CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by left of center

Murders typically pick up in the summer months, when its warmer and potential rivals are more likely to be outdoors and spot each other. Using the existing rate, which includes winter months as well as a colder than normal spring, would extrapolate to a lower than anticipated amount.

That's the theory, but 2016 and 2017 especially proved otherwise with high numbers of homicides through the winter anyway. Those two years didn't follow the previous patterns. Funny thing is that March 2018 ended up with 2 fewer homicides than March 2015. The next 3 months will tell us what we need to know - you aren't incorrect in that the numbers increase for summer, but at the same time so far this year the decrease month by month leads me to believe that so far, the year may end more normally than abnormally.

[rgolch]

Once again, about the tax issue. This article just popped up on business insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/state...y-state-2018-2

You’ll see, as far as state income tax goes, IL isn’t near the top.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Once again, about the tax issue. This article just popped up on business insider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/state...y-state-2018-2

You’ll see, as far as state income tax goes, IL isn’t near the top.

Of course it's not. Anybody who has done their homework knows this which is unfortunately not a lot of people. Seriously I wish I could pay the IL income tax rate again. I guess though if you are making like $10,000 per year then Illinois may be high but you probably have bigger problems if you're only making $10,000 per year.

[sixo1]

I've been following this thread for quite some time and recently regained access to my account.

I work at Washington State University, which is about 8 miles from the Idaho border. Many, if not most, employees of this university live in Idaho. Although Washington has no income tax, people prefer to live in Idaho because real estate is more affordable. In fact, along the Washington-Idaho border, the cities in Idaho are booming. Not so much on the Washington side.

When it comes down to it, Chicago's affordability is key to the cities growth. Property taxes may be high, but the city is still relatively inexpensive compared to other large cities.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Also, I hate to say it, but the pension liabilities, for the most part, are going to get wiped out at some point. Retirees, both current and future, are going to have their benefits forcefully chopped, and rightfully so. Not to sound cruel, but tough crap! While I do agree that police, fire and EMT workers really should be entitled to generous benefits due to the inherent danger of their jobs, the "average" government employee shouldn't have such cadillac/jaguar/rolls royce benefits. It was untenable decades ago and even more so today

You'll need Springfield to get onboard with this, and they're not likely to for a very long time. I would also wager on there being a protracted court battle regardless.

The grim side of Illinois' fiscal crisis is that bankruptcy is outside of the state's local municipalities control and state level bankruptcy isn't an option at all. Illinois does not give its municipalities the ability to unilaterally declare bankruptcy, so any and all bankruptcies are subject to Springfield's final approval. As for Illinois as a whole, the feds no longer allow states to declare bankruptcy, and they haven't since the Great Depression. Congress would sooner make an example of Illinois before changing the laws in order to help it.

Illinois is in a crisis of its own making, and there is no easy way out.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

You'll need Springfield to get onboard with this, and they're not likely to for a very long time. I would also wager on there being a protracted court battle regardless.

The grim side of Illinois' fiscal crisis is that bankruptcy is outside of the state's local municipalities control and state level bankruptcy isn't an option at all. Illinois does not give its municipalities the ability to unilaterally declare bankruptcy, so any and all bankruptcies are subject to Springfield's final approval. As for Illinois as a whole, the feds no longer allow states to declare bankruptcy, and they haven't since the Great Depression. Congress would sooner make an example of Illinois before changing the laws in order to help it.

Illinois is in a crisis of its own making, and there is no easy way out.

Nobody's referring to bankruptcy here Emprise du Lion. At least I'm not referring to bankruptcy, per say.. What I am referring to is the untenable unfunded pension liability positions Chicago, Illinois, and hell, pretty much every large city and state in this nation, are currently facing. While the situations here are particularly nauseatingly bad, they're not much better in many cities and states throughout this country, and it's got to be handled sooner than later. It may actually take Federal action at this point in time vs. State or Local action, quite frankly.

What is needed is a wholesale reorganization in the public service pension systems across the board, across all levels of government. Unless we want literally every single city and state in this country to be economically destroyed, something's got to change.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[the urban politician]

I love the nonsense that a municipality is not legally allowed to declare bankruptcy.

WTF does that even mean? If I lack the ability to pay may debts I’ve already areached that point, unless you allow me to mint new money.

[LouisVanDerWright]

We are about to find out what it means as rates keep rising. There is no way this pension situation is sustainable for either Illinois or Chicago. I mean the debt service is already crushing, what happens if rates rise further from all time historic lows. The only reason it's lasted this long is 10 years of literally free money.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

We are about to find out what it means as rates keep rising. There is no way this pension situation is sustainable for either Illinois or Chicago. I mean the debt service is already crushing, what happens if rates rise further from all time historic lows. The only reason it's lasted this long is 10 years of literally free money.

And this is where the legislature will change the laws (and the constitution). It won't happen until there is a crisis that forces action, just as the last attempt at pension reform was brought on by an economic crisis.

Change the constitution to cap individual pensions and lower the annual COL increase from 3% to 2.5%. Then find a specific funding source (legalized sports gambling, legalized marijuana).

