Budget crisis unsolved

No 'partial' budget, says Quinn

07/01/2009 10:00 PM

By NICHOLAS MORONI
Contributing Reporter

No Comments - Add Your Comment

Lawmakers in Springfield failed to strike a budget deal Monday and Tuesday, leaving state government, as it started its fiscal year on July 1, with no resolution regarding its deficit, state-funded social service providers staring down cuts and the fate of a bill that would pay for capital projects across Illinois in limbo.

Governor Pat Quinn told lawmakers Tuesday in a video posted online that finding new revenue — the governor has called for tax increase — was “imperative” to balancing the budget and fully funding the social service providers. “Partial budgets are not what adults do,” he said.

“We cannot have a situation where we have commitments to children, to veterans, to seniors that are not properly funded,” Quinn said. “There’s $4 billion of obligations there.”

At area social service providers, staff and clients were nervously awaiting word about the budget’s resolution.

“Some of our clients are aware. They did go down to Springfield and participate in a rally,” said Dr. Jewell Oates, executive director the Women’s Treatment Center, 140 N. Ashland, a group that helps women beat substance abuse addictions. “My staff is concerned. This is their employment, their livelihood. They’ve called their legislators and written e-mails and so forth. Everybody is anxious.”

The group is slated lose 75 percent of its funding from the Dept. of Human Service’s Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, its biggest single funder.

“We’re still waiting to see what’s going to happen after yesterday,” Oates said in an interview Wednesday morning. “Everything is up in the air.”

The situation in Springfield remains fluid and uncertain. “In this business things can change within an hour and a half,” said Rep. Bob Biggins (R-41st).

On Monday, the House voted 101-7 for a bill that would pay for social services by borrowing $2.2 billion to meet pension obligations, and thus freeing up that money for social services.

“It’s an important step towards a down payment, but it’s not enough,” said Rep. William Burns (D-26th), whose district includes parts of the South Loop and downtown Chicago.

The plan would have paid for social service groups around 70 percent of the funding Gov. Quinn sought by proposing tax increases which were voted down in the House on May 31.

The Tribune reported Quinn praised House lawmakers for passing the bill but then successfully lobbied against its passage in the Senate.

Previously state legislators had proposed cutting funds to many social service organizations as a means to balance the state’s budget. But members of the General Assembly heard an array of concerns and qualms from constituents on both sides of the issue.

Though Rep. John Fritchey (D-11th) voted against Gov. Quinn’s proposal for a 50 percent income tax hike he did state, in a letter to constituents, that he believes “the only sustainable source to [state] revenues will come through an increase in the income tax.”

Fritchey vowed to only support such a measure if property tax relief was provided and lawmakers dealt with educational funding issues.

Other lawmakers were digging in against any tax hike.

“I’m hearing from people that are taxed to death,” Rep. James Durkin (R-82nd)

Durkin expressed “sensitivity” to the issue of slashing social service funding, and advocated the need for bipartisan negotiations “to reform pensions and Medicaid” as a step in the right direction towards balancing the budget.

Rep. Michael Zalewski (D- 21st) said he supported the idea of a two-tier pension system. A new state employee would not get the same retirement benefits as longtime employees under such a system.

Zalewski also called for reform in Medicaid spending — the largest single state expense, accounting for 40 percent of general fund appropriations — and a freeze in hiring as necessary courses of action.

Nonetheless, social services could remain the sacrificial lamb in the General Assembly’s effort to balance the state budget.

“If people think that by cutting these programs sick people will go away, they’re wrong,” Feigenholtz said.

A slash in social service funding could prove counterproductive. Reducing or eliminating many of the services provided by these agencies could end up costing families and the state more money in the future.

For example, a senior citizen receiving assistance at home from a social service agency costs the state significantly less than placing that individual in a private institution.

“They reduce the state’s long term fiscal responsibilities,” Rep. Burns said of such providers.

Oates, from the Women’s Treatment Center, said legislators can lose site of what such services mean to everyday people.

“They don’t understand what these programs mean to clients,” she said. “Not a day goes by when women don’t thank me for the Women’s Treatment Center being there.”

Micah Maidenberg contributed reporting.


No Comments - Add Your Comment