Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 - New ads released * Poll: 80 percent support proposed “lockbox” amendment

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls
YouTube
Updated Posts

* From the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute…

Likely voters in Illinois overwhelmingly support a proposed state constitutional amendment requiring gas taxes be spent only on road projects, according to a poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale… The sample of 865 likely voters was taken Sept. 27 – Oct. 2 and has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

· There are 80 percent of likely voters who support what’s been dubbed the “lockbox” amendment requiring that gas taxes, tolls and license fees be dedicated to roads, bridges and other transportation projects. Only 13 percent oppose it, and the rest are undecided.

Supporters argue state policy makers have sometimes shifted these dollars to non-transportation projects over the years, taking dollars from needed infrastructure projects. Opponents contend leaders need to have flexibility in the way they manage state finances and meet all the priorities they face.

Support is strongest downstate, where 87 percent support the measure. Seventy-eight percent support the measure in the Chicagoland suburbs and 73 percent in Chicago.

A lot of newspaper editorial boards have come out against the proposal (the SJ-R is the latest). I also don’t think it’s great policy, but I can see why this makes sense to voters who are frustrated with the General Assembly’s ability to do anything right.

* “On the ballot in November is an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that would make sure that funds from the gasoline tax, tolls, license fees, and other transportation levies can only be spent on roads, bridges, and other transportation-related projects. If that question were on the ballot today, would you vote for or against it?”…

*** UPDATE *** Press release…

Two new ads explain why Illinois needs to support the Safe Roads Amendment this November as a commonsense approach to protecting taxpayers’ investment in a stronger transportation system.

Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding – a coalition of business, labor and construction groups – today announced it has rolled out the new spots as part of its aggressive statewide public education campaign for a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot to prevent transportation funds from being spent on anything but transportation.

A 60-second radio ad and 60-second animated ad explain the Safe Roads Amendment – what it is, how it works and why it’s needed.

The radio ad, titled “Common Sense,” explains that years of decisions to spend road money on non-road purposes has helped create a dire situation for the state’s network of roads and bridges. The constitutional amendment is an easy way to start to address the backlog of disrepair.

“With the Safe Roads Amendment, we can fix our roads without raising taxes,” the narrator says in the ad, now running in the St. Louis market and to run statewide in the final three weeks of the campaign.

The animated ad, titled “Spread the Word,” takes a closer look at the bipartisan push to address transportation needs through the amendment.

“Your vote will create a lockbox for transportation money, so that gas taxes, car registrations and other transportation fees we already pay can only be spent on transportation,” the narrator says in the video intended to educate and advocate for the amendment online.

These ads follow the 30-second TV spot titled “When,” running on stations around the state.

The radio ad is here. The animated spot is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:24 am

Comments

My job requires me to drive all over the state. The roads are dangerous. I fully support the “lockbox” amendment on the basis of public safety.

Comment by illinoised Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:30 am
Makes me wonder what the electorate would think of fund sweeps, in general–taking fees that are supposed to be dedicated to support specific programs related to the source of the fees, and sweeping them into general purposes. In other words, is this support for more responsible, honest government, or limited to better transportation?

Comment by Harry Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:32 am
I voted for this. I want the state to make more investments in transportation. Not just because it benefits me personally more thsn other govt. programs but because of the short-term and long-term economic benefits of infrastructure spending.

Also maybe something like this forces a shake up of the budget negotiations.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:33 am
I think the millionaire tax had the same support. Feels good, goes nowhere.

Comment by Trolling Troll Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:38 am
Troll, try the Google.

The millionaire’s tax was a non-binding referendum. This is a constitutional amendment.

Up your game or stop commenting. Thanks.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:41 am
@Harry - In my case it is support for both things. And also the public safety argument is a good one.

The SJ-R editorial was super weak. I am supposed to be shocked and concerned that road builders and construction laborers want money that is supposed to be dedicated to transportation projects actually go to that? What a joke.

If the SJR is so in favor of flexibility then why don’t they editorialize in favor of abolishing the road fund and putting everything in one big general revenue pot?

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:41 am
OK Trolling Troll, a compromise; we will put all millionaires and billionaires in a ‘lockbox’

Comment by Jerry Seinfeld Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:43 am
I think the Simon poll question sort of crystalizes the Safe Roads ballot question a little too neatly. Isn’t the ballot language that appears on the ballot itself a lot longer and more complicated, meaning voters are going to have to discern what it means, quickly, while trying to move on to the Presidential, Senate, and downballot races. This is a all a long way of saying that 80% number might be a little misleading.

Comment by Conn Smythe Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:47 am
“Makes me wonder what the electorate would think of fund sweeps….”

Pretty sure they would oppose the concept just like they would oppose a tax increase, they want their cake but don’t ever want to pay for it.

