Illinois on the Fiscal Brink

 

shutterstock_203635339Illinois — a state that has long embraced progressive fiscal policies — has moved one step closer to the financial abyss. Last week, Moody’s Investors Service issued the jarring announcement that it was downgrading Illinois’s general obligations bonds to Baa2 from Baa1, which is just two levels above junk bond status. The next day, Standard & Poor’s followed suit by lowering its rating to BBB+, or three levels above junk bond status. In one important sense, this is really not news at all, since Illinois had 13 bond downgrades under its previous governor, Patrick Quinn, even though it passed a temporary tax increase that collected an additional $31 billion in revenues between 2011 and 2015, 90 percent of which was funneled into pension payments for public employees.

The reason Illinois’s credit ratings have declined is that the state has been unable to live within its means. Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution. The latest credit downgrade stemmed from the inability of key players in the state to agree on any budget at all for the coming year. It is therefore no surprise that Moody’s observes: “The rating downgrade reflects continuing budget imbalance due to political gridlock that for more than a year has kept Illinois from addressing revenue lost due to income tax cuts that took effect in January 2015.” This remark reflects the bias of rating agencies to worry more about the condition of government balance sheets than the overall health of the state economy. Reduced expenditures are another, superior way to bring a budget into balance, which is necessary, for — as Moody’s ruefully notes — Illinois is running a structural budget gap of about 15 percent of its general fund expenditures.

The backstory is somewhat more complicated. In January 2015, when Bruce Rauner, who had amassed a tidy fortune in private equity, was elected governor, the temporary Illinois tax increase to a flat 5 percent reverted to its former rate of 3.75 percent. Many Democrats, led by the formidable Michael Madigan — Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives for 31 of the last 33 years — wanted to reverse those tax cuts and replace the Illinois constitutionally mandated flat tax with a progressive tax in order to cut the deficit. Without any deliberation, the Illinois House passed an unbalanced budget with revenues under $33 billion and expenditures at close to $40 billion — a $7 billion deficit. Rauner did not have to exercise his veto threat because the budget was rejected by the Illinois Senate, even with its large Democratic majority. But a few days ago, Rauner did exercise his veto of a stop-gap educational measure that would appropriate $4 billion for education and human services, which he chastised as an “unfunded, empty promise.”

This clash of wills is no surprise, because Rauner’s worldview is the opposite of Madigan’s. The governor has been steadfast in his belief that raising taxes is throwing money down a sinkhole, unless and until someone introduces structural reforms to pull Illinois back from the brink, most notably in labor markets. The state is known for the extensive benefits that it lavishes on public employees, most of whom are unionized. It has generous workers’ compensation laws, high property taxes, a devastating public pension shortfall for retirees, and no right-to-work law, which all make the cost of doing business in Illinois among the highest in the nation. Madigan wants to postpone the reform discussions until the budget is passed. Rauner knows that if he allows that to happen, he will lose all leverage on his reform.

This impasse also makes the state highly vulnerable to competition from other states, including its immediate neighbors like Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin — not to mention states like Texas and Tennessee that have better business climates. Indeed, it is just this awareness that explains why a Democratic state like Illinois elected a Republican governor, while keeping its Democratic legislators. Voters in states like Illinois have two competing desires. On the one hand, they want to get the largest share of the state pie of goodies for their district, which means keeping in office incumbent members of the state House and Senate. Whatever people in other districts might think, Madigan’s base in the 13th ward near Midway Airport is not likely to vote him out of office any time soon. But at the same time, they would like to have a governor who is willing to rein in the excessive demands of the legislature. Hence the vote for Rauner in 2015, and giving him an uneasy mandate to reduce the size of the overall pie from which they crave the largest slice.

These conflicting forces have precipitated a pitched ideological debate. When the latest bond downgrades were announced, the blame game began, with each party denouncing the obstinate behavior of the other side for leading to the current impasse. Noted leaders like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, whose city bonds achieved junk status long ago, bellowed that Rauner is “auditioning to be Donald Trump’s running mate.” A low blow. The difficulties that are faced in Illinois are endemic to all governments—federal, state, and local—that operate on progressive principles in both the long and the short run.

According to the progressive playbook, politicians should disrupt the operation of competitive markets to supply hefty short-term benefits to their friends and political allies. Then, they should have the state borrow money to put off paying the tab. In Illinois, the dam broke on public employee pensions back in 1994 when the ubiquitous Madigan and then-Republican governor Jim Edgar struck a deal which back-loaded funding for state pension plans, as the Illinois Policy Institute reports. Their compromise plan called for smallish contributions in the early years for pensions that would come due only years later — that is, now. The thought was that someone else could pick up the pieces in the next period.

