Question of the day
Friday, Mar 15, 2024 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jerry Nowicki with Capitol News Illinois…
The governor proposed raising another $200 million by upping the tax rates paid by sportsbooks to 35 percent from 15 percent. When the General Assembly legalized sports betting in 2019, lawmakers dedicated all revenue from it to building infrastructure projects. But the governor’s plan would direct all extra revenue generated by the increase to the state’s General Revenue Fund.
Rep. Bob Rita, D-Blue Island, one of the architects of the original sports betting legalization plan, questioned the logic of the move.
“Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep this under the capital fund, so that we fully fund the projects that we’ve been trying to get out the door?” he asked.
Pritzker’s Office of Management and Budget Director Alexis Sturm responded that video gambling and cigarette taxes that also fund infrastructure have outperformed expectations.
“The revenues that are coming into the capital projects fund have been sufficient to cover the debt service needs out of that fund,” she said, adding that new casino licensing fees and other casino revenues fund “pay-as-you-go” projects that don’t require borrowing.
* The Question: Would you rather see this new $200 million go into the General Revenue Fund, as the governor proposes, or stay in the capital fund? Explain.
- OneMan - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:18 pm:
I realize it doesn’t matter in the bigger picture, but relying on gaming to cover “normal expenses” seems like a bad idea.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:25 pm:
The feds are doing infrastructure and that could also help ease the state’s burden. If the money is there for infrastructure from other sources, stash the extra cash from the betting tax hike in the rainy day fund. The state needs more financial recovery.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:35 pm:
If the revenue exceeds what is needed to pay down the bonds for the specific projects funded by the capital bill, then there is no reason to keep that revenue in what essentially would be a new “lockbox.”
But I’d be careful doing this because if we divert money now and need it later to cover interest and debt payments, that will be ugly.
Measure twice, cut once. But I trust this administration to do that and get it right. It’s the future governors I tend to worry about.
- Homebody - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:44 pm:
Dollars are fungible. Lockbox laws don’t do anything but make future flexibility harder when revenue streams shift with consumer behavior.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:46 pm:
===Dollars are fungible===
Oh, thanks for that unprecedented level of insight. Now how about answering the question?
- Donnie Elgin - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 12:56 pm:
” video gambling and cigarette taxes that also fund infrastructure have outperformed expectations”
we love our sin taxes
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:08 pm:
===we love our sin taxes ===
Correction: We love your sins.
- Give Us Barabbas - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:16 pm:
GRF, but, there are so many critical needs going unmet with GRF, it would be nice to be able to take a surplus of funds and bomb one problem with it to really make a huge difference in one fell swoop. Everybody has a pet need in the budget. Mine is, I have a relative on Medicaid who really needs psychiatric therapy and counseling. The wait list for a first appointment was eight months. There’s just not enough qualified therapists out there to even meet the demand for people paying full- price but imagine if you were on Medicaid and had a mental health crisis and had to just wait six months or more to talk to a professional about it. And then wait two more for a follow up visit? How many people are we losing just for lack of behavioral health care? How many mass tragedies could we prevent, if we made a maximum effort about it? This is true for so many crises today. But that’s one close to my heart.
- lol - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:30 pm:
The road fund is doing just fine and we’re paying for capital with existing revenue. Ensuring that some of the sin tax money actually helps the state budget makes sense. Locking money away into a fund where you can’t ever access again seems silly
- Rabid - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Keep 15% move 20% to general fund. I like the way JB thinks
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:35 pm:
===relying on gaming to cover “normal expenses” seems like a bad idea===
OneMan’s comment makes sense and should probably be factored into responses. Just sayin…
- Phineas - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 1:42 pm:
Capital expenses are not any more “normal” than GRF. I vote GRF - our elected officials should look at all of the challenges we face and prioritize without having to cross the roadbuilders lobby. LOL
- JS Mill - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 2:12 pm:
OneMan does make a good point, we cannot rely on these dollars long term. I still think it goes to the GRF, but I worry about trying to support normal expenses with an unreliable source of revenue.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 2:14 pm:
===having to cross the roadbuilders===
This was for vertical, not horizontal.
- Because I Said So…. - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 2:50 pm:
My organization has been begging for Rebuild Illinois funds to be release since the legislation was passed.
So no don’t support shifting that money to general revenue.
- gdubya - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 3:06 pm:
They only pay 15%. That should be taxed at 50% or more. It’s freakin free money for them.
- Juice - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 3:09 pm:
Put the cash in GRF. The vast majority of the debt from Rebuild Illinois are General Obligation bonds, so they are ultimately backed by the general funds regardless. The General Obligation Bond Retirement and Interest Fund (GOBRI) is what secures the state’s credit rating. Shifting revenues passed from a capital bill into special funds instead of GRF is done for political reasons and to make members of the GA feel better instead of for financial reasons. But ultimately has no impact on how much debt the State can actually issue. (Similar story for Build Illinois bonds, but with some additional complications because they’re back mainly by sales taxes instead of general obligations.)
- Annonin' - Friday, Mar 15, 24 @ 3:50 pm:
The smartest move would be allocate as much of the $200 million to bring Taylor Swift to the state fair. Money well spent