Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Let’s play: “Rate that… ”
Next Post: Kirk goes for the twofer; Steinberg wishes GOP well; Black really out this time?
Posted in:
* The AP runs what could be the most misleading Illinois lede of the month…
Two years ago, state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington gave a state medical school scholarship worth almost $24,000 to the daughter of a man who has donated thousands of dollars to him.
Why is that lede so misleading? Because it more than just implies a direct quid pro quo. And there doesn’t appear to be one at all. Eleven grafs into the story we learn this..
Brady, like most lawmakers who agreed to talk about the scholarships, said his winners are chosen by a committee made up mainly of educators, that he picks. Brady said committee members don’t know applicants’ names, and the $12,000 homebuilder Jeff Stelle has donated played no role in the scholarship to Stelle’s daughter, who got a free year of medical school at Southern Illinois University.
“My staff simply tells me who the eight winners are and I tell them congratulations,” said Brady, a Republican candidate for governor.
Brady has a committee of educators hand out the scholarships to kids whose names are kept secret from them. Yet, the lede is about one contribution from one recipient’s father. The story’s second graf claims that this situation “isn’t uncommon,” a handy double negative that masks the actual situation.
Look, there are lots and lots of good reasons to oppose the legislative scholarship program. But singling out Brady on this one doesn’t seem fair at all, particularly since there are others who have direct control over their own legislative scholarships.
* Speaking of misleading claims, Chicago’s Binny’s Beverage Depot has apparently reverted to fear mongering and untruths to sell more booze with a new ad campaign…
“Buy now and beat the liquor tax increase!!! Illinois just passed the largest alcohol tax increase in state history.”
Actually, a liquor tax hike a decade ago (which, like this one, was used to pay for a capital bill) was higher. And how much will this one cost?
Susan Hofer, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Revenue, argued that the excise tax wasn’t as harsh as the ad campaign suggested. For a one-fifth bottle of distilled spirits, the tax would jump from 90 cents to $1.71; the tax on a bottle of wine would increase 13 cents to 28 cents; a six-pack of beer would go from 10.4 cents to 13 cents, Hofer said.
2.6 cents on a six pack. Such a travestyl
* Related…
* Feds subpoena Chicago Public School principal: Whitney Young Magnet Principal Joyce Kenner on Monday became the first principal to reveal she has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating admissions to Chicago’s elite college prep high schools but insisted she “did nothing wrong'’ and has no clue why she is being summoned.
* Chicago selective enrollment high schools face huge demand for few spots - Amid federal investigation of admissions, parents and students complain the process is complicated and secretive
* University of Illinois clout scandal: 2 holdout trustees could get booted - Senate President John Cullerton threatens legislation
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 9:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Let’s play: “Rate that… ”
Next Post: Kirk goes for the twofer; Steinberg wishes GOP well; Black really out this time?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
You stay classy AP
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 9:42 am
Rich, I buy my bourbon in handles. Do I just multiply the fifth tax amount by 2.5?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 9:50 am
It’s not the 2.7 cents on a six pack of beer that chafes, it’s that we’ll have a full blown dime a drink of state taxes on every cocktail after this hospitality tax kicks in.
Or worse yet almost a quarter per drink worth of state tax if policy-making down in Springfield drive somebody to order a double.
Comment by Chicago Bars Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 9:53 am
Why am I not surprised that a spokesman from the Illinois Department of Revenue does not think a 100+% tax increase is harsh?
Joe Sixpack might be getting a break here, but yet another thing I will never buy in Illinois again.
Comment by Johnny USA Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:07 am
Why is there such competition for slots in a few Chicago schools? That question is more important than whether a few alderpersons used undue influence to get relatives or relatives of “campaign contributors” into these schools.
Given the billions of dollars that taxpayers have poured into Chicago schools in recent years, all Chicago schools should be of the same quality as the “elite” academies. That’s the whole concept of public education. A high-quality education for all.
But it is Chicago after all. They love to pay taxes (and, considering recent events, it seems likely that they’ll be paying substantially higher state and local taxes come next year) but they don’t hold their (Democratic) lords accountable for what they do with those taxes.
