* This is what happens when ignorance rules the roost at the state’s largest newspaper. Today’s Tribune editorial lauds the House Republicans for proposing a series of reforms…

The state would move to a performance-based budgeting process, requiring state agencies to defend their requests based on how effectively they’d spent the previous year’s funding.

This idea was actually signed into law on July 1st. A member of the Tribune editorial board was told back in May that this bill was in the hopper. The bill’s original sponsor even sent the Tribune an op-ed in May which the paper never published. From that op-ed…

Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) gives us the chance to change the rules of the Illinois budget game. Also known as “Results Budgeting,” BFO starts with identifying what revenue is actually available and defining spending priorities (for example, job creation, education, healthcare, transportation, public safety). It then requires measurable outcomes for money spent and encourages creative ways of achieving these goals within the limited resources available.

Recently adopted by The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) as a “recommended practice,” BFO allows taxpayers to be better informed and to get a better return on their investment in Illinois government. It also will ensure greater accountability and transparency in the budget process by requiring annual reports on results achieved from dollars spent. This will give us the necessary information to cut, eliminate or reform programs that are not producing in the future.

Former Washington Gov. Gary Locke introduced BFO in 2002 when his state faced a $2.5 billion shortfall in its budget. The state of Washington’s fiscal situation turned around so dramatically after implementing this initiative that many other states, municipalities and other levels of government converted to this budgeting method and realized immediate results and cost savings. We want Illinois to be the next success story.

You can read the budgeting for outcomes (which is also called performance based budgeting) language by clicking here…

In addition, the amounts recommended by the Governor for appropriation shall take into account each State agency’s effectiveness in achieving its prioritized goals for the previous fiscal year, as set forth in Section 50-25 of this Law, giving priority to agencies and programs that have demonstrated a focus on the prevention of waste and the maximum yield from resources.

Back to the Tribune…

[Under the House Republican reforms] the Appropriations Committee would monitor and adjust spending year-round.

From the new law…

Appropriations may be adjusted during the fiscal year by means of one or more supplemental appropriation bills if any State agency either fails to meet or exceeds the goals set forth in Section 50-25 of this Law.

This is also extremely helpful…

For fiscal year 2012 and thereafter, [the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability shall] develop a 3-year budget forecast for the State, including opportunities and threats concerning anticipated revenues and expenditures, with an appropriate level of detail.

* More Tribune ignorance about the proposed HGOP reforms…

It takes a unanimous vote of the House to override the committee, impossible by definition. Republicans say they’d change that to a three-fifths vote. The idea is to stop party leaders from setting the state agenda unilaterally; an added plus is that it would strip lawmakers of their favorite excuse for enabling the status quo. They’d all vote for reform, they insist, if only they had a chance to vote. The Republicans’ plan would empower them to demand that chance.

What the Republicans are proposing is mere semantics. Right now, it does, indeed, require unanimous consent to pop a bill out of committee and onto the floor. But there’s almost always another immediate vote taken to overrule the presiding officer. That vote requires a three-fifths majority. The Republicans would just skip a step and go right to the three-fifths vote. And if you think that the environment would change because we’d no longer be looking at a simple up or down vote on the Speaker’s prerogative, you’re wrong. It would still be a party-line vote. Bet on it.

Some of the reforms the HGOPs are proposing are good ones. Some, like the committee discharge thing, are just window-dressing. Most don’t go far enough. For instance, one way to free members from the Speaker’s power is to elect committee chairs and forbid the Speaker from controlling their staffs. They’re appointed right now and their staffs all report to the chief of staff, not the chairpersons.

* State roundup…

* Road funds not likely to fill holes in budget

* Quinn Within Days of Privatizing State Lottery

* Northwest Herald: Hypocrisy 
of lottery bid

* State looks for health-care help

* Report urges fixing Illinois’ economy with more transit investment