-- 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
Stacey Davis Gates is going to love this, as about 16% of Chicago school budget comes from the feds!
i’m in illinois. dems are commies passing laws while the taxpayers are being robbed. we are not safe here.
The day of reckoning is near for IL with it’s lawlessness. This is what IL wanted, now it’s going to get it.
Sending money to sanctuary cities is just like burning it, needs to stop ASAP.
We can only hope he does.It is the tactic the Left and their DEM allies used for decades. Now it is being used against them and they don’t like it. Spoiled brats are always like that.
You’re right that this is also a tactic of the dems. During the ACA expansion, congress threatened to withhold medicaid funding. SCOTUS ruled that you couldn’t take away existing funding and that ultimately the ACA was too coercive, calling it “a gun to the head”. It ruled you couldn’t threaten existing funding. Now if congress wants to add additional spending on the contingency of cooperating with ICE that would be different. We will see if SCOTUS follows the same logic from NFIB v. Sebelius. Keep in mind that the coercion of the ACA was an act of congress and not… Read more »
It seems to me that Republicans, if they want, can skirt the legal issue just by excluding line items from sanctuaries when those big omnibus spending bills come up. They can communicate the reason for doing so by backchannels. Am I wrong?
I tend to agree with you Mark. If congress were to pass a budget that outlined spending priorities and didn’t make it coercive I believe it would be upheld by the courts. To me that would look something like cutting police funding for all states/cities across the board and then redirecting that money saved in the form of grants that have conditions. The challenge, I believe, is the administration outlining their plans to cut spending to cities and states if they don’t bend to their will. Could Trump really go one day without stating to a reporter that “we cut… Read more »
There was a discussion on the Charlie Kirk show the other day basically saying that the sanctuary city problem in big cities was a tough nut to crack and that the Trump administration is coming up with the best and creative solutions it can to try to stop it because no other politician has ever tried to take on sanctuary cities before. My preferred route would be to bring criminal charges against big city mayors and politicians who promote sanctuary city policies and to have a trial in the western district of Texas where a jury of their peers most… Read more »
Your idea certainly is popular among people on the right but it certainly isn’t a viable option on the table. It would be done to throw red meat to the base but not a real option.
It’s more than just red meat. It’s happening now. The recently appointed US Attorney in NJ (Trump’s personal attorney) just announced she is opening an investigation into the NJ Gov. for harboring and aiding and abetting illegal immigration. She wouldn’t announce something like this on national television unless she back the absolute backing of the Trump administration. The last thing Dem. Governors want are opening and pending investigations during election season. Maybe he will get charged. That might shut JB up real quick if one of his fellow blue state peers got put into the slammer for a while.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1910505247904326091
I expect that Trump will win some and lose some on his list of funding freezes. Much of it will turn on the Impoundment Control Act from the 1970s. It’s complicated, with lots of exceptions. Some of the answer will turn on exactly what the appropriation says — some are mandatory and have deadlines for spending, but other appropriations do not. Trump intends to challenge the constitutionality of the act. I know a retired lawyer who was on the House staff that drafted the act. He thinks it will be upheld and says it was drafted with enormous thought and… Read more »
Ask him if Trump has followed the act. Did he submit a request to congress to rescind the spending? Did congress agree within 45 days? No? Then it will be spent. Sure there are exceptions for a National Emergency but that’s hard to argue when you are withholding funding for so many different things. I don’t see the courts defining this political problem as a national emergency. While possible it seems highly unlikely. The Supreme Court just told Trump to facilitate bringing back a deported prisoner. They will give him some latitude but they will still serve as a check… Read more »
Trump clearly hasn’t followed the Act. He claims it’s unconstitutional. He is entitled to do proceed that way to get a ruling on the constitutionality, but once a ruling comes back against him he should obey the ruling.
Did Biden obey all the Supreme Court’s rulings.
No.
Mark there is so much going on so fast it’s hard to keep up so much negative criticism very little positivity, what I’m concerned with is we are headed for GF 2.0 I’m not under any circumstances trying to stir trouble but something is definitely wrong in this country all the Tesla violence, protest over what it makes no sense. I hope and pray the FBI and other agencies get a grip on this and mighty quick or things will get seriously bad.
There are some who view the court as a 4-4-1 court with Roberts being the 1. Others have noted that the longer Barrett has been on the court the more she seems to have come under the influence of Elena Kagan. Kinda busts the notion that many conservatives and liberals have that this as a 6-3 conservative court.
Goes back to the national 55 mph speed limit; drop to 55 or lose federal highway funding. I think again with the seatbelt and drunk driving laws. SC let them stand because it was only a portion of the funding, but acknowledged it could become too coercive; which is what the ACA did since states would have lost all funding.
In addition to the EO uniqueness, this involves immigration which is a power directly delegated to the federal government.
You are correct in that it was only a portion of the funding. When it comes to lowering speed limits or losing funding, the states didn’t challenge to SCOTUS (I believe) because it was considered non-coercive since it was around 5 to 10% of federal highway funds. That precedent was set with the federal government forcing the legal drinking age to be raised to 21. South Dakota took it to the Supreme Court and the Dole test was established. So the question you have to ask is Trump talking about 5 to 10% of the funding? Is he talking about… Read more »