CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in The US House’s plan for the states

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

HwyFundingGuy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:07 -0000

The ammendment for 180 days allowance for obligation instead of 90-120 days to obligation for contract award will mean highway projects will not turn dirt or pay cash out the door until June 1, 2010 in central and norther states. Obey is falling for the pay now, deliver later culture in Federal transportation funding. Oberstar was right to limit to 120 days to award. How about getting the states to accelerate their performance on existing Hwy moneys to meet this year's construction season as the method for initial money out the door stimulus.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Capitol View — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:32:59 -0000

All of this spending will help reduce overdue reimbursements, but the federal dollars cannot be counted into the new state base of annual revenues. Most of the dollars are for one or two year duration, a true economic stimulus for the crisis of the moment.

The appropriate state government response would be to seek a State Constitutional Amendment making our income tax graduated rather than flat, and then when the federal dollars run out at the same time the new constitutional amendment becomes effective, set the tax rates based on what state government needs now and into the future to maintain esential services.

But a gas tax now may be a good idea, to keep us thinking smaller and more fuel efficent cars even if the price of gas drops a bit more in the future. We dropped the ball back in '73 after the Saudis finished retooling their oil retrieval processes (while blaming the stoppage on pro-Israel foreign policy by the west.)

Broadening the sales tax onto more services is also long overdue, and reflective of the overall economy of the past twenty years or more.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

47th Ward — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:26:02 -0000

I'm very late to this discussion, so apologies in adavance.

I was at Sen. Bond's hearing Friday and read the executive summary of Obey's federal Appropriations Committee report. It's my understanding that the federal stimulus is intended purposefully to guarantee capital spending that otherwise would have occurred in 2009, financial meltdown notwithstanding.

Think of it as a loan guarantee for $500-800 billion in new spending for all 50 states. Illinois' share will be decided via formula like all other states. Those states that can process the funds on to entities that contract for the work will get the money (aka, disbursement for "shovel ready" projects). Those states that don't commit funds within 90-180 days lose the federal funding.

Bond's hearing was to encourage all of Illinois' eligible entities to prepare realistic projections in order to capture the maximium amount of federal stimulus funds. Water and sewer projects, school construction, maintenance, roads and bridges, etc., all are eligible for funding. Cullerton and Bond offered everyone a chance to submit ideas for how Illinois can best utilize this short-term funding.

I am a huge fan of transit, especially high speed rail. Nothing that is happening with the current stimulus package is a threat to longer term capital projects. This is an emergency stimulus plan designed to use federal dollars in place of other dollars during this crisis so people keep working.

Unemployment is projected to increase, perhaps to 9% or 10% by the end of 2009. The Obey report projects a need to infuse as much as $850 billion in public funds to replace the anticipated loss of $850 billion in nonpublic Gross Domestic Product spending, so people keep working.

We're in an emergency situation, and this a short-term fix. It only guarantees current projects will continue. It does not preclude new, smart programs that also will encourage economic growth.

Back to Illinois: the federal stimulus still does little to erase the current state spending deficit. Illinois will see a bottom-line benefit on Medicare spending/match in the current fiscal year, but we still owe billions to providers. Nothing in the federal stimulus helps greatly in repairing Illinois' structural deficit.

Illinois still has to consider some dramatic and costly operational changes, on the management, spending and revenue sides. Given the billions needed to begin to catch up with currnet obligations, Illinois will still grapple with the need to increase taxes. Even with the federal stimulus, our state and country still must travel a long road to recovery.

"What we have here is a big (deleted by Miller) sandwich, and we're all going to have to take a bite."

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

wordslinger — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:39:13 -0000

Folks, for the past few months, we've been in the land of "In Case of Emergency: Break Glass."

We have to go all in here to save capitalism. It's all paper at this point, anyway. Roosevelt got in trouble during the Depression because he didn't go all out; he kept trying to cut spending at any glimmer of economic growth, and then the economy would tank again.

This is the easy part. The pain is going to come when we have to contract this greatly expanded money supply to hold off inflation. That's going to be tricky.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Angry Chicagoan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:00:11 -0000

Here's a great breakdown of the two rival House plans so far -- the very solid and well thought out legislation from the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, and the pig-in-a-poke from Appropriations. The T&I plan has a higher share for transit AND a more stringent provision for rapid stimulus than Appropriations. Full details at http://t4america.org/news/a...

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Angry Chicagoan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:22:36 -0000

Also, Amtrak is severely short-changed; this is vastly short of the authorization passed in October and doesn't even fully cover operating expenses. Talking Points Memo has a good write-up on this.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Highway Man — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:49:23 -0000

anonymous 45:

automobile = oil based? Maybe today but with every automaker working on plug in hybrids and electric vehicles that equation will probably change. Light rail has it's place but it is completely unrealistic for the majority of the state, or do those citizens living in these areas not count?

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

IDOT'er — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:01:06 -0000

anonymous 45:

There are 9 Highway districts in the state. Only one has an extensive rail transit system, and another one has a little bit of rail transit. All the other districts either have no transit or are served by bus (which uses ROADS) where transit exists. Your implied suggestion to ignore road repair in the stimulus package is unacceptable to the vast majority of residents of these districts, who also happen to be VOTERS.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

VanillaMan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:12:32 -0000

I'm cynically optimistic.
I expected worse.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Splitendz — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:06:07 -0000

Let's hope that the capitol plan does not inspire nation-wide "pay to play." Whether or not the projects are ready to go will make no difference. The Blago types are smelling $$$ in the air.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Six Degrees of Separation — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:58:16 -0000

Angry-

I reviewed St Louis' $900 M Metrolink proposal and it definitely does NOT fit within the 180 day shovel ready time frame, if the legislation stands as now contemplated.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Ben — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:54:56 -0000

Railfan:

I'll take a little of that global warming the last few days!

