Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Sen. Kirk responds *** Poll: Illinoisans overwhelmingly favor criminal justice reforms
Next Post: Bill would force automatic federal fund transfers to community colleges
Posted in:
* Illinois Public Radio…
The constitution currently says the state has the “primary responsibility” to fund early education through high school. However, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled it’s a goal, not a mandate. Property taxes pay for most of the public school funding while the state covers about a third of the total.
Madigan said he wants to change the wording so it says education is a fundamental right and it’s the duty of the state to provide it.
“If approved by the voters, the state would be required to fund 51 percent of the cost of education,” he said. Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, said the state would have to come up with billions more to put into education.
Madigan said the legislature could manage how to make this change from relying on property taxes. But Rep. Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford, said he thinks it would be a challenge to push up its share of state funding quickly if voters approved the amendment.
“Do you think it would be more difficult than the situation we’re in today,” Madigan said.
“If we were required to double the educational funding, I would argue that it would put us in a much more difficult situation,” Sosnowski replied.
The bill passed the committee on a partisan rollcall.
Reps. Ives and Sosnowski are both probably right. It’s hard to argue with the idea behind this. Illinois should’ve been doing it all along. But if the courts order the state to provide 50 percent plus a dollar of all school spending (without any way of reining in that spending), it’ll likely cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Sen. Kirk responds *** Poll: Illinoisans overwhelmingly favor criminal justice reforms
Next Post: Bill would force automatic federal fund transfers to community colleges
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where’s the elimination of the grossly unfair pension protection of government employees?
Comment by Tone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:04 am
Note that the Speaker also stated that this right should be placed on a higher plane than other rights in the Constitution (I’m not sure how that even works). Does that include the obligation to fund pensions, which worked out so well?
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:04 am
Just scrap the Constitution and redo it. It is absolutely worthless.
Comment by Tone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:06 am
Why just stop at schools? Make all funding/appropriations constitutionality funded. That way the Supreme Court will have to rule more favorably on pension reform in the future. (snark).
Comment by Almost the Weekend Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:08 am
Of course a property tax lawyer wants the State to be involved in property taxes!
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:11 am
Tone, how is protecting someone’s pension from being eliminated grossly unfair?
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:13 am
“We’ll never make it” - Glum…
That pesky constitution is there to protect citizens from those like - Tone - who have no grasp of government but have a grasp of the overtly “negative aspects” of laws.
Every time - Tone - comments as such, the writers of the Illinois Constitution are vindicated…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:13 am
Wouldn’t the Speaker be better served to propose an amendment that only one or 2 Constitutional amendment proposals can appear on the ballot in any given election? It would save him the trouble of filling up the ballot with stuff like this.
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:14 am
Tone, you’re an awfully lonely guy just desperate for attention, in the worst way. Hope it gets you through the day.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:15 am
Tone, why you gotta crap on things?
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:16 am
The politics of this confuses me. Say this measure was on the ballot, wouldn’t it give rise to all sorts of threatening ads by Rauner et al. that Madigan and the Dems are out to secretly raise their taxes, and they’ll have all sorts of independent analysis to back them up? Why not just pass a budget once Dunkin is gone if you’re willing to take that kind of hit? Is this just meant to shift the Overton Window on the issue? No doubt the Speaker is two moves ahead, but I’m lost on this one.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:17 am
Kicking the can down the road in disguise. Property tax is under serious pressure to fund the rise in public safety pension costs. If the State starts to kick in more money for education, don’t be surprised if your property tax rate remains the same (or even increases) to cover public safety pensions. The net effect will be a significant tax increase.
Comment by Nixon_Head Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:18 am
Since the constitution “protects” pensions but doesn’t ensure funding, “requires” a balanced budget that is now routinely ignored, and so on, what exactly would this do? Looks like feel good.
Comment by Sir Reel Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:25 am
Madigan is so good at counting votes and voters, I wonder why he has such a hard time with budgeting, maybe because budgets are just used for political purposes and not the public good.
Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:27 am
- Ahoy! -
Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, Blagojevich, even Quinn…
Lots of signatures under those budgets…
Lots.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:29 am
Great reminder of just how poorly this state has been ran for so long.
