Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: What, me worry?
Next Post: Other states
Posted in:
* From an op-ed written by US Sen. Mark Kirk…
I welcome the State Legislature’s move to begin this necessary debate by proposing tough [pension] reforms - now is the time to act before other government programs lay claim to scarce tax dollars. To reinforce the message that local programs need local funding, I will soon reintroduce the No States Bailouts Resolution in the U.S. Senate.
This legislation affirms that States, as sovereign entities, are responsible for their own debts and retain control over their spending and taxation. The resolution, citing the historic example from the 1842 financial crisis, declares that historic precedent opposes a bailout of the states and that the Federal Government should “take no action to redeem, assume, or guarantee State debt.”
* This isn’t the first time Kirk has proposed the idea. From a press release in May of 2011…
In a move aimed at protecting the nation’s federal credit rating, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) announced today that he and 14 Republican Senators have introduced the No State Bailouts Resolution, S. Res. 188, which bans federal bailouts of financially struggling states like Illinois.
His previous resolution is here.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: What, me worry?
Next Post: Other states
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Illinois is well-represented in Congress.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:25 am
How did Kirk vote on bailing-out banks?
It seems the caricature of the GOP to support bail outs for banks to protect profits, but to oppose bail outs for state to protect services.
The front page of today’s paper screamed about how the Dow is at a record high. If the stock market is so profitable, why do all levels of government need to be cutting?
If there’s economic growth, that should mean growth of tax revenue, which should mean more services, right?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:29 am
You know, I don’t really have a problem with this, but as a wealthy state that exports about $34 billion federal tax dollars a year, it would be nice to get some credit for keeping the tax eating states afloat.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:29 am
I don’t have an issue with it either. When people think there is a bail-out or safety net, they’re less apt to take corrective actions. It’s not the federal governments place to bail out states. That is federalism, right?
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:32 am
Showboating
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:39 am
I think the even numbers are open in Title 11, just in case…
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:40 am
CN your fundamental lack of economic literacy is a characature of liberals everywhere.
While Kirk’s resolution may not have big teeth it is a strong statement and one that desperately needs to be made. Failing jurisdicutions (See: Detroit) beg for bailouts like college kids who maxed out their credit cards.
What’s a few billion to the feds? Let’s make it someone else’s problem!
Anything anyone can do to force tough decision to be made in the face of catastrophe is a good thing.
I’m sorry the Dems are running out of excuses and the attempts to blame the GOP are simply ludicrous on their face.
Congratulations to Kirk for making this statement.
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:42 am
I’m very very inclined to agree with Small Town Liberal. these other states like west virginia, alabama, mississippi, texas ect have been kept afloat for decades on bacon in the form of Richard Shelby Centers for Science and Robert Byrd roads paid for by Illinois taxpayers. If this were 10 years ago Senator Kirk would probably be more focused on trying to get major federal $$ for some downstate university science center, but he has to watch his teaparty flank so this is what happens.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:51 am
“You know, I don’t really have a problem with this, but as a wealthy state that exports about $34 billion federal tax dollars a year, it would be nice to get some credit for keeping the tax eating states afloat. ”
As a rich state (one of the top 1%?) Illinois benefits more from the federal government than say, Mississippi. So Illinois should pay more to the Feds.
I don’t have a problem taxing the rich states that benefit more from government services, like Illinois, and passing the proceeds to other, less fortunate (I’m in no way implying the less fortunate are lazy, stupid or deserve to be there) states like Mississippi.
Comment by Woody Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:51 am
Maybe Kirk should push a resolution to claw back the money sent to now profitable banks as a bailout.
Comment by John Parnell Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 10:54 am
===As a rich state (one of the top 1%?) Illinois benefits more from the federal government than say, Mississippi. So Illinois should pay more to the Feds====
I would have to argue that Mississippi benefits more from the federal government. The economist did a report on federal tax dollars from 1990-2009 and Illinois is at an extreme disadvantage.
IL: Federal Taxes (In billions): $2,000
Federal Spending (In billions): $1,299.1
Miss: Federal Taxes (In billions): $164.7
Federal Spending (In billions): $404.6
The link is below
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
Comment by College Student Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:00 am
- I would have to argue that Mississippi benefits more from the federal government. -
It’s not even an argument, it’s just basic math. I’m not sure what Woody is smoking.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:06 am
Disappointing. A showhorse bill from a workhorse legislator.
Comment by Chris Sale Fan Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:08 am
Kirk’s idea is OK but he puts himself in the bad spot of cutting off an option if the economy takes a dive. To stay consistent, no bailout ideas should also include nothing to the too big to fail companies and cities otherwise its just talk. If stocks drop back to 6,000 and big companies close, do you just say ‘Sorry’ to the walking wounded?
