72 Comments - Not a Billionaire - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:18 am: That bubble won’t protect them from Corvid . Big overlap with the it’s just the flu crowd. They have serious problems with reality. - Langhorne - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:28 am: More creative thinking from the dorm. Check the smoke detectors. Ignores clear court decisions based on an explicit constitutional provision to the contrary. - Norseman - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:28 am: Not only is the bubble a problem, these folks must have taken some of that legal IL wacky tobacco in there with them. The GOP is really contorting themselves into all sorts of weird shapes to try and stick it to public employees and retirees. - Annonin - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:35 am: Pretty nutty, but what can we expect from the GOpies who are send Batnick and others out to attack ChopperJim. Anyone think BGA and GOPies remain clueless on pensions? - DIstant watcher - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:36 am: I’ve got this idea that’s contrary to past practice, state law and the Constitution; there must be some way I can implement it, but how? - RNUG - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:48 am: Would set up an interesting conflict between two sections of the State Constitution, and end up at the State Supreme Court. My guess is the court would follow precedent and uphold the Pension Clause … based not just on the cases since 1970 but a number of cases that pre-date the 1970 Constitution. - Moe Berg - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:48 am: “It is difficult to get a̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶ David Greising to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Original Rambler - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:48 am: It’s like the GOP are channeling Ralph Kramden get rich quick schemes from the old Honeymooners series to avoid paying the pension bill. None of those worked out so well either. - Springfield Westsider - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:51 am: Anybody got a new desk they want to donate to me? I need a new thing to bang my head on, I’ve broken my old one after hearing all this magical pension reform cognitive dissonance from the Repubs. /s - RNUG - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:52 am: == had the governor proposed a pension amendment and progressive tax … == Blago has a better chance of being Governor again than JB has of unilaterally reducing or freezing the pensions for existing employees and retirees. - don the legend - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:55 am: I’m thinking the “B” in BGA needs to be changed from Better to something more accurate. Maybe that could be a future QOTD. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 10:56 am: ===… but I’ve yet to see anyone point to the 71 House members and 36 Senators who would vote to put that onto the ballot.=== All day, this. What’s tiring is the fundamental lack of understanding the politics at play and the thinking Rauner himself tried to leverage 71 and 36 by doing such pointed and purposeful damage to get 71 and 36… and it never happened. Political will is an important fact. It’s not found here. It’s not found here after Rauner too. When others comment how “easy” things like the bubble thinking here is to them, the sheer misunderstanding of 71 and 36 is disqualifying to be someone who can see solutions and factors in the politics. You can talk it to death and think you’re right, but in the end, it’s 71 and 36, same as it ever was, and it’s not there. - mendy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:15 am: Here’s a pension reform amendment that passes constitutional muster: all entities within Illinois have to contribute their full actuarially determined annual payments (in cash) to reach full funding in 30 years at a reasonable discount rate. Write it in such a way that it actually has teeth. But somehow no one is interested in that amendment. - Richard - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:16 am: Folks, the point is that reform to lower the cost of government is certainly possible — several ways one could fix Illinois governments to lower taxes and deliver improved services. But, reform doesn’t happen because the current legislators don’t want reform, not because reform isn’t possible. Our current legislative majorities are focused on finding ways to squeeze us instead of serving us — raising revenue is the current obsession, not making government work for people that are supposed to be served by government. There are currently 20,000 people with severe disabilities waiting years for state services to which they are entitled and more than 20,000 able-bodied people getting paid more than $100k a year (tax free) starting in their mid 50’s — with a 3% annual escalator — not to work. Who would design a government such as this? The provision I highlight above is in other state constitutions— for example, here’s a similar provision in Michigan’s constitution (Article V, Section 2): [T]he governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration. Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders and submitted to the legislature. Thereafter the legislature shall have 60 calendar days of a regular session, or a full regular session if of shorter duration, to disapprove each executive order. Unless disapproved in both houses by a resolution concurred in by a majority of the members elected to and serving in each house, each order shall become effective at a date thereafter to be designated by the governor. The Michigan Supreme Court upheld Governor John Engler’s reforms of Michigan’s government that included changes to substantive law — and why not? The legislature can protect itself by vetoing an order with which it does not agree. People are leaving Illinois to avoid being squeezed, to avoid further losses in property values, to pursue opportunities being offered elsewhere. The current approach to government may seem to work for folks in government— but even that view is wrong. Anyone notice that property tax delinquencies are up big in Cook County? As taxes go up and property values fall, property is abandoned— then who will pay taxes to fund six figure pensions? Chicago-style governance (the alliance between government unions and pols in which pols offer more in exchange for support) presumes population growth — more taxpayers are needed to pay growing liabilities. But, when liabilities go up and population goes down, what happens then? 🦨 Tax the rich more? But they are already leaving… so what happens when they move to Florida or Texas? If reform is impossible and out of the question and laughable — who will they tax next when the rich don’t show up to be squeezed? And what’s going to happen to your property values when your neighbors keep moving away? - Skeptic - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:22 am: ” personnel offered jobs [..] not offered further participation in the existing Tier 1 pension plan.” Isn’t that exactly the “Fire them all and hire them back under Tier 2″ idea that the ISC shot down in 2015? - Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:23 am: Cutting pensions again will do nothing to reduce accumulated pension debt, which is the problem. The pension cuts pushers have a cruel obsession. They want to cut retirees even if it does nothing to pay down debt and it can’t or won’t be done by any branch of government. The best way to address pensions and debt going forward is to raise more revenue and pay what is due. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:29 am: - Richard - ===… the sheer misunderstanding of 71 and 36 is disqualifying to be someone who can see solutions and factors in the politics. You can talk it to death and think you’re right, but in the end, it’s 71 and 36, same as it ever was, and it’s not there.=== I ask you, with all your words… where are your 71 and 36? Thanks. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:33 am: === The Michigan Supreme Court upheld Governor John Engler’s reforms of Michigan’s government that included changes to substantive law=== The Michigan Supreme Court is NOT the Illinois Supreme Court, and how Michigan sees things during those time and now don’t mirror Illinois… in any thoughtful way. So there’s that too. - All This - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:37 am: ==and more than 20,000 able-bodied people getting paid more than $100k a year (tax free) starting in their mid 50’s — with a 3% annual escalator — not to work.== You are talking about people collecting pensions? Those people did the work, performed the services. These pensions are delayed wages. - Smitty Irving - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:43 am: Mr. Porter - Be careful what you wish for. Using those same powers the Governor could implement a series of tax credits to essentially create a Progressive Income Tax. Mr. Porter, your thoughts? - Bourbon Street - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:44 am: @Richard. Between the Flint water crisis and the Detroit bankruptcy, it’s probably not a good idea to trumpet Michigan as the standard-bearer in good governance. - One Voter - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:49 am: Long-time reader, first time commenter… I am truly currently undecided on the proposed income tax amendment in November. Speaking for myself, the medicine of the progressive income tax would go down a lot easier if (1) the individual and non-corporate tax rates had some gradation within it (not necessarily the 8 to 5 ratio that currently exists for corporations) and (2) a separate amendment was put up this year to require contributions for both the pensions and OPEB specifically overturning IFT v. Lindberg (1975). For the tax, on one hand I believe it is a justified concern that the General Assembly, with no limitations, will find it much easier to impose a higher tax rate “on the rich” without having to consider the impact on those earning less without the current flat rate. (Of course, the problem being the definition of “the rich” is in the eye of the beholder. I used to think the clearly middle class were rich, when compared to those who were clearly destitute living near me. Then, I walked around the Gold Coast.) On the other