Now is the time for the General Assembly to define and implement Tax Fairness
The debate on implementing tax fairness just opened up.
I think there's a fairly firm consensus in the General Assembly that our tax system is unfair. We tax people in poverty too much and we do not tax our state's largest corporations and wealthiest individuals nearly enough. Middle-class people probably are taxed a bit too much as well, particularly those in low-wealth communities.
The Governor has put tax fairness at the center of this year's session, rightfully pointing out that the corporate income tax is essentially broken as it lets the biggest corporations off the hook.
He hasn't pointed out that our 3% state income tax with a low personal exemption and a low earned income tax credit means that people who make six figures pay a smaller percent of their income in state and local taxes than people who make 40 grand or less. That's backwards and this is the month to change it.
The question before each Member of the General Assembly is how to change it.
The Governor's proposal to implement a tax on the gross receipts of the largest businesses in Illinois has largely been rejected as, in the Speaker's words, a “regressive” tax. The House, by the way, deserves credit for taking the Governor's proposal seriously with an eight-hour hearing before the entire House. That high-level policy debate is the crux of transparent governing and we should have more of it. Why can't the Governor appear before a joint session of the General Assembly every month for a British-style Question Time? That would be fun.
One of the most illuminating exchanges was between Representative David Miller and Governor Blagojevich, after the Governor said that any income tax increase – no matter how progressive -- is “off the table” as he would veto it, Representative Miller matter-of-factly reminded the Governor that the General Assembly could simply override the veto. The Governor's response: I'll campaign against any income tax increase next year! Why? Because “it's wrong.”
Here is the worst aspect of the Governor's position: he rejects, vilifies and obfuscates the existence of a progressive income tax. The absolute best way to reverse our regressive taxes is to raise income taxes on high incomes (personal and corporate) and lower taxes on low incomes. This is not difficult to do.
Our state Constitution does require a non-graduated income tax rate, which is why we have a flat rate of 3%. The Governor's position has been that this provision of the Constitution precludes any sort of progressive income tax – but that's just not true.
It would be great if we could have a federal-style income tax where the first $15,000 of income isn't taxed at all, and the next $40,000 of income is taxed at 15%, and the next $60,000 of income is taxed at 28% and then income above $250,000 is taxed at 35%. But, we don't.
What we can do, however, is raise the rate on all income to 5%. That would raise the revenue from the people who have it the most, won't miss it at all, benefit from the Bush tax cuts and (crucially) can write-off the higher state income tax they pay off of their federal returns so that the state as a whole will pay less in federal taxes.
What about people who make less than $50 grand – or people who make less than $15 grand? If we raise the income tax rate to 5%, they will pay more too, and that's the reason why the Governor thinks it is wrong to raise the income tax. There is an easy way, however, to make sure that the middle class and the poor do not pay more in income taxes in order to satisfy the Governor.
That's to raise the personal exemption to $10,000. It's current $2100. Or in other words, cut a $500 check per exemption to every taxpayer instead of what we do now which is cut a $63 check per exemption to every taxpayer (3% of $2100). That exemption is essentially meaningless.
For people with not a lot of money, $500 off of taxes is a lot. And it's probably enough to wipe out any tax they might owe: you have to earn $10,000 per person in order to owe anything (since 5% of $10,000 is $500). So a family of four wouldn't pay any state income tax at all if they earn less than $40,000. And lots of legislative districts have an median family income of less than $40,000. That is about the average family income in our state.
Compared to our current state income tax which hits people as soon as they earn $2100, a $10,000 personal exemption even with a 5% income tax would make most people better off, particularly as they have more exemptions to take (that is, kids).
Here's how it works with one exemption (look for the blue highlight to see the break-even point):
| Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | 0.03 | $240.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $18,000.00 | 0.03 | $540.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $28,000.00 | 0.03 | $840.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $38,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,140.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $48,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,440.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $58,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,740.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $68,000.00 | 0.03 | $2,040.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 1 | $2,000.00 | $2,000.00 | $78,000.00 | 0.03 | $2,340.00 |
and now here is with a higher income tax rate (5%) and a $10,000 personal exemption.
| Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | 0.05 | $500.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,000.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $30,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,500.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,000.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $50,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,500.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $60,000.00 | 0.05 | $3,000.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 1 | $10,000.00 | $10,000.00 | $70,000.00 | 0.05 | $3,500.00 |
For people who earn less than $20,000 – that's $10 an hour with a full-time job, and remember our state's minimum wage is only $6.50, and remember, about a fifth of the entire state's population earns less than $20,000 a year – they are better off under a 5% state income tax with a $10,000 exemption than they are under a 3% state income tax with a $2,000 exemption. This is about the break-even point, so anyone who makes more than $20,000 as a single filer would pay more under the change.
