* I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Cutting state money to local governments is a very bad idea, but still probably necessary during the state’s tight budget situation. This way over the top Daily Herald article does not convince me otherwise…
Facing a financial crisis Palatine officials are likening to both a horror movie and a Tony Soprano mob shakedown, the village is doing more than just speaking out against unfunded mandates and state proposals that would take away tax money from communities.
Staff broke down Palatine’s budget and identified $2.73 million in costs this year associated with unfunded mandates — programs the state requires but doesn’t fund.
A mob shakedown? Really? Here’s a Statehouse lobbying hint: Try to avoid that analogy during a committee hearing.
* The Daily Herald story goes on to note that mandates are just 4.4 percent of Palatine’s entire operating budget. And well over half appears to be this one…
Then there’s the $1.54 million spent each year on Social Security costs for police and fire employees. As a result of decisions made in the 1950s, Palatine is among just a handful of communities that pay into both Social Security and a pension system for police and fire. But federal lawmakers are resistant to let anyone opt out despite support from staff and union leaders.
That’s federal, man, not state.
* Next up, a polling press release…
Illinois voters overwhelmingly oppose efforts in Springfield to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from local communities to help pay down the state’s budget deficit, according a recent statewide poll.
More than 80 percent of Illinois voters surveyed said the state should return the funds as required under current state law, while just over 12 percent preferred the state keep the funds and just over 7 percent were uncertain, according to the automated poll conducted earlier this week.
“The poll clearly demonstrates that Illinois voters will not tolerate lawmakers taking money from their communities, especially on the heels of a 66 percent income tax increase passed just months ago,” said Northwest Municipal Conference President Kerry Cummings, who serves as Village President of Glenview. “Pilfering these funds amounts to a ‘Stealth Tax’ on Illinois residents.”
To help close the state’s budget gap, some Illinois legislators have proposed changing the law to use locally generated revenue legally owed to municipalities that goes towards the funding of local services.
The We Ask America poll surveyed 2,970 voting households throughout Illinois on Sunday, May 15. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.85 percent.
In addition, a staggering 88 percent of Illinois voters rejected paying higher property taxes or cutting local services to pay down the state deficit, according to the survey. Just over 6 percent supported those measures and less than 6 percent were uncertain.
Unsurprisingly, the actual polling questions and full results were not sent out with the press release. But, I mean, really now. People are against specific budget cuts and also against tax hikes? It has always been thus.
* Several mayors held a Statehouse press conference today and most of them got very blunt. Here’s just one…
A couple of quotes…
“We’re the better stewards of that money. Would you give that ten percent, all of it, to the General Assembly and truly expect them to spend it wisely? I don’t think so.” […]
“When Representatives or Senators come to us for support, I tell you what… you’re going to see a whole different relationship between cities and villages and the General Assembly in the future.”
They certainly mean business, and they have a right to be furious, but there’s still no escaping the fact that everybody else is being cut.
*** UPDATE *** Kelly Kraft of the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget was at the press conference and talked to reporters after. She made some good points. Watch…
To the leaders in my home town; Get over it. Cut the budget 20% across the board and move on. The taxpayers of our community have had enough. And while your at it tell our school districs to do the same.
===They certainly mean business, and they have a right to be furious, but there’s still no escaping the fact that everybody else is being cut.===
But local governments have taken the same cut. Since locals get a percent of the income tax and the income tax is down, the locals are taking the same hit. Worse, with the State’s late payments to locals, they actually taken it harder. I know a lot of governments that have negotiated zeros and laid off employees, including police and fire, yet Quinn’s off promising raises and job security to Afscme. How are the locals not already taking their share?
If you want to get real ugly, start reading the Illinois Labor Relation Board decisions on arbitration. State arbitrators are continuing to award 3% increases to public safety unions even as local revenues remain stagnant and health and pension contributions are on the rise. That’s the real hidden State cost no one seems to want to address.
