49 Comments - MrJM - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:37 pm: Hammered and Shaken. – MrJM - Jorge - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:37 pm: Social darwinist should have stayed in the gilded age where they belong. - Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:40 pm: It’s just a misunderstanding. See, when Rauner heard the phrase “women and children first,” he thought it meant to throw them overboard. Once someone explains it to him, I’m sure he’ll come around. Doesn’t make sense for a grown man to go after society’s most vulnerable first. I’m sure he’ll want to exhaust all other options before that happens. - Ghost - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:41 pm: Instead of saying they had to make difficult decisions to close a 6 billion deficit they should just say we mad to make difficult decisions to pay for a tax cut and to keep tax credits anf tax deductions for the wealthy. If we roll back taxes and hand out breaks we gotta pay for it; and these kids ate spongeing up all thosebtax dollars with their greedy needs. Afterall we all know 2 years olds just spend the money on tatoos, booze and tobacco anyway…. Dang lazy toddlers who arent self sufficient. With lowered minimium wage and right to work zones their parents can afford to pau for this themselves! That 5k a year employers are forced to pay their laborers should be spent on this…. After all its expensive to keep up 9 estates. - Ghost - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:42 pm: The african american community supported rauner, since he promised to help them. Here comes the help….. If by help you mean removal of pesky support and aid programs…. - Pot calling kettle - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:44 pm: I think the Rauner plan is to encourage these people to move to another state. No, wait, he’s trying to stem the population drain. My head hurts. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:45 pm: ==screens children under the age of the 3 for many developmental delays and then provides therapy== Health insurance and Medicaid does not cover screening kids for developmental delays? Isn’t that part of the point of taking them to the doctor when little? What the *? - Try-4-Truth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:49 pm: - Formerly Known As… - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:45 pm: ==screens children under the age of the 3 for many developmental delays and then provides therapy== Health insurance and Medicaid does not cover screening kids for developmental delays? Isn’t that part of the point of taking them to the doctor when little? What the *? Be very careful “Formerly Known As”. If you’ve never had a special needs kid, you don’t know what you are talking about. I do have a special needs kid and a good job with insurance. I don’t know what I would have done without Early Intervention (EI). And, it saves taxpayers money. Either you fund EI now and my kid gets treatment, or you pay more later when my kids is not a functioning adult. - Last Bull Moose - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:55 pm: If the plan is to increase support for a revenue increase, it is working. Hate to sound even more heartless, but if success is measured by the numbers of children who grow to be independent adults then cut the most disabled and put resources against the slightly disabled. Personally,I would pay more taxes and fund it all. - Aldyth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:57 pm: Try-for-Truth is correct. Invest the money now so that the kid can start to catch up with his peers before he starts preschool and kindergarten and you can save tens of thousands on special ed later. But, I don’t think they offer special ed at Walter Peyton prep. - JS Mill - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:58 pm: The “tough choices” spin wears a little thin when you put more money into free motorcycle license classes and less into early interventions. Especially when you are moving fee generated funding around in other areas. Sure, the motorcycle classes are a good thing but I don’t think many would agree that they are more valuable than early interventions, other than AZ Bob that is. (I hear that AZ is the Ivy League of free motorcycle license training course) These are dumb cuts and they fly in the face of everything he has said. maybe it is a part of his gamesmanship to justify a tax increase, but it is garbage if it is. - dupage dan - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 12:58 pm: Our communities are filled with many folks who have their strengths, weaknesses, needs and abilities. We have seen, over the years, how many needs can be met with programs and providers. In the past, many parents wit special needs children banded together to seek out the support thru a variety of means. Many of the agencies, in existence today, that provide care to disabled children got their start as parent created/driven/funded programs. As these agencies grew and became more involved in the wider communities, they began to petition the gov’t for support. Over time, funding came more from the state than from the families of the disabled recipients. The disconnect is not complete - many parents devote a lot of time to the agencies as volunteers and fund raisers. But the reality is much of the funding comes from the state now for a wide variety of the programs once funded privately (or thru churches, etc) and there is less support from the small community involved. The state has become much to many people - many folks are wholly dependent on the state for these programs, not able to pay for them or gather the resources necessary to keep their child from losing out. Much of my work as a 25 year state employee is in this community. I have watched over the past months as the parade of these well deserving folks have made their pleas. It has been happening on this blog as it has elsewhere. All these folks with real needs, struggling to get by and take care of their families, lining up to tell us how bad things are and how bad things will get with this….person….as the governor. And all those folks out there who may not have the problems but who sympathize with those in need. What are they going to do? Are they going to call their GA rep and demand to pay higher taxes to fund these programs? Because that is precisely what is needed. Folks who have no skin in the game, who have no one in their family who is in need - to step up and say, loudly and proudly, “I want my