Proposed IL constitution amendment

[west towns]

Just received in mail the booklet from sec of state on the proposed amendment to keep transportation funds solely for transportation projects in Illinois.

 

Is this a good thing to vote for or not?

 

 

[jajuan]

1 hour ago, west towns said:

Just received in mail the booklet from sec of state on the proposed amendment to keep transportation funds solely for transportation projects in Illinois.

 

Is this a good thing to vote for or not?

 

 

My family got that same booklet. The current pension mess in our state from past decisions from both sides of the political spectrum to use funds meant to go into the public employee pension funds for other budgetary purposes seems to suggest it may be a good thought in theory. Plus it sounds like they meant keep transportation funds solely for transportation projects in the capital sense but also the usual funding of transportation operations as well (in the case of CTA, Metra and Pace whatever operations funds they get from the state beyond the RTA sales tax). Transportation funds solely for all things transportation related in the state basically. 

[Busjack]

Basically this is a diversion from that the establishment again blocked votes on term limits and fair districting.

However, one should note that the term "mass transportation" is used several times, so this is not in exclusion of mass transit.

It probably will result in some other tax being raised, but some other tax would be raised, anyway, so transportation taxes may as well go to roads and transit.

BTW: I came across on NF's site some story about MCI having to defer production of some of NJ Transit's order because the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund had gone broke.Part of the deal to end the impasse was raising the gas tax 23 cents, but coupled to a similar constitutional amendment (nj.com).

[west towns]

I dont trust them enough that this bill would not harm transit.  Mass transportation could be some privitization scheme 

[Busjack]

47 minutes ago, west towns said:

I dont trust them enough that this bill would not harm transit.  Mass transportation could be some privitization scheme 

Maybe you should read the pamphlet instead of assuming something.

Besides that it isn't a bill, and was proposed because he legislature can't be trusted.

[west towns]

I did read the proposed constitution amendment.    It still is confusing as it doesnt say how the legislators will administer  their responsibilities on this one.

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, west towns said:

I did read the proposed constitution amendment.    It still is confusing as it doesnt say how the legislators will administer  their responsibilities on this one.

Because the legislators are abdicating their responsibilities. If it is gas tax money or transportation bond money (like from you going to Stella's or drinking too much pop and burping), the money goes into the transportation lockbox. Either then it is spent for the purposes stated in the circular, or it stays there.They are not allowed, constitutionally, to appropriate it to DCFS.

Now, if you believe that gas tax money is just for the general fund to be appropriated for, for instance, running Lisa Madigan's office, vote no.

 

[MetroShadow]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

Because the legislators are abdicating their responsibilities. If it is gas tax money or transportation bond money (like from you going to Stella's or drinking too much pop and burping), the money goes into the transportation lockbox. Either then it is spent for the purposes stated in the circular, or it stays there.They are not allowed, constitutionally, to appropriate it to DCFS.

Now, if you believe that gas tax money is just for the general fund to be appropriated for, for instance, running Lisa Madigan's office, vote no.

 

Since I moved out of state, I can't vote for this. However, since most cases dedicated funding is supposed to be a lockbox, then you want to support a measure that protects funding dedicated to that source. 

The legislature is too…lazy/undedicated/not focused on passing a stable budget and being fiscally responsible. Therefore, we have things like this to ensure something be done. 

(California has a butt load of transit related ballot measures up for grabs btw)

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, MetroShadow said:

The legislature is too…lazy/undedicated/not focused on passing a stable budget and being fiscally responsible. Therefore, we have things like this to ensure something be done. 

Besides the diversion I noted above,I wonder if the Construction and Laborers' Union or the The Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (or in short,the asphalt interests)* got to the legislature, but anyway the ballot measure is what it is.

There has also been the practice in Illinois of "sweeping" or "borrowing" from various dedicated funds to fill various budget holes.In line with your comment, I suppose this was intended to prevent that.**

 

__________

*A quick Google turned up this in a Moline paper from the American Public Works Association.

**Another quick search turned up that the road fund was swept in 2015.

[Pace831]

On October 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Busjack said:

Besides the diversion I noted above,I wonder if the Construction and Laborers' Union or the The Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (or in short,the asphalt interests)* got to the legislature, but anyway the ballot measure is what it is.

