* Yvette Shields at the Bond Buyer…
Even with more tax revenue in hand, Illinois’ financial position deteriorated in the last fiscal year due to spending growth and a rising pension tab [according to an “interim comprehensive annual financial report” published by Comptroller Mendoza]. […]
The state’s net position based on governmental activities which takes into account long-term liabilities and assets worsened to a negative net position of $193.1 billion for fiscal 2019 ending last June 30, from a negative $189.1 billion for fiscal 2018.
Over time, increases and decreases in net position measure whether the state’s financial position is improving or deteriorating and the figure provides a more sweeping view of state assets and obligations because it counts liabilities such as bonded debt and pension obligations against assets such as cash, investments, and other state holdings.
At $4 billion, the erosion was less than the $6 billion recorded in the previous year. […]
“The bleeding has slowed but we are still bleeding,” said Richard Ciccarone, the Illinois-based president of Merritt Research Services, which tracks audit timing.
The comptroller’s report is here.
- Nick - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 1:57 pm:
Not an excuse per say, but hasn’t some of this been because we’re assuming less generous returns than we were previously? Or am I thinking of Chicago.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 2:07 pm:
==negative net position of $193.1 billion for fiscal 2019 ending last June 30==
You can’t hide the bill backlog from net position.
- AD - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 2:10 pm:
Not to be a downer, but the Total Government Statement of Net Position was -$126.7 Billion in 2016 and now we’re at -$187.7 Billion. Just because Illinois slowed down our decline for one year, doesn’t mean much in the big picture when it dropped $60 Billion in 3 years.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 2:10 pm:
Someone should ask JB, Speaker Madigan and Senator Harmon how they expect to backfill 193 billion dollars hole with only a tax on the top 3%?
Since thy will have no answer, why aren’t they advocating for a constitutional amendment to reform pensions?
- Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 2:23 pm:
AD
==Not to be a downer, … .==
The first thing to ask is, in that period, did GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) change any standards, particularly for pensions and OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefits)? Evidence of this is the fact that IMRF, after the 2008 crash, still hasn’t returned to 100% funding. Every time they get close GASB issues new standards / requirements on pensions and OPEB.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 2:45 pm:
Which statement is true?
“Even with more tax revenue in hand, Illinois’ financial position deteriorated in the last fiscal year due to spending growth and a rising pension tab [according to an “interim comprehensive annual financial report” published by Comptroller Mendoza]. […]
I’m here to tell the carnival barkers, the doomsayers, the paid professional critics – the State of our State is growing stronger each day.
JB Pritzker
- AD - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:18 pm:
Anyone Remember - Point taken on OPEB, but no getting around that it’s in the wrong direction.
Another thought, why is it an interim report instead of a full report from Comptroller Mendosa? Usually the CAFR is released earlier, at least it was under Judy.
- Sue - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:21 pm:
The only salvation for the State would be when it gets its hands on additional revenue- spending be held steady or down - unfortunately- our Democratic overlords raise taxes but then throw it down the rat hole with additional spending on new social programs. Why raise taxes on anyone if the revenues are not -00 percent directed toward pension liabilities
- Smalls - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:38 pm:
From a BondBuyer article on the previous year’s late CAFR: “Mendoza attributed the delay this year to the loss of data by an independent accounting vendor hired by the Rauner administration for work with the Department of Healthcare and Family Services and the Department of Human Services. Four months of data went missing.”
I wonder what their excuse is this year. Can’t blame Bruce again.
- Annonin - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:43 pm:
Mr Ms Smalls— don’t be silly you can always blame GovJunk.
Meanwhile headline should have touted 33% decline and noted Trump tackin’ another Trillion on the federal debt.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:49 pm:
=== Democratic overlords ===
Breathe in between syllables, it will stop your hyperventilating.
If more spending continues without factoring in the paying of bills, that new spending will only force eventual cuts, some far more painful than can be seen now.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 3:58 pm:
== how they expect to backfill 193 billion dollars hole==
There is not a $193 billion hole to fill unless you plan on funding the pensions at 100% tomorrow. But then again, you know this. The hole to fill is what the budget is out of balance, net of pensions, plus whatever the full actuarily required pension contribution is. And, while it’s several billion, $193 billion it isn’t.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 4:01 pm:
==why aren’t they advocating for a constitutional amendment to reform pensions==
A. Probably because they are smarter than you and know that a constitutional amendment won’t change anything for those currently in the pension systems.
B. Probably because they know if they really wanted to they could change the pension system now for new employees without changing the constitution.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 4:11 pm:
Even JB Pritzker doesn’t argue a pension amendment would be unconstitutional
“So what would this pension amendment do? It would essentially take it from 3 percent to whatever the inflation rate is for that year. [With an amendment, if actual inflation were CPI] you would save essentially 1.3% in the cost of living.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/11/20/does-gov-pritzker-truly-want-to-solve-the-illinois-pension-crisis/#4e1b53ea19aa
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 11, 20 @ 4:58 pm:
You might want to read that whole article LP. Sounds to me that’s exactly what he’s argued.
“Pritzker then defends his unwillingness to support an amendment because any changes would be found unconstitutional due to the “contracts clause” of the U.S. Constitution.”