Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Will Buzz save us from drowning or just add more water into the tank?
Posted in:
* The Illinois Policy Institute, which has often teamed up with the House Republicans on policy issues, has published its new “Piglet Book.” It’s supposed to be a list of pork, but pork, as they say, is in the eyes of the beholder.
For instance, the IPI publication flat-out states while it “exposes” a relatively small grant to WTTW…
Unfortunately, there is no need for public broadcasting in an era of cable television and streaming Internet videos
That’s more than just a debatable point.
* Nurses…
The state is funding nurses’ tuition for $75,000 and nurse educator fellowships for $150,000. There is evidence that aspiring nurses are not in dire need of financial assistance. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Statistics, the median salary for nurses in May 2008 was $62,450, well above the 2008 median family income in Illinois of $54,141. Tax dollars of less well-off Illinoisans should not be funding education for people who will go on to make far more money than they ever will.
OK, first, they aren’t telling the whole story. The $62K figure is for registered nurses. Licensed practical nurses made, on average, $40,110, according to the stats. But that would be below the median family income, so it likely didn’t fit their meme. Nursing aides made $24,620.
What the IPI either fails to understand or ignores is that many, many lower-income people have historically turned to the nursing profession to improve their lots in life. But IPI can’t really come out and say “taxes for well-off people shouldn’t be helping low-income folks improve their lives.”
…Adding… Since the state partially funds universities, law schools and medical schools, how does that hold up to the IPI’s goal of: “Tax dollars of less well-off Illinoisans should not be funding education for people who will go on to make far more money than they ever will”? Using that logic, we’d be putting almost no money into higher education at all, and absolutely zero money into medical schools and law schools.
More tuition stuff…
Overall, the state has paid $1,049,639 from August 1, 2009 through January 7, 2010 in employee tuition and fees. If state employees are interested in taking classes to burnish their resumes or to bump themselves up to the next pay grade, it should be incumbent upon that individual to decide whether the long-term investment in additional schooling is worth the money. Many private employers subsidize education, but not with taxpayer dollars.
* Race and ethnicity play a pretty big role in the IPI report…
The state should be colorblind, treating all of its citizens equally. Unfortunately, in allocating tax dollars to specific ethnic service organizations, it runs the risk of looking, in the words of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, like “some are more equal than others.”
Certainly, many of these organizations are worthy causes; yet the unequal distribution of funds leaves some groups flush, and others underserved. Some ethnic groups should not receive more state money because they are better at applying for state grants. Organizations should be self-sufiicient, raising money from their communities in proportion to their need.
The IPI doesn’t seem to understand that distributing money to human service groups on the ground - like their listed Jewish Child & Family Services, Asian Human Services of Chicago, American Hispanic Wellness Services and Arab-American Family Services - means that the state can save money because it would cost more to deliver the services itself. They have the expertise and the constituencies.
* More race and ethnicity…
To many Illinoisans, preserving their cultural heritage is a priority. In such a diverse state, however, it becomes problematic when legislators start doling out funds to support the artistic legacy of special ethnic groups or regions. Instead of picking “winners” and “losers” based on subjective criteria, the state should encourage communities to work together to honor their traditions.
For whatever reason, no Irish-American groups are on its pork list. Huh.
* To be sure, as with its Public Television slam, they also go after “elite” culture, like a $61,500 grant to the Art Institute of Chicago.
And they ridicule a $72,750 grant to the grape growers…
Illinois may have good growing conditions, but it is certainly not temperate enough for wine production.
Tell that to all those southern Illinois vintners who are bringing more tourists to the region every year.
* Look, I agree that in extremely tight budget times a lot of this stuff isn’t necessarily affordable. Maybe the state can’t afford to give WTTW a grant, but to just flat-out say things like cable TV and the Internet can replace Public Television tips their hand to where they are really coming from.
…Adding More… From comments…
It appears that about a third of their so-called savings would stem from ending the payments to the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Company. I suspect that the $123,000,000 payment that they cite represents the amount of special local sales taxes that go to MPEA that are used, to pay off bonded indebtedness.
So, are they suggesting that the state violate existing law and keep these tax receipts and also cause MPEA to default on the indebtedness?
The “logic” of defaulting on debt in order to save cash that’s statutorially linked to paying off said debt is more than a little bit odd.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Will Buzz save us from drowning or just add more water into the tank?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
IPI lost me and its credibility with its knock against public televsion at the top of the thread.
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:34 am
Rich - fix the IFI to IPI midway in the post (then delete this comment)
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:38 am
LOL. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:39 am
The whole “not temperate enough for wine production” thing is more than enough to show that this group isn’t playing with a full deck. What a bunch of goofs!
Comment by Deep South Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:39 am
What’s the over/under on IPI coming to its self-defense by using a bunch more half-baked excuses within 15 minutes?
Comment by Rob N Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:40 am
Actually, I really don’t dig Illinois wine, but we can grow grapes here.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:41 am
It looks like this was written by a high-school intern.
I think there absolutely is some Pork they could find, but they either didn’t take the time or have the smarts to find it.
Primarily, it looks like they don’t understand that the list of “Grants” in the state budget book isn’t a list of grants to organizations for them to go off and do some semi-relevant project.
The “grants” actually mean “What the State is paying people to do instead of having state employees do it”. Like - administer home care for the elderly and disabled.
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:43 am
Also a lot of the nursing scholarships are funded by the increase in the nursing license fee…
Full disclosure thanks to Mrs. OneMan she/we pay (the RN license fee, the APN license fee and the controlled substance license fee).
