Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw) Weekend Contributor
I have to give Governor Bruce Rauner credit for not taking long to show his hand and publicly attack the Higher Education system in Illinois. It has only been a few weeks since he was inaugurated and he recently unveiled his budget. A budget plan that slashes over $200 million just from the University of Illinois alone.
At the very time Gov. Rauner announced he wants to slash the Higher Education budget for all universities in the State of Illinois by almost a third, he claimed that his budget makes education a priority!
“Higher education is set to take a major hit in Illinois.
Following similar announcements by the Republican governors of Wisconsin and Louisiana, newly-sworn in Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner released what he called a “turnaround” budget, that would slash nearly $209 million from the University of Illinois.” Think Progress
“It’s time to make education our top priority again – and that’s what this budget does,” he told lawmakers Tuesday night, touting his plan to give about $25 million more to early childhood education. “With reform, we will be able to invest more in education and give our kids world class schools.” Think Progress
While the proposed budget increases some funding for K-12 education, the University of Illinois system will lose one-third of its state financing under this budget. This very same proposed budget makes absolutely no mention of any increased revenue sources or plans. What will happen to the University system if these cuts are retained in the final budget?
One can expect the cuts to cause increased fees being charged to students as well as the loss of many educational programs. The result of these massive reductions in state financing will be to transfer the costs to students who are already paying high tuition and fee costs. The loan balances of many students already into the 6 figures and Gov. Rauner’s actions will make sure that student debt will continue to climb in Illinois.
So often the claims that all areas of the State have to share in the burden of digging out of a financial hole ends up with some of the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that burden. If the Governor is convinced that we all have to sacrifice in this job to balance the budget, why wouldn’t new tax sources be considered along with reasonable cuts?
Will these draconian cuts make it more difficult for students from poor and middle class families to obtain a college education? In this very same budget proposal, Gov. Rauner biggest cuts are aimed directly at those who are least able to afford them.
“Yet the state would spend $400 million less on higher education, $600 million less on local governments, and $1.5 billion less on Medicaid, which handles health care costs for poor residents. University leaders and mayors said they were worried, and advocates for the poor said they feared medical needs would go unmet under deep cuts to Medicaid.” New York Times
When the cities, counties and municipalities raise their taxes to pay for basic services for their residents, who has to pay for those increases? “In many cases, Rauner’s state budget cuts could simply end up shifting costs: local governments could choose to raise property taxes, state universities could raise tuition and the CTA could increase fares.” Chicago Tribune
For a man who spent at least $37 million of his own money to get elected governor, he sure has no problem making the middle class and poor pay more for a college education and for health care and local taxes and transportation costs.
Rauner seems to be following the economic model that worked so “well” for Gov. Brownback in Kansas and Gov. Walker in Wisconsin.
Just how has that austerity approach worked out for Kansas and Wisconsin?
Additional Sources: Examiner.com; Crains Chicago Business
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Elaine:
Why does the capital gains rate disproportionately affect the wealthy? Because they have more disposable income to invest.
Anyone who has an IRA, 401K or other fund also invests. So it also affects the middle class.
Do you really want to pay the government significantly more when you sell your house?
I’ve heard this before from the tax-and-spend crowd. There is ALWAYS a reason why temporary taxes should be permanent, why taxes should be raised.
What is the reason for the widening gap between rich and poor? It’s not the capital gains tax that Liberals would have you believe.
Anything that makes starting or running a small business more difficult widens that gap, because it takes away a method to improve circumstances. Over regulation, higher business taxes, taking away Prop 13 that protects businesses from property taxes doubling annually . . . all of those things make it harder to be middle class.
Obamacare hit the middle class with thousands and thousands of dollars. Right now, it’s affected the self employed. But it’s coming soon to employers near you. Already, employers are cutting back on hours to under 30. CA is trying to push through a mileage tax, which will make anything that was shipped cost more. It will make small businesses that are on the road cost more. What about when cities go bankrupt from tax-and-spend and default on their debt? What about a bad economy where people are taking pay cuts, cobbling together full time work from multiple part time jobs?
