79 Comments - TominChicago - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:09 am: I do not. Why punish the majority for the actions of a few Cov-idiots.. - Just Me 2 - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:10 am: Maybe not federal funds intended to help fight COVID, but yes on LGDF funds. Communities that open early are not just jeopardizing their health, but the health of the communities around them. - Michael Westen - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:11 am: A real man of the people, this Governor is. - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:12 am: I absolutely support the idea of withholding funds from non compliant areas. They want to go it alone so let them. Sometime actions must have consequences. We meaning the areas that comply will end up bailing them out anyway why reward them for their foolishness? - NIU Grad - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:12 am: I’m hesitant…we’re about to enter very dire straits and I don’t like the idea of people within these cities/counties paying the price for the negligence of their elected officials. Even though a majority of the people elected them, why should everyone who lives there get punished… - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:16 am: I’m torn, but didn’t you post something yesterday about the Governor not shooting the hostages? I kind of agree with that sentiment. I’d like to learn more about the possible liability ramifications if private business operate outside of the state’s guidance. That’s the hammer that we need, so I’d like to pursue that first. To the question, I would support this only as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted. - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:16 am: Yes. The bootstrappers can lift themselves up. - Elliott Ness - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:16 am: Very bad idea, sort of Raunerish…seems like many will be punished and possibly harmed by this, it is anger speaking. - A Jack - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:17 am: Yes, I would support that since those counties could cost the state money if they cause a virus flare up by reopening too soon. People would get sick and require lengthy hospitalization which would cost the state in any number of ways: lost sales tax revenue and lost state income tax if they previously worked from home. - CG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:17 am: Absolutely not. While I do not support the outliers that are not following data or science, there are many in those communities that would also suffer greatly. Further, even assuming that it is legal, I think it is an inappropriate disruption to the balance of power between the state and local governments. We don’t have a King of the country; and we also don’t have a King of this state. - City Zen - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:18 am: A trust fund kid treating us like trust fund kids. No thanks. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:18 am: Dangerous way to govern; Dangerous that enforcing a legal (that’s the premise I’m accepting) move to withhold money for so many who may also disagree with their governing body. Governors always own, this would be one that really could haunt in a long run type of goodwill… goodwill needed for so many other things within the pandemic. - 44th - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:19 am: Be careful JB, the feds will do this to the whole state in ways you can’t anticipate. Time to tailor the response much faster. Nursing home related deaths make up about 50% of the deaths, I’d like to see total priority efforts on this vulnerable segment, rather than chasing counties around. We need to be able to have some authority left by the time this is over to deal with hotspots and breakouts. - Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:20 am: Yes I encourage JB to withhold support to the counties and communities that are exercising local control. Defunding these communities would be the cherry on the top of his overreach cake. - RuralKing - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:20 am: IF the Illinois Supreme Court upholds the Governor’s EO authority, then it might be appropriate to withhold state funds…but in no way should federal funds be withheld. But, I would also support the federal government applying the same carrot-stick approach with the states…reopen soon or risk diminished federal assistance. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:20 am: ===liability ramifications=== I’m here as well. Can’t tell me it’s safe to open and also tell me there’s a need for legal immunity. Nope. Doesn’t work that way in a global pandemic. Liability? Welp, now you’re liable. - Jeremy Karliin - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:21 am: While I agree with the desire to encourage compliance by counties and municipalities, I believe this is heavy-handed and as some previous posters said punishes the compliant citizens along with the non-compliant. Individuals have been choosing with their feet (as it was written in previous article here on the site) to comply or not. I’m afraid that relying on people to make good choices for themselves is all we can hope for. (Fingers crossed). The only way that the Governor has cover to use more coercive tools like this one is if we see a jump in the positivity numbers. - Practical Politics - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:21 am: No, I do not. It also seems to be the height of hypocrisy for some Illinois government officials to propose withholding funds from local governments while arguing that the Federal government may not withhold funds from sanctuary cities. - Bruce (no not him) - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:21 am: Seems to tie right in with the idea of withholding from states with sanctuary cities. Be very careful of what you wish for. - Nick - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:22 am: I’m going to put myself down as reluctantly in support. I think there are a ton of officials out there who are trying to do the right thing. But between listening