By Ray Long and Rick Pearson, Tribune reporters
Only a month before Gov. Pat Quinn rewrote legislation to help the Teamsters at the McCormick Place convention center, the labor group gave the Democratic governor $75,000 in political donations, his campaign acknowledged Thursday.
Quinn's campaign said the donations were part of the union's longstanding support for the governor and unrelated to his proposed changes in a reform bill aimed at making Chicago more competitive for trade-show business. The governor asserted his amendatory veto would have strengthened the bill, but lawmakers quickly rejected his changes Thursday in Springfield.
Still, the proximity of the donations to Quinn's actions prompted comparisons to the "pay-to-play" culture in state government that he vowed to reform when he replaced the disgraced Rod Blagojevich last year. It was the second fundraising controversy in a year for Quinn, who is seeking election to a full term as his former running mate, Blagojevich, faces trial on corruption charges.
In this case, it was legislation designed to make McCormick Place more hospitable to trade shows by reorganizing its governance and changing union work rules at the convention center. Quinn received donations of $50,000 and $25,000 from the Teamsters on April 23, his campaign said, two weeks before lawmakers sent the legislation to the governor.
For weeks, Quinn deliberated over the measure before using his amendatory veto power Wednesday to rewrite the legislation. His changes would have cleared the way for the Teamsters to absorb a smaller union at the convention center. The carpenters union, the other powerhouse at McCormick Place, also would have been able to absorb a smaller union.
Quinn has said reducing the number of unions that exhibitors have to deal with would make McCormick Place more competitive with rivals such as Las Vegas and Orlando. His campaign also noted his rewrite of the legislation kept intact work-rule changes that the Teamsters and other leading unions at McCormick Place opposed.
"I do want to stress over and over again: I've made this bill stronger, better. I've reformed it completely — not halfway," Quinn told reporters about his rewrite.
Quinn campaign spokeswoman Mica Matsoff said any assertion that there was a connection between the money and Quinn's action on the bill was "completely offensive."
"The Teamsters have a longstanding history with the governor" and it was the first labor group to endorse him in the Feb. 2 Democratic primary, she said.
Of the $127,612 Quinn had raised previously from various Teamsters locals, only $15,000 was donated before he became governor at the end of January 2009, state records show. Donations of $50,000 were made in October and in January of this year by the Teamsters Volunteers in Politics, the political arm of Joint Council 25, an umbrella group of Teamster locals.
The president of Joint Council 25, John Coli, found himself embroiled in a previous fundraising controversy when he was named in 2003 by Blagojevich to the Illinois tollway board. After reports of Teamster donations of $100,000 and a potential conflict with union workers at the tollway, Coli withdrew his name.
Teamsters officials did not return calls for comment.
During last year's spring legislative session, Quinn blamed a "naive" aide for trying to sell interest groups "face time" with him in exchange for hosting $15,000 fundraising events.
Quinn's Republican opponent, state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington, quickly sought to make the Teamsters' donations a campaign issue.
"I think it takes us back, unfortunately, to a day of the pay-to-play policies of Gov. Blagojevich and Gov. Quinn, and I think it's disturbing, not only to me, but to the people of Illinois," Brady said.
Tribune reporters Kathy Bergen and David Kidwell contributed to this report.
rlong@tribune.com
rap30@aol.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-quinn-teamster-donations-20100527,0,7335564,full.story
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Quinn campaign cash, Madigan allies fueled McPier fight
Posted by Greg H. at 5/27/2010 11:36 AM CDT on Chicago Business
As the General Assembly moves toward final action on legislation to revive Chicago's convention business — look for the Senate to override Gov. Pat Quinn's amendatory veto later today — some of the lesser-noticed political aspects of the story deserve airing.
Like how one of the unions that would gain from the veto is pumping big cash into Mr. Quinn's campaign — $75,000 just a month ago, with lots more reportedly on the way.
And how two other labor units continue to be protected by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Why?
Or why GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady doesn't have much to say except to deplore the influence of unmentioned "insiders."
Let me start with Mr. Quinn.
Now, the guv is right that the bill sent to him by Mr. Madigan and the Senate is not perfect. The bill does include a higher new tax on taxi cabs at the airport, and arguably doesn't do enough to rein in markups by GES and Freeman, the two big companies that actually run shows at McCormick Place.
But what caught my eye was a change Mr. Quinn included in his veto message to reduce the number of unions with jurisdiction at McCormick Place. The change almost certainly would lead to the demise of the small but influential decorators and riggers unions, which would be merged into the bigger and deeper-pocketed Teamsters and carpenters unions.
As a matter of public policy, Mr. Quinn probably is right that conventions would function better here with fewer unions to deal with. Chicago's big competitors — Orlando and Las Vegas — have fewer than we do.
But Mr. Quinn dilutes his argument when one of the unions involved — the Teamsters — continues to give him huge campaign funding.
Quinn campaign aides confirm that the Teamsters on April 23 sent him checks for $50,000 and $25,000. And buzz is that local Teamsters chief John Coli has sent or is about to send another $100,000.
Mr. Coli failed to return phone calls seeking comment. Team Quinn notes that the Teamsters has been an early and regular financial contributor, and the guv's spokesman says his "only" intent in the veto is to "improve" McPier, the nickname for the agency that runs McCormick Place.
I wish I could believe that.
Once upon a time, Pat Quinn built a name as a reformer by pointing the finger at politicians who took big money from those who wanted something from government. Sure looks like he ought to point a finger at himself on this one.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the question is why Mr. Madigan protected the riggers and decorators on this bill, and why he has done so on no other occasions in the past, according to Springfield insiders.
Mr. Madigan's spokesman says no one asked to reduce the number of unions when the House was considering the McPier bill in recent weeks. But others offer another explanation: state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, a Rosemont Republican with whom Mr. Madigan has had a close relationship through the years.
Mr. Saviano says the new trustee in charge of McPier will have the power to pretty much strip both the decorators and the riggers of work, should he choose. In theory, that's right, though I've seen no sign that the designated trustee, Jim Reilly, is prepared to actually do so.
Perhaps more on point, Mr. Saviano concedes that he indeed is and has been closer to the riggers for many years. "Their office used to be right across the street from mine," he notes.
And perhaps even more on point, Mr. Madigan and Rosemont Republicans like the late Mayor Don Stephens have been tight as ticks for decades. After all, Mr. Madigan is one of those who pushed through legislation steering a new casino to Rosemont — until regulators objected to alleged mob influence in the town, that is.
Anyhow, all of this should provide plenty of ammunition for state Sen. Brady — the GOP guv candidate — to comment. And, indeed, he put out a statement accusing Mr. Quinn of "working to cut a deal to support the same insiders who led us into this mess in the first place and who he is courting to help his own political career."
