Skip to: site menu | section menu | main content

    Naomi D Jakobsson for State Representative

Independent.  Progressive.  Democrat.
Currently viewing: Naomi Jakobsson Campaign » Platform
The questions below comprise the Chicago Tribune state legislative 2008 candidate questionnaire.  The answers are Naomi Jakobsson’s, and represent her record and her views on issues important to the 103rd District and the entire State of Illinois.

Q:      Submit a brief essay that explains why you are qualified to hold this office.

I am completing my third term in office.  My constituents believe I am qualified.  When I first ran, I beat an incumbent by five percentage points.  Since then, my margins of victory have increased each cycle, to 30 points in my last run.  I attribute my constituents' regard for me to the fact that I have excellent constituent service, and have been a vigorous advocate for the interests and causes most important to my constituents, with emphasis on education at the K-12 and college and university level, social services, environmental protection, and environmentally sound economic development.

Q:      List your three most significant accomplishments

1. In the area of environmental protection, I have consistently scored perfect voting records on the indices of both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.  A major accomplishment early in my time in office was the chief sponsorship in the House and ultimate passage of legislation establishing and funding a comprehensive study of Illinois' water resources, with respect to both quality and supply.  This was a bipartisan effort, in which the Senate chief sponsor was my then-Senator Republican Rick Winkel.  Initial passage of the bill required my working to find votes to over-ride the Governor's veto.  In that first budget year after passage, the Governor did not appropriate funds, but has subsequently come around and required the study by executive order.  In general, I do not care who gets credit as long as good things get done, but since you asked specifically for accomplishments, I am proud of my role in ensuring that the state is now on track to plan for long-term adequate and safe water supplies for commercial, industrial, and residential users.

I have been working hard in other ways to help Illinois “go green”.  I was one of the cosponsors of the Illinois Clean Car act, which would establish strict emission standards for vehicles in Illinois.  I also supported legislation requiring our K through 12 schools to establish a green cleaning policy to use environmentally friendly cleaning products.

I introduced and sponsored legislation to eliminate harmful toxic chemicals in children’s toys and other products.  I introduced the bill that requires warning labels on toys that contain trace amounts of lead.  Parents have a right to know what is in toys so they can decide if they want to purchase such a toy. 

Over the years I introduced, sponsored and voted for legislation that would reduce mercury in consumer products.  This past year I introduced legislation that requires thermostat manufacturers to establish and maintain a program for the collection and recycling of mercury thermostats.  Another bill that awaits Senate consideration requires banning the sale of cosmetics containing mercury.

I sponsored legislation that now requires electric utilities and alternative retail electric suppliers to provide net energy metering capabilities for their retail customers that own and operate solar or wind electrical generators.  The state should take every step possible to encourage alternative energy resources and reduce reliance on nonrenewable sources. 

I have been a participant in the Safe Routes to Schools activities.  Helping our children have safe routes to school so they can walk or use their bicycles is good for the environment and their health and instills lifetime habits of not relying on automobiles.

2. In the area of social services, I have consistently championed adequate funding for drug treatment and counseling, childcare, and in general adequate support for working families and children.  I have always used Member Initiative dollars to provide support in this area, and am especially proud of being able to support innovative and effective programs in drug treatment and in emergency child care for families in crisis.  Because of my special interest in social services, I am now Chair of the Human Services Committee in the House.  As Chair, I work with members of both of both parties to move legislation that is designed to protect and provide for those who would otherwise go unserved.

3. In the area of education, I have worked hard to maintain the state's support for all our universities.  Although I wish we could have done more, I am pleased that in a tough budget year this year, we actually were able to increase higher education funding by the largest amount since I was first elected to the House.  In the area of elementary and secondary education, a particular accomplishment I am proud of was restoring funding for Gifted Education into the budget, after the Governor had omitted it in 2003. I championed the re-inclusion of this $5 million item in the education budget for FY2008.  Unfortunately the Governor did not release the money until the conclusion of the school year, so that we went a year with this important program disrupted, but I hope that will be remedied this year.

Q:      List your three most significant post-election goals.

1.  I will push hard to restore funding the Governor has cut for drug treatment, for DCFS, Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health and for parks.  These cuts have hit my district particularly hard.

2. I will redouble my efforts to make sure that my colleagues in Springfield and the public in general realize how important the University of Illinois, as a flagship research university, is important to the economy and the quality of life in Illinois.  The state has been penny wise and pound foolish in not supporting the University better than it has.  Science and engineering research at our University brings in many millions of dollars in research grants, and also is a catalyst for new business formation and an attractant for established businesses to set up operations here.  Students who come to the University of Illinois add far more to the state economy than it costs the state to educate them, and as alumni they keep giving, not just in donations to the University but also in business connections with the state.

