schakowsky-img_1973-110422

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Evanston says Mitt Romney has doubled down in support of an extreme economic plan with his choice today of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Schakowsky, who serves as a National Co-Chair of the Obama for President campaign, targeted Ryan’s authorship of the budget plan adopted by the GOP majority in the House, saying that it “takes from the poor and middle class and further enriches the wealthiest Americans.”

She said the Ryan plan “ends Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program controlled by private insurance companies, massively cutting health care spending for seniors and the disabled and forcing them to pay $6000 more a year for their care.”

Their budget lets tax cuts for low-income Americans expire and increases taxes up to $1,400 for families with children, while millionaires actually get an average tax cut of a quarter million dollars.

The Ryan/Romney plan cuts the federal education budget by 20 percent, which would force states to pay more for education, cut their budgets significantly, or lay-off more teachers.

Schakowsky says Romney has embraced the Ryan budget, saying it “reflects his values.”

“Americans can now read in black and white a detailed vision of the America that Mitt Romney would build,” Schakowsky added. “They can decide whether they think, as I do, that balancing a budget on the backs of the seniors, the disabled, and working families in order to give more tax breaks to the very rich is indefensible.  It is immoral.  It is wrong.  It is not the American way.”

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation

24 Comments

  1. No surprise…

    Another "soak the rich" blah-blah from our very own congresswoman.

    She wants to create a new "DPW"  – and sees no other way out of the recession.

    Jan's bright idea is 2.2 million school and park "improvers" etc. Financed, of course, by a special tax on "millionaires" and "Big Oil". But who's going to pay their perpetual pensions and benefits? Towns like Evanston! And who is Evanston going to tax once the millionaires stop being millionaires?

    By the way, Jan, if you want to be really brave – end the "Big Corn" subsidies!

    1. Implying they’ll be taxed so

      Implying they'll be taxed so heavily that they'll be taxed out of being millionaires. Implying their wealth won't be restored in three or less month's time. Implying her statements' main focus wasn't on the absurdity of cutting social programs that assist the lower and middle classes while continuing the tax breaks for those who don't need them and who have influenced and corrupted our government with their wealth. 

  2. I never met a tax I didn’t like

    Jan is so arrogant it isn't funny. As if her values are the proxy we should all emulate. Hubris on steroids.

  3. The Democrats’ economic plan – more taxes, more government

    Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are government programs all headed toward insolvency.

    Where is the Democrats' solution?  The Democrats gave us one of the highest tax increases in U.S. history under Obamacare, which the ultra-liberal Jan Schakowsky supports. Schakowsky is on record saying she would like to put an end to the private healthcare insurance industry despite the fact that five of the top 10 Illinois businesses are healthcare companies..

    The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. Why didn't Obama get even ONE vote for his budget?

    Just about every economist agrees that America is headed toward economic collapse if we soon don't get our budget deficit under control. The federal government government and federal spending has grown tremendously in the past three years. We don't have revenue problem – we have a spending problem. America's credit rating was downgraded for the first time in U.S. history and it happened under Obama and Schakowsky's watch

    Paul Ryan has bravely given us a roadmap – a solution – to these economic problems even though it is politically dangerous. All Schakowsky and other Democrats can do is sit back and use scare tactics by saying Ryan wants to throw granny off a cliff when in fact it was the Democrats that took $500 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare.

    What is Schakowsky's solution? How does she plan to solve our economic problems and save the soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid program (Illinois can't even now afford Medicaid)? Sit back, blame, spin and attack but offer no solutions? What could possibly be other solutions?  Create more government agencies and programs? Raise taxes? Even New York state is not renewing it's millionnaire's tax because it has proven to be disasterous. 

    All you have to do is compare Wisconsin to Illinois and you will see first hand the stark differences in economic ideaology between Democrats and Republicans.

    Someone tell the uber- liberal Schakowsky that government can NOT spend it's way back to prosperity.

    I would love to read a counterpoint story here from Schakowsky's Republican opponent, Tim Wolfe.

  4. “Jan’s bright idea is 2.2

    "Jan's bright idea is 2.2 million school and park "improvers" etc. Financed, of course, by a special tax on "millionaires" and "Big Oil". But who's going to pay their perpetual pensions and benefits? Towns like Evanston! And who is Evanston going to tax once the millionaires stop being millionaires?"

