PRITZKER WANTS FOUR MORE YEARS. ILLINOIS STILL HAS AN F.

The applause is his. The unpaid promises belong to you.

By Staff Writer | October 17, 2026

Imagine asking your family to celebrate your financial turnaround because you moved money between accounts, kept up with certain payments and persuaded a lender that you were a better credit risk.

Then imagine explaining that you still did not have enough money to cover the obligations you had already accumulated.

Would your family applaud?

Or would someone sitting across the kitchen table finally ask you to stop talking about your credit score and explain the debt?

Illinois residents have reached that moment.

Governor JB Pritzker is seeking another four years in office while promoting a financial comeback. But the 2026 Financial State of the States report gives Illinois an F, placing it 48th out of 50 states.

Only Connecticut and New Jersey finished worse.

According to Truth in Accounting’s analysis, as reported by The Center Square, Illinois lacks the resources to cover $166.3 billion in accumulated obligations. Its estimated taxpayer burden is $36,900.

That figure is not an immediate tax assessment or a bill assigned to every resident. It is the watchdog’s estimate of the shortfall divided among taxpayers.

But understanding the calculation does not make the underlying obligation any less troubling.

These are costs already incurred. Illinois’ future still needs to be funded on top of them.

And the governor wants voters to reward his record with another term.

Pritzker’s favorite evidence includes Illinois’ credit upgrades. In September, his administration announced its 12th upgrade under his leadership.

“Achieving two back-to-back credit upgrades is a powerful confirmation that Illinois is building financial progress to last.”

— Governor JB Pritzker, September 1, 2026.

That is a sweeping political conclusion drawn from a narrower financial judgment.

A credit upgrade is an assessment of creditworthiness. It is not certification that Illinois has adequately funded its pensions, eliminated its long-term shortfall or made government affordable for the people supporting it.

Lenders want confidence they will be repaid.

Taxpayers deserve to know what repayment will demand of them.

Those interests overlap, but they are not identical.

The criticism of Springfield’s accounting deserves attention, too. Truth in Accounting has challenged the use of fund sweeps, transfers and temporary measures in Illinois’ budgets. Its founder, Sheila Weinberg, has also criticized budget rules that permit borrowed proceeds to count toward balancing a budget and allow money from other funds to support the general fund.

Moving existing money can help an account meet its immediate needs. It does not, by itself, increase the state’s total resources or erase an obligation.

Think about transferring money from your savings account to checking. Your checking balance improves. Your household has not become wealthier.

Whether a particular transfer is prudent depends on where the money came from, what it was intended to support and whether the receiving account will need another rescue next year.

That is the substance behind the “shell game” criticism. Residents should be shown what each maneuver accomplishes, what it leaves unfunded and whether it can be repeated.

The evidence does not establish that credit agencies were deceived. In fact, S&P’s own published analysis has identified pension underfunding as a source of an implicit structural budget deficit.

The more defensible indictment is also the more important one: Pritzker is selling credit improvement as a much broader financial success while enormous obligations remain unresolved.

You do not need to prove an illusion fooled Wall Street to question what Springfield is selling voters.

Pensions expose the gap.

The report’s findings put Illinois’ pension funding at approximately 47 cents for every dollar promised, the lowest among states in its comparison.

Public employees did not create that shortfall simply by going to work. Retirees who planned around promised benefits deserve responsible funding. Taxpayers deserve honest accounting of what those promises cost.

Neither group benefits when politicians congratulate themselves while leaving the gap for another budget, another legislature or another generation.

“And the biggest thing that goes on is that the state is not funding what their actuaries say they should fund into their pension plans.”

— Sheila Weinberg, founder and CEO of Truth in Accounting, speaking to The Center Square.

That distinction cuts through years of reassuring language.

Making the contribution required by a state funding schedule is not necessarily the same as contributing what actuaries recommend.

If the required payment leaves the system inadequately funded, announcing that the state made its required payment does not settle the problem.

It documents compliance with a policy that itself deserves scrutiny.

And who has held the power to change those policies?

