WHY IS WEALTHY INSIDER BRUCE RAUNER TRYING TO TELL US HE IS A SIMPLE, MIDDLE CLASS OUTSIDER?

12/22/13

Speaking of the Republican primary for governor in Illinois  (See today’s other post, HOW DARE BILL BRADY TAKE RISKS, PUT PEOPLE TO WORK, AND ACTUALLY PUT SOMETHING ON THE PILE?), people have asked me what I think of Bruce Rauner.   Would like him to become our next governor? I don’t know, but probably not.  Why?

First, Mr. Rauner is a very rich man who, in ads that insult people’s intelligence, if such a thing is possible in modern America, pretends not to be rich.   Such chicanery is especially obnoxious to yours truly.   There is nothing wrong with being rich…if one has come about his riches in an honest and forthright manner and remains mindful of the needs of those who have not attained one’s level of riches.   Why should one be ashamed of one’s achievements…unless one is a fraud?

Second, Mr. Rauner is an insider who pretends to be an outsider.   He knows everyone in city government.  He is very close to Rahm Emanuel; Mr. Rauner made Mr. Emanuel rich and, if the press reports are to be believed, the Rauners and the Emanuels vacation together.  (The idea of vacationing with even my best friends is appalling to yours truly, but I digress.)   Before Mr. Emanuel somehow decided that being mayor of Chicago would be a good stepping stone to the job he really wants, Mr. Rauner was close to Mayor Richard M. Daley.  Mr. Rauner has a habit of getting very cozy with people in “public life” who can make him money.   One can see why, especially in this state, one who is an insider would pretend to be an outsider, but does Mr. Rauner expect us to believe such protestations?   Maybe he does, and perhaps with some justification.

Still, I suppose I could support Mr. Rauner if I could be convinced he is a legitimate venture capitalist or private equity maven, or whatever he purports to be.  However, one gets the nagging feeling that Mr. Rauner is just another guy who has made money from his political connections in this most corrupt of states.  For example, his investment business seems to have easy access to public pension money, pools of funds that unconnected people have virtually no shot at.  And one wonders in how many other ways his connections have benefited not only his getting money to invest but also his performance in investing the money.

Maybe everything Mr. Rauner does is due to his diligence, his intelligence, and his wise insights into the markets and the way the economy works.  And maybe I and my libertarian leaning friends will be contributing heavily to Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for president in 2016.  Certainly Mr. Rauner’s connections have a lot to do with his success, and that is to be expected…but how much?  One suspects a great deal; as I said a few paragraphs ago… Why should one be ashamed of one’s achievements…unless one is a fraud?

It matters little, however, what I think of Mr. Rauner.   While I don’t like to make political prediction, it’s hard to see how he won’t get the GOP nomination, if only because of the weak competition he faces.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

HOW DARE BILL BRADY TAKE RISKS, PUT PEOPLE TO WORK, AND ACTUALLY PUT SOMETHING ON THE PILE?

12/22/13

Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 12/22/13’s, page 4) Chicago Tribune reports that State Senator and GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady has been sued twice since 2010 in connection with about $4mm of loans on which his real estate development company has defaulted.

This is old news on which I commented the first time Mr. Brady ran for governor; see my 4/25/10 piece in the Insightful Pontificator entitled “SOME PEOPLE GET THEIR KICKS…STOMPIN’ ON A DREAM…”.   My conclusion has not changed.   If Mr. Brady had spent his life, er, feasting on the public mammary gland, like at least one of his GOP primary opponents and the current governor, he wouldn’t have gotten himself into financial trouble.   But Mr. Brady is a small business man and, like many, if not most, small business people, has had to put his personal assets on the line in order to obtain the financing necessary to pursue his dream, or at least to keep his business operating, building homes and employing people.  He has spent his life contributing to the economic pile that most politicians have spent their lives distributing as if it were somehow their own. 

My hat remains off to Mr. Brady; while I have not yet decided whom I will support in the GOP primary, or in the general election, Mr. Brady is the type of man who should be in public office…temporarily.  NO ONE should be in public office full time, permanently.  But the idea of a citizen legislator, or citizen executive, has become a quaint notion in the era of the professional barnacle on the ship of state.

