Editorial: Strapped for time, Springfield punts on transit funding and reform
Despite a $1 billion shortfall that had to be plugged, the $55 billion budget proved to be anticlimactic, largely hewing to the outline Gov. JB Pritzker offered in February.
So what passed for news in the capital emanated mainly from what didn't happen rather than what did.
At the top of that list was the fiscal crisis the Chicago-area's public transit agencies are facing, which those agencies have said will mean substantial service reductions if Springfield doesn't act in the coming months.
Following the end of the session, Pritzker and legislative leaders said the General Assembly likely would take the unusual step of acting over the summer on the issue. That's good. For the sake of commuters and the region's economy, they should act well before what would normally be the next opportunity — the fall veto session in November.
Springfield should learn from the mistakes of the just-concluded session.
Everyone has known for over a year that a transit overhaul and rescue needs to happen, and yet the effort still turned into the equivalent of an all-nighter for a student who hasn't done the coursework over the semester. The mad scramble for funding sources to plug the transit agencies' $770 million budget hole foundered, as rank-and-file lawmakers, stakeholders and most importantly the public were given no time for due consideration and feedback.
The typical Springfield gambit of waiting until the eleventh hour to spring controversial initiatives on the public in order to keep determined opposition from forming backfired spectacularly.
First, late last week state Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Ram Villavalam, D-Chicago, proposed a package of revenue generators including a 50-cent surcharge on tolls, a redirection of suburban sales taxes to transit, higher suburban real estate transfer taxes and a region-wide tax on Ubers and Lyfts. Suburban officials predictably balked at the lopsided nature of that 'deal,' creating the need for an immediate Plan B.
Villavalam pivoted with only hours to spare to a $1.50 charge on delivery of most retail products. The Senate approved the so-called pizza tax, the derisive sobriquet effectively wielded by opponents, by a 10-vote margin, but the House left town without acting, an acknowledgement the votes weren't there.
That proposal deserved to die. Among other things, there's no logical reason downstate Illinoisans should pay an extra $1.50 on deliveries mainly to bail out bus and train service in the Chicago area.
Making the idea worse was that Democrats in the Senate added a provision forbidding retailers (yes, like pizza makers) from showing the tax in a separate line item on their receipts. Nothing says confidence in your own policy-making like doing your utmost to keep consumers (most of whom double as voters) from understanding why their costs have risen so much.
It was the Democratic version of President Donald Trump's temper tantrum in late April when news surfaced that Amazon was considering showing customers the cost of tariffs in their product purchases from its low-cost website dubbed Haul.
So when lawmakers reconvene to take another stab at transit reform and funding, they should learn from this setback and embrace transparency. They must be more open with the public about the tax and fee mechanisms on the table and allow time for feedback.
As we said last week before the unproductive weekend in the capital began, safe and reliable public transit is critical to the region and the state. And the need for more revenue is inescapable. But public acceptance of whatever funding solution emerges, even if grudging, is critical to ensuring this rescue mission succeeds. And to win that support, Springfield must break with the cloak-and-dagger machinations and engage the public.
For the lawmakers, there's really nothing to lose at this point by being transparent given that people now have seen the sausage-making. Thirty-two senators are on record having voted for the pizza tax and have nothing to show for it.
While we acknowledge that settling on an appropriate source of money is delicate and complicated, we believe it's not impossible to find a means the public can accept. But to achieve that, a proposal must have two attributes.
First, it has to be broadly and fairly distributed among constituencies who have a legitimate stake in the future of public transit — including, by the way, those paying CTA bus and train fares that could stand to rise a little, if only to $3 or $3.50. Second, it must be related as directly as possible to the issue at hand. Part of the problem here is that Chicago's disastrous privatization of parking meters and the Chicago Skyway has reduced some of the logical levers and private garages already are drowning in some of the highest tax rates in the nation.
Still, ride-share taxes are clearly in the same world. So for that matter is congestion pricing.
Congestion pricing in New York, even though it has been the subject of controversy, has the virtue of generating revenue for public transportation in a city that is traffic-choked by any definition. That is not to say we're advocating congestion pricing for Chicago; indeed, we have editorialized against such a charge out of concern for the massive potential harm to downtown Chicago, which needs more activity, not less. But at least congestion pricing in support of public transit can be defended on grounds that the two are related.
To its credit, Springfield made substantial progress on giving regional transit officials far more power over local systems such as the Chicago Transit Authority. Those governance provisions, which appeared to have broad support in both chambers, are crucial to giving Illinoisans outside Chicago confidence that they're not bailing out an unpopular city government without appropriate safeguards. We also see the logic of sending some money from whatever Springfield raises to improve transit downstate. That's only fair.
Failure isn't an option. Come back to Springfield this summer, lawmakers, and get this needed transit reform done the right way.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.

Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
No taxpayer-funded hate in the arts in Florida
A new law banning public funding for organizations that promote hate, including antisemitism, passed the Florida Legislature and was signed into law last week by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Sponsored. by Sen. Tom Leek (R-Ormond Beach) and Rep. Hillary Cassel (R-Fort Lauderdale), House Bill 1519 and Senate Bill 1678 will stop taxpayer money from going to people or organizations that boycott Israel. It also expands Florida's existing anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or 'BDS' law, by including academic boycotts, mandating divestment from boycotting entities. Florida will no longer allow public funds to support museums, schools or other cultural and educational institutions that promote hate speech in any form. Institutions that continue to allow or promote hate may see their public funding rescinded — for up to 10 years. As a Florida resident for more than 25 years, I have always stood up for gay rights, free speech and especially for the arts. But as a Jew — like too many of my fellow Jews — I was not fully aware of how rampant antisemitism had become in creative spaces. Since the brutal Oct. 7 attacks against Israelis, antisemitism has surged in the United States, including physical assaults and online attacks aimed at Jews and Zionists. For the first time in their lives, my children experienced antisemitism — being singled out in public as Jews and subjected to Holocaust jokes from classmates. This ancient hatred has found its way into artistic institutions, often denying Jewish and Zionist artists the opportunity to perform, exhibit, or share their work with the public. Many of these rejections come under the guise of neutrality: 'We just don't want to be part of the controversy,' they say — even when the art itself has no political content. But what they are really saying is, 'Because you're Jewish, we're holding you accountable for what is happening in the Middle East.' Worse still, some institutions actively lend their platforms to artists who use their voices to promote hatred toward Jews. Artists have the right to free speech. This is the United States, and freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. But that right does not extend to taxpayer funding. No one is entitled to public dollars to promote hate or discrimination. This new law makes that distinction clear — with consequences, especially financial ones. Since Oct. 7, 2003, hate crimes in Florida targeting Jews have doubled. That's why I, along with other activists, support this law. We believe the majority of Florida taxpayers do not support hate, and certainly do not want their money used to fund it. This law sends a simple message: no taxpayer-funded hate in Florida. It also expands the protections Florida has put in place since 2016 and again in 2024 to fight antisemitic discrimination and crime. Now, taxpayer money — whether through grants, contracts, or tax-exempt status — cannot be used to support programs or institutions that traffic in hate speech, including antisemitism. I call on our cultural and educational institutions to embrace this law and lead with integrity. Reject hate in museums, performing arts centers, and public universities. These are institutions that have long stood up for artists of every race, ethnicity, gender, and orientation. It's time to show the same commitment to Jews. I'm not asking for political loyalty or positions on global conflicts. I'm asking for consistency — stand against hate, no matter who it targets. Use your platform to speak for the marginalized and to reject discrimination in all forms. This new bipartisan law is a good step forward. It affirms that Florida taxpayers will not be forced to fund antisemitism or hate of any kind. George Lindemann Jr. is an investor, art collector and philanthropist. He is president of the board of trustees for The Bass museum on Miami Beach.


Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Suffers Double Legal Deportation Setback Within Hours
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered two deportation-related legal defeats in New York and Virginia on Tuesday. A New York judge blocked a proposal to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protections, and judges in Virginia rejected a bid to place Georgetown University academic Badar Khan Suri into immigration detention for a second time. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has made cracking down on immigration a policy priority for his second administration, deporting migrants living in the U.S. illegally and revoking the temporary protected status of migrants residing in the U.S. legally. The president recently said there were no illegal crossings into the U.S. via its southern border in May. As Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, the courts have become one of the main impediments to the Trump administration's decisions. What To Know On Tuesday, a court blocked an attempt by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to remove temporary protected status, which allows eligible nationals to live and work in the U.S., from hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants. The Eastern District of New York's Judge Brian Cogan ruled that Noem did "not have statutory or inherent authority" to remove the protections, which the Biden administration extended to February 2026. Cogan said Noem would have to wait on the "statutorily prescribed procedures Congress has enacted," preventing her from ending the protections before February. The Obama administration first issued temporary protected status for Haitian migrants in 2010 and repeatedly extended the protections. The first Trump administration attempted to end the designation in 2017, but court delays meant nothing happened until Biden took office in 2021 and continued the status. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on July 1. President Donald Trump speaking with reporters on Air Force One on July 1. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/GETTY Haiti descended into anarchy following the assassination of its president in 2021, and large swaths of the country are controlled by feuding criminal gangs. During a presidential election debate in September, Trump repeated the false claim that Haitian migrants were stealing and eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, which local authorities denied. In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also rejected the Trump administration's attempt to take Khan Suri into immigration custody for a second time, following his initial arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in March. Khan Suri was held at a Texas detention facility, but U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ordered his release in May. In their majority decision, Judges James Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin said taking Khan Suri into detention again would be a violation of habeas corpus, which prevents arrests without due legal process. The Department of Homeland Security said that while at Georgetown, Khan Suri was involved in "spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media." Khan Suri has strongly denied these claims. What People Are Saying Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, told Newsweek: "This ruling delays justice and seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers under Article II [of the Constitution]. Haiti's TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto asylum program, yet that's how previous administrations have used it for decades. The Trump administration is restoring integrity to our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe, and we expect a higher court to vindicate us in this. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side." Judges James Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin wrote in their majority opinion in Badar Khan Suri's case: "The government chose to move Suri without informing his wife or attorney of his location or custodian. If not for our conclusion that jurisdiction lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, that deliberate choice would have deprived the petitioner of any meaningful opportunity to contest his detention prior to removal to a distant jurisdiction." Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in dissent: "The district court found that he presents neither a danger to the community nor a risk of flight, which are both important considerations in rulings on pretrial release and bond pending appeal. Yet the government's jurisdictional arguments with regard to the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act] are not without considerable force." What Happens Next It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will appeal either or both of Tuesday's rulings. On June 27, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling curbing the power of lower courts to obstruct the Trump administration's policy in response to a birthright citizenship case.