Does anyone know what it would take to amend the Michigan constitution? Hopefully, the current repubs don't have enough power to do it.

including all connections to the Rmoney family for rape and misuse of official funds.

No corporate welfare and stay away from the pensions!

When Detroit can nolonger pay them?

No one else can be forced to unless the Feds decied to take them over but then every city in America would want the same so that ain't gonna happen I don't think.

But the question is who pays the retires when the city has a choice between paying the cops this week or paying the pension bill?

The reality is they are almost at that point and I don't know how they can make the money to pay the bills.

I don't understand unless the city somehow gets the state to take it over with modest modifications (hopefully less of a haircut than the 90% loss in bankruptcy)

Remember the issue is NOT if the City has the revenue to pay these pensions, but what priority should they have? The Michigan State Constitution says Pensions FIRST, everyone else is secondary. The bankers do NOT want that, they want to be first. That is the fight. a fight the Governor of Michigan wants the Pension holders to lose.

It does not place finical responsibility on te state.

What I am asking is when Detroit has no more funds left to pay them what happens next? Who pays?

Do we create some federal backed investment company like we did in New York in the 70s? What's the sales pitch to investors (NYC was still the worlds city with lots of business and a clearer future what about Detroit?)

And that is the dispute. The Banks want to be first on the list of any repayment, ahead of those people who are entitled to a pension. That is the dispute, not that Detroit can NOT pay these bills.

And that is the argument in front of the local judge. She says State Law MANDATES the pensions be honored. Thus the Pension has priority over any other debt. Remember Detroit not only has these pensions but other creditors. These other creditors are mostly the banks. Thus the fight is over who gets paid first, the banks of the pension holders.

Detroit may be in bad shape, but it has assets and income to pay its present debts, but over time as opposes to all at once. It needs time.

As to New York City in the 1970s, New York had the revenue stream, but ran into a revenue pinch, Normally such a pinch is handled by issuing bonds but the banks refused to buy them for this was the mid 1970s and the banks had other priorities. Thus the crisis of New York City and the "Federal Bailout" which was nothing but a loan till the tax revenue rolled in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/nyregion/recalling-new-york-at-the-brink-of-bankruptcy.html
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2598&context=dlj

One aspect of New York was its dependence on Sales and Income Taxes as its source of revenue. Real Estate taxes tend to be less volatile, but New York City had low Real Estate Taxes, but high sales and income taxes. Thus when the mid 1970 recession hit, it hit New York City hard, costs went up due to the recession but revenue was down due to the recession. The problem was more of a lack of money TODAY as opposed to a lack of money. All New York City needed was a loan to carry it over till its tax revenue came in, and that is all the Federal Government provided.

Detroit has a stable financial base, it is much lower then it was in the past, but it is stable. The problem with Detroit is that no one expects it to have hit rock bottom yet, and everyone is waiting for that to happen. Thus Detroit has a problem of a deteriorating tax base, stable but declining, and an inability to stop the decline.

The biggest problem is the Schools. With the decline in Detroit, revenue has declined, but the number of low income people, who can not afford to move out, has increased.

The problem with low income people is their children are the most costly to educate, for they need help most students get from their parents but given their family status that is impossible, i.e your parents can not help you with your homework, if they themselves can not read and write.

On the other hand, most state aid to schools assume that every school district has a balance of students, the same balance as the state as a whole. Thus State funding is even throughout the State, but at the cost the low income dominated areas get much less help then they need. Thus the shortfall has to be made up locally and that is the problem with Detroit and its schools.

In simple terms the biggest problem is state funding for education and the GOP Governor does NOT want to have to till the GOP controlled legislature that Detroit is the fault of the State's educational funding formula.

She also ordered that a copy of her declaratory judgment be sent to President Barack Obama, saying he “bailed out Detroit” and may want to look into the pension issue.

she may see sending a copy of the judgment to the president as a heads up about the shenanigans republicans are attempting to pull here.

Also, she obviously sees this as an attempt to subvert law, and likly would do what she could to stop an attempt to violate those laws.

This was a state court. The BK petition was filed in federal court (as are all of them).

