Here’s this week’s Illinois Sunshine update - we added up all of the funds on hand for both parties, and found that Dems have over $34 Million and the GOP has over $28 Million.
Just one month before the March 15th Illinois Primary, both political parties in Illinois have amassed major war chests to aid their goals of upsetting (or defending) the balance of power in state government. The Democratic side, consisting of Senate, House, Leadership, and Party Committees, currently holds over $34 Million. Illinois Republican funds, consisting of those plus the Governor’s committee, currently have over $28 Million ready to spend. The top three Super PACs in the state, each with an individual balance of over $1 Million, have a total of $16 Million in the bank.
This all amounts to nearly $80 Million in cash on hand between both parties. This is in addition to the $17 Million already spent in the first month and a half of 2016.
Democratic funds come mostly from rank and file committees and the Leadership committees (which have fewer contribution limits than a normal PAC.) The Republican side is financed mostly by the Governor’s candidate committee, which maintained an impressive and steady balance for most of 2015.
Senate, House and Super PACs
The 39 Democratic State Senators have over $10 Million in their committee funds, while the 20 Senate Republicans have $2.8 Million. Of that $2.8 Million, $550,000 comes from Republican Leader Christine Radogno’s PAC. Another $300,000 is from the committee for Sam McCann, who faces a fierce primary race for the 50th District.
In the House, the 71 Democratic members have raised $16.8 Million, while the 47 Republicans have only $4 Million available. Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin’s committee makes up $820,000 of House Republican funds.
Last but not least, there are three Super PACs that have set themselves apart in this election cycle by raising far more than any others (the fourth most funded, Personal PAC, has $690,707 on hand.) These totals are not included in the parties’ “Total Funds” above, but there are clear links between two of these committees and the Republican Party. The goal of Turnaround Illinois is to support the Governor’s agenda, and it has become the second highest donor to Liberty Principles PAC. The two groups also share donors. The IllinoisGO connection is more tenuous, but many believe it exists to fund Democrats who are willing to support the Governor’s agenda. Their heavy involvement in the Dunkin vs Stratton race has given weight to this theory.
These groups have already made a statement in certain races, and will almost certainly continue to do so until the General Elections in November.
* I had a brief moment of levity with Gov. Rauner last night. I was at the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus’ annual dinner and saw an AFSCME lobbyist with a small green button. I asked if I could have it so I could give it to the governor, who was a few feet away…
Rauner: What’s this?
Me: It’s a present. Put it on.
Rauner: What does it say?
Me: 200 Percent Union.
Rauner laughed and said he’d never wear it but would add it to his collection and put it in his pocket.
* So, at least I covered myself. Any other gift ideas? Humor only. No meanness, please…
* Illinois has had a “performance-based funding” statute on the books (Public Act 097-0320) since 2011. The idea is pretty good and it has received some national kudos. A brief explanation from the governor’s office…
- The universities’ performance formula generally focuses on:
o Completion data, including degrees awarded and degrees per 100 students
o Time to degree data, including graduation rates in 150% of time (6 yrs for a BA)
o Cost efficiency, including cost per credit hour and cost per completion
o Success of diverse populations, including Pell-eligible, adults over 25, African-American and Hispanic students
o Success of student pursuing high-need fields, specifically STEM and healthcare
o 3 year averages of all data
- The community colleges’ performance formula generally focuses on:
o Completion of degrees and certificates, including a focus on at-risk students
o Transfer rates to a four-year institution
o Advancement of remedial students and adults over 25
o Momentum points
* This is an incentive program. But the state hasn’t put much money behind the effort in the past, so the schools haven’t really paid much attention to it.
In FY 15, for instance, just $6 million was allocated for universities and only $352K for community colleges.
Gov. Rauner’s new budget has greatly upped the ante, with $50 million for four-year schools, and over $9 million for community colleges.
* The problems facing higher education right now are existential, with several schools on the brink of closing. So, this program is admittedly small-ball stuff. But it’s also the sort of thing we should be doing more of… if only we had a budget.
* From the Illinois Department on Aging’s budget book…
Enrollment in the Department on Aging’s Community Care Program (CCP) has significantly grown over the past 10 years, from 40,965 enrollees in 2005 to 83,787 enrollees in 2015, a 105% increase over a decade. Looking forward, the growth in Illinois’ aging population will also more than double by 2030, with an expected 57 percent increase in individuals aged 60 plus over the next 15 years. Sustaining CCP as it exists today will cost an additional $93.3 million in the next six years assuming the completion of the managed care transition by FY2018.
