Editorial: Beyond taxing and spending

With an ambitious new governor in Springfield and Democrats in absolute control of the machinery of government, there's been a lot of talk this legislative session about revenue - how Illinois can raise more of it.

There is, of course, a proposal to enact an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that would enable the state to switch from a flat income tax to a graduated income tax.

There also is a proposal gathering steam in a number of quarters to increase the state tax on gasoline.

There is an effort to increase the cigarette tax as a way, presumably, to discourage teenagers from smoking.

Oh, yes, there also is a major move toward sports betting, seen as a no-brainer for the windfall it would contribute to state coffers.

There is a drive to allow recreational use of marijuana, gathering momentum less on libertarian grounds than because of the revenue it can produce for the state.

Let's see. What are we forgetting?

It's hard to say what of these efforts will pass, but we assume that at least some of them will. And that's not necessarily bad. Illinois has big financial problems, and the reality is they're probably not all going to be solved with cuts.

But they're not all going to get solved with more taxes either.

Democrats, much to their messaging dismay, have a reputation as "tax and spend" politicians, and so far at least, it looks like Gov. J.B. Pritzker and his fellow Democrats in Springfield are going out of their ways to prove the accuracy of that brand.

Where are the cuts on the other side of the balance sheet?

In particular, where are the ideas for public pension reform?

Years ago, everybody was talking about the growing public pension obligation and the crisis it posed for the state.

Now ...?

In his first state budget, Pritzker essentially took a pension holiday and underfunded the pension obligation, repeating the mistakes past governors and legislatures have made of pushing more debt into the future.

Today, the public pension obligation has grown higher and the crisis has grown deeper, but almost nobody is talking about it. Few Democratic politicians at least. It has become the great elephant in the room.

When they are asked about public pension reform, the reflexive response they give is that their hands are tied by the state constitution.

Hello?

Haven't their hands been tied on the graduated income tax? They don't seem to think that the state constitution's mandate of a flat income tax is insurmountable in that case.

Why is there no talk of at the same time of a constitutional amendment to allow for some flexibility - fairly exercised - in dealing with the pension debt? It is a debt that threatens to consume much of what there is in state revenues. And in the process, it robs funding from other areas that need the state's attention.