Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump administration sues California over federal land sales

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Merkava188
    replied
    I have heard San Diego is suing that state of California. Go for them it seems that what happended in Pennsylvania and Michigan is coming to California.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    Think this will make for an interesting Con law case.

    I can see the rights of the Government to sell land but once it gives up ownership do the states have a say in how public land is used.
    Well, I read the link and the problem seems to be that the State (in this case California) is dictating to the Federal Government to whom Federal, not state, land is to sold (or in this case, not sold). States have never had that right going back to Articles of Confederation, therefore look for California's laws to be overturned by the courts. Even if the state purchases the land from the Feds, the Feds have the right to dictate restrictions of the purchase. This is a bit of a thing going on with Fort Wayne in Detroit. The City was given the land, but with restrictions on what they can do with it. For example its historicity must be kept (i.e. can't turn into a bunch of expensive river front condos). It is what is saving the Fort. Thank goodness.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
    Raise taxes to come up with the amount, or cut state spending elsewhere to come up with it, or a combination of the two.
    This is where i am going. I sense that the republican solution in IL for paying the teachers' unfunded liabilities is to cut the expenses of the state which will ce certainly affect the salaries and benefits negotiateed for current teachers. i doubt that the republican platform is to raise taxes to pay the teachers unions. In other words, from the teachers' perspective such a republican approach is a situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The end result will be to have a generation of current teachers with deeply depressed salaries and benefits in order to pay the previous generations. This is why i sense that the teachers do not seem to have a problem with the"betrayal" of the Democrats who tried to cut the pensions. I also sense that the younger you are in the teacher unions the more inclined you are to see the previous generation absorb some cost instead of having politicians force you to foot the bill of unfunded liabilities
    Last edited by pamak; 04 Apr 18, 15:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Yes, they can have recognized rights under its Constitution. When there is not enough money what will happen? Are they going to print and offer copies of the Constitution to the retirees? Anyway, what I try to understand is what exactly do republicans offer to the teachers that should earn their support? What is their solution?


    I think that I failed to make it clear that the Illinois State Constitution explicitly recognizes pension rights as property rights.
    I doubt many other constitutions do so.
    That means the State can't get out of paying them without an agreement from the pension holders.
    The State's only options are to cut spending, which it will not do, or raise taxes, which it does frequently enough that we are losing population.

    Leave a comment:


  • phil74501
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Yes, they can have recognized rights under its Constitution. When there is not enough money what will happen? Are they going to print and offer copies of the Constitution to the retirees? Anyway, what I try to understand is what exactly do republicans offer to the teachers that should earn their support? What is their solution?
    Raise taxes to come up with the amount, or cut state spending elsewhere to come up with it, or a combination of the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    This isn't so simple. California municipal bonds vary in quality. A good chunk of them are still in the BBB+ range or worse making them nearly or actually "junk" bonds. There are some that are good investments, that's true. But it largely depends on the municipality you're talking about.
    Municipal bonds is just ONE type of bonds, and obviously the municipal finances affect their rating. This is not what we are talking about...

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I never said that republicans deserved their support.
    I did find it odd that the teacher's unions continued to support the very politicians who had just tried to betray them and financially destroy those who were getting a pension.

    Teacher's unions give Illinois dems millions every year, and in return for those campaign contributions they reasonably expect that those politicians will protect the teacher's interests. Not only did the politicians fail to protect those interests they tried to cause great harm to those teachers.
    Normal people would wonder whether they were getting anything out of such a relationship, the teacher's unions did not.

    Maybe the republicans offered nothing, but at least they weren't the ones who just attempted to massively betray the teachers.

    At no point am I saying anything bad about teachers or good about republicans in illinois
    Bold mine...

    and the point i made was that republicans did not 'betray" the teachers simply because they were not in power. Still, this is not reason for a teacher to choose them over the democrats because the republicans have a consistent anti-union policy and an agenda aiming at reducing the huge benefits teachers receive (according to the republican rhetoric). And it has happened in every state in which republicans got the opportunity to weaken the bargaining power of the teacher unions. So, regardless of what you think about the unions themselves , my point is that i do not find it strange that they continue to support the democrats even after the 'betrayal." Some times people have to choose between the lesser of two evils...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    It does not work the way you present it. The issue is similar to when people try to argue that social security is broke. This is good rhetoric for those who want to privatize it, but the truth is different. In any case, there is a reason the US bonds are still attractive despite these supposedly overwhelming liablities. Market KNOWS when a country or a state is in trouble...

    Now see what is happening with California's bonds...