Comment by Give Me A Break Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:48 am
In a perfect world, I would not support such an amendment, but given the condition of Illinois roads and bridges and the propensity of the General Assembly to kick the can down the road indefinitely, I will vote for the amendment. The monies in question are supposed to be used for road related purposes in the first place.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:53 am
This amendment is fixing a symptom of a bigger problem. What is really intended is to prevent any fund sweeps from taking money where it is allocated to use for budget patching. Otherwise every surcharge/tax/fee has to have it’s own “lockbox” so you know the money is being used as designated.

Comment by Maximus Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:57 am
I would vote for it today. For some reason, I feel kind of ignorant about it (received some mail from Jesse White on it)—like it is going to back-fire in a few years.

Comment by Belle Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:01 am
Vote for the Amendment. Clearly our roads are terrible and clearly we can use the jobs all over Illinois.

Comment by Slippin' Jimmy Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:03 am
The gas tax is a (very imperfect) user fee for those who use roads in the state. Thus it makes perfect sense to limit those funds to use for road maintenance and construction, and to other transportation uses which complement the road network and may reduce traffic volumes.

That said, our dire fiscal problems in the state might argue against an immediate implementation of this policy. Ideally I would prefer to see a different funding source or a gas tax surcharge targeted toward paying off creditors, as opposed to open season on the road fund. But those are unlikely.

Still, count me as a yes.

Comment by stateandlake Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:04 am
No no no no

When will we learn, constitutional provisions binding future legislatures’ powers to spend (or tax) is a terrible idea. Constitutions should protect the civil and First Amendment rights of discrete and powerless minorities. Using Constitutions as a club to dictate annual budgets is attractive obviously to the directly-affected parties (really rich people who don’t have to pay progressive taxation, Tier I retirees - and now apparently highway repair teams??), but it is fundamentally another form of interest-group politicking.

When we all have flying cars, it’s great to know that the IL Constitution will still mandate us to pay for roads nobody’s using beneath them. OK that was a symbolic point, but the budget will change, for perfectly reasonable reasons that no one can anticipate today. Forbidding us to change the budget in response to those changes, because of a constitutional provision set down decades beforehand, is never good.

But I do see how our obsession today with micro-managing the legislature with constitutional provisions (road lockboxes, and term limits and redistricting reform too, in a sense) only leads more groups trying to get in on this game, to tweak the Constitution in their favor. But it sort of becomes a race to the bottom.

Comment by ZC Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:07 am
–“Makes me wonder what the electorate would think of fund sweeps….”

Pretty sure they would oppose the concept just like they would oppose a tax increase, they want their cake but don’t ever want to pay for it.–

I’m guessing that’s right. That’s why you have a representative democracy — to make the tough, unpopular but necessary calls.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:13 am
Sure and keep it local. That’s to say gas tax, tolls, and license fees monies are to be used where they were collected.

Comment by Mr.Black Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:13 am
This year when so many IL voters seem not particularly enthralled with a number of their candidate choices (in the sense of “none of the above”), I think they may be paying more attention to this amendment proposal and to other local initiatives and referenda than usual– in hopes that they can somehow, somewhere, someway, maybe make a difference.

Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:15 am
Conflict of interest, okay. But while it may backfire, one thing is a constant in Illinois- the need for transportation of all kinds, whether it is persons, grain, livestock, building materials, industrial materials and products, coal or gas or gasoline, or etc., etc. While I certainly can agree that other things might be more important, this issue is one that everyone sees or deals with every day. The amounts of money in the road funds are attractive to governors or legislators for sweeps; this amendment should keep the money going where it is supposed to, rather than to the pet “need” of the day.

Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:16 am
dc @ 10:16 - not to mention a spot to park allies in jobs not dependent on the GRF

Comment by stateandlake Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:25 am
–Sure and keep it local. That’s to say gas tax, tolls, and license fees monies are to be used where they were collected.–

You’d need a donkey to get around Little Egypt in that scenario.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:27 am
Good policy in a perfect world, but this world isn’t perfect. Will pass though because it sounds good in the abstract without context.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:27 am
Illinois has spent years trying to steal money from state retirees, spent millions of dollars and eons of legislative time trying to invalidate the constitutional mandate to pay what is owed. Do we really want to lock up more money in that manner?

Comment by RIJ Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:31 am
I’d vote against knowing full well I’d be spitting in the wind. A shame they couldn’t go with a 80% rule or something and then ask.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:34 am
more explanation. i.e. 80% must be used for roads, bridges, etc.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:35 am
Isn’t this amendment a slap at the governor who recommended and approved a raid on the transportation fund?

Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:45 am
Yes, yes, yes, I agree with ZC.

Plus, have folks considered that this and similar lockbox efforts might lead to even higher tax increases in our future. The more money that gets locked up, the less is available for the rest of the budget. So the rest of the budget gets cut, or, more likely (it’s Illinois, we don’t cut), taxes go up-on the middle class, natch. The rich won’t care-flat tax increase are barely a nip to them.

