Illinois schools could be affected by weakening Dept. of Education

The Trump administration is reportedly drafting an Executive Order aimed at dismantling some or all of the U.S. Department of Education, and although Presidents cannot eliminate a federal agency created by Congress (like the DoEd, in 1979), Trump could try to cut its budget or staff.

So despite most funding for public education from pre-school through higher education coming from local taxes and state fundings, there are concerns.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker last month called federal assistance vital to families.

“If they take that away, that’s going to be highly detrimental to the people of our state,” he said. “So, I’m going to do everything I can to preserve that funding. I hope that that does not end up being a target of their attacks.”

The Department of Education has about 4,000 employees operating a $79 billion budget, helping students with special needs and children from low-income households, plus managing federal student loans and collecting and distributing research on learning, teaching testing and more.

Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect says targeting researching and reporting in the name of efficiency could be government removing pesky facts it would rather not disclose, from inflation and climate change to workplace safety and public schools’ “best practices.”

Silencing education could be disastrous.

“As a percentage of the current yearly federal budget of $6.8 trillion, axing those particularly targeted employees would reduce federal spending by roughly zilch,” he writes. “But if the ‘counting’ agencies are among those targeted for decimation, that ‘zilch’ can be promoted as constituting gazillions.”

Targeting DoEd is unpopular, too.

“Only 29% of Americans support abolishing the Education Department,” notes Urban League President Mark H. Morial. “In fact, nearly 70% of voters want to see education funding increased.”

To absent friends, and better times

With all the chaos and evil around us all, I need additional stimuli to balance the outrage and sorrow so many Americans feel.

Fortunately, the National Pastime resumes this month, in stadiums and sandlots, and in hearts and minds longing for innocence and purity at a time of depravity and greed.

As baseball approaches, everything seems fresh and new (if cold and dormant); everyone has an equal change (depending on off-season acquisitions and injuries), and the possibilities are endless (at least through 162 games).

I miss all that.

And more.

To rekindle my love for the game before Major League Baseball starts March 18 with the Cubs playing the Dodgers in Tokyo, I’m re-reading some of the great comments about baseball that three late pals and I shared in 20 years of pilgrimages to Opening Day at Wrigley Field.

A few favorites that still soothe me:

* “The strongest thing that baseball has going for it today are its yesterdays,” said Lawrence Ritter, author of The Story of Baseball.

* Baseball Hall of Fame owner of the White Sox, Indians and Browns Bill Veeck (whose memoir was Veeck as in Wreck), described baseball as “played by people, real people, not freaks. Basketball is played by giants. Football is played by ... hulks. The normal-sized man plays baseball and the fellow in the stands can relate to that. Destiny has become less manageable, and consequently life has become … more difficult. Baseball is

almost the only orderly thing in a very unorderly world. If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can’t get you off.”

* Novelist Thomas Wolfe (Look Homeward Angel and You Can’t Go Home Again) said, “One reason I have always loved baseball so much is that it has been not merely ‘the great national game,’ but ... a part of ... our lives, of the thing that is our own … the million memories of America. Almost everything I know about spring is in it – the first leaf, the jonquil, the maple tree, the . . . grass upon your hands and knees, the coming into flower of April. And is there anything that can tell more about an American summer than ... the smell of the wooden bleachers in a small town baseball park, that resinous, sultry and exciting smell of old dry wood.”

* And playwright William Saroyan (The Human Comedy and The Time of Your Life) wrote, “Baseball is caring. Player and fan alike must care, or there is no game. If there’s no game, there’s no pennant race and no World Series. And for all any of us know there might soon be no nation.”

I sure miss the nation we happy few Cubs fans shared, especially between 1987 and 2006 in Chicago openers.

I miss the game itself and the warmth we somehow felt freezing in the grandstand, and the beer and cigars and laughter and playfulness.

I miss my friends and the camaraderie.

I miss my country.

I still care.

Voter turnout can be key, but it’s often disappointing

There are probably several factors that lead to lower voter turnout in some elections. Obstacles to Getting Out The Vote range from apathy and poverty to a lack of transportation (especially in rural areas or communities without public transportation), dissatisfaction with choices and limited exposure to engagement – particularly in 'off-year' elections with no presidential contest, and consolidated local elections.