But it never quite works out that way. Today, the state’s unfunded pension liabilities have increased to nearly $100 billion with no relief in sight. The situation becomes only worse considering that the 1970 Illinois Constitution contains an explicit provision under which every pension obligation “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired,” which this past March led to striking down state legislation to modify the annuity benefits for current and future workers, without their consent.

The circumstances thus impose an intolerable legal bind on top of the state’s political woes. Normally, the enforcement of public contracts is a good thing, for it is the only way to fund long-term, capital improvements, and to give ordinary people a degree of certainty in planning for the future. That principle applies with full force to contracts entered into in private competitive markets, free of any subsidies or preferences by the state. But the political economy of public employment shows the danger of extending this principle uncritically to public contracts, where the same strong political actors are on both sides of the bargaining table simultaneously. Thus it is an open secret that state legislatures are all too willing to enter into one-sided contracts that give public employees wages and benefits far higher than those that are received by workers in the private sector. The willingness of these union forces to work ceaselessly and effectively to get these benefits is only increased by their knowledge that the benefits in question are fully vested the moment the ink is dried on the page.

The defect of this system is apparent. At no point does anyone have a chance to ask the question appropriate to all cases of self-dealing, which is whether the government has received fair value for the obligations that it incurs. That can be done whenever the state obtains goods and services from a competitive market in which, like private firms, it can play one potential vendor off against another. But it cannot do this whenever it sets up monopoly unions with which it then obligates itself to deal.

At this point, it seems clear that the current impasse in Illinois represents a deeper failing that will be well-nigh impossible to reverse in the current populist political climate. One object of sound governance is to make sure that each public expenditure brings to the citizens of the state benefits greater than the costs that they are required to bear. Putting that ideal into practice, however, is far more difficult than it first appears. Traditional constitutional efforts have concentrated on limiting the way in which the government exerts its coercive efforts on citizens, chiefly through taxation and regulation. These protections have been vastly whittled down today, but at their best they sought to preserve competitive institutions from the ravages of factional influence.

Unfortunately, these same constitutions contain few if any provisions that explicitly deal with the ever-expanding importance of the distribution of public benefits in the form of services, licenses, permits and contracts. In order to deal with this onslaught of public “givings,” it becomes necessary to invoke the inverse of the takings clause, which provides “nor shall public property be given to private parties without just compensation.” That approach was incorporated into the Supreme Court’s well-known decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892), in connection with transfers of state property to public use. But that doctrine cannot be so limited in its application. It must also apply to labor contracts that provide any group monopoly rents for services that could have been rendered more cheaply and effectively in competitive markets.

The clear implication of the analysis is striking. As a matter of first principles, it is imperative that no public union should ever be allowed to negotiate adversely to the state. Once public unions are recognized, financial ruin is not inevitable for all governments at all level. But even the risk is too high to tolerate, given that the union structure offers no state-wide benefits to offset the huge long-term downside. In insisting on this point, it is important to realize that public unions are far more potent than private ones for two reasons. First, public employers are more vulnerable to political pressures than private ones who have to answer to shareholders, not voters. Second, the union strike threat is more credible against public employers, for the shut down of the firm means the end of police, prison, and other services that are difficult to outsource to India or anywhere else. It was for these reasons that the original national labor relations statute exempted public employees. It is highly unlikely the decision to allow public unions will be reversed until we see the de facto bankruptcy of state and local governments, for which Illinois may well turn out to be the first of many.

© 2016 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University

Published in Economics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 26 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Richard Epstein: Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution.

    Good example to keep in mind for those who think a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do anything useful.

    • #1
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Why can’t the U.S. taxpayers just provide a bailout for Illinois like they’re providing for Puerto Rico?  Isn’t that the whole point of the Puerto Rico bailout — to set the stage for bailouts for cases like this one?

    Actually, I don’t know that there is a Puerto Rico bailout, but the weasel-worded articles I’ve read on the subject suggest that there is.  I read one in today’s WSJ that said the latest congressional legislation provides no federal funds. Weasel words. It did not say that it provided no federal loan guarantees.

