Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Senate Republican aversion to any government increases in taxes and fees no matter what was highlighted again yesterday when a bill requiring “concentrated animal feeding operations” to pay permit fees passed the Senate and was sent to the governor.

The bill was backed by environmental groups, but was also supported by the Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois Pork Producers Association and the Illinois Beef Association.

* From one of the bill’s supporters…

The bill establishes a fee for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) that have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to discharge pollution into waters of the U.S. The annual fees, though very minimal, are needed to fund the IEPA’s permitting program, which is required by federal law.

All other regulated industries such as municipal sewage plants and industrial processing facilities already pay permit fees.

To date, they have been paying for the CAFO program because livestock operations have always been exempt from paying fees. However, numerous CAFOs have been found discharging and they should contribute to the cost of regulating their own pollution.

* From the Illinois Farm Bureau…

The number of farms that will be required to have a permit will be extremely limited, impacting only a small number of farms… IFB supports HB 5642.

* Even with that farm-based support, 15 Republican Senators voted against the bill. Sens. Brady, Cultra, Dillard, Duffy, Tom Johnson, LaHood, Lauzen, McCann, McCarter, Murphy, Pankau, Rezin, Righter, Sandack and Syverson all voted “No.”

* There is another side to this issue. State funds are subject to sweeps. And while the state hasn’t done any sweeps the past few years, it’s always possible that the fee money will be snagged for use elsewhere.

* The Question: What do you think of a vote against a limited fee increase which is supported by the industry being targeted?

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 11:51 am

Comments

It makes sense if you’re Grover Norquist or one of his pledgers. Otherwise, no.

Comment by reformer Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 11:56 am
I think it’s asinine to take a stance that completely takes the issue of ANY revenues off of the table. Legislators that do so don’t live in the real world and have no intention of ever being part of any budget solutions.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 11:59 am
Hey, we discovered the cure for cancer, unfortunately it will involve a small, $5 fee.
Oh, sorry, gotta vote no. I made a pledge.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:03 pm
If these fees (NPDES fees for compliance inspections) are subject to being ’swept’ by the State of Illinois into the GRF, the legislators should be against the fees.

NPDES is a federal program, being administered by the State of IL and then the actual work out in the field is being done by the local health departments.

If the fees for this program compliance is being siphoned off by the State of IL into the General Revenue Fund while all IDPH does is push paper, and the locals get to do all the heavy lifting, well, I’m amazing there were only 15 votes against the legislation.

Maybe we need to settle the issue: Get an official ‘yes’ or ‘no’ that any funds sweep would apply to these specific fees.

A lot of the local health departments are already hacked off over all these additional NPDES requirements (and fee increase at the local level), and then to add insult to injury, here’s the State of IL coming in to take an additional fee bite that instead gets ’swept’ into the GRF?

Nice.

Comment by Judgment Day Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:13 pm
It’s stupid and short sighted.

Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:17 pm
Fees paid by industry for a governmental program should be related to the cost of the program.

Are the current fees paying the costs of the program?

Comment by titan Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:22 pm
They’re scared of being primaried from the right. They can hear the commercial right now . . . “McCarter voted for a tax increase!” They don’t care about policy.

Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:24 pm
NPDES compliance inspections are performed by IEPA not health departments

Comment by inspector on lunch break Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:31 pm
Sounds like somebody is itchin for an overtime session!

Comment by Boone's is Back Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:31 pm
They MUST follow the lead of NoTaxBill….no mater how dopey they all look
Fire, Aim, Ready!

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:36 pm
Speaking of dopey GOPie moves…did evreyone see this one….
“Pillsbury told me he had signed a confidentiality statement and didn’t want to talk about how the voting went.

“The whole process was open and transparent,…. ”
That sounds like a Gags Brady produced effort to us.
So RapidRodney of the Citadel Laundry is the UnanIMouse Choica…unless you voted no, but agreed to the Gag order….what a sparkling campaign kick-off.

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:44 pm
==If these fees (NPDES fees for compliance inspections) are subject to being ’swept’ by the State of Illinois into the GRF, the legislators should be against the fees.==

This is the excuse, but it is a lame one. The GA cannot bind a future GA, thus any fee in any fund is subject to a sweep. The only real protection is the GA itself. Even language that requires payback can be overridden. There is no such thing a s a lock box.

