Pritzker offers promise, even if votes were against Rauner

Bill Knight column for Nov. 29, 30 or Dec. 1

In post-midterm, post-Thanksgiving revelry, workers should still be grateful for the election’s Get Out the Vote efforts and the coalitions that voted Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner out of office. However, as J.B. Pritzker prepares to be the state’s next governor, one can’t help wondering whether voters cast ballots against Rauner more than for Pritzker.

It’s good that working people rebuked Rauner and his anti-worker Turnaround Agenda. That scheme had proposals Rauner and his business cronies claimed would “save the state” by gutting Prevailing Wage laws, killing collective bargaining for public employees, and creating “Right-To-Work zones,” plus opposing a better minimum wage and supporting a flimsy, “free-speech” argument so workers benefiting from union representation could avoid their responsibilities to share in the costs of negotiating and enforcing contracts (the “Janus v. AFSMCE” case).

“Voters came together to support working people and to repudiate not just Rauner personally but his mean-spirited, anti-worker, anti-union agenda up and down the ballot,” said AFSCME Council 31 director Roberta Lynch. “Voters rejected candidates willing to do Rauner’s bidding and to divide our state, opting instead for leaders who want to move Illinois forward to benefit everyone, not just Rauner’s wealthy few."

By itself, however, that’s not enough to achieve meaningful reforms.

Pritzker’s preparation to serve is impressive so far, especially with the transition team he’s recruited, which includes Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan, Grosvenor Capital CEO Michael Sacks, former GOP Gov. Jim Edgar, and ex-state Comptroller Dan Hynes.

With support from Illinois’ rank-and-file, a Pritzker administration and the Democratic General Assembly may have an opportunity to address problems, from $7 billion in unpaid bills and a $130 billion, unfunded pension obligation to retirees, to growing an economy that operates for most Illinoisans.

Already, ideas percolating in Springfield include legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding gambling and sports betting, both of which could generate hundreds of millions of dollars of new revenue.

A more difficult challenge is replacing the flat income tax with a progressive income tax – a great goal that Pritzker and primary challengers such as State Sen. Daniel Biss campaigned on. It’s one that needs explanation to many of us who maybe instinctively think “flat” means “fair.”

It’s false to consider a flat tax fair because everybody is taxed at the same rate – precisely because tax obligations are the same regardless of taxpayers’ abilities to pay. A flat tax means a greater burden that working-class and poor families must shoulder. Lower-income residents have to pay a bigger chunk of their income on necessities, whether housing costs or child care. A progressive income tax – which most states have (34 of them) – would spread out the tax commitment more equitably. After all, surgeons or hedge-fund millionaires can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income than farmers or teachers. It also would let the state raise even more revenue to help pay off its bills and fund the pensions that retirees are or will be owed.

The midterms had other good news. Results showed less support for reactionary incumbents, even candidates in suburban Chicago, where Democrats demonstrated increasing influence by winning the 48th and 61st state House Districts. Elsewhere in Illinois, Democrats in the state’s Congressional delegation – Danny Davis, Robin Kelly, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Dan Lipinski, Mike Quigley, Bobby Rush and Jan Schakowsky – all look to advance in a Democratic-majority House of Representatives. They’ll be joined by three freshman Democratic lawmakers: Sean Casten, Chuy Garcia and Lauren Underwood.

Nationally, exit polls were revealing. Sixty-eight percent of young voters backed Democrats (while older, once-reliably Republican voters essentially split their votes between the GOP and Democrats); white women who cast ballots for Republicans 52 percent of the time in 2016 also split in the midterm, with 49 percent to both Republicans and Democrats; and Trump’s supposed base of white men without college degrees supported Republicans 66 percent of the time – down from 71 percent in 2016.

Labor still faces strong opposition, including the Supreme Court applying the “Janus” decision to all unions, public employees and private. But some leaders remain energetic and guardedly optimistic.

“If 2016 was a statement about being fed up with politics as usual and wages being too low to make ends meet, 2018 was about working people telling politicians they want less rhetoric and more action and progress,” said Autoworkers president Gary Jones.

Last month’s election may be a step toward restoring labor as an effective advocate for shared prosperity and justice. Such political work can help prevent further government and corporate crackdowns.