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?