CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[left of center]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

The sickest part of the constitutionally baked in COLA and under funding by participants is that the majority of Illinois govt retirees bolt for the border towns or for AZ and FL and TN in retirement. We are literally massively exporting our tax dollars. And retirees are not prohibited from double dipping even within Illinois. A CPS teacher can retire after 20 yrs, say at 42 yo and then go teach at a community college or at NEIU and gain another pension at 62ys. Then move to AZ.

And elected officials use that ploy also, graduating from a municipal council job to a county position to an appointed job gaining pension points all the way.

State cannot declare bankruptcy but can go into default. Short of a CONCON (Constitutional Convention) the state may need to bring default proceeding to the brink with a goal for a Federal mediation intervention where the mediator decision is binding for the unions and state.

Illinois would likely emerge with a more modest obligation than current. And the union members would be responsible for greater contributions during work years and larger copays and less COLA during retirement.

Cities are allowed to declare bankruptcy And likewise could use the process to seek Federal mediation. And Chicago is not the only city in arrears. Not sure what the fall out would be but other cities have defaulted and the righted the sip. NYC? But the mediation process and decision would result in a better situation than current.

In the very tiny, infinitesimal chance there is a new IL constitution is ever written again, I would absolutely love some sort of rule that retired pensioners need to remain in Illinois to receive their full benefits. Moving out of state would mean they would forfeit all/large portion of their pensions. Keeping more of our retirees in the state would help us with our population loss problem, as well as boost the tax base as well.

What are the chances of the state even considering defaulting? Honestly, even with the way things are, not sure if one could justify it. If another massive recession came along, there might be a chance the state might have no other choice. But the vested interests would fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening, and any pol that endorses it would be committing career suicide.

[lakeshoredrive]

Originally Posted by left of center

In the very tiny, infinitesimal chance there is a new IL constitution is ever written again

How can Illinoisians make that happen? Surely the people have the power to force that to happen... They work for us.

I guess the some of the simple things to do is have a protest to create an awareness and contact our state representatives/senators.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by left of center

I I would absolutely love some sort of rule that retired pensioners need to remain in Illinois to receive their full benefits. Moving out of state would mean they would forfeit all/large portion of their pensions. Keeping more of our retirees in the state would help us with our population loss problem, as well as boost the tax base as well.

Really?! While the state of illinois is fucked and certainly needs to control-Alt-delete the current situation, forcing retirees to stay here is not the answer.
People leave the state for many reasons, imagine being in poor health and wanting/needing to be in a warmer climate, or being retired and your entire family leaves the state but you can't because you'll lose your entire pension. It's a horrible idea, and is unethical. People depend on their pension, while the rules written are horrible, it's not the individual workers fault. Blame the politicians and the unions, not somebody who committed their lively to serving the people of the state of illinois and then pull the rug from underneath them.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Really?! While the state of illinois is fucked and certainly needs to control-Alt-delete the current situation, forcing retirees to stay here is not the answer.
People leave the state for many reasons, imagine being in poor health and wanting/needing to be in a warmer climate, or being retired and your entire family leaves the state but you can't because you'll lose your entire pension. It's a horrible idea, and is unethical. People depend on their pension, while the rules written are horrible, it's not the individual workers fault. Blame the politicians and the unions, not somebody who committed their lively to serving the people of the state of Illinois and then pull the rug from underneath them.

I'm not advocating gouging of the pensions, but an excise fee of say 4% for out of state, Much more immediate and impactful is to ramp up Govt employee participant contributions during the work years and during retirement. Compared to private employee contributions, the gov't worker shares are laughable. Private health contributions can be $500 every 2weeks while public are not even 10% of that. This is criminal that public employees and politicians have such an inequity over the people paying for their retirement.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I'm not advocating gouging of the pensions, but an excise fee of say 4% for out of state, Much more immediate and impactful is to ramp up Govt employee participant contributions during the work years and during retirement. Compared to private employee contributions, the gov't worker shares are laughable. Private health contributions can be $500 every 2weeks while public are not even 10% of that. This is criminal that public employees and politicians have such an inequity over the people paying for their retirement.

I don't disagree - i'm against public pensions.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

I don't disagree - i'm against public pensions.

Yes agree, with you and jpIllinois's ideas, especially when public pension employees are allowed to double-dip. You should NOT be able to receive secondary benefits if you're already receiving one pension, then working again (like previously stated, in a warmer city/state) and receiving ANOTHER pension. Heinous and criminal.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by left of center

Because Rauner did a better job? I do not recall the state's obligations shrinking under his 4 years when he feuded with the state assembly. Priztker isn't powerless, but to think that the governor of this state, or any state for that matter, can somehow wave a magic wand and make everything go away is childish at best. Government works in a frustratingly slow way with many people having a hand on the spoon that is stirring the pot, and that's by design in any democracy in order to keep one single person from taking too much power. If Pritzker takes a unilateral approach to try to clean house the state's finances, he will burn his bridges like Rauner and things will only get worse as a result.

Yeah I voted for Rauner purely on the pension issue, and because his positions on other issues weren't totally abhorrent. But, guess what, he failed to do the one thing I elected him to do, and did nothing else productive with his time as governor either.

Pritzker isn't picking the fights with unions that need to happen, but at least he's getting important legislation passed in other policy areas (capital plan/infrastructure, cannabis, energy, etc).

I will happily support a reformer but it can't come from the GOP because their national party is f*cked on Trumpist ideology, and it can't come from the Democrats because the machine just co-opts everybody, even self-proclaimed "reformers" like Pat Quinn. Nationally there isn't much appetite for reform of existing programs because everything is so polarized. E.g. either you support the demands of the teacher's union 100%, or you want to let teachers starve to death in a gutter. No room for in-between!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah I voted for Rauner purely on the pension issue, and because his positions on other issues weren't totally abhorrent. But, guess what, he failed to do the one thing I elected him to do, and did nothing else productive with his time as governor either.

