Column: Record budget continues Democrats' tax-and-spend spree
If Illinois smokers needed a reason to quit the evils of tobacco, the legislature's hike in the state's tax on cigarettes has been handed to them. Or it gives them a chance to visit Kentucky and Indiana to stock up on their smoking supplies.
The tax increase on anything with tobacco — cigarettes, cigars, vaping devices, snuff, chewing tobacco — is part of the rushed budget the Democratic-controlled legislature adopted last week. The jump in the tobacco tax from 36% to 45% for cigarettes, and 15% for vaping products, takes effect July 1, when the state's fiscal year begins.
Taxing the shrinking number of state smokers — revenue officials expect to raise $50 million — is one easy way to fund the largest budget in Illinois history. Current state tax on a pack of smokes is $1.98, and the current cost averages $7.56 per pack, according to the 'Sales Tax Handbook.'
Another taxing target is gambling now that most of the Land of Lincoln is replete with gaming devices and casinos. To that end, the budget bill creates a tax of 25 cents per wager for a sports betting licensee's first 20,000 wagers accepted, and 50 cents per wager above that. That is expected to generate $36 million in the new fiscal year.
There are other increased taxes, $1 billion worth, in the $55.2 billion spending plan, which totals 3,000 pages. Wonder how many Lake County lawmakers actually read this document that received little public review and was hastily adopted in the last 48 hours of the session?
But lawmakers did read enough of the document to increase their salaries, sending their pay to nearly $100,000 a year for what is supposed to be a part-time job. State legislators who happen to be lawyers also got an added perk thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court: They can collect credits for continuing education classes just by attending legislative events.
Yet, Illinois property owners again did not receive property tax relief, while lawmakers kicked the can down the road when it came to funding regional mass transit, while including $8.2 billion in new spending on infrastructure projects.
Regional Transportation Authority officials claim they need a $770 million funding injection or cuts are coming at the CTA, Metra and Pace. Legislators also failed a push for more renewable energy sources, like solar and wind. In the power department, Illinoisans served by ComEd will see a nearly 11% increase on their utility bills come July 1.
Democrats seem overjoyed with the allegedly balanced budget bill, which is nearly 4% more than the current year's. However, it appears to be stuffed with spending that the state can't afford.
One estimate is that since Gov. JB Pritzker took office in 2019, Democrats have jacked up state spending by $15 billion. That totals about $1,170 more per resident every year. Something to remember next April 15.
Three Lake County Democratic state senators — Julie Morrison of Lake Forest, Mary Edley Allen of Libertyville and Adriane Johnson of Buffalo Grove — voted for the budget bills. Their Democratic counterparts in the Illinois House — Rita Mayfield of Gurnee, Laura Faver Dias of Grayslake, Bob Morgan of Deerfield, Daniel Didech of Buffalo Grove and Nabella Syed of Palatine — also were all in on the whopping budget bill. Legislative Republicans voted against the measure.
Their excuse for having to vote in favor of the budget, they maintain, is because of President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. Pritzker, too, blamed the president, pointing to Trump's tariff policies.
'In a year where limited revenue and shifting federal support presented real challenges, we passed a budget that aligns with our core values and the needs of Illinois families,' Morrison commented in a statement after her vote.
'At a time when chaos from the federal administration is causing uncertainty and fear within our communities, Illinois presented a compassionate budget that reflects our priorities and values, including supporting the working middle class and those seeking quality education,' Edley Allen said in a statement, echoing other county lawmakers' stances.
Didn't hear of any sightings of President Trump or his minions in Springfield last week, twisting arms to vote for the bloated state budget. Lawmakers can try to blame an obvious scapegoat.
