Balancing the budget; what will we cut?

It will be interesting to see just how Cook County government manages to balance out their budget for the upcoming fiscal year; what with the fact they now have a $200 million hole.

PRECKWINKLE: Looking for pop tax alternative

That is the amount of money the county would have expected to receive from the soon-to-be defunct pop tax, the penny-per-ounce charge on purchases of pop and other sweetened drinks.

AFTER NOV. 30, that tax won’t exist. So when the new fiscal year begins Dec. 1, there’s going to be a short-fall in anticipated revenue.

Are we merely going to see the county try to concoct some sort of alternative tax to replace the revenue they were expecting to get from the pop drinkers of the Chicago area? Or are we going to get some county agencies and programs get their funding levels cut to the point where essential services will be slashed?

County board President Toni Preckwinkle hinted throughout the barrage of propaganda put out by the American Beverage Association against the pop tax that health care services the county provides would suffer.

But Cook County Board members largely were not swayed by such arguments. In voting overwhelmingly to repeal the same pop tax that many of them voted last year to implement, they called Preckwinkle’s bluff.

TOBOLSKI: Eager to slash Cook budget

THEY’RE GAMBLING THAT there really is enough “fat” in government budgets that things can be cut without impacting essential services.

Either that, or they simply don’t care, or consider those services to be essential to them. They may just not care about the kind of people who actually have to rely on Cook County-funded services to maintain their health.

That certainly was the sentiment of county Commissioner Jeffery Tobolski, R-McCook, who earlier this week said he looks forward to cutting the county budget. “What we have (in revenue) is what we have to work with,” he said. “There are some tough decisions that have to be made.”

SUFFREDIN: Fears future tax hikes

Of course, the counter-point to that view was expressed by Commissioner Larry Suffredin, D-Evanston, who was one of two commissioners (the other being Jerry “the Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago) to vote against repealing the pop tax.

IN A STATEMENT he issued following the Cook County Board’s vote on Wednesday, he pointed out that one part of the pop tax was a promise that Cook County government wouldn’t consider raising any more taxes until at least 2020.

A move he said would have provided significant benefits to people living in the county. Now, they could face whatever alternate tax hike county officials concoct in their minds to try to make up for the revenue lost from the pop tax, which is necessary because, he claims, Illinois government owes Cook County some $186 million in reimbursements it hasn't been making -- which accounts for nearly the entire hole in the county budget.

In my mind, different taxes is a scary thought – one far more onerous than the roughly 20 cents extra I was paying any time I purchased a bottle of Coca-Cola (something I indulge in maybe twice a week).

BUTLER: Voted for pop tax AND against repeal

So now, county officials have the rest of October and November to figure out how to put together a budget that doesn’t leave Cook County government in serious debt come Nov. 30, 2018.

I KNOW COOK County Treasurer Maria Pappas said she offered up her portion of the county budget with a 10 percent cut in everything, and expects she’s now going to have to slash every line-item in her budget by another 2 percent.

Whether enough other officials are capable of taking such a hardline approach is questionable – I suspect many are trying to figure out what alternate item could be taxed. Of course, it has to be something that most people would feel wouldn’t impact them.

Anti-taxer mailings to pressure county commissioners continue, as now the activist-types want to ensure their desired spending cuts get imposed when the Cook County Board approves its 2018 budget sometime next month

Perhaps that is why some have suggested that the medical marijuana purchases now becoming common in parts of our state are a more acceptable item to tax.

It seems the image some people have of “deadheads” being forced to pay up is more acceptable to them than themselves having to pay whenever they buy a bottle of that beverage whose original recipe included a jolt from the coca leaf. Why else would we call it “Coke?”

  -30-

What happens if state government officials NEVER reach budget deal?

We’re nearly a month-and-a-half into Illinois government’s current fiscal year, and it has been about three months since the period in time when state officials should have been seriously negotiating about a budget for fiscal ’16.

As those of us who pay attention all know, none of that has happened. There isn’t any serious talk about trying to outline how the roughly $32 billion the state expects to have will be spent.

THE MONEY IS there. Tax revenues are being collected, as usual. There just isn’t a spending plan that dictates how all the money is to be allocated to the many services that government has an obligation to provide.

All we have got in the way of fiscal activity are  various moves by the governor and the Legislature that are more about partisan politics – moves that can be described in ways that favor oneself and try to place total blame for what is happening on the other side.

That seems to be the strategy – no one seems concerned about the lack of a budget. Even though the state Constitution specifically says that money can’t be spent without a budgetary plan put in place.

Except that there are certain functions that MUST be performed, even if government can’t get its act together to allocate their finances. Those tend to be the functions that have court orders that say a lack of funds is not sufficient reason to avoid doing something.

THEN, THERE’S THE fact that Gov. Bruce Rauner did sign off on the part of the state budget that covers public education programs. School districts across the state are supposed to begin this week receiving their funding for the upcoming academic year.