Yes I do find it a bit ironic that the license fee is used to increase the number of nurses and therefore reduce possible compensation for nurses.
Also nursing comp in Illinois tends to be lower than other states.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:45 am
It all bothers me, but of the things that you pulled out, here are the two things that bug me the most:
- Providing modest grants so someone can move into a living wage position like nursing is exactly how the state should use its money. I would love to see the Republicans rally against that type of funding.
- *Some ethnic groups should not receive more state money because they are better at applying for state grants.*
What are they talking about? Do they have any idea how human services work? Do they have any clue that providing culturally appropriate services to those in need is much more effective and cost efficient? Do they understand that just because a group has the word “Jewish” in their name, it does not mean they only provide services to people that are Jewish? Do they get that community-based organization providing services are in communities that have few resources and cannot simply raise all they need from that community? (Obviously, these are all rhetorical questions.)
“Analysis” such as theirs is not helpful. Not at all.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:50 am
Rich - was the GOP / IPI report written in crayon? It seems so child-like and poorly written.
I think some of the House GOP members are the biggest supporters of the Illinois wine industry.
There is pork out there of course, but this report hardly finds any of it. Pathetic.
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:52 am
Rich, I’m afraid you’re being a little less than honest about the nursing salary issue.
There’s a HUGE difference between the educational costs of a Registered Nurse as opposed to an LPN.
My wife’s an RN, and that requires a bachelor’s degree as a minimum.
An LPN only requires what amounts to a 2 year associates degree.
A four year degree at a private university like Xavier in Chicago will cost over $120K when all costs are included
A two year associates from a public JC will cost about $10K.
By the way, it seems like you’re confusing the Illinois Family Institute and Illinois Policy Institute in your write up.
I know folks from both.
No comparison.
The one thing I’ve told the people at IPI is that it doesn’t make sense to “nibble around the edges” on budget issues.
We need to stop providing medicaid to people making 400% of the poverty level, and just fund the truly needy.
We need to end the unnecessary expense of “Prevailing Wage” requirements in Illinois that costs billions every year without adding value.
We need to stop raiding the motor fuel, license fee and sales tax funds so that our “crumbling infrastructure” can be repaired without new taxes.
We need to scrap the $31 billion capital bill to only include safety related capital work and sell the remainder of the bonds to pay the state’s financial obligations and get current.
We need to change the laws to limit increasing school and college raises and benefit increases to the rate of inflation (or increased revenues, whichever is less) without refendum approval and community provision to increase taxes to PAY for the raises.
Even IPI doesn’t want step into that swamp, so they get into the miniscule public TV grants.
We won’t solve this financial mess by clipping fingernails on the budget. We need some amputations!
Comment by PalosParkBob Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:53 am
3,000 for a barber school?
1.4 million for a diversity fund?
Some of the snark is very good. dr quinn…medicene governor?
giving 60k to the missouri botanical garden?
a lot of this stuff is junk and should have a name attached. I’m sure a lot of republicans could be primaried from the right if they sponsored this stuff.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:54 am
The subtitle is funny to me:
“The book Springfield doesn’t want you to read”
Did they get that line from John Kass? Who exactly is “Springfield”? You want to call out projects but not legislators? Why not do the real homework and call out the legislators who sponsored the projects that you object to?
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:55 am
PalosParkBob, it doesn’t matter that there is a difference in education costs. The IPI’s stated reasoning is that people with little incomes shouldn’t pay taxes to help people make more money than them.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:56 am
HAHAHAH -
I like on page 8, when they say “If Illinois residents feel inclined to make charitable contributions to causes, they should be free to give to those that are of personal interest and concern.”
Right after they list contributions made from the Income Tax Check-off program
ummm…. helllloooo?!?!?!
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:56 am
I scanned through the whole report, and very little appeared to be actual pork. Mostly, it seems that someone has an axe to grind. As Rich said, maybe we should reevaluate some of these expenditures and the underlying purpose of the expenditures. We don’t know if we’re getting the best possible bang for our buck, but most of this stuff appears to be very reasonable.
Really, going after expenditures for promoting tourism? Ummm…yeah, that’s something we should avoid at all costs - more tourism. That never brings in any revenue. Its a huge money waster.
Higher Ed spending? Terrible idea. Nothing worse than maintaining a world class research institution that draws in high quality students and researchers to Urbana (and then sends most of its students to Chicago), and allows us to create such valuable things as…the world wide web. Bad idea there.
And nurses? Yeah, we definitely don’t want more nurses, what with the rapid aging of the population and the need for a lot more nursing professionals. Bad spending idea there.
HIV and AIDS prevention and other health programs - yeah, who’s ever heard of a government taking an interest in promoting Public Health? Slash that spending…if it means a bump in the number of AIDS patients, cancer patients, etc, oh well. That won’t drive up health costs at all…
Job training? In a recession? You want to dump that? Really? Yeah, that’s a great idea. Let’s make it harder for people to get the skills they need to find a job.
Finally, some real pork - all that spending going to those nature/outdoorsy organizations. Yeah, that looks like pork - it may go to good programs, but it does appear to be something that can be sacrificed in tough times. However, it ain’t exactly a huge pile of cash, either. Appears that they found less than a full million dollars there.
County Fairs? Get rid of that funding fo sho, it’s not like those aren’t big economic drivers in a lot of rural counties.
Ah..Horse racing..Yeah, I’d support killing any corporate welfare going to the horse racing industry.