Pritzker isn't picking the fights with unions that need to happen, but at least he's getting important legislation passed in other policy areas (capital plan/infrastructure, cannabis, energy, etc).

I will happily support a reformer but it can't come from the GOP because their national party is f*cked on Trumpist ideology, and it can't come from the Democrats because the machine just co-opts everybody, even self-proclaimed "reformers" like Pat Quinn. Nationally there isn't much appetite for reform of existing programs because everything is so polarized. E.g. either you support the demands of the teacher's union 100%, or you want to let teachers starve to death in a gutter. No room for in-between!

Someone like Pritzker is almost a best case here... he's too rich to be bought.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Someone like Pritzker is almost a best case here... he's too rich to be bought.

^ While true, the flip side to that is that he's too rich to relate to working class people and small business owners. And it shows

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ While true, the flip side to that is that he's too rich to relate to working class people and small business owners. And it shows

Illinois statewide elections are won in DuPage, Lake, and Cook counties. Pritzker is looking pretty good in these areas, right now. Any candidate who could win a statewide Republican primary, will struggle to compete in these areas. This reality is why Virginia Republicans didn't hold a primary.

[SIGSEGV]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/20...o-police-mayor

(sounds like he was in all likelihood going to get dismissed).

[Steely Dan]

^ well, at least chicago politics are never boring.


i mean, it'd be nice if they were more boring, but that is not our reality.

[bnk]

I haven't been following this guys political potential but can Lightfoot laugh him off? Is he not a real candidate? I would imagine he could run on crime. It has not gotten any better.




https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-m...ghtfoot-police

Chicago Mayor Lightfoot dismisses police union leader’s potential run against her: ‘It would be a gift’

The pair have frequently clashed over vaccine mandates, the rise in gun violence across the city and other issues


By Louis Casiano | Fox News


Fox News Flash top headlines for November 18



Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot brushed off a threat by the controversial head of the city's largest police union to run against her in 2023, saying his candidacy would "be a gift."


Lightfoot's remarks come amid a very public and contentious relationship with John Catanzara, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police. During a news conference Thursday, a reporter asked her about an earlier comment in which he said he plans to run for her seat.


"It would be a gift, Lightfoot said as she held her hand over her heart. "Let him run. I'd have a lot of fun with that."





The pair have frequently clashed over vaccine mandates, the rise in gun violence across the city and other issues. On Wednesday, Catanzara officially retired from the police force but will still serve as boss of the union that represents more than 17,000 current and former rank-and-file officers.


...

[thegoatman]

^ Fuck no, and she's right to laugh him off. The easiest way to guarantee a second Lightfoot term would be for Catanzara to run as her opponent. He has made himself incredibly unlikable and the only people that support him are severe cop bootlickers.

His childish antics and far right rhetoric wouldn't garner even 5% of the vote in Chicago, this isn't Alabama or Kentucky. I would say Chicago could do well with a sensible socially liberal republican like Bloomberg or Charlie Baker, too bad the modern Republican party is an absolute joke and keeps propping up losers like him.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

^ Fuck no, and she's right to laugh him off. The easiest way to guarantee a second Lightfoot term would be for Catanzara to run as her opponent. He has made himself incredibly unlikable and the only people that support him are severe cop bootlickers.

His childish antics and far right rhetoric wouldn't garner even 5% of the vote in Chicago, this isn't Alabama or Kentucky. I would say Chicago could do well with a sensible socially liberal republican like Bloomberg or Charlie Baker, too bad the modern Republican party is an absolute joke and keeps propping up losers like him.

It's also just so fitting that Catanzara is already attacking Lightfoot about the increasing gun crimes in Chicago, given that he's one of the major reasons behind it! The police union is absolutely horrific, only caring about keeping power and continuing huge pensions for officers, not giving a rat's ass about actually furthering police training, getting rid of the bad officers who make things far worse for the good ones, and actually having CPD operate in a more proactive vs. reactive stance. He's a complete jagoff and Lightfoot is completely right in laughing her ass off at his threat to run against her.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bnk

I haven't been following this guys political potential

clearly.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by bnk

I haven't been following this guys political potential but can Lightfoot laugh him off? Is he not a real candidate? I would imagine he could run on crime. It has not gotten any better.

...

Could Donald Trump win a mayoral contest in San Francisco? There’s the answer your questions.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

I would say Chicago could do well with a sensible socially liberal republican like Bloomberg or Charlie Baker, too bad the modern Republican party is an absolute joke and keeps propping up losers like him.

I would love to see the Republican party support a moderate Republican for mayor. Unfortunately, they have done to cities the exact thing they claim Democrats have done to rural areas, which is completely abandon them. They don't even pretend to care about governing the largest cities in the country, which is a problem in a country with only two parties.

I'm aware that city elections are not technically party-affiliated, but in reality that isn't really true.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

I would love to see the Republican party support a moderate Republican for mayor. Unfortunately, they have done to cities the exact thing they claim Democrats have done to rural areas, which is completely abandon them. They don't even pretend to care about governing the largest cities in the country, which is a problem in a country with only two parties.

I'm aware that city elections are not technically party-affiliated, but in reality that isn't really true.

Who needs a socially liberal Republican when a guy like Rahm can run and win? A "centrist Democrat" won't scare away Lakefront Liberals but can still be pro-business and potentially "tough on crime".

[pip]

Kinda of off topic and not looking for a fight. Northside lakefront liberals has been replaced with the Near Northwest side
https://www.chicagomag.com/news/nove...-progressives/