This past Spring when the General Assembly and Governor were developing a General Fund budget for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2022, there was a significant amount of new revenue on the table. For instance, Illinois state government received around $11 billion in federal aid for General Fund use under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”). ARPA came on the heels of various other federal relief initiatives that passed in 2020—most notably the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). Despite both record federal assistance and a boost in state-based revenue, Illinois’ long-term fiscal challenges are significant. Unfortunately, in addition to being significant, the state’s fiscal shortcomings are also nothing new. And in FY 2025, Illinois will no longer have federal pandemic relief aid to support its General Fund. The revenue shortfall, however, will be more significant than that because of the structural deficit in the state’s General Fund. A structural deficit exists when annual revenue growth is not sufficient to cover the cost of providing the same level of public services from one fiscal year into the next, adjusting solely for changes in inflation and population, and assuming a normal economy.
In response to the economic challenges created by the pandemic, elected officials in both parties have expressed the desire to pursue fiscal policy initiatives that will help spur private sector growth. Historically, two very different approaches have been taken to stimulate the economy by changing fiscal policy—one focuses mostly on growing private sector demand by increasing public sector spending, while the other focuses primarily on growing private sector supply by cutting taxes.
The fiscal policies taken to boost demand through enhanced spending generally involve increasing investments in core public services and infrastructure, as well as providing direct income supports to low- and middle-income families. These income supports include a number of initiatives, covering everything from enhanced unemployment compensation benefits, to targeting tax relief solely to low-and middle-income workers—precisely because those workers are likely to spend any such tax relief on purchasing consumer goods and services.
On the other hand, the use of tax cuts to boost the economy has typically involved providing either general tax relief to all individuals and corporations—which initially was referred to as “Supply-Side” economics—or targeting tax relief to primarily benefit corporations and wealthy individuals—which initially was referred to as “Trickle-Down” economics. Interestingly, neither Supply-Side nor Trickle-Down is really an economic theory. Instead, both are concerned with how fiscal policy actions impact private sector behavior. Over time, the distinction between these two approaches has blurred, and they are now both generally referred to as “Supply-Side” economics.
Read CTBA’s most recent report to find out more about the impact of Supply-Side policies on the U.S. economy.
Contrary to what the governor proposed in the FY 2022 General Fund budget proposal, K-12 funding under the Evidence-Based Funding formula (EBF) resumed funding of the $300 million Minimum Funding Level in the FY 2022 Enacted General Fund Budget, as it had in FYs 2018,2019, and 2020. This is certainly better than being held level with the prior fiscal year, as was done in FY 2021.
Volume IV of the Fully Funding the EBF series makes some minor adjustments to CTBA’s model to align more closely with the Illinois State Board of Education’s methodology and reporting. This change is made to the overall Adequacy Gap funding level (changes from 100% to 90% to accommodate for Federal funding). This change in methodology is applied to the four scenarios found in the Fully Funding the EBF series Volume Three.
Shortly after the FY 2022 General Fund budget proposal in February 2021, the sobering economic forecast significantly changed. On March 11, 2021, President Joe Biden secured passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”). ARPA came on the heels of various other federal relief initiatives that passed in 2020—most notably the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). When considered together, nearly $12 billion in federal relief funding has been designated to cover state-level spending on core public services in Illinois over fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Yet, despite obtaining the new federal and state funding, the FY 2022 Enacted General Fund Budget that passed into law (“P.A. 102-0017”) increases overall net spending on core services in FY 2022 by just $586 million over FY 2021 levels, in nominal, non-inflation-adjusted dollars. That is notable for one simple reason: the total year-to-year increase in General Fund spending is less in nominal dollars than the $655 million in new recurring revenue the state raised by eliminating the tax expenditures—and is significantly less than the $3.8 billion in federal relief funding the state utilized in FY 2022. Indeed, after adjusting for inflation, total net General Fund spending on services in FY 2022 is scheduled to be only $24 million—or 0.1 percent—more in real terms than it was in FY 2021.
On March 11, 2021, the Biden Administration secured passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”), which provides fiscal relief designed to counter economic issues created by the pandemic. ARPA is considerable in size and provides a total of $1.9 trillion in federal aid for state and local governments to use to support the provision of various core public services such as healthcare, human services, and education, as well as to infrastructure.
Given the significant federal aid flowing through ARPA, CTBA has compiled the following answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about that legislation and how it will impact Illinois.
To address some of the shortcomings that have created the structural deficit in the state’s fiscal system, the FY 2022 GF Proposal includes a number of initiatives designed to generate new revenue for the General Fund. Key among these are initiatives that would:
(i) eliminate or modify a number of tax breaks—which are more accurately described as “tax expenditures”—the state currently grants to corporations, to generate some $932 million in General Fund revenue for FY 2022; and
(ii) “decouple” Illinois from tax expenditures granted to businesses by the federal government, that cannot be expected to generate any benefit in the state, but would cause the loss of anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in annual General Fund Revenue.
In the FY 2022 General Fund budget proposal the Governor announced in February, K-12 funding under the Evidence-Based Funding formula (EBF) is once again held level with FY 2020, in nominal, non-inflation adjusted dollars. While that is certainly better than being cut from FY 2020 levels in nominal dollars, it represents a step backward. By not providing additional new funding for the EBF, the state is extending the time it would take to fully fund the EBF by two years – if the state continues to put in a minimum of $300 million yearly beginning in FY 2023. That two year extension would mean extending the timeline to more than four times longer than what is required by statute.
This update is the third installment in the Fully Funding the EBF Series.
The FY 2022 Proposed General Fund Budget (the “FY 2022 GF Proposal”) makes one fact abundantly clear: spending on services is not driving the state’s fiscal problems. Big picture, Illinois’ ongoing disinvestment in General Fund services is harming communities across the state for one simple reason: over 95 percent of all such spending goes to the four, core areas of Education (including Early Childhood, K-12, and Higher Education), Healthcare, Human Services, and Public Safety.
Without new revenue available from the proposed Fair Tax, short-term borrowing, Federal Aid, and cutting some expenditures has allowed Illinois to hold on during the current fiscal year. But this is a short-term solution, and not a sustainable solution in tackling the long-term fiscal woes of Illinois. In our new short report, “Increasing the Income Tax Rate: One Method for Addressing Illinois’ Long-term Fiscal Problems” CTBA analyzes potential benefits of increasing the income tax rate, while ensuring that any increase in the income tax address the regressivity of a flat rate income tax structure through refundable tax credits.
Part of the federal economic stimulus created under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, involved increasing the tax relief businesses could claim under the existing net operating loss and excess business loss tax breaks. Among other things, the Cares Act made these tax cuts retroactive, meaning businesses can claim losses and reduce their tax liability for years in which the pandemic had no impact on their profitability. CTBA provides reasoning for supporting decoupling from Federal CARES Act Tax Breaks.