The Arts - might seem to be an easy way to cut spending, but money going into arts programs is one of the most efficient ways to stimulate the economy in a very direct manner - the money tends to go to salaries, which allow people to buy things. And nice way to bring up the fund balances of organizations like museums. A lot of that fund balance is in the collection - you know, the paintings at the Art Institute. Hows about looking at their operating margins?
Yeah, lets yank another $34 million from the RTA when the CTA, PACE, and Metra are already collapsing from being underfunded for years. Great idea. Put more cars on the roads, and run up the tab on rebuilding roads.
This is really stupid. You can look at a lot of programs and try to figure out which ones aren’t delivering value for the expenditure, but glancing at expenditure lines and then complaining without any context is stupid. It’s even stupider to advocate eradicating funding for programs that help generate more tax revenue (and revenue for businesses).
We need real ideas, not mind-numbingly stupid reports on “pork”.
If that’s the best they could do on finding pork, then Illinois is running a pretty tight ship.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:58 am
I love the social services argument. It completely ignores Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, which each probably get more money than all the others on the list combined. Hm. But it says its complaint is really that some ethnic-based groups get more than others–apparently they are upset that Arab American Services only got $3600, when Jewish Family Services got $3.6 million?
Comment by winco Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:02 pm
Obviously, as stated in the intro, the social services groups get paid for work they do that DCFS (or other agencies) don’t have to do. In fact, it is just the privatization of services that Republicans generally support and have no problem with.
Comment by winco Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:03 pm
With a $13billion and growing deficit I think the question is less what to cut than what the state absolutely must retain. The politics behind those decisions are luxuries, reall distractions from the fundamental financials.
Comment by Confused Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:04 pm
Pork is absolutely in the eyes of the beholder. Read the IPI report if you’re a taxpayer. The budget items mentioned above are not representative of the $350 million detailed in the report.
For instance, how can the state justify giving $23,959,182 in taxpayer dollars to Arlington Race Course, or $18,338,691 to Balmoral or $16,340,247 to Hawthorne or $12,137,142 to Maywood? Eliminating that will cover a lot of Phil Ponce’s checks over at Channel 11 and ensure that those Dr. Who re-runs still get broadcast.
What did the taxpayers get for $1,994,000 spent on women’s health promotion programs, or $1.2 million for prostate cancer awareness? How about using some of those dollars to pay the state’s Medicaid bills? That’s be a better way to secure good paying jobs for nurses, instead of lay offs and furloughs.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:06 pm
===What did the taxpayers get for $1,994,000 spent on women’s health promotion programs, or $1.2 million for prostate cancer awareness? How about using some of those dollars to pay the state’s Medicaid bills?===
If the programs work as intended, the state’s Medicaid bills will be substantially less.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:08 pm
Rich:
We’re ALL subsidizing people in government making much more than we do.
The average salary for Federal workers is about $71K, and the average US worker makes about $40K.
About 20% of Federal workers are making six figures per year.
Throw in the gold plated Federal benefits, and the differnce is obscene.
I agree with you that a argument for opposing spending is that it transfers wealth from those with lower incomes to those with higher incomes in not a valid one.
Personally, I look at spending with regards to whether it provides value in excess of its cost, whether it is being provided fairly and in the most cost effective method achievable, and finally “does it serve the common good of the people of the state of Illinois”.
Wouldn’t you agree that this should be the basis for the majority of all spending, and spending cutting, decisions?
Comment by PalosParkBob Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:08 pm
WTTW beats the other TV news outlets for relevance and political insight. However, any impartial observer has to admit they are but a shadow of their former selves. Station management could not help that a treasure such as John Calloway passed too soon. But to let Rich Samuels go while keeping such lightweights as Eddie Aruzza and Elizabeth Brackett on the air does not bode well for them–government grants or not.
Slightly OT, but one has to wonder if the SLC fiasco would have played out the same way had Rich Samuels at WTTW and Jack Conaty at WFLD not been put out to pasture.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:08 pm
So you know - the women’s health promotion programs do breast cancer screening for women so they can catch it early, rather than later.
That makes it easier (and much, much, much cheaper) to treat.
It isn’t “Hey, you, be healthy” programs. These are outreach programs that lead directly to thousands of women getting screened for breast cancer each year.
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:10 pm
Tell you what… when was the last time any of these programs was debated on the ILGA floor? When has any performance metric or goals been tied to them?
Then… we can talk.
(Some might be worth it, some might not be, but while the budget is done in a back room by the four tops and nothing about appropriations goes through a substantial committee, you’ll pardon my skepticism).
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:17 pm
Also before everyone gets their shorts in a bunch the Nursing scholarship thing may be for BSN completion. That is education for people who already have enough education to work as a licensed RN. (Not 100% sure about if this is that, but I am confident some of the license money does go for that and the IDPR has looked at BSN completion in the past).
As for the instructor funding. The problem is instructor pay, unlike almost everything else a school can teach you, most nursing classes have to be taught by nurses (mostly nurses with a MSN or higher) so to get a community college nursing instructor you need to find someone who for less money that can make in a practice agree to teach and put their license on the line any time a student does something in a clinical setting…
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:17 pm
One of my favorite lines in the report:
*Although such contributions are well-intentioned, and while many recipients are
worthy causes, lawmakers and bureaucrats do not possess the knowledge to fairly allocate taxpayer funds to the best possible recipients.*
So sayeth the IPI, writers of a report that wantonly tosses to the side state program after state program that they do not even pretend to understand.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:18 pm
It appears that about a third of their so-called savings would stem from ending the payments to the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Company. I suspect that the $123,000,000 payment that they cite represents the amount of special local sales taxes that go to MPEA that are used, to pay off bonded indebtedness.