Let's skip ahead to people with two exemptions and watch the break-even point rise dramatically. People with two exemptions include married couples and single parents with one kid.
Here is the status quo:
| Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $6,000.00 | 0.03 | $180.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $16,000.00 | 0.03 | $480.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $26,000.00 | 0.03 | $780.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $36,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,080.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $46,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,380.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $56,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,680.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $66,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,980.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 2 | $2,000.00 | $4,000.00 | $76,000.00 | 0.03 | $2,280.00 |
And here is a more progressive income tax at a 5% rate and a $10,000 exemption.
| Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | -$10,000.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $0.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $10,000.00 | 0.05 | $500.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $20,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,000.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $30,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,500.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $40,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,000.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $50,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,500.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 2 | $10,000.00 | $20,000.00 | $60,000.00 | 0.05 | $3,000.00 |
Now we're at $40,000 of family income for a family of two (where just under half the population lives). That's a $20/hour job. Not bad and getting tougher to find as our manufacturing jobs are disappearing and service jobs rarely pay that much.
Here everyone with two exemptions who makes less than $40,000 is better off with a higher
tax rate (raising taxes!) and a higher personal exemption than they are today. Anyone who makes more than that will pay more.
Let's skip to the comparison for four exemptions (a married couple with two kids or a single parent with three kids):
Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $2,000.00 | 0.03 | $60.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $12,000.00 | 0.03 | $360.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $22,000.00 | 0.03 | $660.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $32,000.00 | 0.03 | $960.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $42,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,260.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $52,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,560.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $62,000.00 | 0.03 | $1,860.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $72,000.00 | 0.03 | $2,160.00 |
| $90,000.00 | 4 | $2,000.00 | $8,000.00 | $82,000.00 | 0.03 | $2,460.00 |
Now, with a more progressive income tax (even with the Constitutional flat rate)
| Gross family income | Number of exemptions | Deduction | Value of exemption | Adjusted income | Rate | Tax |
| $10,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | -$30,000.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $20,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | -$20,000.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $30,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | -$10,000.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $40,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $0.00 | 0.05 | $0.00 |
| $50,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $10,000.00 | 0.05 | $500.00 |
| $60,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $20,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,000.00 |
| $70,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $30,000.00 | 0.05 | $1,500.00 |
| $80,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $40,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,000.00 |
| $90,000.00 | 4 | $10,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $50,000.00 | 0.05 | $2,500.00 |
90 grand! That's the break-even point!
Everyone who makes less than $90,000 in family income with four exemptions pays less with a 5% income tax rate and a $10,000 exemption than they do today.
That's a lot of middle-class (and upper-middle-class) families in both D and R districts.
This is just to show that a progressive income tax is very possible and can cut taxes for lots of
low-income and working people who are paying too many taxes now because we don't tax high incomes and corporations enough.
That's how it should be.
There are other important ways to make our tax more fair -- increasing the earned income tax credit and either closing corporate tax loopholes or instituting an alternative minimum corporate income tax or even perhaps a gross receipts tax that only affects the highest grossing corporations.
But for those of us who believe in a more progressive tax, we have a challenge that so far we have not really met and that is to explain to each Member of the General Assembly exactly how each of these low-income tax cuts (a higher personal exemption of the earned income tax credit) actually works to deliver tax cuts to the people who need it most.
Tax policy is not intuitive or obvious and unless we do a better job showing Members exactly how taxes are not progressive now and how to make them more progressive, we are unlikely to overcome legislators' natural inclination against raising taxes. And ultimately, our task is to convince voters that they stand to benefit from raising taxes on incomes above their own as it is often too much to ask Members to get ahead of their voters.
This is the crux of the communications challenge: we need to convince lower-income voters (who usually have less education) that raising taxes on high incomes while cutting taxes on lower incomes is good for their bottom line. We need to convince voters that progressive tax policy is the best rural economic development and inner-city economic development the state can possibly offer – because it is.
