borrowing and paying interest is probably cheaper than adding the late payment fees to vendors. It wouldn’t be adding debt, the State would just owe the bank and not small business vendors.
the state owes those funds to people, companies big and small. They are borrowing to cover that debt. The state should borrow instead. Pay your bills Rauner.
Yes. The state should have done this five years ago, when it hiked the income tax and included the 0.75% to cover the borrowing.
I’m having a little memory trouble, does anyone remember who was opposed to this fiscally prudent and sensible approach to managing Illinois’ finances? Was it an organized group of legislators? Some kind of like-minded voting bloc?
Dang it. It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite say who it was that refused to back this sensible plan.
I concur that taxes should be raised to pay the bills and reduce our debt. The governor’s plan is to bankrupt the State to extort passage of his agenda.
I said yes — but only if the rate on the borrowing is less than the interest we pay on the debt. I liken it to remortgaging a house when the rates are better. If the cost/benefit is not there, I vote no instead.
I’m with 47th Ward. This should have been done when the feds were in a helpful mood a few years ago. It’s debt either way. You can explain that to rational people and defend it.
Voted no. Just continues the problem without ever addressing the fundamental reason for why this happening. Time to be grown ups and figure out how to get more money, reduce costs and make the needed cuts to pay down the debt. California did it under Brown so we should be able to it under a business “genius” like Rauner.
Rich, the question is poorly framed. Without new revenue, “no!” With new revenue, “yes!” With new revenue borrowing costs will decline dramatically with an improved bond rating, so borrowing will become cheaper than paying interest to the states vendors.
Are these bills items that can be paid even though we don’t have a budget? The reason we supposedly cannot pay the state employee health insurance claims (which date to more than 14 months ago) is because is no budget (which is 8 months late). So what good would borrowing be if we still are not allowed to cut the check?
No! For so many of the reasons articulated above - interest rate, credit rating, and just plain unnecessary! Pass a budget without Turnaround Agenda strings attached, and sell it to your voters with honesty, whether it includes tax increases, spending cuts or (hopefully) both. It would be nice for GA members to just represent their districts and their people and stop worrying so hard about whether they’ll have a job next year. Sometimes honesty sells.
No. Pass a budget and raise taxes. Why? Because pursuant to Radogno’s mantra that we need to be competitive with the surrounding states, our taxes should be at least as high as their taxes.
Yes. The state should have done this five years ago, when it hiked the income tax and included the 0.75% to cover the borrowing.
I’m having a little memory trouble, does anyone remember who was opposed to this fiscally prudent and sensible approach to managing Illinois’ finances? Was it an organized group of legislators? Some kind of like-minded voting bloc?
Yes! Yes! Yes! They always conveniently leave that out. It is unconscionable that we would leave vendors and providers out to dry like this. Our contracts aren’t worth the paper they are written on if we don’t pay people for services rendered. If we raised the income tax, restructured the pension debt and our bill backlog there is no crisis. And it would help our credit rating. We get dinged because we have no plan and political gridlock.
Yes they should. The ironic thing is that Quinn proposed the very same idea (over like 5 years, I think) most of which overlapped the tax increase, but the Senate GOP blocked it.
But I’m sure Sen Murphy & the others will gladly vote “Yes” this time.
I voted ‘no.’ No spending without revenue to cover it. However, if the state passes my Turn a Round Number Agenda (i.e. a budget that comes close to balancing using real numbers) I will consider it.
The obligations that are represented by this figure are illegal. Borrowing is the same, “kick the can” policy that Rauner has denounced about earlier administrations and GA sessions.
He needs to produce a real BUDGET showing which obligations should be funded and how the expenditures will be funded by revenue. This is just deficit spending that the Illinois Constitution meant to prevent.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:26 pm:
Of course yes. Save a lot of money compared to what we’re going to be shelling out due to prompt payment act. But I agree it should be part of a budget deal.
