Cullerton does the media’s job for them
Thursday, Feb 2, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Ted Dabrowski, vice president of policy and spokesman for the Illinois Policy Institute, on why it wants to end revenue sharing via the $1.75 billion Local Government Distributive Fund…
“Illinois government encourages local governments to spend more, sending billions of dollars to thousands of local governments each year,” Dabrowski said. “All this does is allow governments to spend it on things that their constituencies would never approve of. We end that charade.”
Really? Local governments are spending that revenue sharing money on stuff their own constituents wouldn’t approve of?
* I’ve looked for, but haven’t yet seen any actual reportage on local react to this claim. But Sen. Tom Cullerton (the rank and file Senator, and that’s Cullerton with a “C” not an “F” who is not the chamber’s “majority speaker”) sent out a press release with one local mayor’s thoughts…
In addition to funding everyday core services to Illinois citizens, LGDF distributions play a role in keeping the local tax burden low.
“This idea is ridiculous,” Mayor Frank Saverino, Village of Carol Stream said.
“Municipalities like Carol Stream rely on the Local Government Distributive Fund to repair potholes, plow our roads in the winter and provide area residents with basic services. We wouldn’t be able to serve the people of Carol Stream without this essential fund.”
- Wow - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:16 pm:
I really want to see a vote of this IPI grand bargain.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:16 pm:
this kind of service is why Tom Cullerton was recently elected Senate Majority Speaker.
- stlboy - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
Can’t wait to see the IML response from Brad Cole. He actually knows what they spend the money on compared to the IPI fools who can only jabber making no sense.
- Dozer - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:21 pm:
not taking a side, but what would you expect the mayor to say?
- My button is broke... - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:21 pm:
The City of Springfield is estimating a $2 million decrease in revenues for the upcoming fiscal year. And they are thinking about increasing four taxes to make up for the shortfall. At about $100 per person, eliminating LGDF would result in about $11.7 million less in revenues for the City. If they can’t absorb a $2 million decrease without tax increases, how would they absorb the ADDITIONAL $11.7 million cut?
- Anon - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:26 pm:
I look forward to hearing from Republican mayors and village trustees from around the State.
- Scamp640 - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:28 pm:
The IPI is a purveyor of alternative facts.
- PJ - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:31 pm:
Amazing. The IPI wants to take the funds that hundreds of local, heavily Republican municipalities rely on to do things like plow roads.
This is what happens when ideologues try to delve into the real, messy world of public policy.
- Keyrock - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:38 pm:
As an old goo-goo, I never thought I’d say this, but the State may need more Cullertons.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:39 pm:
Has Tillman ever had to balance a budget? It seems like whenever he thought he might run short he could call someone like Rauner to bail him out.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
===Has Tillman ever had to balance a budget?===
Tillman refuses to create a budget unless he gets major structural reforms that will grow IPI and improve their business climate.
- 100 miles west - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
I don’t know where Mr. Dabrowski lives, but would love to see the list of things his local government funds that are unnecessary and unknown to the local population.
- Gruntled University Employee - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
Majority Speaker Cullerton and the Carol Stream Mayor he controls.
- Signal and Noise - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:17 pm:
When you start from a mindset that all government is bad and all government spending is wasteful, this is what you get.
- DuPage Bard - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:20 pm:
Quick check of a couple local numbers Wheaton could lose over $5 million Naperville could lose over $7 million. DuPage’s contribution to the LGDF fix will be well over $150 million.
Going to be a big fight on this one for sure.
- DuPage - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:23 pm:
Carol Stream has a lot of revenue sources. Big industrial parks, car dealers, shopping centers, hefty utility taxes on gas, electricity, telephone, cable, water and sewer. Much of their police budget is funded by numerous red light cameras and their speed traps along North Ave. The point is Carol Stream is better off financially then most towns, and could absorb any state cuts without as big a problem as they let on.
- Linus - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:24 pm:
== “All this does is allow governments to spend it on things that their constituencies would never approve of. We end that charade.” ==
FINALLY I know who to blame for those disappearing potholes! Disapprove! Sad!
