No, it's not. Bankruptcy is a legal state, and one which is not open to US states.
It's not even insolvent, which “bankrupt” is often incorrectly used as a synonym for. It may have a projected future insolvency, but that's a different issue.
Bankrupt can also mean insolvent, it is not limited to the legal definition[1]. But more importantly you know what the person you're replying to meant. That they think Illinois is essentially out of money and pretending they're not.
You could have furthered this into an interesting discussion on the financial health of Illinois, but instead you found a way to feel intellectually superior without actually having to engage in discourse and without having put forward any ideas that could be challenged.
Your comment illustrates a common theme on sites like Reddit and HN, where people want to "win" the conversation as fast as possible. They find a easy and superficial way to call out another comment or article as "incorrect" and avoid putting forward anything of substance or actually worth talking about.
Ha! Might be the defining characteristic of HN.
You seem to be discounting assets, like taxation power (now, the politicsl consensus necessary for the state to use that power may not exist, but that's unwillingness to use an asset, not lack of assets.)
That’s like marking at 100 a bond trading at 30 while arguing the problem isn’t the asset, it’s buyers’ unwillingness to pay the right price. In any case, potential to raise taxes is like potential to raise prices. It isn’t an asset until it’s signed and producing.
assets, like taxation power
And taxation power is constrained by the US and IL Constitutions and even US and IL law.
Illinois can currently pay its debts as they come due, so it is currently solvent. It is likely to become insolvent in the future, but that is not the current state.
There's a difference between not having the money to pay debts as they come due (which is insolvency) and just paying late by choice, incompetence, or -- as happens with in some jurisdictions with budget delays -- legal prohibition on using existing funds [0] (none of which are insolvency, though they may be default on the individual debts).
[0] Which, looked at one way, is a subset of choice, since the actors not making the necessary choice to remove the legal roadblock are the political leadership of the state.
It almost certainly can, if it chooses to, but it hasn't been choosing to, if you consider the pension fund distinct from the state.
And a state can go rid itself of debt similar to a normal bankruptcy. Since they have sovereign immunity they can just declare that some or all of the debt is void and won't be paid back and not face any consequences (other than lenders possibly choosing not to lend them more money - just like with a normal bankruptcy).
Maybe consult the dictionary before before engaging in such unproductive pedantry.