How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
By Michelle Malkin

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens.
While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights."

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.

Noah's Ark Found

THE remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000ft up a Turkish mountain, it has been claimed.
A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say they have found wooden remains on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.
They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team, said: "It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it."

He said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.
The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000ft in the vicinity, Yeung said.
Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.

The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was. He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species. After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.



Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html#ixzz0mMnvzMU3














Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html#ixzz0mMnVHrj1

2 Chicago state reps: Bring in the National Guard

Two state representatives called on Gov. Pat Quinn Sunday to deploy the Illinois National Guard to safeguard Chicago's streets.

Chicago Democrats John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford said they want Quinn, Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis to allow guardsmen to patrol streets and help quell violence. Weis said he did not support the idea because the military and police operate under different rules.

"Is this a drastic call to action? Of course it is," Fritchey said. "Is it warranted when we are losing residents to gun violence at such an alarming rate? Without question. We are not talking about rolling tanks down the street or having armed guards on each corner."

What he envisions, Fritchey said, is a "heightened presence on the streets," particularly on the roughly 9 percent of city blocks where most of the city's violent crimes occur.

Weis previously identified those "hot spots" and said he plans to create a 100-person team made up of selected and volunteer police personnel to respond to crime there. If guardsmen were to assist police, they could comprise or contribute to that force, Fritchey said.

So far this year, 113 people have been killed across Chicago, the same number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the same period, Fritchey said.

"As we speak, National Guard members are working side-by-side with our troops to fight a war halfway around the world," Fritchey said. "The unfortunate reality is that we have another war that is just as deadly taking place right in our backyard." While the National Guard has been deployed in other states to prevent violence related to specific events and protests, the Chicago legislators said they are unaware of guardsmen being deployed to assist with general urban unrest.

Weis countered that the only scenario in which the National Guard would be helpful is in the situation of a tornado, earthquake or flood. If the military were brought in to help with city violence, they wouldn't answer to police command -- creating a "major disconnect" in mission and strategy.

Alluding to the 1970 Kent State University incident where the National Guard was called in and protestors and students were shot, Weis said having guardsmen handle crime could be "disastrous." But he said if the Daley suggested it, he would consider the option.

"I'm open to anything that reduces violence. But I have concerns when you mix law enforcement and the military," Weis said.

But Fritchey and Ford said prompt action is needed because summer is right around the corner and with the warm weather comes an increase in violence.

Fritchey and Ford serve two different constituencies, representing the North Side and the West Side respectively. "One half of this city views this as a part of daily life," Fritchey said. "Another part of the city doesn't care because it doesn't affect them." Yet the lawmakers said they are coming together because gun violence should be a priority to all Chicagoans.

"No help is too much help" Ford said. "This is not just about the murders. It's about the crime. It's about people being stabbed, robbed and in the hospital on life support."

Fritchey said he spoke to representatives from Quinn's office about deploying guardsmen and they "seemed open to the idea." The lawmakers had yet to speak to Weis or the mayor's office.

"I don't anticipate the governor implementing it over the objection of the mayor," Fritchey said.

"I hope this doesn't become a territorial issue. I hope this doesn't become an ego issue. This isn't about public relations or politics. This is about reclaiming our communities."

-- Kristen Mack and Daarel Burnette II
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/04/state-reps-want-to-fight-violence-with-national-guards-help.html

Arizona's New immigration Law- AZ SENATE BILL 1070

I will not reprint the whole Arizona Immigration Bill but I want to give the link so anyone who wants to can read it for themselves.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

Republicans Threatening Congressional Seats Long Held by Democrats

Winds of change seen not only in places where posts often change hands.
By JEFF ZELENY
& ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, April 24, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.


ASHLAND, Wis. | Rep. David Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon to Obama. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but Democratic control of Congress.

Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of big gains in November, and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats - including a wave of first-term members - and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.

"It's not a lifetime appointment," said Sean Duffy, a Republican district attorney here in the north woods of Wisconsin, where he has established himself as one of the most aggressive challengers to Obey since the Democrat went to Washington in 1969. "There are changes in this country going on and people aren't happy."

Obey, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, is one of three House Democratic chairmen who have drawn serious opposition. Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina, who oversees the Budget Committee, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who runs the Armed Services Committee, have been warned by party leaders to step up the intensity of their campaigns to help preserve the Democratic majority.

These established House Democrats find themselves in the same endangered straits as some of their newer colleagues, particularly those who were swept into office in 2008 by Obama as he scored victories in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and Virginia.

Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he would consider anything short of taking back the House a failure. Republicans say they have not recruited strong candidates in all districts, but both parties agree that Republicans are within reach of capturing the 40 additional seats needed to win control. Republicans also are likely to eat into the Democratic majority in the Senate, though their prospects of taking control remain slim.

Democratic congressional officials - well aware that a president's party typically loses seats in midterm elections - have long been preparing for a tough year. But that Obey here in Wisconsin, and other veteran lawmakers like Rep. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, suddenly find themselves in a fight reflects an increasingly sour mood toward the Democratic Party and incumbents.

"He's supporting the party line of the Democrats, which is not consistent with North Dakota," said Rick Berg, a Republican state representative from North Dakota who is challenging Pomeroy. "In the past, we've been more conservative at home than the people we send to Washington." Asked if this was a good time to be a Republican candidate, Berg laughed and said: "I sure think so."

Pomeroy, who has served for 18 years as the state's only congressman, won two years ago with 62 percent of the vote. Now, he is among the top targets of House Republicans, and is fighting without the help of one of the state's incumbent Democratic senators on the ballot, since Byron Dorgan chose to retire.

"Some cycles are more challenging as a candidate than others," Pomeroy said. "This should be in the range of challenging cycles."

Democrats worry that some lawmakers who have avoided tough races in the past could be at added risk of defeat because they are out of practice, slow on their feet and often reluctant to acknowledge the threat they are facing. The chairman of the House re-election effort, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, has called mandatory face-to-face meetings with vulnerable members to monitor their campaigns.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20100424/NEWS/4245042?p=all&tc=pgall

