Pot, Meet Kettle
J.B. Pritzker did the very thing he accused Bruce Rauner of doing, despite knowing better
During an October 3, 2018 gubernatorial debate against Bruce Rauner, J.B. Pritzker had a hypothesis about a driving cause of Illinois’ increasing gun violence problems.
He said,
“We need to go after the implements of violence, but we also need to go after the underlying causes of violence. And when you have no budget for two years, and you veto a budget in the third year — and that’s why Governor Rauner did - guess what? Violence interruption programs like “Cure Violence” go away.
All across the state of Illinois, gun violence increased during the time period when there was no budget, and where mental health facilities were closing, and substance-abuse treatment centers were closing, and people were being laid off. The people who needed those services, that's their last vestige of contact with civil society, and Governor Rauner cut that.”
Few would disagree that when mental health & addiction supports are suddenly scaled back or taken away from people, the consequences can be devastating. Pritzker seemed to grasp that in 2018. Given the circumstances of own mother’s tragic death - and the tens of millions of dollars he has donated to mental health initiatives, programs, centers, etc. - he’s grasped it for awhile.
Yet in spring 2020, Pritzker did the very thing for which he scolded Rauner: He cut-off critical, in-person services for the people he claimed to care about. Worse, his stay-home orders isolated those desperately in need of human contact. (Is there any worse directive for someone who battles drugs, depression, or personal demons than “stay home”? )
Yes, other Governors did it too, but Pritzker had the personal experience and political convictions to know better. Plus, he seems wholly unwilling to admit the role his myopic pandemic-response policies have played.
The Data
It's true that drug/alcohol deaths in Illinois increased during Rauner’s term, and remained steady the first two years of Pritzker’s term.
The 30% spike in 2020, and additional 7% increase in 2021, give Pritzker a 3-year toll that exceeds Rauner’s 4-year number by 400 deaths. Quarter 1 data for 2022 suggest this year is on track for another rise.1
Illinois’ weekly drug/alcohol-induced death data do show an increase toward the end of 2019 and beginning of 2020, but it’s hard to deny the association between pandemic-response & the April jump. We saw the same pattern nationally.
National data also show drug overdose deaths have been the biggest contributor to excess mortality during the pandemic among younger-adult Americans.
Illinois is no exception.
Over 55% of the state’s mortality increase in 2020-2021 for ages 15-44 is attributable to external causes. Half of those were drug/alcohol-induced deaths.
A Preventable Problem
"Deaths from opioid overdoses are as tragic as they are preventable," Pritzker said recently, in the wake of signing legislation intended to address the opioid crisis.
I can’t speak to whether the harm-reduction strategies & drug-court treatment programs the bills expand are likely to be effective. I certainly hope they are.
But it seems to me that any Governor concerned about preventing drug OD deaths should’ve avoided issuing mandates & creating conditions that increase the changes such deaths will occur.2
Pritzker can't change the past.
It would be nice, however, if he could be honest & humble about how his reaction to covid-19 fueled rises in both opioid deaths. (Gun-related deaths too.)
At minimum, he should acknowledge that his 2018 self was “right” about the negative impact of cutting off services & resources to people who need them most.
https://dph.illinois.gov/data-statistics/vital-statistics/death-statistics/opioid-overdose-death-demographics.html
Pritzker, et al
Later today I will be posting an update on childhood mortality. As you know, teen mortality (age 13-17) jumped up, too. I’ve got the breakout for 2021 now and it’s also nasty. Not just 2020, in the immediate aftermath.
Good article.
This example highlights an inherent problem with the incentives of government and explains why government can't help but grow. The incentives are such that Pritzger cares more about the positive headlines generated when he initiates a program or legislation and much less about the results of that program or legislation .
In fact, one could argue that someone like Pritzger benefits if the program fails because that gives him another opportunity for positive press on the issue since the press is unlikely to hold him accountable for the first failure.
Government throws good money after bad almost by definition. The worse a department performs, the more funding they get.
(After thinking about it, I do not think that even the average Dem voter cares if the programs are successful or not. What the average Dem voter wants is to feel that someone is addressing the issue so that they can get back to their latte and ignoring the people who need assistance)