Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s tweet
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From a press release…
Today House Republicans introduced House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 32 to put real “teeth” into the state’s balanced budget requirement. It demands that within 30 days of the enactment of a budget, the Auditor General’s Office must certify that the budget will be balanced with expenses not exceeding expected revenue. If the Auditor General declares that the budget is not balanced then the Comptroller will:
o Stop payment for the salary of General Assembly members and Constitutional Officers; and
o Stop all payments, besides those affecting public safety of the State, required by law, or required by the federal government
“For several years now, lawmakers have passed budgets that were absolutely unbalanced, leaving billions in unpaid bills,” said Representative Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth). “It’s time to hold state government accountable to the taxpayers. Our balanced budget amendment will force lawmakers and the Governor to put their money where their mouths are. Pass a truly balanced budget or don’t get paid. This is a common-sense fiscal reform that is sorely needed in Springfield.” […]
HJRCA 32 also requires that within 10 days of the Auditor General declaring the budget is not balanced, the General Assembly must convene to address the unbalanced budget. Upon passage of a new budget, the Auditor General must certify if it is balanced, and only then will the Comptroller be allowed to continue payments.
Yes, it’s gimmicky, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea, although I’d be more comfortable with it if chief sponsor Rep. Mitchell had also voted for pension reform yesterday.
* And it would also be helpful if the Republicans could say what sort of programs would actually be cut because doing so would show that they had thought this through…
Mitchell said he believed schools would still be paid but was not clear on whether public union workers with “non-essential” duties would receive paychecks.
Your thoughts?
…Adding… From a longtime commenter…
come on Rich, it’s among the dumbest things I have ever heard. Who in God’s name would provide service to the state if that passed? I assume bond payments are protected but this clause would still have to be put in the bond docs and that would be adverse on our rates. Just another ill-conceived gimmick.
OK, I stand corrected.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:27 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s tweet
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“not a bad idea” come on Rich, it’s among the dumbest things I have ever heard. Who in God’s name would provide service to the state if that passed? I assume bond payments are protected but this clause would still have to be put in the bond docs and that would be adverse on our rates. Just another ill-concieved gimmick. Total bushleague.
Comment by Raising Kane Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:40 pm
I don’t know how you can say, “I don’t think it’s a bad idea,” considering that the HGOP hasn’t even thought this through. Issues already arising include whether or not schools would be payed and whether or not General Assembly pay changes would be constitutional or not (Article 4, Section 11 of the state constitution). The premise of “teeth” in the balanced budget provision might be appealing, but an actual good idea would require a proposal to be thought out and not half baked.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:42 pm
Like the thought of it, but now it’s up to the Auditor General the arbitrator of all things “balanced”
Seems to put a great deal of power and OVERSIGHT for a non-elected official, appointed and confirmed by those he/she is ruling on.
Not questioning the integrity of anyone, at ALL, just asking the question of what others might ask
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Certainly seems like Auditor General would become a much more divisive office, doubt we’d see many 3 term appointees.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:45 pm
I love the way the Repubs everywhere like to develop kitchie cliched press-release “solutions” at the same time they refuse to participate or negotiate to achieve actual pragmatic public policy. It’s either ideological BS or press release bilge.
Comment by D P Gumby Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:46 pm
Here’s a reminder of the current language, which has no enforcement provision:
From Article VIII, section 2, State Finance:
part (a) … Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.
part (b) … Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:47 pm
I was initially thinking this wasn’t a bad idea, but just a few comments into it and I see that those wiser than I have pretty well shredded it. I now agree that it wasn’t very well thought through.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:48 pm
Would it also stop payments to schools and payments to the pension systems? How does the Auditor General certify that a budget will be balanced when all the revenues are projections? Wouldn’t it make more sense to certify something at the end of the year?
There seems to be a lot more questions and not thought through at all. If your’e going to propose a constitutional amendment, I think you should think through it a little more. I”m sure it’s going to get them the headlines that they wanted, now if they could just sit down and work on rational ideas to actually fix the problems.
