Legislative hopefuls talk state reforms
State Rep. Paul Froehlich and John Moynihan, both of Schaumburg, are competing in the Feb. 5 Democratic primary for the 56th state House seat. Froehlich, who was elected to the 56th District in 2006 as a Republican, switched his party affiliation midway through his term. The winner of the Froehlich-Moynihan primary will face the GOP candidate, Anita Forte-Scott of Schaumburg, in November.
Here is an excerpt of the questionnaire given to Froehlich and Moynihan.
Q. Illinois residents will vote in 2008 on whether the state should call a constitutional convention. Do you favor a convention? Why or why not? If yes, what constitutional revisions do you favor?
Froehlich: I was a chief co-sponsor of HR 25, which narrowly passed the House in June to support Con-Con. Illinoisans get only one chance every 20 years to bypass Springfield gridlock to address issues the legislature has refused to. Among the issues that should be addressed at the next Con-Con are these: Reform of school funding to reduce our over-reliance on property taxes; merit selection of judges, at least in the county of Cook; recall power for voters when it comes to state elected officials; open primary where voters do not publicly declare a party; a prohibition on pay-to-play for state contracts; limits on campaign spending.
Moynihan: I favor a constitutional convention. Efforts to eliminate public corruption have been uneven and largely unsuccessful. We should consider items designed to provide greater protection to the people from public corruption, such as term limits, caps on political contributions, restrictions on political contributions by those doing business with the relevant government entity, restrictions on patronage workers and transparent government spending.
Q. Do Illinois' ongoing budget problems have their roots in too much spending or too little revenue? Or in some combination of both? Please explain.
Froehlich: Illinois has a structural budget deficit in that the cost of just maintaining our current commitments grows faster than our revenues. The creation of new programs without new revenues aggravates the problem. Our three biggest state responsibilities are education, health care and pensions. The growth in pension obligations alone (due to the huge un-funded liability -- biggest in the nation) consumes almost all of the revenue growth.
Moynihan: I believe that the public's insufficient access to information and the related lack of accountability has resulted in too much spending in the past. The blank check mentality has resulted in expenditures growing at much faster rates than revenues, with the resulting budget battles including new taxes/fees as well as budget freezes on certain programs that can ill afford the freezes. The problem now is that even if we get current spending under control, we have a reported $45 billion under-funded pension obligation that we must start addressing now. Thus, the past spending decisions have created the current problem, which includes both too much spending and too little revenue to address the under-funded obligations.
Q. Do you favor any changes in the state's funding of schools? If yes, what changes? If you favor no changes, please explain why.
Froehlich: Illinois spends less on education than the EFAB recommendation, which is considered the minimum spending per pupil necessary to fund an adequate education. Because of our over-reliance on property taxes, Illinois has the second largest spending disparity between rich and poor districts of any state. The state's share of education spending reached a record low last year. I support reform of how we fund public education. The key components of reform are the following: A permanent reduction in property taxes, and; an increase in state taxes, and; accountability measures to better assure school districts are financially responsible, and; targeting new funding for programs proven to boost achievement.
Moynihan: I favor changes in the school funding. The state needs to provide a base level of spending for each school. Those amounts could be adjusted to reflect different costs of living in different locations. School districts that desire to spend more must be able to do so, but those increased expenditures cannot filter through to the state, such as through pension obligations. With the state funds should come fiscal accountability to a state entity. The career-ending raises designed to increase pensions are one example of why school boards should be held accountable for expenditures in the future before obligations become binding. They have the ability to dramatically increase the state's expenses, and, thus, must have limitations imposed on them to ensure we do not have uncontrolled expenditures imposed on the state or the people in the future.