No clear victory for taxpayers, but it's a start
|
|
Daily Southtown Editorial
March 1, 2007
The issue: Cook County board balanced the budget by
cutting front-line workers rather than patronage workers.
We say: The budget resolution might have been a step in
the right direction, but the test next year may be even
tougher.
Was last week's resolution of the Cook County budget battle
good news for the taxpayers or one more victory for the
entrenched class of do-nothing patronage workers?
How you answer that question may depend on whether you're
a "glass-half-full" kind of person or one of
those pessimistic "glass-half-empty" types.
The budget approved in the early morning hours last Friday
closed a $500 million deficit by cutting more than 1,700
jobs, shuttering 12 of the county's 26 health clinics
and refinancing bonds to save $150 million this year.
But only a handful of more than 400 "management-level"
employees -- so-called "at-will" or patronage
workers -- lost their jobs. County board President Todd
Stroger went all out to protect them, calling them indispensable
parts of the county infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Stroger's budget lays off hundreds of doctors
and nurses from the county hospital system, 43 prosecutors
in the state's attorneys office and almost 100 sheriff's
police and court deputies. Stroger and his county board
allies, including three Republicans, cut heavily from
the ranks of front-line workers, but protected the political
appointees.
On one hand, the board actually made incremental progress
toward reducing the payroll. That was a shift in priorities.
But the board stood by its traditional priority of protecting
the loyal Democratic Party members whose jobs are based
on their political work, not merit.
Stroger argues that the budget was balanced without a
tax increase, thanks to his veto on Monday of a proposed
new pollution tax on factories that emit excessive amounts
of sulfur dioxide. While we applaud the veto, we think
Stroger and board members who claim they did not raise
taxes are trying to mislead the voters. The board approved
a $13 million fund transfer from the forest preserve district
to the regular county operating fund; the money in question
was raised through higher forest preserve tax increases.
Not only is that a tax hike, we'd like to see someone
challenge the legality of the county board using forest
preserve funds for county purposes.
Stroger also squandered an opportunity to recover from
his terrible performance in last fall's election campaign
by demonstrating his intention to lead in a different
direction than his father. While Stroger seems to understand
that the voters are demanding a new approach, he made
it clear that the county's patronage workers can depend
on him to preserve their jobs, even if it means cutting
some absolutely necessary county services.
But the incremental cuts and the effort to avoid raising
taxes were a partial victory for Forrest Claypool, who
challenged John Stroger unsuccessfully in last year's
primary, and for Tony Peraica, the Republican who challenged
Stroger in the fall. Both campaigned for lower taxes and
reductions in the patronage force and got a little bit
of what they were demanding.
The last-minute negotiating leading up the budget agreement
resulted in some odd alliances, and it's hard to predict
what they will mean in the long term. Elizabeth Gorman
(R-Orland Park), the recently elected chairman of the
county Republican Party, joined with two other Republicans
and Democrat Michael Quigley, of Chicago, to back the
final version of the Stroger budget plan. Earlier in the
process, Claypool's budget alternative had support from
regular Democrat Joan Murphy, of Crestwood, along with
Peraica and Larry Sufferdin, of Evanston. In the end,
Stroger had 13 supporters for his plan and easily won
the battle.
Now the question is whether the elected officials will
view this year's battle as a starting point or as a one-time-only
nod to responsible government. Budget talks for 2008 will
begin before the end of summer. There already have been
whispers around the county building that this year's minimal
cuts will be cited as the cause of declining services
and justification for major tax increases next February.
Any county officials who are thinking that way should
reconsider now. Next year's budget process should continue
the change in focus that started his year. The taxpayers
are not willing to spend more than $3 billion a year for
a county government that specializes in job placement
for party loyalists, and they should not be.
