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.”
“Paul is owed credit for his mention of the Morill Act(s). Indeed, they are responsible for the great growth of universities in the US. They were responsible for allowing the ordinary citizen an opportunity for higher education.
They were a LIBERAL idea.
They were created by the US GOVERNMENT.”
It was not a liberal idea, classical liberal perhaps, but not liberal in the contemporary sense or one associated with Democrats.
Justin Morrill, the guy for whom the Act was named, was a Republican
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Smith_Morrill
And, President Lincoln, a Republican, signed it into law after James Buchannan, a Democrat, vetoed it: The Morrill Act was first proposed in 1857, and was passed by Congress in 1859, but it was vetoed by President James Buchanan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Land-Grant_Acts
Here’s a biology question for the group: Which sub-human species is known for taunting someone for the loss of a loved one?
mespo – did one of the Kardasians die?
“Don’t stay up waiting for an answer.”
**************
Oh, there was an answer, Karen. It got waylaid by the First Amendment monitors.
Wade,
“Looking good for the 1850s.”
Gotta keep the little people down. Can’t have working folks making a comfortable living. Got to keep them hungry and willing to work for chump change.
Rauner gave a speech. Laid out his plan – without details. Legislature has to chew on it. Too early to know consequences. But generally speaking a 30% cut in revenue has consequences.
One might make some guesses however when his first act was his plan to kill the unions, his next plan is to cut the public pensions (except for fire and police), the next is to cut the universities, and the next plan is to cut Medicaid.
Looking good for the 1850s.
One note: It is always the Republicans here that call out Bush and Koch. They are obsessed but totally blind to their own compulsions.
Don’t forget the Koch Brothers. 🙂 I’m sure it’s the Koch Brothers’ fault.
Karen, This was just a polemic. Some long for the day they could post a polemic, and have the crowd cheer loudly, “Great job, Bush sucks, Obama is great, Christians are delusional, yada yada yada.” No questions were asked, just an echo chamber. Don’t stay up waiting for an answer.
So . . . no more information on why he cut spending?
Before I make a judgement, I at least try to get all the facts. Unless it concerns Monsanto. Then I’m gleefully biased.
Karen, Check your email.
Karen misses what she’d rather not see.
‘attorneys take care of each other more than any other group”.
More than police officers?
If it wasn’t for the free intern diddling no one would run for office. Except for the wide stance mens room toe tappers, they would still run.
The author claimed that cutting the budget for higher education showed he didn’t care about education.
I, and others, asked for more information on why the cuts were made. We gave examples of universities bloating their own salaries at the expense of students.
We got no answer.
I think it is important to research more about what’s going on. I am unfamiliar with this politician. For all I know, he hates education. He might not. I need more information other than he cut spending.
Because there are those who say I am against education because I oppose the abuses of the Teachers Unions. For example, they defend pedophile teachers from firing. Obviously, my position is not anti-education.
DBQ
I don’t doubt you assessment on the valuation of diplomas from different states. That is one problem that the federal government is trying to grapple with.
It requires a national test of a common curriculum . Same test for all on the same core subjects.
Now watch the hysterics commence.
But DBQ would have a much better idea if Joe Blow from rural Montana can really add, subtract, and divide as well as Cindy Sue from Washington DC.
“We in Wi. pay a high price for mediocrity. Most folks don’t realize this. The education industry is so powerful they have an agreement w/ the bar association. If you graduate from either of the only 2 law schools in Wi., UW or Marquette, you do NOT need to take the bar exam. You be a lawyer, no questions asked. And I will anticipate your question and answer, YES! There are some incredibly incompetent attorneys in Wi.”
Unless I missed something, (which is possible. I tend to skim as the thread devolves) this does not reference anyone’s daughter. It is a comment on problems with higher education.
Whose business is it how lawyers are deemed competent? It’s all of our business. Lawyers represent us. The public, whether he’s a plumber, a doctor, or a sanitation worker, has a right to have the opinion that his attorney be competent. A bar exam is the current standard of competency for attorneys. There are valid objections to diploma privilege.
Sneers on blue collar workers are an example of elitists out of touch, and disdainful, of most people in America. Another example of the Party of Tolerance who Says They Care About the Poor but Doesn’t Really Respect Them.
Paul:
Anxiously awaiting the counter-examples.
DBQ, Taking a break from the craziness. I know what the plumber comment was about, and so do others here. Taking my bride out for dinner. It’s great having loving spouses, isn’t it.
DBQ, At least rafflaw stuck his neck out and gave an answer to try and please the malcontents. The spinners are trying to make this about diplomas, not diploma privilege. Wisconsin has the biggest good ol’ boy attorney club I’ve seen. I have worked for, and w/, hundreds, probably thousands of attorneys in primarily 3 states, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin. The first 2 have significantly fewer incompetents, and not having the diploma privilege of Wisconsin, the last good ol’ boys club, has a lot to do w/ it. The malcontents just want to destroy this blog. JT sees it, I believe.
I wasn’t responding to you DBQ. Your comment makes absolutely no sense.
I wouldn’t take a plumber’s word when giving a reference for a urologist.
Why would you? I wouldn’t either.
Your statement is a complete non sequitur a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said and makes no sense.