Chicago Sun-Times: All posts by Rich Miller

Won't be easy, but Illinois has a chance to mitigate SNAP cuts

2025-07-11T17:57:47.302-05:00

The costs to Illinois’ government because of the new Republican congressional budget reconciliation law will be steep.

However, the state has some time to prepare itself, and possible Democratic gains in the U.S. House and Senate next year might be able to reverse or mitigate some of the steepest cuts to food security and health care programs before the vast majority of them take effect after the 2026 elections.

In the interim, Gov. JB Pritzker could also lower some of the state’s direct fiscal impact with a big administrative effort — a fact that has been glossed over in pretty much all news coverage so far.

Without substantial changes to the state’s administration, Illinois’ share of increased mandated costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program might total $788 million a year — money the state clearly does not have.

Columnists bug

Columnists

In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary.

Pritzker claimed last month that the SNAP proposal would cost Illinois $1.2 billion a year, but his projection was based on the U.S. House’s proposal. The Senate version, which passed the House, scaled back that number.

The reductions don’t begin until the 2028 federal fiscal year (which starts Oct. 1, 2027), so the state has a chance in the meantime to improve matters on its end, and that effective date is almost a year after the 2026 midterm elections.

If current trends continue, Illinois will have to pay 15% of the total SNAP benefit costs, which, according to the governor’s office, would be $705 million a year.

The reason the state is on the hook for 15% of benefit costs is because of its high SNAP payment error rate, which stood at 11.56% in fiscal year 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The state’s error rates for underpayments to SNAP beneficiaries was less than 1%, but its overpayment error rate was 10.6%.

The new federal law requires that states with SNAP payment error rates of 10% or higher must pay 15% of SNAP benefit costs. The state will struggle mightily to afford that, so lots of people may lose their food aid if things don’t change.

Eleven states, including New York and New Jersey plus the District of Columbia, had higher error rates than Illinois, but 38 had lower error rates.

If Illinois could reduce its error rate to above 8% but below 10% — on par with states like Michigan, Ohio and Texas then it would pay 10% of benefit costs, or $470 million a year.

Reducing Illinois’ error rate to a recent 15-year average of what the Food Resource and Action Center says was 7.1%, would make its annual penalty 5% of benefit costs — or $235 million a year.

And if Pritzker’s administration could decrease the error rate below 6%, then the state would face no additional state penalties at all.

Illinois achieved those lower error rates five times between 2011 and 2017. Eight smaller states, including Wisconsin, had error rates below 6% in FY24.

Unless the law is changed, reducing the error rate has to be done or it’s gonna eventually cost the state a fortune and/or result in huge numbers of people missing out on aid.

Pritzker frequently touts his administrative prowess, so this gives him a measurable opportunity to prove it. But he doesn’t have much time because the first increased SNAP payment will be based on the state’s performance during federal fiscal year 2026, which begins in October. The state needs an all hands on deck approach to this problem.

The new law also requires states to pick up the tab for 75% of SNAP administration expenses, which will cost the state an extra $83 million a year, according to the Greater Chicago Food Depository. States currently pay half the expenses.

However, regardless of Illinois’ error rate, the state’s SNAP outlay could very well be lower than $708 million, because the new federal law will likely result in significantly fewer SNAP recipients, mainly due to work requirements. If history is any guide, up to a quarter of recipients could lose some or all of their benefits without any actual corresponding increase in employment.

Illinois will have to work hard to make sure people don’t fall through the paperwork cracks, but that will also mean it’ll cost the state more money to pay a portion of their benefits unless it manages to get its error rate under control.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com. More about how to submit here.

Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our weekly newsletter here.

JB Pritzker’s running mate is 'The Chosen One' once again

2025-07-04T06:00:00-05:00

Christian Mitchell has had strong detractors ever since Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle elevated the young Black man out of obscurity and backed him for the Illinois House in 2012.

Preckwinkle chose her trusted aide Mitchell over appointed Rep. Kimberly du Buclet, D-Chicago. Preckwinkle’s move upset a lot of people in that part of the world because the du Buclet family’s local influence had been strong for decades and Mitchell was not a born South Sider.

As a result, I somewhat derisively referred to Mitchell as "The Chosen One" in a story I wrote for my subscribers back in the day.

Columnists bug

Columnists

In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary.

