Q&A with Farnham, Munson

Daily Herald report

Incumbent Democrat Keith Farnham of Elgin is fighting Republican Ruth Munson, also of Elgin, in the Illinois House 43rd District. Both answered these questions for the Daily Herald.

Q: What is your Number 1 campaign issue?

Farnham: Job creation.

Munson: Getting Illinoisans back to work in good paying jobs, ensuring our children are ready for the work force and/or college when they graduate from high school and paying our bills, meeting our obligations and ending the wasteful spending that has plagued this state for the last eight years are my top priorities.

Illinois cannot hope to get its financial house in order if it does not focus on job creation in the private sector. The best way to mitigate our budget shortfall and fund essential services is to create a sustainable stream of natural revenue growth that comes with employed Illinoisans.

Getting Illinois residents back to work in good paying private sector jobs creates the financial security we all need to get Illinois government back to work on the important issues facing our state: Educating our children, securing the safety net for those without resources and ensuring public safety is not compromised.

In recent years, we have lost more than 400,000 jobs in this state and of the estimated 250,000 manufacturing jobs that moved out of Illinois, half moved to other states not other countries.

We can do better by focusing on creating an environment that values jobs and that makes Illinois a point of destination for job creators.

The first thing Illinois must do is remove the constant threat of tax increases on small businesses. While this is an important first step, we also need to provide a well-trained work force for now and for the jobs of the future, that means working with our education system to make sure they have the resources they need to meet the work force requirements of business.

With a focus on our strengths as a state we can leverage what is unique about Illinois to attract and retain jobs here. Strengths like Illinois' central location in the country, world-class airport, highly regarded research universities and distinguished scientific laboratories like Argonne and Fermi. In fact, with a concerted effort we can assist businesses in identifying new markets and commercializing innovation created by these very research facilities.

Finally, by growing our manufacturing sector we can create even more jobs. It is estimated that for every manufacturing job created we will leverage three additional jobs in other businesses, including technology, logistics, transportation, office supplies, and others.

Job growth brings greater financial stability for everyone in the state a win-win for all.

Q: What is your Number 2 campaign issue?

Farnham: Restructuring the state budget process to ensure services that taxpayers' in my district deem vital are properly funded and provided.

Munson: Making sure our children have the best educational opportunities available is one of my major objectives. More than in any other time in history, our children need to compete in the global marketplace for good paying jobs. It is important that they are well prepared and up for the competition.

We must ensure that our schools and educators have the tools and resources they need to do what is best for our children and their futures, including but not limited to implementing high quality induction mentoring programs for teachers and principals, targeting additional resources for students and schools at risk, and setting clear, understandable and shared accountability standards.

We also need to work together to eliminate the achievement gap between those with financial wherewithal and those without. We must raise the bar and expect that every child will be ready for the workplace and/or for college when they graduate from high school. But, we can't get there if the state doesn't pay its bills or ensure that education is at the top of the budget priority list.

Q: What is your Number 3 campaign issue?

Farnham: Reforming government corruption.

Munson: Enhancing transparency and accountability and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in our budget and our state government is necessary to change the current dynamics and ineffectiveness of Springfield.

The budgeting process in Illinois state government provides for the layering of new budgets on top of past budgets. The budget we are working from today is built on the Blagojevich budgets, and Blagojevich budgets were built on the Ryan budgets, and they were based on the Thompson budgets, and so on. I believe it is well past time to change this process so that our budgets are transparent. We must start our budgets at zero and review each and every department and agency, line-item by line-item. Through an audit we can identify and eliminate fraud and abuse as well as redundant and ineffective programs. We will also then be able to identify and fill any gaps. Through this process we can better understand where we spend money, set priorities, pay our bills and fully fund essential services. By improving accountability we ensure that our priorities are being addressed.

It is also important that lawmakers and Illinois residents have adequate time to review the state's budget before it is voted upon in the General Assembly. I support posting the budget online at least 72 hours before a vote to make sure that we know exactly what is being funded in the budget. I also support expanding the state's transparency and accountability portal to include revenues online, so that individuals can review the entire budget on an ongoing basis.

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.