Mitchell’s the same guy that wanted to kick Cook County out of Illinois right?
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Nobody does stunts like Bill Mitchell.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:50 pm
If we’re going to give the Auditor General that kind of power, we also need to have the position be a fixed term appointment, the term of which is NOT tied to any Gov term.
Maybe a 10 year appointment that must be certified by the entire GA would be appropriate.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:51 pm
What everyone else said, plus:
Can someone give me an example of a State payment that isn’t “required by law” more or less? That’s a pretty slippery slope to climb upon.
Finally, in the unlikely event this were to come to pass, I strongly urge Bill Holland to call it a day.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:51 pm
Having an independent third party evaluate if the budget is balanced makes good sense. Though actually doing revenue estimates is a good step as well.
That said, to the naysayers, a balanced budget clause is in the constitution for good reasons. About 9 billion of them in past due bills and you can argue if we did a more proper form of budget accounting, the pension debt.
The only way to enforce a balanced budget requirement is to prevent spending based on it.
My only beef with this is that “spending required by law” could easily include pretty much anything the ILGA says needs to be spent because they write the laws to begin with.
At a certain point, SOMETHING needs to be devised to hold legislators accountable if the budget is unbalanced. What would you suggest?
Comment by John Bambenek Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:52 pm
#California
Comment by Empty Chair Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:54 pm
So most providers doing contractual work with the state would simply not get paid? That arguement would work really well with local banks who supply credit lines to organizations doing work with the state who already get paid 6-8 months late. Terrific way to guarantee closure for the thousands of companies who provide residential, drug/alcohol, mental health, day programs, preschools, training, roads, aging, and related services. Of course schools would get paid because the screaming would be huge. As for the rest? Sorry. Excellent plan, Smithers.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 1:55 pm
I see the comments about “who would provide services to the state”… The state barely pays for these services today and is WAY behind…
maybe a better question if we follow that line of thought logically is at what point will the state not be able to pay for services?
Comment by Really? Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:07 pm
- What would you suggest? -
C’mon John, isn’t your eternal vigilance enough?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:11 pm
“So the elected officials can’t decide what is or is not a balanced budget, and someone we didn’t elect is going to do the work the elected officials can’t?”
Something a voter might say…
“We hire elected officials to do the work and now this proposal pawns off that to someone else…”
Yikrs
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:11 pm
Whatever. I’ve seen this movie.
Back in the 80s, proposing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution was cover for deficit spending that supposedly was going to destroy the American economy.
I missed that last part.
Nothing stops the General Assembly from adopting a “balanced” budget anytime they want to.
Supporters can take a sheet of copy paper, draw a line in the middle, and, in broad strokes, show how it’s done with revenues on one side and expenditures on the other.
Is there any way we can work a urine test into this? That seems to be the Illinois GOP solution to just about everything.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:12 pm
Following.
Comment by pensioner Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:15 pm
Mitchell=Huckster
Comment by Toynbee Doob Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:15 pm
AA
I agree. It would probably drive him to drink again.
Comment by Old and in the Way Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:19 pm
“Who in God’s name would provide service to the state if that passed?”
I think the better question is who in God’s name would provide services to the State now? We have $9 billion in unpaid bills! That is over 25% of the operating budget that currently features a tax increase that is about to expire. Good luck finding providers for any service.
What this would do is prevent growth in that $9 billion figure and in doing so it would create a little more certainty for our vendors. Also I think any bond house would view this as a good thing since it can’t get any worse, can it?
Comment by Adam Dunn 4 Two Weeks Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Ouch. Kick a man when he is down $15K.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:46 pm
Typical Bill Mitchell. Fire, ready, aim. I wish he would think things through or at least be able to give definitive answers . Isn’t it about time for him to re- introduce the separate “State of Chicago” amendment?
Comment by Tough Guy Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm
This bill really isn’t about improving the process already enacted by the GA three years ago that is designed to create balanced budgets, where an agreed revenue forecast sets a hard cap on spending.
