Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup, from a Sun-Times editorial…

House Bill 682, introduced by Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), would require that any state legislator who proposes an increase in criminal penalties that would result in more people going to prison get a fiscal impact statement of what that would cost. The estimate would be made by the Department of Corrections or Department of Juvenile Justice.

In addition, the legislator would have to identify a revenue source, such as a new tax or a reallocation of money from elsewhere in the state budget, to pay the extra cost.

The bill, modeled after a seven-year-old Virginia law, would not prohibit the General Assembly from imposing harsher penalties for criminal conduct, but it would encourage lawmakers to more fully weigh the benefits (such as increased public safety) against the costs.

Back in 1987, for example, it might have been helpful for the Legislature to know what the financial impact to the prison system would be when lawmakers lowered the threshold for a Class 1 felony for the manufacture or delivery of cocaine from 10 grams to just a single gram.

* The Question: Should this Raoul proposal be applied to all new spending bills, not just prison-related legislation? Explain fully.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:19 am

Comments

ABSOLUTELY!

Comment by John Bambenek Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:35 am
Yes. If I ever ran for statewide office, with my new party, the “Realists”, this would be a key plank –

All proposed new spending must be accompanied by an additional proposal outlining where the money would come from.

Comment by Concerned Observer Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:45 am
Congress has this now - and it really inhibits new initiatives. Or not, if comprehensive / omnibus spending bills are being offered.

When this discussion thakes place in the General Assembly - the funding or revenue source for a new initiative - the debate response from the state legislator usually is “from next year’s anticipated revenue growth.”

So the reality is, it only inhibits naive legislators. Not very effective.

Comment by Capitol View Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:46 am
Absolutely Absolutely Absolutely!!!

We have way too many kneejerk law changes proposed by this or that legislator based on some newspaper article or clip seen on TV. Sure the story or clip is heartwrenching, but it is not the reality in 99.99% of cases.
Not a whole lot of thinking goes into these proposals, so sitting down and actually calculating the real costs involved will go a long ways towards putting real thought and planning into these changes.

train111

Comment by train111 Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:53 am
An emphatic yes!

Comment by Stones Monday, May 4, 09 @ 10:57 am
A qualified yes. It seems to me the real power would rest with whomever estimates the fiscal or revenue impact. Would it be the sponsoring legislator or the executive department?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:03 am
Consider the essence of his proposal: Before you propose to spend taxpayers $, do a cost/benefit analysis. Sounds like an old fashioned conservative principle. Why should this sound revolutionary? It may be his particular interest has to do with his constituency, but it applies across the board, whether he intended it to be so or not. Don’t spend money you don’t have for things that have no certain benefit. Of course this will not go down well for pols who simply want to use/propose issues for re-election purposes only and not have to do much lifting in the process.

Comment by You Go Boy Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:08 am
Absolutely. Prisons have become the only industry in many towns thanks to the thoughtless laws that have been passed which put more and more nonviolent “criminals” away for years. This has to stop somewhere and this would be an excellent starting point.

Comment by Just a Citizen Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:19 am
I am all for a cost-benefit analysis of anything government does.

However, to ask a legislator where the money will come from is disingenuous. The proposal might be something the state government desperately needs to do, but revenue projections are flat. Is it then encumbent upon that legislator to determine the cuts to pay for it? Shouldn’t that be part of the budgeting process in which all legislators (in theory) participate?

Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:28 am
A qualified yes. The bill is overly simplistic, after all, what consitutes new revenue? The State almost always sees an increase in revenue on an annual basis for a variety of reasons (http://www.normal.org/Gov/Finance/RevenuesExpenditures.asp) so it looks liek somewat of an empty gesture. i.e. my new spending plan is based on the expected increase in State revenue. That will become a tag line addded to every bill, thus making the requirment just more verbage or boilerplate.

Also what happens when budget and bills identify the same source of revenue which has not yet been spent, but if all passed would exceed the amount? Plus a lot of the projected revnue for the state is a guessin game. So are we just encouraging inaccurate projections to fund projects?

besides, we have this already and it does not work. the GA is required to pass a balanced budget where it only spends from available revenue. This is not any different then the current requirement and looks more like a feel good measure then one of any benefit.

If you want real protection, pass a requirement with a hefty and realy penalty; some dream one that will never pass off the top of my head:

any year we run a deficit the GA has to forgo their salaries and pension for the year.

any year we run a deficit triggers an automotaic election of all sitting members

the real problem is the acuracy of revenue projections that ar doctored each year to “balance” the budget on paper. We already identify revenue streams for all spending. its not identifying revenue, its making sure the revenue identified is really present.

Comment by Ghost Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:31 am
So, if it costs too much to incarcerate felons of a crime, then we shouldn’t make their activity illegal? Is that the thinking here?

