Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* As you know by now, billions of federal construction dollars have been sitting idly in DC while Illinois politicians decide how to come up with the state matching money to capture those buckaroos.

There is no existing state money available for this. It will have to come from some new revenue source, whether that be motor fuel taxes, driver fees, income taxes, sales taxes, some other taxes or things like leasing assets or gaming expansion.

And, don’t forget that the feds will likely do another transportation bill in a year or so, and Illinois will have to come up with even more money.

* The Question: How would you come up with approximately $2 billion to capture the existing federal money, plus find even more money in a year or so?

And, please, don’t say “cut the budget.” The budget will have to be cut in order to help put it into balance. There’s just no way to cut the budget for that purpose and also come up with money for a capital program.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:22 am

Comments

It has to be a Bond issue — once again I say a $0.10 per $100 EAV limit general obligation bond.

Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:25 am
You have to pay for that bond issue, and there’s really no money to pay for it out of general revenues.

So, try again, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:27 am
Fuel taxes are by far the best option. We should consider a fuel tax that falls/rises as the underlying rises/falls.

Comment by Greg Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:30 am
Hate to say it…

Keno

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:35 am
For starters all available fed funds could matched by bonding a small portion of the road fund. House Ds passed the bill last year. GRod blocked in the Senate. Might delay a few repair projects

Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:36 am
Put toll booths on the interstate into St. Louis, Mo. Illinois doesn’t need to pay 1/2 for the bridge either. Let MO spend some of the $$ they have sucked off IL for years.

Comment by anon Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:39 am
Expand gambling and lease our assets.

Gas taxes hit our working families the hardest and are blantantly unfair.

By leasing our assets, we let a private operation take the risk for a specific period of time for cash up front. And by expanding gambling, those who wish to gamble will pay the costs, and that would be voluntary.

Stop taxing our working families.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:39 am
8c a gallon increase in state Motor Fuel tax. Pay as you go. Now’s the most painless time to raise it, while prices are relatively low.

The alternative is to kiss the money goodbye and make do with what we’ve got, potholes, inadequate pedestrian facilities, underfunded transit, and bridge weight limits included. If we keep going the way we’re going, I would not be surprised at the state trying to spin off or sell its assets in the future in order to concentrate on a smaller, more maneageable transportation system.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:39 am
Gaming expansion!!! How about a land-based casino in the Southloop? Plenty of cash from out of towners as well as locals. It creates a revenue stream for long-term use, instead of selling off state revenue streams (like selling the lottery).

Comment by Heartless Libertarian Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:39 am
A gas tax temp (with a time limit) after IDOT gets there act together and stops the contractors ripping the state off

Comment by honesty in government Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:40 am
Gasoline tax.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:40 am
While I hate raising taxes, Illinois has one of the lowest income taxes in the country. Raise the income tax 1%. Even though Illinois has a relatively high motor fuel tax, I would look at a very modest increase in the motor fuel tax ti raise any remainder.

Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:44 am
Alcohol & cigarette tax. Sure, people may eventually give up smoking since it’s inconvenient(or buy it from a neighboring state), but they’ll never give up the juice.

Comment by captain fuzz Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:47 am
I just had a great idea instead of imposing a higher gas tax… A Carbon credit excise tax to raise money for the roads so my big SUV can get to work safely. Yes, tax the businesses that sell carbon credits for 15% of revenue. I love it. Finally, a tax increase I can support!

Comment by Heartless Libertarian Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:48 am
A two-year increase of 1% in the income tax, i.e., raise the rate from 3% to 4%. This is not the time for a protracted argument about our tax structure, school funding, or anything else. We need to get the state back in business first. The 2010 election then needs to be about solving these longer term issues.

Comment by Excessively rabid Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:51 am
Gas tax seems like the most reasonable vehicle, pardon the pun.

Comment by chiatty Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:51 am
HL, does anyone buy carbon credits? I thought that was a Hollywood fad of a couple of years ago. The Times of London did a piece about a year back exposing the scam there, which was headed up by the Russian mob.

Why am I telling you this? I should be working on my certificates….

