Gingrich Pushing Bill To Allow States To Declare Bankruptcy

[dross]

This doesn't appear to be bankruptcy as we know it. What it seems to be talking about is a way for states to deal with a pension system that was created many years before and was never workable, but now the bill is due and there's no way to to pay it. This is a great trick of politicians. Create some "great" program today that benefits your voters, but the bill becomes due many years from now when you're out of office or dead. Let the politicians of the future figure out how to pay for the goodies that get you elected now.

In Colorado, our government workers have a very plush retirement system called PERA. They don't pay into SS, they pay into PERA, and under some circumstances when they retire they can make as much as they were making when they worked full time.

The problem is that when times were good in the nineties, rather than pad their fund for a rainy day, they increased benefits. The law is set up so that benefits can't be decreased, and any shortages in the fund must be made up by taxpayers.

Now that their fund is down because of the loss of investment capital everyone has suffered, the taxpayers must make up the difference. It's not sustainable and eventually will break the state financially.

California is already in a severe crisis due to this kind of thing as well as other poor choices.

I think this bankruptcy proposal is to allow states a way to get out of these obligations that were made foolishly in years past.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

if each state is paying for every other state,,,why not get rid of the states alltogether???

THIS is what we need to worry about. There will only need to be 3 states in the NAU (North American Union) Canaduh, Mexican't and the USAin't. The currency exchange is beginning to balance out in favor of this too, I just noticed yesterday that US and Canadian dollars are trading even. There is no left or right, they share the same agenda and only make opposing claims to keep us bickering amongst each other while they work towards the NAU. I've been telling people this for YEARS only to be told how stupid I am and how my foil hat is too tight. Is it starting to come together for ya yet?.

 

[Pocketman]

Why anyone pays attention to that has been political hypocrit (Newt) is beyond me. More to the subject, states will more likely increase taxes to cover the expenses. As usual, the taxpayers will take the hit and the leadership will avoid making difficult decisions.

 

[machete]

That comes from the most liberal newspaper in the country. (Maybe second to the New York Times) Would not trust anything that is printed in that rag. BTW it was talking about Fed taxes not state. Those 3 states spending is worst in the country. Has nothing to do with what was in the article.

thats no better than people no believing fox news just because they like republicans...

i thought the article made sense...

all the money gets made in the blue states,,,except for texas and florida,,,and the money making areas of texas are all solid blue,,,same for florida,,,and same for georgia...

if you live out in the middle of nowhere,,,youre going to be a tax sucker,,,for the simple fact that nobodys around to contribute to your road---your sewer pipe---your mail---or anything else... city people are funding country people---fact... city people are blue---fact

 

[machete]

THIS is what we need to worry about. There will only need to be 3 states in the NAU (North American Union) Canaduh, Mexican't and the USAin't. The currency exchange is beginning to balance out in favor of this too, I just noticed yesterday that US and Canadian dollars are trading even. There is no left or right, they share the same agenda and only make opposing claims to keep us bickering amongst each other while they work towards the NAU. I've been telling people this for YEARS only to be told how stupid I am and how my foil hat is too tight. Is it starting to come together for ya yet?.

youre right,,,they talk about ten states in the us,,,comes from a DHS map...

us,,,canadian,,,aussie,,,swiss franc are all pretty close in value...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yeah Statism!!!! Gingrich is the biggest statist in the GOP far and away. He's good at spinning a yarn about being "conservative" though.

 

[Cloverdaleman]

States should be forced to sell off all surplus property, real estate holdings, and cut services to only the essential, in order to meet their obligations.

Sounds good to me. States hold alot of properity. They need to sell it first before asking for a bailout.
Than they should be able to file for bankruptcy. They hold alot of land. If they sell it than you will get tax money off of it to.

 

[langb29]

Sounds good to me. States hold alot of properity. They need to sell it first before asking for a bailout.
Than they should be able to file for bankruptcy. They hold alot of land. If they sell it than you will get tax money off of it to.

In a lot of places, they already did that. Illinois sold many of their government offices (probably to foreign companies) and are now paying rent in the same buildings. They are way beyond that.

Liberal states are not the only states in trouble, Texas is finding themselves in just as bad of shape as CA and IL. Problem is, Lib or Con, no politician wants to stick their neck out to fix it. Cut pensions, lose votes; raise taxes, lose votes; cut spending, cut jobs, lose votes. With a few exceptions, NJ Gov, Atlanta mayor, most politicians are happy to sit back and watch it collapse around them, just to stay if office.

They are working on a bill here in IN that will allow local governments to declare bankruptcy, for the same reasons as states.
Bill would let Indiana cities declare bankruptcy | The Indianapolis Star | IndyStar.com

If I had any investments or retirement in state or local bonds, I would dump them soon.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Selling of municipal assets will not solve the problem, but only prolong the end result. This is the reason I don't like the toll road lease. It makes us look good short term, but what happens when the money is gone and we still haven't got the revenue from the toll road for another 60 years?

 

[CarmelHP]

Selling of municipal assets will not solve the problem, but only prolong the end result. This is the reason I don't like the toll road lease. It makes us look good short term, but what happens when the money is gone and we still haven't got the revenue from the toll road for another 60 years?

There was never any revenue, it was a money loser. When the lease money is spent, you'll have the infrastructure it built.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

There was never any revenue, it was a money loser. When the lease money is spent, you'll have the infrastructure it built.

