-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/PRVRCJRVHND5XM5QP2JV3OPXXA.jpg)
Nationwide, the federal government estimates that 15 million people, or 17.4 percent of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollees, will lose their coverage as a result of ending the continuous enrollment program. That would translate to roughly 700,000 people in Illinois if it follows the national pattern, but DHFS officials believe they can mitigate the impact of the rule change.
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
Now watch as even the low income folks head for the exits as the $covid cash$- SNAP & medicad bennies dry up. Who’s the machine going to use as ‘stage prop people’ in their never ending equity hustle of the few hapless lib-tard taxpayers left??
Medicaid is not a “health insurance program.”
Medicaid is a taxpayer-funded public aid entitlement program that most frequently requires no contribution (premium) from those who are found eligible.
Agreed. Just like Social Security is not a retirement program but a tax-payer funded public aid and entitlement program.
You frequently use that flawed and failed analogy. People who receive Social Security benefits in their retirement receive benefits based on the amount of money deducted from their wages by Social Security while they were working. The rest of it, Social Security Disability most significantly, is public aid in much the same sense as is Medicaid. Entirely possible to save hundreds of billions there without reducing the bought-n-paid for benefits earned by people who contributed wages throughout their working lives. You’d think that sort of logic wouldn’t be lost on someone who champions the rights of public employee union members… Read more »
My point has always been that social security has no obligation to pay out money if the politicians decide to do so. My point is that social security gives more return on your investment based on how much money you make. The less one contributes the greater the return. It does so because it is a welfare program trying to take care of the poorest of workers. Sure you paid taxes that were called SS tax but it didn’t go into a fund of any kind it just went into the general fund and as soon as it was collected… Read more »
Social Security: Ponzi Scheme
Social Security Disability Insurance: disability insurance with premiums paid through payroll taxes
Supplemental Security Income: Welfare for the unworked and disabled
Pensions: Income deferred and invested, contributions by both employer and employee
Also, I find it completely hilarious that so many here want to steal assets from pensioners where the law is clearly defined and at the same time expect to receive social security even though they have no right to such claim other than the benevolence of the voters. Too funny.
What a hoot.
It’s only the “benevolence” of voters and legislators that entitles you to your public employee union pension, which obligates taxpayers to pay you far, far more than you contributed. Your “constitutionally protected” pension bargaining agreement is entirely the result of voter and legislator “benevolence” – facilitated by pervasive mendacity, ignorance and apathy.
Try again, sport. You may be chopping and working up a sweat, but for my part, I don’t see any chips flying.
Can the legislature legally take away pensions from current members? No. Benevolence has no bearing.
Can the legislature legally take away social security from current recipients? Yes. Because it’s a welfare benefit that can be reduced or eliminated at their discretion.
No sweat worked up.
“Can the legislature legally take away pensions from current members?” They can sure put it up for a vote. They can put an amendment on the ballot revoking the constitutional amendment that guarantees pensions. Don’t even need any “bipartisan” Republican legislative votes to get that decision in front of the citizenry. Who, for even a moment, thinks that that those voters who refused to give JB and the Dem’s their “Fair Tax,” along with many others, wouldn’t fall all over themselves to vote in favor of of an amendment eliminating the public employee pension “guarantee” if it spared them from… Read more »
“They can sure put it up for a vote. They can put an amendment on the ballot revoking the constitutional amendment that guarantees pensions” Wrong again Gigi. Removing the amendment wouldn’t take away their constitutional right granted to them by the US Constitutions contracts clause. Now the state could try and seek to alter the contracts with the courts but it’s not that easy. “Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that particular scrutiny of legislative action is warranted when, as here, a state seeks to impair a contract to which it is itself a party and its interest… Read more »
Time for my regular reminder that Pensions Paid First consistently overstates how big a hurdle the Contract Clause in the US Constitution would be to pension reform. Courts have clearly established that pensions and other contracts can be sensibly adjusted when reasonable under the circumstances. Stay within those limits and pension reform would be fine. We’ve written tons on this.
Time to remind everyone that Mark consistently down plays the significance of the contracts clause to the United States Constitution. He has written extensively about Rhode Island and Arizona but he repeatedly ignores the courts in Illinois. I am merely stating words from the Illinois Supreme Court and their interpretation of the contracts clause. Of course, SCOTUS may not rule the same way but everyone should be aware that you could change the constitution and remove the clause and yet you still wouldn’t be done with the contracts clause. You would now just be at the beginning of the legal… Read more »
You are clutching your pearls again. Your argument boils down to: the contracts clause is paramount, even if it ultimately causes the collapse and insolvency of the state. Ridiculous. Let’s take this contracts clause argument a step further. San Francisco right now is discussing reparations of $5,000,000 per black person with UBI of $97,000 per person (adjusted for inflation) for 250 years. Now let’s say that IL goes crazy and does something like this, except not for black people, but for pensioners instead. Let’s say a uniquely progressive and union friendly legislature promises every pensioner a $50,000,000 payout upon retirement… Read more »
“the contracts clause is paramount, even if it ultimately causes the collapse and insolvency of the state.” Never said that. Please point to my post that says as much. I believe that the courts could step in and alter contracts if the state is about to financially collapse AND it can no longer increase any more taxes. I don’t believe the courts will step in just because taxes will be increased. There is a major difference. The CCC just admitted there is a way. I also point out that before it ever gets to that level, more taxes will be… Read more »
If the legislature fails to appropriate money to pay for pensions owed by the state (assuming the pension funds have run dry … not so far off) then what? Under separation of powers principles, courts may not have the power to force legislators to vote in favor of pension appropriations. And if the legislature decides to appropriate funds for higher priorities (in the legislature’s discretion) can the courts second-guess the legislators’ actions or inactions? It was tried in Washington State and the best the court could do was to fine the legislature a large dollar amount per diem. The deadlock… Read more »
JimBob, that’s all spot on IMO.
“future legislature’s power to amend what a prior legislature enacted is an essential element of state sovereignty.” That argument failed before the ILSC. Any financial obligation could be regarded in theory as a relinquishment of the State’s spending power, since money spent to repay debts is not available for other purposes. Similarly, the taxing power may have to be exercised if debts are to be repaid. Notwithstanding these effects, the Court has regularly held that the States are bound by their debt contracts. It’s not within the legislatures power to amend. As the court ruled, this power was taken by the people themselves… Read more »
Ultimately how do they collect the pension? Do pensioners, if they win their breach of contract case against the state, do they start taking away and selling off bridges and roads and buildings owned by the states? Do they intercept tax payments like the government will take your tax returns if you owe child support?
Susana cuts them a check. How did legislators get paid during the Rauner budget standoff after the courts required payment? Susana cut a check.
Yes, exactly what I’ve been saying, “a future legislature’s power to amend what a prior legislature enacted is an essential element of state sovereignty”. The best the courts could do is, I think, it give pensioners a judgment to collect against the state. But that judgment would presumably come from the court of claims because a claim for money against the state. And then the pensioner would have to collect on that judgment and what, freeze state bank accounts? Sell state assets? Intercept tax payments from individual tax payers to direct to pensioners? Then what if the legislature passed a… Read more »
Cutting people of of Medicaid
Good!