Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Election day registration lawsuit finally gets some attention
Next Post: Republicans not matching Mautino rhetoric with cash
Posted in:
* I’m not a huge fan of using the state Constitution to permanently lock up money for special uses, but, this Tribune editorial is a bit much, if you ask me…
No, little voter, you cannot term-limit the Illinois lawmakers who’ve ruined this state’s finances; the politicians don’t want that. Nor can you stop legislative leaders from gerrymandering their members’ district maps; the Illinois Supreme Court says that injustice is OK. But if the pols of both parties won’t let you do something good for you, they will let you do something good for them and their friends:
They want you to enshrine in the Illinois Constitution a perpetual payday for their loyal donors in road-building and organized labor. You could say they’ve all got this thing — this proposed amendment — and for them it’s … golden!
The stated aim of the amendment — it’ll be on your Nov. 8 ballot — is to prevent state and local governments from using transportation revenue for non-transportation purposes. Sounds fine, to a point. But the diabolical effect is that contractors, and the unions whose members they employ, would have constitutionally guaranteed dibs on future billions of state and local revenue dollars.
That is, they’d have dibs on tax collections so that some future Illinois — an Illinois where finances are even more disastrous than today’s — couldn’t circumvent this amendment even in a natural catastrophe or other crisis. This amendment would, for example, wall off road dollars from any emergency uses for basic human needs. You’ve seen how rigidly the constitution’s pension protection clause forbids public pension reforms? Well, the pavement protection clause would be just as rigid.
And it goes on and on like that forever.
Look, these aren’t regular ol’ general revenues. Their intended purpose is for transportation infrastructure. Last year, the stopgap agreement dipped heavily into the Road Fund. The move got us out of a crisis, but it’s like eating your seed corn - staves off starvation today, but creates huge problems down the, um, road.
* I think there is more than enough room for argument here. And I even think the Tribune’s warnings about the future have some merit. But, sheesh, man. The road builders and the unions have watched as billions were swept from funds intended for infrastructure. So, of course they’re gonna do their best to stop it. They’re acting rationally.
And this proposal, along with the Supreme Court’s pension decisions, can be seen as a way of finally forcing the General Assembly and the governor to face up to fiscal reality and raise some taxes and cut some programs rather than raiding the future.
Having watched some particularly tough fiscal emergencies (revenues dried up after the 9/11 attack, for instance) I would argue for more flexibility, but I also have to admit that the other side makes some decent points.
Your own thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Election day registration lawsuit finally gets some attention
Next Post: Republicans not matching Mautino rhetoric with cash
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Lemme know when the Tribune gets bent out of shape because we can’t raise income taxes on corporations or millionaires even in an emergency.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:33 pm
I have consistently opposed fund sweeps. Either eliminate special funds or eliminate fund sweeps. You can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Casual observer Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:38 pm
You mean the roads and the *L* werent here when God created the Earth?
Hmmmmmppppphhhhh.
Comment by Doug Simpson Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:40 pm
I agree 100% with this editorial.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:42 pm
“the diabolical effect is that contractors, and the unions whose members they employ, would have constitutionally guaranteed dibs on future billions of state and local revenue dollars.”
It’s “diabolical” to want money to go for what it was meant to go for?
Comment by steward Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:43 pm
There are several federally funded projects on hold because we don’t have the matching state funds because the GA uses gas tax revenue on other expenses.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:46 pm
So, nevermind the money, this is really about — yet again — unions.
I read the post, read the link, and read the response. There’s some things — and I see more of these things lately — where there’s no need to take a balanced approach. Everybody wants to be “fair and balanced.” With some things, that’s right.
But — in my case — I feel the same way about this as I do about Trump and Rauner. There’s no way I can assess them in a balanced way. I can’t. And I won’t.
And — there’s really no need to. This is so off-the-wall and obviously anti-union that it negates “fair and balanced”.
What’s next — abolish the *labor* board because there’s no real need for anyone other than a Rauner administration to chime in about labor?
Comment by Bobby Catalpa Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:50 pm
“But it requires 60 percent support to pass, so there’s a chance other groups that rely on sparse state dollars will be able kill it — maybe educators, human services providers, groups that fight for disadvantaged citizens or university officials who someday may need emergency funding.” We should plan to use road funds for our other state activities? Do they believe we’ll never be a normally functioning state again?
Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:52 pm
That dad-burn Constitution — always tellin’ us what we can and can’t do.
Comment by IllinoisBoi Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:56 pm
I wonder who wrote that one? Recognize the “style,” “literacy,” and “thoughtfulness?”
I bet that Tronclodyte burns through a Crayola Box of 64 a week with the self-indulgent, semi-literate tantrums.
Like Kass, always auditioning for a radio gig, to be the next Rush or Hannity. But the phone never rings….
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:57 pm
==I agree 100% with this editorial.==
Care to tell us why? You really think this is some diabolical attempt by labor? Absolute nonsense. The anti-union fervor of some of you totally messes up any rational thought.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 12:58 pm
The Tribune never ceases to amaze with their silly hyperbole. Is this a bad idea? Yes. Is it a bad idea because it’s some big plot by unions to ensure money is set aside for them and can’t be touched? Absolutely not.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:00 pm
I want to see a blend of revenue increases and spending cuts. This to me, takes some of the tools out of the old tool box. Yes, IdOT needs to be part of some spending savings.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:04 pm
Yes, and the lottery was going to go for funding education.
Comment by JackD Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:06 pm
Manufacturers need good roads to move their product to market and to bring in raw materials for processing.
Dedicating road funds to the roads will help manufacturing much more than the unions. Do you want more manufacturing or don’t you?
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:12 pm
This amendment is a symptom of our failed State government. I will vote no. Let everyone work to fix the bigger problem. Everyone a hostage.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:22 pm
A Jack. Manufactures need causation criteria in work comp changed more than they need better roads.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:23 pm
While I think the tone of the editorial is overly snarky, there is merit to not tying ones hands unnecessarily to restrict fund usage. You can’t tell me there isn’t a law of future unintended consequences that might kick in here.
Comment by A Watcher Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:26 pm
These are the least complicated taxes to collect. In these kinds of times, adding a cent or two per gallon for other costs would provide immediate revenue and a lot of it. There would need to be safeguards built in, but taking advantage of very low petroleum costs is just about the least painful way I can think of to infuse some capital. In my opinion, it should all go for debt reduction. That could free up some other funding.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:34 pm
I too agree with the editorial. This “lock-box” as a constitutional amendment is pretty darn silly when compared to far more necessary changes like nixing the pension protected guaranties for public sector workers or the lack of fair re-redistricting processes for citizens.
Illinois is indeed a mess, by design, and this editorial is understated if anything.
Comment by Deft Wing Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:38 pm
Gosh, Illinois pols want to add another inappropriate amendment to the state Constitution? This place is a complete joke.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:44 pm
I seriously doubt you will see a flood of manufacturers into the state if you decrease worker comp costs. Worker’s comp is only one of many fixed costs that for some reason has become the holy grail of the Rauner administration.
Roads and transportation on other hand are basic manufacturing needs. Otherwise all manufacturing would have moved to China and Mexico long ago. You have to capitalize on what you can do, not your wish list.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Want term limits? Vote.
Comment by burbanite Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:55 pm
If the Trib is against it, count me for it.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:01 pm
I agree that this amendment is silly. Money is fungible. Pretending that a tax will only be used for one purpose is good politics but bad government. Limiting the ability to respond to unascertainable future needs is, with respect, foolish. It’s a reflection of the political strength of the road contractors and the unions. But it’s not good public policy for the state.
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:02 pm
To contrast the “pavement protection clause” with the “pension protection clause”, the GA borrowed money from the pension funds for decades and the bill is coming due whereas, with the Road Fund, the GA can change the tax structure, theoretically anyway, so that money never gets into the Road Fund if other needs are deemed more important. For example, they could say that for FY17, half of the revenue from the Motor Fuel Tax will go into GRF instead of the Road Fund. I just don’t think this amendment would work like they think it does.
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:03 pm
=== And this proposal…can be seen as a way of finally forcing the General Assembly and the governor to face up to fiscal reality and raise some taxes ===
But the Tribbies oppose raising taxes. Consequently, they prefer the kind of perpetual can-kicking that got the State through this year.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:13 pm
“Their hair is perpetually on fire”
Well put. And all the excitement undermines their credibility in the long run. Kinda like the boy who cried wolf.
