Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Law firm claims Amazon warehouse support beams in tornado-hit Edwardsville building “not properly anchored to the ground”
Posted in:
* The pension-funding angle is the absolute right fiscal take, and I made this very point to subscribers today. But if this was the obviously more politically popular option, the governor, Democratic leadership and the Republicans would’ve already demanded it. Hannah Meisel…
Two Democratic legislators who spoke on the condition of anonymity told NPR Illinois that the planned $50 [tax refund] checks were not terribly popular within either Democratic caucus, and predicted it wouldn’t be all that popular with constituents either.
One of the members said it was a total miss to not use the extra revenues — “a once in a lifetime opportunity” — to make a much bigger lump sum payment into Illinois’ pension systems than the $200 million contained in the budget deal. Along with $300 million in federal stimulus money committed to the state’s pension fund last month, the state will be saving an estimated $1.8 billion over the next few decades. But the member said it could have been much more.
“Every crisis we’ve had in this state financially has been caused by surging pension debt when we have down years,” the Democrat said. “And when we have down years, we’ve either cut spending on pensions, which has only made that problem worse, or we’ve cut back on essential services like education, healthcare and human services.”
The other Democratic member agreed, echoing Republicans’ favorite recent criticism to use against Pritzker.
“I think for people that make a substantial amount, a $50 or $100 check is not going to make much of a difference in their lives,” the member said. “I think those individuals might prefer to see the state putting that money to a different use, [like] investing in critical human service programs. It feels a little gimmicky.”
Of course it’s gimmicky. But one-time money should only be used for one-time things. Making an argument for putting that temporary cash into the permanent spending base will put us right back into trouble.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Law firm claims Amazon warehouse support beams in tornado-hit Edwardsville building “not properly anchored to the ground”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’m way to pragmatic in life (a known flaw) and so I totally agree with the above thought. Keep everyone’s $50 and send it to the pension debt or a more worthy cause.
What would have been the highest amount “possible” to send towards pensions? That number would have been a great campaign starter - “we paid an extra —- billion towards pensions this year”.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:32 pm
A lot of actions taken by legislators (federal and state), gimmicky or not, get forgotten in the short-term memory of voters. Despite this, the pols continue to try and try in their efforts to woo voters.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:32 pm
The $50 checks might trigger a backlash from some folks (maybe a lot of folks). It’s like someone leaving a 25 cent tip after a meal; it indicates cluelessness or an insult. Yes, it is helpful to some, but it won’t even buy a tank of gas, so it might well trigger lots of folks to wonder: Why did they bother? and Do they have any idea what they are doing?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:36 pm
“I think for people that make a substantial amount, a $50 or $100 check is not going to make much of a difference in their lives,” the member said. “I think those individuals might prefer to see the state putting that money to a different use, [like] investing in critical human service programs. It feels a little gimmicky.”
“Those individuals who might prefer” are apparently also “people who make a substantial amount”.
Tell me represent a wealthy area without telling you represent (or only care about) the people who make “substantial” amounts of money
No wonder they said it anonymously
Comment by people caring loudly Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:37 pm
===“a once in a lifetime opportunity” — to make a much bigger lump sum payment into Illinois’ pension systems===
This is a fun way of saying that as a taxpayer I can have $50 bucks now or I can contribute more tax dollars over the rest of my working career in order to fund the pension system. $50 isn’t even a dinner for 4 at Applebees. It isn’t even a full tank of gas. Why on earth would anyone get excited about a $50 refund and anyone who is able to track how our state’s public finances work also understands that later on much more than $50 of their tax revenue will be needed to address things that this $50 could have addressed now.
Perhaps we should ask the legislators to sit down at a table, present them with a marshmallow and tell them if they don’t eat it now they can have more marshmallows later so we can see how many of them eat it now and we can use the data to allow voters to make informed decisions.
I hope these people aren’t planning on running ads talking about how many marshmallows $50 will buy. I imagine there would be more appeal to running ads talking about how responsible the legislature has been with a surplus which would make the GOP look tone deaf when they attack the Governor for fiscal mismanagement.
Someone had an idea for refunds and by the time it got into it’s final version the refund was only going to be $50 and at that point they should have just recognized that the refund isn’t meaningful enough to prioritize and scrapped the idea of a refund. This is the kind of work that we should expect from a legislature that set the income tax rate at 4.95% so they could pretend that it’s a meaningful distinction from 5.00% for a middle class household.
“Good news, household that makes $50,000 a year. Your income tax rate this year is only going to be effectively 4.85. Celebrate responsibly!”
