State Rep. Zalewski pledges to pass state budget that does more with less
In the coming days and weeks, state lawmakers will begin the process of
crafting a state budget. The passage of recent budgeting reforms by the
General Assembly now help ensure an end to business as usual when it comes
to how the state spends tax dollars.
No longer will the budgeting process start by taking the appropriations
made to state agencies from last year and simply add more funds. These
agencies will have to justify the need for all of their spending requests
and learn how to do more with less than before.
Under the new budgeting process, the House Revenue Committee will be
tasked with determining actual anticipated revenues that the state will be
able to appropriate. When the Revenue Committee determines anticipated
revenues, the House appropriations committees will be given a finite
spending limit. In short, we can’t — and won’t — spend money that isn’t
there.
As a member of the Revenue Committee, I will be in a unique position to
help hold the line on state spending by acting as a fiscal watchdog over
the House appropriations committees.
Just like a family that has to live on a budget, the state must also start
to live within its means. Through my work on the Revenue Committee and in
my other duties as state representative, I pledge to do everything I can
to help pass a state budget that does more with less.
Mike Zalewski,
State Representative,
21st District
crafting a state budget. The passage of recent budgeting reforms by the
General Assembly now help ensure an end to business as usual when it comes
to how the state spends tax dollars.
No longer will the budgeting process start by taking the appropriations
made to state agencies from last year and simply add more funds. These
agencies will have to justify the need for all of their spending requests
and learn how to do more with less than before.
Under the new budgeting process, the House Revenue Committee will be
tasked with determining actual anticipated revenues that the state will be
able to appropriate. When the Revenue Committee determines anticipated
revenues, the House appropriations committees will be given a finite
spending limit. In short, we can’t — and won’t — spend money that isn’t
there.
As a member of the Revenue Committee, I will be in a unique position to
help hold the line on state spending by acting as a fiscal watchdog over
the House appropriations committees.
Just like a family that has to live on a budget, the state must also start
to live within its means. Through my work on the Revenue Committee and in
my other duties as state representative, I pledge to do everything I can
to help pass a state budget that does more with less.
Mike Zalewski,
State Representative,
21st District
Biased challenges result in non-active citizens
James Pluta of the Desplaines Valley News has done a public service by
highlighting what is becoming a pervasive tactic of challenging candidate
nominating petitions for little or no cause.
Until recently the major media has focused mostly on the high profile case
of Rahm Emanuel, but it is a more serious problem at the local level.
Under the guise of enforcing the letter of the law it is obvious that its
intent is to stifle political opposition.
Incumbents already have huge political advantages, such as name
recognition and the ability to raise campaign funds. apparently that is
not enough of an edge.
In a typical scenario, an accommodating stooge with little or no knowledge
of election law, is recruited to be a challenger.
Next is an election board consisting of a mayor, a village clerk and a
senior board member. How can this be seen as impartial? And even if a
mayor recluses oneself, a clerk on the board, whose position is appointed
by the mayor, can hardly be expected to be an independent voice.
Popular rhetoric encourages us to be active citizens, but biased
challenges will result in just the opposite.
Rahm Emanuel could afford to take his case all they way to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but an individual running for local office may not have the
means, or be willing to meet the cost of a court challenge.
Our electoral process should not be determined by the expertise or
influence of attorneys.
We, the electorate, should make the decision as to the worthiness of a
candidate.
Going forward, we must speak out whenever our right to make that decision
is being preempted.
Clarence J. Zima,
Willow Springs
highlighting what is becoming a pervasive tactic of challenging candidate
nominating petitions for little or no cause.
Until recently the major media has focused mostly on the high profile case
of Rahm Emanuel, but it is a more serious problem at the local level.
Under the guise of enforcing the letter of the law it is obvious that its
intent is to stifle political opposition.
Incumbents already have huge political advantages, such as name
recognition and the ability to raise campaign funds. apparently that is
not enough of an edge.
In a typical scenario, an accommodating stooge with little or no knowledge
of election law, is recruited to be a challenger.
Next is an election board consisting of a mayor, a village clerk and a
senior board member. How can this be seen as impartial? And even if a
mayor recluses oneself, a clerk on the board, whose position is appointed
by the mayor, can hardly be expected to be an independent voice.
Popular rhetoric encourages us to be active citizens, but biased
challenges will result in just the opposite.
Rahm Emanuel could afford to take his case all they way to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but an individual running for local office may not have the
means, or be willing to meet the cost of a court challenge.
Our electoral process should not be determined by the expertise or
influence of attorneys.
We, the electorate, should make the decision as to the worthiness of a
candidate.
Going forward, we must speak out whenever our right to make that decision
is being preempted.
Clarence J. Zima,
Willow Springs