In order to prevent more tragic losses of emergency responders and highway workers, Governor JB Pritzker and state lawmakers unveiled legislation Tuesday to strengthen Scott’s Law and understand how to better stop more senseless roadway fatalities.
“Scott’s Law says that drivers approaching a vehicle with their hazard lights on must slow down and move over. The legislation we’re announcing today enhances penalties for those who don’t obey the law and raises awareness for those who don’t even know Scott’s Law exists,” said Gov. JB Pritzker. “No one’s time or convenience is worth more than the lives of our state’s heroes.”
This year, Troopers Christopher Lambert, Brooke Jones-Story and Gerald Ellis paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the line of duty. The law was initially passed in memory of Lieutenant Scott Gillen.
The proposal is addressed with two separate pieces of legislation. The first, SB 1862, takes several steps to strengthen Scott’s Law:
Expands Scott’s Law protections to include a stationary authorized vehicle with oscillating lights, first responders, IDOT workers, law enforcement officers and any individual authorized to be on the highway within the scope of their employment or job duties;
Increases the minimum fine to $250 for a first violation of Scott’s Law and to $750 for a second or subsequent violation;
Adds $250 assessment fee for any violation of Scott’s Law to be deposited into a new dedicated fund to produce driver education materials, called the Scott’s Law Fund;
Increases criminal penalty to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail, if violation results in damage to another vehicle or a Class 4 felony, punishable by up to one to three years in prison, if violation results in an injury or death of another person;
Amends the Criminal Code of 2012 to include firefighter and emergency medical service personnel while acting within the scope of their official duties;
Adds aggravating factors to reckless homicide charges if Scott’s Law was violated;
Requires the Secretary of State to include written question on Scott’s Law in driver’s license test.
The second piece of legislation, SB 2038, creates a Move Over Task Force to study the issue of violations of Scott’s Law, disabled vehicle law, and stationary authorized emergency vehicle law, with attention to the causes of the violations and ways to protect law enforcement and emergency responders. […]
Members of the Task Force must serve without compensation and must meet no fewer than three times. Additionally, the Task Force must present its report and recommendations to the General Assembly no later than January 1, 2020.
“Enough is enough. Three first responders have lost their lives while working on our roadways this year, and we’re cracking down on reckless drivers to prevent more senseless tragedies,” said Rep. Marcus C. Evans, the chief House sponsor of the package of legislation. “This legislation will keep our brave public servants safe and save lives.”
“As a former police officer, I know the life-threatening situations facing law enforcement every day, and I’m proud this legislation will protect and serve our brave men and women in uniform,” said Sen. Tony Munoz, the chief Senate sponsor of the package of legislation. “We can’t afford to lose any more lives, so I implore all drivers to slow down and move over when you see first responders on the roads.”
“This legislation is one way we’re working to protect the protectors,” said Rep. John Cabello. “Too many first responders have paid the ultimate price, and we are honoring their legacy by preventing even more tragic losses among our state’s heroes.”
“As Moline firefighter and paramedic, keeping our first responders safe is a deeply personal mission for me,” said Sen. Neil Anderson. “To the public servants that work on our roadways, know that we’re doing all we can to keep you safe and ensure you can return home to your families. You deserve nothing less.”
The legislation will be introduced by Rep. Marcus C. Evans Jr. (D-Chicago) and Sen. Tony Munoz (D-Chicago) and will be co-sponsored by Sen. Neil Anderson (R- Andalusia) and Reps. Tim Butler (R-Springfield), John Cabello (R-Machesney Park) and Jay Hoffman (D-Swansea).
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has privately told associates that, if anything in Chicago is ever named after him, he would love it to be the Riverwalk, the embodiment of his vision to create a “second waterfront.”
On Monday, the retiring mayor added to the case for renaming it the Rahm Emanuel Riverwalk.
With just one week to go before he leaves office, Emanuel proudly showcased a newly-transformed “Riverwalk East” from Michigan Avenue to Lake Shore Drive paid for with $12 million from a general obligation bond issue.
The investment includes: 10,000 square feet of recreational spaces; 94 new LED “dark sky compliant” light fixtures; three public restrooms; roughly 150 new tree plantings from 35 different species and public seating for 500.
* The Question: What Chicago landmark would you name for Rahm Emanuel and what would you call it? Keep it clean, please.
* This Daily Herald editorial comically misidentifies Illinois Department of Revenue Director David Harris as House Majority Leader Greg Harris. The reason it’s so funny is because former Rep. David Harris represented Arlington Heights in the House, and that’s where the paper is based…
House Majority Leader Greg Harris told lawmakers in a letter last week that state government collected 38 percent more from taxpayers in April than it did a year ago. We shudder a little to think about what Gov. J.B. Pritzker might have proposed if he had known before his February budget address that Illinois would collect $4 billion from taxpayers in April, instead of the $2.5 billion or so that was expected.
But with the tax windfall in hand now, the state has a perfect opportunity to focus on the much-troubled control side of Pritzker’s budget rather than the robust spending side. And the chief target of that attention must be the governor’s ill-advised proposal to take a so-called “holiday” from making required pension payments. The surplus announced last week will more than cover the $800 million Pritzker was planning to get by avoiding the pension payments, and that must be the first priority for its use. […]
The governor, who Harris reportedly said leans toward using the surplus to avoid the pension holiday […]
The $1.5 billion tax surplus eliminates any need to succumb to that temptation and leaves hundreds of millions for another systemic issue facing the state — its $650 million backlog of late bill payments.
Just to be sure, I checked with Leader Harris and he said he sent no such letter.
People make mistakes. No biggie. But editorials are supposedly written or at least approved by an editorial board. That would be multiple people.
And there are more problems with this editorial than getting a name wrong.