There has also been the practice in Illinois of "sweeping" or "borrowing" from various dedicated funds to fill various budget holes.In line with your comment, I suppose this was intended to prevent that.**

 

__________

*A quick Google turned up this in a Moline paper from the American Public Works Association.

**Another quick search turned up that the road fund was swept in 2015.

Tribune editorial essentially agreeing with this point.

I'm voting no to this proposal.

 

[Busjack]

1 hour ago, Pace831 said:

Several Illinois transit systems (outside the RTA area) are saying they will have to shut down if they don't receive state funding soon.

I don't know if it is an issue that there wasn't an appropriation in the 6 month budget, or just because the state is broke, but since the article says "dedicated to the downstate transportation fund" the proposed constitutional amendment wouldn't allow that to be withheld. 0.25% of the 6.25% state sales tax is for transportation.

So, even though there is the "what trade group benefits from this," there is this other side of the story.

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, Busjack said:

I don't know if it is an issue that there wasn't an appropriation in the 6 month budget, or just because the state is broke, but since the article says "dedicated to the downstate transportation fund" the proposed constitutional amendment wouldn't allow that to be withheld. 0.25% of the 6.25% state sales tax is for transportation.

So, even though there is the "what trade group benefits from this," there is this other side of the story.

These transit systems shutting down, or even threatening to, should hopefully be a call to action for the state government, even if the solution is less than ideal. It's like last year when Metra was threatening to shut down if the PTC deadline wasn't extended. Put the legislators in a position where they have to address the problem, or be making a risky political move if they don't. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the transit systems' lawsuits are. I still don't believe voting yes to this amendment is the right solution, as we shouldn't need the constitution to tell legislators how to appropriate funds when they can't do so on their own.

[jajuan]

On 10/13/2016 at 7:07 PM, Pace831 said:

These transit systems shutting down, or even threatening to, should hopefully be a call to action for the state government, even if the solution is less than ideal. It's like last year when Metra was threatening to shut down if the PTC deadline wasn't extended. Put the legislators in a position where they have to address the problem, or be making a risky political move if they don't. We'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the transit systems' lawsuits are. I still don't believe voting yes to this amendment is the right solution, as we shouldn't need the constitution to tell legislators how to appropriate funds when they can't do so on their own.

If that's your reason for voting no, then it would seem that you're conceding the status quo that our state government keeps up the practice of taking away from dedicated funds to plug holes in the general budget. Yeah we shouldn't have to twist the legislature's arm behind its proverbially back to do its job in a way that doesn't hurt Illinois residents somewhere else, but sadly our state government from both sides of the political aisle has shown it can't resist to temptation to continually raid dedicated funds in place of coming to some form of compromise of what more efficient funding of our collective needs and wants as citizenry looks like. Also I'm not sure you're aware that similar logic behind your reason for saying no draws an argument that the constitution shouldn't mandate balanced budgets from our governor and legislature via the legislature passing a budget bill and the governor signing that bill into law. And yes the Illinois Constitution does indeed mandate that the governor's budget proposal be in balance when presented to the legislature and in turn the final budget bill the legislature presents for the governor's signature also be in balance. The constitution is already telling legislators how to appropriate funds in a similar broader sense by virtue of it mandating that their appropriations for any given fiscal year keep the budget in balance. 

[Busjack]

On this one, I see both sides of it. From a legal standpoint, the Constitution shouldn't need a provision* that has 575 words (according to a Microsoft Word word count), and obviously there are the lobbyists behind it. On the other hand, the state shouldn't be diverting gas tax money and then crying poverty in the transportation trust fund. As I indicated, this will result in the increase of some other tax, but they won't be able to raise the gas tax on the basis that the transportation fund is bankrupt.

On @jajuan's last point, apparently the only part of the Illinois Constitution that has any teeth is he Pension Clause. The state (and I mostly blame the General Assembly) has perverted every other part. In this case, I am surprised that this is not (like the Governor Recall** amendment was) subject to "if 20 members of each house concur...."

Anyway, by this time next week I will have voted, but don't feel a need to sway anyone else's vote.