taxes raised to pay for EVERY program I am told that only the state can provide”. And they should do that on election day. So far, most folks continue to vote for folks who engage in pension holiday schemes, early retirement schemes and/or bond purchase schemes that LOOK like savings but aren’t. Or they vote for folks who promise they can have ALL these programs but they don’t have to pay for them. Whose fault is that? - Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:05 pm: DD, tell us more about how these programs were once funded privately and by churches. When was that? What progrmas and at what levels Who were the private financiers? Did the state just muscle them out? - Minnow - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:15 pm: I really think that Rauner and others of his ilk would like to edit the part in the Gettysburg Address “government of the people, by the people and for the people” to “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.” In their minds I think they have. Disgusting for sure. - Jocko - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:20 pm: My daughter received EI services and is currently flourishing. Any word from Ounce of Prevention? I wonder how they’re holding after their “haircut” from Bruce - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:21 pm: @Try-4-Truth - you entirely misunderstand my point. As someone with special needs relatives, this is personal to me. Can someone, maybe you, please answer: Health insurance and Medicaid does not cover screening kids for developmental delays? How is that possible? - gopower - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:21 pm: So one kid got better, over a limited time period, while the child was enrolled in the program. So that somehow implies that a bunch of other kids — who have MUCH less significant problems — will also benefit? Where are the peer-reviewed studies that substantiate this claim? You know, like all the ones for Headstart? Perhaps that’s not the best example given that every study of Headstart over the past three decades shows the program fails miserably. This may well be a great program, but where’s the evidence? - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:25 pm: ===but where’s the evidence? === Ask the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is urging defeat of this idea. - Give Me A Break - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:27 pm: I’m not totally sure many programs like this were ever totally privately funded. In the late 80s and through the 90s, Illinois began to reduce service provided by the State and use private providers to deliver the services. For instance, the state does not operate any “detox” centers or have any in-patient treatment centers for children with mental illness. Those are provided by the private sector. Which makes reductions seem counter to many who want to downsize government given those populations were once part of “big government” but no longer are. - Jocko - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:30 pm: ==where’s the evidence?== I take it when you have a child with developmental delays you’ll opt-out of services, thus serving as the control group. BTW - Has anyone asked Bruce how he spent his $750K in newfound income? - Western Ave. Doug - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:38 pm: ==BTW - Has anyone asked Bruce how he spent his $750K in newfound income?== BTW, has anybody asked SEIU healthcare weather it plans to spend all of the millions in dues it collects to help the situation out? Naw, they would rather spew out class warfare and accuse Bruce of killing little old ladies in rest homes. BTW, has anybody asked Tom Villanova and the other triple dipping pensioners with the Chicago Federation of Labor if they are willing sacrifice a little off their 250K+ a year and rising pension and help a broke state out? - Try-4-Truth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:38 pm: - gopower - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:21 pm: So one kid got better, over a limited time period, while the child was enrolled in the program. So that somehow implies that a bunch of other kids — who have MUCH less significant problems — will also benefit? Where are the peer-reviewed studies that substantiate this claim? You know, like all the ones for Headstart? Perhaps that’s not the best example given that every study of Headstart over the past three decades shows the program fails miserably. This may well be a great program, but where’s the evidence?—– http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2006/03/study-reveals-prolonged-effectiveness-of-early-intervention-prog.html Please try to not be so ignorant. Really. Your name indicates to me that you will reply with “I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know, but cut the program anyway”. I’m reaching my boiling point with people on here. This is personal to me. I’m not going to call anyone any names, but really, it’s called Google Scholar. It’s available to anyone with an internet account. The science is sound, the programs are evidence based and they work to SAVE taxpayer money, long-term. I know you conservatives love the 19th century. I, for one, would like to remain in the 21st. - Runbikeswim1 - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:42 pm: As a child with developmental delays, EI was crucial helping her catch up. Without EI, my private insurance would have been required to pick up the tab on it, forcing me to use my deductible (3K) to get services. I believe that Rauner is pound foolish and is just protecting him and his .001% buddies. So much for “shared sacrifice.” The GOP (an oxymoron these days) better watch out. If Rauner pushes too hard, the Republicans might be wiped out for the next generation here in Illinois. - Aldyth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:49 pm: Back in the 50’s a lot of programs started as groups of parents had children with disabilities who lived. Did you know that in the 1930’s, the average life expectancy for a person with Downs Syndrome was 8 years? Parents banded together and used volunteers who provided programs and education in church basements and wherever they could find free space. Over time, the parents wanted more than what they could get from volunteer labor and started to work towards getting schools to provide an education for their children instead of sending them off to institutions. In 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation act provided for schools to