* The Community Reinvestment Program is a new initiative targeted to older adults who are not eligible for CCP who need assistance to live independently in the community.
* The initiative represents a long term strategy to maintain community-based supports for our current aging population as well to address the anticipated growth in the population its first year at a funding level of $225 Million.
* Transition individuals who are non-Medicaid eligible to a new Community Reinvestment Program (“CRP”).
– Non-Medicaid eligible clients will have their DON score applied to the new service cost maximum table to derive a new individual spending allocation.
– CRP will provide greater flexibility of services. The AAA Network (Area Agency on Aging) will be utilized as the mechanism for the coordination of preventative services.
– Similar to other states, Illinois’ approach will maintain a service package for individuals that do not meet Medicaid eligibility requirements.
– This approach will maintain the Department’s commitment to maintaining individuals in their own home and community and delay the number of admissions in nursing facilities, which is currently a large portion of the Medicaid budget at $1,583,008,257 per year out of the total spending for Medicaid Long Term Care.
* SEIU Healthcare is calling this an almost $200 million budget cut for 44,000 seniors…
1) The Bruce Rauner proposed FY17 budget dramatically cuts home care for seniors through a $197.6 million cut to the Illinois Department on Aging budget.
2) The Rauner budget would do this by splitting the Community Care Program (CCP), which currently provides home care services for roughly 84,000 seniors, into two programs: one for those covered by Medicaid, and a new “Community Reinvestment Program” for seniors not in Medicaid.
3) This proposal, if implemented, would have a substantial negative impact on the 43,700 seniors who the Rauner budget indicates would be moved to the “Community Reinvestment Program”
· The $197.6 million cut represents average cut of $4,520 in services annually per affected senior
· $4,520 is a 43% cut in services compared with the average amount of services seniors receive currently.
4) In CCP right now, the average cost of care per senior per year is roughly $10,430. The average cost to Medicaid of a nursing home is around $52,000 a year, or about five times as much.
5) The Rauner budget gives NO DETAILS about the nature of these cuts. The Illinois Department on Aging Budget presentation indicates that for seniors moved to the “CRP”
· There would be a different set of services available than those available to them now
· There would be different set of service cost maximums their services could not cost above.
But the Shimkus folks did their homework, even if their rhetoric is way over the top. Watch the spot by clicking here.
* Script…
It’s Washington vs. you. Washington insiders picked Kyle McCarter. In Springfield he sides with the Chicago machine, voting to urge Congress to create Obamacare, and funding Planned Parenthood. Kyle McCarter doesn’t even live in our district. John Shimkus does. He’s fought Barack Obama, voting 66 times to limit or repeal Obamacare. It’s Kyle McCarter and the Washington insiders, or John Shimkus and you.
Resolves that the time for a national solution to the American healthcare crisis that threatens the economic and physical health of the people of Illinois and people across the country is now and recognizes the urgent need for a national solution to the healthcare crisis that meets key criteria for comprehensive health care reform set forth by President Obama and Health Care for America Now.
Hi. I’m Sam McCann. Representing hard working people, making sure their voices are heard. That’s the most important thing I do. Sometimes that upsets powerful people, but that’s okay. Sticking up for you and what you believe is what’s important. That’s what this race is really about. I’m being attacked because I did what was right for this district. Powerful politicians shouldn’t be able to punish hard-working families. Not if I have anything to say about it. I’m Sam McCann, asking for your vote.
Discuss.
* Related…
* Bernard Schoenburg: Local Republican leader critical of Gov. Rauner’s ‘ambush’ at GOP Lincoln Day Dinner
* From the governor’s press office regarding the House passage this week of the so-called AFSCME “no strike” bill…
“Illinois taxpayers cannot afford HB 580 – it’s a $3 billion tax hike masquerading as a labor bill. If it becomes law, it will dig Illinois’ fiscal hole even deeper, further squeezing social services and, ironically, it will lead to layoffs.
On Tuesday, Madigan’s House dissed the governor by passing a dangerous bill that would take the AFSCME negotiations out of the governor’s hands and submit the two sides to binding arbitration. A three-member panel would look at AFSCME’s desires and the governor’s offer and pick a winner. No let’s-split-the-difference compromise based on what Illinois could actually afford. Just pick a side. Feel lucky? The Rauner administration doesn’t. The stakes are absurdly high: The union’s demands could add another $3 billion in spending over the life of the contract.
