[MUSIC] >> Welcome to capital view on WSIU.

I'm Brian Sapp.

We're days away from the end of this spring's legislative session.

Many bills have passed and they're waiting to be signed by Governor Pritzker.

And we have plenty of bills that are still waiting for votes.

And legislators are still trying to hammer out this year's budget and figure out a plan to keep the Chicago Bears in the state.

Joining the show today are Charlie Wheeler.

He's the emeritus director of the public Affairs Reporting Program at the University of Illinois, Springfield.

And Peter Hancock, he's a reporter with Capitol News Illinois.

Charlie and Peter, it's good to see you.

Welcome to the program.

>> Thank you for having us.

>> Let's get going.

We've got just a few days left as of recording.

It's Wednesday morning this Thursday.

And so we've only got a couple of days left.

Um, Peter, let's just start.

The big question is always the budget.

That's one of the last big things we've got to work on.

Where do things stand with this year's budget?

Kind of a broad question for you.

>> Well, it's moving along.

Different pieces of the budget have been moving through different appropriations committees.

They kind of do it one piece at a time.

And then in the final few days, it's all merged together into a single bill.

Essentially, the governor proposed about a $55 billion spending plan at the beginning of the session.

Uh, that's just state general fund, general revenue fund money.

Uh, that's a very small increase over last year, uh, due largely to, you know, scheduled increases in K through 12 education, uh, pension fund contributions, things like that.

Uh, no real new bold new spending initiatives.

Uh, and, uh, I think one of the big sticking points so far will be there does need to be some additional revenue to balance this out.

There are some proposals on the table.

Uh, I think a tax on social media is one of the more creative revenue, uh, options on the table, uh, different kinds of, uh, taxes like that, some additional gaming taxes.

Uh, there is a push on from more progressive groups, uh, for like millionaires taxes, uh, some, uh, you know, more broad based, uh, revenue increases to fund, uh, increased spending on K through 12 education and some other initiatives.

Those don't seem to have a whole lot of momentum behind them right now.

Uh, but you know, we'll see how the pressure builds in the final few days of the session.

>> Charlie, I wanted to kind of ask you with your breath of coverage, what I have just noticed this year.

Me being I mean, I've been here 15 months in the state.

I've noticed that there's been a lot of, um, staying eyes on target and not a lot of extra talk or big talk on increasing revenues.

There was some, but, you know, well, it just seems like Speaker Chris Welch and Harman, Senator Leader Harman and Governor Pritzker have been able to kind of keep the Democrats in line and not push for these big spending.

AM I noticing something right?

Or what do you think's going on?

>> I think I think that's what's happening.

I think the the governor is trying he's running for re-election and he's trying to thread a real narrow line where he's trying to meet the needs of the people.

But on the other hand, he doesn't want to come across as a wild progressive.

And some of the suggestions that are out there are very progressive, and I'm not sure.

And the governor himself said this the other day, he didn't think some of the the Progressive Alliance's proposals would have enough support to get through the General Assembly.

But it's an ongoing discussion and it's always been a discussion, and I've been watching this stuff.

I hate to say more than 50 years, but there's always the desire to spend more for good causes.

We should put more into education.

Of course we should.

We should put more into into services for the homeless or for the senior citizens.

Of course we should.

But the pot is not infinite.

And the question is, who's going to pay for it, and to what extent are the external factors, so to speak, what's going on just in the world at large, making it difficult for the average person just to subsist without being asked to contribute something else, maybe to help education or to help the homeless.

So as I said, it's a pretty fine line.

I think when push comes to shove, there will be a budget.

I can say that with great certainty.

Sometimes it's taken.

It's taken darn near a month to finally get it done.

But we've.

And we had one period where we kind of went without one.

When Bruce Rauner was here.

But by and large, the legislature will get that done.

They'll probably get it done in the wee hours of Monday morning.

And we'll see where we go from there.

>> I think that's that's what I'm seeing is just a lot of quiet, a lot of work going on in the the backgrounds.

When you read some of the pundits and talk about the not quite no news is good news.

So I think we'll keep keep Peter busy as he's there in the statehouse.

Charlie, I wanted to stay with you.

Another big bill.

I don't know, I'm a bears fan.

I like watching the bears.

I grew up near Chicago, so, um, you know, I'd like to keep the bears in the state, but I know that, um, there's a lot of pieces that go into that.

We haven't covered it for a few weeks.

Can you kind of give us an update where we stand with this mega project spill and the idea of keeping the bears in the state?

