Progress Illinois

In their editorial last weekend, the Tribune relied on studies from both the Civic Federation and Civic Committee in laying out a "no tax-hike" budget plan.  But Greg Hinz reports today that the directors of both organizations take issue with some of the editorial's assumptions.  Here's the response he got from the paper:

The Tribune's John McCormick, who wrote the editorial, noted that the piece was titled "A no-tax-hike option," and stated in its second paragraph that, "We haven't voted yes or no on this."  In other words, he said, it was just a discussion starter.

I'm sorry, but that is just incredibly lame.  If you read through the entire piece, it ends with a paragraph warning that an income tax increase would "perpetuate how Illinois now does business" and "give taxpayers today's state government at tomorrow's higher price."  It's pretty darn clear where the board stands on this issue.

Yesterday, we broke the news about a sneaky effort on the part of certain Illinois House Democrats that would make it harder for aldermanic challengers to get on the ballot in the 2011 Chicago elections.  This morning, the Tribune published a full article on the subject, as well as an editorial.

The Tribune's Bob Secter has a nice and dispiriting piece today laying out the basic facts about Illinois' gigantic budget deficit. If you've read our budget coverage this past year, this won't contain any new information, but it's nice to see the Tribune devote some time and energy to explaining the dynamics at play.

What does Secter conclude? That it all starts with the state's structural deficit, which has historically been covered by skimping on pension payments and what Secter calls "fiscal tricks." When the recession hit, revenues plummeted and demand for services jumped, knocking the system "over the edge."  He notes that 80 percent of the $26 million budget is devoted to preserving funding for education and Medicaid (thus maximizing federal matching funds) and making timely debt service and reduction payments for the loans the state must repay.  When it comes to cuts, there's just very little "wiggle room" -- let alone $13 billion worth.

Read the whole piece here.

In an editorial this morning, the Tribune blasts state lawmakers -- rightfully -- for their closed-door budget briefing from the National Council of State Legislatures yesterday, concluding that the lawmakers would "rather hide behind closed doors than publicly admit to what a dreadful mess they've made of state finances."  But the editorial board goes on to write the following about the budget crisis:

What are the prospects that these pols will — out of public view — divine fixes that are fair to people who rely on state services, fair to health and other providers that deliver those services, and fair to taxpayers who bear the burden for it all?

We appreciate the Tribune's call for transparent action from the General Assembly.  But what specific "fixes" do they propose?  And what is their definition of "fair"?  Without more detail, these editorials are meaningless.