Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“Since we are unwilling to make numbers up, we are unable to refute the Governor’s claims”

Posted in:

Illinois

The Rauner administration is vehemently pushing against SB570, which lawmakers are to take up in overtime session next week. The bill would limit the power administration’s have over managing a state program in time of financial crisis. Advocacy groups have blasted Rauner for changing rules to the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) leading one group to erect billboards warning of Rauner’s “dangerous cuts.”

– In a memo obtained by POLITICO Illinois, the administration describes “high costs and unintended consequences” of the bill. “If enacted on January 1, 2016, the bill would add $220 million in program costs for the duration of Fiscal Year 2016 and have an annualized cost in excess of $800 million,” the memo says. READ THE MEMO: http://politi.co/1GLp6vr

* From the governor’s office…

Hi, Rich –
Hope you’re well.

I wanted to pass along the attached memo and the following statement to you. The statement is attributable to me.

“Unfortunately, rather than passing a budget, the Majority wants to politicize this issue. But with a huge price tag for taxpayers and a number of unintended consequences outlined in the memo, the bill presents a real problem for centrist Democrats, especially those who portray themselves as fiscal conservatives. The bill doesn’t just roll back a single emergency rule — it mandates nearly a billion dollars of annual spending regardless of available resources and threatens the viability of the program over the long run. Additionally, even if they pass this - there’s still no money to pay for CCAP so it won’t fix the underlying issue. Bad for taxpayers, bad for child care. It is a plainly political bill that would create as many problems as it pretends to solve.”

Thanks,
ck

Again, the DHS memo is here.

* However, back in August, DHS said it couldn’t determine the bill’s fiscal impact…

Fiscal Note (Dept. of Human Services)

Though the fiscal impact is indeterminable at this time, the amendment would provide the Department with little or no flexibility to manage the Child Care Program and live within established appropriations.

* Groups including Mrs. Rauner’s Ounce of Prevention sent their own letter today. The full response letter to legislators is here. Excerpt…

- 80,000 Illinois families are able to enter and remain in the work force

- 69,000 skilled early childhood education workers are employed in early learning facilities

- 46,450 employers in Illinois rely on CCAP to ensure their employees have a safe place to leave their children and are able to come to work every day

- CCAP generated $2.6 billion in revenue in 2014. For every 100 jobs created in child care, 56 are created in other industries. For every $100 spent on child care, $213 is spent in the economy

* However, nowhere in that letter was anything addressing the new DHS cost claims. So, I circled back to our pal Emily Miller at Voices for Illinois Children. Her response…

Hi Rich,

By now you have received a memo from a group of organizations encouraging lawmakers and the governor to support SB570, a bill that reverses dangerous cuts to child care implemented unilaterally by the Rauner Administration on July 1, 2015.

Notably absent from that memo is direct repudiation of numbers the administration put forward in its own memo issued this morning. That was intentional. The administration’s memo does not include information regarding how they arrived at their numbers - it simply states numbers as though they are factual.

For example, advocates cannot dissect claims of program costs when we are unsure what baseline is being used—are we comparing program costs from before the Governor’s devastating cuts, or after the cuts, when the administration turned away 15,000 children in the first month of the changes?

And what is the baseline for the annualized costs? The pre-cut levels? The post-cut levels? These are questions advocates do not know the answers to, and since we are unwilling to make numbers up, we are unable to refute the Governor’s claims as a result.

What we do know is that while the legislation would require restoring funding for the operation of the child care program, the cost of NOT funding the program is far greater than $220 million, or even $800 million (numbers used in the administration’s memo) due to the devastating impact that the Rauner Administration’s actions are having on working families. That is why advocates have for years called on Illinois lawmakers to identify revenue to sustain the program at the level necessary to meet the identified need.

No serious policymaker can honestly say investing in quality child care for working parents doesn’t save the state money in the short-and long-term. That’s why the coalition joined together to assess the real value of the CCAP program in Illinois. And that’s why we unanimously support the passage of SB570.

Thanks.

Emily Miller

Director, Policy and Advocacy

Voices for Illinois Children

* Related…

* Survey: Rauner’s Child Care Cuts Hitting Families, Providers Hard: Nearly 2,500 families from 100 child care centers in Illinois have lost access to state subsidized daycare because of the Rauner administration’s cuts to the program, according to a new survey of child care providers in the state.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:03 pm

Comments

Great letter, but she must remember: Rauner. Just. Doesn’t. CARE.

