Illinois Gubernatorial Debate on Pensions

Towards the end of the gubernatorial debate in Illinois (after the toilet questions had been exhausted) a facebook user brought up the pension issue:
.

.
Again, not having followed Illinois pensions or politics too closely, I have two questions that maybe someone out there can help me with.

  1. Does current Republican Governor Bruce Rauner want Illinois to go bankrupt or to have localities pay more of the pension cost? Democrat challenger J.B. Pritzker accused Rauner of both positions that appear to be in conflict.
  2. What is the ‘consideration model’ and how would giving employees a choice of pensions lower costs? Wouldn’t employees pick the costliest option?

8 responses to this post.

  1. John, the “consideration” model is a sham. They City of Chicago explained why in filed court documents in earlier litigation:

    “Nor would ‘consideration’ work from an economic standpoint. To give participants (or their legal representatives) an incentive to agree, the value of such consideration would need to be similar to the value of the benefits given up. But this would involve trading one obligation for another and by definition would not solve the problem that neither the fund nor the governmental entity has enough money to pay the benefits promised…. And, even if this ‘consideration’ were constitutional, it is unclear how many participants would accept it and, to the extent they did not, full funding would not be available and the funds would not be saved, to the detriment of all participants. (Pages 19-20.)” http://www.wirepoints.com/why-the-consideration-approach-to-pension-reform-is-a-gimmick-wp-original/

    Reply

  2. Posted by State Aid Guy on October 14, 2018 at 10:52 pm

    Illinois’ Supreme Court has said that Illinois’ pension and post-retirement health care cannot be reduced by one cent, even for benefits that have not yet been earned.

    Rauner wanted Congress to override this so that Illinois’ pension and OPEB debts could be reduced because he knows that Illinois’ debts cannot be repaid.

    I don’t consider that “bankruptcy” and I don’t consider bankruptcy to automatically be a moral crime, but whatever, Jay Pritzer is running against Rauner and isn’t going to give an accurate or full-context depiction of anything.

    Reply

  3. Posted by El gaupo on October 15, 2018 at 12:21 am

    Trump finally admitted climate change is not a hoax. Wow. Next he will tell us the earth/Steven Douglas is round!!!!
    He then followed the GOP playbook to a tee. He said he’s not sure it’s manmade and that scientists have a political agenda. Says it’ll change back again. Yea hundreds of years after we stop burning fossil fuels. Climate change is no longer a theory. It is a fact, and most scientists can say beyond a reasonable doubt (I.e enough for a conviction) that man made carbon emissions are the cause of climate change.
    I beleive that solar panels should cover all commercial roofs and most parking lots like at the Paramus Park Mall. I also think that unused grass areas in parks (areas where even during the summer, almost no one picnics or plays ball) as well as expansive lawns on corporate properties should be turned into tree farms/wooded areas. Why not plant more of the stuff that sucks in CO2?

    Reply

  4. Posted by El gaupo on October 15, 2018 at 12:21 am

    Trump finally admitted climate change is not a hoax. Wow. Next he will tell us the earth/Steven Douglas is round!!!!
    He then followed the GOP playbook to a tee. He said he’s not sure it’s manmade and that scientists have a political agenda. Says it’ll change back again. Yea hundreds of years after we stop burning fossil fuels. Climate change is no longer a theory. It is a fact, and most scientists can say beyond a reasonable doubt (I.e enough for a conviction) that man made carbon emissions are the cause of climate change.
    I beleive that solar panels should cover all commercial roofs and most parking lots like at the Paramus Park Mall. I also think that unused grass areas in parks (areas where even during the summer, almost no one picnics or plays ball) as well as expansive lawns on corporate properties should be turned into tree farms/wooded areas. Why not plant more of the stuff that sucks in CO2?

    Reply

  5. Posted by Earth on October 15, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    Earth to El gaupo:

    You can say that again!

    Reply

    • Posted by El gaupo on October 16, 2018 at 7:52 am

      Stanley,
      I read this morning that Amazon is installing rooftop solar panels on all of their U.K. fulfillment centers and will be powered by 100% renewable energy. Why would the United States not want to do the same? Explain to me how this should not be one of our goals? Coal is yesterday’s way to generate electricity. It is dirty and contributes to climate change. The free market itself here knows that. It is the government and special interests that keep it on life support.
      Things change. I’m sure that my kids who are learning to drive now will be the last generation to learn how to drive. Next gen will all be driverless. 20/30 years from now.
      We also won’t be burning gasoline 30 years from now. There of course will still be some cars that run on gas. But very few.

      Reply

      • Posted by Stanley on October 16, 2018 at 10:43 am

        Thanks to the war on nuclear power by the enviro misanthropes, we are stuck with coal and natural gas at the present time. The effects of carbon dioxide and slightly warmer temperatures are largely positive. People don’t retire and move to North Dakota, they move to Florida and Arizona. If solar panels and windmills ever did represent a real solution to man’s energy needs, you can bet your last dollar that the enviro crowd would attack them with a vengeance. Their campaigns are not for the environment, they are against the human specie. And they are against the traditional American values: individual rights, private property, self responsibility, market prices, limited government and so on.

        Who is paying for Amazon’s solar panels? Amazon? The British taxpayers? With as much cloud cover that they have, I have a hard time thinking that it is a responsible business decision–probably a politically correct propaganda tactic. On a section of land, 640 acres, you can site a nuclear generating facility that will power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. To power the same number with solar collectors, you would need hundreds of thousands of acres of collectors and they can’t work 24/7 like nuclear plants do. (They do shut down for maintenance but it’s very limited.)

        Eventually, we will come to our senses and go nuclear, possibly mostly factory built small nuclear plants. Until then, we are stuck with coal and natural gas.

        Reply

        • Posted by El gaupo on October 16, 2018 at 12:16 pm

          I am not anti nuclear at all. It has its place as does natural gas. As does solar. Coal will be eventually left out of that equation. Solar energy and electric cars are indeed the future.
          What is to the detriment of our country is the polarization of our positions. If im a conservative I can be pro environment. If I’m a liberal, I can’t be pro life or want control of our borders. Most folks in this country are moderates and their collective voices are drowned out by the fringe on both sides.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: