Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Here come the cuts…

Posted in:

Illinois

* If you want to really cut the state budget, and not just play around the edges, school funding is a necessary target. Not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But there’s no way to get a real handle on the deficit without cutting aid to schools. And those cuts may be on the way…

Current negotiations in Springfield could result in 10 percent cuts to the state’s school funding foundation level, meaning millions less in state aid to local schools.

State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, an Aurora Democrat who chairs the Elementary and Secondary Education Appropriations Committee, said this week the state budget crisis will likely affect general state aid, lately the only consistent funding source from Springfield to local schools. […]

While the state has stopped and started other payments to the schools during its current budget crisis, general state aid was the only part that continued uninterrupted.

If Chapa LaVia is correct, that could change next year.

“It looks like we’re coming to some huge drops in general state aid,” Chapa LaVia said. “It’s looking like anywhere from $600 to $700 per-pupil drop.”

Oof.

A top budget source told me yesterday that some very big, important programs will “have to go away” for six months to a year until the state can right its ship. After that (and maybe after a post-election tax hike) the state can decide which programs to bring back.

* Gov. Pat Quinn’s budget director David Vaught told Illinois Statehouse News that the state will have to do four things to start bringing the budget into balance. Cuts, “strategic borrowing,” help from the federal government and “we’re going to need a revenue increase.” Watch…

* The House Republicans tried to score some PR points yesterday on the budget problem…

Illinois House Republicans are putting the public relations thumbscrews to the ruling Democrats right now in the only way they can: By proposing a bill that seeks to impose what one sponsor called “fiscal sanity” on state spending, then forcing the Dems to publicly slap it down.

The bill, HB3189, would require that any legislation that’s passed and is going to cost money has to have an identified income source included in it. How could anyone be opposed to that, you ask? That’s the same thing the Republicans are asking, in one angry floor speech after another.

“When you’re in a $12 billion hole, quit digging!” shouted state Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, summing up the philosophy behind the bill. Another Republican backer of the bill pointed out that this “pay as you go” process is one that, on the federal level, is being demanded by President Barack Obama. (Using Obama’s positions as a lever on Democrats here has become a favorite tactic of Illinois Republicans — ironic, considering.) […]

In any case, the point of proposing the bill wasn’t to get it passed, but to force its defeat.

True. Expect plenty more of that in the coming days, weeks and months.

* And Progress Illinois rails against Speaker Madigan’s insistence that the Republicans must be part of any tax hike deal…

Speaker Madigan and his allies in Springfield need to stop whining about the Republicans when they have the votes to pass a sustainable budget on their own. No one is going to buy the idea that the GOP is responsible for the inaction in Springfield. Such an argument makes the speaker — and the party as a whole — look dysfunctional and cowardly.

* Related…

* State’s Financial Crisis Hits Home for Lawmakers: Some lawmakers are facing up to $10,000 in late payments and it’s starting to take its toll.

* Governor Gets More Time To Deliver Budget To Lawmakers

* Local lawmakers split on Quinn’s budget delay: Republicans aren’t buying Quinn’s claim that by delaying the budget presentation a few weeks, it’ll give the public a chance to shape state finances. But Democrats said a little more time won’t hurt given the recent election.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:16 am

Comments

I thought one of the conditions of taking stimulus money was that states would be prohibited from making massive cuts to education spending.

Can someone explain what conditions on education spending were connected to Illinois getting stimulus money?

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:24 am
Part of the reason we haven’t had public support for a tax increase is that the pain has been deferred through borrowing and other gimmicks. Unfortunately, it will probably take more cuts that allow people to experience the impact of the budget hole before it gets fixed.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:29 am
Not to be pedantic, but the headline has a subject-verb agreement problem. “Cuts” is plural and the verb “comes” is for a singular subject.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:31 am
Cuts in schools might sober everyone up put heat on the GA — GOP included — to act like grownups.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:37 am
David Vaught’s statement is not news. I heard him say the exact thing three months ago.

Comment by Niles Township Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:41 am
If Senator Duffy is not contributing any portion of the rent on his office, but uses his campagn fund to pay for phones and furniture, the implication is that he is doing political work out of the office. Unless he has a different phone number for his campaing he cannot take or make political calls from a government (you and me) funded “Senate ” office.
This has been a violation of the ethics rules since the 1970’s.

Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:45 am
===the implication is that he is doing political work out of the office.===

Not necessarily. Campaign funds can legally be used to subsidize legislative office.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:47 am
Rich, the article didn’t say that Duffy was paying any part of the rent. He made the point that he pays the phone and buys the furniture out of his campaign fund. Why didn’t he say he paid part of the rent too?

Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:49 am
== Cuts in schools might sober everyone up put heat on the GA — GOP included — to act like grownups. ==

Again you don’t need the GOP to do anything about this. The Dems got what they wanted, majorities in both houses and the mansion. They wanted to lead, now lets see if they can or if it will be another round of stupid borrowing tricks.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:54 am
Carl Nyberg:

You had to maintain a certain level of spending to get the funding (i.e. you could not use the federal funds to supplant state funding and move the state funding somewhere else). There is supposed to be a self-funding component to these programs if possible but districts took the money understanding it was probably a one time thing for them, which is why many of them spent them on one time projects. When ARRA goes away the education budget automatically has a $1 billion hole in it, hence the talk of cutting General State Aid because, well, that’s the only way you can help fill a $1 billion hole.

Comment by RJW Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:57 am
–Again you don’t need the GOP to do anything about this.–

What a pathetic response. On the one hand, some GOPers moan and groan that they’re left out of everything. But when there’s heavy lifting to be done, it’s not their job.

Let’s see some of those cuts only, no new taxes, tax breaks for businesses solutions. On paper. With real numbers. You know, alternatives. That’s the role of opposition parties.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:00 am
I would like to flag a word that may help here - “suspend”.

This can be the middle way between cutting a program out, yet not killing the program entirely. This can help both tax cutters and tax increasers.

I know it is not new. But it can be brought to the forefront as the means of addressing our budget crisis and highlighted by any leaders who wish to walk that thin blue line of compromise.

If Democrats could, they should begin with a list of programs headed for the budget chopping block, and instead, route them to a “suspend” list. They can then sort through these programs and create budget conditions that will reactive these programs off the suspend list.

So Democrats can say that they are not killing off programs. Republicans can say that they are. Both sides can play this game.

As a matter of fact, it is quite possible for future legislation to include provisions where funding provisions within the legislation can automatically suspend a program during an officially recognized budget crisis.

Voters need to see that state government can recognize reality when they are forced through economic turmoils at home. They need to see that their elected officials can compromise. They need to see that the progress they got during flush economic years is not lost during lean economic years.

Perhaps it is time to start talking about “suspending”, not cutting social services, during this lean economic time.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:02 am
The state’s heavily politicized and almost fully unionized bureaucracy has nevertheless received full protection from any real retrenchment. Nonprofits and schools may get hit, but our Pat made an agreement with AFSCME not to lay anybody off until mid-2011, with a few very minor exceptions. And unionized state employees (nearly all state employees are unionized) will get all of their 16 percent raise over the current 4-6ear contract, although a portion of it will be delayed.

This means that even in areas where there could be consolidations and other efficiencies, they won’t occur-why bother if they can’t lay anybody off this year. And there are many ways in which
the state’s management corps could be reduced without reductions in service. In fact, service would probably improve in many instances.

I don’t believe there is a hiring freeze either.

Insead of endlessly complaining about Scrooge-y
taxpayers who don’t get it, perhaps nonprofits and school advocates should ask our Pat why he is
so intent on protecting the state bureaucracy and employee unions. I think we know the answer….

Comment by cassandra Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:06 am
The state needs to quit sending money to non-govt entities. I thought it strange when I read a BND article last year about a daycare that needed state money to run. Weird. If she can’t make a go of it with paying customers, then she should get out of business. There is a lot of fluff in school budgets I am sure, but we know the bureaucrats will save their own skins and fire teachers first. Cut the bureaucracies in SPFLD and Chicago. Maybe that agency with the wild and crazy director (who’s in trouble for talking to R Miller, our host) could be among the first to go. It’s time to shrink government. Seriously.

Comment by Peggy SO-IL Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:34 am
===The state needs to quit sending money to non-govt entities.===

What you completely fail to understand is that the state pays providers to do things at far less cost, and often far more effectively, that the state could do itself.

