Today’s number: 1,149
Wednesday, Aug 12, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller
By Barton Lorimor Email | @bartonlorimor
* From WGN-TV’s coverage of the split JCAR vote on the Governor’s new eligibility rules for the state’ child care program…
“Right now we have denied 1,149 applications for service because they have not met the restricted criteria - the four target populations - that we’ve implemented with the emergency rule.”
One of the program’s administrators pointed out that the roughly 161,000 kids who qualified for grants BEFORE the emergency rules were announced won’t be turned away unless they leave the program.
As you all know by now, the House Democrats’ amendment to the federal pass through appropriations bill survived Committee yesterday with most Republicans voting Present. The amended bill could come before the full chamber this afternoon. A huge chunk of the new state appropriations included in that amendment is for child care grants.
* The Governor has called the amendment a “poison pill,” and subscribers have more of the backstory on the why.
* Related…
* Democrats can’t override Rauner cutting day care help to poor families: Under his plan, a family of three would have to make less than $10,000 per year to get into the program, down from about $37,000.
* PLAN TO RELEASE FEDERAL MONEY STALLS IN IL BUDGET BATTLE: “What the speaker wants to do is put a poison pill in that uses state money that frankly we don’t currently have without doing anything to control costs and that’s going to blow the whole thing up,” Murphy said.
* House Panel OKs Federal-Funding Plan Over Rauner’s Protest: “Don’t you think it would be better to move forward on the stuff that we can agree on?” GOP Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer of Jacksonville asked. “There’s $4.8 billion that’s already ready for the governor to sign.”
- PublicServant - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 6:22 am:
So, if you have a monthly income of more than $664 dollars, you don’t qualify for Childcare under Rauner’s new restrictions. $664 dollars…for a month’s work and in order to keep that “well-paying” job, you need to have a bit of state assistance to make sure your child is safe? Maybe someone should ask the “governor” why he vetoed the portion of the budget dealing with these funds. Funds he admits are needed, even with his own proposed out-of-balance budget, but which he refuses to discuss until democrats capitulate to his proposed collective bargaining decimation.
This can’t stand. And won’t.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 6:25 am:
HBO - “Dad’s Home State” - Season 1, Episode 22
Diana finally finds out about new application rules denying kids. Diana’s state employee heads out for a needed vacation. Bruce reads up on Federal Pass Through rules, blames Madigan. Goldberg runs into Rep. Bradley at Starbucks. Comedy, 67 minutes.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 7:52 am:
You can’t expect empathy from a governor who sold his heart after he discovered it was worth more to the devil than to him.
To Bruce Rauner, everything is for sale, regardless of ethics or morals.
- Pawn - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 8:20 am:
PublicServant, back when my kids were little, I spent more than $664 dollars/month for full day care for two children ages 2 & 4. My situation was not unusual. This was no elite French immersion day care or anything like that. I think a lot of working parents, moms especially, will be aghast when they read those forthcoming ads and mailers.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 8:44 am:
Rauner has a choice- continue to be a “hitman” going after Madigan, or take a deep breath and become the “bigger man” in this drama. A “March to the Sea” is not the way to bring about long term change. A march of a few months takes years of reconstruction.
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march
“Sherman explained; as a result, they needed to ‘make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.’”
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 9:12 am:
Once again, I feel that the funding for this state program needs to change. Why does it have to go through the state at all, placing it at the mercy of state political squabbles, bad state governance,associated bureaucratic fluffery (how many cushy state jobs live off this program), and so on. Give the money direct-as an income tax credit or a check.
- Arizona Bob - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:17 am:
This is just a bad faith move by the Madman. He could easily make this a separate bill instead of a rider, and he’d be sure to pass it. Rauner may veto it and give the Madman his public perception victory, but Rauner has to make the case to the people that the Madman “death by a thousand cuts” approach is dysfunctional and simply meant to avoid coming up with a comprehensive solution to the problem.
- Bulldog58 - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:19 am:
I’m thinking that Madigan should have left the federal pass through appropriations bill as is so that those funds get distributed. By amending the bill Rauner will veto the whole thing and the blame will go to Madigan on this one. Wouldn’t it be better to pass a clean federal pass through and then introduce a new bill with these add on items, get it passed and send it to Rauner? He would have to do one of 3 things, sign it, veto it or line item veto sections of it. Any negativity at that point would be owned by Rauner.
I’m probably wrong as Madigan has been winning these political chess games for almost as long as I’ve been alive but this one doesn’t compute.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:28 am:
===By amending the bill Rauner will veto the whole thing and the blame will go to Madigan on this one.===
Nope.