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:41 pm
Isn’t there a way to donate money to the State? Those who think that the money should be used for other purposes or are insulted by what they view as the small amount are free to return it.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:42 pm
“This is the right move, but cannot be pursue because politics.” - Never has a statement been truer and sadder. It’s why I’ve taken a step back from electoral politics, if I’m being honest.
Comment by SWSider Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:52 pm
I’d put all $2.8B into pensions and not do any tax cuts and rainy day fund contributions. You can’t tout the “huge” savings from prepaying a portion of the pensions and ignore the “gigantic” savings that would be had from paying it all into pensions. I see why they did it, but it comes across as pandering to me.
Comment by Jibba Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 12:55 pm
Totally ridiculous and only political in motives
Comment by White dynamite Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:00 pm
As the head of a single income family with 5 kids who makes less at his fulltime job (combined with his part time job) than any of these legislators make at their “part-time” legislator job I will happily take the gimmick. Not everyone has recovered from the pandemic and they are still struggling to make ends meet. $100, $200, $300 can make a huge difference to our lives.
Comment by The Real Captain Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:09 pm
It is ridiculous and gimmicky, and I’m glad that at least everyone paying attention to it seems to acknowledge that. But a big chunk of the persuadable voters in this state are swayed by this sort of gimmick.
I am disappointed that the Republican response was basically just more tax cuts instead of holding fast to their (ostensibly) fiscally conservative priciples and proposing devoting all the surplus to paying down debt. But they’re also lookimg to persuade the gimmick voters, I suppose, and cutting taxes always comes before the hard work of fiscal responsibility, no matter what the party platform says.
Comment by Benjamin Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:13 pm
Not a good enough idea to be classified as ‘dumb’.
Nor will it buy the goodwill it’s in search of.
Comment by A Guy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:17 pm
“I’d put all $2.8B into pensions and not do any tax cuts and rainy day fund contributions….it comes across as pandering to me.”
Finally funding our rainy day fund comes across as pandering? You have a funny definition of pandering.
Comment by New Day Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:17 pm
Missed opportunity for sure, but the fact that they are paying any additional amount beyond the minimum required payment toward pension liability is a huge step in the right direction.
Comment by SAP Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:18 pm
Go knock on doors in the real world and ask taxpayers if they’d like $50 of their money back or would they rather have more of their hard-earned tax dollars go to government pensions.
Comment by Unnecessarily Brittle Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:24 pm
The biggest and best trick in doing “gimmick-y” things?
You make the gimmick not be seen or taken as a gimmick at all.
It’s also the measure to gimmicks and honesty to intent.
I’ll leave it there.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:26 pm
$50? So basically a free tank of gas.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:32 pm
“Every crisis we’ve had in this state financially has been caused by surging pension debt when we have down years”…yep.
Comment by Boone's is Back Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:34 pm
oops…sorry for the dup about gas, I missed that Pot already mentioned that.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:34 pm
Completely agree. It is so “Illinois” to waste this opportunity to not fix a real problem for a tiny political gimmick that nobody will actually remember and provides no real relief either. Fixing the State long term would provide more benefits to average people then a few extra bucks.
Comment by Just Me 2 Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:35 pm
Giving everyone under $200,000 $50 is ridiculous. I am way under that and it is not a big deal in my life to get $50. How about everybody under $50,000 gets $250? Then it might count. But putting it all towards pensions is the best use of the money.
Comment by CaptAin Obvious Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:41 pm
===Finally funding our rainy day fund===
The tax cuts to me are clearly pandering. The rainy day fund is more of a difference of opinion. I see it as still raining outside. It is a waste to save money when our current debts are already costing us billions in interest. Getting debt free as an individual took effort and hard core discipline. JB has been good at that until now, and needs to stay the course.
Comment by Jibba Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:43 pm
@real - I understand your situation. And at the same time, if you never got the $50 or $100 you’d never really know it or miss it. I don’t think you set it up as an either or. You just go ahead and put a billion or two into the pension system and tout saving the state a ton of money down the road.
An aside - I got a raise at work this year. It’s the first increase I’ve received in four years and its about $35 (after tax) per check. I found it insulting. Heck - the head office didn’t even say anything about a raise, I figure because why pat yourself on the back about doing almost nothing.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:44 pm
It’s tough to believe that we need a tax increase, or that pension debt is a problem, when the leaders opt to distribute a one time-windfall.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:48 pm
They should’ve just moved the funding goal from 90% to 100% for TRS and SURS.. That would’ve saved more than $1.8 billion and would end the continued underfunding of those systems. Rating agencies would have loved that and it’s easy to then sell to the press and constituents that you are being fiscally responsible.
