-- 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
So glad I moved. Going to enjoy watching the fireworks show on the 29th! I’ll have my popcorn hot and my laughs waiting.
The many years of greed and taxpayer abuse are coming home to roost. Mayor Lightfoot is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The solution will include much pain to be experienced, but by whom? Taxpayers need to watch this closely and have their bags packed, just in case.
The only answer is gutting AFSCME, SEIU and CTU. Bankruptcy now.
Does anyone believe a tax survey or town hall are anything more than some cheap feel good..while they confiscate your home?
The state has no way to bail out Chicago in any meaningful way. Chicago has no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
True, and Rahm is laughing.
Rahm was going to be ‘out-progressived’ by anyone running against him and he probably would have lost. He is a smart guy, he knows which way was the wind was blowing.
She wants “investing” in chicago to happen via taxing the whole state. Then mentions pensions as the reason? Isn’t that kind of like “investing” in a whole bunch of bureaucrats to retire early and move to Florida?
Of interest is this statement from the Mayor: “But the reality is, given the gap we’re going to face next year, given the pension payments that are demanded, we are going to have to look for additional revenue sources, there’s no question about that.” This is an interesting quote. On one hand, she recognizes pensions are an enormous problem, which is refreshing from a politician that ran on treating them as sacrosanct and beyond any modification. On the other hand, her passive voice statement regarding “pension payments that are demanded” could be read as an ask as to why she… Read more »
Pensions are not sacrosanct. They are criminally ill-gotten gains resulting from a bribery of politicians by public sector unions. This is a decades long crime. These public sector unions traded votes, campaign work and campaign contributions in exchange quid-pro-quo for absurdly above market wages, gold plated pensions and Cadillac benefits and then handed taxpayers the bill.
As a taxpayer I feel no obligation to pay one penny toward this criminal racketeering. The chumbolones have wised up. Enjoy your dog food.
I assume “pension payments that are demanded” refers to those payments required by law. When were pension contributions ever made at those levels? Nope.
Of course, she could mean “demanded by public workers and retirees.” My reply: demand all you want; there’s no money to pay. Having a “demand note” from a bankrupt borrower means a creditor writing off an “asset.”
Retirees are holding Bad Debt. They’re asking taxpayers to stand and deliver. Let us instead turn and pass wind.
Lightfoot is a lawyer. “…[G]iven the pension payments that are demanded” means that she is legally obligated to make these pension payments – the Supreme Court has demanded they be paid. The same supreme court that receives those same pensions…
Judges’ orders don’t enforce themselves. Creditors (that is, pensioners) have to find some assets to attach or foreclose. Nobody has missed any pension payments yet, so those “creditors” are unlikely to be able to enforce the order for a few years. Furthermore, when pensioners do miss payments, they have to sue for one or two or six payments at a time. Do you think they’ll find lawyers to go after a couple months of payments? On a contingent fee? We live under a constitution which provides for separation of powers. The legislature is a sovereign body. The court can’t ORDER… Read more »
Joe, it’s the public official’s job to pay bills as they come due. You’re going too far down the rabbit hole to start talking about assets.
The pension bill is the largest and most important bill for politicians to pay, at least politically. A guy like Rauner might have felt compelled to miss a payment or two, but any progressive with union support will not.
Debtsor, I appreciate your unguarded honesty. You provide the clearest reason that taxpayers should stop voting for “progressives.” You seem to be endorsing the principle that political power should be the basis for budget priorities. One might say you put the interest of union retirees ahead of public health and safety. Retirees are currently receiving more out off the funds than the politicians are putting in. Only when the pension funds run dry can the consideration of real priorities begin. We can only speculate about the future, but I am suggesting that when the public officials have to choose among… Read more »
I think she is speaking to the immediate payments which must be made into the system in 2020 and in the near future. Like her predecessors, she wants to defer these payments because the budget squeeze is so onerous. I don’t see kicking the can again, especially given the fragile status of some of the pension funds, and likewise see no alternative to appreciable property tax increases across the board, and even those, along with the other tax increases she proposes, may not close the budget gap. She is in a tough spot, and her progressive views make it impossible… Read more »
I don’t hear the tick tock anymore…maybe the clock has run out