Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Charters say they’re doing pretty well
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* SEIU Healthcare’s child care analyst Beth Berendsen issued a statement to reporters yesterday about the governor’s push against the child care assistance program funding bill. I didn’t post it because, frankly, I’m trying to tone things down a bit and the rhetoric was pretty darned incendiary.
However, the numbers in the release are important, so do your best to look past the foaming at the mouth and instead skim through to the highlighted numbers…
The Bruce Rauner administration’s cynical political screed released today regarding Senate Bill 570, which reverses his arbitrary rules changes to the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP), exposes a shocking truth: That his unprecedented eligibility requirements, which have made Illinois dead last in the nation in providing safe and affordable child care to working parents, truly are destroying the program.
The Rauner justification, released in advance of an expected vote Nov. 10 on SB570 and most certainly meant to influence wavering members of his caucus, states that more than 90,000 children currently are receiving CCAP subsidies. This number represents a reduction of 80,000 in the average number of children served in the previous eight years. The 90,000 figure also represents a decrease BY HALF of the children that were served in FY2015. This is devastating.
What Rauner did today is reveal a program deterioration so rapid that it is a drop of 70,000 children being served in just three months— down from the 160,000 figure provided by the former state CCAP administrator, Linda Saterfield, in her August 11th testimony to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a statement that led to her dismissal for openly admitting that the impact of Rauner’s cuts would be “devastating.” She was right.
Recent research has shown that more than 1 in 5 children in Illinois are living in poverty, meaning more than 600,000 children. In Illinois, a recent report from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute showed that a full-time minimum-wage earner would have to spend 74% of their annual earnings on child care for an infant without assistance. And yet, under the rules justified in what Rauner released today, full-time minimum wage earners no longer qualify for CCAP. How can this be justified?
Work supports, including the Child Care Assistance Program, are vital to helping low-income parents continue to work and access high-quality child care which improve child outcomes and stability, goals to which Rauner has professed. But the number that Rauner now boasts about—90,000 children currently being served— represents a heartbreaking loss of opportunity for 90,000 others without his level of personal fortune. It also reminds us that he is interested exclusively in political power and has no concept or care in investing in real solutions to help the struggling families of Illinois.
Whether wittingly or not, what Rauner released today actually provides complete and compelling *justification* for passage of Senate Bill 570.
Rhetoric like that won’t help with Republican lawmakers, but if the House Democrats have all 71 members in town next week, it will probably help with that caucus.
Even so… whew.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 11:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Charters say they’re doing pretty well
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where will Ken Dunkin be vacationing next week? Perhaps to Montana? I can’t remember where all of Rauner’s homes are located.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 11:50 am
“All heads turn… and all eyes fall… on Ken Dunkin… “
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 11:51 am
===Rhetoric like that won’t help with Republican lawmakers,… ===
Macro versus Micro. The voting universes in the districts in 2016, what will they hear about the ILGOP and the GOP GA?
Can Democrats make votes “stick” in the micro? That’s on them.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 11:57 am
I think the dem message on the House GOP will be that they didn’t show up for work. They came to Springfield slurp the good wine and eat the fatted calf, but when it came time to vote…they couldn’t or didn’t want to make tough choices.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:00 pm
Does 570 include $ to pay for this right now?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:07 pm
I don’t believe so. Still waiting on the ransom demands.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:15 pm
==Though the fiscal impact is indeterminable at this time, the amendment would provide the Department with little or no flexibility to manage the Child Care Program and live within established appropriations.==
Funded with $?
This writes a blank check and eliminates the ability to take any ==actions during a fiscal year as are necessary to ensure that child care benefits paid under this Article do not exceed the amounts appropriated for those child care benefits.==
Ugh. Get a budget done, pass a temporary extension or make a deal on social services funding. Whatever. But this is not the time to be writing any sort of blank checks for any reason.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:22 pm
The rhetoric is incendiary, but as Chris Rock said, “I may not agree, but I understand”. Frustration over time leads to anger and to language like this. It’s mild in comparison to what has been coming from a lot of people n private settings. It isn’t constructive. But I understand.
Comment by Archiesmom Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:23 pm
@360 Degree TurnAround - comment of the day
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:23 pm
A question I have yet to see answered adequately: TANF recipients still qualify for CCAP under the current rules. Could a working parent who earned “too much” (i.e. 50% of FPL) to qualify apply for TANF and get child care assistance that way (assuming they met all the other TANF criteria)? If that is the case, then it would seem that this rule would provide families with an incentive to get on TANF, whereas the goal of CCAP is to help families get OFF public assistance.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:25 pm
360 - spot on. Perhaps that could be like a “frequent traveler” card? Rep. Dunkin could earn points every time he “stays” at one of Governor Rauner’s properties.
Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:26 pm
FKA, you’re funny well not so much. This governor you support has been spending with a black check via court order and continuing resolution since July…..
Comment by Jorge Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:30 pm
Okay, Learner Question (this one is important to me because I’ve been deleted several times lately so there’s an important lesson for me to learn here)
Where is the line between legitimate facts and arguments being used in a persuasive piece and rhetorical arguments and unsubstantiated facts being used in a persuasive piece?
From the above article it seems to me that the vast majority is good solid factual and statistically valid argumentation. Where it is rhetorical is
-” It also reminds us that he is interested exclusively in political power and has no concept or care in investing in real solutions to help the struggling families of Illinois.”-
One sentence (and maybe I missed some) does not seem to me to make it a hot rhetorical piece. To me it’s a surgical precision strike, clean and effective. Why does this type of piece need (or I percieve Rich to be saying) to be toned down? I really want to get this and I’m totally serious. Is it that things “percieved” as rhetoric are toxic to the compromise environment? Deep thanks to anyone who will help me.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:31 pm
According to the Rauner ROI, cheaper to house the kids in IDOC custody…..especially if the prisons get privatized.
Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:36 pm
FKA - I appreciate your praise. However, the Governor should veto the bill if his agencies don’t have the money. Or propose a revenue stream.
Team Sleep - I would wonder if Ken Dunkin gets “triple points” depending on the constituency he is throwing under the bus? Labor and kids (double points). next week will be kids and local governments, meh, single points. If he can throw the trial lawyers under the bus, TRIPLE POINTS!
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:38 pm
When she writes that 74% of the earnings of a full-time minimum wage employee would go to infant child care, that’s true. In a sense.
But only as a worst-case scenario.
First, that’s using the average cost of infant care, but lower cost care is available in many places, and not necessarily because quality is lower. Rents are lower in lower income areas, meaning one of the core costs of running a daycare will be lower; home daycare costs tend to be below average; and the average is affected by high-end daycares with features (a Spanish teacher, multiple outdoor play areas were two at a center one of my children briefly attended) that are wonderful, but perhaps not necessary.)
Also, they’ve used infant care, which is considerably more expensive than care of kids even a little older. State law requires a teacher for every 4 infants, 1 for every 5 toddlers, 1 for every 8 2-year olds, 1 for 10 preschoolers. It’s a good rule - you can understand why. But for most minimum wage-earners parents of a somewhat older child, childcare costs will be much lower. The difference in rates for my 1 year old and my 3 year old is about 30%.
I oppose the Rauner cuts. I just think it’s worth noting that stats too can be handled in incendiary ways or in ways that help people understand.
Comment by some doofus Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:39 pm
“Rhetoric like that won’t help with Republican lawmakers. What will, Rich, what will? I’m leaning toward agreeing with Honeybear here. Are we supposed to engage in the false equivalencies of a “he said, she said” media? Is THAT objectivity?
Perhaps what we need is an insider-informed look at what really DOES motivate BKR. But I seem to remember a comment thread last week in which we came to a consensus view that BKR sees those who disagree with him as either corrupt or stupid. We all agreed with that. So what is the difference? (I actually think there IS a difference, but its subtle.)
Comment by History Prof Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:41 pm
The longer this goes on the harder it will be to “tamp down” on the anger. They’ve tried to be nice, patient, professional and what good has it done? This isn’t a game.
Comment by Politix Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:52 pm
@Jorge - Read that again. Here is some help.
==Get a budget done, pass a temporary extension or make a deal on social services funding. Whatever. But this is not the time to be writing any sort of blank checks for any reason.==
Budgeting by court order and CR is no better.
570, however, makes that blank check law. It scores political points and helps short term without concern for the future.
This is how Illinois assembled more than $100 Bill in debt.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:03 pm
Try again FKA. My grandpa still wants an apology.
Comment by Jorge Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:08 pm
@360 Degree TurnAround - respectfully, then what is the point of passing such a bill?
Why write a check knowing you do not have enough in your account to cover it? That doesn’t help the kids.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:11 pm
@Jorge - Have a nice day.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:12 pm
== cynical political screed…reverses his arbitrary rules changes…exposes a shocking truth: That his unprecedented eligibility requirements, which have made Illinois dead last==
Honeybear, I’m not a pro here either, and of course the approach depends on the audience. But about the only restraint shown is that it doesn’t actually say Rauner is eating the children. Reminds me of the stuff I used to get from AFGE in the federal labor relations sector.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:15 pm
FKA, I love you too.