The idea is ridiculous. The proposal parades as thoughtful, yet makes an absurd claim that expenses should be consider when passing crime bills. It makes a joke of the processes taken in writing crime laws, and fails to take into consideration the costs incurred by the crimes themselves.

If Sen. Kwame Raoul thinks crime is too expensive to enforce, then he ought to consider the costs of not enforcing the laws.

We have an endless list of excuses defense attorneys present to defend their clients, adding the cost of incarceration to it, is irresponsible.

Should it be applied to other bills? What kind of game are we playing here? Who gets to play? Who gets to present the “facts and numbers”? Who gets to decide?

If a bill is unable to muster the support it needs to become law, we have to recognize the inherent intelligent reasons it fails - costs of implentation are figured into it. Sen. Kwame Raoul’s proposal is one to be considered thoroughly, then just as thoroughly, discredited.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:42 am
Applying this initiative to all new legsislation that spends money will turn the budget process upside down.

I agree that there is a real problem with legislation that responds to some immediate problem without considering its long-term impact.

But I don’t think that a PAYGO requirement will deal with this; rather, PAYGO freezes current budgetary priorities and moves the power to make any new appropriations away from the budget committees to substantive committees.

The Congress has PAYGO, but there’s a big difference in how Congress writes the budget. Moreover, PAYGO hasn’t really stopped Congress from passing boondoggle legislation.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:52 am
How about funding needed now, let alone any new laws. IDOC is severely short staffed and many facilities in need of repairs.

Comment by Jacksonville Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:53 am
YES! Enough said.

Comment by Middle of the road Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:57 am
I gotta agree with VM. I’m less concerned with the cost than I am with public safety. I understand things need to be paid for, but the cost of leaving criminals running loose is too high.

Comment by Cranky Old Man Monday, May 4, 09 @ 11:59 am
I would like to see zero bills passed for a whole year except those required to keep or downsize the minimum costs of doing state business and the answer to the statement,”There ought to be a law…” should always be, “No, there should NOT!!”

Comment by Chanson Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:11 pm
VM’s right…

I shudder to think which crimes we’d have to take off the books that aren’t cost effective, especially when you add in the Illinois ‘corruption factor’.

That alone would probably assign this state some dystopian ‘Escape from New York’esque future.

Comment by Leroy Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:20 pm
I completely concur with VM’s excellent comments.

Comment by Vanilla Man for Governor Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Seems like a cynical attempt to soften the sentences of criminals. We already get the argument that crime x is not great enough to bother placing the guilty party in custody. We do however have the problem of incarcerating an alarming percentage of our citizens in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world. I agree with VM that the cost of incarceration should not be a measure of whether a criminal is put away. The measure is whether society is properly protected from the criminal.

That said, PAYGO is not necessarily a bad thing. A legislator can always think of some sort of program that will ‘help’ some disadvantaged party at the expense of the greater society. Many treat it as a tool to justify their reelection. Some sort of break on the unlimited expansion of programs is a good thing. In fact the revenue source could be from a discontinuation or modification of an existing program which is not providing a good ratio of cost/benefit. Currently, once a program is in place, it never goes away and the pew programs are simply layered on the patchwork of existing programs.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:26 pm
How many of you who agree with VM support the tax hike to pay for it?

We have lots of people demanding certain Governemnt services, but insiting they should not have to pay for them.

let me add this to the discussion, suppose it costs 27k a year to house the inmate under the tougher or new criminal laws, but you can keep the person out of jail by providing 20k in social services. As part of our stopping crime are you for spending the money on rehab programs, anti-gang, after school, food and shelter programs? its cheaper then the cost of prosecuting and locking them up.

Comment by Ghost Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:27 pm
Yes,this is a great idea.Any new spending should be followed by cuts.

Comment by Steve Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:33 pm
Too many people are in jail for nonviolent drug offenses. Unfortunately, prisons are a major growth industry. Incarcerate the sociopaths,and violent criminals,and incorrigibles but treat and rehabilitate others.

Kwame Rauol’s proposal seems entirely sensible to me in the context or prison and law enforcement, and as a matter of general principle. Sunset laws make a lot of sense in that we can reexamins the consequences - intended and unintended- of various laws and policies.

Comment by Captain America Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:34 pm
How many of you who agree with VM support the tax hike to pay for it?

That sounds like blackmail. You won’t support passing crime laws unless we pay more of our wages in taxes?

Whose the criminal here?

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:41 pm
To answer the question, it sounds great but in reality would be abused as already stated.

Raoul’s proposal was not really fiscal: his constituents see a disproportionate amount of incarceration in their ranks, mostly over drug crimes, and he’s trying to use a tactic to fight that. And I’m sure his voters understand that.