Comment by Big Joe Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:13 pm
Ya can’t beat the fun of making up numbers, eh, Superstarts?

Not the first time Brucie’s Boyz were ‘number creative, as I recall.

Comment by sal-says Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:14 pm
===rather than passing a budget===

They passed one.

===the Majority wants to politicize this issue===

Um, who changed the rules?

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t recall ever seeing the term “centrist Democrats” applied to Illinois politics, that’s Washington-speak. I propose we all band together to stop the spread of Washington-speak.

Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:16 pm
I was under the impression that all bills pending in the legislature required some cost analysis before a vote.

Did that change or was my impression incorrect?

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:17 pm
=== there’s still no money to pay for CCAP so it won’t fix the underlying issue ===

What’s the underlying issue, CK?

Because according to the First Lady, this legislation grows our economy.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:18 pm
It’s clear Rauner’s memo is a political document to be shared with reporters, that includes nothing to substantiate his claims. Let’s hope the media doesn’t just write it as “Rauner says, others say” like the rest of these stories.

EMiller is right — where do those cost #s come from? And do they account for positive economic impact of the program? Or the negative impact from cuts?

What are the 8 other executive actions taken on CCAP that the Raunerites cite? I bet that COMBINED they are a pittance compared to what Rauner’s done to CCAP.

And why is Rauner’s personal philanthropy on child care mentioned? Oh, right, we’re back to where we started — this is a political document to generate news before the vote and nothing more.

Comment by ChinaTown Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Hi, ck-

Numbers? Totals? Please show your work.

Thanks!
ow

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Well, it can’t create any more problems than already exist.

However, what it does do — and this is becoming a trend, it seems — is that it takes Rauner out of the loop.

Sort of like the AFSCME bill. It wrests control away from Rauner. And this — this control — is apparently all that matters.

This is the “shutting down the government to rewrite the contract” thing that Rauner spoke of during the campaign.

Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:21 pm
“I was under the impression that all bills pending in the legislature required some cost analysis before a vote.”

It is not required. A fiscal note can be requested by any legislator for a bill and the vote cannot take place until that fiscal note is filed. It is not required that that note actually detail the fiscal impact (particularly if it cannot be calculated).

Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:24 pm
**I was under the impression that all bills pending in the legislature required some cost analysis before a vote. Did that change or was my impression incorrect?**

Your impression is incorrect. BUT… someone may request a fiscal note on any bill, and the appropriate department must submit a fiscal impact note for the legislation.

This happened when they bill was being voted on in the legislature, and the “fiscal note” is already quoted above, but I’ll requote it here:

Fiscal Note (Dept. of Human Services)

Though the fiscal impact is indeterminable at this time, the amendment would provide the Department with little or no flexibility to manage the Child Care Program and live within established appropriations.

Comment by AlabamaShake Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:25 pm
===”…restricts an administration’s ability to manage it to draw federal dollars…”===

Somebody needs to ask the question… how many federal dollars will Illinois be missing out on without a budget??? If you want the ability to draw federal dollars, perhaps you should work on a budget. Oy.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:31 pm
“more than 90,000 children are currently being served”

That number was more than 150,000 prior to July 1.

Comment by Secret Square Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:33 pm
There was no Fiscal Analysis when Wealthy Welfare was expanded in January!

Especially when voters specifically called for cutbacks in Entitlement programs for the Elite in last Novembers election.

Comment by Jack Stephens Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:34 pm
–Numbers? Totals? Please show your work.–

The Rauner administration won’t (because they can’t) empirically justify their own agenda 8 months after its splashy roadshow. If you’re hoping for empirical data on this particular issue, well, don’t wait by the phone. BVR is leveragin’ our kids to advance an agenda that can’t be justified economically or otherwise.

Comment by unspun Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:35 pm
On the cost, as far as I am aware, the cost of the program in 2015 was around $700 million including both state and federal dollars. So if they are saying that it costs money to run the child care program, technically, they are right, but I think that misses the point.

In the letter it is amazing how they don’t even attempt to get into how costs are broken down, but just whine about their authority being taken away. Well Governor, the legislature may giveth, and the legislature may taketh away. That is kind of how checks and balances are supposed to work. And when you take an action for the specific purpose of generating a backlash, stop acting surprised if that backlash turns out not working for you.