As for the childcare stuff, that’s a requirement of federal TANF laws, I believe.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:36 am
Once again the Dems are putting the schools between a rock and a hard place.

First they give school Boards the power to agree to union contracts that increases salaries and benefits far beyond revenue growth, then they pull their portion of the funding away without giving schools relief from their union contracts.

The state provides the “strike” trump card to teachers, a gambit against which school boards have no defense, then cap their taxing ability to pay for increases they have no choice but to grant.

The state needs to provide relief to schools to prohibit them for giving raises and increased benefits that exceed new revenues.

They need to empower communities by requiring that all contracts that exceed the rate of inflation be approved by voters….along with the tax rate increases to pay for them.

Teacher strikes are clearly against the public interest, so they should be prohibited in Illinois as they are in 41 other states.

Of course this would take the courage of Senator Meeks to return IEA/IFT campaign contributions because they create a clear conflict of interest to the public good.

How many in the GA are that unselfish?

Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:38 am
*I read a BND article last year about a daycare that needed state money to run. Weird. If she can’t make a go of it with paying customers, then she should get out of business.*

They are paying customers, just like people utilizing food stamps are paying customers at grocery stores. What you are ignoring is the number of people who have jobs that pay no where near a living wage that they cannot afford child care without a subsidy.

To Rich’s point, almost all of the money the state spends on child care is federal block grant dollars - either TANF or the separate child care block grant.

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:46 am
Governor Quinn needs to reduce his executive staff by 30-40 percent, especially where there are redundancies (are they’re there). He also needs to reduce executive level agencies administrators by 15-25 percent. Getting rid of political hires is the first step toward reducing unnecessary bloat in state government.

the executive branch must set the example and lead by example through serious cutbacks in its operations.

the state should not be looking to the federal government for any help. the federal deficit is out of control. california asked for federal bailout last year and was summaily rejected, as well it should have been; illinois should be likewise rejected. illinois and every of state must learn how to deal with fiscal crisis and be proactive in working to take control of such situations. simply put, every effort must be exhausted (several fold).

david vaught and pat quinn are being lazy and looking to take easy outs.

Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 10:57 am
If you wipe out child care subsidies, you wipe out not only the jobs of child care workers, but the jobs of all those parents who rely on child care. That would be a disaster for our economy.

Here’s a thought. The gov should introduce two budgets. One with new revenue, one without. The one without should put all the cuts in the districts of lawmakers, Ds and Rs, who don’t support more revenue. Let them choose.

Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:02 am
Rich & et al: Yeah, I get that there are contractors, but to provide private services to private citizens for activities that are not an appropriate role for govt is a different matter. The state is not responsible for getting daycare for its citizens. I wonder how many clients are single moms. The economic chain that Reality Check describes would be okay to let fall. It’s falsely supported by subsidies. People will go on to more productive activities, when the govt gets out of the way. [I’m a free marketeer economist by training and profession. I was a state employee who worked on deregulating utilities in the 90s.]

Comment by Peggy SO-IL Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:11 am
yep WCW this budget deficit is all Quinn and Vaughts faults, lazy public servants…it must be nice to live in your overly simplistic reality…have a nice delusional day…

Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:17 am
Peggy, there’s market *theory,* then there’s market *reality*. I see that you get the former. How will people go on to those more productive activities when there’s nobody to take care of the kids?

Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:17 am
*The state is not responsible for getting daycare for its citizens.*

Peggy, I refer you back to my earlier post. The vast majority of the dollars used in Illinois to subsidize child care are federal dollars. Are you suggesting we say no thanks to the feds in the name of free market purity?

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:21 am
===I was a state employee who worked on deregulating utilities in the 90s===

That says it all. Sheesh.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:22 am
Actually, this discussion does make me wonder. If the feds are making child care subsidies, why aren’t those subsidies being paid out immediately. As we all know, the feds can print money (and are, through massive borrowing). Why should there be any delay in that federal portion getting paid out to vendors right away. Where is it? Why should it sit around waiting for state funds to catch up?

Comment by cassandra Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:27 am
===I was a state employee who worked on deregulating utilities in the 90s===

That says it all. Sheesh.

Amen. Thanks for making all of us pay more for worse electric, gas, etc. service to line the pockets of the big utility corporations and their execs.

Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:28 am
I don’t want to go too far off point, but let me just add…

Deregulating utility companies to spur more profits and drive down service quality = good.

Providing child care so impoverished single moms can go to work = bad.

Wonderful priorities you got there, lady.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:31 am
Ray: There are lots of unemployed folks who, I bet, would be happy to take the jobs of those who need to care for their own children. Also, neighbors and relatives have always helped take care of kids. People find a way to make their own lives work. That’s very American. As far as daycare workers–hey they could take the jobs of the women who need to care for their own children. Do you realize that the multitude of safety nets have made unwed motherhood and teen sex no longer the frightening fate they once were? Haven’t seen the numbers (for IL and US) go down, have we, in 40 years? No one gives it a thought. The govt will take care of it all.

The budgets of this, other states and the feds will never get under control as long as the view that the govt is responsible for each individual is retained. The Govt can tend best to “general” welfare, not individual welfare. I recall the old canards “balancing the budget on the back of the poor” back in the early 90s. Made no sense to me as the poor don’t typically pay much in taxes. What about the backs of people who pay taxes?

Comment by Peggy SO-IL Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:31 am
i never stated that it is all their fault, but vaught does correctly point out that quinn has had a full budget cycle all his own now. i clearly stated that they need to be more proactive. they can control and cut the things that were quinn’s making: political hiring etc.

am not convinced that vaught and quinn have been proactive enough in their budgeting approach. i know quinn hasn’t because last year he was loathe to cut at the executive level. good and effective leadership always sets the example, loop.

Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:35 am
Peggy-

I will refrain from typing my initial response to your latest post for fear of certain banishment for life by Rich, but let me say that your understanding of poverty, of the current state of our safety net, of the burdens placed on the vulnerable, and of our complex funding mechanisms is woefully inadequate.

I say good day.

Comment by Montrose Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 11:39 am
- Made no sense to me as the poor don’t typically pay much in taxes. -

Does it make sense that there are way, way more poor people than rich people?

Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:03 pm
correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t mayor daley manage to give his budget address on time as scheduled?

for nearly two years mayor daley was totally preoccupied by the prosepct of getting the 2016 olympics for chicago. yet it never seemed to interfere with vital city business (e.g., the budget address). so when I don’t buy the il dems’ claims that quinn needed and deserved more time because of the primary election. besides how involved is quinn in the budget proposal process anyway? from what i’ve seen of him throughout last year, the budget is the furtherest thing from his mind, and is of no real importance to him in the grande scheme of things. so, to me, this means that david vaught is really the one putting the proposal togther (then submitting to quinn for review or input here and there).

Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:13 pm
The reality is that there are many populations that are dependent on the state to provide for support services. If we cut out payments to day care centers, mothers will have to quit jobs in order to care for their children. Cut providing homemaker services and senior centers for the elderly and you have folks who will need much more expensive nursing home placement. Cut funding for day and vocational programs for people with disabilities and you will have people who will need institutional placement because parents can’t quit working to stay home with their family member. Or one parent will have to quit and we have another family that moves into serious economic hardship. Cut back on funding homeless shelters and prevention services and we have more people living in cardboard boxes and in the backs of vans.

None of this is easy and none of it is without impact. Do we really want to balance the state budget completely on the backs of the most vulnerable?

No one is denying that cuts are needed, but they are going to have to use some judgment about how they are done. The tax increase that the legislature has been doing their best to dodge is absolutely necessary.

Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:40 pm
== “When you’re in a $12 billion hole, quit digging!” shouted state Rep. Bill Black, ==

At least some things never change.

Comment by Moving to Oklahoma Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:40 pm
=== Made no sense to me as the poor don’t typically pay much in taxes. ===

Made sense to Ronald Reagan — he championed the earned income tax credit.

In response to OneMan, Progress Illinois, and all my other friends who suggest Madigan can and should pass a tax hike without a single Republican vote:

WAKE UP.

In theory, Madigan COULD pass a tax increase without a single GOP vote. In theory, the House could pass a tax increase with all 118 members voting yes. Both theories are just about equally detached from POLITICAL REALITY.

No reasonable person can argue against the idea that a tax hike is good public policy.

