Illinois lawmakers completed their 104th legislative session.

How will it impact your pocketbook?

Business and education in the cities.

The 2025 Spring Session of the Illinois Legislature is complete with some 7500 bills introduced and some 615 approved and sent on to the governor.

Now, governor JB Pritzker gets to decide if he'll approve or veto the legislation that's sent to his desk, including a record $55.1 billion budget.

What do two area lawmakers have to say about what unfolded in Springfield?

We talked with Democratic State Senator Mike Halpin of Rock Island and State Representative Daniel Swanson, a Republican from Whitehall.

The 104th session is over.

Let's start with the budget.

$55 billion budget, about a 4% spending increase.

Republicans are going to say there's still a lot of fat in this this budget.

I mean, I have to disagree, but even as someone who voted against the budget, I, I think there are a lot of good things in there that we can hang our hats on.

With the child expanding, the child tax credit, with prices increasing, I think that's incredibly important to people with young families.

You know, we are having an increased, to higher education, but certainly not enough.

We we.

Is that your biggest reason for opposing the bill?

It really is.

I mean, the budget is not, not as friendly to western Illinois as a region, as it needs to be.

And I had some concerns, last year, but on the whole, it weighed in favor of supporting the overall package.

This year, I, I couldn't say that.

Some of that is because of changes on the federal level, but.

And our hands are kind of tied.

But a lot of it is, we really need to prioritize our downstate communities represented.

Swanson.

But I agree with everything.

Senator help and said it's it's there's a lot of good, but there's also how we got there is kind of disturbing when we look at we say it's not made on the backs of the working class, but it certainly is in my opinion, when we tax cigarets, when we tax gaming.

Those are all issues that affect the working class people.

I don't mean to stereotype to working class.

We just that's who's pocketbook were hit the hardest by increasing those taxes to help elevate that budget of over $2 billion more.

You have the sports betting, the gaming.

That's a huge increase for two straight sessions.

Is that something that you are against?

Yes, absolutely.

I was against raising those taxes on those working class people and, you know, we were able to remove the $330 million that was going to the undocumented immigrants, which was a big boost or a big help.

But we didn't we didn't save that money.

We just increased it somewhere else.

Well, that 300 million in immigrant health care affects 33,000 people without legal status, more than 22,000 in Chicago alone.

Is that a real savings?

And you're talking about taxing on the backs of of hard working people.

Isn't this eliminating some hard working people as well?

So when it comes to savings, I think on paper it certainly is savings.

It's money that, can be used for either other programs or, you know, other purposes within the, within the state budget.

The reality is, with the kind of impending economic downturn, the, the those savings really just offset the loss and revenue that we're seeing of projected, you know, close to $1 billion decrease in, in, in state revenues.

So, yes, it's saving money, but it does not doesn't necessarily offer us the opportunity to do something else.

Bigger with that money.

It's certainly a more, austere budget that that the majority passed.

So one of the things in the budget is a $100 million emergency funds, so to speak, to deal with potential federal cuts almost at the discretion of the governor.

Did you see that?

That was essential because of what's going on in Washington?

You know, I, I would prefer, let me first say it's something that that the legislature has given governors in the past, long before either of us were there to give a little bit of flexibility when the legislature, legislature is not in session.

My preference, however, is I'm prepared to do my job whenever it is and if something changes over the summer.

Federal budget impacts us in a way that we need to reallocate, resources.

Call us back, or we'll call ourselves back to Springfield and we'll do the job.

Not that I have anything against any particular governor, but, the legislature should be, controlling the purse strings, and we should be able to have input on on that.

Over the Swanson.

I mean, we've we've seen a state budget that is complete, but there are a lot of questions coming out of Washington that the state may have to take up.

Well, FEMA, for one thing, emergency services, cuts in, Medicare.

So do you think that the federal government's cutbacks are going to directly impact the Illinois state budget?

I think we're going to see some impacts, but I think it's one of the bigger elephants in the room to me is some of the the state issues.

We still haven't solved the transit issue in Chicago.

700, some million dollars there.

That has to be some type of solution has to be provided.

And most likely I think the solution is going to be presented to the chambers.

And the chambers will have to take some type of action.

And I think that's something that this year, if you've looked at the calendar, our veto sessions moved to October.