But, despite several efforts by me to get the Brady campaign to specify who those "insiders" are, he won't. "Pat Quinn knows what insiders he's been dealing with," is all his spokeswoman will say.
My translation: Bill Brady in his day job is a homebuilder. And it probably would not be a very shrewd political move for a builder to rip the carpenters union over the McPier bill.
Just a shot in the dark on my part. If Mr. Brady wants to get specific on who he thinks the bad guys are, I'll be happy to listen.
1:50 p.m. update: The House just followed the Senate in override the bill, which is now law. The trailer bill that invokes some of Mr. Quinn's changes should win final approval later today.
As the General Assembly moves toward final action on legislation to revive Chicago's convention business — look for the Senate to override Gov. Pat Quinn's amendatory veto later today — some of the lesser-noticed political aspects of the story deserve airing.
Like how one of the unions that would gain from the veto is pumping big cash into Mr. Quinn's campaign — $75,000 just a month ago, with lots more reportedly on the way.
And how two other labor units continue to be protected by House Speaker Michael Madigan. Why?
Or why GOP gubernatorial hopeful Bill Brady doesn't have much to say except to deplore the influence of unmentioned "insiders."
Let me start with Mr. Quinn.
Now, the guv is right that the bill sent to him by Mr. Madigan and the Senate is not perfect. The bill does include a higher new tax on taxi cabs at the airport, and arguably doesn't do enough to rein in markups by GES and Freeman, the two big companies that actually run shows at McCormick Place.
But what caught my eye was a change Mr. Quinn included in his veto message to reduce the number of unions with jurisdiction at McCormick Place. The change almost certainly would lead to the demise of the small but influential decorators and riggers unions, which would be merged into the bigger and deeper-pocketed Teamsters and carpenters unions.
As a matter of public policy, Mr. Quinn probably is right that conventions would function better here with fewer unions to deal with. Chicago's big competitors — Orlando and Las Vegas — have fewer than we do.
But Mr. Quinn dilutes his argument when one of the unions involved — the Teamsters — continues to give him huge campaign funding.
Quinn campaign aides confirm that the Teamsters on April 23 sent him checks for $50,000 and $25,000. And buzz is that local Teamsters chief John Coli has sent or is about to send another $100,000.
Mr. Coli failed to return phone calls seeking comment. Team Quinn notes that the Teamsters has been an early and regular financial contributor, and the guv's spokesman says his "only" intent in the veto is to "improve" McPier, the nickname for the agency that runs McCormick Place.
I wish I could believe that.
Once upon a time, Pat Quinn built a name as a reformer by pointing the finger at politicians who took big money from those who wanted something from government. Sure looks like he ought to point a finger at himself on this one.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the question is why Mr. Madigan protected the riggers and decorators on this bill, and why he has done so on no other occasions in the past, according to Springfield insiders.
Mr. Madigan's spokesman says no one asked to reduce the number of unions when the House was considering the McPier bill in recent weeks. But others offer another explanation: state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano, a Rosemont Republican with whom Mr. Madigan has had a close relationship through the years.
Mr. Saviano says the new trustee in charge of McPier will have the power to pretty much strip both the decorators and the riggers of work, should he choose. In theory, that's right, though I've seen no sign that the designated trustee, Jim Reilly, is prepared to actually do so.
Perhaps more on point, Mr. Saviano concedes that he indeed is and has been closer to the riggers for many years. "Their office used to be right across the street from mine," he notes.
And perhaps even more on point, Mr. Madigan and Rosemont Republicans like the late Mayor Don Stephens have been tight as ticks for decades. After all, Mr. Madigan is one of those who pushed through legislation steering a new casino to Rosemont — until regulators objected to alleged mob influence in the town, that is.
Anyhow, all of this should provide plenty of ammunition for state Sen. Brady — the GOP guv candidate — to comment. And, indeed, he put out a statement accusing Mr. Quinn of "working to cut a deal to support the same insiders who led us into this mess in the first place and who he is courting to help his own political career."
But, despite several efforts by me to get the Brady campaign to specify who those "insiders" are, he won't. "Pat Quinn knows what insiders he's been dealing with," is all his spokeswoman will say.
My translation: Bill Brady in his day job is a homebuilder. And it probably would not be a very shrewd political move for a builder to rip the carpenters union over the McPier bill.
Just a shot in the dark on my part. If Mr. Brady wants to get specific on who he thinks the bad guys are, I'll be happy to listen.
1:50 p.m. update: The House just followed the Senate in override the bill, which is now law. The trailer bill that invokes some of Mr. Quinn's changes should win final approval later today.
80-year old Army vet shoots, kills home invader
'He saved our lives,' says wife of the shooting of a gunman who intruded into the couple's bedroom on West Side
Duaa Eldeib and Liam Ford, Tribune reporters
As an 80-year-old Army veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their Humboldt Park home just before dawn Wednesday, a would-be burglar busted a basement window, crawled over discarded bikes and paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.
The intruder — who police said wore stockings over his hands to keep from leaving prints — wiggled the brass doorknob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment, but it didn't open, the family said. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and shot, police and family said.
But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder, a police source said.
"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs in the two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue.
The shooting comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared almost certain to strike down the city ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home.
Chicago police have long aggressively been trying to remove guns from the public, saying they are the principal weapons used in murders and employed by gangs to enforce turf through violence.
Handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States but more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. A gun in a home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, the council said.
But many in Chicago echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the frightening encounter could have ended in their deaths.
"He saved our lives," said the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the noise of shattered glass startled the family from its sleep about 5:20 a.m.
Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because he appeared to act in self-defense, according to police sources.
The homeowner bought his handgun after being robbed just six months ago, having vowed not to be a victim again, his family said.
In an interview at the home, the wife said her first thoughts were of her 12-year-old great-grandson asleep in the next room. She rushed to wake him up and led him to the front living room, away from the gunfire.
"The only thing I could think is 'God, please save my husband, myself and my grandbaby,'" she said.
The wife's hands continued to tremble hours after the shooting.
"I was scared to death," she said. "You're in your bed asleep, and somebody shoots a gun in your home. I'm still shook up."
Neighbors and family heralded the actions of the homeowner.
"He just protected his family," Gant, 57, said. "That's the most important thing to do, protect your family."
The intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony Nelson, 29, who was on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction, according to county and state records.
He was pronounced dead at the scene, his blood splattered just feet away from the couple's bedroom window.
Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from the home he broke into. Neighbors recognized him from his mug shot as a man they had seen at the corner liquor store who went by the name "Big Ant."
"I just don't want to believe it's true," said his mother, Lenora Nelson, who said her son earned his GED while in custody and had just signed up for an online carpentry program. "He could fix almost anything," she said. Nelson was supposed to begin a job next week for a company that cleans out homes before they're remodeled, she said.