3. One of the biggest economic growth areas in the future, perhaps the biggest, is to adjust our national economy to the environmental challenge of human-caused global warming.  I want to do everything I can to make Illinois a leader in this transition.  With a new administration coming to Washington, I will join in with other officials in Illinois in urging the Federal government to revive the FutureGen project, which is critical to developing technologies for sequestering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.  Illinois should also be a leader in producing biofuels that are cost-effective and environmentally benign.  With funding from BP and other sources, the University of Illinois that I represent is doing leading-edge research in the next generation of biofuels, that must and will replace ethanol from corn.  Finally, part of Illinois infrastructure spending should be directed towards enhanced energy efficiency.  As the Representative from the University of Illinois, a supporter of the environment endorsed by the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, and a "Friend of Agriculture" (designated by the Illinois Farm Bureau) I will do all that I can to nurture combining the best of agriculture and new technology to make Illinois a major contributor in the effort to mitigate human-induced global climate change.

Q:      Do you think Illinois should hold a Constitutional Convention? What would you change in the state constitution?

I am opposed to a Constitutional Convention.  I am concerned that we could modify the constitution in ways that are based on political passions of the moment, rather than on considered judgment of what will stand the test of time as a foundation of good government.

That being said, I do favor two changes in the State Constitution, and will support moves to implement those changes under the currently prescribed processes for amendments.  They are:

1) We should modify the Constitution to permit a graduated state income tax, instead of the flat tax that is mandated by the current Constitution.  Because of the regressive tax structure we now have in Illinois due to the flat income tax, there is simply no fair and economically sound way to raise needed revenue without imposing an unfair load on already overburdened lower- and middle-income taxpayers.  To those who say that amending the Constitution is too hard, I would point out that since the state income tax was enacted, we have made a permanent change in the rate just once.  In that same period of time, the Constitution has been amended many times. 

2) We should modify the Constitution to permit recall of elected officials.  We need some intermediate process to account for a situation where an official has become ineffective but has not committed such acts as to warrant impeachment.  The criterion for calling a recall election should be high enough that it cannot be done frivolously, and should only be done rarely, but when it is necessary, it is really necessary.

Q:      Describe your views on expanded gambling in Illinois. Should a casino be located in Chicago? Should it be owned by the government or a private entity? Should all casino licenses be awarded through competitive bidding?

I have always opposed gambling expansion in Illinois and will continue to do so.  Revenue from gambling is illusory, as the social costs exceed the revenue.  Also the process of issuing contracts and licenses for gambling is ripe with opportunities for corruption.  If we do have gambling expansion, the licenses should be awarded through competitive bidding, but we should not expand gambling in the first place.

Q:      Should state government provide health care for all citizens? What specific reforms in health care do you recommend?

Ideally, it would be a Federal responsibility to ensure that all citizens have health care.  But if the Federal government does not live up to that responsibility, the state should step in.

Given the limitations of state resources, and the structure of existing insurance plans, in order to get a system in place that would actually work well from day one I favor a system built around universal access to affordable health insurance that would mesh with existing employer-provided health care.  If we can ensure that every car on the road in Illinois is insured, we should be able to do same for every person.

The details of a system would need to be negotiated with all the players, including the health care industry and the insurance industry as well as consumer advocates.  But in outline, I believe a system could be developed in which the state could negotiate with insurance companies and health care providers on behalf of individuals not covered by employer plans, effectively taking the role of the employer. 

There is data suggesting that the most cost-effective systems have deductibles that are high enough to provide some constraints on use, but low enough so that all individuals have access to necessary services.  For absolutely comprehensive coverage, I would favor state subsidization of deductibles on a sliding scale based on income (as determined by state income tax returns).  Higher income individuals would pay the full deductible; lower income individuals could have as much as 90-100% of the deductible subsidized.

Q:      How would you address the performance of public schools in the state? Do you support performance pay for teachers? A voucher system for school choice? An end to teacher tenure? Preschool for all children?

I favor retention of teacher tenure.
I favor preschool for all children.
I do not favor a voucher system for school choice.
I favor more accountability for teachers and schools, but do not feel that either the performance metrics or the accountability mechanisms in No Child Left Behind are appropriate.  Essentially, accountability in public education needs to be renegotiated from scratch; the present situation is that broken.  All of the stakeholders need to be involved in those negotiations.  With a new administration coming in to Washington, and thus hopefully No Child Left Behind ready to be either scrapped or radically rethought, now is the time to re-think the terms of accountability between public schools and the public.

Q:      Would you support a tax increase to pay for transportation infrastructure? For public education? For expanded health care? For state pension liabilities? If so, what taxes should be raised and by how much?

Assuming adoption of a graduated income tax constitutional amendment, I favor adoption of a graduated tax that would lower taxes on families making under $200,000 per year and raise taxes on families making more than that amount, with the rates at the high end sufficient to increase state revenues by approximately 5% from present levels.  Combined with strict competitive bidding rules and other disincentives for "sweetheart" state contracting as embodied in ethics legislation that I supported and we passed in the legislature this spring (and will hopefully put in place ultimately despite the Governor's "improvements"), and combined with the cost-effective comprehensive health plan outlined above, this increment in revenues should be sufficient to restore social services, preserve and enhance our parks, fund our schools, increase funding to our universities, stay on track to making up our pension deficits, and make payments on bonds that we would issue for infrastructure and other capital needs.