On Monday, Bruce Rauner traveled the state and made empty promises to school administrators, parents, and students. With a taxpayer-funded camera crew in tow, Rauner told the media that his version of the school funding formula would send more money to every school district in the state, except for one, of course.
There’s a problem with Rauner’s statement though. Just two weeks ago, Rauner vetoed a state budget that appropriated funds to our K-12 education system. So, Rauner’s school funding would have looked more like this:
Vetoing the budget means Rauner provided exactly zero dollars to schools across the state.
“Bruce Rauner’s arguments are a sham designed to distract from the fact that he vetoed legislation to fund our schools and continues to hold Illinois children and families hostage,” said Pritzker campaign spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh. “Instead of lurching to his next crisis with his new radical and amateur crew in tow, Rauner should sign SB 1 and finally give Illinois families the stability they deserve.”
Like shooting fish in a barrel. When a governor without any governing credibility boldly twists the truth, you just reveal the truth and then watch him twist.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:42 am
Accurate headline and Bananas is the funniest of all Woody Allen movies.
Comment by Bananas Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:43 am
@VMan
You don’t just reveal the truth, you cram it. How many times did I watch Donald Trump say something crazy and Hillary just laughed? JB needs to bury Rauner in the truth. Not just expose it and hope everyone understands.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:46 am
Zero dollars to schools?
That’s a TRAVASHAMOCKERY!
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:46 am
You can’t claim anything that theaters dies in any way that required state funding from a budget.
This is the main reason Rauner’s veto and override will hamstring Rauner. Daily. Hourly.
I’m impressed that Pritzker’s Crew understand the opening and have take this obvious and glaring hole Rauner has as a failed governor, and this instance, in schools.
This is restaurant-quality framing of the ownership of that Veto.
Great stuff.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:53 am
Nicely done by Pritzker folks.
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:56 am
(same film)
“TIME, NEWSWEEK, one of these …”
Comment by Dave Dahl Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 11:57 am
“You can’t claim anything that claims to be funded in any way or that required state funding from a budget”
Apologies.
Further….
The Pritzker Crew really framed the abstract thought to the reality of the veto exceptionally and put that reality to schools and the outright phoniness Rauner will try to peddle until Jume 2018, when a new budget can be signed.
So very well framed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:01 pm
Great backgrounder on the headline.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:22 pm
Evidently the budget that was overridden by the GA doesn’t fund the schools either as there is language that only releases the funds in it if others measures are met. Their funding still seems to be up in the air.
Comment by Arock Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:34 pm
K-12 spending needs to be reduced. Not increased.
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:48 pm
==K-12 spending needs to be reduced. Not increased.==
Said no sane person ever. We had one other guy on here who used to advocate for less school funding. It was dumb then and it’s dumb now
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:51 pm
This really wasn’t much of a stretch for Pritzker’s people to pickup as long as they were paying attention. Rauner talks out of both sides of his mouth and makes ridiculous claims all the time. All you have to do is point out each lie he tells. It should be like target practice because he does this all the time and his past history with the budget is quite clear for everyone to see. Politically speaking ,of course, good hunting. Or Release the Hounds and Tally Ho.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 12:55 pm
Blue Dog: Are you speaking just for your own school district?
Comment by walker Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:06 pm
Blue Dog is correct. The modern day notion that throwing tax dollars at a problem will fix it is ruinous.
Standards, values, and attitudes are some better ways to get big things accomplished, big things like preparing more than 35% of kids for the next grade level.
If that is all out billions spent give us, money is obviously not the solution.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:07 pm
$0.00 isn’t just deciding to “spend less”…
A veto of SB1 and a budget that is vetoed… means Rauner values Illinois “things” that need a budget to exist at a level of… $0.00
We’ll see how Rauner wants that, SB1 decisions notwithstanding…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:10 pm
I find it interesting that some people who criticize Rauner for having no governing experience are supportive of JB.
Did I miss JB’s term in office that prepares him to be governor? Rauner is going nowhere quickly, but be careful what you wish for. Believe it or not, it can get worse.
And it probably will.
Comment by Freda Corleone Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:17 pm
Yes. Quit throwing tax dollars at “standardized” tests that the results are given a year or more later so you can’t help the students. Then after a few years change the test so you can’t do real comparisons. Thank you “reformers”. BTW: whose values & attitudes?
Comment by Interim Retiree Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:22 pm
Dem/walker. I am for changing the way we educate in K-12. I am for a European/Pacific Rim formula. Better education at half the price.
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 1:48 pm
What a joke.
Rauner vetoed an unbalanced budget that hiked taxes by 32%. He wasn’t vetoing school funding specifically and he’s always been clear about his support for public education funding.
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 2:14 pm
===Rauner vetoed an unbalanced budget that hiked taxes by 32%. He wasn’t vetoing school funding specifically and he’s always been clear about his support for public education funding===
.. and yet, Vetoes… they really dismiss lots of things.
