Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Blaming the victim
Next Post: More on that Bobby Rush endorsement of Chris Kennedy
Posted in:
* Drudge hyped a silly story the other day about the possibility of Illinois filing for bankruptcy, even though there is no way a state can file for bankruptcy and nobody in our congressional delegation (or anyone else’s, as far as I can tell) is pushing to change the law or the US Constitution to allow it. But, Drudge be Drudge, so some reporters followed up. Here’s WICS…
“You would have to have Congress pass and the president sign an amendment to the federal bankruptcy law allowing states to declare bankruptcy,” said Kent Redfield, a political science professor emeritus at the University of Springfield.
U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Illinois, said instead of this, he’d like to see lawmakers work together toward a compromise.
“Come up with a solution because that’s what I think we are going to try and do for our problems in Washington D.C.,” Davis said. “That’s a message I’m sending in Washington, and a message I continue to send to our leaders in Springfield and I hope they can come up with that compromise.”
Bankruptcy could also potentially be unconstitutional.
“There is a provision in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, that prohibits states from impairing contracts,” Redfield said. “And then you’d probably get into a long court battle about exactly does that specifically apply to things like pensions, like bonds.”
Yep.
* Fox News…
“Nobody here in Illinois is considering bankruptcy—first of all, it’s not allowed,” Steve Brown, press secretary for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. “Second of all, it would damage the reputation of the state and it’s just not necessary.”
U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats from Illinois, declined to respond to Fox News’ request for comment on whether they would consider getting involved in introducing a measure to push for legality of state bankruptcy.
“Illinois is the fiscal model of what not to do,” Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., told Fox News, while not commenting on the bankruptcy question. “This avoidance in behavior toward dealing with our challenges is what leads to the devastating impacts we are seeing today.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Blaming the victim
Next Post: More on that Bobby Rush endorsement of Chris Kennedy
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
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?
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:51 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.
Comment by Galena Guy Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:54 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.
Comment by RNUG 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!
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:55 am
“Damage the reputation of the State”. Seriously? That ship sailed long ago.
Comment by Double Nickel Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:56 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.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:57 am
To Steve Brown: What reputation does this State have now that could be further damaged??
Comment by Gone, but not forgotten Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 9:58 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.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:01 am
Madigan speaker trying to defend the reputation of the state - that is a rich !
Comment by Texas Red 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.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:02 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.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:04 am
After sacking the treasury for 35 years - Madigan is now worried about defending the State’s reputation !!
Comment by Lech W Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:06 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:09 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.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:10 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.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:13 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.
Comment by David Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:14 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?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:19 am
I almost couldn’t type a comment while laughing so hard…Roskam criticizing anyone for “avoiding challenges” is rich!
Comment by A-nonny-nonny 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.
Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:22 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.
Comment by Anon414 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.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:24 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:25 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
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:26 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.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:28 am
Bankruptcy would be quite the legacy for MJM
Comment by Anonymous 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:29 am
The state is already in default, no federal bankruptcy needed.
Comment by liberty Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:33 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.
Comment by City Zen 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?
Comment by wondering Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:35 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.
Comment by Me Again Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:43 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.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:45 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?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 10:59 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.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:00 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?
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:05 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.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:10 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:18 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.
Comment by Annie Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:34 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.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:55 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.
Comment by BK Bro Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:57 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,
Comment by justacitizen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 11:59 am
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?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:16 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.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:20 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.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:23 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.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:30 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.
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 12:35 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.
Comment by Wallinger Dickus Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:00 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
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:05 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?
Comment by BK Bro Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:06 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.
Comment by Deft Wing Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:20 pm
Yes there is a difference.
We aren’t selling Zima.
Comment by VanillaMan 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.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:21 pm
==We aren’t selling Zima==
True, but Illinois desperately needs to do zomething different.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:43 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.
Comment by 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.===
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.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 1:54 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.
Comment by Me Again Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:00 pm
===I think this is what everybody was waiting===
Define “everybody.”
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:00 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?
Comment by Ron Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:42 pm
===Why do you think increasing that burden===
Did you forget that we had a big tax cut 2.5 years ago?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 2:45 pm
Wasn’t Tillman. It was an economist.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:06 pm
===It was an economist===
LOL.
Always the best go-to sources for constitutional law.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:08 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.”
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:36 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’!
Comment by Me Again Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 3:38 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:03 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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:08 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:23 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!!
Comment by don the legend Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:26 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
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 4:29 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.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:14 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.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:25 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.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 5:40 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.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 6:21 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.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 6:28 pm
both sides are looking for a white knight from DC
Comment by foster brooks Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 7:32 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.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Jun 20, 17 @ 8:08 pm
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.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 8:06 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
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 8:24 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.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Wednesday, Jun 21, 17 @ 9:09 am