In those, such as Illinois’ April 1 election, political parties, candidates and news media spend less time and money on effective communications to the public.

The United States is behind many other countries in voter turnout, so even when turnout improves – like in 2020 and 2024, according to the Pew Research Center – the USA is in the middle of the pack.

At the top of the 51 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation (OECD), Pew’s listed the turnout rate for six nations (Uruguay, Turkey, Peru, Indonesia, Argentina and Sweden) as better than 80%.

At the bottom of the OECD list are Costa Rica, Croatia, Luxembourg, South Africa, Bulgaria and Switzerland, all with about 52% or less.

The United States sits at Number 32 with a 62.8%

There is a slight difference between what’s a turnout – the percentage of those who registered (and therefore at some point intended to vote), and the percentage of those of the voting age of 18 (and presumably could vote). So in Peoria County since 2020, turnouts of the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots fluctuated between 16.19% to 72.56%.

The Consolidated General Elections of 2021 and 2023, like the April 1 contest, averaged 16.8, compared to the general elections of 2020, 2022 and 2024 averaging 63.82.

However, the most recent Census estimate of Peoria County’s population is 177,163, with 42,248 residents younger than 18 years old. Therefore, about 135,265 are age-eligible to vote, and since the Peoria Election Commission reports 117,217 registered voters, more than 18,000 Peoria County adults are not even registered.

In November, about two-thirds of voting-age citizens cast ballots, meaning tens of millions did not. Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris 77,302,580 to 75,017,613 (49.8% to 48.3%), according to the Federal Election Commission, reporting the total as 152,320,193 – 98.1% of all votes for president.

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan independent election organization Ballotpedia reported that another 2,895,872 votes went to 22 other candidates with at least 359 votes – such as Jill Stein (Green Party), RFK Jr. (independent), Chase Oliver (Libertarian), and Cornel West (independent) – and write-ins nationwide.

Americans who could vote but didn’t may be a significant political group.

“The 2016 election also highlighted the political impact of non-voting,” writes columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall. “Non-voters skewed Democratic [according to Pew Research], accounting for 55% as opposed to 41% for Republicans. Hillary Clinton lost because she wasn’t able to motivate enough of her own party’s supporters.

“Non-voters were even more powerful in 2024,” Rall adds. “An astonishing 19 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 considered the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and picked the couch.”

Locally, the turnout for the April 1 consolidated election is expected to follow the historical pattern.

That’s troubling to the League of Women Voters of Greater Peoria, which recently posted, “These elections will determine the future of the City. People elected will make decisions on how our tax money is spent.

“Want to see your City do more of this and less of that? Spend more tax money here and less tax money over there? You have to vote and make your voice heard!”

Union membership, density, and -busters

News usually goes beyond a recitation of statements; merely presenting a company’s or a government’s
framing of some policy or action can be incomplete, misleading or false.

If a house fire occurs, coverage should include a cause, an estimated loss, etc. Was it arson or spontaneous combustion? Limited to smoke damage in the kitchen or a total loss requiring immediate demolition?

A recent example that got some attention but little context was the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics’ annual report on union density. Late last month, the BLS reported that the share of America’s workers in unions declined from 10.0% in 2023 to 9.9% in 2024.

First, of course, the number of dues-paying union members isn’t the same as the number of workers a union represents – especially in Right To Work (for less) states and after Supreme Court decisions allowing some public employees to more easily become “free riders,” enjoying the benefits of union representation without sharing the costs of organizing, bargaining and enforcing contracts.

Few stories mentioned the number of union members vs. the number of workers represented – a distinction with a HUGE difference. And far fewer tried to explain how and why the percentage is virtually stagnant.

“If a workplace is unionized, all workers in the bargaining unit get the benefits of being represented by the union, even if they are not union members,” the Economic Policy Institute reminds us. “Thus, the share of workers represented by a union is somewhat higher than the share of workers who are members of a union. Because all workers in a bargaining unit get the benefit of being represented by the union, union representation is the more relevant statistic.”

So, 16.0 million U.S. workers were represented by a union. This was 11.1% – more than one in ten – of all wage and salary workers. That 16.0 million was a drop from 2023, but just 170,000; the 11.1% unionization rate was down, but barely, from 11.2%.