1) Director Harris didn’t “reportedly” say anything. He said the governor was recommending that the state use the increased revenue projections from Fiscal Year 2020 to pay the full statutory pension payment. I mean, it’s right here in black and, um, tan (or whatever color my website is).
2) The editorial board is apparently confused about the $800 million number. That’s the additional projected revenue increase for next fiscal year. Pritzker was planning to skip $900 million or so in pension payments, which is higher than the revenue spike, not lower, so something else will have to be cut or more revenues will have to be found.
Maybe if the paper hadn’t closed its Statehouse bureau it would have somebody to call before writing stuff like this. Or maybe they could just use the Google. Or Bing. Whatever floats your boat.
On January 30, the U.S. federal court overseeing Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring issued a ruling that may weaken the legal support for a subset of municipal securities known as “special revenue” bonds. In general, special revenue bonds are those backed by utility revenues, dedicated taxes or other dedicated payments and issued by a Chapter 9-eligible entity like a city, school district or special district government. Special revenue bonds often receive superior treatment to other bonds in Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
The ruling surprised many market participants, and in our view it is the first decision stemming from Puerto Rico’s insolvency that has meaningful implications for mainland credit quality. While the near-term impact of the decision is likely to be modest, it could have long-term implications. Currently, few special revenue issuers exhibit credit stress, and the decision may be overturned on appeal. However, special revenue bonds may constitute up to 35 percent of the $3.8 trillion municipal bond market. If the ruling proves lasting, it could trigger ratings downgrades, alter municipal investment strategy at some firms and compel legislative fixes, among other actions.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed a controversial ruling regarding the treatment of municipal revenue debt, leaving investors with lingering questions about the value and significance of a revenue pledge in a municipal bankruptcy.
The original U.S. District Court decision roiled the municipal markets in January 2018, when Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the judge overseeing Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring, ruled that municipal debtors were permitted, but not required, to apply special revenues to pay related bonds. Judge Swain’s ruling reversed long-held conventional wisdom regarding the mandatory application of special revenues following municipal bankruptcy. […]
Although the First Circuit’s ruling covers only Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island, commentators and rating agencies have expressed concern that the ruling will have a broader impact on holders of municipal revenue debt, particularly given the relative scarcity of case law interpreting issues of municipal bankruptcy. The First Circuit’s affirmation raises serious concerns about the value of a municipal revenue pledge and creditors’ ability to enforce any lien on such revenues post-bankruptcy or to otherwise protect the revenue stream.
Moody’s Investors Service has placed the Aa3 rating of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) under review for downgrade. ISTHA has approximately $6.1 billion of bonds outstanding.
RATINGS RATIONALE
The rating action is driven by the recent US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruling related to the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (PRHTA) bonds, which calls into question the strength of credit separations between a general government and its enterprises and component units. The review will consider economic, governance, and financial interdependencies between ISTHA and the State of Illinois (Baa3 Stable) and the extent that, in light of the afore-mentioned court ruling, and such interdependencies pose risks to ISTHA that could have an impact on its credit quality.
On March 26th, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is not required to pay “special revenue” debt service on PRHTA bonds (C Negative Outlook) during the pendency of bankruptcy-like proceedings. While the Court’s jurisdiction is only the Commonwealth and those states that are within the 1st Circuit (which does not include Illinois), no appellate-level court has addressed the issue of whether pledged special revenues must be paid to bondholders in a municipal bankruptcy or restructuring process until now. In other municipal bankruptcies, utility and other enterprise revenue bonds have offered extremely high recoveries when associated with general government insolvencies, though they have not always been immune from impairment despite falling under the “special revenue” pledge.
Moody’s notes that ISTHA has both authorizing legislation which states that excess revenues in the system reserve account can only be used for tollway purposes and a master indenture with a closed flow of funds. The state also passed a ballot initiative for a transportation lock box within its constitution in November 2016 with nearly 80% voter support, precluding transportation funds from being used for non- transportation uses. Taken together, this had provided sufficient independence to support the wide differential to the state’s rating. During the review period, Moody’s will determine the degree to which the authority’s rating should have a closer linkage to the rating of the state given the 1st Circuit ruling and what it may mean to the relationship between municipal governments with materially higher rated enterprises. The range of potential outcomes include a downgrade of the ISTHA’s credit which may be one or more notches to stabilizing the outlook at the current rating level.
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE
- Reversal of the ruling by the US Court of Appeals on PRHTA bonds would be supportive of the current rating
- Reduced uncertainty with respect to the breadth of legal implications for special revenue pledges stemming from the 1st Circuit ruling and greater demonstrated independence of ISTHA from the state
FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO A DOWNGRADE
- Continued uncertainty with respect to the breadth of legal implications for special revenue pledges stemming from the 1st Circuit ruling
- Attempts by the state to divert ISTHA funds to non-authority purposes
- Deterioration of the state rating
- Traffic and revenues fall short of current projections and DSCRs fall below forecasted levels consistently below two times
This looks like a serious over-reaction by Moody’s. I mean, Illinois can’t declare bankruptcy. We’re a state not a territory.
…Adding… Illinois Tollway…
The Illinois Tollway is a world-class system with quality roadways and facilities and projected revenue of $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2019. While we appreciate Moody’s role in providing credit ratings, its review is predicated on a legal case in Puerto Rico that bears little if any resemblance to the Tollway’s situation. This is a promising time for the State of Illinois with an administration that has made fiscal stability a priority. We look forward to working with the administration to continue to provide a quality experience to all we serve.
State universities finally are getting a bit of good news from Wall Street—largely due to the state’s improved fiscal situation.
In a series of announcements Monday evening, Moody’s Investors Service said it has adjusted upward from negative to neutral its outlook on debt issued by Eastern, Northern, Northeastern and Southern Illinois universities, as well as Governors State University and Illinois State University.
