<p>Nobody would be happier to be wrong than me. I will always love the Chicago of my younger days! I hope they figure it out. </p>
<p>In the meantime, I also hope my kids move elsewhere and know this is a general consensus. </p>
<p>But I hope I am wrong !</p>
<p>Poet, the only reason I looked that up was because it really did surprise me. I know grads from my UG are flocking to Chicago (and Colorado) post-graduation. </p>
<p>I later found the national census that said the Chicago(plus 2 other cities) metro area has grown from 2000-2010 but that Chicago itself has dropped 4.8% (I’m assuming that’s what you meant). </p>
<p>I know jack-diddly about Chicago. I do love visiting (mostly for the Jamba Juice… I’m a sucker for it and Michigan doesn’t have any 
) and I sincerely hope it never goes nearly the way that Detroit has. It would be an incredible shame. It seems strong, but I know that a- looks can be deceiving and b- that economies can turn oh so quickly.</p>
<p>If anyone can turn it around its Rahm. </p>
<p>There’s a lot of poverty and bad fundamentals. But, it’s a great place when it’s running well.</p>
<p>I’m hoping the DIA deal works out - if donors raise enough to allow the DIA to spin off from the city as a separate entity, the money could be used to reduce pension cuts … and no art would be liquidated. I selfishly hope that it wouldn’t reduce donations to my institution, which also depends on art-loving donors, but I think it sounds like it could be a good deal for Detroit.</p>
<p>Quick question -would Detroit pensioners have the possibility of a successful claim against the State to make their pensions whole? (If they are reduced after all this is over) If the Michigan State Constitution guarantees all public pensions what does that mean? Does that put Michigan in the position like a cosigner of a loan would be put in if the original borrower seeks bankruptcy protection? I believe the cosigner would be on the hook still-unless they went bankrupt.</p>
<p>Here is the wording-</p>
<p>[Michigan</a> Legislature - Article IX § 24](<a href=“http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nupcis55etpqhcn0un03ldag))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Article-IX-24%5DMichigan”>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nupcis55etpqhcn0un03ldag))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Article-IX-24)</p>
<p>and an interesting article</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mackinac.org/16610[/url]”>http://www.mackinac.org/16610</a></p>
<p>The issue is federal pre-emption. Bankruptcy law is federal through the Constitution - had to look that up but it’s Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. So the issue is federal pre-emption of state law provisions.</p>
<p>As I noted in a prior post, this is an odd thing for “conservatives” to celebrate: the triumph of federal over state power.</p>
<p>I see nothing that would put the state on the hook because this matter has been federalized.</p>
<p>But has it only been federalized for Detroit’s obligation and could the pensioner’s make a successful claim against Michigan to make them whole?</p>
<p>The bankruptcy court had a discussion of section 24 beginning at about paper page number 77 or so. I think the court’s opinion has been appealed.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mieb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/detroit/docket1945.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mieb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/detroit/docket1945.pdf</a></p>
<p>If I cosign or guarantee a loan for someone and they file bankruptcy they could be off the hook for the loan- what happens to my obligation for the loan being repaid? I have not filed bankruptcy and I have assets.</p>
<p>Is it possible that Michigan/Detroit could be in that same relationship? Did this case deal with both the State of Michigan and Detroits obligation to the pension or only Detroit’s?</p>
<p>Michigan is one of a limited number of States with public pension guarantees in the constitution</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_25.htm#.UqSQWsKA2mE[/url]”>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_25.htm#.UqSQWsKA2mE</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing strange at all- conservatives are in favor of the Federal government doing the things that are its Constitutional obligation to do. For instance, common defense. The objections come when either the Feds dont effective do what they are obliged to do, or they invent non-Consitution powers to do things that were reserved to the States. </p>
<p>Frankly the whole thing has been going to hell in a handbasket since McCulloch v. Maryland and John Marshall scheming to increase Federal Government power. It was a bad idea to have federal employees determine what the limits of federal power should be.</p>
<p>In any event uniform bankruptcy laws are clearly a Federal power. </p>
<p>As a practical matter impairing public pensions may have a useful effect- it may be the only way to get politicians and unions invested in fiscal soundness.</p>
<p>argbargy- does the State of Michigan constitutionally guarantee the pensions? Does Detroit’s bankruptcy have the potential to put State taxpayers on the hook?</p>
<p>Similar to anyone else signing on to guarantee an obligation when the original debtor files bankruptcy?</p>
<p>Do all the contracts of the political subdivisions accrue to the State if the other entity is unable/unwilling to pay? I doubt it. </p>
<p>At least in Article 9 it didnt look like the State was required to backstop the pensions.</p>
<p>Well, you’re really in the mainstream if you’re re-arguing McCullough and John Marshall.</p>
<p>The state, to be clear, has no obligation to Detroit. It isn’t part of a state system. Some argue the state has a moral obligation but we know how little those are worth.</p>
<p>If the state has a legal obligation, it would be to seek to cut others instead of pensions. In other words, given the state constitution says pension benefits are a contract that can not be reduced, then the state would seem to have an obligation to seek to cut everything else instead of pensions. If the state fails to do that, I could see a lawsuit against the state.</p>
<p>Hey, I am just putting my finger on the root of the problem. Besides I think most people after sufficient consideration would agree that the separation of powers didnt work out exactly as envisioned. Many of the critiques of anti-Federalist Robert Yates have proven to be quite prescient.</p>