They vote the same old Democrats in decade after decade, regardless of what those old Democrats actually do for the city. So of course, except for the lucky “elite” few (and children of the wealthy who can afford Lab School, Frances Parker, and other tony private schools) their children get a mediocre to poor public education.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:09 am
Look, there are lots and lots of good reasons to oppose the legislative scholarship program. But singling out Brady on this one doesn’t seem fair at all, particularly since there are others who have direct control over their own legislative scholarships.
What the hell ever happened to awarding scholarships in a way that takes into consideration need? Yeah - Brady shouldn’t be singled out, but if he really thought this thing through, he would also recognize that his process was awarding scholarships to students that didn’t need economic help. Then made the change necessary to correct that inbalance!
Brady wants to be a state leader. Good. Now, what he seems to need to do is expand his mind and demonstrate that. I don’t want to see any of his campaign ads full of white people, then listen to him claim he sees differently. I don’t want to read that he gives scholarships to students with wealthy parents, then claim he wants to reward students so they can attend college.
You want to be a state leader sir? Then start recognizing the differences outside Bloomington and incorporating them into your little world.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:12 am
AP doesn’t back up its lede, that’s true. But it certainly is a happy coincidence that a $12 grand contributor gets a scholarship.
Black says he doesn’t participate, and that not even his committee knows who gets them. I have no reason to question that, except that I’ve lived in Illinois all my life.
The fact is, he and the other GA members who award these scholarships will wear the jacket for any questions about hinky stuff. Who knows how and when to apply for the scholarships? Is it widely advertised throughout the district? What safeguards are built into this “anonymity?”
No matter how you slice it, the scholarship program is ridiculous, feudal and should be scrapped. For a GA member, the only way to be sure your integrity won’t be questioned is not to participate in it and work to get rid of it.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:12 am
I think the bigger question about the GA Scholarship is why a gentleman with the means to donate $12,000 getting a scholarship in the first place? I am not opposed to the scholarship, and actually think they should be maintained. But at a minimum, there should be a financial need for the recipient.
Comment by Joe in the Know Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:16 am
At the margin, a state university tuition and fee scholarship to a constituent has a minor impact on university budgets. It’s a good practice that encourages citizen participation in the community and the election process. I rec’d one myself decades ago from a democrat legislator when I was co-chairman of the young republicans and my mother was a precinct republican ommitteewoman.
I’d much rather have an elected official, who’s accountable to the electorate, make the scholarship selection than some faceless bureaucratic committee using their subjective judgments.
Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:19 am
VM
What the hell ever happened to awarding scholarships in a way that takes into consideration need?
Well it is medical school so she might be 22 or 23 (at least 21), I don’t know about you but my folks didn’t contribute anything for me to go to grad school, that was my dime.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:29 am
Realistically, the cost of the tax will always be higher–not because of the law, but because the distributor CAN get away with a little bigger bump at the expense of the “politicians.” They won’t be blaming the Wirtz family; they’ll be blaming some indefinable politico up or down “there”; while the stiff at the bar will pound his fist in disgust and order another round.
I feel for the barkeeps who always pay the price for a booze hike.
As for Brady, until you see who actually sits on his committee and their relationship to him, I wouldn’t be so quick to pan the connection. Just saying “I’ve got three attorneys” or “Mine’s made up of ten educators” means little on this issue.
Any good staffer worth his salt would make sure to suggest a third party “buffer.” Ultimately, though, these guys know their districts and the families. No one hands you $12K in obscurity.
Comment by Narcoleptic Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:33 am
The most misleading item would be calling these things “scholarships.”
Legislators aren’t handing out money to cover tuition. They tell the universities they can’t charge these students tuition. They are tuition waivers and they are not backed by any money.
Hence the wonderful hypocracy when lawmakers slash higher ed but continue with their perk tuition waivers.
In the big picture of higher ed funding it’s not that much, but every waiver means the money has got to come from somewhere else.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:40 am
The AP story’s “lede” is no more a cheap shot at Brady than criticism of the “lede” is a cheap shot at AP. Journalists, correctly or not, regularly use specfic examples to delve into braoder subject areas. Brady is such a specific example. And despite the 11th paragraph disingenuous claim, we still find in the last two paragraphs this:
== Brady says he agrees the scholarships should end, but as long as they exist, he’d be shortchanging his own district if he didn’t award those he can. He vowed to push to end them if he’s elected governor.
“We would be better off without them,” he said.==
Well, if he thinks we would be better off without them, then don’t wait until your hoped-for Governorship to set an example.