    • #2
  3. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    • #3
  4. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Richard,

    The handwriting was on the wall when the Chicago teachers union got what they wanted. That super smart super tough mayor Rahm Emanuel wasn’t going to give an inch. The Chicago teachers had a terrible rating nationwide but were already among the highest paid. They refused any performance review. The cost of living increase was at zero.

    Then big bad Rahm caved and gave them their 18% pay raise. Rotten leadership runs the rotten public workers and produces more rot.

    Another one bites the dust.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
  5. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    Most of the beneficiaries of state budget largesse would just tell you “If we’d only tax the rich, everything would be fine”.

    Illinois, Puerto Rico, California… these places have to be allowed to collapse if anything will ever change. But you can bet your bottom dollar (as little as it’s worth) that, after wringing of hands and threatening them and swearing not to bail them out… in the end, Congress will indeed bail them out. See 2008… the car companies, state pensions, banks, etc,  as a model for what’s coming.

    • #5
  6. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Another reason to elect a Republican President.  Progressive Clinton will just have taxpayers–including those who are citizens of broke New York and nearly bankrupt California as well as relatively flush Texas and Utah–pay for Illinois’ irresponsibility.

    Eric Hines

    • #6
  7. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Douglas:

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    Most of the beneficiaries of state budget largesse would just tell you “If we’d only tax the rich, everything would be fine”.

    Illinois, Puerto Rico, California… these places have to be allowed to collapse if anything will ever change. But you can bet your bottom dollar (as little as it’s worth) that, after wringing of hands and threatening them and swearing not to bail them out… in the end, Congress will indeed bail them out. See 2008… the car companies, state pensions, banks, etc, as a model for what’s coming.

    But sooner or later the money will run out.

    If something can’t go on forever, it won’t”

    Irving Kristol

    • #7
  8. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    The Reticulator:Actually, I don’t know that there is a Puerto Rico bailout, but the weasel-worded articles I’ve read on the subject suggest that there is. I read one in today’s WSJ that said the latest congressional legislation provides no federal funds. Weasel words. It did not say that it provided no federal loan guarantees.

    I don’t see a literal bailout in the deal, but I’m not the expert.  There is debt restructuring (which they are legally not allowed to do themselves).  I don’t see any funds heading to Puerto Rico.

    • #8
  9. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The Reticulator:

    Richard Epstein: Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution.

    Good example to keep in mind for those who think a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do anything useful.

    Or any admendment.  In the end admendments in constitutions are just words on paper and mean nothing without the will and the power to enforce them.

    • #9
  10. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    This is the future of most states and big cities.  These  systems  cannot self correct.  The solutions are longer term and general, the rip off is immediate and big.   The fix must be imposed from outside yet the Federal government as the progenitor, is an essential part of the problem.

    • #10
  11. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Fake John/Jane Galt:

    The Reticulator:

    Richard Epstein: Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution.

    Good example to keep in mind for those who think a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do anything useful.

    Or any admendment. In the end admendments in constitutions are just words on paper and mean nothing without the will and the power to enforce them.

    This is an important point. Our political culture is sick. That is what has to be fixed.

    • #11
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Frank Soto:

    The Reticulator:Actually, I don’t know that there is a Puerto Rico bailout, but the weasel-worded articles I’ve read on the subject suggest that there is. I read one in today’s WSJ that said the latest congressional legislation provides no federal funds. Weasel words. It did not say that it provided no federal loan guarantees.

    I don’t see a literal bailout in the deal, but I’m not the expert. There is debt restructuring (which they are legally not allowed to do themselves). I don’t see any funds heading to Puerto Rico.

    But are there federal guarantees on the restructured loans? That’s how these bailouts often work.

    • #12
  13. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    The Reticulator:

    Frank Soto:

    The Reticulator:Actually, I don’t know that there is a Puerto Rico bailout, but the weasel-worded articles I’ve read on the subject suggest that there is. I read one in today’s WSJ that said the latest congressional legislation provides no federal funds. Weasel words. It did not say that it provided no federal loan guarantees.

    I don’t see a literal bailout in the deal, but I’m not the expert. There is debt restructuring (which they are legally not allowed to do themselves). I don’t see any funds heading to Puerto Rico.

    But are there federal guarantees on the restructured loans? That’s how these bailouts often work.

    I still can’t be sure.  I know that part of this is that the treasury department will be holding a bunch of Puerto Rico’s tax revenue instead of the Puerto Rican government, because that way they can securitize it and get better ratings.

    The last version of the deal I saw also had a minimum wage decrease on the island, and a few structural reforms to their pension system.