Mitchell’s first House primary race was a proxy battle between Preckwinkle and the Jesse Jackson family, and man was that close race ever heated. He was a brassy, highly educated amateur boxer who didn’t take any guff whatsoever. Mitchell then went on to win two successive Democratic primary races against a Chicago Teachers Union-backed candidate. The enemies list grew as Mitchell fought all opponents tooth and nail.

The complaints really started to fly in 2019 when he was chosen as one of newly elected JB Pritzker’s deputy governors. Statehouse denizens (most of them white men) who were accustomed to deference were shocked at Mitchell’s in-your-face negotiating style and fierce loyalty to his boss. I lost count of the number of white men who reached out with stories about the brash Pritzker lieutenant.

But, hey, Mitchell helped pass a lot of bills. He drove some very powerful folks up a wall during the intense negotiations over the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, but the bill got done.

Now that he’s been chosen as Pritzker’s running mate, I asked Mitchell last week if he believes he has bridges to build.

"I am proud to have been a tough negotiator in some very, very difficult rooms, trying to get the best deal for Illinois and for working families, for taxpayers. I'm not going to apologize for that," Mitchell said.

But Mitchell said he’s a "different person" since he left politics in 2023. "Are there times when I spoke when I should have listened? I think the answer is absolutely."

Mitchell pledged to be far more open in the future. “Anybody who wants to have a conversation, wants to reach out, wants to do well on behalf of the people of Illinois, I'm going to greet them with an open hand. And I'm going to remember to listen more than I speak. And I'm really excited to work with everybody, even people with whom we may have had some past friction.”

Mitchell was a fearless boxer back in the day, and he audaciously used "The Chosen One" moniker I gave him when promoting two charity fights.

Asked if he still boxes, Mitchell said, "I do not. I've been off for a few months. I had a wrist injury, but I'm hoping to start back next Friday."

I jokingly wondered aloud whether his wrist injury was from breaking somebody’s skull. "I did not," he said. "I don't spar that often anymore," Mitchell said, alluding to the fact that he was getting a bit too old to spar. "But I still love to hit the bag and love shadow boxing. It’s how I relax."

And now he’s "The Chosen One" all over again as the billionaire governor’s running mate and possible successor should Pritzker win the presidency or is appointed to a Cabinet position.

Mitchell has a lot of work to do. But he seems committed to pulling this off.

Asked what his role would be in the upcoming campaign, Mitchell said, "My role is going to be to go everywhere, to talk to everyone, to articulate the issues across the state of Illinois, to meet people in their houses, at their churches, on the stoop in the town square. And ultimately, it's going to be to articulate the message that the governor is putting forward about continuing the progress we've made over the last seven years, protecting that progress, investing in the jobs of the future, and making sure that we have a 21st century education and health care system that people can afford. That's gonna be my role."

If Pritzker does somehow move up, or even if he doesn’t and retires, Mitchell will need the support of powerful people and groups in 2030 who thoroughly despised him when he was a deputy governor.

"The Chosen One" will then have to stand on his own.

However, he’s always been “The Chosen One” for good reason.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com. More about how to submit here.

Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox. Sign up for our weekly newsletter here.

JB Pritzker lays it on thick with references to President Trump in reelection address

2025-06-28T10:27:36.135-05:00

"I ran for governor in 2018 to change our story,” Gov. JB Pritzker told a Chicago crowd on Thursday 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 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.

Columnists bug

Columnists

In-depth political coverage, sports analysis, entertainment reviews and cultural commentary.

“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 healthcare,” 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 Thursday.

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 had 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 kickoff 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 freak show fanatics to run their experiments on ending democracy somewhere else,” the governor said.

Except Pritzker is 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.

Rich Miller publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Shooting of Minnesota legislators has worried Illinois lawmakers

2025-06-20T20:07:38.816-05:00

I reached out last week to several members of the “19” — the Democratic House members who refused to vote to reelect House Speaker Michael Madigan in 2021, thereby forcing him into retirement.

I asked for their reaction to Madigan’s 90-month federal prison sentence handed down a few days earlier. Because it was a holiday (Father’s Day), I didn’t expect to hear much back.

But in talking with several members who didn’t want to be quoted, and some who were, their minds were clearly more focused on the still-unfolding events following the shootings of some Minnesota legislators than on their role years ago in ousting Madigan.

