Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another legacy Democrat tries to move up
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - More on the DHS chauffeurs; Halvorson; Med Society; Southwest Side; Kids; McPier; Gordon; Rauschenberger (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x2 ***
Posted in:
A column today by my good pal Phil Kadner at the Daily Southtown highlights a big problem with passing any sort of education funding reform.
The column starts off by noting that Rep. Lou Lang wants to end the property tax in Illinois (a topic we’ve discussed before). Lang tells Kadner, however, that he can’t support a tax swap because…
“I think that bill would harm the schools in my district, which is wealthier than many other districts,” Lang said. “So I couldn’t vote for it as it is currently written.”
I noted that the bill has a “hold harmless” provision, meaning no school district would lose money.
“Yes,” Lang conceded, “but the Legislature could ignore that provision four years from now and change the way the funds are distributed. I don’t think you can trust the Legislature.”
Lang ought to know. He’s been a member of the House of Representatives since 1987.
Lang makes a good point about not trusting the GA, but that’s not what I’m interested in discussing.
Lots of legislators strictly “vote their districts” on just about everything, which makes passing bills for the entire state impossible. It’s often a healthy check and balance, but it can get out of hand (like when members reflexively vote against anything that might benefit another region, even if it won’t cost their own residents a dime).
To the question: What do you think of Lang’s reasoning in this instance? Forget about whether or not you support or oppose a tax swap, and try to discuss this district vs. statewide mentality. Is it out of hand? Is it mostly a positive? Etc.
And, please, this is not about whether Lou Lang is a good guy or a bad guy. It’s about a position. Let’s keep personalities out of it and focus on the subject at hand.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 9:07 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another legacy Democrat tries to move up
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - More on the DHS chauffeurs; Halvorson; Med Society; Southwest Side; Kids; McPier; Gordon; Rauschenberger (Use all caps in password) *** Updated x2 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I fear that many districts in the suburbs would be negatively affected by the tax swap. I think the reps from those districts owe it to the people who voted for them to protect them. Having said that I think it is important for a rep to look for the common good for the state on every issue, because the school issue could cause real harm to the burbs it is an easy no.
Comment by leigh Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 9:14 am
First off, I can’t seem to find the 1997 roll call on how Lang voted on Edgar’s tax swap. That might be interesting to note.
As to your question, let’s answer it with another question: Has anyone ever put forth any actual evidence to try to convince upstate lawmakers in wealthier districts that the whole of the state would be better served by an education tax increase largely paid for by their residents and that ultimately their residents would be better off if the entire state of education were improved?
Not that I’m aware of. We get finger pointing and class warfare that automatically defeat efforts before they begin. Even panhandlers usually understand that you can’t stand on the street corner and insult the rich and expect your tin cup to fillup with loose change.
The only way something like this stands a chance is if the supporters start explaining, in great detail, how this will improve education, what that might mean for the economy longterm and then use that to try to convince upstate lawmakers that its a worthwhile investment.
Comment by Frank Booth Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 9:27 am
He’s being accountable to those who hired him. I don’t have a problem with it. If a side effect of this is a statewide trend to stall bills, that just a bonus.
Comment by C$ Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 9:38 am
The good thing about a property tax is that it gives schools a fairly consistent base of money with which to operate. The bad thing is that property values are so varied from the extremely rich to the extremely poor.
For instance, Deerfield-Highland Park High School has an Equalized assessed Valuation(EAV) of $916,929 per student with a tax rate of $1.91. On the other hand, Salem High School’s per-pupil EAV is $151,308 with a tax rate of $2.29 (and Salem is far from a “poor” community compared to others in southern Illinois).
A move from property taxes, which are inequitable, to another kind of tax to pay for education is a wirthy goal. It would create something approaching equity for students in all areas of the state, and since education is a constitutional function of the state, the general assembly should work to ensure that all stduents in all parts of the state receive an equitable education, not just the bare minimum.
Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 10:24 am
He’s self-contradicting in a sense. He won’t support one bill because it would ‘harm’ his district (which is where I happen to live too). Yet he supports a bill for which there is no proof that it will help his district with more money. If you’re locally rich, I’m sorry but you’re probably not going to get more out of a state-wide pool of money.
His only reasoning that makes sense is the funding-stability one. That is, make sure that the funding mechanism can’t be continually monkeyed around with by legislators.
