Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* From Finke’s column…

Lawmakers had to pass three bills to make the capital program go — one to issue bonds, one to raise revenue to pay off those bonds and one that detailed the projects to be built. The bill to raise revenue included authorizing video poker, extending the sales tax to things like candy that are not now taxed, hiking some vehicle fees and whatnot. Hey, you want new roads and school buildings, you’ve got to pay for it somehow.

Unless, of course, you are a member of the Hypocrites’ Caucus. They want to be on record as bringing the pork back to their districts, but not for raising the taxes and fees to pay for it. Membership in the caucus changes with issues.

For the capital plan, though, the group consists of 12 senators and 30 representatives. They are the Few, the Proud, the Two-faced. They voted against video poker and the other revenue increases, but all of them were right on board to support the list of building projects. No one in either the House or Senate voted against the spending bill.

It’s always fun when a majority of this caucus turn out to be Republicans, people who normally complain about government spending money it doesn’t have, but who apparently are willing to look the other way in this case.

* The Question: Should legislators who vote against the revenue streams to fund capital bills and then vote for the spending be somehow excluded or penalized on projects for their districts? Explain fully.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:07 am

Comments

Should legislators who vote against the revenue streams to fund capital bills and then vote for the spending be somehow excluded or penalized on projects for their districts? Explain fully.

No. Who you rob for cash to fund government matters. It is not hypocritical to expect government to do what they are supposed to do. It is absolutely juvenile to demand that because one is unwilling to tax and take cash from anyone, they shouldn’t be allowed to spend anything. Those who do not recognize this do not understand tax policies, their impacts, or the role of government in general.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:16 am
Is there a “put your gum on the tip of your nose” penalty? If so, I think that would appropriate. Its less about punishing and more about public humiliation. People who are two faced should be known to their constituents.

Comment by anon Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:20 am
Depends on exactly what kind of exclusion or penalty you are talking about.

If you are talking about just excluding their name from the “This project brought to you by…” sign, then sure - sounds fair to me.

If you are talking about denying funding for projects in their district, then no - not unless the residents of that district are somehow exempted from paying the increased fees and taxes that comprise the supporting revenue stream.

Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:25 am
Yes. It is hypocritical to vote yes on spending bills when you know there is no money to cover the spending, but vote no on revenue bills. This is the exact definition of wat is wrong with politicians. it is the child like approach to government to vote not what is best for the State or the people, but simply for the next political sound bite. It is the most irresponsible form of government. Those who do not recognize this do not understand tax policies, their impacts, or the role of government in general.

Let legislative votes have the true effect on the people they serve. if they do not vote for revenues for projects, then they should not recieve any projects. interestingly VM was demnading that the legislature must identify funding before having the authority to vote for the spending. I support Vanillamans original argument that spending should not be allowed without identified revenue. Since certain memebrs voted to spend without identified revenue to cover it all, no spending for them.

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:25 am
Sure they should be punished. Someone should run against the current legislators and then the constituents should vote them out of office.

Comment by chimack Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:27 am
In theory yes, but I think it’s hard to punish all their constituents. They’ll pay the taxes like everyone else no matter how their representative or senator votes. In particular it’s hard to punish constituents since for the most part our elected officials choose us with gerrymandering and re-districting the way it is in Illinois.

Comment by ahoy Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:27 am
Speaking of the signs used to hype projects…

Maybe the signs should include a pie chart of where the money comes from, e.g. X% sales tax, Y% income tax, Z% bonds, X1% gasoline tax, Y1% matching funds from federal govt, Z1% matching funds from local gov’t, etc.

It wouldn’t hurt if people better understood how projects were funded.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:30 am
Does everything have to be a union based contract? Things can be done a lot cheaper if unions aren’t involved. I know it poor form to mention this.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:37 am
Steve, it’s also off-topic. Get back to the question, people.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:38 am
Steve - read the Prevailing Wages rules.

Short answer: Yes.

Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:38 am
No, if you outlawed hypocrisy, the world as we now it would come to a screeching halt. Let us instead praise these legislators for mastering their cognitive dissonance.

There have have always been structured rollcalls where legislators voted against something they were happy to take credit for later. It’s a practice as old as democracy, I’m sure.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:40 am
No. By that phylosophy then those same legislators that vote against ethics shouldn’t have to follow them and those that don’t vote for a penalty enhancement shouldn’t have to have residence of their district found guilty of them. They all work for the state as a whole. All laws effect all of the equally. Should Meeks and the other holy rollers say they won’t take projects from the money raised by immoral means? I think yes.

Comment by WOW Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:46 am
Pols that boast of their legislative prowess (do they ALL have “Look At ME!!!” newsletters?) should be identified as one of many who want it all for their constituents (ahhem, reelection) but no guts to either raise revenue or cut spending. What would be a good name for that identifying list?

Comment by You Go Boy Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 11:50 am
Ridiculous. It would make sense only if the funding bill was the only possible method of paying for the projects, which is never true even under the pay-as-you-go fiction that kinda/sorta requires enactment of a funding source to pay for projects. You can always find a different tax or cut somewhere else. Just because I want the bridge in my district that collapsed last month to actually be replaced doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite if I vote against video gambling that everyone else thinks is the way to pay for it, much less if I vote against the POS version that is out there now.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Senator CPA (who voted against the revenue bill) did very well, I hear, to the tune of $193 million. But the truth is, his district is fast-growing and has many needs stemming from that population explosion which has only recently slowed. Then, the question is, should the many folks of his district be penalized for re-electing him for the better part of 2 decades? They are taxpayers, too, and some semblance of fairness should prevail to them.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/1584798,2_1_AU21_CAPITALBILL_S1.article

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:12 pm
It would be nice if legislators were consistent with their behavior : but it’s not going to happen. Many voters want government projects without paying the taxes for them. Some districts have powerful interests that aren’t net taxpayers. A politician that votes against a capital bill shouldn’t get any more money proportionate than his/her’s district is paying in taxes.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:16 pm
I reluctantly say “No”. I, for one, would not vote for any revenue stream that involved state sanctioned gambling, and in fact I would have problems with any of these gimmicky little schemes for making money (Tax all sales or none at all, and tax income, not property). If a legislator thinks the income stream is a hoax or an outrage, he has a right to vote against it, If it passes anyway, that’s democracy: His constituents still have a right to share in the resulting revenue. Nothing in our system requires universal support for legitimacy.

Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:25 pm
Compare what kind of behaviors voters rewards with the kind of behavior voters penalize.

Legislators who vote for spending without paying for it are rewarded. Who doesn’t love a legislator that wants to give money to schools, teachers, social programs, capital programs etc? Legislators who want to raise taxes are penalized.

Therefore, the government is going to be based on politicians who spend, but do not raise taxes.

Comment by Leroy Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:34 pm
==run against the current legislators==
This is the best solution. People are too unaware of the political process to understand the lie when an incumbent says “I voted against video poker” yet knew that vote did not matter because the legislative leaders had a count. Yet in the same campaign that incumbent will tout the benefits to his/her chosen district. If someone could convince Joe Sixpack why that matters and then motivate them enough to actually vote against the incumbent, then it would mean something. Until then, all goo-goos are just farting in the wind.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Yes, they should be excluded. But on the other hand it’s unfair to reward those others who also aren’t doing their job.

But on balance I would say that as bad as the Democrats are, the Republicans are even worse.

The GOP has been screwing around so much on silly games and gimmicks, they never sat down to come up with a serious alternative to the Democrats’ plan. They just want to whine about spending and the Dems, but don’t have the guts and honesty to say what they would cut or what they would do about revenue.

2009 goes down in history as yet another golden opportunity squandered by the House and Senate Republicans. They’ll lose more seats next year.

Comment by just sayin Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:36 pm
No–state funding should be based on need. Don’t punish the public…yet.
==run against the current legislators==
This is the best solution. People are too unaware of the political process to understand the lie when an incumbent says “I voted against video poker” yet knew that vote did not matter because the legislative leaders had a count. Yet in the same campaign that incumbent will tout the benefits to his/her chosen district. If someone could convince Joe Sixpack why that matters and then motivate them enough to actually vote against the incumbent, then it would mean something.

Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:37 pm
VM was demnading that the legislature must identify funding before having the authority to vote for the spending

I’ve never supported that, yet alone demand it. You have me confused with someone else.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:49 pm
The Republicans have been particularly feckless, it’s true. Sure, penalize them.

What does Tom Cross’ caucus even do down there, beyond trying to kill SB600 so that Republican voters can’t have a vote in their own state party again like the Democrats do?

I guess the House GOP caucus also exhales carbon dioxide which is critical to plant life, but that hardly seems to justify their bloated salaries and fat pensions.

Comment by darn right Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:54 pm
No - simple answer. If this is the case, the only areas where the tax increases should go are in those legislators districts that voted for all these unfunded programs under Blago, failed to make pension payments and where people once again this year voted to pass bills with no funding mechanism, plus you could add all the legilsators that wouldn’t allow reform into the all kids programs…hey wait a minute that’s mostly on the Dem side…

Comment by Yeah Right Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 12:58 pm
No. Once started down the track of penalizing districts for their Reps/Senators’ hypocrisy, dishonesty, or all around goofiness, it’s a slippery slope. Before you know it, the U of I could be relocated to Marion because Bradley’s score is higher than the dynamic duo of Rose/Jakobsson.

Carl, I like your project funding idea with the pie chart. I’ve ssen those used very effectively on road and infrastructure projects on a couple other states. IIRC, in Nebraska, it’s state law and the law also mandates no official’s name goes on the sign.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 1:10 pm
Sen. Rickey Hendon has advocated that those who vote against pay raise resolutions should be barred from collecting said raises if, somehow, those raises ultimately get approved.

I’d extend Sen. Hendon’s reasoning to the capital bill. It’d make negotiations go a lot faster.

Comment by Frank Booth Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 1:21 pm
No. A thoughtful Legislator could want the projects, but object to the funding source (ie - slots in bars), and favor a different funding (ie - cuts, state credit, federal stimulus $, etc). If there is no funding, then the projects won’t exist.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 1:52 pm
Thoughtful Legislator is that an oxymoron

Comment by Yeah Right Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 1:58 pm
Is this the same question that was asked a few moths ago on the national level (Republican House members voting against the $800 mil stimulus bill but their states reaping the rewards?)

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 2:08 pm
No.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 2:10 pm
I want to say yes, I really do, but considering those legislators’ constituents have to share the pain, they should share the benefit as well.

Perhaps a new law could be passed to sanction any member of the legislature who touts projects when they did not approve the revenue. It’ll never happen, but they really should be punished somehow.

Comment by Randolph Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:42 pm
How about funding capital projects in districts of the Hypocrits Caucus, but not permitting the legislators to decide which projects get funded in their districts? Ask the mayors instead.

Comment by respectful Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:52 pm
How about, “It depends.”

Revenue streams are part of a negotiated legislative process. I think it would be tough to get either party to vote for the revenue enhancements as part of a structured roll call if they were told that Targets wouldn’t get any projects.

On the other hand, if Democrats were forced to supply ALL or MOST of the votes because the GOP didn’t want to play ball, I think they could decide that Republicans who voted against the revenue were going to get the shaft.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, May 26, 09 @ 3:54 pm