GOP Candidates Talk Taxes in Plainfield

Republicans warn of “January surprise” if Gov. Pat Quinn pushes his pension cost shift plan through.

Republican candidates staged a press conference in Plainfield Thursday afternoon to voice their opposition to property tax increases and a plan by Gov. Pat Quinn to shift teacher pension costs to local school districts.

State Sen. Republican Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) and House Republican Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) joined candidates Garrett Peck and Bob Kalnicky at the Plainfield home of Vicki and Ernie Knight.

In a press release, the candidates said Quinn’s proposal will mean higher local property taxes by shifting the state’s estimated $44 billion teachers pension burden onto school districts.

“Everyone has begun to recognize — finally — that Illinois has the worst-funded pension retirement system in the country and a comprehensive solution must be found,” Peck said. “But simply allowing state government to push its pension debt onto local property taxpayers is unacceptable. I cannot and will not support property tax increases.”

While he said he advocates pension reform, Kalnicky also opposed the shift.

“… We cannot allow the Chicago leaders to push their years of mismanagement onto the families in this area,” he said. “I’m committed to fighting for the families of this district.”

Cross and Radogno warned that history will repeat itself if Quinn’s plan goes through — raising taxes again just two years after the 67 percent state income tax hike.

“Candidates vowed to oppose tax increases, but just weeks after the election voted for the largest tax increase in Illinois history,” Radogno said. “And now Governor Quinn and his legislative allies are pushing a proposal that would raise property taxes weeks after the November elections. Remember the old saying, ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’ I don’t want the taxpayers of the Illinois to be fooled twice.”

Cross said the state “cannot continue down the road we are on now. Higher income taxes are driving families and jobs out — and now we could face higher property taxes.”

Peck, a Plainfield village trustee and small business owner, faces Democrat Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant in the race for the new 49th State Senate District.

Kalnicky, who is vice president of the Fountaindale Library board and executive director of the Community Service Council of Northern Will County, is vying against Democrat Natalie Manley to represent the 98th House of Representatives District.

Both Cross and Radogno are running unopposed.


