LeDuff asks Kevyn Orr about 'dumb, lazy, happy and rich' remark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

I think Jesus would make an absolutely fantastic EM. You'd never catch Him fucking around with people's pensions.

---

Without a doubt, in keeping with Mosaic Law, and consistent with his teachings on covenant-keeping, Jesus would have said:

1. Don't make a vow that you cannot keep [[i.e. you do not have the power to ensure that you can keep it)

2. If you vow a vow you must keep it - even if it causes you hardship to do so and even if it crosses generations.

I'm not Jewish, but that's what I was taught too.

So I do tend to judge people by their willingness to break covenants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Without a doubt, in keeping with Mosaic Law, and consistent with his teachings on covenant-keeping, Jesus would have said:

1. Don't make a vow that you cannot keep [[i.e. you do not have the power to ensure that you can keep it)

2. If you vow a vow you must keep it - even if it causes you hardship to do so and even if it crosses generations.

I'm not Jewish, but that's what I was taught too.

So I do tend to judge people by their willingness to break covenants.

---

I assume then you are harshly judging the previous elected officials of Detroit, their representatives who negotiated employement contracts, and the pension trustee who said they'd provide for retirement, but didn't?

Seems to me Mr. Orr is living up to his vow to do the best for the citizens of Detroit, and thus I hope he gains your approval for so doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I assume then you are harshly judging the previous elected officials of Detroit, their representatives who negotiated employement contracts, and the pension trustee who said they'd provide for retirement, but didn't?

Seems to me Mr. Orr is living up to his vow to do the best for the citizens of Detroit, and thus I hope he gains your approval for so doing.

---

I'm judging city officials who made the vow, because it is illogical to judge someone who "asked" for the vow to be made.

I am judging the trustees who let the city talk them into allowing deferment of payments, and into changing their smoothing formula from 5 years to 7 years, a move that Orr is now using against them.

I am judging the State for not enforcing the state constitution that requires contributions to the fund to be made in the year the liabilities are incurred.

And since the vow was made, I am absolutely judging Orr, Snyder and all citizens who believe that they can break that vow to make their life easier. I try to maintain integrity in my thought processes, so I'm clear that a vow that is made by someone with authority to make the vow cannot simply be undone by someone who says, "Oh, that was those other dumb people who made that vow - not me," or citizens who say, "Well, we need more streetlights,"

Now don't get me wrong, citizens need better services, but you shouldn't get them by breaking a vow.

Oh, and when Orr took over leadership of Detroit, he inherited the vow. Logic dictates that he cannot use his new vow to circumvent a former vow. It should be subordinate to the former vow.

But I realize that integrity seems to be reserved only for fools in this new age. So, I'm just opining. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

I'm judging city officials who made the vow, because it is illogical to judge someone who "asked" for the vow to be made.

I am judging the trustees who let the city talk them into allowing deferment of payments, and into changing their smoothing formula from 5 years to 7 years, a move that Orr is now using against them.

I am judging the State for not enforcing the state constitution that requires contributions to the fund to be made in the year the liabilities are incurred.

And since the vow was made, I am absolutely judging Orr, Snyder and all citizens who believe that they can break that vow to make their life easier. I try to maintain integrity in my thought processes, so I'm clear that a vow that is made by someone with authority to make the vow cannot simply be undone by someone who says, "Oh, that was those other dumb people who made that vow - not me," or citizens who say, "Well, we need more streetlights,"

Now don't get me wrong, citizens need better services, but you shouldn't get them by breaking a vow.

Oh, and when Orr took over leadership of Detroit, he inherited the vow. Logic dictates that he cannot use his new vow to circumvent a former vow. It should be subordinate to the former vow.

But I realize that integrity seems to be reserved only for fools in this new age. So, I'm just opining. ;)

---

Integrity is admirable. But anything taken to excess is not.

How do you handle vows that were misguided or corrupt? Are they still unbreakable moral 'vows'?

Integrity is good. But elevating 'vows' to law isn't. Plenty of evil vows have been made, sometimes with the force of law. New vows overrule old, mistaken vows. Think about voting rights in the south. We had vow once that made blacks 3/5 of a person. Wasn't an honorable vow.

I have no trouble adjusting our vows fairly and reasonaby. No vow to pay a public official a pension in excess of their base working salary is a fair and reasonable vow. Nobody intended to make a vow to unsustainable pensions agreed to by a few to be paid for by many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Now don't get me wrong, citizens need better services, but you shouldn't get them by breaking a vow.

---

I will grant that you win the integrity argument.

But integrity doesn't pay for current police, fire, EMS, or lights. And without those 4...eventually all the citizens will leave. You will still have won the integrity argument. But pensioners might actually end up with even less money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I will grant that you win the integrity argument.

But integrity doesn't pay for current police, fire, EMS, or lights. And without those 4...eventually all the citizens will leave. You will still have won the integrity argument. But pensioners might actually end up with even less money.

---

Integrity does not require a person to completely ignore hardship and extenuating circumstances. It also doesn't require you to ignore human frailties. Otherwise humans wouldn't have concepts like forgiveness, grace, mercy and - divorce.

But it does ask you to make sure you have no other options. It demands that breaking that vow be the last choice, not the easiest, the quickest or even the best. It calls for great scrutiny if you are going to ask for anything other than what's "right".

You hope, or at least I do, that this is what happens in bankruptcy court. But it is not clear to me that this is what happens in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 appears to be an easy way out.

It's very effective to evoke police, fire, EMS and lights. But, the city is looking to spend a lot of that money it is taking from retirees and creditors on a lot of other things as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Integrity does not require a person to completely ignore hardship and extenuating circumstances. It also doesn't require you to ignore human frailties. Otherwise humans wouldn't have concepts like forgiveness, grace, mercy and - divorce.

But it does ask you to make sure you have no other options. It demands that breaking that vow be the last choice, not the easiest, the quickest or even the best. It calls for great scrutiny if you are going to ask for anything other than what's "right".

You hope, or at least I do, that this is what happens in bankruptcy court. But it is not clear to me that this is what happens in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 appears to be an easy way out. ...

---

Locky, where is anyone 'ignoring hardship or extenuating circumstances'. Seems like everyone is doing everything they can to deal with a bad situation where vows were made by people who didn't follow through.

And I don't see how this is the 'easy way out'. I'd hate to see the hard way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

It's very effective to evoke police, fire, EMS and lights. But, the city is looking to spend a lot of that money it is taking from retirees and creditors on a lot of other things as well.

---

What are the other things? Blight demolitions? Re-tooling and re-training our city departments? These are all pieces of the same pie.

If you are referring to the millions we are paying in consultant and legal costs, I agree that this sucks. But we don't have a lot of good options.

- One is that if we do nothing [[or do the same that we've been doing), the problem only gets even worse and requires more pain to correct with every passing year. As Wesley puts, if Chapter 9 is the easy way, I'd shudder to see the hard way. The easy way was to start anticipating this and fixing it ourselves at various junction points over the last 3 decades. We didn't.

- $1.2 Billion [[Orr's proposed re-direction of funds back *into* city services over 10 years) = 1,200 Million. So even if we spent $100 Million [[which is absurd) in legal costs between now and the bankruptcy, we would get 12x that money back into the city.

- We could avoid spending half of that money if we could just get the creditors to agree out of court. Any beef you have with the money we're spending should be directed at the people fighting the change. Chapter 9 is just a tool to force all of the creditors to line up in one court proceeding rather than 70 different ones.

You raise a very good point about Chapter 9 being a last resort. Obviously, once we've past the point of no return, it's easy to acknowledge the Chapter 9 becomes the only option. But of course, the problem with that is that by that point we've already passed the point of no return. By that point you've already jumped out of the plane, and there's no parachute.

I get the argument stating that Chapter 9 filing was premature. And I also get that once we've passed the breaking point, filing Chapter 9 is too late. So the question is when do we do it? By almost every measure the numbers were trending in the wrong direction, not the right direction. The municipal government systems weren't designed to solve we are in...regardless of which leaders sit in the chairs.

I agree that we hadn't yet hit the point of no return. I guess I just see the writing on the wall and the train speeding toward the cliff and would rather take the pain now when it's still solvable rather than later when it's too late.

Thanks. I read these threads and I'm sometimes not able to follow because of the TLAs [[Three Letter Acronymns)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinary

Thanks. I read these threads and I'm sometimes not able to follow because of the TLAs [[Three Letter Acronymns)

---

NP........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Locky, where is anyone 'ignoring hardship or extenuating circumstances'. Seems like everyone is doing everything they can to deal with a bad situation where vows were made by people who didn't follow through.

And I don't see how this is the 'easy way out'. I'd hate to see the hard way.

---

Clearly you have misunderstood my post, which was in response to a post that implied that my argument for integrity ignores the fact that Detroit needs services [[police, fire, etc.) badly. I was just responding that my attempt to have integrity and ask others to do the same does not prevent me from acknowledging the occasions when it becomes absolutely necessary to break a vow.

But in rereading it I can see how you might have thought I was accusing others of ignoring hardship, etc.

And the more I learn about Chapter 9 the more I see it is the easy way out. Municipalities have nothing to lose and everything to gain with Chapter 9. Well maybe they lose good bond ratings but Detroit didn't have good ratings anyway - so - nothing to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Clearly you have misunderstood my post, which was in response to a post that implied that my argument for integrity ignores the fact that Detroit needs services [[police, fire, etc.) badly. I was just responding that my attempt to have integrity and ask others to do the same does not prevent me from acknowledging the occasions when it becomes absolutely necessary to break a vow.

But in rereading it I can see how you might have thought I was accusing others of ignoring hardship, etc.

And the more I learn about Chapter 9 the more I see it is the easy way out. Municipalities have nothing to lose and everything to gain with Chapter 9. Well maybe they lose good bond ratings but Detroit didn't have good ratings anyway - so - nothing to lose.

---

The entire bankruptcy process whether it be municipal, corporate, or individual implies as its essence, the "breaking of vows". Essentially, bankruptcy is designed to eliminate or reduce indebtedness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

...And the more I learn about Chapter 9 the more I see it is the easy way out. Municipalities have nothing to lose and everything to gain with Chapter 9. Well maybe they lose good bond ratings but Detroit didn't have good ratings anyway - so - nothing to lose.

---

Do explain. I don't see how they gain much. I certainly see how real people lose more. And in the end, that's all there is. Real people. Municipalities are just tools. We treat them like they are some living entity, but they are not. Only people can hurt.

We're now going to find out just how much they have to hurt because of the sins and failures of their leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Essentially, bankruptcy is designed to eliminate or reduce indebtedness.

---

It's also designed to maximize and fairly allocate money to creditors. Yes, 10 cents on the dollar is a big reduction from 100 cents. But it's also a lot better than 3 cents...which is what would eventually happen if this thing spiraled down any further.

Bankruptcy is not the breaking of vows in the sense of, "I'm screwing you all over." It's more like, "Look around. We are all going to get screwed. Now let's figure out how to do this in a way that's gonna make sense."