-- 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
Why doesn’t Pritzker cut spending 15% across the board BEFORE thinking about raising taxes?
If he did that how would you know he’s a democrat? He prefers raising taxes versus cutting spending. In fairness I would have loved for Rauner to offer this alternative. Either pass my reforms or I’ll be forced to cut 15% from the budget through line item veto.
If he is being honest this is the best statement by a politician in some time. The amendment should be presented to the people as we either raise taxes through a progressive tax or cut spending by 15%. Let the people decide and then honor their decision. Let’s see if the people of Illinois really trust their government with more money.
He’s lying. There’s no way he’s cutting the budget 15% after just spending $45,000,000,000 on infrastructure like pickleball courts, walking paths and community centers all around the state, paid at union wages. The only promise he could ever make, that I’d actually believe, is he is promised to never cut infanticide funding. That’s a promise you can take to the bank. Or taxpayer.
Agree that he doesn’t mean it. He is just laying out his strategy if it doesn’t pass. He would then show how “devastating” the cuts would be and then reverse course and raise taxes across the board. Frankly it doesn’t matter because opposition to the progressive tax should run ads contrasting these choices. Stating that “cuts to the budget are possible”. Set up the vote as a showdown between those that want more taxes versus those that want less spending. I’m actually surprised that he didn’t set it up between a choice between a progressive amendment that taxes the “rich”… Read more »
“I’m actually surprised that he didn’t set it up between a choice between a progressive amendment that taxes the “rich” more or he will be forced to raise income taxes across the board, say 6%.” This would have been preferred but he’s a newbie politician. He also has no discipline to stick to the narrative, or anything really, as clearly shown by his inability to control even his food intake. He bought this office by spending more money in his campaign than any other governor in the history of the United States. It wasn’t discipline of retail campaigning or hard… Read more »
Is this another lie from a politician, or, a fantastic reason to reject the unfair tax? I mean, he says “If you don’t vote to raise your taxes, then I will cut spending!”
What a moron.
Well good it’s about time jabba to cut spending, get started ole boy get started. As if this is a big surprise a 3 year old would of know this.
I’m so tired of the carnival barkers, the doomsayers, the paid professional critics predicting total disaster if their blank check amendment doesn’t pass