56 Comments - Mouthy - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:12 pm: It’s a waste of time IMO just like the advisory on increasing the minimum wage turned out to be.. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:17 pm: No. Not at this time. A graduated tax CA must pass first. Only then will the state have the ability to change the tax structure in a manner to afford the cost of the Education amendment. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:18 pm: Madigan’s attempt to make the state bail out the Chicago Public School System! - Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:18 pm: Another distraction. Takes up space on ballot from needed amendments. - RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:21 pm: I believe only 3 legislatively initiated constitutional amendment proposals are allowed per general election. If this is #1, a millionaire’s surcharge is #2 and a progressive income tax is #3, then there is no room for term limits unless it is a voter initiated amendment that survives any challenges. - Big Joe - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:22 pm: Agree. Pass the graduated income tax, then do the right thing for public education, along with limits on charter schools. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:23 pm: This would guarantee a high tax hike. Bye-bye, Illinois. - PAM - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:24 pm: No. Another step toward removing local control from education. If the state funds education, how do local districts control content? - titan - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:25 pm: “a fundamental right (instead of goal) of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities” Would this give special education students the right to sue to get the absolute best (i.e. most expensive) private educational placement (when the public district doesn’t offer it in-house)? - Collinsville Kevin - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:29 pm: Ridiculous! Madigan is a one-man argument for term limits. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:30 pm: Raunerbots, try answering the question first and then you can use your drive-by comments. - UIC Guy - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:33 pm: Yes. ‘to the limits of their capacities’ has got to imply that it includes Higher Ed, right? - anon - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:33 pm: === Another step toward removing local control from education. === Illinois provides a lower proportion of State funding for K-12 public education than any other state. Is there no local control left in all those other states? - thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:34 pm: Still leaves a lot of wiggle room. What is a public education? Does that include higher ed? Vocational? Charter? Adult? Can the State just redefine what counts as public education (e.g. just the first 6 hours of instruction for no more than 180 days)? See the proposed attempts to redefine pensionable raises/bonuses for the creative ways some will try to skirt intent. What about funding disparities? Is this an individual right of action? Can I/my school district sue if the State did not fund at least 50% of my education? Or does it just matter at the State level and, if so, who can bring suit? Are pension contributions included, either in the “how much we paid towards education” numerator or the “total cost of education” denominator? Perhaps the amendment itself has all these details worked out. However, given that we could not keep our commitment with the existing language, I would not bet on this being ironclad enough to avoid future funding issues when budget times get tight. - RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:36 pm: == This would guarantee a high tax hike. == Only with the existing flat tax. Move to a graduated tax and an expanded sales tax on services and a lot of people will be paying less. It’s the wealthy who will be paying more. - CD Sorensen - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:36 pm: I’ve never agreed with the positive rights constitutional framework that’s evolved over the last fifty years of government-creatin’. If we’re going back to our Enlightenment-era philosophical underpinnings, its really hard to find a right to education in the makeup of man, and that education as we currently define it is something that’s a by-product of the industrial revolution, which is way after Locke/Hobbes/Roussea et al. Anyway, no, this is a dumb and distracting idea. And I say this as someone who has voted for Chicago Machine politicians before, and will likely vote for more as I live on. I’d rather we got back to campaign maneuvering and digging up ad hominem attacks than come up with bad policy proposals. I do view them as two sides to the same coin — its all politics. - thoughts matter - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:40 pm: Yes. Every child in this state deserves to be educated to the best of their ability, regardless of district. We depend on people we interact with in our daily lives to be educated well, and that interaction is not limited to just children that live in our district and go to school in the same school years as our own children. There is a good chance your nurse, doctor, caregiver, lawyer, etc., or that of your elderly parents, came from some other district than your own. - SKI - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:46 pm: Waste of time. Rauner provides lip service stating how much he supports education and now Madigan is responding to try to show he supports/cares about education more. Meanwhile in Illinois, nothing gets done. - Roadbuilder - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:58 pm: No. It is a fundamental right to get a BASIC education, not for me to fund education to whatever extent each individual desires. It should not be society’s responsibility to fund the education of career college students nor the children of parents that are not legal residents who pay no income taxes. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:01 pm: =It’s the wealthy who will be paying more.= The wealthy that don’t move out of state. - 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:04 pm: “Only with the existing flat tax. Move to a graduated tax and an expanded sales tax on services and a lot of people will be paying less. It’s the wealthy who will be paying more.” Connecticut tried that and the millionaires, and the wealthy mostly moved out of state. That is why CT is now trying to tax Yale’s endowment. Yale will probably try to move that out of state (has been done with other endowments) but I guess Yale’s brick and mortar will mean the state (municipality?) could just turn off their water… - Judgment Day - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:06 pm: No. The IL Constitution has already put this state into a financial box on pension and retirement costs that we’ll (as a state and as taxpayers) likely never get out of. So let’s ‘double down’ and place a second bet in the IL Constitution? Only this time on education. An excellent example of Fiscal Madness. - cdog - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:08 pm: absolutley yes. And then add the progressive tax/millionaire tax, as an additional CA! And then, get that dang school district off my property tax bill. - Federalist - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:10 pm: Political theatre! - D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:13 pm: Simply reverses the mistaken Ill. S.C. ruling that said the Ill. Const. didn’t say what it clearly says. - Me too - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:14 pm: NYC has the highest concentration of rich people in America. Wanna guess how high their top marginal rate is? Chicago is that to the midwest. Most other states around here have a graduated income tax. Everyone but Jimmy John will stay. Oh wait, he’d scream that he was leaving but stay anyway. The argument that the rich people will move away if we tax them higher assumes those people, one can’t afford another few percent, two didn’t mind enough when the tax rate went up to 5, and three would have already moved to Texas or Florida if they didn’t want to stay in Chicago. - x ace - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:14 pm: NO - Amending Constitution for any reason is a Slippery Slope. Don’t Amend the Constitution , Follow it in all Areas and problems go away. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:15 pm: The first half of the language ( “paramount”, “right”) raises the priority of education, and the second half weakens the State funding responsibility (”primary” to “preponderant.”) No. - Politically Incorrect - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:17 pm: YES. Con Con thought that the 1970 language would lead to the State paying at least 51% of the total public education costs. The Courts interpreted it as a goal. This is a proper way to get what was promised 46 years ago. - Lycurgus - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:22 pm: No - do we really want to turn over ed funding to the courts? - Railrat - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:26 pm: Bingo ! Roadbuilder@12:58 - olddog - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:32 pm: Voted yes. The proposed amendment merely upholds the intent of the 1970 constitution and makes it enforceable by court order. As a practical matter, it absolutely has to go before any meaningful changes in the school funding formula because those changes can only come about under court order. - Scrivener - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:52 pm: Lots of fodder in the proposed amendment for litigation mischief. Leave “feel good” proposals alone and get to work on the budget. - Earnest - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:02 pm: I voted ‘no.’ Instead, I would support an amendment to require the Governor to present a balanced budget and the House and Senate to pass a balanced budget. /33% snark - Will Caskey - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:04 pm: Yes, because writing outlays into the constitution without accompanying revenues has worked out really great so far. - here we go - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:05 pm: I’m unclear by Railrat and Roadbuilder’s comments, or rather intent. As for the immigration comment: Children of undocumented parents are citizens and therefore have a right, just like any other citizen, to an education in this country. Similarly, the SCOTUS has already said that even undocumented children have a right to an education in this country. - CapnCrunch - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:05 pm: No. This is the first step in forcing non Chicago residents to help pay to operate the Chicago Public School system. Chicago residents have the “preponderant financial responsibility” for funding their schools. - anon123 - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:06 pm: Until a budget is passed, no one in the GA should be doing anything else unless they want to be rightly shouted down as distracting from their duty to govern. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:06 pm: Voted no. Caskey is on point. Put graduated income tax on the ballot first. - lincoln's beard - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 2:56 pm: Voted no – it would be about as effective as the requirement that the budget be balanced. - walker - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 3:11 pm: No. It’s a campaign mailer statement, and a way to get a campaign message into the voting booth. Moving something from “clear” to “abundantly clear” in the Constitution is laughable. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 3:24 pm: No, I don’t support the Constitution mandating funding. I believe this should be part of the budget process. The Constitution should be to ensure liberty and prevent government over-reach and should not be used for political purposes or budgeting. I am appalled at Madigan wanting to use the State Constitution for political purposes. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 3:27 pm: === I am appalled at Madigan wanting to use the State Constitution for political purposes. === Yea, Rauner and Madigan should quit trying to amend the constitution for political gain. - Rhino Slider - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 3:28 pm: Would this prioritize Chicago School funding over State pensions? Since the money supply is severely limited, this would be an interesting fight between those 2 groups. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 3:37 pm: No. If education is defined as a “fundamental right” in legislation, who’s to say the state’s responsibility ends at 12th grade? At a bachelor degree? A masters degree? A doctorate? In fact, the amendment specifies “…all persons to the limits of their capacities.” Perhaps that’s an oversight, or perhaps it’s the intent. Further, this does nothing to fix the fact that the GA regularly ignores the balanced budget requirements of the state constitution among a number of other requirements like pension funding, etc. This would likely be another useless collection of words on a page that do absolutely nothing to affect Illinoisans’ lives for the better. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:20 pm: === I am appalled at Madigan wanting to use the State Constitution for political purposes. === Yea, Rauner and Madigan should quit trying to amend the constitution for political gain. Norseman, I agree with you on the principle that Rauner is also guilty, but of the two items he is for (redistricting & term limits) I am fully behind redistricting reform as it is has become a massive overreach and abuse of government. Regarding term limits, while I’m not an ardent supporter (although if it was on the ballot I would probably vote yes), I can understand why others are so passionately supporting the cause, as they agree long term entrenchment as a corrupting power. There is also precedent as the US Constitution sets term limits on Presidents. I’m not saying Rauner wasn’t using the constitutional amendment for political gain, but I do think those two issues are more of the types of amendments that should be considered for a constitutional amendment and not budgeting and appropriation issues. - Filmmaker Professor - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:22 pm: meaningless exercise. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:30 pm: Ahoy, that’s your opinion. Others have a different opinion on the appropriateness of the amendments. - blue dog dem - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:31 pm: Absolutely NO. - Langhorne - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:32 pm: I predicted a springtime madigan CA surprise–but i thought it would be the millionaire tax. - Atsuishin - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:37 pm: I support this in principle and it may actually help courts use extreme measures to integrate Chicago public schools with suburban schools. Its an obvious gimmick on the spkers part tho. - NoGifts - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:48 pm: I voted no because Illinois is in enough of an impasse right now without opening up the constitution for who knows what kind of mayhem! - RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 4:57 pm: == I voted no because Illinois is in enough of an impasse right now without opening up the constitution for who knows what kind of mayhem! == This would just be a single subject change. It is not a call for a Con-Con. The voters have to approve that … and they rejected it at the 40 (20*2) year mark in 2010. - mokenavince - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 5:20 pm: No now is not the time to muddy the waters. This is a Madigan idea and his track record is not very good. - peon - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 7:25 pm: Voted no. Prefer this amendment first (the nation’s only flat progressive tax!): “The personal income tax shall be federal adjusted gross income divided by the current maximum taxable earnings under SSI multiplied by the fixed base income tax rate, up to a maximum effective rate of three times the base income tax rate. The fixed base income tax rate will be established by statute”. No-one can argue it will be made arbitrarily progressive later and people under $118k (at present) will get a slight reduction on taxes while those above will pay more. Adjust rate to get appropriate income stream. Just dreaming. - Brodie - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 7:27 pm: Voted no, but really does it matter how it is worded if the GA doesn’t fulfill their part anyway? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.