Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - House passes bill with 67 votes *** Dobbs Working Group bill explained
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Subscribers only - Session update
Posted in:
* Amendment 2 to SB1720 includes this line…
In addition to any other transfers that may be provided for by law, at a time or times during Fiscal Year 2023 as directed by the Governor, the State Comptroller shall direct and the State Treasurer shall transfer up to a total of $400,000,000 from the General Revenue Fund to the Large Business Attraction Fund.
Greg Hinz first wrote about this back in October…
But with Illinois not yet luring big facilities such as those recently announced in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and other states, Illinois could use a big deal-closing fund, Pritzker said—essentially a pot of money the governor is empowered to dip into to sweeten economic development deals when the competition with other states is tight. “Michigan has, I believe, a $1 billion fund. They can just write a check,” he said. “It would be great if we had a closing fund in Illinois.”
Pritzker’s apparent reference was to Michigan’s Strategic Outreach & Attraction Reserve Fund, which can provide grants or loans for “infrastructure improvements, capital investments, acquisition of machinery and job training.” Officials there say the fund has been a major success.
* The measure’s sponsor is House Majority Leader Greg Harris, who explained the purpose to the Executive Committee this evening…
The fund, proposed by the Governor, would allow the state of Illinois to be competitive with other states in attracting large businesses with many employees to the state of Illinois, especially in emerging technologies such as electronic vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, those kinds of things
When asked to elaborate, Harris said…
I think there’ll be some enabling legislation coming along in which this is defined, in which there will be some guardrails and reporting on how this would be [implemented]. It’s a program that does not exist yet.
Asked when the House will see that enabling legislation, Harris said, “Hopefully, before the sun rises tomorrow.” House Exec then passed the bill on a partisan roll call.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 6:41 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - House passes bill with 67 votes *** Dobbs Working Group bill explained
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Subscribers only - Session update
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So, EDGE tax credits with less guardrails.
Comment by twowaystreet Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 7:20 pm
Money which would be better spent on education or dcfs, or public safety rather than corporate grifters.
Comment by Captain Obvious Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 7:36 pm
That’s way too much money for any governor to be able to spend any way he sees fit. This used to known as a slush fund.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 8:01 pm
NIL for EV makers
Comment by CapnCrunch Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 8:19 pm
It’s hard to imagine the legislature approving a closing fund of that size without investing/addressing health care and social service pressures. That would be extremely tone deaf…
Comment by Hard to Imagine Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 8:36 pm
Why am I not surprised that Democrats think the key to attracting employers is a slush fund? They just don’t get it. What they want is a business climate, which we do not have.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 9:02 pm
Just Me 2–well said
Comment by ANON Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 9:37 pm
===Why am I not surprised that Democrats think the key to attracting employers is a slush fund? They just don’t get it. What they want is a business climate, which we do not have.===
I wouldn’t call Michigan a Republican hotbed these days, but you do you…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 9:43 pm
===I wouldn’t call Michigan a Republican hotbed===
They do have right to work, tho.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 10:06 pm
===They do have right to work, tho.===
You’d think with right to work they wouldn’t need the slush fund.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 5, 23 @ 10:10 pm
==You’d think with right to work they wouldn’t need the slush fund.==
Odd both happened prior to the last election…
Comment by twowaystreet Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 2:17 am
===both happened===
You’ll have to ask “Michigan” why they did what
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 3:37 am
==Why am I not surprised that Democrats think the key to attracting employers is a slush fund? ==
The Crain’s article mentions a slush fund in Texas. Does that surprise you?
Comment by supplied_demand Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 8:47 am
===The Crain’s article mentions a slush fund in Texas. Does that surprise you?===
It can’t be, we need to own the libs with a “Democrat” idea to sumptin’-sumptin’… “taxpayers”
To the post and this as an idea…
The goal of the governing exercise is to maximize what can be done to help society within the bounds of legal, ethical, and moral mores, and… winners make policy.
As other states do such things, the simple mind of “Democrat” this or “taxpayer” that, states other than Illinois see the advantage with this type of plan, like a Michigan, like a Texas, so can governing not be mouth-breathing by FoxNews parishioners… but an honest look at policy and governing.
How often… how often is it that a comment is…
“Why, they do it in… Colorado… hey, they do this in North Carolina, Arizona…”
Policy? Yes. If it’s constitutional in Illinois? That’s a big rub to things too (see: pensions)
So, take a breath, not a hyperventilating breath, and realize if you’re one wanting “change” but see this as “Democrat” bad…. I can’t help you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 6, 23 @ 9:06 am