>> Yeah, I think I would have said a couple of weeks ago, yeah, it's going to pass.

They're going to keep the bears.

But some of the recent developments, I think, have put a degree of uncertainty on that.

Just the other day, the Cook County Treasurer, Maria Pappas, released a a pretty thorough.

Hang on.

I'm looking for my notes here.

>> Yeah.

She released a study where she talked about the property taxes.

>> That kind of concluded that the tax impacts from this Mega projects bill, which is designed to help the bears and others.

Kind of murky.

And the bottom line is it's pretty clear that there would be some gain for the wealthy.

What would you say developers?

Not so clear that there'd be any gain for individuals.

And if you have a mega project that creates a lot of economic value, but you don't allow that economic value to be reflected in the property tax base, then whatever additional costs there are is going to fall on homeowners and others.

And that's the big issue going on now.

So this was raised and it was coupled with what we were talking about before, where the the group of progressives who are arguing that we need to do more for education, as an example, are saying, well, here we're talking about giving this handout to the bears.

This multibillion dollar organization.

And according to this study, they're going to get a tax breaks of I make sure I get this right.

Over the course of the deal, they would save the bears a billion and a half dollars that otherwise would go to local taxing bodies.

And so the progressives are saying, look, how can you be talking about doing this for for the bears?

You know, we love the bears, blah, blah, blah.

But on the other hand, we don't have enough money for our school kids.

You know, let the McCaskey family take care of itself.

And the alternative is will they go to Indiana?

Indiana is bending over, giving them all kinds of great, Uh, what would you say?

Financial incentives.

But the one thing that's not clear in my mind, based on stories I've seen in the Trib and elsewhere, the site that is being planned in Hammond, it's basically it was a slag heap from one of the foundries.

And there's real questions about whether or not it may be a hazardous waste site in terms of what kind of contaminants are there.

And so the the expectations are when all the due diligence is finished.

The bears may not want to go there, but I think it's because of the the correlation between how people are struggling in their own lives and how we need to do more for schools and other things.

And here we are giving this handout to the bears, and there's really no guarantee that it will produce commensurate benefits for the taxpayers or for the citizens.

And so why should we give all this money to this fancy football team, uh, when we can't provide enough money for our school kids?

>> Peter, I wanted to kind of follow up with you on that tie back to something Charlie said about needing to thread the needle during this election year.

What are you seeing in Springfield?

And like, there's a lot to balance here for these legislators, isn't there?

>> There really is.

Uh, and I think, you know, the mega projects, bill, they're trying to not associate it too closely with the Chicago Bears.

Uh, but that's, you know, clearly what it's about.

Uh, it's probably more a matter of perception than reality.

Uh, but the idea is, you know, people who put up these large, uh, Impactful developments would get to negotiate how much they pay in property taxes, uh, what's called a pilot, a payment in lieu of taxes.

Uh, they would get to negotiate that rather than paying it the way you and I do.

Uh, which is when the, the county assessor comes out and says, this is how much your property is worth, and here's what your tax rate is going to be.

Um, you know, it really kind of, I, I think they're afraid of the perception, especially when property taxes are such a hot issue, uh, statewide with everybody, uh, and especially, uh, the amount of property taxes we pay to fund public schools.

Uh, Illinois is still highly reliant on local property taxes to fund K through 12 education.

And the idea that you're going to give these large developers breaks on their taxes while the rest of us are paying, uh, what many consider to be the highest taxes in the country.

Uh, just it, it doesn't look good.

And I think that's that's what a lot of lawmakers are afraid of.

>> Yeah.

And Brian, I don't know what it's like for you guys down south, but the property tax first installment is due here in Sangamon County next week.

So I'm kind of girding my loins, so to speak, to figure out what I'll be able to make that payment.

Mhm.

>> Yeah.

I think that's the property taxes are.

Um, I moved here from Indiana and property taxes were a topic for like the 20 years that I lived here, lived there, and not as much noise here as there was there.

So.

Well, I think we've got a few more days.

And again, it's been kind of quiet.

There's been some rustling, but I think we'll just kind of have to wait and see the next few days and see what kind of shakes out.

Peter, one of the bills that was passed, and I believe I'd have to remember that it was passed bipartisan in nature, the junk fees.

And that was on the idea of affordability.

Um, what does this bill do?

And is it going to help with affordability?

>> Well, whether or not it helps with affordability is yet to be seen.

