Democrats say the city lost revenue because rich people fled to the suburbs:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-07-23/opinion/sns-201307231200–tms–amvoicesctnav-a20130723-20130723_1_city-workers-suburbs-robert-b

Conservatives say the entrenched unions  made it impossible for a sound economic policy to be implemented: 
http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17404

Now how about both sides being right?

Readers of crime novels are familiar with this expression: “Cherchez la Femme”. “No matter what the problem, a woman is often the root cause” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherchez_la_femme. Nowadays things have changed a bit and ‘Cherchez l’argent’ (follow the money) seems more appropriate.

The union bosses used the public funds to establish a vast network of clients (in Latin it means ‘dependent person, vassal’ – http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/client) while the rich people refused (wisely) to pay for this profligacy but instead of doing something to curb it they choose the easy way out –  moving to the suburbs.

And now, with the economic engine (auto industry) in shambles, the inner city collapsed. Do you think the dependent parts will last much longer? On what?

Advertisements