Unless the Illinois Constitution has changed, the only actor in Illinois Government with Vetoes… is a Governor.
This is all on Rauner once it gets to Rauner’s desk.
“Pat Quinn failed… ”
“Bruce Rauner vetoed, Bruce Rauner failed to fund… ”
Comes with the Big Chair. What’s Rauner afraid of?
===Wouldn’t it be better to pass a clean federal pass through and then introduce a new bill with these add on items, get it passed and send it to Rauner?===
Nope.
The point is…
The snarky letters to committee chairs, the tweets, the $2 million spent on Ads, “Speaker Madigan and the legislators he controls… “…
Choices have consequences, now Governor Rauner can choose; sign, Item Veto…
But make no mistake, this is payback for Billy Batts, and allota other things.
Enough, Rauner Press Shop.
You. Aren’t. Helping.
This is “Exibit A”
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:33 am:
It’s too bad for the GOP that not one of its members on JCAR had the sense to flip on the Rauner rule changes.
Now every member will have to cast a floor vote on them.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:36 am:
===It’s too bad for the GOP that not one of its members on JCAR had the sense to flip on the Rauner rule changes.
Now every member will have to cast a floor vote on them.===
A good legislative shop out of the Governor’s Office would try to shield all the GOP… or maybe Rauner just plum doesn’t think much of the GOP GA(?)
Said it in January;
All I cared about was the Press and Legislative Shops. Period.
Now we are all seeing when, not one, but both, run amock
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 10:44 am:
OW- or maybe Rauner just plum doesn’t think much of the GOP GA(?)
Hammer meet nail.
- Truthteller - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 11:08 am:
Rauner lifted the brick on subsidies for the movie moguls but won’t lift the one on child care subsidies for working families.
More evidence of his misplaced priorities
Madigan is right to make him show his hand
- mcb - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 11:20 am:
OW,
respectfully disagree. In the past when the GA punted a lump sum budget to the Gov they took a lot of heat for their “failure”.
- sideline watcher - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 11:30 am:
“Rauner lifted the brick on subsidies for the movie moguls but won’t lift the one on child care subsidies for working families.
More evidence of his misplaced priorities
Madigan is right to make him show his hand”
AMEN.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 11:35 am:
- mcb -,
1) You do know how the lump sum budget worked, right? The legislature gave the monies, the governor (Pat Quinn) had the authority to spend as HE felt within the parameters. Rauner, and his campaign operatives he controlled, made a point on funding, which, shocking, was controlled by Quinn.
2) Rauner would accept a lump sum budget, but no one is in a trusting mood as to where Rauner would spend the dollars. The term MOU was floated, because, you guessed it, governors own the spending, even of a lump sum budget.
3) Rauner has neither a lump sum budget, or an actual real budget.
“Bruce Rauner failed to get a budget.
Illinois Constitution, Article VIII, Section 2, (a). Governor Rauner failed.
As an aside, Governors sign budgets. That’s how it works.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 11:47 am:
- mcb -,
With respect as well,
If Rauner was given a lump sum budget and chose to not fund 100% of Ounce’s “ask”, how can Ounce, and it’s leader the governor knows well, blame the legislature for the spending outlays of Gov. Rauner?
With respect.
- Anon. - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 12:05 pm:
Arizona Bob @ 10:17 am –This is just a bad faith move by the Madman.
How is this any different from Rauner trying to leverage his turnaround program by tying any compromise on the budget to adoption of his proposals?
- HeatOfSummer - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 12:06 pm:
Rep Davidsmeyer and anyone who agrees with him about it being better to move forward with stuff we can agree on: please urge your governor as well to do so in working with the legislators and passing a budget. The anti-Union poison pills have no agreement, so move forward on what you can agree on.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 12:45 pm:
Davidsmeyer has a hearing and logic problem based on his current “discussion” with Crespo. If Davidsmeyer is so eager for a “clean bill”, then the Guv’s request for the IEMA addition would have to be removed. He can’t seem to be able to admit that.
- carbaby - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 4:35 pm:
Curious how an administrator stated that those who already are in the program won’t be turned away. If that was the case, then families wouldn’t have received the letters telling them that if they no longer met the new eligibility requirements, they would no longer receive the subsidy. I read the letter. Someone receiving Social Security income also makes too much to receive a child care subsidy.
- Soccermom - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 6:02 pm:
Carbaby — please send Rich the letter.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 12, 15 @ 6:10 pm:
Hey - Soccermom - great to “see” you.