So, are they suggesting that the state violate existing law and keep these tax receipts and also cause MPEA to default on the indebtedness?
Comment by Just the Facts Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:20 pm
===For instance, how can the state justify giving $23,959,182 in taxpayer dollars to Arlington Race Course, or $18,338,691 to Balmoral or $16,340,247 to Hawthorne or $12,137,142 to Maywood?===
I agree with you on that, but this gets debated in the GA all the time. The Ag lobby pushes for it, suburban Repubs/Dems push for it. Downstate and Chicago Dems push for it. And I may be wrong, but I think that listed cash comes out of the riverboat tax.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:21 pm
Does the IPI mention that the guy it has a crush on, Tom Cross, was the one who insisted that the capital bill include video gambling? How does that fit into responsible fiscal policy?
The IPI continues to lose credibility.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:22 pm
Rich, you should just reprint the thread from every other time the Illinois Policy Institute (or National Taxpayers United of Illinois, the Civic Federation, the Club for Growth, the Commercial Club, the Franklin Center/Sam Adams Alliance/Americans for Limited Government et al) “issue” a “report.”
These “reports” are always the same: Cut services, cut jobs, cut taxes, ignore reason, forget reality, we hate government, serve the corporate class, eat these magic beans.
Utterly boring, totally predictable, completely worthless to any fact-based debate, and entirely undeserving of serious attention.
Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:22 pm
There is a lot to take issue with in this report. Nursing…As an employee of an institution that is the 5th leading producer of nurses in the state of Illinois, I can tell you the nurse shortage problem is a lack of nurse educators. Our Illinois educated nurses, stay and work in Illinois and have a presence at almost every Chicago-area hospital.
This funding takes steps to train and retain quality nurse educators to increase the pool of highly skilled nurses employed in Illinois. Recipients must be legal residents of Illinois enrolled or accepted in graduate degree nursing programs at an approved institution, and the process to award scholarships will take into account a student’s financial need, academic merit, experience as a nurse, supervisory positions and military service. In exchange for each year of a scholarship award, the nurse educator must agree to work for 2 years in Illinois upon graduation, and will be subject to penalties for non-compliance.
Yeah, that’s pork. Geesh!
Comment by Higher Ed Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:23 pm
The basic math for you Steve:
$2 million probably gets you about 40,000 screenings of new at-risk uninsured women each year.
A low-estimate incidence rate (given the population) would mean about 100-200 of these women would have cancer.
It costs $50,000+ to treat breast cancer at later stage.
It costs about $15,000 to treat breast cancer at Stage 0.
That’s at least 100-200 women, at $35,000 savings a piece. Or $3.5 million - $7 million saved.
For you pork-minded numb brains, forget the people involved… that’s profit!
Not to mention that if caught early, the survival rate is in the high-90s percent, compared with the 20s when caught late. The cost of the loss of human life can be measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per person in that age range.
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:23 pm
Just the Facts, good point. They actually ask for cuts, but appear to include all the MPEA bond repayment funding in their overall list. Silly.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:25 pm
“Slightly OT, but one has to wonder if the SLC fiasco would have played out the same way had Rich Samuels at WTTW and Jack Conaty at WFLD not been put out to pasture.”—responsa
thank you and agreed!
Comment by Will County Woman Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:26 pm
this sounds like the adam andjrewski budget or campaign platform. oof.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:28 pm
*Just the Facts, good point. They actually ask for cuts, but appear to include all the MPEA bond repayment funding in their overall list. Silly.*
This is one example of the gross oversimplification they apply. For example, they make not distinction between state money and federal block grants. So, when DHS is spending $17.6 million on “employability development,” it is using TANF block grant dollars. There are a whole lot of rules and regs that come with those dollars, how they are used, who they are used for, etc. You cannot just cut that line item and use those dollars to pay pension obligations.
But why bother with facts that undermine your predetermined narrative?
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:31 pm
Given the enormous structural deficit, it’s kind of like picking pepper out of flystuff, anyway.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:39 pm
And now we have given them 10-times the attention they deserve.
But, of course, there will be headlines tomorrow about their “report” that fails to call them out on their BS and take it as gospel.
Comment by George Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:45 pm
@PalosParkBob You do not need a bachelor’s degree to be an R.N. there are many associate degree R.N. programs at junior colleges. There is some talk in nursing circles to require a bachelor’s degree, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Comment by Irish1 Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:46 pm
===And now we have given them 10-times the attention they deserve.===
From what I’m told, Chicago TV and radio were all over it, which is one reason why we needed to take a look for ourselves.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Who funds the IPI? Whose standard of worthwhile expenditure does this drivel measure up to?
Comment by FollowtheMoney Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Higher Ed is right. The nursing shortage is real and relieving it will ease the upward push on salaries. We don’t have enough high quality educators. I think more aspiring nursing students are turned away each year for lack of faculty than there are nursing graduates. I’m not so sure about the B.A. as a pre-requisite for an R.N. though. Illinois may be different but there’s a lot of variance state to state—some schools admit after HS diploma, others after AD or BS. Worth checking.
Comment by Indeedy Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:55 pm
Who funds the IPI?
Every one of us, in part, because they have tax-exempt status in Illinois. How much tax do they evade by taking advantage of this loophole? Would they call that “pork” - state tax incentives for right-wing lobbyists?
Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 12:56 pm
- wordslinger sez:
“Given the enormous structural deficit, it’s kind of like picking pepper out of flystuff, anyway.”
Bingo.
Comment by Confused Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:01 pm
== Higher Ed is right. The nursing shortage is real and relieving it will ease the upward push on salaries ==
Looking forward to the state providing special funding to educate folks in other fields to reduce the upward push on salaries (like education perhaps or attorneys).
