-- 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
In 2028, there should be a question posed on the November ballot asking whether Illinois should hold (an Illinois) constitutional convention. That strikes me as the gateway to addressing the IL constition’s pension protection “not be diminished or impaired” language that serves an obstacle to any sort of relief to taxpayers, even relief that attempts to preserve much of pensioners’ benefits. Until we see how that plays out, which could be over several years, this problem is likely to just fester and worsen in the same way it has been.
That question will most definitely be on the ballot November 7, 2028. Most people don’t trust our legislature so I doubt Illinois voters will vote yes. If they do vote for a convention, the delegates could just as easily try for another progressive tax. I’m guessing you won’t have a majority of delegates for a pension amendment. I think a progressive tax amendment would have an easier time getting majority delegate support. I guess we will find out in a little over 3 years.
“That strikes me as the gateway to addressing the IL constitution’s pension protection…. language”.
It is exactly for that reason that AFSCME and other unions go all out to defeat (vote no) on the con-con question every time it comes up (last time was in 2008).
IMO, the people who really deserve the blame for the pension crisis are the judges who sat on the Illinois Supreme Court back in (I think) 1974, 75 or so and ruled that the “no diminishment” clause in the state Constitution meant ONLY that current pensioners had to get their checks, and did NOT mean that the state had to keep the pension funds actuarially sound. Thus began the practice, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, of shorting the pension funds so the money could be spent on other stuff.
Nothing in the law requires a set level of funding. This was even acknowledged during this constitutional convention to the legislature. It was a feature not a bug. While I agree with your assessment that funding would have been better, we shouldn’t blame the court for following the law and not legislating. Otherwise we will have a bunch Kentanji Jackson’s on the court. I don’t think most people want that.
The Supreme Court voted that way because it was exactly what the unions wanted. Why force payments into the pension system, when pension payments were already locked up? As PPF demands, they could always get more taxes for pensions.
The goal was to free up more tax money to pay salaries for union members. Get the money now, knowing they could always get more later.
Just more lies. What’s the point of making up things that are so easily proven false. People ex rel. Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Lindberg The plaintiffs contended that the Pension Clause afforded them an enforceable, contractual right to have their respective pension systems funded in an actuarially sound manner. The courts stated no such guarantee existed in the amendment and in fact notes from the convention showed that there never was any intent to do so. This was decided in 1975 (challenged in 1974) only a few years after the amendment was added to the constitution. Here are a couple of… Read more »
You got exactly what you wanted, while you could also play the martyr. They’re stealing from us, the poor virtuous public servants! Pay us more, since our pensions are already a lock!
What a crock.
As usual, you can’t refute one statement that I made. I provide facts while you provide nothing. When facts aren’t on your side argue with emotions. Pathetic.
So let’s review. You’ve worked hard to prove that the intention was to guarantee payment without requiring adequate funding. Exactly what I said.
Pension was bullet proof, protected by constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the pool of tax receipts was never restricted in any way, deliberately as you so carefully laid out in your “proof”.
Free-for-all for the public unions. Party time, we can still get paid later. And that’s exactly what happened.
But you can keep calling me stupid if that makes you feel sooooo superior.
Yes, let’s review. “You’ve worked hard to prove that the intention was to guarantee payment without requiring adequate funding. Exactly what I said.” No that’s not what you said nor what I said. I stated a fact, that the pension amendment was never designed or written to force funding. You stated this was done for the benefit of the unions. I pointed out that the unions wanted them funded and even sued to demand funding after then 1974 budget and lost. You continue to claim, falsely, that this was the intent of unions all along when history shows it clearly… Read more »
Also, I have consistently advocated that we increase pension funding to the actuarial amount. That would require about $5 billion additional each year. That money will squeeze out other spending. Why would I advocate for that if your theory was I don’t care about the funding level?
“’round and ’round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows.” I think it was the great philosopher Bert Parks who said that WAY back when on his TV quiz show.
This is what has ruined the quality of life in Illinois for so many. The public sector runs the state, and the private sector is running from the state.
