Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn vows veto of concealed carry bill
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce announced a proposal today for a $6.1 billion state borrowing plan. The four-year bond would be used to pay off past-due state bills to vendors.
Chamber President Gary Plummer said slow state payments “have created a tremendous financial hardship” for his members and is slowing economic recovery in the state of Illinois. Plummer said he estimated the bonds would carry a 6 percent interest race, but said it could end up being lower than that.
Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka issued a recent report claiming that the state will end the fiscal year with $8.3 billion in unpaid bills.
The Springfield area is represented by three Republican legislators who have all said they were highly skeptical of any borrowing plans.
Video of Plummer’s statements…
Thanks to BlueRoomStream.com for the video.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From the governor’s office…
“The Quinn Administration applauds the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce for its support of a plan to immediately pay past due bills by restructuring these debts at attractive interest rates. Today, the Chamber proposed a four-year, $6.1 billion bonding plan to pay off state debts.
“The Springfield Chamber - an established and experienced organization - whose goal is to stimulate the economy, agrees with the Quinn Administration that debt restructuring makes good business sense and is paramount to stabilizing the budget. We encourage those who have provided services to the state to come forward and urge legislators to support debt restructuring, a sound and reasonable step needed to return the state to solid financial footing.”
* In other news, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected legislation this morning by Sen. Terry Link to shrink the number of local governments in Illinois. The bill was apparently modeled on the US government’s military base-closure commission. From the legislation’s synopsis…
Creates the Local Government Consolidation Commission Act. Establishes the Local Government Consolidation Commission to create a recommended list of units of local government to be abolished or consolidated. Provides that the Commission shall submit its recommended list to the General Assembly by no later than April 1, 2012. Sets forth the requirements for the recommended list. Provides that the General Assembly may disapprove the list of the Commission in whole, but may not disapprove of specific types of units of local government or specifically named units of local government on the list, within 30 calendar days after each chamber next convenes after the list is submitted to the General Assembly, by adoption of a resolution by a record vote of the majority of the members elected in each house. Provides that if the recommended list is not disapproved by the General Assembly within the time period for disapproval, then the Legislative Reference Bureau shall prepare for introduction a revisory bill effecting the changes in the statutes as may be necessary to conform the statutes to the changes in law made by the recommended list.
Just one Republican voted for the bill, Sen. Tom Johnson. Only 14 of 35 Democrats voted “Yes.” 30 members of both parties voted “No” and two went “Present.”
Illinois has almost 7,000 taxing districts, by far the highest number in the country.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From Sen. Link…
“I’m not opposed to good, efficient government that provides service to the community,” Link said. “But Illinois has too many units of government many of which can levy taxes on their citizens. Today, local government lobbyists won in their effort to ensure that Illinois has more government than any other state in the union. While they celebrate, I intend on going back to the drawing board to continue my efforts in reducing inefficiencies.”
Share
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 11:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn vows veto of concealed carry bill
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Illinois GOPers might talk that they’re against Big Government, but they certainly are for the Largest Number of Government Taxing Districts in the country.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:06 pm
why does this have to be a partisan issue. seems both Ds and Rs voted against this bill.
Obviously, Illinois has too much public infrastructure, and it must be pared back. Link’s plan seemed like a good idea to me, but government has become the strongest lobby for more government.
Comment by Jim Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:11 pm
===why does this have to be a partisan issue. ===
It shouldn’t be, but when only one GOP votes for a bill like this, that would be news.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:12 pm
This was a vote for your pals. The local officials work to elect the legislators, so this is payback. Where is the tea party? I am suprised that they have not taken up this issue. This is something they might comprehend.
Comment by Elliott Ness Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:17 pm
And the Republicans wonder why they can’t capitalize on the reform movement in Illinois for better political gain. This is why.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:18 pm
==And the Republicans wonder why they can’t capitalize on the reform movement in Illinois for better political gain. This is why.==
What reform movement?
Comment by Bill Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:33 pm
ONE Republican vote? That’s disgusting! What was Rodogno thinking???
Comment by 42nd Ward Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:35 pm
I hope Link keeps pushing this bill…he’s got a good approach, it needs to be done, but it’s one of those things that will take several sessions and GA’s to achieve. Grassroots will be a key element.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:43 pm
I’m one the biggest proponents you will find for reducing the number of governments in Illinois, but… maybe, just maybe, this wasn’t the right fix. I’m not saying it wasn’t the right fix either.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:46 pm
- wordslinger - Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:06 pm:
“Illinois GOPers might talk that they’re against Big Government, but they certainly are for the Largest Number of Government Taxing Districts in the country.”
