-- 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
funny how political “rookie” progressives–Lightfoot & Kagie, who haven’t spent their carers in the machine have basically got the shaft so far. according to miller its not about good policy or whats fair, its all about relationships, who knows who & wheres mine. ya gotsa knows hows ta ask. and don’t forget the knee pads when ya go beg-gen to lord madigan
I fully expect a shakeup in the next 6-12 months as Madigan will likely be indicted. Its inevitable. There’s a HUGE federal target on his head. Even he is not so naive to believe that Solis wasn’t the only person sitting less than 5 feet from him, in his very office, wearing a wire, with the feds listening. They’re all talking…and giving info….and talking more..and telling all they know.
There should be no new or increased taxes or user fees in Chicago or IL to fund pensions or health care benefits. Pensions and health care benefits need to be reduced substantially so that the overall retirement benefits of state workers are comparable to those of the average American retiree, and so that the IL taxpayers get some relief from their burden.
Also, this guy’s reluctance to reduce pensions because it would be unconstitutional is a lame reason not to do so.
Hey, tell it as you see it; don’t be shy, world without end. You must be like those drivers in Italy who see street signs as suggestions rather than laws. Let’s see the IL Constitution that way and the U. S. Constitution, too, letting literally everyone decide individually what’s legally enforceable and what isn’t! After all, what could possibly go wrong? Defending either constitution and expecting it to be enforceable is so “lame.”
Reducing pensions is unconstitutional until it wouldn’t be after an amendment is passed. That’s why I’m saying that any argument not to try to reduce pensions because the state constitution says you can’t is a lame one.
It seems that there are only two options left to save IL: insolvency or bankruptcy resulting in restructuring the state’s financing and payment systems (including the retirement payment and benefits system), or being proactive to make these systems less burdensome to the taxpayer via constitutional amendments, for example. The IL pols over the many years haven’t been interested in the latter.
There is a third option when all the real estate in Illinois becomes the property of the State. Those pensions et al are first mortgages on all property within the state. It is the will of the people to because the population by voting or not voting allowed the political climate that created the problem.
“Yes,” but “no” if what’s done doesn’t properly consider the prohibition against ex post facto laws. You might get some of what you want but likely not much in the way of ignoring rights already granted under prior laws. I think you surely know that.
Not true. The Ex Post Facto clause applies only to criminal matters. The Contract Clause is a legitimate issue but, as we have explained often, a case based on it would likely fail, except for healthy municipalities with reasonably healthy pensions.
I stand corrected. Mine error, mein herr.
Miller is Illinois’ quintessential passive-aggressive spin doctor: You *could* create a new tax, can’t cut operating costs, yadda yadda. Many of his articles come across as a journalist who took one Psych class or a Psych major who took one class in Journalism. Either way, the attempts at subliminal messaging are falling flat.
One of the “devil’s in the details” of the graduated income tax amendment would allow more than one tax on the same income, meaning there could be a pension tax surcharge in addition to state income tax on what you make.
To be clear: Rich Miller is not a journalist. Rich Miller is the Mike Madigan PR Department. Rich Miller hasnt had a thought or written a word that he hasnt first passed by Mike Madigan for approval.
He’s an idiot. That’s what he is. Zero respect for the guy. I would probably spit on him if I met him at a cocktail party. Lucky for him, we run in different circles.