Q&A: Mussman, Higgins for House 56
The 56th state House seat currently held by Paul Froehlich is in play Nov. 2 because he is not seeking re-election. Schaumburg residents, Michelle Mussman, a Democrat, and Ryan Higgins, a Republican, are running for the seat. Here are their responses to the Daily Herald questionnaire.
Q. What is your Number 1 campaign issue? Mussman: I am concerned about the state of our economy and the lack of good paying jobs. As I knock on doors, far too many people tell me that their hours have been cut or that they are out of work all together. Creating jobs in Illinois and putting people back to work will be a priority of mine as your State Representative.
Higgins: Job Creation Economic Growth: Illinois residents, like all Americans, face tough economic times. Years of failed economic policies, however, have exacerbated the problem in our state. Currently, Illinois ranks an abysmal 48th among the 50 states in job creation trailed only by Ohio and Michigan. This is an unacceptable statistic for a state as diverse and talent-rich as Illinois. The problem, of course, is not Illinois residents. The problem is Illinois politicians who have created an environment that is hostile to job creation and economic growth. As state representative, I will work to enact economic reforms designed to make Illinois a destination economy a top-tier state for job creation and economic growth.
Q. What is your Number 2 campaign issue? Mussman: I am concerned about the heavy burden income and property taxes place on our families. Illinois should not raise the income tax (I will say NO to an income tax increase), and I am opposed to efforts to tax services important to our families, such as oil changes and haircuts. I support legislation that freezes increases in property tax assessments and forces local governments to re-evaluate administrative expenses. I will fight to repeal the new law that unfairly requires senior citizens to annually apply for exemptions.
Higgins: Fiscal Accountability: State government spending is out-of-control, having increased 26% (after inflation) from 2000 to 2009, while our state's population grew only 6.3% during the same period. As a consequence of all this spending, Illinois is facing a $13 billion dollar budget deficit this year and has already accumulated more than $100 billion in unpaid bills, unfunded liabilities, and debt. Illinois families need to live within their means, and so too should state government. As state representative, I will work to restore fiscal accountability to state government by reforming our state's Medicaid and pension systems and general spending habits.
Q. What is your Number 3 campaign issue? Mussman: I am frustrated with the corruption that has plagued our government for far too long. Illinois is in financial ruin and the butt of jokes on late night television. Self-serving politicians have repeatedly abused our trust and misused our tax dollars. Many have lost faith in our government and feel that elected officials no longer work for us. It is time for average citizens to step up and serve our community. To combat corruption, I support constitutional amendments imposing term limits and permitting recall of all state and local elected officials. I also support caps on political contributions and mandatory jail time for government officials and employees who commit serious ethics violations.
Higgins: Ethics Good Governance: Illinois has earned a reputation as one of the most corrupt states in the country, and public confidence in our elected officials and state government has eroded. As state representative, I will work to restore public confidence in our elected officials and state institutions by increasing transparency in government, providing for the recall of elected officials by citizen initiative, and enacting real campaign finance reform.
Q. What should be done to solve the state's budget crisis? What specific measures should be cut for how much in savings? Would you support or oppose an income tax increase or a state sales tax increase? Lay out a specific plan of what needs to be done. Mussman: I do not believe Illinois should raise either the income or the sales tax. First, raising taxes would only further hurt the economic situation in Illinois. Too many families are struggling to make ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck. A tax increase would further harm these families and push some over the edge. Second, elected officials have not proven that they can be relied upon to make the right choices with taxpayer dollars. Rather than properly funding our schools or paying vendors who provide care to those most in need, our elected officials continue to create new programs and provide salary increases for state workers. At this time, I do not trust putting additional revenue in their hands. Third, and most important, there is no guarantee that revenues from an income tax increase would be used to improve our schools or be used to pay down our bills.