Comment by Jorge Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:17 pm
-I just think it’s worth noting that stats too can be handled in incendiary ways or in ways that help people understand.-
Which is why I again have to ask a variant of my above question. Is the difference between rhetorical statistics and good clean statistics whether we like the proposed statistical insight/conclusion? I think it’s a problem if we can’t use good clean statistics to make an argument. And yes by all means those statistics should be peer reviewed and challenged. They gotta stand up. But is it necessarily rhetorical if you don’t like the conclusion? Again, I’m obviously not getting this because I’ve had a few posts deleted lately. What is Rich trying to achieve here with “toning down” or as someone else said “tamping down”? It seems to me that if you tamp down all argumentation you also tamp down valid arguments and indeed our very method of deriving the temporary better, argument. I say let’s go full on Prime Ministers Question time in the British House of Commons. I like capfax the most when it’s like that, snarky and excellent argumentation.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:29 pm
Working in the social service/ccap sector I can tell you that we are seeing parents try to find ways to maintain their employment and their child care. Ultimately, however, minimum wage makes them too ‘rich’ to qualify. So yes, there are some families thinking that getting on TANF is a better solution to maintain their children’s access to early education programs. I can’t give you numbers but, it appears that the governor’s approach to child care assistance will encourage MORE folks to be unemployed and thus pay LESS taxes.
also, there is a sick irony when the governor personally donates to nonprofits who advocate for better child care opportunities. one hand giveth, but the bigger hand taketh away.
Comment by anony1 Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:30 pm
Governor’s Proclamation:
It is so ordered that from this day forward every day ending in a “Y” will be considered a “Bring your Child to Work Day”. No Exceptions.
(problem solved)
Comment by Disdale Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:35 pm
Quite a revealing place to choose to get tough when you’re willfully running a $6 to $8 billion deficit.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 1:40 pm
==it doesn’t actually say Rauner is eating the children==
Now #that would be Excessively Rabid.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 2:00 pm
FKA - I say this respectively as well. I think you have the debate and vote on SB 570 in a public manner, because it is an issue that the Governor tried to do in a sneaky underhanded way through JCAR. The people and these kids deserve this public debate on an important issue. This hopefully could help GA and Governor find common ground on spending priorities.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 2:11 pm
None of this number tossing has merit without a forthright explanation from the Administration/OMB/DHS regarding the cash flow, and other impacts, of the FEDERAL FUNDS being received from the Child Care Dev Block Grant.
Too bad there are no hearings anymore where
The Administration is held accountable to their rhetoric and fact manipulations.
Maybe the proponents of the SB570 can ask for this.
From what I have previously understood, it is a 50/50 split between state and federal monies.
And, btw, market forces would allow for even higher charges in high quality centers. Too bad poor kids, you’re not invited
Comment by cdog Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 2:32 pm
Excessively Rabid- thanks so much for responding. Thanks especially for including examples of ramped rhetoric. I agree that “cynical political screed” and “exposes a shocking truth” could be seen as rhetorical, however I feel the other statements are factual. Even then, the identified above statements are nothing compared to the Rauner press shop word jumble, oft made fun of in this blog. Has ck EVER said anything that wasn’t patently rhetorical. Here you have facts and arguable valid statistics. Again, just because we don’t like them doesn’t mean they are wrong. A few months ago a poster called me “hysterical” and suggested I take a mental health break. Funny, that. It turned out I was totally right and though hyperbolic, (I can admit that) I was right on the money. I felt totally vindicated when I spoke personally to an insider a few months later. Believe me or not I don’t care. My point is that the whistle for a foul of “tone” seems to be called a lot lately against the well reasoned and statistically supported arguments of the left. (cue Rich to refute 3..2..) Okay and now that I think of it Rich did just nail the moral mondays folks yesterday (and a lot of other balancing posts. Please don’t kill this one Rich)…but this is my rant! Anyway, my point remains unanswered by the gurus of this blog as to where the line is. But there again, I’m just the gnome in the yard around here, pleasant but usually ignored.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 2:38 pm
How is this affecting SEIU’s bottom line? They have a strong financial interest here; should be discussed.
Comment by Gnome Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 2:49 pm
It would be wonderful to live in a world where we can take care of the runny noses of every little child…and I bet there would be fairies and pixie dust too.
We’re BROKE dammit! When will the libs understand?
Comment by Neglected stepchild Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:04 pm
and yet ConAgra still gets their EDGE tax credits.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:18 pm
Neglected stepchild, wow, nice compassion. And no the state is not broke. Far from it. We have the fifth largest economy in the US. We don’t have a budget. There’s a big difference.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:20 pm
Oh and Neglected Stepchild, THANK YOU for providing an excellent example of unsubstantiated rhetoric. I couldn’t have hoped for a better example. Oh, and say “Hay” to the Donald for me.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:25 pm
@360 Degreee TurnAround - imho that may help press for a deal, as long as they are clear about the reason for the debate and vote.
