Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

More phony budget math

Posted in:

Illinois

* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Buried deep within Gov. Bruce Rauner’s proposed budget plan for next fiscal year is yet another claimed “savings” which may not actually save any money, and could easily wind up costing the state more.

The governor proposes to save a whopping $108 million by discontinuing child care services provided by relatives in the child’s or relative’s home.

At first glance, that cut might look prudent. Why should the state pay grandma to baby-sit her own grandkid? Is that some sort of scam? Go to any right-wing blog and you’ll occasionally see stories bashing this whole idea.

But, in reality, by pulling those payments, which are designed to help low-income parents go to school and work their way out of poverty, “grandma” could lose her income and may very well have to find a different part-time job, meaning the parent then has to search for another provider and the state saves no money.

And because relatives who provide child care are exempt from all state licensing requirements, that child could end up at a licensed day care provider, which costs the state a whole lot more money.

It’s simple math. The rate the state pays for relative care, care in the child’s home and for license exempt day care homes is $16.22 per day.

But the rates paid for licensed day care centers varies from $33.53 per day in parts of Downstate to $46.49 per day in Chicago and the collar counties. So, we’re talking about the potential of almost tripling the price per child in the region where most people live.

Licensed exempt day care centers and licensed day care homes are cheaper, but they’re still substantially more expensive than relative care, ranging from $29.20 per day in parts of Downstate all the way up to $40.50 in Chicago and the suburbs.

And even if the state ends up paying for non-relative care in the kids’ own homes or at a license-exempt home day care provider, it costs the state the exact same money as it’s paying now. So why even bother with this?

“Simply by eliminating one class of care, we don’t necessarily eliminate those children from the system,” explained Megan Meyer, spokesperson for the Ounce of Prevention Fund, which just happens to be run by the governor’s wife. “Some families certainly may opt out, but others may choose licensed home or center-based care, all of which are more expensive.”

Emily Miller with Voices For Illinois Children was far more blunt. “Obviously I can’t speak for the governor, but perhaps the governor thinks that someone else – like a child care [provider] – won’t care for the kid, and the current child care provider will just continue to do it and not get paid. I don’t see why that would happen. But there are a lot of magic assumptions in this budget.”

Yes, there are a whole lot of “magic assumptions” in the governor’s budget proposal. The thing is chock full of wishful thinking, like the $2.2 billion savings from a pension reform plan which must be implemented by this coming July 1st, but also can’t be halted by a lawsuit, which is so unlikely there aren’t enough decimal point zeroes in the world to give you the percentages of success. It’s simply an impossible fairy tale.

Now, it’s true that some relatives might very well volunteer to take care of the kids for free. That would be a great thing for the state, which wouldn’t have to pick up the tab. But we’re talking about economically distressed parents here, and they tend to come from poor families. So, while some money could be saved, it most certainly won’t be $108 million.

The governor’s proposal, by the way, would also phase out child care subsidies for kids six and older.

“Over time, the total number of children who would lose access is about 65,000,” said Miller of Voices for Children. “That’s how many kids there are age 6-12 who are currently enrolled. It’s over time because children over 5 who are already enrolled will continue to be as long as they remain enrolled.”

Whatever you think about that proposed cut, at least that will produce the savings intended, as well as more future savings as it’s phased in. So kudos for accuracy. Maybe not so much for humanity.

I asked the governor’s press office for comment on all of these issues, but never heard back.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:25 am

Comments

Wish you had a ‘like’ button. Thanks for shedding light on this inhumane foolishness.

Comment by corvax Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:29 am
==I asked the governor’s press office for comment on all of these issues, but never heard back.==

You can’t defend the indefensible.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:32 am
To eliminate day care assistance for children over 6 makes no sense. Not every parent can work the same hours as their children’s school hours. None of us would consider it wise to leave a 6 year old on their own at home and Under the Juvenile Court Act, it’s child neglect to leave a minor under 14 years of age “without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety, or welfare of that minor.” So what is a parent supposed to do for children between ages 6 and 14? Also if more children are left on their own so parents can work, how will this affect gangs and crime in some parts of the state? For a person concerned about children, he does not seem concerned. How can his wife live with this?

