Cook County leaders are moving ahead with a new guaranteed income program just as Chicago faces a massive budget hole and ongoing complaints about crime, taxes, and basic services.
On Fox Business, host Cheryl Casone, reporter Kelly Saberi, and guests Chris Johnson and Adam Johnson walked through the numbers – and the growing anger – over what critics see as a “cash giveaway” in a city already on financial thin ice.
The money might be guaranteed.
The outcomes are anything but.
Cook County’s New Cash Plan Raises Big Questions
Reporting live from Chicago, Kelly Saberi told viewers that Cook County has now secured $7.5 million for a new guaranteed income program.
That headline sounds simple.
But Saberi said key details are still “up in the air” – including who qualifies, how much they get, and what they can spend the money on.
She explained that this new program builds on a 2022 pilot.
Back then, Cook County used American Rescue Plan Act dollars to send $500 a month to 3,250 low-income households for two years, with no strings attached.
According to Saberi, the advocacy group Economic Security Illinois says almost all of the pilot participants used the money on basic necessities.
She noted that about 56% of those households were already employed, earning an average of $21,000 a year.
So on paper, this isn’t just people sitting at home.
These are working poor families trying to plug gaps.
But the fight is not about whether people are struggling.
It’s about who pays for this long term – and what doesn’t get funded when the money runs out.
A $4 Billion Warning And A Long Wait For Answers
Saberi also highlighted the alarm coming from the Illinois Policy Institute.
Policy chief Josh Bandoch pointed out that there are more than 700,000 people in Cook County living below the federal poverty line.
He said that if the county tried to extend this kind of guaranteed payment to everyone at current pilot levels, the price tag could top $4 billion.
For critics like Bandoch, that number alone shows why the program is unsustainable for taxpayers.
It’s one thing to run a short pilot with federal COVID money. It’s another to build a permanent entitlement program in a county that can’t print its own cash.
Saberi added another twist that really bothered a lot of viewers.
She said the county’s Bureau of Economic Development doesn’t expect to have clear answers on eligibility and structure until mid to late 2026.
In other words, Cook County is locking in the concept and setting aside millions before basic rules are even fully defined.
That kind of “decide now, figure it out later” approach is exactly what many taxpayers are tired of seeing.
Especially in a place like Chicago.
Cheryl Casone: Handout Or Help?
Back in the studio, Cheryl Casone dug into the bigger debate around these programs.
She drew an important distinction: this is guaranteed basic income, not true universal basic income.
Universal programs go to everyone. Guaranteed income here is aimed at low-income residents, with no requirement to work attached.
Casone said critics view this as “an extension of welfare benefits” rather than a targeted boost that encourages independence.
She summed up their argument in one sharp line: “It is not… a hand up, it’s a handout.”
She also linked this Chicago-area move to similar experiments in Los Angeles, Denver, San Francisco, Houston and other blue cities.
These programs are often framed as bold new anti-poverty tools, but many opponents see the same old story: expanding government benefits while cities struggle to keep streets safe and businesses open.
Casone also warned about fraud and corruption.
She said that when cities are already “strapped,” you often see nonprofits and middlemen step in to administer programs – and sometimes, those arrangements end in investigations and scandals.
Her subtext was clear.
If Chicago already can’t manage its core obligations, what are the odds it will flawlessly manage a new multimillion-dollar cash pipeline?
Chris Johnson: “Dependency” As A Political Strategy
Republican strategist Chris Johnson took the criticism a step further.
Johnson argued that guaranteed income programs are part of what he calls the “progressive strategy” – create government dependency, and then shame anyone who questions it.
He said progressives put out programs that make people reliant on government, then turn around and ask, “How could you possibly oppose giving poor people money?”
Disagree, and you’re painted as heartless.
Johnson compared this to what he calls “watermelon policy” on the environmental front – the Green New Deal, which he described as “green on the outside and red on the inside,” meaning climate branding on top of socialist economics.
In his view, supporters wrap these ideas in humane language, while hiding the long-term cost: a population locked into permanent dependence.