to bad actors, the loudest voices, or bad science, are willing to make a bad trade-off and put the public health at risk just to re-open a couple of weeks sooner. A city or municipality eschewing the order here or there was probably tolerable. But if entire country governments start ignoring the state, that’s going have to invite a response. And given that state police don’t have the ability to enforce it themselves, the next best thing is the power of the purse. - Norseman - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:23 am: Yes. But it has to be related to the response to pandemic. If you don’t hold out some stick, it becomes worthless. JB has already taken a soft line by saying its a local enforcement issue and winking as the locals respond mildly for the most part. The bomb throwers see their opening and are running for it at full speed. - Concerned Voter - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:23 am: So, it would be okay for him to withhold funds for counties not complying with his order. But he would argue it’s not okay for the federal government to withhold money from sanctuary cities or states? Can’t have it both ways. - cover - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:24 am: The General Assembly needs to take swift, stern action to ensure that (a) the Governor’s sequential emergency declaration Executive Orders are both valid and have the full force of law, and (b) rather than punish potentially innocent parties, provide for sanctions against sheriffs/police chiefs who refuse to follow state law. - BW - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:25 am: Can someone remind us what JB’s position was on the Federal Government witholding funds to sanctuary cities? - WacoKid - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:27 am: Absolutely not in favor. This would just be throwing gasoline on the fire. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:27 am: I do — but it’s not really withholding funds. I am generally a fan of cooperative federalism. It’s not withholding funds, it’s making specific requirements to receive the funds. Making one of those requirements that the local government adhere to the state’s plan is appropriate. Every local government grant I have ever seen had both rules for how the funds could be spent and requirements to qualify for them — even requirements completely unrelated to the use of funds. The funds were issued to the state for the state to distribute as they saw fit — a local government claiming everything is fine is also a local government explaining why they don’t need financial support. Folks made decisions at the ballot box, and now those folks have elected leaders. If their elected leaders choose to ignore science and government imprudently, they have a recourse to ask those leaders to stop and to replace them. By default some municipalities are going to get more funds than others, and there are going to be rules. If a municipality can’t follow the guidance of the IDPH or their local health departments, I would wonder if they would be able to use any grant funds within the scope of their required use. Grants always have strings attached. There’s no good reason to avoid giving these grants strings. - NorthsideNoMore - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:27 am: No way ….The state already throws all kind of un- or underfunded mandates on counties and municipals, this would make it it even worse for them. Locals leaders are answerable to their neighbors not those that live in ivory towers. Walk through your grocery store and get that perspective. - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:27 am: Perhaps I was too absolute. I see Trump May try to deny aid to states that allow sanctuary laws. It is a health crisis and an economic crisis and we are one state so I will be wushu washy and say let’s take care of the people all the people - ChicagoKevin - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:28 am: Absolutely I would support this. Why should Chicagoland bear the burden of these inconveniences? If downstate or McHenry or wherever thinks they are above the law then they should be held fully accountable. That includes the residents that elected these criminals. There should be zero tolerance for non-compliance and serious ramifications for such. - cermak_rd - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:28 am: Liability should be considered first for businesses that open in defiance. After that let it be determined by the Feds. If they punish blue states or “sanctuary cities” then yes, absolutely, the state will need every penny and no need to benefit non-team playing counties. Fair is fair. - Federal Money - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:29 am: So, let’s take the Governor’s logic in this and somme of the folks comments. Should the Federal Govt withhold Feds or give those states less $$$ that had little or no money rainy day funds, have run their states into the ground by the continual expansion of programs with no fiscal responsibility. And/or those states that are wrought with corruption. Just asking - Nick - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:32 am: The people going “but sanctuary cities” aren’t really making as much of a point as they think. The anti-commandeering doctrine has long been established, and the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. Sanctuary Cities are not a case of breaking any federal law. Whereas there’s never been any such protections for a county or local government, which are defined totally at the state level anyway, directly going against state laws. - Pyrman - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:33 am: I would not support the withholding of funds. Too many innocent people would be harmed. The Gov knows this and won’t enact any such policy. - Bigtwich - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:33 am: I really want to say yes. I view these funds as being provided to deal with COVID-19 problems. Why should they be sent somewhere that proclaims hey, not a problem here. But, no. - Jibba - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:34 am: I want to say yes but I’m going to say no. If places are able to reopen in a couple of weeks anyway, it seems petty to go after them. And when the early openers will need to close down again in 2-3 weeks due to rising cases, he will need a stick at that point to make it happen. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:35 am: If the confederate flag, “build the wall” folks are using it to show their racist ways are good… maybe it’s *not* the best plan of action? - SSL - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:36 am: I don’t support it and I really doubt he would seriously consider doing it. He can say it as a way to get people’s attention, but he seems very focused on getting compliance without resorting to heavy handed enforcement. - fs - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:38 am: == The anti-commandeering doctrine has long been established, and the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law.== Withholding funds in response to not enforcing Federal law is not a commandeering violation. It’s in fact a pretty long standing accepted way around commandeering restrictions. - Ray Gun - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:38 am: It would seem that starting this sort of war would end poorly for the Governor. It would be a “beatings will continue until morale improves” kind of approach. I would also say that Pritzker said he would “consider it.” I considered having toast this morning for breakfast. I ended up having a bagel. Pritzker’s overall demeanor seems to indicate that he is not willing to press the red button of enforcement from the top down. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:41 am: ===But he would argue it’s not okay for the federal government to withhold money from sanctuary cities or states? Can’t have it both ways. === This is apples to oranges. There’s a difference between saying “One must do X, Y, and Z to qualify for the funds” and “If you don’t stop doing [insert demand] I am taking money away from [already funded, approved, qualified revenue stream that exists under statute]” These funds weren’t specifically allocated in the appropriation that the state received. The state has the authority to make rules attached to them. Pritzker isn’t talking about withholding the local portion of the Sales Taxes. For our local government this money isn’t there’s yet. The state has to decide how to give it to them. ===un- or underfunded mandates on counties and municipals=== A lot of the time this is just a case of wanting the money without having to follow rules or have any regulations. It’s the 21st century. We’ve got plenty of examples of what happens when small local governments are given generous public money without enough rules attached. Things get built that shouldn’t be. Regulations aren’t followed or enforced. Cousins get unnecessary jobs. Businesses get ridiculous contracts. An “unfunded mandate” is another way for our state and federal government to tell local governments to get their act together. If the local government can’t afford to operate in the 21st century, they should be consolidated. - Cool Papa Bell - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:41 am: Nope. He’s says we are All in Illinois and One Illinois. Prove it. Keep out of the mud on this issue and treat citizens fairly no matter where they live. - Southern - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:42 am: There’s got to be some other solution. Maybe get a court order declaring the local county’s or city’s health department is failing in its mission, then have the state health department step in? That’d be a hornet’s nest, but not sure what other viable options are out there. Maybe seek fines against the individual officeholders, or seek their removal from office? - Nick - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:42 am: To Jibba’s point, the problem here is that a couple weeks can make a *huge* difference when it comes to epidemiology. Weeks can be the difference between thousands or even tens of thousands of future cases, and resultant deaths. Timing is everything here, which is why local communities deciding to play doctor can have such large consequences. - Simply Sayin' - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:44 am: With the premises that its legal, I would say go ahead and withhold the federal monies until they are compliant. If a county doesn’t think the Governor’s actions are legal, sue. If residents of a county don’t like how the Governor is handing this pandemic, offer up a reasonable alternative candidate in 2022. Otherwise, follow the reopening plan or wait for your money until you do. - Cheryl44 - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:48 am: I would like to support this but I can’t. I don’t mind him using it as a threat or, heaven forefend, a last resort. But he can start with ripping up licensed for businesses which open before they’re supposed to. - Where is the AG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:49 am: Withholding fedfunds should be done selectively, in ways that do not damage people who need assistance. Better routes of enforcement include: - strict and vigorous state business license enforcement - KWAME RAOUL DOING HIS JOB - RNUG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:51 am: Before we start talking about punative actions of any sort, I think the legal status of the Governor’s various emergency orders needs to be clatified. The IL SC needs to rule or the Legislature needs to make clear their intent with the Emergency Powers the Governor is, presumably, still operating under. You can’t judge whether an action would be legal or illegal when you don’t start with a valid premise. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:54 am: Support. This is how federal speed limit restrictions were imposed on states. Any state technically could set the speed limits on interstates within their state boundaries to any limit they wanted. If they didn’t set it to the federal 55 limit, they didn’t get any federal highway funds. I see no reason this is any different, other than the scale involved. If these counties or areas want to go it alone, then they can go it alone - and accept the consequences of that. Since they all are claiming this has to do with freedom, why wouldn’t they continue? Unless of course their rhetoric is empty pandering. Is it punishing the locals? Not really. They collectively elected these people. Elections have consequences. - Nick Name - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:55 am: Yes. These people are a public menace. - Responsa - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:56 am: For JB to withhold money from counties/regions he disagrees with is a terrible idea. Instead, he needs to try to understand that many people in Illinois are hurting and are increasingly willing to resist/abandon the lockdowns because they see that the facts on which the arguments for the lockdowns were based have clearly changed over the last weeks and months as more has been learned about the virus. This is a time not for punishment but for honest re-evaluation when it comes to justifying which restrictions we need in place and which ones are not needed anymore in certain areas. - Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:58 am: Like the health and police powers argument in withholding federal funding to sanctuary cities and municipalities? The courts keep swatting down those arguments. Refusing to enforce orders is now accepted behavior by liberal politicians. How is this so different? The entire state will become infected if a diner in Southern Illinois reopens using guidelines to attempt to safely serve customers and hopefully bring in 25% of the gross income you once had pre-pandemic? Who can survive on a 75% reduction in earnings? A handful of Billionaires including this Governor perhaps. The rest of the residents of this State? Nope. - Nick - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:58 am: ===Withholding funds in response to not enforcing Federal law is not a commandeering violation. It’s in fact a pretty long standing accepted way around commandeering restrictions.=== They still can’t cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion. A 5 percent haircut to highway funding for abiding by the national drinking age is one thing, totally withholding all federal justice funds because a state or local government won’t help federal authorities enforce federal immigration law is another. - DuPage Dave - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:59 am: Withholding funds is a bad idea. Pritzker should think it over again. It does not help anyone that needs help and is punitive without targeting those who need to be punished (i.e., local officials breaking the stay home order). I think so far Pritzker has done a very good job of managing this mess. No need now to get caught up in some petty disputers. - RNUG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 10:59 am: == (b) rather than punish potentially innocent parties, provide for sanctions against sheriffs/police chiefs who refuse to follow state law. == Again, need to determine is state law is, in fact, state law first. - Practical Politics - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:00 am: Some of the “build the wall” folks want enforcement of Congressionally enacted statutes that have been upheld as constitutional. There is also the legal concept of the supremacy of Federal laws on given subjects. - Louis G Atsaves - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:00 am: Sorry. Left out my last sentence: This is a terrible idea that is going nowhere. - JoanP - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:08 am: If funds could be withheld only from the covidiots who reopen, I’d say yes. But there are decent, sensible folks in these areas who need the help, and I’d hate to see them hurt because of the actions of a few. So “no”. - Where is the AG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:15 am: ==Again, need to determine is state law is, in fact, state law first.== If only there were some sort of state lawyer who could answer this question Or put a quick stop to foolishness like Madison County’s “reopening” vote - Concerned Voter - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:17 am: I guess I don’t quite see it as apples to oranges. I look at it as there are cities and states that wish to not adhere to federal immigration regulations. Compare that to counties and localities that no longer want to adhere to and are questioning the reasoning of the governor’s decision and the validity of his power to make extensions of it. - Norseman - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:21 am: === Withholding funds is a bad idea. Pritzker should think it over again. === Pritzker doesn’t want to do this, but he has to hold out the possibility or it will become a free- for-all among the local pols who are too cowardly to make the hard decisions. And I’m especially referring to the collars and Metro East. They clearly should be vigilant because they’re in hot areas. - @misterjayem - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:28 am: “Do you support withholding state aid (including federal pass-through money) from local governments which reopen ahead of the state’s schedule (as long as it’s legal to withhold it)?” I’m against it because I suspect that it wouldn’t hold up in court, and swinging a big stick only to have it taken away would weaken the governor’s position. Plus and what JoanP said. – MrJM - Huh? - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:34 am: If the local officials are making official statements or actions and refusing to abide by or enforce the stay at home orders, then by all means withhold the money. - BCOSEC - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:54 am: More commenters need to read and consider the posts made by RNUG. RNUG had maybe the best virus post I have read here recently and again is spot on here. Too many assumptions are being made about what the governor can and cannot do in this situation under the Federal and Illinois Constitutions as well as Illinois law. It is certainly less than clear. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:59 am: No, not during a pandemic. I do support figuring out a way, long term, to stop giving a disproportionate amount of my tax dollars to hypocritical government hating trough gorgers, both in Illinois and federally. - JS Mill - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 11:59 am: The more reactionary side of me says “Yes” go ahead and withhold the funds. The logical/ethical side of me says no, so I vote “No” and hope Pritzker who seems like a good person does not do this and lose the moral and ethical high ground. Those that violate the orders or are grandstanding are still in the vast minority. Don’t be Trump and remember that you represent all of Illinois, even the people that disagree with you. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 12:07 pm: Lord this state is dysfunctional. IL Supreme Court doesn’t consider THIS a moment worth skipping the appellate process? Presuming the orders are legal, what would be the alternatives (as I’d prefer that to withholding funds)? Can local officials be ordered to enforce the law and what are the potential legal consequences? Is there a route these “leaders” can be sued as individuals, a la the federal 1983 actions? Sometimes that’s the biggest motivator. - Blue Dog Dem - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 12:10 pm: my argument has,and will be, why are nurseries,lawn care services, liquor stores, pot dispensaries, etc…allowed to open. But someone, this governor deems essential vs non essential. It wasn’t science. It wasn’t the medical community. Why road projects allowed to continue. Big deal if they are delayed. - zatoichi - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 12:12 pm: No. Get GA to update EO regs that will pass the courts. Let Fed dollars be used as intended since it usually helps people. Those business licenses become a whole other issue. Don’t want to comply, maybe you should have your license pulled. Local health dept not doing its job, let the state take over. - Frumpy white guy - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 12:54 pm: So sad that were even at this point. Can you imagine if we were in the 1940’s with the same group of Political radicals? Could we have won World War II? Would this population of crazy cowboys and cowgirls have been able to deal with not getting their way? Oh how the times have changed. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 1:17 pm: Blue, do you ever do anything other than ask questions you can easily answer yourself? There are different factors that can increase or decrease risk. Being outside reduces risk. I’m not 100% you can actually read for comprehension, but in case you’ve managed to master that skill, try this: https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR0vsSl3OLcKYZFeu-g_5O046gRWSUPWnBBv0LSNPzA4UL5xvZvV6fyhAyM You’re welcome. Now instead of asking questions, you can go back to complaining about whatever it is that’s grinding your gears today. - Truthteller - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 1:18 pm: All about risk, if any business reopens in defiance of a public order then that business should face consequences. Simple. That business owner should be held liable for any employee or customer who may get Covid-19. Pretty simple. You want to take the risk means you are willing to pay a price. - Commonsense in Illinois - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 1:42 pm: Yes. We’ve discussed here many times that elections have consequences. So do the decisions of those elected. Thus far, the law suits and last night’s vote by the Madison County Board were advancing political considerations. The Governor’s declarations, at least thus far, have been made based on public health/medical evidence. Choose wisely locals. - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 2:22 pm: I don’t think that’s a good approach. You are punishing everyone for the actions of a few. I do believe that those businesses that choose to open up should be individually punished however. Take away professional licenses. Take away their food establishment licenses. Take away their alcohol sales licenses. They will think twice if their livlihood is threatened permanently. - park - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 2:31 pm: No. Will just result in more litigation. And its federal aid, not state money. Different if the GA took action on it. Doubt they would even if in session. - theCardinal - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 3:03 pm: Chicago Kev -by serious ramifications you mean rounding up the infidels and hosting some public riducule session or like jailing them? Get out of Cook Co go south or west its a different world and different standards/applications might apply…Happens every day. To wit , In Cook county if you commit a serious crime you may well be released in a few days because of any miriad of real or made up reasons. Not so much out yonder where the troglodytes dwell. Common sense = One size doesn’t fit all. - RNUG - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 3:29 pm: == Is there a route these “leaders” can be sued as individuals == Public officials generally have qualified immunity to personal lawsuits over actions taken in their official public position. Not that there aren’t exceptions, but not easy to get around that. - MyTwoCents - Wednesday, May 13, 20 @ 3:46 pm: I think Candy Dogood is on to something. If the Feds allow the states to set the rules for distribution of CARES Act funds for local governments with populations under 500,000 then why shouldn’t the State set some requirements for the counties and towns to receive the funds? - Rh - Thursday, May 14, 20 @ 6:34 am: Grants come with requirements. If you find the requirements untenable then you are choosing to not receive the grant. It is a local choice. - peanut - Monday, May 18, 20 @ 12:32 pm: Yes. if local law enforcement wont enforce then they are also guilty of any illness or death that results from those businesses allowed to violate the states shelter in place. also if the business loses their license they wont be eligible for the government loans to pay employees and their business insurance wont be in effect. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.