Safe Roads Amendment would set bad precedent
I'm going to vote against the Safe Roads Amendment and I think you should, too.
The question on Illinois ballots Nov. 8 asks voters to amend the state Constitution to guarantee that revenue generated from transportation-related taxes and fees be spent exclusively on transportation-related purposes.
The measure's formal name is the Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment. In order to become law, at least 60 percent of Illinois voters must approve the question.
The measure enjoys broad bipartisan support from business groups, contractors, unions and politicians. Many other states have adopted similar measures.
The group, Citizens To Protect Transportation Funding, is leading the campaign in support of the measure.
“Over the last 10 years alone, $6 billion has been swept from Illinois' Road Fund because of waste and mismanagement in Springfield,” the group says on its website.
“If the amendment passes, transportation funding will be secured, and we will have the chance to make long overdue investments in our infrastructure. If the amendment fails, money for transportation will continue to be at risk of mismanagement and abuse by Springfield.”
There's no organized opposition to the question. No one is raising millions of dollars in contributions to pay for television ads and mailers encouraging people to vote against it. The level of political muscle behind the support is one reason I questioned the motive for the amendment in the first place.
This is one of those times when I realize I'm taking an unpopular position on an issue. I'm all for safe travel and improving roads and bridges. The measure also affects spending on mass transit, railroads, airports and other transportation projects.
I fully support rebuilding our state's infrastructure and using public money for jobs that create tangible, lasting public benefits.
However, I believe amending the state Constitution is the wrong way to guarantee funding for transportation projects. You don't use a hammer to swat a fly. A better solution would be for lawmakers and the governor to do their jobs by approving full-year, balanced budgets.
The Safe Roads Amendment may sound like a good idea, but it would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other interests like education, health care and public safety to “lock in” revenues. That would remove flexibility to deal with emergencies.
Only four members of the state legislature voted against placing the question on ballots. The four lawmakers — all women —said in an opinion piece that “enshrining this type of language in our state's core legal document undermines the ability of elected officials in the future to respond to the challenges of the day.
“If a school can't open because of insufficient funding, what good is the new state road that runs by? How are farmers served by new bridges if our state universities aren't educating the next generation of agricultural experts? A new bus or train line won't help a young parent get to her job or class if she can't afford safe, reliable child care,” the legislators said.
On Monday, the Better Government Association announced its opposition to the Safe Roads Amendment.
“While the maintenance of roads and other transportation infrastructure is important, the BGA doesn't agree that a constitutional amendment is the right route,” the nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization said.
Among its reasons for encouraging voters to oppose the measure, the BGA said, “legislators should be focusing on passing a clean budget, instead of protecting specific types of funding” and “the amendment complicates our already struggling budget negotiations and benefits a specific industry.”
In early September, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board urged readers to vote against the measure.
“The diabolical effect is that contractors, and the unions whose members they employ, would have constitutionally guaranteed dibs on future billions of state and local revenue dollars,” the Tribune editorial said. “You've seen how rigidly the constitution's pension protection clause forbids public pension reforms? Well, the pavement protection clause would be just as rigid.”
Since Gov. Bruce Rauner took office, Illinois has been in a perpetual state of financial crisis. The legislature and governor refused to agree on a budget for more than a year. Public universities, college students and beneficiaries of social service providers are suffering the worst effects of the impasse.
Kindergarten through 12 education was fully funded, and courts demanded Illinois pay public safety personnel and other state employees. Before passage of a six-month stopgap budget, 90 percent of state spending continued, though there wasn't enough money to pay everyone, and there still isn't.
I'd hate to find ourselves in this situation year after year, where elderly people die because the state won't pay their caregivers but instead uses funds to build a turning lane that shaves 30 seconds from someone's daily commute.
I bet legislators led by House Speaker Michael Madigan are just waiting to get through the Nov. 8 election before agreeing to a budget that raises taxes, hoping voters will have forgiven or forgotten by the next statewide elections in 2018.
A constitutional guarantee of transportation funding could lead to other special interests seeking — and getting — the same protections. Nearly every legislator likes to be viewed as an advocate for education, so it wouldn't surprise me if unions representing teachers sought a constitutional amendment guaranteeing their slice of the pie.
Who could argue the critical need to fund salaries for law enforcement and corrections officers? And how about doctors, nurses and other health care providers? Aren't their services more important than road builders?
Logically, then, constitutional protections should be prioritized in terms of importance. To parlay a classic Monty Python skit, we don't need constitutional amendments guaranteeing money for the Road Fund any more than we do for the Ministry of Silly Walks.
Yes, tax dollars should be spent on the purpose for which they were collected. Yes, it is important to fund roads and other transportation projects.
But that's the job of the executive and legislative branches, to figure out how to best spend the money available. Constitutional amendments should be reserved for ironclad provisions. One example would be ensuring the process of redrawing legislative district is fair and equal for all.
I think it's outrageous that opponents managed to get the Independent Map Amendment tossed off Illinois ballots this November. It's insulting to be presented with the Safe Roads Amendment instead. If you want to use your vote to protest the gridlock in Springfield, vote “no” on the Safe Roads Amendment.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
