Posted on 04/25/2020 11:00:41 AM PDT by Rummyfan
Mitch McConnell believes he has hit upon a solution for states that are upside-down on their pension obligations and other financial commitments: “I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,” he told Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday. “It’s saved some cities, and there’s no good reason for it not to be available.”
There are a couple of good reasons for denying the states bankruptcy protection. One is the fact that there is no such thing as state-bankruptcy law in the United States. A second reason, related to the first, is the Constitution.
In the United States, we have a bankruptcy law for individuals, another one for businesses, and yet another one for municipalities and their subordinate agencies. We do not have a bankruptcy law for the states or for the federal government, for the same reason: They are sovereigns.
The several states are not administrative subdivisions of the federal government. They are powers in their own right, superseded by the U.S. government only in certain matters that involve more than one state: Washington can declare war or write immigration law, but it cannot tell Austin how to run the Texas Rangers or Sacramento how to prioritize its finances.
Because bankruptcy law is federal law, putting states into bankruptcy reorganization would upend our basic constitutional arrangement, making state governments answerable to federal bankruptcy judges and, behind them, to Congress. The people in Illinois are, for their sins, represented by the elected officials of Illinois in matters pertaining to Illinois.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Cuomo: ‘I dare you’ to let states declare coronavirus bankruptcy in scathing new attack on GOP
They were lied to.
Why should the people who don’t have a pension (through no fault of their own) be required to pay into a bankrupt system? Some states have it written into their constitution that the taxpayer will make up for any state pension shortfall. That is inherently unfair.
The money isn’t there, in many cases it never was, they modeled 12% annual returns in perpetuity, smoke and mirrors etc. Many states were a sucking chest wound pension wise before the Chinese Lung AIDS hit, the loss of revenue will finish the job. This will be the “excuse” to shove a lot of crap under that was already a done deal.
Problem is so many things are in the state constitutions such as guaranteed public employee pensions, etc. only way to get rid of these would be bankruptcy.
Yo, Mr Cuomo, your state was already on the verge of bankruptcy before the plandemic started. You will not be made whole for that. Maybe you should have spent some of your tax dollars paying down your debt for the last several years instead of catering to the invaders in your sanctuary state.
I’m a taxpayer in Tennessee - I want NONE of my money going to support your state’s bad spending habits. Go bankrupt if you must, but don’t put that burden on the other 49 states.
Maybe not such a bad idea. Once investors see that they can lose their principal perhaps they will require the states to operate on sound financial and actuarial principles. No more wild pension promises that are not funded today instead being punted to future.
If a state goes bankrupt, it should revert to its pre-state status. For most states that would be a territory, an independent republic, or an independent former colony.
The best way to get voters to vote out Democrats is to make them financially responsible to the debt the Democrats created.
reg45 wrote:
“If a state goes bankrupt, it should revert to its pre-state status. For most states that would be a territory, an independent republic, or an independent former colony.”
So, if CA goes bankrupt, then they’d go back to being the California Republic?
Some states love debt, and spend themselves into oblivion just for votes and deceitful frauds such as bullet trains (Cali comes to mind.)
Other states have as their charter to live within their means, and carry little or no debt (Idaho, for one)
If lavish spending Cali declared bankruptcy, why should frugal and responsible Idaho underwrite Cali's dissolute luxuries and debt?
I agree. Let the states balance their budgets like everyone else. What better way to assess the need for handouts, when giveaways require a trade-off. Public employee pay, at least in California, is way above private sector pay for the same work, and the state demands contractors pay top dollar for all public work. Of course the legislators are beholden to unions, so this is what happens. I have no problem with high pensions if the payout was annuitized by the retirees. Of course California legislators and the governor will assert the coronavirus is the cause of their budget problem, but the problem began long before the disease. How anxious would the state be to open the economy, if to do otherwise would require hard budget decisions, just like the citizens affected by their draconian restrictions? So, no bankruptcy or bailouts for the states.
And I agree, let only those that pay taxes, vote for the largess. I won’t be holding my breath for that.