We lied to voters all thru the 80’s about getting tough on crime and put a lot of people on hard time for drug consumption where treatment would have been cheaper and more effective. We built prisons as stimulus packages for local builders, not really for controlling crime. Even now, I think we could create more jobs, *really* reduce crime, and get better results for our tax dollars by putting more corrections budget into drug treatment programs and parole officers and less into concrete and steel.

Comment by Gregor Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:45 pm
We are not jailing innocent people. We are not locking people up who could be better off sent through a treatment program. Judges and prosecutors decide sentences, along with defense attorneys. We are not jailing college students caught with a cocaine dealing roomate, as you know, Mr. Obama. We are not jailing those caught smoking a joint. We are taking into consideration a great deal of human error when we sentence people to prison. As far as I can see, we take imprisonment seriously.

Who are the victims here? The criminals? Since when? When was the last time you were mugged for money in order to pay for someone’s drug habit? Since when have felons approached their victims to explain why they are victimizing them? The soppy stories being told at court, are being told because the felon was arrested and made to face justice. Stories and explainations are created. Everyone of them has an excuse why they are victimed our neighbors. So sorry, many say, they were victims too.

Baloney. If our governments will not protect us, why are we paying taxes at all? If we are being victimized by felons we shouldn’t have to do a cost analysis study to justify incarceration of our victimizers.

Get your priorities straight!

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 4, 09 @ 12:59 pm
VanMan, I think you’re off base, especially here:

“If a bill is unable to muster the support it needs to become law, we have to recognize the inherent intelligent reasons it fails - costs of implentation are figured into it.”

This is completely and utterly wrong. If legislators actually worried about the costs of implementation, then the state very likely would not be in the giant budget hole it’s in now. The balance sheet would sure look better, I know that.

Also, this suggestion from some commenters that in order to make one thing illegal, we’d have to LEGALIZE something else…that’s sophistry. If we need to pour more money into policing the streets, then we need to do one of two things.

1) Put less money into something else — health care, public transportation, road construction, pensions, you name it.

2) Raise revenue — taxes, fees, what have you.

Raoul’s proposal would require legislators to define how they would cut, or raise, to support their new program. Why is this a problem…or rather, why is this not LESS of a problem than the current system, which can be summed up as thus:

“I think we should do .”
“But we don’t have the money.”
“Who cares? No one’s counting anyway. And once the program’s in place, it becomes incredibly hard to cut it, because then we can just trot out a bunch of people who would be affected by the closure…and look like heroes in the process, thereby boosting our chances for re-election.”
“Hey, you’re right. Okay, I’ll sign on”.

Comment by Concerned Observer Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:03 pm
The problem is that many of the goverments duties are not “profit makers” per-se. Many activities/programs if put to such a test would be either killed or curtailed.

Consider the “Free Lunch” program at schools. Should we subject that program to the test, then kill it simply because it isn’t revenue neutral?

Or perhaps we should cut back on energy assistance for the elderly because it costs money?

I agree that for some criminal prosecutions the jail time sentance for many misdemeanors outweighs the cost to society. Many low level drug infractions should be routed to a treatment program versus incarceration. I don’t think it’s a bad bill on it’s face.

But to pretend that we can run government “like a corporation” is absurd.

Comment by How Ironic Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:11 pm
VanMan, I can’t speak for Ghost, but again, it seems like you’re putting words in his mouth and making unfounded accusations.

Assuming you don’t have a license to print money — and the state of Illinois doesn’t, not really — then what Ghost and I (and Raoul) are suggesting is that you have to make CHOICES. You can’t have everything.

You appear to be proposing that law enforcement in this state be given a blank check, because how dare anyone suggest we don’t have the money to enforce new laws. But that’s not what they’re saying. If there are new laws that must be written and enforced, then we need to do that — but we also need to find the revenue to PAY for that enforcement! Or else, we end up deeper and deeper in debt.

My first post was a response to your first post. The above was a response to your second.

As to your third — I have no idea why you went off on an unrelated rant about who is being thrown in jail, which included a completely unnecessary character shot at the President. It seems to have absolutely no connection to the current discussion.

Comment by Concerned Observer Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:14 pm
The Correctional Budget and Impact Note Act for the Illinois General Assembly has already (emphasis on already) long been the law at: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?
ActID=444&ChapAct=25%26nbsp%3BILCS%2
6nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=6&ChapterN
ame=LEGISLATURE&ActName=Correctional+B
udget+and+Impact+Note+Act%2E

Comment by It is already required already:-) Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:19 pm
Thank you Concerned Observer for you usual calm insight. Comments noted.

Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:21 pm
“We are not jailing innocent people. We are not locking people up who could be better off sent through a treatment program.”

