-- 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
The legal system intentionally makes major reform of government structures and individual rights difficult. Therefore expensive. Many “public servants” like it that way — particularly as to their personal finances and their legal and contractual rights. Add to these structural difficulties the left-leaning incumbents in the legislatures, the courts and executive branch and you face problems that are virtually impossible to fix. Hence leave the state or suck it up. If you decide to stay, and you want to change things, you need to convince voters to elect different types of people. Many voters aren’t that interested nor are they… Read more »
Nice flowery article, but what exactly is the point?
People need to a) Focus their energy and limited time on leaving Illinois b) Decide to stay and come to grips with paying much higher taxes. Those are the choices for taxpayers.
Now that inflation is 8% and rising, those 3% automatic annual pension increases that tier 1 retirees are receiving don’t seem quite so extravagant. If tax collections increase along with inflation, then the burden that the retirement systems pose for the state and for local governments will suddenly become much more manageable. The decision by the state to grant 3% AAI’s instead of adjustment for actual inflation (like we have with Social Security benefits) as the unions wanted, in 1989, may yet prove beneficial.
No state-run pension system in the country has an automatic “adjustment for actual inflation” as you stated. If you are able to dig one up, please let us know. Since your posts are typically drive-byes with minimal facts to back up your claims, I won’t hold my breath. Inflation would have to stay at 6% for each of the next five years to wipe out the gains made since 2010 under 3% compounded AAI. In other words, catastrophic levels of prolonged inflation just to break even. That’s how far ahead pensioners are in the inflation game. If pensioners are so… Read more »
You are overstating the wording of his posting, then responding a bit angrily to your version of it.
The decision by the state to grant 3% AAI’s instead of adjustment for actual inflation There was no decision to be made because it was never a consideration. No state pension system does this. Now that inflation is 8% and rising, those 3% automatic annual pension increases that tier 1 retirees are receiving don’t seem quite so extravagant He is counting one year when there is a decade’s worth of data stating otherwise. like we have with Social Security benefits He invokes one benefit of social security (full inflationary adjustments) without all the negative stuff (the more you make, the… Read more »
I think he was stating facts rather than lobbying as you seem to have read it. If simply stating facts his intent, then there was no need on his part to expand into the various ramifications of doing that or not. But, as you said, its somewhat moot for the reason you’ve stated. Personally I agree with your longer-timespan view of the economic realities of the matter and have no problem with that. Like anything else of an inflexible nature, sometimes you are a winner and sometimes you are a loser.
I thought I had heard all of the most egregious, sickening statistics, but that Florida comparison is staggering!
We spend 5x what Florida spends on total school administration, with nearly 1 million fewer students. Let that sink in.
There’s no secret sauce making it happen either. They pay FL teachers bupkus on average compared to IL teachers. Its a free market system at its finest. People want to live in FL, and this is the result. You still get teacher job applicants.
“They pay FL teachers bupkus on average compared to IL teachers.”
Bupkus is a relative term.
The comment did not mention teachers, just school administrators.
If I’m not mistaken Florida’s has approx 67 unit districts with 40,000 students each. So administrative bloat is minimized. Here in Illinois there are school districts with as few as 100 students each with superintendents and supporting staff. Rondout Dist 72 has 130 students.
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/illinois/rondout-72-school-district/1734620-school-district
Per pupil expenditures are about 30K