|
Democrats broke Illinois and now trying to break it's constitution too; what is it about Democrats and their inability to manage spending?
|
|
Topic Started: Dec 30 2013, 12:39 AM (1,214 Views)
|
|
Pat
|
Dec 30 2013, 01:43 AM
Post #21
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- colo_crawdad
- Dec 30 2013, 01:39 AM
I really wonder if there is anything legally that can be done to a State Legislature that chooses to ignore something included in the State Constitution. I know for a fact that Colorado Legislators have ignored a Constitutional Amendment for 10 - 15 years requiring specific levels and increases in State funding of education. They have done so on the basis that they "did not have the money." You would think that some form of criminal charges would be in order. If the state has it in the constitution to set education funding levels, then that should be the rule of law. And the elected officials swear an oath to uphold it.
I can't recall which president it was that remarked to the supreme court something along the line that if they ruled a certain way then they could find a way to enforce it. Maybe it was Madison. It was early on in the nation's history.
Here is a link to the original story.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/28/Retired-Illinois-Teachers-Sue-to-Stop-Pension-Reform
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Dec 30 2013, 01:44 AM
Post #22
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 01:30 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Dec 30 2013, 01:23 AM
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 01:07 AM
- Neutral
- Dec 30 2013, 01:01 AM
So tell me what happens when the State can no longer pay it's bills? Bailout for union pensioners?
Most likely Neutral. I'm not sure if the same rules would apply to a state government that goes broke and goes sniveling to the feds as it would say a GM. What is needed is a suspension of the state legislature and some form of receivership put in place in lieu of a federal bailout. The state voters and legislators can not be trusted to control spending.
" What is needed is a suspension of the state legislature and some form of receivership put in place in lieu of a federal bailout." How would that work?
I don't know Neal, I was thinking out loud. I don't think it will be a stretch to think that states and large cities will be asking for bailouts. I believe their should be some form of receivership in place that allows sane people to assume control over state finances, it's obvious the democrats are incapable of doing so in many places. This is a huge problem and i think the reason why Obama sidestepped bailing out Detroit, he didn't want to set precedent and open the flood gates. In the case of Illinois, the constitution had a provision added that protected pensions from this type of behavior. In other words the state would be in violation of the constitution, the one the elected officials swore to uphold. I don't see how the law passed could pass a legal challenge, it is in direct opposition to the will of the people in the constitution. So, if sane people take control, what would you suggest they do, given the circumstances?
|
|
|
| |
|
Pat
|
Dec 30 2013, 02:08 AM
Post #23
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 31,086
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #200
- Joined:
- Apr 13, 2011
|
- Mountainrivers
- Dec 30 2013, 01:44 AM
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 01:30 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Dec 30 2013, 01:23 AM
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 01:07 AM
- Neutral
- Dec 30 2013, 01:01 AM
So tell me what happens when the State can no longer pay it's bills? Bailout for union pensioners?
Most likely Neutral. I'm not sure if the same rules would apply to a state government that goes broke and goes sniveling to the feds as it would say a GM. What is needed is a suspension of the state legislature and some form of receivership put in place in lieu of a federal bailout. The state voters and legislators can not be trusted to control spending.
" What is needed is a suspension of the state legislature and some form of receivership put in place in lieu of a federal bailout." How would that work?
I don't know Neal, I was thinking out loud. I don't think it will be a stretch to think that states and large cities will be asking for bailouts. I believe their should be some form of receivership in place that allows sane people to assume control over state finances, it's obvious the democrats are incapable of doing so in many places. This is a huge problem and i think the reason why Obama sidestepped bailing out Detroit, he didn't want to set precedent and open the flood gates. In the case of Illinois, the constitution had a provision added that protected pensions from this type of behavior. In other words the state would be in violation of the constitution, the one the elected officials swore to uphold. I don't see how the law passed could pass a legal challenge, it is in direct opposition to the will of the people in the constitution.