But this is really one of those popular issues that, uh, really people from both parties could jump on because all consumers know the frustration of going online or shopping, you know, to book a hotel room, uh, to book an airline flight.

And you see, you know, the hotel rooms going to be $125 a night or, you know, the air flight is going to be X dollars.

And then when you get to the checkout counter and actually have to pay the taxes and fees that you didn't know about, um, you know, really start to add up.

And it's, it's, it's frustrating for consumers everywhere.

It just sort of makes people feel like, uh, you're not being told the whole truth until it's too late and you have to pay the bill.

Uh, what this bill does is essentially say that whenever anybody offers something for sale in Illinois, you have to disclose all of the mandatory fees that are going to be charged.

Um, and, uh, oddly, you know, this is something that has taken a number of years to get through the legislature, uh, different versions, you know, uh, of course, you know, retailers and the various industry groups, uh, negotiated around the edges.

It took a very long time, but they finally do have a bill that essentially says consumers have to be told upfront what all of the fees are going to be.

Uh, and that is on its way to, uh, to the governor's desk for his signature.

And I believe he's, uh, indicated that he plans to sign it.

>> I think I remember seeing that as well.

Charlie, were you going to say something there?

>> No, I was going to add.

Yeah.

Uh, he said at the time it passed the legislature that, uh, and here's his quote.

Illinois consumers have been nickeled and dimed out of thousands of dollars per year by unnecessary and deceptive junk fees.

I am proud that the Illinois General Assembly has passed a junk Fee Ban Act to put money back in the pockets of families and establish fair, honest pricing from concert tickets to online shopping.

So I think that's a pretty strong indication where he stands on it.

>> Yeah, I, I think that's where he stands.

And like you said, when we go to pay these, click on select, it's quite a bit more.

And I've noticed when I look at airline tickets, they're sure to put those taxes in there.

But they the fees don't always make it in there like the taxes do.

Um, Charlie, I wanted to talk with you.

Uh, we've covered a few stories here, um, particularly, uh, sorry.

Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias has been pushing some changes, and I know there are some other changes outside of his effort to make some changes to auto and home insurance.

His was more about auto insurance.

The bills have been making it through one one chamber.

They had both the home and auto together and the other chamber.

They separated them.

Can you kind of tell us what these changes could be and where they where they stand?

>> Yeah.

Well, the, the one that's been around longest in terms of working its way through the legislature in recent sessions is, is one that would regulate homeowners insurance.

It would require companies to give a 60 day notice for any increase over 10%.

And it would create a determination hearing process for the Illinois Department of Insurance to determine if an increase is excessive or inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

And this stems from, uh, I think it was a couple of years ago when the home insurance rates jumped dramatically and the companies would not, for whatever reason, would not provide the financial data to back up what they were doing.

They just said, oh, trust us.

And the expectation or the suspicion from governor and legislative leaders was, yeah, you guys had losses down in the Gulf Coast.

You had losses out on the West Coast, and you're making our ratepayers cover your losses, and we don't want that to happen.

So anyway, this is going to go to the governor, and I'm pretty sure it will be approved by the governor because he's been supporting this.

And the other one is kind of similar.

And it's would have to do with auto insurance, and it would require it would ban insurance companies from increasing auto premiums by more than 10% without first notifying consumers before the renewal or anniversary date.

and the Department of Insurance again would be responsible for making sure the rates are not excessive, inadequate, discriminatory, and the.

And this legislation also is, I believe it's in the House.

For concurrence, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, it needs one more vote to get to the governor, and that will happen sometime this week.

So those are pretty important for consumers.

And it's a long drawn out battles that we finally got it achieved.

>> I wanted to follow up with you, Charlie, on this.

Um, like I said, Alexi Giannoulias has been kind of championing the at least the auto insurance rates.

Do you think he's and I could be being cynical here, but his name has also been mentioned to be running for the mayor of Chicago.

Do you think he might be trying to a help out, but then also in a cynical way, kind of build up, you know, a legislative win to use when he runs for mayor?

>> That might be possible.

But if you think about it.

The state agency that has most to do with driving and vehicles is a secretary of state, right?

Issues of driver's licenses regulates, you know, your vehicles.

And so it's only natural for him to be concerned about insurance more so than it would be for, say, Alexi Giannoulias, to be concerned about what I have to pay for my homeowner's insurance.

So in that sense, it sinks in with what his mission is anyway.

And if he's thinking of running for something else, it doesn't hurt for him to be there on the side of the of the vehicle owners.