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:51 am
Some of the more aggressive thinkers would suggest the next federal transportation bill be written to let states opt out of the Highway Trust Fund and Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Account entirely. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about raising state matching $ to get our federal share out. Or sending 18c to Washington DC every time we pump a gallon. Of course, Uncle Sugar wouldn’t be there to bail us out if we cried “uncle” anymore, either. And no earmarks to make our congresscritters look good.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:53 am
I’m under the impression that there is about $9 billion available for Illinois from the last federal transportation bill. What is the match rate to capture those funds? Will the $2 billion in spending that you suggest capture all $9 billion in federal transportation dollars available? Is the match rate the same for the various types of transportation spending, meaning is the federal match rate the same if you build a road, a bridge or mass transit? If anyone has some information on this topic please share. Thanks.

Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:54 am
As to the highway match once and for all index the road fund portion of the gas tax to inflation and be done with it.
Temp increase in the income tax for the rest of the budget issues.
Thoughtfully cut state agencies and programs rather then the old % game where no program dies no matter how badly it should be put to pasture.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:57 am
Rich,

This is off-topic (sorry!) but just wondering what happened at the press conference Roger Romanelli was supposed to have last Saturday. The notice you posted was promising some earth-shattering news “to save America.”

What was it, Rich?

Comment by Just Wondering Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:58 am
This might be a time to be creative. I don’t really want to mess with sales taxes or mess with people’s income. I would have no problem with leasing state assets or gambling expansion in addition to hiking select fees whether at driver’s facilities or anywhere else.

Comment by Levois Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 11:58 am
.16 cent gas tax hike, $1 per pack cigarette tax hike, extend sales tax to certain services, and add two more casino licensesn and, finally but most importantly, double the income tax to 6 percent and use deductions/exemptions to add progressivity.

That’s a boatload of money, but this is a relatively painless way forward, especially if it holds property taxes level or lower. And yes yes yes, implement reforms and cuts to eliminate waste, fraud and stupidity in government at every level.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Scooby-

Anywhere from 50%/50% fed/state to 90%/10% fed/state, depending on the fed funding source. The lion’s share is at 80% fed/20% state. Stimulus funding is proposed to be 100% fed, BTW. If there is really $9 bil in uncaptured fed funding (which I am skeptical of), $2 bil in state $ should easily provide the match.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:03 pm
anon-

With your proposal we would have lost 50% funding in a few months when gas went from $4 to $2. A more stable income stream is needed.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:04 pm
Raise the income tax by 1% for two years. No new programs and limit existing programs to 2008 levels. Also, anyone making more than $100,000 a year should pay something, even if their income is derived from retirement. Currently, retirees pay no state income tax, regardless of their income.

Comment by lincolnlover Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:05 pm
For those advocating gambling expansion, a couple of things:

–You’re clear that casinos are legally allowed to rig the odds so that the house always wins in the end? But they’re also allowed to advertise the dream of money for nothing? That’s awfully tempting to many “working families,” to give it a try. Unless you think the gamblers at Illinois casinos are whales flying in from Dubai, Tokyo and London.

–There are a number of casinos in Illinois already. Does expansion make the gambling pie bigger or the pieces smaller?

As the head of a “working family,” I think I can figure out how to accommodate the extra $1.60 a tank an 8 cent increase would cost me, rather than try to scam my neighbors with another sucker’s bet.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:05 pm
small income tax, .25 to .5 percent

Comment by downstate dem Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:13 pm
Too easy: auction a casino license for Chicago, paid-up for the first five years.

Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:14 pm
(i.e., no state/local taxes for the first five years — whatever they rake in, they keep)

Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:14 pm
No such thing as a temporary increase in the income tax.

Comment by Downstate weed chewing hick Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:21 pm
Gas tax is good but, what about personal property tax. First car is free, most expensive, then additional vehicles are taxed at .50% of average value.
anon - don’t folks who live in IL drive to MO to work, go to ball games, the zoo, etc than folks from MO who drive to IL? Wouldn’t tolls come out of their pocket and not that of Missourians?