Comment by illinifan Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:33 am
Tax increase sunsets from 5% to 3.75% which disproportionately benefits the wealthiest among us (I like wealth this is not class war fair) while Rauner’s budget cuts seem to disproportionately hurt the poorest among us. I think this is not only an optics issue but a true issue of properness, fairness and morality. I think Rauner’s definition of “shared sacrifice” is telling to this point.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:47 am
What’s to prevent Grandma from getting licensed? Wouldn’t she get a raise?

Comment by Casual Observer Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:47 am
Ya know, we have’ta live within our means. Given the failed leadership of the Madigan, Cullerton combine … blah, blah, blah.

What’s a plutocrat gotta do to get some respect around here?

All you middle class people are just takers that we Masters of the Universe have given jobs to, but do you thank us? Of course not, and you have the gall to ask for a raise? Heh! You’re fired! Now what are you gonna do?…Go on Welfare, of course. Taker! You know, I could be makin much more money in the private sector, but I’m here as your governor, workin for practically free. It’s a massive sacrifice that I’m makin for all you ingrates. But all you people do is whine. Get over yourselves, and, uh, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and get a job! /S

Comment by PublicServant Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:51 am
Another top priority of the “empowerment agenda.”

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:52 am
=== I asked the governor’s press office for comment on all of these issues, but never heard back. ===

They’re trying to figure out how to use their favorite propaganda words (corrupt, union bosses, status quo, etc) into the response.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:53 am
Six years old??? SIX??

Comment by DuPage Moderate Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 9:56 am
In the case of one of my in-laws’ grandma was being paid to watch her 3 kids. Her husband had skipped town with another woman levving her with no job, no education, and the kids. Grandma being hired allowed my in-law to go to school and obtain a nursing degree.
now she will be able to be a taxpaying citizen who can support her family. Yes, there is some real good in the program despite what some right-wing blogs may say. It is a clear example of the state making an investment into a citizen that will turn around and pay in more for taxes than she would have doing menial labor.

train111

Comment by train111 Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:04 am
Most things in State government are the way they are because of a trail of events that lead to the current scheme: procurement rules, special funds, day care. These programs weren’t developed on a whim. A lot of thought, debate and history lead up to the way today’s programs have evolved.

Can some programs be improved? It’s always a good idea to periodically review a program to see if it’s still working effectively. But in order to eliminate a program you first have to understand the program, the history and it’s relationship to other things.

Time and time again we’ve seen the Governor get out the red pencil without regard to anything but his bottom line, financial or ideological. It’s painfully obvious that he doesn’t care to understand the interlocking gears.

He’s learned nothing after the pushback from his budget. These aren’t rookie mistakes. He has no plan other than slash and burn, details be damned.

Comment by Sangamo Sam Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:07 am
It is disappointing to find the group’s thoughts dissolving into class envy rather than how to create a fiscally responsible future. Many do not believe the government is responsible for a parent’s children, unless parental rights are terminated. Those responsible for the birth of a child should take personal responsibility for that child rather than the taxpayer.

Yes, rich the $106 million had not likely been thought through fiscally. If this is restored, another reduction or a revenue generator that doesn’t impact job creation, capital formation or small business development will need to be found.

Comment by Muscular Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:12 am
==Many do not believe the government is responsible for a parent’s children, unless parental rights are terminated. Those responsible for the birth of a child should take personal responsibility for that child rather than the taxpayer.==

No, actually some of us live in reality. People with rainbows and roses outlooks such as yourself don’t appear to be grounded in the realities of the situation, which is that these types of services are needed whether you like it or not. You can’t simply wash your hands of the realities of life.

==class envy==

Oh please? Class envy? What about child care subsidies says class envy?

==another reduction or a revenue generator that doesn’t impact job creation, capital formation or small business development will need to be found.==

So basically, so long as we cut other programs for the poor you’re good with it.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:17 am
Muscular,

What are you deadlifting these days? You sound strong.

Simple fact: The government ends up taking responsibility for a parent’s children one way or another. A lot cheaper on the front end than on the back end.

It isn’t a bidness. You don’t get to define your customer universe.

Comment by LizPhairTax Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:17 am
“Those responsible for the birth of a child should take personal responsibility for that child rather than the taxpayer.”