* Part of AFSCME’s response…
The governor’s wildly exaggerated claim appears to reflect not union proposals but existing costs. AFSCME’s proposals on general wage increases would average just $58 million a year more than Rauner’s proposals over four years. AFSCME’s proposals on health care, steps, overtime and holiday pay do not increase status quo costs or employee compensation. Moreover, AFSCME has made clear that its latest proposals are not its bottom line, and that in contrast to the Governor’s adamant refusal to continue negotiating, the union is willing to negotiate further.
* Here’s the union’s cost comparison of wage proposals on the table in January, when talks ended. These are year by year, beginning Fiscal Year 2016 through FY 19…
* So, I asked the governor’s office for deets and they sent me this…
* I then asked AFSCME for a more detailed rebuttal…
Rich —
Here are the facts of the administration’s purported $3 billion claim. Clearly, as stated in what we provided to you yesterday, their numbers are wildly exaggerated and attempt to misrepresent status quo provisions as if they reflected new or added costs.
General Wage Increase- The administration’s figure is $530 million, including rollup for FICA and pension); my number is $497 million over four years. Either way it’s pretty close.
Step Increase- Their number is inflated by the inaccurate assumption that all step-eligible employees will receive steps for all four years of the contract. In fact, of the 40% of all employees eligible to receive steps, nearly half (45%) will reach the top step prior to the last year of the contract. Further, their calculation neglects the attrition savings that, as we pointed out yesterday, generally make steps cost-neutral (that is, steps are paid for by the savings realized when employees retire at step 8 and are replaced by new hires at step 1). Finally, the Union proposal does not change the current agreement so does not represent a new or additional cost.
Holiday Pay- The Union’s proposal does not change the current agreement, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Overtime Pay- The Union’s proposal does not change the current agreement, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Roll Call Overtime- The Administration withdrew its proposal and agreed to current language, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Additional Longevity Pay- The Union on Jan. 8 withdrew its proposal to increase longevity pay.
Temporary Assignment Pay- The Administration withdrew its proposal and agreed to current language, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Additional Payouts and Incentives- I have no idea what this refers to.
Indirect Impact of AFSCME agreement- The administration is charging $300 million in phantom costs that are associated with the impact of the AFSCME agreement on other union agreements. Those costs should be assigned to those other collective bargaining agreements, not AFSCME’s.
Health Insurance Savings- As we explained yesterday, the union’s health insurance proposal essentially represents the status quo, so it does not represent a new or additional cost. The Administration claims a value of $1.72 billion, which I suspect they produce by multiplying the savings in their FY 17 proposed budget ($566 million by 3 years). However, this savings is for the entire group health insurance program. Of the approximately 275,000 active employees and dependents enrolled in the state’s group health insurance, I estimate that just 80,000 (about 30% of the total) are AFSCME members and their dependents. So here again, the Administration is jacking up purported costs by including costs associated with other state employees and university employees, not just the 38,000 AFSCME state employees.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Martha Merrill
Director of Research and Employee Benefits
AFSCME Council 31
Hillary Clinton had some harsh words for Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner and Illinois Republicans Wednesday during a campaign rally in Chicago.
“When I look at what’s happening here in Illinois, the Republican agenda to roll back the clock on everything that made the middle class strong in the 20th century, it’s pretty terrifying,” Clinton said.
Clinton also took swipes at Rauner, who gave his budget address Wednesday despite the fact that the state had operated without a budget for more than eight months because of gridlock in the Legislature over the governor’s “Turnaround Agenda.”
“His plan would turn Illinois around, all right,” Clinton said. “All the way back to the time of the robber barons at the start of the 19th century.”
20th Century. 19th Century.
Does she ever talk about the future?
* No offense meant at all to senior citizens, but Clinton not only talks mainly about the past, she also seems to surround herself with older people, and then wonders why she isn’t attracting any young folks to her campaign…
Tuesday night in New Hampshire, 83% of voters aged 18-29 chose Sanders, according to exit polls. And those voters were a full one-fifth of the electorate. Sanders also won 78% of first-time voters. The only age demographic Clinton won? People 65 and older. […]
Clinton lost the vote among women Tuesday night, 44% to Sanders’ 55%, according to exit polls.
Delmarie Cobb named Illinois Press Secretary for the Hillary For America campaign on Feb. 2, 2016. Since then Ms.Cobb no stranger to politics has been busy on the campaign trail making sure that Hillary is not only visible in Illinois but that she connects with the community.
Yes, the same person who backed Clinton in 2008 and who derided the Obama campaign’s pursuit of young voters. The same person who called Obama’s supporters kool aid drinkers. The same person who said, when speaking of her client Roland Burris, “We should be happy as Illinois citizens, because now we actually do have a senator who wants to be there.”
