-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
The city needs more tax revenue to keep up with all their spending. This increases revenue. It sounds like this increase is exactly what the city of Chicago needs. If the voters don’t like it then they should discuss where they are going to cut spending and start electing those candidates with similar views.
PPF – while you are correct in theory, I don’t see any change in the electorate. What I do foresee is people leaving the city at increasing rates. If the bond market shuts down in response to this, Chicago will be in anarchy. Not a lovely future.
Then the city should fail. The voters should suffer with reduced property equity and fewer services. That’s the only thing that may ever change behavior. Let it serve as a reminder to others as to what can happen if you vote for too much spending without the corresponding tax revenue.
100% agree.
This problem was set in stone in 1970, with the constitutional amendment that locked in pensions. How many current voters were around to vote for that?
The amendment did, however, give the beneficiary unions the incentive to make sure that pensions were always increasing. And blame it all on the voters/taxpayers who pay the bills.
“How many current voters were around to vote for that?”
Doesn’t matter. I wasn’t around for most of the constitutional amendments enacted in this state. I’m sure the people that want to take away your rights to bear arms would love that type of logic.
Nobody is trying to blame 2nd Amendment rights on “the voters”, who supposedly now deserve all the ills that follow because they made poor voting choices.
Did the voters elect leaders that have continued to raise wages for those pensionable employees? Did voters elect leaders that continued to short the actuarial required contributions? Did the voters elect leaders that continued to increase spending for all of their social programs? Did the voters elect leaders that created automatic property tax hikes tied to inflation? The 1970 amendment just made it so that pensions are considered contracts and not gratuities. Just like the contracts clause that people alive today never voted for. It’s been 50 years. What have the voters done to elect leaders that will pay down… Read more »
Which “voters” made sure to elect leaders who did all those things? Which “voters” have run politics in this state for years? Which “voters” have leaders been kowtowing to for decades?
Either way you slice it, one segment is responsible for this mess.
That’s how voting works. You don’t just pay for the things “you” voted for. If you decide to live and work in city then you are responsible for the votes of the majority. Republican voters elected Gov Thompson that gave us 3% compounding COLA. Republican voters elected leaders that sponsored the amendment to the constitution. Republican voters elected Edgar that gave us the pension ramp. Republican voters elected Senate leaders that voted for the amendment to allow collective bargaining be added to the constitution? That segment is responsible? Should I just slice it that way? Both parties were part of… Read more »
So we are back to the original premise. The only answer is “move out”. I agree.
It really boils down to: one group hijacked the political process, using whatever politicians were willing to bow to their demands. The politicians were not always of the same party. Didn’t matter, as long as the unions got what they wanted. And now the financial mess created is pushing taxpayers out, to avoid the meltdown.
And the unions stand back and insist that the “voters” created the problem. They are simply the innocent holders of a “contract”.
So true. The regime in power decides the rules. And the workers’ groups who ‘own’ the regime in power dictate those rules. And when empowered workers feel like they would rather be in a bikini on a beach, and can get compensated just the same, they have every legal right to ‘deny service’. And when workers without formal groups have one straw too much burden to bear, that class of workers should give up all notions of societal responsibility and realize that in Illinois the deal is: ‘every organism for himself’. (I don’t use the word ‘man’, because that word… Read more »
That’s what I call irony. The guy who never met a fat govt pension he didn’t like castigating the ignorance of the voting public.
Well maybe it wasn`t such a great idea to index the property tax to inflation all 50 alderman and BEATLEJUICE r to blame
Maybe someone will start listening to Vallas, since he has enough visibility to be heard. I can’t think of another big time public official in Chicago who has the chops to talk like this about these critical issues. He knows his stuff on these points.
Heres a link via archive.is if you want to be able to read the article as its behind a paywall:
https://archive.is/A3Eq7
Thank you Chesterton. I was a subscriber for over 30 years but let that lapse as the tribune became a liberal rag.