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 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
9 minutes ago
- New York Post
For a change, Primary Day won't decide NYC's next mayor
Don't expect a final answer on New York's future when the Primary Day polls close Tuesday night. Between absentee ballots, ranked-choice voting and the city's glacial vote-transfer process, it may take weeks to know who won the Democratic nomination. But even once the party's mayoral candidate is officially named, voters may be in for a surprise the city hasn't seen in decades. 4 Zohran Mamdani could realistically run on the Working Families Party is he loses Tuesday's primary. Robert Miller In a deep-blue city where Democrats are used to wrapping up elections in June by default, this year might be different. Advertisement That's because the Democratic frontrunners, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, may both appear on the general-election ballot regardless of Tuesday's outcome. Cuomo already secured his own 'Fight and Deliver' party line. Mamdani could keep himself in contention on the leftist Working Families Party ticket if he falls short. Advertisement After all, the party already crowned him as its No. 1 rank for mayor, suggesting its leaders are comfortable with the pro-intifada firebrand carrying their banner in November. 4 Democratic mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo speaking at a press conference in the Bronx on June 21, 2025. Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto/Shutterstock If both Cuomo and Mamdani continue past the primary, they'll likely face Mayor Eric Adams (who's seeking reelection on his own independent line), Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and lesser-known independent Jim Walden. That would create a volatile five-way general election with overlapping coalitions, unpredictable math in a five-way split of the vote and what could be Gotham's first truly competitive multi-candidate general mayoral election since 1969. Advertisement For once, New Yorkers might actually get a real choice come November. But no matter how things shake out in the coming weeks, one thing is certain: Big Apple voters are fed up. A recent Manhattan Institute poll finds 62% of likely 2025 voters say the city is on the wrong track. Advertisement That number isn't just ambient gloom — it translates into sharp concerns about safety and quality of life. Most New Yorkers want more police on the streets. Even more support cracking down on fare evasion, open-air drug use and vandalism. Democrats are no exception — a majority agree. These aren't abstract culture-war issues. They're everyday frustrations in neighborhoods that experience chronic public disorder, even as citywide crime rates begin to tick down. That's the context behind Cuomo's lead heading into Primary Day. He's running against absurdities — government-run grocery stores, letting mentally ill homeless people take over the subways and a far-left political movement that seems intent on fanning the flames of antisemitism. Who is Cuomo's base? Older women, outer-borough moderates and black and Latino voters. 4 New York Mayor Eric Adams stands silently as NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch speaks during a press conference on Public Safety at City Hall on June 03, 2025 in New York City. Getty Images Among primary voters who rank crime as their top issue, 71% pick Cuomo first; Mamdani gets just 6%. Advertisement Cuomo's critics aren't wrong — he has baggage. But Democratic voters aren't rallying around him out of adoration or nostalgia. Rather, they see him as the only viable option left who seems remotely capable of running the largest city government in the nation. Advertisement Mamdani, by contrast, is a millennial socialist with an ideological fanbase and little broader appeal. He's activated highly educated white voters and the under-35 crowd cloistered in the city's most progressive geographic enclaves along the East River. But appealing to that coalition alone won't let you sail to Gracie Mansion. 4 Guardian Angels founder and mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa attends a small protest outside a vacant lot at 2481 McDonald Avenue on Sunday, April 6, 2025. Luiz C. Ribeiro for New York Post Advertisement For years, New York's left believed it could define the terms of debate by default. This race has exposed the limits of that theory. Voters aren't rejecting progressivism because they watch too much Fox News — they're rejecting it because they live here and see its disastrous results. They've watched their neighborhoods deteriorate while elected officials chase viral moments and utopian plans. (Remember then-Mayor Bill de Blasio's promise to end the Tale of Two Cities?) Meanwhile, Sliwa and Adams both appeal to less liberal, working-class voters who disdain the progressive left. Advertisement If both campaigns go the distance, they risk splitting that vote — unless something, or someone, steps in to consolidate it. One possibility? Donald J. Trump. The president, who won 30% of the NYC vote in 2024, could intervene somehow, say by endorsing one of them — and maybe offering the other a federal appointment to take him off the board, clearing the field for a single 'law-and-order' candidate. Something like that isn't guaranteed. But in this topsy-turvy political environment, nothing can be ruled out. A creative political maneuver could redraw the entire race. The potential shakeup should not be underestimated. Tuesday may be the first vote — but it won't be the final word. As the general-election season begins, the question now is who can win over the city's exhausted middle. Voters don't want a revolution, just a mayor who can stretch their budgets and keep the streets safe and clean. That may not be a glamorous mandate. But it's the one that matters. Jesse Arm is the executive director of external affairs and chief of staff at the Manhattan Institute.