Go fly a kite. Needing daycare isn’t a moral failing.

“Yes, rich the $106 million had not likely been thought through fiscally.”

Since it will end up putting kids in more expensive parts of the system in the long run, it clearly hasn’t.

But hey, at least we got to tell people that they’re bad for being poor again!

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:21 am
The kids in inner cities and rural areas that are on this program need the after school stability. Or they can join gangs or start meth labs.

Comment by real one Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:27 am
I do think that licensed centers, especially those participating in Excelerate (checkout incraa.org) are worth the higher daily rate.
If taxpayers want to affect the lives of people who make less than 185% of FPL, and give them a chance to earn and achieve more independence in their lives AND OUR SHARED SOCIETY, this is an excellent way.
High quality child care, vs hanging with relatives is the way to go with tax payer money.
The science of early childhood development is exploding and we as Americans will be fools to not apply it.
(Another study out today about how Americans are dead last, of 23 countries, in practical application of math, literacy, problem-solving in tech environment etc. ets.org It makes me wonder what the other 23 countries do with regard to tax money and early childhood education. They obviously have a superior approach to ours.)
The Prince needs more roads though, then fences. (I feel like I am watching the prequel to the Hunger Games that explains the creation of the Districts.)

Comment by cdog Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:30 am
The stark reality is, people have to be responsible for your children. Gone are the days of you conceiving children that I cannot affort to pay for.

My wife and I have two great kids, but before we did, we planned on how to raise them and never was a government handout ever discussed.

Time to stop this government subsidy nonsense!

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:31 am
“Class envy?” What are you talking about in this context? It doesn’t make any sense.

I recall child-care assistance for the poor as part of bipartisan welfare reform.

Work or get an education and receive some assistance for child care, rather than staying at home with the kids and waiting on a welfare check.

That was the old-school GOP “empowerment agenda.”

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:32 am
==The stark reality is, people have to be responsible for your children.==

Do you think if you say that sort of stuff over and over it will make the realities any different? Why is it that some of you are ignorant to reality?

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:40 am
Anon 10:31, you’re so virtuous and principled.

I’m sure you swell with holier-than-thou pride when you decline to take the dependent deductions and child credits on your taxes.

You do that, right? Wouldn’t want any of them gubmint handouts.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:40 am
==Time to stop this government subsidy nonsense!==

Yeah! Because I don’t like it. Let’s just stop services because I don’t like it. Too bad if people suffer. It’s not my problem.

Good attitude.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:41 am
People keep saying that Rauner really hasn’t thought these cuts through.

I think this is a very cynical attempt to create so much pain and damage to the most disadvantaged of our citizen’s that it forces the Democratic party in the state to sponsor and be primary supporter of a tax increase. Then four years from now he can claim the benefits of a balanced budget while hanging the increase on his opponents.

Clearly, the plutocrat is playing chicken with the Speaker with the less fortunate tied to his bumper.

He may not have anticipated just how hard-core a hardball player his opponent is.

Comment by jimbo2 Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:48 am
@Anonymous:
“The stark reality is, people have to be responsible for your children. Gone are the days of you conceiving children that I cannot affort to pay for.”

Gone are the days? As if poverty is ‘new’? These people ARE being responsible. They are having someone watch their children WHILE THEY WORK. Now, Rauner is saying that they are going to have their childcare assistance taken away, (and actually increase the cost of the program to the taxpayers btw) and most likely lose their job, and then require additional gov’t assistance.

Secondly, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if you were one of the ‘Abstinence Only’ crowd as well. On one hand you rail against teen pregnancy, and unplanned pregnancy….but on the other hand resolutely refuse all efforts to educate the population on how to AVOID pregnancy.

“My wife and I have two great kids, but before we did, we planned on how to raise them and never was a government handout ever discussed.”

Whooopdie frigg’n do. My wife and I had 3 kids, and did all the planning. Sure didn’t count on losing my job though. Fortunately we had some savings and were able to weather the storm. I’m not going to cast dispersion on those that find themselves on the wrong side of a job loss, or foreclosure, or other circumstance.

“Time to stop this government subsidy nonsense!”

