Budget optics
Monday, Sep 26, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This might look worse than it really is…
Two Republican statewide officeholders who have criticized government spending and want to consolidate it have handed out pay raises to dozens of employees during a fiscal crisis. […]
The salary increases were discovered in an analysis of payroll records by the Better Government Association, a Chicago-based nonprofit group which showed the findings to The Associated Press.
BGA Executive Director Andy Shaw pointed out that Rutherford and Topinka were elected as fiscal conservatives. “These are tough economic times, so they should realize that this is not the time to hand out pay raises to political appointees who already enjoy generous salaries and benefits,” Shaw said.
“Political appointees?” Maybe not…
Rutherford spokeswoman Melissa Hahn took exception to the BGA’s assertion that the treasurer was rewarding appointees who might be political allies. She said 18 of 19 raises went to staffers whose tenure predated Rutherford, a former state senator, “so raises are clearly not targeting employees who the treasurer brought in when he took office.”
* Again, neither office received a budget increase this fiscal year. And according to the comptroller’s office, back when Loleta Didrickson was comptroller the office employed 450 people. It now employs 230, which is ten percent less than its currently authorized headcount.
As reported by the AP, all of the raises Comptroller Topinka gave were to non-union employees. Her union workers are in line for 4.5 percent contractual pay raises this year, so she thought it only fair to give her non-union workers a 3 percent raise. That seems like decent management. For a striking contrast, check the mood of non-union employees under Gov. Pat Quinn, who haven’t seen a raise in years. A small handful of Topinka’s employees did receive more than the 3 percent hikes.
* NCSL has taken a look at recent state tax hikes and tax cuts. The full report is here…
The nine states with net tax cuts greater than 1 percent are California, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and West Virginia. The nine states with net increases of more than 1 percent are Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Vermont.
Indiana? Huh. I thought it was a tax haven or something.
* And check out what Connecticut did…
…extended the temporary corporate income tax surcharge for two years and doubled the rate from 10 percent to 20 percent.
…limited the transfer of film production credits
…expanded its sales tax base to a number of services including pet grooming, spa services, cosmetic surgery, motor vehicle towing, yoga classes and non-prescription medicine, among others.
…expects to generate nearly $400 million by imposing a new tax on hospital net revenue and a new resident day user fee for certain intermediate care facilities. Lawmakers also increased the cap on nursing home resident user fees.
…increased the excise tax on cigarettes by $0.40 per pack and nearly doubled the tax on other tobacco products from 27.5 percent to 50 percent.
…raised the alcoholic beverage excise tax by 20 percent to generate $10 million.
…increased the base diesel tax for a projected $8.5 million.
…established a new tax on the generation of electricity for an additional $71 million.
…raised the hotel room occupancy tax
* Related…
* Family sues after asthmatic boy sent to 3 hospitals in 11 hours
* Kane fears cost of new sex offender regulations: The bill would require a heightened compliance from the county system, but without funding to do the required work. It will create a drastic increase in man-hours and personnel to reach compliance, officials said, so the committee decided not to support the bill in its current form.
* Are townships still necessary?: “Township governments can serve a really vital purpose,” [Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator for the Better Government Association] said. “I think there is a difference between the way townships work to serve the community in rural areas versus urban areas. A lot of the township governments, for example, in Cook County, don’t actually serve that much of a role that isn’t already being covered by some other layer of government.
* Daniels willing to bet on land-based casinos: Gov. Mitch Daniels likely would be on board should state lawmakers authorize land-based gaming in response to expected increased casino competition from Illinois. “I’m open-minded about that,” Daniels said in an interview last week with The Times. “I always thought the whole boat requirement was a little odd.”
* Lang: Sign the gambling bill, create jobs
* Ex-Gov. Walker to current Gov. Quinn: Say no to more casinos
* Singer Mental Health Center’s future focus of public hearing
- wordslinger - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 1:55 pm:
I’m confused — is it Andy Shaw, John Kass, Chuck Goudie or Patrick Collins who is the rightful and righteous prophet of all that is good and pure in Illinois?
Still, right now, everyone’s going to do a burn on any pay raise that ain’t their own.
- overcooked - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 2:40 pm:
So what is the real purpose of the anti-township movement? Do we really expect Cook County to absorb the cost of maintaining and ultimately rebuilding township roads? Or is it a grab for the township budgets? Have any of these “good government” types done a cost/benefit analysis of this idea?
- Left Out - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 2:57 pm:
Townships are a waste of taxpayer money. The only function of the townships is policical (jobs for those elected and their friends). They provide the taxpayer little in the way of service that some other unit of government is and/or can do.