The last time she saw her son was Tuesday night, when they had his favorite meal — steak burritos — for dinner, she said. When he left around 9 p.m., he didn't tell her where he was going, she said.
Since being freed on parole, Nelson began working with an organization that helps former inmates find jobs once they're released from prison, his mother said.
Police declined to identify the 80-year-old shooter, saying he was a victim of a crime and it was against department policy to name him.
The homeowner met his wife while working as a presser at a dry cleaners. His wife, a retired nurse, also worked as a monitor on a bus for disabled children. Next month they will celebrate their 60th anniversary. The couple have lived in the same house for more than 40 years, but the wife is thinking about moving.
"How much can you take?" she said.
In the West Side neighborhood where the home invasion occurred, longtime homeowners have created a relatively stable community on their street — an oasis from shootings. Neighbors said their stretch of North Sawyer Avenue had been a good place for families to raise their children a generation ago, but as the aging population dies, new residents move in and a heightened sense of danger grows.
Some residents choose different forms of protection. Audrey Williams, 75, said she keeps five dogs on her property to guard her home, but "this is the first time that we've had an incident like this, on this street, and I've lived here for 43 years," she said.
"They did the right thing. If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing," said Williams, who has described the family as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."
One neighbor used to help the couple carry in groceries because they both walk with canes.
"Everyone around here looks around for each other and watches each other's homes," said Jose Perez, who has lived in the area about five years.
Throughout the day Wednesday, a family friend worked to board up the two broken windows. The son said the shooting demonstrates why Chicago's handgun must be repealed.
"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" the son said. "That gun law should be abolished. You don't need guns on the street, but you need them in the home for protection."
Tribune reporters Annie Sweeney, Jeremy Gorner and Kristen Mack contributed to this report.
deldeib@tribune.com
lford@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526,0,4477212,full.story
Duaa Eldeib and Liam Ford, Tribune reporters
As an 80-year-old Army veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their Humboldt Park home just before dawn Wednesday, a would-be burglar busted a basement window, crawled over discarded bikes and paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.
The intruder — who police said wore stockings over his hands to keep from leaving prints — wiggled the brass doorknob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment, but it didn't open, the family said. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and shot, police and family said.
But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder, a police source said.
"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs in the two-flat in the 600 block of North Sawyer Avenue.
The shooting comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared almost certain to strike down the city ordinance and rule that residents have a right to a handgun at home.
Chicago police have long aggressively been trying to remove guns from the public, saying they are the principal weapons used in murders and employed by gangs to enforce turf through violence.
Handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States but more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year, according to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. A gun in a home is four times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, the council said.
But many in Chicago echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the frightening encounter could have ended in their deaths.
"He saved our lives," said the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the noise of shattered glass startled the family from its sleep about 5:20 a.m.
Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because he appeared to act in self-defense, according to police sources.
The homeowner bought his handgun after being robbed just six months ago, having vowed not to be a victim again, his family said.
In an interview at the home, the wife said her first thoughts were of her 12-year-old great-grandson asleep in the next room. She rushed to wake him up and led him to the front living room, away from the gunfire.
"The only thing I could think is 'God, please save my husband, myself and my grandbaby,'" she said.
The wife's hands continued to tremble hours after the shooting.
"I was scared to death," she said. "You're in your bed asleep, and somebody shoots a gun in your home. I'm still shook up."
Neighbors and family heralded the actions of the homeowner.
"He just protected his family," Gant, 57, said. "That's the most important thing to do, protect your family."
The intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony Nelson, 29, who was on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction, according to county and state records.
He was pronounced dead at the scene, his blood splattered just feet away from the couple's bedroom window.
Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from the home he broke into. Neighbors recognized him from his mug shot as a man they had seen at the corner liquor store who went by the name "Big Ant."
"I just don't want to believe it's true," said his mother, Lenora Nelson, who said her son earned his GED while in custody and had just signed up for an online carpentry program. "He could fix almost anything," she said. Nelson was supposed to begin a job next week for a company that cleans out homes before they're remodeled, she said.
The last time she saw her son was Tuesday night, when they had his favorite meal — steak burritos — for dinner, she said. When he left around 9 p.m., he didn't tell her where he was going, she said.
Since being freed on parole, Nelson began working with an organization that helps former inmates find jobs once they're released from prison, his mother said.
Police declined to identify the 80-year-old shooter, saying he was a victim of a crime and it was against department policy to name him.
The homeowner met his wife while working as a presser at a dry cleaners. His wife, a retired nurse, also worked as a monitor on a bus for disabled children. Next month they will celebrate their 60th anniversary. The couple have lived in the same house for more than 40 years, but the wife is thinking about moving.
"How much can you take?" she said.
In the West Side neighborhood where the home invasion occurred, longtime homeowners have created a relatively stable community on their street — an oasis from shootings. Neighbors said their stretch of North Sawyer Avenue had been a good place for families to raise their children a generation ago, but as the aging population dies, new residents move in and a heightened sense of danger grows.
Some residents choose different forms of protection. Audrey Williams, 75, said she keeps five dogs on her property to guard her home, but "this is the first time that we've had an incident like this, on this street, and I've lived here for 43 years," she said.
"They did the right thing. If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing," said Williams, who has described the family as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."
One neighbor used to help the couple carry in groceries because they both walk with canes.
"Everyone around here looks around for each other and watches each other's homes," said Jose Perez, who has lived in the area about five years.
Throughout the day Wednesday, a family friend worked to board up the two broken windows. The son said the shooting demonstrates why Chicago's handgun must be repealed.
"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" the son said. "That gun law should be abolished. You don't need guns on the street, but you need them in the home for protection."
Tribune reporters Annie Sweeney, Jeremy Gorner and Kristen Mack contributed to this report.
deldeib@tribune.com
lford@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-burglar-shot-20100526,0,4477212,full.story
Biggins breaks with GOP votes to pass Quinn borrowing plan
Rick Pearson Chicago Tribune
For 17 years, Elmhurst's Bob Biggins has been a reliable House Republican vote, but his decision Tuesday to join Democrats in favor of a $4 billion pension borrowing plan is earning the lame-duck lawmaker some blowback from GOP officials.
Biggins, who decided not to seek re-election this fall, was called out by state Republican Chairman Pat Brady today as having “some explaining to do.” Brady contends there are questions of whether Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn made an “offer in exchange” for Biggins’ vote.
Biggins did not attend a closed-door caucus of House Republicans prior to the vote, but instead was in the governor’s office. Biggins, however, has denied being offered anything in return for his vote.