Comment by sneaker Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:25 pm
I would increase the gas tax and put in play a long term revenue source for future projects. But I would forbid use of the funds for anything other then infrastrcuture (bridges and roads)

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:35 pm
out of curiousity, has there ever been a specific figure out there from a reputable sources that can clarify how many billions of unspent federal transportation dollars are laying dormant in Washington, DC?

Comment by maybe Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:37 pm
Increase gas tax, income tax by .5%, several state fees and cut some corporate tax welfare.

Comment by Niles Township Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:37 pm
I would add a 1% sales tax to groceries and jack the income tax up a 1/2%. I would sunset the income tax like we did before, but realizing the likelihood of it ever leaving the books is miniscule. Step two is the budget knife and I would love to see the return of Joan Walters to wield it.

The problem with casino and sin taxes is your asking a few to pay for the expenses of the many. I’m not a gambler and I’m not a smoker, but it seems patently unfair to me. I would consider the gas tax, but our taxes are so high already and gas prices and utilization are so volatile that the income stream is somewhat unpredictable. Also, if we’re serious about alternative fuels and electric vehicles, this is a short sighted solution.

Comment by Spiro T Agnew Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:38 pm
Raise the tax on tobacco.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:39 pm
Six Degrees, thanks for the info. Very helpful.

Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 12:46 pm
State-controlled liquor stores. Washington State grossed $825 million last year, and we can drink them under the table.

Comment by Lert Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:01 pm
Let’s keep with past Illinois practice and borrow money against what the feds are going to give us in the second year of stimulus payments so we can have it the first year.

Comment by Reality is Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:03 pm
How about a 2% income tax increase, with 1% going to general revenue and the other 1% going to fix the disparity in school funding and property tax relief.

By the way, does anyone know how many dollars a 1% income tax increase would bring in?

Comment by Cheswick Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:03 pm
It is true that there are some $9 billion in earmarks that remain unspent due to Illinois’ inability to provide the $2 billion or so match. There also remain some $7.5 billion in ongoing highways, local roads and transit needs. If you look at the math, HB-1 doesn’t come close to funding any of this. That’s because the paltry 8 cents would not only be split with transit, but would also only generate about 3.5 billion over five years. At 16 cents, this number is $7.5 billion - which happens to be what is needed to secure the federal dollars and to provide for an actual funded transportation program in Illinois. If 16 is too high, a variety of vehicle related fee increases could be implemented to plug the gap. I also like the comment from someone here who would add a personal property tax on second vehicles. Oh, and it would be helpful that the money generated actually went to transporation and wasn’t swept into other funds. Some guarantee that no more diversions will happen would go a long way to putting people to work, maintaining a competetive infrastructure, and forcing real choices on funding other areas in the budget.

Comment by phocion Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:04 pm
1) Reclaim the Road Fund dough that Filan diverted here, there, and everywhere. Yes, I know that takes GRF to replace, but we’re fixing one problem at a time.
2) 8 to 10 cent gas tax increase.

As Redd correctly noted, securitizing Road Fund $$ is a viable option which becomes more viable if the revenue becomes more predictable and less “diverted.”

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:07 pm
gambling and gas. would love to add guns to make it the three gs….just because we have rights doesn’t mean govt. should subsidize the background checks. my FOID card cost is way low.
but guns is not possible. so the 2 gs will have to do it.

Comment by Amy Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:09 pm
==By leasing our assets, we let a private operation take the risk for a specific period of time for cash up front…Stop taxing our working families. ==
VanMan,
No offense,really. If fact I would consider a compliment, but you sound like Rod.

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:10 pm
If increase in gas tax is being floated, which is really a type of sales tax, then raise sales tax 1/4 percent overall and raise tax on food and drugs from its current 1 percent to 2 percent (Thompson screwed state coffers when he got that sales tax reduced). Also put 1/2-1 percent tax on fees that lawyers charge their clients, on plumbing and electrical work (labor side of it), dry cleaning, and advertising. Leave auto repair labor alone since motorists would be ponying up at the pump. That should be a lot of money.

Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:12 pm
Impose a tobacco revenue replacement tax on people who don’t smoke.
Supplement that with a Gross Receipts Tax.

