-- 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
How many times will taxpayers have to pay for expensive reports by consultants that identify meaningful and feasible ways to cut spending that never get implemented?
Until voters demand that their elected leaders change their behaviors and do something about it. Until that time taxpayers/voters will continue to pay for these expensive reports and the expensive outcomes.
How many times are you and others going to ask this silly question while ignoring the truth about why this is done? Taxpayers/voters aren’t victims. They are getting what they voted for. Until voters choose differently our elected leaders won’t behave differently.
PPF you know very well the voting system has been gamed by the greedy public sector unions.
Another lame excuse. Nothing prevented Chicago voters from choosing a different candidate than Johnson. Nothing in the voting system prevents change other than voter apathy. Nothing prevented the Illinois electorate from choosing a different governor. No amount of gerrymandering makes a difference in a statewide election where everyones vote counts the same regardless of their district.
Nothing is being gamed other than progressives are turning out for elections and choosing these candidates at greater numbers than everyone else. No gaming necessary.
Never going to happen, just a waste of time and money.
The report needs to be published in it’s entirety or is Chicago pulling it’s own Epstein?
EY likely doesn’t want to participate in this sort of circus. There is nothing in it for them but downside and no matter what is said, nothing will change anyway. Likely EY found many areas of needed change, efficiency gains and likely had projected savings and cost reduction detailed. I mean, how could you not find hundreds of millions of waste and savings. But likely those recommendations reflected badly on Pinhead, his corrupt minions, and patronage ghost salary team, and as a result, they were edited by the Pinheads minions out of the report. Since the City paid for the… Read more »
Well said, and it’s an illustration of the dynamic that curses Chicago. Civic leaders and groups like EY are reluctant to speak up, and the politicians are all too happy shutting them up.
But EY was paid $3.2 million to produce a report. They should be able to present and stand behind their conclusions. It’s up to the mayor and city council to follow through, or explain why they aren’t. Otherwise what was the whole point of spending that much money?
I agree with you 100%. EY should be able to provide the truth and “let the chips fall where they may” and the truth be known…that’s how they like to do business. But what happens with these types of projects is that the project is done, politicians get to say to the public that they are looking into cost savings, then a draft report is provided to the client (Pinhead) and the client reviews and edits the report to “correct” a few things. If EY can somewhat agree with their changes or more likely omissions, it gets published. Presenting a… Read more »
EY knows the only reason they were called to appear is to deflect the blame for the fiscal mess onto EY.
When you sign off on an audit report, or any kind of review, you know there is always a chance you could be called to testify about it. EY simply reported what they found, they certainly did not create BJs fiscal disasters. If nothing else, this process will hopefully bring to light some of the recommendations and get them out to the public. Therein probably lies the reason why EY is not coming forward – because the “elected officials” don’t want the information released. It is all about transparency in Illinois politics.
Good points. EY accepted the job, and the payment. Unfortunately that also means the politicians have a good target for deflecting blame for the fiscal problems.