How does that affect the middle class?
The tax-and-spend crowd want to blame anything and everything except their own policies for the gap between rich and poor. But they are wrong. Some of the politicians who do it even know they’re wrong; they’re just buying votes.
Public Schools for Sale?: Diane Ravitch Talks with Bill Moyers about the Privatization of Public Education
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/06/08/public-schools-for-sale-diane-ravitch-talks-with-bill-moyers-about-the-privatization-of-public-education/
Elaine – you are no longer a GB so now you are reduced to recycling your old articles?
Charter Schools and The Profit Motive
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/16/charter-schools-and-the-profit-motive/
Elaine – I am not sure why you are against the profit motive in education. Personally, I would rather see them set up as non-profits, but I am not against profits.
Karen,
Should the High Teacher Turnover Rate in Charter Schools Be a Cause for Concern?
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/09/07/should-the-high-teacher-turnover-rate-in-charter-schools-be-a-cause-for-concern/
Elaine – the high turnover rate should be applauded in charter schools. I have seen teachers fired after a few weeks in a charter school because they either did not fit or could not teach. No sense ruining the students for a year.
And many of us have wealthy and succesful friends and families and are not hurting financially. To blame “success envy” is shallow thinking.
Oh, and you’re heavily invested in children’s education. So am I. But we disagree considerably in how to achieve that goal.
During a parent meeting at our Charter school, the crowd erupted in a standing ovation when the principal confirmed that teachers would not be tenured, and would have merit based pay.
At our local middle school, a teacher was treating a friend’s son very badly. He didn’t want to go to school anymore, and suddenly hated it. He became withdrawn. The parents found out what was going on and complained to the school and the teacher. The teacher told them to their faces she could care less if they complained. No matter what, she would keep her job and could say what she wanted to the kids. She didn’t have to change. She was tenured. Our local public schools are rife with Bad Teachers. So they took him out and enrolled him at the Charter School. He loves school and learning now, and has a brighter future. Now that’s a win for that child.
Capital gains tax rates benefiting wealthy are protected by both parties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html
Excerpt:
For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say…
Advocates for a low capital gains rate say it spurs more investment in the U.S. economy, benefiting all Americans. But some tax experts say the evidence for that theory is murky at best. What is clear is that the capital gains tax rate disproportionately benefits the ultra-wealthy…
“The way you get rich in this world is not by working hard,” said Marty Sullivan, an economist and a contributing editor to Tax Analysts. “It’s by owning large amounts of assets and having those things appreciate in value.”
Many Wisconsinites loath Walker based on facts, not conjecture.
Elaine:
My only assumptions about you are that you are anti-Charter, pro Teachers Union, pro tenure, and tax-and-spend. I came to that opinion based on your posts.
Other than that, I have no idea. . .
But there are certainly those guilty of supporting Democrats in all things. That’s why Professor Turley is swimming upstream against his fellow Dems in his fight to rein in Obama’s excesses and protect the Constitution. If everyone judged their own politicians fairly, we wouldn’t have such abuses in politics of any party. True Believers in any party refuse to see wrongdoing.
But Professor Turley is rare in that he does not judge through political glasses.
Look what Emmanuel did to the public schools in Chicago. No better than a Republican.
Webster,
There are lots of Wall Streeters donating to Democrats too.
Elaine – no I don’t think it’s a good idea if a government simply stops paying its debt. I live in CA where major cities have gone bankrupt from tax-and-spend.
His office claims that he is refinancing the debt to take advantage of today’s low interest rates. If so, that makes sense. If he’s simply kicking the can down the road, then the overall cost to taxpayers would be higher. I would disagree with that.
So my answer is . . . it depends.
I don’t follow Walker closely. Mainly, I just look him up when anyone makes an “I Hate Walker” statement. So I don’t mindlessly support or castigate him. My opinion depends on the facts. Since there is no one on this planet with which I agree on all things, I assume I would disagree occasionally with Walker, too.