Comment by Bill Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:13 pm
Are the voters really going to be interested in a Gas tax? I’d say you could tax almost everything but Gas and get away with it. People are still Gas sensitive.

I’d tax Alcohol and Cigarettes! But then again, these lobbies are likely more powerful than the people.

Comment by Frank Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:26 pm
Sales tax on all internet purchases/services

20% tax on all campaign funds

10 cents per gallon on gasoline because I buy mine in Missouri

Comment by Enemy of the State Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:41 pm
I would increase the gas tax but only for infrastructure programs (no sweeps). I would increase the alcohol tax and use that for general revenue plumbing and I would direct all state police agencies to write tickets for all but large drugs possession cases not otherwise involving violence. The amount of the ticket would be scaled to the amount and type of drugs, e.g. 200 grams maryjane, say $200; 200 grams cocaine, $2000. This money could be used for more general revenues.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:49 pm
scooby i dont think they will let you match federal money with federal money

Comment by Anon Again Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:51 pm
Start sweeping campaign funds? : -)

Just kidding! No mobs with torches in front of my house, please!

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:52 pm
AA, if we securitize part of our base road fund revenues, when the bond money is all spent (4-6 years?), don’t we face a big cliff falloff in our base road program? That wouldn’t be the case if we used some of the currently diverted dollars, but I can’t see where we get GRF to fill that hole.

Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:00 pm
Sin taxes won’t cut it - we’re past the point of diminishing returns for items like liquor, cigarettes, and perhaps even motor fuel. Folks on the borders of WI, IN, IA, and MO are already flocking to these states for such goods.

Sales taxes on services is the way to go here. It’s more equitable than an across the board income tax increase. It will bring in substantially more revenue.

A relatively small gas tax increase is warranted as well, provided it is temporary and exclusively used for transportation purposes (including to qualify for federal funding).

Comment by The Doc Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:07 pm
Raise the gas by an amount sufficient to raise the needed funds in a twelve month period from adoption then sunset the increase.

Provide a credit against the personal income tax for individuals in an amount equal to the increase in the gas tax that would be incurred by a motorist driving an automobile with an average highway mpg of 30 driving the average number of miles driven by Illinois motorists - people who live in the city and take public transportation get a credit while no increase because they don’t purchase fuel while folks who have Lincoln Navigators and the like get a credit that is smaller than their actual increase.

Increase the income tax on everyone - individuals, corporations, by an amount sufficient to generate funds to offset the gas tax credit. (sunset the increase when the funds have been raised.)

Watch Dick Edwards at LRB and department of revenue become apopletic trying to have this drafted and implemented.

Comment by Just the Facts Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:11 pm
First, increase the sales tax on new autos. U.S. congress is going to allow you a page 1 deduction. Second, lobby to get the Davis Bacon Act repealed.

Comment by Hickory Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:27 pm
I would say a combo of raising the gas tax and vehicle registration fees. This time though dont do a flat increase on the registration fees, tie it to the weight of the vehicle. This way if you want to drive a heavy car you pay more. But there should be strict wording that all of the funds generated from these fees/taxes go to the road fund and cannot be used anywhere else.

Comment by hornets Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:29 pm
- Bill - Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 1:10 pm:

==By leasing our assets, we let a private operation take the risk for a specific period of time for cash up front…Stop taxing our working families. ==
VanMan,
No offense,really. If fact I would consider a compliment, but you sound like Rod.

Yeah, I know.

As to Wordslinger’s casino comment - My acceptance of additional gambling is also based on the idea that others would take the risk of funding and operating, not the State. As to the other questions regarding market saturation, that would be the risk others would take. If the market is saturated, they’d know. If they think otherwise, it is their dime.

But anyone thinking it is OK to raise the gas tax must not know how badly raising fuel costs impact working families. They drive older cars and trucks, have larger vehicles to hold their families, and often commute longer distances to work. Those that live outside Chicagoland, also commute to other towns for employment.

Stop hating your car. No new gas taxes!

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:36 pm
Tax Soda Pop. Also every PAC fund should be taxed - 10% yearly of its contributions (all - in kind, individual and transfers.) Our ex-Gov should donate what’s left in his PAC since we lost so many matching funds under his watch.