provide a free and appropriate education for all children with disabilities. Having made inroads there, parents worked towards developing more programs for adults. Sheltered workshops were started, again with volunteers. However, the need soon outstrips what bake sales and donations can provide. States and the Federal government started funding these programs. That gave parents the security of knowing that a residential program would be there for their family member when they needed it. Illinois has about 25,000 individuals on a waiting list for residential services or a day program. We used to do a lot of community employment in Illinois. We were pioneers in the supported employment movement in the early eighties. Almost all of that is gone, because of budget cuts. We are #50 in the country on per capita spending for people with disabilities. Can we get lower than that? Perhaps we could be included in rankings of third world countries? - Let'sMovetoTexas - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:23 pm: If all state social services got zero taxpayer funding, don’t you think that parents, churches, Synagogues, mosques, and charities would pick up the slack? Necessity is the mother of invention. Then we would sll be more self-reliant. - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:25 pm: ===don’t you think that parents, churches, Synagogues, mosques, and charities would pick up the slack?=== No. They don’t raise enough money to do that and can’t. Stop kidding yourself. It’s a crazy fantasy. - yinn - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:30 pm: Aldyth has provided an excellent summary of the history of services for people with disabilities. I would only add that the demand for services has grown in the context of policies that created a long trend of wage erosion and subsequent disruption of the one-income family, along with eventual recognition that life in an institutional setting is the worst option for most. - Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:32 pm: Let’s, where do you think churches and charities get the lion’s share of tneir funding for social service programs now? The state contracts for their services, It’s not a secret. - Let'sMovetoTexas - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:33 pm: So every state program and donee organization does good, serves a critical need, and cannot be cut at all. That is what every one is claiming. No one I know believes this. The state taxpayers are not a bottomless pit of money. The present level of state spending is unsustainable. Everyine should take a cut and stop whining! - Give Me A Break - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:35 pm: Hey Texas: Do you have any clue what we are talking about? Feel free to come to my home and explain to my 17 year old that has the IQ of a toddler she needs to be self-reliant. You guys better get some new talking points because the ones you are using don’t help your case. - Johnnie F. - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:35 pm: It is incredibly clear the BR is completely out of touch when it conms to these issues. He’s probably never had to provide care for a child with DD. He’s probably never changed a diaper for one of his own children. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:46 pm: ==Everyine should take a cut and stop whining!== You first (with the whining that is). Anybody that suggests willy nilly cuts to everyone is intellectually lazy when it comes to evaluating a budget. - Demoralized - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:46 pm: That was me above - Earnest - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:54 pm: Last spring, a great many community agencies and agency boards wrote letters to the editor and contact their legislators in support of keeping the tax rate from going down. Most understand the reality of insufficient state revenue and advocate for that. I keep seeing people write “the state can’t be everything to everyone.” I agree. So, who are we going to be something to? People who hate to pay taxes? Some of the wealthy who think if the state gets rid of their tax burden they’ll all pick up the slack because they’ll have more money for charitable donations (I know people who actually say this.)? Kids with developmental delays who, though they will grow and progress, won’t make up the gains they could make with early intervention before the age of 5? I know who I want to be and I know what I want the great state of Illinois to be. - Try-4-Truth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:57 pm: I really don’t want to type a mile long post about government expenditures and long-term outcomes. I really don’t. Please don’t make me! Pretty please!. Look, here it is in a nutshell. What is the proper role of the state? What should the state be doing? Education? Roads? Economic Development? Ok, if we start with education, we assume we mean education for all, right? So it that is true, then the question becomes, “How we we educate our population in the most efficient and effective manner possible”? When we ask that question, the answers bring a whole lot of tricky variables. It has been proven over and over again, that EI is one of the most effective ways to educate a portion of our population. It is efficient, it is effective. And the absence of this program with no verifiable equal alternative, would not be efficient nor effective. Do you see where I’m going with this? You can’t just scream like a crazy person and say “Illinois is broke, get over it”. I’ll ask you again, what is the proper role of the state? When you answer that, all of Rauner’s nonsense begins to collapse in on itself. No matter how you answer it (unless, of course you answer “Nothing” and then there is not sense talking to you because I live on Earth and you live somewhere else). - Cassandra - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:59 pm: Part of the problem with the provision of these services is that they are indeed subject to state and local funding streams, which can be, shall we say, erratic and overly dependent on local political circumstances. Far better to have the funding come from the feds, to all in the US who qualify, rather than in a patchwork fashion, depending where you, the kid needing the help, happen to live. This is not to say that I believe the funds will actually be cut. I can’t tell yet–we are still in the early days of The Dance, with neither party acquitting itself particularly well to this point. That’s because we let them get away with