Comment by Tone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:34 am
- SAP -
==Wouldn’t the Speaker be better served to propose an amendment that only one or 2 Constitutional amendment proposals can appear on the ballot in any given election?==
Article XIV, Sec. 2(c) of the IL Constitution already limits legislatively proposed amendments. Only amendments to 3 articles can be submitted to the voters per election cycle.
Right now, I would say that MJM’s plan is to push HJRCA 57, 58, and 59 onto the ballot. These are the education amendment (Art. X), the redistricting amendment (Art. IV), and the graduated income tax amendment (Art. IX). The chances of actually passing all three of these and getting them on the ballot are another issue all together, but I would read the tea leaves to say that this is the constitutional program the Dems have in mind for November.
Comment by The Man on 6 Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:36 am
Speaker Madigan, nobody disagrees that education is important. But we already have a monstrous level of court-ordered spending here in Illinois. To jack that up even higher is to further jeopardize our state’s already miserable fiscal future. Isn’t it time to learn from our mistakes?
Comment by Blackhawk Boone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:43 am
For this to work really well, the net effect should be more reliance on (a progressive) income tax and less on property taxes in ed funding. But the state doesn’t set property tax rates directly, so there should be some carrot or stick to incentivize local government to provide property tax relief. For example, make increased state funding contingent on local government enacting property tax relief. Cutting local taxes in return for more state funding –– should be a no-brainer for local pols of all stripes to jump on board.
Comment by X-prof Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:47 am
===Just scrap the Constitution and redo it. It is absolutely worthless.===
What planet do you come from? Time for you to go back to wherever you came from.
Comment by forwhatitsworth Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:49 am
Wait, where’s all the posters proclaiming this development a victory for the IL Constitution, that “a promise is a promise,” and we should just have been following the “plain meaning of the text” all along, that this is self-evidently correct, and that “IL politicos have been robbing our schoolchildren for too long”? Why suddenly all this concern about, “Is this actually a wise expenditure of limited resources?” (Though I’m not indicting Rich’s own work in this post, I stress).
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:52 am
Tone, I’m on board elimination that pesky pension provision so long as we add one that money managers are allowed to raid 401k accounts as they see fit to pay for things like, I don’t know, light bulbs, office rent, country club dues, etc. Let’s make it a fair playing field.
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:53 am
Going to agree with Tone here a bit…
We should have gone to a state consitutional convention back in 2010 and we should in 2020, chances to fix/improve several things, including education funding, pensions, redistricting and other stuff.
If you are going to try and make at least two major changes (if not more) to the Constitution and there is a built in method for doing just that every 10 years, why not take advantage of that.
The school funding thing is big, the graduated income tax is big and redistricting is big. Why not go to convention and do all of those and more (like define marriage as being between two adults without consideration of gender)
Comment by Oneman Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:53 am
They’ll just restrict how much schools can spend. Less spending, less the State has to kick in.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:00 am
Tone –
I share your sentiments but am to the point where I say let this pass. Fight the progressive income tax and jack up rates for everyone to cover this.
Constitutionalize mandated adjustments to income tax as well. Make people feel — immediately — the cost of what they seek.
Comment by Lomez Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:07 am
==the state would be required to fund 51 percent of the cost of education==
And who determines the ==cost of education==? Local districts set the price as they currently do, but now the state picks up a larger portion of the tab?
That is a disaster in the making.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:09 am
===Tone –
I share your sentiments but am to the point where I say let this pass. Fight the progressive income tax and jack up rates for everyone to cover this.
Constitutionalize mandated adjustments to income tax as well. Make people feel — immediately — the cost of what they seek.===
They won’t feel it if they’re in Texas. If dems can ram through their tax increases, more residents will flow out and the state will see a detroit like population drop. At this this rate illinois will only be home to public employees and pensioners.
Comment by atsuishin Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:16 am
=== If you are going to try and make at least two major changes (if not more) to the Constitution and there is a built in method for doing just that every 10 years, why not take advantage of that. ===
Because Rauner’s pals don’t want you to:
1. Implement a progressive income tax;
2. Eliminate the cap on the corporate income tax;
3. Expand the pension clause to protect private pensions.
Traditionally, progressive groups have feared things like conservative attempts to limit marriage to one man and one woman, but those times might be behind us.
We may indeed get a constitutional convention in 2020, but why wait to act?