The alleged assassin of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her spouse, who also allegedly attempted to assassinate state Sen. John Hoffman and his spouse, reportedly created a “hit list” of numerous Minnesota Democratic state legislators as well as abortion rights advocates.

Opinion bug

Opinion

If you had any interaction with a state legislator since the shootings, you know this horrific crime has struck many of them at their very core.

More legislators than you may realize have received credible threats of violence, or have been stalked. Most refuse to talk about it on the record, but those shootings showed what could’ve happened to them and what may still happen in the future.

And the fact that family members were also targeted in Minnesota only makes things worse.

“I’ve found myself thinking less about Michael Madigan and more about another former speaker, Melissa Hortman, who I had the privilege of meeting through our work as Uniform Law commissioners,” said “19” member Rep. Dan Didech, D-Buffalo Grove, in response to my question about Madigan. “We should all aspire to serve and to be remembered like Speaker Hortman: ethically, impactfully, and with a steady commitment to doing the right thing for as many people as possible.”

Didech added, “As legislators, our good reputations are like a cup filled drop by drop, and can be emptied in a single moment. We owe it to our families, our constituents, and our state to one day leave office with our cups still full.”

Some “19” members managed to stick solely to the question at hand:

State Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, was a persistent thorn in Madigan’s side: “After so many years and so much turmoil, I am glad to see this chapter finally reach a conclusion, although I can’t celebrate anyone going into a prison system that doesn’t truly make people better. Speaker Madigan’s corruption caused real harm to the well-being of our communities, and I won’t forget his impact on my own life anytime soon, but we are moving on as a state. Both chambers have new leaders, and they’re charting their own courses forward. I’m looking forward to the progress we can make together now that this painful period has reached its conclusion.”
Former state Rep. Deb Conroy, now the DuPage County Board chair, had to deal with threats of violence when she was a legislator about a bill she sponsored: “Nineteen legislators took a stand individually and stood together for what they felt was the right thing to do for the future of our party and the state of Illinois. It was often a difficult road. Members turned against members and caucuses chose sides. My hope is we can turn the page and move forward united in our democratic values.”
State Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, D-Oswego: “I had no idea back then what the outcome would be. In the end, due process was afforded to former Speaker Madigan, the jury made its ruling, and the judge rendered the sentence. It is an unfortunate end to his legacy and legislative tenure and a difficult situation for his wife, Shirley, and his family. However, as elected officials, we need to continue to strive to repair the damage to the public trust and strive to ensure we are held to the highest ethical standard.”
State Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin: “The sentencing of former House Speaker Michael J. Madigan underscores a fundamental American principle: No one is above the law. I was one of the 19 House Democrats who chose not to support Speaker Madigan’s reelection in 2021. That decision was rooted in my belief that elected officials must be held to the highest ethical standards and that real reform starts with leadership. As a state legislator, I remain steadfast in my commitment to transparency, accountability and integrity. The people of Illinois deserve a government at all levels that works for them — not for entrenched power or political gain.”

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Chicago, state brace for intense ICE activity

2025-06-13T17:30:00-05:00

As I write this, multiple news outlets have reported the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is preparing to deploy its Special Response Teams to five major cities, including Chicago, in the very near future.

Mayor Brandon Johnson’s chief of staff Cristina Pacione-Zayas told reporters last week: "There will be tactical teams, mini-tanks, other tools they use in which they plan to do raids, as we saw in Los Angeles."

Last Thursday, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem explained to reporters in Los Angeles the reasoning behind the massive federal response to sporadic violent protests against ICE in that city: "We are not going away," Noem said. "We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city."

In other words, according to Noem, the federal government intends to "liberate" those Americans from their own duly elected state and local governments.

Immediately after Noem said that, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was forcibly dragged out of Noem's media event by federal police and handcuffed when he identified himself and attempted to address Noem.

This "liberation" argument will undoubtedly be front and center in Chicago and Illinois if and/or when Noem’s ICE fully deploys into the city.

Columnist

Thursday night, a three-judge federal appeals panel put on hold an order by a district court judge hours earlier that would’ve forced the federal government to relinquish control over 4,000 National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles.

Federal law (10 USC 12406) allows the president to federalize state national guards whenever he is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States."

A hearing was scheduled on the lower court ruling, but it’s possible, perhaps even probable that we can expect the same attempt at federalizing our Illinois National Guard troops.