Farnham: The first step in addressing the state's budget crisis is to change the way the budgeting process works in Illinois. Right now the state relies too heavily on anticipated revenue that never seems to materialize. The state should make a budget like working families do. First, we should know how much is available to spend. Second, we should hear from taxpayers what their priorities are for which services the government should provide. Third, we should then find people who will provide the best services for the price. This is how businesses budget, and this is how the state needs to start budgeting taxpayers' money.

I do not support a tax increase at this time. Instead, I would rather see the state do a forensic audit of where and how money is being spent.

In addition, I offer these four suggestions for cutting spending:

1. Legislators' pay and reimbursements. This year I sponsored and passed legislation to lower legislators' per diems and travel reimbursements, and supported legislation to cut legislators' salaries. Before we turn to taxpayers and ask for more money to spend, legislators need to lead by example and continue to cut their own benefits.

2. Legislators' district office allotments. This year, State reps were given $69,409 to operate a district office and I returned $19,851, about 29% of the budget. Again, I believe that state legislators need to cut their own budgets before imposing a costly tax increase on working families.

3. State agency overtime. Last year in DHS alone, $58 million was spent on overtime costs for higher level state workers. Cutting that overtime out and putting more people to work would have cost half as much. The state's hiring freeze is shortsighted and only ends up costing the state more, but politicians are not willing to point out the truth. Just because a “hiring freeze” sounds good, it does not make good business sense.

4. Stop giving expensive pay raises to high level state agency directors and employees. It is a slap in the face to the taxpayers of this state that the Governor gave large raises to his top level employees this year. Everyone else is trying to cut back and find ways to save, yet the Governor rewarded his top employees, who already are making more than the average citizen, by increasing their taxpayer-funded salaries.

Munson: Had the state reigned in spending over the previous 7-1/2 years, we would not find ourselves in the desperate situation we now face. The failing economy has added to the budget crisis but it is poor management that pushed us over the edge.

First and foremost the state needs to dissect the budget to identify and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. One area that needs attention is Medicaid. Recent studies have estimated that Medicaid fraud and overbilling cost this state more than 10% of all Medicaid spending. By this account, we could save $1 billion by eliminating fraud in Medicaid alone.

But, we shouldn't limit our audit to Medicaid, we need to dissect our budget line-item by line-item, to identify duplicative and no longer needed or ineffective programs and make sure our procurement policies recognize the need to economize just like Illinois families have done during this economic downturn.

I do not support a tax increase. Illinoisans should not be forced to hand over their hard earned dollars to politicians who have exquisitely demonstrated they can't manage the financial affairs of our state.

What I do support is putting people back to work in high paying, stable jobs. We can secure the state's financial future as well as the financial futures of Illinois families by creating an environment in this state where businesses and jobs thrive. I am committed to encouraging innovation, investment and job creation in our state through sound economic policies and strategic partnerships.

The first step is to convince job creators that Illinois is a good place to conduct business by removing the constant threats of new taxes and tax increases on small business. In recent years threats included the failed gross receipts and canned software tax. During that time actual fee increases on regulated industries like hairdressers and barbers, truck drivers, dry cleaners, realtors, and others were enacted to balance the budget (all of course are passed on to consumers).

Next we need to keep in mind our natural advantages as a major mid-western state with a world class airport, an established transportation hub, state-of-the-art research and laboratory facilities and a work force ready to be trained.

We can leverage our strengths to capitalize on the burgeoning bio-tech and “green” industries to rebuild our manufacturing sector. With a focus on partnering our manufacturers with our scientific community we can establish Illinois employers as leaders in innovation and create the high paying jobs we desperately need.

By putting people back to work in sustainable, high-paying jobs we can secure the financial future of our state as well as Illinois families.

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?

Farnham: I supported the state pension reforms passed last year because it will improve the sustainability of the program and save the state millions now and billions long term. With the state in the fiscal situation we are currently facing, I believe that all options should be considered. However, what should happen is a complete revamp of the state's budgeting process to ensure that all spending obligations are paid first and whatever is left is the amount that the state has to fund everything else.

Munson: We need reform and modernization of our pension systems. People are living and working longer then projected. The reform measure that passed this legislative session, set up a different pension structure for new state employees but these reforms won't lower the current pension deficit caused by years of not paying our debt. The state got into this mess because the political powers in control of the statehouse and General Assembly wanted to spend more than we were bringing in so they schemed up ways to short change the pension fund to pay for new programs. The state needs to stop raiding and start paying into the system and at the same time sit down with those affected to work on a modernization plan that looks at retirement age, cost of living caps and limiting the amount of public pensions individuals can attain.