As opposed to Illinois Democrats that never saw a program they wouldn’t fund.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 12:54 pm
Cincy, that’s a little too vague for me. This was an actual vote to put in process a reduction of government taxing bodies — and it got 14 Democratic votes, and one lonely Republican. Talk the talk, walk the walk.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:01 pm
A bit snarky I know, but Link and the rest of the General Assembly should focus on fixing State Government which we all agree is completely broken, before trying to fix all the State’s park distrcits, road districts, and hospital districts, which there is little agreement on whether they are broken or not.
Besides the LGDF fund, which only benefits counties and municipalities and NOT special districts, all these localities receive virtually zero State funds, so this bill doesn’t even save the State money.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:02 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised if Quinn gave the Springfield Chamber the idea to do this, which if true, was finally a smart move by Quinn.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:04 pm
I don’t understand why when there is a good bill the other party doesn’t support it. It goes both ways. This was a hudge oppurtunity lost for Illinois.
Comment by Palatine Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:11 pm
===all these localities receive virtually zero State funds===
Doesn’t matter. Local governments are all under the state’s purview. They are specifically created and their functions regulated by the state.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:18 pm
Should not the issue of local government consolidation be decided on a local level and dictated by Springfield?
Or am I missing something when GOP platforms call for more local control and less intrusions by federal and state governments?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:22 pm
Oops! Meant NOT dictated.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:24 pm
Unbelievable that Link’s bill didn’t receive more yes votes … Springfield legislators of both parties really are out of touch and lap dogs for the special interests … pathetic there is so little backbone
Comment by QC Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Louis, local governments are creations of the state. Any way you spin it, Illinois has the most taxing bodies in the union. And what do taxing bodies do……..
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:27 pm
The GSSC plan is close to being right on. I don’t know if that bond can be repaid in 4 years but I can say the State’s vendors can’t wait much longer. I also don’t know if the $6.1B figure is the right amount.
If the State could get vendors to 90 days, they would all survive, the State would avoid interest of 1%/month, and we can legislate a realistic budget that accomplishes everyone’s goals. We now know the party is over but essential services need to be maintained.
I implore the R’s (and D’s) to work with Quinn and find some middle ground in all of this. There are so many sides to this but there is a way forward and that’s not to hold everything up for political gain.
Comment by Bob S Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:30 pm
This borrowing proposal is a couple of billion bucks less than the original Quinn proposal. Will Quinn accept a lower number?
If I were the Republicans, I would demand significant spending cuts aligned to the Senate Republican plan, as a condition of, and before, supporting this new borrowing. Dump it back on the Democrats to either compromise or go it alone.
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:42 pm
===If I were the Republicans, I would demand significant spending cuts aligned to the Senate Republican plan===
You mean like the local government cuts that nobody in that caucus seems to support? So far, that proposal looks all for show.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:43 pm
Rich, Leader Radogno said her caucus would put 15 votes on the cuts in local government transfers her caucus proposed. I don’t imagine the caucus reached that consensus lightly. I suspect the votes are there for some cuts, at least on the R side. Will we evr know?
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:50 pm
===If I were the Republicans, I would demand significant spending cuts aligned to the Senate Republican plan===
That plan, while a welcome development many weeks ago, yes yet to be filed as a bill. It doesn’t exist.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:52 pm
===Will we evr know? ===
We won’t if they never introduce it as an actual bill or amendment.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:53 pm
Rich and Cincinnatus, I am a Republican on most issues, voted for Kirk, and also demand signficant spending cuts. We vendors of the State just can’t hold on much longer without some payment relief. Our banks just won’t increase their exposure while the legislators go after each other.
I think Quinn should settle for a lower borrowing number, and really work for a cheaper and more effective governmental structure. We are all waiting for a Republican budget bill, not a document that is general in nature and nonspecific.
Comment by Bob S Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 1:58 pm
- Dump it back on the Democrats to either compromise or go it alone. -
You’d think it was a no brainer, wouldn’t you?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:09 pm
Rich,
Rep. Franks has already passed the same bill through the House and is currently in Senate Exec.
