Chicago Update 11Jan2011

11Jan/116

Chicago Update 11Jan2011

While waiting for the snow to drop on our heads, let's see what Rahm has been up to in his campaigning:

In contrast to his main rivals in the mayor’s race, Rahm Emanuel has told labor leaders that he favors reducing pension benefits for the city’s existing work force and not just for new hires.

Although Mr. Emanuel has not yet publicly detailed his plan to confront the city’s perennial budget deficits and the severely underfinanced employee pension funds, he told union officials in a private meeting on Dec. 15 that he thought it could be necessary to cut the pensions of all employees, said people who attended the meeting.
....

“The sticking issue for all of us is the pension issue,” said a labor activist who attended the meeting with Mr. Emanuel. “I can’t tell my members we are going to support a guy who is going to cut your pensions.”

The labor leader and others who attended the meeting said they did not want to be identified for fear that Mr. Emanuel would retaliate if he were elected.

Nice pension.... wouldn't want to see anything happen to it....

As the RedState Labor Union Report says, Chicago's pension plans are close to being the worst in the country, in terms of solvency.

And while the other candidates are making noises about a two-tier system, so that only new hires would have the lower pensions, I guess Rahm really isn't that stupid and realizes that current pensioners and employees are a far greater problem in fiscal magnitude than theoretical future employees. The pension isn't in deep shit because they've not put money by for people who don't work for the city yet.

So maybe Rahm isn't totally stupid. Sounds like he knows the fiscal score - must have talked with Daley.

I don't think the unions don't realize it's not a matter of not pissing off Rahm. Doesn't matter if they do anything overt. There's not enough money to give everybody goodies, and the unions are too hoggy to fit at what will be a much shrunken trough.

Well, maybe enough money to buy off some union leaders, but that will be it.

Meep

Meep is a member of the Irish Catholic mafia, having a suspiciously high number of green-eyed, red-haired friends. While she doesn’t have red hair herself [except when she goes into the sun (rare for any vampire)], she does have green eyes. She’s a raving Papist and is a life actuary on the side [i.e., she counts dead people]. An amateur pain-in-the-ass [willing to go pro!], she likes covering retirement, mortality, math, and education issues.

Tagged as: Chicago, public pensions, public unions Leave a comment

Comments (6) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Bob Reed
January 11th, 2011 - 08:55

Well, you know the old political cliche; “Only Nixon could go to China”.

Maybe only Rahm can cut the pensions. We’ll certainly see. Somehow, though, I can’t see the big labor guys selling this to their constituents so easily. How can they talk about responsibility and doing the right thing when they’ve done neither for so long.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Meep
  January 11th, 2011 - 09:01
  
  Nope, it’s not that only Rahm can cut pensions.
  
  The pensions =will= be cut, just because they’re unsustainable. Reality will cut the pensions, even if no one else will. That’s pretty much how it will go down in California.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
Tom Bennett
January 11th, 2011 - 09:48

With respect to Rahm, its appearing I’m simply one of a thousands of Chicagoans that understands Mr. Emanuel’s lack of legal basis (and legitimacy) related to procuring a February 22, 2011 ballot position.

As I’ve recently shared with others, Mr. Emanuel does not have adequate legal standing to be on February’s ballot — irrespective of media propaganda to the contrary.

The Rahm Media Machine and Strong-arm Politics Machine is
using best efforts to both intimidate and manipulate its
way to a “politicized” ruling in State Courts (Circuit,
Appellate, IL Supreme).

To this end, as I’ve also shared with other Chicagoans, if necessary — legal remedies will be sought in Federal Court – related to the Rahm matter – as well as other matters I’m actively evaluating (i.e., 2007 Pay-to-Play/Steering matter involving CHA, Nesbitt, Obama Victory Fund, et al).

Provided State courts (Appellate & IL Supreme) rule per The
Letter of the Law and deny Rahm ballot access per the Letter
Of the Law, no Federal action will need to be taken in Rahm
matter. A Federal Ruling against Rahm will “void” February
22, 2011 Results and Special Election will be held (per case
precedent). A Special Election will presumably be spun
as “chaos” and “too expensive an undertaking”, however,
the “reality” is our Letter of The Law Society is only
effective as our “collective will” as Americans to
enforce.

Lastly, there are clearly “options” available to Mr. Emanuel (and his supporters) for saving face. I anticipate same parties also understand these same “options.”

Leadership involves more than guts, moxie, charisma, ineffectual rhetoric and political theater. True leadership requires, more often than not, empathy, understanding, perspective, humor and humility.

The essence of The Rahm Residency matter is the logic
that sophisticated public relations strategies and multi-million
dollar advertising campaigns cannot marginalize The Rule
of Law.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Tom Bennett
January 11th, 2011 - 10:08

RE: Structural Pension Issues being “self-evident” I agree
with prevailing logic, however, when IL Gov Pat Quinn is
“SPINNING” an UNPRECEDENTED-Anti American message justifying
and rationalizing Egregious Tax Policy with the
following sound-byte:

We [State of IL Gov't] pay our bills.

The State of Illinois is doomed.

Under the “we pay our bills” philosophy/logic, IL is
going to have to go BK within near term as same logic
is untenable for “drunken sailor” that ring-up massive
credit bills.

Further, what bond rating agency will extend IL a
manageable credit rating now? At least a BK rating
would “wipe” most cost structures (including legislator
pensions) and, in turn, PRIVATE INVESTMENT will “force”
state goverments to seriously focus on serious balance
sheet “best practices.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Meep
January 11th, 2011 - 11:19

If I were a vendor, I’d stop doing biz with Illinois or Chicago [if I could].

You’re going to be holding worthless IOUs at some point. I have no trust they’ll get their shit together.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Tom Bennett
January 11th, 2011 - 11:32

Aside from social services-related vendors the majority
of vendors are participating in various forms of
“Pinstripe patronage” or “Pay-to-play quid-pro-quo’s”

To this end, it is ultimately incumbent upon the State
of Illinois citizens to “vocally-reject” same fundamentally-
flawed policies. Otherwise, pinstripe patronage/P2P vendors
will continue to “feed-at-the-trough” of City of Chicago
and State of Illinois contracts.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )