31 Comments - stoney - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 5:42 am: Patti is right. If that bonehead can’t figure out that a special fund was designed to pay for a particular service he deserves to get bounced out of the mansion (if he lived there). If we quit funding the items those accounts were set up for in the first place, then we ought to quit collecting the fees, instead of throwing it into a big pot for Blagojevich and his cronies to use anyway they want. - DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:09 am: He is the king and all monies belong to the king. - Leroy - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:42 am: I agree with Downstate. We give ‘the man’ all this power, and then he proceeds to screw us with it to his own gain. Then we (and especially other politicians!) act all shocked and indignant. - Marta Elena - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:47 am: oooohhh!! Ouch!!!! Stoney - I totally agree with you. The GOP candidates can totally spin this -as they should. - Lovie Smith for President - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:01 am: When the General Assembly and Governor set up a special fund, the idea is that that General Assembly and Governor don’t trust future General Assemblies and Governors to spend money on the same priorities. But that’s the whole point of electing new General Assemblies in the future; priorities change, and each year the state should make an independent choice about what revenues it wants to draw in and what it wants to spend those revenues on. Allowing some special fund created twenty years ago to dictate policy today is foolish policy and foolish accounting. It happens that the existing special funds were created by Republicans and are now seeking to be dismantled by a Democrat, but if the governor is successful in dismantling this goofy system, it will actually make it much easier for future Republican governors (if there are any) to pass a state budget that genuinely reflects their priorities. It’ll be a tough sell with individual members because each of those special funds represents a specific constituency that doesn’t want to lose its automatic stake in the budget, not to mention that individual members have no role in the formulation of larger budget policies, so it will really only happen if the Speaker and Senate President decide they really want to do it (it gives them much more freedom, too). The Governor is right on principle here but the politics are iffy, especially given how disliked he is among the rank and file, which means this basically only happens if he wins by a surprisingly large margin this fall and then decides to use all of his political capital on this. Although if the Governor is smart, it could be a way to bring the black caucus back on board if they think it’ll generate a ton of new money for their priorities in the FY 07 budget. - anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:10 am: As my old Irish grandfather used to say, “Jaysus H. Christ,” are there any more ways this guy can figure out to get his hands on the state’s funds? It’s gotten way past ridiculous, it’s downright embarassing now, that we all sit here and let it happen. Contact your local elected officials and tell them in plain English that you are fed up with the corruption and evasiveness and hubris of this so-called governor and his posse. Vote the bum out! - SangamoGOP - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:39 am: This is more of the same from this guy. He has been trying to do this since he stepped in the front door - “how can I centralize the power and the money?” That has been the overriding question from day one. They’ve tried to strip funding from parks, habitat conservation, professional licensure/oversight, etc., etc., etc., etc. in order to pay for Blago’s increased budgets. When they’ve been stymied by advocacy groups and the GA, they attempt to sidestep the process (no surprise) and demand outrageous “administrative chargebacks” from each fund. Blago and his flacks keep saying that these funds have extra money that hasn’t been spent; that is just sitting there and should be used to pay for their unnecessary programs. Unsaid is the fact that many of these dedicated funds have not had their spending authorization increased to meet need in years. Blago has now demanded more money for professional regulatory agencies that oversee a myriad of businesses, most recently realtors. Of course, the real estate regulatory fund (or whatever it’s called) was stripped of that “extra money” in the past three years to “balance” the Blago budget. Blago and any governor has the right to set their agenda and fund their priorities. However, the GA holds the purse strings and is an appropriate check on the executive. In the case of dedicated funds, Blago’s drive for power has been cut short and the GA should continue to hold the line. - Common Sense in Illinois - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:40 am: Translation: My lawyers are telling me we’re going to lose the lawsuit, so I’d better legitamize what I’m doing….hmmmm, how can I make this seem like it benefits kids… - vole - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 7:41 am: After Rod takes what he needs for his good special interests there won’t be any left for the bad special interests. Good luck in continuing to believe those bad special interests will not pull their funds out of state government and put them into their own quasi-governmental organizations. Rod might just find that he needs to raise income and sales taxes. - Budget Watcher - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:07 am: It’s been interesting to watch as the General Assembly, in the first full year of the Blagojevich administration, statutorily granted broad fund sweep authority to a non-elected official of the Executive branch (John Filan). This move essentially gave the GOMB some revenue flexibility without having to consult with the GA, and the loss of legislative control, honestly, was a huge concession. Currently, the GOMB performs a series of fund sweeps and fund chargebacks that are prepared in secret by a small number of inexperienced and frankly not very talented group of budget analysts who don’t fully understand how these funds are interwoven into the state’s budget. As I said, the granting of fund sweep powers to the GOMB was a pretty surprising concession of spending control from the legislature, and one that many GA members who don’t trust director Filan have since come to regret. The consolidation of special funds would be another surprising concession of spending authority from the GA to the Governor’s office, and one that should be viewed with some trepidation for those who don’t trust the GOMB. And believe me, there have been countless reasons not to trust the current group. - stephen - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:14 am: Hell no, why don’t we tack on $25 to each traffic ticket and put that in the Gen Rev Acct, he is stealing(not sweeping) from all of the drug asset seizure accts and no one even the AG Office refuses to take legal action as it is a violation of state law ,I wish someone would tell the feds that he is also stealing from the federal asset seizure acct. The Director of the State Police won’t stand up to do the right thing either, what about integrity,service and pride Director Trent, when is a lie not really a lie. - roy slade - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:18 am: Budget watcher- let me only add one thing. The Democratic controlled legislators gave that power- against the votes and wishes of the GOP legislators. That was back when they “trusted” their governor. Now, they make him sign agreements to insure he does what he agrees to. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 8:33 am: It sounds as if somebody should start keeping a list of what Blago says he is going to do if he is re-elected and, if we don’t agree, we have only ourselves to blame if we vote for him or if we don’t vote at all. Politicians, as Bill Clinton has pointed out on numerous occasions, generally do what they say they are going to do during the campaign. It’s just that nobody is paying attention. - DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:54 am: This state wouldn’t have a crisis if we charged Blago and his people 25 dollars everytime they lied or over inflated figures. - Papa Legba - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 10:30 am: Its a dandy idea. I look forward to the possibility that Blago can take more of the money already sucked out of my wallet and spend it on what he wishes, without oversight. Does it ever end with this guy? - zatoichi - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:14 am: Do these guys sit around with a case of Bud, a bong, pop a few, and decide “Hey, here is a cool idea”? Let’s sweep those tollway collections and use them for box seats at Sox games. This stuff gets more amazing. These people look at too many Excel spreadsheets and think that reflects reality. They clearly have no idea of the ripple effects for any of these ideas. Budgetwatcher hit the mark. This is a bunch of “inexperienced and frankly not very talented group of budget analysts” who have been given the keys to the store and have no real idea what they are doing, but they can package it nice. - ISU REP - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:19 am: I think Blago realized oh crap I have no money to pay for these programs and I really can’t raid the pensions funds…AH HAH I got it, lets take money that doesn’t belong to the general budget…that whole special thing is really just symbolic right, I mean I am GOV…LOL I love Rod I wonder if all the hairspray he uses has finally seeped into his brain. - Darrell Democrat - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 11:36 am: Is he going to have to raise sales or income taxes to repay these funds when it is correctly declared illegal? - Sound Reasoning - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 1:49 pm: There seems to be some misunderstanding concerning the origination of ‘special’ funds and the fees/taxes that go to finance those funds. Those funds were never created because a current Governor or General Assembly didn’t trust a future Executive or Legislative branch of government to spend the money wisely. These ‘special’ funds are created along with the appointed fee/tax to fund the associated program because the general revenue fund does not provide the revenue for those programs. In this manner they can assure that those who are most involved in the program or receive the most benefit from the program help to substantially fund that program. The example of the hunters buying habitat stamps is a prime example and it is specifically because of programs like this and the ‘special’ funds that keep them in existence why these programs a history of being so successful. If these ‘special’ funds are no longer in existence then many of these obviously worthwhile programs would cease to exist. Giving all of this spending discretion to the Governor and John Filan or for that matter any future Governor would actually do the complete opposite of Blago’s stated purpose. It would actually remove that process from the people’s elected representatives and place it into the hands of a few powerful individuals that could use the money to buy even more votes. Let’s hope that this Governor never gets that chance. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 2:53 pm: What an unbelievably stupid idea! Has this guy learned anything in his political career? Has he such a simple-minded approach to government that he doesn’t understand how it works at even the most elementary levels? It’s freakin’ basic accounting. Has he ever taken a class? He has said some very stupid things, but this one is downright scarey stupid. It really makes you wonder if he has a slightest clue on what his elected job is. I wouldn’t trust a governor who says this to even walk around with a key to the executive washroom, he might start wondering why he couldn’t just bath in the toilet - you know - its all just water, isn’t it? - Thelonius - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 3:05 pm: While I can certainly understand the ploitics and policy angles of this story, I sure don’t think there’s any mistaking the nasty little side of some of the opposition to this. If the quote from the Senate minority leaders spokesperson of “If it goes instead toward welfare in Chicago…” isn’t packed with code words, I don’t know what is… - donchicago48 - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 4:20 pm: Is it any wonder that thousands of Illinoisans cash out and flee to warmer climates daily? - Papa Legba - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 5:22 pm: Darn it! Now I’m mad. I am calling my local legislator and demanding that a bill be introduced to add a “fee” for the sale and use of hair care products. And make sure any of those products purchased over the internet be “taxed” double the states rate. - NIEVA - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:51 pm: The special funds are a tax that was levied on special interests such as the sportsman. If the tax is used for other things then the tax should be abolished!!! - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 6:57 pm: 1) “It’s been interesting to watch as the General Assembly, in the first full year of the Blagojevich administration, statutorily granted broad fund sweep authority to a non-elected official of the Executive branch (John Filan).” The key here is non-elected official. There is a reason for checks and balances. Without those checks and balances, this administration has been able to spend money in any fashion that their inexperienced “analysts” have wished. Spending and program shifts should be determined by more than one body of our government. The people of Illinois have lost all protection against unauthorized spending. It is incomprehensible that one individual has been granted authority beyond the combined elected authority and that no sharing of information or agreement to those changes is required. 2) It was my understanding that many of the dedicated funds were funded directly by those that were willing to pay extra fees for their dedicated causes, as well as by set-asides from law-suits, etc. Does anyone think that those individuals will continue to fund those causes with the knowledge that those monies will likely go towards the personal agenda of the gov/John Filan? Who is kidding who? It is time to rescind this authority. It may mean that the legislature will have some “non-accomplishments” while everyone learns that there must be some communication between the parties involved. But, those “non-accomplishments” usually mean a thinking period for our residents and legislature, as well as less taxpayer money being spent. - Hank - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:24 pm: If you read the full article it states: “For example, $2.40 is tacked onto the cost of each new automobile tire bought in Illinois, and put into a fund that helps the state collect and dispose of old tires”. This fee use to be $1.00, then it was increased to $2.00 now it is $2.40. The money is supposed to assist in finding markets for recycled tires, cleaning up existing tire piles, etc. Blago has raided this fund and it goes to fund his programs. Thank him next time you buy new tires and have to pay an extra $10.00. Come on dems try to defend this idea. - stephen - Wednesday, Mar 1, 06 @ 9:57 pm: hey same thing for the ALERTS wireless data system used by hundreds of police agencies in Il. This wireless data system which is administered by the Il Criminal Justice Authority and paid for by user fees had $400,000 taken by Blago about 2 years ago. Right after the monthly user fee double because they didn’t have enough money to keep the system up and running,oh we must remember they only take excess funds now don’t they. Now in july they have notified all users that the fee will go up another 30%, and who pays these extra fees , yes you do the taxpayer, BUT REMEMBER THEY ONLY TAKE EXCESS FEES - Lovie Smith for President - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 6:51 am: Sound Reasoning, in trying to argue my points, you basically conceded them all. The past GAs that set up these fees/funds could have simply authorized the state to charge fees for certain services, and required a GRF appropriation to provide the service; they didn’t do that, because they wanted to make it harder for future GAs to undo their work. When you say that if the structure was changed, “obviously worthwhile” programs would cease to exist, my response is that each General Assembly should get to define “obviously worthwhile” on its own. To James Meeks, funding education is obviously worthwhile; to Peter Roskam, it isn’t. Let the majority of the General Assembly define “obviously worthwhile” every year. Many of the current programs would be found to be that way, but why shouldn’t they be subjected to annual scrutiny like every other program? To your point about the power of OMB, this would clearly take power out of OMB’s hands; right now OMB only has power because it can move money around from fund to fund, but if there’s just one checkbook, then the General Assembly and Governor control the whole thing, and that’s more control than the General Assembly has now. (The influence of individual GA members vis-a-vis leadership has clearly ebbed and flowed over time; it’s at a low point now, but that’s not John Filan’s fault.) So when you talk about putting power in a few powerful hands, this move would at least expand the pool a little bit to take it away from Filan and into the hands of Madigan and Jones, who are more accountable to the members than Filan is. As for Hank 9:24, it’s easy to defend that idea. Think of any business. When you go to the movies, you’re paying an extremely high margin on sodas and popcorn, but the theater’s not obligated to use that money to refurbish the concession stand. You could easily argue that a state, from a policy standpoint, is better off imposing user fees for certain kinds of services than general taxes that affect even those who don’t do business with the state. Let’s be very clear here that I am not arguing the points most posters have raised — that the General Assembly doesn’t trust the Governor, or that the Governor’s spending priorities are misplaced. Those are clearly important political considerations in whether something like this will move forward, and will probably torpedo the effort. But from the standpoint of whether it’s good accounting policy and good public policy for the state to simply have one checkbook into which revenues are raised, and then make its spending decisions independent of where the revenue came from, I’d say yes, regardless of who’s governor. - Sound Reasoning - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 8:57 am: In response to Lovie Smith I would like to add that his ideas would be valid in a perfect society; however, when one is discussing the political climate in the State of Illinois it is far from a perfect world. There can be no dumping pot for all of the revenue that comes into the state and then funds doled out of that singular source for this Governor or any future governor. This is so because of the simple facts of politics as it has existed for decades in this state. If a single source of funds were enacted then the sitting Governor would raid this fund to finance those programs/projects that would most benefit him politically as Blago has shown since taking office. This is not just an indictment of this governor as others have done similar things in the past. However, previous governors have not done it to the same extent of this current administration. By removing the built in safeguards for some of these programs your plan would hold everything hostage to the political whims of any current administration. Unfortunately lets face it decisions in state government are not made based on sound business principles so they can not be applied in this instance. A simple review of the decisions of the current administration proves this point quite clearly. Blago is not paying the bills for existing debt and at the same time he’s creating new programs and attempting to funnel what money there is to these pet projects that most benefit him and his friends politically. - Hank - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 6:21 pm: Come on Lovie - You think this administration runs the state of Illinois like a business? I do not want the gov. to have control of these funds to use at his discretion. I continue to use the tire fee as an example since it was used in the article. This fee and the program that is supported by it should be abolished once the scrap tire problem has been solved. Don’t reappropriate for unrelated programs. That, Lovie, would be good effecient honest government. - roy slade - Thursday, Mar 2, 06 @ 9:32 pm: Hank is correct, but does not go far enough. Neither Lovie nor our current governor are interested in *good efficient government*. For the two of them, it’s simply “our turn”- and to hell with the state and its future economy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.