750, the twin bills in the House and Senate that raise the income tax to 5%, expand the sales tax to include services and invest the revenue in education, human services and pension payments, also holds harmless lower incomes from the higher taxes. This is a great step and right now 750 must be considered the leading proposal before the General Assembly.
One problem, however, is that the low-income tax cuts in 750 (the Family Tax Credit) are neither obvious nor simple to explain. The Family Tax Credit is, as I understand it, a tax credit off of the higher state income tax that compensates for both the expected higher sales tax and the higher income tax that lower-income residents would pay. There is a worksheet that calculates the size of the credit based on income and exemptions which will result in everyone making less than $50,000 or so paying the same amount under 750 than they do today with a 3% income tax and a non-service sales tax.
The concept is sound and deserves to be at the center of the debate, but there are two potential improvements worth considering. One is that the bill essentially asks legislators to trust that the Family Tax Credit will work, as the mechanism is not clearly explained (for every $2,000 of income, how much is the Family Tax Credit worth?). The second is that instead of cutting taxes for those earning less than $30,000 or so, 750 keeps the tax burden the same. 750 makes our tax more progressive by raising taxes on people making more than $50,000 or $60,000 or so, which is good (since our state's long-term economy is suffering from a low-tax and thus low-investment status, particularly in education and transportation), but does not make progress on the other side to cut taxes on low-income people which would do the most good to our economy (as low-income people spend locally almost all the money they save unlike high-income people who invest their money in global vehicles like mutual funds or second homes).
This is the month to build on the Governor's campaign for Tax Fairness in the General Assembly. Let's seize it!
[cross-posted at djwinfo]
23 comments:
Are you planning to autograph this book at Borders?
Just kidding.
Nice work Dan.
Since a graduated state income tax would require an amendment to the Illinois Constitution, legislators will have to settle for the next best thing, which is increasing that $2,000 standard exemption.
Double the exemption to $4,000 per person while increasing the income tax. For a family of five, that means an extra $10,000 of your income would not be taxed at all!
Increasing the exemption (and perhaps throwing in some property tax relief in for good measure) would ceratinly go a long way to making an increase of the state inclome tax (currently the lowest in the nation among rlat-rate states) as progressive as possible.
Dan,
I did a "search" of this page, and your post doesn't even have the word "property" or "swap" in it.
Neither Rich, nor the Hon. John, nor "Fed up" has addressed the fact that Illinois' Property tax system is a steeply progressive income tax enacted by proxy.
You also fail to address the funding of the egregious waste in the education monopoly.
_____
With all the clout you Dems have in IL - which gives you the ability to get re-elected with out teacher's union cash - why don't you just throw the education bureaucracy off the bus, zero out the hated property tax for schools, and enact your income tax plan (highest exemption please).
You'll be heros.
OTOH, if you enact a fake swap (Martire's shell game) or a straight tax hike, you stand a very high probability of suffering a well-deserved backlash.
How about some spending reform?
Perhaps move early retirement up to 54 for state workers and teachers rather than 52? Perhaps end the IHCFPB and see if medical facilities competition starts.
But by no means should any sensible person compromise one inch on taxes without some spending reform
JBP
Dan -
Great post.
Extreme Wisdom -
I don't think we'll ever see the property tax for schools go away completely, for the simple reason that wealthier communities like to tax their property so that they can hire PhD teachers and school superintendents like Max McGee. You're not going to take away from wealthy parents the ability to provide their children with every possible advantage. We just have to re-engineer the financing so that it doesn't severely disadvantage everybody else.
Thanks Rich and John. And I did restrain myself....Springfield has turned into Wonk City this month. Which is great.
Extreme's point is (implicitly) that it is hard how to figure out how include property tax relief with a decentralized education and municipal funding stream with a statewide revenue source. I happen to think that income tax relief (higher personal exemption, higher earned income tax credit) is better than property tax relief, as there isn't the trust issue and so we don't screw over renters. The trust issue is that some people say "my property taxes won't really go down" so that lets Extreme and others say it's a "fake swap." So why fight that fight? Keep it clean so Members and voters can understand that the income tax got more progressive and with the extra revenue, we're funding education, transportation, health care or whatever the GA determines are the priorities.
YDD,
If the 14th Amendment was enforced as written, Tax-eating porkers like McGee wouldn't be feeding off of you, me, and IL kids.
I utterly reject the idea that Mr. McGee adds one iota of value to Wilmette's kids' education.