A common misconception, I will not fault you for it. There was revenue but it was re-allocated to other programs and not kept in the fund it was supposed to be in. The tolls collected are to be placed in a "kitty" if you will and used for the maintenance of the toll road/bridge. The "kitty" if you will was constantly raided for other programs leaving the toll road in a state of disrepair giving the assumption that it wasn't even enough to maintain the toll road. The infrastructure was built with bonds a LONG time ago, slopping a coat of of fresh asphalt on top to keep it smooth isn't infrastructure, it is maintenance. The electronic tolling is nice, but could have been achieved by us. It costs less to put it in and operate it than we were paying the toll collectors, that's why the intelligent investors that leased the road did it. In order to turn higher profits.

 

[CarmelHP]

A common misconception, I will not fault you for it. There was revenue but it was re-allocated to other programs and not kept in the fund it was supposed to be in. The tolls collected are to be placed in a "kitty" if you will and used for the maintenance of the toll road/bridge. The "kitty" if you will was constantly raided for other programs leaving the toll road in a state of disrepair giving the assumption that it wasn't even enough to maintain the toll road.

So, we leased it for a ton of money, and the lessor is entirely responsible for upkeep. This is a win any way you look at it.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

So, we leased it for a ton of money, and the lessor is entirely responsible for upkeep. This is a win any way you look at it.

Until we need more money and don't have the toll road to bring it in. Then what do we do? Toll more roads for revenue (this is illegal BTW)?

 

[machete]

A common misconception, I will not fault you for it. There was revenue but it was re-allocated to other programs and not kept in the fund it was supposed to be in. The tolls collected are to be placed in a "kitty" if you will and used for the maintenance of the toll road/bridge. The "kitty" if you will was constantly raided for other programs leaving the toll road in a state of disrepair giving the assumption that it wasn't even enough to maintain the toll road. The infrastructure was built with bonds a LONG time ago, slopping a coat of of fresh asphalt on top to keep it smooth isn't infrastructure, it is maintenance. The electronic tolling is nice, but could have been achieved by us. It costs less to put it in and operate it than we were paying the toll collectors, that's why the intelligent investors that leased the road did it. In order to turn higher profits.

great post.... you are so right.... selling the toll road was a huge mistake....

 

[Skeetboy]

Bill

Sounds like a great way to undermine confidence in the whole system. Don't understand where some people are coming from sometimes.

 

[John Galt]

Until we need more money and don't have the toll road to bring it in. Then what do we do? Toll more roads for revenue (this is illegal BTW)?

Should roads be viewed as a source of revenue or simply an avenue for transportation? Anything collected by the government over and above the related expenses of the road means that those who are using it are over-paying and this puts the government into a monopolistic position of our resources. In leasing the road, we received several billion dollars, in cash, AND the road is in better shape than it was before AND it is no longer a burden on the taxpayer with over-paid government workers. My two cents.
How is it illegal to toll more roads, weren't tolls a part of our roads system in the beginning?

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Should roads be viewed as a source of revenue or simply an avenue for transportation? Anything collected by the government over and above the related expenses of the road means that those who are using it are over-paying and this puts the government into a monopolistic position of our resources. In leasing the road, we received several billion dollars, in cash, AND the road is in better shape than it was before AND it is no longer a burden on the taxpayer with over-paid government workers. My two cents.
How is it illegal to toll more roads, weren't tolls a part of our roads system in the beginning?

An already existing road cannot be tolled because the taxpayers already paid to build it. A road is tolled to recover the cost of building it, and once that cost is recovered the toll is to be lowered to only cover the expense of maintenance or dropped all together. Pennsylvania is having HUGE problems with this right now, they keep petitioning the feds to let them toll I-80 and they keep meeting resistance from the people as well as from the federal gov. The feds keep telling them to screw off and they keep re-filing. Eventually someone will give in and the people traveling 80 will pay for another railroad museum or aquatic center or football stadium.....also illegal btw. Oh, in the beginning roads were tolled because there was no fuel tax or highway use tax to pay for them.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

youre right,,,they talk about ten states in the us,,,comes from a DHS map...

us,,,canadian,,,aussie,,,swiss franc are all pretty close in value...

The ten "states" are supposedly going to be run by that national governors council thing, the correlations are uncanny....

 

[Indy317]

my advice to public employees is to start looking at a ira,,,like the rest of us... when we all figure out that we cant afford those royal pensions and drop them down a well,,, at least youll have a backup plan...

Pensions are done for. They are too costly. Maybe had we just stayed with the basic state pension for everyone, and instituted hard caps on payouts, we wouldn't have this issue. As far as saving in IRAs and 401(k)s, I think people should start paying off debt before any retirement savings. I used to suggest using just 401(k) and only if you get a match and only investing whatever it takes to get the match, nothing more. With the socialist salivating at the idea that the feds take 401(k)s, IRAs, etc., I wouldn't even save in a 401(k) anymore until every dime of debt is paid off and I have a nice cash reserve and I have traveled and updated my home to where I want it. Even then, I wouldn't put any money in retirement accounts that have a good chance at being taken over by the feds. Instead, I would just look at preserving wealth with land, firearms, a second vacation/bug out home, etc.. Once you get to retirement, sell these things off as needed. If you have a ton of money, give it to your kids or younger relatives (watch for the IRS gift limit though).