[Bumped up to Thursday morning for visibility.]
*** UPDATE 2 *** SB 2214, the Senate’s budget bill, is now online. Click here to read it.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* From Sen. Bill Brady’s (Bloomington) press release on his newly introduced spending package contained in SB 2214…
Brady’s proposal includes a total of six budget related bills that contain a balanced $36 billion operating budget for FY18. Additionally, Brady’s plan proposes appropriations to pay off remaining FY16 bills as well as the balance of FY17 appropriations. It also includes a hard spending-cap of roughly $36 billion in general funds.
“I have always said that any deal we pass must be fair to the taxpayers of this state, which is why my budget includes a four-year spending-cap of $36 billion. If our constituents have to live within their means, it’s time for their state government to do the same,” noted Brady.
Under the legislation, the state would be allowed to issue up to $6 billion in revenue bonds to significantly reduce the state’s backlog of unpaid bills, saving the state millions of dollars on late-payment interest costs.
Brady’s budget increases funding for K-12 education by $250 million for the new evidence-based school funding formula, as well as providing a $35 million increase for Early Childhood Education. The budget also includes $156 million in pension parity for Chicago Public Schools while reducing the controversial Chicago Block Grant by $200 million.
Yep, cutting the CPS block grant and coming up $60 million shy of the earlier agreed CPS pension payment will really go down well with the Democratic leadership.
The budget walk-through can be seen by clicking here.
The proposal would also make $1.6 billion in unspecified transfers out reductions and pension spending would be cut by well over a billion dollars.
* Meanwhile, here are the reform bills…
Pension Consideration – HB 4064
Pension – HB 4065
Property Tax Freeze – HB 4066
Citizens Empowerment – HB 4067
Worker’s Compensation – HB 4068
Education Funding Reform – HB 4069
Notice that these are all bills introduced in their original chambers, so they have to start afresh (meaning three days of readings in each chamber) unless they find appropriate vehicles.
*** UPDATE *** Sun-Times…
An appropriations measure was filed on Wednesday afternoon and five other bills will be filed on Thursday, according to State Sen. Bill Brady’s office. Numbers released by Brady’s office show the Republican plan shows higher revenue totals for sales taxes — about $75 million more — and less money coming from the personal income tax hike — about $230 million less.
* Crain’s…
CPS says in a statement that the budget plan isn’t a compromise at all but “part of Rauner’s insistence that he gets all of what he wants to sign on to a bill, even if it means students living in poverty across Illinois get none of the state support they need.”
Among other things, CPS officials say, moving to a per-pupil rather than per-district funding plan like the new legislation proposes would have cut funding for two-thirds of the state last year. CPS along might lose up to $400 million, they add, based on an earlier version of the legislation.
- stlboy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 8:09 pm:
DOA
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 8:40 pm:
Bill Brady, the confirmed Raunerite Leader of the Senate. Wonder how many Rauner Bucks are going into his warchest? And Barickman right there in the “draft”.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 8:45 pm:
What exactly is Working Together in between lines 23 and 24 for Budget Book Rec 2018 of (4572)?
Also, did Brady remember to factor in the Exelon payouts???
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:02 pm:
So where are they finding $1B or so in pension savings?
- J IL - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:02 pm:
I think DOA is being generous
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:12 pm:
Doesn’t sound like the borrowing will be enough to get down to a 60 or 90 day cycle.
- Elliott Ness - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:14 pm:
Neither Dems or GOP want a “deal”. This is clearly nothing more than an attempt to shift the blame. There is a reasonable deal to be made and unfortunately this isn’t even close to a sincere attempt.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:17 pm:
Even though the Group Health payments are running as much as 2 years late, notice there is no carryover to help catch up. And FY18 is a $395M cut. They’ll never get caught up if they keep cutting the appropriation.
It’s clear they don’t care about State employees.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:26 pm:
Pension Consideration – HB 4064
Summary reads the same as the Cullerton consideration by forced choice pension bill. See my previous comments about it. Expect the Tier 1 forced choice portion to be found unconstitutional.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:30 pm:
Pension – HB 4065
Basically the other half of the Cullerton bill. Eliminates the GA pension plan, creates new Tier 3 Defined Contributions plan, some buyout options. Expect it will be found constitutional … but I don’t really see the claimed savings.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:33 pm:
- J. Ellis -
You have to change the constitution.
That’s not happening by June 30th
- DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:49 pm:
Claiming savings in FY18 for any pension bill that applies to new hires (Tier 3??) is preposterous. Even if found constitutional, it won’t go into effect until who knows when.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:50 pm:
Should have added …
Translating the pension bills to the claimed budget savings (not sure if this is correct since the $750M is label funding reform):
HB4064 - Tier 1 Choice ~ $750M
HB4065 - Tier 3 ~ $500M
Also notice that the June 2018 proposed pension funding numbers are actually lower than the FY17 estimated (instead of higher as had been previously proposed), taking a step backwards in trying to pay off the pension debt.
- Ron - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:51 pm:
Not a bad start.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:52 pm:
To me, at a quick glance, with just the Pension and Group Health cuts, there is $1.5B to $2B in funny money “savings”.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:54 pm:
== Notice that these are all bills introduced in their original chambers, so they have to start afresh (meaning three days of readings in each chamber) unless they find appropriate vehicles. ==
Apparently the IGOP doesn’t know how to run a highball on the railroad.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:55 pm:
Sorry. 9:26pm was I.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 9:59 pm:
=== == Notice that these are all bills introduced in their original chambers, so they have to start afresh (meaning three days of readings in each chamber) unless they find appropriate vehicles. ==
Apparently the IGOP doesn’t know how to run a highball on the railroad===
- RNUG -
Besides the problematic simplistic issue of finding vehicles, maybe you can help me, no snark, no leading question, but…
… why the need, politically, to start this in the House?
I’m asking on the pure political angle, nothing more, and recognizing the reasoning why it stands as it does now… but, wouldn’t the Senate be better, not unlike the Senate Grand Bargain scenarios, to box in Madigan?
I could be all wet here, wouldn’t be the first or last time I’m all wet, misunderstanding, but… maybe you can help me.
Thanks.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:03 pm:
== Claiming savings in FY18 for any pension bill that applies to new hires (Tier 3??) is preposterous. Even if found constitutional, it won’t go into effect until who knows when. ==
I can see claiming immediate savings for new hires that go into a Defined Contributions plan. The problem I have is whether or not the DC plan without also having Social Security will be found to meet “safe harbor” provisions.
If it doesn’t, then someone will have to pay the employers share if SS and, in that case, I see additional cost instead of savings. Maybe Rauner figures the school districts will be on the hook for SS; that would save the State money but at a higher overall cost to the taxpayers.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:07 pm:
== … why the need, politically, to start this in the House? ==
My guess? They figure they can get it through the Senate, but by starting in the House they put pressure on MJM and they avoid IGOP Senators having to put votes on the tax increase until everything is through the House.
If you’ve got a better theory, I’d like to hear it.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:11 pm:
BTW, -OW-, the highball railroad line was a bit of a pun / snark referencing how MJM always has shell bills ready to run through in hours, not days.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:17 pm:
===but by starting in the House they put pressure on MJM and they avoid IGOP Senators having to put votes on the tax increase until everything is through the House.===
“but by starting in the House they put pressure on MJM”
I see that, that’s where I see the leverage. It’s puts Madigan front and center, trying to force votes here to get it thru, and allow Rauner his measured wins.
I guess why I keep scratching my head is;
1) It’s a gamble that there is a want to find 71 here.
2) “Is it a setup to fall upon itself”, and like Durkin made clear in his remarks “It will be blamed on Madigan!” and with tens of millions and newspaper headlines, it’s ripe for a forced failure, allowing Rauner his cover.
My fear is, because I want a budget, as you do, as others do, but starting it in the House, and my two concerns, it allows failure as, at times, a better looking option.
===…and they avoid IGOP Senators having to put votes on the tax increase until everything is through the House===
This I missed. You’re right about that. Good and honest cover for the Senate GOP members from bad useless votes.
As an aside… You’re always great to bounce stuff off of, and your work on the numbers, I’m always grateful to your time and expertise.
Your points helped me greatly. Hope I made my concerns clear.