Is this the same idea Gov. Quinn had during the lame duck session that passed the last tax increase…you know the idea to retire the backlog with borrowing money so that people couldn’t accuse the tax increase of not working.
Is that the plan he is proposing if he has to raise taxes? The same one that couldn’t pass because borrowing was bad?
I’m shaking my head too. The Republicans were in lockstep with that no borrowing crap. Lock step. Its debt. We owe it anyway. The party of business doesn’t care if a boat load of businesses don’t get paid for work they already did!
Just like they said the tax increase itself was a 67% job killing tax increase and we should repeal it immediately! Now that we don’t have it….where’s all those jobs and businesses that would use their tax savings to hire more people and invest in Illinois? I thought when you lowered taxes the economy magically expands? They got what they asked for. The tax increase is nearly gone. Biggest tax decrease in the history of the state. What’d we get for it?
Talk about kicking the can down the road. And how would you pay the bills with no appropriation? Finally, what kind of rate would the state have to pay ion
47th, I know bonding is in your sweet spot. But given that the 1% prompt pay only applies to a portion of the state’s overdue bills, the interest we’d pay on bonds would be far greater than the amount we owe to vendors. (This of course does not address the moral issue of leaving our vendors hanging out to dry. But there’s also the issue of putting the current arrearage on the credit card and then paying interest while we let the next clump of bills pile up. Sigh.)
Voted yes. It’s not more debt, because it is already debt. Paying 1-2% a year is far better than the 12% (compounded monthly) that is the current situation.
We are already borrowing from providers, against their will. As long as we use proceeds to pay bills, the state is properly taking responsibility for our own debt.
But rauner being rauner, ck the deal for poison. Show me a bill, not talking points
Voted yes, but only with a Budget that doesn’t know about it>
Imagine Illinois Taxpayers with an extra 6 Billion floating around. Also the Bond rate would have to be less than the 12% that the state is paying in late interest.
Voted yes. Lower borrowing costs.
Debts/Budgets Illinois will always be a debtor state as long as voters don’t want to pay the cost of their government.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:04 pm:
No. I suspect pressure from vendors may have a role to play in bringing the impasse to an end, one way or another.
I don’t see how the state can avoid it now, unless we want a few years of seven percent income tax. But no move without a repayment plan, in part because this governor in particular won’t stick to the parameters and in part because this state won’t get an acceptable interest rate without a clear statement of intent to pay..
Absolutely YES.
Much of the backlog is to IL businesses (unfortunately some already closed). If you can’t figure out why it’s great to pay your IL businesses then you really don’t understand simple state economics.
LOCAL Businesses are what make a state economy hum!
Multi-national or multi-state companies syphon money from one place to their home area.
SPENDING LOCALLY GREATLY ENHANCES IL Economy. Isn’t that what Gov Brucie is supposedly (but obviously not) about?!
Well, I’ve been paying my health bills as I go so that I receive that excellent rate when the reimbursement check comes, so personally it’s been like having the best short term Certficate of Deposit imaginable. It’s a great deal for me, but a lousy one for the State. Borrow the money and lower the State’s interest rates.
We don’t have a spending problem.
We have a revenue problem. Borrowing doesn’t solve that problem - just prolongs it.
Solve the revenue problem first. A graduated income tax would be great.
The first thing we need to do is stop digging a bigger hole. A responsible, balanced budget that is funded with a combination of real cuts and some revenue is what will be needed. We have to stop the practice of borrowing to meet our budget shortfalls. The fact that we have $7 billion in unpaid bills means we’ve made promises that we couldn’t keep. We need to be honest with the people of Illinois about how much revenue we have to spend and then spend no more than that amount. The General Assembly needs to adopt a revenue estimate and live within those means.
I absolutely understand that it is important for the state to pay its bill . . . so end this hostage situation Rauner and for the 1st time in your life bargain in good faith (for real) with the legislature over budget issues!