Democrats have controlled both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly since 2003. They have held the governor’s office for most of that period, with Republican Bruce Rauner serving from 2015 to 2019.

Republican administrations and lawmakers share responsibility for Illinois’ long financial history. That history should be examined honestly.

But acknowledging shared responsibility cannot become a way to avoid identifying who has held governing power for most of the past two decades.

Democratic leaders have passed budgets, shaped pension policy and decided how to raise and spend public money. Since January 2019, Pritzker has governed alongside Democratic legislative supermajorities.

He is approaching eight years in office.

At some point, an inherited problem becomes a test of the person elected to fix it.

After nearly two terms, voters are entitled to judge the remaining hole alongside the governor’s announcements about progress.

Weinberg acknowledged that Illinois’ condition improved, aided by federal revenue and investment returns. That matters because the failing grade was issued despite improvement.

Illinois did better and still finished near the bottom.

For residents, that is a reason to demand more than another celebration.

A young worker deciding whether to build a life here needs confidence that tomorrow’s earnings will support tomorrow’s opportunities.

A parent needs dependable schools and services.

A business owner needs customers with money left to spend.

Someone who cannot work needs a state capable of sustaining essential assistance.

A retiree needs stability, rather than another round of uncertainty about what government will ask next.

A large accumulated shortfall places pressure on all those priorities. The report does not predict a specific tax increase or service cut. It does show why promises about future spending and relief deserve hard questions.

Those questions become more urgent as Pritzker seeks a third term amid speculation about a 2028 presidential campaign.

A presidential run is not an announced certainty. Nor would running automatically mean leaving the governor’s office.

But voters deserve a direct answer about the commitment they are being asked to make.

If Pritzker wants four more years, does he intend to devote those years to governing Illinois? What measurable progress should residents expect on the obligations still hanging over them?

Seeking national office would make scrutiny of his Illinois record more relevant, not less.

A financial comeback presented to the country should withstand examination by the people who finance it.

Illinois residents have heard enough explanations for why the state’s problems are complicated. They know. They live with the consequences.

They deserve timely financial reports, budgets that reveal their full costs and a pension funding strategy that can be measured against actuarial needs.

They deserve to know whether money was newly generated, borrowed or transferred from somewhere else.

Above all, they deserve a governor who explains the unfinished work as prominently as he advertises the upgrades.

Because an F is not a campaign opponent’s insult. It is a watchdog’s assessment of obligations Illinois has already accumulated.

And another election does not make those obligations disappear.

If Illinois becomes a stepping stone to higher office, the people left standing on it will still have to pay the bills.

Official sources

• Office of Governor JB Pritzker, September 1, 2026, announcement of Illinois’ 12th credit upgrade under his leadership and the governor’s quoted statement.

• S&P Global Ratings, analysis of Illinois’ Series 2025A/B/C Build Illinois bonds, discussing fiscal flexibility and the structural budget deficit associated with underfunding actuarially determined pension contributions.

• Illinois House Republicans, “Tuesday’s place in history,” November 2018. Historical account noting Democratic control of both legislative chambers since 2003.

Primary research sources

• Truth in Accounting, “Financial State of the States 2026,” October 15, 2026. Nonprofit financial assessment, distinct from a government audit or credit rating.

• Truth in Accounting, “Another ‘Balanced’ Illinois Budget? Unpacking the Gimmicks and Pension Shortfall.” Analysis criticizing fund transfers, temporary budget measures and unresolved structural problems.

Secondary sources

• Jim Talamonti, The Center Square, “Report: Illinois gets an F for financial health,” October 15, 2026, republished by Cities 92.9. Source for Illinois’ ranking, shortfall, taxpayer burden, pension comparison and Weinberg’s interview.

• Ben Szalinski and Brenden Moore, Capitol News Illinois, “Pritzker says ‘so much more to do’ in Illinois as he seeks rare 3rd term,” October 9, 2026. Reporting on the reelection campaign and presidential speculation.

• Associated Press, “Gov. Pritzker gives Democrats near-record power in Illinois,” January 14, 2019, published by the Daily Herald. Historical context on Pritzker’s inauguration and Democratic legislative control.