Redactions Revealed- Blagojevich requests Obama Subpoena

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 08CR888
)
) Judge James B. Zagel
ROD BLAGOJEVICH )
MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE A TRIAL SUBPOENA TO
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Now Comes Defendant Rod Blagojevich, by and through his counsels and hereby
requests this court issue a subpoena ad testificandum for President Barack Obama. In support of
said motion, defendant states the following:1
1. President Barack Obama was elected November 4, 2008 and was inaugurated January
20, 2009. Before being elected President, Mr. Obama was a United States Senator
from Illinois.
2. As a result of the election of Mr. Obama, his Senate seat was open for appointment by
Governor Rod Blagojevich.
3. The charges against Mr. Blagojevich stem from his appointment of President-elect
Obama’s vacated Senate seat.
4. According to media reports, President Obama was interviewed by two United States
attorneys and two FBI agents for two hours.2
1 Although it is the defense’s position that all tapes and sealed information be made public, to comply with the
Protective Order of April 14, 2009, portions that contain sealed information provided by the government have been
redacted. The defense, however, urges this Court unseal the entire motion. See, this court’s order dated April 14,
2010 (document 305) “Redaction, in cases where the redacted words are relevant to the case and considered in
reaching a decision, is still permitted but discouraged.” See In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1992)
(“Information that is used at trial or otherwise become the basis of decision enters the public record.”) (citation
omitted). The case for redaction has to be proven not presumed. ... But it is clear that the remedy to the objection
that a portion of a statement may be misleading to the public (and the jury pool) is not redaction but disclosure of the
omitted portion. Disclosure of written material a month and a half before the beginning of trial does not come close
to presenting a significant threat that a fair jury cannot be found. The experience of the courts in cases which attract
significant news coverage has shown that pretrial news reporting is an overstated menace to fair jury trials.”
2 “Barack Obama questioned by FBI agents over Blagojevich Illinois senate seat scandal”, Toby Harnden, The
Telegraph, December 26, 2008.
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 11
2
5. On December 19, 2009, the defense filed a Motion for Discovery. In that motion, the
defense requested all notes, transcripts, and reports generated from the government’s
interview of President Barack Obama.
6. As of today’s date, the defense has not received any notes, transcripts, or reports from
President Obama’s interview with the government.
7. The government alleges that Defendant Rod Blagojevich met “with a labor union
official who he believed to be in contact with the President-elect in regard to the
vacant Senate seat, and suggested to the labor union official that Rod Blagojevich
would appoint Senate Candidate B to the vacant Senate seat in exchange for Rod
Blagojevich being named Secretary of Health and Human Services.” (Indictment p.
101, para. 10(c)).
8. President Obama has stated publicly that he was “confident that no representatives of
mine would have any part of any deals3 related to this seat.”4
9. Yet, despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of
any deals, labor union president told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he
spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message
from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message
labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union
president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver
the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick. (Labor
union president 302, February 2, 2009, p. 7).
10. Labor union official told the FBI and the United States Attorneys “Obama expressed
his belief that [Senate Candidate B] would be a good Senator for the people of
Illinois and would be a candidate who could win re-election. [Labor union
official] advised Obama that [labor union official] would reach out to Governor
Blagojevich and advocate for [Senate Candidate B].. . . [Labor union official]
called [labor union president] and told [labor union president] that Obama was
aware that [labor union official] would be reaching out to Blagojevich.” (Labor
union official 302, February 3, 2009 p. 3).
3 Deal is defined as a “transaction; bargain; contract; an arrangement for mutual advantage.” Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary. A deal requires two willing participants.
4 President-elect Barack Obama press conference, December 11, 2008.
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 11
3
11. According to Senate Candidate B, on November, 4 2008, Senate Candidate B
spoke with labor union official about the Senate seat. Labor union official said
he spoke to Obama. Labor union official said he was going to meet with
Blagojevich and said “he was going to push Blagojevich hard on this. According
to Senate Candidate B, labor union official’s language could have been stronger
than the language that she was reporting to the government.” (Senate Candidate
B 302, December 19, 2008).
12. On November 5, 2008, Blagojevich told John Harris that labor union official “talked
to Barack Obama, wants to come and see me.” Blagojevich then told Harris that
labor union official “was very explicit with me, “I talked to Barack about the
Senate seat. Can I come and see ya? Can I do it tomorrow?’ I said, sure.”
(Blagojevich Home Phone Call # 261).
13. A supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama suggested that she talk to the wife of
Governor Blagojevich about Senate Candidate B for Senator. (Valerie Jarrett
302, December 19, 2008). Supporter of Presidential Candidate Obama is
mentioned in a phone call on November 3, 2008, having offered “fundraising” in
exchange for Senate Candidate B for senator (Blagojevich Home Phone Call #
149).
14. President Obama has direct knowledge to allegations made in the indictment. In
addition, President Obama’s public statements contradict other witness statements,
specifically those made by labor union official and Senate Candidate B. It is
anticipated that labor union official will be a witness for the government. His
accounts of events directly related to the charges in the indictment are contradicted by
President Obama’s public statement.
15. Even the prosecutor in this case indicated “there’s no allegation that the presidentelect
– there’s no reference in the complaint to any conversations involving presidentelect
or indicating that the president-elect was aware of it.”5
16. There are two conflicting stories and the defense has the right to admit evidence that
contradicts the government’s claims. Only President Obama can do this.
17. President-elect Obama also spoke to Governor Blagojevich on December 1, 2008
in Philadelphia. On Harris Cell Phone Call # 139, John Harris and Governor’s
legal counsel discuss a conversation Blagojevich had with President-elect
5
“Fitzgerald Press Conference on Blagojevich. Transcript.” Chicago Sun Times, Lynn Sweet, December 9, 2008.
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 11
4
Obama. The government claims a conspiracy existed from October 22, 2008
continuing through December 9, 2008.6 That conversation is relevant to the defense
of the government’s theory of an ongoing conspiracy. Only Rod Blagojevich and
President Obama can testify to the contents of that conversation. The defense is
allowed to present evidence that corroborates the defendant’s testimony.7
18. President-elect Obama also suggested Senate Candidate A to Governor Blagojevich.
John Harris told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to
President’s Chief of Staff on November 12, 2008. Harris took notes of the
conversation and wrote that President’s Chief had previously worked as
Blagojevich's press secretary. Obama agreed of Staff told Harris that Senate
Candidate A was acceptable to Obama as a senate pick. (Harris handwritten
notes, OOG1004463) President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that “he could not
say where but somewhere it was communicated to him that” Senate Candidate A
was a suggested candidate viewed as one of the four “right” candidates “by the
Obama transition team.” (Rahm Emanuel 302, p. 5, December 20, 2008). Harris
told Blagojevich Obama’s suggestion on November 12, 2008 (Blagojevich Home
Phone Call # 539).
19. President-elect Obama was also involved in other senate candidate choices. On
December 8, 2008, John Harris’ secretary’s call log noted President’s Chief of
Staff called at 10:47 am and wrote “needs to talk to you asap” (Harris 302,
February 20, 2009). President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI that he had a
conversation discussing the Senate seat with Obama on December 7, 2008 in
Obama’s car. President’s Chief of Staff told the FBI “Obama expressed concern
about Senate Candidate D being appointed as Senator. [President’s Chief of
Staff] suggested they might need an expanded list to possibly include names of
African Americans that came out of the business world. [President’s Chief of
Staff] thought he suggested Senate Candidate E who was the head of the Urban
6 See, Paragraph 38, Indictment entitled “Efforts to Obtain Personal Financial Benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH in