Two things:

1) I don’t think Ghost was just referring to what we do with someone once they have broken the law, but the supports we need to have in place to ensure someone does not turn to crime to begin with. Just like health care, prevention is always cheaper than the emergency room (aka the court room).

2) People do not commit crime when there is a better alternative, so in the case of a conviction, programs and policies that give the convicted an opportunity to be productive when they get out are better and cheaper than simple punishment.

To answer the question - I think it should be applied to all legislation, but there needs to be a more nuanced metric. As someone else mentioned, does the new law/program reduce costs elsewhere in either the short or long term? Also, my fear is driving an over simplistic evaluation of legislation. We need to use our scarce resources wisely, but we also need to recognize the societal benefits from certain proposed policies can and should sometimes outweigh what the balance sheet looks like.

Comment by montrose Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:24 pm
Anything I can do to help.

Comment by Concerned Observer Monday, May 4, 09 @ 1:31 pm
A true cost/benefit analysis of such “increasing the penalty” legislation would necessarily require an analysis into the dollar value of the benefit, if any, to society from raising a penalty. Is a future crime deterred? Prevented when the offender is in jail rather than on the street, etc. ?? How many dollars are those things worth? Like most simple, populist ideas, the reality is far more complex.

Comment by Legaleagle Monday, May 4, 09 @ 2:13 pm
In cases where fiscal notes are currently required, they are usually not worth squat because of who makes the calculation. i.e. the estimates are not very reliable.

Comment by One of the 35 Monday, May 4, 09 @ 2:17 pm
One o 35, that’s what I was thinking. Given the volume of legislation, I suspect the numbers would be pulled out of the air.

I was tasked once in the ’80s with attempting to put a “fiscal impact” number to legislation Wyvetter Younge had introduced in the previous two sessions (none of it passed).

I don’t recall the exact number, but it was north of 60% of the previous year’s GRF.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 4, 09 @ 2:32 pm
Why is fiscal integrity raised only when someone is coming to the defense of criminals? I’d like to put a price on all the police services going to each representative district. then i’d like to ask the representative and senator if they would prefer that we not send the police to intervene in matters. i am certain that their constituents who are victims will think it right and proper to spend money for services to arrest, prosecute, defend and incarcerate.

I’m also tired of the argument that there are oh so many innocents in prison. some one of you who take this position please present to us an unbiased source of information that
has these statistics. and, no, drug conviction does not equal innocent. i am certain that there are precious few in prison for a first offense with a joint.

incarceration is determined after conviction by a combination of serverity of offense and prior criminal record if any. the offense in question my seem minor, but there may be a record that would magnify.

if Kwame wants fiscal impact to be the standard, bring it for all. he won’t like shining a light on that impact on services to his contituents. it will simply show what my tax dollars are funding and many people would revolt despite our compact with the social contract.

Comment by Amy Monday, May 4, 09 @ 3:04 pm
===he won’t like shining a light on that impact on services to his contituents===

That seems pretty presumptuous on your part. What exactly are you suggesting there?

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 4, 09 @ 3:16 pm
if he wants to cost things out, cost them all out. let’s see how much government service is delivered per district.

Comment by Amy Monday, May 4, 09 @ 3:23 pm
I think you were saying more than that, Amy.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 4, 09 @ 3:31 pm
It seems to me that we are not passing many laws these days creating new categories of crimes deserving prison sentences, but tons that criminalize behavior to allow for fines. A classic stealth tax, hated by most, enforced unevenly and seen as a corrupting influence in the ideal of law enforcement. The criteria for passing laws that carry a prison sentence can be deterrence or removing the individual in question from the general population as protection for all of us. It is not a cost benefit analysis. It is a decision to protect the common good from, doh, criminals. The question of the day should be separate from this form of defining deviancy down and stand on its own. Yes, any new ‘program’ not ‘crime’ should have a defined funding source.

Comment by walter sobchak Monday, May 4, 09 @ 4:43 pm
PAYGO worked - it was in place from Bush 41’s tax increase until Bush 43 took office. Clinton found it invaluable. So much so the GOP repealed it when Bush 43 took office.

Correctional Impact Notes are a joke. Last session there was one done on a bill to throw ALL 17 year olds out of jails and put them in juvenile facilities. The statewide impact for one year was 100 juveniles. The objection from downstate sheriffs and county boards, backed with hard data, got the current bill changed so that it does not apply in felony cases.

Back to the bill. I support with one proviso. Any bill that is to be funded through “administrative efficiencies / reductions” would be judged to not comply with the revenue requirement.

Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, May 4, 09 @ 8:27 pm
=============
So the reality is, it only inhibits naive legislators. Not very effective.
=============

I’d imagine some wouldn’t think that that’s all bad.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:30 am