-- 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
Pension debt is the largest generational theft in History. The next generation is just going to HATE what the GREEDY cops, firemen and teachers have done to them. It should be outlawed. Every New Born is in debt over $100,000 and going higher, not wonder they cry all the time.
Classic Illinois/Chicago voter. Support for the expense but never support the payment. Truly getting the government that we deserve.
Truly getting the government that unions supported 100%
As well as ALL the other voters. Union members make up less than 14% of the workers. You can cry and whine and blame unions all you want but the fact remains that the majority of the voters in Chicago want this government.
You do better with the gloating over us that you got exactly what you wanted, and that the rest of us are captives in the cage you successfully built. Trying to blame “the voters” does not become you. Say it loud and proud- “The unions screwed the other taxpayers and there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it!”
Unions only negotiated collectively. The voters support the unions. The unions couldn’t accomplish anything without the voters. The voters own this while the union members own the rights to their pension.
This article outlines that the people supported union members they just don’t like to pay for things. That’s the problem in a nutshell.
Also, I’m not gloating. Just pointing out reality as many on here like to play pretend about the states responsibilities. But you go ahead and keep whining about the states debts and acting like the voters somehow got tricked. Keep playing the victim.
Maybe you need a dictionary to define gloating, most of your posts could be the prime examples.
Pointing out the truth of what’s been done is not whining.
“Unions negotiate collectively.”
Yes, they do, but not fairly. When unions underwrite politicians’ campaigns then face those same politicians across the bargaining table, the voters are NOT represented. And the negotiations are far from fair.
In a fair world, politicians would be prohibited from accepting ‘campaign contributions’ from unions and unions would be disbanded for offering ‘campaign contributions.’
The teachers unions didn’t support Lori Lightfoot yet they were still able to collectively bargain. How was that negotiation not fair? Lightfoot didn’t worry about teachers not supporting her because they never did. Currently the teachers union is supporting a different candidate as well. The voters know that Johnson is being supported by the teachers union. If he wins, then the voters are ok with that relationship. The union members simply don’t have enough people to do this on their own. Also, banning campaign donations from union members but not others? Seems like you are trying to treat them like… Read more »
Not ‘union members,’ but unions should be banned from political contributions. I’m not fond of businesses pouring money into campaigns either – thought businesses don’t enjoy the cozy politicians and unions relationships. I believe that political campaigns should receive funds directly from the government and be limited to spending only those funds. No PACS, no deep pockets, no campaign fund raising … so every candidate campaigns from a level playing field. And for every campaign ad/flyer/whatever, the politician posting it would be required to purchase equal time for the opponent’s rebuttal. And the two sides should be presented at the… Read more »
I completely understand your point around money influencing politics but I just don’t agree that business are just passively donating money with nothing in return. When a billionaire can donate to a politician that promises not to support higher taxes on the wealthy, that billionaire is buying access and support for personal gain. Union members pooling their money and donating as a union are merely doing the same thing as the rich company or individual that wants his preferred method of governing.
Good luck getting rid of money in politics. Too many people benefit including the media.
Including the media? I believe the media – in all its forms – ARE the biggest beneficiaries, though I have no hard facts to support that belief.
I’m a former union member – Local 710 – and I was never comfortable with the union’s involvement in politics. They never asked my opinion, yet some of my dues was going to political “action.”
Didn’t make it to being fully vested, so my comments on pension – private or public – aren’t self serving.
if only the public only had a clue as to the true astronomical size of the debt?
The ones who do have either left Illinois or are working on their exit. Smart chickens fleeing the coop!
I thought I was only required to virtue signal and show my vocal support for all the correct things. Nobody said anything about payments being involved. How do you expect me to afford my latte if I’m paying for pensions?
“Do you support x?” YES
“Do you support x at cost y?” NO