But spend one day talking to average voters about the issue and can’t deny that a Democrat-only tax hike is political suicide:

- Quinn would lose to Brady;

- Madigan would lose his majority in the House;

- Bond, Noland, Hutchinson, DeMuzio would most likely lose their Senate seats as well as the DeLeo seat…there’s an outside chance that Republicans could even take over the Senate.

It won’t matter to voters one bit that the targeted Democrats they’re voting against didn’t vote for the tax increase.

And what, BTW, is the first thing Republicans will do if 1994 repeats itself? They’ll repeal the tax increase.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 12:51 pm
Actually, in Illinois poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income in sate and local taxes than do wealthy people.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:03 pm
We have yet to see that the funding that goes to many of the social services providers/organizations produces the outcomes for which we are paying.

YDD, you and your ilk are just way too partisan. all you and the mike madigan types care about is winning. the republicans are being consistent with their core values/beliefs in opposing taxes. that is what republican typically do—they typically oppose taxes. this is nothing new! this a key platform stance. In this instance the il GOP has been pretty clear that substantive cuts and reforms need to be made first before going to the people for a tax increase. for what it is worth Hynes and lisa madigan pretty much said the same things last year. (funny that quinn didn’t single out lisa for not helping him with the budget, or standing on the sidelines disagreeing,the way he did dan hynes, I’m sure fear of lisa’s father was the reason why Quinn did not mention her).

YDD you’re looking at it from your very partisian pro-democrat myopic perspective. and that’s wrong.

this is what gets me about you il dems, political “sucicide” but then you guys turn around and tell people you are for the everyday man or the little man and that you are big tent. either you care about the people or you don’t. you il dems only want to do things when it helps to solidify your political power. instead telling people that you’re the party of the “little man,” why don’t you guys just tell people the truth?

you guys can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:21 pm
i’m going to take great exception to my friend, ydd’s comment. the political reality that he describes is just one possible political reality — the one that michael madigan chose. we are trapped in his political reality because madigan is stuck in the past and hasn’t quite adjusted to the new political realities that have been sweeping this country.

it’s not a theory that madigan could pass a tax increase without a single republican vote, it’s a fact. michael madigan has repeatedly chosen to do otherwise, for increasingly apparent selfish reasons.

the belief that a “Democrat-only tax hike is political suicide” is pure supposition, and it is in fact based upon the last century thinking of the speaker. but here’s a suggestion: if madigan REALLY believes that leading illinois out of this deep recession is political suicide, then he needs to resign. period.

he needs to resign as democratic party chair to bring in someone who is willing AND ABLE to defend the governor, the cabinet, the state senate and the state house under these trying economic conditions. because it can be done. if the speaker is unable to do so, then he needs to allow someone to TAKE CHARGE who will.

and he needs to resign as the speaker because it is clear that he is unable to alter the political dynamics in illinois (or the nation) to fit the conditions that he has decided is required to move forward.

it’s not our fault that the speaker has narrowly constructed the political realities and is unable to lead. if the speaker was as smart or as bold as his apologists contend, then he would seize the moment — and beat the crap out of the nay-saying republicans this fall. the fact that he prefers an illinois paralyzed by his increasingly outdated notions demonstrates that it is time to move on without him. if he can’t lead, he shouldn’t be in a position of leadership.

period.

the fact that he won’t lead or get off the stage proves that all madigan cares about is preserving his own power. which is what it is. but let’s not try to pretend that there’s some brilliant political calculation here. it is nothing but a personal calculation based on old facts and dated suppositions.

period…

Comment by bored now Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 1:55 pm
Oh, I think MJM is leading, it’s just not the bluster and talk we see from most “leaders”. The fact is the state grf budget went down from 2009 to 2010, and Madigan caused that. And, its going down again in 2011. That needed to happen, many people have talked about it needing to happen, Madigan (and Quinn, like it or not) made it happen.

I think he wants R votes for a tax increase, but I think he also badly wanted base spending down before a tax increase so the new revenue didn’t just get p____d away on old spending decisions from the previous administration.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:02 pm
Bored now - as a Democrat I thank god that a tactican and political leader is in charge of the party and not someone with your completely misguided and foolish view of the world. Just pass the tax hike and just beat the republicans in the fall. Got it. Any other brilliant solutions from the think tank? You’re argument breaks down to that SNL skit with the “JUST FIX IT!” guy

Comment by L.S. Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:18 pm
It’s good to see PQ’s administration outlining program cuts. Back to reality and governing.

