-- 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
Woah, glad I’m not in the property management business, a landlord or even an Airbnb host!
I’m glad I dumped my rental units a while back. Back when Section8 was the flavor of the month. Luckily the village passed the two strike ordinance where if the police or first responders are called to a unit three times for disturbances, drug activity or overdoses, lease is cancelled and tenants are out.
Landlords seeing trouble, should immediately send notice that security deposits will be increased from one/two months rent to four/six months if rent is not paid or inexcusably delayed between now and July 1.
Added state Sen. Robert Peters, D-Chicago, “We must act to not only flatten the curve health-wise but flatten the economic inequality that exists.”
They don’t even try anymore. Rinse repeat..
Sen Peters refuses to address constituents issues if they are not minorities. He is a one trick pony, social justice warrior.
I love how the very concept of social justice warrioring exists to fix the injustices the Democrat party alone caused.
Are the people who hold the mortgages ok with not getting back the money they are owed?
This would be unconstitutional as all hell. Both the US Constitution (Article One, Section 10) and the Illinois Constitution (Article 1, Section 16) forbid the states from passing any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”.
Nonsense. The federal bankruptcy power, which is express in the constitution, obviously trumps the federal Contract Clause, allowing contract modifications routinely, both for municipalities and the private sector. And federal bankruptcy trumps state constitutional matters such as their own contract clauses and pension protection clauses, as we have seen in Detroit and other cases. Municipal bankruptcies were upheld as constitutional many decades ago, and they are instrumentalities of the state.
Not so sure if I agree with that, Mark. You are viewing this thru the lens of bankruptcy when there is no bankruptcy issue present. I view the bankruptcy laws as a specific exception, a carve out if you will, to the Contracts Clause. The modifications of contracts is often the sine qua non of Bankruptcy case. I don’t claim to be an expert on Constitutional law but your interpretation of the Contracts Clause and its application here would render the Contracts Clause meaningless. And we both know that that would never be allowed to happen.
And further, the Contracts Clause in the US Constitution is a directive to the STATES, thus there is no conflict vis-a-vis Federal Bankruptcy law.
I think it goes like this: Federal constitution says states can’t pass laws that impair the obligations of contract. This includes contracts by the state (or municipality) such as a labor contract or a pension contract. However, this anti-impairment principle does not prohibit changes in the law. A legislature’s power to change a previous law is an essential element of sovereignty. Similarly, there is no legal expectation that the state constitution will remain unchanged. So if the people amend the “pension protection clause” that amendment can’t be challenged. Bankruptcy “inserts” an exception so that if a public entity goes bankrupt… Read more »
“A legislature’s power to change a previous law is an essential element of sovereignty” This issue has been discussed and ruled on in United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey. The opinion of that case stressed judicial scrutiny is appropriate when a state impairs its’ own contract. The ruling noted that the courts give the states wide deference when modifying private contracts, complete deference is not appropriate when the impairment effects the states own financial interest. This ruling caused the court to use a new “reasonableness” and “necessity” test for contracts where the state is a party. Were the changes… Read more »
New freebies for the permanent victim class, the permanent waiter/waitress class, the permanent artist/musician class, the permanent community organizer class and so on. Get a job, a career and an education. These handouts are destroying us.
Does this mean roof repairs wont be needed too?
How is this even vaguely legal? How can a local government insert itself into already existing civil contracts?
That’s the police power argument which the US Supreme Court recognizes. The leading case was a state law suspending mortgage foreclosures during the Great Depression. But I agree that this is so extreme that it would be a stretch.
So there will be a corresponding six month property tax, income tax and sales tax break too right?
The article says there will be no penalties charged on late property tax payments. How generous of them.
Anyone wanna test that statement? Then wind up seeing their home going up for sale on the delinquent tax roles
This bill is egregious on many levels. Landlords would have to demonstrate material economic hardship. Reduction in savings is not considered economic hardship. Savers get penalized. While rent is cancelled, mortgage payments are merely deferred. So landlords and homeowners still pay while one group gets to live for free. Not sure if this is even means tested. Rent is also frozen (for who knows how long), so it will take many years for landlords to make up that lost revenue. But I would guess that would lead to larger than normal rent increases once the freeze is lifted. So my… Read more »
The point is a total redistribution of wealth to insure democratic votes for all eternity.
Also while the Illinois politicians are at it, suspend credit card payments for six months and increase everyone’s credit score to 850. I am so glad I live and have my business in Indiana.
Enacting this legislation would be like giving a sick patient poison instead of medicine. Its as if they learned nothing from the Great Depression. They’re compressing all the worst parts of the 1930’s into 12 months.
Don’t stop here. Bank accounts for everyone and no-limit overdrafts for 6 months. Mandatory quartering of street people in any house with empty beds. Encourage the governor to do it all under his emergency authority.