No. And I feel for the vendors who are residents and have rendered services to the State in good faith. But if we let the Governor borrow, we’ll be easing the pressure on him. He worked very hard being continuously unreasonable to create this heightened bill-backlog, these hardships and the pressure now coming from affected residents. He needs to learn that this method of governing is not acceptable to the residents. The problem should not be wasted, and it needs to be on him.
If the Governor is allowed to borrow and placate state vendors, we will just be giving him more time and quiet, encouraging him to hold other hostages to maintain his unreasonable position.
- PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 9:50 pm:
I fear many vendors will not get paid their money due. Welching on obligations is this guy’s #1 strategy. Has been….look it up. Hence “Executive budgetary control”. Look out! Here it comes
- Gman - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
Would agree if there was a tax increase first.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
Revenue is definitely needed but more debt is not the way.
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:29 pm:
Issue bonds to retire these debts and pay for the bonds with a temporary income tax increase.
Has anyone suggested that before?
- sal-says - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
Borrow? And what? Borrow more later…and later…and…
Get.A.Budget; raise taxes. Get started fixing instead of patching. So, NO.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
This is so confusing. Isn’t this the exact kind of thing he is supposed to be against?
So, the idea is that we can’t raise taxes today, so we’ll take on new debt and pay off the interest with all the new growth we realize tomorrow?
- Norseman - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:32 pm:
No budget, no borrowing. Besides, it might offend the GOP Solons who were so opposed to borrowing before.
- Union Man - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:32 pm:
No. The Gov supports it which means he thinks it a faster step towards a bigger crisis. I don’t want a bigger crisis.
- Bill White - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
= No budget, no borrowing. =
I agree with this.
- STILL WATERS - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
Follow the recommendations of the Civic Federation before borrowing!!!
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:38 pm:
Yes. The state is paying 1% per month prompt pay interest. I’m assuming that the state can get a rate much lower than that.
- Spidad60 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
borrowing and paying interest is probably cheaper than adding the late payment fees to vendors. It wouldn’t be adding debt, the State would just owe the bank and not small business vendors.
- siriusly - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
the state owes those funds to people, companies big and small. They are borrowing to cover that debt. The state should borrow instead. Pay your bills Rauner.
- AJ_yooper - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
No.
No budget, no borrowing. I think it would prolong the budget conflict by diminishing the consequences. True enabling legislation.
If Mr. Rauner really wants to borrow to pay the bills, he needs the R’s to do the hard work.
- Austin Blvd - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
Seriously? Only if there is a dedicated revenue stream to pay off the “Rauner deficit” and a dedicated revenue stream to pay past due pension debt.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
Yes. The state should have done this five years ago, when it hiked the income tax and included the 0.75% to cover the borrowing.
I’m having a little memory trouble, does anyone remember who was opposed to this fiscally prudent and sensible approach to managing Illinois’ finances? Was it an organized group of legislators? Some kind of like-minded voting bloc?
Dang it. It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t quite say who it was that refused to back this sensible plan.
- Retired Lawyer - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
I concur that taxes should be raised to pay the bills and reduce our debt. The governor’s plan is to bankrupt the State to extort passage of his agenda.
- ash - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:46 pm:
I said yes — but only if the rate on the borrowing is less than the interest we pay on the debt. I liken it to remortgaging a house when the rates are better. If the cost/benefit is not there, I vote no instead.
- Timmeh - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
I’m with 47th Ward. This should have been done when the feds were in a helpful mood a few years ago. It’s debt either way. You can explain that to rational people and defend it.
- OFFM16 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
Borrowing just kicks the can down the road — we need solutions, not delaying actions
- The Captain - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:52 pm:
Yes, because I would be entertained by Rahm’s efforts to sabotage it.
(yes I know, the state’s finances are not a game/entertainment/etc. yadda, yadda, yadda)
- Austin Blvd - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
And only if Durkin’ and Rodagno lead the charge.