*Official text of the amendment.

**Art III, sec. 7.

[Pace831]

1 hour ago, jajuan said:

If that's your reason for voting no, then it would seem that you're conceding the status quo that our state government keeps up the practice of taking away from dedicated funds to plug holes in the general budget. Yeah we shouldn't have to twist the legislature's arm behind its proverbially back to do its job in a way that doesn't hurt Illinois residents somewhere else, but sadly our state government from both sides of the political aisle has shown it can't resist to temptation to continually raid dedicated funds in place of coming to some form of compromise of what more efficient funding of our collective needs and wants as citizenry looks like. Also I'm not sure you're aware that similar logic behind your reason for saying no draws an argument that the constitution shouldn't mandate balanced budgets from our governor and legislature via the legislature passing a budget bill and the governor signing that bill into law. And yes the Illinois Constitution does indeed mandate that the governor's budget proposal be in balance when presented to the legislature and in turn the final budget bill the legislature presents for the governor's signature also be in balance. The constitution is already telling legislators how to appropriate funds in a similar broader sense by virtue of it mandating that their appropriations for any given fiscal year keep the budget in balance. 

The constitution is necessarily vague. You already acknowledged that with the phrase "in a broader sense". So, while it says there must be a balanced budget, it doesn't need to deal with the specifics of that budget such as the transportation funding lockbox that is proposed.

Since they found a workaround to the balanced budget requirement, who's to say they couldn't do the same for this proposed amendment (or any other section)?

[Busjack]

2 hours ago, Pace831 said:

The constitution is necessarily vague. You already acknowledged that with the phrase "in a broader sense". So, while it says there must be a balanced budget, it doesn't need to deal with the specifics of that budget such as the transportation funding lockbox that is proposed.

Since they found a workaround to the balanced budget requirement, who's to say they couldn't do the same for this proposed amendment (or any other section)?

Maybe that's why this is 575 words, although I mentioned that the legislature has perverted most else in the constitution. The real question may be whether this is detailed enough that someone with standing (say some apprentice in the Concrete Workers' Union) could enforce it in court, the same as some state worker being able to enforce the Pension Clause. There is a Disbursement of Public Moneys Act authorizing that kind of lawsuit over misappropriation of public money (which provides taxpayer standing).

[Pace831]

The amendment passed, as expected, despite being excluded from some Cook County ballots.

[Busjack]

1 minute ago, Pace831 said:

The amendment passed, as expected, despite being excluded from some Cook County ballots.

Sounded like the poll workers in only a couple of Chicago precincts forgot to give out the ballots.

Also, there wasn't any organized opposition to it.

[jajuan]

On 11/8/2016 at 11:31 PM, Busjack said:

Sounded like the poll workers in only a couple of Chicago precincts forgot to give out the ballots.

Also, there wasn't any organized opposition to it.

Sounds that way to me as well as it was part of my ballot at my polling place as a second sheet. Now if only Cook County's goofy penny an ounce beverage tax were part of a ballot instead of an item on the Board's meeting agenda.

[Pace831]

18 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Sounds that way to me as well as it was part of my ballot at my polling place as a second sheet.

My ballot was all one page (I live in Will County), but I almost didn't notice the amendment question because of the way the ballot was configured. I know 2 people that said they didn't vote for it because they overlooked it on the ballot.

[strictures]

23 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Sounds that way to me as well as it was part of my ballot at my polling place as a second sheet. Now if only Cook County's goofy penny an ounce beverage tax were part of a ballot instead of an item on the Board's meeting agenda.

I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit challenging putting the tax on diet pop. No place else that taxes pop taxes diet.

Plus exactly how are restaurants that have self serve dispensers going to charge people for their refills?

[jajuan]

32 minutes ago, strictures said:

I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit challenging putting the tax on diet pop. No place else that taxes pop taxes diet.

Plus exactly how are restaurants that have self serve dispensers going to charge people for their refills?

I take your post to mean free refills, and I agree with that thought. Especially a restaurant like an Old Country Buffet which does unlimited free refills that aren't monitored because of the restaurant's size and layout. What are they expected to do? Have their wait staff counting cups at the tables  as they clear unused dishes so the tax can be tacked on after the fact? On that note, I can see smaller restaurants that have free refills eliminating those free refills. 