Don’t tell me you want to fund nursing education because nurses make too much or they shouldn’t see decent salary increases.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:02 pm
The average salary for Federal workers is about $71K, and the average US worker makes about $40K.
About 20% of Federal workers are making six figures per year.
Throw in the gold plated Federal benefits, and the differnce is obscene.
No offense intended, but this is just a silly argument. The average private sector job includes a massive range of occupations that don’t appear on the Federal radar. A lot of jobs like cashier at a discount retailer or a fast-food industry worker, or maids at a hotel.
I’d imagine that most federal offices outsource janitorial work, so that wouldn’t appear in the average wage for federal workers, though janitorial wages are low and would drag that average.
Most Federal jobs require at LEAST a bachelors degree. Many require a Master’s or a law degree. Many Federal jobs are also military jobs. Do you really want to slash pay for soldiers?
On the other hand, its pretty much impossible for a Federal worker to reach the kind of pay scales that are offered in the private sector. Top level administrators in any Federal department aren’t going to make the wage that an equivalent Fortune 500 company would pay.
The Federal government has a lot of lawyers, a lot of Doctors (think about the Military and the VA), a lot of people with Master’s degrees (while it may not be officially required, I’d imagine that a huge percentage of State Department employees have a Master’s). Accountants at the SEC, at the Fed, at the Treasury, at the IRS.
Economists at the Fed and at other departments. Statisticians in the Dept of Commerce.
The wider spread of private sector jobs means that the private sector is going to have a lower average wage.
Now, if you do what a sensible person does, and compare the average wage for a federal job with the equivalent private sector wage, I bet you’d see a much different picture.
Government jobs in general pay LESS than their private sector equivalent.
In my own position (in the private sector), I’d take a 10 to 20% pay cut to switch over to working for the government.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:18 pm
We have seen that during this economic time, (in Illinois, this started around 2000), people with too much house lost their houses. People with too much credit card debt lost their credit cards. People with too much car, had their car reposessed, or sold it to buy down.
We now have more government than we can afford. Like the couple who couldn’t imagine giving up their McMansion, HUMMER, and Macy’s Platinum, I am reading a lot of comments about how we cannot cut back this state government.
Either we do it, or it will be done for us. Either we set the priorities here, or we will all lose.
For a decade, this day has been coming because no politician wants to tell us the truth. Illinois’ economy has stagnated too long to have allowed it’s state expenditures to continue growing at the rate it has. Doing nothing is not an answer.
Raising taxes has not been the solution for California, New Jersey and other states facing similar challenges. The only thing raising taxes will do is give our supposed leaders more time to delay making decisions.
What we are seeing here is how easy it is to justify spending other people’s money. Now, imagine that it is your money and start deciding who gets what for a change.
I like Public TV, but not for the purposes it was originally commissioned to do. It needs a new mission, or it will need to go.
All government agencies need to prove to citizens that they are still important - not to some special interest or some powerful politician, but to everyday citizens paying for those agencies.
It is time to cut back. Way past time. It won’t solve the fiscal problem, but it is easier to carry a $4 billion dollar burden, than a $12 billion dollar one. The longer we wait, the more each of us will end up paying for the delay.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:20 pm
correction - I do believe that the Feds don’t typically require a bachelor’s degree. But the requirements to pass the civil service exam do often require a pretty rigorous academic background.
I’ve looked into jobs with the State Department - I can’t imagine that someone with a HS Diploma or GED could easily get pass the exam and get hired by the State Department.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:22 pm
“Some ethnic groups should not receive more state money because they are better at applying for state grants.”
I’m still trying to understand what this means. What ethnic group is really good with forms and bureaucracy? I really don’t get it. Should the people who aren’t as good at applying for grants get some of the money to spread the wealth around?
Comment by Served Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:28 pm
Raising taxes has not been the solution for other states facing similar challenges.
BS. More than 30 states have raised taxes in this recession alone. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
Illinois’ economy has stagnated too long to have allowed it’s state expenditures to continue growing at the rate it has.
More BS. GRF is 3.4% of GDP, 45th in the nation, and GRF spending has not kept pace with inflation. http://ctbaonline.org/New_Folder/Budget,%20Tax%20and%20Revenue/2009%20CTBA%20ISSUE%20BRIEF-Facing%20Reality.pdf
It is time to cut back. Way past time.
Where were you when Illinois slashed its share of education funding to 49th in the nation and its state employees per capita to dead last?
Next time come with the facts.
Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:29 pm
Just happen to be reading this today: According to the Chicago Office of Tourism 2008 statistical information Total traveler expenditure directly generated 131,900 jobs within Chicago and traveler spending in Chicago directly generated over $656 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.
Comment by BN Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:36 pm
Can’t believe StateWideTom has not condemmed the report after they attack Easter Seals — one of the leading autism program in the nation.
What a huge mistake..should be the end of these think cranks.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:45 pm
The report you linked to regarding “the facts” indicate that I was wrong. The Illinois economy has been stagnating since 1990.
We’ve had 20 years of economic miasma in Illinois, not just a decade. You wanna raise taxes on a declining economy in order to support this state government? Or would you rather we reform state government as we find new revenue to replace the dead and dying revenue streams?
We can’t raise taxes enough to bail us out. That simple solution isn’t a solution. Doing so hasn’t turned those other state’s economies around, no matter how many states did it.
So, we have had 20 years of watching this situation worsen with no one reforming our government to ensure that the state expenditures fits the revenue.