The budget address delay is appropriate. PQ and all the other candidates, successful or not, deserve our patience while they recuperate from their campaings and shift gears. It seems to be mostly the losers that are complaining.

Madigan’s been in place so long that he takes the long term point of view–where am I and my dems going to be this time next year. It takes discipline and confidence.

If the Reps are going to holdout on supporting new revenue until they have had their shot at the Governor’s mansion, I’d like to see the progressive income tax proposal on the November ballot, along with the Lt Governor proposal.

Comment by james Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 2:42 pm
Right on, bored now!

Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:20 pm
l.s., your grandmother could lead the state, the house and the party in nice economic and political conditions. real leaders show their mettle in difficult economic and political times.

but it is telling that you didn’t call michael madigan a leader. you called him a tactician. i’ll take your word for it. we don’t need another political tactician to get the state out of these difficult times. we need someone who will step up. it is clear from madigan’s own words — and your defense of him — that he lacks those skills. i understand your need to lash out when someone points out this difficult reality. i get it. michael madigan — and his defenders — will only watch illinois crash and burn because of his outdated faith in bipartisan compromise.

that is so last century. way, way last century. if madigan can’t step up — and you’re telling me he’s incapable of that — then he needs to step out. he’s not the leader, the STRATEGIST, that democrats and the people of illinois need in these challenging times. the only question is, is madigan so devoted to his own personal power that he will sacrifice the state and the party to maintain it…

Comment by bored now Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:22 pm
WCW - “We have yet to see that the funding that goes to many of the social services providers/organizations produces the outcomes for which we are paying.”

What outcome do you expect to see from “Meals on Wheels?” People are hungry or they are not.

People with intellectual disabilities have productive things to do or they sit home in front of television sets with a parent who had to quit working to take care of them.

The elderly stay in their own homes with support services or end up in a nursing home at three times the cost. Or they stay home without those services and live in conditions that none of us would want to see Grandma in.

Disabilities don’t go into spontaneous remission, nor does old age.

Mothers can either be subsidized for day care so they can work or they can stay home with their kids and live on welfare. Whether or not people should have kids they can’t afford to support is an interesting argument, but the kids exist and we have to deal with the reality.

Human services is often about maintaining the individual at the least cost to the state. Pull out the supports and you end up with people in extreme conditions or in more expensive alternatives.

Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:28 pm
I’m not sure that even Madigan can deliver 60 votes for a tax increase. There are a lot more tax payers than tax eaters out here and they are not happy, to say the least. There’s a storm coming for the Dems as it is and until your average taxpayer starts to feel some real pain as a result of these proposed budget cuts there will not be much sentiment for an increase.
No matter what happens budget wise, and I predict that not much will, they are gonna lose some seats. There are more targets than most people think and there are a lot of Scott Lee Cohens waiting in the wings.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:38 pm
=== the republicans are being consistent with their core values/beliefs in opposing taxes. that is what republican typically do—they typically oppose taxes. ===

Republican George Ryan - doubled license plate fees

Republican Jim Edgar - Made income tax increase permanent, then tried to increase it;

Republican Jim Thompson - increased the income tax;

Republican Richard Ogilvie - created the income tax;

In short, every Republican governor in recent memory has raised taxes, and they did it with the support of Republican AND Democratic lawmakers.

BORED NOW:

=== the belief that a “Democrat-only tax hike is political suicide” is pure supposition, and it is in fact based upon the last century thinking of the speaker. ===

The latest public policy survey by Northern Illinois University is a pretty reliable benchmark, and their 2009 survey found only 35% of voters were willing to pay higher taxes. Granted, they didn’t specifically say income taxes, but that’s pretty consistent with all of the polling I’ve seen.

Quinn just made his tax hike plan the centerpiece of his campaign, and barely got half the vote among Democrats.

And here’s some results from the Paul Simon Institute, circa 2008:

The state takes in enough money but wastes alot: 78%

Opposed to raising the sales tax - 78%

Opposed to expanding the sales tax to cover services - 68%

The only idea, ironically, that had broad public support was instituting a progressive income tax, which 66% of voters favor. No surprise that Hynes went with that idea. But as we all know, a Constitutional amendment to allow for a progressive income tax requires 71 votes in the Illinois House, which Democrats do not have.