Eastern, Southern and Illinois State also received even better news, as Moody’s actually raised its ratings on a type of debt known as certificates of participation and, in Eastern’s and Illinois State’s case, some bonds.
The actions at a minimum mean none of the schools now is in imminent danger of a downgrade, something that has been the case since ex-Gov. Bruce Rauner and state lawmakers engaged in a two-year budget feud. The actions also suggest that the schools will pay less interest than they might have should they borrow again.
…Adding… Good point from a reader…
Now here is a question for Moody’s, as my blood pressure rises. What is so different about the ‘special revenue’ standing of the state’s tollway versus the state’s universities regarding “materially higher-rated enterprises?” U of I is rated one notch lower than the toll road, so why is it, for example, not under the same scrutiny? Do they even think before they release this stuff???
Illinois paper is gaining ground due to scant supply and a hunger for yield combined with recent fiscal developments that should help the state hold on to its investment grade rating in the near term.
Investor appeal has driven a narrowing of state spreads that remain the highest among states. They fluctuate in tandem with market appetites and state fiscal developments that stand to influence its weak ratings that are just one to two notches above junk. […]
“Presumably yield-hungry investors feel that the sixth-largest state (in terms of population) has an appealing spread that might tighten should its tax structure change,” MMD senior market strategist Dan Berger wrote in a column Friday.
* I quit smoking cigarettes years ago because my doctors told me cigarettes almost killed me. Not a fan. But Zorn makes a good point here about Senate President John Cullerton’s proposal to raise cigarette taxes by a dollar a pack, a plan also now supported by Gov. Pritzker…
According to statistics compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, those with annual household income less than $35,000 are nearly three times more likely to smoke than those in households that earn more than $100,000.
Overall, 14 percent of adults smoke. But only about 7 percent of those with a college degree light up regularly, compared to 23 percent of those without a high school diploma.
Among those with private insurance, 10.5 percent smoke, compared to 24.7 percent of the uninsured. And 35.2 percent of those suffering from “serious psychological distress” are smokers, according to the CDC. […]
Piling on them is a particularly regressive way to fund state government.
Parents and advocates gathered downtown Monday to call on Illinois Senate President John Cullerton to vote on a bill that would make Chicago’s school board elected rather than appointed, but Cullerton’s office says he’s holding the bill at the request of Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot.
Lightfoot supports an elected school board but expressed deep reservations about the bill pending in the State House, calling the large board called for in the legislation a “recipe for disaster.” She did not respond to WBEZ’s request for comment on Monday.
That bill, which would create a 21-member board, passed the House in early April. Since then, advocates have been demanding a Senate vote before the legislative session ends May 31.
“For years, the people of Chicago have been fighting for an elected school board,” said Karina Martinez, a member of the Brighton Park Neighborhood Council. “Yet, here I am standing three years later, still demanding and still waiting for an elected school board in the city.”
In an interview with WBEZ, Lightfoot said she was familiar with Martwick’s bill, but did not think a board of 20 members and a president was a good idea.
Martwick told the gathering Monday: “With 20 of them, now you have an opportunity for every group to be represented at the table, and you put more of an emphasis on grassroots organizing and you limit the influence of outside money. This structure will work. … It has been heavily vetted over the course of the last 3 1/2 years by the House of Representatives and it has passed three times with overwhelming majorities.”
The activists urged Lightfoot to push for an elected school board and for Cullerton to get the bill moving in the Senate. But John Patterson, Cullerton’s spokesman, confirmed that Lightfoot asked the Senate president to hold the measure so she could look into the issue.
Under Martwick’s proposal, the board would be comprised of 20 members elected in individual districts from around the city, compared to the seven appointed members currently on the Chicago Board of Education. And a board president would be elected citywide.
The measure passed the Illinois House in April but has yet to make its way through the state Senate amid Lightfoot’s reticence, according to the office of State Senate President John Cullerton.
“The mayor-elect did ask the Senate president to hold onto the bill so she can look into the issue more, so that’s the current status of the bill,” Cullerton’s spokesman, John Patterson, said Monday evening. […]
As for the timing, [Jeanette Taylor, alderman-elect in the 20th Ward] acknowledged that Lightfoot might need some time to weigh all these issues and others. However, dragging her feet could hold consequences for the mayor-elect, Taylor warned.
“She has four years in her term like everybody else,” Taylor said. “Chicago will make her answer.”
One of the reasons Lightfoot traveled to Springfield was to put a brick on Martwick’s bill (among others). She probably could’ve done that with a phone call or a meeting in Chicago, but it was a good idea to make the trip anyway.
…Adding… It’s important to remember that Rep. Martwick’s bill doesn’t take effect until 2023. That’s four years from now. There’s no reason that it absolutely must pass this month, just a few days after Lightfoot is sworn in. People really need to take a breath here.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - Posted by Advertising Department
[The following is a paid advertisement.]
Discussion of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s progressive income tax amendment has turned to the largest tax Illinoisans pay: property taxes.
Illinoisans’ property tax burdens in 1996 hovered around the national average. By 2016, they had skyrocketed to among the highest in the nation. It’s true that state funding for schools explains much of residents’ high property tax burden, but the key question to consider is: Where is that money going?
Illinois state government actually contributes a larger share of funding toward public schools today than it did 20 years ago, when factoring in pension spending. The problem is that pensions now take up more than a third of the state’s contribution to education, compared with just over 8% in the 1996 school year.
This explains why from 1996-2016, Illinoisans saw less than 50 cents of every additional property tax dollar go toward services. The primary drivers of the rise in property tax bills were pensions, other benefits and debt.
Any promises of property tax relief without pension reform are illusory.
If state lawmakers don’t address this core cost driver, they’ll face continued pressured to enact income tax hikes that do little to solve the problem.
A key component of a bill that would legalize possession and sale of marijuana for recreational use in Illinois — erasing pot-related convictions for potentially hundreds of thousands of people — may violate the state Constitution, according to the group representing county prosecutors statewide.