Return for his Appointment of a United States Senator.” The paragraph states: “Beginning in or about October
2008, and continuing until on or about December 9, 2008 . . .”
7 See, Wisconsin ex rel. Monsoor v. Gagnan, 497 F.2d 1126 (7th Cir. 1974) (holding that the state trial court
committed reversible error and violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and compulsory
process by striking the testimony of the only corroborating witness to a phone call that related directly to the
defendant’s defense), citing Braswell v.Wainwright, 463 F.2d 1148, 1155-56 (5th Cir. 1972) (holding that “Closely
related to [the defendant’s] Sixth Amendment right is his right to a fair trial - - to due process. [The defendant] had a
right to at least present the testimony of his sole corroborating witness to the jury. That the jury might still have
returned a guilty verdict is beside the point; judgment of the credibility of witnesses is for the trier of fact.”)
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 4 of 11
5
League and with President’s Chief of Staff’s suggestion." (President’s Chief of
Staff, 302, 12-20-08).
20. President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation.
President Obama’s testimony is relevant to three fundamental issues of that
allegation. First, President Obama contradicts the testimony of an important
government witness. Second, President Obama’s testimony is relevant to the
necessary element of intent of the defendant. Third, President Obama is the only one
who can say if emissaries were sent on his behalf, who those emissaries were, and
what, if anything, those emissaries were instructed to do on his behalf. All of these
issues are relevant and necessary for the defense of Rod Blagojevich.
21. Tony Rezko is one of the government’s main witnesses.8 Mr. Rezko’s credibility is
extremely relevant in this trial. In many instances, Mr. Rezko is the government’s
crucial witness to prove up their allegations.9 Mr. Rezko wrote a letter to a federal
judge stating “the prosecutors have been overzealous in pursuing a crime that never
happened. They are pressuring me to tell them the “wrong” things that I supposedly
know about Governor Blagojevich and Senator Obama. I have never been a party to
any wrongdoing that involved the Governor or the Senator. I will never fabricate lies
about anyone else for selfish purposes.” (Exhibit A)
22. However, the defense has a good faith belief that Mr. Rezko, President Obama’s
former friend, fund-raiser, and neighbor told the FBI and the United States Attorneys
a different story about President Obama. In a recent in camera proceeding, the
government tendered a three paragraph letter indicating that Rezko “has stated
in interviews with the government that he engaged in election law violations by
personally contributing a large sum of cash to the campaign of a public official
who is not Rod Blagojevich. … Further, the public official denies being aware of
cash contributions to his campaign by Rezko or others and denies having
conversations with Rezko related to cash contributions. … Rezko has also stated
in interviews with the government that he believed he transmitted a quid pro quo
offer from a lobbyist to the public official, whereby the lobbyist would hold a
fundraiser for the official in exchange for favorable official action, but that the
8 The defense has requested that the government provide a witness list. To date, the government has not provided a
list of witnesses.
9 See, Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Indictment. The Pension Obligation Bond Deal ( p. 9 (para. 7), p. 48 (para. 6)); The
Solicitation of Ali Ata (p. 9 (para. 9)), Benefits Given to Rod Blagojevich (Rezko directed or provided payments to
Rod Blagojevich’s wife) (p. 53 (para. 9 (a.), (b.), (c.))), Blagojevich used the power of the Office of the Governor to
give Rezko substantial influence over appointments to boards and commissions (p. 8 (para. 5)) (p. 13 (para. 18)) (p.
42 (para. 4-5)) (p. 47 (para. 4)) (p. 53 (para. 17)).
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 5 of 11
6
public official rejected the offer. The public official denies any such
conversation. In addition, Rezko has stated to the government that he and the
public official had certain conversations about gaming legislation and
administration, which the public official denies having had.”10
23. President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s
allegations above.
24. President Obama has pertinent information as to the character of Mr. Rezko.
President Obama can testify to Mr. Rezko’s reputation for truthfulness as well as his
own opinion of Mr. Rezko’s character. See, Fed. R. Evid. 405(a) and 608. Mr.
Rezko and President Obama became friends in 1990. According to President Obama,
Mr. Rezko raised as much as $60,000 in campaign contributions for Obama.11
25. Based on the relationship that President Obama and Mr. Rezko had, President Obama
can provide important information as to Mr. Rezko’s plan, intent, opportunity, habit
and modus operandi. See, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406. For example, in June 2005,
President Obama purchased a house for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking
price. On the same day Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the
adjoining land. In January 2006, Obama paid Mr. Rezko $104,500 for a strip of the
adjoining land. The transaction took place when it was widely known that Mr. Rezko
was under investigation.12 President Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko is
relevant and necessary Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 406 evidence.
26. Regarding a Presidential subpoena, the Supreme Court has held that:
“The right to the production of all evidence at a criminal trial . . . has
constitutional dimensions. The Sixth Amendment explicitly confers upon
10 The defense has a good faith belief that this public official is Barack Obama. See, “Obama on Rezko deal: It
was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times, November 5, 2006. Senator
Barack Obama was asked: “Did Rezko or his companies ever solicit your support on any matter involving state or
federal government? Did Al Johnson, who was trying to get a casino license along with Tony Rezko, or Rezko
himself ever discuss casino matters with you?” Senator Obama answered: “No, I have never been asked to do
anything to advance his business interest. In 1999, when I was a State Senator, I opposed legislation to bring a
casino to Rosemont and allow casino gambling at docked riverboats which news reports said Al Johnson and Tony
Rezko were interested in being part of. I never discussed a casino license with either of them. I was a vocal
opponent of the legislation.” Obama’s involvement with Tony Rezko and this legislation coincides with the
three paragraph summary the government has provided to the defense referenced above.
11
“Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake”, Dave McKinney, Chris Fusco, and Mark Brown, Chicago Sun Times,
November 5, 2006.
12
“8 Things you need to know about Obama and Rezko”, Tim Novak, Chicago Sun Times, January 24, 2008.
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 6 of 11
7
every defendant in a criminal trial the right ‘to be confronted with the
witnesses against him’ and ‘to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor.’ Moreover, the Fifth Amendment also guarantees that
no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. It is the
manifest duty of the courts to vindicate those guarantees, and to accomplish
that it is essential that all relevant and admissible evidence be produced.”
United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683, 711 (1974).
27. Although it is not commonplace to subpoena a sitting President, the Supreme Court
has noted that sitting Presidents have been subpoenaed by federal courts with
“sufficient frequency that such interactions between the Judicial and Executive
branches can scarcely be thought a novelty.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 US 681, 704, 137
L.Ed. 2d 945, 967 (1997).
28. Indeed, history is replete with cases in which Presidents have been subpoenaed or
have provided evidence in federal cases.13
29. In addition to criminal trials, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F.
Kennedy were defendants in civil cases involving actions prior to taking office.
Clinton v. Jones, 520 US at 692, citing People ex rel. Hurley v. Roosevelt, 179 N.Y.
544, 71 N.E. 1137 (1904); DeVault v. Truman, 354 Mo. 1193, 194 S.W.2d 29 (1946);
Bailey v. Kennedy, No. 757,200 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1960); Hills v. Kennedy, No. 757,201
(Cal. Super. Ct. 1960). President Nixon was deposed in several civil actions and
13 See, United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (President Thomas Jefferson ordered to
comply with a subpoena duces tecum in the trial of Aaron Burr); Rotunda, Presidents and Ex-Presidents as
Witnesses: A Brief Historical Footnote, 1975 U. Ill. L. F. 1, 5-6 (referencing President Monroe’s answers to
interrogatories in the trial of an appointee, whose meetings with the President were cited as contributing factors to
accusations he received his job appointment under “intrigue and misconduct” and also references a lengthy
deposition given by President Grant in a criminal case); United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039
(1974) (The Supreme Court held that President Nixon was obligated to comply with a subpoena duces tecum in a