They are accountable only to themselves for their votes for a record Illinois budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Veterans in Congress Issue War Powers Warning to Trump After Iran Strike
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. A dozen Democratic representatives in Congress, all military veterans, have sent a letter to the White House ordering that lawmakers will vote on any additional aggression against Iran so as not to repeat the "same mistakes" from wars that started two decades ago. Why It Matters Trump's green light to what he later described as a "very successful attack" against Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan has drawn renewed attention to Congress's role in approving military action as part of a potential broader war. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution pending in the Senate has been mirrored in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republican Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ro Khanna of California introduced a resolution last Tuesday. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. What To Know A letter published on Monday was led by Representative Pat Ryan of New York, a U.S. Army veteran, and co-signed by 11 fellow House Democrats, who described themselves as "patriots who love our country." The other legislators are as follows: Rep. Salud Carbajal (CA) – Marine Corps Reserve Rep. Gil Cisneros (CA) – Navy Rep. Herb Conaway (NJ) – Air Force Rep. Chris Deluzio (PA) - Navy Rep. Maggie Goodlander (NH) – Navy Reserve Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (PA) – Air Force Rep. Ted Lieu (CA) – Air Force Rep. Jimmy Panetta (CA) – Navy Reserve Rep. Bobby Scott (VA) – Army Rep. Derek Tran (CA) – Army Rep. Eugene Vindman (VA) – Army Newsweek reached out to Ryan and others for comment. The lawmakers and veterans of multiple U.S. military branches are imploring the Trump administration not to jump into a conflict with Iran and other nations, saying that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were fought by many of the signees, have led to no accountability, years after trillions of dollars and countless deaths. "Twenty years ago, in their rush to appear strong and tough, politicians—from both parties—failed to ask the hard questions before starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," the letter reads. "They failed us, our fellow veterans, and the American people. "Now, trillions of dollars and countless deaths later, we still haven't gotten accountability. We refuse to make those same mistakes." Rep. Pat Ryan speaks at the Concordia Annual Summit in New York City on September 18, 2023. Rep. Pat Ryan speaks at the Concordia Annual Summit in New York City on September 18, Concordia Summit The letter also says that the dozen lawmakers "are under no illusions about the nature of the Iranian regime and its proxies," referring to them as "evil" and intent to destroy both the U.S. and Israel. "Many of us lost friends to Iranian-backed terror," the letter continues. "We must continue to stand strongly with our Israeli allies, including active and robust support for the defense of the state of Israel and its people, as we have for decades. "But we must be very clear: American-led, offensive military operations against Iran—including Saturday night's preventive air strikes—are different." Representative Salud Carbajal told Newsweek on Monday: "As a Marine veteran, I served my country with pride but also understand the human cost of war. That cost is why our Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to declare war—to ensure that our nation has a transparent and honest conversation before we send Americans into harm's way. "That's why I joined my fellow House Democratic veterans in reaffirming this essential constitutional duty. We owe it to our servicemembers, their families, and the American people to prevent a rushed and reckless entry into war." A spokesperson for Goodlander shared the following statement with Newsweek: "Under the United States Constitution, Congress plays a critical role in questions of war and peace. I'll never stop working to ensure we execute our constitutional responsibility, protect the 40,000 U.S. forces serving in the Middle East today, and keep the American people safe." Patricia Crouse, a political scientist in residence at the University of New Haven, told Newsweek on Monday that she believes the current push to update the War Powers Act is a direct response to the situation in the Middle East. But it's a legislative effort that gained traction during the first and second Gulf Wars, she said. "As in the past, though, I don't believe it will gain much traction," Crouse said. "Other than Massie and MTG (Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene), Republicans in the House are fully behind Trump's actions and seem in no rush to limit his powers. The situation in the Senate is similar. "Without support from Republicans in both chambers, anything Democrats attempt to do is purely symbolic." Kaine told Punchbowl News on Monday that he is privy to Senate GOP support of his resolution, saying that lawmakers have expressed interest in signing off on whether Congress, not just the president, should have a say in attacking other nations. "I know I will have Republican support. How much is unclear," Kaine said. "The day-to-day events will affect is a very evolving situation." What People Are Saying Represenative Pat Ryan, in a statement on Monday: "I am supporting a War Powers Resolution because it is the clear and sacred Constitutional duty for Congress, not the President, to declare war. As our Founders intended, this will ensure we have a full and honest conversation with the American people about what American military action against Iran would mean. We stand ready and willing to execute our Constitutional responsibility, to protect our troops, and to keep the American people safe." Representative Ted Lieu, in a statement on Sunday: "There will be a bipartisan, classified briefing by the Administration this Tuesday. I urge the Administration to address what congressional authorization it relied on for the military strikes, if any. I also want the Administration to address many unanswered questions, such as if the strikes achieved their intended objectives, how the Administration intends to protect Americans and our service members from potential future attacks, and what the Administration's plan is going forward." What Happens Next Democratic Representatives Gregory Meeks of New York, Adam Smith of Washington, and Jim Himes of Connecticut—ranking members of the Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, respectively—are drafting their own War Powers resolution, according to Punchbowl News.