The bill essentially would create legislative pardons, which are illegal, said Robert Berlin, president of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association.
Under the Illinois Constitution, only the governor can issue pardons, Berlin, the DuPage County state’s attorney, told The State Journal-Register. […]
[Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago] said automatic expungements provided for in the bill would affect only past convictions.
However, the bill’s section on “future offenses” says circuit court clerks, arresting agencies and the Illinois State Police “shall expunge” twice a year the records of people found to have committed the outlined offenses as long as the cases have been closed.
Some law enforcement officials have questioned whether the bill is attempting a back-door revision of Illinois criminal law by providing for expungement of convictions for crimes that remain on the books.
I’m told the expungement section has been changed countless times and will likely be changed again. One tactic often used by opponents is to nitpick everything they possibly can. Remain calm.
Expungement is a critical part of this. We’ve always said that the language about how this gets done is a work in progress. We have been talking to the prosecutors & law enforcement from Day One. It would be more productive to stay at the table and discuss process than to do this. One thing we’re finding is that some folks are just against expungement but need a fig leaf – any fig leaf – to hide their objection to the idea.
Agreed on that last sentence.
* Meanwhile, we’ve already talked about the very real possibility that home grow will be limited only to medical cannabis patients. The Trib talked to NORML’s guy…
The executive director of the longtime cannabis activist group Illinois NORML, Dan Linn, said he would have to consult with his advisory board on how to react to such a change.
“We’d have to look at whether we’re still able to support the legislation,” he said.
NORML did support the legalization of marijuana in the state of Washington, which prohibits homegrown pot for the general population, but many other states do allow homegrown, Linn said.
“People say to pass the best bill you can and come back later to try and make it better,” Linn said. “But we’ve had significant problems with the (existing) medical cannabis program that we still have not been able to fix.”
Vigorous advocacy is a good thing. It helps keep the stakeholders honest. But, in the end, it comes down to 60-30-signature. Remember the lessons of the past four years.
After regulatory costs are covered, 25 percent of proceeds from taxes and other revenue generated from recreational marijuana would be deposited in an account dubbed the Restoring Our Communities fund, a new pot of money that would provide grants aimed at reducing violence, particularly gun violence, and increasing economic development in communities ravaged by violence, poverty and high incarceration rates. A board including legislators, former inmates, experts in violence reduction, members of community groups, officials with several state agencies and representatives from the governor’s office and attorney general’s office would decide how the money is spent.
In addition to money for the new fund, 35 percent of recreational pot revenue would go to the state general fund, 20 percent would be allocated for substance abuse and mental health treatment, 10 percent would go toward paying the state’s overdue bills, 8 percent would be sent to the state Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board and 2 percent would be spent on drug education and substance abuse awareness.
Someone is paying for a poll to test how former state Sen. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, would do against freshman Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., who represents the swing suburban sixth congressional district.
Ives, a conservative, almost defeated former Gov. Bruce Rauner and Lt. Gov. Evelyn Sanguinetti in the March, 2018 GOP primary, with Rauner struggling to attract Republicans while also keeping a distance from President Donald Trump.
In April, Sanguinetti announced a March, 2020 GOP primary bid in the sixth. […]
Ives was asked, “Are you interested or thinking about running for Congress in the 6th district?” and she replied, “We’ve you know, this for me it’s always been a team decision. I don’t do anything without my team supporting it and we’ve not made a decision on any race at all.”
Asked about the origins of the survey, she said, “You know, I don’t control that,” adding that she was one of the people getting a call from the polling firm.
An Ives run has long been expected by several folks in the area.
* Somebody tweeted at me about the poll the other day…
I’m a resident of IL06 and the poll asked if the candidates were Casten and Ives, who would I vote for? Then, 4 or so questions exaggerating Casten’s positions and statements and asking if I would still vote for him after knowing he supports abortion. Hell yes!
(To the best of my recollection) During the campaign, Casten took a moderate stance on abortion. Once elected he reveals himself to be vehemently pro-choice, which some people call pro infanticide. Does this make you more likely to vote for him?
“Whether it’s Evelyn Sanguinetti or Jeanne Ives, it’s clear that Republicans will be running a rubber stamp in the 6th District for President Trump’s disastrous agenda of higher health care costs and higher taxes,” said DCCC spokesperson Mike Gwin. “Illinoisans want someone like Sean Casten who will stand up to President Trump when he hurts Illinois and threatens our values – not someone like Sanguinetti or Ives who will back him every step of the way.”
President Trump lost the 6th CD by 7 points in 2016. This is a formerly reliable GOP bastion, but it’s now a swing district for the near-term at least. Casten won by 7 points last year and Gov. Bruce Rauner won by 5. Rauner won by 33 points four years earlier. Obama lost it by 8 in 2012.
This is how @GHNewsroom operates: High-profile editor gives 2-wk notice on Friday. Monday afternoon these geniuses decide to take her keys and walk her out in front of employees. Now readers have all week to be mad and cancel subscriptions. BRILLIANT. https://t.co/gFIbgyWkzi
The entire State Journal-Register newsroom walked out today in support of now former editor Angie Muhs, who was walked out of the building this afternoon by the paper’s general manager after submitting her resignation on Friday.
In an impromptu show of solidarity, the staff accompanied Muhs as she left the building for the final time. “Everyone walked out with her as a show of respect,” reporter Dean Olsen said. “We all gave her a hug and applauded for her and thanked her for the stand that she was taking. … People are crying.”
Olsen said Muhs told her staff on Friday that she was leaving partly in hopes of avoiding more layoffs at a paper that has been decimated by staff cuts. “I think her hope was, by not having her salary to pay, her hope would be that there would be no layoffs,” said Olsen, who wasn’t present when Muhs announced her departure last week. “She was a very good editor, and she tried to promote good journalism in Springfield, despite some pretty trying circumstances that she had to deal with from GateHouse Media (the paper’s corporate owner).”
