Editorial: Strapped for time, Springfield punts on transit funding and reform

State lawmakers left a large pile of major issues on their agenda for the waning hours of the 2025 spring session. Very few of them were addressed other than the must-pass budget for fiscal 2026. Color us unsurprised.
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

'Baby steps': Leader Thune details his work to corral Republicans behind Trump's legislative vision

Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 22, 2025 FIRST ON FOX: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is weathering headwinds in his own conference over outstanding concerns in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" that threaten to derail the legislation, but he's taking it in stride and standing firm that the megabill will make it to the president's desk by July 4. "We have to hit it, and you know whether that means it's the end of next week, or whether we roll into that Fourth of July week," the South Dakota Republican told Fox News Digital during an interview from his leadership suite. "But if we have to go into that week, we will," he continued. "I think it's that important. And you know what I've seen around here, at least in the past, my experience, if there's no deadline, things tend to drag on endlessly." TOP TRUMP ALLY PREDICTS SENATE WILL BLOW PAST 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' DEADLINE Senate Republicans have been working on their version of Trump's mammoth bill, which includes priorities to make his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, sweeping changes to healthcare, Biden-era energy credits and deep spending cuts, among others, since the beginning of June. Now that each portion of the bill has been released, Thune is eyeing having the bill on the floor by the middle of next week. But, he still has to wrangle disparate factions within the Senate GOP to get on board with the bill. "It is a work in progress," Thune said. "It's, you know, sometimes it's kind of incremental baby steps." A cohort of fiscal hawks, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are unhappy with the level of spending cuts in the bill. Some Senate Republicans want to achieve at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson has remained firm in his belief that the bill should go deeper and return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic spending levels. Others, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are upset with tweaks to Medicaid, and the impact those changes could have on rural hospitals and working people on the healthcare program's benefit rolls. 'IT JUST BAFFLES ME': SENATE REPUBLICANS SOUND ALARM OVER MEDICAID CHANGES, SPENDING IN TRUMP MEGABILL Thune has to strike a precarious balancing act to sate the concerns of his conference, given that he can only afford to lose three votes. It's a reality he acknowledged and described as trying to find "the sweet spot" where he can advance the bill back to the House. He's been meeting with the factions individually, communicating with the White House and working to "make sure everybody's rolling in the same direction." "Everybody has different views about how to do that, but in the end, it's cobbling together the necessary 51 votes, so we're working with anybody who is offering feedback," he said. Collins and others are working on the side to create a provider relief fund that could offer a salve to the lingering issues about the crackdown on the Medicaid provider rate tax in the bill. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that, for example, rural hospitals have some additional assistance to sort of smooth that transition," Thune said. BLUE STATE REPUBLICANS THREATEN REVOLT AGAINST TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' IF SENATE CHANGES KEY TAX RULE Thune, who is a member of the Finance panel, noted that "we all agree that the provider tax has been gamed" and "abused" by blue states like New York and California, and argued that the changes were done to help "right the ship" in the program. "I think that's why the sort of off-ramp, soft-landing approach [from] the Finance committee makes sense, but these are substantial changes," he said. "But on the other hand, if we don't start doing some things to reform and strengthen these programs, these programs aren't going to be around forever, because we're not going to be able to afford them." The Senate's product won't be the end of the reconciliation process, however. The changes in the bill will have to be green-lit by the House, and one change in particular to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap already has a cohort of blue state House Republicans furious and threatening to kill the bill. The Senate's bill, for now, left the cap unchanged at $10,000 from the policy ushered in by Trump's first-term tax cuts, a figure that Senate Republicans view as a placeholder while negotiations continue. Indeed, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is working with members of the SALT caucus in the House to find a compromise on the cap. But the appetite to keep the House-passed $40,000 cap isn't strong in the Senate. "The passion in the Senate is as strong as it is in the House against changing the current policy and law in a way that… favors high-tax states to the detriment and disadvantage of low tax states," he said. "And so it's the emotion that you see in the House side on that particular issue is matched in the Senate in a different direction." Meanwhile, as negotiations continue behind the scenes on ways to address issues among Senate Republicans, the Senate Parliamentarian is currently chunking through each section of the greater "big, beautiful bill." The parliamentarian's role is to determine whether policies within each section of the bill comport with the Byrd Rule, which is the arcane set of parameters that govern the budget reconciliation process. Thune has made clear that he would not overrule that parliamentarian on Trump's megabill, and re-upped that position once more. The reconciliation process gives either party in power the opportunity to pass legislation on party lines and skirt the Senate filibuster, but it has to adhere to the Byrd Rule's requirements that policy deals with spending and revenue. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP However, he countered that Senate Republicans planned to take a page from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., when Democrats rammed former President Joe Biden's agenda through Congress. "The Democrats with the [Inflation Reduction Act] and [American Rescue Plan Act], for that matter, they dramatically expanded the scope of reconciliation and what's eligible for consideration," he said. "So, we've used that template, and we're pushing as hard as we can to make sure that it allows us to accomplish our agenda, or at least as much of our agenda as possible, and fit within the parameters of what's allowed," he continued. Print Close URL