A fee to pay for a government service would seem like a very fiscally conservative thing to do. I thought they were opposed to giving away government services.

The same issue came up in a House hearing yesterday on fees to bolster DNR’s budget. And, as might be expected, the R’s were very much opposed to fees that could be swept. But you can bet that if the DNR started to post closure notices, they would be all up in arms.

It costs money for these services. If they are not willing to “tax” and not willing to collect “fees” for services and not willing to accept closures, what, exactly, is the answer? This is why the Republicans get so little respect.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:49 pm
I am not a big fan of licensing. It makes sense in some cases, but in this case it seems that rather than charge them for “regulating their own pollution”, it would likely be cheaper to make them pay for the clean-up of their effluents if improperly released into the waterways. Pretty sure that they would only do it once, as cleaning up something like that would likey break the operation.

Besides, if Judgement Day is correct, then requiring CAFOs to pay the the fee is really nothing more than a shakedown. Not sure I would feel any safer if all of the Rs voted yes.

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:49 pm
I’m not sure how legally this could be done, but I want some kind of controls on sweeps before adding more industry specific fees. It’s one thing to have a user fee that supports a fund to deal with the effects of whatever the fee is being levied for. It’s another for it to simply be a piggy bank for raiding for the next crap program or to be used as “hey! free money! let’s waste it!”

Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 12:52 pm
@Bambanek -

Personally, I’m for getting rid of the special funds altogether. Our state budget has become too Balkanized. The powerful are using their clout to essentially privatize government. Creating their own private menu of services that primarily benefit them and dictating how much they are willing to pay. At the same time agribusinesses are creating their own private government, they are benefitting from hundreds of millions in tax loopholes.

On a final point, we all ought to be worried about the efficacy of any regulatory scheme when the regulators paycheck comes directly from the folks they are supposed to be regulating. There have been big problems with drug companies, mining companies, and others at the federal level who self-fund their own government regulatory body.

Not that I disagree with the aims of many programs. But they ought to be funded through our tax code, not fees, and they ought to have to compete with every other program out there to demonstrate their benefit to society.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Sounds reasonable to me. Not sure what difference it makes whether a bill passes 42 to 15 or unanimously. If it helps these guys get re-elected and doesn’t impede good policy, I don’t see why they shouldn’t vote no.

Comment by lincoln's beard Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 1:16 pm
Pity you can’t charge a permit fee for the discharge of Republican lawmakers scared s-less by the Tea Partiers. Sweep that fund, and you have some real money.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 1:46 pm
There’s a real story here, but it’s not about the NPDES permit fees and the fund sweeps. It’s really all about who can get who to take regulatory responsibility (and the accompanying headaches) for the expanded NPDES surface discharge regulations now being applied in the agricultural business.

Fortunately, within the last 2 weeks IDPH told IEPA it’s all on their turf, so, at least for right now, both IDPH and the local health departments are off the hook (Thank You Lord!).

There’s going to be some unintentional comedy occurring with this one. IEPA, enjoy….

“No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”

Lily Tomlin

Comment by Judgment Day Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 1:56 pm
Slick Willy - That would be great if the government had the time and resources to find and deal with each polluter. People will do a lot of things up until they get caught, and many never do.

This wasn’t really a problem when there were lots of different small farms with a few animals at each one. Now you have 100,000 chickens in a single location, that’s a lot of waste. If disposal efforts are minimal it just piles up, and when it rains it runs off into our waterways. Treatment facilities can’t keep up. But, I guess ultimately the tea party and Grover are more important than safe water, so I guess I’ll just have to switch to whatever the heck they’re drinking.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:01 pm
==On a final point, we all ought to be worried about the efficacy of any regulatory scheme when the regulators paycheck comes directly from the folks they are supposed to be regulating.==

So, we shouldn’t pay licensing fees?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:12 pm
CAFOs pose an enormous threat to the environment and can be a permanent nuisance. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the CAFO approval and regulatory processes to protect the neighbors of CAFOs and the communities where they are built.