Next, people are right to be curious why, if more than two-third of Americans approve of unions, according to Gallup (which has showed such support grew from 48% in 2010 to 70% in 2024), more unionization hasn’t followed. Popular approval is at its highest level in more than half a century (and much higher than the approval rating for corporations).

And some wonder how, if the surge in approval has translated to active interest – petitions to unionize more than doubled since 2021, and were up 27% just last year, and about 1,800 union elections were held in 2024 – statistics didn’t budge much.

Maybe most startling is poll results showing that 60% of U.S. workers would join a union if they could.

Perhaps not fully appreciated by many regular Americans – but certainly realized by labor and its allies – is that the increasing disparity between the powerful rich and the rest of us for years has been used to prevent reform and attack organized labor. Further, there are few consequences for employers to break the laws that established workers’ rights.

As AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said, “Corporations and billionaires continue to union bust with impunity.”

EPI in a recent report agreed, noting, “The disconnect between the growing interest in unionization and declining unionization rates can be explained by the fact that there are powerful forces blocking the will of workers: aggressive opposition from employers combined with labor law that is so weak that it doesn’t truly protect workers’ right to organize.

The National Labor Relations Act guarantees most private-sector workers the right to join unions and bargain collectively. However, decades of federal policy and court decisions have weakened labor law, and employers often exploit weaknesses in U.S. labor law to mount aggressive opposition to unions. For example, the lack of civil monetary penalties for breaking the law allows employers to violate workers’ rights with little to no repercussions.

“Decades of attacks on unions both on the federal and state levels have made it hard for workers to form and maintain unions,” EPI continued. “Further, weaknesses in federal labor law have made it possible for employers to oppose unions.”

Americans may be at a moment of truth, Shuler added.

“Working people are ready for some long overdue change,” she said. “And more and more people are starting to realize that change starts when we stand together and demand it.”

New analysis: Torrent of Trump orders hard to keep track

Remembering the number and danger of dozens of Executive Orders issued by President Trump and his inner circle in recent weeks is difficult, like treading the surface after going over a waterfall.

Try to catch your breath, with a little help from the Labor Paper.

Workers, seniors, the needy and veterans all are especially targeted, but literally every American could be affected by the onslaught of decrees from the White House. Early this month, a single issue of the Washington Post had these headlines:

“CDC removes gender, equity references in public health material”

“Large sets of data are being scrubbed of references to transgender and LGBTQ people, among others, which could compromise their use in research”

“Trump sketches unprecedented plan for sweeping tariffs”

“Justice Department orders FBI purge, review of staff who touched Jan. 6 cases “

“D.C. U.S. attorney fires Jan. 6 prosecutors, launches new probes”

The same week, one afternoon edition of the Chicago Tribune was dominated by:

“Trump’s orders have upended immigration”

“Trump’s FBI director pick Patel insists he has no ‘enemies list’ ”

“RFK Jr. on the defensive over his vaccine vows in hearing”

“National parks are on the chopping block as Trump cuts federal jobs”

“Destabilizing Mexico would make U.S. less safe and wealthy”

“Trump blames DC plane crash on Biden, diversity initiatives”

 

Concerning that last accusation (uttered without proof), the Meidas Touch news site – edited by Marine, former prosecutor and ex-Florida Republican Ron Filipkowski – commented, “Trump's handling of this situation should be treated as one of the biggest scandals in presidential history.”

 

Again: Inhale.

But try to take in this flurry (or fury) from early February. Trump announced:

his endangering the lives of critics including Gen. (ret.) Mark Milley, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security adviser John Bolton and public health expert Dr. Anthony Fauci by removing their security details; starting to round up immigrants, planning to deport or incarcerate them at Guantanamo, and withholding federal aid to states and cities unless they help; killing funding for the bipartisan Infrastructure law; canceling all federal collective bargaining agreements reached before he was president, notifying 1,100 Environmental Protection Agency workers they could be fired, and offering more than 2 million other federal workers an inducement to quit (although Congress hasn’t authorized the payout); that the State and Defense Departments will no longer recognize Black History Month and making plans to restore the names of 10 renamed Army installations to previous names of traitorous Confederates; strong “free speech” protections but new steps to sue or shut down speech he didn’t like; replacing prominent news media at the Pentagon with right-wing outlets such as Breitbart and OAN;