Now, if you’ve got better empirical data, I’d love to see it. But don’t accuse Madigan, me or anyone else of living in the last century when the most recent polling shows we’re right.

Just ask Elliott Hartstein.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:46 pm
Frankly, it doesn’t matter where PQ starts with the cuts - everyone’s sacred cow is gonna get gored. I want to see what he is proposing to do to start bringing some sanity into the gov’t re spending and cuts. If we see that PQ is serious about this and puts some bite into it then maybe the folks will be more amenable to some modest, temporary, tax increase. I wonder if PQ got it in him? He has floated this stuff before only to cave-in to the folks affected by the cuts. Man, get a spine! Hurry up before you are fumigated.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:50 pm
Bill is spot-on.

Leaders can and do lead, but the leash on which they lead voters is very short.

For a very long time, voters have consistently and by wide margins supported more money for basic state services, while at the same time just as consistently and widely opposed higher taxes to pay for them.

I think real, painful cuts are likely needed before they are going to realize that those two beliefs are irreconcilable.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:50 pm
WCW -

Every dollar spent on child abuse prevention programs saves taxpayers $19 in child abuse treatment costs.
- Robert Caldwell, PhD, Michigan State University, 1992
- http://tinyurl.com/ctp28e

“A state-level analysis of the costs associated with child maltreatment and its consequences was undertaken. These costs were then compared to the costs of providing child maltreatment prevention services to all first time parents. The costs of child abuse were estimated at 823 million dollars annually. These costs include those associated with low birthweight babies, infant mortality, special education, protective service, foster care, juvenile and adult criminality, and psychological services. The costs of prevention programming were estimated to be 43 million dollars annually. This yields a 19 to 1 cost advantage to prevention.”

Every dollar spent on home care saves state $10.59 in nursing home costs.
– Anderson Economic Group study of Michigan, 2006
– http://tinyurl.com/dkwd48

“Last year, the average cost per beneficiary in home care was $4,496 versus a $47,616 average cost of nursing facility care. The gap in the average cost of Home Help and nursing facility care has widened every year since 2001.”

Every dollar spent on early childhood learning generates $7.13 in taxpayer benefits.
- Aurthur Reynolds, UW-Madison and Judy Temple, Northern Illinois University; study of the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program, 2003
- http://tinyurl.com/c3by5q

“The researchers found that attendance in the preschool program for 18 months - averaging a cost of $6,692 per child - generated a return to society of $47,759 per participant. This figure includes increased taxes on earnings due to educational attainment ($7,243), savings to the criminal justice system ($7,130), reductions in school remedial services ($4,652) and averted tangible costs to crime victims ($6,127).”

Every dollar spent on drug treatment programs saves taxpayers $7, including $12 for outpatient services and $4 for inpatient drug treatment.
- University of Chicago study of California, 1994
- http://tinyurl.com/c8kcnf

“The $209 million the State spent on treatment between October 1991 and September 1992 resulted in an estimated $1.5 billion in savings for taxpayers. Much of this was due to reductions in crime and in the need for medical care. Specifically, criminal activity by patients in California treatment programs fell by two-thirds after they had completed treatment. Use of medical care declined too. For example, hospital emergency room admissions among those in treatment dropped by a third.”

Every dollar invested in job training programs generates $4.60 in taxpayer benefits.
- Suffolk County Department of Labor, 2008
- http://tinyurl.com/ca7aqp

“During the past year, Suffolk County experienced an increase in its unemployment rate from 3.6% to 4.7%. The loss of a job often results in hardship and stress for the individual. In addition, there is a negative impact on our local economy. Lost wages are not spent, income tax is lost, unemployment insurance must be paid, and Temporary Assistance may be required. It is the goal of employment and training programs to reinvest in the available human resources, thus ending the downward cycle….In the last Program Year, 3,407 people were placed into employment and, for every $1.00 spent, a return of $4.60 was realized.”

Hope that helps!