Or just start taxing retirement income and put it directly back into the pensions, this requires no constitutional changes.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Nobody's referring to bankruptcy here Emprise du Lion. At least I'm not referring to bankruptcy, per say.. What I am referring to is the untenable unfunded pension liability positions Chicago, Illinois, and hell, pretty much every large city and state in this nation, are currently facing. While the situations here are particularly nauseatingly bad, they're not much better in many cities and states throughout this country, and it's got to be handled sooner than later. It may actually take Federal action at this point in time vs. State or Local action, quite frankly.

What is needed is a wholesale reorganization in the public service pension systems across the board, across all levels of government. Unless we want literally every single city and state in this country to be economically destroyed, something's got to change.

Aaron (Glowrock)

The issue is that there's currently no wholesale reorganization on the horizon. On top of that, any reorganization would likely need to leave current retirees pensions in place since they already performed the services asked of them. My guess would be that any changes would have to focus on those still working, at least if you want to avoid a drawn out legal fight.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I love the nonsense that a municipality is not legally allowed to declare bankruptcy.

WTF does that even mean? If I lack the ability to pay may debts I’ve already areached that point, unless you allow me to mint new money.

The nonsense is that the municipalities will be left with absolutely zero bankruptcy protections when dealing with their creditors. Not unless Springfield lets them go bankrupt.

Originally Posted by moorhosj

And this is where the legislature will change the laws (and the constitution). It won't happen until there is a crisis that forces action, just as the last attempt at pension reform was brought on by an economic crisis.

Change the constitution to cap individual pensions and lower the annual COL increase from 3% to 2.5%. Then find a specific funding source (legalized sports gambling, legalized marijuana).

Or just start taxing retirement income and put it directly back into the pensions, this requires no constitutional changes.

Considering how Illinois loves to tax things, I always found it surprising that the state doesn't already tax certain forms of retirement income. We certainly wouldn't be alone if we started to do so.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

Considering how Illinois loves to tax things, I always found it surprising that the state doesn't already tax certain forms of retirement income. We certainly wouldn't be alone if we started to do so.

Retired people vote. They also tend to own homes and get hit by high property taxes. There is a fear, misplaced in my view, that retired people will simply flock to Arizona and Florida if their retirement income starts to get taxed. I think most of those people have already left.

[LouisVanDerWright]

The inevitable alternative to pension reform is a hard default. If the government can barely service it's debts now, it's not going to be able to do it when Fed Funds rates are 4%, what if they go to 6, or 8, or 10%? That will be it, Illinois entire operating budget will go to debt service and we will see a scenario like Rauner's Budget impasse where vendors will all be suing each other to see who gets their invoice paid. They will descend on Springfield like a pack of starving hyena's fighting over whatever scraps aren't going to interest payments. Eventually the scraps will run out and the state will hard default on it's debt, their bond rating will go to FFF, and they will simply be locked out of credit markets.

No one will lend them a dime and most of the operating budget will be already earmarked. At that point the budget will be forced to become truly "balanced" (not fake balance right now where they count proceeds from the issuance of debt as "revenue") and total tax receipts will have to equal total expenditures. Given the State amendment on pensions, it is likely that all state services will cease and the only thing we will be able to pay is Pensions and interest on debt accumulated to fund pensions in the past. Since there is no State level bankruptcy who knows what will happen. It's likely the Federal government will have to pass legislation specifically addressing Illinois. The content of that legislation will depend on who is in power on a Federal level.

All those pensioners in Florida and AZ better hope Trump doesn't get reelected because it's likely the day of reckoning will occur in the next six years.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Given the State amendment on pensions, it is likely that all state services will cease and the only thing we will be able to pay is Pensions and interest on debt accumulated to fund pensions in the past.

In your scenario, wouldn't this create a push to change the constitution? Crisis has a way of bringing people to the table.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The inevitable alternative to pension reform is a hard default. If the government can barely service it's debts now, it's not going to be able to do it when Fed Funds rates are 4%, what if they go to 6, or 8, or 10%? That will be it, Illinois entire operating budget will go to debt service and we will see a scenario like Rauner's Budget impasse where vendors will all be suing each other to see who gets their invoice paid. They will descend on Springfield like a pack of starving hyena's fighting over whatever scraps aren't going to interest payments. Eventually the scraps will run out and the state will hard default on it's debt, their bond rating will go to FFF, and they will simply be locked out of credit markets.

No one will lend them a dime and most of the operating budget will be already earmarked. At that point the budget will be forced to become truly "balanced" (not fake balance right now where they count proceeds from the issuance of debt as "revenue") and total tax receipts will have to equal total expenditures. Given the State amendment on pensions, it is likely that all state services will cease and the only thing we will be able to pay is Pensions and interest on debt accumulated to fund pensions in the past. Since there is no State level bankruptcy who knows what will happen. It's likely the Federal government will have to pass legislation specifically addressing Illinois. The content of that legislation will depend on who is in power on a Federal level.

All those pensioners in Florida and AZ better hope Trump doesn't get reelected because it's likely the day of reckoning will occur in the next six years.