It is simply a political statement about punishing those irresponsible, nasty politicans, by docking their pay. Very popular campaign message among the “right” across the country. This will do little to help Illinois.
Comment by walkinfool Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm
From the looks of things, such a proposal is several decades late. It may have beed a good counterpart to to the pension anti-diminishment amendment added to the state constitution in 1970. Throwing a fire extinguisher into a building when the fire is out of control is silly.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm
Elections
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 3:08 pm
==Rep Mitchell says the current budget requirement in the Constitution has not teeth and the fact that the state has $8.9b in debt proves it.==
- from a Blueroomstream twitter post on the press conference
I hope that Mitchell plans on including the actual annual actuarial pension payment as part of each years balanced budget. But since he only mentions the States 8.9b debt, I get a feeling that they tend to think of the pension debt as something to take out of state employee and retiree’s pockets - and not a State debt at all.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 3:24 pm
I would argue that the citizens dont want a balanced budget. Yes, they surely want a balanced budget in the abstract. But they dont want to accept the necessary policies to make that a reality. They didnt want a tax increase (and polling still shows that they want it to expire). And they dont want the cuts in services necessary to balance the 9 billion deficit. Let alone whats needed for pension liabilities.
This is pandering pure and simple. And whats worse, its pandering in the abscract because the citizenry doesnt want the reality.
“Give me the steak dinner but only charge me for a salad.”
Comment by Abe the Babe Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 3:47 pm
With the way the idjits in both parties spend maybe we would be better off requiring them to only spend what the state took in the year before. If there is a surplus save it for an emergency. Oh wait that’s how us little people do budgets my bad they’re smarter than us.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Point of information:
From Article VIII, section 2, State Finance:
part (a) … Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.
part (b) … Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.
As has been noted many times since this language was ratified in 1969, the use of the word “estimated” in parts a and b effectively undermines the apparent intent. Until Blagojevich, governors routinely said their proposed budgets were within revenue estimates, and the General Assembly did likewise with appropriations.
Moreover, while discussion of the state’s finances tends to focus on general funds, in fact the constitutional provisions make no such distinction. In most years, appropriations from all funds– more than 600– total less than the resources within those funds.
If memory serves, these shortcomings were acknowledged during the Con-Con debates over what ultimately became Section 2 of the Finance Article.
Comment by Charlie Wheeler Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Charlie,
good point … they’ve always played games with the estimates
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 4:12 pm
Word, I don’t know how they missed the urine test. Lol.
Drafting error, clearly.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 5:05 pm
===Though actually doing revenue estimates is a good step as well.===
This is already being done. The House gets revenue estimates from COGFA to start its budget process. In 2012 it used an estimate even lower than COGFA’s. House just passed a resolution this month using the COGFA numbers. Surely ol’ Bill hasn’t forgotten that already.
So the HGOPs think we don’t need just a balanced budget, but a “truly” balanced budget. Got it.
Mitchell bemoans all these unbalanced budgets. Anyone know how many state budgets Mitchell has supported in his 15 years in Springfield? I’d be curious, because I know his HGOP cohorts have supported five in the last 10 years. You know, those 10 years that ol’ Bill said he wished we had his great HJRCA on the books. I guess those were all balanced, though, right?
Bunk.
Comment by Interested Observer Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 5:28 pm
“Yes, it’s gimmicky.”…WAY too gimmicky. And beCAUSE it is, it kinda makes them look bad, bitter…even somewhat disingenuous. It’s as if, out of sheer frustration, some of them are saying, “See, this is what WE’D do if we were in power.” But in actuality, would they? Without FAR greater detail, I highly doubt it. Thus, it looks like (unnecessary) adolescent “Sour Grapes” at work and being flung about recklessly. Not that the IDEA in general is bad, it’s just the way they’re going aBOUT it which is not a good move….
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Mar 22, 13 @ 6:34 pm