Any ==fix== must include $ to pay for the program so it can be used by the kids. We know that, but 570 does not do that.
If they suggest this vote re hating kids, there will be anger at the obvious drama and barren pandering.
If they acknowledge it is unfunded and ineffective without $, but suggest it is more to bring attention to the kids and help press for a deal, they could have something.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:27 pm
FKA, there’s no money to be handing out corporate tax credits, but that’s still happening.
The governor proposed gutting this program in February. Why the religion about deficits on this particular program? By way of political strategy, we’re running a $6 to $8 billion deficit in FY16 that will need to be fixed.
NS, it’s really not about runny noses. The program was the foundation for welfare reform, making it economically viable to transition from the dole to a job and become a tax paying citizen.
It was a great conservative GOP policy victory. But ideologies change, I guess.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 3:51 pm
This is socialist class envy plain and simple. Further, it is about promoting government rather than families. Nothing here is about fathers and expecting them to help support their children.
Comment by Muscular Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:05 pm
Maybe this is just step one in Rauners plan. First, make childcare unaffordable if you are earning minimum wage. Once “too monied”, parent drops out of employment and receives assistance.
Step Two of the plan: Eliminate assistance.
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:13 pm
“Nothing here is about fathers and expecting them to help support their children.”
The new CCAP rules include a provision requiring that a child support case be pursued against any “absent” parent of an enrolled child.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:16 pm
– socialist class envy plain and simple–
Yeah, those Bolshies Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and Tommy Thompson were just beside themselves with envy when they pushed this program through in the 1990s.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:22 pm
OMG Muscular that is so funny! Class envy! Fathers! You totally made my day! This stuff hits your buttons doesn’t it? I swear to God, good valid statistics that show malicious intent and purpose are a siren’s song for trolls. Coming out of the woodwork. Where’s Arizona Bob? I bet those childcare teachers are Union and making a lot of money! (That will get him to come out)
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:28 pm
Muscular wins with the goofiest comment here.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:47 pm
I’m starting to think that Muscular is Rep. Ives with those sorts of comments. She’d be proud.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 4:48 pm
“This is socialist class envy plain and simple.”
Class envy would imply that you know the pedigree, and class status, of those to which you speak and attempt to dismiss.
Hmmmm. I think you just might be wrong, buddy.
People of all levels of society have good value systems and should not be bullied with silly distractions as you have attempted.
Comment by cdog Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 5:28 pm
I am still hoping to know the REAL dollar amount that is Illinois’s portion, sans federal portion.
Comment by cdog Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 5:34 pm
Republican lawmakers, and some of the Democratic ones too, will need to decide if Rauner’s “support ” is more important than their concern for their home constituents. A vote of Present will tell me that they are willing to take part in destroying program just to “earn” their own form of assistance. And, if they have kids and even grandkids, I hope they can sit down and explain to the next generations why they should continue such a tradition.
Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 6:07 pm
Cdog, quantifying that would be difficult. You’d have to factor in the list revenue from taxes of people dropping out of the workforce, the cost of their assistance, the taxes lost from the daycare workers out of work, and finally the cost to the economy as a whole from all but listing those people as consumers.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 7:00 pm
Lost revenue, and losing those people as consumers. Phone problems. Oops
Comment by Me too Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 7:01 pm
To the article, I’m confused- which is it? 70K, 80K, or 90K?
Comment by Runaground Agenda Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 7:03 pm
@
- Secret Square - Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 12:25 pm:
A question I have yet to see answered adequately: TANF recipients still qualify for CCAP under the current rules. Could a working parent who earned “too much” (i.e. 50% of FPL) to qualify apply for TANF and get child care assistance that way (assuming they met all the other TANF criteria)? If that is the case, then it would seem that this rule would provide families with an incentive to get on TANF, whereas the goal of CCAP is to help families get OFF public assistance.
I’m surprised Honeybear, RNUG, or Steve Schnorf haven’t jumped in with the answer to this one.
No,you can’t have a part-time job and qualify for TANF. The first rule of TANF is that you can’t have any income for the prior month. Got fired from your job on Jan. 2nd? You can’t apply for TANF until March 1st.
I’m pretty sure there are rules that take away portions of your TANF as you get a part-time job and start earning an income, up to a point (not sure of the exact amount–but I can confidently say it’s probably less than you’ll earn in a part-time job at 20-30 hours/week) where your income is “too high” and you lose all TANF.
Plus there are lifetime limits on how long you can receive TANF.
Meanwhile, Donna Arduin and her co-workers at Laffer and Associates preach social Darwinism and cash big government checks…
Comment by Lynn S. Friday, Nov 6, 15 @ 1:05 am