hand, given the accrued liabilities and on-going operating costs of the State, it would be wrong not to share this burden in a more equitable way. Threading this needle would make it much easier for my yes vote in November. For pensions and OPEB, without requiring ongoing contributions sufficient to fund the plans, the retirement protection clause can become meaningless in the future (regardless of the amount of case law that currently exists) when the friction between ongoing debt service, pensions and OPEB, and current operating costs reaches a maximum pressure point, which may occur during a prolonged economic downturn. (As a good lawyer friend of mine used to say, the Constitution only means what five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.) The funding mechanism would have to allow enough flexibility to allow for short-term economic downturns and management of contributions by the General Assembly and local governments during periods when tax receipts are low, while still meeting a long-term full funding goal in accordance with sound actuarial principles. Further, the funding mechanism would need to be tied to a recognized national methodology to define the liabilities and required contributions, such as GASB standards. By proposing this type of an amendment, retirees would actually be protected (for a near term example, see the underfunded East St. Louis’ firefighters’ pensions) from a long-term period of low tax receipts and budgetary fiscal chicanery would be minimized. Again, threading this needle would make it much easier for me to vote yes to the income tax amendment in November. - The Dude Abides - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:52 am: Some folks still don’t understand basic contract law. It’s an individual contract between each retiree and the state. It’s a violation of State and Federal law to invalidate the obligation of contracts. - Anon - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 11:56 am: As someone who supported the effort to reduce pensions (excuse me, reform), I am somewhat stunned by those who still think they can work around the Illinois Supreme Court’s definitive rulings. The Court has repeatedly rejected every law that impinges on pension benefits - even health care provided to pensioners by a different statute was protected. The only way to reform pensions is either change the Supreme Court or amend the state Constitution (both of which would still affect only future benefits, at most due the U.S. Constitution). Neither of these are remotely practical. It is time to give up and move on. - Merica - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:00 pm: Richard, I take issue with your characterization of “Chicago Style Governance.” Central Illinois and Southern Illinois Republicans are the kings of public sector growth and the primary proponents of high COLA defined benefit pension benefits. Republican Jim Thompson was of course the impetus of Illinois’ 3% COLA pension debacle and the unionizer of state employees. central and southern illinois has more units of local government than their northern counterpart and they would never give up those jobs. I agree with everything else you said. Many of the commenters on CapFax live in Springfield, so they’ve never experienced real estate appreciation. Springfield, historically, sees 1.5% appreciation. When the market starts to contract, that will be a different story, and it will. With a property tax rate of 2.2-2.6%, and no appreciation, tax payers are losing a fortune over their lifetime. - City Zen - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:06 pm: ==tax payers are losing a fortune over their lifetime.== No one said your retirement could not be diminished or impaired. - @misterjayem - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:06 pm: As is the case with so many simple solutions, the only problem facing these proposals is reality. – MrJM - Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:19 pm: “It is time to give up and move on.“ They won’t, unfortunately. What political or journalistic reason for being would they have if not for the obsessive desire to cut former and current state workers? - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:24 pm: ==starting in their mid 50’s — with a 3% annual escalator — not to work.== It’s called retirement Richard. Ever heard of it? Generally people get paid not to work. Also, who are you to tell someone when they should or should not retire? People were hired for jobs with certain benefits. And those promises need to be kept. Period. You don’t like it? Leave. - Demoralized - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:26 pm: ==No one said your retirement could not be diminished or impaired.== There you go trying to be cute again. You people don’t like your retirement situation? Get another job and stop whining about what other people get. - Jibba - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:38 pm: ==And what’s going to happen to your property values when your neighbors keep moving away?