Muhs declined to say what she told her staff, but she said she wasn’t expecting colleagues to walk out of the building with her. “I was very touched,” Muhs said. “I didn’t expect that. … I have tremendous respect and admiration for the State Journal-Register staff. They’re dedicated. They’re hard working. They care about doing quality local journalism, and they persevered under some really tough conditions.”
Muhs lasted five years as editor of the State Journal-Register, coming to Springfield from a media company in Maine. For the second year in a row, the SJ-R this spring was named GateHouse Newspaper of the Year for its circulation division. In 2017, Muhs was named Editor of the Year in the SJ-R’s circulation division in a company-wide contest. GateHouse Media, which bought the SJ-R in 2007 and promised “hyperlocal” coverage, publishes more than 150 daily papers and is one of the nation’s biggest newspaper companies.
The paper is down to five news reporters. Ownership laid off the longtime photo editor a couple of weeks ago.
…Adding… The company makes money, it just spends it on the top dogs…
In October 2017, a group of politically involved women calling themselves Illinois Say No More authored an open letter alleging a culture of rampant sexual harassment and discrimination at the state Capitol. It spread like wildfire.
In it, they detailed the double standard permeating state politics , enduring inappropriate advances and the fear of being retaliated upon if they spoke up. And they demanded better, calling on elected officials to create lasting, systemic change.
A year and a half later, much of their rage hasn’t dissipated. Illinois has been slow to implement reform for those working both under and outside the Capitol dome, part of a worrying national trend in the #MeToo era, they say.
“Addressing the issue of sexual harassment is complicated but this delay is disheartening,” said Katelynd Duncan, Chicago-based fundraiser and political consultant, who co-authored the piece. “It feels like a slap in the face of women, of our cause and of female political operatives specifically. We want our elected leaders to show us we matter. Just as much as our male colleagues. That’s it. And that’s not happening.”
* Sen. Melinda Bush, you will recall, passed her own bill that took months to craft only to see it thrown into House talks about an omnibus proposal. She was super-angry about it last month, but she told me the other day that she was satisfied with the talks so far. She said pretty much the same to the Center for Illinois Politics…
Bush publicly confronted members of House leadership on the status of her bill - and even made a point of bending Madigan’s ear at his annual fundraiser at Springfield’s Yacht Club to attempt to get the bill moving again.
On May 7, Bush said, she spoke with Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s chief of staff called about the issue, who offered help and support. She said she also engaged in a two-hour meeting with members of the four legislative caucuses.
“We basically all agree on the concepts,” Bush said. “We’re all at the table negotiating and I’m hopeful. I’m really trying to get through this process with pressure and respect.”
The ongoing investigation into sexual harassment complaints in House Speaker Michael Madigan’s office could cost Illinois taxpayers up to $1.4 million — and it’s unclear whether the findings will ever be made public.
Under fire from members of his own House Democratic Caucus, Madigan announced last June he had hired the law firm Schiff Hardin to conduct an investigation into how complaints of bullying and harassment from his then-chief of staff and members of his political organizations were handled in the speaker’s office.
He selected former federal prosecutor Maggie Hickey to conduct the audit. Hickey, now a Schiff Hardin partner, had served as the executive inspector general under Madigan’s nemesis, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.
But nearly a year later, Hickey’s work continues. […]
Madigan’s noncommittal answer about releasing the final report troubled a former statehouse watchdog.
“There should be a way to make public the key findings and conclusions so that members of the public can collaborate with members of the General Assembly and find solutions to issues that have been really difficult for many years in Springfield and beyond,” former Legislative Inspector General Julie Porter said.
The motor fuel tax bump would be a hard pitch for Democratic Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch, from Hillside, to make to his constituents, he said.
“From 19 cents to 44 cents a gallon for gas is a lot of money and to go home and try to explain that to people — that’s hard to do, especially in a district like the one I serve,” Welch said.
And Rep. David McSweeney, a Republican from Barrington Hills, said while it is “clear” the roads, bridges and other transportation infrastructure in the state need attention, raising the motor fuel tax is not the way to pay for it.
“I oppose this bill because I don’t support an increase to the gas tax, and I think we need a capital bill, but I think we should use the revenue from the sports gambling bill,” he said.
Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker wants to legalize that practice, and he projected $200 million in revenues from sports gambling licensing fees in his proposed budget. It is one of several revenue streams in Pritzker’s budget that are not guaranteed to become law.
$200 million wouldn’t even make a dent in the problem.
…Adding… Rep. McSweeney…
Rich,
Sports gambling will likely produce closer to $300 million. Even if you use a $200 million annual revenue stream, you could issue about $2 billion of debt based on that. I support bonding for a capital bill. The current proposals do not yet have a bonding component.
As is the case everywhere, the needs across Sangamon County and the city of Springfield are numerous. However, in their meeting with [Deputy Governor Christian Mitchell], local leaders made clear their top priority — without a close second — is securing the funds necessary to complete the remaining phases of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project.
“If you want one project, and that was driven home by the deputy governor, is ‘OK, is this really your top priority with rail?’ I said yes, without a doubt it is,” [Springfield Mayor Jim Langfelder] said. “So, to me, it signified you have limited funds, what do you want with those limited funds if you get one request?”
The capital request, put together by local political and civic leaders in conjunction with the Land of Lincoln Economic Development Corporation, includes $121.2 million needed for the completion of the rail project.
The project, which started with rail underpass construction on Carpenter Street in 2014 and has an overall price tag of $315 million, aims to alleviate rail congestion downtown by consolidating train traffic from Third Street to 10th Street and through building a series of overpasses and underpasses along the corridor.