Gov. JB Pritzker said during a congressional committee hearing last Thursday he would "stand in the way" of Trump border adviser Tom Homan, "going after people who don’t deserve to be frightened in their communities, who don’t deserve to be threatened, terrorized. I would rather that he came and arrested me than do that to the people of my state."

But there may not be a whole lot the governor can do when push literally comes to shove.

And not just this governor.

Because of ICE’s heightened presence in California, the National Guard issue and even the deployment of U.S. Marines, Gov. Gavin Newsom is the first line of defense for sanctuary states like Illinois, New York, etc.

Newsom filed the lawsuit to stop the federalizing of National Guard troops in his state. The governor and the Los Angeles mayor have both said sending in the National Guard has inflamed the local situation. But if President Donald Trump can maneuver himself into anything that he can convince himself is a "win," then this tactic will surely continue.

"They don’t get [that governing is] not like the black and white of campaigning" said one person close to Pritzker about the Trump White House. "They are living on election night. And now they are creating a whole lot of chaos and lighting themselves on fire on an issue they had an advantage on."

But holding out hope Newsom will be an effective firewall against this expansion of traditional presidential powers has its perils.

Political writers love writing about the guy, probably because he’s good-looking and a bit of a showboating goofball. Newsom makes for great copy and visuals, but his methods aren’t always sound.

Earlier this month, Newsom suggested via social media the state could withhold $80 billion in federal payments — equal to the difference between what the state receives from the federal government and what its taxpayers send to D.C. It’s a great soundbite, but it simply can’t be done. State governments don’t give money to the feds, taxpayers do.

"Tweeting is not policy," explained a Newsom spokesperson two years ago when his governor tweeted the state was "done" doing business with Walgreens after the pharmacy chain announced it wouldn’t distribute an abortion pill to customers in states that were trying to block it. Newsom was forced to back away in the face of reality.

This is the same Democratic governor who fawned over Trump after the devastating southern California fires only to be denied federal help.

He’s the same guy who Trump said ought to be arrested last week.

That’s some firewall.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Way too much fell through the cracks at the Statehouse

2025-06-06T18:30:00-05:00

I asked Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch last week about the failure to pass an omnibus energy bill (the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act) during the just-ended spring legislative session.

“I think the same thing that happened on energy happened on all the things, you know. Big bills take time,” Welch said. “And I really do believe it's important that we take the time to get it right and make sure we produce the best results for everyone.”

Columnist

Welch compared the delay to his first spring session as House speaker, when another energy omnibus bill crashed and burned and then they came back in the fall and “passed one of the biggest pieces of legislation that ever passed in this state.”

Gov. JB Pritzker told reporters much the same thing last week.

“You don’t get everything done in one year,” Pritzker said. “(S)ometimes they spend two years, four years, six years trying to get something big done.” Like Welch, he also pointed to the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, which he noted took about a year and a half to pass.

Senate President Don Harmon, on the other hand, pointed to this summer’s expected temporary spike in electricity costs due to capacity charges by regional grid managers as a reason. Some of the proposals (like battery storage) would cost more in the short term, “so we're trying to figure out how to how to respond to that anticipated spike,” Harmon told Illinois Public Media's "The 21st Show."

In the end, though, Harmon said, We just couldn't keep the Christmas tree standing this year” — apparently meaning the bill fell under its own weight.

But other factors were important as well, according to numerous people who worked on the bill. Stakeholders would agree to changes, and then the drafts would come back that inexplicably looked little like what people had agreed to, which not only delayed the end, but also injected a lack of trust into the process.

This was particularly true with energy efficiency requirements, I’m told. A deal was finally cut with ComEd, and Ameren decided to move off its opposition, but there simply wasn’t time left to get that drafted before the clock ran out.

Many issues had been on the table for months, but a legislative working group came up with some ideas that couldn’t find quick consensus.

People were spread too thin across too many major items (including mass transit reform and the state budget), and as a consequence, way too much fell through the cracks.

The American Petroleum Institute blasted the energy storage portion of the bill for costing $9 billion for about one to two hours of peak electricity supply per day.

Proponents vehemently disputed the API’s figure, saying the estimate was way too high, and cost increases wouldn’t begin for a few years and cost decreases would start a few years later.

But that and other things helped drive the pipe trade unions away from bill. The unions represent workers at a massive Metro East coal-fired power plant and a major refinery, both of which are heavy industrial electricity consumers.

