He might have a valid point.  People will have to accept the change eventually, especially when they realize they funded it indirectly.  While many Chicagoans have been munching on sentimentality cookies, Mayor Daley and Chicago government have been busy making this change happen with the help of some taxpayer money–money that could have been used to put real food on your table (not just “tradition steak,” either).  Through the use of tax increment financing (TIF), Chicago taxpayers have subsidized Willis’s move to Chicago to the tune of $3.8 million.  That’s 22% of the company’s estimated $17 million moving and renovation costs.

“You mean we paid to make this name change happen?!”  Yup, at least partially.  Hope you like it!

“Why would the city do such a thing?”  To develop Chicago’s struggling real estate market, of course. “The companies just don’t want to invest,” according to Alderman Fioretti. “It’s an economic development tool.” Indeed, tax-increment financing has been used extensively to promote “economic development” in “blighted” areas, like run-down public schools. Or the Sears..er…Willis tower on Wacker drive.  In downtown Chicago.  In the heart of the Loop.

“Why wouldn’t companies want to invest?”  Well surely it’s not because of the high tax burden, government subsidization, and ballooning bureaucratic business regulation (as outlined in our most recent Policy Point on Cook County).  Sometimes, if the stars aren’t aligned, you just need a few million to sweeten the deal.

“Why didn’t I know about this?!”  Well, the city didn’t want to upset us over such a sentimental issue.  Plus, this is important economic development.  They figured as long as we are busy chowing down on tradition steak, we won’t care.  What we don’t know can’t hurt us, right?

On the contrary.  This is a case in point for transparency in all aspects of government spending, especially in the highly discretionary slush fund created by TIF.  How about keeping us in the loop when spending in the Loop?

But this isn’t just about transparency. It’s about failed economic policies.  Somewhere along the way, Chicago decided that they could compensate for their anti-business policies by giving subsidies to “special” organizations, like Willis and United Airlines.  However, if taxes and regulation were low, businesses wouldn’t need special incentives to open up shop.  They would come here on their own. Cook County is making a step in the right direction by repealing the County sales tax.  Maybe they’re starting to realize that wealth reallocation through taxes like TIF is not the answer to our problems.  More economic liberty is.

Kudos to Progress Illinois for exposing this story–and for proving that transparency is a universal issue that affects all citizens, regardless of political views.

Next time you hear someone complain about the new “Willis Tower,” you may want to remind them that it changed with the help of their money.  Perhaps a sentimentality cookie will cheer them up.

Indeed, when government fails to post spending information online in easily accessible form, citizens are left to speculation—and rightly so.  For Obama, such pessimistic speculation could be harmful to his already slumping approval rating. In the same way, state governments risk political consequences when spending information is not readily available. One should rightly question any policy maker who refuses to make information transparent. The logic is straightforward: if you can’t show it to the taxpayer, then you must have something to hide.

Quite simply, transparency is good for both constituents and policy makers, Democrats and Republicans, state and national leaders. Read more about this important issue on our policy page.

This bill is a mixed bag, in terms of both its various projects and its approach to capital investment. Granted, this bill will likely help Illinois’s economy, but there are still many reasons to be skeptical of this spending.

First, $31 billion is a huge sum of money; some perspective is necessary.  Just last week, our attention was fixed on an $11.6 billion deficit that has yet to be resolved.  The proposed income and corporate tax hikes last month would have generated approximately $3.2 billion a year, only a tenth of the capital bill’s cost.  Moreover, this bill is about the size of Illinois’s 2009 yearly operating budget ($31.487 billion), a budget including all state human services, healthcare, law enforcement, and education. Many weeks were spent debating a tax hike, budget deficits, and spending cuts that are only a fraction of the size of this capital bill, yet it flew through the General Assembly straight to Quinn’s desk.  Don’t be surprised if this debt plagues future state budget debates.

