Chicago Bleeds Cash: Johnson’s Taxes Versus City Survival

Paul Riverbank, 12/16/2025Chicago’s budget crisis deepens: tax hikes, union politics, and tough choices threaten city stability.

A closer look shows that between 2019 and 2025, Chicago’s budget ballooned by nearly 40 percent—a leap that masked deeper issues thanks, in large part, to federal COVID-19 relief money. For a while, those dollars covered everything from increased staffing to temporary programs. But, the pandemic-era windfall is gone. “The pandemic is over, but many of the programs and personnel positions established during that time remain, and without the benefit of the federal funding that previously supported them,” explained Grant McClintock from the Civic Federation, sounding the kind of warning familiar to anyone who’s balanced a household budget after a pay cut.

Now, rather than dial back, Mayor Johnson has pinned his hopes on new revenue streams—chiefly, tax hikes. He has proposed increasing the city’s lease tax, affecting everything from car rentals to software subscriptions, from 11% to 14%. There’s also talk of reviving the infamous “head tax,” meaning larger employers would pay $33 for each worker every month. Critics—joined by The Post’s editorial board—argue this is economically risky territory. “By making it more expensive to do business or hire workers in the city, these measures threaten Chicago’s future economic growth and tax collections,” their blunt assessment reads.

Of course, Mayor Johnson is having none of it. At a recent press event, he countered suggestions that his tax proposals would stifle job creation. He insisted much of the critics’ evidence simply doesn’t hold water. Johnson even cited the Civic Federation’s support for select proposals, declaring that there’s “no empirical evidence” these tax changes would damage job growth, especially since the focus is on taxing only the largest corporations—a group less likely to weigh anchor over incremental costs.

But taxes are only part of the puzzle. The Post called out what they described as budget “gimmicks.” Among them: implementing a temporary city hiring freeze, shifting dedicated blight-relief funds to plug general budget holes, and reducing so-called “supplemental” pension payments. These creative accounting tricks might solve today’s headaches, but critics wonder if they don’t set up even bigger problems down the road—sort of like selling the house’s roof tiles for quick cash, as future repairs come due.

Then there’s the role of unions in this evolving budget saga, a factor that’s often overlooked beyond the city’s boundaries. Paul Vallas, who once sought the mayor’s office himself, argues that the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) looms large not just in the classroom but in the city’s political life. According to Vallas, repeated CTU victories have led to mushrooming education spending. The raw numbers are sobering: between 2010 and 2025, the Chicago Public Schools’ budget swelled from $6.9 billion to $9.9 billion. That ballooning has coincided, not accidentally, with property tax hikes and a remarkable addition of some 9,000 full-time school positions since 2019—this despite an actual drop in student enrollment.

Public safety isn’t immune from these fiscal dynamics, either. As school staffing has grown, city departments—police, fire, and others—have reportedly trimmed about 2,100 jobs. For many residents, this feels like a dangerous trade, favoring classrooms over street-level services.

Competition among labor groups adds yet another wrinkle. With the CTU expanding its political ambitions, friction has surfaced with unions like SEIU Local 73, particularly as both vie for influence, resources, and—more pointedly—dues-paying members. Vallas accuses the CTU of seeking to “raid” SEIU’s membership so as to expand its own reach, a sharp charge in the ongoing struggle for union power within the city’s ranks.

Meanwhile, the human cost of these shifts is palpable. Homeowners see the tax bills arrive and feel the squeeze, while city workers wonder when, not if, the next round of cuts will reach them. Johnson’s budget channels more money towards schools, leaving other departments to do more with less, and he’s adamant about not raising garbage collection fees—another signal that political pressure is coming from all corners, especially the kitchen tables of working Chicagoans.

Pushback is building. Several aldermen, hearing from their own constituents, have floated alternative budgets—each a swipe at the mayor’s approach, none with an easy fix. It’s yet another reminder of the city’s constant tug-of-war: support education robustly, preserve critical services, or try yet again to court businesses and jobs that could stabilize the tax base. It’s a debate nearly as old as Chicago’s skyline itself.

If there’s a single through-line to this complicated tableau, it’s the sense that Chicago is at a crossroads. Whether the city can navigate its patchwork of fiscal pledges, union politics, and competing priorities without sacrificing tomorrow for today remains to be seen. For now, numbers fly back and forth, each side marshaling its chosen data. But what Chicago may need most—as the dollars dwindle and choices get harder—is a leadership willing to make difficult decisions, and a public that trusts those choices are made out in the open, for all to see.

