77 Comments - Keyrock - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:51 am: But . . . But . . . What if that’s been Rauner’s plan all along? To do a bust out scheme? You mean he can’t do it? What will he do when he finds out? - Galena Guy - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:54 am: As Roskam and his party prepares to kick millions off of insurance rolls in order to give billionaires tax breaks. Peter has no business talking about fiscal responsibility. And Peter, if you were REALLY concerned, maybe you’d take some time to call Rauner and tell him to DO HIS JOB and propose a balanced budget. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:55 am: As a state retiree, more and more I appreciate the wisdom of the 1970 Con-Con delegates in specifically stating that the pensions are a contract. - Juice - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:55 am: “This avoidance in behavior toward dealing with our challenges is what leads to the devastating impacts we are seeing today.” Re-elect Rauner 2018! - Double Nickel - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:56 am: “Damage the reputation of the State”. Seriously? That ship sailed long ago. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:57 am: Specifically to the article(s), Rauner may just be happy to create such debt that lots of stuff gets squeezed out of the budget. Plus I’ve also thought another of his objectives was to prevent a progressive income tax. - Gone, but not forgotten - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:58 am: To Steve Brown: What reputation does this State have now that could be further damaged?? - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:01 am: Money is fungible. The state can’t declare bankruptcy per se, but it could declare a kind of de facto bankruptcy by letting every county, city, village, school district, water district, etc. declare bankruptcy and tie funding to it. If the 7th Circuit followed the 9th Circuit, the 1970 convention wouldn’t prevent pensions from being part of the mix due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I’m not advocating this (I’m ambivalent about CPS) but it’s in the realm of possibility, and if the GOP controlled the legislator I suspect it would receive a lot of attention. - Texas Red - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:02 am: Madigan speaker trying to defend the reputation of the state - that is a rich ! - Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:02 am: Exactly how much further can we fall from our perch in the bottom 5 of all states in so many metrics that would damage our reputation? Speaker Madigan’s spokesman is finally concerned about Illinois reputation? A little late. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:04 am: Consider the lack of self-awareness among those who advocate for state bankruptcy. Many consider themselves fiscal conservatives and strict-construction Constitutionalists. In reality, just deadbeats trying to get out of paying bills. - Lech W - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:06 am: After sacking the treasury for 35 years - Madigan is now worried about defending the State’s reputation !! - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:09 am: ==As a state retiree, more and more I appreciate the wisdom of the 1970 Con-Con delegates in specifically stating that the pensions are a contract.== If they had any “wisdom”, they would have created Tier 2 in 1970 as well. - cdog - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:10 am: What happens when a state is perpetually insolvent but can’t declare bankruptcy? It’s rather profound that the Framers thought of so many things that have survived the test of time, but then along came 21st century Illinois, the Blue State on the edge of the abyss. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:13 am: Conservatives advocate for fiscal conservatism, honor contract laws, pay bills, and don’t allow a government the option of taking vast amounts of our citizen’s assets and then declaring bankruptcy. Any “conservative” suggesting bankruptcy for a government is in actuality announcing their own bankruptcy of political thought, actions, ideas, ethics and morals. Bankruptcy advocates are not working in anyone’s best interests, except their own political and partisan opportunisms. Vile. - David - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:14 am: Illinois has 400 billion in agi and 100 billion is people over 200 000 a year in income. Illinois is not broke its regreeive tax system that taxes the people with no 💰 is. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:19 am: == The state can’t declare bankruptcy per se, but it could declare a kind of de facto bankruptcy by letting every county, city, village, school district, water district, etc. declare bankruptcy and tie funding to it. If the 7th Circuit followed the 9th Circuit, the 1970 convention wouldn’t prevent pensions from being part of the mix due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. == I believe there are a couple of fallacies in that idea. 1) Outside of teachers, most the local government / municipal pensions are enrolled in IMRF, which is pretty much solvent. Admittedly, some local units are having trouble keeping up payments, but they are in much, much better shape than the State. If a municipality is more or less current with IMRF, what is the point of a town taking bankruptcy? 