And their decision to oppose the legislation on May 31 meant there wasn’t enough time to fix that problem and bring the final language to the two Democratic caucuses.

The pipe trades have now officially declared themselves neutral, as have Ameren, Constellation Energy and the Illinois Energy Association. And some environmental lobbyists think the language on the table has a good shot at passage during the October veto session (or perhaps in January), even though their attempts to rein in power-hungry data centers were left out of the bill.

Whatever the case may be, the Legislature goes through this almost every year. They put all the big stuff off until the end, and then they don’t have the bandwidth to deal with a multitude of issues at once, although this year was particularly difficult.

Human beings tend to wait until the last minute to do things. But the leaders need to start enforcing earlier deadlines for giant issues like this energy proposal so they can deal with other time-sensitive things (the budget and revenues, for instance) at the end. Or maybe the other way around.

Far too many major issues were left to May 31. And that procrastination led to problems like a poorly drafted revenue bill that could imperil some TV and film projects in Illinois.

A buddy of mine who’s been at the Statehouse for decades grumped last week the leaders tried to do a five-month session in five days. That’s no way to run a railroad.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Sizzling hot campaign season forecast for Chicago and Illinois

2025-05-30T17:15:00-05:00

As I write this column, the spring legislative session is a day away from adjournment. Nothing of great importance has cleared both chambers. So there’s no point in writing about any of that. I’ll let you know my thoughts next week.

Let’s discuss a different topic instead.

For quite a while now, most folks in politics have assumed that Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias and Comptroller Susana Mendoza will probably run for mayor of Chicago in 2027. The incumbent Brandon Johnson is spectacularly unpopular, and a real hunger is developing in the city (again) for new leadership.

Anyway, some wags have also speculated that one or even both of the statewide officials will not run for reelection in order to gear up for a mayoral bid.

With Cook County Democratic Party candidate slating coming up in July, the rumors have intensified.

Columnist

I bumped into Giannoulias last week at the Statehouse, and we talked about the rumors, and then I asked him if he was running again.

"I’m running for reelection," Giannoulias bluntly replied. He did not rule out or rule in a run for mayor.

Mendoza’s response was different.

Back in 2018, Mendoza easily won reelection, besting her Republican opponent by 23 percentage points.

But in September of that year, Rahm Emanuel surprised the city’s political world when he announced that he wouldn’t seek a third term. People who hadn’t considered running suddenly changed their plans. Mendoza, in the midst of her first reelection bid, was suddenly on a growing list of possible candidates.

Then, a few days before Election Day, WBEZ's Dan Mihalopoulos and Claudia Morell disclosed a draft TV ad by Mendoza announcing her mayoral candidacy.

Mendoza said it was just a contingency in case she decided to run, but she caught a lot of heat. And while it obviously didn’t hurt Mendoza in her statewide bid, it may have damaged her somewhat when she eventually jumped into the mayor’s race. Mendoza didn’t make it past the first round.

So I asked Mendoza’s people if she planned to stand for reelection as comptroller and/or run for mayor.

"Comptroller Mendoza is weighing her options, including reelection," a spokesperson said. "She loves her job and is committed to public service. She will make her decision based on what is best for Illinois, Chicago and her family."

Now comes the important part: "She will not run for two offices at the same time. Whatever she decides to run for, she'll be all-in."

Asked to clarify that statement (after all, she could run for reelection and then spend a few weeks after the election gathering petition signatures for mayor), I was told it’ll be one race or the other. If she announces for reelection, she won’t run for mayor.

There are those who believe Mendoza may be overthinking the impact of her 2018 back-to-back election experience.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that Giannoulias may not fully appreciate the pressure he’ll be under and the criticism he will face if he runs for reelection and then runs for mayor.

The secretary of state is one of the best jobs in state government. If Giannoulias had hedged about running again, a long line of potential hopefuls would have quickly started forming.

Not as many people are interested in being state comptroller, but if Mendoza decides to skip reelection, the opening will add to the growing turnover in Illinois politics.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin’s, D-Ill., retirement announcement has already attracted three incumbent Illinois office holders who want to replace him.

U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., announced her intention to run, as has U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill.

Those attempts to move up have already attracted several candidates and potential candidates. And many of those folks are elected officials who will either have to give up their current offices to run — creating more down-ballot turbulence — or be replaced by an appointee, who might then have to be replaced, etc.

Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton has also announced for U.S. Senate. That means Gov. JB Pritzker will have to choose a new running mate. And if chooses someone who is an elected official, then that’ll create more openings down the food chain.

U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., has announced her retirement, and people are lining up to replace her, including Democratic state Sen. Laura Fine, who will have to give up her seat to run.

And there are plenty of rumors that U.S. Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., won’t run for reelection.

Next year promises to be a fascinating campaign season.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

Recortes a programas federales de salud y nutrición afectarían drásticamente en Illinois

2025-05-27T15:11:18.505-05:00

El Comité de Energía y Comercio de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos publicó sus recomendaciones para la conciliación presupuestaria a principios de la semana pasada.

Una revisión preliminar de la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (OPC) proyectó que, de implementarse, al menos 8.6 mil millones de estadounidenses perderían su cobertura de Medicaid durante la próxima década.

Eso se traduce en más de 300,000 habitantes de Illinois.

Además, la OPC proyectó que 5.1 millones de personas más perderían su seguro médico debido a las nuevas normas de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS) federales sobre los créditos fiscales de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible y las restricciones para obtener y mantener la elegibilidad, incluyendo los requisitos laborales.

Eso representaría aproximadamente 190,000 habitantes más de Illinois, lo que sumaría un total de aproximadamente medio millón de personas que perderían su cobertura.

La Voz Chicago WhatsApp

Encuentra más noticias en nuestro canal de WhatsApp. Síguenos.

Otra parte de la propuesta de reconciliación presupuestaria de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos reduciría la contribución federal para la expansión de Medicaid bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible del 90% al 80% para cualquier estado que utilizara su “infraestructura” de Medicaid para otorgar seguro médico a residentes indocumentados.

El programa All Kids de Illinois y su seguro médico para adultos mayores indocumentados, así como los programas de seguro para adultos que el gobernador J.B. Pritzker quiere eliminar, utilizan la infraestructura de Medicaid del estado para proporcionar fondos estatales a los residentes indocumentados.

Si finalmente se aprueba, la reducción al 80% activaría una ley estatal que detendría toda la financiación estatal para la expansión de Medicaid bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud Asequible si la contribución federal cae por debajo del 90%.

Por lo tanto, el estado tendría que dejar de financiar la atención médica para residentes indocumentados o continuar financiándolos con fondos estatales y luego pagar quizás mil millones de dólares al año para compensar la reducción de 10 puntos porcentuales en la contribución federal.

De ninguna manera el estado podría permitirse intervenir y gastar miles y miles de millones para cubrir a todas esas personas.

La semana pasada, la OPC también publicó sus estimaciones de costos para el plan de reconciliación presupuestaria de los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes, que incluía cifras aún más impactantes sobre los recortes a Medicaid y el aumento de los costos estatales.

Las estimaciones cubren los años fiscales federales de 2026 a 2034 inclusive (aparentemente, nueve años fiscales). Según las estimaciones de la oficina de presupuesto, una entidad no partidista, los cambios en el programa de Medicaid resultarían en una reducción de $698 mil millones en subsidios federales.

Un cálculo aproximado muestra que esto equivaldría a unos $24,400 mil millones en recortes federales de Medicaid para Illinois, o unos $2,700 mil millones al año en promedio, aunque los recortes se concentran al final del período. Un informe de la Kaiser Family Foundation a principios de este mes mostró que Illinois recibió $21,100 mil millones en fondos federales anuales de Medicaid, de un total de $606,300 mil millones, lo que representa un 3.5 %.

La OPC también estima “$78,000 mil millones en gasto estatal adicional, neto, considerando los cambios en las contribuciones estatales a SNAP y Medicaid, así como las políticas fiscales y de gasto estatales necesarias para financiar el gasto adicional”, durante el mismo período.

Eso representaría unos $2,730 mil millones en gastos adicionales para Illinois, o unos $303 millones al año en promedio.

Esa misma semana, los líderes republicanos del Congreso propusieron una “enmienda administrativa” a su ambicioso proyecto de ley de reconciliación.

Un nuevo artículo prohibiría a las compañías de seguros privadas en el mercado de la Ley de Atención Médica Asequible pagar por abortos a menos que sean “necesarios para salvar la vida de la madre o si el embarazo es resultado de un acto de violación o incesto”.