Second, this bill is loaded with discretionary and special interest spending, raising the risk of waste, corruption, and pet projects. For instance, $500,000 will be spent to “attract waterfowl and improve public migratory waterfowl areas,” and $6 million will be spent on “grants and contracts to conduct research, planning, and construction to eliminate hazards of abandoned mines.” The News-Gazette reports, “About $500 million has been set aside for legislators to divvy up for their pet projects, but all those projects are supposed to be spelled out rather than kept secret.”  Let’s hope so.  An additional $1 billion is left to Quinn’s discretion, and “it’s not clear how he intends to spend it.” Reserving sums of money to the whims of lawmakers risks backdoor political deals and waste. The risk is greatly and easily diminished by making the entire process transparent.  The state’s JobsNow website vaguely tells us the projects (many are titled “general infrastructure”) and their anticipated costs, but it must stay current to the spending that is actually happening.

Third, this bill begins the process of funding a high-speed train system, a proposal with holes so big that you could drive…well, why don’t you just read about it in our recently released Policy Point on the issue. Capital investment is great, but let’s make sure the projects are wise.

We’re all hoping that this bill kick-starts an ailing economy and revitalizes necessary government services.  However, spending such a great deal of money requires complete transparency and careful, honest consideration of all projects involved. We hope to help with both.

Is this really what has to happen before government run agencies decide to publish their information freely and in an easily accessible way?  Must we have to file FOIA requests, only for them to be delayed or denied? (You can watch Adam Andrzejewski call out Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office on these delays and denials here).  It’s not that hard for these records to simply be published, something that the new FOIA legislation urges government offices to do, if they maintain a website.  There’s an important step, however, between legislative “urging” and actual online record. It’s called leadership.  Often times, it just takes one person, with a little influence and some elbow grease, to make it a reality.

It will be interesting to see what develops out of the Trib’s legal case.  In the meantime, check out their website section dedicated to transparency issues such as these.  And keep demanding access to your government.

Perhaps one of the best proposals is a twenty day time period where such earmarks can be evaluated by the public.  Government bureaucrats take there time with just about every administrative function; would it really hurt to give us, the taxpayers, a mere twenty days?

Transparency to earmarks would allow constituents the opportunity to provide feedback and accountability.  But, like the SJ-R says, “it’s not good enough.”

Holistic transparency is needed to encompass pork spending as well.  Put it online, and soon ordinary citizens will be empowered to discover such waste.  Responsible government does not happen without responsible citizens.  So, give the citizens the tools they need to be that responsible watchdog.

Pressure like that from the WSJ brought about progress on the national level today; imagine what it could do for Illinois.  Last week, SB 189 (an open records/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) amendment bill) was approved by both chambers. While it certainly falls short of some expectations, it does accomplish many needed goals: mandating FOIA exclusions, shortening the amount of time bureaucrats have to respond to requests, and formalizing the office of Public Access Counselor (PAC) to enforce such requirements.

Let’s be honest for a second, though.  How many of us are going to send some snail mail into Springfield to get spending records for our representative?  Not me.  This is the 21st century–let’s utilize that wonderful things called the internet to make Illinois finances more than just available, but accessible.  HB 35 can make that happen.

Illinois newspapers, it’s your turn.  Keep the pressure on, and keep writing.

In Illinois’s case, this unchecked spending manifests itself as $2 million for 3D education technology, $1.5 million for methamphetamine awareness programs, $151,000 for state fair livestock awards, and a host of other items.  These and many other examples of careless spending can be found in the Illinois Policy Institute’s analysis of pork in the 2010 budget.

Unchecked spending has a snowball effect.  Once legislators realize they can get away with “incidental” and “discretionary” expenses here and there, more careless spending will naturally follow. Federal expense statements are only published in print and not online  HB 35 is one small yet important step to prevent the financial abuse that is going on in Washington from spreading to Springfield. 

Stay tuned here at OpenIllinois.org for the status of HB 35 and other steps towards Illinois transparency.