“I ran for governor in 2018 to change our
story,” Gov. JB Pritzker told a Chicago crowd June 26 as he announced his bid
for a third term. “I ran for governor in 2022 to keep telling our story. And I
am running for governor in 2026 to protect our story.”
This general theme of protecting what Pritzker
maintains is Illinois’ progress from damage by President Donald Trump will be
the foundation of the governor’s reelection bid – at least for the foreseeable
future.
The governor’s state office provided an
example of this potential harm earlier in the week, when it warned of a
provision in the congressional budget proposal to shift billions of dollars in
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program costs from the federal government to
the states.
“For Illinois, that shift could mean taking on
more than $1.2 billion in additional costs annually, placing a massive strain
on Illinois’ budget and threatening funding for other essential services like
education and health care,” the statement read.
The U.S. Senate’s parliamentarian had
originally ruled against the SNAP provision in the chamber’s budget
reconciliation bill, but the majority Republicans revised the language and it
was approved June 26.
That $1.2 billion will likely pale in
comparison to expected Medicaid cuts. Illinois simply doesn’t have the
recurring revenue needed to make up the difference.
“Earthquakes are coming,” Pritzker warned in
his address about the coming months and years.
So, for now, it’s “Pritzker the Protector.”
But, eventually, it would be nice to see some
fresh and new ideas.
The governor’s 2021 reelection announcement
was all about looking back at his leadership during the pandemic. Four years
later, his latest announcement was heavy on his accomplishments and little
about the future, except that it looks really bleak under Trump and he will do
his best to shield the state from it.
The Trump references were so thick that you
could conceivably call this the first kick-off speech of the 2028 presidential
campaign.
“The workers of today and tomorrow choose
Illinois because we built an iron wall around their freedoms – and because we
told the fascist freakshow fanatics to run their experiments on ending
democracy somewhere else,” the governor said.
Except Pritzker’s currently only running for
reelection. Maybe try one election at a time. And while 2019 – his first year
in office – was a whirlwind of activity, much more still needs to be done.
For example, the Illinois Economic Policy
Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign released a study this week showing the state has
an existing housing shortage of 142,000 units and needs to build 227,000 new
homes over the next five years “to keep pace with demand.”
The governor said housing costs too much
during his speech, but didn’t say what he’d do about it.
You may recall that Pritzker demanded action
on the housing shortage during his State of the State address in February,
saying his special task force on housing affordability had come up with some
solutions and those should be enacted. But, after some progress, the bill
stalled out.
One of the panel’s short-term ideas was to
require the state’s pension funds to invest in housing development. But the
provisions to require or incentivize local governments to remove barriers to
new housing was a big sticking point.
Pritzker’s implementation record leaves much
to be desired. Six years after legalizing cannabis, for instance, the original
equity promises are nowhere near fulfilled. If they were, it would be a whole
lot easier to convince the Illinois House to regulate the intoxicating hemp
“gray market.”
And the governor was right when he said, “the
answer starts with growing Illinois’ economy.” But economic growth as a whole
has most definitely lagged here.
“Let me be clear,” Pritzker said, “There is no
Mission Accomplished banner to stand under today. Yes, we have addressed so
many of our old problems – but new ones always arise. History is an endless
relay race. Our job is not to look for the finish line but to protect the baton
as we run our assigned leg.”
Are we better off as a state than we were in
2018? Governmentally, yes. Of course. I would never want to revert to the state
governments we had during the first 18 years of this century.
Could we as a state be much better?
Absolutely. And it’s time to try. But that requires some concrete plans.