Q&A with Sullivan

1. Why are you running for this office, whether for re-election or election the first time? Is there a particular issue that motivates you, and if so, what? What will be your main priority?

I believe the most pressing issue facing the State of Illinois is our struggling economy and mounting debt levels. Illinois, unfortunately, leads the nation in a dubious category: We have the largest percentage increase in unemployment from the previous year of any other state. It is imperative that the State pass a capital construction plan that rebuilds and expands our infrastructure. By passing a capital plan we will create over 500,000 jobs. These jobs will give a tremendous boost to the Illinois economy. A revitalized economy will provide new revenue which will allow us to address concerns in areas such as education, public safety, health care and pension fund deficits.

2. For incumbents and non-incumbents. If you are an incumbent, describe your main contributions. Tell us of important initiatives you've led. If you are not an incumbent, tell us what contributions you would make.

This past General Assembly I focused my energies on protecting our communities. I wrote and passed (P.A. 95-0423) which created Internet Gang Crime Units in Lake, Cook and Vermillion Counties. These units have extra-ordinary powers to fight gangs anywhere in the state. This ground breaking piece of legislation was heralded by the State Police as "the missing link" in combating gangs. I also helped write and pass legislation (P.A. 95-0882) doubling the penalties for the illegal purchase of a firearm. This legislation was intended for the so-called "Straw Purchasers". I found it alarming that the members of the House of Representatives that voted against this legislation were from the City of Chicago. Lastly, I passed legislation (P.A. 95-0188) that allowed a judge to send people convicted of domestic abuse to a Partner Abuse Intervention Program.

3. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support raising the state income or sales tax? Please explain.

I will not support an increase in the state income tax and/or sales tax. I believe Illinois citizens are paying government an overly burdensome amount of tax now. I will not support an increase in this burden. In the short term, I believe state government must economize by living within its means. We must prioritize our goals for existing revenue use and we must be diligent in identifying and eliminating marginal expenditures and waste. Most certainly I do not believe Illinois can continue to expand entitlement programs without a funding source. The last five years have seen revenues increase, yet the majority party delivered a budget to the governor this last year that was two and a half billion dollars in the red. The state of Illinois has a spending problem. Clearly, we can appropriate the state's tax dollars in a more responsible fashion.

4. Do you support the expansion of gambling by adding slot machines at racetracks? Do you favor licensing and building new casinos? Please explain.

I would support adding slot machines at racetracks and giving existing casinos the ability to add more gaming positions. I would vote for a casino in the city of Chicago. I would not be in favor of placing slot machines in bars and restaurants. My support is predicated on a few issues: One, there must be a revamped gaming board similar to the one proposed by Speaker Madigan, and two, any revenue generated by expanded gaming must be used to fund a capital construction plan, education, and pension deficits.

5. Would you support giving voters the ability to recall elected officials?

Last year I voted to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would allow for the recall of elected officials. Unfortunately this amendment was defeated in the Senate. I believe when elected officials do not fulfill the commitments they make the electorate should have the ability to remove them from office. The provisions by which an official could be recalled should be fairly stringent as to not allow for special interest groups to recall any official they disagree with on public policy. I also believe a recall provision should be made available so that citizens have the choice to recall elected officials at every level of government.

6. Did you support the suburban tax increases that were used to keep the public transportation trains and buses running without cuts or fare increases?

Although the legislation has some good points, such as increased RTA oversight of the service agencies and increased participation in pension funding, I did not vote in its favor. Your question demonstrates a portion of my objection to the RTA bailout legislation. That is that passage would avoid service cuts and fare increases. It is my belief that a lot of the inefficiency in the CTA is the result of redundancy in service and, most certainly, in this day of increased transportation costs, riders should bear some of the burden of increased transit costs through fare increases. Passage of this legislation allowed the RTA to bypass efficiency efforts and fare increases, except for my constituents who are METRA riders and suffered a fare increase only after the passage of the bailout. The METRA fare increase is only a small part of the unequal burden suburban taxpayers have had to bear in regard to this legislation taking effect. The 200% increase in taxation provided for in the legislation, applied to all purchases including food and drugs, is an increase that I believe to be exorbitant. The tax increase was a slap to the face of my constituents who had on two previous occasions rejected a sales tax increase for transportation. Someday the RTA may gain the will and the oversight to bring true accountability and efficiency to its agencies. Someday the City of Chicago will contribute its fair share of funding for transit. Until that day arrives I will continue to reject legislation that unfairly burdens my constituents with the cost of funding transit programs.

7. If you are elected, will you vote for the current party leader of your legislative chamber? Why or why not?

Yes, I would vote for Tom Cross as Minority Leader for the House. Cross has shown tremendous leadership in guiding our caucus in the post-Ryan years. When the Republican Party was struggling to be effective in Springfield with Democrats in complete control Cross was able to unify our caucus and force the majority party to pass legislation regarding ethics and medical malpractice reform among other things. Unlike the other three caucus's, House Republicans implemented sweeping new caucus rule changes in 2003. Under our new rules the Republican leader may only appoint five people from the remaining ten leadership positions. The caucus elects the remaining five leaders with rules mandating representation from different regions of the state and both genders. Unlike the three other caucus's, Tom Cross is term limited to ten years.

8. What do you think of the idea, widely circulated, of impeaching Gov. Blagojevich?

Blagojevich has demonstrated poor leadership as Governor. His lackadaisical attitude toward governing and history of being combative towards anyone that disagrees with him has resulted in absolute gridlock in solving the many problems this state faces. Presently, the Governor is under a cloud of suspicion as his administration is investigated by the U.S. Attorney. Many believe an indictment by Federal authorities for wrongdoings is imminent. As much as I would like to see him removed from office I believe it would be wrong to file impeachment charges against him. Gov. Blagojevich for all his shortcomings has not been indicted or convicted of any crime. I am not willing to throw out 200+ years of law for political expediency. If the Governor is to be removed from office, I believe it should be through the electoral process or by giving the people the ability to recall him.

Addendum: I have stated my desire to continue serving as Fremont Township Assessor should I win the general election in November. I realize the Daily Herald has a policy against endorsing candidates that would receive two government paychecks if elected. I want you to know that I respect your policy in this matter. I also would like you to know that I am comfortable doing the duties of both assessor and legislator. In consideration of the points noted below, I believe I am providing the public with outstanding service as both an assessor and a legislator. 1. I believe the duties of a legislator and assessor do not conflict. I am able to represent both of my constituencies without an actual or perceived conflict of interest. 2. I spend a great deal of time attending to the duties of both offices. I have been recognized by my colleagues in both jobs and by many others as providing exemplary service to the public. 3. In the assessor's office, where I have control over budgetary decisions, spending growth has been very moderate (