Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in…
Next Post: Off the rails?
Posted in:
* From Voices for Illinois Children…
If revenue plummets starting on Jan. 1, 2015, when current income tax rates expire, discretionary portions of Illinois’ general funds budget — over which lawmakers have the most control — would face aggregate cuts of at least 25 percent to balance the state’s budget in fiscal year 2016. And if the annual budgetary savings from the pension law passed last year disappear because the law is struck down by the courts, aggregate cuts to the discretionary parts of the general funds budget would need to be about 33 percent to balance the budget.
In arriving at these estimates, the Fiscal Policy Center methodically went through the state’s general funds budget, estimating resources available in FY 2015 and FY 2016 if the current income tax rates decline, then categorizing state spending as “mandated” or “discretionary,” depending on the degree of authority lawmakers have over the spending. Based on the projected deficits in FY 2016, all discretionary areas of the budget were then cut by an equal percentage until total general funds spending matched available resources.
We considered the following as “mandated” spending areas: those protected by federal law; Medicaid; state statutory contributions to the state-funded retirement systems; statutorily required transfers out of the general funds; debt service; and payments to the State Group Health Insurance Program, the Teachers’ Retirement Insurance Program, and the College Insurance Program. While the General Assembly could decide not to fund some of these areas (as happened for years when the state failed to make its annual pension contributions), doing so would be grossly irresponsible and would either increase the state’s unfunded liabilities or have other extremely harmful consequences such as default or the loss of significant federal matching funds.
We took great care to make conservative assumptions. We considered most spending that is required by state law to be “discretionary,” since the General Assembly could alter that spending requirement by changing or ignoring the underlying statute. We also made conservative assumptions about the timing of repayment of $650 million that the state is borrowing from other funds this year and that must be repaid within 18 months, by assuming the funds are borrowed in the second half of FY 2015 and thus could be repaid as late as FY 2017. We also did not set aside any money in FY 2016 for the state to pay down its nearly $4 billion in unpaid bills. Finally, we considered two special state funds — the Advancement for Education Fund and Commitment to Human Services Fund — as part of the general funds. While both funds are supposed to supplement, not supplant, general funds spending for education and human services, the General Assembly ignored this requirement in FY 2015.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - This just in…
Next Post: Off the rails?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Have fun, Bruce. This will be a memorable one term.
Comment by QCLib Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:48 am
While this study considers payments to the State Group Health Insurance Program as mandatory, I can tell you from personal experience that the payments are inadequate to pay the bills in a timely manner. Right now, for an estate I am dealing with, there is an outstanding hospital bill under Cigna (the state’s self-insured plan) that is approaching a year old. This stretched out payment cycle will only get worse after the temporary tax expires … and this is just one small example.
People may have wanted the temporary income tax to expire … but they aren’t going to like the results a year from now.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:50 am
Not to worry. The Tribbie edit board will chime in soon on how these cuts should be made.
Or maybe Allan Katz can show us the Indiana-way it can be done.
Let the shaking up begin.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:52 am
Also, when you go read the rest of the underlying assumptions, the methodology used is very conservative in assuming zero growth in program costs. Most likely, this study is a “best possible outcome” projection.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:53 am
This analysis, while almost certainly mathematically correct given whom it was done by, simply ignores the fact that the GA isn’t going to pass a budget that contains 25-33% cuts in all those programs. So, on to plans B,C, etc.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:54 am
A reasonable analysis of what most rationale commenters already know and have been saying for a long time. The state is in deep doodoo if the temp hike was allowed to expire.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 9:57 am
Be interesting to see what the GA does once they run out of waste, fraud, abuse, magic beans and pixie dust to balance the budget. My guess is more slight-of-hand bookkeeping and over optimistic revenue projections … and eventually a tax increase of some kind for FY16.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:02 am
At the very least, this rearranges some of the chairs at the bargaining table. It creates a different environment in which to consider solutions. Some stuff will now be off the table. Some stuff will be back on the table. The pain is going to have to be spread around.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:03 am
Math > Spin.
The very smart people I learn from here basically use that equation to keep the discussion honest.
This is another of those discussions.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:08 am
Hey! Why all the doom and gloom? Don’t you know that Bruce is a big BUSINESSMAN? He knows better than any politician how to run this state like a business (and make a profit like businesses do?). Just relax and let him work his magic. He’ll set us all straight with his business know how.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:10 am
Captain Rauner, iceberg straight ahead!
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:11 am
I do think this should make it easier to push funding of teacher pensions to the actual employer and not the State as part of the solution.
