-- 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
Even in the event of bankruptcy or implied bankruptcy bondholders are protected by being able to get 90% of future sales tax revenue for up to 40 years. Jeanne Ives speech at the City Club (youtube) starts at approx minute 34 explains this some more. I believe this applies to only home rule communities and if you are aware there was a push for home rule in towns of 5,000 or more down from 25,000 now. This would protect more bondholders across the state. Will bankruptcy help or harm taxpayers more is the question? Saving money for municipalities by reorganizing… Read more »
You are dead right. We were the only ones writing about that horribly bill authorizing securitization as it’s called — selling off public body parts. One of our many articles is here: https://wirepoints.org/unbelievable-illinois-house-votes-with-senate-to-hand-over-public-assets-to-bondholders-wirepoints-original/ Ives was the first one to challenge it in the legislature. Rauner vetoed it but the Dems buried it into the 1,000 page budget bill to make it law. Whether bankruptcy would help any municipality is a case by case matter, but this bill raises the risk of “assetless bankruptcies,” which are catastrophic.
Federal bailout only if people go to jail.
I wonder where the idea of needing a “grand compromise” with Republicans keeps coming from. The mega-super-majority the Dems have makes the thought meaningless, even if the usual suspects don’t roll over and give in. What am I missing?
I think you’re correct Daniel. The Dems don’t need Republicans.
Ah, I see this is from 2017 – before the great slaughter of Illinois Republicans
Yes, my error for overlooking the date.