial facts” were presented by Winfield United’s “financial genius” Deborah Birutis and the residents are now faced with a $3.3 million dollar road referendum, coupled with an additional $705 thousand dollar, 20 year tax to maintain the roads which will increase taxes upwards 200%. A reduction in police protection, a possible outright dismantling of the entire police department, higher water cost, increased waste collection fees, red light cameras, and a budget on life support due to Ms. Birutis’ blatant distortions and  financial mismanagement.

It will be interesting to see, seven months from now, how stubborn the facts will be. How effectively the advocates of the non-fact “communicate” to the residents — and how effective the rest of us are — will determine whether residents are hit with a massive tax bill. And remember, Winfield elections tend to be won or lost on the margin. If 18% of the voters are motivated by incorrect “facts” to vote, that may well be enough for the massive tax hikes to go through.

Of course, it is not a novelty in Winfield since Winfield United’s formation, there is often a struggle over convincing the public of the truth. As has been said, “A lie is halfway ’round the world before truth has got its boots on.”

So, we have a jolly seven-month public match over economic and political theory, Winfield United’s agenda  and the honest facts. Deborah Birutis and Winfield United have been quite upset for being called out as the responsible parties for Winfield’s financial troubles and for being identified as a  self-concerned, myopically-designed, deeply controlling organization desperately trying to save their sorry self-serving agenda. But if this massive tax increase goes through, Winfield United will once again enjoy the benefits of the taxpaying residents to maintain their lifestyle.

So, come out, come out where ever you are, my little WU’ers. We want to debate the facts, not duck your mud balls. What are you afraid of? Admittedly, the truth may hurt you — but only metaphorically. And, as the phrase goes, the truth will set us (even WU) free.

Would Chuck?

I had a conversation with Winfield Village Trustee Chuck Martschinke last night. We shared a beer at John’s Buffet and talked about Winfield. I was very interested to talk to Chuck to see how he fit into the village board. I enjoyed the conversation very much. I think Chuck is a straight shooter and while he may have been hand picked by Deborah Birutis, I believe he does his own thinking. When Village President Deborah Birutis torpedoed the Union Pacific Railroad underpass the first time it was up for a vote, Chuck Martschinke resigned from his involvement with the village. Former Winfield Village President RudyCzech, who hasd a habit of blind cc’ing people on emails, cc’d me on Chuck’s resignation letter. I thought that his commitment to something he believed in was admirable and I think he is an admirable guy.

That being said, I think he recognizes what I am trying to accomplish by shooting down the road referendum but he made abundantly clear he disagrees. I see the crumbling infrastructure as a symptom and I see the disease as being a lack of sustainable revenues. My purpose in working to kill the road referendum is to force attention to the lack of revenues so we cure the disease, then we can work on addressing the symptom. Its like having a boat with a hole in it. Do you bail the water out as it is rushing in? Or, do you fix the hole, and then bail the water out? To fix this hole in our budget we have to address the issue of Roosevelt Road in our comprehensive plan. From what I understand, the comprehensive plan for Winfield is up for review this summer and will be in front of the planning commission. I will be at those meetings and I think any concerned citizen should make an appearance too. Unfortunately it will probably be December before the village board votes to approve the comprehensive plan, so it is probably already too late for the November election and the vote on the road referendum.

Would Chuck support changing the comprehensive plan to allow commercial development on Roosevelt Rd? I think if anyone would give it honest consideration, Chuck would.