Según el Departamento de Seguros, Illinois exige que las compañías del mercado de seguros médicos de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA) cubran el aborto si ofrecen prestaciones relacionadas con el embarazo.

Por lo tanto, si se aprueba la disposición del Congreso, Illinois tendría que decidir si asume los gastos o busca una solución alternativa.

Lo mismo podría ocurrir con el texto de la enmienda que prohíbe la cobertura de Medicaid para la atención de afirmación de género para adultos. Anteriormente, la prohibición propuesta solo se aplicaba a niños.

La enmienda también adelantaría los requisitos de trabajo de Medicaid de la fecha de inicio original de 2029 a 2026, lo que sin duda resultará en la expulsión de más residentes de Illinois si se repite la desastrosa experiencia de Arkansas.

La oficina de presupuesto afirmó que los recursos familiares de quienes se encuentran en el 10% inferior de los ingresos "disminuirían en una cantidad equivalente a aproximadamente el 2% de los ingresos" en 2027 y al 4% en años posteriores, debido a los recortes a Medicaid y al Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP).

Los recursos familiares de quienes se encuentran en el 10% más rico “aumentarían en un 4% para los hogares del [10%] más alto en 2027 y en un 2% en 2033, principalmente debido a reducciones en sus impuestos”, informó la CBO.

Habrá que esperar a ver qué hace el Senado de Estados Unidos ahora que la pelota está en su cancha.

Rich Miller también publica Capitol Fax, un boletín político diario, y CapitolFax.com.

Envía tus cartas a letters@suntimes.com

Traducido por La Voz Chicago

Federal health, nutrition programs cuts would have drastic effect on Illinois

2025-05-23T19:42:39.64-05:00

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee released its recommendations for budget reconciliation early last week. A preliminary review by the Congressional Budget Office projected that, if implemented, at least 8.6 million Americans would lose their Medicaid coverage during the coming decade.

That translates to well over 300,000 Illinoisans.

In addition, the CBO projected that 5.1 million more people would lose their health insurance because of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ new rules regarding Affordable Care Act tax credits and restrictions on obtaining and retaining eligibility, including work requirements.

That would be about 190,000 more Illinoisans, for a total of about half a million people losing coverage here.

Another part of the U.S. House’s budget reconciliation proposal would reduce the federal Medicaid expansion match under the Affordable Care Act from 90% down to 80% for any state that used its Medicaid "infrastructure" to provide health insurance to undocumented residents.

Illinois’ All Kids program and its health insurance for undocumented older adults, as well as the adult insurance programs that Gov. JB Pritzker wants to cut off, all use the state’s Medicaid infrastructure to provide state funding for undocumented residents.

Columnist

If that ultimately passes, the reduction to 80% would trigger a state law which halts all state funding for Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act if the federal match falls below 90%.

So, either the state would have to give up funding health care for undocumented residents or continue to fund them with state dollars and then pay perhaps a billion dollars a year to make up for the 10-point reduction in the federal match.

No way the state could afford to step in and spend billions upon billions to cover all those folks.

The CBO also released cost estimates last week for the House Republican budget reconciliation plan, and it included even more eye-popping numbers about state Medicaid cuts and increased state costs.

The estimates cover the federal budget years of 2026 up to and including 2034 (apparently nine fiscal years). According to the nonpartisan budget office estimates, changes to the Medicaid program would result in "$698 billion less in federal subsidies."

A back of the envelope calculation shows that would work out to about $24.4 billion in federal Medicaid cuts for Illinois, or about $2.7 billion a year on average, although the cuts are backloaded. A Kaiser Family Foundation report earlier this month showed Illinois received $21.1 billion in annual federal Medicaid funding out of $606.3 billion in total federal Medicaid funding, or 3.5%.

The CBO also estimates "$78 billion in additional state spending, on net, accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending," during the same time period.

That would be about $2.73 billion in additional expenses for Illinois, or about $303 million per year on average.

Later in the week, congressional Republican honchos proposed a "manager’s amendment" to their massive reconciliation bill.

One new item would prohibit private insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act exchange to pay for abortions unless "necessary to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest."

Illinois requires companies in the ACA health insurance marketplace to cover abortion if they offer pregnancy-related benefits, according to the Department of Insurance.

So, if the congressional provision is enacted, Illinois would have to decide whether to pick up the tab itself or find another workaround.