So that’s one part of government responsibility that will be performed.

In fact, the Chicago Tribune reported Monday that about 80 percent of the state’s money is being spent – even though much attention will be paid to the remaining 20 percent.

The problem we’re in is that we have state officials determined to view this as a political spat. They want to win the partisan war – and are all convinced that the public will view their own actions as heroic and place blame on the opposition.

ARE WE DESTINED to go through all of Fiscal ’16 without a budget ever formally being approved. Whether we realize it or not, that is a problem!

The issue is that without a budget, state agencies and programs that are able to spend money (including those employees who continue to get paid because the courts in the Illinois-based suburbs of St. Louis said they must) continue to do so at the rate of funds they had last year.

But this is the year the state seriously needs to make a few billion dollars in spending cuts, or approve some sort of tax increase (although I’m sure they have a toned-down term to describe their actions) to make up the difference.

The longer our government officials put off trying to seriously negotiate, the more likely it becomes that we wind up tapping into next year’s money in order to pay off this year’s debt. With the cycle getting worse and worse as time passes by.

THIS IS EXACTLY the kind of inaction that results in the ridiculously-low approval ratings our government officials get. There is no one who will “win” this partisan spat.

Some people want to believe that Gov. Bruce Rauner made it clear when he ran for office that he wanted to take on organized labor; and that his electoral victory last year somehow gives him the right to succeed. Considering Rauner has hinted he could approve some things to create more funds IF his anti-union measures are advanced makes me think he knows more money is a necessary component.

At what point does his desire to challenge the “veto-proof” opposition-party General Assembly on this issue merely constitute a contrarian nature and an ego run amok? For now, this is a fight he needs to put aside for the good of the state.

Perhaps if he gets a more sympathetic General Assembly in the future (and with all the money he’s coming up with for GOP legislative candidates, that’s obviously his goal), then he’ll be in a position to force his organized labor opposition agenda on the people of Illinois without gumming up the works of government operations.

  -30-

Stroger ‘eradication’ more important to county pols than a simple policy

We’re coming up on that time of the year when the Cook County Board has to put together a budget for the upcoming year, and officials seem determined to want to say that they’re erasing the memories of former board President Todd Stroger.

STROGER: The contempt remains

Even if that winds up complicating their best efforts to approve a spending plan for county government that comes close to being balanced.

FOR BOARD PRESIDENT Toni Preckwinkle’s budget director told the City Club of Chicago this week that there may be a combination of fee increases and select tax hikes to raise more money for county government.

But this will come as Preckwinkle is determined to be able to say she erased from the books that increase in the sales tax in Cook County that Stroger pushed for during his time in office to try to balance out the books.

That was the increase that pushed the overall sales tax in Chicago to over 10 percent, and was the continual rallying point for Stroger’s opposition – most of whom were really opposed to him because of the way he got elected and were never willing to forgive him for it.

County officials have been decreasing their share of the sales tax in recent years, and this is the year that the last 0.25 percent of Stroger’s increase is supposed to be removed.

AFTER THIS YEAR, our government officials will be able to boast that they rescinded a tax increase that was incredibly unpopular (not that any tax increase is ever considered desirable).

But it seems that perhaps Stroger and his allies (he does have them, whether you want to believe it or not) were right in thinking that the revenue from that increase was necessary if there is to be a balanced budget for Cook County government.

We may well be in a situation where our county officials do away with a portion of the sales tax so they can claim they’re looking out for our best interests and will have something solid to show for it.

But then we’ll be told the equivalent of not looking too hard behind the curtain, on account of the fact that there may be other tax and fee increases that will get passed to make up for the lost revenue.

EITHER WAY, IT seems we’re going to have to pay. It’s just a matter of which fund our money gets paid into. From our perspective, it all comes out of the same wallet.

Which makes all of this seem like a lot of partisan bumbling that won’t save us anything of significance. Except that those of us whose political hang-ups concerning Stroger will be appeased.

A minor concession, if we still have to pay more.

Although I’ll concede that we don’t know how much more, since county officials are refusing to be specific about what they have in mind. We’ll probably learn for sure what will be done come that date in December when the county board gives its approval to an actual budget.

WE’LL BE KEPT in the dark until then, in all likelihood. I’m not sure that any ding to Stroger’s reputation is worth this trade-off.

Then again, it seems that almost anything is acceptable to people, so long as Todd comes off on the bad end.

Take the legislative election taking place on the West Side, where former state Rep. Derrick Smith (the representative who was expelled from the Illinois House) is the Democrat on the ballot who faces an independent challenger.

That challenger, recruited by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, turns out to be a former chief of staff to Stroger.

WHICH HAS SOME (including Preckwinkle herself) thinking that having a legislator who faces charges of soliciting bribes in U.S. District Court is less embarrassing than backing someone with ties to Stroger.

Either way, the situation comes across as embarrassing to all.

  -30-