criminal trial); United States v. Poindexter, 732 F. Supp. 142, 145, citing to United States v. Mitchell, 385 F.Supp
1190 (D.D.C. 1974) and United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.Supp.2d 31, 80-81 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (where President
Nixon was subpoenaed by the Government and defendants in criminal trials of his appointees resulting from the
Watergate scandal); United States v. Fromme, 405 F.Supp. 578 (ED Cal. 1975) (where President Ford was
subpoenaed and deposed as a defense witness in the criminal trial of the woman accused of attempting to assassinate
him); United States v. Poindexter, 732 F.Supp. at 145 (D.D.C. 1990) (referring to President Carter’s videotaped
deposition in a criminal trial and a separate grand jury investigation); Id., at 144-46, 159-60 (where President
Reagan was ordered to testify via videotaped deposition in the criminal trial resulting from the Iran-Contra affair);
and Clinton v. Jones, 520 US at 705, citing United States v. McDougal, 934 F. Supp. 296 (ED Ark. 1996) and
United States v. Branscum, No. LRP-CR-96-49 (ED Ark., June 7, 1996) (referencing President Clinton’s compelled
testimony via videotaped deposition in two criminal proceedings, including as an impeachment witness for the
defense in the McDougal case).
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 7 of 11
8
Presidents Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Tyler and Adams were compelled to appear before
congressional committees. United States v. Poindexter, 732 F. Supp at 145.
30. It is well settled that the Federal Courts have subpoena power over a sitting
President. Chief Justice Marshall’s early opinion from the Burr case has
been “unequivocally and emphatically endorsed” by the Supreme Court and
other federal courts. See, United States v. Nixon, 418 US at 706; Clinton v.
Jones, 520 US at 704.
“Whatever difference may exist with respect to the power to compel the
same obedience to the process, as if it had been directed to a private
citizen, there exists no difference with respect to the right to obtain it. ...
The guard, furnished to this high officer, to protect him from being
harassed by vexatious and unnecessary subpoenas, is to be looked for in
the conduct of a court after those subpoenas have issued; not in any
circumstance which is to precede their being issued.” United States v.
Fromme, 405 F. Supp. At 582, citing United States v. Burr, at p.30.
31. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that “the twofold aim [of criminal justice]
is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.” United States v. Nixon, supra, citing
Berger v. United States, 295 US 78, 88 (1935). The Court continued, in Nixon, that
“the need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental
and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were
to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. . . To ensure that
justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be
available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the
defense.” United States v. Nixon, 418 US at 709. In sum,
[Federal precedent holds that] no person, even a President, is above the
law and that in appropriate judicial proceedings, documents and other
tangible evidence within the very office of the President may be obtained
for use in those judicial proceedings. Similarly, where the President
himself is a percipient witness to an alleged criminal act, the President
must be amenable to subpoena as any other person would be. United
States v. Fromme,405 F.Supp. at 582 (emphasis added).
32. Here, President Obama is a critical witness. All of President Obama’s testimony
would entail evidence he witnessed before he became president and does not involve
Executive Privilege. As the District Court ruled in Fromme:
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 8 of 11
9
“Notwithstanding the burden which is imposed on the person of the
President if he is called to testify as a witness in a criminal trial, this
court has an even heavier burden to ensure a fair and a speedy trial to
the accused, with total regard for all the rights and protections afforded
an accused under the law of this land.
‘[The] allowance of the [Executive] privilege to withhold evidence that
is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the
guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of
the courts.’” United States v. Fromme, 405 F.Supp. at 583 (emphasis
added)(citations omitted), citing United States v. Nixon, 418 US at 712.
33. President Obama has direct and intimate knowledge of facts alleged in the indictment.
Indeed, the President is a percipient witness. United States v. Fromme, 405 F.Supp.
at 581. President Obama is a witness to the conduct alleged as well as an
impeachment witness to at least two of the government’s critical witnesses.14
34. The defense does not take lightly the overwhelming schedule the President has and
the security constraints surrounding his testimony. A videotape deposition will
remedy both of those legitimate concerns. See, Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 15 and see also,
United States v. Fromme, 405 F.Supp. at 582 (videotape deposition “protect[s] the
accused’s rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution while
at the same time imposing the least onerous burden on the person and the office of the
President of the United States.”).
35. The defense requests that, if this court grants a videotape deposition in lieu of in-court
testimony, defense counsel be permitted to conduct the examination of President
Obama after the government’s case in chief. See, United States v. McDougal, 103
F.3d 651 (ED Ark. 1996) and 943 F.Supp. 296 (ED Ark. 1996) (videotaped
deposition of President Clinton which took place at the White House, and because
President Clinton was called as a defense witness to impeach David Hale, the Court
ordered that President Clinton not testify until after the in-court testimony of David
Hale.).
36. The defendant has a right to put on a case and challenge the allegations the
government attempts to prove. President Obama is relevant and necessary to the
14 Joseph Aramanda is another government witness that President Obama can testify to as well. Joseph Aramanda’s
son, John Aramanda, received an internship with then-Senator Obama. Joseph Aramanda contributed $11,500 to
Obama since 2000 and John Aramanda was recommended by Tony Rezko. Internship also links Obama, Rezko,
Frank Main, Chicago Sun-Times, December 24, 2006. President Obama will be able to provide relevant information
as to Joseph Aramanda. See, para. 24 and 25, supra.
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 9 of 11
10
defendant’s case. The defense understands that the President of the United States of
America is not a routine witness and would not request his appearance if it did not
think he was critical to the liberty of Rod Blagojevich. Whatever security or
scheduling concerns can be reduced by arranging for the most convenient
presentation of testimony. The President can testify via video conference or can be
deposed outside of court at an evidence deposition. These options would satisfy the
defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial and security and scheduling concerns.
37. The defense requests this court grant this motion not because Rod Blagojevich was
the Governor of Illinois, but because he is a defendant in a criminal case where his
liberty and freedom are at stake. Likewise, the defense requests this court grant this
motion to issue a subpoena ad testificandum to President Obama, not because he is
the President of the United States, but rather because he is a witness necessary to Rod
Blagojevich’s Constitutional right to a fair trial. Justice requires no more and no less.
“it would be inconceivable -- in a Republic that subscribes neither to the
ancient doctrine of the divine right of kings nor to the more modern
conceit of dictators that they are not accountable to the people whom
they claim to represent or to their courts of law -- to exempt [the
President] from the duty of every citizen to give evidence that will
permit the reaching of a just outcome of this criminal prosecution.
Defendant has shown that the evidence of the . . . President is needed to
protect his right to a fair trial, and he will be given the opportunity to
secure that evidence.” United States v. Poindexter, 732 F. Supp at 159.
WHEREFORE, defendant Rod Blagojevich respectfully requests this Honorable Court
order the government turn over to the defense any and all reports generated during any and all
interviews had with President Barack Obama and issue a subpoena ad testificandum for
President Obama to appear at the trial of United States v. Rod Blagojevich.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sam Adam
Sheldon Sorosky
Sam Adam
Michael Gillespie
Samuel E. Adam
Aaron Goldstein
Lauren Kaeseberg
6133 S. Ellis
Chicago, IL 60637
(773) 752-6950
Attorneys for Rod Blagojevich, Defendant
Case 1:08-cr-00888 Document 327 Filed 04/22/10 Page 10 of 11
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that Defendant’s MOTION FOR THE COURT TO
ISSUE A TRIAL SUBPOENA TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA was served on April 22,
2010, in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 49, Fed. R. Civ. P. LR 5.5, and the General Order on
Electronic Case Filing (ECF) pursuant to the district court’s system as to ECF filers.
/s/ Sam Adam
One of the attorneys for Rod Blagoj

