CTBA Plan vs.

Houlihan Plan vs.

Gidwitz Plan vs.

 Quinn Constitutional Amendment (CA) 

It is imperative that we not only understand what these four plans do – and do not – provide, but that we also get the word out to others about the shortcomings of three of them.  While the Better Funding for Better Schools Coalition has not endorsed the CTBA (Center for Tax and Budget Accountability) plan, we do find it the most viable.  We encourage school districts across the state to invite Ralph Martire from CTBA to their own communities for a town meeting to discuss public school funding reform and property tax relief.

Thank you to Ursula Ahern of Community Consolidated School District 46 in Lake County for her help in putting together this comparison.

CTBA Plan

This plan provides at least an additional $1.8 Billion in the foundation level as recommended by EFAB/Augenblick & Meyers.  The increased funds would come from an increase in personal and corporate income taxes and expanding sales taxes to cover services, i.e., dog grooming, health clubs, hairdressing, landscaping, and others, which are currently untaxed.  It would provide a refundable income tax credit so the bottom 60% of all taxpayers realize no tax increase from these changes, while the bottom 20% actually realize a net tax decrease.  It would also provide a 25% reduction in property taxes currently used to fund education, in the form of an abatement from the state.  Every homeowner would be guaranteed 20% relief, and the remaining 5% would be distributed to school districts with the highest property tax effort.  It also provides additional funding for school with rapidly growing student populations. It creates a continuing appropriation, which would both require the state to satisfy its full school funding and property tax relief responsibilities annually, and allow school districts to budget responsibly from one year to the next.  Approximately $2 Billion of the increased revenue would be used to eliminate the state's structural deficit.  It is a comprehensive approach.  With this plan, Illinois remains a low-tax state, but gains a fairer, more sound and sustainable fiscal system, while improving school funding fairness. It would be accomplished through legislation and additional funds would be available to school districts as early as a few months after passage. If you would like Ralph Martire to come to your community to explain this plan, please call him at 312-332-1041 or by e-mailing his assistant Tracy Bisacky at TBisacky@ctbaonline.org, or if you want Ralph and a member of Better Funding for Better Schools Coalition to help organize a town meeting to explain not only “the plan” but the campaign, please call Sharon Voliva at 708-841-5053 or send an e-mail to SVoliva@aol.com.

Houlihan Plan

Cook County Assessor James Houlihan proposes a plan to provide an additional $1.5 Billion ($.3 Billion less than CTBA) for education.  It too would increase the personal income tax and would expand the sales tax base to services.  It provides a 50% reduction in property taxes currently used to fund education.  It would also be accomplished through legislation so that additional funds would be available to school districts very quickly.  The major differences compared to the CTBA Plan are: 1. Houlihan's plan does not fully fund the EFAB/ Augenblick & Meyers recommended foundation level ; 2. It provides too much property tax relief; and 3. It does not address the structural deficit.  Therefore, the additional funding Houlihan’s plan provides today will be gone tomorrow. Even if it were obtainable--it's not sustainable.  It's appealing--but doesn't meet the need.

Gidwitz Plan (Students First)

This plan provides at least an additional $2 Billion based on the EFAB recommendation -- the assumption is that it would also be distributed according to the existing GSA formulas.  It does not call for any additional tax dollars but instead reallocates funds from the $27 Billion in the state budget that is "discretionary”.  In this way, it is very similar to the Governor's approach – taking what is there and spreading it thinner.  It does not provide any property tax relief.  It does not address the state's structural deficit and may actually add to it since it takes funds from other necessary services.  It does not provide long-term school funding reform. It sets up a yearly tug of war for the limited resources in the state.

The Quinn Constitutional Amendment

Lt. Governor Quinn proposes to change the Constitution via an amendment that would change Illinois income tax from a flat tax to a graduated income tax.  He talks about this plan simply as taxing the wealthy at a higher level than poor and middle-income earners by taxing income over $250,000 at 6% while income under $250,000 would be taxed at 3%.  He then proposes to split the additional funds evenly between property tax relief and additional funds for schools. The Constitutional Amendment is the wrong plan as an effort to fund education at this time.  We come to this conclusion for the following reasons:

1.  It doesn't change how education is funded, merely provides a set amount per child and it doesn’t provide much money.  According to Mr. Quinn - it will provide only $277 per pupil and an equal amount of property tax relief.  Even the governor proposes to add $250 per pupil without a CA.  The EFAB recommendation was an additional $1000 per pupil in the foundation level.  

2.  It will provide exactly the same amount of money to rich and poor districts and exactly the same amount of property tax relief. Both amounts are insufficient. There is no equity in the proposal.  Communities taxing themselves at a higher percentage because of low property values or lack of industry will still be overtaxed and their schools underfunded.  (The CTBA plan addresses that concern.) 

3. There is no provision to ensure that the “lottery shell game” will not occur again.  Even if these additional dollars were available, they could be used to replace current funding (remember the lottery)—and not be in addition to current funding.  (The CTBA plan addresses that concern.) 

4.  It must receive 60% of the vote in the election to pass.  If it does not receive 60%, the governor and other legislators will characterize the "no" vote as a lack of support for increased education funding.

 5.  The vote will not be on whether rich people should pay more for education.  The question on the ballot is to change the Constitution so that Illinois income tax will go from being a flat tax to a graduated income tax.  Even if you, like me, believe that a graduated income tax is a fairer way to tax the people, we know that many Illinoisans do not agree with us.  However, their "NO" vote will be characterized as opposition to education funding.  

6.  If it does pass by the necessary 60%, it then must go through a process of court decisions to implement it.  All CAs MUST go through the courts to define what the language of the amendment actually means and how it affects or is affected by the rest of the Constitution.  Previous amendments have taken as long as 7-10 years.  Assuming that the graduated income tax CA is passed, and has gone through the courts, the legislature will still have to determine how much tax to levy and at what income levels. Then it must be signed by the governor.  Most school districts in Illinois cannot wait eight to ten years for increased funding. 

7.  While the CA is working its way through the courts, every legislator in the state, and the governor, will hide behind it, providing no long-term solution and saying the funds are coming as soon as the CA is approved by the courts. Yet it will still be up to them to determine how to implement it when the time comes so we will be back in the same boat but by then we will have waited many years.  All forward motion on school funding reform and financial improvement will come to a halt.   

 8.  The CTBA plan will never be passed and there will be no school funding reform in the next decade if Lt. Governor Quinn does this.

WE DO NOT WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT and we must get that message to Lt. Governor Quinn, so he will withdraw it from consideration and we must contact all members of the House and Senate so they will defeat any effort to put it on the ballot.

For additional information about each of their plans, talk to the writers of them.  Ask questions based on the statements above to flesh out the truth. 

Once you have ascertained for yourself, which is the right plan, please help the Coalition get the word out by sharing the information with everyone you know.

[Home] [Mission Statement] [DAY FOR CHILDREN] [Members] [One  Proposal] [Fund Erosion Causes] [Compare Plans] [Doomsday] [Fiscal Reform] [Links] [ISNS CA Options] [In the News] [Student Rally] [HB750 Support Form]

Copyright © 2003 by Better Funding for Better Schools Coalition
Contact Us

Website Design by Jeff Gargas