It’s HB 268. http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=268&GAID=11&GA=97&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=54939&SessionID=84
Comment by Apple Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:14 pm
First we must get some relief to our vendors.Next
we must reduce the amount of goverments in the State. This should not be a partisan issue,both sides of the aisle should get behind this bill.
Consolidation would work,and a money.
Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:15 pm
Pardon me, I was referencing the Local Government Consolidation Commission. It was originally established years ago by Lou Lang’s efforts, but fell apart due to poor attendance and the sheer scope of the issue.
Comment by Apple Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:19 pm
I seem to recall that when IL was totuting how few State employees we have per capita, there was a suggestion that the nmber was artificaly low because we have an extraoridnary number of local govt employees compared to other States.
I would be curious to know how these other states operate their localaities compared to our home rule non home rule etc etc system.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:24 pm
Link’s bill is not the same as HB 268 (except for the name). Franks’ bill calls for a commission that includes local government experts to explore consolidation opportunities. Link’s bill excluded local government experts and was a “take it or leave it” approach to cuts.
Comment by Bluefish Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:26 pm
mokenavince, couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Bob S Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:27 pm
It’s sad that Springfield Chamber of Commerce has to propose a plan because the memembers can’t seem to get it together. AT first I respected the R’s for their efforts, but as time wears on and we here more and more from them they have begun to sound like Palin or Trump R’s–totally detached from reality and clinging to one dimensional issues regardless of the consequences–Mostly in the Senate. It is just sad. Please do your jobs.
Comment by Time Keeps on Ticking, Ticking Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:29 pm
Any bill that takes decision making out of taxpayers hands is destined to fail! A binding referendum is the only way to get the number of local taxing bodies reduced. Why hasn’t this approach been brought up in Springfield?
Comment by NICKYPIII Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:42 pm
I support the drastic reduction in local government entities. This includes the elimination of townships as well as the consolidation of schools and - this may shock some people - small counties who carry every imaginable elected official. There is too much direct state assistance and payments to counties and small government operations. Consolidation and elimination would save costs now and in the future. The only people that lose in such a scenario are the officials in those governments and the employees. And I know it sounds harsh when the economy is sputtering, but I am possibly in the minority as I believe government should shrink during such a time and that we would all be better for it in the long run.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:51 pm
Thanks for catching that error, Bluefish. I meant to say ’similar.’
Comment by Apple Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:53 pm
I repeat my earlier comment that Link should focus on State government since he is a State-elected official. Let locally-elected government officials worry about local government.
Link’s real problem is that he doesn’t have the testiculary virality to do his own job, so he has to focus on other people’s jobs. Kinda’ makes me sick actually. If he wants to fix local governments then he should run for the local school board, park board, etc. etc.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Added….it always disgusts me when a Senator blames lobbyists for why their bill failed. Um, lobbyists don’t vote on bills, Senators do. If Link wants someone to blame, he should blame his fellow Senators who actually voted against his bill.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:06 pm
Word, you are talking past my argument. I speak of party platforms and positions which oppose federal and state interference in local matters. You are speaking of the state creating smaller governmental units.
Republicans who stick to this principle are now being criticized for not being principled by sticking to their principles?
What’s next? The budgetary mess in Illinois is all the fault of Republicans and not the majority dominant party controlling all levers of government, and if the GOP doesn’t step up to the plate on this position, then the failure to pass a budget or cut back spending will be the fault of Republicans and not the party with the overwhelming majority in Springfield?
Oh wait! We have that one already! My bad!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:13 pm
=== A binding referendum is the only way to get the number of local taxing bodies reduced. Why hasn’t this approach been brought up in Springfield? ===
You already can do this for many local governments such as park districts and libary districts — but not for all. It would be a good step forward allowing more local governments to dissolve by way of binding referendum, but it is not an easy task for most citizens.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:25 pm
Are “we” making the assumption that more taxing districts equates to more taxes or do “we” know? What have we gained if we have one larger body now levying the same amount as two previously did? Conversely, what have we lost? We may have lost expertise and the ability for the districts to meaningfully plan long term. It isn’t a simple one line fix.
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:26 pm
=== I repeat my earlier comment that Link should focus on State government since he is a State-elected official. Let locally-elected government officials worry about local government.
