If the state and cities are going bankrupt then why did they enter the contract in the first place? What was the economic planning they did which let them concl

If the state and cities are going bankrupt then why did they enter the contract in the first place? What was the economic planning they did which let them conclude - apparently falsely - that they would be able to keep their side of the bargain, and how has it broken down? Keep in mind that the politicians who put these bargains in place are long gone. And the politicians who later didn't fund the pension funds adequately are also long gone. None of them have to deal with the aftermath of their choices (and indeed one of the side-effects of the push for term limits over the last 30 years is that it's now guaranteed that politicians will not have to deal with the long-term consequences of their actions). It's been my observation that many voters have strong opinions on what government expenditures should cost. Opinions that are driven by their gut, and not by any sort of market-based reality. But politicians have to satisfy both the market and the voters. If the market demands that the salary for a position be X, while voters think it should be X*0.85, then one way for politicians to deal with it is to defer the remaining 15%. They may convince themselves that it will work, or they may not care, but regardless, it's no longer their problem.