Also, the problem for Detroit is that it literally doesn't have enough money to keep funding its pension plans, and without the BK it's not clear what's going to happen. They haven't been able to make the payments to the pension plans, so retirees are getting screwed now.

Orr's offer to the bondholders basically required a 90% writedown on some of those obligations.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130721/OPINION01/307210057/detroit-creditors-broke-bankruptcy-kevyn-orr-plan

The theory that Orr and the governor are deliberately trying to screw the pensioners is not valid. I personally think the most of the bondholders will take huge writedowns in BK court.

funding changes. GOP wants privatization for business instead of a healthy public system.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/texas-among-many-states-facing-school-funding-laws/

Results: Districts win against Texas Legislature Law:

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/04/ruling-imminent-texas-school-finance-trial/

More districts across the nation:

http://neatoday.org/2013/02/04/more-school-districts-suing-states-for-education-funding/

the high life off of all that damn socialist Social Security they will be receiving! These are obviously more of those "takers". (Do I need the sarcasm thingy here?)

It is time for the Federal government to step in and help fund basic services and pension requirements for Detroit. If Goldman Sachs and AIG can get hundreds of billions in government aid when they need it, why can't a major American city get ten billion? This indifference toward the fate of a predominately Black city stinks of racism at the highest levels of State government. Only the Federal government can hope to replace governor Snyder's completely unfair plans.

to work on problems like pension fund shortfalls, schools, public works...

Yes, you make a very good point. With only a small fraction of the taxpayers' money now spent on "quantitative easing" by our Federal Reserve, Detroit's whole problem would be taken care of. Those pensioners in Detroit have kept their part of the bargain society make with them. Now it is society's turn to do what is required of it.

Detroit declares it's a bank and the US Treasury will give them all the money they want.

Bankruptcy is a federal action, and the state court can not stop a thing. They need to file an action in the bankruptcy court. Don't forget the Supremacy clause and Article 1 section 8 of the const. which makes bankruptcy a federal affair.

Now, the ray of hope is that the Bankruptcy Courts do incorporate State Law in instances that it does not conflict with Federal law. So, in this case, the proper venue for this motion is not the bankruptcy court.

Is there a case of a City or Municipality filing for Bankruptcy that was allowed to forward by the Federal Govt. pre-empting any State laws that were in effect?

There are no exceptions for municipalities. Several cities/governmental units have gone bankrupt and their pensions were changed. Orange County, CA (1994), Stockton, CA (2012), San Bernardino, CA (2012), Jefferson County, AL (2011).

Like a burrito.

In Stockton, California, there are evolving decisons that center around pensions. Here is the kicker with pensions. Per federal law, a private pension is guranteed by 29 USC 1302(a)- the feds will cover those pensions via the PBGC. But not so with public pensions.

Now, there is a clause in the bankruptcy code that could be raised in the bankruptcy court, and that is usc 943(b) which states that a plan cannot be confirmed (finalized) if it makes the debtor (detroit) do something that is prohibited by law- in this case the law would be Article IX section 24 of the Michigan Constituiton.

However, while there is much to argue, the venue is set in stone- and that would be the Federal courts.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/04/03/muni-bankruptcies-set-up-war-between-pensioners-and-bondholders/

In the same way the a corporation can compel individuals to arbitration prior to any official court battles (and sometimes exclusively in lue of those court battles), a state has a right to compel individuals to follow its rules provided they don't explicitly attempt to countermand federal law. This is particularly poignant since, as the judge implies, there are alternatives... suggesting the city is not, in fact, insolvent. Additionally, Federal law is amplified by state law in some places where Federal law fails to speak or expressly defers to state law... this is an area where state law amplifies existing laws, and does not run counter.

Last point: "While bankruptcy cases are always filed in United States Bankruptcy Court (an adjunct to the U.S. District Courts), bankruptcy cases, particularly with respect to the validity of claims and exemptions, are often dependent upon State law. State law therefore plays a major role in many bankruptcy cases, and it is often not possible to generalise bankruptcy law across state lines."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

Some food for thought.

You're saying a state court can stop someone from filing a bankruptcy?

They can't. Someone, if they wish to have the case dismissed, must file an action in the federal court. State law is relevant. To reiterate and emphasize- venue is the primary flaw in the Ingham courts order.