Politico

an hour ago

• Politico

Senate parliamentarian greenlights state AI law freeze in GOP megabill

The Senate's rules referee late Saturday allowed Republicans to include in their megabill a 10-year moratorium on enforcing state and local artificial intelligence laws — a surprising result for the provision that's split the GOP. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) rewrote a House-passed AI moratorium to try to comply with the chamber's budgetary rules. His version made upholding the moratorium a condition for receiving billions in federal broadband expansion funds. Both parties made their arguments before the parliamentarian Thursday. 'It's good policy,' Cruz said of the moratorium in a recent interview. Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) has also defended the provision, saying it's necessary to avoid a 'labyrinth of regulation' with '50 different states going 50 different directions on the topic of AI regulation.' Though the parliamentarian delivered a victory for Republicans, a number of conservative senators including Sens. Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), have vocally opposed the provision. Hawley has vowed to work with Democrats on an amendment to remove the language once the megabill hits the floor. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and the House Freedom Caucus have also opposed the AI moratorium, with Greene threatening to oppose the megabill H.R. 1 (119) if the legal freeze remains.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Iran: US ‘decided to blow up' diplomacy

Iran's top diplomat said the U.S. 'decided to blow up diplomacy' to end fighting with Israel by joining strikes against the country late Saturday night. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci further warned of 'everlasting consequences' as the region is thrust into an unpredictable conflict following President Trump's announcement that the U.S. had carried out multiple strikes against at least three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Aragachi posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. He also warned that Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people. Trump, meanwhile, warned in a post on social media against Iran striking back against the U.S. and has called for Iran to make 'peace.' 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,' Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social. Aragachi sought to lay out the case that Trump's strike against Iran was illegal. He said the U.S. 'decided to blow up' diplomatic efforts by the European Union, France, the United Kingdom and Germany to reach a ceasefire with Israel. Aragachi suggested the U.S. was in collusion with Israel to end diplomatic talks to reach an agreement between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program. One of the main objectives of U.S. talks with Iran is to get Tehran to give up its uranium enrichment capabilities. 'Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy. What conclusion would you draw?' he posted on X. Republicans and some Democrats have lined up behind Trump's Saturday night decision to join Israeli strikes against Iran, which began on June 13. But international officials have warned against the escalation of the conflict. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the U.S. took action to 'alleviate' the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons, but warned the situation in the Middle East 'remains volatile.' He called for a return to diplomacy. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis,' he posted on X. The director general of the international nuclear watchdog IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said he is convening an emergency meeting of the organization's board of governors for Monday. United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in a statement that he is 'gravely alarmed' by the U.S. use of force against Iran and called for de-escalation. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world,' he said.