Oh, and obviously raising capital gains would stifle investment. Are you unsure of how often people would invest if they needed a 30% gain just to make it worth while? What would that do to your IRA/401K? Can you imagine what such increases would do to retiree’s investment nest eggs? That would be particularly cruel, since SS is running out of funds and will cut benefits.
I don’t hate the rich. My extended family includes those who struggle financially and those who are well off. A rich family member used his own savings to keep on employees during a contract negotiation. And he worked so hard and sacrificed so much to get where he is. I despise success envy.
Karen,
You must be laboring under the assumption that I support everything Democrats do. I don’t. Under Bill Clinton, we got rid of Glass-Steagall. Bad decision.
More recently, I’m thrilled that Rahm Emanuel didn’t win re-election with 50% of the vote yesterday. He’ll have to compete in a runoff election in April. I think the man is a rat and a crook. I can’t imagine a Republican being any worse a mayor of Chicago than he is!
*****
In Mayoral Runoff, Rahm Emanuel’s Corrupt Governance Has Finally Caught Up With Him
It’s become increasingly clear to Chicagoans that Rahm Emanuel is out for himself and his rich friends, not for us.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17681/rahm_emanuel_chuy_garcia_runoff
Overall, Walker has slowed the growth in WI debt. However, he is taking advantage of low interest rates to take care of overdue road projects.
Why is it so important to reign in that debt that spiraled out of control in WI? Because that interest money takes funds away from where they are badly needed.
“In 2014, the state was using a nickel out of every dollar in its main account to pay off loans rather than using the money for education, prisons or nursing homes for needy seniors. That was above a long-standing target in state government of keeping loan payments to 4 cents on the dollar for the money coming from sources such as the income and sale tax.
By 2017, Walker’s budget proposal would drop loan payments back down to 3.7 cents out of every dollar going into the state’s main fund, bringing them back in line with the state’s own unofficial target, according to his administration’s budget office.”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/debt-costs-for-road-projects-nearly-triple-since-1999-b99442431z1-291848141.html
Karen,
“You may be interested to note that delaying payments is a bipartisan idea, used by both Democrats and Republicans, and actually written into the loan agreement.”
So…do you think it’s a good idea? I don’t. I don’t care whether it’s Democrats or Republicans who are doing it.
*****
“The reason why capital gains is lower than earned income taxes is because it was supposed to stimulate investment.”
Yes, it was SUPPOSED. Unfortunately, things don’t always work the way they are supposed to work.
So who got silenced? (An exercise in futility using questionable methods and arbitrary judgement that may be the consequence of political bias.)
Personally, as a fiscal conservative, my goal is to have a balanced budget and pay down debt.
I’m just wondering if you were similarly outraged when Democrats did it.
Elaine:
You may be interested to note that delaying payments is a bipartisan idea, used by both Democrats and Republicans, and actually written into the loan agreement.
His office claims he plans to refinance the debt to take advantage of lower interest rates.
This article discusses the pros and cons of such a strategy:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-budget-again-declines-federal-money-for-medicaid-expansion-b99445846z1-292084711.html
He declined federal funds because he believes the government will have no choice but reneg on its promises. It is in unsustainable debt. You, yourself, remarked that it is bad if you cannot make a debt payment. What do you think is the outcome of a $17 trillion debt? Obama has added more debt in his reign than every single president before him, COMBINED. And if the feds fail to make those payments, it would crush WI taxpayers, already trying to dig their way out from tax-and-spend. In addition, he opposes Obamacare, so it would not make sense politically for him to engage in it.
“If anyone thinks the federal government, which is currently $17 trillion in debt and cannot meet its current Medicaid obligations, will not renege on its future funding promises, they are not living in reality,” Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said.
Elaine, if it wouldn’t possibly destroy this country and hurt innocent people, I would wish Walker upon them. If Karen thinks things are bad now…..