    • #13
  14. Roberto Inactive
    Roberto
    @Roberto

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    In California I would say largely oblivious. You can pin most down in a general sense that sometime in the future there will be problems but it can all be dealt with down the road by “people who already have enough money” being made to “pay their fair share”.

    Keep in mind these are voters who passed a proposition to build a billion dollar high-speed rail network which will not be high-speed rail and which will never be completed. Long term thinking is not going on here.

    • #14
  15. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    Kind of the same way they comprehend that someday the earth will end in fire, or maybe ice. Or something like that. But it’s really too much trouble to think about, besides the precinct captain makes sure I get a ham at Christmas and the public schools provide baby sitting so no worries.

    It’s a great big “skit” sandwich, and we are all going to have to take a bite. It is simply untenable (to paraphrase Victor Davis Hanson) that a school teacher who lives at 222 Elm St. can retire at the age of 55 with fully paid Cadillac medical plan and a 3% per year COLA, while the private sector worker who lives at 224 Elm St. has to work until she drops dead to pay the taxes. Everybody:  public sector employees, social services, state vendors, municipalities, school districts, etc. are going to have to do with less. Taxpayers are going to have to pay more.

    Rauner is willing to compromise on tax hikes, but first he insists on real reform. Otherwise it’ll just be shoveling $100 bills into a bonfire.

    I tell my kids “don’t come back to Illinois.” I have a really good job but when that comes to an end in 7-10 years when I retire, my wife and I are leaving the state.

    By the way, they picked the wrong design for the reverse of the Illinois quarter. States were to have something emblematic of the state, and the picture should have been one hand passing an envelope stuffed with cash to another hand under a table, surmounting the motto “Where’s Mine?”

    • #15
  16. Functionary Coolidge
    Functionary
    @Functionary

    billy:

    Douglas:

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    Most of the beneficiaries of state budget largesse would just tell you “If we’d only tax the rich, everything would be fine”.

    Illinois, Puerto Rico, California… these places have to be allowed to collapse if anything will ever change. But you can bet your bottom dollar (as little as it’s worth) that, after wringing of hands and threatening them and swearing not to bail them out… in the end, Congress will indeed bail them out. See 2008… the car companies, state pensions, banks, etc, as a model for what’s coming.

    But sooner or later the money will run out.

    If something can’t go on forever, it won’t”

    Irving Kristol

    “Stein was the formulator of “Herbert Stein’s Law,” which he expressed as “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,” by which he meant that if a trend (balance of payments deficits in his example) cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord.[4] It is often rephrased as: “Trends that can’t continue, won’t.”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein

    • #16
  17. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Functionary:

    billy:

    Douglas:

    Most of the beneficiaries of state budget largesse would just tell you “If we’d only tax the rich, everything would be fine”.

    Illinois, Puerto Rico, California… these places have to be allowed to collapse if anything will ever change. But you can bet your bottom dollar (as little as it’s worth) that, after wringing of hands and threatening them and swearing not to bail them out… in the end, Congress will indeed bail them out. See 2008… the car companies, state pensions, banks, etc, as a model for what’s coming.

    But sooner or later the money will run out.

    If something can’t go on forever, it won’t”

    Irving Kristol

    “Stein was the formulator of “Herbert Stein’s Law,” which he expressed as “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop,” by which he meant that if a trend (balance of payments deficits in his example) cannot go on forever, there is no need for action or a program to make it stop, much less to make it stop immediately; it will stop of its own accord.[4] It is often rephrased as: “Trends that can’t continue, won’t.”” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein

    Thanks for the correction. I don’t know why I remembered it as coming from Kristol instead of Stein. Conservatives of the 70’s who sired conservative writers are easily mixed up I guess.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Frank Soto:

    The Reticulator:

    Frank Soto:

    The Reticulator:Actually, I don’t know that there is a Puerto Rico bailout, but the weasel-worded articles I’ve read on the subject suggest that there is. I read one in today’s WSJ that said the latest congressional legislation provides no federal funds. Weasel words. It did not say that it provided no federal loan guarantees.

    I don’t see a literal bailout in the deal, but I’m not the expert. There is debt restructuring (which they are legally not allowed to do themselves). I don’t see any funds heading to Puerto Rico.

    But are there federal guarantees on the restructured loans? That’s how these bailouts often work.

    I still can’t be sure. I know that part of this is that the treasury department will be holding a bunch of Puerto Rico’s tax revenue instead of the Puerto Rican government, because that way they can securitize it and get better ratings.