Or a vote [on the graduated income tax proposal] could be postponed until late this year or the fall, after Democrats get through the filing period for the March 2020 primary.
“The vote doesn’t happen now,” shrugs one Democratic lawmaker.
“I think it will make the ballot—but not until next year,” says a lobbyist.
Pritzker’s team says it’s confident that it will get what it wants.
I heard an idea along those lines last week: Postpone the vote until after the primary. I told the person who suggested it that it was goofy. You’re gonna hold a vote in the spring on income taxes because you’re worried that Democratic primary voters will be up in arms? If that’s the case, then y’all should just forget about the whole thing.
I mean, this plan is supposedly designed to appeal directly to Democratic primary voters. I just don’t see how it could result in more than a challenge or two at most. The bigger lift is convincing independents and some Republican voters to go along with it. Passing the proposal now gives everyone a chance to cool off. Waiting until April or May of next year means the issue will be hot non-stop for months on end.
From everything I’ve been told, Madigan’s political staff would like it passed now for those very reasons. Get it over with. Out of sight, out of mind.
But, some folks have apparently passed through the denial and anger stages and are now in the negotiating stage, although I gotta figure we’ll see at least a couple more blowups before this is all over (depression stage).
It’s the way of the House: Why do we even need to do this?! You can’t make us do it! OK, fine, we can do it, but for the love of all that is holy can’t we just put it off until some other time in the future?! We’re so sad that we have to do this!!!
Just about every major issue has followed that progression in the House. Then they reach the acceptance stage… or not. We’ll see. Their backs will soon be up against a May 31 wall. Some are now looking for a way to move that wall back. It’s up to Pritzker to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Electric truck and SUV startup Rivian filed a patent application for fast-charging electric vehicle batteries at different voltages using a switch mechanism. The technology could reduce the cost of electric vehicles and make high-speed charging systems easier to use.
The patent describes a configurable battery that when used in an electric vehicle can accept charging voltages of either 450 or 900 volts and use less expensive components. The system can manage a potential fault in a battery module without disconnecting the load, making it more reliable.
Rivian, based in Plymouth, Mich., is raising funds to complete development and launch production of the all-electric R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV it unveiled at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November.
Both are billed as adventure vehicles that can easily navigate rugged terrain and would compete directly with Ford vehicles including the F-150, Ranger pickup truck and upcoming Bronco SUV. Deliveries of the five-passenger R1T pickup and seven-passenger R1S SUV are expected to start in late 2020, according to Rivian. The vehicles will deliver up to 400-plus miles of range and have off-road capability, the company says.
Earlier this year the company raised $700 million in a financing round let by Amazon. In April, Ford Motor Co. invested $500 million in Rivian, saying it will use the company’s “skateboard” platform to develop a new electric vehicle.
A proposed hike in Illinois’ annual registration fee for electric vehicles, from $17.50 to $1,000, is being called unfair by current EV owners, and a sales disincentive by manufacturers — just as the new technology is beginning to gain broader traction. […]
Tesla said it opposes the Illinois fee increase. Electric truck startup Rivian, which is slated to begin production at its factory in downstate Normal next year, was more outspoken.
“Imposing fees on EVs that are over 400 percent more than their gasoline-powered counterparts is not only unfair, it discourages promising new technology that will reduce our dependence on petroleum, reduce emissions, and promote the Illinois economy,” Rivian spokesman Michael McHale said.
* Some top Dems have been asking for this new track…
Today, Think Big Illinois released a new ad highlighting why Illinois voters should have the opportunity to decide whether they want a tax system that works for everyone, not just the wealthy few. The ad, “A Chance To Vote,” also calls out opponents of a fair tax for their “nonsensical” and “completely incorrect” claims in their desperate attempts to keep our current unfair tax system in place.
“A Chance To Vote” will run on television in Chicago and Springfield, and across digital platforms. Watch the ad here.
“There are very few times where Illinoisans have the opportunity to directly decide an issue that impacts them and their families. Legislators in Springfield have the chance to give voters that opportunity, and let them choose whether they want to keep our current unfair tax system in place or want a system that works for everyone,” said Quentin Fulks, Executive Director of Think Big Illinois. “While opponents of a fair tax continue to rely on misleading claims and false attacks, Think Big Illinois will continue to stand up for middle-class families in the fight for a fair tax.”
That’s what newspapers call the attacks against the fair tax.
They can’t defeat the plan on its merits, so they’re trying to jump it on the low road.
If the General Assembly gives the green light, we’re all going to have a say at the polls next November.
The people of Illinois deserve a chance to vote on this important proposal.
This is fair and necessary.
It’s time for change.
Let’s make our tax system fair.
…Adding… To address some folks in comments who are arguing for even more constitutional questions on the ballot, I would agree with you. That’s why I strongly supported a constitutional convention in 2008. But an overwhelming 67 percent of voters rejected the convention, so they essentially agreed with the status quo. And that status quo is we can only vote on what the General Assembly puts on the ballot. The people spoke. It’ll be 2028 before that question automatically comes before them again and it was abundantly clear that would be the case in ‘08.
* Opponents of cannabis legalization have repeatedly trotted out claims that legalization results in dramatically increased usage by children. Rep. Kelly Cassidy said once that “you see steady decreases in youth use if you do [legalization] right.” Politifact chose to fact check her…
Since 2014, the data show no statistically significant uptick in pot usage among teens so legalization hardly leads to the reefer madness some critics feared. But the numbers available for Colorado and other states that have lifted bans for adults also don’t reveal the clear pattern of decline in youth pot use that Cassidy described.
Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize retail marijuana sales, so they have the longest track records to study.
In Colorado, a 2018 report by the state Department of Public Safety’s Division of Justice reviewed data from the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, which includes answers to various health questions asked of more than 40,000 middle and high school students every other year. The survey is conducted by the state’s Department of Public Health & Environment.
