Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar


Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives


Previous Post: Besler leaves Rauner campaign, heads back to IOP
Next Post: Rutherford cleared, but appeal is expected

Fine, but then what?

Posted in:

* From the Chicago Teachers Union

The CTU is also condemning a legislative deal that Emanuel has embraced—and the Board of Education has done nothing to oppose—which opens the door to school vouchers, a move that is expected to put roughly $75 million in public dollars into the coffers of private schools and provide hefty tax breaks for the wealthy. The union argues that the voucher “compromise” in SB1—modeled on the extremist privatization policies of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos—is tantamount to planting a ticking time bomb on a bus and driving through school districts throughout the state, creating even greater debt and fiscal distress.

“The mayor’s failure to responsibly budget for our schools has set the stage for him to cut a deal with the governor to implement some kind of state-run ‘school finance authority’,” CTU Vice President Jesse Sharkey said. “This allows him to wash his hands of our schools while avoiding taxing his wealthy friends—many of whom are among his biggest campaign donors.”

“This false choice of a voucher ‘compromise’ for SB1, without public debate, will undermine the core promise of quality public education for all students—low income students, in particular—and give more hefty tax breaks to the rich, Sharkey added. “Legislators should reject this scheme and vote for a straight override of the governor’s veto of SB1.”

* Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago)…

This scheme is a major legislative priority of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, an ultra-conservative legislative think tank) and US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. In some cases, like Georgia, it allows donors to profit from their “donations” by getting multiple tax breaks at the state and federal levels.

We must pass a school funding reform bill to ensure that schools statewide receive the money they need to successfully educate our children. I can’t, however, compromise on my long-held opposition to vouchers and other mechanisms to strip support from our neighborhood schools.

I want a clean school-funding bill, one that doesn’t compromise the well-being of the students in the most vulnerable schools that have seen the greatest cuts at both the local and state level. And once again, they are being used as hostages. We are being asked to rubber stamp this last-minute, unreviewed scheme because it is those students at the highest need schools that require state aid the soonest.

OK, first of all, ALEC is also heavily involved in criminal justice reform, so not everything they do is horrific to liberals. And this plan isn’t like Georgia’s in that it doesn’t allow for a federal tax break.

Second, these aren’t vouchers. And they’re not stripping support from anybody. The tax credits are being paid out of GRF. Now, I have no idea where they’re going to find the money, but the school budget is already set in stone. Also, the hold-harmless provision in the new bill is not based on per pupil, so schools that lose students to private schools won’t be penalized.

And, finally, what happens when SB1 isn’t overridden? Do we all just wait for yet another meltdown crisis? And does the CTU or any of the Chicago legislators opposing this deal really believe that Chicago will get the same deal that it’s getting now if the CTU and Chicago legislators manage to kill this deal over a $75 million pilot project?

…Adding… The deal doesn’t just magically get better for CPS if Chicagoans kill it. Also, lots of liberals applauded Republicans last month for swallowing hard and voting for a tax hike and a budget that would almost assuredly cause them electoral grief…


"Vouchers" aren't just a bad idea, they are also a gift to anyone seeking to run for office against Democratic incumbents #Twill #SB1

— Kyle Hillman (@kylehillman) August 28, 2017

I have spoken to two candidiates so far who privately hope their incumbent votes for this so they can run on it. #Twill #SB1

— Kyle Hillman (@kylehillman) August 28, 2017

So instead of putting in a predatory funding mechanism - vote the compromise down and get a better deal. #SB1 #Twill

— Kyle Hillman (@kylehillman) August 28, 2017

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:36 pm

Comments

  1. Does State Rep. Cassidy send her children to Chicago Public Schools?

    Comment by Mann Horace Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:41 pm

  2. ==is tantamount to planting a ticking time bomb on a bus and driving through school districts throughout the state==

    No difference whatsoever.

    Comment by Gil F. Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:42 pm

  3. This is a critical issue for public education.

    Private schools do NOT have to comply with all of the Federal protections for students, do NOT have to provide special education, and even if they do they do not have to do IEPs or limit expulsions and suspensions.

    In every other State of which I am aware, legislation on this topic was NOT introduced an hour or so before the FINAL vote.

    Comment by winners and losers Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:44 pm

  4. Again…now Cassidy (and CTU) want LESS money for CPS?

    I never thought I’d say this but hopefully her vote is irrelevant today.

    Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:46 pm

  5. CTU would be more accurately characterized as CAVE- Citizens Against Virtually Everything except higher pay and benefits.

    Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:46 pm

  6. Then what?

    (1) Override SB 1 veto, or
    (2) Appropriate funds per current law.

    Comment by winners and losers Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:47 pm

  7. “The tax credits are being paid out of GRF.”

    Call the bill, get the votes in both houses, and hope Rauner isn’t in an editing mood. Then use this as campaign fodder for 2018 and any future reconsideration of this pilot program.

    I’m still glad SB1 is out there, though, because if Rauner decides he has to flex his muscles once again and pull out his AV pen, then at least there is another route to stave off K-12 Education Armageddon.

    Comment by Anon221 Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:47 pm

  8. So will the CTU punish their members who take advantage of the program?

    Comment by oneman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:48 pm

  9. I don’t object so much to vouchers, but I do object to giving wealthy donors a tax shelter that will allow them to virtually eliminate their state income tax burden.

    Double the education expense credit if we’re gonna punch a $75 million hole in GRF. That would at least give tax relief to middle class families.

    Comment by Tony Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:48 pm

  10. =- oneman=

    “So will the CTU punish their members who take advantage of the program”

    39% of Chicago teachers already send their kids to private schools !

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-reeder-column-st-0312-20170310-story.html

    Comment by Texas Red Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:52 pm

  11. Then pull out $75 million for the vouchers AND $75 million for CPS.

    Comment by City Zen Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:54 pm

  12. You people are nuts! Take the win, take the money and run. You got 95% of what you wanted, just compromise already. Remember that huge compromise by the republicans to pass the 32% tax hike? It’s time to distribute that money and stop crying about minutiae.

    Comment by GoIllini1972 Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:57 pm

  13. School Vouchers do not work. Check other states which currently have school vouchers for private schools.

    IL’s Education Secretary is on the same mindset as the U.S. Education Secretary, & that is not good. Plus Meeks, the Chairman of the Board, is all for school vouchers for private schools.

    Comment by Mama Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:57 pm

  14. === You got 95% of what you wanted===

    More like 99 percent.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:58 pm

  15. CTU/IFT & NEA are all in it … for themselves. This lefty-fight proves it.

    Rauner wins on this issue now either way.

    Comment by Deft Wing Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 1:59 pm

  16. Rich I’ve written a lot of attacks and I can tell you with 100% confidence that this attack:

    “X voted for a VOUCHER PROGRAM!!”

    will not move primary voters. But you know what will? This one:

    “X voted to raise your income taxes then to close your schools.”

    That one will leave a mark and a half.

    Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:03 pm

  17. Is it possible CTU signaled through back channels that this just for appearances and they really aren’t trying to sway any votes? They need to go on record as being against vouchers but not so much as to blow up this deal and hand Rauner a big gift. I sense kabuki, but with CTU you never know.

    Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:03 pm

  18. ===That one will leave a mark and a half===

    Yup.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:05 pm

  19. Take this deal, and then fight vouchers in future election cycles. Democrats have to remember that elections have consequences. There is no excuse that this completely unqualified phony is our Governor. That should not have happened in Democratic Illinois. Let’s take this deal and then get after it!

    BTW: it would be nice if someone on the Democratic side would consider how we might save higher ed in this state. I know, self-serving request. But that’s the next move.

    Comment by HistProf Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:07 pm

  20. $75m is 25% of the $300m in additional funding provided as part of the EBM over FY17 aid. It indicates that Rauner is more interested in tax cuts for the wealthy (the ones who are likely to make use of this provision) over sufficient education funding.

    Comment by Christopher Ball Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:08 pm

  21. I think Lake County Democrat is on to something. CTU needs this to be their public stance, but know full well this is a decent deal. They can never go on record supporting public dollars going to private schools, but they need this passed now more than anyone.

    Comment by Montrose Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:10 pm

  22. Side note…it’s a bit of a mistake to underestimate ALEC’s criminal justice reform intentions. The fact is ALEC pushed private incarceration (which aren’t allowed in Illinois) for years. Waste, fraud and literal abuse of prisoners became so apparent that even the privatization advocates couldn’t support the profit-making effort.