Rather than increasing taxes, we need to focus on making Illinois a business friendly state to retain and attract new jobs. In its most recent revenue forecast, the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability (COGFA) highlighted a 16 state study of state tax receipts, including Illinois, which indicated that job loss #8220;was a major factor reducing sales taxes as well as income taxes. What this says to me is that the best solution to Illinois' revenue problem is to improve the economic conditions within our state. If we turn our economy around and put people back to work, our sales and income tax revenues will increase. We need to ensure that Illinois companies remain in our communities and work to attract new businesses. We must demonstrate that operating in Illinois is in their best interest.
The General Assembly should have never left Springfield without passing a balanced budget. Rather than considering the impact on our communities, our children, and our future, the leadership in Springfield placed the priority on protecting their political careers. We pay them good salaries to do a job for us, and they let us down. Now we, the taxpayers, are on the hook. That's not leadership and that's certainly not why we elected them. We need members who will stand up to leadership, including Speaker Madigan, and do their job in the best interest of the people they represent, even at the cost of their elected positions. Rank and file members must take control and prioritize spending and propose cuts.
I believe that we need to change the budgeting process. First, we need to go through the budget line by line to put an end to taxpayer funded programs that aren't working and taxpayer funded jobs that are unnecessary or duplicative. There are so many ways that government can help people, but we must learn to live within our means. We need to maximize every dollar and make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent on projects, programs, and jobs that move Illinois forward. I believe we must give serious consideration to zero-based budgeting. We also need to rebid all state contracts, awarding them to the lowest bidder so we can put an end to sweetheart deals and special favors for insiders and campaign contributors. The budgeting process must also be more transparent. Taxpayers must also have the opportunity to review and comment on how the state spends their money.
Higgins: State government spending is out-of-control having increased 26% (after inflation) from 2000 to 2009, while our state's population grew only 6.3% during the same period. As a consequence of all this spending, Illinois is facing a $13 billion dollar budget deficit this year and has already accumulated more than $100 billion in unpaid bills, unfunded liabilities, and debt. And now, some in Springfield want to pass a 33% income tax increase on Illinois families and businesses to pay for all this spending. Simply raising taxes, however, completely misses the point: wasteful government spending not revenue is the problem.
The key to tackling the state budget crisis is bridging the roughly $7 billion structural deficit. For purposes of analyzing waste and inefficiency in the state budget, I separate state government spending into three broad categories: (1) Medicaid; (2) state pensions; and (3) discretionary spending generally.
We can save between $1 billion and $2 billion in Medicaid spending by cracking down on Medicaid fraud and overbilling, which is estimated to exceed $1 billion per year in Illinois; by better policing our state Medicaid rolls to ensure that only those people who truly satisfy income and residency requirements receive benefits; by incentivizing the provision of preventive care as opposed to expensive emergency room visits and hospital admissions; by enforcing existing co-payment obligations; and by doing a better job of gathering and managing beneficiary data.
We can save approximately $2 billion by reforming state pension benefits for the future accrued time of current state employees, as discussed more fully below.
With respect to discretionary spending generally, Illinois can save additional billions by utilizing innovative budget tools such as zero-based budgeting and forensic audits as other states have done successfully to trim billions of dollars from their state budgets. The common thread in these approaches is creating a comprehensive list of programs and services that state government pays for on a daily basis, establishing budget priorities, and reviewing state government spending on a line-by-line basis to identify waste, duplication, and inefficiency in the budget.
I would oppose increasing the state income tax or state sales tax for several reasons. First, Illinois already ranks 48th among the 50 states in job creation, and raising the income tax or sales tax would only push more people and more jobs out of state. Second, raising taxes during a recession further strains family budgets in an already difficult time and presumes that family budgets have greater room for cuts than does the state budget. And third, raising the state income tax would reward and entrench the significant fraud, abuse, waste, and inefficiency in our state budget and undermine efforts to reform our state Medicaid and pension systems and spending habits generally.
