-- 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
A 99 grand fine? That’s peanuts.
Want to get these political slimeballs’ attention? Make the fines double what the organization spent on political activities and take the state professional licenses of those responsible.
The discussion seems to be about the voters. Here is a breakdown on how they voted in ancient Greece and is allowed to vote.
https://www.history.com/news/ancient-elections-voting
P.S. Everyone have a safe Thanksgiving with family and friends.
2 Illinois Supreme Court justices bought, bribed, and paid for courtesy of corrupt democrats. Judicial integrity is a trait not found in the so called judiciary of illinois.
According to PPF, This is the will of the voters! The voters elect corrupt politicians who corruptly gerrymander the districts, and then hire corrupt their own personal lawyers to illegal support candidates with ‘dark money’ to elect candidates who will support their bosses’ unconstitutional laws! Even Putin isn’t this sophisticated!
Are the voters outraged by this? No? Well then I would say the voters don’t mind this type of behavior. We get the government we deserve.
PPF operates on the ethics of mob rule. He has nothing else to fall back on. The voters will always be to blame, no matter what the unions do.
He makes the same illogical circular argument. No matter the outcome, it is the will of the voters. Even if there are nefarious outside influences, or even outright fraud, it is the will of the voters. He is right though that the voters *in theory* could put an end to this nonsense. But in practice, this almost never happens anywhere in blue dominated areas. It never happens. So saying ‘the voters could stop this’ is screaming into the wind because the voters don’t stop this, which goes back to the nefarious influences and outright fraud. In many areas, our Democrat… Read more »
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-chicago Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire: 100,000 Stolen Votes in ChicagoApril 16, 2008 ….Soon after the investigation started, it became evident that this was not a case of isolated wrongdoing, but rather a case of extensive, substantial, and widespread fraud in precincts and wards throughout Chicago. The FBI investigators concluded that their regular tools-interviewing witnesses, obtaining documents, and using handwriting experts to analyze signatures on documents-would not be up to the task. After all, to conduct a complete investigation, they would have to review “virtually all of the 1,000,000 ballot applications submitted in the City of Chicago in the November… Read more »
“He is right though that the voters *in theory* could put an end to this nonsense.” Therein lies the differences between us. I believe the voters are getting what they deserve but also hold all the power to change things for the better. You seem to just want to complain and play victim. If the voters don’t fix this then what is your solution? More whining? Playing victim will never solve your problems. You and prozac have done it so long you don’t know any other way. “Those mean old political leaders, grumble grumble grumble. The sky is falling boo… Read more »
I advocate for operating within the parameters of the US and Illinois constitution. You seem to want to ignore voters that vote differently than you and want some type of system where you alone make decisions and ignore the will of the electorate.
You refuse to offer up a solution to policies that are implemented by the majority. Once again, how do you envision our government that doesn’t take into consideration the will of the majority?
I have stated many times before, I endorse operating within the guardrails of the US Constitution. The will of the mob, no matter how large, cannot violate the rights of others. Public employees may not enshrine their place at the public trough in perpetuity. It’s not a difficult concept. That’s why public employee unions were not allowed until the 1960’s.
So you support the constitution when it agrees with your beliefs but when it doesn’t we shouldn’t follow it? Why do you get to decide this? Why not the electorate as a whole?
I have never said I get to decide. Your mob rule mentality is strong.
Then who decides if not the voters? Do you not see the problem. You don’t want what you call the “mob” aka majority of voters to decide these rules. So who then?
Your ability to not answer this basic question is strong. Yes my mentality that the majority should decide as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others outlined in the constitution is strong.
Now for once provide an alternative. We will all assume your deflection and silence as proof you don’t really have a true plan.
The alternative to our ‘primary is the real election’ entirely controlled by Democrats would be to use the European model of first-past-the-post voting where multiple political parties or factions are on the ballot and the candidate with the most votes wins. That could potentially reduce the influence of one-party rule. The various factions within the Democrat party might be able to compete with each other to rule. The centrist democrat or republican needs only to show up once to vote – on election day in Nov. and not the *real* election day in March (but last year, June) and vote… Read more »
“Yes my mentality that the majority should decide as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others outlined in the constitution is strong.” Look at gerrymandering where 14 congressional seats are D and only 3 are R. This is only 17% of the seats in Congress despite getting over 40% of the votes in statewide elections. How about Cook County which is 25% Republican and has zero Republican representation. Again the circular logic: Democrat voters vote in Democrats who will gerrymander the districts to ensure that no Republicans are elected anywhere in the county. This is the will over… Read more »
If the voters want that type of election then they must demand it and vote differently. It’s not circular logic to expect the voters to make changes if our government is to also make changes. It’s merely factual of what has to happen. You seem interested in making changes that would help get more conservatives elected but don’t seem to get that the decision is not yours alone to make.
“You seem interested in making changes that would help get more conservatives elected but don’t seem to get that the decision is not yours alone to make.”
Do you see the circular logic here? Elected Democrats make it nearly impossible to elect Republicans, and since that’s the will of the voter (thru elected Democrats), that’s muh democracy!
Using this same logic, Hit-Leer was elected to the German government and it was the will of the voters to dissolve the government and make him dictator.
So your complaint is that more people are democrats and you can’t convince them to join your side. That’s not circular that’s just people choosing who they want to represent them. Get over it. So whiny.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.”
We have long ago passed this point.
The problem is not in who is doing the voting. The problem is what is up for a vote- that some people can vote their hands into other peoples’ pockets, and keep them there in perpetuity.
Still no solution just more complaining. If you don’t want the majority to decide what is in our constitution then who decides? Who decides “what is ups for a vote”?
The answer is the majority or as you like to refer to them the “mob”. How clever.
Voters put Bolsheviks in the Duma. Voters put Nazis in the Reichstag. So much for the sacred moral status of voting.
The public unions have their snouts cemented to the trough. You have convinced me that it will be almost impossible to break the stranglehold they have on the state.
But you will NEVER convince me that what the public unions have done is anything other than unethical and immoral.
I don’t need to convince you of anything. You are irrelevant. You only whine and complain that you need to pay taxes. Boo friggen hoo.
You will never convince me that theft is the answer. So where does that leave us? We will follow the law and pensions will be paid first. Your opinion is meaningless as the only opinion that matters are the court cases that mandate payment. Get over it.
You want solutions? Wirepoints has written about solutions, but you will have none of it. Not one thin dime less than what you believe you are entitled to. Stop with the “solutions” nonsense. You have shown you are not interested in solutions. You have faith in the strait jacket that you put on the state. You intend to bleed us dry, and will gloat while you do it.
I’m talking about solutions to the majority rule or as you put it “mob” rule. How do you solve that issue? You refuse to offer any solutions other than complain it’s mob rule if others vote differently than you want.
Wirepoints solutions are to steal from retirees. That’s unacceptable so I dismiss outright theft. What else you got other than stealing from pensioners? Those aren’t solutions but rather just a tax on ex public employees. If you want a new tax then everyone must pay not just public employee retirees.
You offer nothing as usual. Just more whiny complaints.
Correction- The majority of the voters are only from those who voted which may be a small number of all registered voters. The word majority denotes just over 50% of those who voted but most likely are voters expecting some sort of benefit in return for voting. If you count the total number of union voters they are in most cases the majority either for and against any potential ratification of a contract. If you take any school district or other public entity contract the voters are only employees but compared to all the registered voters in the area they… Read more »
Registered voters that don’t vote aren’t voters by definition.
I also agree that the will of the mob can’t violate the rights of others. See contractual and pension rights.