[quote=pjwal]It’s an uncertainty that might force unions and retirement systems to take a deal without forcing a judge to rule on the issue.
…
In short, bankruptcy levels the playing field. Everyone owed money must jockey for position. It’s more likely in bankruptcy, Shea said, for a party to settle than to bet on victory particularly when so much money is at stake.
…
A bankruptcy might not wipe pension obligations away, but it could make the debt smaller.
Everyone always takes things out of context. No one is talking about completely wiping pension obligations off the books. But somehow, through bankruptcy or otherwise, the obligation needs to be reduced. I vote for bankruptcy.[/quote]
Pensions are one of the top priorities, just behind GO bonds, IIRC.
They will cut everything else (school funding, prisons, hospitals, state parks, etc.) before the pensions, so not sure a BK would actually reduce pension obligations. They don’t have to jockey for priority because they already have priority. That’s what people mean when they say, “we can’t do anything about it.”
But see what **can** possibly be done (based on my limited understanding) in my above post.
