* The Taxpayers Bill of Rights proposal that I’ve been telling you about for the past couple of weeks got its first legislative hearing yesterday in the House. Speaker Madigan showed up to testify in favor of the legislation…
The Illinois House State Government Administration Committee on Monday approved the so-called Taxpayers Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment that would limit increases in general revenue fund spending to the average increase in per capita personal income over the previous five years. […]
“I think (the amendment) is reflective of how a majority of citizens in the state feel today,” Madigan said. “I think the majority of the citizens in the state feel, ‘You know, the government ought to be like us – it ought to live within its means and not overspend.’”
The Illinois Policy Institute opposed the plan, even though it admitted the measure would save taxpayers big bucks…
Kristina Rasmussen of the Illinois Policy Institute, a conservative think tank, said in written testimony that Illinois would have spent $29 billion less if the limit had been in place from fiscal years 1997 to 2009.
“Fiscal year 2009 spending would have totaled $27.335 billion, or $1.8 billion less than available revenues,” she wrote.
* Meanwhile, the gaming bill didn’t advance yesterday…
The Illinois House will be asked to consider changes to a gaming expansion bill that the sponsor said are designed to help existing riverboat casinos whose revenues have been battered by the combined effects of the recession, competition from other states and Illinois’ indoor smoking ban.
Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, the House sponsor of the gaming bill, declined to explain specifics of the proposed changes Monday.
However, he said the basic outline of the bill — adding four new riverboats, a land-based Chicago casino, placing slot machines at horse racing tracks and allowing existing riverboats to expand — will remain intact.
More…
“There are going to be provisions in the [new legislation] that will recognize that current gaming operators will have some problems as a result of the smoking ban, as a result of the down economy, and as a result of the increased competition they are going to get under this [plan.],” Lang said. “We’re going to provide some credits to them that they are not getting today. We’re going to provide some opportunity for expansion. We’re going to try and make their way a little better.”
Lang is not yet saying what lawmakers will do to make it “better” for existing casinos, though he is quick to point out that the basics of the Senate plan, SB737, will not change.
“New riverboat licenses, slot machines at race tracks, a land-based casino in the city of Chicago… none of those are being changed. But it’s a 400-page [piece of legislation], there’s a lot of room in there for change,” Lang said.
* And the Medicaid reform proposal might anger some powerful groups…
However, the proposed legislation will most likely ruffle feathers among providers of long-term care for the elderly, developmentally disabled and mentally ill, Mautino said.
“There’s a provision in here for long-term care, where we’re going to take the pieces of the budget out of all of these other different agencies it’s located in – make one global budget, which would be for the long-term care side,” he said. “And then up to 4 percent of that total budget would then have to be spent on community services where the money follows the patient.”
The philosophy of “money following the person” is popular at both the state and federal levels since it generally is less expensive than institutional care. And the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead decision calls for the disabled to live in the least restrictive environment possible.
“It’s something we haven’t done, but the courts have told us we need to do,” Mautino said. “So at this time, though it’s controversial, I would expect to see that in this bill.”
* Roundup…
* Report: State would gain $377M by raising cigarette tax: In light of the report by economist Frank Chaloupka at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Senate President John Cullerton said in a statement that “a cigarette tax is one of the most important agenda items for the coming year” because it would generate new revenue. The Chicago Democrat also noted the higher tax would reduce Medicaid costs attributed to smoking-related health concerns and reduce people’s desire to smoke.
* New push starts for cigarette tax increase
* Legislators count noses for lame-duck vote on income tax hike
* Is Madigan setting up tax increase?
* Not so fast, legislators
* Lawmakers squabble over redistricting hearings
* Redistricting measure to offer extra protection to minorities
* House panel advances legislation to keep Chinatown intact on new legislative map
* Campaign finance fix far from complete
* In 4th year, new friction over indoor smoking ban
* VIDEO: Lou Lang on Gaming Bill Changes
* State offers little help for gambling addictions
* Chuck Sweeny: Readers share views on best Rockford casino site
* Bill to Abolish Death Penalty to Take IL House Floor
* Chambers rail against Metra change
* ‘Blunt wraps’ ban will get Ill. House debate
- Doug Dobmeyer - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:56 am:
the gambling expansion bill is about revenue…if a sufficient tax increase is passed a casino expansion bill is not needed. There is significant opposition to a casino in Chicago from people that live in the city as well as casino owners in other parts of the state to kill the bill.
A new study of Chicago candidates for mayor and alderman showed:
Findings:
The survey reveals 66 percent of all candidates are opposed to video poker coming to Chicago. Currently an ordinance is pending to overturn Chicago’s current ban on video poker machines. If Chicago allows video poker machines over 15,000 machines would be eligible to be in Chicago’s bars, restaurants and fraternal organizations. Based on Illinois Senate testimony and the Illinois Coin Machine Operators an estimated half billion dollars would flow out of the city in taxes and fees to the coin machine operator’s association.
Views on having a casino in Chicago are weak among candidates. Only 26 percent of candidates support a casino. Another 48 percent are opposed and 26 percent are undecided.
When the question was posed concerning Chicago’s economy being based on gambling a resounding 92 percent rejected that notion. Only one candidate favored that dependence with another three being undecided.
When asked about the impact on poor people in the city, 88 percent said they were concerned. Four or eight percent were indifferent to the impact on the poor. Another four percent or two candidates were undecided. Poverty has risen in the past two years by 3,8 percent. Children are the most vulnerable group locked in poverty at 31 percent of all kids.