Results from the survey show 19.7% of Colorado high schoolers reported using marijuana within the past month in 2013, the year before the first retail marijuana store opened. In 2015, that figure rose slightly, but experts told PolitiFact in 2016 that increase was not statistically significant. In 2017, the rate dipped to 19.4%, slightly lower than it had been in previous surveys dating back to least 2005. […]
The state [of Washington] conducts a biennial youth health survey similar to Colorado’s, which breaks its data down by grades. Its results show some small declines but suggest little has changed there either, with decreases of 1% between 2014 and 2016 among 8th and 10th graders who said they currently used pot, followed by 1% increases for both grades in 2018. For 12th graders, rates fell by 1% the year after retail sales began and have remained at that level, which is in line with pre-legalization rates. […]
Changes in the other five states where retail sales are underway are even more difficult to evaluate than Colorado or Washington. Alaska’s state survey reported no statistically significant changes since recreational cannabis was approved for adults in 2014 and hit the market in 2016. Results in Oregon, which followed a similar timeline, were mixed. And it’s too soon to assess results out of Nevada, California and Massachusetts, which each repealed bans in late 2016 but only began allowing sales within the last two years.
*** UPDATE *** Press release…
In response to a recent PolitiFact/BGA story on the accuracy of State Representative Kelly Cassidy’s comments on teen use, Legalize Illinois issued the following statement:
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers
“Colorado, Oregon, California, Massachusetts and Maine all show declines in teen use since legalizing adult-use cannabis. Washington state saw declines in two of the three age groups it studied. Somehow, though, the Better Government Association found it possible to describe Rep. Kelly Cassidy’s statement that, ‘In states that have legalized, you see steady decreases in youth use if you do it right’ as ‘mostly false.’ We hope this was an honest misreading of the data and not a temptation to create click-bait.
“Let’s look at the facts. Nationwide, use by 9th-12th graders has declined from 23.1% to 19.8% (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) In Oregon, use among 8th graders has declined from 9.7% to 6.7%, (Source: Oregon Healthy Teens Survey), in Nevada 19.3% to 17.9% (Source: Nevada Youth Risk Behavior Survey) and in Washington from 20% to 17.2% (Source: Washington State Healthy Youth Survey.) And so on.
“The BGA story itself cites the Colorado declines but editorializes that the study is unreliable because its data is ‘baseline and preliminary.’ What Rep. Cassidy said – and what the BGA chose to malign her about – was the statement, ‘In states that have legalized, you see steady decreases in youth use if you do it right’. The statistics show she is correct.
“To borrow from the BGA’s own designation, we rate their story as follows: ‘Mostly False – The story contains particles of truth but ignores critical data that would have given the reader a more accurate impression’.”
* As we all are painfully aware, our statutory pension payment mandate is not high enough to allow Illinois to get ahead of the unfunded liability curve for several more years. The much-lauded school funding reform law contains the same basic flaw. The K-12 annual payment increases are significant, but not high enough to stay ahead of the growing inadequacy gap. From Stand for Children…
To ensure that poorly funded districts increase in adequacy, the [Evidence-Based Funding Formula] legislation established a Minimum Funding Level of $350 million per year. But in FY20, the system will be $7 billion short. That gap grows over time unless su cient money is invested, as inflation drives up the costs of education while the value of $350 million diminishes. So, while $350 million drives equity – it does little to close the gap.
* Stand for Children press release…
During passage of education funding reform in 2017, lawmakers committed to increasing school funding each year by at least $350 million. While $350 million new dollars each year is a significant commitment, Illinois schools are so inadequately funded that it barely makes a dent. Depending on inflation, the adequacy gap will continue to grow even with a $350 million annual increase, possibly even as soon as next year. New revenue through the fair tax is essential to getting schools across the state funded adequately.
Illinois can accelerate equity even further while still protecting teacher pensions by integrating their state pension normal cost payments into evidence-based funding. This proposal, known as the “equity boost” would immediately move the state over $230 million closer to adequacy without costing the state any money. It would also fix the other alarming inequity in Illinois that remains unaddressed: in Illinois, state government picks up the pension costs for school districts that have greater local property wealth at a significantly higher level than it does for poorer districts. The equity gap is startling: districts funded over 100% of adequacy receive $328 per pupil more than districts funded below 80% of adequacy.
The Equity Boost uses the new school funding formula to address the inequity of payment of teacher pension costs and brings the state closer to fully funding education. There are four parts to the Equity Boost.
1 Calculate Adequacy Targets using calculated normal cost, instead of actual cost.
2 Move responsibility for paying normal pension cost to school districts (a total of about $1.15 billion). At the same time, offset these amounts by having each district receive from the state an amount equal to its normal pension costs through the “hold harmless” or Base Funding Minimum (BFM) of the new formula.
3 Make the pension portion of the BFM subject to a continuing appropriation, just like the current pension payment is. If normal costs increase in any future years, those increases should be put through the formula and not count towards the $350 million Minimum Funding Level.
4 Gradually phase out $70 million in excess state payments that some districts will have in their Base Funding Minimum, then equitably re-distribute that amount through the formula. This approach means these dollars will first flow to the districts that need them the most, reducing the gap further.
* Here’s how this would help a “Tier One” district, which would be most in need…
Pre-Equity Boost
The District’s Adequacy Target is $14,500 per pupil. Its Local Capacity Percentage is 24%, so it is expected to raise about $3,500 locally. The District’s Base Funding Minimum is $5,000, leaving it just 59% funded and with a $6,000 gap to adequacy. It will get $473 per pupil when $350 million is allocated to the formula. The district gets a benefit of $600 per pupil from the State’s normal cost payment, but this is not reflected in the formula.
