STUMP - Death and Taxes

This is mainly a wonky look at trade-offs in Social Security reforms — some of the changes that can be made: payroll tax rates, maximum salary amount to be taxed, salary base for benefit credits, weights in the benefit formula — but at the highest levels, the trade-offs to be made in increasing taxes and in decreasing (or even increasing) benefits.

Links are below to the American Academy of Actuaries, UPenn’s Penn Wharton Budget Model applied to Social Security reform, Andrew Biggs’s commentary using the Wharton model, and a recent Congressional hearing on the matter.

Episode Links

American Academy of Actuaries

Social Security Challenge! - try out different options to close the gap in Social Security sustainability in funding

March 2026: Reforming Social Security Sooner Rather Than Later

Key Points

• Social Security’s combined trust fund reserves are projected to be depleted around 2034, when its income would be able to pay only about 80% of the benefits scheduled for its anticipated 81 million beneficiaries.

• It is important that Congress immediately focus on this issue; delay narrows the viable options to those that rely on significant tax increases. If Congress does not act by 2034, we will be faced with:

– An automatic 20% cut in benefits for those already receiving benefits,

– An immediate increase in Social Security taxes of almost 25%, or

– Some combination of benefit reductions and tax increases.

• It is too late for benefit reductions on new beneficiaries to have much impact in avoiding the upcoming depletion.

August 2026: Comments to Senate Committee on Finance on Social Security Solvency

Highlights from the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report: One-Pager Placemat

Congress

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance

5 Aug 2026: Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency

[video at link — starts at about 21 minutes in, btw]

Member statements:

Crapo Statement at Hearing on Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency

“For decades, the Social Security Board of Trustees has recommended that Congress act quickly to address the program’s long-term financial challenges. According to the Trustees’ latest projections, the Old-Age and Survivor’s Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act before then, incoming program revenues will be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of promised benefits. “Congress has a responsibility to protect and strengthen Social Security for current beneficiaries and future generations. The longer we wait, the more difficult this challenge will become.

“The last comprehensive effort to improve Social Security’s solvency took place over 40 years ago and culminated in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Those reforms were preceded by high-level bipartisan negotiations, informed and facilitated by the work of the National Commission on Social Security Reform, or what was known as the ‘Greenspan Commission.’ That process demonstrated the value of creating a forum where policymakers could work through difficult issues and build consensus on a bipartisan basis.

“More than two decades later, I participated in another bipartisan effort to develop recommendations to address our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges, along with Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic co-author of one of the process bills that will be discussed today. As part of its work, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, often referred to as the Bowles Simpson Commission, developed a bipartisan Social Security solvency plan. While the Commission’s recommendations ultimately did not receive the support necessary to move forward, its work has informed subsequent Social Security solvency discussions.

“As Social Security approaches a pivotal moment, Members of Congress have proposed a variety of process reforms designed to facilitate bipartisan discussions and help develop lasting solutions. Today’s hearing will examine those approaches and consider what lessons can be drawn from past efforts.

Wyden Warns Social Security Commission is Fast Track for Gutting Benefits

The Trust Fund will be depleted before the end of the next presidential administration. Today Republican members of this panel will claim they have the solution: an unaccountable “commission” that will rubber stamp benefit cuts like increasing the retirement age. Every time Republicans get their hands on these sorts of ideas for Social Security, life gets worse for older people that count on it to get by.

Thanks to Trump and the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the crisis is coming even faster, in 2032 instead of 2033. Senators elected this fall will be in office when Social Security becomes insolvent. Republicans started this fire, and now they are claiming they are the only ones who can put it out.

The consequences of insolvency are severe: Americans who paid into Social Security out of every paycheck during their working years will no longer receive their full benefits. 1 in 4 seniors rely on their earned Social Security benefits for virtually all of their income. That number is even higher for people receiving disability benefits or kids who lost a parent.

Trump and his MAGA allies gave huge tax breaks to billionaires and massive corporations last year, and that bill plundered Social Security to the tune of $168 billion. Don’t take it from me, that number comes from the Social Security actuary’s office itself.

Here’s my bottom line: I want to work on a bipartisan basis to fix this problem and protect everyday retirees from missing out on their earned benefits in a little more than six years. We can do that by updating Social Security to reflect the economy of America today and ask billionaires to pay their fair share through the payroll and income tax. That’s it.

I wish the Finance Committee was here to have that substantive debate.

Instead, the concept being discussed today would act as a shortcut for Republicans to carry out their long sought goal of slashing Social Security benefits for retirees and raising taxes for the middle class.

Colleagues, in my view, supporting a scheme like that would be a dereliction of duty for any member of Congress. This is the work we were sent to Congress to undertake. Handing off that responsibility to someone else is passing the buck.

In the words of basketball great Allen Iverson, and I quote, “We’re talking about practice. Not a game. We’re talking about practice.”

Instead of “talking about talking,” this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view.

Democrats on this committee have put forward their ideas. Through our plans, Social Security can be secured indefinitely into the future without a single dime cut to a current or future retiree.

That means no raising the retirement age, no cost-of-living haircuts, and no means-testing benefits.

All we need to do is require billionaires, who have seen their wealth skyrocket to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle with their grocery bills, to pay their fair share.

Andrew Biggs

These are from his Substack:

Little Known Facts: The two charts any Social Security reformer should understand

Let me give the charts before the explanation(s):

Penn Wharton Analysis

Andrew Biggs is using the Penn Wharton Budget Model: Seven Social Security Reform Packages: Effects on Growth and Generations

This is from 21 Sept 2026.

Only Package F is keeping the tax rates the same in the Penn Wharton analysis.

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

While the state of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health (and potential “is he alive/dead?” Schrodinger’s cat-like situation) plays out right now, I look at the real issue: there is no way to deal with incapacitated members of Congress. I look at prior situations in the Senate itself, and then I do go off on some tangents: historical situations where leaders’ deaths were covered up and more recent situations where a bad health situation was allowed to linger before the plug was finally pulled.

Episode Links and Text

On Congressional Incapacitation

26 Mar 2020, Bipartisan Policy Center: What If a Member of Congress Is Severely Incapacitated and Cannot Perform the Duties of the Job?

Presidential incapacitation, either anticipated and short term or unexpected and longer term, can be handled by a transfer of power to the Vice President under the procedures of the 25th amendment.

But if a member of Congress becomes incapacitated, there is no legal avenue to replace that person.

Recently, many in Congress have been trying to deal with the issue of members unable to come to Congress, either due to sickness or quarantine, or because hygiene recommendations or logistical issues makes showing up at Congress difficult or impossible. A separate issue, however, is what to do if a member is so sick or severely incapacitated that they could not perform the duties of the job (either remotely or in person).

Congressional history is filled with examples of members who have had severe, debilitating illnesses. Senator Karl Mundt of North Dakota suffered a stroke and was absent from the Senate for the final three years of his term. Illness forced Senator Carter Glass of Virginia to be absent from the Senate for nearly two years. In the case of Glass, citizens of Virginia petitioned courts to remove Glass from his seat, as it was effectively vacant. The court refused to take action.

Never has a sitting member of Congress been removed from office due to incapacitation.

Karl Mundt

U.S. Senate Biography

From 1948 until his retirement in 1973, South Dakota senator Karl Mundt was known as a fierce opponent of communism. As a member—and eventually ranking member—of the Committee on Government Operations and its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Mundt worked to expose communists in the government. In 1954 he chaired the Subcommittee on Investigations for the Army-McCarthy hearings, remaining loyal to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mundt gained prominence with two major investigations into bribery allegations against officials at the Agriculture Department and the Pentagon. Mundt voted for cloture to end debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after striking a deal with Republican Leader Everett Dirksen. Mundt also became one of the leading conservationists in the Senate, which earned him an award from The World Wildlife Fund in 1969. After he suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969, Senate leaders took the unprecedented step of removing Mundt from his committee assignments.

Wikipedia: Illness

On November 23, 1969, Mundt suffered a severe stroke and was subsequently unable to attend sessions of Congress, although he received extensive speech and physical therapy. His wife, Mary, led his staff in Mundt's place and refused calls for the crippled Senator to resign. Mundt was stripped of his committee assignments by the Senate Republican Conference in 1972, but he remained in office through the end of his term on January 3, 1973.[3] He did not seek reelection in 1972, and was succeeded in the Senate by Democrat James G. Abourezk.

Carter Glass

Wikipedia: Family, decline, death

Carter Glass was a Methodist.[18] When he was twenty-eight, Glass married Aurelia McDearmon Caldwell, a school teacher. They had four children. She died of a heart ailment in 1937.[19] Glass remarried in 1940 at the age of 82. His second wife, Mary Scott, was his constant companion as his health began to fail over the next few years. They lived at the Mayflower Hotel Apartments in Washington, D.C. Starting in 1942, Glass began suffering from various age-related illnesses and could not attend Senate meetings after that time. However, he refused to resign from the Senate, despite many requests that he do so, and even kept his committee chairmanship. Many visitors were also kept away from him by his wife.[20]

A confidential 1943 analysis of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Isaiah Berlin for the British Foreign Office stated that Glass[21]

“...is very old and frail and something of a legend in the South. The fruit-growing interests of his State make him an opponent of the reciprocal trade pacts, but on all other questions he has loyally supported the President’s anti-Isolationist policy. He cannot have many years of active service before him.”

Glass died of congestive heart failure in Washington, D.C., on May 28, 1946. He is interred at Spring Hill Cemetery in Lynchburg. His fellow sponsor of the Glass-Owen Act, Senator Robert Latham Owen, lies nearby.

