* Chicago Tribune editorial board…

Despite our misgivings, we believe the opposition alders, who have performed remarkably well in hashing together an alternative [budget] in the face of a mulish and unhelpful administration, deserve support from the full council as this budget makes its way through the process in the next few days. As Ald. Lee pointed out to the Finance Committee, the tax and fee increases in the alternative budget are overwhelmingly being levied on businesses rather than individuals — and that’s without passage of the toxic head tax. Businesses are shouldering 84% of that load while residents are absorbing 16%.

For the sake of the city, the mayor ought to make this easier for all involved and declare he will not veto this plan if it ends up being the will of the council majority, which it appears it will be.

* From the Civic Federation, which actually studies government budgets…

Unfortunately, even with these changes, the [city council] budget does not move Chicago appreciably toward long-term fiscal stability. The Mayor’s budget was structurally imbalanced, and so is the Council’s alternative. The latter—the only proposal still in play—continues to rely heavily on borrowing for operating costs and one-time revenues, increasing future costs and fiscal risk. The largest one-time revenue source is a massive, destabilizing surplus declaration and sweep of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) accounts. Contested history notwithstanding, TIF remains one of the City’s critical economic development tools. Bleeding it dry is not good policy if, as the Civic Federation believes, a growth agenda is the only path out of Chicago’s fiscal travails.

Finally, the burden of closing the budget gap continues to fall primarily on taxpayers, both individual and corporate, while substantial efficiency opportunities remain unrealized, including many identified through the City’s EY review. Most egregiously, neither the Mayor’s initial proposal nor the budget now advancing from the Council reflects meaningful burden sharing across stakeholders: non-union employees and senior executives will receive raises, and no concessions were even sought from labor unions in a heavily unionized city where labor is the largest expenditure category.

In short, the threat of a credit downgrade remains real. S&P’s concerns largely remain present in the Council’s budget, particularly the continued reliance on borrowing. While the Council’s actions represent a step toward a more responsible approach, they remain a fragile framework. As Ernest Hemingway once described failure, it can happen “gradually, then suddenly.”