And also, I know the Governor really did inherent a complete mess with the budget, but can he stop with the $1.6 billion deficit stuff. It was $900 million. The Governor said he wasn’t going to do the borrowing, so that raised it to $1.6 billion. But then guess what? They did the borrowing anyways. So stop inflating the number to make a truly bad situation sound even worse just for the sake of hosting your own pity party at the mansion.

Comment by Juice Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:37 pm
HBO - “Dad’s Home State” - Season 1, Episode 90

Bruce reads old press clippings on the anniversary of his winning campaign. Diana rallies with Social Service allies in a letter for a state Senate bill. Diana’s state employee steals back the Tums. Lance asks Gov. Lingle what she actually does, “ck” uses the Rauner Word Jumble to write an email. Comedy, 63 minutes.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:37 pm
I hope the GA gets this done but whenever someone talks about state money and kids I can’t stop from hearing this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Just a classic Simpsons line.

Comment by Anon2U Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:53 pm
This is the kind of thing that happens when a state doesn’t have a governor. It forces the legislature to take steps that ensure the viability of popular government programs which are being strangled without a governor.

I had expected Illinois, after three failed governorships to take steps reducing the importance of the Office. This must be so in order for those dependent upon a functioning state government to survive.

There are some things a governor can stonewall, but governing is not one of them. When people across the state, regardless of party affiliation discover that they cannot depend upon their own government for assistance, they must take actions.

Rauner has demonstrated that it is better to have a weak governor or no governor, than a governor who will not govern.

These are the consequences of not governing.

Rauner cannot kill Illinois just for his own personal political gain. Illinois is just too big to be allowed to fail.

Rauner was to steer Illinois state government and govern it. He refuses and now people are suffering. Rauner’s administration is simply not doing its job, so we must take steps around it.

A bad governor creates consequences caused by bad governing.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 2:58 pm
== Numbers? Totals? =
I’m sure there is a white paper somewhere, just like there was during the campaign.

Comment by Austin Blvd Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:01 pm
The fact that Nuding and Dimas thought they had to deliver “the Brick,” in writing, with a bunch of bold and underlined hyperbole, proves they are worried about this vote.

Their nonsense, like “If enacted on January 1, 2016, the bill would add $220 million in program costs for the duration of Fiscal Year 2016 and have an annualized cost in excess of $800 million,” is just plain bad math, even dumb.

If you want the power for emergency rule, don’t act like you can’t be trusted with it. The decimation of this program, via the Rauner Rule Change, speaks for itself.

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:09 pm
Louis G. Atsaves @ 2:17 pm ==I was under the impression that all bills pending in the legislature required some cost analysis before a vote.

Did that change or was my impression incorrect?==

The DHS fiscal note is quoted in the post.

Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:09 pm
Wait — Rauner doesn’t have numbers?

I thought he hired his superstars to crank out numbers.

What are those superstars doing?

Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:10 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Rauner’s original budget cut funding for CCAP altogether?

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:10 pm
Let’s examine the words of Nuding and Dimas more closely.

“Furthermore, with new federal rules surrounding exit criteria and program inspection going into effect next year…” Exit criteria from the Child Care Development Block Grant?

Sounds expensive for the Illinois program gentleman, to be keeping “shape” for an exit from the federal program.

That is unless Mr. .01% and his donor friends are going to be the new workforce safety net for families just above the poverty line. /s

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:14 pm
Rauner:”Just remember…I’m winning.”

“The losers? Because…Madigan.”

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:21 pm
GUE:

The FY’16 total request for CCAP from the Governor was $1.019 billion, which was about $155 mil less in GRF than FY’15 ($1.175 bil).

Comment by The Lowly LA Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:30 pm
More of Nuding/Dimas’s words –

“Additionally, the proposed legislation permanently cements the eligibility level for the CCAP, regardless of appropriations or funds available. That’s irresponsible to the budgeting process and the type of policy that created our backlog of unpaid bills. No serious legislator who cares about passing truly balanced budgets can honestly vote for this type of policy – it is a greenlight to create higher deficits.

So, let’s get this straight. They say “that’s irresponsible?” The Administration that is governing by court order,
Rauner Jumble Press Releases,
disrespect of every state vendor and the stability of THEIR BUSINESS,
and overseeing the largest cliff-drop in state credit ratings,
is complaining about creating higher deficits.

These two are too much. The joke is that a majority of legislature could change these rules at anytime to adapt to economics much better than this deceptive crew.

Any serious legislator that has concerns about the economic outlook for the State, will marginalize these jokers.