Chicago’s fiscal troubles have found their way into national headlines, not for the first time—yet perhaps more sharply now than ever. Recently, The Washington Post lambasted the city’s approach to spending under Mayor Brandon Johnson, bluntly remarking that Chicago had all but “lost its mind.” While the language was strident, the underlying dilemma isn’t new: the city’s spending has outpaced its income, and the math simply doesn’t add up.A closer look shows that between 2019 and 2025, Chicago’s budget ballooned by nearly 40 percent—a leap that masked deeper issues thanks, in large part, to federal COVID-19 relief money. For a while, those dollars covered everything from increased staffing to temporary programs. But, the pandemic-era windfall is gone. “The pandemic is over, but many of the programs and personnel positions established during that time remain, and without the benefit of the federal funding that previously supported them,” explained Grant McClintock from the Civic Federation, sounding the kind of warning familiar to anyone who’s balanced a household budget after a pay cut.Now, rather than dial back, Mayor Johnson has pinned his hopes on new revenue streams—chiefly, tax hikes. He has proposed increasing the city’s lease tax, affecting everything from car rentals to software subscriptions, from 11% to 14%. There’s also talk of reviving the infamous “head tax,” meaning larger employers would pay $33 for each worker every month. Critics—joined by The Post’s editorial board—argue this is economically risky territory. “By making it more expensive to do business or hire workers in the city, these measures threaten Chicago’s future economic growth and tax collections,” their blunt assessment reads.Of course, Mayor Johnson is having none of it. At a recent press event, he countered suggestions that his tax proposals would stifle job creation. He insisted much of the critics’ evidence simply doesn’t hold water. Johnson even cited the Civic Federation’s support for select proposals, declaring that there’s “no empirical evidence” these tax changes would damage job growth, especially since the focus is on taxing only the largest corporations—a group less likely to weigh anchor over incremental costs.But taxes are only part of the puzzle. The Post called out what they described as budget “gimmicks.” Among them: implementing a temporary city hiring freeze, shifting dedicated blight-relief funds to plug general budget holes, and reducing so-called “supplemental” pension payments. These creative accounting tricks might solve today’s headaches, but critics wonder if they don’t set up even bigger problems down the road—sort of like selling the house’s roof tiles for quick cash, as future repairs come due.Then there’s the role of unions in this evolving budget saga, a factor that’s often overlooked beyond the city’s boundaries. Paul Vallas, who once sought the mayor’s office himself, argues that the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) looms large not just in the classroom but in the city’s political life. According to Vallas, repeated CTU victories have led to mushrooming education spending. The raw numbers are sobering: between 2010 and 2025, the Chicago Public Schools’ budget swelled from $6.9 billion to $9.9 billion. That ballooning has coincided, not accidentally, with property tax hikes and a remarkable addition of some 9,000 full-time school positions since 2019—this despite an actual drop in student enrollment.Public safety isn’t immune from these fiscal dynamics, either. As school staffing has grown, city departments—police, fire, and others—have reportedly trimmed about 2,100 jobs. For many residents, this feels like a dangerous trade, favoring classrooms over street-level services.Competition among labor groups adds yet another wrinkle. With the CTU expanding its political ambitions, friction has surfaced with unions like SEIU Local 73, particularly as both vie for influence, resources, and—more pointedly—dues-paying members. Vallas accuses the CTU of seeking to “raid” SEIU’s membership so as to expand its own reach, a sharp charge in the ongoing struggle for union power within the city’s ranks.Meanwhile, the human cost of these shifts is palpable. Homeowners see the tax bills arrive and feel the squeeze, while city workers wonder when, not if, the next round of cuts will reach them. Johnson’s budget channels more money towards schools, leaving other departments to do more with less, and he’s adamant about not raising garbage collection fees—another signal that political pressure is coming from all corners, especially the kitchen tables of working Chicagoans.Pushback is building. Several aldermen, hearing from their own constituents, have floated alternative budgets—each a swipe at the mayor’s approach, none with an easy fix. It’s yet another reminder of the city’s constant tug-of-war: support education robustly, preserve critical services, or try yet again to court businesses and jobs that could stabilize the tax base. It’s a debate nearly as old as Chicago’s skyline itself.If there’s a single through-line to this complicated tableau, it’s the sense that Chicago is at a crossroads. Whether the city can navigate its patchwork of fiscal pledges, union politics, and competing priorities without sacrificing tomorrow for today remains to be seen. For now, numbers fly back and forth, each side marshaling its chosen data. But what Chicago may need most—as the dollars dwindle and choices get harder—is a leadership willing to make difficult decisions, and a public that trusts those choices are made out in the open, for all to see.