So, if sane people take control, what would you suggest they do, given the circumstances? I think they reasonable thing to do would be to address state pensions when the various contracts come up for renewing. A freeze on benefits. It might not be possible to reduce constitutionally protected COLA for pensions, but other benefits could be reduced or eliminated to try to offset the costs. It might take a state withstanding a general strike and needing to replace workers on strike.
Then of course other non essential programs would need addressed and turning over to local communities programs that have been state funded.. Let the locals decide if the value a program and if so, they can pay for it.
There is a way out of this but it will be painful. $100,000,000,000 worth of pain.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Dec 30 2013, 02:33 AM
Post #24
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
Pat,
I have to tell you that the legislature that has ignored the Colorado Constitution has been primarily Republican. I know that doesn't conform to your attack on Democrats, but that is the way it is.
|
|
|
| |
|
tomdrobin
|
Dec 30 2013, 03:51 AM
Post #25
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 19,566
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #14
- Joined:
- Feb 23, 2008
|
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 12:59 AM
- tomdrobin
- Dec 30 2013, 12:55 AM
The inherent conflict of interest in collective bargaining for public employees has resulted in overly generous pension payouts and benefits, and too make matters worse they have conspired to enshrine the entitlements in the constitution. During exceptionally good times these benefits may have been affordable, but they are threatening the financial solvency of the government entities. This is a nationwide problem. Diverting tax revenues from sorely needed public services to finance the retired. When this happens in private industry benefits are reduced, and retirees take a "haircut" on payouts. Why should public service be any different? Why should taxpayers who have taken these reductions themselves be asked to pay more to protect public retirees?
In response Tom I would say that enshrining the contractual obligations into the state constitution was a very wise move by the citizens. They must have suspected that at some time the democrats would try screwing them. Is nothing sacred? No contract worth the ink used to write it? Is a promise worth nothing? Enshrining the contractual obligations in the constitution wasn't a wise move by the citizens. It was an attempt by the unions to keep their members from sharing the pain of the bad decisions. The public pensions I know of are far and above what even the cream of the crop private sector pensions pay. Why would one have to save for retirement if their income was the same in retirement as working? That is often the case.
|
|
|
| |
|
colo_crawdad
|
Dec 30 2013, 04:06 AM
Post #26
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 39,310
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Feb 16, 2008
|
I want to say thanks, P)at. I appreciate your having as much concern over the State of Illinois "breaking a retirement promise" as you expressed over the Federal congress "breaking a promise" to retirees on another thread.
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Dec 30 2013, 04:13 AM
Post #27
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
IL is a direct result of liberals.
|
|
|
| |
|
Banandangees
|
Dec 30 2013, 04:57 AM
Post #28
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 20,839
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- Mar 14, 2008
|
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 12:55 AM
- Mountainrivers
- Dec 30 2013, 12:46 AM
- Pat
- Dec 30 2013, 12:39 AM
The last paragraph is astounding. The democrat Lt. Governor uses as his reasoning that the attempt to break the constitutional provision that protects pensions has to be legal because why? Well because the state needs it to be. quote--
Democrat Governor Pat Quinn, though, feels that the reforms will stand the constitutional test.
"We believe the new law is as constitutionally sound as it is urgently needed to resolve the state's pension crisis," Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in statement. "We'll defend the interests of taxpayers."
If a judicial finding would by some maddening twisted rationale agree with him, then I would assume the supreme court would overturn it. The intent and language of the constitution is specific, no wiggle room. If the state can't hold it's own constitution sacred then in my opinion, no law or regulation there is sacred. Who would want to live in such a state, willing to pull the rug out from the retired or those paying into retirement. The money needed to survive old age.
The bigger issue here is as noted in the thread title. Why can't democrats control spending, why have the democrats in Illinois refused to fund a constitutional mandate? We see this on the larger stage,a willingness to take from others in order to reward their supporters. Now they have pushed the envelope so far out there that they have backed themselves into a corner with literally nowhere to turn, no way to pay. I've been preaching this problem since I joined this board. I get pooh poohed about the national debt and the need for belt tightening. Well guys, look at Illinois and California as two glaring examples that will soon be playing out on the national stage. Irresponsible actions that will one day have the federal government trying to wiggle out of social security and medicare.
