In response to a question last week from my associate Isabel Miller, Gov. JB Pritzker said he didn’t think a group of progressive legislators could pass their progressive revenue bills through both chambers by the end of the spring session.
“They’ve been working very hard on getting something done,” Pritzker said of the bicameral progressive effort to at least raise enough money to prevent the governor’s proposed budget cuts to a host of state programs.
However, Pritzker continued, “It doesn’t appear that they’re able to get something done through the House or the Senate right now,” adding that sometimes it takes time to accomplish “big things.” The session is scheduled to end May 31.
A list of the governor’s proposed budget cuts was circulating among state legislators last week. Many of those legislators oppose those budget cuts and want to raise “progressive revenues” to make sure the cuts don’t happen.
The total cuts they came up with are a bit more than $384 million, although they warn that their list of cuts is “nonexhaustive” and “subject to additions.”
The cuts include zeroing out a $118 million enacted appropriation in this year’s proposed budget for safety-net hospitals; an $11.4 million proposed reduction in homeless funding; halving a student loan relief program for people employed at community-based human service organizations; and cutting the percentage of state income tax revenues received by local governments, resulting in a $60 million reduction.
The current state budget funded a pilot program in five counties to bolster pretrial services. That $3.5 million wasn’t included in the governor’s proposed budget for next year. Ben & Jerry’s brought ice cream to the Statehouse last week to support the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice’s funding push to save the program.
I sent the list of cuts to the governor’s office, which disputed whether some of those cuts are actually cuts.
Several spending programs, including the $118 million for safety-net hospitals, were added last year by legislators (as is always the case with that money).
In other words, the governor doesn’t want a direct comparison of the currently enacted state budget to his proposed budget for next fiscal year. Instead, Pritzker prefers a comparison between his proposed budget last year and the new spending plan he unveiled in February.
Eight of the 19 proposed cuts the governor’s office annotated fell into that “legislative initiative” category, for about $157 million.
“What some are calling ‘cuts’ are often temporary legislative add-ons returning to normal levels, or adjustments that better reflect demand,” the governor’s office claimed via a statement.
Actually, many of those add-ons are put back every year. The safety-net hospital funding is a prime example. Legislators who represent low-income areas with financially insecure hospitals fight every single year to make sure they get some money.
“The state will continue to protect critical services and drive responsible fiscal decisions that preserve stability and support the people who rely on them most,” the statement from Pritzker’s office continued.
But the governor’s office also claims that spending for homeless people was cut because of “lower demand,” even though homelessness has increased, many programs constantly run out of money, and the wait time for single adults in the Cook County suburbs to access shelter is a whopping 122 days.
A couple of education programs were reduced because the Illinois State Board of Education asked for the reductions, the governor’s office claimed.
The progressives also tallied a $45 million property tax relief program connected to education when, in fact, it was not funded in the current budget. So at least that one item is indisputably incorrect.
The governor’s office also claimed some capital program cuts were not cuts, but those numbers weren’t included in the total bottom line on the list circulating among legislators.
And the governor’s office again pointed out that even though municipal governments are seeing a decrease in their percentage rake, he’s proposing they receive the same amount of money next fiscal year. But with inflation being what it is, no increase equals a cut.
Pritzker’s statement also pointed out the “growing budget cuts from the Trump administration all state budgets are facing across the country.”
But the Affordability and Tax Justice Coalition issued a statement in reply that addressed this point:
“We strongly believe that the answer to Trump’s cruelty is to find sustainable revenue from the wealthy and big corporations to help us avoid these painful cuts, strengthen Illinois’ finances for future fiscal years, and finally begin to fix our unfair tax system.”
And as subscribers were told this morning, this push is coming from more than just the usual progressive suspects.
- ChicagoVinny - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 8:47 am:
I get one of Pritzker’s political defeats was the progressive tax amendment, but a “once bitten, twice shy” approach is not a great way to get your base enthused about your candidacy. Whether it is in the current race or future ones.
- Big Tom - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 8:50 am:
zero-base budgeting, look it up
- Amalia - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 8:53 am:
I see the failure of the CTU leadership to win a vote on raising union dues as a clue to what the average member of the public thinks of finances in these times. Spend less.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 9:04 am:
===zero-base budgeting===
I think the term you’re looking for here is, “Governors Own.”
I’m also pretty confident that the state isn’t practicing “zero-base budgeting” but maybe there is someone pretending that’s what we’re doing somewhere.
- Think Again - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 9:16 am:
=“It doesn’t appear that they’re able to get something done through the House or the Senate right now,”
That’s a clever way of avoiding comment on, if the progressive revenue ideas are actually good or bad proposals - and with his BUILD initiative facing universal opposition by all but a few groups, he can’t take another loss - makes sense strategically
- low level - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 9:16 am:
==zero-base budgeting, look it up==
Dunning - Kruger effect, look it up.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 9:45 am:
==The total cuts they came up with are a bit more than $384 million, although they warn that their list of cuts is “nonexhaustive” and “subject to additions.”==
Holding the budgets of IDOC, ISP, and IDJJ flat instead of approving the Governor’s proposed increases from last year’s appropriations would cut $232 million ($503 million compared to estimated FY26 expenditures).
- Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 10:01 am:
===Zero Based Budgeting, Look it Up===
There’s a fallacy that ZBB results in better budgeting. ZBB actually eliminates controlled and inflationary considerations in budgeting. While it seem rudimentary and a wise strategy to control spending, it really doesn’t end up doing that in the long run, and those annual considerations are lost in agency and legislative review and oversight.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 10:25 am:
===I see the failure of the CTU leadership to win a vote on raising union dues as a clue to what the average member of the public thinks of finances in these times. Spend less.===
Rank-and-file teachers do not want to spend up to $800 of their own money to fund CORE’s political corruption and delusions of grandeur. That has nothing to do with the State budget, however.
- Amalia - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 10:56 am:
@three d checkers. Maybe. but in times when money is tight asking for $800 gives anyone pause. thinking of what you ask of the public is important.
- Sue - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 11:07 am:
There was never a chance JB was going to support a tax increase when he was running for the WH-most people believe taxes are high enough already
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 11:14 am:
===There was never a chance JB was going to support a tax increase when he was running for the WH-most people believe taxes are high enough already ===
I think that’s why folks are talking about novel approaches to make Illinois’ taxation more progressive. You’ll note that the notion of taxing billionaires these days seems to be incredibly popular.
- AlabamaShake - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 11:59 am:
**There was never a chance JB was going to support a tax increase when he was running for the WH-most people believe taxes are high enough already**
His own budget includes a “fee” on social media companies and an adjustment to the net operating loss deduction. He also supported decoupling from *some* of the HR1 provisions last November.
But don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 12:26 pm:
==most people==
You don’t speak for everyone. I suspect “most” people in Illinois actually don’t believe taxes are too high on the rich.
- Sue - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 1:26 pm:
Demoralize-Who said I attempted to speak for most people- Illinois voted overwhelmingly not to impose higher taxes based on income- and politicians must agree with me or they would raise taxes above the 5 percent level AND tax retirement income
- Demoralized - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 1:34 pm:
==Who said I attempted to speak for most people==
lol. You did. Read your own post.
And I don’t know what vote you’re talking about but it wasn’t “overwhelmingly” against.
Do better.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 1:40 pm:
===You did. Read your own post.===
True.
===it wasn’t “overwhelmingly” against. ===
The constitutional amendment lost 53-47. It needed either three-fifths or a majority of all those voting in the election. It didn’t come close to either goal.
- Downstat - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 2:16 pm:
“ The constitutional amendment lost 53-47…….”
MJM was the face of that amendment. While I’m against the change, I think the outcome would be somewhat better with him out of the “picture”.
- low level - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 3:43 pm:
==MJM was the face of that amendment. While I’m against the change, I think the outcome would be somewhat better with him out of the “picture”.==
I am absolutely in favor of the proposal but am not sure it would succeed even with MJM gone. I knew it was in trouble when several public employees expressed to me their strong opposition. The next time to try again will probably be 2030, 10 years after the last attempt. We’ll see.
- Sue - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 3:57 pm:
Rich -forgive my description but a 6 point swing when the proponents needed 60 percent is “ overwhelming”- At least that is how the entire Democrat establishment described the Virginia redistricting outcome where the number was even less overwhelming- in any event ask the same people on this blog as to their willingness to pay state income tax on their retirement income while they are urging Illinois to impose more progressive taxes
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, May 26, 26 @ 6:43 pm:
The Progressive Tax failed because it was a poorly run campaign, from the beginning. Full stop.
Pritzker does not think he can win the general election as a governor who is for tax hikes.
I don’t think he can win the primary as a governor who is against taxing billionaires.
I definitely do not think he can win as a Democrat who cut funding for safety net hospitals.
All of these things might be true.
But when you find yourself in a Catch-22 in Springfield, the best thing to do is The Right Thing and hope that path converges with The Politically Smart Thing down the road.