But colleagues, who had locked themselves in opposition to the pension borrowing plan, weren’t happy with Biggins, long a protégé of former House Republican leader Lee Daniels of Elmhurst. State Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, saw Biggins being interviewed by reporters in Springfield following Tuesday's vote and said loudly and angrily, “Two-faced son of a (expletive).”
Biggins was not the only retiring Republican House member to vote for the plan, which passed with a bare majority of 71 votes. Rep. Bill Black of Danville, a 24-year state lawmaker and member of the House GOP leadership, also voted for the measure.
Brady, the state GOP chairman, said Black was not singled out for criticism because he attended the House GOP caucus while Biggins skipped it for a meeting in Quinn’s office.
“That’s what raises questions,” Brady said. “I think questions have been raised. We just want to know.”
Biggins said Brady should call him for his reasons for voting instead of issuing critical news releases.
"When the GOP has the guts to call me and ask me why I voted for it, I'll provide them with the answer for this fiscally responsible vote," Biggins said. "The Republican position was fiscally unsound."
Biggins said he was asked to meet with Quinn chief of staff Jerry Stermer during the House GOP caucus and did so. "Nothing was offered and he didn't even try to talk me into" voting for it, Biggins said.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/05/suburban-lawmaker-facing-republican-backlash-for-pension-borrowing-vote.html
For 17 years, Elmhurst's Bob Biggins has been a reliable House Republican vote, but his decision Tuesday to join Democrats in favor of a $4 billion pension borrowing plan is earning the lame-duck lawmaker some blowback from GOP officials.
Biggins, who decided not to seek re-election this fall, was called out by state Republican Chairman Pat Brady today as having “some explaining to do.” Brady contends there are questions of whether Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn made an “offer in exchange” for Biggins’ vote.
Biggins did not attend a closed-door caucus of House Republicans prior to the vote, but instead was in the governor’s office. Biggins, however, has denied being offered anything in return for his vote.
But colleagues, who had locked themselves in opposition to the pension borrowing plan, weren’t happy with Biggins, long a protégé of former House Republican leader Lee Daniels of Elmhurst. State Rep. Jim Sacia, R-Pecatonica, saw Biggins being interviewed by reporters in Springfield following Tuesday's vote and said loudly and angrily, “Two-faced son of a (expletive).”
Biggins was not the only retiring Republican House member to vote for the plan, which passed with a bare majority of 71 votes. Rep. Bill Black of Danville, a 24-year state lawmaker and member of the House GOP leadership, also voted for the measure.
Brady, the state GOP chairman, said Black was not singled out for criticism because he attended the House GOP caucus while Biggins skipped it for a meeting in Quinn’s office.
“That’s what raises questions,” Brady said. “I think questions have been raised. We just want to know.”
Biggins said Brady should call him for his reasons for voting instead of issuing critical news releases.
"When the GOP has the guts to call me and ask me why I voted for it, I'll provide them with the answer for this fiscally responsible vote," Biggins said. "The Republican position was fiscally unsound."
Biggins said he was asked to meet with Quinn chief of staff Jerry Stermer during the House GOP caucus and did so. "Nothing was offered and he didn't even try to talk me into" voting for it, Biggins said.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/05/suburban-lawmaker-facing-republican-backlash-for-pension-borrowing-vote.html
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Gov. Quinn not living in mansion as promised
By Monique Garcia, Tribune reporter
9:08 p.m. CDT, May 25, 2010
Gov. Pat Quinn had been in office only a few hours last year when he vowed to do something his impeached predecessor did not — live in the Executive Mansion in Springfield.
"It's going to get a good workout this year," Quinn told reporters at his first news conference as governor, dubbing the 155-year-old mansion "the people's house."
But a Tribune analysis of his official travel schedule shows that Quinn stays at the ornate, taxpayer-funded house only sporadically. During his first year in office, Quinn slept there 55 nights, mostly while lawmakers were in session. He didn't spend more than three consecutive nights in the executive mansion.
On a handful of occasions, Quinn took a state plane to Springfield during the day, only to fly back to Chicago the same night. Among these cases were trips to attend a campaign fundraiser and his aunt's funeral. Quinn defended the funeral round trip as an appropriate use of taxpayer money because he was honoring a woman who was a "citizen of Illinois for eight decades."
Quinn's use of the state plane for day trips to Springfield pales in comparison to ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who detested the Capitol and used the plane as a commuter perk. But as Quinn runs for election, his decision not to live in the mansion belies the populist image that he's made one of his top political selling points.
"It's a symbolic thing, and for Quinn, a public pronouncement thing," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois- Springfield. "There's some financial aspect, but it's small. It's mostly symbolic of the extent to which a governor is embracing state government."
Blagojevich's failure to live in the mansion rankled taxpayers who expect their governor to live in the house they pay around $500,000 a year to keep open. Now more than a year into his tenure, Quinn has added a caveat when discussing where he lives.
"The governor lives in the mansion in my opinion," Quinn told the Tribune in a recent interview. "I'm the governor, it's the seat of our government, and whenever I'm in Springfield, that's where I live. If I have to be somewhere else to do something for the people, then I've got to live elsewhere."
That comment would explain why at some appearances in Chicago, Quinn tells the crowd he lives on Chicago's West Side, "the best side." When he's been in Springfield, he has called the capital home.
Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican running for governor against Quinn, has said he and his wife, Nancy, would live in the mansion full time if he's elected.
"The business of the state is rooted in Springfield. In order to effectively manage the affairs of the state of Illinois, the governor must have a strong presence in the capital city," said Brady spokeswoman Jaime Elich.
Quinn is not alone in using the governor's mansion as more of a hotel than a home. In the last quarter century, Republican Jim Edgar is the lone chief executive who lived there full time. Republicans Jim Thompson and George Ryan split their time between the mansion and their respective homes in Chicago and Kankakee. Blagojevich wanted to raise his daughters on the North Side, and then-first lady Patti Blagojevich complained about being allergic to the mansion's carpeted floors.
That led to Blagojevich racking up tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money making same-day round trips between Chicago and the capital. Quinn hasn't made as many day trips, but he's had some notable ones.
On June 29, Quinn met with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago before flying to Springfield to huddle with Democratic legislative leaders. Quinn was there for just over two hours before flying back to Chicago, where he hosted an evening campaign fundraiser at the downtown Hyatt.
Quinn said his use of the plane was appropriate and he did not make the round trip because of the fundraiser, but because he planned to attend the annual Rainbow/PUSH meeting in Chicago the following morning.
"I had an event, but I had already scheduled Rainbow/PUSH the next morning," Quinn said.
On Oct. 10, Quinn flew from Chicago in the afternoon to host a Springfield reception for his former Northwestern University law classmates, then flew back to Chicago about five hours later. On Dec. 19, Quinn flew to Springfield to host a holiday open house and staff party before returning to Chicago a few hours later.