Keep in mind, once the amendment is approved by voters in 2016, it will still take awhile for school districts to ramp up their operations, and I expect take the state a few years to ramp up spending. But we should start on that ramp as soon as possible, rather than delay another four years something that should have happened 24 years ago.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:20 am
==the state would be required to fund 51 percent of the cost of education==
Local districts will set the ==cost of education== as they currently do, but the state will pick up a larger portion of the tab?
What could go wrong with that? /s
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:20 am
===If dems can ram through their tax increases, more residents will flow out and the state will see a detroit like population drop. At this this rate illinois will only be home to public employees and pensioners.===
(Sigh)
===If dems can ram through their tax increases,===
#TaxHikeMike stopped that. If you aren’t paying attention, maybe you should. There will be NO tax increase. K? K.
===…more residents will flow out and the state will see a detroit like population drop.===
Please show your work to compare Detroit to Chicago. Be very specific, and include taxing and socioeconomic similarities including manufacturing and diversity in the economic engines of both Detroit and Chicago.
===At this this rate illinois will only be home to public employees and pensioners.===
But… but… but Rauner is going to the four corners of the globe, recruitin’, heck, Rauner has dozens of businesses itchin’ to come to Illinois, just ask the Governor, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:23 am
The Con-Con vote is put on the ballot every 20 years, not every ten. The last time was 2008, so the next time is 2028. I wonder if Tone supported Con-Con in 08?
Comment by anon Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:23 am
“I wonder if Tone supported Con-Con in 08?”
I did.
Comment by Tone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:25 am
=== there should be some carrot or stick to incentivize local government to provide property tax relief. For example, make increased state funding contingent on local government enacting property tax relief. Cutting local taxes in return for more state funding –– should be a no-brainer for local pols of all stripes to jump on board.===
That’s an important point. There would have to be a swap of lower property taxes for higher income taxes. Madigan’s proposal is also a way to address the nation’s highest spending disparity between have and have-not school districts.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:25 am
- Formerly Known As… - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:20 am:
==the state would be required to fund 51 percent of the cost of education==
Local districts will set the ==cost of education== as they currently do, but the state will pick up a larger portion of the tab?
What could go wrong with that? /s
The only thing the state should do with public education is push the pension obligations to the districts that created them and allow municipal bankruptcy.
Comment by Tone Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:26 am
== there is a built in method for doing just that every 10 years, why not take advantage of that. ==
Unless the GA calls for it sooner, it’s automatically every 20 years.
Article 14, Section 1, b
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:27 am
==They won’t feel it if they’re in Texas. If dems can ram through their tax increases, more residents will flow out and the state will see a detroit like population drop. At this this rate illinois will only be home to public employees and pensioners.==
I feel less strongly on the level of net out migration that would take place. But to the extent it does, those remaining will bear the loss. The new constitutional provision covering regular adjustments to the income tax will ensure that this any outflow gap is filled. Immediately.
Comment by Lomez Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:30 am
=Where’s the elimination of the grossly unfair pension protection of government employees?=
While I disagree with the premise of “grossly unfair”, that would probably be part of the deal too.
What was unfair was when private corporations cut employee pensions to stockpile cash, pay shareholders, and pay executive bonuses and buyout scammers while dumping their obligations on the public.
Given that the Madigans have have tried to cheat public employees out of their pensions before, I think this is one thing that state repubs and dems could agree upon.
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:32 am
== Given that the Madigans have have tried to cheat public employees out of their pensions before, I think this is one thing that state repubs and dems could agree upon. ==
Again, what is the point? You can’t eliminate the $111B debt. You can’t change it retroactively for the people in the system. You’ve already changed it going forward (Tier 2).
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:41 am
==The only thing the state should do with public education is push the pension obligations to the districts that created them==
This would duplicate that mistake.
Local districts will still set the cost (like pensions, which should be paid fully), while the state will pick up a larger share of the tab. Other People’s Money often leads to over spending.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:46 am
Distraction. Time-waster. Ballot spot-taker. Change-process hairball. Ad copy-footnote. Rainy day confetti.
Resonate with Tone, but for different reasons.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:46 am
Again, what is the point? You can’t eliminate the $111B debt. You can’t change it retroactively for the people in the system. You’ve already changed it going forward (Tier 2).
The point? It’s about the pro-titan, anti-worker ideology shared by GOP and IL dems. .
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:50 am
Yeah Juneval like this would ever happen…
3. Expand the pension clause to protect private pensions.
Besides for running right into federal law, all you would do is get every private company that still has pensions (are there any?) to either end them and/or turn them over to the union.