>> Okay.

All right.

Well, we'll wait for that to to make its way through.

Um, Peter, another bill that I hadn't heard much about, probably because it wasn't in my purview, but this new 340 B bill was, um, discount drugs.

Can you kind of tell us what this bill is and where it stands?

>> Yeah.

This is a rather strange issue that cropped up, uh, just within the last, I would say, you know, 12 to 18 months.

The 340 B program is, uh, it dates back.

It's a federal program that dates back to the early 1990s.

And essentially it was a way, uh, it required pharmaceutical companies to give really steep discounts on drugs that are sold to, uh, safety net clinics, uh, certain kinds of Aids clinics, uh, community, what are called Fqhcs, or federally qualified health centers.

Community health centers.

The health providers that serve a large number of low income, uninsured, underinsured, or Medicaid patients to give them low cost drugs.

Uh, it was such a small program when it began.

They didn't even give it a name.

It's just 340 B it's like section 340 B of, you know, some federal statute.

Uh, over the years, this thing has mushroomed into an incredibly large, uh, drug distribution program, uh, largely because we have expanded Medicaid, added more population groups to qualify for Medicaid.

Uh, and so now, uh, it's this huge program and you have, it's almost like a circular firing squad of everybody involved in, uh, the pharmaceutical drug distribution chain, pointing fingers at the other person saying you have abused the system.

Uh, the idea is that when the facilities get these discounts, when they resell the drug to the patient, they mark.

Mark it back up to the regular price.

And that spread between the discount wholesale price that they pay and the retail price that they charge.

That spread is sort of a non-tax source of revenue for these clinics and hospitals.

And, uh, it also affects rural hospitals and, uh, you know, certain nonprofit hospitals.

Um, and so there is a bill that has passed the Senate.

It's waiting on a concurrence in the House that would prohibit the pharmaceutical industry from restricting, uh, the way that hospitals and clinics can distribute the drugs and who they can contract with, uh, the contract pharmacies, uh, the pharmaceutical companies are saying, no, we're not the problem.

It's the fact that these very large hospitals, systems that have now gotten into the into the business.

They're marking up the cost of drugs, you know, at phenomenal rates.

And they're abusing the system.

The hospitals in turn, say, no, it's not us.

It's the pharmacy benefit managers, uh, the insurance companies that are marking their skimming profits off of it.

Uh, so we have this one bill that's been waiting on a concurrence vote in the House really since the end of the last legislative session here this week, a new bill has popped up that would require it would have the the Department of Insurance conduct a study to find out who is really making money off the 340 B program, uh, in order to determine, uh, where it should be regulated at the state level.

Uh, so it's a, it's one of these things where, you know, the average consumer may have a hard time, uh, relating to it or figuring out why it's important to them.

Uh, you know, until you get a hospital bill or a clinic bill and you see the cost of the medication, uh, that you were prescribed, uh, but there are millions upon millions of dollars at stake in this.

Uh, so much so I don't know about other parts of the state, but we're seeing TV ads, issue oriented TV ads here in the Springfield market, uh, vaguely, you know, accusing some people of abusing the 340 B system.

It's kind of unclear, uh, what it is that they're asking the viewer to do.

Uh, but it's turned into this huge issue.

And it's one where, uh, I think a lot of lawmakers are just so confused by it.

Uh, the charges and countercharges going back and forth that, uh, lawmakers may just, uh, walk away from this thing saying it's just too toxic for us to deal with at this point.

So it's really kind of a fascinating study in how, uh, how politics works and the Byzantine way, uh, that prescription drugs are priced and sold in the United States.

Uh, you know, who's charging the money and how they're distributed it.

It's an incredibly complex system.

>> It is.

And reading, like I've learned so much more from, I've read, skimmed some of the articles and hearing, hearing you explain it does does help.

And, um, we've got plenty of time left in the, the, this year's session, we've got a couple of weeks.

Wanted to finish up a legislator.

Um, Dale Fowler here, uh, had already announced that he wasn't going to run again, but he just released a statement that said that he's going to resign at the end of this legislative session.

So that was kind of news, and we wanted to include that here.

I've got a few days left.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

That's it for this week's edition of Capital View.

Peter and Charlie, thanks for joining us.

Like I said, join us next week as we look at the wrap up for this spring session.

And on behalf of Charlie Wheeler and Peter Hancock, I'm Brian Sapp.

Thank you for watching.

[MUSIC] [MUSIC]