Gemini Conversation and Excerpts

Link to Gemini Conversation: https://share.gemini.google/i03cKVsS52d4

A few items:

McConnell leadership positions he still retains:

While the Constitution provides no clear mechanism to force an incapacitated senator to vacate their seat, committee assignments and chairmanships are governed separately by party rules and Senate resolutions.

Though he stepped down as the Republican Leader in January 2025, McConnell still holds several significant positions in the 119th Congress (2025–2026). As of July 2026, he holds the following roles:

Full and Joint Committees

* Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (Chair)

* Joint Committee on Printing (Chair)

* Joint Committee on the Library (Vice Chair)

Subcommittees

* Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (Chair) — He also sits on the full Senate Appropriations Committee.

* Agriculture Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research (Chair) — He also sits on the full Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.

Because committee business often relies on narrow party margins, his ongoing hospitalization is actively bottlenecking Senate operations. Without his vote, the Appropriations Committee is currently split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, which has stalled scheduled markups and temporarily blocked the advancement of defense spending bills for the 2027 fiscal year.

Discussing a “25th Amendment” for Congress

….

The Current Reality

Without a new Constitutional Amendment, a sitting member’s seat only becomes officially vacant under three conditions:

* Death

* Voluntary Resignation

* Expulsion (which has historically only been used for treason or severe criminal corruption, never for a medical crisis).

Lawfare

Because the Constitution gives each chamber the exclusive power to “be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,” the Senate itself must recognize a vacancy before a state governor can act. If an incapacitated senator cannot resign, the Senate is effectively stuck at an impasse unless they are willing to attempt an unprecedented two-thirds expulsion vote.

Me: Yes, I don't see any of the Senators, many of whom are aged themselves and may undergo extended hospitalization and return, voting for expulsion just due to medical incapacitation... which may also complicate any use of a Constitutional Amendment anyway. It seems it needs something where it comes from the state/constitutents

Gemini:

You’ve hit on the exact structural flaw in relying on the Senate to police itself. Expulsion was designed for treason or extreme corruption, not for a severe medical crisis. Because many senators are elderly and protective of their own institutional power, they have a vested interest in not setting a precedent of ejecting a colleague for health reasons.

Because of that inherent conflict of interest, a Constitutional Amendment designed to address incapacity would likely need to bypass the chamber entirely and put the trigger in the hands of the state or its constituents.

….

The Historical Hurdle

The reason we don’t have these mechanisms now is that the Framers specifically debated—and rejected—giving states the power to recall federal representatives during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. They feared that if states could recall senators at will, the federal government would be too unstable and members would be beholden to local factions rather than the national interest.

Overcoming that deeply ingrained constitutional history to pass a new amendment would be incredibly difficult, but as you pointed out, leaving the decision to the Senate almost guarantees inaction.

Historical Examples of Hiding Deaths of Leaders

Gemini Output (plus some links) — due to length, will not blockquote, but the below is output straight from Gemini. I will be dropping in links to other sources.

Hiding the death of a leader is a surprisingly common historical strategy, usually executed by inner circles desperately trying to buy time to secure their own power, prevent a military collapse, or manipulate the line of succession.

Here are three of the most audacious, and successful, cover-ups in history:

1. The Carts of Rotting Fish (China, 210 BCE)

You likely heard about the death of Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of a unified China (and the man buried with the Terracotta Army). He died suddenly while touring Eastern China, two months away from the capital.

His Chancellor, Li Si, and the chief eunuch, Zhao Gao, panicked. They knew the Emperor’s capable eldest son, Fusu, favored a rival faction and would likely execute them upon taking the throne. They needed time to forge a fake imperial decree forcing Fusu to commit suicide and installing a younger, easily manipulated son instead.

To hide the death during the long journey back to the capital, they kept the Emperor’s body inside his enclosed, shade-drawn carriage. They had meals delivered to the window, carried on loud one-sided conversations with the carriage, and issued forged documents from inside. However, it was the middle of summer, and the Emperor’s body began to rapidly decompose. To mask the overwhelming smell of a rotting monarch, Li Si ordered carts of salted, decomposing fish (abalone) to be hitched immediately in front of and behind the imperial carriage.

2. The Three-Year Shadow (Japan, 1573)

Takeda Shingen, known as the “Tiger of Kai,” was one of the most brilliant and feared warlords of Japan’s Sengoku (Warring States) period. In 1573, while on a major military campaign against his rival Tokugawa Ieyasu, Shingen fell mortally ill.

Knowing his clan was surrounded by aggressive enemies who would immediately invade if they knew he was dead, Shingen issued a stunning final command: his death was to be kept an absolute secret for three full years.

His generals obliged. To pull off the deception, they utilized a kagemusha (a political body double). Shingen’s younger brother, Takeda Nobukado, bore a striking resemblance to the warlord and stepped into the role. For three years, the double attended military meetings, reviewed troops from a distance, and maintained the illusion that Shingen was alive. The ruse successfully held off rival warlords, who were too terrified of Shingen’s tactical genius to risk an attack. (This incredible cover-up later inspired Akira Kurosawa’s 1980 masterpiece film, Kagemusha).

Kagemusha IMdB link

3. The Secret in the Tent (Ottoman Empire, 1566)

Suleiman the Magnificent died of natural causes in his royal tent during the brutal Siege of Szigetvár in Hungary.

His Grand Vizier, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, recognized a catastrophic problem: announcing the death of the empire’s greatest sultan would instantly shatter the morale of the besieging Ottoman army. Worse, Suleiman’s heir, Selim II, was 800 miles away in Anatolia. If the army found out the Sultan was dead, it would trigger a chaotic, violent succession crisis right in the middle of a warzone.

For 48 days, the Grand Vizier kept the death an absolute secret. He had the Sultan secretly buried beneath the floorboards of his own tent. He forged military orders in the Sultan’s handwriting and severely restricted access to the royal quarters. To keep the troops convinced, he occasionally propped up a lookalike in the Sultan’s carriage to wave at the army from a distance in dim lighting. The ruse worked perfectly — the Ottomans won the siege, and the secret was only revealed once Selim was safely secured on the throne.

Modern Political Incapacitations: Two Famous Examples

I selected 2 of the 3 given to me by Gemini: Franco and Woodrow Wilson. You may find the third interesting, but it’s not in the podcast.

1. The Three-Year Secret (Ethiopia, 1913–1916)

Emperor Menelik II, widely considered the founder of the modern Ethiopian state, suffered a series of severe strokes starting in 1906 and was entirely incapacitated by 1909. His teenage grandson, Lij Iyasu, was elevated to act as the de facto regent.

When Menelik II finally died on December 12, 1913, Iyasu was terrified that formally announcing the death would trigger a massive succession war among the regional nobility. To secure his own grip on the throne, Iyasu strictly forbade anyone from mourning, locked down access to the palace, and kept the Emperor’s death an absolute state secret. The Ethiopian public was kept completely in the dark for nearly three years. The ruse only ended in September 1916, when a coalition of nobles overthrew Iyasu and finally announced that Menelik had been dead since 1913.

2. The “Life Support” Delay (Spain, 1975)

As medical technology advanced, 20th-century inner circles realized they didn’t need to hide a corpse—they just needed to keep the heart beating artificially until the political timing was right.

Francisco Franco, Spain’s military dictator, suffered severe gastrointestinal bleeding and fell into a coma on November 3, 1975. For weeks, his inner circle—led by his surgeon son-in-law—kept him artificially alive on life support machines. While historians still debate exactly who gave the final order, Franco was officially unplugged and declared dead on November 20.

This date was almost certainly manipulated for propaganda purposes: November 20 was the exact anniversary of the 1936 execution of José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the revered founder of the Spanish fascist movement that had originally brought Franco to power.

Wikipedia: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead

3. The Ultimate Incapacitation Cover-Up (United States, 1919–1921)

Tying back to your earlier questions about what happens when a U.S. official is incapacitated—while he didn’t actually die, the most consequential 20th-century cover-up was that of President Woodrow Wilson.

In October 1919, Wilson suffered a massive stroke that left him paralyzed on his left side and partially blind. Rather than transferring power to the Vice President, his wife, Edith Wilson, and his physician, Dr. Cary Grayson, formed an impenetrable barrier around the President.

For the final 17 months of his presidency, Edith acted as the sole gatekeeper. She reviewed all state papers, decided what the President would see, and effectively ran the executive branch by proxy, all while issuing statements that Wilson was merely suffering from “exhaustion.” They successfully hid the true, devastating severity of his condition from Congress, the press, and the public.

This massive deception is precisely the historical nightmare that eventually pushed Congress to draft the 25th Amendment—specifically to ensure the executive branch could never be secretly run by an unelected proxy again.

Development of the 25th Amendment

As I mentioned in the podcast, Gemini was actually incorrect about Wilson’s situation being the direct impetus for the 25th Amendment, which wasn’t ratified until the 1960s. It does help to question the stuff the AI feeds back at you — it tries to make linkages that aren’t exactly correct.

10 Feb 2021, National Constitution Center: How a national tragedy led to the 25th amendment

It was on this day in 1967 that two states, Nevada and Minnesota, made the Constitution’s 25th Amendment a reality, clearing up questions about presidential succession that dated back to the Founders’ time.

President John F. Kennedy’s death on November 22, 1963, led a united Congress to push for the key constitutional change. Kennedy’s assassination created moments of chaos in the federal government that afternoon. Vice President Lyndon Johnson was in the same motorcade as Kennedy, and there were early, erroneous reports that Johnson was also wounded.