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:10 am
We should discontinue some of our foreign aid and corporate welfare in favor of supporting the needs of our states and American taxpayers. It doesn’t seem right to bail out other countries and big banks but not help our states.
Comment by Ruby Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:12 am
I think the key thing to remember is if you want a bailout don’t be the first to fail. The feds will quickly change their tune after the first large municipal failure just like they did when Lehman Brothers went under. And don’t forget about all the bailouts in the 70’s (Chrysler, NY City).
If a bank is considered “too big to fail”, surely a state meets this criteria. Regardless of any legislation or what any politician says there is no way the feds are going to let the US economy collapse because a poorly run state like California or Illinois needs a $100B handout (2.5% of total fed budget)
Comment by Angry Republican Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:13 am
Another politician loses my vote.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:17 am
– Failing jurisdicutions (See: Detroit) beg for bailouts like college kids who maxed out their credit cards.–
Detroit actively fought the state takeover. That’s hardly begging for a bailout.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:24 am
Adam Smith your fundamental snobbiness is a characteristic of conservatives everywhere. There, let me put my broad brush down now.
You are sadly mistaken if you think the economic woes of states and locals are not connected to the feds. For decades, under R and D Presidents, special education, just to name one example, has never been funded at the level required of the federal government. So who makes that up?
The states have made that up.
The local school districts have made that up by increasing local property taxes.
Al;l this in the face of real rising numbers of students with disabilities.
So while some road gets built in Mississippi with our federal tax dollars, we are also paying more for school services that should be funded by the federal government.
Maybe the Senator should introduce a resolution titled Equitable Return of Federal Sources of Revenue (ERFSR) and see how that works.
Look, we either are one and share all, or let’s devolve to castles and moats. I got no tangible benefit from fed aid to the banks, but I think I’d see a tangible benefit from fed aid to the Great State of Illinois.
Comment by mongo Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:33 am
Good for him. You can’t tell me there isn’t some talk of this in Springfield. The sooner our state “leaders” come to grips with the fact there are no easy and painless ways to address our insolvency, the better.
And for those who don’t like IL being a “donor” state, you should talk to the Pres. and Sen. Durbin. Short of turning a quarter of the state into a national park or having a bunch of new military bases created here, that will continue to be the reality.
Comment by Kana Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:38 am
Per Woody, rich folks = rich states. Redistribution should be the order of the day, whether it is for the “1%” fat cat capitalists or rich states like Illinois. We should all pay our fair share - those who are more well off should help those who aren’t.
It’ll get shredded here but I like the poke anyway.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:40 am
Mongo show same understanding of economics as namesake movie character.
Yes, government spending, thanks to the “generosity” of liberals, is intermingled and shifts in funding can move burdens around. But Illinois’ fiscal nightmare is because profligate pols (of both parties, but mostly Dems) have promised unrealistic pension benefits, ignored the cyclical realities of the economy, pandered to their political donors, and exhibited horrifying financial stewardship.
And for all you lefties crying about the banks, why isn’t your hero presidents prosecuting them? And if you demand revenge on the bankers when will you demand same from the politicians who have exhibited worse fiduciary responsibility?
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:48 am
- that will continue to be the reality. -
I’m aware, and I don’t have a problem with sharing the wealth. However, anyone that complains about Illinois being some kind of laughing stock should realize that we send almost the equivalent of this year’s state budget to other states to pay for their government services.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:50 am
“Maybe Kirk should push a resolution to claw back the money sent to now profitable banks as a bailout.”
Maybe Dick Durbin will join in on the resolution.
Or better yet, have them both co-sponsor a resolution to break up the TBTF banks.
Think we’ll be waiting a long time to see that happen - from either one of them.
Comment by Judgment Day Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:55 am
@ Wordslinger - But Detroit is begging for a bailout.
The political powers there opposed the state takeover precisely because it would not be a bailout, but rather would involve the state appointed administrator making cuts and the other unpleasant decisions the local powers wouldn’t make themselves (and might even go so far as to lead to a municipal bankruptcy filing).
Comment by titan Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:01 pm
It’s okay to take tax money from the richest individuals, and give it to the poorest individuals, but it’s not okay to give from a richer State to a poorer one.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:04 pm
Kirk is sounding a lot like Angela Merkel. The German bankers have accomplished more in Europe than its armies ever did.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:14 pm
STL — Actually, I do have a problem with it. I think we are giving more than our fair share. If we were not providing pork for the red states’ congresscritters to spread to their constituents, we’d be in much better shape.