Comment by Anon 217 Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 2:45 pm
Incrase gas tax and increase income tax, with some kind of credit for lower incomes to make it more progressive. For long term ammend the constitution so we we can have a progressive tax rate.

And if the commenter who said that retirees pay no income tax no matter how much they make is correct, we should definitly close that loophole.

Plus aren’t there a few other loopholes as well that could be closed? Things like getting buisnesses who do business here but are headquartered elsewhere to pay taxes, and taxes on services? Or perhaps this is not that much $$$.

Comment by Lakefront Liberal Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 3:04 pm
SPRINGFIELD — Federal officials worry Illinois’ Department of Transportation is too understaffed to take on major projects that could be included in a federal stimulus bill.

That’s according to a letter from the Federal Highway Administration to IDOT obtained by The Associated Press.

The letter warns a depleted IDOT work force might lack the “resources and skills” to oversee what could be $1 billion in highway projects from the proposed federal stimulus.

IDOT’s payroll has dropped from 7,800 in mid-2002 to an average of 6,250 last year.

State officials are counting on Illinois’ share of the federal money to help plug a projected $9 billion budget deficit.

Illinois could lose money if IDOT doesn’t heed the federal warning.

Spokeswoman Paris Ervin says IDOT officials are talking with the Highway Administration.

– Associated Press

Comment by Qwerty Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 3:28 pm
Steve, as always, you’re thinking one step ahead of the rest of us. Whether it’s borrowing to pay for roads, pensions, or whatever, the bond money is never an all day sucker, as an old timer used to say. Securitization of Road Fund revenues would have to be done with the understanding that the bond proceeds are funding a “catch-up” program with funding levels that can not be sustained indefinitely into the future.

I agree, and that’s why I punted, that GRF can’t fund the replacement funds for current Road Fund diversions that have popped up over the past few years. AA’s even lost track of how much is going where.

I don’t agree that general taxes should be raised to pay for highways until every buck of Road Fund cash is going into the ground.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 3:33 pm
Retirees pay no income tax o retirement income. They do pay tax on earned income.

Comment by lincolnlover Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 4:13 pm
Boost the gas tax, or boost the state income tax. The latter would, however, absolutely need to be partially offset by raising the personal exemption that has never been indexed to inflation before. Let’s say four percent with a $10,000 personal exemption and then additional exemptions that match the federal ones. Alternatively however many cents on the fuel tax you need to float the matching funds.

By the way, with regard to the sales tax, which I see as a separate matter in this situation, how about creating a flat rate across all categories rather than nailing in-state goods while letting services and internet purchases completely slip by? You’d be able to lower the total of state and local rates to about five percent in Chicago, four percent elsewhere and still see increased revenue out of it because the current sales tax due to its avoidance of most services is missing more than half the base. Of course, purveyors of expensive haircuts and legal services would be very upset . . . but their wrath could surely be offset by all the happy retailers and it would look good for goods at the cash register too.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 4:26 pm
Lopw4es has a pretty good deal going. I can get a $50 credit for purchasing $250 worth of merchandise. I also need medicine, gas, and must make car payments, house payment, and pay for the kids college. Right now I don’t have the money. But wait, I can go to title loan and get the $250 so I can save the $50. Sure, it will cost me in the long run but it’s there now. What do I do?

Comment by Justice Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 4:40 pm
BAKE SALE - here we come. Seriously, taxes will have to be raised.

- Qwerty - Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 3:28 pm: IDOT has lost a tremendous amount of employees. First they did not replenish the employees who retired in the first early-out, then they had another early out and decided against rehiring technical staff. Instead mid and upper management positions were created and filled under the Blago administration - what a joke. Then they decided not to give raises to non-union employees so that drove more technical staff away. Now we are at the point where IDOT does not have the staff to do the work so they hire (bad) consultants to do the work at prices that would make your toes curl. Who is doing the budget?

Comment by this voter will remember Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 4:48 pm
Angry Chicagoan - Adjusting the original $1000 per person personal exemption (now $2000) for inflation from 1969 would make it $4600, not $10,000.

