-- 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
Mayor Brandon needs to hire professional people that know what they’re doing, even if they are white people.
I will gleefully prepare my popcorn. At some point, many of us, who used to care, are just checking off days…
Bankruptcy has been the only option for years, ASAP!
Let the judge eliminate all public unions within the city and poof the problem is gone!
A bankruptcy judge can’t eliminate union members first amendment right to freely associate and collectively bargain. A bankruptcy judge could cancel a contract but nothing stops union members from negotiating a similar or better contract.
Which is why “right to work” is the only answer besides leaving this captured state. Unions are for mopes and losers who can’t hack it without corrupt mob muscle backing them. I guess the tax donkeys who stay in IL or do not redomicile would be even bigger losers, but public sector union members are actual parasites lower than a blood sucking deer tick on scat. Which one are you PPF?
Well, I’m not in a union but I still do live in Illinois as it’s financially advantageous for me and my family. Also have family members that still live in Illinois so not prepared to leave just yet. Yes I could save on my tax bill if I moved but would also not be able to see loved ones as often. I guess that makes me a willing tax donkey like all the other people that stay. The difference, I know I’m making that decision and not constantly whining all day about Illinois tax policies.
PPF must be a state retiree. The advocacy for maximum spending on state pensions is wonderfully ironic in that the excessive spending eventually causes the entire state pension system to break down, as Illinois has been on the verge of for a few years now. He/she is correct about a judge not being able to nullify government unions. FDR warned against it, but the then-congress made government unions legal. He/she is also correct about a judge being able to pry open agreements in the case of a municipal bankruptcy, this case law having been forged in Detroit back in 2013.… Read more »
Is Fran Spielman the only writer still employed by the Sun-Times, or is that an AI chatbot’s pen name? It is refreshing to read a story highlighting what is ultimately Mayor Cliff Notes’ gross mismanagement of the City of Chicago. The embarrassing bit for Fitch and Moody’s is their willingness to take Mayor Notes’ previous excuses at face value. For years, the City (and the State of Illinois under JB the Hutt’s similar incompetence) had enjoyed massive subsidies of confiscated Federal taxpayer funds courtesy of the Autopen-in-Chief. All that fiscal insanity has come to an end, thus the wailing and… Read more »
And remember– these bond rating agencies are paid by the City, so this downgrade is tempered by the fact that they are peeing on the client who pays them. When this type of downgrade happens, the true financial problem is even worse than the paid rater’s review indicates. A bad, bad, bad fiscal storm coming soon.
Exactly! It’s all a charade.
For the zillionth time, has there been any cuts or even one layoff from all the city programs funded with ARPA-COVID fed funds that were supposed to go towards ONE TIME needs? ANSWER NO!!……how in the world are dopey Chicago taxpayers now supposed to make of the difference? Ditto for state.
Big picture, what’s about to happen in Springfield is locking in now spent ARPA-COVID funding levels with payment shifted to dopey taxpayers. And throw in TIER 2 “fix” on top of it. It’s going to be an EPIC $$$hustle$$. It will require vastly expanded tax on services and constitutional change to graduated/ millionaires income tax maybe next year, with no caps of course. Expect only some token cuts as a foil. Expect a lot of shell bills. Expect a lot of blame it on DT, as he’s the perfect foil. Only JB can stop it…….and, as always, the last thing… Read more »
Either raise taxes or cut spending. Those are their only choices.
With passage of Amendment 1, for all practical purposes, is city stuck with only being able to make personnel cuts to non-union, non-collective bargained, employees and contractors? For example, CPS I realize is not the city, had no problem yesterday laying off all the tutors, who I believe where not covered under any collective bargaining agreement.
Amendment 1 doesn’t prevent layoffs. The city just doesn’t like to cut spending. So more taxes it is.
‘for all practical purposes’ I believe it does. Maybe the city could eliminate an entire department, which would never happen. But to cut staffing of collective bargained city employees in a department I believe is a diminished under Amendment 1. For example, I don’t believe the city can close fire stations as Brando has suggested without violating Amendment 1, for sure they can’t change the 5 men to a fire truck rule or all the other crazy city work rules. Taxpayers are simply stuck with the ridiculous collective bargained deals no matter how over staffed or however many jobs where… Read more »
Unless the city agreed in the last contract and guaranteed that layoffs were not allowed then they absolutely can cut employees. If the city did agree to that then they can cut at the next contract. Amendment 1 allows union members to collectively bargain it doesn’t guarantee they will get the contract that they want.
‘for all practical purposes’—yup, city could try layoffs but you can bet all attempts will be challenged in 2 second flat with Amendment 1 protections only offering additional layers of grounds to challenge. Same deal for trying to consolidate CRAZY 9,000 units of state gov.
They can challenge all they want. Government isn’t required to agree to no layoffs. You keep giving Amendment 1 even more power than it already has. They have a right to unionize and a right to collectively bargain. Lawmakers can’t make laws that take away these rights. It doesn’t mean they get whatever contract they would want. We just witnessed the last CTU contract taking months and the teachers didn’t get everything they wanted.
“We just witnessed the last CTU contract taking months and the teachers didn’t get everything they wanted.”—that’s a good one!!