Nice facts. This state is broken. Duct taping it with tax increases isn’t a fix either. You keep feeding a bear, and pretty soon you run out of food and have a very disgruntled bear.
Also recall, that I’m not a fan of the “no tax” Brady. I don’t buy that simple answer either.
You may not like the idea that we need to cut back, but we do. You may not think we have anywhere to cut back, but we do. You may not think that it will save us anything with the effort, but that is just a lame excuse to do nothing.
We will not get better, more efficient government as long as we prevent today’s fiscal realities from hitting the GA over it’s head. Repeatedly.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 1:56 pm
The problem here appears to be one of perspective. While everyone can agree that the state has to cut back on some services given the current economic recession, once you start to name the programs to be cut or budgets to be slashed then everyone comes out with the justification for keeping this program intact or that program be spared elimination. I am sure there are people here who can defend all of the expenditures that the state makes and with sound reasoning behind it. Great. Now what?
I am sure that there are those here who can cite where other states have raised taxes without seriously harming the businesses that exist there but does that mean it can be done in Illinois? It doesn’t seem like we can avoid tax hikes here but the state has extended itself so far with programs that are so popular with so many. It seems no one has the cojones to rein in the spending which means any tax increase will not be used to deal with the structural problems. The GA won’t get its’ house in order and the budget back into some level of reason. Great stories here, folks. Compelling tales of success and hope - woe and loss. Now what?
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:02 pm
But in one way this discussion does illustrate one thing. With virtually all government spending you can find someone (and more likely a group of someones) who thinks it is something that government should not be doing and someone (and more likely a group of someones) who think this is exactly what government should be doing.
The difference is that there are few someones against any given spending
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:09 pm
“I am sure that there are those here who can cite where other states have raised taxes without seriously harming the businesses that exist there but does that mean it can be done in Illinois?”
Good question. I’d also like to ask the flip side of that question…. are there any states that have successfully NOT raised taxes, without seriously harming the infrastucture and basic services that exist there.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:15 pm
Boy, there sure seems to be plenty of criticism and ridicule for the things IPI lists that don’t meet some people’s definition of pork. IPI got one thing wrong so lets throw out the whole report and ignore the whole thing? Why not IPI got one thing right so lets assume the whole report is legit?
All the anger is directed toward IPI for including something questionable but where is the anger at the government for the things IPI is dead right about? When no one cares RickEy Hendon is spending millions in after school money on nothing there is a huge problem that needs to solved because that spending mentality led to our budget problem.
Which is more important here, discrediting IPI or fixing the blanking the state, protecting the future for our kids, and getting rid of useless spending? A lot of the liberals here seem to want to ignore spending problems and blame IPI and I’d suggest that is the thinking that will doom us even further.
Comment by TaxMeMore Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:27 pm
*Don’t tell me you want to fund nursing education because nurses make too much or they shouldn’t see decent salary increases.*
In some cases, OneMan, that may be the case, especially if the requirements for R.N.s are not uniform (e.g. High school diploma base versus Master’s degree). But that wasn’t the point I intended to make. Rather, specific labor shortages drive up salaries and without a corresponding increase in some output (quality, for example), up isn’t necessarily a “good.” At least not from the perspective of state policymaking. No, I want to fund nursing education programs because (a) it increases capacity for schools to enroll and train new nurses, (b) it relieves real pressures on hospitals and other care providers to meet and maintain proper staffing ratios (for patient safety), and (c) long term, quality nursing care works to improve patient outcomes. That’s money in everybody’s bank.
Comment by Indeedy Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:32 pm
SS - All these wonderful questions that seek to make jabbing points to support a particular view of the world. And when the huffing and puffing are done and we are all standing around looking at each other, the state will still be in the pits.
The town I live in, Downers Grove, is facing the same issue that the state is along with many other municipalities - shrinking revenues and increasing demands. Their response to a 6 mill $ deficit was to cut spending on some programs (some, as you would say - “basic services”) and increasing taxes to make sure of other crucial services. Funding for the local counseling center, a long standing service provider, has been eliminated. Even the police dept has seen some cuts. Not a pretty picture but it had to be done.
Do you recommend that the state increase taxes so that no programs are cut or eliminated? Can no one survive such a calamity? Is there no program That could be trimmed or eliminated?
I am a state employee. I have seen our budgets slashed by the last “governor” and we still provide the needed service that we are charged with providing. It can be done. But it ain’t gonna get done if no one starts that process.
Many people more knowledgeable than I on this blog and elsewhere have posited many useful plans to cut the state budget and these things should be given a chance to work.
Many people in this state are in need. We give them short shrift by saying they can’t succeed unless the state is there every step of the way providing them with a solution to their every problem. Many of these people would find a way to succeed despite the loss of these funds and programs. Life is unfair. A broke state can’t help anyone. Even as a state employee, I get that people in this state are tired of being ripped off by a gov’t that breaks promises and wastes our hard earned money. If the state gov’t was a better steward with our money maybe the citizens would feel better about higher taxes. Try it out and get back to us.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:48 pm
Thanks for standing up for the social service agencies. I do some work for Asian Human Services and their client breakdown is (48% Asian; 24% Latino; 13% Caucasian; 9% African-American; 5% African; 1% other). The organization’s main focus is whoever is in Chicago’s “melting pot” Uptown neighborhood.
Comment by LevivotedforJudy Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:49 pm
None of the spending items noted can rightfully be called “poprk”. In fact, the cited expenditures are just the sorts of things State government ought to be funding (It ought to be picking up an enomously higher percentage of higher education costs as well at our public colleges and universities). Unfortunately, when the State is incapable of balancing its budget and paying its bills on time, all of these expenditures and a great many others are inappropriate and irresponsible, regardless of their merits.