2) Specifically to school districts, I don’t see how you erase the TRS pension debt with local bankruptcy. The debt to the TRS pension fund is owed by the State, not the local school district. The State won’t be the entity taking bankruptcy, so you can’t erase that debt. Frankly, if you can’t get rid of the teacher pension debt, what is the point of a school district taking bankruptcy? - A-nonny-nonny - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:22 am: I almost couldn’t type a comment while laughing so hard…Roskam criticizing anyone for “avoiding challenges” is rich! - cdog - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:22 am: Vman, I do not necessarily support a state’s right to bankruptcy. I just am asking questions and making the point that the Constitution is a 240 yr old document that has led to one of the greatest societies in history, despite the current discontent. BTW, the concept of bankruptcy is provided for in the Constitution, therefore it could be argued that it is conservative. - Anon414 - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:24 am: Nice that the state’s media are wasting time and energy on something that cannot and will not happen. With a few exceptions, the performance of the media during the budget impasse has been almost as inexcusable as Rauner’s and Madigan’s. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:24 am: == If they had any “wisdom”, they would have created Tier 2 in 1970 as well. == Actually, the thing they missed was mandating actuarial payments to the pension system. But, in their defense, most the delegates believed government and couldn’t envision the State not honoring contracts. And I’m not sure even a constitutional amendment could legally bind the legislature to making payments. Remember, the courts have not enforced the provision that the State provide the majority of school funding. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:25 am: ==Any “conservative” suggesting bankruptcy for a government is in actuality announcing their own bankruptcy of political thought, actions, ideas, ethics and morals.== How do you suggest impoverished governments in Chicago’s south suburbs dig out of their respective holes of legacy costs of white flight? Some might say denying predominantly African American communities to reset their dreadful municipal books is unethical. Your morality play falls woefully short. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:26 am: Funny how Steve Brown say’s it is not allowed. In the end the Democrats do what they want regardless of the rules or laws. Its called the Machine - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:28 am: == BTW, the concept of bankruptcy is provided for in the Constitution, therefore it could be argued that it is conservative. == The founders believed in allowing individuals to start over. They apparently also believed government should fulfill it’s duties, since they did not allow for State bankruptcy. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:29 am: Bankruptcy would be quite the legacy for MJM - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:29 am: ==If a municipality is more or less current with IMRF, what is the point of a town taking bankruptcy?== A little something called police and fire pensions. - liberty - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:33 am: The state is already in default, no federal bankruptcy needed. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:35 am: RNUG - Were the pensions 100% funded when they wrote that clause? If not, they locked in everyone into an agreement they knew they could not afford. The wise move would’ve been to guarantee those pensions up to 1970, take those loses, then start a new tier post-clause. Mandatory payments were not the problem. Guaranteeing benefits for which you had decades of history that proved you couldn’t afford otherwise was the problem. - wondering - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:35 am: Hiding the assets? Which federal bankruptcy judge would be sympathetic to a state with the 3rd lowest income tax of states with an income tax? - Me Again - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:43 am: I put the blame for this mess squarely on Bruce Rauner. Mike Madigan and the Democrats are ready to both raise a moderate amount of revenue and impose steep spending cuts if they could have buy-in by the Republicans. This would allow us to start climbing out of this hole that we are in. “Wreck-It Rauner” prevents any attempt at compromise to try to achieve a total victory over Labor and the Democrats. - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:45 am: -city zen- No. The pensions were about 49% funded at the time. However, I will note that over the intervening years the pension funds got close to, and in one case, actually exceeded 100% funding. Then the State, much like private industry, cut back on funding and effectively cratered the systems. That led to the Edgar ramp. Then we got Blago and his misguided pension holidays, pension borrowing, and ramp reset. The pensions were affordable had they not been deliberately shorted. Had something like Tier 2 been put in place back in 1970, state salaries would have had to be higher than they were. Back then, the Tier 1 pension was the offset. But maybe you are right, higher salaries back then might have forced the needed tax increases that were papered over by shorting the pension funding. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:59 am: Laughing…….if it were possible to eliminate teacher pensions and pension payments dried up, I guess the taxpayers would be on the hook for supporting them in their own personal bankruptcies. They’d be on public aid. How would folks rather pay them then? - Norseman - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:00 am: Leave it to Sinclair Broadcast Group owned WICS to run a bogus bankruptcy story. What next, an expose on why the tooth fairy is paying kids for teeth. - Original Rambler - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:05 am: “BTW, the concept of bankruptcy is provided for in the Constitution, therefore it could be argued that it is conservative.” What are you saying or implying here? That the Constitution itself is a conservative manifesto? Everything conservative is in the Constitution? Is there nothing “progressive” in the Constitution? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:10 am: ===to run a bogus bankruptcy story=== It wasn’t bogus. It got right to the heart of the matter, which is that it’s illegal, unconstitutional and the delegation doesn’t support it. Take a breath. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:18 am: ==Had something like Tier 2 been put in place back in 1970, state salaries would have had to be higher than they were.== That might be true, but I don’t think a change as sever as the current Tier 2 was needed in 1970 (probably more like 1990). I highly doubt adding a year or two onto years of service or a couple of percentage points to the employee pension contribution back inn 1970 would have forced higher salaries or changed the public sector employment landscape all that much, especially since only new employees would’ve been impacted. I will call that bluff all day. Imagine 40 years of pension costs accrued at a lower tier. We’d be a lot better off. - Annie - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:34 am: I heard the bankruptcy judge who oversaw Detroit’s bankruptcy speak last week. He acknowledged that his was a minority position, but said he thinks it is possible for a State to file for bankruptcy if it does it voluntarily to get around any 10th Amendment problem. - DuPage - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:55 am: - RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:55 am: ===As a state retiree, more and more I appreciate the wisdom of the 1970 Con-Con delegates in specifically stating that the pensions are a contract.=== Those delegates were wise indeed to protect the retirees. - BK Bro - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:57 am: Illinois is already stiffing/delaying payment to creditors as if it were in BK anyways. Reputation of the State really can’t get any worse at this point. Allowing Illinois to go into BK would provide a little more stability and certainty to the inevitable, but it’s not necessarily required for Illinois to become insolvent. Illinois will become insolvent with our without the help of BK. The argument can be made that Illinois is actually already insolvent. - justacitizen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:59 am: ==“Second of all, it would damage the reputation of the state and it’s just not necessary.”=== lol - I’ll bet Steve Brown wishes he had worded that a little different, - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:16 pm: Insolvent, default, bankruptcy — some of you are under the impression that you can just make up your own legal definitions for those words. Basically, all three conditions require an “inability” to meet obligations. The state has an “unwillingness” to meet obligations. That is not the same as “inability.” For crying out loud, the state cut income taxes two years ago. You think it has a case for bankruptcy? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:20 pm: “reputation being damaged” by the thousands fleeing the state due to long term corruption and incompetence - more to flee.. Hate it when people ask where we came from. Illinois is a national embarrassment and Madigan bears much responsibility, but plenty of that to go around. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:23 pm: Politicians who advocate bankruptcy are advocating fraud created by a government organization against the citizens it taxes. It is a political solution from people without solutions. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:30 pm: Illinois is in a death spiral due to outrageous public employee benefits and the taxes required to fund them. The state is already insolvent, reality is not kind. - Ron - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:35 pm: “Mike Madigan and the Democrats are ready to both raise a moderate amount of revenue” I think you forgot the part that Illinois already has one of the highest state and local tax burdens in the nation. - Wallinger Dickus - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:00 pm: = Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:30 pm: Illinois is in a death spiral due to outrageous public employee benefits and the taxes required to fund them. The state is already insolvent, reality is not kind.