Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Open thread
Next Post: “Now youse can’t leave”
Posted in:
* Today…
What could add even more to the fund is passage of HB 4118, sponsored by @RepHalpin … HB 4118 would send $200 million into the fund at the end of each fiscal year or whatever is necessary to ensure the rainy day fund is 5% of the state budget. #twill https://t.co/3vHdQ2iITJ
— Illinois Comptroller (@ILComptroller) August 15, 2022
* Synopsis…
Amends the State Budget Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois. Provides that “general funds” or “State general funds” as used under the Act includes the Pension Stabilization Fund. Amends the State Finance Act. Provides that for fiscal year 2024 and subsequent fiscal years, any transfers into the Budget Stabilization Fund may be transferred to the General Revenue Fund in order for the Comptroller to address outstanding vouchers, and shall not be subject to repayment into the Budget Stabilization Fund if the bill backlog as determined by the Comptroller on June 30 of that fiscal year exceeds $4,000,000,000.
More from the bill text…
If the amount of the backlog of bills reported by the Comptroller on June 30, 2023 and each June 30 thereafter is an amount less than $3,000,000,000, on the last day of each month of the next fiscal year, or as soon thereafter as possible, the Comptroller shall order transferred and the Treasurer shall transfer from the General Revenue Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund the lesser of (i) $200,000,000 or (ii) the amount necessary to maintain resources in the Budget Stabilization Fund that is equal to 5% of the total general funds revenues of the prior fiscal year, in equal monthly installments.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Open thread
Next Post: “Now youse can’t leave”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is it really a rainy day fund if the reason why those monies are available is because the state isn’t hiring enough staff to achieve their agencies’ missions?
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:08 am
Meh. Falls under “simple solutions are usually neither” corollary. Yes, it would be nice to always throw 200m into the fund at the end of the year. But not every year is fiscal ‘22 and if a recession hits or a spending pressure emerges, the statute would have to be undone, creating a roll call problem. Glad it was held.
Comment by Stung Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:15 am
It’s literally a transfer out of general funds into a special fund and back into GRF. No one would notice it if there waa not a press release, and increasing the size of the transfer can actually limit how much cash Comptrollee has on hand to issue warrants.
Put it towards the employer contribution or principle and interest. That would at least do SOMETHING to save the state’s cash balance and payables.
Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:27 am
Better yet, why don’t we just require that the GRF lapse amount is transfers to BSF at the conclusion of the lapse period? If the Governor can’t spend what’s appropriated to him, it is considered a surplus and it goes to BSF.
When most families have an unexpected surplus of funds, as a best practice, they put that money into savings to get them through a hard time. Why shouldn’t State government be mandated to do the same?
Comment by Budget Bob Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:49 am
But, but, aren’t all Democrats irresponsible tax and spenders? What next? Balance the budget?
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:52 am
===Better yet, why don’t we just require that the GRF lapse amount is transfers to BSF at the conclusion of the lapse period?===
Lapsed amounts aren’t actual cash. From JRT through BVR, GRF lapses were often “imposed via diktat” due to revenues being less than projected / unanticipated expenses (match requirement for federal disaster aid).
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 9:59 am
It’s always nice to build up the rainy day fund, but the applicable question is how does the State provide adequate services AND contribute to the fund?
Comment by RNUG Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 10:08 am
Pay…the…pensions (the actuarial amount, not the politically-expedient amount).
Comment by Travel Guy Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 11:56 am
It seems to me there are still plenty of problems that need to be fixed before we divert 5% of the budget to a reserve fund just because. I’m not big on government sitting on reserves in the first place. Either spend the money on necessary services, or give it back to the people.
Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 1:59 pm
This bill isn’t soup
Comment by walker Monday, Aug 15, 22 @ 5:30 pm