Illinois State budget nonsense
I’m changing my planned posts for tonight and for tomorrow night. Tonight’s post deals with a news story published in the Peoria Journal Star on May 13, 2010, page 1A and continued on page 7A. The headline: “Quinn pushing state to borrow.”
On Monday, April 26, 2010, I posted the following under the title of “Cut, Cut, Cut.”
“As in most States, the Governor of the State of Illinois presents a budget to the Illinois General Assembly and then the General Assembly passes an approved budget. In Illinois, that budget is supposed to be passed by the end of May and is supposed to be balanced based upon the following Constitutional provisions.
1) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (a):
‘The Governor shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly … a State budget for the ensuing fiscal year. … Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!
2) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (b):
‘The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!
And yet, the talk at the beginning of the year was for a 13 billion dollar deficit. Deficit? Where is a deficit allowed in the planning and implementation of the fiscal year budget?”
“In tonight’s post, I’m going to give the specific target for the amount of money that needs to be cut from the proposed budget. This is based upon the Constitution, sound economic theory, and practical experience from following my own budget and being a member of a school board for 4 years in a State where the school boards could not spend any more money than was allocated to each school board.
The first criterion is: ABSOLUTELY NO money will be spent on any NEW program. It is the height of folly to spend money on new programs when there is not sufficient money to spend on already existing programs.
The second criterion is: Set the priorities for State spending from the HIGHEST priority to the lowest priority. One being the highest. 5000, or whatever the last priority is, being the lowest.
The third criterion is: Allocate money from the highest to the lowest priority to meet the needs of each priority until the estimated money runs out. If the allocations run out at the 3,450th priority, cut all of the less important priorities out of the budget.
The fourth criterion is: Adjust the allocations as needed, if needed. If more money needs to go from some higher priorities to lower priorities or money needs to be taken from lower priorities to be allocated to higher priorities, make those needed adjustments.
The fifth criterion and last criterion as well as the most important criterion is: Obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois. “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” This is the TARGET! If that means cutting 13 billion dollars from the budget, then cut 13 billion dollars from the budget.
TARGET set! PROBLEM solved!
As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the estimated funds of the State.”
Quoting some portions of the above mentioned news story:
“Springfield—Gov. Pat Quinn said Wednesday that borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise and accused his Republican gubernatorial opponent, state Sen. Bill Brady, of creating ‘Chaos’ to defeat a pension-borrowing plan.” (page 1A)
“Lawmakers abruptly left Springfield (the State Capital—my addition) Friday without approving a spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1. There is no schedule for them to return to finish, but unless the Democrat-controlled Legislature passes a budget by May 31, they’ll need Republican votes to do so. (The budget is suppose to be passed by the end of May. If it is not, the number of votes needed to pass the budget increases—my addition)
Three times last week, the House rejected plans to borrow money to make a required $3.8 billion payment to the pension systems next year. Quinn said that was a mistake.
‘We have to borrow. I’ve said that from Day One,’ he said. “Every state in the union does this.’” (page 1A)
(I don’t know if his statement is true and, quite frankly, I doubt if he does. However, what every other State in the union does is IRRELEVANT! What is relevant is what the Constitution says about the budget and the Constitution specifically says: “The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” Do you read anything about borrowing money to balance the budget for the year in that statement? I don’t!—my addition)
“Quinn said the state can borrow money more cheaply than state vendors who are not being paid and are owed billions of dollars.” ( page 7A)
(Who isn’t paying State vendors? Who owes State vendors billions of dollars? You guessed it: the STATE of ILLINOIS owes these vendors billions of dollars!—my addition)
“No House Republicans voted for the borrowing plan.” (page 7A)
Do you suppose that the writers of the Illinois Constitution anticipated that some State Governors and an occasional State Legislature might attempt to finance a State budget through borrowing? You know they did! Here is everything written about borrowing in the Illinois Constitution in Article IX—Revenue, Section 9. State Debt:
“(a) No State debt shall be incurred except as provided in this Section. For the purpose of this section, ‘State debt’ means bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are secured by the full faith and credit of the State or are required to be repaid, directly or indirectly, from tax revenue and which are incurred by the State, any department, authority, public corporation or quasi-public corporation of the State, any State college or university, or any other public agency created by the State, but not by units of local government or school districts.
(b) State debt for specific purposes may be incurred or the payment of State or other debt guaranteed in such amounts as may be provided either in a law passed by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly or in a law approved by a majority of the electors (eligible registered voters—my addition) voting on the question at the next general election following passage. Any law providing for the incurring or guaranteeing of debt shall set forth the specific purposes and the manner of repayment.