He went even further, calling that dependency “as inhumane as it gets.”
The message is simple: if you keep people just comfortable enough not to rebel, but never free enough to truly succeed, you’re not helping them. You’re trapping them.
That’s a hard critique, but it resonates with a lot of voters who watch working neighborhoods fall apart while the benefit bureaucracy keeps growing.
Adam Johnson: Deficit, Flight, And A City In Retreat
Portfolio manager Adam Johnson focused on the money and the fallout.
He pointed out that the City of Chicago is already staring at a $1.2 billion deficit. And Chicago sits inside Cook County, the same county now pushing this new income program.
Adam Johnson asked the obvious question: Where is the money going to come from? His guess is higher taxes on the wealthy and on businesses.
He argued that this approach is already pushing people out of Chicago and out of Illinois.
He described a migration of wealth and business “up the lake” to affluent suburbs like Kenilworth, Winnetka, and Lake Forest, which he says have become “incredibly red and very conservative” as money leaves the city’s historic Gold Coast.
Those Gold Coast co-ops and condos, he noted, now trade at a fraction of similar properties in New York.
Same architecture, same lakefront beauty – very different confidence in the city’s future.
That real-estate picture says a lot.
When people with options rush for the exits, it’s a warning sign that policy decisions are making the city feel uninvestable.
Will Cash Stipends Drive Prices Even Higher?
Casone then pressed Adam Johnson on another worry: inflation.
She said many economists argue that programs like universal or guaranteed income risk pushing up prices, especially in local markets where supply is tight.
Johnson gave a nuanced answer.
He acknowledged that any time you give people money, it’s stimulus. Whether it’s PPP loans during COVID or welfare checks, extra cash tends to get spent.
But in this specific case, he said the current Cook County program is still “very small” and focused on residents who are already strapped.
Because of that limited size, he doesn’t believe this early version will have a big inflationary impact on its own.
The bigger danger, he implied, is not sudden price spikes.
It’s the pattern: constant new obligations layered onto already weak fiscal foundations.
Casone tied it back to politics, saying these guaranteed income experiments are becoming a signature of progressive, Democrat-run cities.
And they’re being launched at the exact moment when confidence in those cities is already fragile.
“Eventually You Run Out Of Other People’s Money”
Chris Johnson warned that programs like this don’t only drain budgets – they also antagonize the very taxpayers leaders will turn to when the bills come due.
He predicted a moment when the money and patience both run out, leading to a “Drop Dead Chicago”-style sentiment, echoing the old headline aimed at New York City during its fiscal crisis.
Adam Johnson then dropped the line that has become the shorthand for every debate over big government programs.
Quoting Margaret Thatcher, he said the problem with socialism is that “eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Casone jumped in to say it’s one of her favorite quotes, and it fit this story perfectly.
Because that’s the core tension here.
Chicago and Cook County are trying to expand their role as direct providers of income at the same time that taxpayers, businesses, and even long-time residents feel like basic services – public safety, schools, financial stability – are slipping.
Bigger Than One Program: A Question Of Priorities
The Cook County guaranteed income plan is still evolving.
We don’t yet know how many people will be included, what the exact rules will be, or whether it will quietly shrink once the federal money is gone.
What we do know, thanks to voices like Kelly Saberi, Cheryl Casone, Josh Bandoch, Chris Johnson, and Adam Johnson, is that this is not some small, feel-good experiment in a vacuum.
It is a political and moral test.
Should a financially stressed city and county double down on direct cash payments when crime fear, tax flight, and service breakdowns already dominate the headlines?
There’s no doubt that families on the edge can use help paying for food, rent, and emergencies.
Even critics admit the need is real.
The open question is whether guaranteed income is a smart, sustainable way to meet that need – or just another short-term promise that deepens the long-term crisis.
In Chicago, that debate isn’t theoretical.
It’s happening on the streets, in the housing market, on tax bills, and now, in a $7.5 million experiment that could either be a lifeline… or one more step toward the edge.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