Indianapolis Star
30 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Mike Pence, other Indiana politicians praise Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
Indiana's top Republican leaders applauded U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to attack three Iranian nuclear sites, saying the strikes potentially dismantling Iran's nuclear program are a step toward peace. Gov. Mike Braun and most of the Republican caucus have voiced their support for the president's move. Even Mike Pence, Trump's former vice president who ran against him in 2024, praised the move. However, U.S. Rep. Andre Carson and Democrats are condemning the strikes, specifically criticizing Trump for not first seeking congressional approval. After the attacks on June 21, the United States is now intertwined with Israel's war with Iran. In an address to the nation later Sunday evening, Trump said there could be further and larger attacks if peace isn't maintained.
Atlantic
30 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Americans Deserve a Congressional Vote on War With Iran
Before Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, he was warned that, to quote Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the Constitution does not permit the president 'to unilaterally commit an act of war' against a nation that hasn't first struck America. After the attack, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland declared Trump's actions 'a clear violation of our Constitution—ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York stated, 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' The judgment that neither the Constitution; nor the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law meant to clarify and limit when the president can wage war; nor any bygone authorization to use military force, such as the one passed after 9/11, permitted the attack is one I share. But I don't just lament the dearth of a congressional vote out of concern for constitutional law. I also fear that bypassing Congress weakens American democracy. Recall the last time that the United States began a war this consequential: George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Prior to invading, on October 10, 2002, Bush secured an authorization to use military force from Congress by wide margins in both chambers. Even though the Iraq invasion was a mistake—something I have long believed—American democracy was better off for those votes, and not just because the Constitution assigns the war power to Congress. Debating the matter in the House and Senate helped to educate lawmakers and the public about the arguments for and against the war and left a record of who made claims that later proved incorrect. Prior to the vote, citizens could lobby their representatives, allowing for more participation in the process. And afterward, citizens could hold members of Congress accountable for their choices, not only in the next election, but for the rest of the careers of everyone who cast a vote. Government by the people demands opportunities to mete out such consequences. And as voters soured on Iraq, the ability to vote out members of Congress who approved the war provided a civic outlet for dissent. Just prior to the 2006 midterms, the Pew Research Center reported that 'Iraq has become the central issue of the midterm elections. There is more dismay about how the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going than at any point since the war began more than three years ago. And the war is the dominant concern among the majority of voters who say they will be thinking about national issues, rather than local issues, when they cast their ballot for Congress this fall.' Pro–Iraq War senators including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and George Allen of Virginia lost races to anti–Iraq War challengers. In 2008, Hillary Clinton likely would have defeated Barack Obama, who spoke out against the invasion as an Illinois state senator, in the Democratic presidential primary but for her Senate vote for the Iraq War. And John McCain's vote for the war hung over him in that general election. Later, Senator Bernie Sanders's star would rise in part because he could point back to the vote he cast against the war. All told, voters in hundreds of electoral contests spanning years, if not decades, cast ballots in part based on information gleaned from that 2002 vote. Yesterday, in contrast, a lame-duck president, who will never again be accountable at the ballot box, went to war with Iran. There was no deliberation and no ability for voters to lobby their congressional representatives, and voters will be unable to credit or blame members of Congress for the outcome, or at least not as fully as if all were on the record voting yea or nay. Despite the early majorities that supported the Iraq War, its long-term effect on American politics includes growing popular aversion to wars of choice and foreign interventions. Even so, though Obama and Trump aligned themselves with popular opinion and campaigned on promises to avoid such engagements, they have now both unilaterally launched wars of choice, in Libya and Iran respectively, once they were in office. Their unilateral actions deprived Americans of representation and the ability to hold their representatives accountable after the fact. And the trend of denying the public democratic channels to oppose war isn't merely anathema to a self-governing republic; it is dangerous. In the long run, removing official channels for citizens to effect change can be radicalizing. Perhaps it won't prove so in this case, if all goes well. But if a large cohort of Americans comes to regard the attack on Iran as a blunder, how will that popular anger be channeled? The ideal answer would be, the next election. Trump has made that less possible.