As the country came to grips with the assassination, Johnson made sure the moment when he took the oath of office, about two hours after Kennedy’s death, was documented, so the nation knew a constitutional change of office had taken place.

Kennedy’s sudden passing accelerated an argument about a constitutional change that had been in the works in Congress in 1963.

Technically, the Constitution never spelled out how a vice president would become president if a president died, resigned or was unable to perform the office’s duty.

This oversight became apparent in 1841, when the newly elected President, William Henry Harrison, died about a month after becoming President. Vice President John Tyler, in a bold move, settled the political debate about succession.

There was a question in Congress about what powers Tyler had and what he should be called (Acting President, President or Vice President). Tyler settled the debate by asking the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit to administer the presidential oath, and he fought all attempts by his many political foes to treat him as anything but the legitimate President of the United States.

In the following years, presidential successions happened after the deaths of six presidents, and there were two cases where the offices of president and vice president almost became vacant at the same time. The “Tyler Precedent” stood fast in these transition periods.

Furthermore, there was no constitutional way to replace a vice president who had vacated office or to handle a situation where a president became incapacitated while in office.

By 1963, Congress was debating an attempt to amend the Constitution to clear up all succession matters and add a procedure for dealing with a leader who became unable to perform the office’s duties temporarily or permanently. This became a bigger issue with the realities of the Cold War and with President Dwight Eisenhower’s illnesses in the 1950s.

The influential Senator Estes Kefauver had started the amendment effort during the Eisenhower era, after it was proposed by the American Bar Association, and he renewed it in 1963. Kefauver died in August 1963 after suffering a heart attack on the Senate floor.

With Kennedy’s unexpected death, the need for a clear way to determine presidential succession, especially with the new reality of the Cold War and its frightening technologies, forced Congress into action.

The 25th Amendment was more about multiple succession issues more than incapacity, in terms of getting it passed.

Mitch McConnell Coverage

This is elsewhere, not really in this episode.

* 8 July 2026, The Cut: What’s Going on With Mitch McConnell?

* 10 July 2026, Intelligencer: New Mitch McConnell Ambulance Video Adds to Health Mystery

* 10 July 2026, CNN: McConnell was loaded into ambulance on a stretcher, according to eyewitness and new video

* 10 July 2026, USA Today: Elaine Chao, wife of Mitch McConnell, issues statement after US return

* 11 July 2026, WHAS11: ‘Tell us what’s going on’ | Andy Beshear, Scott Jennings strike similar tone on Mitch McConnell

Related Links

* 30 Jun 2026: Congressional Morbidity and Mortality Watch: A Quickie Update - the first time hearing about McConnell’s hospitalization

* Feb 2026: Political Mortality: Rahm Emanuel Says There Should Be a Mandatory 75-Year-Old Retirement Age for Key Federal Roles

* 9 Jan 2026: Congressional Mortality 2026 Update: More Consequences

* 25 May 2025: Political Mortality Update: Yes, A THIRD Democratic Representative Died in 2025

* 10 Apr 2025: Congressional Mortality Has Consequences

* 25 Jan 2025: 2025 Update on Senate Demographics

* Sep 2023: Politicians: Don’t Tempt the Reaper

* Feb 2023: Senate Mortality 2023: Top Ten Old Senators

* April 2022: All Men Must Die, But They Don’t Have to Die in Office

* May 2023: A Sampling of Political Mortality

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

April is the cruelest month in dropping all sorts of awareness topics on our heads: Autism, Cancer (various types - I covered testicular cancer earlier this month), financial literacy, and poetry… suppose we become “aware” of all this? What are we supposed to do with all this awareness and knowledge?

Episode Links

Poems

T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

I. The Burial of the Dead

April is the cruellest month, breeding

Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing

Memory and desire, stirring

Dull roots with spring rain.

The Poetry Foundation, Poem Guide by Tyler Malone: The Waste Land

The initial declaration of The Waste Land—“April is the cruellest month”—is clear enough in meaning, even if it defies readers’ expectations. The opening is a subversion of the first lines of the General Prologue of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales.

General Prologue of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote,

The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licóur

Of which vertú engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth

Inspired hath in every holt and heeth

The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne

Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,

And smale foweles maken melodye,

That slepen al the nyght with open ye,

So priketh hem Natúre in hir corages,

Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,

And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,

To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;

And specially, from every shires ende

Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,

The hooly blisful martir for to seke,

That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.

Translation of first 18 lines of the General Prologue, Wikipedia

Walt Whitman, When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d

1

When lilacs last in the dooryard bloom’d,

And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,

I mourn’d, and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.

Ever-returning spring, trinity sure to me you bring,

Lilac blooming perennial and drooping star in the west,

And thought of him I love.

Autism Awareness

Livejournal posts

April 2026: Autism Awareness Month, April 2026

April 2011: Autism Awareness Month and Diarmuid

Oct 2009: I come to praise the Fred S. Keller school

Sept 2009: Breakthrough!

Aug 2009: Profile of the founder of D’s school, and a few details

STUMP posts

Mar 2014: Can Disney Films Teach Social Skills? - the sole post by my late husband Stu

Just as no two people are alike, the son in the article, Owen, and our son, D., are different in their disabilities. D. had no language loss — because he didn’t have language skills to lose. He spoke rarely but always sang songs he loved. D. didn’t withdraw from the world and has always been loving, cuddly and interested in any adult who gives him attention. I can go on but let’s focus on a commonality between the two. They love videos.

Apr 2025:

Aunt Betsey & Mr. Dick — from David Copperfield [Dec 2019]

Mar 2021: Cuomo Killing the Disabled and the Elderly: This Time It’s Personal

Cancer

The National Cancer Institute’s latest official SEER statistics — based on the November 2025 data submission (covering diagnoses through 2023) and publicly released in April 2026 via SEER*Explorer — confirm what many in insurance and benefits have sensed: early-onset cancers among adults under 50 are accelerating, even as overall age-adjusted cancer rates remain relatively stable with only a modest recent uptick.

Other Awareness

April: Financial Literacy Month

April 2026 Financial Literacy Month Resources at MyMoney.gov

Resources at Council for Economic Education

Dec 2024: An Actual Murderer Among the Recently Commuted by Biden (a murderer involved with life insurance fraud)

May 2022: Podcast episode — Don’t sell insurance to the Mafia

May 2022: Podcast episode - Fraudulent Life Insurers

Jun 2024: Podcast episode — Fraud and Embezzlement! How to Prevent and Detect

Dec 2024: Revisiting Fraud & Embezzlement Episode: Rita Crundwell and Biden Commutation

May 2022: Podcast episode — Don’t perpetrate financial fraud in spreadsheets

Nov 2022: Podcast episode — FTX, Dickens, and Business Fraud

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

March is Problem Gambling Awareness Month (were you aware?) — and many people are becoming aware of an increasing problem with all sorts of gambling and betting being available 24/7, in easy reach, on our phones.

People wrestling with gambling debts and gambling addiction are not a new phenomenon, as these have featured as major items in literature (which I mention)… and unfortunately, too many politicians have pointed to people’s attraction to gambling via lotteries in supposedly helping to fund governmental functions.

Episode Links

National Council on Problem Gambling

FAQs: What is Problem Gambling?

What is problem gambling?

Problem gambling (sometimes referred to as “gambling addiction” or “gambling disorder”) is gambling behavior that is damaging to a person or their family, often disrupting their daily life and career. Anyone who gambles can be at-risk for developing a gambling problem. Gambling disorder is a recognized mental health diagnosis.

Some warning signs of a gambling problem are:

* Thinking about gambling all the time.

* Feeling the need to bet more money and more often.

* Going back to try to win your money back (“chasing losses”).

* Feeling restless or irritable when trying to stop or cut down.

* Feeling like you can’t control yourself.

* Gambling despite negative consequences.

* In extreme cases, problem gambling can cause bankruptcy, legal problems, losing your job or your family, and thinking about suicide.

For more information on the American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for gambling addiction, visit DSM 5 at www.psych.org.

Problem Gambling Awareness Month (PGAM)

Problem Gambling Awareness Month is a nationwide grassroots campaign, held annually in March, that seeks to increase public awareness of problem gambling and promote prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

PGAM Goals

* To increase public awareness of problem gambling and the availability of prevention, treatment and recovery services.

* To encourage healthcare providers to screen clients for problem gambling.

Literary Gambling

The Old Curiosity Shop by Dickens at Project Gutenberg

Chapter 29 excerpt to Chapter 30:

The child sat by, and watched its progress with a troubled mind. Regardless of the run of luck, and mindful only of the desperate passion which had its hold upon her grandfather, losses and gains were to her alike. Exulting in some brief triumph, or cast down by a defeat, there he sat so wild and restless, so feverishly and intensely anxious, so terribly eager, so ravenous for the paltry stakes, that she could have almost better borne to see him dead. And yet she was the innocent cause of all this torture, and he, gambling with such a savage thirst for gain as the most insatiable gambler never felt, had not one selfish thought!

On the contrary, the other three—knaves and gamesters by their trade—while intent upon their game, were yet as cool and quiet as if every virtue had been centered in their breasts. Sometimes one would look up to smile to another, or to snuff the feeble candle, or to glance at the lightning as it shot through the open window and fluttering curtain, or to listen to some louder peal of thunder than the rest, with a kind of momentary impatience, as if it put him out; but there they sat, with a calm indifference to everything but their cards, perfect philosophers in appearance, and with no greater show of passion or excitement than if they had been made of stone.

The storm had raged for full three hours; the lightning had grown fainter and less frequent; the thunder, from seeming to roll and break above their heads, had gradually died away into a deep hoarse distance; and still the game went on, and still the anxious child was quite forgotten.