Quinn said hosting receptions and open houses is part of his effort "to have an open government" by welcoming citizens to the mansion. He said he flew to Chicago after the reception with his classmates to attend a charity event that was not listed on his schedule.
"My view is the governor's got to go where the people need him," Quinn said.
Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the trips show the need for clear guidelines on what constitutes appropriate use of state planes. On one hand, she said, Illinois is a very large state and the governor will need to travel. "The real question is, is this above and beyond what's necessary?" Canary said.
Quinn defends his use of the plane and the mansion. He said he has unpacked clothing and family photos. He frequently holds breakfast and dinner meetings there with lawmakers. And he has hosted an Easter egg hunt, handed out Halloween candy to children and had his family over for Thanksgiving.
"My extended family, we added to the tourism of Springfield a great deal," Quinn said. "In all my time as governor, I respect the house. We've had many events to bring people into the mansion."
mcgarcia@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-governors-mansion-20100525,0,4429014.story
9:08 p.m. CDT, May 25, 2010
Gov. Pat Quinn had been in office only a few hours last year when he vowed to do something his impeached predecessor did not — live in the Executive Mansion in Springfield.
"It's going to get a good workout this year," Quinn told reporters at his first news conference as governor, dubbing the 155-year-old mansion "the people's house."
But a Tribune analysis of his official travel schedule shows that Quinn stays at the ornate, taxpayer-funded house only sporadically. During his first year in office, Quinn slept there 55 nights, mostly while lawmakers were in session. He didn't spend more than three consecutive nights in the executive mansion.
On a handful of occasions, Quinn took a state plane to Springfield during the day, only to fly back to Chicago the same night. Among these cases were trips to attend a campaign fundraiser and his aunt's funeral. Quinn defended the funeral round trip as an appropriate use of taxpayer money because he was honoring a woman who was a "citizen of Illinois for eight decades."
Quinn's use of the state plane for day trips to Springfield pales in comparison to ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who detested the Capitol and used the plane as a commuter perk. But as Quinn runs for election, his decision not to live in the mansion belies the populist image that he's made one of his top political selling points.
"It's a symbolic thing, and for Quinn, a public pronouncement thing," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois- Springfield. "There's some financial aspect, but it's small. It's mostly symbolic of the extent to which a governor is embracing state government."
Blagojevich's failure to live in the mansion rankled taxpayers who expect their governor to live in the house they pay around $500,000 a year to keep open. Now more than a year into his tenure, Quinn has added a caveat when discussing where he lives.
"The governor lives in the mansion in my opinion," Quinn told the Tribune in a recent interview. "I'm the governor, it's the seat of our government, and whenever I'm in Springfield, that's where I live. If I have to be somewhere else to do something for the people, then I've got to live elsewhere."
That comment would explain why at some appearances in Chicago, Quinn tells the crowd he lives on Chicago's West Side, "the best side." When he's been in Springfield, he has called the capital home.
Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican running for governor against Quinn, has said he and his wife, Nancy, would live in the mansion full time if he's elected.
"The business of the state is rooted in Springfield. In order to effectively manage the affairs of the state of Illinois, the governor must have a strong presence in the capital city," said Brady spokeswoman Jaime Elich.
Quinn is not alone in using the governor's mansion as more of a hotel than a home. In the last quarter century, Republican Jim Edgar is the lone chief executive who lived there full time. Republicans Jim Thompson and George Ryan split their time between the mansion and their respective homes in Chicago and Kankakee. Blagojevich wanted to raise his daughters on the North Side, and then-first lady Patti Blagojevich complained about being allergic to the mansion's carpeted floors.
That led to Blagojevich racking up tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money making same-day round trips between Chicago and the capital. Quinn hasn't made as many day trips, but he's had some notable ones.
On June 29, Quinn met with Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago before flying to Springfield to huddle with Democratic legislative leaders. Quinn was there for just over two hours before flying back to Chicago, where he hosted an evening campaign fundraiser at the downtown Hyatt.
Quinn said his use of the plane was appropriate and he did not make the round trip because of the fundraiser, but because he planned to attend the annual Rainbow/PUSH meeting in Chicago the following morning.
"I had an event, but I had already scheduled Rainbow/PUSH the next morning," Quinn said.
On Oct. 10, Quinn flew from Chicago in the afternoon to host a Springfield reception for his former Northwestern University law classmates, then flew back to Chicago about five hours later. On Dec. 19, Quinn flew to Springfield to host a holiday open house and staff party before returning to Chicago a few hours later.
Quinn said hosting receptions and open houses is part of his effort "to have an open government" by welcoming citizens to the mansion. He said he flew to Chicago after the reception with his classmates to attend a charity event that was not listed on his schedule.
"My view is the governor's got to go where the people need him," Quinn said.
Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, said the trips show the need for clear guidelines on what constitutes appropriate use of state planes. On one hand, she said, Illinois is a very large state and the governor will need to travel. "The real question is, is this above and beyond what's necessary?" Canary said.
Quinn defends his use of the plane and the mansion. He said he has unpacked clothing and family photos. He frequently holds breakfast and dinner meetings there with lawmakers. And he has hosted an Easter egg hunt, handed out Halloween candy to children and had his family over for Thanksgiving.
"My extended family, we added to the tourism of Springfield a great deal," Quinn said. "In all my time as governor, I respect the house. We've had many events to bring people into the mansion."
mcgarcia@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-governors-mansion-20100525,0,4429014.story
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tue, May 18, 2010 2:22:33 PMGiannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
For Immediate Release - May 18, 2010
Contact 312-201-9000 info@ilgop.org
Alexi Giannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
False Giannoulias Claim: “There was never any risky lending or any reckless lending practices.”- Alexi Giannoulias, NBC 5 Chicago, May 18, 2010
What the State of Illinois Said: “Upon due consideration of the evidence presented to me, and pursuant to my statutory duties and powers as Director of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking, I find that Broadway Bank, Chicago, Illinois (the "Bank") is conducting its business in an unsafe and unsound manner.” (Jorge Solis, Director, Illinois Division of Banking)
What the Experts Said: "The real question is why it wasn't closed a long time ago," says Washington, D.C.-area banking consultant Bert Ely. "It was a badly run bank." (Chicago Tribune Editorial, April 26, 2010, “Who killed Broadway Bank?”)
What the FDIC Said: “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $394.3 million.”