Perhaps I am being uncharacteristically naive about Mr. Brady; maybe he, like at least one of his GOP opponents, is just another guy making money from his connections but is not as artful at doing so.  See today’s other post, WHY IS WEALTHY INSIDER BRUCE RAUNER TRYING TO TELL US HE IS A SIMPLE, MIDDLE CLASS OUTSIDER?  As the ever insightful H.L. Mencken (probably more than) once said

“All men are frauds.   The only difference between them is that some admit it.” 

No one in public life in the state of Illinois, of course, admits it.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

TAPER TALK, THE FED AND THE FINANCIAL MEDIA: WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY?

12/19/13

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you know that the Fed announced yesterday that “the taper” will begin, i.e., the Fed will cut back its $85 billion per month program of buying longer dated treasuries and mortgage backed securities (“MBS”) by $10 billion per month, with the cutback being split evenly between treasuries and MBS.  Obsequious Ben made a point, however, of “reassuring” the markets that short term rates will remain low for about as long as the eye can see and then some; see today’s other post, THE CAR BUSINESS AND CHEAP MONEY:  “HOW MUCH YA GOTTA PUT DOWN?   HOW MUCH YA GOT IN YOUR POCKET?” for the impact of this “easy money forever” policy on one vital industry.

It’s bad enough that money will stay easy seemingly forever; it’s even worse that this senseless, pointless “taper talk” will continue as long as Ben Bernanke, his successor, and their henchpersons continue to shovel money into the system (now “only” $75 billion per month) at about the same rate Flash Gordon and Doctor Zarkov were forced by Prince Vultan to shovel coal into the ovens of the Flying City of the Hawkmen.   For at least the last few months, there has seemingly been nothing else going on in the world of finance, or the world, for that matter, but a “potential for tapering,” if one gets one’s news from the financial media.  Now, with only a minor retreat on the monetary front from the Bizarro World, this talk of tapering will apparently never cease.

So, tiring of having the financial talking heads speak of nothing but tapering, I fell asleep on the couch the other day watching CNBC and Bloomberg TV, while reading the Wall Street Journal, and lapsed into a dream….

FINANCIAL REPORTER I:   Here with us today is Elon Musk, Chairman, CEO, and founder of Tesla.   Welcome, Mr. Musk.  You company, and its stock, has been one of the year’s major stories.

MUSK:   That’s right.  Our sales are increasing, our nationwide network of superchargers will soon make it possible to traverse the nation without the remotest fear of being stranded, the fires amounted to nothing, and it’s onward and upward.

FINANCIAL REPORTER I:   That’s great, Mr. Musk.  But do you think the Fed will start tapering in December or March?

MUSK:  Huh?

FINANCIAL REPORTER II:   Thanks for asking all the right questions, my esteemed colleague.  I have here with me Alan Mulally, chairman and CEO of Ford Motor Company.   Mr. Mulally, your stock has been on a tear this year.

MULALLY:   That’s right.   While we’ve had to cut back on Focus and Fusion production to keep inventories in line, that is, in reality, good news because now we actually have the flexibility to adjust production.   Sales remain strong, affordability is about as good as it’s ever been.   And our products are continually being updated to remain competitive.   Here we have the brand new Mustang….

FINANCIAL REPORTER II:   But, Mr. Mulally….

MULALLY:   You’re not going to ask me about my going to Microsoft, are you?   Because I’m saying nothing on that topic; I’m here to talk about Ford, whose shareholders I am proud to serve as Chairman….

FINANCIAL REPORTER II:   No, Mr. Mulally.  I wasn’t going to bring up Microsoft at all.  I want to know if the Fed will taper next month.

MULALLY:   How the heck am I supposed to know?

FINANCIAL REPORTER II:   Since Mr. Mulally has nothing of interest to say, let’s go over to our sports reporter with a special guest.

SPORTS REPORTER:   I have with me the uncrowned Heisman Trophy winner, Jordan Lynch from Northern Illinois University, a man who runs, throws, and even catches passes, for big yards, a man who has broken every MAC record that seemingly can be broken, a man who clearly should have won the Heisman Trophy.

LYNCH:   Thanks for the kind words.  But Jameis Winston is a great quarterback and deserved to win the Trophy.  I’ve had a great career at NIU and I look forward to playing QB in the pros.   They said I couldn’t play QB in Division I and I proved them wrong.  They now say I can’t play QB in the pros, and I intend to prove them wrong….

SPORTS REPORTER:   That’s great, Jordan, but I have something that everyone wants your opinion on.   When will the Fed start tapering?

LYNCH:   Who do I look like?   Maria Bartiromo?

SPORTS REPORTER:   Wait, wait.  We have to break in for what, if it’s true, appears to be at least the story of the century.   Now to our world affairs reporter….

WORLD AFFAIRS REPORTER:        We have in the studio Jesus Christ, who apparently just dropped in for a visit.   Mr. Christ, do you have anything you’d like to tell us.

CHRIST:   As a matter of fact I do.   I’m getting pretty sick and tired of the way people are celebrating My birthday.  I’m the Prince of Peace, for My sake, and yet everyone sees fit to commemorate my birth by getting all stressed out in the silly acquisition of material things, the type of stuff I always preached against.  It’s like I’m going to My birthday party and having the guests take turn slapping Me in the face!   You think I like that?   Why can’t we get back to the original point?   Peace on earth, goodwill to men, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s, how many people I fed with seven loaves and two fishes, the leaven of the Pharisees and all those things I was trying to tell you.  Where did everything connected with MY birthday go so horribly wrong?

WORLD AFFAIRS REPORTER:   Yeah, yeah, Mr. Christ.  Wonderful sentiments, I’m sure.  But what our viewers want to know is whether the Fed will taper, by how much, and when.

CHRIST:   I’ll be back…be assured, I’ll be back.

…as Jesus vanishes from the studio.

Blessed, holy, and wonderful Christmas with your families.  Remember the Man on His birthday. 

Hopefully, we’ll talk before the new year breaks, but, if not, prosperous and joyous new year to you and those you love.

THE CAR BUSINESS AND CHEAP MONEY: “HOW MUCH YA GOTTA PUT DOWN? HOW MUCH YA GOT IN YOUR POCKET?”

12/19/13

Ford (F) took the proverbial dump yesterday, falling $1.05, or 6%, to $15.65, and, so far, the carnage continues today.  Most of the drop was attributed to the company’s warnings of problems in Europe and South America along with the weakening yen and the attendant fierce competition in the North American car business.   Ford has already cut back on production of its Focus and Fusion models, so there is doubtless something to the latter argument.   Some analysts piled on and talked of Ford’s “stale” product line, but the same people are currently falling all over themselves lauding GM’s “terrific” product line.  (See my 6/7/13 post, “I BETWHEN YOU BUY THIS CAR YOU GET FREE MAINTENANCE…LOOKS GOOD ON YOU, THOUGH” for an earlier counterargument.)  A Malibu or a Fusion?  A Cruze or a Focus?  While you might make the Ford stale, GM terrific when discussing the pickup truck market or the luxury car market, the former will soon be rectified with the new F-150, leaving the latter the only area in which one could make that argument with a straight face.  GM’s product line is fine, but it’s not terrific; Ford’s remains the better of the two, or at least is far from “stale.”  The lesson here is don’t assume that all Wall Street car analysts know anything about cars.   But I digress.

Who knows what makes a stock go up or down on any given day?   Certainly not the people who make a living telling us why a stock, or stocks, go up or down on any given day.  But since everyone seems to want to get in on this artificially lucrative fun, I may as well chime in, at least partially.

I have been saying for a long time, incorrectly, as it has turned out, unless yesterday is indicative of a trend (See, for example, my 5/23/13 post THE CAR SALES BUBBLE:  “JUST TELLME WHAT YOU WANT AND THEN SIGN THAT LINE AND I’LL HAVE IT BROUGHT DOWN TO YOU IN A HOUR’S TIME”), that the car stocks have gotten way ahead of themselves.  Why?  Because no industry, other than housing, is more dependent on cheap money than the automobile industry.  So the industry has naturally benefited from the force feeding of cheap money that yours truly calls Ben Bernanke’s War on the Elderly.   All this talk of “pent up demand” is largely bullroar; all that pent-up demand would remain pent up if money weren’t so cheap, given that the modern car, with reasonable maintenance, can give hundreds of thousands of miles of reliable and more than satisfactory service.

Two days ago, we received proof of my thesis:  Trans-Union reported that the average car loan currently shows a balance of $16,942, an all time high and only slightly less than I paid for my current car, a 2007 Honda Accord approaching 100,000 miles and still running like the proverbial top.  The average amount “financed” (the somehow respectable term for “borrowed”) on a new car is $26,719, obviously a heck of a lot more than I paid for my current terrific and running like new automobile.

Simply put, it’s cheap money that’s making the car business seem like such a money machine.  If the cheap money somehow gets cut off, the car business is going to head south and rapidly so, especially given the sales numbers put up in the last few years.

Of course, if we are to believe SuperBen and his disciples, and they are half as smart as everyone supposes them to be, maybe we can have cheap money, at least at the short end of the curve, forever, so we can drive cars we otherwise can’t afford in which we can drive our parents to the supermarket so they can buy the cat food Mr. Bernanke’s policies will make the staple of their diets.  The intergenerational transfers that have supposedly enriched our generation are now running in two directions, but, again, I digress.

MARY BARRA AS GM CEO: “YOU’LL BE SWELL! YOU’LL BE GREAT! GONNA HAVE THE WHOLE WORLD ON THE PLATE!”

12/10/13

General Motors (“GM”) announced this morning that Mary Barra, who is currently head of global product development at the General, will succeed Dan Akerson as CEO.

This is terrific news, but not for the reason with which the media have already started to bombard us.   It never ceases to amaze me how those who pride themselves as ardent foes of sexism focus so intently and myopically people’s genders, just as those who pride themselves as ardent foes of racism focus so intently and myopically on people’s races.  But I digress.  Mary Barra is not a great CEO choice because she is a woman; she is a great CEO choice for two primary reasons. 

First, Ms. Barra is GM through and through.  She has worked at the General for 31 years, starting when she was working on her degree in electrical engineering.   Her father worked at Pontiac for 39 years.  Note that the other logical candidate for CEO, GM North America President Mark Reuss, who too would have been an outstanding choice, had a dad who worked at GM.   But while Mr. Reuss’s dad was president of GM, Ms. Barra’s dad was a die maker at Pontiac.  I like that.

Second, Ms. Barra is what we would call a car guy if she were a guy, and I refuse to call her a “car gal,” which I think is more than a tad sexist.  She has been immersed in cars since childhood and has done a great job in product development.   She also has a degree in electrical engineering, which means she knows something beyond the jargon spewing and buck passing that often passes for “management” these days.  

While Dan Akerson did a great job at GM, Alan Mulally has done an even better job at Ford, and both were right for their times, I still suffer from the quaint notion that car companies should be run by car people.  Does leadership by car guys get car companies into trouble on occasion?   Sure, but not always.  And product means something, a great deal, really, especially in the car business.  Without car people in charge, the industry loses something.   But this feeling may arise from my love for the industry and its products, and perhaps a good manager, a real manager, not a malarkey master, can run any type of firm.    What car guy could adequately replace Alan Mulally, should he leave for Microsoft, for instance?

So I, for one, am delighted that Mary Barra will soon be at the helm of General Motors.  Further, I share the sentiment being widely expressed today that Dan Akerson hasn’t received the credit he deserves for his large part in GM’s turnaround.   This lack of recognition has been described as “sad” in the financial media, but “sad” is somehow not the right word.   I am sure that the millions with which Mr. Akerson will leave the General, and the acclaim he will receive over the next few months, will surely serve as sufficient succor.

What is sad, in the proper meaning of the word, is a comment by Mr. Akerson’s predecessor at GM, Ed Whitacre, in the September, 2013 edition of Car & Driver…

“I was chairman at AT&T, then at GM, and I was awful (sic) busy.  I didn’t spend enough time with my kids.  I’m trying to change that now, at least with my grandkids.”

Not getting the acclaim that one deserves for feats in the corporate world is regrettable or unfortunate.   Not being able to spend “enough time” with one’s kids due to the pursuit of those accolades, and desperately trying to change with the next generation what can’t be changed, is genuinely sad.   Thank God for the times He answers your requests with “No.”   But I digress.

DETROIT BANKRUPTCY: “IT’S NOT TINSEL TOWN; IT’S NOT CHI-TOWN…” HMM….

