-- 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
How about fixing the problem for taxpayers and cutting the pension benefits?
You can’t legally cut pensions. That ruling was almost 10 years ago. Try to keep up.
Constitutional change, done before, can be done again.
Maybe the people have had enough and it could pass…
The so-called law will accelerate the pension-cutting bankruptcies. The dwindling pension funds will be more thinly spread … to the great relief of taxpayers who pay the bills. A short & sweet campaign message for the next round of candidates … who could really serve the public and perhaps save the state.
Prohibition was overturned. Time to do the same with pensions.
Keep dreaming. Removing the clause doesn’t remove the contract. You would need to get rid of the contracts clause in the US Constitution as well. There is no getting rid of pensions. Even if you ever passed a change to the pension clause, you would need a judge to agree to any changes to pensions. Even the Rhode Island case that gets touted on this site only offered minimal cuts for a specified time period. Think smaller COLAs for a few years then back to normal. But go ahead and try. It seems to keep the people that want to… Read more »
“You would need to get rid of the contracts clause in the US Constitution as well.” Really PPF? Really? You’re going to continue to claim that. You know full well that the Contract Clause is not an absolute bar. On the contrary, pensioners can rely on it as protection that unreasonable or unnecessary changes won’t be made to pensions. If only “minimal cuts for a specified time” are permitted, it’s you who should stop worrying.
It doesn’t remove pensions as a contract Mark. You would still need the courts to agree to any reductions. Yes, it would remove one hurdle but others remain. Quit repeating to claim otherwise. I even acknowledge your Rhode Island fantasy and point out where the cuts were minimal. That’s your best case scenario. Even your best case scenario doesn’t get rid of pensions. Also, I’m not worried one bit. I want you to be honest with your readers that even if you changed the constitution there is no guarantee that the courts will determine it’s reasonable or necessary. Let them… Read more »
Also, be honest about how the courts determine “reasonable and necessary” when the state is also part of a contract where they would benefit from the change. Make sure you tell them that the courts would hold the state to a higher standard. the United States Supreme Court has made clear that it is not appropriate to give the state’s legislature the same deference it would otherwise be afforded with regard towhether the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. “A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money,” the Court observed, “especially when… Read more »
You are arguing against your own position. The bar is what it is. If the bar is higher because the state made the contract (which it is), fine, all the more reason for pensioners to be less concerned. The Contract Clause is protection for pensioners. If it were a complete bar to pension reform, you wouldn’t be so obsessed about trying to block reform efforts.
I never said it was a complete bar and you know it. Not sure how that’s arguing against my own position. Perhaps you are skimming when reading my comments and not fully understanding. I’ve stated that it’s unlikely under current circumstances. I’ve stated several times that as long as taxes can be raised or other expenses cut, pensions will not be altered at the state level. I’ve admitted that municipal pensions could be cut in bankruptcy but even that isn’t guaranteed. You keep selling the constitutional amendment as some magic elixir that many of your uninformed readers take as gospel.… Read more »
Keep trying. That day will come.
Let me know when you get 71 votes in the house and 36 in the senate to even get it on the ballot. Good Luck!