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Zohran Mamdani's Chances of Beating Andrew Cuomo Surge Day Before Primary
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. Zohran Mamdani's chances of beating former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary surged on Monday, just one day before primary day and after many New Yorkers voted early. Why It Matters Mamdani, a state Assembly member, and Cuomo are viewed as the front-runners heading into Tuesday's primary to lead the country's largest city. Whoever wins the primary will be favored to win the general election in November, as New York remains a Democratic stronghold. Cuomo has led most polls in the race, but Mamdani, a favorite among progressive voters, has gained traction in recent weeks. New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani campaigns in New York City on April 16, 2025. New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani campaigns in New York City on April 16, 2025. ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Two betting markets—Polymarket and Kalshi—had Mamdani's chances of winning jump on Monday after Emerson College released a poll showing the progressive lawmaker with a slight lead. But the betting markets still gave the two leading candidates roughly an even shot at victory on Tuesday. Mamdani briefly overtook Cuomo as the favorite in both markets at about 10 a.m. ET on Monday, but later in the morning, Cuomo regained a slight advantage. Traders were split on who they view as the candidate most likely to prevail on Tuesday. As of noon ET, Polymarket favored Cuomo 53 percent to 47 percent compared to 76 percent to 23 percent on Sunday. Kalshi favored Cuomo 52-46 compared to 77-24 on Sunday. The percentages are based on individual markets per candidate, so they may not equate to 100 percent. Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for Cuomo, told Newsweek that the jump was driven by the Emerson poll, which he said was an "outlier." "Every other credible poll in this election, including two released last week, has shown Governor Cuomo with a double-digit lead, which is exactly where this election will end tomorrow. Between now and then, we will continue to fight for every vote like he will fight for every New Yorker as mayor," Azzopardi said. Newsweek reached out to the Mamdani campaign for comment via email. The Emerson poll showed Cuomo with a slight lead on the first round of voting—36.4 percent to Mamdani's 33.7 percent. But after eight rounds of ranked choice, Mamdani consolidated support from other candidates to have a slight lead, 51.8 percent to Cuomo's 48.2 percent. The poll surveyed 833 Democratic primary voters from June 18-20 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. Mitchell Moss, Henry Hart Rice Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at New York University, told Newsweek on Monday he believes the election is "too complicated for betting odds to predict," as there are "too many unknowns." What People Are Saying Political commentator Chuck Todd, on X, formerly Twitter: "I'm not a big believer in trying to predict news events/elections via these betting markets as they feel like nothing more than folks taking one new piece of info and over-betting its meaning. If I thought there was good public polling, I might think differently, but the biggest concern I have in these news betting markets is the flawed public data that influences them. Doesn't mean this doesn't turn out right, but it's simply more wishing or guessing or gambling than actual insight imo." Lakshya Jain of Split Ticket, about the Emerson poll on X: "On balance, with no other evidence, that's enough new data to say the NYC Dem mayoral nomination is a pure tossup. Wow." Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, endorsed Mamdani last week: "At this dangerous moment in history, status quo politics isn't good enough. We need new leadership that is prepared to stand up to powerful corporate interests & fight for the working class. @ZohranKMamdani is providing that vision. He is the best choice for NYC mayor." Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who endorsed Cuomo on X this month: "I care deeply about the future of our city, and since leaving office, it has been difficult to watch its struggles, especially since the pandemic. In sizing up the field in the race for mayor, there is one candidate whose management experience and government know-how stand above the others: @andrewcuomo." What Happens Next While many New Yorkers voted early, others will head to the polls on Tuesday. Whichever candidate prevails will face off against a Republican and independent Mayor Eric Adams in November.
Miami Herald
27 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Should Trump have bombed nuclear sites in Iran? What Americans said in a poll
More Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran than approve of it, according to new YouGov polling. Most also believe the attack could lead to a broader war between the U.S. and Iran — which the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose. The poll comes after Trump ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites on June 21, following the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, triggered by a preemptive Israeli strike. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' The bombing — carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, which took off from Missouri — marks a dramatic escalation in the U.S. government's long-running effort to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Before the U.S. attack, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog warned that Iran had enriched uranium, a key ingredient for nuclear bombs, to high levels. However, multiple experts have stated that Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. Trump's own spy chief recently reached the same conclusion. In a March testimony before Congress, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said, 'The (intelligence community) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' Trump disregarded Gabbard's assessment on June 17, telling reporters on Air Force One, 'I don't care what she said. I think they were very close to having a nuclear weapon,' according to Axios. Here is a breakdown of the poll's findings. Public opinion on bombing Iran In a June 21-22 YouGov poll which sampled 2,408 U.S. adults, a plurality of respondents, 46%, said they disapproved of Trump's decision to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. Meanwhile, 35% said they approved of it. More than two-thirds of Republicans, 68%, said they approved, while 70% of Democrats and 51% of independents said they disapproved. Most respondents in the poll — which has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points — also said they believe the president's decision will likely lead to an escalation of hostilities. About two-thirds, 67%, said they think it's very or somewhat likely that the bombing will 'lead to a wider war between the U.S. and Iran.' Just 20% said this is not very likely or not likely at all. On this question, there was consensus across the aisle. Eighty-one percent of Democrats, 65% of independents and 51% of Republicans said the bombing would likely lead to a U.S.-Iran war. Further, a plurality of respondents, 44%, said the president's decision will /make the U.S. less safe over the long run. Twenty-five percent said it would make the U.S. more safe. Here there was a partisan split. Most Republicans, 52%, said it will bolster U.S. security, while most Democrats, 66%, and a plurality of independents, 46%, said it will weaken it. A separate YouGov poll — conducted on June 22 with 2,824 respondents — found that most Americans oppose war with Iran. The vast majority, 85%, said they don't want the U.S. to be at war with Iran, while just 5% said they favor war. Most Democrats (92%), Republicans (80%) and independents (83%) opposed war. That said, opinions were divided on the question of whether the U.S. is already at war. A plurality, 39%, said they consider the U.S. to already be at war with Iran, while 32% said it is not. Twenty-eight percent said they were not sure. Most Democrats, 56%, said they believe war has already broken out. Meanwhile, most Republicans, 54%, said they don't think the two nations are at war. Independents were more split, with 37% saying war has already arrived and 28% saying it has not happened yet. The second poll has a margin of error of 2.3 percentage points.