As to the need for them in rural areas, remember that there are no townships in many counties far downstate. Rural and urban counties can do with out townships.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:00 pm:
===Rural and urban counties can do with out townships. ===
In some rural counties, you have one town that has the most population. Without those townships, the people in the outlying areas probably wouldn’t get much service.
- just sayin' - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:10 pm:
Re the raises by Topinka and Rutherford. Rich, you’re too good to defend the indefensible.
If Quinn was doing this, Pat Brady and the IL GOP would already be shrieking and the online petition drive de jour would already be out calling for a rollback and Quinn’s head on a platter.
The IL GOP might as well just shut up about the unions and over spending. Not only are they not serious about cutting spending, they’re trying to win the bidding war against the unions. This is hypocricy out of control.
I would also challenge anyone to name a single person in either of those offices who is even thinking about leaving their cushy state job for something else. And if they did, great. We should be cutting anyway. Topinka and Rutherford said they agreed during the election. Both said they would eliminate one office. But now once in that’s all forgotten. Now it’s time to pad pockets for the people who got them in.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:18 pm:
Small raises for non-union employees isn’t “hypocrisy,” especially by a Republican.
- The Captain - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:20 pm:
I would think that most if not all of the non-union positions in those two offices are at-will employment. So it’s certainly a strange dynamic to see a situation where many at-will employees survive a transition that includes a change in parties AND get raises.
I’m sure the focus will be on the reaction of the public at large in light of the budget situation but I bet topic A on the barstool circuit among Republicans will be why these two officeholders (who control the only at-will jobs in the exec branch) are not only retaining Hynes/Giannoulias staffers but giving them raises. Oh, and undercutting the frugal message.
- Frost - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:21 pm:
A 3% raise, and the BGA is raising hell? Please!
Also, rutherford’s defense about most of those getting raises being from his democratic predecessor seems pretty, uh, well, important. And they couldn’t find someone who got a raise who is making bank!? The biggest raise went to someone who got a different job and is now making a whopping 65k? Snooooooze.
BGA has and can do better. This is piddly stuff not worth ink in a newspaper. Which is maybe why it isn’t in a newspaper.
- just sayin' - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:30 pm:
Oh, I must be reading a different story. I’m reading the one that says:
“State Treasurer Dan Rutherford has awarded 19 pay raises to staff members averaging 16 percent…” and “Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka… up to 15 percent to a handful of employees after promotions or an ‘equity adjustment.’”
For crying out loud, Topinka’s top staffer Nancy Kimme got a raise so large she’s now making more than Rutherford or Topinka according to the article. Unbelievable.
- Dead Head - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:41 pm:
You’re deceiving yourself if you think non-union employees under Quinn haven’t seen an increase.
- Demoralized - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 3:49 pm:
The Captain:
It is not unusual for non-union, at will employees to continue working for new officeholders, even during a party change. I have been in such a position for 14 years and survived many changes.
Dead Head:
Besides the Governor’s staff and certain privileged people name me a place where mass raises for non-union employees have occurred.
just sayin’:
The indignant tone you and others like you take with state employees getting raises is just wrong. I don’t fine anything wrong with these raises. You cannot continue to treat a class of employees - in this case non-union employees - like crap by continually denying them the raises that the union employees continue to get year after year.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 4:41 pm:
===Nancy Kimme got a raise so large===
$76 a week.
- CMS-SPA2 - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 4:42 pm:
Thank you Demoralized.
My thoughts/comments exactly.
- John Galt - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 4:49 pm:
1) RE: Townships. I agree that the urban/rural county distinction is important. I can see the rationale for the outlaying counties, but not Cook. Maybe not even Lake & DuPage.
2) RE: the raises. Seems to me I recall Quinn boosted the pay of some of his true political appointees in his senior staff by upwards of 20%. And let’s not forget about the attempted “canoe czar” appointment last year. The 3% non-union raises of rank & file employees after several years of a pay freeze doesn’t strike me as unreasonable in comparison. Still though, what does irk me–both Dem & GOP is the “gotcha” nature of some of these stories. The headlines do the damage. Even if a very reasonable explaination is at hand, if that takes 3 minutes to explain but just 7 seconds to read the damning headline, all folks will see is the headline. Same holds true of some of these real crummy bills with one or two no-brainer elements to it. If somebody votes down the bill, they get lambasted for being ‘against’ the one or two no-brainer elements.
- just sayin' - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 5:25 pm:
Well if $76 a week is nothing then I’m sure she’ll have no problem giving it back to the taxpayers. Actually that’s groceries for a family of 4 for a week.
You’re missing the point Rich. NO pay increase was justified for any of these state employees while Illinoisans are suffering all over the place in this bad economy.
Charles Thomas’ report on ABC-7 is a much watch on this. Topinka and Pat Brady sound ridiculous.
- just sayin' - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 5:28 pm:
Charles Thomas calls it all “stunning.”
Taxpayers will agree.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 5:30 pm:
just sayin’, I have, for the most part, ignored or downplayed pretty much all of the goofy stories about PQ’s pay raises. And this latest round is silly when you consider they came in under budget. Take a breath.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 5:33 pm:
Also, your partisanship is showing.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 5:36 pm:
However, you make a good point about Pat Brady. Duly noted. Will be dealt with tomorrow.
- Pat Robertson - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 6:01 pm:
==You’re deceiving yourself if you think non-union employees under Quinn haven’t seen an increase. ==
Care to give an example outside the governor’s office? There haven’t been any at Revenue.
- Cindy Lou - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 6:34 pm:
Not all union employees got raises for FY12…some did while some got told ‘tough’. If Judy thinks it’s okay to give her workers raises based on the thought that union workers are getting a 4 and 1/2 and it’s only fair blah blah…can I now have my raise?
Seriously, the justificating aka excusing is what caught my attention most. After all, some union state workers are getting their raise and some non-union state workers are getting a ‘it’s only fair’ raise too.
- Lester Holt's Mustache - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 6:50 pm:
From what I understand, non-union employees on the governor’s staff itself have not received a raise during Quinn’s administration. Now, his Budget office (which are non-union as well) did get a raise year before last, and there were stories for a week about it. As a matter of fact, the few Blago people he did keep on staff once he took office (all of them support staff) have not had a raise since Blago was re-elected.
Topinka and Rutherford aren’t afraid of headlines about them giving out a raise that isn’t a stipulation of an existing contract.
- DuPage Dave - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 7:36 pm:
Dead Head- I’m a non-union employee at DHS. I have not had a raise in four years. Neither have any of my non-union colleagues in my immediate division.
Maybe somebody somewhere is getting raises, but not us.
- Newsclown - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 8:18 pm:
Rutherford wants to retain his most knowledgeable brokers and traders, the ones he depends on for picking safe and profitable investments of the state’s money. You have to pay decently to retain talent.
Topinka is more open-minded about party affiliation than most repubs, she has demonstrated a respect for people that really know their job, regardless of party affiliation, and she likes to surround herself with competent staff that reflect well on her.
- downstate Commissioner - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 9:04 pm:
$76 feeds a family of four for a week? Interesting: 4 persons x 3 meals x 7 days = 84 meals. $76 divided by 84 meals is less than a dollar per meal. When was the last time you bought groceries? Add in the the impact of a baby or a teenager and the comment seems even sillier.
- Gregor - Monday, Sep 26, 11 @ 10:17 pm:
FEED a family of 4 on $76 a week? Doable. But not fancy. You can get your per-plate cost of meals down to around 1-2 bucks a plate if you cook it all yourself, and buy what’s on sale with coupons down at the Aldi and whatnot. You have to eat what’s seasonally cheap, and settle for generic brands for part of that. But we do it, we’re not suffering, and those are full portions of complete meals: meat, starch, veggies, milk or juice. We don’t go out to eat as a rule, and we stock a second freezer with bulk sale items when they are cheap. Chicken, pork, beef, fish, turkey sometimes. If you comparison shop and ignore brand merchandising, it’s not all that hard to do.
- Colossus - Tuesday, Sep 27, 11 @ 10:02 am:
I can attest that $76 will feed a family of one adult and two small children for a week, easily. As Gregor pointed out, you don’t pay more for fancy packaging and branded mascots. And I do spend most of my weekend cooking from scratch to stretch my basic supplies. But that’s how life goes for us non-union state folk who aren’t getting raises.
Snark aside, my children are learning how to cook from an early age and to appreciate “slow culture”, which embraces the value of doing things for yourself instead of spending more money for worse nutrition. The cooking they are learning is not “reheat something in the microwave” or “stir in box contents and let simmer for 10 minutes”, but honest to goodness chicken stock, homemade bread and canning apples. What I wouldn’t give to be able to pick my departed grandmother’s brain for an hour. After the Depression, her husband (my grandfather) volunteered for the war despite his two young children at home. That woman knew how to stretch a dollar!