12/3/13

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Steven Rhodes ruled today that Detroit could indeed file for protection under Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code.    Since I advised bankruptcy for the state of Illinois in yesterday’s post (SOLVING ILLINOIS’ PENSION MALADY:  WHY, ONE CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON THE WORD OF OUR LEGISLATURE!, 12/2/13), it probably behooves me to make a few comments on the Detroit situation, even though the decision was immediately appealed and may, though probably won’t, be overturned.

First, while the lawyers will have to sort this out, and doubtless arguments will be made to the contrary, it looks like all unsecured creditors, be they bondholders, employee pension funds, contractors, or anybody else, have the same priority in bankruptcy.   Regardless of the law, however, it would seem that some sort of special accommodation has to be made for employee pension claims.   Since the pensioners have no access to social security, their pensions are their only means of livelihood; to deprive them of their pensions would be to throw them out in the street.  We can’t do that.  Judge Rhodes knows that. Everyone knows that.

So while Judge Rhodes said that the court could cut future pension payments, he is not saying, as some people would have you believe, that the courts should, or even could, eliminate those payments.  Some, perhaps all, pensioners will see their payments cut; one suspects none will see them eliminated.  Some clever formula will have to be derived under which the most highly paid pensioners take some cuts, perhaps some big cuts, but those at the bottom take few, if any, cuts.   Even under the plan working its way through the Illinois legislature as I write this, a plan that was, of course, formulated away from the bankruptcy court, the people at the bottom of the pension ladder will be taken care of, as they should be.

Second, an argument is being made, and doubtless will be continued, that any substantial hair cut for bondholders will send a chill throughout the municipal bond market, that all municipal bond issuers will pay higher rates if Detroit bondholders are made to suffer.

I don’t know whether such damage will be done to the muni bond markets if the supposedly big boys who hold Detroit bonds are made to feel some pain.  But I do know whether such damage should be done…of course it shouldn’t!   If a potential investor cannot distinguish between the credit of Detroit and, say, Dallas, s/he has no business owning municipal bonds, plain and simple.  Having to suffer for buying bonds of a lousy credit is part of the normal workings of the market place.  Those who take such risks cannot cry innocence when their big, risky bets don’t work out.   You pays your money, you takes your chances…Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without hell…or any other trite expressions come immediately to mind.   Bondholders took the risk and thought they would be paid to do so.  They were wrong.   They should feel the pain.  That’s capitalism.  And that’s life.

Third, Judge Rhodes determined that Detroit was insolvent before its bankruptcy filing in the summer; that was the major reason that he allowed the bankruptcy to proceed.  By those standards, it looks like neither Illinois nor Chicago is an obvious candidate for bankruptcy because one could argue that neither is insolvent.   Or maybe not.   Contractors who do business with the state are waiting a long, long time to be paid.  Both state and city pension plans are severely underfunded.   And both the city and the state are effectively borrowing to pay operating expenses.  One could conceivably make the argument that both Chicago and Illinois are insolvent, but it would be a stretch.   It will only be a matter of time, however, before the practical, if not legal, bankruptcy of both becomes obvious.  By then, of course, the hole will be much deeper and the pain more intense, but what do the politicians care?

I prescribed bankruptcy for Illinois yesterday.  Last week (“OKLAHOMA VS. ILLINOIS”:  COMMENTS FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT ILLINOIS POLITICS), I made the case that, contrary to the self-assured but fact denying chest thumpers in these parts, Chicago is Detroit in many ways.   Don’t think that I’m the only one thinking about Chicago and Illinois in the context of bankruptcy and Detroit.   Investors, taxpayers, state officials (in their more candid, perhaps very private, moments), and people who make decisions regarding where to locate businesses do not think a municipal bankruptcy in the Land of Lincoln is such a laughable proposition.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

SOLVING ILLINOIS’ PENSION MALADY: WHY, ONE CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON THE WORD OF OUR LEGISLATURE!

12/2/13

The four leaders of the Illinois legislature have come up with a deal to solve the state’s public pension deal crisis.  Perhaps I should clarify here; the one leader of the Illinois legislature and the other three poseurs have come up with a deal to solve the state’s public pension crisis. The plan will be voted on this week, after the filing deadline for the 2014 primary has safely passed so that legislators, mostly but not exclusively Democrats, who curry the favor of the public employee unions, can vote for the necessary legislation without fear of retribution in the primaries.