I used to view the Trib editorial board as a sober, moderately conservative lot. Now I see them as outrage junkies.
Comment by Teddy the K Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:16 pm
“And it goes on and on like that forever.”
True for this Tribune editorial, and true for the Tribune’s Editorial Board.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:22 pm
A Jack. I only wish it were true, that work comp is a fixed cost.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:23 pm
“Diabolical”?
If the Trib wants me to pay attention to anything they say, they’ll need to tone down the rhetoric. I’m tired of hearing that the sky is falling and then looking out my window only to find that it’s still there.
As far as the amendment itself is concerned, well, I have to say that the State’s tradition using designated funds for things other than the designated use makes this somewhat reasonable.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:26 pm
I agree with Casual Observer.
Special Funds are taxes on certain people or activities. Why should those people pay a higher taxes than others?
That’s what the General Revenue Funds is for.
While the Motor Fuel Tax is more general than some other special funds, like hunting license fees, it’s a slippery slope that the General Assembly keeps going down.
Comment by Sir Reel Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:43 pm
Gas tax and vehicle registration increases have long enjoyed more popular support because there was always a specific list of projects and programs that demonstrated need (or at least political support.) You take that away by sweeping the Road Fund, people feel double-crossed. Pretty soon your infrastructure taxes are as popular as income taxes. And nothing good gets done. The Tribbies have sure turned into a sorry bunch.
Comment by kimocat Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:03 pm
As a social worker, I have a problem using other ear marked funds for any other purpose than what they were intended for.
Rauner has raided earmarked surplus funds, now the state has no surplus.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:09 pm
Not commenting on this editorial specifically, but something I’ve noticed since Dold left: the Trib’s editorials have become even more hyperbolic and what they do write about is detached from what’s going on day-to-day in the city/suburbs/state. I’m not even sure they read their own newspaper at this point, rather check the WSJ editorial page, and then write something even more hyperbolic, meandering, and hot takeish. The Trib’s editorial page has never been in touch with the city/burbs over the last 25 years or so, but at this point I’m not even sure who exactly their audience is (other than Rauner).
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:18 pm
==now the state has no surplus.===
When you’re over $100B in debt, can you really suggest there was a surplus?
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:20 pm
I especially like the Guy Fawkes proposal at the end of the editorial. The entire thing reads like a child upset he didn’t get his way. In this case I suspect their outrage over not getting Fair Maps on the ballot is really the cause for this load of editorial dung they flung out today.
Comment by Bored Chairman Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:45 pm
You can’t hold it against a special interest who has their specified money taken from them each year to do whatever they can to protect it.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:21 pm
The Tronc Times reaches a new low in editorial creativity.
Comment by Joe Schmoe Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:24 pm
I just wish they would enforce the balanced budget clause …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:40 pm
RNUG. Amen.
Comment by blue dog dem Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:46 pm
I do not know of any way to enforce the balanced budget clause. Do we have any legal remedies other than the voting booth?
Comment by Last Bull Moose Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:52 pm
No, and even the voting booth won’t work unless you live in Madigan’s district.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 5:21 pm
About the only way I could think of enforcing it would be to order the Comptroller to not pay any bills unless there is a continuing appropriation for said bill.
The question is how far would the court go? Would they be willing to jail the Comptroller (and any subordinates as necessay), a mostly innocent party in the budget process, to enforce such an order?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:28 pm
A little history — after the passage of the state income tax, state government officials wanted to spend it all so the public would not protest huge surpluses and say the new tax was unwarranted. The answer was to move vast dollars from the General Revenue Fund to the Road Fund. This allowed many otherwise unbudgeted projects to be implemented, including upgrading Il 51 to federal interstate standards so the feds would help pay for future maintenance and repair of what became I-39.
Back in the 80’s, when General Revenues began getting tight, the legislature rolled dollars the other way - putting more Sec of State expenses and other arguably flexible spending into the Road Fund and out of General Revenue.
Nothing new here, folks. So a constitutional amendment is both silly and against possibly necessary budgetary flexibility. Vote no.
Comment by Capitol View Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 9:09 pm