This is all well and good, but at some point spending will have to be cut to match taxes; though, to be fair, the economy may turn up by then.

This is all well and good, but at some point spending will have to be cut to match taxes; though, to be fair, the economy may turn up by then.

mike:

Why?

The plus in this case, since the Democrats have a stranglehold on Chicago city government, is that a privitization would be able to rise or fall on its own merits. In another city where the mayorality actually is contested between the two political parties, any hiccup in revenues from an airport that was privitized -- even if it was due to a downturn in the national economy that cut into flights and passenger miles for everyone -- would be cited by Democrats as a complete failure of the system and of Republican beliefs, and a reason to return to government control.

He's also raising the sales tax 1/4 of 1%.

It's high already. And they wonder why they're losing conventions.

He also wants the casino panacea. It might work. Put it near Navy Pier, overlooking the lake w/lots of windows.

Daley's being hit w/scandals right and left, even his MIL is involved. A strong challenger.....

Don't they already have casinos in Gary and in the Mississippi River? Why would they do any better in Chicago?

OJ:

Well, ok, I overstated a bit: If the economy is growing, you can outspend your revenue slightly each year without the interest payments getting out of hand.

Spending 150% of revenues each year is not going to fly at any plausible level of economic growth for long, and sooner or later they'll run out of things to sell and won't be able to afford the debt service. Natinoal governments can resort to hyperinflation; cities cannot.

Taxing consumption, not income.

Sandy P:

Casinos never have windows. Pretty views distract from separating you from your money.