I understand where these mayors are coming from. They are already owed millions and millions of dollars from the state, and then the state is going to cut the long standing income sharing. All this after the state has passed numerous unfunded pension mandates on the cities. I’ve said all along that the State should pass pension reforms on police and firefighters (nothing drastic, but enough to be beneficial).
Then they need short term borrowing to pay the back log of bills to businesses, local governments, medical providers and schools.
Then, and only after pension reform and prompt payments, can the State begin to talk about cutting the funding to municipalities.
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
The current LGDF funding agreement was established at the time the state income tax was approved. It included agreement that local government would not establish separate local income taxes but instead agree that the state would collect for both, and funnel the local share to municipalities. A deal is a deal in good times and bad. The state should continue to honor the agreement.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:43 pm:
==that the state would collect for both, and funnel the local share to municipalities==
Then the “share” should go down as the income tax revenues go down. (Assuming the share is a portion of the original 3% income tax.) If the revenues decline, but the $$$ to cities stay the same, then the share is increasing.
How many Blue Room press conferences have their been this year with different groups begging to avoid being cut? Somebody needs to remind the locals that things are tough all over.
As for the theory that the loudest squeak gets the oil, the squeaking has become deafening and even the Saudis don’t have enough oil to quiet them in Illinois.
To those who wanted cuts, this is what cutting looks (and sounds) like.
- Logic not emotion - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Even though that is not a good example, they do have a point about unfunded mandates. If you reduce the funding to locals, reduce the mandates.
- in the 'ville - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Quinn has no idea of the size of the hornet’s nest he is kicking with this one. Gov. SoyBean is in WAY over his head on this one. Carbondale to Rockford and from Beardstown to Danville will be out to get all the “leadership” in Springfield if this passes. Are they really that dumb? Wait. I know the answer to that…
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
Perhaps we should follow the lead of the great state of Indiana and allow counties and home rule municipalities to impose their own income tax.
I can’t wait for Mayor Cummings to inform the residents of Glenview that he’s raising their income taxes.
==. A deal is a deal in good times and bad.==
Oh, you mean like the deal the state made with its employees and retirees?
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
==will be out to get all the “leadership” in Springfield if this passes==
They’ll be mad, but they have many, many other bills they are interested in as well. Only for a very small number would this one item trigger such a backlash. They are much more likely to use this “bad” vote as a chit the next time they are looking for some help with another piece of legislation. The bigger and badder they portray it, the longer it will serve them in the future. On the other hand, if this fails, the GA members will be able to turn down a few future requests by saying: “Remember when I voted ‘no’ on that revenue decrease, that was a tough vote.”
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:10 pm:
- Carbondale to Rockford and from Beardstown to Danville -
You mean all those counties that went for Quinn last year?
For anyone out there who thinks that the actions by the GA and the governor to make state employees pay more to cover the fiscal mismanagement by the GA and the last several Governors is fair, now it is your turn.
The same people who played with the money due the pension systems are now playing with the money due to your local governments. And they will take it to cover the costs of their fiscal ineptness.
Will they borrow money from the institutions that are created to lend money to pay off their debts? No! Instead they will take it from pensions, from vendors who have already given a service, and from local governments. Why? Because most Illinois taxpayers aren’t affected by the first two schemes, or don’t think they are. The GA and the Gov are betting you won’t really care and might actually thank them for not affecting your personal money. They hope you won’t realize that the last scheme will raise your taxes again. They hope you blame your local government.
Just to be clear, this is all being done so the majority of voters will not hold them accountable for the costs. They all want to be re-elected.
All of those who hated the income tax increase get ready, because the second tax increase is coming via your local governments but forced upon them because their money was taken by the Gov and the GA to cover their debts.
Bottomline the GA and the Governor don’t have to know what they are doing or even be good at what they are doing. They will find a way to make someone else pay for their mistakes. They did it to the state employees and you jumped on board and said do it some more.
Now they are doing it to you.
- Edge of the 14th Ward - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:30 pm:
Where is Rahm on this? Doesn’t Chicago stand to lose the most revenue, by far?