Usually that's the November veto session.

And I don't know if that might.

Senator Hoffman might have some insight into that if that was moved up forward to get us two months prior to the the cliff for the Chicago Transit in in December, January time frame, or if it was just a scheduling issue, I don't know, but I'm sure there's going to be some, federal dollars that may not show up that have in the past, but it's it's different time today than what it was in the past also.

Well, and as you brought up, I mean, like you said, the elephant in the room.

Chicago transit funds, $770 million funding gap.

One of the solutions that was brought up, as you well know, is a tax on delivered food, so-called pizza tax that did not make it.

If that doesn't make it, I mean, what are your options to fill the $770 million gap?

I think that's something that the the Illinois House, is going to have to, to take up at some point.

You know, the the Senate went through a long series of, negotiation with, with interested parties to try to get to both, a governance reform, which is sorely needed up in those agencies, but also trying to find a funding mechanism that does just doesn't solve the immediate so-called fiscal cliff, but actually puts the system, and all statewide, including Downstate Transit, puts the entire statewide system into a position where it will be successful over the years, not just trying to put a Band-Aid on it for this year, but actually creating a sustainable system that, that creates jobs, gets people around where they need to go reliably with reasonable fares.

Somebody who lives in western Illinois is sitting there going, why do I care about Chicago transit?

You have to.

Right?

So I think there's some things that can be fixed themselves with the transit in Chicago.

There's not been any fare increase, as I understand it, for many, many years that if there's if if they really need it, they could help themselves somewhat too.

But I think that's been, an argument where the governor put together a task force to look at this.

And they went to Germany and traveled, but western Illinois was left out of it.

Southern Illinois was left out of those traveling teams to look at how we solve a transit problem in Chicago.

Yeah, I think out here in western Illinois, we certainly have our own transit issues with trying to bring a rail into Moline.

And not only that, but we have seniors and veterans who don't have access to their medical care because we don't have a a robust transit system out in rural Illinois also.

So, you know, we look at the fix in Chicago, but I think it's a statewide issue that needs to be fixed.

And, before we throw $770 million at one problem, let's look and see what we could do for the whole state of Illinois with that transit, decision.

Yeah.

And I would add that the bill the Senate did pass, did account for not just, downstate transit districts getting increases, that they need for the next 2025 years, but also did include, options for additional passenger rail, capital improvements, for that corridor.

And that was one of the main reasons I supported it.

Let's talk about higher education because we're going to talk about Western Illinois.

There was and you well know, the Illinois Commission on Equitable Public University Funding released an almost 90 page report, I think, last April in regards to, changing and basically an overhaul of how higher education is paid for in the state of Illinois would add about 1.7 billion in extra funding over the next 10 to 15 years, and almost like a priority, system as well.

And Western Illinois University would have received top priority.

Tell me about your view of what the budget does for Western Illinois University and, and, higher education, Illinois.

Is it sufficient or are we hurting our four year universities even more?

Well, Western Illinois in particular was I think they were the fourth top recipient of the funds.

Three of the four were Chicago schools.

And then West Illinois University came in fourth.

My concerns about equal funding model was we've got the University of Illinois, who has 54% of the students receive 52% of GRF.

Today would go down to 28%.

So to me, that's not very equitable in how this funding model is designed.

Western Illinois does pick up some money there.

Like I said there.

Go up to number 4 or 4 from the top and receive these funds.

But there are a lot of things that, as I said before, it's just not soup yet.

I know Center Hop and I both served on the task force for this funding model, and I think we have different ideas or views on it.

But not to say I'm right or he's wrong.

I just believe there's other things that can be done to this funding model that we're taking into consideration.

It wasn't until, you know, some of the considerations we had to go through was how do we fund our, medical personnel, our stockers, pharmacists and those in the medical field?

Certainly a higher cost to to educate those members than it is a four year college student.

The specialized education right.

So we had to look at how what factors are weighed to educate that individual.

So it's it's a big model.

My concern has always been that we haven't taken in consideration as our student decline.

This is based upon student population.

Once again.

So, as our student population declines, as we see in our schools today, our high schools, how is this model going to compensate for that?

How is the model, the the numbers that have been used in this model are from believe, 2001, 2002, where we had more 2000.

