Do you know which propositions are supported by Dems & which by Pubs?

[Paula Sims]

I'm trying to find information but it's all so muddled.

[beachbumbob]

1. The proposition to create a lockbox on highway funds

So no political party can sweep the funds for other uses...It's for the citizens....not sure what proposition it is.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. In theory the lockbox promotion sounds . . . . Good

But not in practice.

The only "lockbox" that i support politically is for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Illinois' roads are a mess, but what we really need is a nationwide refurbish, upgrade, and modernization of all infrastructure. Roads, bridges, rail, airports, energy, water, sewer, internet, and there are even more.

[frazzled]

5. I've decided to vote No on it

Mainly on the grounds that this sort of budgetary decision should not be part of the Constitution. It is a legislative matter, and should not be written in stone into a document that will affect future generations, who may be faced with entirely different circumstances and needs. We've already seen the mess created by the amendment passed decades ago that makes it entirely incapable of having even minor flexibility with future pension needs. Even with the support of unions, we are unable to rework systems created long ago and that don't entirely conform to current needs. Jerry Brown was able to return California to solvency after the recession by making these kinds of adjustments and compacts in unison with public unions. Our hands are tied, and many are suffering because of this situation. Who knows what transportation needs will be like in the future. Constitutions should be about general rights that should exist in perpetuity, not fleeting fiscal matters.

Slap me if I am wrong.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. I won't slap you since I also voted against it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

3. Here's some info on the Transportation Lockbox Amendment

https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Transportation_Taxes_and_Fees_Lockbox_Amendment_(2016)

I'm leaning "no" on it. That's the status quo. In theory it seems like a good idea to spend tax money only on the things it's nominally collected for but our budget situation is such a giant clusterf**k this seems like a way to give Rauner more leverage cutting services to the bone while giving the building industry (who've thrown a lot of money at pushing the amendmend) a huge windfall.

Opposition
Chicago Sun-Times said: "Nobody would be talking about lockboxes if our pathetic Legislature and governor would only come to terms on a new state budget that responsibly balances spending and revenue overall. No one doubts that transportation projects are in a sorry state in Illinois, with roads and highways in need of billions of dollars of repairs even as money collected from a gas tax, tolls and license fees is spent elsewhere. But the solution is a budget, not a shell game. A lockbox is nothing but an admission of failure, and we urge you to vote the idea down November."[25]

The State Journal-Register said: "In other words, voters could pass this amendment, have remorse down the road and find themselves stuck with it for a long time. Let's also remember that efforts to fix a major source of Illinois' budget woes in the first place — its ballooning pension obligations — have been stymied as well by the strictness of the Constitution. ... This constitutional amendment only hamstrings our already beleaguered budget and benefits a specific industry. Voters on Nov. 8 should reject the simplistic, feel-good appeals and cast the wiser, long-term choice: No."[26]

[ILFightinDem]

4. The vote to send to the voters for ratification passed 98-4 in the House, and 55-0 in the Senate

On the surface, that sounds pretty bipartisan, doesn't it?

It appears that the amendment is very popular - polls show it is likely to pass.

Like the other poster, however, I don't think I'm on board with this - it removes flexibility, in case funds are needed for some major catastrophe, etc., and I don't think every piece of legislation should take the form of an amendment to the state constitution - not this, anyway.

Here's a link to some info on it.

http://nprillinois.org/post/illinois-issues-transportation-lockbox-could-come-unintended-consequences#stream/0

Not sure if the above will show up as a link or not

As far as I know it's the only proposition that made it to the statewide ballot. There was a second one that was anticipated, but that didn't get the support that this one did from the legislature (I actually think the appellate or Supreme court nixed it, IIRC)

[Stuart G]

7. I will be voting ...NO..

The legislature and whoever is governor need leeway to spend funds in an emergency..for whatever that "emergency" is. If the funds are there, there should be no "lock" on how to spend funds. It could be in education or funding of some sort of medical services that the state is involved in. In that "emergency" there needs to be the ability to spend whatever money is available....even though it may be earmarked for roads, or prisons, or whatever...........

..........This has been proposed and backed by the "road and street construction industries" for their benefit...