    The new approach is to privatize parole under the guise of “criminal justice reform.” While it remains to be seen if privatization of parole is a priority in Illinois, that is and has been ALEC’s interest - plain and simple.

    The group is as “pro-good government policy” as the IPI is “independent.”

    Comment by Carhartt Union Negotiating Team Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:11 pm

  23. ===That one will leave a mark and a half===

    Agreed. And Chicago members are voting to raise property taxes on their constituents if they vote “yes” on this.

    Comment by Roman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:14 pm

  24. Just when Rauner was hitting his stride in making the Dems look like reasonable adults, here comes CTU and Cassidy to save the day. Maybr by the end of the day Hillman can blast out another tweet stating that they only agree with 90% of what’s in the bill but oppose it anyway?

    Comment by Lester Holt's Mustache Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:16 pm

  25. CTU needs to pay their full pension contribution to start and not just 2% of 9% and the IL state constitution needs to be amended to allow for diminishment of all the crazy public sector pensions/benefits. Or else BK will happen.

    Comment by chilake Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:18 pm

  26. Adding, in other words, there’s plenty to hit Chicago legislators on with either a “yes” or “no” vote here.

    Comment by Roman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:19 pm

  27. ==Rich I’ve written a lot of attacks and I can tell you with 100% confidence that this attack:

    “X voted for a VOUCHER PROGRAM!!”

    will not move primary voters.==

    I haven’t written lot of attacks, but I think it’s going to be more like:

    “X took money from your school and gave it to millionaires”

    Comment by Century Club Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:19 pm

  28. The CTU’s position is perplexing and confusing. It’s almost as if they want the school system to fail because it would fit in with an ideological narrative that they’ve pursued for years. They spend so much time pointing fingers, but such little time trying to fix the heart of CPS’ financial challenges, which is the state’s broken education funding system. Lets hope their days of threats and intimidation against legislators is coming to an end. Their bark is worse than their bite and too much is at stake to keep playing their games.

    Comment by Shytown Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:25 pm

  29. Why didn’t the Governor spend the weekend selling this plan in black communities? During the 2014 campaign, one of his big promises when he stumped in black churches was that he would bring school choice - now that he’s got the vehicle for it, he was AWOL - What gives?

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:29 pm

  30. In think the wildly over-the-top rhetoric by CTU and allies is more about the next mayoral election than about actually trying to tank this bill. E.g., notice all of the snark suggesting that Emanuel could somehow have stopped this and gotten everything else he wanted if he had only tried.

    Comment by Rasselas Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:32 pm

  31. This vote will be interesting. Times have changed and maybe we should give vouchers a shot. If those Chicago representatives vote against the Mayor and with the CTU, it will be a long winter for them.

    Comment by Captain Ed Smith Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:33 pm

  32. I think the fear for incumbent Dems isn’t so much that they will lose to a challenger on the issue of vouchers, it’s that CTU will fund a challenger against them because they voted on vouchers, whose campaign message will be whatever oppo moves the needle, which may or may not be vouchers.

    They’re not afraid of voters on this issue, they’re afraid of a well-heeled opponent who will be looking for scalps.

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:35 pm

  33. And the problem is also that all the people & entities who would be willing to spend money to help Dems who vote for this will be connected to Rauner one way or the other and it will be the next IllinoisGO - if they send one IE mailer on your behalf you will be tarred & feathered as a Rauner Democrat.

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:37 pm

  34. This isn’t a voucher program. There is a legitimate policy debate to be had here. But, debate the actual policy here, which is a tax credit, which has no relationship to vouchers.

    Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:37 pm

  35. To the question in the post: you know what you do, Democrats.

    You find a lame duck republican with a soul and pass SB1 without this trash.

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:41 pm

  36. It’s time for some of these legislators to practice what they preach. If they’re sincere about working across the aisle and negotiating they should realize that the end product results and everybody having something that they’re not happy with but happy that they have something. I am a Democrat but I’m getting tired of listening to democrat legislators always saying how they are the victim when sometimes it seems as though that’s the role they want to play.

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:41 pm

  37. No, it isn’t vouchers.

    This is much worse than vouchers.

    Vouchers rob from public schools and give to private schools.

    This tax credit robs from public schools and roads and services to people with disabilities and rape crisis centers and every other state function and gives all of that to public schools.