- Harry - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:57 pm:
Yes, IF it can borrow at less than the interest cost under the Prompt Payment Act
- illinifan - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:58 pm:
Voted no. Just continues the problem without ever addressing the fundamental reason for why this happening. Time to be grown ups and figure out how to get more money, reduce costs and make the needed cuts to pay down the debt. California did it under Brown so we should be able to it under a business “genius” like Rauner.
- A Jack - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:58 pm:
No. More debt is not going to help the state’s credit rating at all. The only way it might help is if the state can get a negative interest rate.
- formerpro - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
Rich, the question is poorly framed. Without new revenue, “no!” With new revenue, “yes!” With new revenue borrowing costs will decline dramatically with an improved bond rating, so borrowing will become cheaper than paying interest to the states vendors.
- thoughts matter - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:05 pm:
Are these bills items that can be paid even though we don’t have a budget? The reason we supposedly cannot pay the state employee health insurance claims (which date to more than 14 months ago) is because is no budget (which is 8 months late). So what good would borrowing be if we still are not allowed to cut the check?
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
No! For so many of the reasons articulated above - interest rate, credit rating, and just plain unnecessary! Pass a budget without Turnaround Agenda strings attached, and sell it to your voters with honesty, whether it includes tax increases, spending cuts or (hopefully) both. It would be nice for GA members to just represent their districts and their people and stop worrying so hard about whether they’ll have a job next year. Sometimes honesty sells.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
No. Pass a budget and raise taxes. Why? Because pursuant to Radogno’s mantra that we need to be competitive with the surrounding states, our taxes should be at least as high as their taxes.
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
Didn’t we do half of this (the tax increase) the last time?
- sideline watcher - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:08 pm:
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
Yes. The state should have done this five years ago, when it hiked the income tax and included the 0.75% to cover the borrowing.
I’m having a little memory trouble, does anyone remember who was opposed to this fiscally prudent and sensible approach to managing Illinois’ finances? Was it an organized group of legislators? Some kind of like-minded voting bloc?
Yes! Yes! Yes! They always conveniently leave that out. It is unconscionable that we would leave vendors and providers out to dry like this. Our contracts aren’t worth the paper they are written on if we don’t pay people for services rendered. If we raised the income tax, restructured the pension debt and our bill backlog there is no crisis. And it would help our credit rating. We get dinged because we have no plan and political gridlock.
- Huh? - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
Yes. Borrow $10 billion to pay the back log and have a cushion until something can be figured out.
As others have said, it is debt. Why should the vendors carry the State.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:13 pm:
Borrowing just enables the Democrats.
- Get a Job!! - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
Yes they should. The ironic thing is that Quinn proposed the very same idea (over like 5 years, I think) most of which overlapped the tax increase, but the Senate GOP blocked it.
But I’m sure Sen Murphy & the others will gladly vote “Yes” this time.
- Earnest - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:17 pm:
I voted ‘no.’ No spending without revenue to cover it. However, if the state passes my Turn a Round Number Agenda (i.e. a budget that comes close to balancing using real numbers) I will consider it.
- Johnnie F. - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:17 pm:
I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today…and a hamburger(s) from last week..last month…last year.
No borrowing without a new dedicated revenue stream to fully fund it along with a revenue stream to cover the structural debt and pension debt.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:20 pm:
Oh man, there are some roll calls I’ve got to dig up for this.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:24 pm:
The obligations that are represented by this figure are illegal. Borrowing is the same, “kick the can” policy that Rauner has denounced about earlier administrations and GA sessions.
He needs to produce a real BUDGET showing which obligations should be funded and how the expenditures will be funded by revenue. This is just deficit spending that the Illinois Constitution meant to prevent.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:26 pm:
Of course yes. Save a lot of money compared to what we’re going to be shelling out due to prompt payment act. But I agree it should be part of a budget deal.
- Kyle Hillman - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:29 pm:
Is this the same idea Gov. Quinn had during the lame duck session that passed the last tax increase…you know the idea to retire the backlog with borrowing money so that people couldn’t accuse the tax increase of not working.
