Jewel No Longer

By:  Diane Benjamin

Occasionally the Bloomington elected are still pretending Bloomington is the Jewel of the Midwest.

Ask them why 56.72% of the students in District 87 qualify for free or reduced lunches?

What income qualifies?


Obviously way too many people in Bloomington aren’t able to participate in the Quality of Life they are still forced to pay for!

What about Unit 5?

Almost 34% of all those kids quality, 2969 of them qualify for free lunches.

Government has enslaved these families to a low-income, if they earn too much they won’t qualify for free lunches.  They could end up worse off paying themselves.

Quality of Life!

More tax increases are necessary, the residents of Bloomington and Normal aren’t nearly poor enough yet.

Want Social Justice?  Demand to keep the money you earned!

25 thoughts on “Jewel No Longer

  1. What we need is many more good jobs… not everyone can work at ISU, Country Financial or State Farm. We used to make things here… now with a few exceptions we make almost nothing here anymore. The folks in the startup community tell me that they are pretty much ignored or not taken seriously by leadership here. Where will the new jobs that will power our economy come from once State Farm and ISU are no longer able to be our main economic drivers? We need startups and we need new businesses to diversity our economy. More good jobs that pay a living wage can go a long way to bringing our have-nots into the world of the haves and off public support.


      1. Yes, as no one could be so stupid as to let it happen by accident. However if the poor are not producing, are they slaves? I would think that working class (anyone not in the upper 1/10 of the 1%) are the slaves that are the producers and pay exorbitant taxes to the kings.


  2. Is it odd or is it because they can pick and choose their students, that two of the Religious Schools have some of the lowest %? 3.61% and 23.58%. Could these be “For Profit Schools” or Charter Schools, which can also pick and choose students?


    1. I have no idea what you are talking about, but of course private schools would have lower numbers because people have to be able to afford to send their kids there! School vouchers would solve that. let kids go to a school that fits instead of being dumped into the assigned one.


      1. Let me help you understand. Charter Schools are not “Public Schools” Religious Schools are also not Public Schools, therefor they do not, by law, have to take every child that the parent wants to go to those schools. They have the “right” to decline your student child. Next, “For Profit Schools” are notorious for only allowing students that the school wants and those that have the money to pay for that school. If the student fails or is too much of a problem, they are turned away and all monies are kept. Instructors at these schools do not have a legal requirement to be certified as School Teachers, nor a degree ether. So if the two schools I picked out were in one of these three groups, that may very well explain the low %.


      2. “So? The education is probably better too. Sad all kids don’t get to pick the best schools. Profit or not. What difference does that make?” Well your system just eliminated children from poorer family’s but who’s child is maybe more intelligent. That is the difference. It is a form of Segregation by wealth. If Illinois were to start using tax money from a money starved fund, such as the Education Fund, it would not only deplete that money faster but deprive “Public Education” of the moneys it was designed for. Just not right, period.


      3. “Again, vouchers solve that problem!” And where do those come from and who pays for it, and out of which pocket, so to speak?


      4. “State sends the money to kids, not schools. Actually, the kid would select a school and then the money would be sent. Same with property tax money”
        So does the State come up with the “Voucher money” thru some new form of tax money or is it, as is the case, deducted from the Education Fund which is already broke? And this is my last attempt to get you to say the right thing..


    2. Dawson–Parochial schools usually have a small student/teacher ratio and are subsidized by the Parish community. The tuition is very high. Those parishioners who can’t afford the tuition receive scholarships. In general, the student body is above average financially and academically. Look at CCHS. The acceptance to a high ranking University is the norm.


    1. Susie–The “negative” is the fact that nearly 60% of District 87 (Bloomington) students qualify for free/reduced meals because their families can’t afford to provide for their children because their income is suppressed.
      Believe it or not, lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the level of personal and corporate income. Corporate income allows business to expand and hire more people. Personal income allows individuals greater purchasing power which generates demand for business production. The upward economic cycle actually generates more taxes without raising the individual’s tax rate. It’s a win-win. There is nothing “negative” about a win-win scenario.


  3. Think the point being missed–and absolute scandal–is that a family of 4 can earn something above $50,000 a year adjusted gross income and STILL receive reduce priced lunches. We are talking about leaches, not truly “needy” here. Ditto with Obamacare insurance subsidies. Democrat vote buying.


    1. Maggie–the annual income of $53K for a family of 5 qualifies for a reduced lunch. I don’t know what the % discount is. An annual income for a family of 5 can be no more than $37K to qualify for free lunches. When my children were in school at District 87 10 years ago, lunches were at least $3/day/child–that’s $45/week for school lunches for 3 children.


    1. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between giving people a helping hand and enslaving them to constant handouts. Why are cities run by Democrats suffering inner city blight and flight? Not to mention the violence they fail to stop!


    2. Sorry sam (sic), but people making AGI of $53,000 are NOT poor, by ANY definition. But, as Diane would say, “Thanks for playing”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s