    It’s a double-theft.

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:43 pm

  38. ===You find a lame duck republican===

    Gonna need a lot more than one. SB1 only got 59 Democratic votes the first time around. They need 71.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:43 pm

  39. So CTU would shoot off their foot rather than see this pass? because, as Rich says, if it doesn’t pass, that deons’t mean something else does.

    AS for primarying people, well, if it’s bipartisan the leaders can structure the vote to protect their vulnerable members.

    This is the first thing I’ve seen in almost 2 years that is actually cause for a bit of optimism. They’ve been trying to reform the School Aid formula for 20 years, CTU and some liberals really want to get this close and risk throwing it away, along with any State cred in the debt markets, over a smallish tax break for private schools? Esp when teh richer districts will be better able to cope with the loss of State school aid, than the poorer ones? THAT would show up CTU and labor for what a lot of us suspect they really are–out for themselves, not the kids and certainly not the poor folks.

    Comment by Harry Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:43 pm

  40. Well obviously the CTU has to offer up a full throated response to the possibility of tax credits for private school donations. And certainly the initial version of SB1 would be deemed better as it doesn’t contain any such credits. But at the end of the day CPS will be obtaining a better deal then they otherwise would have. I highly doubt that this singular issue will tank the deal. And if it did the repercussions for the CTU would likely be far worse.

    Comment by Pundent Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:48 pm

  41. ===Gonna need a lot more than one. SB1 only got 59 Democratic votes the first time around. They need 71.===

    Find 11 GOP members to vote for the override, you have a member like Andersson for a Compromise Bill passage, but against the override.

    You’d have to flip the likes of Andersson and 10 others.

    Why do you think the big push is on for this compromise bill?

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:49 pm

  42. What is the maximum number of GOPs who will vote for the deal? 30? 40?

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:49 pm

  43. ==They’re not afraid of voters on this issue, they’re afraid of a well-heeled opponent who will be looking for scalps.==

    Maybe they should trust the voters, then.

    Comment by Responsa Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:50 pm

  44. ==Demoralized - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:37 pm: This isn’t a voucher program. There is a legitimate policy debate to be had here. But, debate the actual policy here, which is a tax credit, which has no relationship to vouchers.==

    You are right. However, they are also trying to win the church votes via the vouchers for private schools.

    Comment by Mama Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:50 pm

  45. It would be a tragedy if this didn’t get passed today. This is the type of deal that let Dem GAs and GOP Govs live together for decades - instead of cutting my program, we’ll give money to your program. Madigan lived for those deals.

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:51 pm

  46. it helps private schools at the expense of public funding for programs of all sorts. it is a slippery slope and it should be ended.

    Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:53 pm

  47. $75 million is less than 2% of the amount brought in from just the individual income tax hike.

    Let. It. Go.

    Comment by City Zen Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:54 pm

  48. Century Club: no, that doesn’t work. I’ve seen it fail many times, in polling and in the field. I’ve never seen it succeed.

    If you put an idea that voters vaguely dislike against literally closing their schools no amount of spin will make the former worse. Not ever.

    Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:54 pm

  49. It’s simply awful to support private schools at the expense of public, but I suppose there isn’t very much difference between that and throwing dollars for public health at private insurance companies, it’s a conservative dream that’s coming true in all sectors of the economy. On the bright side, most of those bucks will end up here in the Chicago area. I have no idea why downstate isn’t up in arms about that.

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:56 pm

  50. Really, pretty interesting and maybe revealing how so many of the liberals here don’t want to claim victory. They got the K-12 funding reform they’ve been wanting for 20 years, and in a bipartisan bill.

    What does it take to satisfy some people?

    Comment by Harry Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:56 pm

  51. 2:56 is me

    Comment by igotgotgotgotnotime Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:57 pm

  52. harry. rauner got 90%+ of what he wanted. How happy is he?

    Comment by igotgotgotgotnotime Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 2:58 pm

  53. ==What does it take to satisfy some people?==

    Integrity.

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:03 pm

  54. What it all comes down to is that $75 Million for a pet project is not so beyond the pale in the scheme of things to risk schools not opening up. It just isn’t.

    This is the most non-ideological demand Rauner has made - asking for money for a pet project. It’s not all the nonsense he asked for in the AV, it’s not making Illinois right-to-work - it’s a relatively small expenditure.

