-- 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
All the complaining about Madigan’s pension, while understandable, distracts from what the real problems with this POS were/are. His pension is a mere pittance to the millions he has made as a tax appeal attorney. He, Burke and others created a cottage industry with tax appeals. The whole assessment and appeal process is so convoluted, purposely, that commercial property owners need to hire attorneys to appeal their taxes. By keeping a wild variance in assessments and and a confusing appeal process, especially with the Board of Review, in place they assured they would have a constant clent base. If the… Read more »
Tommy, Just look how Illinois credit rating has crashed since say 1982. All under Mikey’s watch as Speaker.
Poor Mikey.
Maybe he can get ComEd to pay him some $$ under the table!!
No pension should be any larger than the maximum Social Security benefit check. Pensions should not start till age 67 like the rest of the honest workers get. Why should one group of people be treated SO MUCH BETTER than the people paying for them?
While we’re at it let’s pass a law where no public employee can earn more than maybe 110% of the average wage for those living in the same county. I think that may appeal to you and yours. Whether it’s a good idea is debatable, of course. I think we’d likely lose a lot of lawyers, doctors, etc., but you can weigh in on the concept at least and suggest your own ideas for adjustments thereto.
Likely would violate collective bargaining agreements but if applied prospectively it would probably be constitutional. Current pay should be pegged to prior year’s average of earnings of those in the same trade or profession and seniority and perhaps adjusted for inflation. To avoid circularity you’d have to peg it to the private sector non-union compensation alternative — although that’d be difficult where the comparable data didn’t exist (e.g., public school teachers). A “same trade or profession” clause might “solve” the problem of doctors & lawyers (etc.) but administration is likely to get immersed in intangibles like skill and diligence and… Read more »
Because they loyally prop up the same corrupt Democratic machine Madigan built brick by brick—so of course they get rewarded. Loyalty pays… just not for the taxpayers.
Any public official convicted of a crime should not be receiving a pension. But I’m sure he has money put away!
He is not receiving a pension. It was revoked when he was convicted.
He did get all the money he contributed to his fund.
I believe the question actually meant, where is the money he was supposed to get actually going.
Why would he get back his contribution to the ‘fund’!? SS doesn’t do that. Shows how unserious the pension boondoggle is.
SS is a welfare program where you have zero contractual rights to receive those benefits. Congress can discontinue SS just like any other welfare program. How much you “paid in” doesn’t matter. You paid a tax for others to receive SS benefits and it’s only through the generosity of future legislators that you will continue to receive it. Pensions are a contractual right. Pensioners actually paid into the system unlike SS recipients. So if people are found guilty of a crime (related to their job and not from their personal life) they lose their pension benefits but are returned what… Read more »
SS recipients paid into the system, just like public pensioners. You are correct that the SS recipients were misled about the nature of their payments.
But you are wrong to imply that public pensioners did something that SS recipients did not. They both made payments into the system.
The difference is that public pensioners took advantage of the public trust to secure their pensions. Down to the very last public dime.
Tell us again how you are just defending the Constitution. You seem to enjoy reciting that fairy tale.