Is that the plan he is proposing if he has to raise taxes? The same one that couldn’t pass because borrowing was bad?
#SMH
- Annonin' - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:32 pm:
Yup
Get some cash from the Bank of America. They are fronting cash to vendors in the “new” assistance initiative.
- sideline watcher - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:37 pm:
yes Kyle. yes.
I’m shaking my head too. The Republicans were in lockstep with that no borrowing crap. Lock step. Its debt. We owe it anyway. The party of business doesn’t care if a boat load of businesses don’t get paid for work they already did!
Just like they said the tax increase itself was a 67% job killing tax increase and we should repeal it immediately! Now that we don’t have it….where’s all those jobs and businesses that would use their tax savings to hire more people and invest in Illinois? I thought when you lowered taxes the economy magically expands? They got what they asked for. The tax increase is nearly gone. Biggest tax decrease in the history of the state. What’d we get for it?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:37 pm:
The guy can’t get 60/30 for anything so far, and he’d need 71/36 to borrow.
Michelle, can you send a copy of those roll calls over to Nuding and Goldberg?
- tominchicago - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:38 pm:
Talk about kicking the can down the road. And how would you pay the bills with no appropriation? Finally, what kind of rate would the state have to pay ion
- Soccermom - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:38 pm:
47th, I know bonding is in your sweet spot. But given that the 1% prompt pay only applies to a portion of the state’s overdue bills, the interest we’d pay on bonds would be far greater than the amount we owe to vendors. (This of course does not address the moral issue of leaving our vendors hanging out to dry. But there’s also the issue of putting the current arrearage on the credit card and then paying interest while we let the next clump of bills pile up. Sigh.)
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
I think borrowing from the Chinese at what, 6%, and pumping $7 billion with a b into the Illinois economy would be a nice shot in the arm.
Is it ideal? Heck no. But there are no good options left. We only have bad options and worse options from which to choose.
- burbanite - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
Just another way to pad his buddies pockets.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
No, budget first.
- Ucster - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:50 pm:
Great idea. Let’s use the MasterCard to make a Visa payment.
- Rufus - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
Voted yes. It’s not more debt, because it is already debt. Paying 1-2% a year is far better than the 12% (compounded monthly) that is the current situation.
- Langhorne - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:55 pm:
We are already borrowing from providers, against their will. As long as we use proceeds to pay bills, the state is properly taking responsibility for our own debt.
But rauner being rauner, ck the deal for poison. Show me a bill, not talking points
- WhoKnew - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 3:55 pm:
Voted yes, but only with a Budget that doesn’t know about it>
Imagine Illinois Taxpayers with an extra 6 Billion floating around. Also the Bond rate would have to be less than the 12% that the state is paying in late interest.
- Qui Tam - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:00 pm:
Voted yes. Lower borrowing costs.
Debts/Budgets Illinois will always be a debtor state as long as voters don’t want to pay the cost of their government.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:04 pm:
No. I suspect pressure from vendors may have a role to play in bringing the impasse to an end, one way or another.
- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:26 pm:
I don’t see how the state can avoid it now, unless we want a few years of seven percent income tax. But no move without a repayment plan, in part because this governor in particular won’t stick to the parameters and in part because this state won’t get an acceptable interest rate without a clear statement of intent to pay..
- TS - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:40 pm:
It’s the equivalent of borrowing against your house to pay off the credit card. Does nothing to stop the spending.
- uptown progressive - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:40 pm:
Yes, the day after the tax increase to cover the pay back. If borrowing without payment plan, the interest on the bonds will be out of sight.
- Ray del Camino - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:54 pm:
It was a good idea under Quinn, and it’s a good idea under Baron Von Carhartt.
- Grass Bowl - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:54 pm:
Scoop and toss?
- PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:02 pm:
Voted yes, because the governor wants me to.
- Mama - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:27 pm:
No - When you borrow, you have to pay the loan. There is no money to pay back the loans so No way!