What Demetris Giannoulias Said: Demetris Giannoulias said the bank learned of Giorango's bookmaking and prostitution promotion convictions from a spring 2004 Tribune report detailing those cases. "But we're a relationship bank," he said. "So somebody comes in and in all his dealings with the bank seem to be on the level, everything makes sense, nothing seems illicit or untoward. Just because somebody gets a bad article written about them there's no reason to say, 'Hey, listen, I'm going to kick you out the door because you don't win a popularity contest.' We didn't think he was doing anything illegal." (Chicago Tribune, “Giannoulias family bank made $20 million in loans to felons,” April 2, 2010)
What the Chicago Tribune said: “Giannoulias' claim smacks of desperation. Anyone truly looking for culprits would start with the people who ran Broadway. Most banks have been able to weather the recession. This one failed mostly because of its own mistakes.”
What the Chicago Sun-Times Said: “Valid questions remain about whether Broadway Bank, before and after Giannoulias worked there, took imprudently high risks with both deposits and loans. And a certain vagueness remains as to why the family withdrew tens of millions of dollars in dividends in 2007 and 2008…Either way, fairly or not, he doesn't come out of this looking good.” (March 4, 2010)
What the New York Times Said: “The move into real estate coincided with a headlong push into brokered deposits. This is quintessential hot money — large amounts that jump from bank to bank, each bank offering the lure of high interest , which the banks then must fund by making ever-riskier loans.”
What Crain’s Chicago Business Said: “But [Alexi] did not dispute that the small Chicago community bank effectively changed its business model during his tenure, sharply ramping up its exposure to oft-risky real estate loans to nearly half of its portfolio, and relying for deposits not on local savings accounts but brokered, relatively high-interest deposits from all over the county.”
# # #
Contact 312-201-9000 info@ilgop.org
Alexi Giannoulias Renews Campaign to Mislead Voters on Risky Lending Practices at Broadway Bank
False Giannoulias Claim: “There was never any risky lending or any reckless lending practices.”- Alexi Giannoulias, NBC 5 Chicago, May 18, 2010
What the State of Illinois Said: “Upon due consideration of the evidence presented to me, and pursuant to my statutory duties and powers as Director of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking, I find that Broadway Bank, Chicago, Illinois (the "Bank") is conducting its business in an unsafe and unsound manner.” (Jorge Solis, Director, Illinois Division of Banking)
What the Experts Said: "The real question is why it wasn't closed a long time ago," says Washington, D.C.-area banking consultant Bert Ely. "It was a badly run bank." (Chicago Tribune Editorial, April 26, 2010, “Who killed Broadway Bank?”)
What the FDIC Said: “The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) will be $394.3 million.”
What Demetris Giannoulias Said: Demetris Giannoulias said the bank learned of Giorango's bookmaking and prostitution promotion convictions from a spring 2004 Tribune report detailing those cases. "But we're a relationship bank," he said. "So somebody comes in and in all his dealings with the bank seem to be on the level, everything makes sense, nothing seems illicit or untoward. Just because somebody gets a bad article written about them there's no reason to say, 'Hey, listen, I'm going to kick you out the door because you don't win a popularity contest.' We didn't think he was doing anything illegal." (Chicago Tribune, “Giannoulias family bank made $20 million in loans to felons,” April 2, 2010)
What the Chicago Tribune said: “Giannoulias' claim smacks of desperation. Anyone truly looking for culprits would start with the people who ran Broadway. Most banks have been able to weather the recession. This one failed mostly because of its own mistakes.”
What the Chicago Sun-Times Said: “Valid questions remain about whether Broadway Bank, before and after Giannoulias worked there, took imprudently high risks with both deposits and loans. And a certain vagueness remains as to why the family withdrew tens of millions of dollars in dividends in 2007 and 2008…Either way, fairly or not, he doesn't come out of this looking good.” (March 4, 2010)
What the New York Times Said: “The move into real estate coincided with a headlong push into brokered deposits. This is quintessential hot money — large amounts that jump from bank to bank, each bank offering the lure of high interest , which the banks then must fund by making ever-riskier loans.”
What Crain’s Chicago Business Said: “But [Alexi] did not dispute that the small Chicago community bank effectively changed its business model during his tenure, sharply ramping up its exposure to oft-risky real estate loans to nearly half of its portfolio, and relying for deposits not on local savings accounts but brokered, relatively high-interest deposits from all over the county.”
# # #
Unintended Consequences? 75% of All Kids Enrollee’s Are Illegal Immigrants
Dennis Byrne 25 May 2010 Chicago Daily Observer
Who in his right mind would be against health insurance for every child in Illinois?
Certainly none of the politicians, health care providers, labor unions and special interests that in 2005 so enthusiastically bought into then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s All Kids program. Certainly not tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, the major beneficiaries of the program. From Citizen Action/Illinois to the Illinois Hospital Association, from the Chicago Teachers Union to the Peruvian Cultural Center, they all hailed it as some kind of nirvana.
They were wrong. Now, five years later, All Kids has turned into just another government botch of a program that has failed to meet expectations. Except for its costs. Those, of course, wildly exceeded expectations. And helped state finances circle the drain.
At least that’s one way to view a recent, but insufficiently noticed, audit of All Kids by Illinois Auditor General William G. Holland. Compare the reality with what was promised when Blagojevich signed the law.
We were told All Kids would:
•Provide comprehensive health coverage for 253,000 uninsured Illinois children. In fact, in fiscal 2009 it covered 94,525.
•Protect working and middle-class families, as Blagojevich put it: "... who are doing everything they're supposed to do -- working hard, paying their taxes," but can't afford health insurance. Well yes, but the vast majority are illegal immigrants, who aren't doing at least one thing they're supposed to do -- obey the law.
•Cost $45 million "in the first year." In 2009 its gross cost reached about $79 million.
•Be partially funded by low monthly premiums charged to families. In fact, premiums paid in fiscal 2009 totaled less than $9 million, leaving the state's net cost at $70 million. None of it qualifies for federal reimbursement (because the family income is more than 200 percent of poverty), so Illinois taxpayers pick up the entire net cost.
That's just the start of the problems.
The audit also found: Coverage is not always terminated when premiums are not paid, as required by the state administration code. The state Department of Human Services does not properly calculate family income to determine if the family is eligible for coverage. Annual reviews of family eligibility are inadequate. Other possible sources of family income were not checked. Controls were lacking to keep out-of-state children off the rolls and to ensure that children were not enrolled more than once. Marketing to gin up enrollees was originally expected to cost $3 million, but payments, based on questionable billing, ballooned to more than $8 million. The beneficiary was the Democrat-connected firm GMMB. Record keeping was so messy that the Department of Healthcare and Family Services needed 11 days to answer a simple yes or no question: Had it submitted copies of its contracts to the General Assembly as required by law?
In sum, All Kids is serving only about a third of its intended beneficiaries at about twice the estimated cost. Because of these and other failures, Holland said the audit did not attempt to determine what the real costs would be if All Kids had been run properly.