Lots.
We’ll see on SB1
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 2:16 pm
===He wasn’t vetoing school funding specifically===
“I wasn’t aiming at your house specifically when I bulldozed the entire block.”
When you’re explainin’ you’re losin’.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 2:18 pm
You’ve got to read this a couple of times or more to get the gist of this point. However good a point it may be, it’s not an easy one to make.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 2:38 pm
===However good a point it may be, it’s not an easy one to make.===
Nah.
“Rauner vetoed that”
Pretty easy.
Pretty easy when Rauner shows up somewhere and has to explain how he vetoed it.
Rauner has no budget, again, but now having no budget, with an override, it’s embarrassing to be seen or talk about things you vetoed.
It’s real easy.
“Rauner vetoed it”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 2:42 pm
This is such a blatantly dishonest argument. Reminds me of Dem campaign mailers. A Republican Rep might vote against the budget because it’s $5 billion out of balance. One line item in that budget is rape crisis centers. So the Dems translate that into “Your representative voted against rape crisis funding.”
Rauner vetoed the budget because of the tax increase, because it was out of balance, and because it included no reforms. That’s simple and easy for the public to understand.
JB is lying and attempting to make it seem like he objected to education funding. The public isn’t that dumb.
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 3:55 pm
- Phil King - LOL
A veto does lots.
Can’t deny a veto.
That’s how vetoes work.
Rauner vetoed lots and lots and lots of things.
Just wait until Rauner visits state universities, after vetoing their funding, lol
Rauner vetoed lots. Get use to it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 3:58 pm
He vetoed a total package for specific reasons.
That doesn’t mean he objected to each individual line item. Don’t be dense.
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 3:59 pm
===He vetoed a total package====
Yep. You shoulda stopped there, lol
The rest is baloney.
“He vetoed a total package”
Yep.
“Rauner vetoed that”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:03 pm
==That doesn’t mean he objected to each individual line item.==
Then perhaps he should have kept those individual line items he liked. The Governor has line item veto power. Cumbersome in this case? Yes. But still it was a mechanism available. Instead he chose a complete veto.
You’re not doing a very good job trying to spin this.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:39 pm
==That doesn’t mean he objected to each individual line item.==
He didn’t have to veto the entire budget.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:42 pm
=== Okay. Most CapFax commenters were against the Governor’s proposed budget. They claimed to be against it because it had a hole in it called “working with the Senate.” ===
The problem with Rauner’s budget was that it was a sham and a travesty as was Rauner’s claim that he proposed balanced budgets.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:46 pm
Oswego Willy,
You opposed the Governor’s budget. That budget also includes education funding. By your own reasoning, doesn’t that mean you opposed education funding?
Comment by Political Animal Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:48 pm
===You opposed the Governor’s budget. That budget also includes education funding. By your own reasoning, doesn’t that mean you opposed education funding?===
When I get a veto that’s enforceable, get back to me
“Rauner vetoed that”
That’s what Governors own. They only own vetoes, they share it with no one.
When you want to have adult back and forth where I’m not the governor, you get back to me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:53 pm
–He vetoed a total package for specific reasons.
That doesn’t mean he objected to each individual line item. Don’t be dense.–
Philosopher King, please grace The Dense with your wisdom as to the specific reasons the governor did not use his reduction or line-item vetoes.
The Dense await your bright light with eyes shaded.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 4:58 pm
==the specific reasons the governor did not use his reduction or line-item vetoes.==
Sure. It’s pretty simple really.
The biggest reductions in spending need to come from statutory changes, such as to pensions, Medicaid, etc.
They can’t be line item vetoed out of an appropriations bill because they require the legislature to change the underlying statute.
Get it?
Comment by Phil King Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 5:01 pm
===They can’t be line item vetoed out of an appropriations bill because they require the legislature to change the underlying statute.===
When you veto “everything”, you then veto… Everything.
That’s how “everything” (lol) vetoes work.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 5:22 pm
Phil King- early in this term the Governor’s office asked for cuts in the DCFS budget. DCFS responded that you would have to change the law, then you could stop services to people over 18. The Governor’s office changed their mind and were said to be upset with the person who made the requested suggestion.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 5:23 pm
- Phil Kimg, lol
Riddle me this…
No overrides… What would’ve happened?
You take your time on that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 5:24 pm
PK, by your own “specific reasons” claim, you need thousands of good ones to justify vetoing the entire budget, not the one lame one you offered.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 5:59 pm
Take the Money and Run seems more appropriate for the Governor.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 19, 17 @ 10:04 pm
-OW-, these days I’m not sure if I’m watching an episode of Dad’s Home State or a bad remake of The Magic Christian.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 8:59 am
===…these days I’m not sure if I’m watching an episode of Dad’s Home State or a bad remake of The Magic Christian.===
Yeah, production has stopped for the time being. The series really has taken an unexpected, darker turn.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 20, 17 @ 9:01 am