purging the FBI of its six top executives, more than 20 heads of field offices and dozens of federal prosecutors who’d worked on cases involving Jan. 6; the possible elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and also withholding disaster aid from California unless it passes a stricter voter ID law; threats to take over Canada, Gaza, Greenland, and Panama’s Canal Zone; possibly considering convicted felon Rod Blagojevich, the impeached Illinois governor, as ambassador to Serbia (according to Politico); firing the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board and naming himself its new chair; criticism of safety precautions about peanuts, schools using “spork” utensils, and restrictions on plastic straws; anticipated cutbacks for the National Endowment for the Arts and public media; ideas for opening public land for exploitation; and firing at least 17 independent Inspector Generals who monitor government corruption.

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, told the Washington Post that Trump “is destroying whatever gets in the way of what he wants to do. That includes having loyalty be the primary screen for choosing his direct lieutenants and crushing the civil service and converting it into a tool for his private agenda, as opposed to a force for the public good and the rule of law.”

 

Trump also:

fired the National Labor Relations lead attorney and one of its Board members so the agency won’t have a quorum to conduct business; rescinded Temporary Protected Status for about 600,000 Venezuelans who came to the U.S. at that offer; backed unelected billionaire Elon Musk who said he was killing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had recovered $19.6 billion for consumers since it started in 2011; supported Republican proposals to tax worker benefits and GOP efforts to cut federal support to Medicaid (which helped some 770,000 Illinoisans, according to the state’s Healthcare and Family Services), revoked the Equal Employment Opportunity program for workers and businesses; and threatened punishing tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, Colombia and China.

In The Atlantic magazine, Ronald Brownstein notes that the combination of steep tariffs, the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, major cuts in federal health-care programs like Medicaid, and attacks on funding for public schools or even eliminating the Dept. of Education altogether could produce a “quadruple whammy” for much of small-town and rural America – MAGA country.

Ag columnist Alan Guebert wrote, “Less than two weeks into the Trump Administration we have some idea about the overall meaning: picking unnecessary fights with vital ag trade partners like Colombia, firing government watchdogs like the U.S. Department of Agriculture's inspector general, attempting to repeal the 14th Amendment's guarantee to birthright citizenship, and making deep cuts to critical food aid programs like SNAP.

 

But wait: There’s more!

Before that series of edicts – after November’s election through last month’s Inauguration – Trump also:

* freed all 1,600 or so people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection;

* withdrew from the global climate agreement, the World Health Organizations and the International Criminal Court;

* removed thousands of webpages from Health & Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;

* paused USAID and other federal funding for organizations in a power grab called “impoundment,” which illegally prevents spending funds Congress authorizes.

“The administration has carried out unlawful budget freezes, massive civil servant layoffs and unconstitutional firings, directed federal funding specifically to places with ‘higher birthrates,’ allowed an unelected and unchecked billionaire to determine what our tax dollars are worthy of funding, and more.”

Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) told the Associated Press. “This is unacceptable and dangerous.”

 

Trump:

* let Musk send staffers to access Americans’ private information at federal agencies including the Office of Personnel Management, Treasury, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the General Services Administration, and payment procedures, which some lawmakers said was a hostile takeover of the U.S. government’s digital backbone. Musk said, “Regulations, basically, should be default gone.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said, “I am deeply alarmed that Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who has been given broad access to the resources of the American people without election, vetting, or confirmation by anyone, has reportedly gained access to the Treasury Department's payments system. This access could potentially give him control of the funds Congress has appropriated for health care, for housing, for child care, for small businesses, and for students.”

* Trump’s nominations to his cabinet look too much like a team of Village (Idiot) People, highlighted by ex-Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (with ties to Russia and ex-Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad), conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. (who compared the CDC to “Nazi death camps” and claimed COVID-19 was created to spare Ashkenazi Jews), and ex-Florida AG Pam Bondi (a lobbyist and one of Trump’s defense attorneys). She was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General after swearing under oath she would not seek revenge against Trump’s political opponents, and then not long after taking office setting up a “weaponization working group” to investigate those who worked on Trump cases at state or national levels.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said, “Pam Bondi has passed Donald Trump’s Attorney General loyalty test with flying colors, whether by peddling election lies or saying she will prosecute perceived enemies, and her unflinching loyalty to the president-elect raises serious concerns about the future of an independent Justice Department.”

