Adhering to the state Constitution

The Illinois state Constitution contains the following lines:

1) Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

2) A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate.

My question is: why is one considered a promise that cannot be altered and the other not? State pensions are bankrupting the state, Chicago, and who knows how many other communities, but politicians refuse to address this, because they call it a promise.

Does a promise mean that nobody can say, "Hey, we made a mistake"? Or, circumstances have changed. We are now broke. We cannot afford this. I'm sorry.

But the same wording is used to say that an income tax shall be at a non-graduated rate.

Isn't that a promise too?

But the state wants to change one but not the other. I'm sorry, but that is wrong.

The Constitution also says that:

3) The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.

Two thirds of public education funding is done at the local level through property taxes. The state is clearly acting in defiance to the state Constitution. Who holds the state accountable for this?

The state could easily raise the income tax to pay for schools and reduce property taxes all across the state. That would have no problem passing, because it would reduce housing costs substantially.

Who is there who can and will stand up to the politicians and tell them to get their house in order?

Larry Craig

Wilmette