Trump would be smart to declare that no state will be allowed to file for bankruptcy on his watch. Bankruptcy is letting them off easy. Cuomo is one of those politicians who’s always complaining that the rich don’t pay their fair share. Well now he has the opportunity to fix that problem by increasing taxes on rich NYers to pay the bill for these government actions.
There is actually a precident for this. We only need to review the Compromise of 1850.
When the Republic of Texas joined the United States, it has $10M of debt. The U.S. Government took over that debt, but the Great State of Texas lost a considerable amount of real estate ... Land that became the eastern half of NM, the panhandle of OK, the SW corner of KS, the ski center of CO, and even a small chunk of WY.
If IL wants to cede downstate, NY upstate, CA the inland area, then I would be okay with bailing them out. That would give us several more Republican Senators.
How would a state’s bankruptcy affect other states?
Territorial governors were appointed by DC politicians in the past and they ranged from good to bad to treasonous ( See General Wilkinson) It would be no different now. It would break up the internal state political class\union cabals that make any financial reform impossible. Would it guarantee good sensible state government? No! It only allows change.
Territorial governors were appointed by DC politicians in the past and they ranged from good to bad to treasonous ( See General Wilkinson) It would be no different now. It would break up the internal state political class\union cabals that make any financial reform impossible. Would it guarantee good sensible state government? No! It only allows change.
>>So you feel that someone who worked all their life in a government job and has a state pension should suddenly be made penniless through no fault of their own?
ALL investments have risk. They should have saved on their own.
[Reily #15 to Rummyfan] This is one of the consequences Dirksen warned us about of the USSC decision that made all state legislators beholden to population size and not have one house (upper house like the US Senate) represent territory or some other principle. ( Don’t remember the na.e of the decision!)- - - - - - - - - -
[Dilbert San Diego] Yes I recall learning about that case. I don’t recall the name of it either.
However, that case mandated that state senate seats be apportioned according to population, just as the state legislature or state House of Representatives were apportioned.
There is not enough there for me to be certain I have identified the case in question, but perhaps you could look at the below candidate for consideration.
The link goes to the Library of Congress copy of the U.S. Reports official record.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep377/usrep377533/usrep377533.pdf
Reynolds, Judge, et al v. Sims et al, 377 U.S. 533 (15 Jun 1964) for which I will provide here just the summary from the Syllabus. The Opinion of the Court is 55pp. With additional opinions, the whole thing is 100pp.
REYNOLDS, JUDGE, ET AL. V. SIMS ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.
No. 23. Argued November 13, 1963.-Decided June 15, 1964. "
Charging that malapportionment of the Alabama Legislature deprived them and others similarly situated of rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Alabama Constitution, voters in several Alabama counties brought suit against various officials having state election duties. Complainants sought a declaration that the existing state legislative apportionment provisions were unconstitutional; an injunction against future elections pending reapportionment in accordance with the State Constitution; or, absent such reapportionment, a mandatory injunction requiring holding the 1962 election for legislators at large over the entire State. The complaint alleged serious discrimination against voters in counties whose populations had grown proportionately far more than others since the 1900 census which, despite Alabama's constitutional requirements for legislative representation based on population and for decennial reapportionment, formed the basis for the existing legislative apportionment. Pursuant to the 1901 constitution the legislature consisted of 106 representatives and 35 senators for the State's 67 counties and senatorial districts; each county was entitled to at least one representative; each senate district could have only one member; and no county could be divided between two senate districts. A three judge Federal District Court declined ordering the May 1962 primary election to be held at large, stating that it should not act before the legislature had further opportunity to take corrective measures before the general election. Finding after a hearing that neither of two apportionment plans which the legislature thereafter adopted, to become effective in 1966, would cure the gross inequality and invidious discrimination of the existing representation, which all parties generally conceded violated the Equal Protection Clause, and that the complainants' votes were unconstitutionally debased under all of the three plans at issue, the District Court ordered temporary reapportionment for the 1962 general election by combining features of the two plans adopted by the legislature, and enjoined officials from holding future elections under any of the invalid plans. The officials appealed, claiming that the District Court erred in holding unconstitutional the existing and proposed reapportionment plans and that a federal court lacks power affirmatively to reapportion a legislature; two groups of complainants also appealed, one claiming error in the District Court's failure to reapportion the Senate according to population, the other claiming error in its failure to reapportion both houses on a population basis. Held:
1. The right of suffrage is denied by debasement or dilution of a citizen's vote in a state or federal election. Pp. 554-555.2. Under the Equal Protection Clause a claim of debasement of the right to vote through malapportionment presents a justiciable controversy; and the Equal Protection Clause provides manageable standards for lower courts to determine the constitutionality of a state legislative apportionment scheme. Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, followed. Pp. 556-557.