Comment by conservatively liberal Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:13 pm
I think their starting to get ridiculous and the Republicans are just being silly. This is one of those votes that should have been unanimous, but you have a couple of those guys running for governor and don’t want to let the other get a leg up on the crazy right vote and others who are just ignorant like McCann.

Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:18 pm
wordslinger 1:46,
“Pity you can’t charge a permit fee for the discharge of Republican lawmakers scared s-less by the Tea Partiers. Sweep that fund, and you have some real money.” Same can be said for Democrats and organized labor.

Comment by Bitterman Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:32 pm
CAFOs have the potential to create quite a mess. They should have to get a permit from Illinois EPA like other industries to ensure they handle and manage their waste properly. Illinois EPA’s regulatory programs are funded primarily with federal dollars and permit fees. The agency receives no or minimal GRF.

This small fee seems more than reasonable and probably doesn’t cover the permit processing costs. I could be wrong, but I think the temptation to sweep this fund will be limited, given that environmental health will be at risk without appropriate regulatory oversight. It’s better to make sure the CAFOs are using best management practices instead of trying to clean up a spill or other release after the fact.

Comment by Going nuclear Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 2:59 pm
–Same can be said for Democrats and organized labor.–

Yeah, organized labor is making out like bandits these days in Illinois. It’s in all the papers.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 3:01 pm
Bitter man - Are you not paying attention? Public sector unions are taking a beating at the hands of those they supposedly control. Yet Brady, Cultra and the rest of the true believers can’t vote on a bill even the farmers support? A certain term comes to mind, has to do with poultry and the stuff this bill is trying to clean up.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 3:03 pm
What do you think of a vote against a limited fee increase which is supported by the industry being targeted?

Childish

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 3:12 pm
Thank heavens there are those in Illinois govt who will take a stand and mean it. I am sick of all the fees, taxes, etc. every time we turn around.

Comment by Oswego Joe Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 3:22 pm
==Thank heavens there are those in Illinois govt who will take a stand and mean it. I am sick of all the fees, taxes, etc. every time we turn around.==

Are you sick of the roads, parks, schools, fire depts, police, prisons, and all that stuff as well?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 3:38 pm
@Pot calling kettle, your comment is obviously not intended to be an intelligent discussion but if you would care to break it down I would love to. Since you mention parks, lets start by charging user fees for state parks. A yearly membership to state parks for those who use them would be fantastic. I guess you like flushing my money down the toilet, you must be part of the 47% who dont pay taxes.

Comment by Oswego Joe Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 4:02 pm
–I guess you like flushing my money down the toilet, you must be part of the 47% who dont pay taxes.–

Where do you sign up for that? Because outside of most foods and medicine, I get charged a tax every single time I buy something. You should write a book on how people are dodging that. Not to mention all those taxes and fees for operating a car.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 4:19 pm
The mindless, unbending ideology of Brady and his ilk are why I no longer call myself a Republican and throw their endless donations requests into the trash. People who are that much in thrall to ideological purity haven’t the right stuff to govern. If the farmers want to tax (or fee) themselves for the common good of the farm industry, then for heaven’s sake let them do it! What is the effective difference between this and the “corn check-off”??

Comment by Skirmisher Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 5:24 pm
The fees were too low.

Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 5:26 pm
@going nuclear

Sorry to say that your comment about the liklihood of sweeps is naive. This tiny fee amount will be going into the fund that Blago basically created to be swept. Millions of dollars meant for environmental protection went to GRF until the fund was bled dry.

Comment by back to the sweeps Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 7:25 pm
@wordslinger - That lifestyle isnt really that great, but when you are living off someone else’s dime you dont appreciate it the same. Ask my kids! That’s why I am for helping people that need it but it but you have to have tough love at some point.

Comment by Oswego Joe Thursday, May 24, 12 @ 10:59 pm
Although they did not do fund sweeps recently, they did do fund “borrowing” - a substantial amount. Doubt that has been paid back or can be.

Comment by Dawn G. Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:42 am
===Doubt that has been paid back or can be. ===

It’s being paid back.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:51 am