So, where are my blind spots?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:19 pm:
===the highball railroad line was a bit of a pun / snark referencing how MJM always has shell bills ready to run through in hours, not days.===
You know I love the Easter Eggs. That’s cool. I’ll keep that one (with a tip of the cap to you) in the bag of tricks.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:26 pm:
== I’ll keep that one ==
In case you don’t know it, into railroad lingo, a highball was a special express train they cleared the tracks for.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 10:30 pm:
- RNUG -
===…highball was a special express train they cleared the tracks for.===
Ah. Nope. I didn’t know. Cool stuff. Thanks.
- Rabid - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 11:00 pm:
Thats balling the jack
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 11:31 pm:
== Thats balling the jack ==
;-)
- Been There - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 12:09 am:
===Maybe Rauner figures the school districts will be on the hook for SS===
Wow. That would be huge. The school districts are 75% of the pension problem. Sounds like a cost shift to me and I would be all for it. It has always been ludicrous that the high paying suburban districts get to palm off their employee pensions onto to the state. And Chicago has to pick up their part of the tab.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 5:48 am:
Meh. I guess the Republicans are “doing something” but this package is weak sauce, all for show.
That said, Madigan will do … nothing. Because he doesn’t want to, let alone need to.
- One for the road - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 6:46 am:
Sorry for stating the obvious (but it needs to be stated): If the GOP legislators started this process in the Senate, it increases the odds that both sides of the Senate may actually agree on a compromise (as this latest proposal is simply a new starting point). In other words, Madigan could be boxed in and forced to go along with the rest of the crowd.
Needless to say, Rauner doesn’t want a tax increase, especially now as we’re a year out from the election (cue the “I held the line on taxes” commercial). The politics of this is so easy to see, it’s hiding in plain sight.
- Gruntled University Employee - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 7:47 am:
===Maybe Rauner figures the school districts will be on the hook for SS===
While the bond rating agencies would be thrilled with a budget, any budget, even a bad budget, I think they’ve been pretty clear that they aren’t supportive of cost shifts like this.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 8:32 am:
Kind of hard to evaluate SB2214 when it isn’t yet posted
- DuPage - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:06 am:
“Cost shifts” to school districts would only cover the “normal pension costs” going forward. The state would still have to pay the amount that the state already owes plus the interest on the unpaid amount.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:15 am:
“a highball was a special express train they cleared the tracks for.” Glad you cleared that up…despite how things are progressing, it did seem a bit early in the day to start drinking.
- Gruntled University Employee - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:16 am:
At this point how about instead of not letting the Perfect be the enemy of the Good we switch to not letting the Mediocre be the enemy of the Doable?
- JJ471 - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:20 am:
Yep, what I thought, Rauner and cronies moved goal post again. Wonder how much money he threw to Brady.
- Huh? - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:44 am:
And here I thought a highball was an adult beverage. /s
By the time this is through, that is what we will be drinking.
- Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:54 am:
===Maybe Rauner figures the school districts will be on the hook for SS===
Which the districts could tax for in an uncapped fund…except for the tax cap…
- walker - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:56 am:
Awfully late for budget proposals that rely on over $1B in false savings to balance.
It is progress though, because Rauner’s initial proposal two years ago had $3.1B in false savings, and his proposal last year didn’t even pretend to balance.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:08 am:
=It is progress though, because Rauner’s initial proposal two years ago had $3.1B in false savings, and his proposal last year didn’t even pretend to balance. =
With respect,that is how far our standards have fallen: when a $1 billion lie is better than a $3.1 billion lie. and is thought of as progress (which it really is).
Lord help us.
- Sense of a Goose - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 11:08 am:
2nd verse. Same as the 1st….Herman’s Hermits
- Barrington - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
Perhaps someone can explain the revenue side of the through budget walk-through. What is the “Other” category of revenue?
- Mama - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 1:28 pm:
If I was a Democrat Legislator, I would do unto the Republicans what they have been doing these last 2 years. Vote present or don’t vote for their bills!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 1:37 pm:
I wish a draft of SB 2214 would be released and not just the “financial walk down”. real agencies and real vendors would like to see real allocations.
- Steve Rogers - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
SB2214 is now posted on ilga.gov
- Steve Rogers - Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
Woops. Meant to include link too:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/100/SB/PDF/10000SB2214lv.pdf