CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in This just in…

Re: This just in…

A Citizen — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:30:00 -0000

Us all and our secret posts - bet some of you guys and gals also have secret handshakes! :.)

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:25:37 -0000

9:24 Anon post is by SDoS.

Re: This just in…

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:24:04 -0000

Little Egypt-

Thanks for the clarification...when Rich used the initials LE in his 3:31 post to refer to Legal Eagle, I immediately thought of you. Such is your fame here that you are known by your initials :-)

Re: This just in…

Little Egypt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:38:20 -0000

Six Degrees - I am not Legal Eagle. My legal expertise is limited to doing an on-line will, and not a good one at that. I'm pretty sure Rich has the ability to see who is who and where we are posting from.

Re: This just in…

Little Egypt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:30:49 -0000

Rich, I have sent an e-mail to you regarding Federal road funds with names of people and phone numbers you can contact to hopefully get the real story on what the State will lose, if anything, in Federal funding. Good luck.

Re: This just in…

Arthur Andersen — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:48:50 -0000

=== Sweeping existing surplus monies from special lobbyist funds is a start. ===

Oh Bill, come on. That is a rather "sweeping" generalization, dontcha think? Somehow, AA doesn't feel that the retired teachers, crime victims, and gas station owners, all of whom had their money swept by the big Filan broom last time, are "special lobbyists."

Further, "Surplus" is in the eye of the beholder. In the case of the retired teachers, they had just finished a renegotiation of the financing for their insurance program that required about $5 million per year in additional retiree contributions. The next day, Filan hits the insurance fund for, you guessed it, $5 million.

I agree with VQ-if there are too many funds, or surplus balances, go through the front door, and legislatively take them off the books.

Rich, while you're asking questions, AA has a couple:

How is the budget hole caused by no POBs going to be filled?

Speaking of POBs, how much would the State have lost if they had sold that $26 billion load a year ago?

Re: This just in…

Vote Quimby! — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:42:02 -0000

Just a note....there are consequences to sweeping the ==special interest funds== just ask any owner of an old gas station where the money is to help clean up the soil. I'm sure there are better examples, but this idea of 'free money' laying around is a bad one. If they're that bad, why not abolish them to avoid the temptation?

Re: This just in…

It's a Mystery — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:40:51 -0000

Scare Tactics - More like money for the "Rod Blagojevich Defense Fund".

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:26:46 -0000

Dumber 3:08:

Item #2 - The logic of a "growing road fund", presumably the state's Motor Fuel Tax account, escapes me. Everything I've heard is that statewide traffic counts in 2008 are down from 2007. Add in that people are buying more fuel-efficient cars these days, and the only logical explanation is that the state is holding the money instead of spending it on roads or diverting it to SoS, State Police as compared to last year.

Items #3 and 4 - See Rich Miller, 2:27 pm

Re: This just in…

Radical Moderate — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:19:17 -0000

There is no immninent loss of $9 billion, and Hastert, Poshard, and the Governor know that. They just want to scare people into action, so that is why they are not giving straight answers.

Federal money that has come to Illinois in the form of earmarks or formula funds (which is where most fed money comes from) is staying in Illinois. It isn't going anywhere, and it does not have to be used before the next "TEA bill" - Beltway code speak for a highway and transit measure - is written. There are many chicken littles out there who cry that the money will be reallocated, but out of Congressional courtesy Congress does not take money from old projects.

Where some money is lost is in delaying the start of projects, as the cost of concrete and steel is rising 10% percent a year. But the cost delay doesn't amount to $9 billion.

There are also people out there who say that northeastern Illinois will lose federal transit money if we don't pass a capital bill to provide a local match for RTA transit expansion projects - that could be where the $9 billion figure is coming from. While there are 10 RTA projects worth $8 billion proposed, maybe - at best - one to two of those projects will be selected for federal funding in the US DOT's competitive transit funding process. Why? Because there is just $6.6 billion nationally set aside for all transit expansion projects over five years.

By the way, local matches for highway and transit projects is a minimum of 20%.

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:18:29 -0000

Ghost-

Just checking, out of 370 Highway and Aeronautics projects on the June 2008 statewide letting, 15 had Project Labor Agreements.

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:01:23 -0000

Legal Eagle (LE could also be Little Egypt, Rich)

Federal Highway Trust Fund is a fixed 18.4 c a gallon, whether gas is $1 or $4. Nearly 3 c comes off the top for the Transit Account, and the rest goes to highways and some other tiny funds. It's a tax or user fee (whichever you prefer) that has been seriously declining as a percentage of the purchase price, as opposed to most other taxes or fees lately that have kept pace with or outran inflation.

And the usual state match for federal highway funds is 20%, not 10% except for "legacy" interstate routes built on the original interstate system before the 1980's. Federal transit fund matches can be as high as 50/50.

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:52:39 -0000

Ghost- I think you are referring to a Project Labor Agreement, which Federal funds are prohibited from being expended on. If I understand, only a handful of otherwise federally eligible transportation projects use these PLA's. They were basically a bone thrown at the trade unions.

Re: This just in…

Rich Miller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:31:40 -0000

LE, the state match is higher than that and the gas tax is based on gallonage, not price.

Re: This just in…

Ghost — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:28:58 -0000

=== Sweeping existing surplus monies from special lobbyist funds is a start. ===

I have to agree with that one. I still do not understand the hestiancy to have the special interests money included in GRF along with the rest of the money the people of Illinois pay.

Re: This just in…

Legal Eagle — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:27:23 -0000

There is enough money now at IDOT to make the federal match (what is it , 10%?). Rep. Hannig is correct on that. Illinois does not need the capital bill/gambling expansion to do it. Can the Trust Fund be going broke with gas prices approaching $5 a gallon?

Re: This just in…

Bill — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:16:52 -0000

Poshard's people are probably on Google looking for an answer to copy.
But seriously, folks,
Illinois needs not only the infrastructure repairs and improvements but the stimulus that all of those good jobs would provide. How do we fund it? Obviously, not by leasing the lottery, trying to rape Chicago for the cost of a new casino, or putting slot machines in tracks. Sweeping existing surplus monies from special lobbyist funds is a start. Follow that up with an income tax increase of 1% and extend sales tax to services and, viola, we're done. Pay as you go should make everyone happy, even the repubs who will be needed to override the veto. Let's get to work and get it done.

Re: This just in…

DumberThanYou Think — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:08:30 -0000

The best questions for Durbin, Speaker Denny or Froggy are:
1. why did they dump a plan opposed by the City on the legislature?
2. Doesn't the state really need to slip about $20 million a year out of the growing road fund balance to match the first phase of the fed bucks earmarked for IL?
3. Would Sen. Durbin --- the nation's #2 Senator --- allow IL to get the shaft in the fiscal year begining in October?
4. Would President Obama allow IL to get the shaft?
5. Are they happy the sleazes at Bear Stearns aren't involved in the new gambling deal
Get back to us with the answers pronto.

Re: This just in…

Rich Miller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:08:04 -0000

===or about $2.5 billion. That amount is within reach.===

And, from what I understand, doable with current Road Funds.

Re: This just in…

Ghost — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:07:11 -0000

Six the State can require contractors to sign onto what amounts to a master union contract for all employees on the worksite (even if they are not in the union)(I have forgotten the technical terms for these master agreements). This requires the employers to pull out union retirment, dues etc from the employees. The Feds prohibit this requirment, so if you put it on a project, you lose fed money. I am ware of a couple of projects in IL where the State elected to go without fed funds so that they could include this requirment. One invovled improving infrastructure leading to and around a casino.

Re: This just in…

Sir Reel — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:05:25 -0000

A point of clarification is needed because both the story and press release are misleading - surprise! The federal $9 billion Illinois is due is only for eligible federal highway and related transportation projects. My guess is, the $34 billion capital plan includes a lot more that has nothing to do with highways or transportation such as "urban renewal." If the problem is losing $9 billion in federal highway and transportation funds, then all Illinois needs is a capital plan that represents the State match to this $9 billion, or about $2.5 billion. That amount is within reach.

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:01:09 -0000

Ghost-

I am not aware of anything the state does to prevent its projects from being federally-eligible. That would be counter-productive, as you always want to go after the most restrictive funding sources for your projects and work your way backwards when the restricted pots run out. The state sometimes uses straight-state funds to avoid federal red tape, especially on engineering studies and land purchases.

Re: This just in…

Rich Miller — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:00:30 -0000

I've asked Poshard's people for a clear explanation for why, exactly, Illinois will supposedly lose out on this money and have never been given an actual answer.

Re: This just in…

anon — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:56:53 -0000

It is amazing that Hastert and Poshard seem to be the only people privy to the rules and availability of federal funding, and that everyone else (not a hyperbole) seems to be at a loss for the reality of the situation. But bureaucracy is designed to mystify not clarify.

Re: This just in…

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:55:42 -0000

Here's another one for you, Rich...

The state's highway and transit programs rarely exceeds $3 billion a year, even when the federal funding component is thrown in. Does this "$9 billion" figure, on top of the state/federal spending that is already accounted for, mean that we have 3 times our annual program waiting to be leveraged, in nearly the last year of the federal transportation bill? I think the $9 billion includes some money we're already spending or are going to spend regardless of a capital plan.