Beyond the bureaucratic muddle, blame Blagojevich and the Democratic-controlled legislature for perhaps the biggest problem with the law: Its cheap, comprehensive health care is a magnet for illegal immigrants to come to Illinois. According to the audit, about 75 percent of All Kids enrollees are classified as illegal immigrants. The cost of covering them comes to almost $55 million. This, it will be pointed out, is a drop in the bucket in a state budget that is running up an astonishing $13 billion deficit.
But, this is how huge deficits are run up. Promising all comers benefits that can't be delivered. Making a hash out of government programs that never should have been established in the first place. Exaggerating needs for political gain. Letting emotions dictate public policy. Letting ideology obscure reality.
By everything rational, the state ought to be taking a critical look at All Kids, re-evaluating its premises, workability and costs. But little about Illinois and its budget is rational. More so, when it comes to anything involving illegal immigration.
This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/05/illegal-immigrants-big-winners-from-botched-illinois-health-insurance-program.html
Who in his right mind would be against health insurance for every child in Illinois?
Certainly none of the politicians, health care providers, labor unions and special interests that in 2005 so enthusiastically bought into then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s All Kids program. Certainly not tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, the major beneficiaries of the program. From Citizen Action/Illinois to the Illinois Hospital Association, from the Chicago Teachers Union to the Peruvian Cultural Center, they all hailed it as some kind of nirvana.
They were wrong. Now, five years later, All Kids has turned into just another government botch of a program that has failed to meet expectations. Except for its costs. Those, of course, wildly exceeded expectations. And helped state finances circle the drain.
At least that’s one way to view a recent, but insufficiently noticed, audit of All Kids by Illinois Auditor General William G. Holland. Compare the reality with what was promised when Blagojevich signed the law.
We were told All Kids would:
•Provide comprehensive health coverage for 253,000 uninsured Illinois children. In fact, in fiscal 2009 it covered 94,525.
•Protect working and middle-class families, as Blagojevich put it: "... who are doing everything they're supposed to do -- working hard, paying their taxes," but can't afford health insurance. Well yes, but the vast majority are illegal immigrants, who aren't doing at least one thing they're supposed to do -- obey the law.
•Cost $45 million "in the first year." In 2009 its gross cost reached about $79 million.
•Be partially funded by low monthly premiums charged to families. In fact, premiums paid in fiscal 2009 totaled less than $9 million, leaving the state's net cost at $70 million. None of it qualifies for federal reimbursement (because the family income is more than 200 percent of poverty), so Illinois taxpayers pick up the entire net cost.
That's just the start of the problems.
The audit also found: Coverage is not always terminated when premiums are not paid, as required by the state administration code. The state Department of Human Services does not properly calculate family income to determine if the family is eligible for coverage. Annual reviews of family eligibility are inadequate. Other possible sources of family income were not checked. Controls were lacking to keep out-of-state children off the rolls and to ensure that children were not enrolled more than once. Marketing to gin up enrollees was originally expected to cost $3 million, but payments, based on questionable billing, ballooned to more than $8 million. The beneficiary was the Democrat-connected firm GMMB. Record keeping was so messy that the Department of Healthcare and Family Services needed 11 days to answer a simple yes or no question: Had it submitted copies of its contracts to the General Assembly as required by law?
In sum, All Kids is serving only about a third of its intended beneficiaries at about twice the estimated cost. Because of these and other failures, Holland said the audit did not attempt to determine what the real costs would be if All Kids had been run properly.
Beyond the bureaucratic muddle, blame Blagojevich and the Democratic-controlled legislature for perhaps the biggest problem with the law: Its cheap, comprehensive health care is a magnet for illegal immigrants to come to Illinois. According to the audit, about 75 percent of All Kids enrollees are classified as illegal immigrants. The cost of covering them comes to almost $55 million. This, it will be pointed out, is a drop in the bucket in a state budget that is running up an astonishing $13 billion deficit.
But, this is how huge deficits are run up. Promising all comers benefits that can't be delivered. Making a hash out of government programs that never should have been established in the first place. Exaggerating needs for political gain. Letting emotions dictate public policy. Letting ideology obscure reality.
By everything rational, the state ought to be taking a critical look at All Kids, re-evaluating its premises, workability and costs. But little about Illinois and its budget is rational. More so, when it comes to anything involving illegal immigration.
This column also appeared in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/05/illegal-immigrants-big-winners-from-botched-illinois-health-insurance-program.html
Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons- NYT
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: May 24, 2010
LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?
Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.
And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.
“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”
Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions.
And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.
Politicians and activists say such attitudes will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”
The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.
Here in Britain, the change has been driven by the news media’s intensive coverage of a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November. These include the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from prominent British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that skeptics cited as evidence that researchers were overstating the evidence for global warming and the discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.
Two independent reviews later found no evidence that the East Anglia researchers had actively distorted climate data, but heavy press coverage had already left an impression that the scientists had schemed to repress data. Then there was the unusually cold winter in Northern Europe and the United States, which may have reinforced a perception that the Earth was not warming. (Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a United States agency, show that globally, this winter was the fifth warmest in history.)
Asked about his views on global warming on a recent evening, Brian George, a 30-year-old builder from southeast London, mused, “It was extremely cold in January, wasn’t it?”
In a telephone interview, Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.
“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.” Indeed, once Mr. Cameron became prime minister, he vowed to run “the greenest government in our history” and proposed projects like a more efficient national electricity grid.
Scientists have meanwhile awakened to the public’s misgivings and are increasingly fighting back. An editorial in the prestigious journal Nature said climate deniers were using “every means at their disposal to undermine science and scientists” and urged scientists to counterattack. Scientists in France, the Netherlands and the United States have signed open letters affirming their trust in climate change evidence, including one published on May 7 in the journal Science.
In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.
“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.
It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.
In January, for example, The Times chastised the United Nations climate panel for an errant and unsupported projection that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The United Nations ultimately apologized for including the estimate, which was mentioned in passing within a 3,000-page report in 2007.
Then came articles contending that the 2007 report was inaccurate on a host of other issues, including African drought, the portion of the Netherlands below sea level, and the economic impact of severe storms. Officials from the climate panel said the articles’ claims either were false or reflected minor errors like faulty citations that in no way diluted the evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, successfully demanded in February that some German newspapers remove misleading articles from their Web sites. But such reports have become so common that he “wouldn’t bother” to pursue most cases now, he added.
The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 25, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Published: May 24, 2010
LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?
Nowhere has this shift in public opinion been more striking than in Britain, where climate change was until this year such a popular priority that in 2008 Parliament enshrined targets for emissions cuts as national law. But since then, the country has evolved into a home base for a thriving group of climate skeptics who have dominated news reports in recent months, apparently convincing many that the threat of warming is vastly exaggerated.