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 2:50 pm
I believe The Economist had an excellent issue sometime last year comparing the good fortunes of Texas versus the misfortune of California. Perhaps that’d be a good place to start.
As far as labeling specific programs, DuPage Dan is exactly right. For every obvious pork project, there is a group of people who could very easily justify it as a sensible expenditure. It’s death by a thousand paper-cuts. Not to mention our un-sustainable pension system.
I’m at risk of being skewered for citing an IPI-based statistic here, but I do believe it’s valid: Since 1998, state spending has increased about 45% per capita–adjusted for inflation and population changes.
I don’t believe that in 1998, Illinois was on the verge of collapse due to insufficient government services. It follows that at least a good amount of the 45% increase was non-critical in nature.
Post-1998 programs may be popular or even useful, but they aren’t critical–otherwise they’d have been in place for decades. And the new programs might not even be viewed as being so popular now that the bill is finally coming due.
And the question we need to ask ourselves isn’t merely, “is this pork,” but also “does this program really work as intended,” and “even if this program is popular and even if it DOES work…is it part of the central role of government? Can we actually afford it right now?”
I believe programs fall into three rough categories: Things Government Must Do; Things Government Could Do if it Has Funding; Things Government Should Never Do.
In the Piglet Book, the IPI points out things it thinks falls into category #3. And many in the thread disagree. But what folks in this thread need to ask themselves is whether many of the programs don’t fall into category #2 and the determination is “..In good times, yes; but today, no” in terms of funding.
Comment by ABCBoy Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:09 pm
The sad thing is that this report will be printed tomorrow in most Illinois papers without the slightest critical analysis of what a crock it is, and then those newspaper headlines will be cited in many candidates’ campaign ads as “proof” that the Illinois budget is larded with “pork” that can easily be cut.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:11 pm
I am reminded of a quote from Paul Simon:
“Part of my basic philosophy of government is that if we can help those who are on the bottom economically and in other ways, then we lift the whole nation.”
April 9, 1978 in his column, p.s./Washington
Comment by Matt Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:16 pm
Even in the most austere state budgets, you can find some stuff that’s arguably pork. But I agree with the previous commenters who considered this whole exercise a distraction. Pensions, education, health care, and revenue; to think that you can address the current state budget crisis without fundamental reforms in at least two or three of those areas (and probably all four) is delusional. This whole report is about criticizing the lipstick on a pig while the pig is being slaughtered and made into sausage.
Comment by Kyle Boller's Clipboard Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:19 pm
The very nature of politics is about how to divide scarce resources. As long as the political process governs the allocation of these scarce resources, facts and reason have no place in the discussion.
Health care costs, through both medicaid and retiree plans, and the catch-up game on pension funding, are the dominant drivers of spending increases since 1998. Given our constitution, pensions are in the “must do” category and health care is in the “if it has funding” category. But these are political decisions, not cold, dispassionate economic choices.
There are no rational actors acting with complete information in Illinois, so this really isn’t about economics. I send my sincere best wishes to IPI and the House GOP for this meaningless report, and hope they spent a ton of money on it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:23 pm
I don’t know how anyone can have an opinion on these grants since the actual information about what they are for isn’t included.
The WTTW grant is probably for Arts Across Illinois which I sincerely doubt would be provided by an internet site or otherwise.
If you think culture is something that should be preserved and showcased this is a good use of money and relatively cheap. If you don’t, well, nothing is going to convince you.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:23 pm
=ctually, I really don’t dig Illinois wine, but we can grow grapes here. =
Maybe the State should subsidize growing lemons. It would be appropriate for the state’s financial condition.
Comment by Lee Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:27 pm
–Since 1998, state spending has increased about 45% per capita–adjusted for inflation and population changes.==
A lot of state expenditures are health insurance for employees and Medicaid. From my google, the cost of health care has at least doubled since 1998.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:30 pm
On a slightly different topic—increased health care costs–I actually asked my girlfriend about this since she’s an ER physician. Apparently much of the increased associated costs is more expensive state-of-the-art technology such as imaging and diagnostics. Due to a combination of patient insistence and a lack of tort reform, many physicians end up doing the “state of the art” which costs much more rather than something that would probably do the trick but is much cheaper.
Not trying to assign blame to anybody right now, but apparently much of the increased costs seems to be no worth the bang-for-the-buck. I.E., if something improves health outcomes by 10% but costs 40% more, in aggregate it doesn’t make sense for the state to pay for that whereas an individual may be willing to pay that individual cost if it was their own life on the line.
Comment by ABCBoy Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 3:59 pm
Are House GOPers really going to get behind a report that slams money for the Sparta Shooting Complex, which is a well-regarded facility that draws tourists to So-IL, and to the National Wild Turkey Federation and Quail and Pheasants forever, all of which contribute to conservation efforts and tourism?
Comment by JonShibleyFan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 4:17 pm
ABCBoy says “if something improves health outcomes by 10% but costs 40% more, in aggregate it doesn’t make sense for the state to pay for that”
Sounds like RATIONED CARE … death panels … I thought GOPers were against that. Better read what’s scribbled on your hand again.
Comment by A Naughty Moose Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 4:20 pm
===And I may be wrong, but I think that listed cash comes out of the riverboat tax.====
Rich. That money is payment from the riverboats to the race tracks. It is not part of the regular gaming tax.
