And now, a peek inside the writer’s mind:

Every so often, when formulating the best way to use 450 words, my thoughts on a topic start with assessing a current situation and move to suggesting a smarter path under the current framework, then encountering frustration with the present rules and working up several alternative options, only to land with resignation that wholesale changes are between unlikely and impossible.

Such is the case with a May 13 Capitol News Illinois headline: “Illinois’ budget picture tightens in final stretch amid economic uncertainty; Deputy governor warns state has limited ability to increase spending.”

In that piece (tinyurl.com/FiscalForecast), Ben Szalisnki opens with the obvious: concerns about the global economy and official projections that revenue will be tight in fiscal 2027. Gov. JB Pritzker said revenue might be short $149 million compared to what he proposed spending in February, and that’s only if lawmakers enact measures he said will generate an additional $728 million next year.

So, although the first thought was to start breaking down line items and suggesting which categories should be spending priorities (education) and which shouldn’t (football stadium developments), it quickly ran into another dominant thought: Why are we doing it this way at all?

To be more specific, what is the wisdom in running a government on projections? Why do we ask a governor to propose a spending plan in February, have lawmakers work on the budget primarily in secret over the next three months, then finally approve a spending plan based on the last best guess of how much money the state might collect over the following year?

Would it not be feasible to take in all the money from one fiscal year, then budget on how to spend it over the next?

Surely government historians can explain how Illinois ended up with this timetable. While those recollections are interesting, they generally explain “why it’s like this now” without showing whether the status quo is an ideal approach or just a better version of how it used to work.

Likewise, an experienced accountant (public or private) could readily explain the logic behind rolling projections, cash on hand, and all sorts of month-to-month decisions that maximize efficiency. And as often as there are valid complaints about how Springfield’s power and occasional capriciousness complicates things for local governments, Statehouse types have valid concerns about the same circumstances flowing downstream from Washington, D.C.

Still, it remains confusing to be finishing one fiscal year as receipts arrive concurrent with planning the next on guesswork (well educated, but still uncertain) without legitimately exploring if a few scheduling tweaks might at least somewhat improve predictability.

For better or worse, it’s state business as usual.

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