Yeah, at least 20 years old, I believe, where we had more students at our schools and we used the math.

It came out with bigger numbers.

And then another concern is there are no real metrics.

How do we measure success with this model?

Are we seeing higher growth or are we seeing higher graduation rates?

We have schools that are mid 20% graduation rates that well, if we continue to fund, the more money is that going to increase those graduation rates?

Retention rates are low and there's nothing in the model as far as a metric to ensure that if we continue to provide additional funds, is that going to increase our retention rates in our school?

Because with that retention rate, with those graduation rates becomes more invested in recruiting?

When we have higher retention rates and higher graduation rates, there's less focus on recruiting to recruit and of course, cost time and money to send recruiters out to the different schools and and job sites and work sites and other places to recruit more students.

But one thing always leads to the other, which leads to the other.

Yeah, I and I know, I've been supportive of the, the, the legislation after, some of the details with the medical school and pharmacy schools where it worked out.

Southern Illinois University was a very vocal proponent, of fixing those issues as well as fixing some of the other formulaic side, the, the schools, what they call the resource profile or how much resources the school and the student are expected to bring.

That got Southern Illinois on board.

And I think with the exception of the University of Illinois, all of our public universities were were supportive.

I could certainly find small details to quibble with in the formula, but at the end of the day, it's no secret that our universities need higher levels of funding, and the way we do it now is to just arbitrarily across the board, increase it.

For example, in this year's budget, it was an increase of 1%.

With with a possible, you know, 2% in reserve, maybe.

If we if the governor feels we have the resources and need the resources, and that's just not even enough to keep up with inflation.

That's not even talking about new programs or hiring additional staff, additional counselors for for student support.

So we need to do something differently.

And this bill is, a good, a good way to get on that, on that track.

And I think one of the other big factors is that's not taken into consideration is a deferred maintenance of our schools also.

That's, several billion dollars in deferred maintenance across our universities in Illinois.

And it's just been, you know, it's been overlooked.

And it's certainly when we have a school with three elevators, only one elevator works that that's an issue.

So and roof leaking and, and those type of things I think that's something else that needs to be looked at for the schools is how do we fix some of the deferred maintenance?

Because when you visit a school as a prospective student, that first impressions the decision.

That's what makes your decision.

And when you go into a building and see not operational equipment that concerns you are leaking roofs, leaking roofs.

As a parent, that concerns you, let's talk about some of the other things that are happening not in the legislature's control, although ethics reform is Mike Madigan, seven and a half year prison sentence, does that mean that right now there's a clean sweep and the Illinois legislature is much better than it was?

I would say there's room for ethics reform.

I think the governor said it shows that it works.

Our ethics are good because look what's going on with Speaker Madigan.

But I think there's other reforms that should be made.

I believe that to walk out of a state representative job and walk back into a, a lobbyist job that's concerning, that there need be a large gap in between those time frames.

Because, you know, most jobs you sign a, a document saying that you will not take that or I can't even name the form.

But you know, what happens in your job, remains there.

So where would you like to see more ethics reforms?

And what do you think of the Madigan sentence?

You know, I think this is an example of the the rule of law playing itself out the way it's supposed to.

You know, an investigation happens, charges are brought, fair trial is had a jury of peers in this case convicted and the judge sentence according to, what our what our laws provide for.

You know, that being said, I don't think you can just say that with one particular conviction.

You know, we're out of you know, we're in the clear.

I think, ethics reform and considerations have to be an ongoing process.

We need to constantly look at, areas where, power, power can be abused and how, elected officials can, try to use that for their personal gain, which is, is unacceptable.

We hold extremely important positions of trust.

And the reality is those legislators and other elected officials that, commit these crimes, it reflects poorly on the folks that are trying to do the best that they can for the for the people they represent.

So I think it's an ongoing, it's an ongoing process.

And I think the what we've seen over the past several years, not just in Illinois, but, you know, places like Ohio where their longtime Republican speaker, was convicted of very similar, type of scheme.

We need to constantly ask ourselves, where are those weak points, where an unscrupulous, politician could take advantage of us.

So in these high positions, like the speaker, should there be term limits for that position?

Yeah.

We and the on the Senate side, and I think in the House, there's a, by rule, our own rule, it's a ten year, ten year limit.