CHAPTER 30

At length the play came to an end, and Mr Isaac List rose the only winner. Mat and the landlord bore their losses with professional fortitude. Isaac pocketed his gains with the air of a man who had quite made up his mind to win, all along, and was neither surprised nor pleased.

Nell’s little purse was exhausted; but although it lay empty by his side, and the other players had now risen from the table, the old man sat poring over the cards, dealing them as they had been dealt before, and turning up the different hands to see what each man would have held if they had still been playing. He was quite absorbed in this occupation, when the child drew near and laid her hand upon his shoulder, telling him it was near midnight.

‘See the curse of poverty, Nell,’ he said, pointing to the packs he had spread out upon the table. ‘If I could have gone on a little longer, only a little longer, the luck would have turned on my side. Yes, it’s as plain as the marks upon the cards. See here—and there—and here again.’

‘Put them away,’ urged the child. ‘Try to forget them.’

‘Try to forget them!’ he rejoined, raising his haggard face to hers, and regarding her with an incredulous stare. ‘To forget them! How are we ever to grow rich if I forget them?’

The child could only shake her head.

‘No, no, Nell,’ said the old man, patting her cheek; ‘they must not be forgotten. We must make amends for this as soon as we can. Patience—patience, and we’ll right thee yet, I promise thee. Lose to-day, win to-morrow. And nothing can be won without anxiety and care—nothing. Come, I am ready.’

‘Do you know what the time is?’ said Mr Groves, who was smoking with his friends. ‘Past twelve o’clock—’

‘—And a rainy night,’ added the stout man.

‘The Valiant Soldier, by James Groves. Good beds. Cheap entertainment for man and beast,’ said Mr Groves, quoting his sign-board. ‘Half-past twelve o’clock.’

‘It’s very late,’ said the uneasy child. ‘I wish we had gone before. What will they think of us! It will be two o’clock by the time we get back. What would it cost, sir, if we stopped here?’

‘Two good beds, one-and-sixpence; supper and beer one shilling; total two shillings and sixpence,’ replied the Valiant Soldier.

Now, Nell had still the piece of gold sewn in her dress; and when she came to consider the lateness of the hour, and the somnolent habits of Mrs Jarley, and to imagine the state of consternation in which they would certainly throw that good lady by knocking her up in the middle of the night—and when she reflected, on the other hand, that if they remained where they were, and rose early in the morning, they might get back before she awoke, and could plead the violence of the storm by which they had been overtaken, as a good apology for their absence—she decided, after a great deal of hesitation, to remain. She therefore took her grandfather aside, and telling him that she had still enough left to defray the cost of their lodging, proposed that they should stay there for the night.

‘If I had had but that money before—If I had only known of it a few minutes ago!’ muttered the old man.

‘We will decide to stop here if you please,’ said Nell, turning hastily to the landlord.

‘I think that’s prudent,’ returned Mr Groves. ‘You shall have your suppers directly.’

Accordingly, when Mr Groves had smoked his pipe out, knocked out the ashes, and placed it carefully in a corner of the fire-place, with the bowl downwards, he brought in the bread and cheese, and beer, with many high encomiums upon their excellence, and bade his guests fall to, and make themselves at home. Nell and her grandfather ate sparingly, for both were occupied with their own reflections; the other gentlemen, for whose constitutions beer was too weak and tame a liquid, consoled themselves with spirits and tobacco.

As they would leave the house very early in the morning, the child was anxious to pay for their entertainment before they retired to bed. But as she felt the necessity of concealing her little hoard from her grandfather, and had to change the piece of gold, she took it secretly from its place of concealment, and embraced an opportunity of following the landlord when he went out of the room, and tendered it to him in the little bar.

What next happens: Little Nell gets her coin changed in a separate room, trying to conceal the money from her grandfather and the card sharps, but after she falls asleep, somebody comes into her room and steals the money she has hidden underneath her pillow….she thinks it may have been one of the card sharps, and maybe they will attack her grandfather, so she goes to check….

The idea flashed suddenly upon her—what if it entered there, and had a design upon the old man’s life! She turned faint and sick. It did. It went in. There was a light inside. The figure was now within the chamber, and she, still dumb—quite dumb, and almost senseless—stood looking on.

The door was partly open. Not knowing what she meant to do, but meaning to preserve him or be killed herself, she staggered forward and looked in. What sight was that which met her view!

The bed had not been lain on, but was smooth and empty. And at a table sat the old man himself; the only living creature there; his white face pinched and sharpened by the greediness which made his eyes unnaturally bright—counting the money of which his hands had robbed her.

The Gambler by Dostoevsky at Project Gutenberg

Wikipedia article on The Gambler

Dostoevsky gambled for the first time at the tables at Wiesbaden in 1863.[2] From that time till 1871, when his passion for gambling subsided, he played at Baden-Baden, Homburg, and Saxon-les-Bains frequently, often beginning by winning a small amount of money and losing far more in the end.[2] He first mentions his interest in gambling in a letter he sent to his first wife’s sister on 1 September 1863 describing his initial success:[3]

Please do not think that, in my joy over not having lost, I am showing off by saying that I possess the secret of how to win instead of losing. I really do know the secret — it is terribly silly and simple, merely a matter of keeping oneself under constant control and never getting excited, no matter how the game shifts. That’s all there is to it — you just can’t lose that way and are sure to win.

Within a week he lost his winnings and was forced to beg his family for money. He wrote to his brother Mikhail on 8 September 1863:[2]

And I believed in my system ... within a quarter of an hour I won 600 francs. This whetted my appetite. Suddenly I started to lose, couldn’t control myself and lost everything. After that I ... took my last money, and went to play ... I was carried away by this unusual good fortune and I risked all 35 napoleons and lost them all. I had 6 napoleons d’or left to pay the landlady and for the journey. In Geneva I pawned my watch.

Dostoevsky then agreed to a hazardous contract with F. T. Stellovsky that if he did not deliver a novel of 12 or more signatures by 1 November 1866, Stellovsky would acquire the right to publish Dostoevsky’s works for nine years, until 1 November 1875, without any compensation to the writer.[2][4]

Pensions and Lotteries

May 2017: Stupid Pension Trick: Let’s Use Lottery Money!

This stupid trick comes courtesy New Jersey, which has been chock full of stupid pension tricks for years.

They’ve issued billions in pension obligation bonds.

They’ve gone chasing returns alternative assets to try to make up for undercontributions.

So now… what?

LET’S MONETIZE THE LOTTERY!

Here’s an explainer:

What you need to know about Christie plan to slash N.J. pension debt with lottery cash

Gov. Chris Christie’s administration on Thursday released long-awaited details of its proposal to use state lottery proceeds to boost the government worker pension fund.

In a briefing with reporters, the state treasurer emphasized the impact of the proposal, saying it said would take some of the burden off the state budget to come up with more and more money each year and will do more for improve the shaky pension fund than merely contributing the full amount recommended by actuaries.

The strategy is to inject a $13.5 billion asset into the pension fund and give it a guaranteed source of revenue for the next 30 years.

….

….

Yeah, so they’re going to take away the money from the lottery to spend on the pensions, and magically that’s going to make more money available for the things the lottery money is being spent on now.

FWIW, I saw people talking about this nifty idea back in April, and thought it dumb then.

May 2017: Geeking Out: How Dependable are Lottery Revenues? And Government Data Sources?

So I have a question: when they valued the lottery as an “asset” for the pension plan, did they assume that it would always keep growing? Linearly? Exponentially (same as constant % per year)?

I’m going to guess they didn’t fit a cubic.

There are a few other projections that may also make sense, assuming saturation of the lottery demand — cubic doesn’t really work, but something like a logistic function would probably be good.

(The reason I used exponential and cubic was because they’re built into Excel. I’m not going to do a huge amount of work here.)

June 2020: STUMP Classics: How Reliable Are Lottery Revenues?

Updated New Jersey lottery proceeds

In the old post seen above, NJ lottery proceeds had been moribund for a few years, which hit its growth rate. New York, on the other hand, had steady growth.

Well, this is what NJ lottery proceeds did once we add on three more years of experience:

Here are the 26-year growth rates for the states:

As before, New Jersey is well below the national trend.

But my main point is that proceeds from the lottery have been very variable for New Jersey, though that’s not true of the U.S. overall.

Treating their state lottery as a reliable asset to fund their pensions was a foolish decision.

Sports Betting

26 Dec 2025, Front Office Sports: 2025 Was the Year of Sports Gambling Scandals

Sports betting has expanded rapidly since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting more than seven years ago, but this year exposed vulnerabilities in the system with explosive scandals across professional and college sports.

Americans have bet “well north of” $500 billion since the 2018 Supreme Court decision, according to Legal Sports Report. Currently, 39 states and Washington, D.C. allow some form of sports betting. There have been prior controversies—like the saga with Shohei Ohtani’s former translator and the lifetime ban of NBA role player Jontay Porter—but 2025 was the year major scandals kept exploding.

23 Oct 2025, ESPN: Suspensions, arrests and lifetime bans: A timeline of sports betting scandals since the repeal of PASPA

On May 14, 2018, just after 10 a.m. ET, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, the federal statute that had restricted legal betting to primarily Nevada for 26 years.

It was a landmark decision for two of America’s favorite pastimes: sports and gambling.

States wasted little time launching -- and taxing -- legal sports betting markets, and professional leagues quickly formed partnerships with the bookmaking companies that would be taking bets on the games. Six years later, 39 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have legal betting markets, and bettors have already wagered more the $330 billion with the new state-sponsored sportsbooks. But as the betting has increased, so have the controversies that come from gambling.