Q. What is your view on the pension legislation passed last year? Do you support or oppose lower benefits and higher employee contributions for current state workers? Specifically, how should state officials resolve underfunding problems? Mussman: The General Assembly took the first step toward pension reform by creating a two-tiered pension system, and I applaud their efforts, but we can do more. First, we must ban all retirees from double-dipping. A government employee collecting a pension from one government agency while receiving a taxpayer-funded paycheck from another government agency should either voluntarily forfeit collecting a pension while employed or the government agency should reduce the employee's taxpayer-funded salary. Second, the General Assembly must stick to a payment plan and pay its bills on time. We have a 50-year funding plan for our pension systems on the books, but the General Assembly has consistently ignored or refused to follow it. If we are ever going to get out of this mess, the General Assembly must establish and stick with a real schedule for payments. Third, we must eliminate pensions for public officials and employees who abuse the public trust. Those who abuse taxpayer dollars and harm the public confidence in government should not reap the benefits of a pension.
As for altering current state worker pension benefits, the vast majority of legal experts commenting on this issue have said that it is unconstitutional to reduce current employees' pension benefits. It is my understanding that of all the lawyers who have commented on this issue, only one firm disagrees with this conclusion.
The General Assembly must face the pension crisis head on. Elected officials have mismanaged and abused the pension systems for decades, and now we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for billions of dollars. The problem was exacerbated by giving public workers sweetheart pension deals, all the while knowing that the state did not have the money to pay for increased benefits. Many families have lost retirement savings in this economy; and those families are forced to subsidize generous government employee pensions. Instead of using our hard earned tax dollars to improve education or assist the most vulnerable in our community, a majority of our tax dollars must now go to fund government employee pensions.
This crisis isn't going to resolve itself and legislative leaders cannot attempt to put together a backroom deal. If we are going to solve this crisis we need everyone to be at the table and everything must be on the table.
Higgins: Illinois' pension system has unfunded obligations of over $80 billion or over $6,200 per every man, woman, and child in the state. Retirees and public employees have the right to every dollar of pension benefits they have earned to date, but taxpayers simply cannot afford to continue paying excessive benefits to public employees forever. We should adjust public employee benefits accruing from today forward to be in line with what private sector employees receive.
I support the legislation that passed last year that adjusts pension benefits for future state workers, hired on or after January 1, 2011. This legislation: (1) raises the retirement age for full pension benefits to 67 with 10 years of service and raises the early retirement age to 62 with 10 years of service; (2) limits the maximum pensionable salary to $106,800; (3) calculates final average salary using the highest eight (instead of four) consecutive salary years out of the previous 10 years; (4) calculates cost of living adjustments (COLA) using simple interest instead of compound interest, caps COLA adjustments at the lesser of 3% or 1/2 of the inflation rate, and applies COLA adjustments only after age 67; (5) caps General Assembly and judges' pensions at 60% of the calculated final average salary (instead of 85%); and (6) suspends the pension of any retiree who goes to work for a unit of government that participates in another pension system (i.e., prevents the practice known as #8220;double-dipping).
This legislation, however, did not go far enough. The reforms apply only to future public employees hired on or after January 1, 2011. We need also to reform pension benefits for the future accrued time of current state employees. Any credible plan to balance the state budget without a tax increase MUST include reforming pension benefits for the future accrued time of current state employees.
Q. Do you oppose or support civil unions? Gay marriage? What abortion restrictions do you support? What about parental notification? Late-term abortion? Should there be controls on gun ownership? If so, what would you support? Mussman: Let me make it clear that if elected to serve in the General Assembly, I will uphold my oath of office by supporting the US and Illinois Constitutions and will faithfully discharge the duties of the office. When reviewing legislation, I will take into consideration the constitutionality of all proposed laws and the concerns of my constituents. I would not support legislation permitting gay marriage. I would support legislation permitting civil unions. I support restrictions on abortion such as requiring parental notification prior to providing minors with abortion services and a prohibition on late term abortions.
I support the 2nd amendment and the rights of lawful gun owners. However, I do not support selling assault weapons or unlimited restrictions on gun purchases. In order to protect the rights of lawful gun owners, we must crack down on those who sell guns to people prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I support legislation that only allows a person to purchase one handgun a month #8211; this would not prohibit hunters from purchasing multiple hunting rifles. Also, I believe that we should educate students about gun safety.