 

Lurking in the shadows: ‘collaborators’?

As Trump and his Project 2025 handlers stomp on the Constitution, trash government and insult allies and half of the U.S. electorate, Republican leaders seem Mad.

As in, “What? Me worry?”

U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Peoria) seems comfortable staying in lockstep with members of the GOP who appear to bounce between quivering like blackmail victims or go-along-to-get-along members of the kidnap gang eager to share the ransom, having given up on the hostage – our republic.

At a recent stop in Bloomington-Normal, the 56-year-old Congressman entering his 10^th year on Capitol Hill, seemingly excused Musk and his ilk with making cuts, commenting, “I think it’s helpful anything in the federal government to try to make sure money is spent in an effective way, especially when we’re $36 trillion in debt.

“I’m going to give the new administration some discretion in what they want to do,” he told WCBU public radio.

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) in the Senate said, “This isn't about politics. This isn't about policy. This isn't about Republican versus Democrat. This is about tampering with the structure of our government, which will ultimately undermine its ability to protect the freedom of our citizens. If our defense of the Constitution is gone, there's nothing left to us.”

After appealing to his Republican colleagues to “say no to the undermining and destruction of our constitutional system,” King asked them, “Are there no red lines? Are there no limits?”

Indeed, Trump’s Project 2025 overreaches and Musk’s intrusions have provoked lawsuits and a public response in the streets and through the Capitol’s phone system. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said the Senate’s switchboard usually receives about 40 calls per minute, but was getting 1,600 calls each minute from people complaining about Musk.

And Trump and his regime have had some defeats in the courts, too. A pro-democracy coalition of unions, democracy groups, state Attorneys General and others have won major victories, from stopping Trump’s illegal rewrite of the Constitution’s citizenship provisions to blocking his federal firing scam.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), sounding the alarm in Washington, encouraged more grassroots engagement, saying, “We don’t have years. We don’t have months. We have days to stop the destruction of democracy.”

It’s worth remembering some historical perspective. As author Raymond Lonergan quoted Louis Brandeis in his 1941 biography of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, “Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American,” Brandeis said, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.”

Illinois’ finances make state resilient if a recession occurs: report

Some economists are predicting that the country could fall into a recession within the next few years, but if it happens, Illinois is in a better place than it was in December 2007 or March 2020, which saw the "Great Recession" and the "COVID-19 Recession,” according to a recent report by researchers at the Illinois Economic Policy Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal (PMCR) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“Despite dire predictions from many economic commentators, a national recession was avoided in 2022, 2023 and 2024,” says the report, ‘Resisting the Next Recession: Measuring Illinois’ Economic Resiliency.’ However, the risk of a recession remains elevated in 2025 and beyond.”

A recession is a downturn in economic activity that is usually defined by at least two consecutive quarters of decreasing inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and an increase in unemployment lasting more than a few months.  The worst recession in U.S. history was the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s.

The three recessions that have occurred since 2000 were the “dot-com bubble” of the early 2000s, the

Great Recession of 2007-2009, and the COVID-19 Recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

For Illinois, researchers Frank Manzo IV, Bob Bruno and Grace Dunn examined nine key fiscal and economic metrics "on which the state has made dramatic gains over the past several years."

Manzo, an economist with the Illinois Economic Policy Institute, says, "From significant improvements in budgeting and fiscal management to long-term investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and the stability of its pension system, Illinois has developed a far stronger resilience to economic downturns than at any time in recent history. Collectively, these improvements will help to mute the impact of any future national recession on critical public services, employment, and the economy as a whole."

The report concedes that “Illinois would not be immune to a national recession. The Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability is currently projecting a $618 million budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2026. Additionally, the state’s unemployment rate remains above the national average.”

The scholars intentionally use the term “resilience,” first used in the 1970s to assess ecological systems. Studies categorize resilience into four different system outcomes: “ability to bounce back,” “ability to absorb,” “positive adaptability,” and “system transformation.” These outcomes in research about regional economic resilience have been defined as recovery, resistance, reorientation and renewal.