In the past two years, dozens of professional and collegiate athletes and coaches have been suspended or fired for gambling violations, and at least one bettor has pleaded guilty to obstruction charges related to a college baseball betting scandal. In early 2024, a pair of investigations were launched involving suspicious betting on Temple men’s basketball and on prop wagers involving Toronto Raptors reserve center Jontay Porter. The NBA banned Porter for life after its investigation revealed he had disclosed confidential information to bettors, limited his participation in at least one game while he was with Raptors and bet on NBA games while playing in the G League.

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Paul Ehrlich died recently at the age of 93, best known as a Malthusian in a modern age of growth and then population decline…with no famines, except man-made ones. His best-known book was The Population Bomb, published in 1968, which was already wrong when it was published. It’s fine to attack the man’s ideas, as they were just plain wrong, he was told this when alive, and he had never admitted this. While not the only person with his ideas, he contributed to the suicide of expertise, by claiming authority in the face of his own falsity.

Episode Links

Media Obituaries

NYT, 15 Mar 2026: Paul R. Ehrlich, Who Alarmed the World With ‘The Population Bomb,’ Dies at 93

His best-selling 1968 book, which forecast global famines, made him a leader of the environmental movement. But he faced criticism when his predictions proved premature.

Paul R. Ehrlich, an eminent ecologist and population scientist whose best-selling book, ‘’The Population Bomb,’‘ was celebrated as a prescient warning of a coming age of food shortages and famine but later criticized by conservatives and academic rivals for what they called its sky-is-falling rhetoric, died on Friday in Palo Alto, Calif. He was 93.

His death, at a nursing facility in the retirement community where he lived, was caused by complications of cancer, his daughter, Lisa Marie Daniel, said.

As a young professor of biology at Stanford University in the mid-1960s, Dr. Ehrlich was known for his absorbing lectures on evolution, in which he described what plants and animals faced on a planet stressed by industrial pollution and rapid population growth. He distilled those lectures into an article published in December 1967 in New Scientist magazine.

Six months later, encouraged by David Brower, the executive director of the environmental group the Sierra Club, to write a book on the subject, Dr. Ehrlich published ‘’The Population Bomb.’‘ In 233 pages, he asserted that the planet’s condition began to deteriorate rapidly in the 1950s, when the rate of population growth exceeded the increase in food production -- or, as he put it, when ‘’the stork passed the plow.’‘ He called on couples to limit their families to one or two children.

Witty, knowledgeable and not at all reticent, Dr. Ehrlich gained a huge audience on television, especially on ‘’The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson,’‘ which he appeared on roughly 20 times. His forecast of food riots in the United States and of imminent global famines caused by escalating population growth found a worldwide readership.

One of the best-selling nonfiction books about the environment to date, ‘’The Population Bomb’‘ sold three million copies and transformed Dr. Ehrlich, who was 37 at the time, into one of the global environmental movement’s most recognized leaders. His influence motivated international governments to convene conferences on controlling population, and his message was heard in private homes across the industrialized world as couples conceived fewer children.

Dr. Ehrlich expanded on his thesis in ‘’The End of Affluence’‘ (1974), which he wrote with his wife, Anne H. Ehrlich, who wrote or edited 15 books with him. The book forecast a ‘’nutritional disaster’‘ in the 1970s, predicting that ‘’before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity.’‘

Such bold predictions, some of which turned out to be premature or in error, prompted rivals in business and academia to question the validity of his claims. In 1980, Julian Simon, an economist at the University of Maryland, challenged Dr. Ehrlich and two of his colleagues with what Stewart Brand, a founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, called ‘’one of the great revelatory bets.’‘

Convinced that the growing population would make natural resources ever more scarce and thus drive up costs, Dr. Ehrlich accepted Mr. Simon’s challenge, betting that the prices of five key metals would rise in the 1980s. Mr. Simon believed that innovation would drive prices down.

In 1990, Dr. Ehrlich and his colleagues conceded defeat and sent Mr. Simon a check for $576.07 -- an amount that represented the decline in the metals’ prices after accounting for inflation.

WSJ, editorial, 17 Mar 2026: Paul Ehrlich, the Man Who Lost an Infamous Bet

The Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who died Friday at age 93, made his most important contribution to the world by losing a bet. It helped educate millions that his ideas about scarcity and human ingenuity were wrong.

Readers of a certain age will recall that Ehrlich was one of the most celebrated public intellectuals of his time. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” made him famous in an era of economic and political turmoil that led to public pessimism.

The book’s opening lines capture his zero-sum Malthusian thinking: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” The idea that people having babies was impoverishing nations became an article of faith on the political left and most of the press. Untold horrors were committed by governments against their own citizens in the name of population control—most notably, China’s one-child policy.

The great economist Julian Simon decided to put Ehrlich’s theories to the test. In 1980 he offered to bet on whether the price of five commodities would go down or up over the next 10 years. Ehrlich chose the five metals—chromium, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten—and took the bet.

It was really a wager over human beings and free markets. If Ehrlich was right, and people were devouring the Earth’s resources, then the price of those resources would go up. If Simon was right, human beings would respond to shortages with ingenuity, and prices would, in the long term, go down. In 1990 Simon won the bet and Ehrlich paid up.

First Things, Scott Yenor, 19 Mar 2026: Paul Ehrlich, False Prophet

Paul Ehrlich, noted author of The Population Bomb, died last week. Few people have been so consequentially wrong as Ehrlich. Ironically, his name, translated from the German, means “honest, truthful, sincere.” It is remarkable how this PhD in butterflies and Stanford professor rose to such prominence, capitalizing on a wave of popular pessimism to attack civilization from the left.

Ehrlich’s Population Bomb begins with an arresting line: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate . . .” Indeed, in the late 1960s, American society seemed to be coming apart. The threat of nuclear war loomed. Mass migration wore away borders. Disease spread. Ehrlich’s Population Bomb more caught the wave of alarmism than created it. The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations were already promoting population control across the world, especially in India and East Asia, in the early 1960s.

Many ears heard Ehrlich’s prophecies. He appeared more than twenty times on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show. During his 1980 appearance, Ehrlich praised Eastern European countries for reaching Zero Population Growth. Imitators arose too, most notably the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, a book published in 1972. Limits, a cultural marker of sorts, saw several MIT professors use computer models to prove that coming population explosion would lead to resource depletion and declines in agricultural and industrial output. The only bright spot would be the rebirth of humanity after its impending collapse.

….

Skeptics always dogged Ehrlich. Most famous was his bet with Julian Simon, the free-market economist and techno-enthusiast. I read Simon’s The Ultimate Resource as a young man. Like others at the time, he was more worried about the world’s impending labor shortage. Fewer laborers would mean less creativity. With more people, Simon thought, human ingenuity would flourish. There would be no worries about running out of commodities like copper or tungsten. Simon allowed Ehrlich to pick five commodities that he thought would increase in price during the next decade. Each ended up decreasing in price, consistent with Simon’s prediction.

Ehrlich’s predictions cannot be taken seriously today. Life expectancy climbed in most of the world after 1970. Mass famines didn’t materialize. Yet he felt no shame for being so wrong. So maybe “starvation has been less extensive than I (or rather the agriculturalists I consulted) expected,” he said in 2004. But many are still “very hungry.”

Wikipedia Entry

A lecture that Ehrlich gave on the topic of overpopulation at the Commonwealth Club of California was broadcast by radio in April 1967.[22] The success of the lecture caused further publicity, and the suggestion from David Brower the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, and Ian Ballantine of Ballantine Books to write a book concerning the topic. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne H. Ehrlich, collaborated on the book, The Population Bomb, but the publisher insisted that a single author be credited; only Paul’s name appears as an author.[23]

Although Ehrlich was not the first to warn about population issues — concern had been widespread during the 1950s and 1960s — his charismatic and media-savvy methods helped publicize the topic.[13] The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson had Ehrlich on as a guest more than twenty times, with one interview lasting an hour.[24][25]

On Expertise

May 2017: Friday Trumpery: The Murder-Suicide of Expertise

THE SUICIDE OF EXPERTISE

But here are the hallmarks of why “experts” are not being trusted:

* The experts are not all that expert (well-credentialed, but deeply ignorant)

* The experts lack intellectual humility – they hold onto wrong claims far past reasonability as a result, and make overconfident pronouncements

* The experts are intellectually dishonest

* The experts aren’t the people who get hurt by what they get wrong

This has been a long-term problem. This is not new to the Trump era.

Yes, I know this is a “Trumpery” post, but the point is that there have been various “experts” b******g about Trump not listening to expertise… and others saying it’s okay for experts to be deceptive, as long as it’s in the service of bashing Trump (the Ultimate Evil™).

When the “experts” start saying they’re fine with lying or using politics to inform what research subjects are verboten, I really don’t want to hear about people no longer trusted their expertise.

The experts have been killing the value of expertise for some time, they’ve just ramped up their intensity.

THE KNIFE DRIVEN IN BY A KNOW-NOTHING MEDIA

That’s the suicide part, at any rate — the experts kept screwing up, and there wasn’t much of a negative feedback loop to keep them from getting out of hand.

But the thing is, there are usually competing experts. As with the dietary advice, there were researchers who supported conflicting advice.

But how do you find out about what the experts say?

It’s usually via media of some sort, and the grand gatekeepers drove the knife in for reasons similar to that of the suicide of expertise.

