We are one of the worst-run states in America: No. 1 in pension debt, with higher than the national average in cost of living, property taxes and unemployment. We are in the bottom half for business climate and job growth.
Yet the GOP cannot win elections! It’s because Republicans let the Democrats control the narrative and they merely reply to the same old issues.
What happened to lowering property taxes, income taxes and cost of living and, most important, ending public pensions and pension debt, which continually increase? The money saved would make Illinois the richest state in America.
— Jack Kraus, owner, PTR Truck Center, West Chicago
Advice for JB Pritzker
Andy Shaw is to be applauded for urging Gov. JB Pritzker to address the multiplicity of overlapping, expensive and, in some cases, useless units of government that pervade Illinois’ landscape (“The side of Illinois Pritzker would rather ignore,” July 28).
Eliminating many of these township governments, mosquito abatement districts, and duplicative sanitation, library, school and park districts would be good government in a state that needs to reduce the burden on its taxpayers. It would also be great politics for Pritzker. There is no political risk for the governor. There would also be tremendous political upside for Pritzker’s efforts to position himself as a fiscally prudent Democratic candidate for president. In a primary field that looks to be crowded by denizens of the party’s left, a credible moderate could win the nomination and, if current polling is accurate, easily defeat a MAGA GOP candidate. What says fiscal responsibility and concern for the taxpayers more clearly than a crusade to reduce redundant appendages of government?
There are two problems with Shaw’s recommendations, however. First, reducing units of government is, as Shaw puts it, “the wonkiest of a plethora of good government issues.” The sad truth of this argument is a problem not with the proposal, but with the electorate.
Far too many of voters lack the time, patience and knowledge that self-government requires. They would rather deal with issues such as Pritzker’s high school yearbook entries than issues that require thought and homework — like reducing government’s size. Pritzker can do nothing about much of the electorate’s seemingly insatiable thirst for silliness. However, he need not worry about this election; he simply can’t lose. In the presidential election, he need only cite the reductions of costs that his efforts hopefully will have produced without boring some voters with details.
The other problem with Shaw’s solution is his call for a streamlining commission. A commission to address the growth of governmental bodies, many of which are overseen by commissions? This both sounds and is counterproductive. Such a commission would become another bureaucracy that accomplishes little beyond self-sustenance.
The governor should dispense with such a commission and simply use his formidable power and financial resources to get the job done, or at least started. Telling such a tale of taking the proverbial bull by the horns would play well in the presidential election as well.
— Mark M. Quinn, Naperville
Johnson’s tenure will end
With Alexi Giannoulias entering the mayoral race, Brandon Johnson’s term as mayor of Chicago will come to an end. Our secretary of state has proved himself as an elected leader whereas Johnson has not. Giannoulias is far more respected than Johnson, who has been labeled “the dumbest mayor in America” and keeps proving that assertion correct.
Johnson should start packing now. In the primaries, more votes will go to the other candidates. He should remember that had Lori Lightfoot’s 16 wards brought in more votes than his nine, he would have rightly been relegated to obscurity, where he belongs.
— Judy Arkes, Chicago
Is federal action needed?
I found the editorial supporting passage of the Protect College Sports Act unconvincing (“Congress should pass bipartisan Protect College Sports Act,” July 29). It seems to assume that increased federal intervention is the best solution to the rapidly changing landscape of college athletics. Given U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s long-standing preference for limiting federal involvement in private enterprise, his advocacy for this legislation raises an interesting question: Is this bill truly about protecting student-athletes, or is it more about protecting the existing management structure of college sports?
The current environment is certainly different, but I would not describe it as chaotic or “simply awful,” as the editorial does. Games are being played, attendance remains strong, revenues continue to grow, and coaching and administrative salaries have reached unprecedented levels.
Schools that participate in the NCAA’s revenue-sharing model are currently limited in the amount they can pay athletes directly, while legitimate third-party “name, image and likeness” compensation remains uncapped. Just a few years ago, virtually all third-party compensation was prohibited. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston signaled that the legal landscape surrounding athlete compensation had fundamentally changed. It is difficult to imagine college sports returning to the old model.
Nor do I see compelling evidence that smaller conferences are being devastated. In some cases, the transfer portal and NIL have helped talented players elevate programs outside the traditional power conferences while giving athletes greater freedom to move to schools that offer better opportunities for playing time or compensation.
The reduction in walk-on opportunities is unfortunate, but scholarship opportunities have expanded in some sports. I recently learned that every member of the University of Illinois men’s gymnastics team is now on scholarship. Looking at the college football final polls from 1975 and from last season, many of the same types of programs continue to dominate, suggesting that competitive balance has not fundamentally changed.
College athletics are evolving rapidly, and reasonable people can disagree about the best path forward. But before Congress steps in with sweeping legislation, we should ask whether the evidence truly supports the claim that the current system is failing — or whether it is simply changing.
— John Stacey, St. Charles
Safe storage for firearms
“As soon as my dad was asleep, I went to the top of the bookshelf and took down his firearm. I was so excited, I just had to hold it.” That’s what the son of a police officer remembers doing as a preteen boy. Fortunately, he lived to tell the story.
What family is without a person of any age who at times is excited, curious or fascinated or wants to show off for friends? None. What family is without someone who at times is angry, drunk, jealous, depressed, impaired or in deep despair? None. In a moment, if each of those persons has access to firearms, they could cause tragedy.
Most parents won’t give their children firearms and ammo as Georgia father Colin Gray did, now judged guilty of murder after his son used the gift of an AR-15-style rifle to kill four people at his school. Yet, too many parents simply don’t store their guns safely.
Real protection comes with safe storage. Quick-access lockboxes can allow the owner to open a locked weapon in seconds. A basic box costs $30 to $50.
If protection of our loved ones is the goal of keeping firearms at home, then using safe storage is essential.
— Sandra Sarsha Petroshius, Lake Forest
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