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:26 pm:
Why do we even talk about the IPI anymore? Talking about them just makes them appear to be credible.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:39 pm:
John Tillman at one time was the President (a/k/a Mayor) of the Village of Golf, a tiny subdivision of a town between Skokie and Glenview. Surprised he never tried to consolidate it with one of those neighboring towns given his leanings. Wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that it is home to the Western Golf Association.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:55 pm:
Three things about the local share of the income tax:
1) It has been in effect since 1969 when the State first established an income tax. Governor Oglivie made a deal with Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley to share a portion of the income tax with municipalities as a trade for allowing home rules to levy a local option income tax.
2)The local share makes up a larger chunk than 5 percent of the local revenue base for many communities that IPI states. For them, eliminating it will be a substantial hit.
3) The local share has been frozen since 2011 when the then temporary income tax was passed. The deal was that towns will be held harmless and consideration would be given to restoring the local share to 10 percent if/when the State dug itself out of its deficit.
- Swift - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 1:55 pm:
==”All this does is allow governments to spend it on things that their constituencies would never approve of”==
I think the “things” can only be union employees. Or…rumor has it some mayors have been using double-ply toilet paper and we all know good small government conservatives only permit single-ply for government offices.
Or worse still, the municipalities are spending money on poor people, that my friends is probably the absolute worst way to spend public funds per the IPI.
- Jake From Elwood - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
As far as I know, the LGDF only goes to municipalities, not schools or other special districts. My opinion would be to strip it away from those municipalities that are abusing the TIF laws to advantage themselves and developers at the expense of schools and other special districts. Those municipalities that are good stewards of the TIF laws keep the LGDF.
- SAP - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
How does IPI feel about federal funding that flows to the states? We could pretty much eliminate the federal income tax if DOT stopping funding infrastructure, EPA stopped funding remediation, Health and Human Services stopped funding Medicare….
- In 630 - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
Lordy, people like Dabrowski who opine on state politics don’t really know local government. These operations don’t have a lot of frills, don’t veer into unpopular territory with projects, and thanks to competent non-partisan professionals, don’t waste much. No LGDF means less public works projects or fewer police/fire personnel. Those aren’t places anyone wants to go.
- A guy - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 3:10 pm:
LGDF accounts for up to half of some muni budgets. The legislature has been trying to soften this target for the past 15 years now.
Mayors mean a lot to local legislative races. Dabrowski doesn’t have any accountability to them. The State Reps and State Sens do. Add to that Council members, Trustees, Parks and Libraries. They’d lynch the Reps who would vote to give up the LGDF in DuPage.
- Whatever - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 3:35 pm:
Revenue sharing systems have two major problems. The first is the one that IPI notes in their oh-so-gentle way: separating the responsibility for imposing the tax from the ability to spend can lead to overspending. The local governments and their constituencies look at the shared revenue as free money, and are tempted to spend it on things they wouldn’t buy if they were paying for it themselves. The second problem should be obvious to everyone by now - what happens when your rich uncle can’t afford to share as much as before or simply decides to cut you off? If the state cuts back because its revenues are down in a bad economy, the locals’ revenues are probably down, too. So they get hit with a double whammy and have to cut way back or raise taxes in a bad economy.
That doesn’t mean eliminating revenue sharing is an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to school funding. Every kid deserves an equal chance, which can’t be provided in many places using local revenues only.
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
This LGDF trial balloon has been floating around for two years. Prior to that, Springfield raised income tax rate, but kept sum very close to pre-raise levels. If city and county leaders arent smart enough to see things are precarious, then they are as clueless as Springfield. Somethings gotta give. It just cant be raisin taxes all the time.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 2, 17 @ 5:03 pm:
–LGDF accounts for up to half of some muni budgets.–
What munis get half of their revenues from the income tax? That’s an argument for reducing their share, not maintaining it.
Here in Oak Park, 10% of general revenues come from the income tax.