  • Teachers Rally in Plainfield to Oppose Pension Reforms
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Ron, As an attorney, you should not be this ignorant of facts. Fleeing and eluding is not the same as a pursuit. After fleeing and eluding occurs, the police may choose whether or not to pursue. Time to go back to law school? Handguns are inadequate for police use in active shooter situations. But why would you listen to every law enforcement and ballistics expert. You know better. Alcohol doesn't cause testicular cancer, Ron. Pot does. Check out the study by the University of Southern California. Time for a check-up?
Tim October 29, 2012 at 03:36 PM
Ah Ernie, pot does not cause testicular cancer, and the study you are referring to doesn't claim that it does. It simply states that the incidences of testicular cancer were elevated in those who self-reported drug use. Maybe you should have read the study before parroting it around as fact? "We do not know what marijuana triggers in the testes that may lead to carcinogenesis" Something tells me science is not your strong point though, since you seem just as confused as the media when it comes to science reporting in making the common mistake of 'correlation equals causation'.
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Tim and Ron, Really not interested in your citations from questionable sources or wasting time on your ridiculous assertions. Marijuana is toxic. It is a substance not intended for human consumption. If THC is medically necessary, pills have been available in prescription form for decades. Now, guys you can go back to your brownies. Ron, If you don't know the law, maybe you shouldn't be posting legal opinions.
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Ron, I don't drink. Alcohol is extremely destructive. Wow, a legal opinion from Tim. We are all waiting for his infinite wisdom. Ron, If you witnessed the "pursuit" you shouldn't withhold that evidence from the police.
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Ah, so you're making assumptions knowing no more than anyone else who read the article. That's what I thought. Of the many adjectives used to describe Tim, "sensible" has the be the most irrational.
Tim October 29, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Ernie, the quote I provided you is directly out of the study you are quoting. Did you not read it first? If my quote is questionable to you, then why are you quoting the exact same study that it came out of?
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Tim, Your earlier emphatic comment on another thread, that you had no concern about the source of your information, and that (paraphrasing) you'd take it from anyone. That says it all. Go back to your brownies.
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Tim, Remember your "evidence" based assertion that pot cures lung cancer? What happened to that?
Tim October 29, 2012 at 06:38 PM
You left out a rather important part of of your 'paraphrasing'. My point, that you seem to have missed, is that I don't care who it is that is reporting a fact. It will not change whether that fact is true or not if it can be verified elsewhere. Somehow, You seem to have taken that to mean that everything you say is right, and everything someone else says is wrong. If Charles Manson had said the sun rises in the East, does the fact that a serial murderer stated the fact, somehow change the fact? Of course it doesn't. I hope this clears up any confusion you have about facts vs. the people who state them. Back to the point of the article though, I think a tax-shift to local districts is exactly what is needed. It is the only way that enough people are going to take notice of what has been going on with the school board over the past few decades. The 'extra' costs that all the hand wringing is over, are costs that THIS BOARD already agreed to. If your local board didn't take advantage of the system, you will not see any increase at all under the shift, and there are districts nearby in which that will be the case. Not shifting the costs back to the local districts would be the mistake, as it would allow the local residents to remain blind to the exponentially increasing costs their districts are passing off to the the rest of the taxpayers in the form of higher state expenditures(taxes).
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Tim, Being vociferously opposed by you and Ron is confirmation that I'm on the right track. Thank you!
Tim October 29, 2012 at 08:35 PM
At least you have finally admitted that facts play absolutely no part in your 'conclusions'. Who opposes or supports me makes no difference at all to me. Whether they stand on their own or not, is all that concerns me. Anything that gets the local residents to start to pay attention to what the school boards have done all throughout the region, is what I am for. If the residents WANT to pay for these benefits(as opposed to shifting them to the rest of the states taxpayers), then they can vote for it. However, until that hits them directly in the pocketbook, they will be just fine with the status quo. I think we can both agree that continuing on the current path is not a solution.
Ernie Knight October 29, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Tim, You're delusional. Facts are not fictitious bits which you find on the Internet that agree with your ideology. Facts are not cut and pasted from websites. Facts are things which are OBECTIVELY TRUE. You are constantly purporting to be presenting facts. The FACT IS, YOU'RE NOT.
Tim October 30, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Ernie, You asked for facts that marijuana kills lung cancer(at no time did I say 'cure')? Here is Harvard, in 2007; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Here is a published research study, in 1997; http://scholar.qsensei.com/content/y05d9 Here is Bloomberg reporting on it; http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLRKiCeoXoRQ Here is WebMD; http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer Notice that the study actually gives the technical mechanism for how this works. As opposed to your simple claims to the contrary. Or the poorly misrepresented headline form the story with weasel-words like 'may'. This is how science works, Ernie - Ask a Question Do Background Research Construct a Hypothesis Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion Communicate Your Results Each one of these steps has been taken in the information I have posted. What you have been doing is; -Identify a bias -Communicate negative bias That is not science, Ernie. And no amount of your name-calling is going to change that. If you want to continue to claim that I am not presenting facts to you, you are going to have to support that with actual evidence other than "I don't like you". Where EXACTLY did you get the idea that it causes cancer? It had to be from somewhere right, so provide your sources.
Ernie Knight October 30, 2012 at 01:26 AM
Tim, Again, you confuse marijuana and THC. THC is a part of marijuana. They are not the same thing. The research YOU cite used THC, or didn't you read the actual research? Research findings are NOT facts. Assuming that all research is ethical, and correct is dangerous and naive. If research can't be replicated, it's WRONG.
Tim October 30, 2012 at 02:24 AM
I read it; "Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers." You, apparently, did not. Now, unless you have something to contradict those actual and reported facts(yes, that's what they are Ernie), you need to stop pretending your negative biases are somehow valid anywhere outside of your imagination. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, and hate as many things as you want. What you can not do, however, is dictate to the outside world what is real or not real based simply on those beliefs. You asked me to backup my statement about marijuana and cancer, and I did. Not only with THC, but with actual marijuana being used. You chose not to accept it by ignoring that, so it is now your turn to show the evidence to support your claims. Link to a series of research reports that supports your position. This is science Ernie, you have to put personal feelings aside. The back and forth is only helpful if you can do that. If you provide evidence to change my mind, I will do that. I have to do that, in fact it is the only way this can properly be done. Do you understand?
