-- 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
What Johnson needs from Springfield but probably won’t get is a stiff middle finger.
It’s as if he’s being bribed to intentionally drive business out of state. I’m sure the CME has already scouted alternative locations. Welcome to Texas, y’all.
CME was remote for a while. No problem for them to go back to remote while they transition to another state.
“You mean I can’t just do whatever I want? But I won the election, it’s the will of the people!”
That’s the PPF argument!
More lies from debtsor. What else is new. Please point to one comment where I stated that elected politicians can violate state law or our constitution.
I’ve made no such argument ever. I’m the one that states you need to follow the constitution. Yes voters choose candidates and they represent the will of the people but those candidates aren’t allowed to violate the laws that we agree to live by that are outlined in state statutes or our constitution. It’s the people trying to steal from pensioners that want to ignore the US and Illinois constitution.
LOL the constitution can be interpreted many ways…
Laughing out loud about the constitution. That pretty much sums up most of your positions.
It’s not about “following the law”. It’s about the idea that a majority of voters can impose anything they wish. That’s the premise behind something you have told us often- that the legislature is elected by votes, so they are merely following the will of the people. The mob is always right. In fact, you and others have challenged us repeatedly to form a bigger mob to stop you. Looks like someone has taken you up on that challenge, and formed a more powerful mob that has made it clear that increased taxes will flow to them. They will not… Read more »
“It’s about the idea that a majority of voters can impose anything they wish” Please link to one comment where I have written that. Majority of voters can impose things they want that are ALSO constitutional. If the city wants to file bankruptcy they need the state to allow it. They don’t hold that power. If the majority of voters elect candidates that want to steal from pensioners or bondholders they will be limited in their actions by the US and Illinois constitution. I’ve never strayed from that line of thinking. The majority rules in the city of Chicago is… Read more »
Conveniently overlooking that it was a majority vote that added this item to the IL constitution in the first place. It was not a pre-existing condition. There is no reason to assume that absent the IL constitution verbiage, the US Supreme Court would have interpreted the pension as an inviolable contract.
I’m not ignoring that at all. You’re seriously dense. The story is about how Johnson is limited on the taxes he can implement and needs Springfield approval. The majority can implement anything they want if it doesn’t violate the constitution. The majority can also change the constitution (or petition Springfield to change the laws) in Illinois as long as it doesn’t violate the US constitution. I’ve never said anything different. When the city or state implements laws I state that it is the will of the voters as they keep electing electing people that pass these laws. I have NEVER… Read more »
ProzacPlease schooled you. He’s merely using your logic back on you, and you’re struggling to keep up. Best not respond and let this thread disappear into the ether..
Name one instance in which the Supreme Court stopped any state from making changes to its pension plan, because it was a violation of the US Constitution contracts clause.
I can’t immediately answer your question, but the difference between IL’s state constitution and that of any other state might well be that IL is somewhat unique in stating that public employee pensions are considered contractual obligations of the state. I’m guessing that’s the answer why IL public employees and retirees might be uniquely due an extra layer of protection against harm to their pensions. Most states probably don’t have that level of protection for their public employees and pensioners which means that pensions are subject to the largesse (or lack thereof) of any such state’s legislative process as the… Read more »
And the Obamacare penalty for non-insurance was a constitutional ‘tax’ according to Chief Justice John Roberts and four other liberal judges. The constitution is never a barrier to achieving progressive goals.
If every cloud has a silver lining presumably every silver lining also has a cloud.
James, I agree with you, and that was exactly my point. Only the IL constitution protects those pension payments. If the new IL voter base decides they want to change that part of the IL constitution, the US Constitution contracts clause will not stop them.
I’ve lived long enough to know that many things once thought impossible can come to pass eventually. I have no crystal ball telling me the outcome here.
If my recollection is correct NY and maybe AZ are likely the only other two states having contractual protections for public employee pensions as part of their constitutions. AZ had a work-around for that a few years ago, but it was with the acquiescence of affected parties most likely.
And the IL constitution says that sufficient bail shall be required; but the SAFE-T says, nope, no cash bail needed!
A pension is merely a contract and the courts have ruled on this matter. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that particular scrutiny of legislative action is warranted when, as here, a state seeks to impair a contract to which it is itself a party and its interest in avoiding the contract or changing its terms is financial. Committing to a contract does implicate the state’s sovereign power, but:“[w]hatever the propriety of a State’s binding itself to a future course of conduct in other contexts, the power to enter into effective financial contracts cannot be questioned. Any financial obligation could… Read more »