The same could happen with the amendment’s language banning Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for adults. The proposed ban earlier applied only to children.

The amendment would also move up Medicaid work requirements from the original 2029 start date to 2026, which will undoubtedly result in more Illinoisans being kicked off, if Arkansas’ disastrous experience is repeated here.

The budget office claimed that household resources for those in the bottom 10% of earners would "decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income" in 2027 and 4% in future years, due to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts.

Household resources for those in the top 10% would "increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest [ten percent] in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe," the CBO reported.

We'll just have to wait and see what the U.S. Senate does now that the ball is in its court.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com

House speaker on Crespo ouster: 'Can't allow someone to go rogue'

2025-05-16T17:31:12.897-05:00

Illinois House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch took the extraordinary actions last week of permanently kicking Rep. Fred Crespo, D-Hoffman Estates, out of the House Democratic caucus, stripping him of his legislative staff, removing him from his Appropriations Committee chair position and booting him from the bicameral Legislative Audit Commission.

Welch also suspended a Democratic staffer who reportedly helped Crespo prepare an alternative budget plan, which is what got both people axed.

Crespo took me aside Tuesday night at a reception and told me he was preparing to unveil a budget proposal that he believed could help the state weather at least some of the fiscal pain that the Republican Congress and the Trump administration were about to inflict on Illinois and all other states.

The very next day, Welch lowered the boom. Hard.

Needless to say, replacing an Appropriations Committee chair with barely two weeks to go in the spring session and tough budget votes ahead is not exactly commonplace. I’ve never seen such a thing in 35 years of doing this.

A source within the House Democratic operation said Welch told Crespo he hadn’t been engaging this session with the House’s top budget negotiators, appropriations staff, other members and the House speaker himself.

But the final straw was Crespo’s budget proposal, which was far outside the "silo" of his Appropriations Committee’s purview, multiple sources said.

Columnist

Crespo’s budget idea would have at least temporarily freed up about $4 billion in state spending in the upcoming fiscal year. The proposal would’ve withheld state funds from discretionary programs, created $1.6 billion in contingency reserves (which has been done in previous tight budget years), and allowed short-term borrowing from special state funds.

Crespo almost tanked the state’s crucial revenue bill last May by telling his fellow Democrats to "vote your conscience" during floor debate. Several moderate, House Democrats wound up voting against the bill, and it took hours to pass the measure.

Now, however, Crespo has even less to lose by going all-out against the budget plan since his powers have been stripped. The end-of-session budget vote was already going to be difficult, and now it could be even more fraught with peril if Crespo spends the remaining session days publicly and privately dumping on the budget plan.

But, maybe not, because no House Democrats rose to defend Crespo during a closed-door caucus meeting on Thursday, although some were grumbling privately.

Welch clearly took the caucus reaction (or lack thereof) as confirmation that he was right to move against Crespo: "I levied the decision that I levied, and I'm comfortable with it," Welch told me after the Thursday caucus meeting. "I slept well last night. And from the reaction of my leadership team and members, they believe I made the right decision as well."

Asked if Crespo has a path back to caucus membership, Welch told me: "No. We're not going to tolerate that level of disrespect to our caucus. In my opinion, there's no way back."

When I asked Welch if ejecting Crespo from the caucus was a disproportionate response to what Crespo did, Welch gave two reasons for his decision.

First, Crespo’s use of his committee chair role to pursue an agenda which runs counter to shared caucus goals: "He's free to speak his mind. He's free to vote his conscience, just like other members have done," he said, but added that no one would be allowed to use their official leadership roles "to pursue an agenda that is antithetical to our shared goals" of passing a budget.

Second, Welch said that last week’s "rogue" behavior by Crespo was not isolated: "It wasn't because of a single instance. It's because of cumulative instances.

"I can't allow someone to go rogue and be an individual," Welch said.

Whew.

Welch also described his final sit-down with Crespo: "At two or three different points, he realized that what he did was wrong because he tried to apologize a couple of times."

Crespo, however, claimed Welch said he felt like the member had stabbed him in the back. Crespo said he apologized to Welch if he took his actions that way because it wasn’t his intent. Crespo said he did not apologize for what he actually did.

Welch said he wasn’t concerned about Crespo using the remaining session days to try and pull votes off the budget.

"I believe that we have better systems in place than we did last year, and so I don't have the same level of concern this year as last year."

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com