Further- the bankruptcy must be "confirmed" before anything is finalized. There are ample avenues for the pension holders to pursue.

I'll post it for you again in cased you did. This is where my argument comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

Perhaps.

Name throwing? Generally the last resort of those who are unable to counter an argument. I invite you to prove me wrong. I've done no name calling and yet you did... perhaps you took my prior statement as a slight... it wasn't intended that way, but its your choice on how you perceive it. The link truly is rather insightful and does pose a rather pertinent counter to your previous comments.

Your article illuminates nothing nor contradicts a thing I said. Your points are a ten cent reiteration of my own and in no way contradict the validity of my statements. Your failure to understand the question disqualifies you from being able to answer. It is for your ilk that we must establish a sustainable living wage for even the most uneducated and useless members of society. May god have mercy on you.

I'm willing to accept when I'm wrong as I'm not infallible. No one is... however, being a derisive presumptuous ass about it does not make you the better person. As to my "ilk" as you put it, you have no idea who I am, what I do for a living nor my level of education... nor will you since I don’t believe in rewarding trollish behavior. While I certainly do value intelligence, I'm rather intolerant of unwarranted acrimony...particularly after offering the proverbial olive-branch... thus, you can keep your holier-than-though self flagellation to yourself, as I will be adding you to my ignore list.

And you are right !! The venue is in Federal Court.

It's full of right wing toadies, so her orders will be struck down.

The issue of municipal bankruptcy is an interaction between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY over any local government UNLESS the State says it does. If state law prohibits municipal bankruptcy, that it, no federal bankruptcy.

One key is that the State can NOT impair contracts, but the Federal Government can. Thus if the state wants its municipalities to be able to terminate contract, it must permit municipal bankruptcy, but if the state does NOT want its Municipalities to file bankruptcy, the state can make the the law in that state.

Quickly as possible, under the cover of darkness, before any chance of hearing the predictable counter argument to their corrupt ideas and actions. It's the ALEC play book.

sector, so I don't have a publicly funded pension.

I can say that I recall reading many years ago, possibly as long ago as the '70's, that unfunded state and local pensions were a potential time bomb. They weren't being funded adequately. The various governments were blithely passing the eventual costs down the road, as if the future would never arrive.

Of course, any number of corporations did the same thing and have been bailed out by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, including the company I'm about to collect a small pension from.

Companies and governments should be absolutely required to set aside the money needed to fund their pensions. Period. The promises need to be kept.

I just finished reading Detroit, and American Autopsy by Charlie LeDuff, and he almost throws away the statement that a decade or so ago Detroit agreed to reduce taxes (forget whether they were income taxes or exactly what) in return for funding from the state. The city reduced the taxes, but the state didn't bother to send the money. Oops. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

I hope this ruling stands, and it sounds like it could, considering the clauses mentioned in the Michigan constitution. Of course, this won't do anything to help Detroit get out of the red, but at least it might keep its employees and retirees from getting screwed.

In fact it will be ignored --- which is why she made the political move of sending it to President Obama. Federal bankruptcy law preempts state laws and constitutions.

from videos of chickens being abused so the next day filming industrial abuse of animals is out-lawed-... occupiers dont want to get peppersprayed in the face so they were face masks the next day face masks at protests are out-lawed.
fucking pension pirates

A contact address is underlined in the document link below.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusnotices.html

The doctrine of separation of powers won't allow the DOL to interfere beyond petitioning the court just as other interested parties can.

to keep receiving benefits which has nothing to do with a Judge. Department of Labor workers can review your Plan with you so that you (and your attorney if you get one) can be knowledgeable about what, when, and how long you are to, receive benefits.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/retirement/consumerinfpension.htm

Bankruptcy:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsbankruptcy.html

pensions as a part of bankruptcy proceedings. But that would take a change in the bankruptcy laws and that won't happen as long as the GOP controls the House.

</sarcasm>

Bankruptcy or no bankruptcy. They don't have the money to pay their pension benefits.

to eliminate city of Detroit retired employee pensions.

