a c t F i n d e r

F
Spending Limit or Blank Check?
Why HJRCA 61 Isn’t Right for Illinois
Myth
HJRCA 61 is a sound spending limit that will help return fiscal responsibility to Illinois.
Fact
HJRCA 61 is more akin to a blank check than a spending limit and
will do little to control fiscal excesses or protect Illinois taxpayers.
Controlling the future growth of government Graphic 1 shows the difference in spending
Budget & Tax Brief

spending is key to solving Illinois’s budget levels between HJRCA 61 and a better-crafted
crisis. Done properly, tax and expenditure limits spending limit. Both are based on a per capita
are a good way to ensure that government personal income growth spending factor, but
outlays do not grow faster than the public’s the strengthened spending limit differs from
ability to pay. HJRCA 61 in two key ways: 1) the spending
growth limit takes affect in FY 2011, and 2) the
All spending limits are not created equal, pension payment and debt service are included
however. A closer look at HJRCA 61 shows within the spending cap.
how the measure, far from being a true
spending limit, could act as a “blank check” for Over the 2011 to 2024 timeframe, HJRCA 61
runaway government spending. permits $132 billion more in spending than

Graphic 1. Growth in General Fund Expenditures under

HJRCA 61 vs. a Strengthened Limit (FY 2014 to 2024)
58000

53000

48000
Millions of Dollars

43000

38000

33000

28000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Source: Commission on Government Forecasting Fiscal Year Strengthened Spending Limit **
and Accountability, Illinois Policy Institute. Madigan Spending Limit (HJRCA61) *

*Spending limit is tied to 5-year average annual change in per capita personal income and starts in FY2014. Pension
payment and debt service have been added to general spending baseline as HJCRA 61 excludes them from spending
limit; sum of operational spending, pension payment, and debt service indicated by red line.
**Spending limit is tied to 5-year average annual change in per capita personal income and starts in FY2011. The blue
line is inclusive of pension payments and debt service.

Kristina Rasmussen is the Executive Vice President at the Illinois Policy Institute. J. Scott Moody is a Senior
Fellow for Budget and Tax Policy for the Illinois Policy Institute. The Illinois Policy Institute’s Fact Finder series
aims to debunk myths about public policy issues that affect Illinois.
 Page 2 of 2

the strengthened spending limit ($632 billion

vs. $500 billion). This is largely due to the fact
that the additional revenue from a 66 percent
income tax increase would be factored into the
spending baseline before the limit goes into
place. Should the governor decide to utilize the
“limit busting” emergency spending provision
in HJRCA 61, the potential for more spending
is even greater. Under HJRCA 61, it is unlikely
that funds would be available to fill a budget
stabilization fund or provide taxpayer relief.
This is especially true if the state adds to its
debt service costs by passing billions in new
borrowing.

Keeping major liabilities (like the pension

payment) within the spending limit, while
preventing the baseline spending year from
being artificially inflated, would help ensure
Under “excess” revenues above the limit are available
to help pay down debt, fill a budget stabilization
HJRCA 61, fund, and then be returned to taxpayers. These
are prerequisites for an effective spending
it is unlikely growth control measure.
that funds
would be
available to
fill a budget
stabilization
fund or
provide
taxpayer
relief.