Question of the day
Monday, May 21, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Here are a few stories about the Senate Democrats’ budget proposal, which they unveiled Friday afternoon…
* State Senate Dems set budget goal higher than House’s: Illinois Senate Democrats on Friday outlined a budget plan that spends less than Gov. Pat Quinn wanted, but more than the House declared earlier that it is prepared to spend next year. The Senate plan would keep education spending at the same level as this year, but does assume the state will have to close facilities and cut jobs next year. Democrats declined to offer specifics of those reductions.
* IL Senate Dems come out with budget of their own: “Nearly every agency is looking at cuts. That’s unavoidable,” said state Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville.
* Senate Democrats say they are optimistic about Medicaid reform as they release a budget plan: General services would see a $68 million reduction. Higher education would be cut by $48.5 million. Human services would be reduced $44.9 million. Public safety would take the biggest hit with a $156 million reduction.
* Senate Democrats’ spending plan offers deeper cuts than Quinn proposed: However, a top Senate Republican was not convinced the Democrats’ math was correct, saying the amount of cuts to the state’s Medicaid program isn’t large enough and assumes new revenue from a $1 per pack cigarette tax increase.
* But I’m more interested in another aspect of the Senate Democratic plan…
The Senate Democrats’ proposal would draw money from areas of the state’s budget outside of the General Revenue Fund. In addition to the money being set aside to pay down the backlog, Senate Democrats are calling for more than $400 million be taken from special funds to pay overdue bills. Democrats say the fund sweeps they are proposing would be a one-time move to pay off old bills and would leave enough money in the funds to ensure that they are operational for their original purposes.
* More…
Fund sweeps works by taking unspent money in dedicated funds — such as the Cycle Rider Safety Training Fund, which is supposed to support classes on motorcycle safety — and using it for general spending. The Senate Democrats would use about $400 million in fund sweeps to pay down some of the state’s $8.5 billion overdue bills.
“There’s $8 billion sitting in multiple piggy banks, 500 piggy banks, at one time. We’re hoarding money in these little banks,” state Sen. Donne Trotter, D-Chicago, said at a news conference Friday.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently gave the state the green light to sweep these funds, as long as they’re not federal money. Gov. Pat Quinn, however, has only supported borrowing money from the funds. The SDems want to take the cash.
You can see the complete list of state funds by clicking here.
* The Question: Do you support one-time sweeps of these special state funds or just borrowing from them? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:06 pm:
I’d go a step further and eliminate the special funds.
But to bring some sanity back to budget-making, I’d move to a two-year budget.
- Curious - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
One-time sweeps, like all one-time budget fixes, will only work if they’re part of a comprehensive financial plan. It might be a good strategy now, just to give the state more wiggle room, but it should not be viewed as a silver bullet. That being said, it’s not really the legislature’s role to take the lead on a comprehensive fiscal plan. That task typically falls under the executive branch as they have more staff, resources etc.
- Siyotanka - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:17 pm:
I would wholey support the sweeps…IF…there was some legally binding contract in place to insure the funds swept were used for what they are intended. Ie.,8 mil swept…8 mil in bills paid down…period!
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:25 pm:
Here we go again. When Blago started with the one time sweeps, it continues. Either eliminate the fees promised for specific activities, or spend the where money where promised.
Continuing to rob Peter to pay Pal version 6.0
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
===When Blago started with the one time sweeps, it continues.===
Actually, George Ryan did it long before Rod did it.
- Anonymous - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
Borrowing, only. Special funds usually exist because some special fee is assessed and placed in the fund. The unused balance exists because either the fee was set too high or the money isn’t being spent (either the legislature hasn’t appropriated it or the executive chooses not to). If you’re going to assess a special fee for a specific purpose and you wind up with extra money in the fund, either reduce the fee or spend it like you’re supposed to. Spending it on something else is just theft.
- Cassiopeia - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
Unless the spending is reduced then the sweeps will just buy time until all of the cans are in a pile at the end of the road.
Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem at has a spending problem.
- steve schnorf - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:29 pm:
As long as one-time revenues are used for one-time expenses (old bills) and not to support base expenses, I think it makes good sense, but the funds must be left with enough to do what they are intended for
- OldSmoky2 - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:29 pm:
After looking over the special funds in the PDF link provided, yes, a one-time sweep appears to be a good way to go. More than a few of these funds are just piling up money rather than spending it, which means they don’t really all need what they have. That said, I hope they do it fund by fund, not by just taking the same percentage from each fund. And going through and doing that sweep should also lead to eliminating some of them entirely.
- Plutocrat03 - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:29 pm:
I don’t care if Kerner did it, stop already
- wordonthestreet - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:31 pm:
Neither. I’m not familiar with all the funds, but some them have significant balances because the administration refuses to spend the $ for their intended purpose. Fees are paid into the funds for specific purposes. Using such funds for something other than their intended purpose is a crime in the private sector. Duh.
- Cheryl44 - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:31 pm:
Fund sweeps works by taking unspent money in dedicated funds — such as everyone’s retirement money…
Sorry, that’s my initial reaction. No.
- sangamo better blues - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:33 pm:
I think there is a problem with sweeping funds that are not funded through tax dollars. A lot of these special funds are generated from user fees that are negotiated and agreed to by those users for regulation & enforcement in their specific industry.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:34 pm:
We thought the question was going to be “How luckyare we to be blessed with the Senate’s budget plan?”
a. lots
b. very lots
we voted borrow since the tax revenues are there for the next 14 years to retire the debt
- Kerfuffle - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 1:39 pm:
One time only means until we need to do it another time.
- JustaJoe - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:05 pm:
The poll should have a third choice - Neither.
“One Time” only means one time this year.
“Borrow” means “take and pretend that we will repay”.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:07 pm:
Neither choice is good. I’m no longer naive enough to believe one time sweeps will only happen one time. Of the two, borrowing is the much more palatable approach and then only if actual progress is made towards a long term solution. If my money is obligated towards a specific purpose, I expect it to be used for that purpose whether that is ticket for cure, prevention of child abuse, habitat stamps, etc. To do otherwise is deceptive and fundamentally wrong.
- Earnest - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 3:53 pm:
I voted one-time sweep. Borrowing is more kicking the can down the road. I agree with Schnorf that it should only be used for one-time expenses (preferable paying down the state’s backlog of bills)and not the base budget.
- Wensicia - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 4:25 pm:
One-time sweep. Once borrowing starts, it never stops.
- Anyone Remember? - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 5:24 pm:
Rich -
=====
===When Blago started with the one time sweeps, it continues.===
Actually, George Ryan did it long before Rod did it.
=====
Jim Edgar did it in his first term (1992?) before Schnorf was his budget director.
- PublicServant - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 7:55 pm:
Everyone, including special funds, needs to take a haircut here.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, May 21, 12 @ 10:15 pm:
Voted borrow but would have voted neither if that was an option. The special funds were paid for by user fees for that specific purpose and shouldn’t be touched.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, May 22, 12 @ 12:31 am:
Retired,
So we should cut education and every other essential service rather than use some of the extra money in some earmarked, favorite funds that have long been protected from budget debates?
If it were me, I’d do away with these funds and let them see if they’re such a vital priority in the GRF operations debate. Landfill inspections funding is sacrosanct via special funds but educating children isn’t? Makes no sense.
- Peter Snarker - Tuesday, May 22, 12 @ 1:18 am:
I think I am confused. So AFSCME doesnt get raises b/c the GA didnt allocate money for the raises. Ok, so no specific allocation, then no expenditure.
But wait! The GA sets up dedicated funds and user-fees, or at least creates the enabling legislation to do so. Isnt that maybe something like a specific allocation?
Haha. So, first the Govt says “no raises contractually agreed on for AFSCME - sorry, we didnt allocate for that”.
Then, the next week, the Govt comes in and says “Oh, and by the by, we’re taking the money that we did allocate to special funds as well”.
Consistency much?
I imagine the branches of state govt leadership saying in Cartman’s voice (Southpark) from that old old episode… “[we] do what we waaaant!”.
And really who even cares, they are going to do what the want. Specifically allocated, irrelevant. Not allocated but contractually agreed to, irrelevant. Haha. You cant say it isnt entertaining.
- Louis Howe - Tuesday, May 22, 12 @ 2:52 am:
Yes…I remember 1992 sweeps….raised something like $30-50 million. The AMA and Realors hated it.
- Jack - Tuesday, May 22, 12 @ 6:35 am:
Is the pension underfunding, an “old” bill?