A reader emailed the following question Thursday:

Could you please … report on what effect President Obama's commitment to freezing discretionary spending for the next 3 years would have on the small amount of Federal dollars states receive in Education Funding?

I responded with the following observations:

That's a good question. To put it into perspective, the federal government provided 14.6% of all funding for Illinois education in FY 2009 as a result of decisions by the Obama Administration, by far the largest share in history, even though he was in office for only the last half of the state fiscal year. (See this data from the ISBE 2009 annual report.)  I am unsure of the total federal share for the current fiscal year, but it is certain to be comparable.

That is, Obama has built the base of federal funding for education to historic levels.

When he announced the freeze, I also wondered about its effects. But he said it will not take effect until the coming fiscal year, which for the federal government begins in October. Therefore, his action freezes in place the increases he has brought about under the rationale of national economic recovery. I believe it is likely that, without the freeze, there would be huge pressure on his administration to reduce the school funding base back to the lower levels provided by the feds before the economic downturn.

If so, then his discretionary spending freeze in fact preserves the truly huge gains in federal support for education that were enacted after he became President.

For many, that is not necessarily a positive thing. In my view, the state should increase its share relative to both the federal and local (property tax-supported) shares. Illinois has a property tax rate that is higher than the national average, creating resource disparities and inadequate funding for about one-third of our school districts and also stifles the ecoomy; our reliance on that should be reduced.

The problem with federal dollars is the strings that come attached to them. Generally, I feel the standardization that is always associated with federal programs has negative consequences that often outweigh the financial benefits. School policy should remain, as the U.S. Constitution asserts, a prerogative of the states.

Will a 15% level give the federal government sufficient leverage to control education nationwide? I don't know, but I believe it might. The feds were largely in control during the years when they were contributing 9-10%. My view is that public education is the backbone of democracy and it should not be subject, nationwide and forever, to the decisions of a single elected official, not just Obama but any President.

Although it is a fact that Obama is trying to add to the federal outlay for Race to the Top funding and is pushing for other ways to increase support for competitive education programs, in retrospect my sense that the base will not shrink in FY 2011 is probably wishful thinking. But with the federal education act up for reauthorization this year (they won't call it No Child Left Behind again) anything is possible. There is room for optimism. I'd be interested in anyone else's take on this subject.

What about state support for education - or anything else?

As you may have read, with no planned continuance of federal ARRA funds for state FY 2011, the General Assembly will have to come up with about $1 billion just to maintain funding to schools at current levels. And that would be impossible without significant increases in state revenue - a major income tax increase and a likely expansion of the sales tax base to cover luxury services commonly taxed in other states.

But word from the Capitol is no tax hike, no way, before the November 2 general elections.

Now a group called the Responsible Budget Coalition has been formed around the theme: "We can't wait." The list of participating organizations goes on forever. You are probably a member of one or more of them. What do they want? They want legislation generating revenue at least equal to the amounts that would flow from the income tax hike and sales tax expansions carried in HB 174 - and they want legislators to pass such a bill "as soon as possible."

As soon as possible could be February 3, when the General Assembly returns to Springfield. After all, HB 174 has already been passed by the Senate. It now resides back in the House, carrying Senate amendments, which would become law on a simple-majority vote in the House to concur with those amendments. Gov. Pat Quinn supported the Senate's action last spring and would surely sign it into law.

But the Coalition isn't counting on that, as well they shouldn't. House Speaker Michael Madigan would require the Republican caucus to cast at least a few votes for the bill, to keep it "bipartisan" (although no Republicans in the Senate supported it), and without such a commitment he will not let the bill come to a vote in the House. In this respect, it doesn't really matter what the other 117 members of the House think. The bill is stalled.

The Coalition hopes to unstall it, or get an even larger revenue bill passed, with a rally at the Capitol on February 17. Rallies rarely work unless they are truly huge. This one has a chance to be monstrously large, given the number of organizations involved. They have even set up a way for all participants to carry posters bearing photos of themselves, family members and friends. Check it out at the Voices for Illinois Children web site.

Wednesday, February 17 is a session day. All the legislators will be at the Capitol. How about you?