It actually was a lumpsum payment after winning a few lawsuits and the money is still tied up in escrow accounts waiting for a few more suits to be settled.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 4:31 pm
A Naughty Moose,
Sounds like you are trying to pick a fight. Drive by comments like that are boring.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 4:44 pm
Dupage Dan makes a point we all need to accept. Even if every single dime of state spending is important and efficient, we still can’t afford it. Implicit in that acceptance is the realization that there will be no painless way out of our mess. The only answerable questions become “how much pain, and to whom”.
Taxes are going to have to be increased, and that will be painful to the people who pay them. Services are going to have to be cut, and that will be painful to those who need them. Some programs, maybe even agencies, will have to be eliminated. That will harm the missions of those programs/agencies.
Unfortunately too few people are willing to parse the cuts and say yes or no to them. But even if the largest tax increase that has been discussed actually passed, we would still have to make cuts. Pain is coming; it is overdue. People need to step up and boy, they sure seem reluctant.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 4:45 pm
Go to there web site, tells the whole story.
Comment by tobor Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 5:09 pm
Rich, I agree the Illinois taxpayers should not pay for state employees college. The SJRs Bernie S. told of an employee (Elton) that his agency is paying for and it has nothing to do with his new union job. The tax payers are paying for his docturate degree.
Comment by Justice Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 5:47 pm
Employees can’t even get training to do their jobs, but it seems we can afford to send HACKS to college.
Comment by Justice Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 5:48 pm
Is it too late to elect steve schnorf for Governor?
Comment by Confused Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 6:22 pm
This discussion is quite fascinating. The comments, rather than focusing as they usually do on a candidate, an office, or a particular advocacy, instead reveal the core philosophies that drive politics and the parties. There is no question that pork is in the eye of the beholder! (And that what state government should fund and provide is also in the eye of the beholder.)
I think a newspaper or TV station should do an experiment: Get 100 known voter taxpayers (who are not government employees) from across the state in a room over a weekend and assign them to review the state’s expenditures. I suspect these random taxpayers would see a lot of things they had no idea they were being asked to pay for, and that they would be able to suggest more than a few cuts that could and should be made. I also suspect most taxpayers would love to have a crack at this before the inevitable state tax increase is voted in.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 6:22 pm
The problem with the report is that it seems more designed to get a quick press pop, rather than generate a serious analysis of what cuts should be made. The discussion of college tuition is a case in point. While it certainly may be appropriate to ask whether the state should be in the business of paying college tuition, a reasoned discussion also include the current state rules on college tuition reimbursement. Those of you as old as me may remember that this was a hot issue around 180 years ago or so. At that time, the state encated rules that explain when the state will pay for tuition and also put into place a clawback provision that required continued employment for up to four years or the tuition had to be repaid to the state.
Let’s take another example from the report. The report characterizes a DCEO employee training grant program as somehow lacking in standards and safeguards. This conclusion appears to be based on reading the explanation of the program on the DCEO web site. A brief bit of research would have disclosed that DCEO has administrative rules that address the purported deficiencies claimed in the report.
These errors and slipshod research were evident from a quick perusal of the report while I was having lunch.
As a point of information. I do not work for government. I am in the private sector. I agree completely that there is waste and unnecessary programs. But, to effect change it is necessary to do your homework. I believe that in this regard the report isd deficient.
Comment by just the facts Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 6:48 pm
That should have been 18 years ago not 180. I shouldn’t try to comment while on the blacberry
Comment by just the facts Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 6:52 pm
Nope, can’t cut anything. $75,000 per nursing student (another program I didn’t know existed) can’t be cut. Can’t cut McPier, nope. why not get rid of state employees, and use the money to pay for more programs no one knew existed. Can’t cut em though, nope. I’m Pat Quinn, and I approved this message.
Comment by Park Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 8:53 pm
State employee tuition reimbursement is capped in at least one of the big agencies at $1,000/year. So you can almost pay for 2 classes at UIS, per year. And it’s reimbursement, so most people don’t use the program at all because if they could afford to pay for the classes in the first place they wouldn’t need tuition reimbursement; as it is they pay upfront and then get in line for repayment after the class is over.
Comment by Tuition reimbursment Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 10:19 pm
I’m a conservative Republican, but these people are just idiots. Oh there’s waste in Illinois government and I’ve seen it firsthand, but some of the examples they cited are ridiculous. They’re a bunch of ideological nitwits.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Feb 9, 10 @ 11:01 pm
After scanning most of the comments here, one of Steve Schnorf’s comes the closest to wisdom…
“Unfortunately too few people are willing to parse the cuts and say yes or no to them….
[Note to shore: THAT was Andrzejewski’s Platform.]
“But even if the largest tax increase that has been discussed actually passed, we would still have to make cuts.”
Let me add to that the fact that any new revenues will immediately be spent on adding to existing programs and starting new ones.
Just look at most the commentary here. There isn’t even a hint of understanding that there is a $7-11 bn. shortfall next year. Why, if the County Fairs give you warm fuzzies, let’s DOUBLE their budget.
If Steve is on the right track, then let us at least see a grand compromise that fairly spreads the pain. The left gets their graduated income tax, and the citizens get hard, constitutional spending caps (inflation + population growth) on EVERY government entity, raised only in an even-year November referendum.
Of course, the answer from both sides of that debate will say “no deal.”
Advantage Responsa and Shore. The rest of the spending crew here are no less ideological, nor more credible than the IPI report.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Wednesday, Feb 10, 10 @ 1:00 pm
Sorry,
“Advantage Responsa and SCHNORF,” was what I meant to say.
Comment by Bruno Behrend Wednesday, Feb 10, 10 @ 1:02 pm