Education is top priority of Senate candidates THE 80th General Assembly has tried to adhere closely to the very tight budgets proposed by Gov. James R. Thompson for two years. There have been no increases in state taxes, but as the California voters who approved Proposition 13 demonstrated, holding the line on spending may not be enough. To avert any wholesale tax revolt in Illinois, the 81st General Assembly will have to cut back spending wherever possible. In listing state budget priorities, most of the Senate candidates surveyed were in agreement on how the available tax revenue should be spent (see table 2), but few were willing to discuss specific spending cuts (see table 3). According to 78 per cent of the Senate candidates surveyed, funding of elementary and secondary education is the No. 1 priority in state spending for fiscal year 1980. Education is evidently the No. 1 priority for the current General Assembly, which has appropriated $19 million more for fiscal 1979 in direct funding for schools than the governor proposed. Education in Illinois in fiscal year 1978 was funded from three sources: 16 per cent from the federal government, less than 1 per cent from the drivers education fund and 83 per cent from the state General Revenue Fund. From the funds distributed in fiscal year 1978, $812,657,734 went to upstate schools and $477,533,844 went to downstate schools. The distribution of these funds is based on the school aid formula which included factors such as the average daily enrollment, the number of poor students enrolled and the amount of property taxes collected in the school district. The formula was revised by the legislature in June to give a greater percentage to downstate schools and so avoid the deficits resulting from the old formula (see "Legislative Action"). With so many Senate candidates eager to increase education funding, it will be as difficult next year as in the past two years for the governor to hold down education spending. The second priority in state spending according to Senate candidates (Republicans only) is the state highway system. Ten per cent of the Republican candidates, representing 5 per cent of all the candidates, would like to see more funds go to highway projects. This still ranks highways a distant second on the priority list. Highway projects in Illinois are primarily funded by federal aid and state bond money with other revenue coming from the state motor fuel tax, motor vehicle and operator license fees, and local and federal funds on joint projects. Out of the revenue generated by the motor fuel tax, 38.5 per cent goes to the state Department of Transportation (DOT) with the remainder divided between local government road projects and refunds to non-taxable users (mainly farmers who buy gas but use vehicles on their fields not on 24/August 1978/ Illinois Issues
roads). The budget for highway improvement for fiscal year 1978 was $666 million, and for fiscal year 1979 the DOT requested $675.7 million, a slight increase. To fund the highway projects that the state is already committed to for fiscal year 1980, the 81st General Assembly will have to appropriate more than the levels of the last two years. Unless a new source of revenue is found, a tax increase, possibly on motor fuel which is currently 7 1/2 cents per gallon, may be on the way. But, projects might be cut rather than taxes being increased — depending on the pressure from taxpayers. In an attempt to cut highway spending for fiscal 1979, an amendment was introduced this June in the Illinois House to strip all local road projects from DOT appropriations. The deletion of these pork barrel projects would have saved the state a great deal of money, but soon after the amendment was passed the sponsor, under pressure, rescinded it. (The legislature ended up appropriating $477 million more for DOT than requested, mostly in pork barrel projects.) The dilemma is always the same, everyone wants spending cut, but not "my project." The attempt, however, may be an omen of the future. Legislators may be ready to sacrifice road improvements for their districts in order to cut state spending.
There were only three other suggested priorities for state spending, each by only one or two candidates. These are social services, jobs and direct aid to the handicapped. Many of the Senate candidates were hesitant to discuss priorities, especially in the area of cuts. One candidate who was part of the 28 per cent that would not respond to the question on possible cuts, justified himself by saying, "How can you tell an inner-city Chicago family dependent on welfare that their public aid is being reduced in order to better educate downstate students?" Two areas of state spending appear as targets for cuts, according to the survey. One is public aid. Twenty-two per cent of the Senate candidates singled it out as a priority for cuts. The second area is a general trimming of government costs. Twenty-three per cent of the candidates said government administrative costs and salaries should be cut, and 12 per cent said there should be a cut in all state agency budgets. The Department of Public Aid (DPA) was the only agency specifically named by candidates in the survey question on spending reductions. The DPA is continually criticized for millions of dollars of state revenue lost each year because of welfare fraud. The critics of the DPA insist that proper administration would stop the welfare cheating. A way of solving the problem of welfare fraud has yet to be found. Since guidelines for most welfare programs administered by the state come from the federal government, along with the bulk of the money to make welfare payments, there is not much the Illinois General Assembly can do to cut welfare costs. With a total of 35 per cent of the Senate candidates willing to trim government agency budgets and cut administrative costs and salaries, the 81st General Assembly could cut the size of state bureaucracy to save money. Also named by one or two candidates for reducing spending were: public projects, pork-barrel projects, the naval militia, new projects, highway projects and busing projects. If the taxpayers' message is "cut spending" and relieve the tax burden, the 81st General Assembly will be faced with tough decisions next year and the year after. In order to stay within existing state revenues, priorities must be established for spending and for cuts. If the state attempts to alleviate the burden of local property taxes, it will either have to find new federal funds or dip into state funds to fill the gap in revenues for local government budgets. Summing up the issue of priorities in state spending, one incumbent senator said, "If the state had unlimited funds, we wouldn't need to be here, would we?"
August 1978/Illinois Issues/25
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
