20 Comments - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 1:24 pm: Ugaste Resolution…. ” WHEREAS, Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates, someone directly involved in the quality of public education, has elected to send one of her children to a private institution” - Henry - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 1:32 pm: A $5,000 a month fine isn’t going to incentivize insurance companies to do anything. If you really want them to keep their databases updated, then a better approach would be to force them to cover listed providers as in network. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 1:32 pm: ===“It’s common knowledge that when we invest in children and education, we reap the rewards for generations, and we need to take action when we are falling behind on these key statistics,” said Rep. Ugaste. “Currently, we are last in the nation for state economies with the most racial equality and we need to address and fix this problem. We need to make certain that we are providing equal opportunity for everybody in Illinois and that begins with action in the General Assembly. We need a straight up and down vote, not an amendment to another bill, on this critical issue. This sunset needs to be removed so we can provide more opportunities for education in Illinois.”=== Now… make that about public education. Not one thing is preventing altruistic donors to giving to kids to go to private schools. I’ve looked. Invest in Kids is about propping up private education where they can discriminate to whom can attend and decide with testing who can continue to learn there. Invest in Kids is about the tax breaks first, the kids last, as the necessity of the tax break is so necessary… not one person has decided to fundraise away from the program to keep monies in these schools. It’s utterly phony that “it isn’t about the money”… for the tax breaks, for the schools… and the students are the vessels to funnel tax break cash to schools needing that money. It’s terrible policy masquerading as “altruistic educational freedom” Let it end, let’s see the fundraising be the anger, not the carrot-ing tax breaks. - Roman - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 1:49 pm: I think OW made a similar observation last week, so pardon me if this is repetitive. But I have to wonder what is Ugaste’s goal? Is it to help the kids you claim to be concerned with and actually pass a bill? Or is it to get social media likes by “owning the libs?” If it’s the latter, you’re doing great. If it’s the former, you are doing it wrong. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 1:58 pm: I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a House Resolution that urges its own body to do something. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 2:18 pm: “The Blue Cross directory continues to show 98 Springfield Clinic providers as in-network when they are not” I am a very active detractor of Blue Cross. The database is always wrong. I had to walk into four clinics that were all supposedly part of the network to find one that actually was. The customer service was rude and generally horrible. And then they stopped taking credit cards for premium payments. I told the dude I was just going to cancel if they wouldn’t take my credit card. He wouldn’t, so I did. I’ve had so much better luck with Health Alliance and Aetna. I would never ever recommend Blue Cross to my worst enemy. - JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 2:32 pm: =“It’s common knowledge that when we invest in children and education, we reap the rewards for generations, and we need to take action when we are falling behind on these key statistics,” = OW hits ths out of the park. GOVERNMENT invests in schools through public schools not private and parochial schools. That is a foundational American principle predating the revolution. Some people just don’t seem to love America. - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 2:48 pm: “GOVERNMENT invests in schools through public schools not private and parochial schools. That is a foundational American principle predating the revolution.” SCOTUS decisions to the contrary… Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, “Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that any damages or harm claimed by the taxpayers by virtue of simply being a taxpayer would be pure speculation because the issue at hand was a tax credit and not a government expenditure” Zelman v. Simmons-Harris “declared that the school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause…also deemed that government support for religion was constitutional if it did not occur de jure but de facto and also failed to specify or to encourage religious schools” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 2:56 pm: ===SCOTUS decisions === Illinois Constitution… SECTION 3. PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES FORBIDDEN Neither the General Assembly nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of land, money, or other personal property ever be made by the State, or any such public corporation, to any church, or for any sectarian purpose. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 2:58 pm: Of the bills listed above, I’m guessing HR409 has the best chance of passage. ===But I have to wonder what is Ugaste’s goal?=== Constituent management/donor relations? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 3:02 pm: - Roman - There was talk to that, I too can’t remember to the specific thought I had. If you like, claim it. The fundraising and donor list aspect of the resolution is par for the course where votes are more difficult to find. One angle, for sure. - Norseman - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 3:29 pm: OW & JS has it covered on my thoughts on Ugaste. There are several things to say about the Senate MAGA GOP social media bill. - The MAGA GOP wants to impose a regulatory, but refuses to pay for them when the bill comes. - it’s interesting to see the hypocrisy of the MAGA GOP to be concerned about the social media impact on kids and want government intervention, while they don’t want any government involvement in correcting lies and misinformation that adversely impacts the health and wellbeing of all society. - State level regulation of a multi-national media company doesn’t make sense. Especially when the MAGA GOP doesn’t like to pay for them. - Huckleberry1926 - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 3:53 pm: As one who pays taxes, a deduction for charitable contributions is between 12% and 40% of a taxpayer’s income depending on the taxpayer’s income tax bracket. A SEVENTY-FIVE percent tax credit (of the final tax owed) comes off the total tax bill. Last I checked, 75% > 12% to 40%. Schooling, it’s basic math. - Illiana - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 4:22 pm: @Norseman The social media bill is essentially the exact same bill that California recently passed into law. Now, that law is facing a pretty steep legal battle and you can disagree with the idea of states trying to regulate multi-national media companies. But considering where the concept came from, you can’t really call it a “MAGA GOP social media bill,” unless you think California passed a MAGA social media bill and Gov. Newsom signed that into law. - Norseman - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 4:47 pm: Iliana, the MAGA GOP point goes primarily to their hypocrisy. I don’t care if they stole the bill verbatim, Newsom and California Dems are at least consistent on social media regulation. I also don’t care about the CA origin I don’t agree with state regulation. Remembering my time on legislative staff, we used to joke that if the idea came from CA, we didn’t want it in IL. - JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 21, 23 @ 5:23 pm: =SCOTUS decisions to the contrary…= To the contrary of history? That is odd, because it is a fact that public schools predate the revolution in New England going back to the late 17th and early 18th centuries. I don’t think the court can negate history as much as some people are trying to rewrite it at times. Decisions by an court that is inconsistent in following their own standards don’t really change the truth. - Chicagonk - Friday, Sep 22, 23 @ 10:10 am: OW - You are very wrong on what Invest in Kids does. I would suggest you do some research on the impact that the programs has had for students on the south and west sides of Chicago. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 22, 23 @ 10:14 am: === You are very wrong on what Invest in Kids does. I would suggest you do some research on the impact that the programs has had for students on the south and west sides of Chicago.=== Nope. I’m spot on, thanks. If your anecdotal is even remotely true, why o why is there a need for the tax break, who exactly is getting the monies through these kids (as vessels to funnel monies)… and the enrollment aspects and testing requirements to enter and stay entered versus open enrollment… I’m sorry, “it’s about the money”… the tax breaks and schools reaping a windfall. Prove me wrong by having all these altruistic donors merely donate without the program - Chicagonk - Friday, Sep 22, 23 @ 11:45 am: OW - You specifically said that Invest in Kids is about discriminating against students and using testing to decide which students get to stay. That is factually incorrect - Argue with facts. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 22, 23 @ 11:52 am: === You specifically said=== You are saying each of those schools have open enrollment for all students, and there’s no removal of students due to academics or other factors? Is that your “fact” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.