“Illinois’ five statewide government pension systems provided benefits to over 239,000 annuitants in 2024. Over 31,900 of them received $100,000 or more. There were 327 retirees paid $250,000 or more.”
That means 13.3% got over $100K and 0.14 percent got more than $250K. IOW 86.7% of state retirees did NOT get six figure pensions last year.
Please note, I’m not denying that pension debt is a serious problem but pointing out that these six-figure pensions are NOT necessarily representative of the majority of state employees.
Given that only 13.3% of pensioners are getting $100K or more, I strongly suspect that the 93,000 “average” does NOT represent what the majority of pensioners receive. Again, would love to know what the median pension amount is.
Remember that you can’t just look at “average pension,” whether median or mean, or look at “only X% getting more than $100K.” That’s because that would include pensioners who worked only part of their career in that pension system. They should have additional retirement benefits from those other places they worked. Instead, the best thing is to look at pensions of people who worked full careers for the particular pension, which is what IL Policy did here.
At a much younger age than 67 years old (45 to 50) the full retirement age of social security. Another reason why they are not sustainable at current levels. This system is destined to FAIL.
Well, I’m 61 years old, and nowhere near able to retire, most likely because I didn’t start working for the state until I was in my mid 40s. It would be stupid for me to retire before 1) the 20-year “free” health insurance kicks in (you’re no longer charged for the individual premium, BUT, you still have to pay for any dependents, of which I have two (husband and daughter, both with different disabilities)); 2) Medicare kicks in at 65 (the state now requires you to enroll in a Medicare supplement plan if you are Medicare eligible and still working);… Read more »
Your situation sounds like what most people are up against in the private sector.
The point here is that public union employees have a lavish setup which the ordinary peons are expected to fund. And they don’t care if ordinary people struggle. They want their pound of flesh, and not one dime less.
Isn’t that the story of a great many business owners as well—especially contractors. I’ve had a few experiences of needing work done on my house or property. They seem to immediately take note of the aura of your neighborhood and literally without pencil, paper or calculator spit out their bid within literally 5 seconds on what you’ve stated needs repair. There is no obvious attempt to ponder the details with any real mathematical precision. Now, just how seriously is that person trying to be the lowest bidder? To my thinking he’s making a mockery of that concept, simply presuming you… Read more »
The next time a contractor can force me to do business with him, and use government to get paid via taxes, I’ll let you know. Then maybe this analogy will start to make sense.
I doubt there is any analogy that is perfect in every sense, but surely any reader ought to understand the concept and particularly in the hasty and arrogant estimate determination mentioned.
You are not forced to do business with Illinois. You are willingly engaging in business by living in Illinois. You are free to leave at any time. Otherwise you will follow the terms of doing business in the state. Stop playing the victim.
So Illinois is basically a feudal fiefdom run by the public unions? Anyone who lives in the state owes fealty to the lords of the estate, the public unions. You people are amazing with your delusions of grandeur.
Living under the rules set by your elected leaders is a “feudal fiefdom”. Talk about delusional. Nothing prevents you and others voting for different people. But if you’re the minority then most people don’t want the same thing as you.
You are free to choose different leaders. You are also free to move if you don’t like those leaders. You are free to whine and complain like a little baby. Clearly you have a preference in these choices.
You may remember this started with comparing a private contractor to public unions. They are both the same, because both seek their own self-interest! I pointed out that is untrue, because the contractor does not have ability to force me to accept his services and pay for them through taxation.
You proved the point by laying out my options as paying for public unions or leaving the state. No contractor can make the same threat.
Pointing out reality only seems like whining to those who prefer that their true nature not be exposed.
That’s because the vast majority of public pensioners don’t retire with the amount in the article. They are outliers that people use to justify their attempted theft. Yes you can have a good retirement if you work for over thirty years in a job with a pension plan. You can also do the same thing with a 401k and match. The difference is that most people don’t consistently fund the IRA or 401k whereas pensioners have no choice. Now the whiners that didn’t save enough want to place blame on retired state workers or firefighters.
Or they can get taxpayers to fund the whole thing via the pension pickup. Which 401k or IRA provides a guaranteed annual income to be covered by taxpayers if the investments fall short?
Get real PPF.
The state offered so why not take it. Don’t offer it if you don’t want to pay.
When I consider all the trouble POTUS is having with the deep state, even when he has congressional majorities and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the fairness issue that we all perceive will not be rectified in “one hundred days…[n]or … in … one thousand days.” And they’re unlikely to be rectified in Illinois short of insolvency or bankruptcy. Because the same problems exist elsewhere, it’s also unlikely even to be addressed until they wind their way through the federal courts. The adversary system, the complexity of laws and pensions, and the dug-in greed of the “haves” will… Read more »
“Over 31,900 of them received $100,000 or more. There were 327 retirees paid $250,000 or more.” At just the base for these outliers, that translates into $3,190,000,000 and $81,750,000 for a total of $3,271,750,000 in current annual payouts to Illinois’ highest paid public servant retirees. The actual number is higher, but you get the point. The government pension game in Illinois is rigged in favor of political animals and their friends and pals. The only real fix is the same as the one the private sector started using in the late 1970’s: ditching the defined-benefit retirement plans in favor of… Read more »
‘Government workers aren’t to blame for taking part in a lucrative retirement system. State employees deserve to collect the pensions they have been promised.’ Wrong. They invested capital through their unions to perpetuate a fraudulent, broken system and said very little against it all. Folks on SS paid payroll taxes of 12.4% on their wages for 35-45 years. Yet, the SS fund is projected to run a shortage by 2033 (in large part due to Democrats putting illegal aliens into the system) resutling in a projected 25% haircut for SS pensioners. Do SS payers ‘deserve’ to at least get back… Read more »
The 2nd sentence of your last paragraph needs some ‘splainin’ to reach agreement with me at least. It’s reasonably well established that anyone (immigrants included) who never work until having minimally 40 quarters of earnings recognizable by SS will never be able to draw a SS pension, yet your point of view is that the SS trust fund is being depleted by having SS paying excessively to them. So, please clarify how so many immigrants who must pay into SS from their first day of employment as workers in the U. S. while so few of them ever draw ANY… Read more »
They government workers are criminal co-conspirators who do not deserve a cent of their stolen money. They were and continue to be active participants in the bribery of Illinois Democrat politicians. They are thieves. They are knowingly stealing from their neighbors and family. It is a shamefully simple as that. Period.
The “average career” pensioner isn’t average so it’s silly to compare these people that maxed out their pension when most don’t. Around 40% of teachers in Illinois drop out of teaching within 5 years. So comparing the top 10 or 20% of a group that is college educated with the average residents where the majority doesn’t have a college degree is meaningless. The average resident makes way less than doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc… It doesn’t mean those professionals will be getting paid less money. The whole premise is designed to make the reader think it’s ok to steal their pension.… Read more »
Lots of people leaving the state and no longer paying IL taxes combined with new arrivals not paying taxes equals trouble for pension funds already billions of dollars in the red. It will be a sight to see as it all comes crashing down. Short of holding a gun to peoples heads on payday and taking what little money they have left, the funds ( like Social Security is already admitting begrudgingly ) are in for a dose of reality.
Yet collected tax revenue is at an all time high. We have doubled our taxpayers making more than 500k a year and the state has 70% more taxpayers over 1 million a year as a percentage compared to the average state. The sky is not falling. Plenty of taxes for one of the largest states in the union.
… and IL will slowly die in response to paying pensions.
Show a little gratitude towards to those who are working harder and longer in order to pay your generous pension check while you enjoy yourself at a relatively younger age.
How many people will express gratitude to people who hound, belittle and bully them? Do you? People tend to treat others as they are treated. Generally speaking, if you want gratitude show a little first. This is a general statement of advice and may well to others far more than to you, of course.
When the state pays me my tax refund I don’t say thank you. No reason pensioners should show gratitude for being paid what they are contractually promised. It is their money and the state will pay accordingly.
Show a little gratitude that tier 2 works for so much less. Although, they may get an increase down the road if that’s what the voters want.