So have yours truly and others who are convinced that our once great state’s $100 billion plus unfunded pension liability will sink us as surely as the iceberg sunk the Titanic, been proven wrong?   Won’t this bill, as its champions argue, save the state $160 billion over the next half century or so and result in the pension plans’ being fully funded by 2044?  The answer to both questions is a resounding “No.”

Not that this isn’t a decent bill.   Ending the nonsensically generous 3% compounded increase in pensioners’ entire pension payment while protecting those at or near the bottom of the pension ladder makes eminent sense.  So does increasing the retirement age, though this provision would have been better had it not been limited to those under 45.  Taking one or more COLA adjustment “holidays” is also fiscally sound.   Offering the option of a defined contribution plan for some state employees could have ultimately solved the entire problem…if it weren’t voluntary and necessarily limited to 5% of employees due to the systems’ needing those contributions to stay afloat…or, more properly, to continue slowing the systems’ descent to the bottom.  The 1% reduction in the required contributions by employees, which seems counterproductive at first glance, might, but only might, help the plan pass Constitutional muster.  All these are great ideas, and Representative Elaine Nekritz and others who worked so hard on this plan, and even Speaker Mike Madigan, the only guy that matters, who pledges to push this plan, deserve some praise for these attractive plan features.

The whole plan falls apart, however, with what is perhaps its most widely touted feature, i.e., the supposedly legally enforceable requirement that the state make supplemental payments to shore up the plan.  The payments amount to $364 million in FY 2019 and then $1 billion each year thereafter until 2045.

What do you suppose the odds are that the state will actually come up with the spondulicks when the time comes to write these checks?   Our distinguished public servants in Springfield (and Chicago, but that’s another matter) have made such pledges before only to break them when the time came to fork over the dough.  Why should it be any different this time?   Oh, yes, we are told, under provisions of this plan, the state’s promise to make those supplemental payments is legally enforceable; the unions can go to court to compel payment.  But our esteemed legislators can, under terms of the plan, declare a “crisis” and decide to forgo or reduce the payment.   What do you suppose the odds are that a “crisis” will surely arise when the chips are down and our modern day versions of Pericles decide they’d rather spend the money on something more directly related to keeping their jobs?

But suppose that last question is more than rhetorical and our selfless, dedicated legislators decide not to do their typical dodge and actually come up with the money the plan demands?   Where will they get the money?   Does the state have an extra $1 billion here and there lying around every year?  Will these guys cut the programs that they feel are so vital and that, doubtless as a surprise by-product, help prolong the lifelong sinecures they call careers?  Will the populace stand for higher taxes and, if they do, what will such higher taxes do to our already miserable business climate?  

One more point.   The legislators are telling us that the reason they are supposedly so hell bent on fixing this one of the many problems that they have created is because funding pensions will “crowd out other functions of government.”   Translating, this means that funding pensions will result in our public servants’ being unable to spend our money on constituents and contributors who will keep them on the public payroll and, not for nothing, eligible for generous public pensions.   So even if this plan somehow works and the Land of Lincoln avoids fiscal doom wrought of pension underfunding, it will surely run aground, perhaps a few years later than currently scheduled, due to the spending the legislators intend to do with the “savings” generated by the pension deal.  

In other words, the legislature and the governor will either spend the money funding pensions or spend the money on something else.   This is largely a moot point, however, because we are discussing spending money the state doesn’t have and can’t possibly generate because the level of taxation necessary to come up the money in question would force businesses and people out of the state and hence be self-defeating.

Does this mean I oppose the bill?  By no means.  While substituting one meant to be broken promise with another meant to be broken promise seems silly, this plan ought to be passed because of its aforementioned salubrious provisions.   They may delay doom for a number of years.

But make no mistake; this state of Illinois is doomed and it is too late at this point to change that.   The only feasible long run solution would be to file bankruptcy, if such a thing is possible, and do so right away before the hole gets deeper.  But that isn’t going to happen.  And even if we were to face reality by declaring the obvious, one can bet that the legislature would take the opportunity presented by a clean fiscal slate to spend us back into bankruptcy within a very short time period.  And, perhaps saddest of all, the voters in the Land of Lincoln would continue to vote for the pack of poltroons and popinjays that has gotten us into this pickle…as we always have in the past.

Merry Christmas.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics.