-- 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
Well…if there’s a silver lining to this idiocy, we won’t see Maurice West’s image as a mascot. Can’t put the mentally disabled images on mascots…
Good thing that the political animals tackled the tough issues and Illinois’ municipal pensions are now saved from oblivion and all the ‘fiscal cliffs’ have been leveled.
Gosh I was wondering when they were going to get around to these important items. I’m so glad our law makers have the ability to prioritize the important issues that impact the majority of the tax payers in Illinois and can focus on the really important issues of the state. Bravo. Schmucks. What a waste of time.
Here’s you list of priorities – Lower Property Taxes. Cut out waste, fraud and abuse. Change the Pension program to lower the cost for tax payers.
Anything else?
Property taxes are not controlled by the state. If you want property taxes lower then you would need your local government to cut spending and lower taxes. Sure Springfield could provide local governments more money but that would require more tax money. You also can’t change to the pension program to lower the cost for taxpayers. The state is on the hook for the full pensions owed and they will get that money from the taxpayers. Perhaps for new employees you could reduce pensions but considering tier 2 pensions are already flirting with violating safe harbor and they are even… Read more »
Hey PPF, I think Trump is onto something with the tariff thing. Why not tariffs on pensions? 80% or so. Whadyathink?
Sure. Why not an 80% tariff on ALL private property while we are at it. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to steal from those with pensions and not everyone else. Why stop at 80%? Make it 100% and have the government control all of our property. Surely all the people that advocate for stealing from pensioners wouldn’t have a problem with giving up their private property as they continue to volunteer for others.
Whadyathink?
Though I was joking, I’d say you really stepped into it with that answer. When you say, “Make it 100% and have the government control all of our property,” you should realize that’s indeed the logical extension of the pension system we have. No matter what the losses are in pensions, taxpayers are forced to cover whatever the impact is on pensions. All skin in the game belongs to taxpayers, zero for pensioners. Not healthy, to put it mildly. That’s part of why defined benefit public pensions are fundamentally divisive, corrupt, corrupting and hostile to the public good.
I was merely following your absurd lead and joking as well. Didn’t think you were actually serious. Your point about ‘all skin” belongs to the taxpayers is correct. That’s what the voters and elected leaders decided to offer these employees when they offered them employment. If you don’t like it, you should help elect leaders that would move NEW employees to a defined contribution plan instead. Hostility and jealousy aren’t reasons to cancel a contract.