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
Pot 1:43 The local share did go down as income tax revenues fell, and was further reduced by the state changing the agreement by lowering the local percentage for the state 66% income tax increase. So the local governments have already experienced major reductions. We have already shared in the pain and taken our hit.
The mayors look like what they are — cry babies. If they need more tax money tax for it. Expecting the state to raise your taxes for you is reediculouus….
The mayors weren’t willing to support the income tax hike in January. Some opposed it.
They haven’t explained why their ox is more sacred than all the other oxes getting gored in this budget crisis.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 3:39 pm:
I’ve searched the state constitution repeatedly and cant find any right of municipalities to be funded by state government. There are constutional responsibilities to provide public education, protect the environment, and other budget items facing cuts this year…sorry, but budgeting for outcomes starts by stopping funding of items that arent required by the constitution.
- Just a thought... - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
really, these mayors are going to break their party ranks, when their legislator votes to end the funding, and support and encourage their citizens to vote for the opposition. Sure, this will happen. It is a shame that “taxes” have become such a dirty word. As a mayor, you did not support an increase but you deserve not to be cut. Humm…
I do not think the cut to local governments would be as drastic if Quinn could borrow the money needed to pay off the state vendors. The State could probably float bonds in tha range of 5-7%. Currently the vendors are getting a substantially greater rate for these unpaid bills. It makes sense to borrow the money and specifically designate it solely for paying these outstanding bills
If I am not mistaken, the increase in the income tax rate will cover the cost of floating these bonda. Why can’t the GOP see the wisdom of the borrowing plan. The vendors would be paid in full and the cost (interest rate ) for the bonds is a real savings vs. the current vendor’s rate.
With the savings the local governments would get more money. Its a”win/win” situation.
–“We’re the better stewards of that money. Would you give that ten percent, all of it, to the General Assembly and truly expect them to spend it wisely? I don’t think so.” […]–
Wow, more sweet talk like that, and the GA will probably give them more money.
It’s an interesting tactic. But I’ve always thought when you’re asking someone for money, you smile and nod your head a lot.
If Rich had a Like button here…
And not to mention the amoubnt of money that would send surging through the state as that money get into the hands of vendor employees and their vendor’s employees.
But no, that’s not an option just on principle. Instead the GOPpies will keep insisting on cuts that never actually get cut because of crybaby tactics like this.
===a poll on if the state should undertake short term borrowing to pay off the back-log of unpaid bills===
Would we need a supermajority, or would the common sense answer prevail on a simple majority vote? The Senate Republicans are buck naked and no one is telling them.
If any local government leaders are reading this, re-read MOON’s comment. Then call your Senator and tell them to demand short-term borrowing to pay the backlog of past due bills.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 5:27 pm:
=== Why can’t the GOP see the wisdom of the borrowing plan. ===
Oh, they see it. But since its one of the rare votes that requires a super-majority, they are holding out for something…they just don’t know what.
Looks like Ms. Kraft channeled her inner C.J. Cregg. I hope the governor’s office took an important note away from this: When a message needs to get out, send Kelly.
- Palatine - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:23 pm:
To the leaders in my home town; Get over it. Cut the budget 20% across the board and move on. The taxpayers of our community have had enough. And while your at it tell our school districs to do the same.
- Shemp - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:26 pm:
===They certainly mean business, and they have a right to be furious, but there’s still no escaping the fact that everybody else is being cut.===
But local governments have taken the same cut. Since locals get a percent of the income tax and the income tax is down, the locals are taking the same hit. Worse, with the State’s late payments to locals, they actually taken it harder. I know a lot of governments that have negotiated zeros and laid off employees, including police and fire, yet Quinn’s off promising raises and job security to Afscme. How are the locals not already taking their share?