Comment by Bourbonrich Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:13 am
In other words, save the money from when the tax rate drops, cause it’s going to return soon and be even higher than before.
Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:16 am
Good to have real numbers, as opposed to mythical opinion statements.
These are the restraints and structures within the state budget that were roundly ignored in the campaign. One can hope that none of this is new news to Rauner, despite what appeared in his “blueprint.”
RNUG: Good comment. ===”waste, fraud, abuse, magic beans, and pixie dust”=== might not even total enough to close out this fiscal year legitimately. Not sure we can wait til 2016 for increased revenue, without some real sketchy borrowing and reporting.
We will need something hard and fast, early next year. Rauner should be working on almost nothing but this, and certainly present the next budget on time.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:23 am
It’s not Rauners fault… He has not even been sworn in… Any truth to what he is saying about budget “tricks” by using special funds and listing debt from a previous year?
I said for months… The pension cost shift is what Madigan wants. He has a Dance partner in Rauner. Cuts will be coming. Large and wide. It’s what responsible people do.
Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:24 am
Come on Rick.. Revenue is when you sell something in exchange for goods .. Revenue in the Government arena should be called taxes.. what it was called years ago
Comment by better days Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:24 am
=push funding of teacher pensions to the actual employer and not the State as part of the solution==
In other states the majority of the funding of schools is paid by the state! In Illinois, although we, collectively, speak of the enormous importance of schools (and all the functions they do, to include paying their employees), the actions of our legislature do not follow philosophy. Our state is dead last in funding our public schools. So, what you are saying, is that like funding public schools now, mainly by local real estate taxes, you’d prefer that those taxes increase to take care of what the state has been incapable of handling responsibly for decades? Too much temptation to have all that cash? More local taxation, rather than state? I guess that takes the money out of the hands of our (un)trustworthy elected legislature but will result in seriously lopsided education quality. Those in wealthy areas would be happy to pay more. Those in low income areas cannot. Nor can they attract qualified teachers. And so, the “good” and “bad” schools thing is perpetuated and intensified.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:24 am
“Hey! Why all the doom and gloom? Don’t you know that Bruce is a big BUSINESSMAN? He knows better than any politician how to run this state like a business (and make a profit like businesses do?). Just relax and let him work his magic. He’ll set us all straight with his business know how.”
The Democrats ran the State into the ground with their spending policies. They were in charge of everything for years. Rauner did not create this mess - Quinn/Madigan/Cullerton did. Underfunding of pensions started way back in the old Republican days, but Quinn continued the underfunding and used pension $$$’s in areas he did not want to cut.
Now those on this blog are laughing at Bruce Rauner because people of Illinois chose him to try to fix this mess. Those laughing like the poster quoted above do not have Illinois’ best interest at heart. We all need to come together to fix this mess.
Let’s see what Rauner can do. An outsider might just have some different ideas. Sometimes those who laugh last, laugh best.
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:27 am
===Quinn continued the underfunding and used pension $$$’s in areas he did not want to cut.===
I think Quinn made the payments(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:34 am
Guy, what’s changed? What’s the different environment? Are you pretending that this wasn’t known? Why? Who do you think believes that?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:38 am
Jechislo @ 10:27
==Now those on this blog are laughing at Bruce Rauner because people of Illinois chose him to try to fix this mess. Those laughing like the poster quoted above do not have Illinois’ best interest at heart. We all need to come together to fix this mess.==
Oh please…those of us here aren’t laughing because ‘the people’ voted for Rauner, we’re laughing because Rauner tried to sell people magic beans and pixie dust. No one kept his feet to the fire to answer truthfully about HOW he would fix the mess.
And as far as I’m concerned, saying “We all need to come together to fix this mess” is just code (like wink/nod) for punishing those workers and taxpayers who’ve been doing their jobs and paying their fair share all along.
Those fancy ‘job creation, positive business climate’ blah, blah, blah is just malarchy. Bunk. Not buying that snake oil.
Comment by northernwatersports Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:41 am
====I think Quinn made the payment?===
Yes he did.
Comment by Trstmay Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:43 am
So is the problem serious enough yet that we drop all non-essential and non-mandated spending?
Do we repeal prevailing wage to reduce public construction expenses? The GAs had two years, and they haven’t done it yet, and it isn’t even on the table.
Do we eliminate pensions paid by the state for all new employees, and shift the costs for pensions to the local schools if they want to do it as part of their compensation package? I guess things really aren’t that bad, because that’s the first thing you’d do if you had a real pension problem.
