Daily Archives: October 17, 2020


2020 general election endorsements

I am voting for the following candidates in the local state and county races, and against a statewide tax referendum

Anthony Beckman – Illinois State Senator 10th Senate District. Beckman is willing to take on the State’s dire fiscal mess, proposing alternatives such as lowering the tax burden, and reforming pensions. Beckman is a breath of fresh air in a swamp of failed left-wing fiscal and social policies. Beckman has been endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, and former Democratic 10th District candidate Danny O’Toole, whom I supported in the 2020 Democratic Primary. I oppose the Norridge disgrace, appointee Robert Martwick, for many reasons.

Jeff Muehlfelder – Illinois State House 19th House District. Muehlfelder’s policies generally align with that of of Beckman, as such since I am in the 19th I am voting for Muehlfelder. I oppose appointee Lindsey Lapointe, who’s policies align with that of Martwick. Hand picked by Martwick to succeed him, Lapointe has demonstrated her willingness to take all her cues from Martwick and the 38th Ward Democratic Organization, without even a hint of independence – betraying her true status as a Martwick proxy.

Vote!

Pat O’Brien – Cook County State’s Attorney. I oppose the re-election of Kim Foxx. The violence spinning out of control is due in no small part to her unwillingness to do her job and prosecute those who should be taken off the streets. Innocents are dying in Cook County (especially Chicago) in the name of Foxx’s “social justice” – that’s not the job of a prosecutor, and such prosecutorial inaction emboldens more evil-doers. Foxx has refused to debate O’Brien.

Progressive Income Tax – I will be voting NO on the “progressive income tax” Illinois constitutional amendment referendum.

On the surface, and through its overly complicated and misleading description, this tax will allow for variable tax rates on individuals depending on income levels, instead of the “one-size-fits-all” current flat tax rate. If passed, it will mean higher tax rates for higher income individuals.

In reality, it will harm small businesses as these businesses often file taxes under individual tax returns, and so these business owners will be considered “rich” and burdened by higher tax rates.

Businesses will have to respond by laying off workers, moving out of Illinois, or closing outright. Illinois businesses are already being crushed by high tax rates. Add to this, businesses are reeling as a result of Illinois gov JB Pritzker’s coronavirus-pretexed lockdowns, that have imposed severe restrictions on business activity in 2020… with NO end in sight. How much more can Illinois’ companies take?

The amendment will open the door for local governments to tack on new income taxes at the county and local level by repealing the ban on income taxes lower than the state level. Tax happy politicians like Cook County Board President Toni “Queen Sugar” Preckwinkle, and appointed Village President Daniel Tannhauser, are salivating at the thought of taxing your income. Again, more hits to small business.

The constitutional amendment would also allow the state to tax retirement income. Pro-tax increase politicians such as Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs have desperately tried to walk back this admission in recent days, with Frerichs even canceling a press conference at the last minute. Tax on retirement income will quicken the exodus of retirees to no-income-tax states such as Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. More money leaving Illinois and never coming back.

The State has failed to make any meaningful cuts in spending. Nor have they implemented any property tax reform at the local level, despite promising to do so. All the current Illinois administration wants is more more more of our tax money, without any reform of taxes, or spending, at all.

When the money they “expect” doesn’t materialize, they will lower the income threshold on the higher tax rates, resulting in income tax hikes on the middle class and finally, more taxes on blue collar jobs.

As such, I believe they have failed to make the case for a YES vote on this tax referendum. Don’t be fooled. We need pro-business, pro-growth policies, not more tax increases.

The referendum is an opportunity for voters to say clearly and loudly: NO MORE TAXES.

District 79 tax increase referendum – If I lived in the District 79 part of Norridge, I would be voting NO.

District 79 says it needs more money for infrastructure and because of higher enrollment.  The increase in enrollment could be addressed by consolidating District 79 and 80, and allowing some students to attend Giles and Leigh. If District 80 has higher capacity and its buildings are under-utilized, then why is District 79 asking voters to pay for something the community doesn’t really need?

As for the condition of the Pennoyer school building itself, I have walked through all three grade school buildings in Norridge the past few years. There is no doubt Pennoyer is in the worst shape of the three. There’s roof leaks all over the place, and obvious HVAC issues.

However, the reason Pennoyer’s building is in such shambles, is due to the District’s failure to plan for (and budget for) maintenance over the years. They knew the end-of-life for it’s HVAC years ago.

Instead of planning to replace infrastructure over time, District 79 prioritized payroll over building maintenance, agreeing to a teacher contract that gives 6% raises in each of the last 3 years of employment. That’s a failure of leadership, especially Board President Michael Malusa, who has been on the board for 27 years. (Malusa’s wife has been a District employee for 20 years – a conflict of interest).

These are the same issues District 80 faced. 80 is doing much better than it did than two years ago. Why? Because people who actually care about the district decided to run for office, and formed a new majority, with new leadership. The new District 80 majority actually cares about building maintenance, and negotiated a new teacher contract that takes into account the actual and projected revenues of the district.

The only YES vote District 79 needs, is to new leadership. I urge people in District 79 to run for the District 79 board. You can start collecting signatures now from registered voters in 79’s area. You need a minimum of 50 signatures to get on the April ballot, due in mid-December.

District 79 will keep asking you for more money until the current leadership is removed and replaced with people who really care about the school and the community, over their personal financial interests.

Adam Chudzik, Norridge