Shot Across the Bow

(Via Felix Salmon and The Big Picture)

Mary Williams Walsh (and by extension, the New York Times) would like you to think that states may try to declare bankruptcy in the foreseeable future.

That such things are illegal now does not seem to be an issue, nor does the absence of a Congressional bill making such a thing legal.

People are talking about it, Ms. Walsh warns us - and we should be afraid.

More accurately, public employees should be afraid (emphasis mine):

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

And Ms. Walsh is using "alter" in the same way that Darth Vader uses it:

I wish to alter your pension. Pray I don't alter it any further.

It doesn't exactly sound likely, and it cannot be terribly popular - Welching on a pension promised to workers who have upheld their part of the deal?

You've paid us with years of your life - years that are now gone. I know we'd promised you money, but....well...

Who is leading the push for this?

Let's see:

Discussion of a new bankruptcy option for the states appears to have taken off in November, after [Newt] Gingrich gave a speech about the country’s big challenges, including government debt and an uncompetitive labor market.

“We just have to be honest and clear about this, and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy,” he said.

I get that the GOP is dusting off the brass knuckles with labor, post election - but does the NYT really have to be their bullhorn for their threats?

What crap.