More than just unclear on the concept
Friday, Sep 19, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This piece is now “Exhibit A” when demonstrating the gross intellectual dishonesty of the Illinois Policy Institute…
In the throes of Illinois’ fiscal crisis, nearly every nook and cranny of the Illinois state budget should be fair game for review and reduction. But some state lawmakers don’t seem to think so, especially when it comes to their money.
In the waning hours of the final day of this year’s spring session, state politicians chose to exempt their own budget from the scrutiny of the annual appropriations process, the first line of defense against irresponsible spending.
House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton joined forces to introduce and enact a law prohibiting reductions from year to year in the appropriations made available in the annual state budget for legislators’ salaries and legislative operating expenses. Plus, their new law permits the payment of these salaries and expenses even if there is no annual appropriation for that purpose. […]
The authority to spend without an annual appropriation (called a “continuing appropriation”) is traditionally strictly limited. Its primary use is to ensure holders of long-term state debt that the state will continue to pay debt service when due until the debt is fully paid, which can take 20 years or more. To equate the payment of current expenses for the General Assembly to these long-term obligations of the state is absurd.
To authorize a continuing appropriation for this purpose sets a terrible precedent. And, in a time of significant budgetary crises, it runs counter to responsible budgeting.
* The “think tank” never explains the reason for the continuing approp language: Gov. Quinn vetoed legislative salaries last summer during his pension reform push. Bruce Rauner would surely try the same thing if elected. A precedent had been set and it had to be stopped in its tracks.
Without that 2013 precedent and Rauner’s shut-down threats, I could see the Institute’s point. I mean, who in their right mind would veto legislative salaries?
* This measure addressed a very real issue - an issue that is only mentioned in the most oblique way (and in the 13th paragraph of a 15-graf piece) by the Institute…
What prompted legislators to pursue this “no cuts allowed, no appropriations needed” measure for their own budget in the first place was an ongoing political and budgetary dispute between legislative leaders and Quinn.
That’s it? That’s all the explanation? C’mon.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:38 am:
I would have less of a problem with the IPI if they didn’t call themselves non-partisan. Fess up and admit your bias. It’s ok. Just be honest about it.
- Ducky LaMoore - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:43 am:
I am shocked and appalled at this rampant speculation, Rich. Obviously an organization led by John Tillman has unimpeachable quality and character and would most certainly never mislead the most intellectual and broadminded Illinois public. Oh heaven forfend.
- circularfiringsquad - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:43 am:
Capt Fax demonstrates again why the IPI is the nation’s only zero depth think tank and a laughing stock….More bad spending by Mitt Rauner.
- MrJM - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:46 am:
Dumb or dishonest.
These are they only possible conclusions.
– MrJM
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:49 am:
Unfortunately for the Illinois GOP, the lightweights at the IPI are partisan. It’s dishonest misanthropes like them that have been driving people out of the Illinois GOP.
I blame Madigan. Or maybe that crafty Outfit leader, Quinn.
- Anon. - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 10:57 am:
Word — I think you’ve got it backwards. The number of lightweights at IPI are the result of, not the cause of, the disintegration of the Illinois Republicans. If the Republicans could win the governorship again, they could clout some of their idiot cousins into IDOT instead of sticking them on the IPI board.
- truthteller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:00 am:
The IPI’ers are not dumb. They are a right-wing partisan ideological organization bought and paid for by corporate interests to beat down government, beat down unions and carry spears for the 1% who fund them.
Imagine, Tillman when questioned by Carol Marin on Chicago Tonight as to whether Rauner should unveil his pension plan before the election, without hesitation answered “no”.
A policy institute?
- Langhorne - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:10 am:
i am surprised quinn didnt veto this measure. or did he just not act on it in time?
even w this on the books, rauner may try vetoing a future approp. look at his dishonesty re term limits. it matters not a whit to him that the courts said it was NOT constitutional. he bought a half mil signatures, dammit, hear my plea. do what i say. madigan and quinn are to blame for not passing a legit term limit.
- DuPage - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:29 am:
@MrJM10:46=Dumb or dishonest. These are the only possible conclusions.=
One more possible conclusion. Dumb AND dishonest!
- yinn - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:34 am:
On a related note. I had previously found IPI’s Website Transparency Checklist (from its Local Transparency Project) quite helpful for evaluating local government websites, but then suddenly some of these websites were getting way better scores for no good reason I could see. Turns out IPI had removed at some point, without announcement, a requirement that certain online documents be searchable. The change allowed a much larger number of local govs to receive Transparency Awards and everybody thought it was because they were working hard to improve.
- Ghost - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:46 am:
As an intial matter, I dont disagree with the concept espoused here. But when you get into the weeds with it, i think the attack here misses the fundamental heart of our governement. We set up a three branch governemnt as a check and balance to keep any one unit from being able to seize control. This law helps preserve that balance. if any one branch could starve the other 2 out by cutting off funding, then it could effectively seize contraol and go unchecked.
I would also note that the supereme court somewhat has already ruled that the State constitution would require this outcome even without this law. In the suit over thier COLA’s, they address the issue of the court ordering salaries to be paid without an approp; generalizing a bit, they held that the constituion would allow for mandating these payments even without an appropriation, which would normaly be unconstituional, because it is necessary to preserve that branch of government.
it is extremeley intellectualy dishonest to me, to not mention that their is a court case which held on a consitutional level, the funding of the different governemtn branches is required even without an appropriation. Therefore this law merley duplicates what the superme court has alread rules is mandated by our consitution.
