Progress Illinois

It looks like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and his caucus leadership has broken a promise with jobless Americans. Before the body went on recess, Reid said he planned to take up a bill this week extending the filing deadline for emergency unemployment benefits. Well, the Senate is back in session today and unemployment insurance isn't on the docket. From The Hill:

The fate of the measure is uncertain. At this point, the Senate probably doesn't have enough votes to pass the measure, and it's unknown how the House would react to changes.

Jackie Headapohl at MLive points out that any major change to the bill would force it back to the House for another vote, where passage is not assured -- this despite the fact that 74 percent of Americans think it's too early to cut off emergency assistance, according to a new Hart Research Associates poll (PDF). Meanwhile, the severity of the long-term unemployment crisis is growing. On average, the National Employment Law Project estimates (PDF) that current unemployed workers are without work for 34.4 weeks, or over eight full months. That's worse than the latest estimate from the Economic Policy Institute, whose data only extended through 2009.

UPDATE (6:20 p.m.): Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) tells the Hill that the Senate leadership is "close" on a deal to get the so-called "extenders" bill.  It appears they will introduce it some time tomorrow.

State lawmakers decided not to pass any major tax increases or spending cuts this session, preferring instead to confront the state's massive deficit next year (or so they say). They didn't leave Springfield without approving any new revenue, however. Among the one-time payments passed was a tax amnesty bill that grants delinquent taxpayers an opportunity to pay back-taxes without penalty. Former Paul Simon Public Policy Institute director Mike Lawrence didn't like the idea when the General Assembly tried it seven years ago -- and he likes it even less now.  In his latest State Journal-Register column, he notes the "long-term fiscal and moral implications" and cites research showing that tax amnesty "imperil[s] future revenues by devaluing compliance."

Illinois needs to pay its bills, so it's hard to turn down the estimated $250 million the plan could generate next year. But it begs the question: Of the revenue proposals that were seriously debated in Springfield, why didn't House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) call a bill (SB 44) to raise the state's cigarette tax by $1 per pack? It's incredibly popular, it's recurring, and it would raise roughly the same amount of resources in FY 2011 as the tax amnesty bill.  Also, it would deliver real public health benefits.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported last week that the measure "could still be revisited this summer or in the regular fall session."  We'll see.  With this legislative body, such projectins always deserve a big grain of salt.

Asked by WIND Radio's Big John and Amy to name one thing he would have liked to have done differently as Cook County Board President, Todd Stroger ignored the unpopular penny-on-the-dollar sales tax increase or his error-laden budgeting. The Tony Cole fiasco, his patronage problems, and his broken promises to modernize county government apparently didn't come to mind, either. Instead, he took a parting shot at his arch-nemesis: the Chicago media. "I would more vigorously stand up and call the press liars," he told the hosts. Listen (full audio of the interview available here):

That constant defensiveness really captures the essence of Stroger's disappointing reign.

Earlier this week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Kevin McDermott devoted a blog post to the latest Illinois Policy Institute memo on disparities between private sector and public sector pay.  He specifically zeroed in on the comparison of prison barbers (who make an average salary of $66,000) with normal barbers (who make around $27,000, on average) and even quoted the Institute's executive vice-president suggesting ways to bring the state's barber costs down.

McDermott described the Institute as "testing the theory that the government is more wasteful (or, put another way, more generous) than private businesses."  But he failed to note -- in clear, obvious language -- that the conservative think tank's method was wholly unscientific.  Indeed, in our response to their report, we just as easily found occupations in which the state pays less than the private sector. 

Any discussion of this nuanced issued should note the comprehensive and rigorous study recently conducted at the University of Wisconsin which found that local and state employees often make 15 percent less than their private sector counterparts.