How about deferring all state funded capital work that isn’t necessary for safety? I guess the funds are still there for boondoggles like the state funded new school in Madigan’s neighborhood, the turkey Peotone airport (Lincoln?) and the Illiana boondoggle.
Well, surely the state has developed a “fall back” budget that’s identified all expenses that are mandated by law, and those which would put our citizens at physical risk if not performed, right? I don’t think the GA is THAT serious yet, because if such a “doomsday budget” was prepared, I’m sure Rich would’ve told us.
The list goes on and on of things the GA could’ve done to balance expnditures to revenues, but they just don’t think the problem is serious enough yet to cut into their political patronage.
The solutions are there to make progress. If we extend the “temporary” tax, it’ll only delay the day of reckoning that surely will come. Apocalypse NOW!
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:56 am
I think we can fairly say that, given that it’s Illinois, Quinn’s decision to make the pension payments and suffer the pain-political and fiscal–was not just responsible but (again, it’s Illinois) even slightly heroic.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:56 am
Cassandra, did you just give Quinn credit for doing something honorable? Let me be the first to agree with you on this.
Much pain awaits the good people of IL and its State employees. Whatever Rauner comes up with will have to pass constitutional muster and enrich the Wall Street crowd he runs with. Madigan may go along with it, but the Dems in the Senate will not. We’ll see…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:04 am
Quick question. If he’s talking about cuts in state govt., what does he have left to cut? They are down to bare bones now.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:04 am
Arizona Bob -
Where to begin? Partially the state got school pension costs to keep property taxes down, to avoid an income tax increase / mandated property tax decrease. Do you want to renege on that deal?
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:16 am
RNUG: Like CIGNA, the state is a year behind paying doctor bills under HealthLink, the insurance option for us non-medicare retirees who live out of state. We’re being sent collection notices. Why does the state choose to self insure in the first place?
Comment by SaxMan Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:16 am
- Jechislo - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:27 am:
Point of fact - after the 1970 Pension Clause took effect, the first Gov to short the payments was Dan Walker (D). See the ISC decision IFT v Lingberg (1975).
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:24 am
Hey there folks the election is over… wanting Rauner to failure means you want Illinois and the people to fail .. Grow up !!! the money train has already left
Comment by better days Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:24 am
-Casandra- and -Loop Lady-, while I didn’t like a number of things Quinn did, he overall wasn’t that bad of a Gov and I’ve given him credit for making the pension payments as mandated by the “ramp”.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:28 am
Jechislo: wrong on two points.
No one here is “laughing at Rauner”.
The problem is that the Rauner campaign did not seriously deal with these issues, and many of us kept pointing that out. Now he faces realities previously denied.
And, part of the difficulties Quinn faced were because he did actually fully fund the ramped-up pension obligations.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:31 am
SaxMan
“Why does the state choose to self insure in the first place?”
By doing so, it is generally exempt from insurance regulations related to financial reserves, etc.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:37 am
I didn’t vote for Rauner but I want him to succeed in balancing the budget and funding core services. If he can do that, he will deserve credit. Of course paying bills while funding public safety and other core services will require a tax hike, as many have been predicting all year.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:43 am
Their analysis shows a $5+B drop in revenue for FY16 due to expiration of the 5% tax rate.
Isn’t the annual contribution to pensions about $2B for normal costs and $5B to bring pension funding up to 90% in 2045?
Would not $5B/year cover payments on bonds sufficient to largely eliminate the pension debt assuming current low interest rates and assuming roughly historical long-term returns from investing the funds?
A reason for going the bond route would be political: whatever tax increase would be passed to cover it could be blamed on the Constitution. Also, assuming the tax increase has a basis that grows with the economy (say 2%/year) the tax percentage could be reduced by 2% of the percentage rate per year until it expires completely when the bonds are paid off.
I believe there is a solution to the funding problem highlighted in their analysis, but it will take guts.
Comment by east central Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:43 am
- east central -
Maybe I’m too cynical these days, but they don’t want to pass a new tax hike just to fund the pension backlog properly; that won’t leave any money freed up for new shiny programs.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:51 am
No, Bob, the problem is serious enough that WE (the citizens of Illinois, who do not include you, so you shouldn’t use the term, unless you meant it in the royal sense, which wouldn’t surprise me, as you would certainly rule by fiat not democracy) should eliminate the flat tax amendment in OUR constitution and set up a proper progressive income tax.
Comment by PolPal56 Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:53 am
There will be no cost shift if rauner gets his property tax freeze he promised me.
