-- 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
Not bad…especially for a CONVICTED FELON who by law was not supposed to be able to run for local public office.
Illinois law doesn’t permanently bar convicted felons from running for municipal office. Gov. Jim Edgar also pardoned him restoring all civil rights. Nothing in the law prevented him from running for office.
In principle, you’d be wrong. He wasn’t pardoned by Edgar until after he was already elected the first time. The pardon came during his re-election bid. He was prevented by the Illinois Constitution and Illinois Municpal Code from taking the oath for the office the first time but still was sworn in and yes Illinois does bar them permanently, ie. no sun setting/time limit to the barring of the taking the oath. Those rights can be restored upon a pardon by the governor for a state crime and while a governor cannot pardon federal crimes the governor can restore the… Read more »
That’s a lot of word to admit that I was correct and his rights were restored and could take office. You just don’t like it so it’s “not allowed”.
In reality, you are wrong. In reality, nothing in the law prevented him from running and taking office. We know this because he ran and took office.
LOFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, that’s not a lot of words and you are not correct. Do you even comprehend your own words? If his rights had to be restored that means they were taken away. The Illinois Constitution, the same document you hang your hat on in defense of pensions, clearly states that they are ineleigible to hold the office. https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con13.htm#:~:text=Illinois%20Constitution%20%2D%20Article%20XIII,ethical%20standards%20for%20that%20branch. The Illinois Municipal Code states that convicted felons are not eligivle to take the oath of office which effectively bans them from that elected position. https://law.justia.com/codes/illinois/chapter-65/act-65-ilcs-5/article-3-1/ If they are eligible to take the oath and hold the office then why is… Read more »
You clearly lack understanding of our constitution. Let me help you since you are lost. I’ll paste the line from the constitution to help you, A person convicted of a felony, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime shall be ineligible to hold an office created by this Constitution. Eligibility may be restored as provided by law. Your first lesson is to understand that an elected municipal office is not an office “created by this Constitution”. So the constitution does not prevent this nor apply here. Now let’s review your second link. “A person is not eligible to take the oath… Read more »
No, you clearly lack understanding. The Constitution lays the groundwork for the creation of municipal offices, particularly home rule municipalities, like Chicago. The language does not not say “specifically” or “only”. Strike one. Yes, the law was ont he books when he first won. Just because the law was ignored and no one challenged him does not mean he was eligible to take the office. That’s the synapses in your head misfiring to justify your bullshit. Strike two. You also conveniently ignored the third point about the current bill that seeks to change the law. If it is allowed then… Read more »
The tragedy is that the head of the CHA has a salary of $311K to begin with! How ridiculous is that for goodness sake. Where the hell did that number come from and are you telling me that no one would do the job for half of that salary? None of them know what they are doing, so what’s the big deal. Close it.
How is this even legal? Apparently, IL citizens aren’t fed up with slick, greedy, double dealing pols that just can’t keep their noses out of the trough of taxpayers money. Don’t hold your breath for anyone to propose a referendum or whatever it takes to change this. People would overwhelmingly vote to end this practice, and therefore it will never be brought up.
Joining another PENSION PLAN or his contract will set up a 401K ???
He will be laughing all the way to the bank. The Servants make much more money than the people they serve. Good work if you can get it.