The rich doped white mice in the suburbs may think their tax bill are buying them a good education, but they aren't. To me, rich white districts getting fat administrators while poor black kids get squat is a civil rights issue that some decent progressive ought to be fighting mad about.
Unfortunately, so-called progressives equate more $$ for tax-eating pigs with "education" when anyone with a brain knows better.
I've written a new version of my plan, which will be on my site soon (PDF and all).
It zeros out the property tax, equalizes spending for every IL child, and abolishes the most worthless governmental entity ever devised - the school district. I would be happy to support Dan's tax plan if that went with it.
DJW,
I give you credit for being smarter than Meeks/Martire, who are courting electoral disaster with their blatant lie of a "swap."
However, please don't try to tell us that our education system is "decentralized."
That may fly with a PTA soccer-mom dingbat, but anyone who knows the first thing about IL schools knows that the district structure is a scheme to give the appearance of "locality" with out allowing any district to truly differentiate itself in terms of content or control.
If our system was at all decentralized, it wouldn't be such an expensive and over-bureacratized failure.
You have two choices in IL. Rich schools that mask failure by luck of socio-economic status, and poor schools that are used as sticks to get more money for rich schools.
___
'the rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor'
Tell me this. If your wettest high tax dreams come to pass, and your gusher of new money fails to improve Illinois Education (and it will fail), will you then join the fight for a better and more equitable education system?
___
Fund Children, not bureaucrats. There is no intellectually sound argument against school choice.
And, as usual, Wisdom, our choices are limited to agreeing with you or being wrong. It takes quite an ego to be that certain that you're right about something. And I certainly understand how frustrating it must be to you that all the fools out there don't agree.
Steve,
I find it fascinating that you feel compelled to comment everytime I post my ideas about education.
My posts must make you uncomfortable, despite your reminding us all about the number of votes you have relative to mine
(Heck, there isn't a single legislator who will even TALK about school choice - good little legislator, here's your donation)
Here is a hint. It isn't ego.
It's sheer righteous indignation. The education system you defend is a cesspool of waste and corruption, and it is consigning GENERATIONS of youth to substandard methods, curricula, and teaching staff - all at a time when millions of Chinese and Indians will be competing for jobs American kids will increasingly be unqualified to do.
But hey, you have the votes to protect your pension pigs as they wallow around in their corrupt little monopoly, so why worry?
Dan likely has the votes to get them even more money with out an iota of reform.
___
I notice that you always opine that I think I'm smarter than some, or that I think those who disagree with me are fools.
I've never called you, Dan, The Hon. John, or anyone else a "fool" or "stupid."
I just happen to be right. That is because I'm actually interested in IL children getting a good a good education, and the rest of you SAY you interested in kids getting education, when in fact you are interested in showering more money on a system that is a proven failure.
Despite all those votes you have, it must make you a little uncomfortable.
Fund Children, Not Bureaucrats.
__
BTW, you always post these little barbs, but won't debate me.
I'll gladly meet you, Dan, Hon. John, or anyone else (Meeks would be the most fun) in any forum anywhere in Illinois - anytime.
But then, you are defending the indefensible, so I understand your reluctance.
Well, Wisdom, I'm just trying to hold a reality mirror up for you to get a glance at what most of the rest of the world thinks. From your point of view, those "unwashed" keep electing the wrong people to school boards, electing the wrong people to the GA, stupidly keep passing referenda to raise local taxes for their schools.
I understand that it's possible that you are right, but I wonder why does such a universal truth as you say you unveil fail to seem so righteous to the rest of the people.
Wisdom, I don't "have" any votes. Your problem is that neither do you. Inertia will prevail, and will be nudged incrementally in the direction that the majority want it to go. All I'm saying is that doesn't seem to be your plan.
Bruno,
Since your demotion you seem to have a lot more time to blog. "tax eating pig"????Could you be a little more graphic please?
Get ready for the last minute tax swap budget!
Steve,
As I've said before, "most of the rest the world" might be wrong. This doesn't necessarily make them "evil" or "stupid."
Just wrong. Your point on intertia is well-taken. It took a long time to get rid of slavery, and then to improve civil rights.
It's hard to get good ideas across in an ocean of mis-truths. I notice that choice initiatives are always popular until the well-funded campaign of lies from the Education Bureacracy starts.
I also notice that the tax-eating pigs then use the courts to keep their snouts in the trough as they bar the door to quality schools for the poor.