Comment by Frisco Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:49 pm
The legislature just adopted the worst of all political practices- giving voters walking around money on or before Election Day. This is legalized graft
Comment by Sue Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:50 pm
A cynical election year ploy by Democrats pretending to be benevolent tax cutters in sheeps clothing until they can raise them again after they are safely re-elected.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:53 pm
@real
As I opined yesterday, if they were intent on sending checks, the money should have been focused on folks who need it. Otherwise, it should have been used to pay outstanding debt, such as the pension funds or deferred maintenance.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:55 pm
How large would the gimmick be if the “Fair Tax” had passed….asking for a friend.
Comment by Gordon Willis Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 1:56 pm
=How large would the gimmick be if the “Fair Tax” had passed….asking for a friend.=
How much more debt could have been paid off if the fair tax had passed? If the extra funds had to be earmarked for pension debt for five or ten years after it’s passage I wonder if the desire to pass it would have been greater? But I often do think about the better fiscal position the state would be in with the progressive tax in place.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:00 pm
Gimmicky, eh? Kinda like a plan to give 97% of Illinois voters roughly $20 and loudly touting it as a tax cut. Wonder how that worked out.
Pritzker’s tenure has done some genuinely good things, but they get too cute with little stuff like this and then wonder why no one trusts them.
Comment by ChrisB Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:05 pm
==How large would the gimmick be if the “Fair Tax” had passed==
“There will be cuts and they will be painful”
-JB Pritzker, 11/4/20
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:14 pm
Here’s the thing;
If you’re of the belief the Fair Tax shoulda been defeated AND you also think this is a gimmick and the monies should go back to pay off debt…
… unless you’re in the 3%, you just got played.
It’s like a self-own that lets logic be ignored.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:19 pm
So add 20% to the 50 to get the checks cut and mailed now we have wasted 60 bucks that will not amount to a hill of beans to most people. And sending them out a few weeks before the fall election… priceless.
Comment by Nieva Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:27 pm
Illinois gloom pushers sure gonna gloom. This budget plan would give widespread relief in the form of tax freezes are property tax rebate, not just the $50 per adult. It’s meant to help lower-income people and children the most. It would help pensions and public safety. Looks very good overall.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:39 pm
If my income is too low to file a return, do I get a check?
Comment by Mr. Anderson Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 2:53 pm
“Illinois gloom pushers sure gonna gloom”
State Rank Total SLG debt per capita
N.Y. 1 $18,411
Conn. 2 $15,037
Mass. 3 $14,263
Ill. 4 $13,029
Comment by Downstate Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:23 pm
- Downstate -
Cite please?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:24 pm
Brittle: Government pensions will be funded, whether you think the state should honor its commitment to public employees or not. $50 now or $75 later, doesn’t matter. Pensions will be funded.
Comment by SAP Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:35 pm
OW,
www.governing.com/finance/state-and-local-governments-with-the-most-debt-per-capita
Comment by Downstate Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:43 pm
- Downstate -
That’s what I thought…
Which is greater… state debt or local debt… in Illinois.
We’re talking about Illinois *state* debt here and $50 dollars.
It’s also confusing why you still live here, why you do business in Chicago… it’s so terrible.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:46 pm
The House just passed the budget bill, onward to the Senate. Spelunk away, Illinois has improved a lot, all without right wing policies.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 3:47 pm
“Why you do business in Chicago”
I love this state. But I detest the leadership.
The relief bill is a perfect example of their ineptitude. Desperately needed relief in the form of a $50-$100 check will arrive when?
Per the sponsors, it will be delivered sometime in “late summer or early fall”.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 4:36 pm
===The relief bill is a perfect example of their ineptitude. Desperately needed relief in the form of a $50-$100 check will arrive when?===
Pandering and gimmicks are not Illinois exclusive, but in this instance it’s quite the silly idea in both execution and actual.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 4:40 pm
Rich, you said this very well: “But is this really good government? Frankly, I’d much prefer using all that extra revenue to further shore up the pension funds. The state is missing out on a huge opportunity to get ahead of this crushing debt.”
But more importantly, this: “Then again, I don’t have to run for reelection this year.” And therein lies the rub that explains the cynicism so many people such as myself (an Illinois and Chicago resident since I transferred to LUC in 1994) have about politics in general, and Illinois politics in particular. If you are going to pander - and that’s what this is - own it. Admit it. I’m over both parties explaining how they are here for us citizens, looking out for our best interests, etc. I know there are many who work at state agencies who put in the hours, do the work, support the most vulnerable, etc. And I respect and applaud them. But as my dad once told me, “Don’t pee down my leg and tell me it’s raining.” And the reality is, we have - and will always continue to have - lots of thunderstorms.
Comment by Just a guy Friday, Apr 8, 22 @ 5:22 pm