Oops they did it again

Governor Blagojevich’s gross receipts tax seems to have gone down in flames. A non-binding vote received 107 votes against the tax and 0 votes in favor. It seems the legislature understands how unfriendly this tax is to business.

Estimates say if passed in its original form, it would add up to 15 cents to a gallon of gasoline. By the time the refinery is taxed, the distributor is taxed, and the retailer, plus every other middle man along the chain, it is the consumer that ultimately gets hurt.

And while the tax proposal has been voted down, little has been said about the massively expensive new programs being proposed or an alternative way to fund them.

But even though cooler heads prevailed in the GRT proposal, they seemed to be lost when it comes to personal comforts. Last year, they voted themselves a raise from around $57,600 annually to nearly $67,000 per year. Most legislators also receive additional pay, ranging from $8,771 to $23,338, for serving as committee chairmen or in leadership positions; and $125 for daily expenses when they are in session in Springfield. The total cost of the Senate-approved pay raises is $4.5 million.

While some argument could be made for some sort of a pay raise, this is the first since 2001, they also have approved $28 million for renovations to the statehouse. Updates and repairs are necessary, and the statehouse should be an impressive place, but some of the costs are down right irresponsible.

Urinals in the members washroom were replaced at a cost of $950 each, a base unit costs just under $200. Total cost on the bathroom makeover exceeded $400,000. Other improvements included a $38,000 clock and 27 custom doorknobs at over $400 a piece.

The 177 lawmakers will enjoy new custom built mahogany desks, historically accurate to the type used at the original statehouse. Estimates put these desks at $40,000 a piece. The administration could not provide the actual cost.

"I can't think of a worst possible, frickin' time for them to be doing this," said Jay Stewart, the Better Government Association's executive director. "Pay raises for us, gridlock for everyone else. And, by the way, we'll have really nice bathrooms."

So at this time when the state government is gridlocked on providing electric rate relief, and are facing potential tax increases and new government entitlements. Our elected officials frugally spend our tax dollars on plush bathroom amenities.

I hope they enjoy drying their hands on high-quality paper towels embossed with the state seal and the word "House" while us common folk are forced to use the low-grade stuff in the public bathrooms. It is good to know our money is in good hands.

It is time to put another ambulance in service

The City of Mattoon is looking to purchase an ambulance to use a backup to the Mitchell-Jerdan fleet that serves the city. They have budgeted $120,000 for mutual aid vehicle to use for transport when Mitchell-Jerdan vehicles are unavailable due to other calls. Currently, the City of Charleston is used as a reserve.

This action comes several months after authorities across the county met to discuss ambulance service in Coles County. Most believe the City of Mattoon would benefit from adding another ambulance to serve the City.

Over the last 15 years, Mattoon has seen a variety of forms of ambulance service. In 1994, they entered into an agreement with Mitchell-Jerdan where the City would provide ambulances and Mitchell-Jerdan would provide the service.

In 1998, Mitchell-Jerdan met some competition when Advanced Ambulance Service began operation in Mattoon. They operated in town for 14 months and sited “business reasons” for discontinuing service.

The City ended its private/public relationship with Mitchell-Jerdan October 1, 1999 and they (M-J) became a private ambulance service for the Mattoon area. The city purchased a used ambulance to use when no other service was available in town. They eventually sold this to Mitchell-Jerdan during the budget crisis in the early 2000’s.

Carle Arrow Ambulance service began operation in Mattoon in February of 2000, just five months after Advanced’s departure. They alternated weeks receiving 911 calls with Mitchell-Jerdan. They quit serving the Mattoon area September 1, 2002 citing the patient volume wasn’t high enough to continue full time service.

Mercy Regional Emergency Health Services were poised to fill the gap left by Arrow, but was slowed by state and county guidelines. Six months after starting operations, they reduced their service to non-emergency transfers only. They blamed politics for their cut in service stating they would not put political differences in front of patient safety.

Mitchell-Jerdan has been the only stable ambulance service in Mattoon throughout this time. During this same time period, emergency room visits at Sarah Bush have increased 50%; from around 20,000 per year to nearly 30,000.

While Mitchell-Jerdan’s three ambulances may have been adequate in 1998, in 2007 they are stretched thin. Backup service from Charleston is being used more and more. The response time from Charleston could be to long for some patients. Without change, we are really rolling the dice on ambulance service.

Mattoon’s proposal to add an ambulance would put the City in the same position it was in when they ended their public/private relationship with Mitchell-Jerdan. They (M-J) would provide primary ambulance service to the city, and Mattoon would provide back-up service when Mitchell-Jerdan cannot handle the additional calls.