it. No revolutions here. - Arsenal - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:59 pm: Texas, I don’t think you quite grasp how democracy works. The whole *point* is for everyone to vigorously defend themselves. - Let'sMovetoTexas - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:05 pm: You folks should get out more and talk to the taxpayers I do who work hard and pay all this money into the tax pot. A very different world view. Rauner is the ‘castor oil’ that the state needs to restore its health, in these taxpayer views. - gopower - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:06 pm: Try-4-Truth - —Please try to not be so ignorant Because you made some attempt at informed debate, I won’t repeat your snark. But if you used your advanced Google skills to read the original “Pediatrics” study instead of press releases from an unrelated foundation that exists only to lobby for gov’t funds, you’d see that your link was to a program for “Early intervention in low birth weight premature infants.” http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/117/3/771 That is NOT what the Illinois program is. While some enrollees fit that definition — and they are almost certainly in the 50% that will continue to get funding — most are not. Where’s the evidence that these other children, with their unrelated and — in the words of their own advocates — much less severe problems will benefit? - Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:08 pm: – That’s what everyone is claiming, No one I know believes this– Soooooo, everyone is claiming something they don’t believe? - Demoralized - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:14 pm: ==You folks should get out more and talk to the taxpayers I do who work hard and pay all this money into the tax pot. == I think that includes everyone here. I pay taxes. Anybody on here that doesn’t? Raise your hand. - Demoralized - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:15 pm: gopower: You go look some of these people in the face who receive these services and tell them you don’t think they need it. Then come back with your high and mighty rhetoric about benefits. Let us know how it goes. - Wordslinger - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:17 pm: Tex, the guy who was elected claimed that the state budget was filled with “waste, fraud and abuse’” and the “bureaucracy has run amok.” Yet his proposed budget banks just $200 million mystery “operations savings.” He put big-money whiz kids on the payroll who were going to do magical things to wring efficiencies out of the budget. So far, nothing but billions in magic beans and slashes at programs for the most vulnerable. The big brains the governor brought in for big bucks have not earned tneir money. Their proposed budget is a phony joke. They need to work harder, and honestly. - EI-Delay-Rate - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:20 pm: I will say first that I do not think EI should be cut. However, Rauner’s proposal only moves the bar from 25% delay to 50% delay. This is what it used to be. There are already kids on wait lists to get EI services. This would alleviate that somewhat. Also, there is provision currently that allows for the screener (could be the person providing the EI service in some cases) to determine only 22% (below 25%) delay, but override the denial of service…..so kids with severe delays will backed-up even more for services. I am sure that I will get bashed for these statements, but if money is short…shouldn’t we provide for the most vunerable first with the greatest delays? Again, I think all kids deserve to be screened and get services if delays show…but we don’t have an endless pot of funds. - Try-4-Truth - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:26 pm: Mr. GOP - Let me ask you a question? Why was my kid in EI? Do you know? Why do kids have low birth weight? This is a world that you simply don’t understand. I’ll provide some more proof for you: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145.html From this study: “Well-designed early childhood interventions have been found to generate a return to society ranging from $1.80 to $17.07 for each dollar spent on the program.” You are doing what most people who don’t have a firm grasp on an issue do, diverting and picking nits. I have lived this, I have studied this (for personal reasons, I want the best for my kid, so I become educated on these issues). Don’t try to assume you know one thing about this world. Move to a state with low taxes (not many lower than Illinois BTW) and with terrible services. Then, have an issue like a special needs child. You will then understand what everyone is talking about. - Cassandra - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:36 pm: I didn’t know that health insurance covered these services, but if that is the case, a federal requirement that these services be labelled preventative care (and thus not applied to the deductible) would be one route to universal service, since under ACA all are now required to have health insurance. Anyway, I sure hope these providers are billing health insurance now, whether Medicaid or private, where they can. - Arsenal - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:58 pm: “You folks should get out more and talk to the taxpayers I do who work hard and pay all this money into the tax pot.” I’m a hard working taxpayer, and I think Rauner is oily, alright. - Formerly Known As... - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 4:06 pm: @Try-4-Truth - still no answer? None? @Runbikeswim1 - thank you. It sounds from your comment that health insurance does cover these screenings. Please comment more often on these cuts and more. @JS Mill - well said on the motorcycle classes. - callmetim - Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:08 am: RE Health insurance and special needs programs: Early Intervention services are billed first to any available health insurance, often resulting in a copay for state funded services. Most families who have insurance go that route rather than the state program. EI covers services that aren’t funded by private insurance. Medicaid is not usually billed, at least as I understand it, likely due to systems put in place prior to ACA. I suppose medicaid could be billed for EI services rather than run a specific program, but then you lose the specialization that EI providers bring to the table. That, and Rauner wants to gut the Medicaid budget as well. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.