Of all the people who could’ve been chosen to be the face of Clinton’s campaign here and it’s Delmarie Cobb.
* She’s probably gonna murder me for suggesting this, but wouldn’t somebody like Rikeesha Phelon have been a much better pick? She’s young, respected by just about everyone and, above all, she has mad skills.
American politics is always about the future. Well, at least it is for the winners. Losers generally inhabit the past.
According to Rauner’s budget documents, he’s proposing $36.3 billion in spending but just $32.8 billion in revenue. The $3.5 billion difference is for “working together or executive management,” according to an administration official.
Forgetting for a moment that this fiscal year’s deficit isn’t addressed in next fiscal year’s budget proposal (which makes it even further out of whack), let’s take a look at this “executive management” proposal.
• Establish a wide array of spending reserves recognized and clearly enforceable by the comptroller;
• Reduce provider rates that are currently set in statute;
• Reduce or modify statutory transfers out of any state funds;
• Reallocate balances from other state accounts into general funds; and
• Alter or delay payments under continuing appropriations.
Passage of this legislation would allow the executive branch to make the needed spending reductions to bring spending in line with revenues and balance the budget. If enacted, the governor would neither reserve nor reduce General State Aid or early childhood education funding, ensuring we balance the budget while maintaining early childhood and General State Aid as our state’s top priorities. Furthermore, the governor would closely consult with the general assembly in making the difficult decisions necessary to balance the budget. In addition to protecting funding for General State Aid (K-12) and early childhood education, these powers could not extend to the Road Fund, debt service or payment of pension benefits to retirees.
“I am troubled by proposals that would appear to return to the days of skipping pension payments and raiding local funds to prop up state spending. That won’t help our state and it won’t help our local communities,” Cullerton said in a statement.
Remember how the governor came after local revenue sharing money last year? Well, every mayor in the state ought to be freaked out about this request.
Giving Rauner more budget power seems equally unpopular among Democrats. State Rep. Elaine Nekritz, a Northbrook Democrat, said the idea “gives me a lot of pause.”
House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat and Rauner’s chief budget foil, highlighted their differences when asked about Rauner’s argument that previous governors have been given additional budget-cutting powers and pressed for what was different this time.
“The person occupying the governor’s office,” he said.
We must fully fund this foundation level as a first step toward reforming our school funding formula. Our current formula doesn’t meet the needs of our children. Past attempts to fix the formula didn’t work because they pitted communities against each other.
This year, we are already seeing this cynical strategy being deployed. After years of financial mismanagement, our largest school system is threatening a lawsuit against the state. Such a course could set back funding formula reform for years to come, and ignores reality.
Not only did Chicago Public Schools ask for the current arrangement, they are benefiting from a special deal. CPS receives an extra $600 million more every year than school districts with similar student demographics. Any school funding reform proposal that involves taking money from one school district and giving it to another, is doomed to fail.
OK, first of all, if a federal lawsuit is filed and the plaintiffs win based on discriminatory school funding (and we’re worst in the nation, according to Senate President John Cullerton, which leads him to believe a suit could be successful), then that’ll radically change the playing field in favor of places like Chicago.
• Chicago has 18 percent of the state’s special education student population, but it receives 30 percent of state special education block grant funding.
• Chicago has fewer than 19 percent of all students in the state, but it receives approximately 27 percent of the state’s personal property replacement tax paid by corporations.
• Chicago has 30 percent of all low-income students in the state, but it receives more than 50 percent of all free breakfast and lunch dollars, 42 percent of poverty-based education funding and 37 percent of early childhood funding for at-risk students.
• Chicago’s population accounts for 25 percent of communities that receive supplemental property tax funding, yet CPS receives 88 percent of Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) adjustment dollars.
All told, sweetheart deals yield CPS an additional $600 million in state education funding.
* I asked the Senate Democrats for a response…
Rich,
Two docs attached.
1 – Staff memorandum walking through legislative history that got us to the current school funding formula, along with staff’s rebuttal to Leader Radogno’s Trib op-ed from early December, and a walk up to how the SGOP maybe got to their $600 million figure
2 – An ISBE report indicating that if CPS were treated like all other districts, they would’ve received an extra $219.3 million from the state (not $600 million)
Both are exciting reads for a Wednesday night.
Enjoy.
* According to the SDEM staff memorandum, Rauner and Radogno are counting personal property replacement tax money received by both the city of Chicago and CPS. So, an argument about school funding ought to stick to school funding and not include municipal funding.
