-- 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
Isn’t it amazing that the rapacious insurance companies have restrained themselves for all these years, and are just now showing their true colors by raising prices?
Checked out some of the liability settlements in car accidents recently? Illinois citizen’s love to spout “the little guy in Illinois get’s their justified due/ Large settlements equal higher premiums but it must be fair as the Illinois citizenry keeps electing the same judges and the juries continue their high awards.
Three cheers for Illinois! The home of big liability settlements.
Exactly!!, the Trial Lawyers Associations just another part of the dem pay-to-play machine here in Illinois
Hmm cant imagine why car insurance costs more in the carjack capital of America
Illinois is an expensive state in which to purchase a car. It’s also more expensive to drive your car in Illinois, repairs cost more here, uninsured and unregistered drivers are a big problem, the Illinois personal-injury lawyer-n-courts cabal makes Illinois an ambulance-chasing attorney’s job a gold mine in Illinois. Roads are a mess, and that doesn’t help either. The insurance companies are going to figure out a way to charge what they need to charge to cover their costs, or they just won’t write policies here. More gadfly knee-jerk Springfield legislation like this bill won’t help a bit – just… Read more »
GG, they’re also expensive to gas up!
I’m sure the companies have plenty of statistics to back up their reasons. Age, for example. Teenagers accident risk and elderly drivers risk? Not hard to figure. Gender, I’m sure there are statistics for that. Who’s more likely to get in an accident, a homeowner of moderate means with a lot to lose or a renter in a one bedroom low income housing with minimal income? As usual, the politicians want hard working people who play by the rules to subsidize those who don’t.
So if you can’t use “…gender, marital status, age, occupation, schooling, home ownership, wealth, credit scores or a customer’s past insurance company relationships…” as inputs into the actuarial tables, then what other predictive criteria are insurance companies supposed to use? Rep Guzzler is one of these progressives that attacks reality and objective criteria. What this really is though is just communism. The government is trying to equalize rates for everyone and sets prices. Insurance companies will need to charge most people similar rates if they can’t discriminate … which will raise rates for the low risk drivers and lower rates… Read more »