Kirk should be ashamed. It’s not a “bailout” to give us our own money back.
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:16 pm
I have no problem with the rationale behind this bill.
But it goes both ways.
States should not be held responsible for paying to implement Federal unfunded mandates either.
Comment by BleugrassBoy Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:16 pm
Not exactly wordslinger, Detroit is fighting an emergency manager from the State because they don’t want to be told how to fix their problems. The Detroit Council is still very much looking for a financial bailout from the State and Feds.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 11:24 am:
Detroit actively fought the state takeover. That’s hardly begging for a bailout.
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:22 pm
@ Wordslinger, Detroit may be fighting the takeover, but they’re still at the side door of the WH demanding a bailout.
Comment by downhereforyears Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:31 pm
I have no issue with Kirk’s proposal. Somebody needs to take a stand against all bailouts, whether govt. or corporate.
How is the southern 1/2 of our state different than Mississippi anyway?
And why does it always have to be a Red vs. Blue thing? Can’t we all just admit that all politicians make decisions based on re-election and that is the root of all our problems in the state and nation today? I don’t agree with governor Quinn on a whole lot of things, but I do respect him. He is trying to solve our budget problems without regard to his e-election while Madigan showboats and plays both sides of the fence.
Comment by DINO Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:59 pm
- BleugrassBoy - Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
“States should not be held responsible for paying to implement Federal unfunded mandates either.”
Amen.
But did we not just agree to administer the ObamaCare exchanges without guarantees of payment?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Illinois is a sovereign state? When did that happen? Here I thought we were part of a Federal Republic, in which the Central Government has decided to delegate certain powers down to us, while reserving the most important powers for itself.
So, does this mean that the State of Illinois can now negotiate and enter into it’s own treaties with foreign powers? Can we get our own seat at the UN? Does this mean that Illinois law now trumps Federal law? Does this mean that the State of Illinois can now issue its own currency? Can we raise our own armies? Can we stop paying Federal taxes?
Brave new world. Not sure that I’d want to live in an independent Illinois, but interesting to see that Senator Kirk is a closet secessionist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state
Comment by jerry 101 Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:17 pm
Illinois pension reform…change state name to JP Morgan.
Comment by foster brooks Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:20 pm
With Kirk what you have to understand for a moderate republican is that about 40 percent of what he does is what he really truly thinks and what he really truly is about-sticking it to Iran/Russia/north korea for example, and a big part of the rest is covering his back with certain groups the right wing/environmentalists/the chicago media/suburban moms/teachers ect. This is throwing a bone to the right and dumping ice cold water on the Illinois Reviews that are always looking to start a fire and throw a Pat Hughes at him. Nothing else.
As far as the largesse goes. I’ve said on this blog there are a lot issues with the dc delegation. When you constantly elect people that are either too old (biggert, davis, rush), too ineffective (the entire chicago delegation, bean, mosely braun, fitzgerald, foster, weller), too nutty (guttierez,schakowsky,walsh) your people don’t build seniority that enables them to move up the ranks and take powerful chairmanships to give the state a big seat at the table. These other states, west virginia, massachusettes, Mississippi, that have done well at the federal bacon table have done well because they vet candidates and elect people capable of doing their jobs and staying in them for years and decades.
Illinois might want to consider that, particularly Republicans who are now starting to look at congressional candidates for 2014.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:29 pm
@jerry 101 - you got it somewhat backwards. The central/national government doesn’t delegate down to the states…the states delegated certain (originally/theoretically) limited powers “up” to the central/national government.
Powers not given by the states to the federal were reserved to the states. It has, in practicial effect, shifted over the years to appear to be the other way around.
Comment by titan Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:34 pm
=This is throwing a bone to the right and dumping ice cold water on the Illinois Reviews that are always looking to start a fire and throw a Pat Hughes at him. Nothing else.=
Really? Has he read his own facebook and twitter posts lately? Those aren’t Illinois Review folks.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 1:37 pm
I must agree with him. If the federal government was running a massive surplus, it would have some flexibility. But at this time, the feds are printing and borrowing money to meet current obligations. A state pension bailout would be funded with either new taxes, more borrowing or more printing. This helps no one. Not to mention the moral hazard it creates.
Regarding clawing back money from the institutions that received federal bailouts, did anyone hear Attorney General Holder testifying today in from of the Senate Judiciary Committee? When he testified that the size of some of our financial institutions made it difficult to prosecute them I almost fell out of my chair.