No state has a worse public pension crisis than Illinois and for years lawmakers have found it impossible to agree upon what to do about it all. This legislative session some agreements were finally hammered out to address the crisis. But now the state's retired teachers are going to court, suing to stop even those tepid reforms.
Despite that for more than a decade Illinois Democrats have had a lock on control of both the legislature and the governor's mansion, lawmakers have had much trouble trying to solve the mounting $100 billion deficit. And even with these new agreements, one hurdle stands in lawmakers' way; the state constitution. Years ago Democrats and unions were able to add an amendment to the state constitution that would forbid any changes to pension promises. It is this clause that the teachers are citing as a reason that the new reforms must be halted.
"That guarantee, perhaps more so than anything else in the Illinois Constitution, was used by countless families across Illinois to plan careers, retirements and financial futures," the educators' lawsuit says. "Many of them know that constitutional guarantee by heart."
But the state simply cannot continue on the path its pliant legislators agreed to with union representatives who also contribute heavily to the political campaigns of those same legislators.
Of Illinois, David Draine, a senior researcher at the Pew Center on the States, recently said, "They are in the most dire situation of all the states. Illinois is facing a growing bill that it hasn't figured out how to pay for. The other poorly funded states have at least some sort of plan." As NPR reported in June: "Just how dire is the situation now? Each day without a fix digs the Illinois pension hole at least another $17 million deeper.
After two recent downgrades, Illinois' bonds are only a few steps above junk status. S&P say that only three states--California, Louisiana and Massachusetts--have ever had ratings as low as Illinois' current level in the last half century. The low rating makes the fiscal situation even more grim, as the state will see its borrowing costs, already among the highest in the nation, rise yet again."
Still, lawmakers finally agreed on a few half-hearted reforms to pensions including raising the retirement age on a sliding scale and introducing a 401(k) option. Supporters claim that it will save $160 billion over 30 years. Yet teachers and other critics claim these meager changes violate the constitution and are mounting an effort to stop the reforms that are supposed to take effect in June of next year.
Democrat Governor Pat Quinn, though, feels that the reforms will stand the constitutional test. "We believe the new law is as constitutionally sound as it is urgently needed to resolve the state's pension crisis," Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in statement. "We'll defend the interests of taxpayers."
Well, Pat, what would you do if you had the responsibility of paying for everything?
I've been there Neal and paid the bills. In the case of Illinois, the spending and paying decisions are made by majorities of people not one. In Illinois I would have been one of the no votes that was drowned out by the yeas of irresponsible democrat legislators.
Good answer Pat.
When the states legislatures (and local and federal) make promises in terms of compensation (or other budgeting) that the state can't financially keep, then that adds to the states deficit... in the case of Illinois, the $100 billion deficit. The Fed can print money, states can't. When the money isn't there, it isn't there. Where is the wisdom to see before hand that there is a good possibility that the state can't raise the money to cover the voted for budget. Seems few legislatures, local, state or federal have the wisdom. Even with states and localities, there has to be fiscal policy that allows for balancing of the books. If not, it eventually comes home to roost. The Illinois legislature is doing nothing but kicking the can down the road. Eventually someone is going to come out on the short end of the stick and it's not usually the legislators.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mountainrivers
|
Dec 30 2013, 07:49 AM
Post #29
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 33,547
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 24, 2008
|
"I've been there Neal and paid the bills"
Yes, but you weren't responsible for the bills that someone else ran up before you took office. Nor were you faced with a constitutional guarantee that those bills would have to be paid . Nor were you responsible for thousands, if not millions, of people who depend on the government for their livelihood. It's a difficult situation and there are no easy answers as some of your fellow conservatives seem to think.
|
|
|
| |
|
Neutral
|
Dec 30 2013, 07:51 AM
Post #30
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
- Posts:
- 61,888
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #239
- Joined:
- May 26, 2012
|
IL has been blue for awhile. LOL
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|