If you want to get real ugly, start reading the Illinois Labor Relation Board decisions on arbitration. State arbitrators are continuing to award 3% increases to public safety unions even as local revenues remain stagnant and health and pension contributions are on the rise. That’s the real hidden State cost no one seems to want to address.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:33 pm:
I understand where these mayors are coming from. They are already owed millions and millions of dollars from the state, and then the state is going to cut the long standing income sharing. All this after the state has passed numerous unfunded pension mandates on the cities. I’ve said all along that the State should pass pension reforms on police and firefighters (nothing drastic, but enough to be beneficial).
Then they need short term borrowing to pay the back log of bills to businesses, local governments, medical providers and schools.
Then, and only after pension reform and prompt payments, can the State begin to talk about cutting the funding to municipalities.
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
The current LGDF funding agreement was established at the time the state income tax was approved. It included agreement that local government would not establish separate local income taxes but instead agree that the state would collect for both, and funnel the local share to municipalities. A deal is a deal in good times and bad. The state should continue to honor the agreement.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:43 pm:
==that the state would collect for both, and funnel the local share to municipalities==
Then the “share” should go down as the income tax revenues go down. (Assuming the share is a portion of the original 3% income tax.) If the revenues decline, but the $$$ to cities stay the same, then the share is increasing.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:48 pm:
How many Blue Room press conferences have their been this year with different groups begging to avoid being cut? Somebody needs to remind the locals that things are tough all over.
As for the theory that the loudest squeak gets the oil, the squeaking has become deafening and even the Saudis don’t have enough oil to quiet them in Illinois.
To those who wanted cuts, this is what cutting looks (and sounds) like.
- Logic not emotion - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Even though that is not a good example, they do have a point about unfunded mandates. If you reduce the funding to locals, reduce the mandates.
- in the 'ville - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:52 pm:
Quinn has no idea of the size of the hornet’s nest he is kicking with this one. Gov. SoyBean is in WAY over his head on this one. Carbondale to Rockford and from Beardstown to Danville will be out to get all the “leadership” in Springfield if this passes. Are they really that dumb? Wait. I know the answer to that…
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 1:58 pm:
Perhaps we should follow the lead of the great state of Indiana and allow counties and home rule municipalities to impose their own income tax.
I can’t wait for Mayor Cummings to inform the residents of Glenview that he’s raising their income taxes.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
Let’s break the deal to the municipalities, and the deals to the unions, and cut both.
WINNNING!
- Bill - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:02 pm:
==. A deal is a deal in good times and bad.==
Oh, you mean like the deal the state made with its employees and retirees?
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
==will be out to get all the “leadership” in Springfield if this passes==
They’ll be mad, but they have many, many other bills they are interested in as well. Only for a very small number would this one item trigger such a backlash. They are much more likely to use this “bad” vote as a chit the next time they are looking for some help with another piece of legislation. The bigger and badder they portray it, the longer it will serve them in the future. On the other hand, if this fails, the GA members will be able to turn down a few future requests by saying: “Remember when I voted ‘no’ on that revenue decrease, that was a tough vote.”
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:10 pm:
- Carbondale to Rockford and from Beardstown to Danville -
You mean all those counties that went for Quinn last year?
- Irish - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:18 pm:
For anyone out there who thinks that the actions by the GA and the governor to make state employees pay more to cover the fiscal mismanagement by the GA and the last several Governors is fair, now it is your turn.
The same people who played with the money due the pension systems are now playing with the money due to your local governments. And they will take it to cover the costs of their fiscal ineptness.
Will they borrow money from the institutions that are created to lend money to pay off their debts? No! Instead they will take it from pensions, from vendors who have already given a service, and from local governments. Why? Because most Illinois taxpayers aren’t affected by the first two schemes, or don’t think they are. The GA and the Gov are betting you won’t really care and might actually thank them for not affecting your personal money. They hope you won’t realize that the last scheme will raise your taxes again. They hope you blame your local government.
Just to be clear, this is all being done so the majority of voters will not hold them accountable for the costs. They all want to be re-elected.
All of those who hated the income tax increase get ready, because the second tax increase is coming via your local governments but forced upon them because their money was taken by the Gov and the GA to cover their debts.
