Quinn plan requires legislative help

Gov. Pat Quinn’s new budget plan sends at least one clear message: Lawmakers, we have to do this together.

Unfortunately for Quinn, lawmakers seem ready to turn down the challenge.

Quinn outlined a budget Wednesday that features plenty of borrowing, pushes off old bills, makes spending cuts and raises taxes to close a budget gap estimated at $13 billion.

A closer look shows that he truly can’t do much of the plan without lawmakers’ aid.

Nearly every area of his proposal – pension reform, borrowing money and raising the state’s income tax – would require separate legislation, essentially forcing lawmakers to share in the painful decisions. So not only would they have to approve the budget overall, they’d also have to change state law in other ways to make it work.

That’s a turnaround from last year, when lawmakers essentially gave Quinn big lump sums of money and a lot of discretion to make the budget work for the foreseeable future.

The reality this year, Quinn’s administration argues, is much different.

‘Efficiency cuts’ already made

“A lot of these cuts illustrate the point that these efficiency cuts have already been made,” Quinn’s budget director David Vaught said last week in an interview with The State Journal-Register’s editorial board.

“That is the difference from mandated programs and ones that really cut muscle and bone out of state government. They have statutory support and legislative support. And they are a lot harder to cut.”

Examples of the forced “cooperation” are apparent throughout the plan.

Quinn’s plans to cut prescription drug assistance would need legislative approval. Scaling back Medicaid eligibility requirements? Check. Cutting local governments’ share of state income tax revenue? Check.

To bring in more money, Quinn wants to borrow nearly $5 billion – covering everything from taking money temporarily out of special state funds with surpluses to selling off rights to the state’s annual tobacco settlement proceeds. All would need separate legislative backing.

The administration also wants to create a new system of slimmer pension benefits for new employees and use some initial savings to cover part of the budget hole. That would need legislative approval as well.

And then, of course, there’s the income tax increase – this time a 1 percent surcharge dedicated to preventing big cuts in education.

Legislative support doubtful

How much support Quinn gets from lawmakers on any of this remains to be seen. There’s no doubt it will be an uphill climb.

The Senate passed a Quinn-initiated tax increase last year, but the measure stalled when House Speaker Mike Madigan refused to let lawmakers vote on it. Madigan has already said a tax increase probably won’t go anywhere this spring either.

Republicans, meanwhile, are resistant to help Democrats pass a tax hike in an election year, which Vaught said “is one of the biggest excuses used in Springfield.”

“We believe this crisis is bigger than the election,” Vaught said. “These are not problems in November, they are here now and today. We have to take action.”

State Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, said the same could be expected in terms of Republican support for the rest of Quinn’s ideas.

“We’ll see whether or not any of these cuts materialize, because they didn’t last year,” Murphy said. “Last year, he had a lot of things he was going to cut that were contingent on other steps being taken – whether it was in the courts or negotiations with contracts or legislation – and none of that materialized.

“We ended up growing the deficit by $2.5 billion.”

Democratic doubts

Even Democrats have their doubts the governor’s proposal will gain any sort of traction.

State Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, said the state’s deficit makes it all the more difficult to expect bipartisan cooperation.

“(Quinn) could have done this in a number of ways, but he did it in a way that reflects the difficult times we are in,” Sullivan said. “Does he expect to have the controversial parts of this budget enacted? Well, yeah, in an ideal world. But he’s a realist. … I would say that proposal is going nowhere.”

Another option lies in lawmakers giving Quinn lump sums of money again, said state Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley. That option essentially puts the burden back on Quinn to distribute the funds as he sees fit.

Mautino, though, said unless the state wants to fall further into recession, changing the laws may be the only way out.

“This budget will take cooperation from the House and Senate on many different levels, and some reductions will require a change in statute,” Mautino said. “I think we will have to do some of those. But if we don’t have the ability to cooperate, we can always do lump sums. That is the fallback.”

Quinn’s plan is also likely to set off a wave of lobbyist action in support of saving agency dollars.

Diana Rauner, executive director of the children’s advocacy group Ounce of Prevention, said she will continue to pressure Republicans to cooperate in passing Quinn’s income tax.

Anders Lindall, a spokesman for the American Federation of State, Civil and Municipal Employees, said AFSCME will likewise put pressure on the House to raise income taxes.

“We are less interested in petty politics and jockeying for position than we are in good public policy,” Lindall said. “Fixing the state budget crisis protects the economy.”

Brian Feldt can be reached at 782-6292.

Budget ideas that require changes in state law

*Creating $2,500 tax credit for each full-time job a small business creates

*Selling a portion of the state’s rights to tobacco settlement proceeds to receive about $1 billion.

*Increasing income tax from 3 percent to 4 percent to fund education

*Reducing benefits in the employee/retiree group health care plan

*Creating separate pension system with slimmer benefits for new hires

*Cutting prescription drug assistance

Read the original article from The State Journal-Register.