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:07 pm

  55. Many of you do not seem to realize how important this is to those who truly believe in public education.

    This is NOT about money.

    This is about the goal of education in our country.

    It has been a dividing line for years.

    Some DEMS realize just how important this issue is. (and even some in the GOP do)

    Comment by winners and losers Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:09 pm

  56. ===What does it take to satisfy some people?

    Integrity.===

    Thanks, Bruce.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:09 pm

  57. Rich, could you please explain why my comments don’t appear?

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:10 pm

  58. The reason I have hated Rauner so much is because he cares more about ideology than the actual people of Illinois. Everyone who opposes this deal is just as disgusting a human being for the same reasons.

    Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:11 pm

  59. Ironically, Rep. Cassidy voted for SB 6 which included full funding for MAP Grants which is essentially a hard core voucher system that goes to (in part) parochial schools, for profit schools and public schools of a student’s choice. http://ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/100/house/10000SB0006_07062017_004000M.pdf

    Comment by Anon Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:15 pm

  60. ==Many of you do not seem to realize how important this is to those who truly believe in public education.==

    Really? I am willing to bet there is not a single person who posts comments here on this site who does not truly believe in public education. That is why funding the public schools so they can stay open is both the goal and the prize of this bill.

    Comment by Responsa Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:15 pm

  61. ==I have no idea why downstate isn’t up in arms about that.==

    I agree. I do not understand why representatives from rural districts want to vote for tax credits to schools that are mostly in cities and suburbs.

    Comment by PragmaticR Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:21 pm

  62. “Believing in public education” isn’t going to un-lay off the teachers at CPS. It’s not going to give my special needs son a classroom aide. It’s not going to open any schools in Chicago.

    Money will do all of these things. If you are willing to stop money that does all these things from going to CPS because you “truly believe in public education” your beliefs are wrong and cruel.

    Comment by Will Caskey Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:21 pm

  63. At this point I have to support compromise. We have an opportunity to pass historic school funding reform. CPS will get more money than in SB1, if I’m not mistaken.

    I’m not happy that Rauner wouldn’t accept a bill that he almost fully supported, but I believe we can’t add the catastrophe of schools not being funded on top of the massive harm we’ve brought upon ourselves, both because of Rauner and long-term fiscal mismanagement from Democrats and the GOP.

    If there’s something we don’t like because of this, we can take it up later or in other ways. That’s why we have safeguards like frequent elections.

    Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:29 pm

  64. Humble question to all previous commenters: Has anyone actually read the bill itself? Just asking.

    It’s been reworked considerably from the original proposal - down to 75% credit (from 100%), sunset provision (5 years), tight rules on both donors / recipient 501 c(3)s (with penalties)/ spending limits (95% has to go to actual tuition/fees, which means only 5% to PR), 75% has to be spent each year, recipient 501 c(3)s, should they lose certification, have to pass funds along to another organization(s) for disbursal…

    For students: they will be closely tracked (recipients required to sit state exams and have their results reported), increments for ELLs, SpEd, etc. Not clear whether SpEd students will be allowed to retain IEPs. An agency will be retained to evaluate results annually - let’s see who is hired to do this.

    Students must come from so-called “priority” districts, have a family income not to exceed 300% of FPL. Siblings have priority (as is usual at private schools).

    A nod to geographical diversity to try to avoid concentration of scholarships in Chicago (this will happen, but at least it’s acknowledged).

    As scholarship tax credit plans go, it’s pretty tight - could be a lot worse.

    While I am strongly opposed in principle to such programs, the ed policy people have done good work, so, kudos.

    And since hold harmless stays, districts which lose students to Catholic (and other) private schools won’t be penalized. That’s a big win.

    Anyway, this from a first pass.

    The public - and CTU, and Raise Your Hand - have the next five years to debate the issue of scholarship tax credits. We’ll see what Illinoisans have to say.

    Contrary to my inclination as someone who is opposed to tax credits, I’d say “go for it.”

    And let the public debate begin, immediately.

    Comment by dbk Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:34 pm

  65. I’d like to thank CTU and the dead-Enders who are commenting here. If this deal goes down (there will be NO override of SB1), the next deal will be much worse for CPS. And that deal will have to happen because, well, people panic when schools don’t open. So thank you for giving Governor Rauner and the Republican political cover for this bill, and showing yourselves to be the extremists and unable to compromise groups that we know you to be.

