The editors of the Wall Street Journal observe the argument going on in Chicago between the City Council and the mayor with bemusement:
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson thinks a new “head tax” on corporations is the way to balance the budget, but again Mr. Johnson’s own head seems to be lost in the progressive clouds. The City Council’s finance committee voted 25-10 on Monday to reject his revenue package, amid criticism that included some of the Mayor’s allies.
“I am not a supporter of the head tax at any level,” Alderman Pat Dowell, whom Mr. Johnson appointed to the finance committee, told reporters this month. Alderman Timmy Knudsen said the mayor’s office had falsely claimed he was a supporter of the head tax. That was a “complete lie,” he told the press: “I have been a ‘heck no’ the whole time.”
Mr. Johnson’s idea is to levy a tax of $21 per employee on businesses with more than 100 workers. This would punish companies that are doing Chicago a favor by staying in downtown offices despite the city’s dysfunctions, rather than fleeing elsewhere. Only three other big cities have a head tax, according to the Chicago Policy Center, and Mr. Johnson’s plan has a far higher rate than the ones levied by Denver, San Jose and San Diego.
I don’t think the editors understand what is going on. The argument is a microcosm of the argument ongoing within the Democratic Party. The mayor is considerably more progressive than all but a few city council members. He has views, ideas, and objectives all of which involve spending more money.
The mayor believes that Chicago is not spending nearly enough, this despite Chicago’s already exorbitant spending and high taxes and fees. He doesn’t believe he was voted into office to cut expenses but to expand them. He is outraged that “the rich” (whether companies or individuals) “aren’t paying their fair share” whatever that may mean.
In that context he doesn’t really care about Econ 101, the city’s high expenses and taxes, or even the city’s longterm viability. Using an expression borrowed from the financial sector, his view is strictly IBGYBG (“I’ll be gone; you’ll be done). A short term one. He’s looking at things from the standpoint of what he wants to do today not what that will do tomorrow.
Unfortunately, Chicago has been taking that view for decades and after years of kicking the can down the road we’re running out of road. Just to give one example take the Chicago Public Schools. According to the NCES in 1990 about 400,000 students were enrolled in the CPS compared to 350,000 now. Nonetheless fewer Chicagoans are spending almost twice as much per student as we were then. We’ve got to bring wants into alignment with our decreasing ability to pay. The same case can be made for the police department, fire department, and every other city department.