Orr's plan to avoid the BK filing involved massive writedowns for bondholders, including GO bonds. Bondholders reacted with outrage. Orr threatened them with a BK filing if they didn't deal. Some did, most did not.

In the BK court, it's likely that the eventual outcome will be somewhat similar to Orr's offer, which would leave pensioners with a much better outlook:
http://www.freep.com/article/20130716/BUSINESS06/307160117/Kevyn-Orr-Detroit-bankruptcy

If you read that article, you'll see that some major players were trying to force MI state to bail out the bondholders, and using the implicit threat of derogating other MI bonds as a club.

We have just entered into a new wave of municipal defaults, and there are multiple legal issues being hashed out:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/04/03/muni-bankruptcies-set-up-war-between-pensioners-and-bondholders/

The GA case on special revenue bonds is particularly interesting.

The good part about Chapter 9 is that it allows a city to stop paying on general revenue bonds, which gives the city a hell of a lot of negotiating power.

this is well established. Any lawsuit in any venue is immediately placed on hold upon BK filing. The plantiffs can argue that Detroit didn't have the authority to file in BK court -- and may win, but the state court ruling is done.

That being said, whether Detroit had the authority to file or not is relatively meaningless. At some point they would default (bounce checks) on their bond obligations, and an involuntary bk petition would be filed.

cannot be filed

http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/articles/docs/cll0203.htm

It's full of Rethug toadies.

.

While Bankruptcy law is a Federal and Federal law trumps state law, bankruptcy law is unique in that it uses a State’s law to determine what is exempt from the bankruptcy estate. In this case the Pension funds would seem to be exempt.
Furthermore, this is a totally untested part of Bankruptcy law because there have been so few municipal bankruptcies and this is the largest one ever. However, I believe existing Federal bankruptcy case law also says a municipality can’t file if the filing would be contrary to state law and that also seems to be the case here. It will be exciting to watch and I suspect the litigation will drag on for some time.

Anyway even if it doesn’t t stand I am not so sure the effect of that clause in Michigan’s constitution doesn’t set the State up as having guaranteed those pensions. If the State Courts would find that argument persuasive the State of Michigan could be on the hook for making those pensions good even if the city of Detroit was discharged from those pension obligations.

My city of Portland OR got a modest grant to start an urban renewal program 30 years ago or so. It divided up inner Portland into 7 UR disticts. One of them they really concentrated on and it now generates so much property tax that it funds the urban renewal for the other districts which are rapidly improving mow. High density housing, streetcars and street level indy retail and dining is transforming inner Portland. Lots of empty nester retired boomers moving downtown now to where they dont need cars and lots to do and go. It works.

One thing is sure though, taxpayers and residents will suffer. All in all a crappy situation.

Count on it. It's arguable that she has no jurisdiction. Proceedings will follow in the Bankruptcy Court, not in State court. And there is some applicable precedent. Stockton was permitted to slash health benefits. The thrust of the judge's decision in that case is that Federal by definition allows a Federal Bankruptcy Court to impair municipal contracts. And of course Federal law will trump the state Constitution. The same would likely apply here, though there will be an epic fight ahead.

Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code is restricted to those Municipalities permitted by State Law to file bankruptcy. If State law either directly or indirectly forbids such filing, such filing are NOT permitted under Chapter 9. Congress adopted this rule for Municipal Bankruptcies right after the Supreme Court that such municipalities can file Bankruptcy ONLY IF PERMITTED TO DO SO BY STATE LAW. If State law either permits or its silence can be viewed as giving permission, then the municipality can file Chapter 9.

Please note, the situation in Michigan is that the Local Court had ruled that under Michigan's Constitution such filing are NOT permitted since they affect any pensions and anything that affect pensions is not permitted under the State Constitution. The State can NOT get around its own Constitution by filing Bankruptcy.

My earlier comment on this matter:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3311321

everybody wins

could be done with two votes
of the state legislature
and the stroke of a pen.

One issue is whether they can file, the other issue is whether pension obligations can be diminished. Nothing prevents Detroit from filing, and that is exactly what the Bankruptcy Court ruled.

