Cut budgets and salaries first
Then see how much of a tax increase is necessary
At the outset of his term approximately one month ago, Mayor Brandon Johnson hoisted a flag for raising $800 million through tax increases. Although the announcement didn’t include a bump in property taxes, the declaration didn’t sit well with residents. Business owners, many of whom would be impacted by Johnson’s proposal didn’t come close to endorsing the notion.
This space has been used to suggest that the mayor ask every City of Chicago department and sister agency for an immediate 10 percent cut in their budgets. Such a move would generate more than $1.6 billion-twice the amount of the proposed tax increases.
The suggestion to raise taxes is somewhat surprising as Johnson is identified as a progressive politician. As a progressive one would think he would take some new approaches to tackling budget problems. His ideas fit the traditional “tax-and-spend liberal” description we have heard so often when it comes to office holders from the Democratic Party.
One such different approach is besides ordering the 10 percent cut from departments, he and all 50 Chicago City Council members take a 10 per cent salary cut. The first reality is only a handful of alderpersons could make the $130,000 annual salary in the private sector. Johnson apparently wasn’t earning enough to pay his water bills and parking ticket obligations prior to being elected. He will be paid more than$216,000 in his first year. So, the alderpersons current salaries means along with the mayor, most are living large, chopping 10 percent means they would live less large.
Such a cut means they would still be paid more than their counterparts in other major cities. Specifically, in New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, and Houston the average salary for a city council member is $37,232.
Past discussions about reducing the pay of council members got little traction. The alderpersons made compelling cases that although their respective roles are identified as part-time, the amount of time they spend doing their jobs is anything but.
A call for cuts in this instance is not about the hours they put in or the number of constituents they represent-which is slightly more than 53,000. No! Council members and the mayor taking a measly 10 percent cut in a guaranteed salary is about the city being in dire straits; and the burden for getting from under this financial boulder should not be the responsibility of residents and the business community alone. There is no logical reason the elected officials can’t share the pain.
Candidate Johnson made a number of campaign promises, including re-opening mental health centers shuttered 10 year ago by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Candidate Johnson also promised an array of social service offerings to help curb Chicago violence-to date he has yet to share how any of these promises will be paid for. The$800 million figure he tossed out is far from a lock, as some of the steps he is considering require either state legislative or Chicago Council City approval.
Should the mayor and city council choose to lead by example the outpouring of goodwill and favorable commentary is likely to be overwhelming.
Is government the only entity where employees are in charge of their salary and or benefit package? I believe the majority of us are at the mercy, explanations, poor business decisions, etc., of our employers. Perhaps it's time that citizens addressed this at a local level and then take that same action to Congress.
Indeed! This would be an innovative approach that, though it wouldn't get much traction from city government officials affected, would catapult Johnson's popularity. AND... it would give a meaningful bump to the budget that couldn't be ignored.