Report Says Health Care Will Cover More, Cost More

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, ''possibly jeopardizing access'' to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill -- Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings -- could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

''During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,'' wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. ''Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful.'' Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

''A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise -- health care costs are going to go up,'' said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

''The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law,'' the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces ''a very serious risk'' of insolvency.

Liberals and the Violence Card

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused "loud and angry voices" on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they're not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we're used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they're violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It's in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.
Now the liberals run the government and they're using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, "transformational" changes to our society. In just 16 months they've added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn't have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who've peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who've condemned this society?
I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world's problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America's great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio.

At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn't have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time."

Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It's no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.

Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.

A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.


Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703876404575199743566950622.html

Poll: Southern Illiniosans unhappy with government

CARBONDALE - For the first time, a poll has been conducted solely of Southern Illinois residents, showing how people in the region feel about many important issues. And the general consensus is they don't feel good.

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute released on Tuesday the first results of the Southern Illinois Poll, which focuses on an 18-county region spanning the southern part of the state. It is the first such poll conducted on a local level by the institute.

Among the poll results: 69.8 percent of respondents believe the country is headed in the wrong direction; 85.3 percent believe the state is headed in the wrong direction; 59.6 percent disapprove of the job done by President Barack Obama; and 54.6 percent disap-prove of the job done by Gov. Pat Quinn.

"I'm struck by what a bad mood people are in," said institute Director David Yepsen said. "People think things are headed in the wrong direction in the country, overwhelmingly so in the state, and it's pretty clear to me that people of Southern Illinois are in a bad mood."

The poll asked questions of 401 registered voters across Southern Illinois between April 5 and 13, and it has a margin of error of 4.9 percent.

A majority of those polled called themselves conservative, a fact that is reflected in many results. More people said they would vote for Republican Bill Brady than Quinn in the governor's race, and in the U.S. Senate race, Republican Mark Kirk received more support than Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.

John Jackson, visiting professor at the institute, said when he moved into Southern Illinois "four decades ago," it was an area that largely supported the Democratic Party. Now, poll results show, that is not the case.

"I've been here a long time, and I was startled by how red state this looks," Jackson said.

Charles Leonard, visiting professor and polling director at the institute, said this poll was made necessary because of the lack of reliable local polling date available. In a recent statewide poll done by the institute, fewer than 70 respondents were from Southern Illinois - and that definition of the region included the Metro East.

More results from the poll are to be released in the next week. Yepsen said he expects policymakers and academic researchers will both have great interest in the poll, especially as it shows how attitudes change over time.

"I think it's important that this institute, and SIUC, focus their attitudes on some of the people who live here," Yepsen said, "so that not only do those attitudes not get lost in the public policy debate, but so that we can, over time, track the progress of public opinion in this region of our state."

rob.crow@thesouthern.com

http://www.thesouthern.com/news/state-and-regional/article_2b8dffa2-4dc6-11df-a44a-001cc4c03286.html

Broadway Bank Looms Over Illinois U.S. Senate Race

Produced by Sam Hudzik on Thursday, April 22, 2010

A big deadline is just a few days away for Chicago-based Broadway Bank. The family of U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias owns the bank, which has been ordered by regulators to raise millions in capital. Giannoulias held a top job there before his election as state treasurer four years ago, so he has a lot riding on the bank's future. We take a look at how that might play out in the days ahead.

Congressman Mark Kirk's Senate campaign has been relentless. Kirk has taken advantage of a stream of bad news for his Democratic rival, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, most of it connected to the bank run by his family.

WEB AUDIO: It's time for Alexi to answer...

This is an internet video put together by Kirk's campaign featuring unflattering news clips...

WEB AUDIO: If you didn't know, Mr. Giannoulias. As the senior officer, why didn't you know was was going on?

Since the primary, the Illinois Republican Party has sent reporters about three dozen press releases attacking Giannoulias on Broadway Bank issues. Not just about a consent order requiring the bank to raise tens of millions in capital within 90 days. But also about loans he approved years ago for people who turned out to be connected to organized crime. And Kirk is questioning whether Giannoulias' decision to file for an income tax extension was at all connected to the bank's troubles.

KIRK: I worry that the coming implosion of his family bank may have tax implications for him, and therefore he's not willing to release his taxes.

GIANNOULIAS: Just about every sentence that Congressman Kirk utters these days, is a noun, a verb and Broadway Bank.

In a speech last week in Chicago, Giannoulias said he wanted to "elevate" the debate and talk about health care and the economy. But he did address the bank controversy head on, noting - as he often does - that it's been four years since he was senior loan officer, and that in the current economy a lot of community banks have faced unpredictable problems.

GIANNOULIAS: I accept responsibility for the less than 9 percent of currently non-performing assets that were booked while I was there. But Congressman Kirk's claims beyond that are simply not true and he knows it.

After the speech, when asked to respond to news reports about his family's business, he distanced himself further.

GIANNOULIAS: Probably have to ask the bank about that.

and...

GIANNOULIAS: Uh, I don't know. You'd have to ask the bank that. As I mentioned, they're doing everything they can, but it's really tough out there.

Giannoulias has also tried to proclaim the inevitability of the bank's failure. Last month, he told newspaper editorial boards that Broadway Bank was likely to get taken over by federal regualtors...

GITELSON: By admitting and saying this is going to be coming about, he's the one who tries to control the story.

Alan Gitelson is a political science professor at Loyola University Chicago. Gitelson says the bank offers Republicans a never-ending line of attack on Giannoulias' claim of business acumen.

GITELSON: This is a lousy situation. There's no way that this particular issue is good for him. It's not good for him now, in April, and it won't be good for him again come November. But under the circumstances, I think he's better off having the issue resolve itself one way or another now, than he is having this drag out for months and months.

But a resolution may not be imminent. The 90 days regulators gave the bank to boost its capital technically come up this weekend. But spokespeople for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and state regulators say consent orders of this type don’t contain drop-dead deadlines. (Neither spokesperson would comment directly Broadway Bank.) If a bank like Broadway has a lead on some capital that could come through in a week or so, according to Greg Hernandez with the FDIC.

HERANDEZ: At that point the bank can go to its regulator and say, 'Hey. We need some additional time.' So, you know, the whole purpose is to keep banks operating and not failing.

Of course, the bank's fate could already be sealed and we wouldn't know anything about it.

HERNANDEZ: Bank failures are very secret and confidential matters.

Hernandez says if state regulators determine the risk is too great, they will pull the bank's charter, and name FDIC the receiver.

HERNANDEZ: Then, at that point, the FDIC begins the process of confidentially marketing an institution so that it can find an acquiring bank.

A process that, first and foremost, seeks to protect the customers' deposits. Neither Hernandez nor the spokeswoman for the state regulators, would comment directly on Broadway Bank.

There's no doubt, though, that the scope of interest in Broadway's future far exceeds most community banks. If the bank gets taken over, reporters and cameras will visit its branches in droves. But don't expect what could be a highly public ending for Broadway Bank to end Giannoulias' campaign. Asked if he would drop out if the bank's taken over and the political pressure builds, Giannoulias replied, "That will never happen."

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=41499

McPier board backs labor, contractor, food changes

Published on April 21, 2010 10:55 AM | Submit a comment
By Kathy Bergen |

The board of the agency that runs McCormick Place voted to recommend making its union workers public employees without the right to strike, as a tool to try to wrest further changes in work rules that add to customer costs and aggravations.

It also voted to recommend reducing the number of unions that work in the complex and as well as to recommend giving the exposition authority the right to review show contractor invoices to ensure that labor cost reductions are passed along to customers.
The board also backed a recommendation to eliminate Focus One, its in-house electrical service, whose high prices have been a source of customer anger, allowing the hiring of outside contractors.

The Focus One vote was split, 4-3, with Mayor Richard Daley's appointees voting in favor, and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn's appointees voting against.

The board also voted to give customers the ability to order package food from outside vendors. That vote broke down the same way.

The board is now considering a governance change that potentially would give the city of Chicago and its mayor greater control of the authority, which is a joint state-city agency.

The board also just voted to recommend that convention-related marketing funding from the city and state be directed to the authority, rather than to the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau. The bureau currently markets McCormick Place and receives most of that marketing funding.

