Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Political sorts wield this phrase when arguing that some progress is better than none. It’s often sound reasoning, especially in the service of negotiation. But sometimes – in Springfield at least – what appears to be a good idea on the surface is a quarter measure skirting a greater challenge.

Consider Senate Bill 2904, a plan to amend the state’s Fiscal Note Act, and specifically this quote from sponsor state Sen. Erica Harriss, R-Glen Carbon: “Taxpayers deserve to know the financial impact of legislation before it becomes law,” she said in a March 12 release. “SB2094 promotes greater transparency in the legislative process and ensures that members of the General Assembly can obtain fiscal analysis when considering legislation that may affect the state budget.”

The keyword there is “can,” because all SB 2904 does is eliminate the rule that allows a majority vote to disregard a lawmaker’s request for a fiscal note.

Taxpayers do deserve to know how a legislative proposal will affect state or local budgets, to say nothing of their own tax bills, but Illinois has long been known as one of the worst states for estimating the costs of legislative action.

A 2015 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (tinyurl.com/FiscalNotes2015) lists five best practices: preparing fiscal notes for all proposals, sourcing the notes from a nonpartisan entity, projecting long-term effects (of at least four years), revising estimates when needed and posting everything online.

Illinois checks no boxes. Lawmakers get to decide if their bills require a fiscal note. If they don’t, any other lawmaker can request the note, but a majority vote can deny that effort (this is the part Harriss’ bill that seeks to change). The fiscal notes we do get tend to come from state agencies (hardly nonpartisan), and the existence of a note seems to be good enough, even if the data amounts to “cannot predict now” or “concentrate and ask again.”

Truly meaningful reform would adopt some or all of CBPP’s ideas and better incorporate the state’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, which, although bipartisan (and notably different from nonpartisan), has a solid reputation as level-headed and pragmatic.

Harriss’ effort would represent a “better than nothing” outcome while leaving many better options unaddressed. To be fair, her spot in the minority party means she could put the ideal plan on the table and still not garner meaningful support. Other Republicans have tried in years past, but legitimately increasing transparency hasn’t been a Democratic priority – especially if it wasn’t their idea.

Absent Harriss filing SB 2904, we might not be discussing an important topic. To that end, a goal is achieved, even if real reform remains distant.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.