== ILSC says that all parts of the pension plan are protected by the Constitution. You can’t use the Constitution to override other parts of the Constitution. And scare mongering about the alleged death spiral in Illinois, Richard? JB’s plan is to tax enough to pay the bills and achieve a working society that attracts people and jobs. What’s your plan? Theft of pensions, collapse of downstate economies (see last week’s economic analysis of the effects of pensions coming into rural economies), driving away students who won’t return, poor infrastructure, children dying in DCFS care. Sounds like a state that deserves for people to be leaving. Back to the dorm room you go. - City Zen - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:41 pm: ==You people don’t like your retirement situation?== Not when you diminish or impair it, even more so when you pretend you’re not. - Sue - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:47 pm: Hey Grandson - it’s easy to ask people to pay more when you are not going to be one of the folks paying more - you only will be someone getting more. - Moby - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:49 pm: Is there a single instance in the past 50 years of a Republican elected official in the state pension system who turned down collecting his/her pension at retirement out of principle to set an example? - Sue - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:51 pm: Grandson- are you and Demoralized the s AAC me person or related. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 12:52 pm: === Not when you diminish or impair it, even more so when you pretend you’re not.=== Illinois doesn’t tax retirement income… so what exactly is being hurt for your retirement? We all make life choices. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:05 pm: === if (1) the individual and non-corporate tax rates had some gradation within it (not necessarily the 8 to 5 ratio that currently exists for corporations) and (2) a separate amendment was put up this year to require contributions for both the pensions and OPEB specifically overturning IFT v. Lindberg (1975).=== This is not happening before November, and I’m guessing you can’t find the political will for this… so you’re a “No”. Thanks. - City Zen - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:07 pm: ==what exactly is being hurt for your retirement?== Trying to save for it. ==Get another job and stop whining about what other people get.== ==We all make life choices.== Can I frame these? - A Jack - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:08 pm: Richard…. Governor Rauner created DoIT during his tenure. Don’t you think if your idea was even remotely feasible, Rauner would have tried it with DoIT? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:11 pm: === Trying to save for it.=== Personal choice. You could choose to work at a job with a pension at ANY time… === Can I frame these?=== To remind yourself that your life choices are yours and no one else’s? That might be useful, you’ve learned so little thus far. - revvedup - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:11 pm: Someone from the BGA came up with this??? I agree with the commenters who side with the Constitutional issues and ILSUPCT rulings. Off topic: Is Honeybear still among us? I realized I haven’t seen comments from her. I hope she’s ok. - Skeptic - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:29 pm: “Rauner would have tried it with DoIT?” Well, Rauner’s plan (obsession?) was to crush AFSCME so he could privatize DoIT and farm it out to his buddies, so I’m not sure the idea occurred to him. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:42 pm: For decades high income earners have been able to better save for their retirements in Illinois because the state income tax has been low for them. After previous brutal cuts to social services and higher ed, and previous pension cuts, the gravy train needs to end. - Looking Down The Road - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:49 pm: ==You don’t like it? Leave.== The solution. - Market Equity - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:49 pm: Flashback to 2008 when most residents lost big time in the stock market and their retirement accounts but watched pensions remain untouched. Now as this happens again 12 years later, today will residents demand something be done about pensions feeling the same pain as non-pension citizens feel in their retirement portfolios? Times they are a changin’ - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:53 pm: === most residents lost big time in the stock market and their retirement accounts but watched pensions remain untouched. Now as this happens again 12 years later, today will residents demand something be done about pensions feeling the same pain as non-pension citizens feel in their retirement portfolios? Times they are a changin’=== Narrator: the need for 71 and 36 isn’t a changin’ - Skeptic - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 1:57 pm: “Times they are a changin’” Indeed they are, but time doesn’t change what “Defined benefit” means. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:06 pm: === Flashback to 2008 when most residents lost big time in the stock market and their retirement accounts but watched pensions remain untouched.