* Many media people are deeply ignorant, and can’t tell credible experts from know-nothing phonies

* The media needs eyeballs — so intellectually dishonest as well as overconfident experts make for a better show

* It’s not the media people who get hurt by the sensationalism they peddle

The thing is, being able to play around with words and to spin stories does sell very well — the boring expert who says “There is no nifty risk-free trick to making pensions cheaper. There’s always a trade-off” will be outdone by the bombastic person yelling “THEY WANT US TO DIEEEEEE!”

Savvy people who want their specific message to get out know what to do.

June 2021:

To build trust: admit mistakes

Perhaps some people still trust the Washington Post as a source of information. I don’t know such people.

Look, I am willing to allow for mistakes — we are all human, after all. But when I come across people unwilling to admit to any mistakes, well, I am not going to trust them in the future. I’m not that foolish (or young) any more.

….

I have no problem with admitting I was wrong, and I try to avoid making the same mistake in the future. I made my error in the full view of whoever read my stuff, and I had to correct it in the same place, making clear what had happened.

But now we have people trying to hide their screw-ups. When we remember they screwed up. It was not that long ago, dudes.

Given such behavior, why would we trust such people at all?

….

Just frickin admit error

I’m not disappointed. That would mean I had expectations of better behavior. I can’t say I did.

I’m not really angry. I save my anger for when I need energy to get things done. My energy is not going to do anything about this.

I am annoyed.

If these people just admitted they were wrong in the past, and will try not to make such mistakes in the future, that would go a long way in establishing future credibility.

Predictions

CBO Demographic Outlook: 2026 to 2056

Page of the report - published January 2026

PDF of the report

HTML document

Spreadsheet of the data/projections

Ah, that lovely net immigration. Biden was saving our hash!

Related Posts/Episodes

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I used someone else’s podcast on “resounding gongs or clashing cymbals” as a jumping-off point of where one should be focusing one’s efforts in the world… with a shift into some Lenten themes. Yes, there’s a heavy Christian flavor to this one, but it’s also a sneaky way for me to encourage you to consume Dickens in the form of excellent miniseries production (yes, really). And a finish up with saying if we must have Daylight Saving Time, why not use that “extra” hour of daylight in the evening to build community? Nudge nudge.

Episode Links

Pillar Podcast

Bonus episode for paying subscribers: Resounding gongs or clashing cymbals

Mrs. Jellyby

Quoting from the 2025 post:

Mrs. Jellyby is one of a network of charitable do-gooders, under the heading of Christian missionary work bother one of the main characters, Mr. Jarndyce. She and the others were a thinly veiled critique of various members of the charitable societies who had bothered Dickens once he was rich and famous.

Mrs. Jellyby focused on an African tribe, and her mission is described thusly, from Chapter 4, “Telescopic Philanthropy”:

We were to pass the night, Mr. Kenge told us when we arrived in his room, at Mrs. Jellyby’s; and then he turned to me and said he took it for granted I knew who Mrs. Jellyby was.

“I really don’t, sir,” I returned. “Perhaps Mr. Carstone—or Miss Clare—”

But no, they knew nothing whatever about Mrs. Jellyby. “In-deed! Mrs. Jellyby,” said Mr. Kenge, standing with his back to the fire and casting his eyes over the dusty hearth-rug as if it were Mrs. Jellyby’s biography, “is a lady of very remarkable strength of character who devotes herself entirely to the public. She has devoted herself to an extensive variety of public subjects at various times and is at present (until something else attracts her) devoted to the subject of Africa, with a view to the general cultivation of the coffee berry—AND the natives—and the happy settlement, on the banks of the African rivers, of our superabundant home population. Mr. Jarndyce, who is desirous to aid any work that is considered likely to be a good work and who is much sought after by philanthropists, has, I believe, a very high opinion of Mrs. Jellyby.”

Note, the concept was they would take some of the “superabundant home population” — aka that “excess population” Scrooge notes in “A Christmas Carol” — ship them over to Africa, and then have those poor people work in African missions.

….

That is, she wants to ship off 50 — 200 poor families from England to Africa, supposedly to make their living by growing coffee (and Mrs. Jellyby herself consumes a great deal of coffee to power her letter-writing campaigns). They are also supposed to evangelize the people already living there to Christianity.

Other “charitable” people appear, whether they are involved in the Africa scheme or not. Similarly, they abuse the responsibilities they have to their families and neighbors to supposedly do good to a larger sphere. In general, they engender resentment in their children and sometimes despair in their spouses (though, in some cases, the spouses are on board and completely smug about it all.)

….

The African king wanted to sell all the missionaries (all who survived the tropical diseases) into slavery for his personal benefit. After Mrs. Jellyby sighs, she moves on to women’s suffrage as her next cause, which wouldn’t be successful in the UK until well after her death. In the meantime, she has a disabled granddaughter she could have done much to help… but no, she has decided that it’s better to keep on writing letters.

….

But that is not nearly as grand as the “telescopic philanthropy” that is completely futile, as Mrs. Jellyby does not understand anything whatsoever about the people in Africa, what they want or need.

Mrs. Jellyby could have been more effective by helping both her family and the poor who surrounded her in London, where she lived. What Esther Summerson was able to accomplish among different people directly contrasts with the futility of Mrs. Jellyby’s pile of messy letters.

If Mrs. Jellyby had ordered her responsibilities properly, by her capabilities and knowledge, she could have done so much more good.

Dickens Adaptations

Bleak House

2005 miniseries, Gillian Anderson as Lady Dedlock, Charles Dance as Mr. Tulkinghorn

IMDB listing: Bleak House

Amazon listing: Bleak House

Martin Chuzzlewit

1994 miniseries, Tom Wilkinson as Pecksniff, Pete Postlethwaite as Tigg Montague/Montague Tigg, Paul Scofield as old Martin

IMDB listing: Martin Chuzzlewit

Amazon listing: Martin Chuzzlewit

USCCB: Works of Mercy

Corporal Works of Mercy

* Feed the hungry

* Give drink to the thirsty

* Shelter the homeless

* Visit the sick

* Visit prisoners and ransom the hostage

* Bury the dead

* Give alms to the poor

Spiritual Works of Mercy

* Instructing the ignorant

* Counseling the doubtful

* Admonishing the sinner

* Comforting the sorrowful

* Forgiving injuries

* Bearing wrongs patiently

* Praying for the living and the dead

DST Post

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Two different pieces — one from the left, one from the right — showing that wishful thinking will not get the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States through the public finance difficulties brought about by demographic realities. No, I’m not talking about immigration (legal or illegal… which also won’t fix the problem.) By all means, tinker around the edges for now. Because hard choices are coming, whether people like it or not.

Episode Links

NY Times op-ed, 23 Feb 2026, Nicholas Bagley and Robert Gordon: Mamdani Will Need to Change How He Governs

Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, in his inaugural address, offered a pledge to create a government “where excellence is no longer the exception.” He now must do so while closing a $5.4 billion deficit, in a state where the governor rejects higher taxes on the rich.

Big budget gaps are not uncommon in American cities. Nor is New York’s high cost of living — one reason that California, New York and Illinois top the list of states with declining populations over the past five years.

If blue-state governors and mayors want to get serious about delivering excellent public services, they will need to do more than battle billionaire elites or embrace abundant housing and energy.

They will have to push back against a core constituency within the Democratic Party that often makes government deliver less and cost more: unions representing teachers, police officers and transit workers.

Bloomberg, Matt Levine, Money Matters, 26 Feb 2026: The DOGE Doubt Trade

This product exists. It is conventionally called a “bar bet.” You can walk into a bar in the right part of Texas, say “I’ll bet anyone $1,000 that Elon Musk won’t do the thing he said he’d do on the timeline he promised,” and someone will stand up and say “them’s fightin’ words” and take your bet. And you will negotiate the terms and odds and resolution method, and in six months you’ll check back in and he won’t have done the thing and you’ll make $1,000. And you will get to say to the Musk fan on the other side of the bet, “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah,” which is what you really wanted.

Of course there is a market structure problem, which is that you have to find the right bar and then laboriously negotiate the terms of the bet, so you can’t actually pour your life savings into Being Skeptical About Elon Musk’s Promises. Or you couldn’t until recently. But now we have prediction markets, which are centralized electronic exchanges, regulated by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission, for coordinating bar bets. Here’s a Wall Street Journal story about a guy who can justifiably say “nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah”:

Alan Cole put his life savings, all $342,195.63, into a prediction-market wager. … Until Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency came roaring into the nation’s capital last year, he was largely a plain-vanilla investor or, as he puts it, a “normal, conventional Wall Street Journal-reading adult.”

But Musk’s boasts and his eager fans brought an unusual opportunity into the burgeoning U.S. prediction markets: People willing to bet that the world’s richest man would transform and shrink the federal government.

Cole took the opposite position, one he didn’t see as a gamble at all. If federal spending in each quarter of 2025 exceeded federal spending in the fourth quarter of 2024, he would win big. …

From Cole’s perspective, even if Musk cut government contracts and shrank the federal workforce—which he did—he couldn’t meaningfully dent Social Security and Medicare benefits. And that left no plausible path for cutting overall federal spending. ...

The key feature of the prediction market offered on the Kalshi website was that it measured federal spending in annualized, seasonally adjusted nominal dollars. To win, Cole didn’t need spending to stay above a past projection. He just needed federal spending to go up, as it almost always does.

He made like $128,000, or 37%. Notice the features of this product:

* If you have a view like “federal spending will go up,” it is immediately obvious whether and to what extent the market incorporates that view: The market price just is the market’s expected probability of that happening.

* This product reflects only one fact, whether federal spending goes up or not.