Earlier it recommended the General Assembly approve a restructuring of its debt as well as an operating subsidy in the neighborhood of $20 million to $25 million.

It will forward its recommendations to a legislative panel studying how to make Chicago more competitive with lower-cost rivals.

The board split over the proposed change in governance, so no change will be recommended.

Walsh Speaks with More Than 500 on Illinois' Manufacturing Industry

(Oakbrook Terrace, IL)-- "Illinois manufacturers are job creators, wealth creators, and they are the sector that will lead the economic recovery in Illinois," said Republican challenger Joe Walsh on Monday afternoon while speaking to representatives from some 500 manufacturing companies at Metals Services Institute conference.

Walsh used the opportunity to contrast his policy agenda for Illinois manufacturers with the record of his opponent, 3-term incumbent Rep. Melissa Bean.

"My opponent voted for cap-and-trade," said Walsh. "That's almost all you need to know. Because a vote for cap-and-trade is a vote to impose the economic death penalty on Illinois manufacturing and raise energy prices on consumers." Walsh noted that those manufacturing industries most impacted by the pending cap-and-trade legislation are responsible for more than 177,000 jobs in Illinois, according to the Economic Policy Institute, many of those in the 8th Congressional District.

In 2005, the year Melissa Bean was elected, unemployment in the manufacturing sector was at 2.9%. In March 2010, unemployment in the manufacturing sector had reached 12.6%
Melissa Bean is, of course, not solely responsible for Illinois' eroding manufacturing base but she and the party she represents-because she has consistently put her party's interests ahead of her constituents-have pursued policies that punish business to finance big government.

2009 was one of the worst years for Illinois manufacturing in a century. More than 700 Illinois manufacturers closed their doors and more than 50,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared.

Instead of pursuing tax and regulatory relief for manufacturing, Melissa Bean was piling on: taking tens of thousands of dollars from trial lawyers to block tort reform; voting for cap-and-trade; voting for card-check; voting to spend nearly $1 trillion to finance public sector unions and bail out big banks while manufacturers in the 8th district and around the state were effectively told that they were not "too big to fail."

Joe Walsh will support Illinois manufacturers by:
(1) opposing cap-and-trade;
(2) voting down the undemocratic card-check legislation;
(3) working to make permanent the elimination of the federal estate tax and the 2001 and 2003 personal income tax cuts;
(4) opening foreign markets to Illinois' manufactured goods; and
(5) fighting for civil justice reforms that bring an end to costly, frivolous lawsuits

Both Melissa Bean and Joe Walsh support manufacturing. The difference is that Melissa Bean supports moving Illinois manufacturers to India, China, Mexico and Brazil. By contrast, Joe Walsh knows we can keep Illinois manufacturers here and attract new ones to the transportation hub of the Midwest by providing the tax and regulatory relief that allows manufacturing to be the engine that powers Illinois' economic recovery.

Joe Walsh is the Republican candidate running against Democrat incumbent Melissa Bean in 2010 for the Illinois 8th Congressional District. Born and raised in North Barrington, a policy advocate, teacher, and business entrepreneur, Joe has spent his adult life advancing limited-government and conservative principles. For more information on Joe Walsh and his campaign visit:


www.joewalshforcongress.com


Paid for by the Joe Walsh for Congress Committee, Inc.

Al Qaeda's two top Iraq leaders killed in raid

(Reuters) - Al Qaeda's top two leaders in Iraq have been killed, officials said Monday, in a strike the United States called a "potentially devastating blow" but whose impact analysts said may be limited.

World

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said al Qaeda's Iraq leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the purported head of its local affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq, were found dead in a hole in the ground inside a house after it was surrounded and stormed by troops.

The deaths could be a major setback to the stubborn insurgency at a time when Iraq is emerging from the sectarian slaughter unleashed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion but still struggling to end suicide bombings and other attacks.

"Their deaths are potentially devastating blows to al Qaeda Iraq," U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told reporters in Washington, adding the operation "demonstrates the improved security strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces."

He said it was an operation led by Iraqi security forces with the support of U.S. troops, one of whom was killed. "The Iraqis have taken the lead in securing Iraq and its citizens by taking out both of these individuals," he said.

The U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, called the deaths "potentially the most significant blow to al Qaeda in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency."

However, analysts cautioned against reading too much into the strike against a network that did not appear to have much hierarchy but operates mainly through independent cells.

The killings may boost Maliki's stature as he tries to ensure his reappointment as prime minister following a March 7 general election that produced no outright winner.

FORMING IRAQ GOVERNMENT

Maliki's ambitions for a second term are proving to be a stumbling block to the formation of an alliance between Iraq's two main Shi'ite Muslim political groups that would give them the clout to form a government.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said that high value intelligence was found at the site, in particular on the methods used by al Qaeda's affiliates in Iraq to communicate with the group's command structure outside the country.

"Terrorist attacks will not stop because al Qaeda remains active in Iraq. This will weaken their operation because the cell that was arrested will take us to other leaders," he said.

Maliki said Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir and thought to be an Egyptian, and Baghdadi were killed in Thar-Thar, a rural area 80 km (50 miles) northwest of Baghdad that is regarded as a hotbed of al Qaeda activity.

The U.S. military said the operation took place Sunday 10 km (six miles) southwest of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town.

A U.S. soldier died in a helicopter crash during the assault, the U.S. military said. It had previously said the crash was an accident and not due to hostile fire.

Maliki said the house was destroyed and the bodies of Masri and Baghdadi were found in a hole in the ground where they were hiding. An assistant of Masri and a son of Baghdadi were also killed in the fighting and at least 16 people were arrested.

The Iraqi government has frequently claimed it has arrested major al Qaeda leaders only to be proved wrong, and the reaction of Iraqis was mixed.

"Abu Ayyub passes away and another Abu Ayyub pops up," said one Baghdad resident, Hussein Taher. Another, Abu Nabiel al-Humairi, told Reuters Television, "Eliminating terrorism is great. We want to walk freely in our country and live safely."

Analysts said Masri and Baghdadi were the highest-ranking al Qaeda figures to be targeted in Iraq since the organization's former Iraq chief, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed by U.S. aircraft in June 2006.

But they said the outcome of talks to form the next government was more relevant to Iraq's future and stability.

"This political situation in Iraq is very volatile at the moment, so while this will be good for Maliki and make headlines for 48 hours it will be forgotten amid the ongoing post-election story," said Peter Harling, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.

"From what we've seen in the past killing leaders like this has never made that much of a difference."

(Additional reporting by Ahmed Rasheed, Suadad al-Salhy, Nick Carey and Reuters Television in Baghdad, William Maclean in London, and Phil Stewart in Washington; Writing by Michael Christie; Editing by David Storey)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63I3CL20100419?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

2010 Primary Schedule

« on: January 04, 2010, 02:51:12 am »


From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

This year promises some very exciting midterm election contests with primaries or run-offs held on at least 24 different days.

The complete 2010 primary calendar follows...