Comment by JimMc Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 10:29 am
By and large I think legislators should vote their district. You really ought to dance with the ones that brung ya and all that. The whole point of having districts is that legislation that doesn’t benefit a majority of districts is bad legislation. Now can the issue of school funding be phrased in such a way that it shows a benefit for all districts? Maybe, but I’ve heard no such argument in that direction and I’ve seen no interest in the distressed districts to looking to change the way they do education such that the money will actually improve education for their students and not just be a more expensive form of the status quo.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 10:47 am
I’ll answer your question.
Yes, voting for your district’s interest is why these people were elected. These posters who continually try to sell us on the notion that deep down we are all alike regarding this issue are being naive and utopian, and worst self-righteously pious.
You can’t claim to be for diversity and then deny community differences whenever it suits your political agenda.
There is a world of difference between Ford Heights and Lake Bluff Illinois. Although they are only 50 miles apart, one is worst than dirt-poor while the other thinks dirt is only handled by the gardeners, landscapers or washed off cars by their drivers. Both communities ought to be respected enough to allow their elected officials to represent them.
Dr. Paul Green always told me that politics can be simplified into the question, “Who pays?”. Naturally he is right.
For some reason, we pride ourselves in taking a stand that doesn’t cost us personally. Education and schools is one of those issues. It is very easy to point a finger at a Lake Bluff resident and demand that he satisfy your conscience regarding the poverty in Ford Heights by reasoning why he/she should pay more. To offset this, Lake Bluff residents should have a representative - that is - someone who “represents” them and presents their beliefs and values in the General Assembly.
Or do you really want those who see themselves as needy or victimized by past injustices running the budget and making the decisions? We have seen plenty of governments operated by this mentality. In every case we see they relearn the old adage that when you kill the golden goose there are no more eggs to take, and everyone loses.
It is so fashionable to be pious right now. For many this has evolved into an elitist Jimmy Carter holiness that believes that acting like a savior trumps other views. How odd it is to see so-called humility twisted into self-righteous egotism to the point where there is really no humility left enough to listen to others who disagree with you.
I know a lot of posters immediately think of conservative pulpit thumpers do this on every issue. But over the past 15 years, we have seen the rise of liberals employing the same techniques. Frankly both use their religious beliefs to try to trump the other.
Respect one another enough to listen to those who are successful. Listen to those with money to learn how they use it. Be humble enough to remain open minded when communities that “have” discuss options regarding our education crisis in Illinois.
Yes, a representative should represent their district. If they fail to do this, we all lose the chance to engage in compromises that work for all.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 11:02 am
I wouldn’t get down on Lou Lang here.
Looks to me like we need a governor who is interested in governing. Instead of just issuing bogus press releases. It’s time to show some of that testicular virility he’s so proud of.
This is an issue that needs some leadership.
The only way all the children in Illinois will get an equal education is to change the way we fund it. I don’t think anyone will argue the point that what we are doing now is working. And pie in the sky one time lottery sales is just stupid.
The children of Illinois deserve better.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 11:08 am
Lang’s logic is flawed. He trusts the GA to manage all the education money, thus his bill, but he doesn’t trust the GA to manage the education money in his district. I think he’s right about not trusting the GA to manage education money, but especially all of it.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 11:38 am
Part of the issue is not who pays but when you pay. Many people are short-sighted on this issue. If we don’t provide everyone with a good education, we pay later in lagging economic growth, welfare, and criminal justice system.
The flip side is the improving education is complicated and about more than just money for schools. I would like to see incentive grants based on parental involvement.
Comment by Objective Dem Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 11:58 am
What happened to the promise that the Illinois State Lottery was going to provide all of our educational funding? No, I do not trust the General Assembly.
Comment by Patriot Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 12:08 pm
If every legislator simply votes the interests/wishes of his/her own district, we don’t need the GA (or any other method of representative government). Simple referenda, conducted, say monthly, by phone, internet, or walk-in-mail-in, could settle every issue. Pure, direct democracy, for the cost of a 39 cent stamp.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 12:12 pm
Lang’s right on the money as far as representing his district’s self interest for several reasons.
First, since we live in republic rather than a democracy, the system only represents the people’s interests when it acts in those interests. When a representative acts in somene elses best interests to the detriment of his consituents, they are, in fact, not represented.