The report positive observations include:

* Illinois rebuilt its Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund balance to $2 billion.

“This is due to a $1.8 billion transfer of state funds due to better-than-expected state revenues, which was also used to pay off a federal loan borrowed during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report says.

* Illinois improved the funded ratio of its State retirement systems to its highest level since 2008.

“Illinois has made important strides in its public pension system by making required contributions that had been jettisoned in prior years, offering $2 billion in buyouts to retiring employees and inactive members and making $700 million in supplemental contributions designed to reduce the system’s unfunded liabilities,” Manzo says. “It is important for the state to continue on this trajectory, which would bring the system 90% funded by 2045—well above the 80% standard used by the Government Accountability Office.”

* Through the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, Illinois has reduced its number of residents without health insurance by nearly 1 million, a 56% decrease.

Illinoisans who are covered increased from 86.2% in 2010 to 93.8% in 2023, the report says – a greater percentage of covered people than the nation.

* Illinois committed to investments in climate resiliency and carbon-free nuclear power that are creating thousands of jobs on the path to 100% clean energy.

* Illinois invested $2 billion more annually in public education—reducing the number of school districts in financial deficit by 55%—while increasing grants to make college more affordable by 77%.

* Illinois established dedicated revenue streams that, together with federal funding, will invest $41 billion in roads, bridges, public transit systems, rail, and aviation infrastructure over the next six years.

“In Illinois, every dollar invested in road and bridge construction returns $1.80, and every dollar spent on road and bridge maintenance returns $2.30,” the researchers say.

* Illinois implemented a work-share program that allows employers to avoid layoffs by temporarily reducing employees' hours while enabling workers to receive prorated unemployment insurance benefits.

* Illinois eliminated the General Fund deficit and bill backlog, earning a total of nine credit rating upgrades since 2020 that will allow the State to borrow at lower interest rates.

Illinois achieved its largest ever Budget Stabilization Fund (or "rainy day" fund) balance at more than $2 billion – almost 700% larger than it was prior to the Great Recession.

“The elimination of the bill backlog and reductions in the General Fund deficit, the improvement in the Budget Stabilization Fund, the dedication to making full pension contributions with supplemental payments when possible, and the rebuilt Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund are each positive factors making Illinois more resilient to the next recession,” says the report. “However, Illinois still lags the national average on these metrics, and lawmakers should consider ways to continue building on this momentum with each budget cycle that passes without an economic downturn.”

 

UIUC Professor Bruno, PMCR Director, adds that “Periodic economic contractions present real challenges to employers, working families, and policymakers alike. While no state is recession-proof, Illinois has prioritized prudence in its fiscal management, long-term competitiveness in its public investments, and has pursued public policies that prior recession resiliency research indicates can minimize the impact of economic disruptions.

“Illinois’ current tax structure is a mixed bag that can be both a help and hindrance when it comes to recessions,” he continued. “Our sales tax system doesn’t cover most services, which can invite fiscal headwinds during lean times. And, while our reliance on property taxes and flat income tax structure promotes more stable and predictable public service funding during downturns, it can also constrain the state’s ability to invest higher-than-expected revenues into rainy day reserves or other long-term economic fortifications during good times.”

‘Moderate’ Republican is Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor

The old proverb “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king” seems relevant this month, when the U.S. Senate begins its confirmation hearings for hundreds of Trump nominations to his administration, including Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the former Oregon Congresswoman picked to serve as Secretary of Labor.

Defeated in her swing district in November, Chavez-DeRemer’s supporters point to her co-sponsorship of the labor-reforming PRO Act as a sign of relief, if not hope. But despite opposition from some Republicans and business lobbies, skeptics remain in and around the labor movement.

Chavez-DeRemer actually has backed two of labor’s top legislative priorities (both of which failed): The Protect The Right To Organize (PRO) Act, and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, plus voting for the Social Security Fairness Act, which will help government workers whose benefits had been limited for years. (It passed the House 327-75 in November, with dozens of Republican No votes, including Peoria U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood.)

The PRO Act passed the Democratic-run House in 2020 and 2021 but was killed by anti-union Senate Republicans threatening a filibuster. Even when Democrats gained a narrow Senate majority in 2020, conservative Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema opposed it, so Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) didn’t bring it up in the face of a GOP filibuster

The public service bill, the top legislative goal of AFSCME, would order state and local governments to bargain with unions that win recognition votes, even in so-called Right-To-Work states, effectively making the U.S. Supreme Court’s Janus ruling that make unionizing difficult for public employees.