Raise taxes and pay the back log of bills.
- IL17 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:29 pm:
Absolutely YES.
Much of the backlog is to IL businesses (unfortunately some already closed). If you can’t figure out why it’s great to pay your IL businesses then you really don’t understand simple state economics.
LOCAL Businesses are what make a state economy hum!
Multi-national or multi-state companies syphon money from one place to their home area.
SPENDING LOCALLY GREATLY ENHANCES IL Economy. Isn’t that what Gov Brucie is supposedly (but obviously not) about?!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:30 pm:
–A senior Rauner administration official says the governor is not opposed to borrowing to start paying it off.–
Really? Now?
Did you just find your math book on the bus or something, Einstein, after a year?
Better late than never. I was howling for this years ago, when the juice was “zero.”
It’s not a matter of ideology or opinion, it’s arithmetic. Let the whiz kids run the numbers and act accordingly, for whatever works.
After a year, every Rauner superstar now reminds me of Martin Shkreli.
Kind of smart, way crazy.
- RIJ - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:44 pm:
Well, I’ve been paying my health bills as I go so that I receive that excellent rate when the reimbursement check comes, so personally it’s been like having the best short term Certficate of Deposit imaginable. It’s a great deal for me, but a lousy one for the State. Borrow the money and lower the State’s interest rates.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:19 pm:
Only with low interest rate.
- TinyDancer(FKA Sue) - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:22 pm:
We don’t have a spending problem.
We have a revenue problem. Borrowing doesn’t solve that problem - just prolongs it.
Solve the revenue problem first. A graduated income tax would be great.
- Square Pegs - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:34 pm:
Isn’t this the exact thing Rauner dinged the city in while trying to sabotage the CPS bond deal?
No borrowing. Legalize marijuana and watch revenues increase.
What a fool!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 7:00 pm:
The first thing we need to do is stop digging a bigger hole. A responsible, balanced budget that is funded with a combination of real cuts and some revenue is what will be needed. We have to stop the practice of borrowing to meet our budget shortfalls. The fact that we have $7 billion in unpaid bills means we’ve made promises that we couldn’t keep. We need to be honest with the people of Illinois about how much revenue we have to spend and then spend no more than that amount. The General Assembly needs to adopt a revenue estimate and live within those means.
- Square Pegs - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 7:26 pm:
“The fact that we have $7 billion in unpaid bills means we’ve made promises that we couldn’t keep.”
Correct! Promises to providers and vendors who are still owed money because of the ridiculous choices of the governor.
Govern, sir! Create revenue streams. Pay people what they are owed. Be responsible.
- Enviro - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 8:31 pm:
Borrowing is the problem not the solution to Illinois’ fiscal problems.
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 8:35 pm:
Show me $1.5 bil in savings, then I go with tax increase. How come nobody talks about sales tax on farm equipment?
- BeenThereB4 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 8:54 pm:
I absolutely understand that it is important for the state to pay its bill . . . so end this hostage situation Rauner and for the 1st time in your life bargain in good faith (for real) with the legislature over budget issues!
In short, do your job.
- James - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 8:58 pm:
No. And I feel for the vendors who are residents and have rendered services to the State in good faith. But if we let the Governor borrow, we’ll be easing the pressure on him. He worked very hard being continuously unreasonable to create this heightened bill-backlog, these hardships and the pressure now coming from affected residents. He needs to learn that this method of governing is not acceptable to the residents. The problem should not be wasted, and it needs to be on him.
If the Governor is allowed to borrow and placate state vendors, we will just be giving him more time and quiet, encouraging him to hold other hostages to maintain his unreasonable position.
- PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 9:50 pm:
I fear many vendors will not get paid their money due. Welching on obligations is this guy’s #1 strategy. Has been….look it up. Hence “Executive budgetary control”. Look out! Here it comes
- DuPage Bard - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 5:02 am:
Really, that’s the plan…..borrow money?