As for votes, we'll see. Utah just enacted a choice plan, and up in Wisconsin, a leftist Dem Governor paid-off to kill choice was forced to expand Milwaukee Charters by well-organized parents who no longer liked sitting in the back of the educational bus.
In all the hubb-bub, I notice that defenders of the existing system are incapable of squeezing out any thought beyond "more money." Not very intelligent, not very creative, and not good for the children.
Let's make a deal. I'll tone down the rhetoric the moment you, Dan, the Hon. John, or Rev. Meeks can squeeze out a micro-thought that consists of something of more gravitas than "more money for the failed bureaucracy"
___
Bill,
If you are talking about my request to go down from 5 to 2-3 days, folks of your ilk will think what you will, so why bother?
I'm a busy guy, and as good as my show is, I have to get a few other things done.
Don't worry, some day you may actaully post something that has a point.
Keep trying, Bill. It will come to you.
JB, I'm always for reform. I like moving the early retirement age up a few years. Makes sense to me. YDD, thanks. Extreme, you're a little too extreme in your tone. If you want a debate, set it up. Anytime you want. And if you don't think that 650+ separately-elected governments called school districts is decentralized, then you've never heard of France where there's one national educational system. Our extreme inequality is based on a local tax. That's why we're pushing for a state tax, not a local tax, for more of education. But, back to tax policy (if we can stay on message).
Dan,
It's around 890 districts, and they are as "decentralized" as those 10-20,000 McDonald's Franchises.
That is why they have the same connected law firms executing the same contracts with the same "step increases" that go on top of the nearly the same pay increases.
That is also why they use the same 3 or 4 "textbook" companies that foist the same watered-down drivel on our kids, while they teach the same watered-down curriculum.
I am positively salivating at the opportunity to debate you on these issues, as you are likely a formidable opponent.
You have connections with all the big wigs downstate (I'm guessing). Here is my suggestion. Bob Pritchard is "chair" of that education caucus group seeking to ream us with HB 750. That's your crowd.
They meet in a big room near the capital. Help us get that venue, and I'll be there with bells on. (though I may bring a chicken wire cage for protection).
If that doesn't work, e-mail me at my first name + site name to see what we can work out the details.
It's gotten really quiet all of a sudden....
Wisdom,
I'm not sure what there is to debate. You believe in a certain approach to improving public education. I believe your approach is not going to happen in Illinois in anything approaching the near term (let's say the public school lifetime of this year's kindergarten class)
Why would anyone debate whether something is going to happen in the future, when only time, not our respective opinions, will tell? BTW, adding more charter schools (a goal with which I agree) is not your education plan that I've read about. It doesn't eliminate school districts and boards, ISBE, teachers unions, nor fund children directly with a flat amount.
Steve,
I don't know which plan you've "read about", but all of that is in there.
If 1 charter school is good, and 10 are better, then let's make every single school a charter.
I've just finished the Exec Summ of the plan as well as the 2nd version of the original.
Regardless, I strongly support charters, and would gladly settle for more of them as an interim step to a much better system.
FYI, I just posted a PDF on my site that summarizes my entire plan.
___
As for not needing a debate, C'mon Steve. The legislature is about to ream the tax payers. Why would ANY person argue against debating these issues?
Is EVERYTHING boiled down to whether 3 men in a room will vote for it? I may be too harsh rhetorically, and maybe I owe some people an apology for some of my zeal, but your acceptance of and acquiescence to the status quo is truly a cause for saddness.
I'm hoping Dan follows up on his promise to be debate me. I've offered the perfect venue.
Wisdom, I'll read the latest version of your plan.
As to debating, I reiterate: why would someone debate the question of WHETHER something is going to happen in the future? Only time, not our respective opinions, will tell. Whether both of us or neither of us is convinced something will happen in the future has no bearing on whether it really will.
You can continue spending your time beating your drum (does a drum make a sound in the middle of a forest if no one hears?) and we'll see what actually happens. Again, I don't expect to see the key elements of your plan happen, so I'll spend most of my time listening to people's who's suggestions might actually happen.
Steve,
So you will only listen to Meeks, Martire, Blago, & the rest of the echo chamber locked in paradigm paralysis?
That's fine, I suppose. That type of thinking has done wonders for the BIG 3, who were listening to all their consultants, and sticking with SUVs.
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
The sad thing Steve, is that while you are "listening" to Meeks, Martire, Blago, et. al. 10s of 1000s of disadvantanged youth are falling farther behind their rich US counterparts at the same time those rich US counter parts are falling farther behind their Chinese and Indian counterparts.
