"why isn’t there more incentive for you to be the brave truth-teller saying, “Chicago has been putting off its responsibilities for too long and I’m not going to put up with it any more”?"\
This seems optimistic to me: the BBB has convinced me that there are currently zero responsible political parties and almost zero incentives for anyone to be responsible. Unions are happy with fat pensions because they can do net-present-value accounting and pitch that to high-context (or just high-trust) members, politicians are happy to punt on bills, and voters aren't willing and able to demand decent current accounting. I'm much more optimistic about the idea discussed later, of reasonable accounting standards imposed by the federal government to sidestep the political economy problem.
It's incredibly tough to see how a federal bailout of Chicago would play well nationally, even with a Democrat in the WH. Illinois is not a swing state, so it's not like their votes will be lost in the next election.
In a more general sense, why should Chicago be bailed out? Are there a million other silly expenditures in state (and the federal government)? Of course. Will a bailout still encourage bad behavior? Absolutely.
People need to get what they vote for, good and bad. When you remove any maluses from a choice and provide only the bonuses, a system will shift to meet the new parameters. This new example would only accelerate our rapidly deteriorating financial priorities on the national level.
Folks interested in Chicago should check out A City That Works!
https://citythatworks.substack.com/
Better than Austin Berg!
"why isn’t there more incentive for you to be the brave truth-teller saying, “Chicago has been putting off its responsibilities for too long and I’m not going to put up with it any more”?"\
This seems optimistic to me: the BBB has convinced me that there are currently zero responsible political parties and almost zero incentives for anyone to be responsible. Unions are happy with fat pensions because they can do net-present-value accounting and pitch that to high-context (or just high-trust) members, politicians are happy to punt on bills, and voters aren't willing and able to demand decent current accounting. I'm much more optimistic about the idea discussed later, of reasonable accounting standards imposed by the federal government to sidestep the political economy problem.
It's incredibly tough to see how a federal bailout of Chicago would play well nationally, even with a Democrat in the WH. Illinois is not a swing state, so it's not like their votes will be lost in the next election.
In a more general sense, why should Chicago be bailed out? Are there a million other silly expenditures in state (and the federal government)? Of course. Will a bailout still encourage bad behavior? Absolutely.
People need to get what they vote for, good and bad. When you remove any maluses from a choice and provide only the bonuses, a system will shift to meet the new parameters. This new example would only accelerate our rapidly deteriorating financial priorities on the national level.