Accountability for spending

By Jim Killebrew

[July 24, 2014]  Recently the Illinois Supreme Court ruled the state cannot override the State Constitution by diminishing the benefits of retired citizens who retired with 20 or more years working for the state and are entitled to premium-free health insurance. The effect of the change was to reduce the annuity amount of each person retired who previously met the requirements of retirement. The state argued they can violate the State Constitution because the state has “sovereign powers” and because the state is in such financial ruin they can override the Constitution and enact a law that defies the requirements in the Constitution. The Illinois Supreme court disagreed and said the practice the lawmakers cobbled together to circumvent the Constitution was not allowed.

We are in an election cycle where the economy is on the front burner. We are billions of dollars in debt and still the current Governor has presented a budget that calls for more spending than what the state will collect in taxes. The centerpiece of the Governor’s election platform has been raising taxes so the budget can be balanced. Of course his own party members rejected his plan for increasing taxes, at least until after the election in November, then of course if he wins, the lame duck legislature will likely follow his plan and the rest of the citizens of Illinois will enjoy more confiscation of their paycheck. If the politicians would simply look at the expenditures and the policies they have placed in effect, they would discover there are hundreds of millions of dollars that could be saved. There is one example of that savings that could be initiated simply by looking at the state labor contract.

The taxpayer carries a heavy burden. When government officials require more resources to take care of those who are in need, they oftentimes turn to the taxpayer and levy more taxes. For Illinois the tax and spend habit has left the state billions of dollars in debt.
 

In 1993 the federal government believed that it was important for a family member to provide care and services for their own family and passed the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to help with that task. A working family member could take a leave to care for another member of the family who was in need.

The Apostle Paul admonished the people to, "Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due." He continued, however, "Owe no one anything…." (Romans 13:7-8).

An example of needless expenditure can be found in the contract the state has with at least one Union's actions.

One of the largest public unions, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has pulled a coup for its members. In their past Illinois contract for 2008 - 2012 in Section 26 Maternity/Paternity Leave, it stated, "All male bargaining unit members who show proof that their spouses have received prenatal care in the first twenty weeks, with notification to the Employer within 24 weeks, will be eligible for four (4) weeks (20 work days) of paid paternity leave."

What a nice little package for time off for the fellow to be home an extra month with pay. Taxpayers outside of the government employment should be so lucky. For state employees it is not just maternity/paternity; it is any medical need that the employee can justify. For those outside of Illinois employment the usual practice is the FMLA allows for non-paid time off.

Multiply these extra months of paid time off scored by the Union for each of the state employees in Illinois and see how many multiple millions of dollars get added each year to the already bloated budget deficit. Taxpayers should write to their local representatives and ask for an accounting of this and other similar practices.

This is simply one example of how the state negotiates contractual agreements that cost the taxpayer more money. When one looks around for the accountability in expenditures for the money given to thousands of agencies in the state, it is difficult to find any true accountability. The tax and spend formula gets votes for the politicians; the social welfare programs usually start their budgets as a build-on from last year’s budget as the base. Who is it in the government who looks after the actual expenditures of the people’s tax money?

[By JIM KILLEBREW]