What Will Illinois Lose in the Sequester?
The state might take a crippling hit if Congress does not act before Friday.
Photos
Deep, nationwide cuts are geared to take place March 1. They're the first of a decade-long $1.2 trillon budget cut plan poised to go into effect unless Congress can compromise on a defecit-reduction plan.
Here’s what Illinois stands to lose, according to the White House:
- Teachers and Schools: Illinois will lose approximately $33.4 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 460 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 39,000 fewer students would be served and approximately120 fewer schools would receive funding.
- Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Illinois will lose approximately $24.7 million in funds for about 300 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.
- Work-Study Jobs: Around 3,280 fewer low-income students in Illinois would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 2,650 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.
- Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 2,700 children in Illinois, reducing access to critical early childhood education.
- Military Readiness: In Illinois, approximately 14,000 civilian U.S. Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $83.5 million in total.
- Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $19 million in Illinois.
- Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in Illinois would be cut by about $7 million.
- Navy: Four planned Naval Station Great Lakes demolition projects ($2 million) could be canceled and a scheduled Blue Angels show in Rockford could be canceled.
- Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Illinois will lose about $587,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.
- Vaccines for Children: In Illinois around 5,230 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $357,000.
- Public Health: Illinois will lose approximately $968,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Illinois will lose about $3.5 million in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 3,900 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Illinois State Department of Public Health will lose about $186,000 resulting in around 4,600 fewer HIV tests.
- STOP Violence Against Women Program: Illinois could lose up to $273,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 1,000 fewer victims being served.
U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski (IL-3) blasted the sequester, and said both sides must "end the blame game" and "halt the sequester" by passing the new Simpson-Bowles plan. Lipinski claims the plan would reduce the federal deficit by an estimated additional $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years through a combination of spending cuts, new revenue, and tax reform.
"The sequester uses a meat cleaver when a scalpel should be used. It's not the way to go about responsibly reducing our deficit," Lipinski said in press statement. "If we do nothing between now and March 1, we will make $85 billion in sweeping cuts without choosing between necessary and wasteful programs. It will also hurt our slow economic recovery and threaten our military readiness. This is irresponsible."
Do you think there is any chance that Congress can work together to find a solution to the sequestration before the ax swings? Tell us in the comments.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are plenty of ways to keep up on local news:
Kate
6:24 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Look at the bright side. This may be something we need to get our country back on track.
Lisa
7:12 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Let's put it into perspective.....this "sequester" will still be a raise of 3% above last year's budget, they are cutting 2%. So, that said instead of getting a 5% raise, they only get 3%. I guess the President could stop campaigning and go back to Washington now.....that may cut the budget some????? Lisa
KB
7:31 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Kate, seriously? If getting out country back on track means poor children won't get vaccines, and teachers, aides et all. will loose the funding necessary to provide education to our children....I'd rather stay on the same course. Perhaps, Washington could cut their own salaries, stop the pork, reallocate funds that currently go to pet projects that are not something that should be receiving tax payer funding...perhaps THEN we will get back on track. Get real.
Sack of Durbin
7:52 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
KB. Read Lisa's comment again. If you don't understand it,well I bet your check book is a mess. This is Eco 101. Our campaigner and chief is playing on the minds of his lemmings. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Muhammed
8:12 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
total crock of BS cut the programs by 15% minimum there is probably inefficient waste in these prgrams of AT LEAST 25%
KB
9:28 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sack of, I read it and I fully understand. We all have to deal with having to trim out budgets, BUT we do not trim the things that matter most, which is our home front. Some things are too important to cut. There are other areas where the impact won't be felt as deeply as education and health
Dave Wagner
10:54 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Leave it to the media to report numbers and not perspectives. There are 2.1 million students (public and private, the ratio of which I do not know, however, if was 50/50, the cuts per student would double to $32) in Illinois grades k - 12, the 33.4 mil works out to about $16 per student. Considering that the average spending per pupil is a little over $11,000, the percentage cut is about .15% That's correct, 15% of a penny out of every dollar. I would hardly call this a cut. Contrast that to the rate in which our taxes increase. (The 2.1 million figure includes public and private schools, the ratio of which I do not know, however, if was 50/50 (which I am sure it isn't, the cuts per student would double to $32, hardly a crisis.)
Dave Wagner
10:54 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Illinois spends about $21.50 per resident on public health, which is about $267 million (based on 12.4 million residents). If you include the grants for prevention of substance abuse (the effectiveness is questionable) and the $186,000 for AIDs testing, the cut is about 1.7%.
I am sure that neither of these are dramatic, and part of the problem is that some of the grants are earmarked, meaning that the agencies would have to get the money from other sources (general tax revenues thru funding of the General Assembly), which they are loathe to do. So, certain politicians and government administrators are forced to make some decisions on where to cut costs and how to better allocate their funding, ie do their job. Now that's the real travesty.
Bob
7:37 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Excellent data, Dave. Putting thiings into context is so important when writing this kind of a story. I hope the esteemed "journalists" on the Patch will follow your lead on this.
One of the great things about interactive journalism on venues like the Patch is that those better informed than the authors on a subject can put forth the truth and educate readers, an advantage that doesn't exist in "old media".
Keep up the good work!
Dave Wagner
1:53 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
I further clarified the data, and public school enrollment is about 2.1 million, so the calculations of $16 per student is correct. Private school enrollment is 294,924.
Dave Wagner
11:11 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
KB - Nothing the government is involved with is run so efficiently that it couldn't find a way to cut costs without cutting benefits. Other areas? Every bureaucrat will say that they can't cut costs, and that the service they provide is important.
Kevin
11:44 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Congress, like any government worker only worry about there pensions, cut there there pension payments and watch how fast things get done.
Harry Callahan
12:51 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
When this guy gets through with Amerika,you will think your living in Europe,what a sad thought for all who sacrifice so much for this country over the years.Oh aren;t they doing such a wonderful job in Chicago,Crook County,and the wonderful state of Lincoln,ILLINOIS.
Jennilin
4:18 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Dave, Kudos on the math skills. I was doing the math in my head while reading the article and I thought the same. These are not drastic cuts. Next we need to get a hold on the salaries of politicians and other government entities. Too bad they will never vote to cut their own pensions now or in the future. The truth is that the pension system is unsustainable, it's like watching a train wreck.
Patsy Bonnar
9:02 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The government needs to cut spending. Do they know what the word budget means. The rest of us have to live within our means.
Moonglow
11:34 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
kevin... u r right about the pensions of state employees. i am a retired state employee and i expect to get the pension i worked 34 yrs for!! i paid into my pension every month and i want what i worked for!!
Patsy Bonnar
6:46 am on Friday, March 1, 2013
I had a friend who was the director of early childhood education. Every year she had to try and spend all the funds that were left so they would not be cut the following year. Some schools are loaded with unused items because of this end of the year travesty. Instead of setting the money aside for another day they spent it this is how the government works.
Mark Daniel
9:23 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
If you don't use all of the money than your budget should be cut. If in the future you require more money than apply for it. Thinking one has to spend it all is what has caused our budget problems to begin with.
eevans
10:11 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Am disappointed this came straight from the White House. Scare tactics are obviously the purpose of this press release. A similar rebuttal would be nice to balance out the truth.