I'm not missing it. A five year contract foolishly negotiated by an administration that was pandering for votes means that even if you replace the administration, there is little they can do to address the problem.
They are the people's elected officials and the people gave them the authority to negotiate those contracts. Bankruptcy is a process through which someone can gain relief when it is no longer possible for them to fulfill their obligations.
I believe bankruptcy has a place in our society, but it must be as fair and equitable as possible. Having union contracts be the ONLY obligation that can be renegotiated doesn't seem fair.
This doesn't seem like the proper way to limit the power of unions. You shouldn't limit power by giving the government power to negotiate in bad faith and then back out.
As a taxing authority with a great deal of leeway in how they spend the majority of their funds, they can fulfill their obligations. They just can't do it and do all of the other things they want to do.
I believe bankruptcy has a place in our society, but it must be as fair and equitable as possible. Having union contracts be the ONLY obligation that can be renegotiated doesn't seem fair.
All contractual obligations are equal, but there are no contractual obligations for the majority of the state's spending. The voters of those states chose political leadership that promised them a free lunch. Now those voters will have to pay for their bad choices.
This doesn't seem like the proper way to limit the power of unions. You shouldn't limit power by giving the government power to negotiate in bad faith and then back out.
Precisely! The public union sector will only be dealt with when the majority of people are drug to the conclusion that they can't afford them and their "evil" rich and corps can't afford them either.
The last thing we should do is bail out bad Dim decisions.