And I think that I think that does make sense, and keeps that power from being concentrated for extended periods of time.

And that's on the leader and the minority leader.

Also, ten year term limits on the ten year limit on leadership position.

Right.

Let me talk about, your own personal safety.

We were talking a little earlier before we started the program in regards to the shootings that occurred in Minnesota.

Do you and there's been shootings outside the capital in Springfield as well?

A number of years ago.

Do you feel safe in your district?

Does your family, does your staff feel safe in the district?

And do you feel safe on the Capitol grounds?

Representative I feel safe.

I mean, it's our job to be with our constituents.

And whether it's a pancake breakfast or a Farm bureau annual meeting or a chicken fry or just going to church services, throughout the district, I feel safe.

And that's what I feel we need to be and have to be.

You know, I was in Iraq a year, and that's a little different conditions, you know, where you're always watching the roads, you're watching, keeping an eye on, on your surroundings.

But here, I feel safe with, going out and about throughout the district, Senator.

I mean, you have meetings all the time.

You both do a meeting with constituents.

Some are angry.

I generally feel safe when I'm out there.

And I will say that, you know, nearly all my interactions with, folks that live in the district, even when they're angry or upset, are, are safe interactions.

And, you know, some people are venting, particularly angry about a particular issue, that that hasn't really been an issue for me.

But I do think that the environment we're living in, we constantly, as elected officials, of, you know, when it happens to someone or the other party is recognize that it's unacceptable across across the board.

And I'm more worried not about you know, myself, but, you know, the way folks would treat staff or potentially treats family members.

For me, that's, that's the bigger concern.

But I think that, you know, we represent we have an overlap in what, Dan and I represent.

And I think those communities, know us.

Don't buy into the the I don't know the good versus evil, you know, narrative that seems to be out there.

And it's like, Dan and I, we agree on some issues.

We, you know, vigorously disagree on others, but I know that he's looking out the best he can for the people of the state of Illinois.

And I think he feels the same way.

And we we have that discussion.

I think the people in the district know that and, and respect that.

Yeah, yeah.

And, you know, and our most important job is not us, the most important person in our business is that person to answer the phone call in our offices, that legislative director or legislative assistant, they're the ones who get the brunt of many phone calls.

And then it's our job to follow up with that person, because you don't want to let those problems fester.

That's the worst thing you do.

You've got to do that immediate response.

I think, talking with constituents throughout the districts that are happens office is good at that.

I know, my legislative director, Shannon Sanders Brown, is good at doing that.

And that's the most important part, is talking with your constituents and, working with them.

Our thanks to Illinois State Senator Mike Halpin of Rock Island and State Representative Daniel Swanson of Whitehall.

Next year marks 250 years since America declared its independence in 1776.

And throughout the coming year and leading up to the 4th of July next year, we're asking people about their civic spark, why they chose their career, and how it impacts our society.

Circuit 21 has been a gem in Rock Island, providing a dinner theater experience in what was once the Fort Armstrong Theater.

But keeping the arts alive is not an easy job.

So we asked circuit 21 is Brett Hitchcock.

What's his civic spark that keeps the stage open?

I get started, I wanted to work with my dad and that was the big thing.

And so, and his vision for this business was to entertain people, to have people come in and give them an evening of entertainment, to give them, you know, to step away from everything going on in their lives and just have some fun.

And I think that's what we need more of in this country.

And, and so it was I saw the impact that he was making on the community when I was younger and decided, that's what I that's what I want to do, too.

I don't want to be an actor because I was terrible as an actor.

But but to be on the business side and to and to run this business with him, has been very rewarding.

And I think, you know, this country just gives so many opportunities to to people like my dad, you know, a guy that was a college professor that had a big dream.

And that's one of the things that makes this country so amazing, is that somebody with an idea, you know, with, with the right luck, you know, can can make this, into a huge business and have a huge impact, you know, in their community.

And I really feel like that's what my, my father did.

And, it's just my pleasure to continue that, you know, into the future and making sure that we can, and we can provide an entertainment opportunity for people to come out and have a good time.

Our thanks to Brett Hitchcock with circa 21 dinner theater in Rock Island.

On the air, on the radio, on the web, on your mobile device, and streaming on your computer.

Thanks for taking some time to join us.

As we talk about the issues on the city's.