Comment by foster brooks Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:01 pm
RNUG -
I do not disagree. However when the ISC confirms the lower court decision, there will be a window of opportunity to pass a tax increase that is blamed on the ruling, which minimizes the political cost.
If they resolve funding the pension debt, then for shiny new programs there is the savings from eliminating growth in the future pension payments that would otherwise occur, there is potential savings from changing normal cost funding, there is possible new casino revenue, and there is likely fracking-related revenue.
And they might get away with purposely overestimating the tax increase required to cover the bonds, in which case the overage benefits the GRF but the blame goes to the court ruling.
Comment by east central Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:25 pm
The Illinois Board of Higher Education has already been told to make plans for a 30% cut.
Wonder if other agencies have been told the same?
Anyone hear about such tentative plans for these other agencies?
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:30 pm
East Central- Your view is one that I have stated in the past. The entire budget deficit will be blamed on the state employee’s pension. That type of assault has already been used and will intensify as politicians from both sides of the aisle will join together in this charade.
This has been true even as they have expanded programs such as Medicaid.
Logic makes little difference in the unreal world of Illinois politics.
So brace for it, it will be coming.
P.S. @RNUG
Thanks for reminding us of Walker and the IFT v. Lindberg (1975) case.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:39 pm
== There will be no cost shift if rauner gets his property tax freeze he promised me. ==
A good point! Rauner can’t have it both ways.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:42 pm
Arizona Bob–
You can’t just deny State employees any pension… even new hires. The Feds (IRS) require all employees to accrue a retirement benefit at least equal to Social Security. Put all new hires in Social and it costs the State 6.2% of pay (up to the annual cap), more than what the State has to pay for Tier 2 employees. You COULD take away pensions for covered employees in SERS. Or you could do a non-contributory 401(k)-type plan, but try and hire anyone who is any good on those terms…. 401(k) with ZERO guaranteed benefit.
But in any case you are still left with the current $100B pension debt to pay down.
Comment by Harry Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:44 pm
==budget that’s identified all expenses that are mandated by law==
You’d be surprised at how much money in the budget is mandated by state law in one way or the other (either the specific spending is mandated or the spending is mandated by the fact that an agency is mandated to perform certain duties).
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:52 pm
==Apocalypse NOW!==
So you want to throw the state into utter chaos to satisfy your sick need to watch the destruction that follows?
Bob, how many times are you going to continue to bring up your nonsense ideas on solving the budget problem. You think prevailing wage is the big issue? It’s only an issue for you because you are anti-everything when it comes to pay. Pension cost shift? Might save the state money but taxes are going up at the local level or schools will be decimated by cuts. Eliminate pensions? So not even a 401K for state employees Bob? You hate public sector workers so much that you don’t think they deserve any sort of retirement? Besides, as Harry has said, doing that doesn’t solve the problem of the payments that are currently due. Those exist no matter what you do.
Bob, stay in Arizona. When we want dumb ideas we’ll let you know.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:58 pm
==== Wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 10:38 am:
Guy, what’s changed? What’s the different environment? Are you pretending that this wasn’t known? Why? Who do you think believes that?====
Are you arguing that it was universally known from the Governor’s leaky mansion all the way down to kitchen tables in every household in the State?
To answer your question, it’s becoming better known by the people who will ultimately have to participate in the solution; the taxpayers. Big numbers are “BIG” to them, but relatively difficult to understand on a micro level, i.e. “how’s it affect me?”. Well, now that answer is about to have an application in every household no matter who you are or what situation you’re in. If shared sacrifice is the solution (I think it has to be), then the people doing the sharing need to understand the cost of doing nothing, or doing the wrong things. This will probably help get that message across.
How is that misconstruing?
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 12:58 pm
==== RNUG - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 11:28 am:
-Casandra- and -Loop Lady-, while I didn’t like a number of things Quinn did, he overall wasn’t that bad of a Gov and I’ve given him credit for making the pension payments as mandated by the “ramp”.===
No real hard disagreement here, but the income tax was raised specifically for this purpose. Is it really “heroic” to spend the money that’s collected for the purpose it was collected?. Good Heavens, in this place, maybe it is.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:02 pm
Guy, the information has always been out there for anyone who wanted it. Nothing has changed. Pretending doesn’t make it so.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:05 pm
@A guy
,
Not certain, but are you saying that the income tax was raised specifically for the purpose of funding pensions?
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:10 pm
No new spending. No new capital projects. The state is broke. Yet they keep on spending!