= Illinois is in a death spiral because elected lawmakers and governors faked balanced budgets by not contributing to constitutionally-mandated pension plans and were dealt a double whammy by a recession, the likes of which were not seen since 1929. It’s a little wordy, Anonymous, but at least it’s correct. Fixed it. You’re welcome. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:05 pm: So the lawyers make new laws to allow the states to file bankruptcy and not pay, or re-org their bills. SO the vendors all get the short stick… Would it not make more sense for the lawyers to make laws to reduce costs? All states every where are in bad shape, some worse than others, but all states all have outlandish public employee costs. Costs beyond their pay checks, insurance and pensions. You would think educated lawyers would simply resolve the problem, and make laws that force cost reductions. But nope, instead they discuss not paying/ short payimg their vendors instead, and the people who live in their states - BK Bro - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:06 pm: @ VanillaMan Genuinely curious - Do you think there’s a difference between the State not paying their bills while NOT IN bankruptcy and the state not paying their bills while IN bankruptcy? In other words, what difference does it make if Illinois somehow found a way to orderly (through formal BK) structure debt? - Deft Wing - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:20 pm: –” … For crying out loud, the state cut income taxes two years ago. You think it has a case for bankruptcy?” Yes. Because IL’s liabilities vastly exceed its assets. That’s the common definition of insolvency. IL has about $260B in pension liabilities, billions in healthcare costs, billions in bonded indebtedness and about $15B in unpaid bills. IL projects out annual budget deficits because of court mandated expenses exceed current state revenues. And Oh yeah, IL has a shrinking tax base too — businesses and people are leaving. So while some say a formal federal BK would be “illegal, unconstitutional” … in fact it is merely unauthorized. For now. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:21 pm: Yes there is a difference. We aren’t selling Zima. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:21 pm: BK, there are many significant differences. One of the biggest is a judge will tell you what you can blow off or not. A judge can tell you that if you continue to be a deadbeat, I’ll seize your assets, You’re really not up to speed on this issue, You’re just advocating deadbeatism. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:43 pm: ==We aren’t selling Zima== True, but Illinois desperately needs to do zomething different. - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:51 pm: The trib had an oped awhile ago that basically said it would be easy for the US Congress to amend existing bankruptcy law to include public pensions. I think this is what everybody was waiting for until Trump happened. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:54 pm: ===The trib had an oped awhile ago that basically said it would be easy for the US Congress to amend existing bankruptcy law to include public pensions.=== Do you remember who wrote it? John Tillman perhaps? It’s possible for Congress to do lots of things. That doesn’t mean it’s easy. - Me Again - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:00 pm: Ron, while it is true that Illinois has high local/state sales taxes and property taxes, we have low/moderate individual state income taxes (relative to the states around us), so that is where we have an opportunity to raise revenue. Moderate state corporate income taxes allow some room to raise those also. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:00 pm: ===I think this is what everybody was waiting=== Define “everybody.” - Ron - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:42 pm: Taxes are taxes and illinois has nearly the highest state and local taxes combined in the entire country. Why do you think increasing that burden will help Illinois out of its demographic and economic meltdown? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:45 pm: ===Why do you think increasing that burden=== Did you forget that we had a big tax cut 2.5 years ago? - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:06 pm: Wasn’t Tillman. It was an economist. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:08 pm: ===It was an economist=== LOL. Always the best go-to sources for constitutional law. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:36 pm: bank·rupt ˈbaNGkˌrəpt adjective 1. (of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts. The definition clearly states “unable.” Doesn’t say anything about “just doesn’t wanna.” - Me Again - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:38 pm: Ron, Because if you think that Illinois can dig its way out of the deep hole that we have dug for ourselves with cuts only, then I want some of what you have been smokin’! - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:03 pm: ==The definition clearly states “unable.” Doesn’t say anything about “just doesn’t wanna.”== So that company filing bankruptcy “just doesn’t wanna” raise the price of their products to generate the necessary revenue? Or that person filing bankruptcy “just doesn’t wanna” acquire the necessary skills to get a better paying job to pay his debts? Lots of “just didn’t wannas” in this state. Like the retiree “just didn’t wanna” pay state income taxes on his pension. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:08 pm: ===So that company filing bankruptcy…=== Running a government isn’t the same as running a business. Your premise is ignorant by that example. If you can’t understand the difference between government and business, well, that speaks volumes to your comments. It’s not the same. At all. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:23 pm: OW, it seems like you “just don’t wanna” read the original comment. As to “volumes” and their relationship to “comments”, sometimes less is more. Take from that what you will. - don the legend - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:26 pm: City Zen says “Like the retiree “just didn’t wanna” pay state income taxes on his pension.” This argues against your case. That retiree may not want to pay tax on his pension but the law can be changed and he’ll have to. There’s lots of options for the state to pay its bills and fund its contractual obligations. We just don’t wanna!! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:29 pm: ===…it seems like you “just don’t wanna” read the original comment=== I did. Your example doesn’t wash. A governing body’s revenue isn’t the same as a company. Social services is the prime example. ===As to “volumes” and their relationship to “comments”…=== I get it, you don’t understand “nuance”. Next time I’ll just tell ya the dorm room analogy makes ya seem uninformed to how things work outside of campus, lol - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:14 pm: –So that company filing bankruptcy “just doesn’t wanna” raise the price of their products to generate the necessary revenue? Or that person filing bankruptcy “just doesn’t wanna” acquire the necessary skills to get a better paying job to pay his debts?– You’re presuming that your little Strawmen did not attempt those remedies and were still “unable” to meet their obligations. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:25 pm: –” … For crying out loud, the state cut income taxes two years ago. You think it has a case for bankruptcy?” Yes. Because IL’s liabilities vastly exceed its assets. That’s the common definition of insolvency.– That’s quite the non-sequitur. And an incorrect definition. And irrelevant to the point I was making. The state willingly cut it’s revenue, and then it’s going to claim it doesn’t have the ways and means to pay its bills? It was before it cut revenue. By the way, most going concerns have liabilities that exceed their assets at some point, sometimes for a very long time. That doesn’t make them insolvent. If you can make your nut, you’re not insolvent. Lot of dorm-room economists just makin’ stuff up today. - City Zen - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:40 pm: ==By the way, most going concerns have liabilities that exceed their assets at some point, sometimes for a very long time. That doesn’t make them insolvent.== So Illinois is the Sears Holdings of America? Blue light special indeed. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 6:21 pm: =So that company filing bankruptcy “just doesn’t wanna” raise the price of their products to generate the necessary revenue?= More like a landlord going “broke” because he bought buildings in the ’60’s and hasn’t raised rents since. Or a merchant who’s “giving away” his merchandise. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 6:28 pm: Except Illinois has one of the highest state and local tax burdens in the country and a shrinking population which makes it even worse. - foster brooks - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 7:32 pm: both sides are looking for a white knight from DC - Whatever - Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 8:08 pm: ==He acknowledged that his was a minority position, but said he thinks it is possible for a State to file for bankruptcy if it does it voluntarily to get around any 10th Amendment problem.== Since the federal constitution prohibits states from impairing the obligation of contracts (i.e., stiffing their creditors) and gives Congress the authority to enact bankruptcy laws, there is a very, very good reason his reading is in the minority. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 8:06 am: Some of you(many of you) act as if there are no repercussions when taxes are raised. The position of, “just raise taxes to 5-6% so we can pay the state’s bills and fund pensions(mostly fund OUR pensions) is a short sighted approach. You pull a lot of disposable income out of the economy which inhibits business growth and increases unemployment. It increases the chances of higher wage earners moving out of state. I agree there needs to be a tax increase but to ignore the other problems that will be associated with the increase is tunnel vision. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 8:24 am: Illinois has a shrinking taxpayer base as people flee Madigan’s oppressive taxation and public union coddling. Increasing our state and local tax burdens to the highest in the nation will obliterate Illinois - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 9:09 am: “Illinois has a shrinking taxpayer base as people flee Madigan’s oppressive taxation…” No, actually all reliable data show that Illinois is actually a low-spending low-taxing state. Use the google. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.