More McHenry County Blog

1. Why are you running for this office, whether for re-election or election for the first time? Is that a particular issue that motivates you? If so, what?

The power parties offer the weakest candidates in fifty years. I am running to give people an alternative to Ryan/Blagojevich. I offer more Springfield experience than both of them combined. I am the only candidate for Governor you can be sure will veto an income or sales tax increase. Everyone knows the Democrats will raise taxes. It is in their nature to raise taxes and most of their constituent groups want more money. Without tax hikes they cannot be rewarded. Republicans like to think their Governors oppose tax hikes. Yet, for the last fifty years, every Republican Governor has raised taxes…no matter what he said before the election. By election day, people will think Genghis Khan is running against Attila the Hun. If they are not so disenchanted that they just stay home, I hope they will vote for me-probably the only politician that Mike Royko ever called "honest."

2. If you are an incumbent, describe your main contributions. Tell us of any important initiatives you've led. If you are not an incumbent, tell us what contributions you would make. Describe any shortcomings in the current board that you would help remedy and explain how.

My background is in budgeting. Unlike my opponents, I am not a lawyer. Given the state's fiscal situation, it seems that my background and my proven ability to say "No" to special interests would be better fit the state's needs than my lawyer-opponents'. Often during the 1990's I was the only state representative to vote "No" on the budget. I am the only one who has made a proposal to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget through the bulk buying of medical care for those whose bills are paid by state government. The other two guys just keep making promises that they can't keep. You may not like my minimalist approach to government, but editorial writers around the state are not charging me-as they are Ryan and Blagojevich-with making promises I can't fulfill without raising taxes.

3. Please describe the essence of your vision for Illinois.

I see a time when state government does not continue taking over twice as much money out of your pocket as does inflation. I see a time when Illinois government is not one of the most corrupt in the country. I see a time when waste is not the watchword. I see a time when decisions are based on merit, rather than on who has the most "connected" lobbyist. I see a time when citizens can be proud of state government. I don't see that time coming if one of the power party candidates is elected.

4. Has the state resolved its budget problems, or is more work needed? If the latter, what further spending/revenue adjustments do you favor?

The spendoholics have ruled Springfield as long as I can remember. It is always easier to raise taxes than it is to cut spending. The reason is obvious: the taxeaters are organized; the taxpayers are not. Remember that movie "Liar, Liar?" Don't you wish that whatever made it impossible for the father to lie would take control of JimRod in the debates when they are asked the "tax hike" question. Can't you just see both stuttering trying to tell the truth. We know, of course, that Rod will raise taxes. Virtually all of the Democrats' constituent groups want more money and, with no revenue growth, where is new money going to come from if it does not come from higher taxes? Republicans like to think their governors are anti-tax, but EVERY REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS HAS RASIED TAXES, no matter what he said before the election.

5. Of the proposed reforms in the state's capital punishment, which do you favor and which do you oppose? Why?

I do not favor a continuation of the moratorium on the death penalty. Whatever George does will be done before I would take office. There is no reason to delay the execution of any uncommuted murderers whose crimes are not in doubt. I have already voted to video tape interrogations in murder cases. I would be willing to sign a more well thought out proposal. I have proposed that public input be sought on the death penalty through an advisory referendum of the electorate. I have already voted to give the defense in murder cases the resources to make them able to put on an adequate defense. I think those are the most important reforms that are needed.

5. Concerning public school funding: Study after study recommends increase reliance on income taxes and decrease reliance on property taxes. Political realities then appear, ending the discussion. What politically viable changes, if any, can and should be made to the way the state funds it public schools? Also, what do you think of vouchers.

Michigan made a tax shift (resulting in a net tax hike) from property taxes to higher sales taxes ten years ago. Guess what? It didn't work. The only people pushing a tax shift are the taxeaters. They will NEVER have enough money. I support the Heartland Institute's scholarship plan in which the total amount of money spent on public education would be divided by the total number of students wanting to participate in the program. That amount would be available to any student to take to the school of his/her choice. If the tuition were lower than that amount, the difference would go into a college scholarship fund for the student. Once the public schools understand that they have to perform better to keep their students, the public schools will improve. This program would be phased in two grades at a time and take seven years to implement.

6. To what extent, if any, should the state assume tighter control or oversight of the Toll Highway Authority? And, if the state were to assume greater responsibility, how specifically, would it ultimately meet any new financial responsibilities that would entail?

The tollways should be abolished, period. To accomplish that, first, the bonds must be paid off. That requires under $80 million a year for fifteen years. More than $80 million is paid in gas taxes by vehicles while they are using the tollway. Secondly, two budget items totaling $45 million seem needed for repair, maintenance, snow removal, etc. Federal aid for the 274 miles of Interstate was $52 million in 2002. If more is needed, there are millions more in concession revenue. It is time to end double-taxation for tollway users. My power party opponents are satisfied merely to postpone a massive toll tax hike until after the election. The need for new lanes, etc., should be put into the statewide "road need" pot. If you want to pay tolls for the rest of your life, don't vote Libertarian.

7. Gaming issues. Should the tax on casinos be adjusted one way or another? Do you favor or oppose additional casino licenses? What about smaller expansions, such as poker/slot machines in bars, fraternal halls, etc.?

From the getgo, I have said that I would be willing to tax casinos at 100%. This is the only tax hike I would not veto. I admit to straying from the typical Libertarian stand on this issue. I shall not sign legislation to expand gambling. I have called on Jim Ryan to stop the fix that is clearly in for a Rosemont casino. It is unconscionable that the Rosemont casino investors should have all of their money (including expenses) returned. That didn't happen with Enron and Worldcom investors. Why not give lottery losers their money back? Further, it makes no sense to allow 20% of the current investors to included in the winning bid. I have called on Jim Ryan to force true open bidding. What has he got to lose? I shall appoint an honest man, Tom Grey of Rockford, to be chairman of the Gambling Board.

8. What, if anything, does the legislature need to do to strengthen state and local government preparedness for a terrorist attack?

Am I the only candidate running for office who doesn't pretend to know everything about everything? Obviously, a collaborative effort is needed among state and local governments. I have one thought on terrorism. Pipelines are potential targets, yet we allow pipeline companies to put signs up on the side on roads indicating where their pipelines are buried. That strikes me as a bad idea. There must be another way to let pipeline employees know where their pipelines are. We need to remove this target from casual public view.