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#53d37b6650ad


    In other words, the markets evaluate California debt as posing lower risk that the US debt...
    This isn't so simple. California municipal bonds vary in quality. A good chunk of them are still in the BBB+ range or worse making them nearly or actually "junk" bonds. There are some that are good investments, that's true. But it largely depends on the municipality you're talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Yes, they can have recognized rights under its Constitution. When there is not enough money what will happen? Are they going to print and offer copies of the Constitution to the retirees? Anyway, what I try to understand is what exactly do republicans offer to the teachers that should earn their support? What is their solution?

    I never said that republicans deserved their support.
    I did find it odd that the teacher's unions continued to support the very politicians who had just tried to betray them and financially destroy those who were getting a pension.

    Teacher's unions give Illinois dems millions every year, and in return for those campaign contributions they reasonably expect that those politicians will protect the teacher's interests. Not only did the politicians fail to protect those interests they tried to cause great harm to those teachers.
    Normal people would wonder whether they were getting anything out of such a relationship, the teacher's unions did not.

    Maybe the republicans offered nothing, but at least they weren't the ones who just attempted to massively betray the teachers.

    At no point am I saying anything bad about teachers or good about republicans in illinois

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I don't hunt. Or camp.

    And in Texas you hunt on private land.

    I didn't say it was a good idea, just that they could. If we ever hit a major financial crisis with the national debt, I expect we would, at least in part.
    no private land to hunt on it would all be 1 acre lots in Washington.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    They don't have to make promises to pay the pensions, as the pensions are a recognized right under the Illinois Constitution.
    Yes, they can have recognized rights under its Constitution. When there is not enough money what will happen? Are they going to print and offer copies of the Constitution to the retirees? Anyway, what I try to understand is what exactly do republicans offer to the teachers that should earn their support? What is their solution?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    I do not understand why you are surprised that the teachers still support the democrats. Even if the latter could implement a law that will shortchange the retirees, what EXACTLY is the better deal that the republicans offer? I am talking from the teachers' point of view: Is it the fact that the teachers will not have powerful unions to negotiate salaries and benefit for all those teachers who still have many years ahead of them more appealing? Are republicans proposing to pay in full current liabilities for retirement plans by cutting the salaries and retirement plans of younger teachers? Because if this is the plan, I am sure it will not be popular among those affected teachers. And of course, the affected teachers have a say (and vote) to affect union decisions....



    They don't have to make promises to pay the pensions, as the pensions are a recognized right under the Illinois Constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    You are right about the bill coming due sooner or later.
    As I said, Illinois tried to get out of that bill by simply not paying the retired teachers what they had been promised. The Illinois Supreme Court shot that down pretty quickly. Amusingly, the State's argued to the Supreme Court that they shouldn't have to pay the full amount of the teacher's pension because the State was crunched for money. (a crunch of their own creation)
    Another way they are dealing with the problem is delaying payment on medical bills for more than a year. A private insurance company couldn't get away with that.

    The fact that the democrat controlled state of Illinois was so willing to try and betray its strongest supporters (teacher's unions) puts us all on notice that they will happily betray the rest of us too.

    And while dems are primarily to blame for our problem here, republicans helped screw things up too.
    I do not understand why you are surprised that the teachers still support the democrats. Even if the latter could implement a law that will shortchange the retirees, what EXACTLY is the better deal that the republicans offer? I am talking from the teachers' point of view: Is it the fact that the teachers will not have powerful unions to negotiate salaries and benefit for all those teachers who still have many years ahead of them more appealing? Are republicans proposing to pay in full current liabilities for retirement plans by cutting the salaries and retirement plans of younger teachers? Because if this is the plan, I am sure it will not be popular among those affected teachers. And of course, the affected teachers have a say (and vote) to affect union decisions....

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I could be wrong, too.

    But political speculation aside, the bill is literally going to come due sooner or later.
    You are right about the bill coming due sooner or later.
    As I said, Illinois tried to get out of that bill by simply not paying the retired teachers what they had been promised. The Illinois Supreme Court shot that down pretty quickly. Amusingly, the State's argued to the Supreme Court that they shouldn't have to pay the full amount of the teacher's pension because the State was crunched for money. (a crunch of their own creation)
    Another way they are dealing with the problem is delaying payment on medical bills for more than a year. A private insurance company couldn't get away with that.

    The fact that the democrat controlled state of Illinois was so willing to try and betray its strongest supporters (teacher's unions) puts us all on notice that they will happily betray the rest of us too.

    And while dems are primarily to blame for our problem here, republicans helped screw things up too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    .

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X