3. The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside. Pp. 561-568.
(a) Legislators represent people, not areas. P. 562.
(b) Weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory. Pp. 563-568.
4. The seats in both houses of a bicameral legislature must under the Equal Protection Clause be apportioned substantially on a population basis. Pp. 568-576.
5. The District Court correctly held that the existing Alabama apportionment scheme and both of the proposed plans are constitutionally invalid since neither legislative house is or would thereunder be apportioned on a population basis. Pp. 568-571.
6. The superficial resemblance between one of the Alabama apportionment plans and the legislative representation scheme of the Federal Congress affords no proper basis for sustaining that plan since the historical circumstances which gave rise to the congressional system of representation, arising out of compromise among sovereign States, are unique and without relevance to the allocation of seats in state legislatures. Pp. 571-577.
7. The federal constitutional requirement that both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis means that, as nearly as practicable, districts be of equal population, though mechanical exactness is not required. Somewhat more flexibility may be constitutionally permissible for state legislative apportionment than for congressional districting. Pp. 577-581.
(a) A state legislative apportionment scheme may properly give representation to various political subdivisions and provide for compact districts of contiguous territory if substantial equality among districts is maintained. Pp. 578-579.
(b) Some deviations from a strict equal-population principle are constitutionally permissible in the two houses of a bicameral state legislature, where incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy, so long as the basic standard of equality of population among districts is not significantly departed from. P. 579.
(c) Considerations of history, economic or other group interests, or area alone do not justify deviations from the equalpopulation principle. Pp. 579-580.
(d) Insuring some voice to political subdivisions in at least one legislative body may, within reason, warrant some deviations from population-based representation in state legislatures. Pp. 580-581.
8. In admitting States into the Union, Congress does not purport to pass on all constitutional questions concerning the character of state governmental organization, such as whether a state legislature's apportionment departs from the equal-population principle; in any case, congressional approval could not validate an unconstitutional state legislative apportionment. P. 582.
9. States consistently with the Equal Protection Clause can properly provide for periodic revision of reapportionment schemes, though revision less frequent than decennial would be constitutionally suspect. Pp. 583-584.
10. Courts should attempt to accommodate the relief ordered to the apportionment provisions of state constitutions as far as possible, provided that such provisions harmonize with the Equal Protection Clause. P. 584.
11. A court in awarding or withholding immediate relief should consider the proximity of a forthcoming election and the mechanics and complexities of election laws, and should rely on general equitable principles. P. 585.
12. The District Court properly exercised its judicial- power in this case by ordering reapportionment of both houses of the Alabama Legislature for purposes of 1962 elections as a temporary measure by using the best parts of the two proposed plans, each of which it had found, as a whole, invalid, and in retaining jurisdiction while deferring a hearing on the issuance of a final injunction to give the reapportioned legislature an opportunity to act effectively. Pp. 586-587.
208 F. Supp. 431, affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
>>Problem is so many things are in the state constitutions such as guaranteed public employee pensions, etc. only way to get rid of these would be bankruptcy.
Or change the state constitution.. what the god-state giveth, the god-state can taketh away...
that sounds reasonable
anything to break up the Cuomo and Pelosi/Newsome cabals in NY and Californication, respectively
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.