The Fair Tax fails....

 I've been talking about this in the run up to Tuesday's election. As America considers who will be the next POTUS - a still unresolved conclusion as of now although other states have been called since last nite - here in Illinois voters consider an amendment to the 1970 constitution.

Well to install to our state constitution a so-called fair tax or a graduated-income tax failed to pass. The last I checked the numbers it was winning in the city of Chicago who must love making the rich pay their fair share. So I suppose the rest of Illinois should thank their lucky stars that Chicago itself didn't determine the results.

Pritzker’s graduated income tax campaign concedes defeat after huge loss https://t.co/WUNVuEGLMV

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) November 4, 2020

To be honest I'm confused by this. The tally is clear however, how its supposed to get passed isn't:

Incomplete election results showed 55% of Illinoisans voting against the amendment, and 45% voting in favor with 97.6% of precincts reporting. State election officials said Tuesday there could be as many as 400,000 outstanding mail-in ballots.

The amendment needed a “yes” vote from a majority of all people voting in Tuesday’s election or 60% of people who specifically voted on the amendment.

This is what we'd see on our ballots yesterday is it 60% of all voters to vote on this amendment for it to pass or does it have to pass with 60% of the vote? Well it's clear a majority didn't vote in favor, and guess what now the state has to get to work on their revenues. 

This was Gov. Pritzker's issue this is what he campaigned on when he ran for Governor in 2018, he has to look at plan B. It should be no surprised tax hikes and spending cuts.

Pritzker: “There will be cuts and they will be painful” https://t.co/EPBHUlreGv

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) November 4, 2020

 It's been a few years since I heard Republicans are going to hurt our public schools. Obviously that's one entitlement that's not going away, however, the issues of the schools goes beyond the fiscal issues.

I also want to add that I was somewhat following the race for Cook County State's Attorney. I wasn't too disappointed in the result, I had just to be a realist Kim Foxx held on against a relatively strong challenge from a former Cook County Judge Republican candidate  Pat O'Brien. There was another countywide race and that was for the clerk of the circuit court the Democrat was running away with it and Foxx as the incumbent didn't get away so easy.

Bear in mind well I mean many of you already know anyway Cook is a solidly Democrat area. Yes there are more Republican areas of the county, but it's solidly Democrat. I think that's a very hard wall to break and this area is one of those where it's just reprehensible for many voters to even consider a Republican candidate.

Then I also consider that although President Trump can't yet declare victory as he seeks re-election if you believe FOX News he grew his vote totals from 2016. He also got more minority (Black or Latino) votes in 2020 compared to any other Republican since 2008. Perhaps there's something to it, but time will tell if it remains sustainable.

A proposed constitutional amenment

Well two courtesy of The Vail Spot (via Instapundit). This is the main one to consider:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Reminds me almost of the "YOU first" principle.

The post goes further talking about another proposal for a 28th amendment. Talking about limiting retirement benefits for members of Congress and limiting the number of days Congress can remain in session.

There is also provision limiting the number of terms a person could be elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have to admit however that I'm down on term limits for the reasons outlined in that post:

That was my original idea...though I'm not so sure that limiting the terms is the ideal solution.  The results of the last election would show that incumbents always win.  Though, what I'd rather see is each state redraw ALL their political districts geographically instead of politically.  It would force politicians to actually work harder as they wouldn't have "safe" seats, but would have to run in a far more balanced environment...though areas such as SanFran, CA would still be far, far left leaning. Limiting terms would have the collective effect of strengthening the congressional bureaucracy by making them more important because of simple longevity.  The "I know what I'm doing, Congressman..."attitude...

Changing the mode of redistricting would be more ideal than term limiting political officials. Perhaps the idea of permanent incumbents will be made more difficult if politicians weren't drawing their maps due to political considerations.