“Her record suggests real support of workers and their right to unionize,” said Teachers President Randy Weingarten. “I hope it means the Trump [administration] will actually respect collective bargaining and workers’ voices from Teamsters to teachers.”

In her only term in the House career, Chavez-DeRemer cultivated an image of a Republicans willing to work with Democrats. During one House Education and Workforce Committee meeting, she said, “Unions aren’t the

Don McIntosh, editor of Oregon’s Northwest Labor Press, commented, “Unlike most House Republicans, Chavez-DeRemer worked to build relationships with organized labor, but last year said she had concerns about the PRO Act.”

Plus, not being outright anti-union doesn’t ensure a pro-worker voice within a Trump administration.

“One thing to keep in mind is that the [cabinet] secretaries serve at the pleasure of the president,” said Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute and a former Labor Department economist in the Obama administration.

“It is not an independent role,” she continued. “There’s a real, very clear restriction on how far they can go, away from what Trump and his key advisers want.”

Trump’s first term had a forceful anti-worker tone, weakening overtime protections and workplace safety standards, so if Trump is consistent, Chavez-DeRemer would have to implement his policies or face the consequences.

However, Chavez DeRemer could influence workers’ issues apart from the National Labor Relations Board (which is an independent agency). The Labor Department could address wage theft enforcement, safety inspections by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, overtime pay thresholds, and immigration status protections, among other issues, according to the worker-oriented Economic Policy Institute.

“If Trump wants to prove that he is really on the side of American workers, he’s going to have to do more than one cabinet nomination,” commented Farah Stockman of the New York Times. “She embodies the contradiction that is the Trump coalition. It won political power with widespread support from blue-collar workers but has up until this point looked poised to hand the federal government over to business-friendly billionaires.”

The daughter of a Teamster, Chavez-DeRemer had some support from Oregon unions in her 2024 campaign, but several national unions refrained from backing her.

The AFL-CIO’s voting scores give Chavez-DeRemer a 10% lifetime score and the same score for the last year tracked. (The average Republican’s lifetime score is 6%.) Some of her votes were against the AFL-CIO’s positions, affecting her 10% rating. Chavez-DeRemer didn’t agree with labor’s position on companies’ health-care plans or jobless benefits, to name two.

Also, the previous year she declined to support the PRO Act, or other key measure.

“There’s the whole world of all of the other employment rights, minimum wage, overtime, [Equal Employment Opportunity] rights, paycheck equity, and paid leave,” said National Employment Law Project government affairs director Judy Conti, speaking to Vox.com. “And she hasn’t co-sponsored any of those bills.”

So, some observers see her co-sponsorship as symbolic or a campaign talking point.

In a prepared statement, the AFL-CIO said, “Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States — not Rep. Chavez-DeRemer — and it remains to be seen what she will be permitted to do as Secretary of Labor in an administration with a dramatically anti-worker agenda.”

Trump’s nomination of the 56-year-old businesswoman – who founded a network of medical clinics that’s reported annual revenues of millions of dollars – may be a slight acknowledgment that the U.S. public supports organized labor, or another way to attempt to convince working people the multi-millionaire is on the side of working people.

Even in Oregon, some unions were reluctant to endorse her and have a wait-and-see attitude.

“SEIU in Oregon has had very little experience working with Ms. Chavez-DeRemer since she has declined to engage directly with our 85,000 members,” said Alan Dubinsky, communications director for SEIU Local 49. “If she is successful in her appointment to Secretary of Labor, we look forward to her keeping her campaign promises of supporting Oregon’s unions and working families.”

As for business, some of its prominent lobbies seem to be against even a mild moderate, as shown by misgivings of the nomination expressed by the National Right To Work Committee, the anti-union Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and similar groups, and “her selection is also fueling tension among more traditional Republicans with long-standing ties to business trade groups,” report Lori Aratani and Lauren Kaori Gurley in the Washington Post.

For now, then, organized labor seems to accept Trump’s gesture but expect little, reminiscent of another old saying: “It’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stock.”