You are certainly close, Mr./Mrs./Ms. state pensioner. Your tax refund is your money given back to you, thus the term “refund”.
The bulk of government pension dollars paid to state retirees comes from confiscated taxpayer dollars.
Nope. Legally they are both mine. The entire amount is paid because the state contractually owes the money. It is deferred compensation for labor ALREADY performed. It’s the pensioners money and not yours. You as the taxpayer, if you choose to stay in Illinois, are required to pay. No amount of semantics will change that reality.
Not really. Your refund from Illinois is money you paid in from your personal sources, paid too much of, and got the difference back. Governments get their money by confiscating it from taxpayers. Like the compensation paid out during a government employee’s working years, the monthly pension you receive mostly comes from taxpayers’ confiscated funds. That’s not even arguable. If it’s yours, then go get all of it now. You could probably invest it better than the political animals do. Fairly soon, Illinois will not be able to fund anything but their PBO. Next, Illinois won’t even be able to… Read more »
You do have one important point — averages can be misleading when there are large outliers in the group. To cite one extreme example: if you put 10 ordinary working class folks in a room and then brought in Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, the average income of everyone in the room would jump into the millions. Does that mean the 10 Average Joes/Janes in the room are now filthy rich? In such cases “average” does not equal “representative of most people in the group”. A better statistic for gauging what’s truly representative of most people in the group is… Read more »
This information will be more effective at promoting pension reform than all the talk of unfunded liabilities and actuarial payments.
Mr Ordinary Taxpayer, you know that teacher next door? The one who was out in the yard gardening or sunbathing on nice summer days when you got home from your year-round job?
That teacher retires at 58 and collects 30% more than you make while working full time. And collects 4 times more than you will in retirement. And is probably married to another teacher who gets the same deal.
Much better than talking about unfunded liabilities.
No it won’t. The only reform that’s needed is more funding. Complaining that “it’s not fair”, aka Im jealous, won’t do a thing. Pay more now or pay even more later. Those are the only choices.
The “you’re just jealous” taunt works in a schoolyard. I don’t think it will be effective if taxpayers figure out exactly what they are expected to pay for.
Any potential reductions will only happen in the courtroom. Your not fair argument is meaningless. The courts rule on the law not your feelings.
The black robes will save me! OK, PPF.
Or, and hear me out, don’t pay at all. Why do Teachers deserve pensions? Why not give them a 401k option? Teaching is a part-time job with a full-time retirement benefit.
No. Do what I did: sell your property while it still has value and leave!
Way to take ownership of your life decisions and not blame others. It’s too bad others would rather blame their circumstances on teachers, cops and firefighters. They are a sad and nasty group. I wish you well!
Teachers, the CTU, and pensions are not and were not my decision. If I could vote against them, I would. I regularly vote against the embedded union-supported Democratic political class, but too many benefit from the system. So, like Kazys above, I will soon move and take my substantial tax payment to another state that values hard working individuals.
Bye
See, you could have been a teacher! Why not? Too much stress? That kind of work is beneath your upper-class self image? Too bad. So sad! Maybe next time around you’ll do better.
And that’s the cause of the animosity of most of these pension haters. They see public employees as beneath them and can’t stand the thought of them living a quality life. Those people can choke on their jealousy.
Actually, it’s the complete unaffordability of the entire government pension system that generates the animosity. Couple that with the ‘pay or else’ and ‘taxpayers be damned’ attitude of state pensioners and their advocates.
The affordability is the result of not paying the required contributions for decades. The voters might be too dumb to know that but that doesn’t make it the retired cops fault.
The truth is it was never affordable.
Taxpayers be damned.
So, leave like so many others are.
Illinois’ disastrous demographics: Fewer youth, a drop in working-age residents and a jump in elderly – Wirepoints | Wirepoints
It is ridiculous that the system with the second-largest number of participants (SERS) has its retirees collecting ALL of the contributions on behalf of an employee (which I understand includes their own payroll deductions PLUS their employer’s regular contributions) in the first year of retirement. The average benefit is $59,705, plus that group also gets social security. The average retirement benefits are so rich in comparison to workers that it is not fair. The linked article kind of pulls a punch on the issue of what happens in the future when it says: “State employees deserve to collect the pensions… Read more »
You seem to think the public employee pension clause in the IL Constitution is advisory as a goal rather than a mandate. That’s not the case. You might want to reread it.