Comment by Casssandra Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:50 am
-ZC- is correct.

Supporters argue “…that years of decisions to spend road money on non-road purposes has helped create a dire situation for the state’s network of roads and bridges.” In 1970 supporters of another Constitutional amendment argued that years of decisions to spend money for non retirement purposes was creating a dire situation for the state’s retirees. Having seen the impact of that decision on the State’s fiscal situation why do we want to further restrict future legislatures’ actions on expenditures?

Comment by CapnCrunch Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:08 am
Completely agree with ZC.

Comment by Ron Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:23 am
I’m all for keeping the money where it’s raised. Chicago region would get nearly all the money.

Comment by Ron Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:24 am
Plus, I’m wary of getting all futuristic, but what is the future of the US car industry, with the advent of driverless technology, Uber, and Lyft, and perhaps many fewer urban residents owning cars. Less wear and tear on roads perhaps. More demand for high-speed public transport. My relatively new car with all the safety features my kids could think of practically drives itself now.So maybe the future isn’t so far off.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:44 am
All those opposed from Chicago were teachers with the CTU???

Comment by Rollo Tamasi Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:44 am
I would agree if the amount in the LOCKBOX would only be sufficient to fund the 5 year road plan. No stockpiling money to pay for the next election cycle/pork.

Comment by Springfield Since '77 Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:50 am
The proposed amendment is political quackery; attempting to fix the symptoms without addressing the underlying problem. If you squeeze one side of the money sausage, it just comes right out the other side…

Comment by Illinoisan Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:07 pm
As -Maximus- said, this is symptomatic of a bigger problem.

People no longer trust government to do the right thing. They have seen Illinois do a “bait and switch”, raising taxes for x and spending the revenue on y. They no longer want that status quo; they want to lock up the hands of the politicians.

It is a movement to “user fees” and away from taxation for the “common good”. If this trend continues, your income tax or sales tax bill will look like your property tax bill with a seperate line for every special interest group.

Will it have unintended consequences? Will it most likely raise taxes? Definitely. But this is the point that the politicians have brought us to.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:15 pm
All money collected for transportation should be used for transportation related expenses. A number of years ago, I read an article about a new program to help preschoolers learn to read. It was at some local libraries and was being financed by grants from Jesse White, the state librarian. The reporter emphasized that the money for the program was coming from an increase in fees for replacement documents (lost titles, etc.). The reporter thought it was a great idea because it “doesn’t cost anybody anything”. This mindset is a bit disturbing, but it is probably why a lot of transportation money is used for other things. Many of these other things are worthwhile programs but should be funded out of general funds. Funds collected related to license and title fees should go to pay for operating the SOS offices, paying the employees, and anything left should go into the road funds, period.

Illinois replacement title fee, $95.

Indiana replacement title fee, $9.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:22 pm
Sigh. Money is still fungible. This is still bad public policy. And it still doesn’t do a thing to fix the state’s bad governance and inadequate revenue problems.

Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:54 pm
If everyone knew this amendment decimated the Department of Natural Resources, I doubt 80% would be for it. The DNR gets millions of dollars annually from license and title transfer fees that they will no longer receive. It is terrible for the IDNR.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 1:15 pm
Anonymous 1:15 - wasn’t the license fee add-on specifically targeted for IDNR and thus in it’s own “lockbox”? I’d like the legal minds here to let us know if the IDNR $ will remain sacrosanct, or be swept away by this amendment.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 1:33 pm
Six degrees, the constitution would trump the statute.

Comment by Juice Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:49 pm
Against this for many reasons — but mostly because we have already twisted our underwear into knots with our state Constitution.

This ties the hands of our Executive, which might be of some political value right now, but let’s not make this a permanent feature.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 4:11 pm
I’m leaning toward supporting the “lockbox” amendment. The state roads in my area are horrendous due to semi truck traffic and the state seems to be only able to but bandaids over 10 mile+ stretches of crumbling roads, but I too would like to know if this amendments would take the dedicated IDNR funds away.

Comment by South Illinoisian Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 4:28 pm
If the amendment would put the IDNR set aside in peril, lawmakers could do the right thing and reduce the license plate fees by a buck and make it up somewhere else, revenue and tax neutral. I would think a similar percentage who are in favor of the amendment would also favor not shorting the IDNR funding. And the group pushing this should address it.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 4:55 pm
I would be happier if it was for transportation instead of roads. I don’t doubt roads are in bad shape. I am doing my bit to not make them worse by not driving on them.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 8:24 pm
Voting no.

Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:28 pm
Cheryl44, there is some road fund $ that goes for public transit, and the amendment is written in a way that it is kept under the transportation umbrella. The majority of public transit uses roads, which indirectly benefits transit vehicles’ use of them.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:18 pm