Illinois "State Capacity" Crisis pt. 4

The Struggle to Build, Different Points of View on Government

A frequent subject of this newsletter has been State Capacity. The ability of the government to accomplish its own objectives, at projected cost, on time. Some of my recent articles have delved into how the 2nd Trump administration is deliberately destroying this capacity. In this article, however, I wanted to draw our attention back to Illinois and look at how our own state government struggles to build despite a Governor and a Legislature eager to do so. Multiple articles have recently came out detailing how the CTA Red Line Extension project and the Governor’s Rebuild Illinois infrastructure program are overbudget and stalling making this issue even more relevant.

The solution to these above crises would require the government to add new staff, increase government operations budgets, and move faster. All of these things are highly political and in many ways against the vision both parties have for the United States. As all of you are well aware, these are explicitly the opposite goals of the GOP; both federally and inside Illinois. Democrats conversely have been shedding their former Clintonite “The Era of Big Government is Over” style but have yet to truly settle on a new consensus. In this piece I also wanted to take a look at this struggle to build in Illinois and then delve into that Democratic divide before exploring the broader societal divide on the role of government and how that affects state capacity.

The Struggle to Build in Illinois

First, in Capitol News Illinois, the college renovation and construction portion of Governor Pritzker’s 2019 Rebuild Illinois infrastructure bill have run aground. According to the article, half of the 16 projects launched are stalled. Not only that, the total deferred maintenance bill across Illinois Higher Education is more than $8 billion. What is to blame? For the delayed construction, understaffing at the state’s Capital Development Board destroyed Illinois’ ability to evaluate and manage these enormous capital projects. And this mismanagement of capital funds is why new construction is favored over needed renovation.

A lack of staff and capital budget mismanagement really is our story here. When we look back at transit, the same exact story is played out. As described in City That Works, Metra spent 15 years and $28 million to build a simple infill station. This far exceeded the initial budget and timeline because Metra had to outsource expensive professional services. These include engineering, design, and conducting various impact studies. Additionally, Metra didn’t have the authority to compel relevant agencies and stakeholders (in this case the Chicago Water Department and Union Pacific) to contribute input and move on time. A similar story of budget overruns due to outsourced professional services and capital budget mismanagement is behind the recent delays and cost overruns of the CTA Red Line Extension. To emphasize: 85% of the cost overrun comes from professional services. It is especially galling in the CTA story given that these multiple billions of new debt could’ve been used to repair existing L track, of which 30% in need of serious repair totaling multiple billions.

But staffing the government, making the government more powerful, and reforming these agencies to use more cost-saving cookie cutter designs will require political action. Political action which will have to overcome a brewing Democratic civil war and longstanding public skepticism.

Democrats in Disarray

Perhaps I am overstating the case. Most of these intra-Democratic debates can be really surmised, “someone posted an opinion piece and then someone else posted another one disagreeing”. Let me clue the uninformed reader in. Popular and influential liberal writers Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein recently released the book Abundance, largely formalizing the content found on their respective articles, blogs, and podcasts. Namely, certain government regulations need to be removed to allow both the public and private sector to build solar/wind power plants, new housing, and new infrastructure, faster. This idea has been bumping around for sometime, this book is part of a growing YIMBY political ecosystem that stretches back now more than a decade. A movement that I am broadly sympathetic to.

Opposing this are two different factions from the left and center. From the left, a recent set of articles from the Washington Monthly forms a good example. The left wing, anti-abundance argument, as best as I can tell, is a sort of distrust and disappointment. Distrust in the political players behind Abundance, that they are simply a front for property developers, Silicon Valley, or perhaps a secret trojan horse of supply-side Reaganites trying to seize the party. The other half is a disappointment that the agenda isn’t nearly as anti-capitalist as they are. For instance, in the previously cited Washington Monthly article, “Abundance liberals have little to say about homebuilder consolidation—or about the broader problem of growing corporate monopolization, as we’ll see”. A similar skepticism towards abundance liberals on building up the bureaucracy is also raised. But these arguments are thin. If you read these 4 articles, the authors seem hyperfixated on abundance liberals being “somewhat quiet” on XYZ or how they “need to plan bigger”. Give me a break.