Bottomline the GA and the Governor don’t have to know what they are doing or even be good at what they are doing. They will find a way to make someone else pay for their mistakes. They did it to the state employees and you jumped on board and said do it some more.
Now they are doing it to you.
- Edge of the 14th Ward - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:30 pm:
Where is Rahm on this? Doesn’t Chicago stand to lose the most revenue, by far?
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 2:32 pm:
Pot 1:43 The local share did go down as income tax revenues fell, and was further reduced by the state changing the agreement by lowering the local percentage for the state 66% income tax increase. So the local governments have already experienced major reductions. We have already shared in the pain and taken our hit.
- DNA - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 3:09 pm:
The mayors look like what they are — cry babies. If they need more tax money tax for it. Expecting the state to raise your taxes for you is reediculouus….
- reformer - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 3:18 pm:
The mayors weren’t willing to support the income tax hike in January. Some opposed it.
They haven’t explained why their ox is more sacred than all the other oxes getting gored in this budget crisis.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 3:39 pm:
I’ve searched the state constitution repeatedly and cant find any right of municipalities to be funded by state government. There are constutional responsibilities to provide public education, protect the environment, and other budget items facing cuts this year…sorry, but budgeting for outcomes starts by stopping funding of items that arent required by the constitution.
- Just a thought... - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
really, these mayors are going to break their party ranks, when their legislator votes to end the funding, and support and encourage their citizens to vote for the opposition. Sure, this will happen. It is a shame that “taxes” have become such a dirty word. As a mayor, you did not support an increase but you deserve not to be cut. Humm…
- MOON - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 4:19 pm:
I do not think the cut to local governments would be as drastic if Quinn could borrow the money needed to pay off the state vendors. The State could probably float bonds in tha range of 5-7%. Currently the vendors are getting a substantially greater rate for these unpaid bills. It makes sense to borrow the money and specifically designate it solely for paying these outstanding bills
If I am not mistaken, the increase in the income tax rate will cover the cost of floating these bonda. Why can’t the GOP see the wisdom of the borrowing plan. The vendors would be paid in full and the cost (interest rate ) for the bonds is a real savings vs. the current vendor’s rate.
With the savings the local governments would get more money. Its a”win/win” situation.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 4:23 pm:
–“We’re the better stewards of that money. Would you give that ten percent, all of it, to the General Assembly and truly expect them to spend it wisely? I don’t think so.” […]–
Wow, more sweet talk like that, and the GA will probably give them more money.
It’s an interesting tactic. But I’ve always thought when you’re asking someone for money, you smile and nod your head a lot.
- Colossus - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 4:47 pm:
MOON:
If Rich had a Like button here…
And not to mention the amoubnt of money that would send surging through the state as that money get into the hands of vendor employees and their vendor’s employees.
But no, that’s not an option just on principle. Instead the GOPpies will keep insisting on cuts that never actually get cut because of crybaby tactics like this.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 5:10 pm:
Maybe we can talk Rich into doing a poll on if the state should undertake short term borrowing to pay off the back-log of unpaid bills?
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 5:25 pm:
===a poll on if the state should undertake short term borrowing to pay off the back-log of unpaid bills===
Would we need a supermajority, or would the common sense answer prevail on a simple majority vote? The Senate Republicans are buck naked and no one is telling them.
If any local government leaders are reading this, re-read MOON’s comment. Then call your Senator and tell them to demand short-term borrowing to pay the backlog of past due bills.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 5:27 pm:
=== Why can’t the GOP see the wisdom of the borrowing plan. ===
Oh, they see it. But since its one of the rare votes that requires a super-majority, they are holding out for something…they just don’t know what.
- JWow - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 9:30 pm:
This media availability must have been right after Kelly got done having a weekday picnic lunch date.
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, May 18, 11 @ 11:28 pm:
Looks like Ms. Kraft channeled her inner C.J. Cregg. I hope the governor’s office took an important note away from this: When a message needs to get out, send Kelly.