=== Flashback to 2010 when the stocks bounced back. - Maximus - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:10 pm: Nothing will change until we are at the same point Puerto Rico is at right now. That’s when everyone will take a haircut (pensioners, general bond owners, investors, etc). Anyone owed money by Puerto Rico is now going to get less and when it’s time for Illinois to work out the massive debt problem they have it will go the same way. We just have to decide what acronym to use instead of COFINA. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:15 pm: ===Puerto Rico=== Puerto Rico is a possession, not a state, so there’s that. === will take a haircut=== Pensions are guaranteed, constitutionally. Your want isn’t honest to the actual. ===Illinois to work out the massive debt problem they have it will go the same way.=== As a state, Illinois can’t declare bankruptcy. The more you wish Illinois is Puerto Rico, the more it’s obviously not the same. - Maximus - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:21 pm: Puerto Rico is a territory and isnt supposed to declare bankruptcy either so they just called it a “debt restructuring”. I suppose Illinois will never go through bankruptcy even when it cant pay out the funds so instead it will go through a “fiscal re-organizing”. Sounds better right? Same end result. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:29 pm: === Puerto Rico is a territory and isnt supposed to declare bankruptcy either so they just called it a “debt restructuring”.=== Again, different rules. Twisting this to make Puerto Rico more like an answer for Illinois isn’t at all truthful. You want it, but it’s not at all similar. ===I suppose Illinois will never go through bankruptcy even when it cant pay out the funds so instead it will go through a “fiscal re-organizing”.=== That won’t include pensions as the debts of Illinois, say, I’m bonds, have their own pay structures constitutionally.., then there’s that pesky ILSC ruling on pensions too. - JIbba - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:34 pm: ==when it cant pay out the funds=== Really think a judge won’t decide that Illinois can raise taxes another couple of percent instead of subjecting everyone to a “haircut”? Guess again. Illinois is a rich state that can raise enough revenue to pay its bills. It simply didn’t choose to do so for decades. And those pension funds will be looking pretty flush as they own every Illinois asset and rent them back to Illinois government for sufficient revenue to pay the pensions, again requiring a tax increase. - Maximus - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:37 pm: Im not trying to be argumentative but I dont see how this doesnt end up the same way. The debt load will become so high as to be considered “unpayable” (this happened with Puerto Rico) and when that happens then alot of laws have to start being set aside to make fixes happen. That’s the whole reason Illinois bonds have the highest interest rate… the risk involved is higher than any other state. The bond markets know bad things could happen in the next several years. We arent at the tipping point (yet) but I have yet to see a plan that can stop that momentum. S&P and Moodys havent increased our credit rating because we havent really fixed anything, we’re just treading water right now. - JIbba - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:42 pm: Maximus, with respect, these things have been discussed here before ad nauseam. What is “unpayable”? Seriously. The amount paid in pensions every year is somewhere around $6-8B (couldn’t find more complete numbers on the spur of the moment). That is something around 1-1.5% of your tax rate. Think we can’t raise and pay that? Technically, we don’t have to pre-pay the pensions (that’s where the “debt” of $137B comes from), so we could shift to simply paying out every year what we owe. It is much more expensive to do it that way, but we would be doing that prior to “haircuts.” And Moody’s just told us to raise taxes to get out of our mess. They know what they are talking about. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:43 pm: === Im not trying to be argumentative but I dont see how this doesnt end up the same way.=== Then you truly have no idea what the ILSC ruling means, or the constitutional realities to Illinois debt. To your silly argument to “unplayable” taxes? ===It simply didn’t choose to do so for decades.=== You’re banking on a court to see income taxes (currently) at 4.95% as too high… when… (Sigh) Illinois isn’t in a state of emergency when the tax rate isn’t at any rate of ridiculousness compared to its own history of income tax rates. === That’s the whole reason Illinois bonds have the highest interest rate… the risk involved is higher than any other state.=== LOL, and bond holders love that. Why? Constitutionally, explain how Illinois sees paying on debt, bonds. Revenues are needed and the measure to that isn’t at any “unsustainable” level, and what court will see a state unwilling to maximize its taxing for years as one overtaxing it’s tax base? - Morty - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:44 pm: Mark and Ted and Adam and Austin will republish this opinion unquestioningly, just like the published last weeks…and the week befores…and the week befores… - Morty - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:47 pm: ‘Richard said…’ Hi Mark - City Zen - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:53 pm: ==For decades high income earners have been able to better save for their retirements in Illinois because the state income tax has been low for them.