Regarding a referendum regarding video poker or a casino for the city received very strong support. All of the mayoral candidates responding plus 37 aldermanic candidates or a total of 82 percent support a referendum before any action would be taken in Springfield or City Hall. Six percent or 3 opposed a referendum and 6 or 12 percent were undecided.
The survey clearly supports Chicago staying free of both a casino and video poker machines. A recent Chicago Tribune poll showed a minority of potential voters in the February 22nd city election favor a casino. The poll of 721 potential voters showed support from 47 percent of those polled.
Joe Moore, incumbent alderman in the 49th Ward said,”The costs of the expansion of gaming are not worth the benefits. The social costs of gambling expansion in terms of crime and compulsive gambling are already well-documented. Gambling also diverts the spending of discretionary income from expenditures that have a much greater ripple effect on the economy, such as the purchase of products, food and entertainment. The more money that is gambled away the less money that is spent on other goods and services, which means less tax revenue from those sectors of the economy and fewer jobs. Finally, as the latest recession demonstrates, gaming is not immune from economic forces, and in fact declines in revenues from gaming exceed declines experienced in other sectors of the economy. In short, it’s not entirely clear the estimated revenue from gambling expansion will meet projections.”
Doug Dobmeyer
- dave - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:22 am:
if a sufficient tax increase is passed a casino expansion bill is not needed.
So you are expecting a tax increase that will bring in $13-$15 billion?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 7:50 am:
So the Illinois Policy Institute is going to oppose TABOR because it “doesn’t go far enough?” Some folks would rather take nothing than half a loaf, I guess.
- bmcosti - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:05 am:
Perhaps you could link to Kristina Rasmussen’s full testimony on how the current TABOR bill has too many loopholes and how we can make the bill better.
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=3679
- matt - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:20 am:
A ban on “blunt wraps”? Kind of pointless. Its really just for convenience for marijuana smokers so they don’t have to empty out a traditional blunt and refill it. When are we going to start moving in the right direction on this issue?
- chi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:37 am:
Am I missing something or does the TABOR fail to account for increases in population? If spending can only increase when there is a per capita increase in income, then the state would be unable to increase spending to account for a continually (despite our loss of a congressional seat) growing population.
Wouldn’t a better measure be based on GDP or on tax revenues?
- countryboy - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 8:56 am:
So how does a ‘per capita’ figure miss population growth?
- chi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:01 am:
‘So how does a ‘per capita’ figure miss population growth?’
Because if the per capita income stays the same over the next five years, state spending can’t increase. But if population increases by 10% in that same time frame, then the state is taking in more revenue (from the increased amount of people), and has more people to serve, but can’t increase spending whatsoever.
- jayhawk97 - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:16 am:
Unless I am missing something, this TABOR is vastly different from the most well known TABOR exmple - the Colorado debacle. This IL TABOR only places limits on spending, not new taxes, correct? Why on earth use the same name when its a different bill? Most well-informed Dems remember fighting TABORs all over the country from CA and MA.
BTW - Great point “Chi” on the potential problems with population growth.
This bill seems to have a bad name, but a good theory that may need a little more tweaking. Given our history of spending, I think some restraints are needed.
- eastChi - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:35 am:
“money follows the person” while certainly humane public policy is not cheaper. When a money follows the person bill was considered by Congress, it had a trillion dollar price tag. Why? Because many people today live in their homes and are sick enough to meet the level of need standard for admission to nursing home but they really don’t want to go there. If they had the option to receive services at home, they would take it in a heartbeat. Of course this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to expand community based services and perhaps try to lower the number of people who are in nursing homes because they suffer housing insecurity and are possibly in need of mental health services which they aren’t adequately getting in the nursing home setting. But we have to be willing to pay for this change in policy. Some changes in federal law would help - like the removal of the funding prohibition for care in an “Institution for Mental Disease” which makes creation of a community based waiver very difficult.
- Upstate - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 9:55 am:
Nice of Madigan to recognize how taxpayers feel about overspending by state government, after spending his last 28 years bankrupting the state.
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 10:57 am:
This kind of thing has been tried before. Remember Graham/Rudman (federal level)? No matter how well the bill is crafted, in practice the pols will find a way around it.
- John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:33 pm:
No matter what the laws, criminals find ways to break them too. The point of restrictions in a constitution is to make it difficult, public and untenable to egregiously break the rules. And to give people a recourse when they do.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:54 pm:
===bill has too many loopholes and how we can make the bill better.===
The testimony was based on an older version of the measure.
- antigambler - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 12:59 pm:
Dave@7:22AM
“‘if a sufficient tax increase is passed a casino expansion bill is not needed.’
So you are expecting a tax increase that will bring in $13-$15 billion?”
The massive gambling expansion bill is projected to bring in “only” ONE billion dollars. And, that over-estimated number is simply pulled from the air, with no justification from anywhere.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 1:14 pm:
Seems clear…pass income tax and casinos and cigarette and TABOR so the public is now protected…what a relief…
- Bill - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 5:48 pm:
==will the “mushrooms” ever step forward and see that they have been very “misled” for many years.==
Most of them know that they have been misled but they are too afraid of the almighty Maddie to ever, ever say or do anything about it. This TABOR stuff is just payoff for the right wing groups that courted him during the last election. He’ll knows where the loopholes are and will exploit them at will when he feels the need. He’s gone off the deep end this time and his arrogance will eventually be his downfall.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 4, 11 @ 6:08 pm:
–He’s gone off the deep end this time and his arrogance will eventually be his downfall.–
He’s pushing 70, Bill — what’s your ETA on the eventual downfall, lol?