[Busjack]

3 hours ago, strictures said:

I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit challenging putting the tax on diet pop. No place else that taxes pop taxes diet.

I am, too, but the only legal basis for challenging it is that it would be beyond the county's home rule powers. The frauds that it was only a penny and only on sugar pop were exposed before it passed.

3 hours ago, jajuan said:

What are they expected to do?

I bet this is like all other similar tax (like the liquor tax Rocky Wirtz unsuccessfully fought and cigarette taxes) i.e the tax is imposed on the distributor. Whoever is the distributor of Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper products will be hit 1 cent an ounce on bottled and canned products and so much per canister of concentrate, and then has to figure how to pass it on, but, like the liquor tax, whatever is passed along will be identified as tax on the receipt.

The only question is how an establishment like Pita Inn, which gives you a glass for either pop or mango juice (the latter should not be taxable) sorts it out. I suppose the mango juice goes back behind the counter.

Myself, I'll buy case diet soda in Lake County. Fortunately, Portillo's decided to build on the north side of Lake Cook Road instead of the south. Look for a lot of businesses going out of business in Cook County, if this is not repealed.

The other crock with this is that pop became taxable as non-food to pay for Gov. Quinn's Jobs bonds, and all other taxing bodies, including Cook County jumped onto that, then Cook County reinstated Stroger's 1% sales tax hike. Why it can't live within its means is beyond me.

[jajuan]

12 hours ago, Busjack said:

I am, too, but the only legal basis for challenging it is that it would be beyond the county's home rule powers. The frauds that it was only a penny and only on sugar pop were exposed before it passed.

I bet this is like all other similar tax (like the liquor tax Rocky Wirtz unsuccessfully fought and cigarette taxes) i.e the tax is imposed on the distributor. Whoever is the distributor of Coke, Pepsi, or Dr. Pepper products will be hit 1 cent an ounce on bottled and canned products and so much per canister of concentrate, and then has to figure how to pass it on, but, like the liquor tax, whatever is passed along will be identified as tax on the receipt.

The only question is how an establishment like Pita Inn, which gives you a glass for either pop or mango juice (the latter should not be taxable) sorts it out. I suppose the mango juice goes back behind the counter.

Myself, I'll buy case diet soda in Lake County. Fortunately, Portillo's decided to build on the north side of Lake Cook Road instead of the south. Look for a lot of businesses going out of business in Cook County, if this is not repealed.

The other crock with this is that pop became taxable as non-food to pay for Gov. Quinn's Jobs bonds, and all other taxing bodies, including Cook County jumped onto that, then Cook County reinstated Stroger's 1% sales tax hike. Why it can't live within its means is beyond me.

Even though Cook County budgets should be public information it sounds like there needs to still be a bit more transparency on what cuts were made and by how much because I agree that it's mystifying that Cook County still needs all these tax hikes that pretty much have the effect of sending people shopping in other counties as well as in Indiana. Yeah part of it may be explained as the state being in bad financial shape and the Great Recession, but come on by now those two elements can't be affecting Cook County as much as they were if neighboring counties are restraining bloat and doing relatively okay. 

[artthouwill]

19 minutes ago, jajuan said:

Even though Cook County budgets should be public information it sounds like there needs to still be a bit more transparency on what cuts were made and by how much because I agree that it's mystifying that Cook County still needs all these tax hikes that pretty much have the effect of sending people shopping in other counties as well as in Indiana. Yeah part of it may be explained as the state being in bad financial shape and the Great Recession, but come on by now those two elements can't be affecting Cook County as much as they were if neighboring counties are restraining bloat and doing relatively okay. 

Basically budgeting is a numbers game.   You project revenue and project expenses and call it a balanced budget.   Shortfalls are projected based on previous actual revenue and previous actual expenses.   Revenues tend to fall short of expectations (people shopping elsewhere or moving out of tax area) and expenses go up (overtime for law enforcement,  snow removal,  government overpaying,  etc).  If balanced budgets are law, how does the state of Illinois go almost two years without one?