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Angry Chicagoan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:43:40 -0000

I'll add that the other programs in areas such as education and health seem very well thought out, and could potentially cover a very large share of state and local budget deficits over the next two years.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Angry Chicagoan — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:42:45 -0000

I'm still not even close to satisfied that the figure given for transit comes anywhere near to covering all projects that are approved and shovel-ready. The state of Missouri alone lists more than $5 billion in upcoming transit projects, including the $900 million Metrolink expansion in St. Louis that just got voted down by the narrowest of margins in November's referendum due largely to voter disgust over the Metrolink prior project management, the flashpoint being an ill-conceived lawsuit against a contractor that resulted in a counter-suit from the contractor that the contractor won big on.

More generally, Obama has a political problem here due to the fact that the word "transit" just isn't in his stump speech. It's always just "roads and bridges," along with references to energy policy. And now we see that in the budget proposal.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Anonymous45 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:28:47 -0000

IDOTer: you just said what people interested in alternative transportation fear the most about middle management IDOT employees fixation on road building and repair with stimulus money...Newsflash: The oil based economy is over!
We need a real assessment of the feasibility of repairing the thousands of miles of roads in the state and compare it with light rail infrastructure...your logic is off kilter ...just because roads are the most used mode of transportation doesn't mean we should spend all the stimulus money repairing this mode of transportation to the exclusion of others...I hope the regional planning organizations will be called upon to weigh into the question of how best to use this stimulus money to keep the state competitive, and afford an improved quality of life for it's citizens including clean air and transportation choices that do not rely solely on the automobile...

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

IDOT'er — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:12:30 -0000

Railfan:

Prairie Parkway is not a candidate for the stimulus package. All projects I am aware of are "off the shelf" shovel ready projects to fix existing roads and bridges. And there is definitely $1 billion of needs to do just that, on the most used mode of transportation in the state.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Bill Baar — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:12:16 -0000

Charlie...you have no idea how people very high in gov can get tangled on that question.

Wild to see Foster joining with Bush Dog Kirk to keep Blagojevich's hands off the bucks.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Phil Collins — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:07:08 -0000

The federal government shouldn't send any money to state or local governments, since that spending isn't mentioned, in the Constitution. Some tax money, that is earned in Illinois, is sent to Washington, DC, and, later, some of the same money is sent back to the same state or city from which it came. Each year, the federal government gives about $350 billion (about 10% of the budget) to state and local governments. Congress should eliminate that spending, and, since they would cut spending by 10%, they would also pass an across-the-board 10% tax rate cut. When all taxpayers have lower federal tax rates, state and local governments could change their tax rates, to ensure that they receive enough money.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

TaxMeMore — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:02:47 -0000

You got me there. Nothing solves ignorance and appeasement on the part of the public and media, I guess.

We're more of an autocracy in Illinois than a Republic. How many years of Madigan? Dictatorship isn't as far fetched in the course of human events as you might think.

Politically, yeah, you'd probably need to be a dictator at this point in time in Illinois to start cutting all the patronage and make-work and useless and wasteful and redundant agencies and departments and jobs in state government and below.

The people that get money from the government give money to the candidates so they can get elected and give them more money. Both corporate and union. Look at People's Bank giving Blago $30000 a month after he was arrested. They have no shame or consequences when they do it either.

We could do it, but people have to start getting informed and start being accountable to their fellow citizens. People's Bank should be out of business today after their customers learned about that donation and realized it was also their responsibility to do something about it by withdrawing their money.

You are right, its not politically possible and won't be until we can solve our problem of being fools for political promises and meaningless words.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Rich Miller — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:01:25 -0000

Good question, Charlie.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Charlie Wheeler — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:58:06 -0000

"Medicaid Aid to States (FMAP): $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent..."

Question-- Is this a 4.8 percent increase in the federal match, i.e., to 52.4 percent from 50 percent in Illinois' case, or an increase of 4.8 percentage points, to 54.8 percent for Illinois? The difference could be significant; Comptroller Hynes estimated last October each percentage point increase was worth $80 million to the state, at current spending levels.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Mommy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:51:02 -0000

Actually I think the people of Illinois need a "bailout". Not these programs

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Mommy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:47:59 -0000

We get close to the same numbers every year. We give we give and we give but every year they always ask for more. Why don't we make change and so NO MORE. We don't have the money.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

Rich Miller — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:42:30 -0000

===We could easily cut government by 25% AND take care of our own that need it.===

Yeah? Tell me how to "easily" cut state gvt by 25 percent, and not your goofy Bears stuff, either. By "easy," I mean politically simple, which is the only way it can "easily" be done. This ain't a dictatorship, it's a republic.

Re: The US House’s plan for the states

TaxMeMore — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:39:53 -0000

If the Chicago Welfare Sox (and Bears etc) are still feeding at the trough, then yes, you can cut spending and balance a budget now. (I know its pocket change, just making a point that not every penny spent by government should be assumed to be necessary.)

And you can do it without touching a penny going to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick and disabled, or upholding individual rights and the law or any basics of society. We could easily cut government by 25% AND take care of our own that need it. And we could stop taxing poor people completely if we really cared about helping poor people more than we do spending money on useless things.

Bring all of our troops home and you cut 10-15%, while adding new blood and innovation to the economy right along with the tax cuts to the poor and middle class. From Iraq AND Afghanistan and Germany and Japan and Australia and England and everywhere else.