But hey, keep funding those pensions!
The sad thing is that some one of your stature might provide a voice that could effect change. Unfortunately, your embrace of the status quo...
...and yes, Steve, another dime going into this system is the status quo...
...is consigning 1000s of kids to a substandard and overpriced education system.
I now know why Dan has been silent re: a debate, and why you all refuse to engage in any debate.
It's shame, and you deserve it.
Wisdom, I've spent far more time recently having a dialogue with you than with either Sen Meeks or Ralph Martire, and I've had no dialogue with the Governor this year.
As you know, I agree with you and most others that there are problems with our public education system, especially with our very limited successes at educating poor, inner-city children.
You are far too smart to try the argument that when people don't agree with you they just "aren't listening". I grew tired of it many years ago; No, it's not that I'm not listening to you, it's that I hear you and don't agree with what I hear.
Your claim that you support an increase in charter schools is disingenuous at best: you support turning all schools into charter schools, according to your own written words.
I'm not so much a defender of the status quo as I am a pragmatist who believes very strongly that if your plan is the alternative offered to people, the status quo is going to around a long time.
Your approach is like killing a bill by adding amendments that take it so extreme that people prefer the status quo to the proposed change. In Tennessee this week, a legislator had a bill allowing people to carry firearms in state parks, and in Tennessee it was going to pass big time. Opponents added amendments adding local public parks and the state capitol building (good for the goose...?) and the sponsor had to kill the bill.
Fringe proposals often make the status quo look much better to people. Why don't you endorse and work for positive, doable things. Double charter schools. Give local boards the option of turning existing public schools into charters. Improve progress measurements. Do many good things. Just don't believe that people are going to buy your argument that the only way to save the village is to destroy it.
Steve,
Some quick responses...
1. Yes, I argue that every school should be a charter. That is hardly "disingenuous."
If some independence is good, then more independence is better. Set the standards, and give ALL schools the freedom to decide how to meet them.
____
2. "Status quo" around for a long time?
That is a fair point, and I make similar arguements to my "libertarian" friends who argue "utopia or bust."
I believe Education is somewhat different, both culturally and politically.
At this moment, no one can get a single reform passed because "Big Education" is simply too powerful. IT got that way because no one is willing criticize its greed, waste, abuse, and corruption.
It is now so powerful that they can turn ANY refrom into just another sop to their monopoly.
Though 'incremental reform' is theoretically possible, in practice, it won't be until their power is reduced.
My attitude is "why reduce their power when you can destroy it?" You'll need to do one or the other to get anywhere anyway.
___
3. Charters in Districts?
Your suggestion re: incremental reforms on Charters is a perfect example of what I mean.
Districts are NOT the independent entities Dan argues they are. There are charters ready to spring up everywhere, and the Districts are the ones stopping them.
To argue that we citizens can 'change the board' is thin gruel, as it is nearly impossible to for reformers to take over a board, and even harder to do something positive if an when they do.
The current system is too entrenched to be improved by incremental reforms, though I'm happy to support good ones.
The current system is also too entrenched to even allow any good reforms. If it takes about the same politcal capital to get an increment as it does to destroy them, why not just destroy them?
That's my view, and I believe that they have been so wasteful and corrupt that the moment enough people have been made aware of their greed and corruption, they will turn on them.
You may be right that this may never happen, but I am right that nothing positive will happen until some one fearlessly points out their greed.
There is nothing wrong with "destroying" this system. Illinois children will be better educated under my plan, and anyone who reads it can see that.
Once again, you are correct on the politics, I am correct on the policy.
Fund Chidren, Not Districts.
Steve said: "those "unwashed" keep electing the wrong people to school boards, electing the wrong people to the GA, stupidly keep passing referenda to raise local taxes for their schools". Wrong...we're defeating referenda, we are not even trying to get onto school boards, as the fight will not be fought THERE. We will elect better folk to the GA..perhaps some not so interested in$450 door knobs while our children languish in sub-par gov't schools. We will educate our children ourselves, robbing local gov't schools of funding(YES!). You've got a huge snowball of parental/taxpayer frustration building up speed and mass. Some of us 'unwashed' are already doing our little part, in a calculated fashion, to diassemble a rotten system. It's noble work. I agree with the idea: fund children, not districts!
Post a Comment