1. - OneMan - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:06 am:

   == While the state would pay providers because of Wednesday’s Illinois Supreme Court ruling, the time line for that was unclear, said Annie Thompson, spokeswoman for Blagojevich’s Department of Healthcare and Family Services. ==

   So let me get this right they say they can’t pay because the courts said they couldn’t. So they go to court to get the thing that said they couldn’t pay lifted.

   But they have no plan in place to actually pay?

   Seriously, what is wrong with these people?




2. - Cassandra - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:08 am:

   I wonder how many of those child welfare “advocates’ are getting hefty grants and “contracts” from the highly politicized DCFS and are fearful of having the money spigot turned off. Money is fungible, after all.

   And thereby lies the eternal taxpayer dilemma.
   DCFS (and DHS, another focus of layoffs) are political pork farms for the Dems. They are larded with contracts and superfluous management jobs for the faithful (and the relatives)–the Dems, in this decade, but it’s always somebody’s faithful. We’d like the money to go directly to the kids but we know that a huge amount of it drops off along the way. And increasingly, with our personal budgets shrinking, we can’t afford to pay this corruption tax.

   Maybe DCFS/DHS should be plumping for a surtax on wealthy elites, who tend to be Dems these days.
   These folks can afford to pay for the bloated bureaucracies and the six figure management salaries–and the hefty contracts.




3. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:09 am:

   Well. The Governor has pledged not to raise taxes, and he was re-elected on that pledge. That leads inevitably to a budget balanced on the spending side. But no one wants him to cut anything (well, maybe he could cut someone else’s “anything”). In fact, many believe there are areas where funding should be increased.

   I feel like I’ve awakened in the middle of a Kafka novel, or at least in a Rod Serling special. Doesn’t anyone understand what we’re facing here? Is there anyone left who is realistic about this state of affairs.

   The Gov may have made the wrong cuts (BTW, he gets to decide because we elected him Governor), or he may have made them for the wrong reasons, but the facts are that he has to cut somewhere, and its only going to get worse given the revenue picture.




4. - jj - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:20 am:

   New York - $6 billion in cuts?

   California - $XXX gazillion in cuts?

   We have it good. I say cut more.




5. - Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:33 am:

   As usual, Steve adds a sober voice to the din that is state government.

   The country has been on quite a bender for a few years, not just on the government front, but business and personal finance, too. Now, we’ve woken up with a bunch of crumpled singles in our pockets and a pile of bills staring us in the face.

   it’s time to put the icebag on the head, drink some coffee and put pencil to paper at the kitchen table and figure out the mess.

   It’s going to hurt, but like anything else, it’s better to get it over with quickly.

   For starters, I advocate a bump in gasoline taxes to fund a public works program. Three months ago, we were paying four bucks a gallon, now we’re down to almost two. Take the hit, put people to work and invest long-term in our economy.




6. - wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 10:48 am:

   Where do you suggest, JJ? And remember that federal matching funds are part of the equation.




7. - Cassandra - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 11:04 am:

   I think we are smart enough to know that federal matching fund are not to be dismissed.

   But what I would like to see, in addition to a lot more evidence of actual competence, from agencies like DCFS and DHS, is some evidence that they are paring their oversized management ranks…those jobs tend to come with six figure compensation packages and workloads that are modest or practically nonexistent.

   DCFS, for example, has 8 or 9 office spread over Cook County, including offices at the Thompson Center, even though the main offices are in Springfield, the state capital. Each comes with several layers of bureaucrats, often in duplicate, because they supposedly manage different agency functions. I understand that it is important to have offices in the community for customers to access easily, but does each of them have to have layers of management in duplicate? How about a little good faith on the part of the government.
   We taxpayers are always expected to demonstrate good faith…with our wallets.




8. - Reality Check - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 11:33 am:

   The DCFS layoffs would reduce the ranks of caseworkers, investigators, cut funding for foster care, etc. - that is, reduce real services for real families and at-risk kids whose lives depend on this safety net.

   When people say things like, “It’s going to hurt but it’s better to get it over with quickly,” do they realize the hurt is going to be felt by children who may be injured or killed by abusive parents? Is this really acceptable?

   I hope not, and I don’t think most Illinoisans agree with that reasoning.




9. - wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 11:48 am:

   Reality Check, the line you quoted was mine, and you use it in a scurrilous way. Read my post again before you mount your high horse and twist my words for your agenda, which is clearly more about your job than children.

   No where in my post do I advocate cuts in DCFS or services to children. The only thing I advocated was a gas tax hike. Overall, I was pointing out the obvious — the country needs to sober up and come to grips with its finances — government, business and personal.

   And believe it or not, like you, I’m opposed to child abuse and murder. If you want to debate the effectiveness of DCFS, have at it.




10. - Capitol View - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 12:08 pm:

    The last I heard, we are approaching being 2 billion in debt for just this fiscal year. At the same time, we have over $2.6 billion in unpaid bills.

    We have fewer state employees compared to the general population than any other state.

    Our rates for community based human services are 60-70% of actual costs, and numerous groups are on the verge of collapse or sending back their state contracts - depending on whether or not a miracle happens this Veto Session.

    United Way has been working on a survey of community based providers, and the collapse that is about to occur - and in fact, is already happening. When that survey comes out, let’s see how state officials react.




11. - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 12:17 pm:

    “We have fewer state employees compared to the general population than any other state.”

    We also have more local government than any other state, so this statement is really quite misleading.




12. - The Doc - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 1:02 pm:

    Agree with wordslinger. We’ve been delaying the inevitable for far too long. A gas tax hike makes a lot of sense, especially if there’s going to be a large public works program in the near future. It may be less politically toxic now that gas prices have falled precipitously.




13. - Reality Check - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 1:43 pm:

    wordslinger–sorry to misconstrue your comment. you’re right that more revenue is the answer, not further cuts to the social safety net. you’re quite wrong, however, that my job has anything to do with my concern for the well-being of at-risk kids. we can all agree that the threat of cuts to DCFS should be dropped.




14. - Crystal Clear - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 1:46 pm:

    The problem is GRF spending was:
    FY2003 - $23.1 Billion
    FY2008 - $27.5 Billion
    That is nearly a 20% increase in 5 years. Most of the growth was used for Healthcare & Family Services. Transportation, DNR and many other dedicated funds and services have taken the biggest hits for the budgets of this administration.

    Increases in revenue over those years was by economic growth and transferring from dedicated funds to GRF. Now we have decreasing revenues and negative economic growth = big problem.

    This governor’s budget process was a house of cards, so with the decrease in revenues and no tax increases, it is what it is.

    The electorate has to figure out what it wants, less tax and less services or more tax and more services.




15. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 1:52 pm:

    CC, that was very astute.




16. - Reality Check - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 2:03 pm:

    The electorate has to figure out what it wants, less tax and less services or more tax and more services.

    You’re not going to get “less tax.” You can have fewer services for the same taxes, or better services for higher taxes. Nobody’s proposing a tax cut.

    I side with the latter - we should make new investments in social services, public safety, education and infrastructure.

    Another factor nobody’s discussing - Obama says a new stimulus package with aid to states will be the first order of business in Jan. So why choose to make precipitous cuts now?




17. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 2:20 pm:

    More tax doesn’t necessarily mean more service. It sometimes means MORE PORK.

    Also, Blago is always saying “This is good news for the families who are struggling in this economy and cannot afford the high cost of private insurance.” But what about the providers he is screwing out of their reimbursement for said services?




18. - Crystal Clear - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 4:15 pm:

    With the budget process vested in those few in power (1-big reason con/con was needed), pork always comes with more service to get the mushroom’s votes.




19. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Nov 13, 08 @ 5:04 pm:

    One person’s pork is another person’s baseline service or needed project. It all goes back to CC’s original long-term premise, outside the “spend and borrow” formula that will ultimately come due -

    Lower taxes = less potential services except where economic growth provides a rising tide

    Same taxes = slightly less potential services with inflation factored in, except where economic growth provides a rising tide

    Higher taxes = more potential services, and even more where economic growth provides a rising tide; but subject to a law of diminishing returns where the tax burden at some point stifles economic growth and reverses it.

    A key word here is “potential”. More money obviously allows you to do more things. Good decisions allow you to realize the potential and bad decisions can result in squandering it.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.