Another reason is that it is often difficult to “follow the money” and find out whose interest is really being served in legislation.
In the case of public education, for example, keeping up with standard inflation and underfunding by the state, local, and Federal government is really not the problem. According to the ISBE,since 1991 K-12 school expenditures have increased at the local level (excluding fees) by 91%, state contributions by 122%, and the Federal government payments by 208%. The problem is that school spending skyrocketed by 126% in that same period, widely outpacing both additional revenues and inflation, which was only 48% over that same period.
Even by increased funding per student, which accoutns for increasing enrollment, spending is up by 85%.
Most of us would be ecstatic if our household revenues even approached the increased funding enjoyed by public education.
If national and state tests are any indication, quality of education has improved little for this massive influx if revenue.
It is the responsibility of Reps like Lang to figure out if legisaltion will not only serve his district well, but produce value commensurate with cost for transferring financial “crisis” from overspending public to our families and communities.
In this case, the proposed bills provide no additional accountability from public education to deliver results from the funding, none of the necessary protection for the children to eliminate costly failing and recalcitrant senior faculty from tenure protection, no restrictions on school boards to prohibit agreeing to coontracts they can’t fund, no protection from extortive strikes from militant unions, and no long term relief and protection for real estae taxpayers.
In short, all the benefit goes to the bureaucracy, and none to the children and taxpayers.
That’s exactly the goal the IEA and IFT had when they wrote the bills.
The tougher choices for reps come when a bill indirectly benefits their district, but may benefit others more. thatt’s when a “balancing act” needs to be performed, and constituents can only hope that their reps are smart enough to KNOW what’s in the district’s best interest.
By the way, Bill isn’t telling the truth……..
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 12:24 pm
Governing is not as simple as just voting your district and the legislators who only vote their district do a disservice to everyone. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t vote their district a large majority of the time, and some good points have already been made about that and how failing to represent your district can be harmful.
But everyone is capable of agreeing with decisions that are bad for them in the short term but good for society as a whole. We pay taxes for schools when we have no children, roads that we’ll never drive on, farm subsidies we’ll never receive and social programs we’ll never use.
It is maddening to deal with legislators who have no interest in making intelligent decisions about issues that affect other parts of the state. By all means, vote your district, just understand that your district is not necessarily made up of people who’s only question for government is “what do I get out of it?”
Comment by Underdog Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 12:47 pm
I disagree with Lang’s logic. There’s nothing stopping the General Assembly from doing what he suggests right now, and a tax swap doesn’t make that any more likely. It sounds like an excuse to me.
In regards to representatives narrowly acting in the interests of their districts alone, they should be reminded that the citizens in their districts may very well want them to do what is best for the whole state; so refusing to narrowly focus on one distict may actually be in the best interest of the citizens of a district.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 1:05 pm
This is a very complicated subject because so many times theories sound so good but in practice they become the worst answer. The lottery vs school funding did not help much but no kid left behind was catastrophic to publc schools. Maybe all schoo programs should be approved for one year at a time to see what shakes out.
Comment by i d Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 2:10 pm
Squideshi is right. [/McLaughlin Group voice]
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 3:05 pm
Steve is right.
And the problem with having a governor like Blago is that governing by referenda looks better than the current system.
When the state is run by a not very bright governor whose priorities are patronage and pay to play, a lot of citizens believe their interests are not being represented by the status
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 6:02 pm
Lou Land is a very good guy, but his cost benefit analysis is incomplete. As was recently reported, the state’s 800,000 high school drop-outs cost our economy $10 billion a year, in lost wages, higher prison and welfare costs, lost tax revenue. That’s money that comes out of the pockets of residents in Rep. Lang’s ward. Increasing the number of kids who complete college creates an inversely net positive affect.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 1, 07 @ 7:37 pm
[…] in Illinois? March 2, 2007 Posted by openboardblog in Public Policy, Ed Funding, Education. trackback The Capitol Fax points to a story about my local state rep., Lou Lang, who did not want to supportthe medium-reform House Bill 750, but now apparently wants to radically overhaul ed-funding by eliminating property tax as the main source for Illinois schools. […]
Pingback by Radical Ed-Funding Overhaul in Illinois? « Open Board Blog Friday, Mar 2, 07 @ 2:40 pm