February 2

* Illinois

March 2

* Texas

April 13

* Texas run-off

May 4

* Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio

May 11

* Nebraska, West Virginia

May 18

* Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania

May 25

* Idaho

June 1

* Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico

June 8

* California, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Arkansas run-off

June 22

* Utah, North Carolina run-off, Mississippi run-off, South Carolina run-off

June 29

* South Dakota run-off

July 13

* Alabama run-off

July 20

* Georgia

July 7

* Oklahoma

August 3

* Kansas, Michigan, Missouri

August 5

* Tennessee

August 10

* Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia run-off

August 17

* Washington, Wyoming

August 24

* Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma run-off

August 28

* Louisiana

September 14

* Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin

September 18

* Hawaii

October 2

* Louisiana run-off

Houlihan puts Stroger's cousin on assessor payroll

A year after Cook County Board President Todd Stroger's cousin was forced out as his top financial official amid a hiring scandal, she's landed a job with the Cook County assessor's office -- at half the salary.

Donna Dunnings will be paid $79,000 a year to run the Cook County Stimulus and Revitalization Project, which provides funds to help developers return to the tax rolls properties they buy with large delinquent property tax bills, said Eric Herman, spokesman for Assessor James Houlihan. She starts in 10 days, he added.

As the county's chief financial officer, Dunnings was paid nearly $176,000. Stroger forced Dunnings' retirement in April 2009, after she was caught up in the controversy of former steakhouse busboy Tony Cole, who Stroger hired for an executive post even though he didn't have a college degree. She bailed Cole out of jail while he was employed for the county.

Cole eventually was fired for allegedly lying about his criminal history when he filled out a county application. The scandal contributed to Stroger's loss in the February primary.

Dunnings was a strong employee at the assessor's office between 1987 and 1999, performing various assessing and evaluation duties, Herman said. Houlihan is not concerned about the troubles Dunnings had in Stroger's office, he said.

"We're really not, because she has had a successful history in this office," Herman said. "She has a good feel for real estate and development. She's a very intelligent woman."

"This is clearly a good fit for her," Herman added.

Houlihan is retiring and did not seek re-election


http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/04/houlihan-puts-strogers-cousin-on-assessor-payroll.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chicagotribune%2Fcloutstreet+%28Chicago+Tribune%3A+Clout+Street%29

Andy Shaw boosts funding, tries to broaden Better Government Association’s reach

Melissa Harri -Chicago tribune


CHICAGO CONFIDENTIAL

April 18, 2010



Fundraising hits almost $1 million, staffing at seven since former political reporter took over

As a veteran political reporter, Andy Shaw had access to many of Chicago's most powerful citizens. And in 10 months since taking over the Better Government Association, a watchdog group, he has raised almost $1 million from many of the people he used to interview.


"In the initial build-up phase, it had to be largely about me because I was better known and had a higher level of credibility than the organization," Shaw said. "I was fresh off all of those years covering politics, including the Obama campaign. I was coming off a big, big year, and I had to sell me because I couldn't sell an organization that had struggled for a decade."

Venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker, private-equity executive John Canning, lawyer Bob Clifford, banker Harrison Steans and other CEOs and foundations have contributed to the nonprofit, including the Alphawood, Joyce and McCormick foundations.

When Jay Stewart left as BGA director in January 2009 to become Gov. Pat Quinn's attorney, the staff had dwindled to two and annual contributions had fallen to less than $200,000. Now with additional funding it has grown to seven staffers, including veteran television reporter Mark LaMet and Rita McLennon, former executive director of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law.

Shaw also has found pro bono legal help to file suits to dislodge records when freedom of information requests have failed. Last year, for example, Cook County denied media requests for the cell phone records of several current or former county employees, including County Board President Todd Stroger. But in July they were released after the association sued.

"This is not about gotcha journalism," Shaw said. "It's about exposing problems at all levels of the bureaucracy, including waste, duplication and unnecessary branches of government. And when we find things that involve violations of good-government principles, we're going to suggest remedies and get behind all kinds of structural changes."

The organization is overhauling its Web site, bettergov.org, which Shaw envisions becoming an aggregator of Chicago investigative journalism, a collection center for tips and a source of pressure campaigns against public officials. He said the group will continue working with local media, developing story ideas and sharing grunt work.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0418-confidential--20100418,0,1760246.column

Human Events-Illinois’ 8th U.S. House District

Gizzi's Races of the Week

by John Gizzi



04/13/2010
Walsh vs. Bean



Democrats and Republicans alike in Illinois’s 8th District (suburban Chicago) are still wondering how on earth Joe Walsh—a one time inner-city Chicago teacher—ever defeated six opponents on a budget of $130,000 (“all small donations,” notes the candidate) to win the GOP primary to oppose three-term Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean?

“It was the Tea Party movement here—pure and simple,” says Walsh, who has never held elective office. “We have about 10-12 different Tea Party groups in and around Chicago and I spoke to each of them. They liked my message of cutting taxes, opposing government stimulus and bailout programs and opportunity.”

The 47-year-old Walsh recalled how “about 100 to 200 Tea Partiers provided ‘boots on the ground’ for me in the primary—going door-to-door, licking envelopes, making calls and driving supporters to the polls.”

Not only did it work but, as Walsh predicts, “after my opponent’s vote for the healthcare bill, the phones at our headquarters haven’t stopped ringing. We’ll have four to five times that number of volunteers by the fall!”

“Out of touch” is how University of Chicago graduate Walsh labels Bean (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 30%), repeatedly noting that “she never held a single town hall meeting with her constituents before she voted for Obama’s healthcare plan. How can you vote on an issue that important if you don’t talk to your folks at home?” (Since the vote, Bean has held meetings, but they have been invitation-only.)

To underscore his point, Walsh is holding town hall meetings of his won focusing on alternatives to the recently enacted Obamacare. And, they're open to all, his supporters emphasize.

Although he has never held office, Joe Walsh has been around public policy for much of his life, having worked for the Heartland Institute and the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation. At a time when Tea Party candidates are portrayed in the media as prophets of gloom and “againsters,” Walsh preaches the gospel of hope and opportunity enunciated by his heroes Friedman and Jack Kemp.

“We can give people more opportunities by ending the estate tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the capital gains tax—and then cutting the corporate tax in half,” he says without hesitation. “We can then give people more money, more security and more chances to make their own decisions.”

As an example, Walsh cites his own work as executive director of the Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund, in which role he oversaw the awarding of 150 privately funded vouchers per year to permit 8th graders in the inner city to attend schools of their own choice.

In Bean’s last two trips to the polls, pundits usually concluded that she won because she was considered a moderate and candidates such as Joe Walsh considered “too conservative.”

“Not so in 2010,” says Walsh, “not after her votes on healthcare and stimulus packages. That’s why people here are scared. And that’s why a message of conservatism and hope resonates. This is the perfect storm.”

(Joe Walsh for Congress, 830 West Route 22 P.O. Box 56, Lake Zurich, Ill. 60047; 217-638-3543, www.walshforcongress.com)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36475

Brady for Governor-Tell Pat Quinn today: No job-killing 33% Tax Hike

Sign the petition and tell Governor Quinn: No.


Friend

Today -- Tax Day -- Bill Brady is calling on the people of Illinois to tell Governor Quinn: No .... We can't afford a job-killing 33 percent tax hike.

"The absolute last thing we need in the middle of a recession with unacceptably high unemployment is a huge tax increase that will only feed the big government monster. Governor Quinn says we need this because of the state's fiscal woes, but the reality is the state's financial problems will be solved if we create jobs.

"Tax increases are the easy way out for big government. As a business owner, I know what higher taxes mean: They mean not being able to offer a job to one more unemployed American. For a family, it means even less to buy the essentials."

Join the movement. Go to StopThePatQuinnTax.com and sign a petition telling the governor not to kill more jobs.