* Investor psychology will affect the price at which you get into the trade — if Musk’s “eager fans” think he will cut federal spending, then you will pay a relatively low price for the spending-will-go-up contract — but not the price at which you exit, because the trade resolves: Eventually, spending either goes up or it doesn’t, there’s some resolution mechanism to establish the fact, and if it went up you get paid. Tom Gara wrote on Threads: “He knew that it’s basically mathematically impossible to reduce federal spending, but he also knew Elon fanboys are often morons.” With Tesla stock, that is a problem; with prediction markets, it’s an opportunity.

It is the opposite of a stock investment.

I guess the point I would make here is that this is still somewhat childish. The stock market exists to allocate capital to productive businesses, and those businesses are irreducibly messy. You do not decide how to allocate capital by understanding one isolated fact about a company’s business; you have to figure out which facts are important and then do your best to understand all of them. Financial markets are not bets on individual facts; they are bets on the economic consequences of those facts.

Prediction markets are a “truth machine”; they let you isolate a fact and make money by being right about it. In many ways this makes them less useful: They don’t fund economic growth, and they are imperfect hedges to real economic risks. But sometimes they do give you the satisfaction of being right.

WSJ, 25 Feb 2026: The Tax Nerd Who Bet His Life Savings Against DOGE

WASHINGTON -- Alan Cole put his life savings, all $342,195.63, into a prediction-market wager. He insists he’s not really a betting man.

Cole is a 37-year-old tax economist with Ivy League degrees, a mortgage and a young child. Until Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency came roaring into the nation’s capital last year, he was largely a plain-vanilla investor or, as he puts it, a “normal, conventional Wall Street Journal-reading adult.”

But Musk’s boasts and his eager fans brought an unusual opportunity into the burgeoning U.S. prediction markets: People willing to bet that the world’s richest man would transform and shrink the federal government.

Cole took the opposite position, one he didn’t see as a gamble at all. If federal spending in each quarter of 2025 exceeded federal spending in the fourth quarter of 2024, he would win big.

….

From Cole’s perspective, even if Musk cut government contracts and shrank the federal workforce -- which he did -- he couldn’t meaningfully dent Social Security and Medicare benefits. And that left no plausible path for cutting overall federal spending.

“It’s almost like the government has, you know, 19 elderly employees for every actual employee,” Cole said.

The key feature of the prediction market offered on the Kalshi website was that it measured federal spending in annualized, seasonally adjusted nominal dollars. To win, Cole didn’t need spending to stay above a past projection. He just needed federal spending to go up, as it almost always does.

This was far different, he decided, than other prediction-market options. Some of those are equivalent to betting in the already efficient sports-gambling market. Others are susceptible to competition against people with insider knowledge, like gambles on whether Lady Gaga will appear during the Super Bowl halftime show.

Cole gradually amassed more than 3% of one particular $12 million federal-spending prediction market. He spread risk across several sub-bets, structured so he landed in the red only if spending declined by more than $50 billion. He wasn’t betting against Kalshi itself, just against people betting on Musk.

….

The government published the final 2025 figures Feb. 20. It wasn’t even close. The lowest spending quarter in 2025 was $66 billion above the bet’s target level. Cole collected $470,300, for a profit of more than $128,000, or 37%.

“There’s a little bit of that feeling of vindication,” Cole said.

Our World in Data: Births v Deaths

Our World in Data, 5 Jan 2023: How many people die and how many are born each year?

The world population has grown rapidly, particularly over the past century: in 1900, there were fewer than 2 billion people on the planet, and in 2025, there were around 8.2 billion.

Two metrics determine the change in the world population: the number of babies born and the number of people dying.

….

As the number of deaths approaches the number of births, global population growth will end

How do we expect this to change in the coming decades? What does this mean for population growth?

Population projections suggest annual births will remain around 135 million in the next two decades before declining slowly in the second half of the century.

As the world population ages, the annual number of deaths is expected to continue increasing in the coming decades until it reaches a similar number as annual births, at which point the world population will stop increasing.

The annual number of deaths is then expected to surpass the annual number of births. This is when the world population will start decreasing.

United States

Japan

France

South Korea

United Kingdom

China

Related Posts

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Getting back into podcasting by looking at the recent wealth tax proposals in California and the Netherlands. The Box 3 “reforms” have already passed in The Netherlands and to go into effect in 2028, and in California, the wealth tax is likely to be a ballot proposal to be put in front of voters this fall in 2026, but backdated to January 2026. I look at the proposals at a high-level, some initial responses, and what the actual goals of these taxes are.

Episode Notes

Netherlands Investment Tax: “Box 3”

NL Times, 13 Feb 2026: Dutch parliament greenlights new Box 3 tax, set to take effect in 2028

Despite considerable resistance, a large majority in the lower house of the Dutch parliament approved a new system for taxing the returns on assets, also known as the Box 3 tax. The new system, which taxes returns based on the actual increase in the value of assets, is set to take effect in 2028.

The Dutch government had to change the Box 3 tax after multiple courts ruled that the current system is unlawful. The current system taxes assets based on fictive gains - how much the Tax Authority assumes assets have increased in value over the taxable period, based on past returns. The Tax Authority also calculated the tax based on an assumed distribution of assets across savings and other investments, called the “asset mix.”

….

The Tweede Kamer greenlighting the Box 3 reform is not the end of the issue. A majority asked the new Cabinet to, once the new system is implemented, change the way in which returns on things like stocks, bonds, and cryptocurrencies are taxed.

The new system taxes the unrealized gains on these assets - the profits of investments that have increased in value, but haven’t been cashed out yet. Parliamentarians don’t like that this will result in people paying tax on money they don’t have yet. A majority, therefore, asked the government to come up with a way in which investors only pay tax on realized returns - money in their pocket once they sell the asset involved. They want the government to present that plan by Budget Day 2028 at the latest.

The Box 3 reform is costing the government billions. Not only does it have to refund overpaid capital gains taxes, but affected taxpayers may also be entitled to interest on those repayments. The Ministry of Finance has not yet formally decided whether the interest—known as belastingrente in Dutch—will be paid.

NTL Trust International, accessed 17 Feb 2026: Netherlands Box 3 Reform: Structural Shifts and the 36% Tax

Liquidation Contagion

Balaji Initial Post

15 Feb 2026, X/Twitter:

Text:

LIQUIDATION CONTAGIONWealth taxes are even worse than you think. Any asset held by Californian billionaires or Dutch citizens is now at risk of experiencing forced liquidation pressure.So: it’s not just that you don’t want to hold assets as a Dutchman. You also don’t want a Dutchman to hold your assets. Because the logic of forced liquidation is contagion.Let’s think it through.(1) First, suppose there is an asset with a total market cap of $10,000, with 10 shares total, of which 1 share each is held by 10 different holders, all in the Netherlands. To simplify the math, assume the Dutch holders bought those shares at par, or close to $0.(2) Now suppose today is the unrealized cap gains tax day, and the share price is $1,000 per share. Each Dutch guy is hit with a 36% tax, and owes $360. The first guy sells his one share, gets $1,000, and pays $360 in tax while retaining $640.(3) But the first guy’s sale reduces the market price to $960 per share. So when the second guy sells, he only retains $600 after paying $360 in tax.(4) Now assume that by the 7th guy, all the selling has pushed the share price to collapse to $200 per share. This is a very reasonable scenario if 60% of the cap table has suddenly been dumped. Indeed it might go much lower.(5) At $200 per share, the 7th guy actually has to go into debt to pay the tax as he owes $360. He sells his one share, pays all $200 of the proceeds in tax. And still owes $160 more in tax.(6) The 8th, 9th, and 10th guys are even more screwed. By the time they sell, the price will likely have crashed to $100 per share or less. As with the 7th guy, even 100% liquidation will not cover their tax burden.(7) So we immediately see many negative things about the Dutch unrealized cap gains tax bill.(a) First, it will cause large simultaneous forced liquidations. Everyone must sell 36% of their stake near the same time.(b) Second, it may be literally impossible to pay if a critical mass of the cap table is all subject to it at the same time. In the example above it was 100% Dutch holders, but has it been just 60% the result would have been much the same: a collapse in the share price.(c) Third, that means it would be disastrous to have too many Dutch citizens (or Californian billionaires!) on the cap table. Their forced sales will crash your share price.(d) So, you might have to start mass blocking those resident in wealth-taxing jurisdictions from investing in your companies.(e) This in turn makes the poor Western European guy even poorer, as he gets locked out of high growth assets.To be clear: I really do feel bad for the formerly Flying Dutchmen, now Crying Dutchmen. They invented much of modern capitalism. They founded New Amsterdam, now New York. They’ve punched way above their weight. I wish them only the best.Nevertheless…they should prepare for the worst. This may be a tough century for Western Europe. The first ones out might get to freedom, while the slowest may be stuck behind a new Iron Curtain, spending a century paying off the debts their states incurred over the last century.Because the long run fruits of Western Keynesianism are the same as Soviet Communism, in the sense of wealth seizure and pauperization.I mean, if you knew the future, you wouldn’t want to co-own a farm with a Russian in 1916. For similar reasons, you might not want to co-own a share of stock with Dutch national in 2026. Or with anyone in a seizure-curious jurisdiction…which unfortunately includes much of Western Europe, Canada, and Blue America.You instead want assets that are not held by those subject to forced liquidations. Now, I grant that this is an unusual way to rank assets…Dutch holders considered harmful?!? Yet it might sadly be necessary to minimize your exposure to liquidation contagion.PS: guess which crucial stock is most held by the Dutch? ASML. So: this unrealized cap gains tax may not literally be a communist plot, but it would have the same effect.