Comment by Captian Flume Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:42 am
After watching the Sox pitching last night I sure needed a six pack. I managed to find two pennies on the street, but where do I find the 0.6 cents? Do I have to bring a Milton Bradley baseball card?
Comment by Scooby Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:46 am
Michelle makes a very good point. It’s not a scholarship; there’s no money behind it. It’s a waiver. Even more feudal and ridiculous.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:46 am
Thanks for reminding me that I need to make a Binny’s run this week. Time to restock the bar.
Comment by Bluefish Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 10:47 am
Michelle: Thanks for your comment. I learned something.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:01 am
I don’t know about you but my folks didn’t contribute anything for me to go to grad school, that was my dime.
Yeah - I’m sure her folks wouldn’t have been willing to steer some of their political contributions towards her goal of becoming a doctor. Like they have priorities, and she wouldn’t have made the list.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:03 am
===but every waiver means the money has got to come from somewhere else.===
Great point Michelle. “Somewhere else” is really someone else, in nearly every case it is the student paying full tuition who subsidizes the waiver recipient. Another reason tuition is so high.
And now that the state cut the MAP program, there is absolutely no justification for continuing this awful program of legislative free-bees. Nothing is free folks. 230,000 students who receive the MAP grant because of financial need are simply going to have to borrow more, or drop out of school. Poor people being screwed again, but we can still have legislators doling out “scholarships.” How pathetic.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:08 am
This alcohol tax is one on distributors… So they raise their price, and then retailers raise their prices to maintain margin. So, even assuming that the distributors won’t raise their prices other than to cover the tax (yeah, fat chance), you are still looking at a significant (at least to me) increase in a bottle of distilled spirit.
Remember… this is a tax on distributors…. And did the distributors fight hard to stop it? Not really. They have a lot of power and could have stopped it. But, it will be a money maker for them…. They can raise prices higher than the tax and attribute it to the tax, make a larger margin, and blame the politicians.
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:14 am
Rich, the follow-up question I have about Brady’s scholarships is the size of the applicant pool.
One extreme: every student applying to a state college, university or junior college in Brady’s district gets solicited to apply for a scholarship as part of applying for school.
The other extreme: Brady only invites eight students to apply for scholarships and the invitations go to the students he wants selected perhaps with a few inferior students so the process appears legit.
The article is unfair to Brady in the following way. It uses his name in the lede and the examples it uses to make the program seem sordid come from Berrios and Lightford.
It’s easy to read the article quickly and have the cases from Berrios and Lightford stick in your mind, but associate them with Brady b/c he’s the guy at the top of the article.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:21 am
AP story was a yawner….should have read..” we poured over thousands of files and could only find 40 with any possible, semi remote connection; but we are still running out there like it was a big deal ’cause we had this reporter wander around for three months .”
BTW liquor dealers are aleady forecasting beer will be up $2 a case so they are taking a big “bump” due the tax hike ….surprise
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:22 am
Captain Flume, if the AP story had been about campaign contributions for scholarship recipients, then I’d agree. But it wasn’t. The subject was highlighted in the lede and then dropped.
Ergo: Cheap shot.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:23 am
Agree a cheap shot at Brady,
As for the liquor tax increase. It SUCKS. Illinois liquor taxes are some of the highest in the Country, and the distributors further sock it to the public.
Comment by downstate hick Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 11:43 am
“BTW liquor dealers are aleady forecasting beer will be up $2 a case so they are taking a big “bump” due the tax hike ….surprise”
Who are you talking to? Yes, beer, wine and spirits will increase effective September 1 but $2 a case for beer????? No way!
Comment by Beerman Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Beerman:
Talks are with the retailers in Central IL….bet I’m right
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 12:04 pm
CFS - With all due respect, beer sales are currently flat at best. For distributors to jack the cost up $2 when the tax equates to a little over 10 cents a case simply doesn’t make any sense. Because the beverage alcohol industry is so competitive, I would imagine beer distributors will want to keep this cost increase as low as possible. I suppose we will all know on September 1.
Comment by Beerman Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 12:41 pm
“Remember… this is a tax on distributors…. And did the distributors fight hard to stop it? Not really. They have a lot of power and could have stopped it.”
When you’ve got $26 billion worth of pork working against you it makes things a little tough.
Comment by Beerman Tuesday, Aug 25, 09 @ 12:48 pm