I guess that’s a “No” to clawbacks. The big financial houses own the feds.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:22 pm
Bold proposal, indeed, and one that would keep individual responsibilities within the 50, individual “Households” in the Neighborhood for these brutally touch, debt-laden times, but with the make-up of the current U.S. Senate, he pretty much likely just has nowhere to go with it…
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:29 pm
He reads things like NRA ratings which show he’s in the .0001 percent of Republicans that have an F- rating from them, and the conservative scorecards which have him at a rating well well well below most republicans today.
This kind of stuff upsets supporters who want consistency and frustrates opponents looking to define him, but it’s how it goes.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:31 pm
shore,
All politicians make a breakdown, why are you limiting your comments to Kirk.
titan,
Spot on! Tenth Amendment and Federalist. It was only through enumerated powers that the Constitution got ratified.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:37 pm
Oh, OK, shore. It has to do with NRA and other “ratings.”
Ratings. Not rights. Ratings.
Maybe if I say it enough times…ya think, shore?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:48 pm
Is being “unable to define” someone perceived as strength and/or virtue, shore?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:52 pm
Or more accurtely, “Is being “unable to define” one’s self perceived as a strength and/or virtue, shore?”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:54 pm
@Cinci and Titan:
Good luck with that 10th Amendment argument. Unless the Supreme Court takes a sudden shift beyond tinkering around the edges the 10th Amendment is just a figment of everybody’s imagination.
Just an observation.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 2:55 pm
In 1842, US Senators represented their state government’s interests in Washington. Each Federal bill was weighed against the specific needs and abilities of their state to enact, coordinate, and administer federal laws.
Now we got a bunch of mini-governors in Washington that are passing federal laws for their states. Some are federally funded, and many are unfunded federal mandates.
Go ahead and do this Senator Kirk, then allow the states to stop funding the unfunded federal mandates being forced upon them.
Start with Obamacare.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 3:12 pm
–Go ahead and do this Senator Kirk, then allow the states to stop funding the unfunded federal mandates being forced upon them.
Start with Obamacare.–
Not sure what you mean. The Medicaid expansion is 100% federally funded for three years, then a state’s share gradually rises to 10%.
That’s why some of those GOP governors who were against it are now taking it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/chris-christie-to-take-obamacare-medicaid-expansion-88105.html
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 3:27 pm
Is “moderate” the title Republican opportunists prefer these days?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 3:57 pm
“If a bank is considered “too big to fail”, surely a state meets this criteria.”
How can a state fail when it has the power to levy taxes?
Comment by capncrunch Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 4:11 pm
This is classic, pure, straight-out-of-central-casting Mark Kirk. Now we can be sure that Ol’ Mark is back in the saddle, having replaced the troglodytes in his office who’d taken over the mike. Having sent out the press release, he can now go back to filibustering with the rest of the GOP senators.
Comment by Kwark Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 4:35 pm
It has long been my contention that ever since Obama came out of nowhere and was “anointed” by the Chicago Machine to be the “Chosen One” who’s task was to save Illinois from financial bankruptcy. The powers that be in Chicago (Daley, Madigan, Cullerton)had decided to use Chicago’s Democrat Party’s huge political influence and money to get Obama (much like John F. Kennedy)elected President so they had “a friend in the factory”. The marker that Obama had to agree to give them was that once he became President, Obama would make sure that the rest of the nation’s taxpayers would financially bail out Illinois when the “approaching financial disaster arrived”. They knew their reckless spending and buying influence with special influence groups & certain voter groups would one day come back to bite them. Obama “was their answer”.
Comment by Muffin Man Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 5:19 pm
Wow Muffin Man, that’s some diabolical plot. Who knew Daley, Cullerton and Madigan had the muscle to put Obama in the White House. They are omnipotent.
Shouldn’t that marker come due about now? When can we expect the money to start rolling in?
I can’t wait to see how Daley, Madigan and Cullerton muscle that through Congress.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 5:59 pm
actively fought the state takeover
They fought the takeover, but are/were not shy about asking to be bailed out
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 6:05 pm
@shore
FYI, Texas pays more into the fed govt than it gets back. Fact check much?
Comment by Get Over It Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 6:37 pm
Muffin Man, go back to Drury Lane. Please.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 6:42 pm
The more realistic Federal assistance is to enact a state bankruptcy chapter. Let a federal bankruptcy judge deal with the pensioners — with a way around the state constitution.
Comment by Chad Thursday, Mar 7, 13 @ 8:08 am
It is not ==unrealistic pension benefits== that are the cause of the current problem. It is unrealized pension -contributions- that caused the current problem.
That and a relatively recent change or two in the GASB accounting rules…
Comment by Jeeper Thursday, Mar 7, 13 @ 9:34 am