== More gold. Keep it coming. - Skeptic - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 2:57 pm: “The debt load will become so high as to be considered “unpayable”” Do us all a favor and please read https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2015/118585.pdf before commenting further. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:02 pm: === Nothing will change until we are at the same point Puerto Rico is at right now.=== Puerto Rico Debt to GDP at peak, 66%. Illinois debt to GDP, 18.8, for comparison Kentucky debt to GDP is 25.82% and Wyoming’s debt to GDP is 5.21%. So we got someways to go before we get to Kentucky’s debt never mind Puerto Rico’s debt. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:08 pm: Sorry, Illinois is at 18.18% - lake county democrat - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:16 pm: Not a pension amendment, but I think Pritzker should have proposed some budget cuts. He’s given the GOP a talking point that the progressive tax is a plan to fund giveaways. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:17 pm: === Pritzker should have proposed some budget cuts=== If the amendment fails, the governor has shown “cuts” will happen, and where… like school funding. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:32 pm: Remember how silent on debt and deficits Rauner supporters were when he deliberately blew up the bill backlog and refused to agree to budgets and pay bills? Same with Trump supporters, exploding deficits and growing debt. The only time certain “fiscal hawks” care about debt is to attack political opponents. - City Zen - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:36 pm: ==has shown “cuts” will happen, and where… like school funding.== Context is key. That’s a cut in funding above and beyond what was spent last year. The state will still spend more on school funding this year than the previous year. It amounts to less than a 1% cut in school funding. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 3:40 pm: === Context is key.=== Yeah. “It fails, these are cuts” Pretty simple context. I know it troubles you, but, LOL === That’s a cut in funding above and beyond what was spent last year. The state will still spend more on school funding this year than the previous year. It amounts to less than a 1% cut in school funding.=== … and yet Ms. Bourne called it holding education funding hostage. Maybe your beef is with Ms. Bourne? - Jocko - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 4:11 pm: ==several ways one could fix Illinois governments to lower taxes and deliver improved services== Someone should tell Porter (or the BGA) that, using the same logic, Pritzker could encourage we default and tell Illinois bondholders to pound sand. That also won’t happen anytime soon. - RNUG - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 4:30 pm: As had been clearly noted, Illinois is not Detroit or Puerto Rico. But let’s say it is … and we get to that point. Look at how both those have worked out so far … pensioners made out pretty well, about 90% while bond holders took some serious haircuts, in some cases loosing most of their investments. Given the amount of Illinois paper out there, the institutional investors don’t want that scenario; they want the fairy tale of pensions getting cut while bonds get paid 100¢ on the $. Alternatively, let’s look at the one time a State kind of went bankrupt … Arkansas during the Great Depression. The only thing that happened was Arkansas kind of defaulted on some bonds … they didn’t cancel the bonds, just quit paying interest on them. And, 10 - 15 years later, the State finally paid off those bonds with full interest. That second scenario is, in my opinion, more likely than the Feds letting States take bankruptcy. I’m also going to note that the IL SC, in rejecting the Legislature’s Police Powers argument, said to the Legislature (to paraphrase): you made this mess, you have the power to fix it … implying the Legislature could cut other expenditures or raise revenue. - Washingtonian - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 5:18 pm: Pensions. Legal. Done. Pay it. - OKBoomer - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 8:20 pm: In the age of me, why do you think Millennials are going to want to pay for the education of the 70s and 80s and 90s today (and fund those mean Boomer retirements)? - Jibba - Monday, Mar 9, 20 @ 9:34 pm: MIllennial want a job? Illinois is a good place for that, with Chicago leading the way. Running a state where the society works well (education, infrastructure, etc.) does wonders for the economy. Feel free to move to get away from those Boomers, but if you have a good job and quality of life in a state, you might not even notice all those pensions being paid. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.