Post-Equity Boost
The District’s Adequacy Target is now $15,100, which is higher because its calculated pension costs have been added. Its Local Capacity Percentage of 24% remains the same and it is now expected to raise about $3,600 locally. The District’s Base Funding Minimum is now $5,600, which is increased because its normal cost payment is added to the BFM, and it will pay that $600 per pupil to TRS for its normal cost payment. The district is 61% funded with a $5,900 gap to adequacy. It will get $500 per pupil when $350 million is allocated.
* Here’s an example of a Tier 3 district being moved to a Tier 4 (lower need) district with this proposal…
Pre-Equity Boost
The District’s Adequacy Target is $11,500 per pupil. Its Local Capacity Percentage is 78%, so it is expected to raise about $9,000 locally. The District’s Base Funding Minimum is $2,000, leaving it 96% funded and with a $500 gap to adequa- cy. It will get $26 per pupil when $350 million is allocated to the formula. The district gets a benefit of $600 per pupil from the State’s normal cost payment, but this is not reflected in the formula.
Post-Equity Boost
The District’s Adequacy Target is now $12,000, which is higher because its calculated pension costs have been added. Its Local Capacity Percentage of 78% remains the same and it is now expect- ed to raise about $9,400 locally. The District’s Base Funding Minimum is now $2,800, which is increased because its normal cost payment is added to the BFM, and it will pay that $800 per pupil to TRS for its normal cost payment. The district is 101% funded with an Excess State Payment of $200, which would be phased out over three years. It will get $1 per pupil when $350 million is allocated.
* The group also wants the $350 million annual increase boosted to $500 million after the graduated income tax is approved. Click here to see how that would work.
If you listen closely to what Democratic state Reps. Sam Yingling and Jonathan Carroll are saying in public about their opposition to Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s graduated income tax proposal, they appear to believe that Pritzker’s proposed tax rates aren’t high enough.
Yingling and Carroll are both demanding significant property tax relief. “In Illinois,” Rep. Yingling wrote in the Chicago Tribune last week, “the disproportionate reliance on and financial burden of property taxes to fund government — roads and bridges, education, police, fire and other essential services — is devastating.”
“My constituents are concerned that their taxes will go up without essential property-tax relief,” Carroll was quoted as saying.
No sane person would argue that property taxes are too low in this state. Yingling didn’t mention school spending in his letter to the Tribune, but that’s by far the largest item in the local levies. And that’s why both Yingling and Carroll signed on to a resolution during the last General Assembly opposing a proposed shift of pension costs from the state to local school districts, which would’ve driven up property taxes much higher than they already were.
But unless a solution to this mess involves a Bruce Rauner-style elimination of collective bargaining rights for unions, or drastic cuts to school classrooms and to municipal operations (which both Yingling and Carroll would oppose), combined with a wholesale elimination of state mandates and sweeping forced district consolidations, then lowering property taxes right away will require lots more money from the state. And state money doesn’t grow on trees as it does at the federal level.
Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, has been working on this issue for years and told me that significant state-funded property tax relief would cost about $7 billion to $8 billion every year. That means almost quadrupling Gov. Pritzker’s proposed $3.4 billion tax hike on upper-income Illinoisans. Or, if the flat tax was kept in place, it would require at least a couple of percentage points added to the current income tax rate, taking it to almost 7 percent for everybody.
Rep. Yingling, however, voted against the 2017 income tax increase that ended the state’s two-year budget impasse. Rep. Carroll was not yet appointed to his seat when that bill became law over Gov. Rauner’s veto.
State funding and lots more were all discussed during the property tax working group meetings set up and facilitated by the governor’s office that both Yingling and Carroll attended — although Carroll reportedly missed the final meeting. Yingling reportedly suggested some ideas, but no agreements could be reached, mainly because if this was so easy it would’ve been done decades ago.
Property taxes have been a major issue in this state since the 1980s, when the share of the state’s funding of schools started sliding downward and local property taxes started shooting up. A half a point was added to the income tax in 1989 as a sort of “welcoming present” to newly elected Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Half of the increase went to schools and the other half went to local governments.
But that money eventually got rolled back into GRF and the state did things like cap suburban property tax increases, which, as homeowners in Yingling’s Lake County will certainly attest, obviously didn’t work as advertised.
Rep. Yingling passed just four of his House bills this year. None of them were bad ideas, but none would significantly reduce anyone’s property tax bills, either.
Rep. Carroll passed a bill (co-sponsored by Yingling) to place yet another unfunded state mandate on local schools to make sure third-party driver education teachers were properly certified. Those sorts of mandates drive up local taxes.
Nobody can read anyone’s mind, but Rep. Yingling’s 2017 income tax hike vote probably explains a lot more about his current refusal to support the graduated tax than his stated concerns about property taxes. He perpetually votes like a vulnerable targeted member, even though his district is now pretty safely Democratic. And Rep. Carroll has a whole lot of high-income constituents in his even more Democratic Northbrook area district who likely aren’t pleased with the prospect of paying more money to the state.
The fact that neither legislator bothered to give the governor’s office a courtesy heads-up on their intentions to publicly oppose the plan also speaks volumes.
If these two seriously want to significantly reduce property taxes, then they should introduce a bill to actually do it – and to pay for it. Otherwise, they’re just grandstanding and forcing everyone else do the heavy lifting.
*** UPDATE *** Rep. Carroll confirmed my suspicion that he wanted even higher state spending to lower property taxes. From Mark Maxwell’s Capitol Connection…
Maxwell: You’ve already singled out the property tax thing. How do you address that though at the state level because so many local governments are the ones that make those decisions? How does the state force their hand?
Carroll: We have to fund education better. I mean, that’s the bottom line. Almost 70 percent of property tax bills go to education. We have to find a way to fund education better through the state.
And that means more money, and money doesn’t grow on trees. Unless he wants huge cuts to state programs (Narrator: He doesn’t) Carroll is arguing here for even higher tax levels that Pritzker is proposing.