Time for you to park that horse you rode in on. Clearly you can’t do basic math. If you want people to get off public assistance, you need to give them a hand. Provide the mechanism to work (child care) and they will work. In fact, they will most likely be able to get to a point when they don’t need the assistance.

Take that child care away, and then social costs go up. Welfare, food stamps etc.

You save $.05, to cost yourself $1.00. Must be that home school math, because it doesn’t make fiscal sense in the real world.

Comment by How Ironic Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:48 am
Story in similar vein: http://wgntv.com/2015/03/11/what-rauners-budget-cuts-could-mean-for-families-who-depend-on-respite-care/

Comment by Cromulent M. Biggens Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:51 am
“The stark reality is, people have to be responsible for your children.”

You aren’t making any sense. Putting your child in a daycare program isn’t irresponsible.

Demanding lower taxes at the cost of daycare for poor kids IS, though.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 10:59 am
The math doesn’t add up, his cuts are devastating, he shifts the blame to the lawmakers and he wanted absolute power to rule with? What’s he been smoking? He needs to wake up and smell the coffee.He needs to realize that his grand dream of complete takeover and marshal law type powers are not going to happen. Get serious Bruce willya.

Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:04 am
“Many do not believe the government is responsible for a parent’s children, unless parental rights are terminated.”

Do you even lift, bro?

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:09 am
Hey Demoralized if you HAD to make a choice which would you want funded, these services or the pensions?

Comment by Poster Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:15 am
No response from the gov’s office because they hadn’t thought this through because they didn’t know or care how the program works. Besides in their world, grandmas are in their 60’s and spend their day crocheting … i suspect that many of these grandmas dont look anything like that

Comment by The Way I See It Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:17 am
==Hey Demoralized if you HAD to make a choice which would you want funded, these services or the pensions?==

A. It’s not an either/or proposition so I reject that choice.

B. That’s irrelevant to the conversation I was having.

C. If you must know I’m not a pension absolutist. I would support reasonable changes. To date I haven’t seen many of those proposed.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:22 am
That was obviously me above

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:22 am
==Hey Demoralized if you HAD to make a choice which would you want funded, these services or the pensions?==

“Yeah, let’s you and him fight!”

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 11:38 am
@Demoralized- With great respect, Well played sir.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 12:08 pm
Poster, Rauner is proposing these cuts and shorting the pension contribution by $2.2 billion.

Best of both worlds, in some minds.

Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Thanks to word:”I recall child-care assistance for the poor as part of bipartisan welfare reform.

Work or get an education and receive some assistance for child care, rather than staying at home with the kids and waiting on a welfare check.”

yes. This is exactly my take on it. I’m more than happy for my tax dollars to go towards those who want a hand up rather than a hand out, to those who want to show their children the importance of work by setting an example, to those who try to make sure their children are in a safe environment while they work.

If we don’t pay for child care, then low-income people with children never get off welfare because of the cost of child care. Ever priced infant care these days? A minimum wage job won’t pay enough to pay for it.

Comment by mythoughtis Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 12:14 pm
Just look in 007 Englewood 3 ,4 generations of welfare eaters….free child care gives free time for a parent to use free time for goofing off gong to the boat , hanging out
Now with welfare benefits near $$ 40,000 tax free they never get off

Comment by better days Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 1:35 pm
Reality -
1) child gets abused by mom and boyfriend
2) child gets placed in foster care with maternal grandma (where the mom “learned” how to parent) and gets PAID for care
3) grandma works, so auntie provides daycare and gets PAID
4) All live in the SAME apt building

What’s wrong with this scenario? This is reality.

Comment by former state worker Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 1:50 pm
@ Better Days, Former State Worker:

So you would suggest we should govern by anecdote?

Because you heard from a friend who knows a guy, who talked to someone on the train who sits next to a woman who glanced out her window and saw ’something’?

Weaksauce. Contrary to your ‘information’ the vast majority of those on assistance would prefer not to be there. By using the child care credit they are trying to get out of poverty.

Keep on being the victim.

Comment by How Ironic Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 2:00 pm
No rumors or third party information. I retired from DCFS and have first-hand knowledge of these scenarios. My point is that the entire system needs to be looked at. There are good and bad examples in everything.

Comment by former state worker Monday, Mar 16, 15 @ 2:08 pm