Link’s real problem is that he doesn’t have the testiculary virality to do his own job, so he has to focus on other people’s jobs. Kinda’ makes me sick actually. If he wants to fix local governments then he should run for the local school board, park board, etc. etc. ===
NotIt… you fail to grasp that all local governments are creatures of the state… they rise and fall with the blessing of the state legislature. A critical function of the state legislature is to regulate what size, scope and function of local governments.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:29 pm
The reduction of local governments may or may not be a laudable goal. Certainly 7,000 taxing districts sounds like a lot, but most of those special taxing districts were created with referendum approval. The voters went to the polls and said that they wanted the special districts created. Creating a committee to eradicate the will of the voters is a step that should be taken with the utmost caution.
Having said that, there are undoubtedly inefficiencies and redundancies that could be smoothed out. But SB173 was not the right bill to do that. It created a commission that explicitly excludes local government officials. It forced the General Assembly to to accept or reject the commission’s findings without the ability to make amendments. One can understand why, regardless of the merits, a legislator would be reticent to vote for a bill that deprives them of an ability to legislate over an issue.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 3:51 pm
===NotIt… you fail to grasp that all local governments are creatures of the state… they rise and fall with the blessing of the state legislature. A critical function of the state legislature is to regulate what size, scope and function of local governments.===
Just Observing, what you fail to realize is that virtually all local government are created by local referendums. The General Assembly allowed for the referendum, but the electors were the ones that passed it.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 4:03 pm
I think that Link had a great idea. The legislators are always asked why real estate taxes are so high, and what are they doing about it. The state gets no money from real estate taxes, but can reduce the number of taxing bodies.
This was a plan to reduce real estate taxes, and the Repubs chose to ignore that. Their whole strategy can be summed up in two words: Vote NO!
Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 5:09 pm
I rarely agree w/ Sen. Link, but he has a line on something with real substance.
Consider that each one of these fiefdoms has a chairperson, support staff, commissioners, benefits, place to meet, expenses and pensions. It all adds up to a ton of bucks.
Knock the number of taxable bodies down to around 1500 and watch the savings roll in.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 6:55 pm
–Word, you are talking past my argument. I speak of party platforms and positions which oppose federal and state interference in local matters. You are speaking of the state creating smaller governmental units.–
Louis, all of Illinois’ 102 counties were created by the state between admission to the Union and the Mexican-American War.
By my count, 51 of the 102 have fewer than 30,000 residents. Of those, 17 have fewer than 10,000 residents. Pope County, with 4,400, I believe is the smallest.
By contrast, Cook County has 5,300,000 residents. There goes that whole won “only won three counties” argument.
Certainly in 2011, there have to be some savings, efficiencies and better government by redrawing county lines made 150 to 190 years ago.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 7:10 pm
–Street light districts?–
I’m confused. We’re not talking about an Amsterdam situation here, are we? The word “red” would have to be in there somewhere, right?
In the State of Illinois, there literally are independent Street Light Districts? I didn’t know that. I knew there were Mosquito Abatement Districts, but I thought that was the extreme of the lunacy.
DC, is your position that no other local body can pull off lighting the streets? Dude, that dog won’t hunt.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 9:18 pm
I don’t hold out much hope for the Republicans in this state. Most of them are the exact type of rural or suburban politician that would rather keep his jurisdiction to save his job. Lord knows the city Democrats have their own baggage, but when you have tiny non-unit school districts all over the place each with their own highly paid superintendent and school board and terrible student performance because they can’t offer basic programs, it would be a little more convincing if the Republicans would recognize that’s a problem rather than a security blanket.
And as for street light districts and road districts existing because there’s no county engineer who “wants to take over the road mileage”? Words fail me. What a copout. This is why we have failed government. It’s like the $500 toilet seats at the Pentagon, or rigging the Medicare drug benefit so that the authorities can’t bargain with vendors for a better price. Whereas I think the Republican view of “failed government” is actually “government that provides Medicaid to an indigent for less than the cost of a private insurance plan, but I don’t like it anyway because it raises my taxes”.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 10:47 pm
Ooopsie. Anonymous above at 10:47pm Tuesday May 3 is me.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 10:48 pm
What will it take to reform government and further reform pensions?
7,000 governments each with their own board of directors. How many board members is that? Each whom has their own agenda.
Comment by Mark Tuesday, May 3, 11 @ 11:24 pm