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?

Farnham: I support civil unions.

I believe abortions should be safe, legal and rare. And most importantly, I believe this should be a decision made by the woman and people she trusts, not the government.

I support the Second Amendment rights of sportsmen and for self-defense purposes. I do not support allowing “cop-killer” hollow point bullets or military-assault weapons to be privately owned.

Munson: Currently, both civil unions and gay marriage are being adjudicated in the courts. The result of the case will ultimately determine the course of action for this issue in Illinois. It is important to learn the outcome of this case before proceeding.

While I support a woman's right to choose, especially in cases of rape and incest, I also support a parent's right to know when their underage children are undergoing a medical procedure including having an abortion and is the reason I support parental notification. I oppose late-term abortion.

We need to do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including aggressively enforcing the laws currently on the books and strengthening laws and penalties for gang members and others who illegally use firearms. However, law-abiding citizens should not be penalized for owning firearms. Each year the General Assembly entertains more and more gun control legislation yet crime continues to occur. Laws that limit guns, in and of themselves, do not prevent criminals from gaining access to them, nor do they prevent crime as evidenced in the city of Chicago where there is a high incidence of gun control and gun crime. Therefore we need to put our efforts into prevention and intervention programs that do work and that are proven to keep our children and our communities safe. Quality youth development and after school programs have been effective in keeping our children from engaging in risk-taking behaviors, like joining gangs, and should be expanded in our most challenging areas. The dollars spent on prevention now will reduce the costs of future services, like incarceration, court costs, etc.

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?

Farnham: I supported campaign finance reforms that limits, for the first time in this state, how much can be given to candidates, party leaders and political parties because it was a step in the right direction. I also supported legislation to limit spending by political parties and leaders during primary campaigns. This was also supported by the state's leading reform group, Change Illinois!. I would like to see this limit extended to General Elections, as long as those limits do not give an unfair advantage to special interest groups that are created with the purpose of running smear campaigns.

I am currently focused on the Nov. 2 elections and, if elected, will vote for the person who can best lead the House through this extremely difficult time in our state.

I do support an amendment for a different political map system, and voted for one this year that would reduce the power of elected officials to draw their own maps and protect the rights of citizens. It is important that we keep trying to reform the political map drawing system until incumbent protection is not a consideration. I am open to proposals that take the subjective human element out of the map drawing process to make it computerized instead.

Munson: I wholeheartedly support campaign finance caps for legislative leaders and political parties. A legislator's responsibility is to their constituents and not to special interest groups and the political power brokers, no matter who they are, who fund their campaigns. Capping the amount of donations from local organizations but allowing political leaders to donate without limits negates the purpose of preventing abuse through caps.

As it stands now, I would vote for the House Republicans leader, Tom Cross. He has proved to me that we as individual legislators can and should represent our respective districts without being beholden to our caucus leader.

I strongly support a constitutional amendment that would take the responsibility of drawing a political map out of the hands of incumbent lawmakers. Incumbent politicians should not have the power to ensure their own re-election by manipulating district boundaries.

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. Farnham: I support the recent overhaul of the state's Freedom of Information Act to give the citizens and the media the ability to gain access easier to government documents so that wrongdoing can be seen by all. I believe that it is a major step backwards to exempt public workers' evaluations and that is why I voted against it this year. Munson: Transparency and accountability go hand-in-hand and are needed in government, most especially in Illinois government. The best disinfectant for political corruption is sunshine and the press has long shone the light on government activity. It is important that the press have access to the information it needs to hold government accountable. In recent years, the press has helped to uncover questionable hiring practices by the city of Chicago inspection department, by the Cook County Board president, and in the Blagojevich administration. We as citizens depend on the press to be our watchdog, but at the same there is an expectation by individuals for a reasonable amount of privacy, specifically by those whose safety might be at risk (victims of domestic violence or stalking, police officers) or those whose identity might be at risk of theft if certain information is made public. At first glance, I would not oppose specific exemptions of that sort but would like to hear the rationale behind not allowing such exemptions.

Name of Candidate: Keith Farnham

Hometown: Elgin

Running for: Illinois House, 43rd District

Party affiliation: Democrat

Candidate Incumbent? No

Occupation: Retired small business owner, painter