As for the other two… Heck toss in going forward (so no one currently in the system is impacted) that government pensions are treated like other pensions I think those are all good ideas.
Imagine how different pension funding might be today if there was political incentive to actually correctly fund the system(s), right now there isn’t because as a recipient you are guaranteed your payments even if the state has to sell U of I to the University of Phoenix to make it happen and as an elected official there is no one really pushing you to fund it correctly.
Now imagine if the public employees had a reason (and could) use pension contribution as part of negotiating process. Might work better… Because today the state pension systems are basically first in line creditor for the state and could likely force asset sales if it ever came to that.
It’s worth having the discussion about it, isn’t it? Because the way the state works now isn’t going to be tenable going forward.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:55 am
BTW - Are we absolutely sure that current Tier 1 employees would stave off an attack under a constitution that permitted pensions to be decimated?
Tier 2 is may run into problems with legality/sustainability for other reasons down the road.
The public policy that citizens should pay what they owe has never been popular with voters.
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 11:59 am
==- Tone - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 10:34 am: ==
Tone, I have a feeling your only purpose for commenting on this blog is to promote your tea party agenda. Please stop!
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:03 pm
RNUG, if they open the Constitution, will they be allowed to change the pension clause that protects public workers pensions?
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:06 pm
What dollar amount constitutes 51% and how is that to be determined? See nothing that explains that. This is silly, meaningless language even if passed.
Of course, I suspect the courts could be inundated with suits trying to define that 51% and the courts would have the final say. in what should be an executive and legislative decision.
Overall, this is a good goal but it is plain outright stupid and or disingenuous for this to be in the Constitution. Our elected leaders should step up to the plate and pass legislation for what the believe is appropriate funding.
This is a hide and seek game.
Comment by Federalist Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:40 pm
I don’t believe that “goal instead of mandate” on court findings is correct. As I had it explained to me by a attorney who’s pretty sharp in these things. I understand that the state met it’s constitutional “primary source” requirement by giving schools the power to levy taxes, which is statutory not constitutional mandated. This means that all property taxes collected for schools are actually “from the state”. Anyone heard a different interpretation?
Comment by Zonker Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 12:46 pm
== RNUG, if they open the Constitution, will they be allowed to change the pension clause that protects public workers pensions? ==
-Mama-,
This is not a call to a Con-Con which opens up everything. It is a specific amendment and it deals with one article / subject. As Rich reminded me the other day, the GA can propose amendments to no more than 3 articles of the constitution in a given election cycle (I said 3 amendments, which was somewhat incorrect depending on which articles were being amended.)
Not to say there couldn’t be an amendment proposed to the pension clause. And there are the limited voter initiated amendments (basically makeup of GA only). But I still expect to see the max CA proposals this election cycle.
The GA could always put a Con-Con on the ballot, but the voters would have to approve it. Last time in 2010 they rejected it, so there does not HAVE to be referendum on it for another 14 years.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 1:03 pm
Federalist +1
Comment by walker Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 1:33 pm
==RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 1:03 pm:==
RNUG, thanks for the clarification.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 3:40 pm
Madigan had 12 years of total Democratic control in Springfield before Rauner was elected. If he wanted to fix education funding he had 12 years to do it. Why now propose a constitutional amendment other then to be able to campaign against Rauner being anti- education. This proposal stinks and if it ever became law who knows what financial obligations might be imposed by the Supremes. Isn’t he satisfied with his pension clause which he supported at the last ConCon in 1970 which has worked out so well for us?
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 4:12 pm
The Pension Clause has worked just fine except the IL SC (properly based on the wording) undermined the intent. If you read the minutes of the debate during the 1970 Con-Con, the intent was to protect the benefits to such an extent that it would scare the GA into properly funding it. And that pretty much worked the first couple of years. Then the Gov / GA shorted it, the unions sued, and we ended up with the IFT decision that negated the scare tactic. But we also eventually ended up where we are now with the GA having to fund the pensions and pay back the shortages. So yeah, I would say it did work … just not exactly as planned.
We’re in the same boat with the schools … and this may clarify some of the previous court rulings on state share of school funding … or not. I do know the State needs to do something different, and the solution is NOT for profit charter schools like Rauner appears to want.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 4:33 pm