Let’s all reread it. Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired. It says “membership” in a system is a contract right. It doesn’t say the system must go on in perpetuity. The system was established by a legislative body and it’s a sovereign right of any legislature to amend or terminate a program. Similar language was added to other states’ constitutions at about the same time as… Read more »
I remember that argument being given during the political conflab about what was routinely called SB (IL Senate Bill) 1, one enacted, I think, December of 2012 and seeking to reduce IL public employees’ retirement benefits. I don’t recall that argument in all its glory, but I do know SB 1 was overturned by the IL Supreme Court in May of 2015. I don’t recall the reasoning, but I do recall “membership” as meaning one is held to all the benefits implied therein to include any such financial terms. If you can restate the essence of “your” case I think… Read more »
“Membership” is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as the fact or status of being a member of an organization, society, or other group. A law or regulation could establish a different meaning for the purposes of that law or regulation. I don’t know whether there is any applicable definition within Illinois statutes or regulations on public pension systems. Whether a court can make up its own definition would require more research but I doubt whether courts have unlimited latitude — four should not be defined as five! In the past I have encountered many authorities holding that the right… Read more »
You’ve given an impressive overview of the legalities here! You seem persuasive and knowledgeable, but you’ve reminded me of one of the reasons the IL public employee pension reforms of SB 1 were rejected by the IL Supreme Court in May of 2015. I can’t remember the correct term for the state’s argument against its rejection, but I’ll give it another name that approximates what they mean, “police power.”. In essence the argument was that the right and obligation to reject/overturn any law that threatens its sovereign existence. While that seems reasonable on the surface to me at least, the… Read more »
Arguments about “intent” seem to me to be afterthoughts or makeweights. Someone put this provision into the hopper and gave a half-assed explanation that most of the deciders didn’t understand any more than they understood pensions or the potential consequences of the language. Several decades after the fact, a bunch of conflicted jurists looking out for their own interests decided a case in favor of a class of people to which the jurists belonged. When laws have unforeseen negative consequences it’s necessary for the legislature to have the power to amend them. Whoever drafted the provision had an axe to… Read more »
Here’s my input: perhaps!
The intent was very clear and discussed throughout the con con. Many questions were asked and answered. The intent was to ensure that an employee would get a pension that provided benefits based on their first day of employment. They also discussed that nothing prevented the legislature from increasing benefits. It was done for the purpose of establishing pensions as a contractual right that couldn’t be reduced or impaired. The notes from the convention have been quoted in many lawsuits, including the landmark smackdown in 2015.
No need to rewrite history.
There are many defenses to contract performance including impossibly of performance and unconscionable terms. You can’t tie the hands of legislators who must be able to fix errors or even bad judgment. Impeachment and conviction can overturn an election. Judges can modify jury awards. Governments can stop landlords collecting rent and debtors can repudiate debts. Legislators can decline to appropriate funds.
I don’t think Illinois has debtors’ prisons and it’s unlikely that Trump will be sanctioned for revoking grants to Harvard.
If it’s broke, fix it.