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:53 pm
What has happened, I believe, is that the federal government has ruined it for the states. Since the blockbuster federal deficits of the 1980s, people have believed that they can get the services they want without having to pay for them. That just can’t be done at the state level, but people don’t really even begin to comprehend that.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 3:54 pm
We could start with Bill Brady’s idea, a 10% cut in every agency. That would quickly knock more than $2 1/2 billion out of the budget.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:06 pm
Aldyth,

not quite deary…in keeping with the thread discussions, i wasn’t referring to meals on wheels. in fact i support legtimate social services that serve the elderly and developmentally disabled. i don’t mind welfare so long as it is monitored properly, the recipients truly need it, they demonstrate that the are working toward self-sufficiency and the welfare is provided on a temporary/limited basis. but i am not convinced that programs like TASC, though a federal mandate, unfortunately, yield positive outcomes beneficial to society and those “served” by it.

ydd…
as mike madigan pointed out last summer the democrats took care of their own “mess” by removing blago after having helped him win re-election in 2006 (despite their claims during his 208/2009 ouster that they knew he was no good from day one). i’ll apply madigan’s logic here and submit to you that the IL GOP is now making up for the sins of their past in arguing against a tax increase without signifant cuts etc. first.

Comment by Will County Woman Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:07 pm
ydd, rich is right. this is the land of suckers who are eager to believe that you can get good stuff for nothing. i don’t doubt any of the polling data that you’ve cited. i merely find it irrelevant. give me madigan’s list of $9-11 billion in cuts that he wants (that he will sign off on) and i’ll concede the point.

let’s be honest. madigan is a full-time attorney and a part time speaker with a couple of minutes a day worrying about the party thrown in on the side. but, right now, illinois requires full time leadership and the party requires 150% from its chair — neither of which madigan is interested in providing.

like i said, l.s.’s grandmother could be the speaker or party chair in good conditions, where people who believe in government can simply give the people what they want. what y’all keep saying is that michael madigan isn’t capable of providing leadership — either as speaker or party chair — in the current political environment. sure, you can wish that the political conditions were otherwise. you could plead for republican votes. you could call in the teeth fairy. all would be equally as effective as the course that madigan has set down for the state.

which means we’re screwed. madigan won’t come up with any cuts (he’ll declare that it is the governor’s responsibility — and he’ll be right) and he won’t come up with any votes. he’s given republicans veto power and we are paralyzed simply because republicans have absolutely no incentive to abandon that power.

iow, michael madigan’s “brilliant tactic[s]” feed the republican frame that government is disfunctional, that it can’t do anything for the people, and should be severely reduced (or eliminated). i don’t need to worry about republicans being in power if the speaker mirrors their positions to a t…

Comment by bored now Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:24 pm
I was just reading about budget cuts…in regards to education and then the article concerning lawmakers and late payments from the state for their expenses…
State Late on Payments to Lawmakers
February 10, 2010 by Kevin Lee
It looks like there could be some budget cuts there…{Legislators expenses}

Comment by reader from naperville Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:27 pm
schnorf -

The problem with the Brady “plan” is that polling shows that voters actually want us to spend more, not less, on things like K-12 education, college financial aid, public safety, human services…

Voters want cuts, but they want SMART cuts, to non-essential programs and wasteful spending.

My advice to lawmakers is, with the exception of schools, you can start by stop subsidizing local government. The state collects the taxes, the local government spends the money, and voters have no idea what bang they are getting for their buck from state government.

WCW -

Except not a single leading Republican is on record as saying that they’d support a plan that included a combination of cuts/reforms and increased taxes. Not one.

They either claim the budget can be balanced solely through cuts, or “Let’s cut and then see where we’re at.”

Well, that’s not the way budgeting works. Appropriations and revenue go hand-in-hand.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 4:34 pm
Rich makes a good point, many want some thing for nothing. On the flip side, the same folks want to give less and get more.

It’s not just government — it’s institutinalized now, outside The Gates Foundation and Kiwanis.

I blame the MBAs and TV.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 5:15 pm
Yellow dog doesn’t seem to appreciate that if the state tries to balance its budget on the backs of municipalities by cutting monies to towns that that constituents back home are gonna get whacked with property tax hikes they can’t afford or they are gonna lose services and public safety they expect to have

Comment by HonestAbe Thursday, Feb 11, 10 @ 9:18 pm