    Comment by Bored Chairman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:36 pm

  66. ==You find a lame duck republican with a soul and pass SB1 without this trash.==

    And then 10 more.

    Where they all at?

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:43 pm

  67. @Rasselas 2:32 PM

    “In (sic) think the wildly over-the-top rhetoric by CTU and allies is more about the next mayoral election than about actually trying to tank this bill.”

    I think you hit the nail right on the head. The CTU almost had Emmanuel this last time with a candidate who’s platform was basically “Rahm ticked off the CTU so vote for me.”

    I just hope our local politics don’t peel off enough Chicago votes to sink the bill. It’s a fair compromise and the objectionable private school tax credit has reasonable sunset language in my opinion.

    Comment by Chicago_Downstater Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:48 pm

  68. ====You find a lame duck republican with a soul and pass SB1 without this trash.==

    And then 10 more.

    Where they all at?==

    Gee, maybe the Speaker can send Kelly Burke and Sam Yingling out as a search party to find them

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:49 pm

  69. The compromise is necessary to avoid damage done by another stalemate. After two years is there any doubt that this damage is very large? Imagine schools closing in a month or two. $75 million is rounding error in the state’s education budget.

    Comment by PhD Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:50 pm

  70. ===maybe the Speaker can===

    The Speaker made a deal with the other leaders. If you should’ve learned anything by now, it’s that he won’t go back on that deal. And if he is forced to do that, CPS is gonna lose.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:51 pm

  71. Mann Horace, I assume you read on this blog that Rep Cassidy sends her two children to Francis W. Parker School in Chicago. The school has a scholarship program that could be eligible for the tax credit because Parker has ISBE recognized status. See https://www.fwparker.org/auction-scholarship

    It is a political problem for her. I do not support the proposal for the tax credits for private schools, but Rep Cassidy opened herself up to criticism on this issue.

    Comment by Rod Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:54 pm

  72. === If you should’ve learned anything by now, it’s that he (Speaker Madigan) won’t go back on that deal.===

    That’s the whole point of contention with this deal on the Dems side, knowing full well, unlike Rauner, Speaker Madigan keeps up his end of a bargain and is a man of his word, including getting the votes needed to pass a bill all leaders agree upon.

    ===And if he (Speaker Madigan) is forced to do that, CPS is gonna lose.===

    Here’s where Rauner has failed abc the real reason I grabbed Rich’s words.

    To them,

    If you miss that Madigan is a man of his word, and you miss that Madigan will do what he promised, then the missed opportunities by Gov. Rauner to take incremental wins…

    … while Rauner instead chose to alienate, insult, accuse, and flat out disrespect Madigan…

    Here.

    Right here.

    This IS the governing. I know some might not remember how this worked and all… but this… right here… is Madigan governing within his 1/2 of the 1/3 of government to get something passed.

    Pleases remember the governing and how it works.

    “It’s a process question, not a political one”

    The process of the politics here IS the governing.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:00 pm

  73. If you’re going to address me directly, Rich, it would be polite to also answer my question.

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:00 pm

  74. Tax break for millionaires…

    I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that the parents of kids going to Catholic Schools in Chicago (or the suburbs) are not millionaires, could be wrong about that.

    Comment by Oneman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:00 pm

  75. This is a historic change to the funding formula in Illinois. It will be more fair for Chicago and downstate and other low income communities than any funding formula ever has been. $75 million is worth that fix. We can revisit the tax credit program at any time, but trying to get a fair school funding formula like this passed is probably a once in a generation deal.

    Take the deal. It’s worth it.

    Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:01 pm

  76. ===would be polite to also answer my question===

    I did. You just refuse to see it, apparently.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:03 pm

  77. You answered the question of why my comments don’t appear?

    I honestly missed it and would appreciate the help.

    Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:05 pm

  78. ===why my comments don’t appear?===

    Oh. No, I didn’t. I have no idea why. You are apparently tripping some wires.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:06 pm

  79. I have to admit I don’t know why CTU is opposing this so strongly.

    Comment by Honeybear Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 5:04 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Besler leaves Rauner campaign, heads back to IOP
Next Post: Rutherford cleared, but appeal is expected


Last 10 posts:

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.