(c) State debt in anticipation of revenues to be collected in a fiscal year may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 5% of the State’s appropriation for that fiscal year. Such debt shall be retired (paid for—my addition) from the revenues realized in that fiscal year. ( This is a key provision for the proposed “borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise.” The borrowing being proposed is in anticipation OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO PAY OUTSTANDING BILLS. It is NOT based upon “anticipation of revues to be collected!” If it were, there would be no need to place it within the budget as borrowing! It is being proposed because it is believed that the STATE WILL NOT have the revenue EVER in this fiscal year!—my addition)
(d) State debt may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 15% of the State’s appropriations for that fiscal year to meet deficits cause by emergencies of failures of revenue. Such law shall provide that the debt be repaid within one year of the date it is incurred. (This “emergencies of failures of revenue” MUST refer to revenue that had been anticipated in the obeying of the constitutionally required “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” or else the Revenue Article would have directly allowed borrowing to match expenditures. In others words, during the course of the fiscal year, some unforeseen drop in anticipated revenues occurred that makes it improbable, if not impossible, to balance the budget during the course of that fiscal year. Even in the case of unforeseen emergencies, the debt MUST be repaid within one year of the borrowing because of the unforeseen emergency. This allowed borrowing CAN NOT EVER be the case before the budget is approved for that fiscal year. CAN NOT EVER BE THE CASE!—my addition)
(e) State debt may be incurred by law to refund outstanding State debt if the refunding debt matures within the term of the outstanding State debt.
(f) The State, departments, authorities, public corporations and quasi-public corporations of the State, the State colleges and universities and other public agencies created by the State, may issue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are not secured by the full faith and credit or tax revenues of the State nor required to be repaid directly or indirectly, from tax revenue, for such purposes and in such amounts as may be authorized by law.” (This can’t apply to the present proposal because no sane lender would lend money to this State at this time without a “full faith and credit” guarantee or without the knowledge that the debt would be repaid with tax revenues. The State is in debt from years of overspending and they would be unable to secure an unsecured loan for billions of dollars. Not in this universe!—my addition)
The above is the complete provisions of Section 9. Show me where it is Constitutional for the State to include new, secured debt as a part of a new fiscal year budget. It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!
If in November, the voters of this State elect the present Governor and members of the State Legislature who want to continue our history of debt and increased taxation to allow increasingly out-of-control State spending, then the voters of this State deserve what will happen to this State!
As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually OBEY the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the ESTIMATED funds of the State.
I’m changing my planned posts for tonight and for tomorrow night. Tonight’s post deals with a news story published in the Peoria Journal Star on May 13, 2010, page 1A and continued on page 7A. The headline: “Quinn pushing state to borrow.”
On Monday, April 26, 2010, I posted the following under the title of “Cut, Cut, Cut.”
“As in most States, the Governor of the State of Illinois presents a budget to the Illinois General Assembly and then the General Assembly passes an approved budget. In Illinois, that budget is supposed to be passed by the end of May and is supposed to be balanced based upon the following Constitutional provisions.
1) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (a):
‘The Governor shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly … a State budget for the ensuing fiscal year. … Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!
2) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (b):
‘The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!
And yet, the talk at the beginning of the year was for a 13 billion dollar deficit. Deficit? Where is a deficit allowed in the planning and implementation of the fiscal year budget?”
“In tonight’s post, I’m going to give the specific target for the amount of money that needs to be cut from the proposed budget. This is based upon the Constitution, sound economic theory, and practical experience from following my own budget and being a member of a school board for 4 years in a State where the school boards could not spend any more money than was allocated to each school board.
The first criterion is: ABSOLUTELY NO money will be spent on any NEW program. It is the height of folly to spend money on new programs when there is not sufficient money to spend on already existing programs.
The second criterion is: Set the priorities for State spending from the HIGHEST priority to the lowest priority. One being the highest. 5000, or whatever the last priority is, being the lowest.
The third criterion is: Allocate money from the highest to the lowest priority to meet the needs of each priority until the estimated money runs out. If the allocations run out at the 3,450th priority, cut all of the less important priorities out of the budget.
The fourth criterion is: Adjust the allocations as needed, if needed. If more money needs to go from some higher priorities to lower priorities or money needs to be taken from lower priorities to be allocated to higher priorities, make those needed adjustments.
The fifth criterion and last criterion as well as the most important criterion is: Obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois. “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” This is the TARGET! If that means cutting 13 billion dollars from the budget, then cut 13 billion dollars from the budget.
TARGET set! PROBLEM solved!
As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the estimated funds of the State.”
Quoting some portions of the above mentioned news story:
“Springfield—Gov. Pat Quinn said Wednesday that borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise and accused his Republican gubernatorial opponent, state Sen. Bill Brady, of creating ‘Chaos’ to defeat a pension-borrowing plan.” (page 1A)
“Lawmakers abruptly left Springfield (the State Capital—my addition) Friday without approving a spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1. There is no schedule for them to return to finish, but unless the Democrat-controlled Legislature passes a budget by May 31, they’ll need Republican votes to do so. (The budget is suppose to be passed by the end of May. If it is not, the number of votes needed to pass the budget increases—my addition)
Three times last week, the House rejected plans to borrow money to make a required $3.8 billion payment to the pension systems next year. Quinn said that was a mistake.
‘We have to borrow. I’ve said that from Day One,’ he said. “Every state in the union does this.’” (page 1A)
(I don’t know if his statement is true and, quite frankly, I doubt if he does. However, what every other State in the union does is IRRELEVANT! What is relevant is what the Constitution says about the budget and the Constitution specifically says: “The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” Do you read anything about borrowing money to balance the budget for the year in that statement? I don’t!—my addition)
“Quinn said the state can borrow money more cheaply than state vendors who are not being paid and are owed billions of dollars.” ( page 7A)
(Who isn’t paying State vendors? Who owes State vendors billions of dollars? You guessed it: the STATE of ILLINOIS owes these vendors billions of dollars!—my addition)
“No House Republicans voted for the borrowing plan.” (page 7A)
Do you suppose that the writers of the Illinois Constitution anticipated that some State Governors and an occasional State Legislature might attempt to finance a State budget through borrowing? You know they did! Here is everything written about borrowing in the Illinois Constitution in Article IX—Revenue, Section 9. State Debt:
“(a) No State debt shall be incurred except as provided in this Section. For the purpose of this section, ‘State debt’ means bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are secured by the full faith and credit of the State or are required to be repaid, directly or indirectly, from tax revenue and which are incurred by the State, any department, authority, public corporation or quasi-public corporation of the State, any State college or university, or any other public agency created by the State, but not by units of local government or school districts.
(b) State debt for specific purposes may be incurred or the payment of State or other debt guaranteed in such amounts as may be provided either in a law passed by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly or in a law approved by a majority of the electors (eligible registered voters—my addition) voting on the question at the next general election following passage. Any law providing for the incurring or guaranteeing of debt shall set forth the specific purposes and the manner of repayment.
(c) State debt in anticipation of revenues to be collected in a fiscal year may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 5% of the State’s appropriation for that fiscal year. Such debt shall be retired (paid for—my addition) from the revenues realized in that fiscal year. ( This is a key provision for the proposed “borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise.” The borrowing being proposed is in anticipation OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO PAY OUTSTANDING BILLS. It is NOT based upon “anticipation of revues to be collected!” If it were, there would be no need to place it within the budget as borrowing! It is being proposed because it is believed that the STATE WILL NOT have the revenue EVER in this fiscal year!—my addition)
(d) State debt may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 15% of the State’s appropriations for that fiscal year to meet deficits cause by emergencies of failures of revenue. Such law shall provide that the debt be repaid within one year of the date it is incurred. (This “emergencies of failures of revenue” MUST refer to revenue that had been anticipated in the obeying of the constitutionally required “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” or else the Revenue Article would have directly allowed borrowing to match expenditures. In others words, during the course of the fiscal year, some unforeseen drop in anticipated revenues occurred that makes it improbable, if not impossible, to balance the budget during the course of that fiscal year. Even in the case of unforeseen emergencies, the debt MUST be repaid within one year of the borrowing because of the unforeseen emergency. This allowed borrowing CAN NOT EVER be the case before the budget is approved for that fiscal year. CAN NOT EVER BE THE CASE!—my addition)
(e) State debt may be incurred by law to refund outstanding State debt if the refunding debt matures within the term of the outstanding State debt.
(f) The State, departments, authorities, public corporations and quasi-public corporations of the State, the State colleges and universities and other public agencies created by the State, may issue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are not secured by the full faith and credit or tax revenues of the State nor required to be repaid directly or indirectly, from tax revenue, for such purposes and in such amounts as may be authorized by law.” (This can’t apply to the present proposal because no sane lender would lend money to this State at this time without a “full faith and credit” guarantee or without the knowledge that the debt would be repaid with tax revenues. The State is in debt from years of overspending and they would be unable to secure an unsecured loan for billions of dollars. Not in this universe!—my addition)
The above is the complete provisions of Section 9. Show me where it is Constitutional for the State to include new, secured debt as a part of a new fiscal year budget. It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!
If in November, the voters of this State elect the present Governor and members of the State Legislature who want to continue our history of debt and increased taxation to allow increasingly out-of-control State spending, then the voters of this State deserve what will happen to this State!
As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually OBEY the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the ESTIMATED funds of the State.
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 10:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home