PRITZKER CALLS THE BUDGET BALANCED. THE $143.5 BILLION PENSION GAP TELLS ANOTHER STORY.

Economic Rights| Illinois Politics| Business and Economy | Featured

September 27, 2026•7 min read

A BALANCED BUDGET. AN UNBALANCED GOVERNMENT. A PENSION BILL STILL DUE.

Pritzker and the Democratic supermajority celebrate Illinois’ credit upgrade. Paul Vallas points to nearly $86 billion in higher taxes and fees. Darren Bailey asks whether families can afford the state’s idea of progress. The pension gap stands at $143.5 billion.

By Staff Writer | September 27, 2026

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has a story he wants Illinoisans to hear: The budgets are balanced. The credit rating is up. The state is moving forward.

Here is the part that should stop a voter cold.

Illinois’ five state retirement systems had a combined $143.5 billion in unfunded liabilities in fiscal 2025, according to the General Assembly’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability. That is a long-term gap between pension assets and promised benefits. It is not a bill due tomorrow. It is a promise future budgets must keep finding the money to pay.

Paul Vallas has put another number beside it: $85.6 billion. That is his estimate of what tax and fee increases under Pritzker have cost Illinoisans through fiscal 2026.

Vallas is a former Chicago budget director, former CEO of Chicago Public Schools and former Democratic nominee for Illinois lieutenant governor. Now a senior fellow at the Illinois Policy Institute, he is asking a question the governor’s credit-rating celebrations cannot drown out: After collecting so much more, why is the pension hole still so enormous?

“Recent credit upgrades are from tax and fee hikes, not growth.”
— Paul Vallas, Illinois Policy Institute

Pritzker’s credit upgrade is real. S&P Global Ratings raised Illinois from A-minus to A in September, pointing to stronger reserves, cleared short-term liabilities and improved budget management. Creditors see progress. The governor can take credit for it.

His Republican opponent, Darren Bailey, did not pretend otherwise.

“Illinois getting a credit upgrade is good news. I’m not going to tell you otherwise just because I’m running against JB Pritzker.”
— Darren Bailey, September 2026

Then Bailey drew the distinction Pritzker’s celebration leaves out.

“A credit rating tells Wall Street whether Illinois government can afford to pay its bills. It doesn’t tell you whether you can afford yours.”
— Darren Bailey, September 2026

That is a question for every Illinois household watching the cost of living rise while Springfield congratulates itself. Bailey says families have paid more at the pump, at the toll booth and to register a car. His campaign calls for lower taxes, less wasteful spending and greater affordability.

Illinois still has the lowest state rating on S&P’s list, and the rating agency identifies its pension funding framework as a significant weakness. A better rating tells creditors the state has improved. It does not tell retirees that the pension gap has been closed or taxpayers what it will cost to close it.

That is why Illinois needs to talk about balanced government, not just balanced budgets.

Democrats hold 78 of 118 seats in the Illinois House and 40 of 59 in the Senate. They also hold the governor’s office. Those veto-proof majorities give Pritzker and Democratic legislative leaders the votes to pass their priorities. They cannot say they lacked the power to choose a different fiscal course.

A budget can balance because lawmakers brought in more money. It can balance while a long-term liability remains unresolved. And when the governor’s party commands both legislative chambers, voters have an even greater reason to demand hard questions about every spending promise, every tax increase and every claim that the problem has been solved.

Illinois can choose a different direction. That means electing people prepared to challenge a budget before they applaud it, demand the full cost of a promise before they make it and insist on a pension plan that lasts longer than the next campaign.

Pritzker did not create every dollar of Illinois’ pension gap. Previous leaders from both parties bear responsibility. But he and the Democratic supermajority have had years in power and billions in added revenue. They own the choices made during those years. They own the budgets they passed. And they owe taxpayers an explanation of what it will take to fund the benefits still promised.

That explanation matters to the retired teacher who counts on her pension check. It matters to the state employee still paying into the system. It matters to the family deciding whether Illinois will remain affordable.

Instead, pension politics too often offers those voters a warning: Elect Republicans and you will lose money or lose what you earned.

Americans heard the financial version of that warning in the presidential election. Then, during the 2026 filing season, the IRS reported that the average federal tax refund through May 8 was $3,276, compared with $2,939 at the comparable point in 2025. That is $337 more, an 11.5% increase. President Donald Trump also signed tax provisions providing new deductions for eligible workers earning qualified tips and overtime. Treasury says millions of households benefited. A refund does not measure every family’s full financial position, but the figures undercut the claim that a Republican victory automatically means less money coming back to Americans.

Illinois voters should apply the same test to pension warnings. Judge candidates by their proposals. Judge incumbents by their record. Fear is not a funding plan. Party loyalty is not a pension contribution.

The Illinois Constitution protects public pension benefits from being diminished or impaired. Illinois cannot simply file for the federal bankruptcy process available to eligible municipalities and erase retirees’ checks. The danger facing voters is a state whose growing obligations could keep squeezing budgets and taxpayers if its leaders fail to fund them responsibly.

“The benefits ... shall not be diminished or impaired.”
— Illinois Constitution, Article XIII, Section 5

That legal promise demands financial discipline, not campaign theater.

Bailey has made a pointed case that the state’s ability to borrow more cheaply is not the same thing as a family’s ability to live more cheaply. His challenge to Pritzker belongs in this debate. So does a challenge to Bailey: How, specifically, would he fund the pensions Illinois has promised while cutting taxes and spending? Voters should expect a detailed answer before accepting either candidate’s assurance that his approach will protect retirees.

A different direction would require candidates to show how they will fund pensions over time, what their budgets will cost and how they will strengthen the economy supporting both. It would require legislators willing to challenge the governor, whichever party he belongs to. And it would require voters to withhold automatic trust from anyone who offers a balanced budget as the final answer to a $143.5 billion funding gap.

Pritzker has a credit upgrade. Vallas has identified a vast tax bill. Bailey has named the pressure families feel. The legislature’s own commission has measured the pension gap. Illinoisans should see all four before deciding who has earned their vote.

A balanced budget may win a headline. A balanced government makes leaders answer for what the headline leaves out. Illinois can choose a different direction.