The staff memo also points out that the PTELL adjustment formula for CPS is the same as for all other districts…
• The adjustment corrects the “double whammy” problem that existed in the GSA formula for tax capped districts:
o Districts subject to PTELL cannot collect as much revenue as they might if they were not capped.
o The General State Aid Foundation Grant formula assumes that they can access a certain percentage of local property wealth, which tax caps prevent, and so those districts would lose out on GSA Foundation funding.
• The adjustment has nothing to do with enrollment in a district but instead compares the current Equalized Assessed Valuation (EAV) of the district to the EAV at the time the district was subjected to tax caps.
The staff analysis claims that if the $58 million in PPRT was taken away from CPS, the district would get $50 million back from the foundation formula grant.
* You think pensions are hard to understand? Try school funding.
The funding formula that determines the state’s annual contribution to the pension systems sets the contribution at a level percentage of payroll for the years remaining in the funding schedule to try to provide a level of certainty in annual payments. Over the years, changes to the pension systems have excluded some payroll from the funding formula. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the proposed plan calls for all payroll to be included in the calculation of contributions in order to provide more level payments. This would include the payroll for “Tier 2” members (those first hired after December 31, 2010).
Phase-In of Assumption Changes
The proposal includes a five-year phase-in of state contribution variations (up or down) caused solely by changes in actuarial assumptions (including revised investment return and discount factor assumptions) as set unilaterally by each pension system board. Changes in assumptions have increased pension liabilities by more than $12.5 billion in the last two years, causing significant deviations from the initially projected State contributions. Increases or decreases in state contributions attributable to assumption changes would be smoothed in over five years, which is the same period used for smoothing the effect of the deviation of actual investment returns from return assumptions. This phase-in will facilitate long-term planning for state pension contributions and will reduce payment volatility.
* From Sen. Daniel Biss, who has worked on pension reform for quite a while now…
Just an FYI:
What BVR calls “Funding Formula Based on Payroll” and “five-year phase-in of state contribution variations” both create “savings” by totally artificially and unjustifiably backloading the payment schedule.
* I asked him to explain…
“Funding formula based on payroll” means this:
We’re supposed to fund our pensions based on a “level percentage of payroll”. So the actuaries project how much payroll will grow over the years and that determines how steep the ramp is. If they assume payroll will grow fast, that results in a more backloaded funding schedule; if they assume it will grow slow, that’s a more frontloaded schedule.
This proposal says that instead of basing it on payroll which counts toward the pensions, it’s based on total payroll. What’s the difference? Total payroll includes salary that’s above the pensionable salary cap. But because the salary cap grows more slowly than the top salaries (ESPECIALLY for Tier 2 but likely also for Tier 1), that means they’re replacing the correct definition of payroll with a totally irrelevant one that happens to grow more quickly and therefore backloads the payments.
“Five-year phase-in of state contribution variations” means that when the pension board drops the investment return assumption, instead of making the proper (larger) payments based on the new assumption, they’re phasing that change in over 5 years. So the pension board says “we expect 7.5% investment returns” and the state says “OK, well we’ll start paying attention gradually, but only completely do what you tell us is required in 5 years.” In other words, during the course of those 5 years the state is deliberately putting in less money than the pension board expects to be necessary to meet the funding target.
What’s frustrating is that you can play these games forever. This stuff is complicated enough that if your goal is to find some confusing but ultimately bogus justification to pay less you have a very target-rich environment. I thought we weren’t supposed to do that any more though!
* According to the Chicago Tribune editorial board, nobody but dorks should fret that the governor submitted a clearly unbalanced budget yesterday…
Gov. Bruce Rauner addressed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday, outlining his plans for next year’s state budget. The poindexters whipped out their calculators.
But the crucial takeaway was broader than an exercise in number-crunching: We’re at the end of the road in Springfield. No more pavement, nothing but dirty orange barricades and languid yellow warning lights.
* But a pox on that unbalanced budget approving General Assembly…
No one would have guessed on June 25, 2015, when Rauner vetoed the unbalanced-by-$4-billion budget Democratic leaders sent him, that the state would have no spending plan today. Yet here we are.
* Instead of being a horrific outlier, we’re apparently more like America than any other state…
Hi Rich,
With the results of the earlier primary-election states greatly affecting which candidates stay in the presidential race — raising the question of which state truly deserves the top spot in the primaries — the personal finance website WalletHub today released its 2016 Electorate Representation Index.
To determine which states fairly represent the U.S. electorate, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states to the U.S. across five key categories: 1) Sociodemographics, 2) Economy, 3) Education, 4) Religion, and 5) Public Opinion.