Comment by Formerpol Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:36 pm
My snarky comment about Rauner having the big fix for all of our financial woes is based on the pie in the sky promises he has made. Freeze property taxes, let state income tax increase expire….how can you balance a budget with less income than you had before, let alone pay off debt? I realize this is just talk for the sake of talk as they all talk……but who exactly buys this stuff? Do the voters who elected him still believe in Santa Claus? If the business types who should know about numbers and how they work buy his magic, then they must know about some heavy duty secret tricks up his sleeve.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 2:09 pm
=== Federalist - Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 1:10 pm:
@A guy
,
Not certain, but are you saying that the income tax was raised specifically for the purpose of funding pensions?===
Passed to pay for backlog of bills and for pension payments…that’s what I’m saying. That’s how it was sold/rationalized by legislators voting yes. At least the ones who needed to rationalize it.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 2:09 pm
A guy… -
Actually the @% temporary tax was partially sold to pay off the State’s backlog of bills … something that was only partially done because the corresponding bonding bill never got passed.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 2:13 pm
A guy -
The increase was to pay for pensions and the notes that liquidatee the backlog of unpaid bills. But, as Dan Rutherford stated to WBBM in April 2012, the entire increase went to pensions, and nothing else.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 2:22 pm
If the entire increase went to pensions, was the payment to pensions the full amount I hope, instead of the $3/year they’ve allocated?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 2:44 pm
I assume Dr. Larry Joseph did most of the analysis for Voices, he is generally very conservative in his estimates. If Governor elect Rauner attempts to protect k-12 education then other cuts would have to be much deeper.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 3:10 pm
RNUG, Anyone R, I think we’re in agreement here.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 3:27 pm
Rod-
Larry is now our Director of Research at Voices.
David Lloyd is the Fiscal Policy Center Director. He, along with our Policy Associate Lisa Christensen Gee, conducted this excellent analysis and write up.
Comment by Emily Miller Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 3:30 pm
Guy, “anyone R” is in agreement with RNUG on what?
He’s the voice of reason.
There wasn’t one R vote for bonding out the backlog of bills
for at the time would have been a negative rate of interest. It was crazy, a conscious choice, for partisan reasons, to pay more juice and leave vendors hanging for a longer period of time.
Does it ever occur to you that the fact that you constantly have to make things up and misrepresent history to support your positions, that maybe you’re just wrong?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 4:53 pm
Note from a couple of recent posts that the spin is that tax increase is for the pensions (with a nod to a backlog of bills.
And that is what I noted would be the rationale in my 12:39pm post and what ‘east central’ said just before me.
‘A Guy’ confirms this and ‘Anonymous’ notes that is what Rutherford stated in a radio address.
Yep, pensions are the problem according to the politicians, the Tribune, the Civic Federation etc. Not other massive spending over the years or cheating the pension system to pay for all this spending.
As I said, that is drum beat for a tax increase.
It will be passed and the blame will be laid almost solely at state employees.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 4:58 pm
Yes, Federalist, someone must be blamed for the irresponsibility of our legislators. Anyone but them, of course. It has been apparent from the beginning that the scapegoats would be our public servants. They’ve done a bang-up job of brainwashing the public who just wants someone to blame and pay.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 7:08 pm
Wordslinger -
I think Team Quinn failed to grasp that as much as many vendors might complain about the state’s backlog of unpaid bills, as long as there is no threat of the state actually welching on its bills, they do not mind loaning the state money at 12% interest per year.
For nonprofits, the Prompt Payment Act is actually a goldmine. Foundation grants, state grants and state contract monies are restricted funds, only to be spent on specific purposes, but I am fairly certain interest earned under the prompt payment act is unrestricted and can be spent on all kinds of fun stuff.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 7:34 pm
Anonymous -
If public employees end up allowing themselves to be scapegoated for the tax hike, they have no one to blame but themselves.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 2, 14 @ 7:42 pm
Sling, you’re so swept up in trying to be cuter than a Barbie Doll that you miss the gist dude. What RNUG and Anyone R and this fool (me) are in agreement on is our understanding of what the tax increase was for; backlog of bills and pension payments.
Now, debate that all day long and call it wrong or whatever. Do it in a mirror and make faces at yourself. You’ll feel better. Catch up with your outfit man. You can be cynical all day. Just pick your spots better. Eek.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Dec 3, 14 @ 7:41 am
YDD at 7:42. You are absolutely right. But where is the voice speaking out in defense of publics?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 3, 14 @ 8:41 am
Guy, show me any R that said the tax increase was used to make pension payments or pay down bills. The claim was that it went to higher spending.
Again, you make stuff up, for some reason.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 3, 14 @ 9:01 am