Obama’s announcement, which reverses a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. coasts, will open two-thirds of the eastern Gulf’s oil and gas resources for drilling, will continue drilling off Virginia and will begin studying the viability of drilling off the mid- and southern Atlantic coasts, along with Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

A large amount of environmentalists were quick to speak out against the plan. The executive Director of Green Peace, Phil Radford said expanding the offshore drilling in areas that have been protected for decades will threaten oceans and the coastal communities.

Many top environmental leaders voiced concern over the potential sacrifice of coastlines, just to make a higher profit for oil companies.

Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, said to the AFP that the plan “will further our national addiction to oil and contribute to global warming, while at the same time directly despoiling the habitat of polar bears, endangered whales, and other imperiled wildlife.”

Supporters of the plan, on the other hand, have gone as far as comparing Obama to President Roosevelt in the midst of the first depression, who in 1933 established the Tennessee Valley Authority, which became one of the larges hydroelectric construction program ever.

Raymond J. Learsy, Author of “Over the Barrell: Breaking Oil’s grip on our Future” said in his column that a U.S. Oil Trust “could be mandated to direct its revenues toward developing alternative energy programs and to expand mass transportation, thereby becoming a cornerstone for energy independence and combating climate change.”

Others, such as energy policy analyst James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners LLC, said the announcement is right on par for what should be expected. Obama’s announcement according to Lucier’s is less about drilling and more about building support for the administrations broader clean energy and climate plan.

When it comes to those who agree or disagree with Obama’s plan for U.S. coastlines, one thing is proven sure, he is continuing to create waves.

Many experts and organizations leader alike also have concluded that we shouldn’t expect to see much accomplished before that election date.

Yet, the common misconception, which is that all voters hate tax hikes, that has political leaders fearing immediate repercussions or even worse, sudden career death, is quite off-base.

What’s ironic about this budget stand-off is that academic findings, along with a close look at records, show that politicians would most likely be just fine taking a tax stance early on.

According to The Great Tax Myth, governors who propose tax increases are not necessarily punished by voters, nor in fact are legislators who vote for those proposals.

The article said that scholarly research does show a loss of votes to those that vote for major tax hikes, but the loss is so small that it usually doesn’t affect the persons future. One such study shows,  for example,  that governors who raise either the sales or income tax receive about 3 percent less popular vote in subsequent elections.

It most cases this won’t be enough to hurt their career–and may just show the public that they are willing to stand up for what they believe in.

This research backs a publication by Charles. N. Wheeler titled, Income Tax Hikes: Are Illinois Politicians Vulnerable? Wheeler gives specific examples from the years 1969 to 1997 that back the idea that voting for a tax hike will not, alone, hurt someones chances at re-election.

Bottom line, the proof is in the pudding.

So what do you think Illinois politicians…can we finally talk about those taxes?

According to a report released last week by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, human services in Illinois have been under-funded by $4.4 billion from the years 2002 through 2010.

The way these numbers break down to affect individual programs is astonishing. In December, the AARP and the Illinois Association of Community Care Program Home Care Providers announced that the state owed $200 million to 175 social-service agencies for the elderly alone. This number isn’t even including the service used for families, children or the physically or mentally handicapped.

As the March 10^th budget message approaches, it’s hard to see a happy ending in sight without some major changes. Changes that  human services organizations have been rallying to put into place for years.

One such plan has been proposed by, The Budget and Tax Policy Initiative at Voices for Illinois Children. It has called for a substantial tax increase since 2009. The plans proposed involve adjustments to Illinois’ 3% personal income tax rate, the $2,000 personal income tax standard exemption, Illinois’ earned income tax credit of 5% of the federal credit, as well as the implementation of a child tax credit.

According to reports from the initiative, the tax increases and changes could raise an additional $5 million in new revenue.

Another recommendation, from the Illinois Policy Institute recommended a variety of reductions to balance the upcoming budget. The report recommended holding spending for elementary and secondary education, higher education, healthcare, and human services along with cutting other areas by 5, 10 or 15 percent.

One thing is clear—a sigh of relief will most not likely not be heard following the May 10^th , budget message and major change needs to take place to even begin closing the enormous budget gaps for human services.

While doing research for my latest story, I was surprised to find that Illinois is only one of six states that has a flat income tax rate, meaning everyone is taxed the same 3% rate regardless of their income. I was also surprised to learn that only one state, Pennsylvania, has a lower income tax rate than Illinois. A majority of states have a higher, progressive tax that is based on income.

According to the The Voices for Illinois Children’s Budget and Tax Policy Initiative,  “closing the projected $12.8 billion gap this year without new revenue would require devastating spending cuts, on top of those enacted this year.  If such reductions were applied across the board, they would slash 50 percent of funding from every state program; if not distributed equally, many specific cuts would run far deeper.”

I can’t help but feel like the average citizen has no idea what could be lost. Politicians seem reluctant to speak about raising taxes before the November election, but people should be asking these questions. To put the possible loss into perspective, according to the Voices for Illinois Children’s State Budget Action Center, the $12.8 million deficit is the total amount the state pays each year in total for ALL services for the State Board of Education, The Department of Human Services, The Department of Human Health AND the Department of Children and Family Services.

Would people still fight against a progressive tax increase if they were aware of the services their children, neighbors, grandparents and families would be losing. My guess is no.