A Q&A with John Moynihan
Q. Why are you running for this office? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what? What will be your main priority?
John Moynihan: Fiscal responsibility and government accountability are my priorities. Government spending regularly increases at a greater rate than revenue growth from existing taxes. Rather than addressing the cause of that difference, our government typically increases tax rates/fees to cover the difference. The result is repetitive "budget holes" that are resolved by additional increases in taxes/fees. If this cycle is not changed, how will today's children be able to afford to raise their families? We must change our government's mentality that the hard fiscal decisions can be put off until the future. That mentality has resulted in the current fiscal crisis that has every level of government requesting record tax increases, increases that would not even address the massive under-funded pension obligation that has been identified as a critical issue for over a decade. Until the people step up and demand that mentality change, we will suffer more of the same.
Q. Incumbent, describe your main contributions and the important initiatives you've led. Challenger, tell us what contributions you would make.
Moynihan: My education and work experience will help me to understand the fiscal issues, identify the causes of the problems, and generate possible solutions. As an auditor with Price Waterhouse, I learned how to understand the client's business models and test the financial issues. As a lawyer, one area of my specialization has been financial irregularity investigations. This training and work experience provide the basis for me to analyze the state's fiscal situation with a different focus than most other legislators. That experience enables me to more easily understand when financial professionals attempt to explain the problems. Finally, as an auditor and lawyer, I regularly reviewed financial records to identify items that did not make sense given the other information. These skills are the special contribution I can offer as a state representative.
Q. The 2007 session showed again how heavily legislative action relies on consensus by the governor and legislative leaders. Should rank-and-file legislators play a larger role? If not, why? If so, how can that change be made?
Moynihan: Rank-and-file legislators should play a larger role in the government. Frequently, in my legal career, the best solutions were the result of several people discussing the problem we faced, with the solution being a product of the collaboration. Rank-and-file legislators will play a larger role when we let them know it is expected of them, and we let them know that we will not succumb to any leader's efforts to punish them at the next election because they played a larger role. The rank-and-file legislator can best ensure that protection by providing complete information to, and listening to, their constituents throughout their term on significant issues, not just before the next election.
Q. Illinois residents will vote in 2008 on whether the state should call a constitutional convention. Do you favor a convention? Why or why not? If yes, what constitutional revisions do you favor?
Moynihan: I favor a constitutional convention. Efforts to eliminate public corruption have been uneven and largely unsuccessful. We should consider items designed to provide greater protection to the people from public corruption, such as term limits, caps on political contributions, restrictions on political contributions by those doing business with the relevant government entity, restrictions on patronage workers, and transparent government spending.
Q. Do Illinois' ongoing budget problems have their roots in too much spending or too little revenue? Or in some combination of both? Please explain.
Moynihan: I believe that the public's insufficient access to information and the related lack of accountability has resulted in too much spending in the past. The blank check mentality has resulted in expenditures growing at much faster rates than revenues, with the resulting budget battles including new taxes/fees as well as budget freezes on certain programs that can ill afford the freezes. The problem now is that even if we get current spending under control, we have a reported $45 billion under-funded pension obligation that we must start addressing now. Thus, the past spending decisions have created the current problem, which includes both too much spending and too little revenue to address the under-funded obligations.
Q. Do you favor any changes in the state's funding of schools? If yes, what changes? If you favor no changes, please explain why.
Moynihan: I favor changes in the school funding. The state needs to provide a base level of spending for each school. Those amounts could be adjusted to reflect different costs of living in different locations. School districts that desire to spend more must be able to do so, but those increased expenditures cannot filter through to the state, such as through pension obligations. With the state funds should come fiscal accountability to a state entity. The career-ending raises designed to increase pensions are one example of why school boards should be held accountable for expenditures in the future before obligations become binding. They have the ability to dramatically increase the state's expenses, and, thus, must have limitations imposed on them to ensure we do not have uncontrolled expenditures imposed on the state or the people in the future.
Q. Do you favor or oppose putting new state employees on defined-contribution instead of defined-benefit retirement plans? Either way, explain why.
Moynihan: I favor defined-contribution plans. We currently have a reported $45 billion under-funded pension obligation. Two factors play a key role in that problem. First, we only "attempt" to fund the obligation at 80 percent, and, in reality, fund a much lower percent. The result is that we conceal the true costs we are presently incurring by imposing those costs on future generations. Efforts to require greater funding have obviously failed miserably. I believe that the funding requirements for defined contribution plans will better eliminate this hidden tax on future generations. Second, whether left accidentally or intentionally, the defined benefit plans have presented repeated opportunities for people to game the system to greatly increase their pension right before retirement. At best, our government typically plugs a hole after becoming obligated to pay millions of dollars of unreasonable future benefits. A defined contribution plan would eliminate those opportunities.
Q. Does Illinois currently taxes businesses too heavily, too lightly or the right amount? Please explain and tell us what changes you would favor.
Moynihan: Whether businesses are taxed too little or too much is really an academic question. Most business taxes are passed on directly (sales and the proposed service taxes) or indirectly (income) to people. Further, the vast majority of businesses are realistically simply an extension of the owner's personal income. While it would be nice to think that people can avoid paying for government service by taxing businesses more, the people end up bearing the vast majority of those taxes. I would propose business tax changes that target certain behavior. For instance, adjusting taxes to reflect the true cost of pollution and environmental waste should be considered. Another example would be to limit the corporate tax deduction for individual compensation in excess of a certain amount. Such changes would be supportive of good corporate governance and should be considered.
Q. Should the state lease or sell some assets such as its tollways and the lottery? Why or why not?
Moynihan: The state should not sell assets to pay for our current "lifestyle," which is what has been proposed. If living within our means requires reducing our lifestyle (decreasing our expenditures) or increasing our income (raising taxes), those hard choices must be faced and made. Selling assets to provide funds to cover budget gaps is a short-term solution that cannot be duplicated in the future. Eventually, we run out of assets. Further, by selling revenue generating assets, we increase the shortfalls we will experience in the future when we have no additional assets to sell. Selling assets is just another way to postpone making the hard decisions by imposing the costs on the future generations.
Q. What issue or issues specific to your legislative district and its residents do you plan to address in Springfield?
Moynihan: I am running for state representative because I believe we are in a financial crisis, and I do not believe that our government will address that crisis unless the people stand up and demand it. While I am sure that there are numerous issues that would solely impact people who live in the 56th District, and undoubtedly those issues will be addressed in Springfield, my focus now, and in Springfield, will be resolving our financial crisis. Doing so would be providing the greatest service possible for the people in the 56th District.
State house, 56th district
One, 2-year term
John Moynihan, 41, Schaumburg Democrat. Attorney for Reed Smith LLP of Chicago.
Politics: No prior experience.
Community: Schaumburg Athletic Association soccer coach and 1-year basketball coach 1998-present; St. Hubert Church 'Fulfilling Our Vision' capital campaign, Creative Giving co-chair 2006-07; St. Hubert basketball coach 2003-present; St. Viator High School advancement committee and parent ambassador 2003-present; St. Viator board of trustees and executive committee 2007-present.
Family: Wife, Laura; children Becca, 15, Daniel, 14 and Abby, 12.