Sean P October 30, 2012 at 02:46 AM
Unfortunately Ron you are wrong on the pursuit vs. fleeing and eluding argument. I really don't care to jump into the alcohol vs. weed argument, but definitely wrong from the stand point of law enforcement on fleeing / eluding. As an attorney that's how you might view the statue, but it can be used not only in pursuits, but basic traffic stops that the officer views as the offender is attempting to evade the arrest. It doesn't mean the officer is violating any policy based upon speed, distance out of their jurisdiction or the crime at hand, but the cases where the officer attempts to stop the subject and the offender chooses not to stop for 1 block, 5 blocks, 1 mile, etc. you get my point. It's not always viewed as a pursuit when the driver fails to stop immediately after being illuminated with emergency lights.
Sean P October 30, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Unfortunately Ron you are wrong on the pursuit vs. fleeing and eluding argument. I really don't care to jump into the alcohol vs. weed argument, but definitely wrong from the stand point of law enforcement on fleeing / eluding. As an attorney that's how you might view the statue, but it can be used not only in pursuits, but basic traffic stops that the officer views as the offender is attempting to evade the arrest. It doesn't mean the officer is violating any policy based upon speed, distance out of their jurisdiction or the crime at hand, but the cases where the officer attempts to stop the subject and the offender chooses not to stop for 1 block, 5 blocks, 1 mile, etc. you get my point. It's not always viewed as a pursuit when the driver fails to stop immediately after being illuminated with emergency lights.
Ernie Knight October 30, 2012 at 03:22 AM
Tim, Is that like the "fact" that innoculations cause autism, as shown by research in a prestigious English medical journal (retracted years later)? Is that like the "fact" established by pioneering medical research that lumpectomy is as effective as mastectomy for breast cancer (only years later did the researcher admit that subjects were not randomly assigned. The most serious prognoses got mastectomy, the least serious lumpectomy)? Blindly trusting ANY research is dangerous and naive. Understand, Tim?
Tim October 30, 2012 at 03:38 AM
No, Ernie, it is not like those 1)That study was widely panned AT THE TIME for its serious flaws(methodology), and was not taken serious by anybody until it got picked up by the lunatic fringe. Being published is part of the process, it doesn't mean it is correct. The next step after being published, is further peer review, were that study was completely debunked. 2)That is called best practices, not fact. It is exactly why the previous process was changed to what it currently is. And why it will be changed yet again. Nobody but you is calling it fact, and misusing words does not change their definition. This is more along the lines of it is a fact that Asbestos causes lung cancer, because we know the mechanisms by which it acts, and have observed it happening. The facts I presented you listed plenty of examples, they also listed the chemical mechanisms by which this was proven. You can choose to ignore how science works if you like Ernie, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. We know how electric fields work enough to construct devices that you call a computer. Similarly, we know how the chemical reactions work in biology to describe how this works. Yet, you do not question how valid computers are, because it is something you see everyday. You can not choose to accept something on the basis of its familiarity to you. However, no matter how much you try to distract from it, you still have not supplied one shred of evidence to support your claim.
Ernie Knight October 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM
Tim, You're the one that called research findings fact. Take another look. The breast cancer study was not caught as you imply somehow magically occurs (best practices, huh?). Initials behind someone's name does NOT make them trustworthy. How about the "fact" from BATFE that 90% of the guns recovered from Mexican cartels trace back to the US. Except that the Mexican authorities only trace a tiny fraction, and Department of Homeland Security has told ATF that their numbers are misleading. How about the "fact" from a history researcher that the idea of many armed minutemen during the revolutionary war was a myth. The "fact" that few colonists owned guns. He wrote a book, won a big award. It wasn't until some outside of academia questioned his findings. Then his university demanded the data, which he somehow could not produce (fabricated). He got fired and lost his big award. I get that you trust everything from everyone. I have learned not to. Too many have an axe to grind, a dollar to make, a bias to fulfill. Then there's bad science. Reporting that a correlation between diet soda consumption and heart attack shows that diet soda causes health problems. Just one problem, diet soda consumers are more likely to be overweight and/or have health problems. The correlation is meaningless. I don't trust anything from anyone until I verify. You may follow anyone saying anything. I choose to follow the ones that are right.
Sean P October 30, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Ron, again your wrong. Show me where any law enforcement agencies are writing failure to yield when vehicles don't stop for traffic stops?? Failure to yield is written in cases where vehicles are leaving there lane of traffic and/or leaving a private drive where they fail to yield to oncoming traffic. It's used more or less in cases of traffic accidents. I'm not saying after 1 or 2 blocks agencies are charging fleeing/eluding, I was making a point of how agencies come aboutthecharges and can makethedifferencebetween a pursuit and fleeing/eluding. Why don't you contact the Will County States Attorney Office and they will distinguish the difference and how they charge it.
Sean P October 30, 2012 at 04:03 PM
I do know that the police do not have to contact the SA on misdemeanor charges, but in the end all the SA is the last one to approve or plea cases to less charges. And in response to the failure to yield, you didn't distinguish the difference between fail to yield and failure to yield to emergency vehicles. Yes, there is a difference.
Tim October 30, 2012 at 04:24 PM
SeanP, You asked for just one instance of getting a failure to yield when getting pulled over, so here you go; http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141535 Just about every state has a law stating that you are to yield to vehicles with flashing/emergency lights by giving them the right of way by pulling over. Even if you aren't the one being pulled over, you are required to yield the right of way. You are obviously on the internet, how difficult is it to look these things up before you post?
Sean P October 30, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Yes Tim, I agree with you on the Illinois statue of failure to yield to emergency vehicles, which is used in a different way than failure to yield for oncoming vehicles. That statue is commonly used when vehicles do not pull to the right or slow down to emergency vehicles ( some cases Scott's Law), it's not used in pursuits and/or fleeing and eluding cases.
Ernie Knight October 30, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Ron, You still don't get it. Wilfully failing to stop after being signaled to stop by the police is one form of fleeing and eluding. No pursuit required. No distance required. None of your fictitious criteria are involved. Anyone have a question? Go to ilga.gov. The statute is 625 ILCS 5/11-204. Look it up yourself. Ron apparently can't read.
Ernie Knight October 30, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Ron, The people that I care about already know the answer to your inquiry. Alas, you are not part of that group. By independent inquiry I suggest you investigate and you will likely discover all those things.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something