I doubt it would get to the point where the entire budget goes only to pensions, although legally speaking that's the only solution per the state constitution. Before we get to that point, tax payers and voters will flood Springfield demanding education funding, road funding, healthcare services, among everything else the state needs to spend tax dollars it collects. Politicians will see a day of reckoning when their careers will be in real danger of being over, and constitutional reform will be passed as a matter of survival for the Illinois Democratic party. State retirees will take a haircut, whether they want it/deserve it or not. They, as well as their currently employed union cohorts, will not be able to drown out the noise of a tax base in full revolt, nor will their votes outnumber those of regular citizens full of rage and figurative bloodlust that their kids aren't getting educated/trains are not running/roads are in ruin/Illinois Link is out of money/lottery winnings aren't paid out/county hospitals are letting people die on the streets/state government is effectively shut down.

The issue will be resolved one way or another. The question is, how low does Illinois have to fall before this happens? Like you said, the next 5 to 10 years might see this play out as interest rates begin to climb. Illinois was a budgetary dumpster fire in a 0% interest rate environment, and with rates set to rise several times this year and next we are certainly on our way to finding out. I just hope the city isn't economically crippled to the point of no return, or there isn't a massive flood of hundreds of thousands of people from the state, etc. Those fears seem dire, but then again so is the budget problem.

[Kngkyle]

I'm not too up to date on the never ending budget crisis, so some of these might be dumb questions... but...

What can the city government do to mitigate a collapse of the state government? Or are the fates tied and if the state goes so goes the city? Or is the city in even worse shape? My understanding is that the city has at least taken steps in the past 5 years to address their fiscal problems and have started to contribute meaningful sums to their pension liabilities. Is it enough? What options do Chicago have?

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Chicago and Illinois are both going to go down in flames. The evil pension amendment dooms them both. Luckily those pensions will eventually be flushed down the drain on that day of reckoning.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I'm not too up to date on the never ending budget crisis, so some of these might be dumb questions... but...

What can the city government do to mitigate a collapse of the state government? Or are the fates tied and if the state goes so goes the city? Or is the city in even worse shape? My understanding is that the city has at least taken steps in the past 5 years to address their fiscal problems and have started to contribute meaningful sums to their pension liabilities. Is it enough? What options do Chicago have?

State supersedes the city in most legal situations. The mayor and other officials from Chicago can try to lobby and influence the statehouse, but otherwise there isn't much the city itself can do.

The city has mostly tried legal fixes to the pension issue such as requiring union employees to contribute more or adjust the amount paid out to retirees. All have been struck down by the courts due to violating the pension amendment in the state constitution. We will need continually higher taxes just to keep up with the interest payments. The situation itself is wholly unsustainable, and given the lack of political backbone to fix the issue we've basically reached the end of being able to kick the can. The only eventual conclusion is the city and state default on payments.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

^^^ Chicago and Illinois are both going to go down in flames. The evil pension amendment dooms them both. Luckily those pensions will eventually be flushed down the drain on that day of reckoning.

I feel bad for the pensioners, but it's really not fair to ask 98% of the state to sacrifice their future for the sake of the 2% that are snowbirding in their second homes in Arizona and Florida.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by left of center

State supersedes the city in most legal situations. The mayor and other officials from Chicago can try to lobby and influence the statehouse, but otherwise there isn't much the city itself can do.

The city has mostly tried legal fixes to the pension issue such as requiring union employees to contribute more or adjust the amount paid out to retirees. All have been struck down by the courts due to violating the pension amendment in the state constitution. We will need continually higher taxes just to keep up with the interest payments. The situation itself is wholly unsustainable, and given the lack of political backbone to fix the issue we've basically reached the end of being able to kick the can. The only eventual conclusion is the city and state default on payments.




I feel bad for the pensioners, but it's really not fair to ask 98% of the state to sacrifice their future for the sake of the 2% that are snowbirding in their second homes in Arizona and Florida.

Lobbying isn't going to do a damned thing, honestly. What needs to happen is getting some new blood in Springfield with the cajones to do what's needed to be done, which is apparently to get rid of that constitutional amendment that was stupidly put into place who knows how many years ago.

Lobbying individual legislators isn't going to work, but a massive educational campaign aimed at the electorate themselves might just do the trick. Just put it only on the most biased left and right-wing media outlets to make sure the nuts on both sides understand the seriousness of the issue being dealt with, since the moderates pretty much understand the situation, I would imagine.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by left of center

I feel bad for the pensioners, but it's really not fair to ask 98% of the state to sacrifice their future for the sake of the 2% that are snowbirding in their second homes in Arizona and Florida.

Do you use the same argument to justify dine-and-dash when you eat out? "Yes, when I ordered I promised to pay the check later—but some of these restaurant owners have second homes."

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Do you use the same argument to justify dine-and-dash when you eat out? "Yes, when I ordered I promised to pay the check later—but some of these restaurant owners have second homes."

Except I chose to eat at the restaurant, knowing full well the prices of the individual items.

In this case, my employer forced me to go to the restaurant, and pick up the bill. And I'm paying $1000 bucks for a very average fast food burger with cold fries.

I'm sorry, but we are totally getting gouged in this situation.