In the replies:

Doesn’t tell you, of course, how one has to keep track of the investments one holds via ETFs/mutual funds via companies such as BlackRock.

BlackRock, etc., “owns” these assets on behalf of OTHER people. “But it’s for a pension fund!”

Which, again, is for OTHER people… but I assume pension funds are out of scope for this tax….. [maybe I shouldn’t assume… all governments are hungry for tax revenue]

Cross-contamination of systems

15 Feb 2026, Reddit: Box 3 in 2028: taxed on unrealized gains in NL and realized gains by US | how do people deal with this?

Not copying the text — but keeping on with the having to liquidate assets theme to pay a wealth tax on UNREALIZED gains, but when liquidating, one REALIZES the gains…. which triggers REALIZED GAINS TAXES in other tax jurisdictions.

WHUPS

California Wealth Tax

NYPost, 8 Jan 2026: Wealth tax threat prompts at least six billionaires to cut ties with California, as about 20 more mull exit: report

The threat of a steep new wealth tax in California has reportedly prompted at least six billionaires including Larry Page and Peter Thiel to cut their ties with the state — and as many as 20 others could be heading for the exits.

The half-dozen billionaires made their moves before New Year’s Day — the cutoff date to avoid a potential one-time tax of 5% on fortunes exceeding $1 billion — which California residents will vote on in November, according to Bloomberg News.

David Lesperance, a tax adviser who specializes in relocating ultra-wealthy clients out of high-tax jurisdictions, told the outlet he personally helped four billionaires end their California residency before the proposal’s Jan. 1 cutoff date.

Related Posts

* March 2022: Podcast — Income taxes and wealth taxes

* June 2023: Taxing Tuesday: Wealth Taxes in Norway and SALT Cap Review

* September 2024: Taxing Tuesday: Taxes on the Ballot, Revenue Challenges, and the French Wealth Tax Impact

* August 2020: Taxing Tuesday: California Nuts and New York... Whatever We’ve Got - the prior attempt in California… which failed

* August 2024: Taxing Tuesday: Demonstration on Stupidity of Unrealized Gains Taxes, Illinois Property Taxes, and More

* Nov 2023: Taxing Tuesday: Bezos Moves Back to Florida, Thwarting Washington State’s New Capital Gains Tax, Migration Stats Distorted by Pandemic Issues

* Oct 2023: Taxing Tuesday: Gaming, Chicago Mansions go Downscale, and D*****s Tax Research

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Just some talk on why I fundraise for Movember, which I’ve been doing since 2017. I look at some of the programs funded by Movember. The need continues.

Episode Links

Here are the places you can donate to the Movember Foundation, which supports men’s health, specifically focusing on prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and men’s mental health:

* Mary Pat Campbell’s MoSpace – a place to donate at Movember itself

* My Movember Facebook fundraiser – my officially linked fundraiser, if this works better for you

And here’s a QR code if that works better for you:

While prostate cancer was my initial impetus for supporting Movember, I support all of Movember’s causes, which include men’s mental health and suicide prevention.

Some Movember-funded projects

Ironman Registry - USA

IRONMAN is an international, population-based registry of 5,000 men with advanced prostate cancer across ten countries. It seeks to understand clinical outcomes associated with management of advanced prostate cancer and understand the biological and clinical diversity of the disease.

USA - Mass market, multi-platform public media documentary series & campaign

This project uses a mass market, multi dimensional campaigns to shift populations understanding, attitudes and intentions and ultimately improve health outcomes on a large scale. Focusing on Youth Mental Health we will be working in partnership with PBS to deliver a documentary series supported with educational, digital and in person elements delivered across the USA.

Veterans and First Responders - United States

To improve the mental health/wellbeing and prevent suicide of first responders and veterans in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand. This will be achieved through funding research proposals aimed at building the case to develop and implement effective prevention programs and/or test new evidence-based programs.

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Following news of a liquidity problem in the Chicago Firefighters’ Pension Fund and a stunning $11 billion pension benefit boost for police and fire, I, your friendly actuary, Mary Pat Campbell, dive into the reactions from various groups as well as the “timely” release of a report from a task force convened by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

I explore the political negligence surrounding the Tier 2 sweetener bill and the task force’s proposed “solutions”—a mix of new taxes, fees, and the risky use of Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs)— and contrast with the argument that Chicago’s core problem is a runaway 62% spending surge since 2019. Then there’s the absurd defense of the benefit increase from State Senator Robert Martwick, who claimed it was a service to the city.

Finally, there’s the question: where are pensions for Chicago (and Illinois) ultimately going, given their history of underfunding? Now, with their benefit boost? Will they go cap in hand to the federal government for a bailout (again), and should their poorly funded, non-Social Security systems be allowed to continue? The Chicago pension crisis isn’t just local news—it’s a bellwether for the rest of the nation.

Episode Links

STUMP related links

* 19 Sep 2025: Chicago Pension Squeeze: Fire Pensions Get a Loan as Tax Revenue Delayed; Pritzker Warned Against Signing Sweetener Bill, Signed Anyway

* 4 Aug 2025 Podcast: Chicago Pension Artificial Sweeteners

* 25 July 2025 More on Chicago Pension Finance: Those Pension Sweeteners Sure are Sour

* 18 July 2025 Chicago Finances Update: Other People’s Money Doesn’t Go Too Far, Does It?

* 19 Apr 2020 Illinois Asks for $10B(+) for Pensions -- Most Disgusting COVID-19 Bailout Yet?

* 20 Jun 2022 Podcast: Pension Obligation Bonds

* 16 Feb 2015 Why are Pension Obligation Bonds OF THE DEVIL? A Lesson from the Dollar Auction

This is why I say POBs are of the devil — whether or not you believe in a literal devil, the literary devil is the kind that helps you rationalize the bad behavior you already did and are determined on continuing.

Ask Faust about how that worked out for him.

Austin Berg and The Last Ward

State lawmakers passed—and Gov. JB Pritzker signed—one of the most irresponsible bills in modern Illinois history this year: a suite of pension sweeteners for Chicago police and fire. The sweeteners added $11 billion in new benefits to the city’s police and fire pension systems, which were already the worst-funded in the nation, with no new revenue to pay for them.

In the waning days of session, sources said several leaders attempted to contact Johnson to request that he tell the governor’s team to step in and kill the bill. But the mayor was missing in action. A newly unearthed memo published this week by Paris Schutz at Fox32 confirmed Johnson’s negligence.

Specifically, Chicago CFO Jill Jaworski wrote to the governor’s team that the bill would make Chicago’s police and fire pension funds “technically insolvent.”

….

Bloomberg broke news last week that the city was forced to provide emergency lending for Chicago’s firefighter pension fund in order to avoid asset sales. Between a delay in Cook County property tax bills4 and alarmingly low funding levels, the fund literally did not have the necessary cash on hand to pay current retirees. This is what insolvency looks like.5 And this is exactly why Jaworski and Johnson should have been screaming from the rooftops to oppose the pension sweetener bill.

Bond Buyer on Chicago Task Force

18 Sep 2025: Taxes and cuts advised in Chicago finance task force report

Chicago should resume annual inflation-based adjustments to its property tax levy.

That’s one recommendation from a task force Mayor Brandon Johnson assembled and charged with coming up with ways to strengthen Chicago’s long-term financial health.

It doesn’t call for other major property tax hikes, but the report, prepared on Aug. 31 and released this week, also raises the possibility of re-amortizing and reducing pension debt, including through the issuance of pension obligation bonds.

….

The task force’s interim report puts forth a mix of efficiencies and revenue solutions in the $1 billion to $2.1 billion range to close the city’s $1.15 billion budget gap.

The group identified between $630 million and $1.65 billion in potential revenue-related opportunities, and between $372.4 million and $455.5 million in efficiencies.

As part of the efficiencies, the task force recommended extending the supplemental pension payments policy beyond 2028; re-amortizing and reducing pension debt through pension obligation bonds and pension buyouts; and shifting the timing of pension contributions.

Illinois Policy

22 Sep 2025: Chicago budget rises over 2X faster than other big cities

Not enough revenue? How about too much spending. Chicago outpaces many of America’s biggest cities with a 62% spending spike since 2019. That’s what’s driving deficits.

Chicago faces a $1.15 billion projected deficit in 2026, and the city’s budget task force’s answer is $1.6 billion in new tax hikes.

But the numbers show the city’s true budget problem isn’t a “revenue challenge,” as Mayor Brandon Johnson and his task force claim. It’s overspending.

24 Sep 2025: Uber surcharge, property taxes, liquor prices: Chicago’s push for new taxes

New taxes on Uber, automatic property tax hikes and higher liquor taxes are all being pushed as Chicago leaders seek to spend $1 billion more than they will have.

Chicago is short by $1 billion what it wants to spend in its upcoming budget, so a city task force recommended new or higher taxes and fees on rideshares, property taxes, liquor and more.

….

Mayor Brandon Johnson has claimed the city has a revenue problem, but city spending has grown at twice the rate of other large cities.

These proposals amount to the same old playbook: rather than streamlining government, leaders are again reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. Chicago’s structural deficit is driven by rising pension and personnel costs that have grown faster than revenues for a decade, as well as from using temporary funds to create permanent costs.

No matter how much taxpayers give up, Chicago leaders will certainly find a way to spend more.

Twitter/X threads on Martwick’s “Reasons”

(click on pictures to go to X — there are embedded videos you can play and see what Martwick said.)

A thread (off Stu Loren’s post):

STUMP - Meep on public finance, pensions, mortality and more is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.