The typical household labors under a number of constraints. This is true regardless of the household’s location, size, cost, value, occupancy, income, and condition. The inhabitants of the household contribute to its persistence by securing an income. The money and assets amassed are then applied to the upkeep and/or expansion of the household. When the occupants of a household exceed their ability to pay for upkeep or expansion, they can borrow money to maintain the level of existence to which they are accustomed or curtail spending, doing without the desired amenities. When the inhabitants of a household can no longer borrow money, they are finally forced to curtail spending.
In a federal republic like the United States, similar restraints exist on the individual states comprising the union. The inhabitants of the state contribute to persistence of the state through taxation. The money and assets amassed are then applied to the upkeep of the state and the services deemed necessary or desirable. When a state exceeds its ability to pay for upkeep or services, it can borrow funds, raise taxes, or curtail spending, doing without the desired services. When a state can no longer borrow money, it is finally forced to curtail spending, as is currently the case with Illinois.
In the second scenario, funds were amassed at the point of a gun via taxation and spent by progressive politicians on programs that will purchase more votes for those same politicians. Now that Illinois is unable to pay for the votes purchased by their politicians, will fiscal common sense emerge and who will pay for future votes?