Remember under the rulings from the US Supreme Court in the 1930s, municipalities can NOT file Bankruptcy if it is forbidden by STATE LAW. Anyone can file a bankruptcy by paying the filing fee, it is LATER when the objections are heard by the Bankruptcy Judge is the issue of such a filing was LEGAL. If it was illegal, then it is void on its face, but that will only be ruled by the Bankruptcy Judge after a hearing after both sides files briefs and a hearing is held. That may be six to twelve weeks from now.

I suspect the Bankruptcy Judge in this case fears that is the case, thus his desire to send everyone to a mediator to work out the problems. He is hoping the Mediator can get everyone on the same page, but I suspect it is a false hope by the Judge.

What provision of law prevents a filing? The Michigan State Constitution does not prevent a municipality from filing. All it purports to do is to bar diminution of benefits. The filing in and of itself does not de facto purport to alter benefits, hence I suspect the eligibility hearing will be ruled on in favor of the City, provided they show the negotiated in good faith with creditors prior to filing and met all other requisite filing requirements.

As far as the substance of the benefits issue, that's TBD once past the eligibility hearing, but I suspect the Bankruptcy Court will allow impairment of these obligations whether it be via a restructuring or otherwise. The court in the Stockton case appears to be heading in that direction. And bear in mind the 6th Circuit is one of the most Conservative.

I posted Stockton on another thread on Detroit, so I will not re-post it here, but here is where I did post it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3311321

The key is that Cheaper 9 to be constitutional must be a joint State and Federal undertaking. While States can NOT impair contract (The US Constitution forbids it), the Federal Government can (Exclusive jurisdiction over Bankruptcy was given to the Federal Government and in Stockton the Judge pointed out there was NOT a similar ban on the Federal Government impairing or even abolishing contracts and this difference in treatment was intentional).

On the other hand the States have SOLE JURISDICTION OVER THEMSELVES AND THEIR POLITICAL UNITs (such as the City of Detroit). How can you retain COMPLETE control if the Federal Government can FORGIVE some debts that the state can not? The Supreme Court ruled in the 1930s that such exclusive control would FORBID something like Chapter 9, unless the State permits it.

The problem in the case with Detroit is that mere approval by the Governor may NOT be enough, in the case of Michigan the STATE CONSTITUTION forbids restrictions on pensions. It appears the State Judge in the Case being heard by her was about to rule that under that State Constitutional provisions. if it came down to a choice between the pensions and other debts, it will be the pensions that must be paid first. It is quite clear that the Governor does NOT want for all taxes collected going to on going services and pensions NOT to servicing other debts (Mostly bonds issued by Detroit) The Governor wants these debts paid and if he can get the Bankruptcy court to put the pensions below these debts, pensions will be paid AFTER those bonds not before. Remember that is the real fight, not that the pensions will NOT be paid, but when?

Remember in Stockton the Judge ruled he could NOT enter an order continuing pensions payouts till the plan was final and such payouts addressed in the plan. The Judge in Stockton did NOT say the pension were avoided or to be treated as a lesser liability, but that he could NOT enter an order continuing such pension till the plan was made.

In Stockton the Judge also ruled that California permits its municipalities to file bankruptcy due to the fact California did not actually pass a law forbidding such filing and THAT THE LAWS CALIFORNIA DID PASS IMPLIES THAT SUCH PERMISSION WAS NOT NEEDED FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO FILE CHAPTER 9.

This area of the law is a mess, there have been less then 500 municipal bankruptcies since the 1930s for this reason. Down south some counties have no local municipals other then school districts, but outside the south local government is the norm, for example my home County of Allegheny County Pennsylvania has over 100 municipality in it, and that is with the City of Pittsburgh taking over 1/3 of the county. Thus having only 500 municipal bankruptcies sounds large till you realize how much small municipalities exist in this nation. The low number is due to the fact in most situations it is accepted that state law forbids such filings and that is it. Sooner or later this will have to be addressed by the Bankruptcy Judge, but right now he is avoiding the issue till it can be argued, briefed and heard (and then ruled on).

Side note: Counties are NOT viewed as Local Municipalities by state and federal law, but as part of the State Government. Local Government units are cities, boroughs, towns, townships, school districts, water districts, Sewerage districts etc. Thus there are more local governmental units then a lot of people understand to exist.