P.S. Just a little while ago, the state reported that the unemployment rate in Illinois just went up again in March, to 11.5 percent. Our unemployment rate is now nearly 2 points higher than the national rate. If Pat Quinn needed one more reason to stop his job-killing tax plan, this was it.

From the Brady for Governor Campaign Team

Want to volunteer for Bill Brady? Visit BradyForIllinois.com and sign up!

The Conscience of a Former Enron Adviser -WSJ

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times has incurred the wrath of a colleague, for the following passage in yesterday's "Dealbook" column:

You may recall that during the most perilous months of 2008 and early 2009, there was a vigorous debate about how the government should fix the financial system. Some economists, including Nouriel Roubini of New York University and [former Enron adviser] Paul Krugman, declared that we should follow the example of the Swedes by nationalizing the entire banking system.

Krugman fired back in an NYTimes.com blog entry titled "Andrew Ross Sorkin Owes Several People an Apology":

I certainly never said anything like that, and I don't think Nouriel did either. First of all, I never called for "nationalizing the entire banking system" — I wanted the government to take temporary full ownership of a few weak banks, mainly Citigroup and possibly B of A. I defy Sorkin to find any examples of me calling for a total takeover.

Sorkin does just that, in a post to his own NYTimes.com blog sarcastically titled "Dear Professor Krugman . . .":
On your blog on Sept. 28, 2008, after reading a piece by Brad DeLong, an economist, which you linked to, you wrote, "Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he's right."

In your column on Feb. 23, 2009, you asked, "Why not just go ahead and nationalize? Remember, the longer we live with zombie banks, the harder it will be to end the economic crisis."

Sorkin strikes a hilariously condescending tone, as if he is addressing someone who is full of himself and a bit feeble-minded: "I appreciate that you may have articulated the details of your views differently, or more specifically, in other columns and forums. And I appreciate that you could quibble with my words. But I do think it is clear . . . Again, I love reading your column, and the bailouts are certainly an issue that is the subject of much debate."

Three cheers to Sorkin. This is almost as good as when Krugman was caught describing his own economics textbook as reflecting "a bizarre point of view."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303348504575184081507879688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

The Illinois spiral-As Heard on Rush Limbaugh

April 11, 2010



History often occurs with such bombast that we couldn't miss it if we tried: a climactic battle, a pivotal court decree, the inauguration of an African-American president. Other times, history evolves quietly via the Law of Accumulation: Little things add up.


Illinois is suffering one of those subtler but game-changing passages today. Our state is in a downward spiral that, yes, still can be reversed. First, though, we have to admit that we are not the Illinois that was — the muscular producer and processor and manufacturer that could stare a stranger in the eye and convincingly boast: Move here and prosper!

Few of us, or our ancestors, gravitated to this state for its prairie scenery or bipolar climate. Illinois instead promised near-unrivaled opportunity: its rich soil, its wealth of industries, its human hustle frenetic to make a buck.

Today, though, we are losing employers. Nearly half a million of our jobs are gone. We export many of our educated young people to futures out of state.

We can wait, paralyzed, and hope that economic recovery eventually means full employment recovery. Or we can make structural changes now that would welcome the makers of jobs.

We need to lower costs. Our governance infrastructure has become overgrown and overpriced. We have 7,000 often redundant governments, far more than any other state. We populate those governments with armies of employees, and give them duties — some essential, some make-work. Many politicians of both parties enlist these workers as their allies in a cozy paradigm: If you help us win re-election, we will reward you with adequate salaries today — and fabulous retirement benefits tomorrow.

Those pols treat the public sector with fawning reverence while ignoring, or even scorning, a private sector that supplies their lifeblood revenues. Why so? Because the pols and their allies have a good thing going, and no incentive to disrupt it. So, unlike in scrappier states, there is precious little talk in Illinois of curtailing teacher tenure, or reducing benefits for current public employees, or capping government expenditures, or exterminating townships and other costly relics, or demolishing obsolete institutions, or ...

Recession, though, has forced a reckoning: Our shrinking and salary-squeezed private sector work force cannot adequately support many of our state's households — let alone sustain our antiquated overlays of taxing bodies.

This should be a time of tremendous opportunity for leaders who, rather than hiding from recession, exploit it to reinvent Illinois. To radically reshape the state's present and its future. To capitalize on employers' problems in other high-cost states by making Illinois their low-cost place to do business. To grow jobs.

Instead, our Statehouse brims with defensive, small-think pols hoping to survive another election.
•••
We speak of this Illinois spiral not as fatalistic Chicken Littles but as true believers who fiercely don't want this to be New Michigan or New California. Those places tried to stem their declines by marshaling taxation, regulation and future spending obligations in ways that left many employers thinking: Hmm. Expense and hassle. Plenty of other states would rather have these jobs.

Employers tend to be harder-headed in deciding where to invest their money than our lawmakers are in spending other people's money. The employers see Illinois pols dithering through a crisis, inviting an even more bleak future with their refusal to reform government spending and reduce what it costs to have a payroll in Illinois:

• You haven't heard Illinois leaders confront a November warning from advisers to the legislature's economic think tank — the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability — that while half the states would recover from their job losses by mid-2013, "Illinois would not recover its peak employment level until 2014 or 2015." In the meantime, " … 10 states, including Illinois, are expected to suffer unemployment rates in excess of 9 percent."

• Nor have you heard Illinois leaders, in their to and fro over an income tax hike, confront a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates. The report also analyzed 15 policy factors that influence a state's growth prospects — tax burdens, debt service, tort climate, mandated minimum wage, spending limits if any — and ranked Illinois' economic outlook as an alarming 44th in the U.S.

• Nor have you heard Illinois leaders confront this state's devastating rank in job creation, 48th, and ask how they can be friendlier to present and potential employers. Illinois — with its overspending, its borrowing and its worst-in-America pension crisis — faces massive obligations that give potential employers pause. Add to this toxic mix Illinois' high cost of workers compensation and its 49th-in-the-U.S. bond ratings. How surprised, then, are we that since 1990 Illinois has underperformed the U.S. in job growth?



•••
Illinois needs a new paradigm.

Illinois needs leaders who unwind the terrible indebtedness that lawmakers past and present have bequeathed to taxpayers and their grandchildren.

Illinois needs an end to the mutual admiration society of public officials and public employees coddling one another.

Illinois needs fewer governments and, in Springfield, one government scared straight by so much lost employment.

Most of all, Illinois needs leaders who see that, across this nation, concerns about the public sector's size, cost and reach is the domestic issue that most rivets Americans.

We, like Illinois lawmakers frozen in delay and denial, hope recovery creates enough jobs to rescue struggling families and to fund crucial priorities. Unlike the pols, though, we're not content only to hope. We urge them not to flee Springfield until they've made spending and structural reforms to attract employers.

Above all, we expect voters exercised about education and other causes to elect lawmakers who'll end the Illinois spiral.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-illinois-20100411,0,2311228,full.story

Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers;Congress losses Their Health Plans?

By ROBERT PEAR Published: April 12, 2010

WASHINGTON — It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.


For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.

These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

Congress must now decide what steps, if any, it can take to deal with the problem. It could try for a legislative fix, or it could adopt internal policies to minimize any disruptions.

In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain.

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

“This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

The White House said last month that Mr. Obama would voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange, though the law does not require him or other administration officials to do so. His participation as president may depend on his getting re-elected in 2012.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.

The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

The federal employees program, created in 1959, now provides coverage to eight million people and, according to the Congressional Research Service, is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the country.