Chicago is in some trouble. The Cook county tax alone is over 10%! Yet they can barely afford to pay their teachers.
The city was essentially run by big government Democrats, and the pensions and fat cat jobs put a tremendous burden on the cities budget.
States can’t declare bankruptcy.
So you think that the Federal government can compel local governments to enforce Federal laws? Like, we could just eliminate the IRS and force states to administer the Federalnincome tax?
Looking at in from a national viewpoint, Chicago is in very deep trouble. It is the very definition of Democratic machine politics that is a hotbed of corruption. The sad part is that is that Chicago has a whole lot going for it and it could be saved if there was an actual non-criminal adult in charge. The current juvenile crime rate is an embarrassment to the nation.
Don’t get me wrong, it can be fixed. New York City used to be a crime-ridden shit-hole too but it got cleaned up in a big way. My home state of Louisiana is hopelessly corrupt as is my neighboring state of Rhode Island. Between Illinois, Rhode Island and Louisiana, you have the Holy Trinity of corruption and all of them brag about it. That isn’t admirable - it is disgusting and shameful. You can’t run a state as large as Illinois through corruption even though people have tried since Prohibition and even the television sitcom Good Times that was anything but that.
Get it right. I know Chicago style pizza sucks but that is no reason to have a very large city in the middle of a prairie with people getting killed for no reason every day. Chicago invented the modern skyscraper and has world class features. It should not be that hard to administer effectively. Kick out every single machine politician and get some good ones. Hint - the ones that have been to prison may need a second look.
Well, from the looks of this thread, Illinois is in just as much bad shape as Chicago is, so now the next question for this thread is this- who’s going to fall first? And what would be the short-term (and long-term) effects of either one going bankrupt (or even defaulting), or both at the same time? For me, I currently live in Cook County (not in the city, but near it), I’m worried about the effects it might occur to me and my family.
Then again, who knows? States can’t go bankrupt, and state law in Illinois prevents municipalities (like Chicago) from going bankrupt, so maybe we really don’t need to chat about reform anyways since we can’t go bankrupt. Maybe someone see things better than I do.
This has been happening for decades already.
It was happening when I moved from Chicago to Indiana 20 years ago.
Can’t speak for most of those locations, but I can speak for Indiana.
For starters, the state of Indiana and has been operating in the black even during the Great Recession. While Indiana has its own list of problems its financial house is in order. It’s better able to stand on its own two feet without relying on Federal aid.
You linked to a post that I wrote in 2014. Did you read my post? If so, you would have seen this:
So I provided a pile of evidence that the economy in Illinois (and Chicago in particular) was already a total mess then. Thus to blame Rauner for it being a mess is ridiculous.
Let’s put it simply. Both Chicago and Illinois are heading towards a financial cliff, which no one can dispute. Chicago will go bankrupt, maybe within the decade. Illinois, as you have told us, can’t go bankrupt, but it can certainly run out of money, and soon will, or maybe it already has. Rauner has a solution for Illinois: spend less money. Or in other words he follows the old saying, “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.” You say that you don’t like Rauner’s approach. Well then, what’s your solution to the situation?
Yeah but…
In short, in a list of 50 states sorted from the most federally dependent (1) to the least (50), Indiana is 10…Illinois is 47 for the residents and 23 and 41 respectively for the reliance of state government on federal dollars.
Chicago and Illinois are a mess, no doubt, but they don’t take a lot from the feds.
Through the use of Tax & Spend for common defense and general welfare? Yes I do.
Under Governor Scott Walker (and not his Democrat predecessor, Doyle) pensions paid by the State of Wisconsin are fully funded. Do some research before you spew casual left-wing BS.
Looks like that covers Doyle from the beginning of his term.
ETA:Pg 50 in the PDF
Please don’t quote Politifact at me - they are incredibally biased toward the left-wing. Doyle funded pensions by literally stealing from funds set aside for other purposes, like transportation and medicine. Walker fixed this and paid for pensions in a straightforward manner. Politifact is Liar-Fact - a left-wing organization who skews facts to soft-soap the ugliness of Democrat governments and twist anything done by Republicans so that it looks far worse than what it is.
And that is important… why? You imply taking money from the Feds is somehow inherently bad but it isn’t.
The article you link to is very sketchy about what “federal funds” these states are receiving. I’m assuming at least part of what Indiana gets is agricultural subsidies, given how important growing corn is to this state. Apparently, Indiana not only knows how to adhere to a budget, it also knows how to use the system to its own advantage. How is that a problem?
Indiana pays its bills, Illinois doesn’t.
Long-term, the federal government is powerless against Chicago. The geography is just too much in favor of there being a city there. Centuries after our nation eventually falls, and the United States is a long-distant memory, there will still be a thriving concentration of population on the shores of Lake Michigan.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, fifty years from now, Chicago is the biggest city in the country. I would be surprised if, a hundred years from now, it’s not.
Federal funds received usually includes military expenditures and federal employees. But it depends who is counting.
Cite?
Weasel word-“literally”.
Prove Politifact is biased either direction.
Those kind of listings are pretty meaningless, loads of room for interpretation, and a lot of it is simply driven by the fact that higher nominal incomes (with no correction for regional variation in cost of living) pay higher federal taxes. This is what the left wants, generally doesn’t think there’s enough of, so IMO makes it somewhat ironic to present stats of ‘state dependency’ which in significant part just reflect the system they want to have.
Anyway I agree the problem for Chicago and Illinois won’t come mainly from the federal govt cutting off funding it does or is supposed to direct there. It will come if it does from the mismatch between promises to constituencies, particularly public employees, that can’t be met at sustainable local tax rates when people have to the right to move to other localities and states. And while NY (City) had a deep fiscal problem it mainly got over, Chicago really isn’t NY. It doesn’t have comparable ‘crown jewels’ of world city-dom as NY to fall back on. It isn’t Detroit, but closer to Detroit than NY than Chicago fans like to think.
And even in case of Detroit where the Obama admin couldn’t contemplate trying to get an explicit bailout through Congress, the executive was still as friendly as it could be with behind the scenes measures to clear whatever funding it could already give ASAP. It might have helped at the margin a little bit. That won’t happen if the Chicago/Illinois mess comes to a head with the GOP in control of the WH. But the real do or die moment is still probably a ways off.
So much for the 10th Amendment.
You didn’t read the link, did you? Comes straight from the STATE OF WISCONSIN
Department of Employee Trust Funds
Robert J. Conlin
SECRETARY