    I wish that people would ask the same question when the neocons propose more defense spending, or another war (in Iraq, or Syria, or Libya, Iran, or wherever..).  Who will pay for the defense spending?  Who will pay for the "perpetual pensions and benefits" of the thousands of combat veterans, the health costs of the disabled, and the surviving spouses and children?  

    Consider the following (july 27 2012)  from the blog paulryanwatch:

    An amendment to cut $1.1 billion from the 2013 Pentagon budget, effectively freezing the military budget at this year’s levels, passed the House on a bipartisan 247-167 vote last week.

    Remarkably, all but one of the Wisconsin members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, voted for the cuts.  Even arch-conservative Jim Sensenbrenner voted yes.

    Who didn't? Self-styled fiscal hawk and budget-cutter Paul Ryan.

    Otherwise, you're right about 'Big Corn', and this latest 'drought relief' bill is just a gift to the ag corporations and red state farmers.  It seems that rural America is always voting Republican, while demanding Federal handouts and subsidies.

  5. Jan

    Jan Schakowsky can not back up anything she says here with any facts. For the most part, she paraphrased the Democrats talking points that were faxed to their offices on Saturday morning. So today, we had about 225 Democrats, senators and representatives mouthing the same words. Their hope is that if they repeat the same words enough times people will think it is the truth.

    Jan is an embarrassment to Evanston and the rest of the Illinois congressional 9th district. To vote for her, you need to be an extreme left socialist or care nothing about this country.

     

    1. I do care about this country

      I do care about this country, that's why I'm an extreme left socialist. 

    2. Skipping Record

      "Jan is an embarrassment to Evanston and the rest of the Illinois congressional 9th district. To vote for her, you need to be an extreme left socialist or care nothing about this country."

      Yo, Barney Fife: We live in one of the coolest congressional districts in the country, and Jan Schakowsky is one of the reasons why.

      1. Too bad Joe

        Joe, you are wrong. If you think it is cool to live in one of the mindless congressional districts in the country, you are in more trouble than I can fix. Your only hope is to attend one of Jan's events, which are few in number, and you should be able see what I mean.

        As far as I know, her only successful event in the last 10 years was her town hall meeting. That is the one were she snuck in 350 – 400 union backers through the back door of Niles West high school and turned away most of the 500 people standing in line to attend. I guess she thought people wouldn't notice that she stacked the deck.

        1. Speaking of town meetings…

          Hey skipw, did you hear about the Congressman who got booed at a town meeting, and responded by deciding to have no more free town meetings? The only way you could talk to him and ask a question  was to pay $15 to attend a meeting.

          "It will cost $15 to ask Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) a question in person during the August congressional recess.

          The House Budget Committee chairman isn’t holding any face-to-face open-to-the-public town hall meetings during the recess, but like several of his colleagues he will speak only for residents willing to open their wallets."   (politico, August 16,2011 )

          Maybe our Evanston Aldermen should follow Congressman Ryan's selfish Randian example…they could charge for anyone who wants to participate in 'Citizens Comments'.  Let's say $60 per minute…then if Ponzi wants to spout conspiracies about water rates, he could do so for as long as he wishes. 

          1. $15 for a fund raising event.

            $15 sounds kind of expensive. Obama only charged $3 for a birthday present and the right to compete for the opportunity to hang with him for 30 minutes.

            $3 may sound kind of cheap but that is a lot to pay for the most failed presidency in the last 2 centuries.

    3. Atlas Shrugged

      "To vote for her, you need to be an extreme left socialist or care nothing about this country."

      Skipw, what's wrong with people who 'care nothing about his country'?   Why is it desirable to care about the country?  Like all good objectivist disciples of Ayn Rand (including Paul Ryan ), shouldn't people do only what is best for themselves, and not worry about anyone else? If I can make more money by investing in China, or keeping my money in the Cayman Islands or Swiss bank accounts (like Mittens Romney), isn't that rational?  Why should I care about this country, which is full of 'takers'  who live off of food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and subsidies?

      Skipw, why are you criticizing peopole who only care about themselves…the Paul Ryans, Mittens Romneys, Jamie Dimons, and John Galts of the world? These are the 'makers', the 'Job Creators'…if we aren't nice to them, they will leave – "stopping the motor of the world."