The need for Mattoon to keep an ambulance in 2001 when they sold their last one to Mitchell-Jerdan was not the same as today. There were almost always two ambulance services in town so the City ambulance was probably not used very often. Cutting the service in the time of financial hardship made sense.
But the conditions have now changed. Emergency calls are up, and backup service is 12 miles away. It is time to put an ambulance back in service at the fire department.

Cutting healthcare for retirees may not be as good as it seems

The City of Mattoon recently voted to stop providing health insurance to retirees hired after May 1, 2007. The measure is to reduce the ever-increasing health care costs the city faces, even though the results will not begin to be felt for fifteen to twenty years.

This seems like a good move on the City’s part. Health care coverage for life is a benefit few jobs come with these days. According to City officials, no other towns in the area still offer such a benefit.

Similar benefits have made huge contributions to the downfalls of large corporations such as General Motors who spends over $5 billion annually for health care on their retirees. That adds $1500 to the price of every automobile.

But for some departments, dropping health care coverage on retirees can be a risk. Mattoon fire fighter Blair Bookman warned the City of the possible costs of this plan being greater than what is realized. Since employees may put off retirement to keep health benefits and ultimately increase dangers of on the job injury with an aged department.

Combining this policy with State regulations on firefighters pensions could be a deadly combination. A firefighter must work 20-years and be over the age of 50 to qualify for a pension unless certain conditions apply.

This leaves fifteen years between retirement and qualifying for Medicare benefits at 65. Or fifteen years the individual would be responsible for his or her own health care coverage. This may force a firefighter to work well past the age of 50 in order to retain healthcare.

If a firefighter becomes disabled in the line of duty and can not return to duty they may receive a pension of 65% of their last salary. Additionally the disabled firefighter, if they were receiving group insurance benefits at the time they retire, shall continue to receive health insurance free of charge for the remainder of their life.

Some cardio-pulmonary diseases are classified as "job related" for firefighters. This would mean a firefighter that has a heart attack that prevents them from continuing their duties as a firefighter; they may qualify for a duty related disability. As a duty disability the firefighter would qualify for free health insurance.

Firefighting is a very stressful and physically demanding job. A firefighter working past their mid-fifties has a much greater risk of injury then their younger counterpart. Since a person must reach age 65 to qualify for Medicare future Mattoon firefighters may be "forced" to work longer careers due to health care costs.

This scenario could conceivably wipe out or greatly reduce the savings the city expects from this policy. However, enacting the policy today, still makes sense. This gives the City 20 years to study similar policies across the state. If others find it to cost prohibitive, Mattoon can take steps to reverse its action before the same effects are felt here. If others see a savings, we have a policy in place to reduce our costs as well.

I wonder, however, why the council members didn’t include themselves in the policy. By doing so, they could have saved the taxpayers an additional $30,000 per year.

Statewide smoking ban good, but bad

The state legislature passed a state wide smoking ban this week. A similar bill has already passed the state senate. Governor Blagojevich is enthusiastic about signing the bill into law, which will ban smoking in public indoor places starting January 1. “Let me see the bill, but it sure sounds to me like that would be something I would enthusiastically sign,” the governor stated.

Several weeks ago, the City of Mattoon was thrust into the anti-smoking debate when citizens asked for no smoking areas around the playground equipment in city parks. I wrote a couple of columns supporting this move and think the city made the right decision in complying with the request.

I prefer a smoke-free establishment and there are several area restaurants I have quite frequenting because there is no separation between the smoking section and non-smoking sections. So this new law will open up more establishments I will spend my money at. Many give the argument that a smoking establishment will lose business if it switches to non-smoking. I am not sure if this accurate, but in my case the opposite is true.

All that being said, I do not necessarily agree with the state’s move on a wide smoking ban. The government already imposes to many restrictions on business and it gives Illinois a reputation of being non-business friendly. This is another example.

It is not an example of infringing on smoker’s rights. You don’t have the “right” to smoke wherever you want. Do you feel businesses barring smoking are infringing on your rights? And non-smokers don’t have the “right” to not smell smoke. It is an infringement on business owner’s rights on to run their business how they wish.

I support every bar and restaurant owner banning smoking in their establishment; and would campaign for them to do so. But it is not the governments place to make them. In the case of the parks, they are owned by the city. So if one wishes for a smoke free zone in the park, the city is who to talk to. If I wish to go to a smoke free Alamo, I would lobby the owner’s of the Alamo to cater to my business, not the government.