But I think you’ve got the right idea.

The Sin Taxes proposed above will not work, my friends.

Gambling expansion divides the pie, it does not grow it.

Every $1 added to the tobacco tax decreases the number of smokers by 10%, and net revenues decline. That’s not an argument against taxing cigarettes out of existence, just making the point that it won’t work to fund 20 year bonds.

You also can’t sell 20 year bonds based on a “temporary” income tax increase either. Unless by “temporary” you mean sunsetting in 2039.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 5:19 pm
–my FOID card cost is way low.==

Amy, are you packing? Good to know.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 5:28 pm
===Gambling expansion divides the pie, it does not grow it.=== I disagree YDD. I would definately increase casino gaming. You only have to go over to Indiana and count the Illinois license plates to see how much our residents are betting over there. Also, the existing boats are no where near the city center. Putting casinos at the tracks, let the existing boats expand and a downtown casino would generate probably a billion a year in new taxes. Their is a huge opportunity loss on the busy nights at the existing boats which can be captured. Maybe even allow the machines in the taverns across the whole state. (Also I think a mini-casino in my garage would help my depressed pocket book but maybe I’m getting too greedy).

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 5:39 pm
The City of Chicago has plans to privatize O’Hare Airport’s parking system to fund the OMP if the federal money doesn’t come through.

Comment by awol Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 6:07 pm
The biggest problem with outstanding federal funds is that they are High Priority Projects (earmarks). These funds may only be used for specific projects as named in the federal bill. Often then earmark is for a very small portion 5-10% of the project. Therefore, the state of local agency must come up with remaining funding from other sources (STP/STU funds, state funds, MFT funds).

Comment by Highway Engineer Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:02 pm
Hiway Engr…

And they will sit, and sit, and sit some more, until either the matching funds are provided, or the earmark is swept after languishing for several years. The congressional earmark sponsor is usually consulted, and consent obtained, before an earmark is swept. They will usually keep rolling over into the next program until they become an attractive target from disuse.

This is the main problem with earmarks. It is not that they encourage wasteful and unneccesary projects (though this is sometimes the case), it is more that they tie the hands of the planners and budgeteers - who are trying to get things done - with inflexible pots of money.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:16 pm
As I said before, I am skeptical there are $9 billion in unused federal funds lying around, wating for a state of IL match. I am even more skeptical that there are $9 billion in unused project-specific IL earmarks. A billion or so, I could believe.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:23 pm
[Lincoln Lover: Where is it written that retirees don’t pay taxes? They don’t seem to know that at the Dept of Revenue. They happily take my $ and then ask for more.]

Broaden the sales tax collection to cover services. Raising income tax rates will cause a firestorm that delays any legislative action. People won’t like sales tax increases but it is do-able.

Increase user fees some and penalities a lot.

Comment by Redbright Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:26 pm
But the good part about earmarks is that projects can get, at least some funding, in areas that the “party in power” could care less about. Try to get the State to do anything but a band-aid project in DuPage, McHenry or kane County.

Comment by Anon 13 Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:33 pm
Once again I will say to you Rich and all who read this, why doesn’t Illinois change the laws on the books and allow fireworks in the state of Illinois to be legal. This would open up a new state tax as well as open many businesses to the state. All the millions who travel outside of Illinois to purchase there illegal fireworks and set them off in the state of Il could purchase them legally in our state. Maybe a factory or two would open up. A new tax. New Revenue. Jobs! Change the law! Portion of the tax go to pay for safety! It can be done and should be looked into.

Comment by thunder1 Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 9:58 pm
Anon 13-

That is part of a larger discussion on the role politics should - or shouldn’t - play in making decisions with taxpayers’ money. If the distribution of funds went to a prioritized, politically neutral set of needs, there might not be a need for earmarks. Of course, your priorities might not be the same as mine, so who decides? There will always be logical arguments for either case.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 10:01 pm
Thunder1-

The idea of IL citizens taking jobs from far eastern children loading firecrackers for 50c a day cracks me up. Now there’s a real stimulus proposal!

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 10:05 pm
Thunder1–

Problem solved.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 10:07 pm