  6. Article question

    "Their budget lets tax cuts for low-income Americans expire and increases taxes up to $1,400 for families with children, while millionaires actually get an average tax cut of a quarter million dollars."

    The body of the article makes the statement above. As a non political person and  non accountant, can someone please me exactly what in the Ryan Plan accomplishes those two things? I've read the Ryan Plan and missed this. 

  7. Jan’s criticism

    Her being against him means he must be the one to support.  She is a sure mark that her enemy is America's friend—maybe Karl Marx would be her idea candidate.

    1. Jan and Ryan

      Jan and Ryan have two different solutions. Ryan wants to balance the budget. Jan wants your tax dollars. Perhaps a close friend of hers could print checks to balance the budget.

  8. Jan Schakowsky, Despicable

    Jan thinks everyone should be on the government dole and to be successful is shameful.  I used to live in Evanston.  Totally mismanaged by idealogues like her running the city and spending they didn't have.

  9. No leadership here

    Jans politicking aside I think the House budget proposal makes some sense.  Push aside her yammering and the proposal as I understand it is basically revenue neutral with a lot of positive things going for it. 

    Yes top rates and corporate rates get cut from 35% to 25%, but at the same time the proposal eliminates many extraneous tax deductions, loopholes and exemptions that currently allow many wealthy and corporate entities to escape taxes.  It simplifies the code and many of the items contained were endorsed by Obama's very own fiscal commission to achieve a fairer simplified tax code.

    And Jans blather about balancing the budget on the backs of seniors is simple scaremongering.  Pretty much none of the 5.8 trillion in proposed reductions would affect social security and medicare in the first decade and those 55 and older are also exempt from the future changes.   

    It's a start for debate, to be sure, but considering that president Obama hasn't even produced a budget plan her shrillness is what is really indefensible and wrong.  We need leadership, we get populist politics.

     

  10. Atlas Shrugged for liberals

    Actually the Jan and Obama type liberals should be in the Objectivist camp.  If you are an atheist, agnoistic or pick and choose from your religion's scripture [abortion, homosexuality, charity, race, etc.] it really only 'your' religions [including humanism, etc.].  You and you alone set what is 'right' for you and should not/cannot say what is righrt for someone else.  Thus if you want to give to charity, support the poor/elderly, provide health care, etc. that is YOUR choice, not something to be imposed on others. Discrimination, slavery, making the poor work for you at low wages, those are thus right for you if you can get away with it—in the same way deciding to obey traffic signals—you may find o.k. to preserve order and keep the police from arresting you from 'their' laws.

    Clearly while the president attended Wright's church, he was not listening to what his views were and from the president's policy since then it is questionable if he listened to the Bible readings.  A religion is what you 'believe' not 'say' you support [in the abstract as long as it does not effect your actions].

     

    It is the [many] conservatives that believe there is a moral standard and thus somethings defined at 'right.'

    1. The Fountainhead of Nonsense

      "If you are an atheist, agnoistic or pick and choose from your religion's scripture [abortion, homosexuality, charity, race, etc.] it really only 'your' religions [including humanism, etc.].  You and you alone set what is 'right' for you and should not/cannot say what is righrt for someone else.  Thus if you want to give to charity, support the poor/elderly, provide health care, etc. that is YOUR choice, not something to be imposed on others. Discrimination, slavery, making the poor work for you at low wages, those are thus right for you if you can get away with it–"

      No, a liberal supports individual freedoms when they don't hurt others.  Therefore, freedom of religion, freedom on sexual matters (between consenting adults), and freedom of artistic or political expression.

      The things you mentioned :  "discrimination , slavery, and making the poor work for you at low wages" are different.  They clearly impose on the rights of others. 

      It is the Randians who support discrimination (If I own a business, I should be allowed to hire whomever I want…and if I own a restaurant, I should be able to serve whomever I want).  And 'making the poor work for you at low wages' is better known by the euphemisms 'Right to work' and 'Job Creators'.

      Finally, your last statement    "A religion is what you 'believe' not 'say' you support [in the abstract as long as it does not effect your actions]."  indicates little knowledge of the history of religions.   Belief and religious observance are not necessarily the same.  Many people attend churches, synagogues, or mosques every week without subscribing to all – or any – of the doctrines of the religion. This is not a modern thing – it is how religion has historically been practiced – observing the rituals, avoiding the taboos, singing the psalms, wearing the special clothes,  etc. were indicators of religious affiliation – not 'belief'.

