Bad blood makes for bad policy in General Assembly’s budget exemption
Does bad blood between political leaders justify bad public policy? Most Illinoisans don’t think so, especially when the result is legislation that exempts their lawmakers from budgetary oversight. Earlier this year, at the midnight hour of spring session, Illinois’ legislative leaders carved out a special exemption for themselves from the state budgeting process. They enacted...
Does bad blood between political leaders justify bad public policy? Most Illinoisans don’t think so, especially when the result is legislation that exempts their lawmakers from budgetary oversight.
Earlier this year, at the midnight hour of spring session, Illinois’ legislative leaders carved out a special exemption for themselves from the state budgeting process. They enacted a measure that exempts the entire legislative branch’s operating budget from budget cuts. Moreover, the measure exempts the legislature from the need for annual appropriations by giving it a “continuing appropriation” for its spending authority at the current year’s level of approximately $120 million.
This measure violates the principles of responsible state budgeting; provides a special, self-serving exemption from budget review to the legislative leaders; tests the limits of constitutionality; received no public review or consideration prior to enactment; and was motivated by power politics rather than public service. The General Assembly should not be the beneficiary of a “no cuts allowed, no appropriations necessary” spending policy – this measure should be reversed so that the General Assembly is treated like every other state agency or office in the annual appropriation process.
Unquestionably, conflict among political leaders adds challenge and complexity to governing – and the conflict between the legislative leaders and the governor has been escalating for months, if not years. Some believe that this ongoing conflict justifies the lawmakers’ actions in this case.
But, in truth, political infighting must not be used as justification for the enactment of bad law and bad public policy. That is not healthy government. We all know and understand the old adage: two wrongs don’t make a right.
The first wrong
Let’s look at last year’s dispute between Gov. Pat Quinn and the legislative leaders. Quinn took the unfortunate action of eliminating, with a line-item veto, the $14 million in annual appropriations for the payment of legislators’ salaries. It was a political power play; unwise both legally and relationally. It did nothing to accomplish the stated goal of achieving pension reform, and did a great deal of damage to whatever positive relationship there was between Quinn and state lawmakers.
In response, House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton rightfully pursued legal action against Quinn in court. The court decided the matter in favor of the legislative leaders, rejected Quinn’s use of the line-item veto and ordered the legislators’ salaries to be paid. While Quinn later appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, the parties voluntarily moved to dismiss the appeal shortly afterward. The dispute was resolved. Nothing more was needed for the legislative leaders to win their point. The rule of law won the day.
The second wrong
The dispute could have, and should have, ended with the court’s decision in 2013. The governor included the appropriation for the legislators’ salaries in his budget for fiscal year 2015. There was no need to address the issue with legislation. But the legislative leaders wanted more, and chose to use the events of 2013 to justify carving out a whole new level of protection for their own spending authority.
At issue in last year’s legal dispute with the governor was the state comptroller’s authority to spend approximately $14 million for legislators’ salaries after the annual appropriations were eliminated by the governor’s line-item veto. The dispute had nothing to do with lawmakers’ authority to spend the funds appropriated directly to them for spending on legislative operations. There is a big difference: Legislators’ salaries are statutorily established, constitutionally protected and administered by the state comptroller; legislative operating expenses are simply the common, ordinary, day-to-day expenses of state government administered by the legislative leaders, which should be reviewed and adjusted from year to year as part of the budgeting process.
Yet Madigan and Cullerton, in Public Act 98-682, didn’t just aim to protect the authority of the state comptroller to pay legislators’ salaries. Instead of merely protecting the $14 million for legislators’ salaries (an action still not justified by the facts), they exempted their own $120 million spending authority for legislative operations from the scrutiny of the annual budget process with a broad “no cuts allowed, no appropriations necessary” spending policy. This, too, was wrong.
First, there was a political stunt depriving the members of the General Assembly their lawful compensation; next, a political stunt to give the entire legislative branch of government a free pass from budgetary review and reduction. Intellectual honesty requires us to look at each governmental action separately to judge its value and legitimacy, and one wrong act must not be used as justification for another. Bad blood is simply no excuse for bad public policy.