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:33 pm
Yep, goin’ there again. From Nuding/Dimas –

“It (SB570)increases the deficit, restricts an administration’s ability to manage it to draw federal dollars and comply with changing federal rules and locks in place the type of financial scheme that has caused Illinois to deficit spend for years.”

“Governor Rauner cares deeply about CCAP.”

These two statements can’t both be true, gentleman.

Again, your words about concern for increasing the deficit are hollow, and disingenuous.

Could there be a “here come the Feds” situation developing here….

Pass this bill so Rauner can’t completely “exit” from this program.

Comment by cdog Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:43 pm
Sounds more like:

“Since we are unable to understand how the Governor’s staff made up these numbers, we are unable to criticize his claims.”

Comment by walker Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:45 pm
“Dad’s Home State” is internet gold (and soon to be TV gold, we wish). Excellent work with this and early today, Oswego Willy.

Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:46 pm
Let’s see if Mike Madigan can get all of his 72 Democrats to strip Bruce Rauner of his authority and ram an override of a veto through.

Comment by Muscular Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:47 pm
I stand corrected, thanks.

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:49 pm
@Montrose, @AlabamaShake, @Anon, thanks for the responses answering my question.

I guess the next thing to be figured out is what are the established appropriations that note is talking about.

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:50 pm
Thanks - Cheswick -, appreciate that.

OW

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 3:55 pm
Louis -

Why should we have to figure it out? Shouldn’t the math be included in the Gov’s memo? This isn’t choose your own adventure. He should show his work.

Comment by late to the party Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 4:08 pm
With regard to ck’s response, I would say the bill is not a “plainly political” maneuver. It is a response to an odious and blatant political maneuver on the Governor’s part to make people suffer so he can have his wedge issue with the Democrats in order to attack collective bargaining.

Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 4:13 pm
These two are too much. The joke is that a majority of legislature could change these rules at anytime to adapt to economics much better than this deceptive crew.

How true is this statement. They are calling SB 570 to vote because the Governor took advantage of his power by the drastic changes he made in the CCAP program. If he had made reasonable changes I do not think SB 570 would be in place.

Comment by Reality Check Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 4:22 pm
Illinois prior two gov’s modified the CCAP eight times through emergency rules, including co-pay increases and intake restrictions. Roughly 100000 children are in the program, none of whom are being removed from the program and more of whom can be served when a budget is in place.

Never mind the General assembly leaving these emergency provisions intact every time they have previously amended this law, or that it has been used similarly by Democratic governors.

Because… Rauner.

Comment by Same as it ever was Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 4:34 pm
Same as it ever was, did either of those two Governors limit eligibility so that a single mother who works full time and earns minimum wage too wealthy to be enrolled? Know how many children typically become ineligible because of an increase in co-pay?

Do you realize that the 100,000 children you state are in the program is about 33% fewer than are typically enrolled in the program?

I will agree though. This is because of Rauner. He did this to encourage a backlash. He just didn’t think he might be a part of that backlash.

Comment by Juice Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 4:44 pm
All of this becomes simple once we understand the problem. As Bill Clinton used to say–we are going to explain this so that even the Republicans understand it. Governor Rauner is the problem.

Comment by kenny16 Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 5:38 pm
Emily Miller has game, Jane Addams game, talking truth to Frat Boy.

Well done. Im with you to til the last dog dies.

Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 7:36 pm
The gov’s memo says 90,000 children not 100,000-10 ,000 children is a lot of children and a lot of families that are hurting. It is my understanding that this is down from 150,000. A 60,000 reduction in eligible participants has to significantly impact the economy and unemployment rates.

Comment by burbanite Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 8:02 pm
“Next on the I Love Brucie Show,,,,”

Dr. Di the Dilletante tries to convince her North
Shore cronies that she’s on the side of poor mothers trying to make a go of it.

Hilarity ensues, as Bruce sticks it up and breaks it off with the welfare-to-work program, for no good reason at all.

Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 8:03 pm
–”Emily Miller has game, Jane Adams game”–

Breathtakingly good, Word.

Talk about game!

Comment by walker Wednesday, Nov 4, 15 @ 11:03 pm
If I was Madigan, I would be presenting a bi weekly budget to the Rauner, just so he could develop a track record of vetoing them.

It would make great pr for da governor.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 7:19 am
1,823,627 votes for Gov.Rauner to do the job.

Comment by No Sense Thursday, Nov 5, 15 @ 6:08 pm