“You can’t tie the hands of legislators who must be able to fix errors or even bad judgment.” The Illinois Supreme Court rejected this very argument. In fact they stated that the express purpose of the amendment was to do exactly that. “Rather, it is a statement by the people of Illinois, made in the clearest possible terms, that the authority of the legislature does not include the power to diminish or impair the benefits of membership in a public retirement system. This is a restriction the people of Illinois had every right to impose.” I would encourage you to… Read more »
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that the Supreme Court of Illinois was wrong. I’m not the only person to think that and, as we’ve seen in Roe v Wade, it’s not too late to go at this issue again to save the State and its municipalities from financial ruin. Over & Out. Chief Justice Hughes, speaking for the Court in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell,2212 remarked in 1934: “It is manifest from this review of our decisions that there has been a growing appreciation of public needs and of the necessity of finding ground for a rational compromise between… Read more »
Membership is a good description of a limited contractual relationship. The common description of the word “taxpayer” would lead most people to believe they are part of this contract and therefore liable to pay taxes. However, the legal definition of “taxpayer” is different than the common meaning. Ilga.gov documents only go back to the 90’s, so I was unable to find their specific definition. “Property taxes are perfectly legal when they are applied to the entities they were written for. Pennsylvania comes right out and states in Title 61, Sections 153.1 and 155.1. Here is their definition of taxpayer. It’s… Read more »
Your comment is common sense. However, the public union shills that post here will deflect as though not even God hisself can make changes. I relish a IL pension BK of sorts. And, OBTW the legacy media has piped up again how SS is quickly becoming short on funds given future obligations (in large part because of Democrats putting illegal aliens into the system) and by 2033 a 25% ‘haircut’ is a real possibility for pensioners.
SS can be cut at any time. You are not contractually guaranteed that money as it’s basically a form of welfare that can be discontinued at any time by congress. Illinois pensioners on the other hand have contractual rights. They will be paid even if taxes need to increase.
Make all your changes for new employees. Existing employees and retirees aren’t gifting you a dime. The argument isn’t you “promised” but rather you are contractually obligated to pay these pensions even if that means you need to cut spending elsewhere or raise taxes. This debt is owed by all of Illinois and its taxpayers. You won’t be finding any reform on the backs of public employees because you didn’t put enough aside.
It’s interesting that you can’t connect the dots between a slowly dying city/state and the pension problem.
Leftist Democrats and the public union bosses have put a lot of effort into creating this upside down situation. They are fat and happy and view everyone else as suckers.
IL needs pension reform to bring these pensions in line with private unions. But this will never happen because this is how IL Democrats buy votes.
Really Not surprising. Over the years, the formula for Government pay and benefits changed from a combination of low salary and a stable retirement. To high pay and over blown retirement benefits with little contribution. As TPG said below, This has continued because of the collusion between unions and politicians in Illinois and elsewhere. Illinois though…is the poster child of ridiculously over blown public sector pensions. A friend is a Sheriffs deputy in South Florida and retired after 30 years with a City PD and then the Sheriffs department. His retirement is about $100K annually. I don’t really begrudge law… Read more »
Illinois should’ve gotten out of the pension business in the 1980s, transitioning so that new workers were put in 401k with matching like in the real world. This should still be done. And it’s be interesting to see a comparison of state pensions to private sector pensions, for both payout and cost of living kickers.
Chances are you’ll find that on YouTube or elsewhere given enough patience in how your input is stated. Maybe you’ll find it here on a silver platter with no input effort on your part at all. Good things can come to those with patience and perseverance. Is that you?
Perhaps I could. Your point? I do know firsthand that the railroads still pay pensions that lack any cost of living adjustments, payments are unchanged from the first pension check over time. However, eventually they will be out of the pension business as they switched to a 401k with matching for all new workers decades ago. This is what the state, county, city, any IL municipality, should have done, also decades ago. Enshrining public pensions in the state constitution is instead what happened.
Disgusting rampant theft of taxpayer dollars. The result of decades of criminal collusion between public sector union goons and corrupt Illinois Democrat politicians. Taxpayers dont owe these grifters one cent. Besides, the pension parasites will kill their host if they don’t watch out.
“Taxpayers don’t owe…” CLEARLY you are wrong. Wake up, wake up to reality!
The state owes every penny promised to pensioners. That includes a 3% annual increase. If you live in the state you will pay taxes to cover this. Keep on thinking you won’t pay. It provides free comic relief to so many.
… and this is why many of have left or plan to leave. Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money.
“Taxpayers dont owe these grifters one cent.” No contract, no liability. Real simple. Looks like Florida will be the first domino to fall.
https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1937523716168040799
Correction: No contract or consent, no liability. When you pay a utility bill, this is not really a contract, but a service agreement. Likewise, when you buy groceries or a car it is by consent.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” – The Declaration of Independence