I totally agree, but you are significantly overestimating the problem with your 50% reduction. Reducing ALL expenditures by say 3 or 4 percent from current levels would get you to solvency over many years. A retiree with a pension of $40,000 would lose $1200 per year. Current vendors owed a million would receive $970,000. Not such a terrible hit. All future expenditures would be frozen at the 3% reduced level so vendors and retirees would be protected from future cuts. I would give actual (not automatic) cost of living increases to retirees to insure their reduced pensions were not further eroded by inflation. You would not even have to do the 3 or 4 percent cut in one year. A one percent cut per year over 3 or 4 years would obviously get you there.

I ask thefollowing questions;

Is state workers pensions a funding mandate.

==A nice sentiment, but totally unrealistic given the 83 billion dollar hole we are in.==

Unless the feds change the law to let states declare bankruptcy, it is totally realistic. And why do people keep talking about reneging on the State’s contractual obligations to the retirees and current workers, without also sharing the pain by saying “let’s pay 50 cents on the dollar on our bonds and pay only half of our overdue bills from vendors”? Each is equally immoral and illegal. Do all or do none.

You are 100 percent correct.
Capping salaries would eliminate the “problem” immediately.

Notice … everyone ignored you.

I wonder why?

Breaking story:

Judge: Illinois must set money aside in state worker pay dispute

http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x578041821/Judge-Illinois-must-set-money-aside-in-state-worker-pay-dispute

A nice sentiment, but totally unrealistic given the 83 billion dollar hole we are in. There is no solution possible that will guarantee 100% of current pensioners claims on the system. Taking the $83 billion out of the rest of state spending even over an extended period is just not going to happen, and it is holding out false hope to pretend that it will. We need to start telling the people the truth. The cuts will need to come from everywhere.

=So, you think that Democrats, who generally strongly favor union rights, can do this on their own without a bipartisan solution?=

The GOP did it alone in Wisconsin - they had the majority and took on the unions. That took some cajones.

Look what happened to them. They have been demonized for doing what HAD to be done. Of course, the ildems don’t want to (or can’t) go it alone. They would be skewered alive.

The ilGOP think they have the perfect solution, a path to a majority and the guv mansion. Pathetic. They had their time and engaged in their own pattern of pandering. We fools are left with the flotsam and jetsam.

“It cetainly would behoove Quinn to at least meet with the leaders more frequently, and demand that the Republicans make a concession.”

And that concession would be another 67% tax hike? Didn’t need their help the last time.

Was that “no” a typo or a Freudian slip?