      1. What liberals support

        Liberals support individual freedoms when they don't hurt others.  Therefore, freedom of religion, freedom on sexual matters (between consenting adults), and freedom of artistic or political expression.

        The things you mentioned :  "discrimination , slavery, and making the poor work for you at low wages" are different.  They clearly impose on the rights of others.

        Liberals should have no reason to support anything but their own good.  If everyone is free to decide what is right and wrong, it is only for them and not others.  If they want to give to charity, that is THEIR decision—not for anyone else.  They should not care for rights of others or freedom of expression—they sure don't now exccept that everything goes.  Their only criteria should be what do I WANT, and can I get away with it.

        It will be interesting to see how the gay marriage proponents now treat polegomy, which uses the same arguments—consenting adults, "love them", etc..

  11. Understand why our taxes are going higher

    On Thursday August 16th @ 7 pm Illinois State Representative, Daniel Biss, is hosting a meeting to discuss pension reform in Illinois. As many people know, City of Evanston, Cook County, and pension funds at the State level are all significantly underfunded, and their financial positions continue to deteriorate. To sustain all pensions in Illinois and restore their financial health to enable current and future government pensioners to receive their pensions will likely require higher taxes and/or a reduction in government services.

    The title for this discussion is "The Long Road to Pension Reform: What is "Cost Shift" and Why Does it Matter?

    Dick Ingram, the Executive Director of the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS) and Louis Kosiba, Executive Director of the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) and Erika Lindley, the Executive Director of ED-RED will attend.

    The August 16th meeting @ 7pm will be at Wagner Farm (1510 Wagner Road, Glenview)

    TRS : http://trs.illinois.gov/

    IMRF : http://www.imrf.org/

    ED-RED : http://www.ed-red.org

    Daniel Biss : http://www.danielbiss.com

    Attend the meeting and become informed about this critically important issue.

    1. Change in location for 8/16 Pension meeting

      On Thursday Aug 16th @ 7pm Daniel Biss is hosting a meeting titled, "The Long Road to Pension Reform: What is "Cost Shift" and Why does it Matter?

      The Meeting will be held @ 7pm at Temple Beth Israel – 3601 W. Dempster in Skokie

      EVERYONE is invited to attend

       

  12. I’ll give you any tax you want…if you balance the budget

    Anyone with a calculator and Wikipedia can see the fallacy both parties present with regards to balancing the budget.  Even with optimal revenue through taxation (say, 19.5% GDP), we're still left with roughly a trillion dollar annual deficit.  So, nomatte how much we are taxed, we must cut a trillion from the annual budget to achieve sustainability (this also wouldn't account for actually paying any principal on our debt).

    So where would Schakowsky or Obama like to cut?  So far all I've heard since 2007 are promises for blurry future savings.  Ryan's plan isn't much better, taking 30+ years to balance (if ever).

    My point is, until we demand that our president balance the budget during his/her tenure, we will undoubtedly receive more of the same.  When will the 85% of Evanstonians who voted for Obama and the 14% that voted for Bush (in 2000/2004) take responsibility for what their candidate/party did?

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.  Yet those that vote for evil time and time again are surprised when it's exactly what they receive.

    1. Maybe charge to be in Congress

      Instead of paying them be in Congress, they should be charged for being in Congress—maybe $50,000 a year. Despite the salary they make they all seem to get rich while in Congress.  If that is their only job how esp. with a home in their district and family there and trips back—-they must have some magic formula.  The same charge should apply to Congressional and Executive staff since they also go into businesses that reward them for legislation when they leave..

      The orginal idea of having Congress operate only for part of the year and then go back and tend their farm [i.e. a real job] sounds very appealing.  If more were real farmers [rather than collecting rent for their big agriculural plants], doctors, scientist, etc.—i.e. real representatives of the voters—we'd have lower budgets, lower taxes, laws the people could understand [they admit they don't read the bills they vote on which under Sarbane-Oxley lands corporate executives in jail].  But then why would a farmer, teacher, scientist want to go to Congress when they can really contribute to the nation by their real work.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published.