-- 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
The hand wringing at Crains is palpable. To late – Crains has been a big part of the problem leading up to Johnson’s installment, just like Tribune Pravda.
Cut your loses now and leave.
“Chicago ain’t ready for reform yet” – Paddy Bauler, 43rd Ward Alderman.
Ha! Reform has moved out of the city.
Writing such a column right after 15% of Chicago’s registered voters just elected Brandon Johnson-n-the-CTU as mayor seems a bit pollyannish of the authors. Particularly given the fact that 60%+ of Chicago’s eligible voters don’t care enough about any of this to even caste a ballot. How, I wonder, do the authors think that the Chicago voters who just did what they did could possibly be persuaded to compel elected officials to enact all these whole-new-world transformative reforms? In our lifetimes, I mean. It seems not entirely unlikely that by that time Brandon and the CTU are done with Chicago… Read more »
Honestly, the fact that 60% didn’t vote wouldn’t have made any difference. People in Chicago mostly voted along racial lines. So more turnout, along racial voting patterns, would have likely resulted in the same outcome. It’s not like there is some deep well of black voters for Vallas that didn’t vote or white voters for Johnson that failed to show up. It is what it is.
My point wasn’t that higher turnout would have created a different outcome.
Higher turnout would have bespoken greater engagement on the issues.
Chicago’s lost because 70% of them will turn out to vote for whoever the Dem’s nominate for President, but almost 70% of them won’t even bother to vote for a mayor.
Without regard to who wins, how messed up is that?
Nationwide turnout in 2020 was only 66%, but IL turnout in a solidly blue state where Democrats had zero chance of losing, was 73%, with a third of ballots returned by mail? WI, a swing state, had 71% turnout….Missouri was 70%….Indiana next door only had 65% turnout. And midterms, local elections, mayoral elections had puny turnouts?
But the most solidly blue state around had the highest turnout of all our neighbors?
Nothing to see here folks, keep moving along…
Spot on GG. When Coleman Young left the Detroit scene after 2 decades of “stewardship” all he ever left us was alone….
Only a pipe dream.
Because most of the city’s elected official aren’t interested in good governance. They only want power and control over everything, even if it means burning the city down to ashes in the process.