    The last version of the deal I saw also had a minimum wage decrease on the island, and a few structural reforms to their pension system.

    That’s what I was afraid of.  Same old bailouts, just like in Greece, and the incentive to do any actual reforms (as opposed to window dressing) is removed.

    • #18
  19. CuriousKevmo Inactive
    CuriousKevmo
    @CuriousKevmo

    billy:Question for those Riccocheti living in states like California and Illinois that are in such dire financial straits: Are most people aware of how serious the situation has become?

    Are your neighbors, coworkers, etc. comprehending that bankruptcy is a case of not if, but when?

    Most assuredly not!  In fact, quite the contrary, what I generally here these days — granted, I’m in SF — is that Governor Moonbeam is a rock star that turned a horrible deficit created by awful Republican governors into a surplus.

    The level of cognitive dissonance in these people beggars belief.

    • #19
  20. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    The Reticulator:

    Richard Epstein: Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution.

    Good example to keep in mind for those who think a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do anything useful.

    That is why it needs a check. My idea is if a simple majority of state legislators declared a federal budget is not balanced  no one is required to pay their taxes nor can they be prosecuted for not paying taxes oh and no back pay is required. Trust me if the government suddenly losses it ability from another elected branch to collect taxes  they would make sure they had a balanced budget. Its all about adding a few more checks. The modern break down of the constitution is primarily  because the checks and balances have broken down partly because liberals have gotten smart about getting around them.

    • #20
  21. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    So Illinois has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget  that routinely is ignored, but has a constitutional requirement that public pensions are inviolate and that gets vigorously enforced. Got it.

    • #21
  22. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Kozak:So Illinois has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget that routinely is ignored, but has a constitutional requirement that public pensions are inviolate and that gets vigorously enforced. Got it.

    That’s what happens when your Supreme Court Politicians Justices are elected.

    Eric Hines

    • #22
  23. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Brian Clendinen:

    The Reticulator:

    Richard Epstein: Even with its tax increases, Illinois has not had a balanced budget since 2001, though one is required under its Constitution.

    Good example to keep in mind for those who think a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution can do anything useful.

    That is why it needs a check. My idea is if a simple majority of state legislators declared a federal budget is not balanced no one is required to pay their taxes nor can they be prosecuted for not paying taxes oh and no back pay is required. Trust me if the government suddenly losses it ability from another elected branch to collect taxes they would make sure they had a balanced budget. Its all about adding a few more checks. The modern break down of the constitution is primarily because the checks and balances have broken down partly because liberals have gotten smart about getting around them.

    Who would enforce it? Who would decide when a budget is balanced or not?  Who would decide whether the budget has anything to do with actual income or outlays?

    • #23
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Eric Hines:

    Kozak:So Illinois has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget that routinely is ignored, but has a constitutional requirement that public pensions are inviolate and that gets vigorously enforced. Got it.

    That’s what happens when your Supreme Court Politicians Justices are elected.

    Eric Hines

    Elected or appointed.  It works either way.

    • #24
  25. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    The Reticulator:

    Eric Hines:

    Kozak:So Illinois has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget that routinely is ignored, but has a constitutional requirement that public pensions are inviolate and that gets vigorously enforced. Got it.

    That’s what happens when your Supreme Court Politicians Justices are elected.

    Eric Hines

    Elected or appointed. It works either way.

    Sure.  They’re men, not angels.  But with appointments for significant duration (lifetime, or like Wisconsin’s mandatory retirement at an age) rather than frequent, periodic (re)elections, they’re less exposed to the vagaries of political winds.

    That makes the devolution slower.

    Eric Hines

    • #25
  26. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Eric Hines:

    The Reticulator:

    Eric Hines:

    Kozak:So Illinois has a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget that routinely is ignored, but has a constitutional requirement that public pensions are inviolate and that gets vigorously enforced. Got it.

    That’s what happens when your Supreme Court Politicians Justices are elected.

    Eric Hines

    Elected or appointed. It works either way.

    Sure. They’re men, not angels. But with appointments for significant duration (lifetime, or like Wisconsin’s mandatory retirement at an age) rather than frequent, periodic (re)elections, they’re less exposed to the vagaries of political winds.

    That makes the devolution slower.

    Eric Hines

    There are advantages and disadvantages to both.  I’ve long thought it best for the levels of the court systems to alternate between elected and appointed judges, good-cop and bad-cop style.

    • #26
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.