You would think a such a strong legal holding supported by the constituion would give somone pause to argue for the opposite outcome.
- Greg - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 11:51 am:
I think that piece is defendable. I think Steere buried (ignored) the lede as Rich states. I think it raises questions about separation of powers in your state.
I think if you use shell bills and drop this stuff in at the last minute you open yourself up to Steere’s criticism –essentially you’re shady. Going through a more open process, traditional legislative process properly identifying your Governor’s actions as the need for it gives it more legitimacy & would hope approval from a limited govt org.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 12:07 pm:
The term “intellectual dishonesty” implies that IPI could ever be intellectual. Or honest.
- in the know - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 12:08 pm:
Forgive me but don’t I recall some little lawsuit thingy that said that Quinn’s gambit was improper? It wasn’t appealed to the Supremes, which meant that another Governor could have tried it again, but isn’t that language technically a codification of a court decree? C’mon IPI, since when is codifying a court order sneaky? One might argue, politics aside, that codifying the court’s opinion circumvented needless and wasteful litigation costs.
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 12:24 pm:
I’m out and about. Did the continuing res cover operations expenses too? I thought it was salaries only.
With respect to IPI, I don’t give them any thought. They lost thier credibility with me a long time ago.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 12:37 pm:
Rich, not even CLOSE.
One of my favorites is this letter from the Illinois Policy Institute, criticizing Lisa Madigan for suggesting to drug stores they stop selling cigarettes.
It includes this line:
“It’s undoubtedly preferable that the nanny state nags through letters rather than ban products outright. But even better would be a government at all levels that simply left people to make their own choices and left the moralistic grandstanding to others.”
That’s the IPI in a nutshell, literally. Trying to corner the market on moralistic grandstanding in a nagging letter.
Sincerely yours,
YDD
- Brian Costin - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 12:39 pm:
Yinn, thanks for your post. I’m glad you found our 10-Point Transparency Checklist useful! The Local Transparency Project is designed to give citizen tools they need to better participate in local government and be a watchdog over government spending. It is also designed to preventing and expose government corruption. I wanted to clear something up — we’ve haven’t made our checklist any easier, in fact we’ve made it harder. Give me a call at 312-346-5700 x218 so we can discuss. Brian Costin, Illinois Policy
- JS Mill - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 1:41 pm:
It is nice to see the IPI get called out for what it really is, biased and hackneyed. It drives me k=nuts when newspapers, especially the Pantagraph, quote the IPI and then describe it as non partisan.
- Eastside - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 2:43 pm:
Yet you willingly publish anything Ralph Matire spews without any scrutiny.
- John Boch - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 2:55 pm:
IPI does a few things well. Props to them for those.
IPI does a lot more things poorly. Shame on them for these.
I will say from personal experience they are a fickle bunch, quite willing to throw friends under the bus when the goin’ gets a little rocky.
In short, with “friends” like those, who needs any enemies?
John
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:06 pm:
=== Yet you willingly publish anything Ralph Matire spews without any scrutiny. ===
You’re mistaking passing scrutiny with not getting any. Matire’s material is credible. IPI’s is not.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:09 pm:
===Yet you willingly publish anything Ralph Matire spews without any scrutiny. ===
Yeah, right. Ask him how I treated his pension plan.
- MrJM - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:12 pm:
“One more possible conclusion. Dumb AND dishonest!”
Hoisted on my own false dichotomy!
– MrJM
- Eastside - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:21 pm:
As if anyone took Matire’s pension plan plan seriously? IPI has there own problems but at least they have more sway with their targeted audience than Matire has with his. Just sit through a House Revenue committee sometime. Yet this blog presents his budget analysis without the scrutiny he gives others. Raises questions.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:28 pm:
The Illinois Policy Institute, as well as the Transparency thing referenced above, are complete jokes that no one with credibility takes seriously.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:28 pm:
=== Yet this blog presents his budget analysis without the scrutiny he gives others===
Numbers are numbers, man. And his numbers looked OK to me. If they didn’t, I would’ve said something. And if you found problems with those, you could’ve pointed them out to me. I always listen to facts and reason. The above post was about the opposite of those two things.
So, please remove your cute little tinfoil hat and rejoin the world of reality. Thanks.
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:53 pm:
=== IPI has there own problems but at least they have more sway with their targeted audience than Matire has with his. ===
Maybe that says more about their target audience. I find it embarrassing that the Republicans are so willing to embrace IPI’s garbage.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 3:54 pm:
===Republicans are so willing to embrace IPI’s garbage. ===
I think they had five or six Repubs at their last press conference where they unveiled budget and pension reforms.
- Driveby - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 4:07 pm:
Rich, when they want to report something about, say, how the private equity industry works do they say they “called a friend and here’s what he said…” like you did last week?
I understand the disagreement with their politics, but they are one of the few places producing accurate financial research about the state. They get facts right and you know it. The segment you quoted is fair and correct. There’s more financial expertise there than has ever been reflected in the entirety of this site.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 4:14 pm:
===There’s more financial expertise there than has ever been reflected in the entirety of this site. ===
LOL.
Go with that one. Seriously.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 19, 14 @ 4:25 pm:
===The segment you quoted is fair and correct==
It is neither and anybody with half a brain can see that.
You must’ve written it is all I can figure.