Higgins: I support legislation permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, provided the legislation contains a religious exemption so that churches and other places of worship are not required to perform them. I am pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother and support requiring a minor to obtain parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership to prevent criminals from accessing firearms. I oppose, however, additional restrictions on the Second Amendment right of law-abiding persons to keep and bear arms.
Q. Where do you stand on campaign finance caps for legislative leaders and parties? Will you vote for your current caucus leader? Do you support an amendment for a different political map system? Why or why not? Mussman: I believe that everyone should have an opportunity to express their political views and support of or opposition to candidates of their choice, but no one person should be permitted to silence the political voice of another. I support limits on contributions to a candidate from legislative leaders, but I do not support limits on contributions to a candidate from a political party with which the candidate identifies.
If the people of the 56th District elect me to represent them, I will sit down and talk with those interested in serving as the leader of the House Democratic caucus. The person I support must share the same beliefs and have a similar vision for Illinois as those I will represent. I will only support a person who understands that my priority is to my constituents and the people of Illinois, not those who serve as leaders of the House.
I would support an amendment to change the redistricting process. The current system allows career politicians to handpick their constituencies and does not guarantee that the people have an opportunity to have a voice in the redistricting process. I would support an amendment that allows citizens to participate in drawing the map, that requires transparency during the process, and that eliminates the current provision that resolves a deadlocked legislature by randomly drawing a name out of a hat.
Higgins: I support campaign finance caps on legislative leaders and political parties. The campaign finance #8220;reform bill that passed the General Assembly last year capped contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, associations, lobbyists, and all other interested parties except for contributions by legislative leaders and political parties. This legislation was self-serving for leadership in Springfield because it further strengthened the relative power of legislative leaders over their individual members. The goal of campaign finance reform should be to make legislators more independent, not more susceptible to outside influence. I therefore strongly support the creation of campaign finance caps for legislative leaders and parties.
I will vote for the current leader of my caucus provided that his top legislative priorities remain (1) enacting an economic reform agenda designed to create jobs and economic growth in Illinois and (2) reforming state spending habits.
Illinois' redistricting process is flawed. The last three legislative maps have been determined by random draw proposals. This is unfair to Illinois residents, as this does nothing but protect the status quo and incumbents and prevent truly competitive legislative races. Even with campaign contribution reform that limits the power of legislative leaders, there is no greater power of incumbency than the power to draw legislative boundaries. The Governor's Illinois Reform Commission recommended changing our redistricting process. I agree. This will require an amendment to the Illinois Constitution, voted on by the electorate. I support amending the Illinois Constitution to create a different system for drawing district maps, and favor, in particular, a model similar to that used by Iowa, where an independent commission uses an algorithm to draw a map along natural and political boundaries, without political influence. The proposed map must then be approved by the General Assembly and Governor, or be redrawn. This can be done while respecting and maintaining the Voting Rights Act that mandates minority representation.
Q. Legislation recently passed that exempts the evaluations of all public workers from FOIA. Do you support such an exemption? For a certain class of public employees (e.g. police officers, road workers etc.)? Explain. Mussman: I believe that, with limited exemptions, all public records should be accessible to the public. The determination whether a record is accessible should be based on the needs of the public, not the needs of a special interest group.
Higgins: The new Illinois Freedom of Information Act (#8220;FOIA), which became effective on January 1, 2010, was designed to ensure that Illinois residents can obtain information about their government. It is one of the most important tools we have for holding our government and its workers accountable.
Ever since passage of this groundbreaking law, however, public employee unions have sought to narrow its application. Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed an exemption from the new FOIA for the evaluations of all classes of public workers. The Governor issued an amendatory veto of that exemption, saying that the exemption was contrary to the spirit of open government embodied in the new FOIA. The Governor's amendatory veto included only an exemption for the evaluations of public safety workers.
I am committed to transparency and accountability in state government, and will oppose attempts to exempt the evaluation of any class of public employees from the new FOIA. Passage of the new FOIA was a triumph for Illinois taxpayers and for good government, and we should not put special interests ahead of the public interest by narrowing its application.