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.
And London’s Science Museum recently announced that a permanent exhibit scheduled to open later this year would be called the Climate Science Gallery — not the Climate Change Gallery as had previously been planned.
“Before, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this climate change problem is just dreadful,’ ” said Jillian Leddra, 50, a musician who was shopping in London on a recent lunch hour. “But now I have my doubts, and I’m wondering if it’s been overhyped.”
Perhaps sensing that climate is now a political nonstarter, David Cameron, Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, was “strangely muted” on the issue in a recent pre-election debate, as The Daily Telegraph put it, though it had previously been one of his passions.
And a poll in January of the personal priorities of 141 Conservative Party candidates deemed capable of victory in the recent election found that “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the least important of the 19 issues presented to them.
Politicians and activists say such attitudes will make it harder to pass legislation like a fuel tax increase and to persuade people to make sacrifices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Legitimacy has shifted to the side of the climate skeptics, and that is a big, big problem,” Ben Stewart, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said at the meeting of environmentalists here. “This is happening in the context of overwhelming scientific agreement that climate change is real and a threat. But the poll figures are going through the floor.”
The lack of fervor about climate change is also true of the United States, where action on climate and emissions reduction is still very much a work in progress, and concern about global warming was never as strong as in Europe. A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believed that the seriousness of global warming was “generally exaggerated,” up from 41 percent a year ago.
Here in Britain, the change has been driven by the news media’s intensive coverage of a series of climate science controversies unearthed and highlighted by skeptics since November. These include the unauthorized release of e-mail messages from prominent British climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that skeptics cited as evidence that researchers were overstating the evidence for global warming and the discovery of errors in a United Nations climate report.
Two independent reviews later found no evidence that the East Anglia researchers had actively distorted climate data, but heavy press coverage had already left an impression that the scientists had schemed to repress data. Then there was the unusually cold winter in Northern Europe and the United States, which may have reinforced a perception that the Earth was not warming. (Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a United States agency, show that globally, this winter was the fifth warmest in history.)
Asked about his views on global warming on a recent evening, Brian George, a 30-year-old builder from southeast London, mused, “It was extremely cold in January, wasn’t it?”
In a telephone interview, Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank and a climate change expert, said that the shift in opinion “hadn’t helped” efforts to come up with strong policy in a number of countries. But he predicted that it would be overcome, not least because the science was so clear on the warming trend.
“I don’t think it will be problematic in the long run,” he said, adding that in Britain, at least, politicians “are ahead of the public anyway.” Indeed, once Mr. Cameron became prime minister, he vowed to run “the greenest government in our history” and proposed projects like a more efficient national electricity grid.
Scientists have meanwhile awakened to the public’s misgivings and are increasingly fighting back. An editorial in the prestigious journal Nature said climate deniers were using “every means at their disposal to undermine science and scientists” and urged scientists to counterattack. Scientists in France, the Netherlands and the United States have signed open letters affirming their trust in climate change evidence, including one published on May 7 in the journal Science.
In March, Simon L. Lewis, an expert on rain forests at the University of Leeds in Britain, filed a 30-page complaint with the nation’s Press Complaints Commission against The Times of London, accusing it of publishing “inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” about climate change, his own research and remarks he had made to a reporter.
“I was most annoyed that there seemed to be a pattern of pushing the idea that there were a number of serious mistakes in the I.P.C.C. report, when most were fairly innocuous, or not mistakes at all,” said Dr. Lewis, referring to the report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Meanwhile, groups like the wildlife organization WWF have posted articles like “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” providing stock answers to doubting friends and relatives, on their Web sites.
It is unclear whether such actions are enough to win back a segment of the public that has eagerly consumed a series of revelations that were published prominently in right-leaning newspapers like The Times of London and The Telegraph and then repeated around the world.
In January, for example, The Times chastised the United Nations climate panel for an errant and unsupported projection that glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The United Nations ultimately apologized for including the estimate, which was mentioned in passing within a 3,000-page report in 2007.
Then came articles contending that the 2007 report was inaccurate on a host of other issues, including African drought, the portion of the Netherlands below sea level, and the economic impact of severe storms. Officials from the climate panel said the articles’ claims either were false or reflected minor errors like faulty citations that in no way diluted the evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, successfully demanded in February that some German newspapers remove misleading articles from their Web sites. But such reports have become so common that he “wouldn’t bother” to pursue most cases now, he added.
The public is left to struggle with the salvos between the two sides. “I’m still concerned about climate change, but it’s become very confusing,” said Sandra Lawson, 32, as she ran errands near Hyde Park.
A version of this article appeared in print on May 25, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Legislature appears ready to force gov to make deep cuts
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH AND STEVE CONTORNO Staff Reporters
You may have noticed signs up at your hospital, town government office or social service agency letting you know a program has been canceled because the state has not been paying its bills on time, if at all.
Expect even more of that in the days to come.
Even the best options are bad as legislators return to Springfield today to take another whack at fixing a budget that spends $13 billion more than it takes in.
Legislators don't want to be on record voting to cut popular programs, so they appear poised to transfer that authority to Gov. Quinn, then leave town before he starts making cuts so they can let him take the blame.
"The only way we are going to get the cuts we need is for the governor to do it," Quinn said Friday. "We are in an economic emergency in this state. Both parties are reluctant to make cuts. I am not reluctant to do what has to be done for the taxpayers. I did it last year."
Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) proposes cutting two state departments, and another renegade group of legislators will hold a news conference this morning outlining their proposed cuts.
"We've been communicating with the governor's office," said state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest). "We've also worked with [Speaker of the House Mike] Madigan and [Senate President John] Cullerton. I think there's an agreement to put these things on the bill as amendments and vote them up or down."
So far, in the tightly controlled state House of Representatives, the only plan moving forward is the usual approach: no big cuts; no income tax hike; just more borrowing to cover the budget hole. But Garrett said 1/3Madigan‚s staff has been extremely responsive, as has Cullerton, to giving the renegades a vote on their proposals to cut state contracts and tinker with Medicaid and retirees‚ insurance.
With the Nov. 2 general election looming, Madigan does not want any of his members on record supporting an income tax hike, so that's off the table. Republicans don't want to be on record supporting borrowing $3.7 billion to make the state's pension payment -- and Quinn needs at least one Republican vote -- so that may still be off the table.
"It'll be a pile of hot garbage. The House and Senate don't want to specify what gets cut. They'd rather hang the governor with that," said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. "Politically, for the speaker, it's good to hang a starving budget on the governor instead of himself."
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said, "The speaker has been talking to people every day. He's been in touch with the governor, members, President Cullerton."
One tax hike remains on the governor's wish list: a dollar-a-pack increase in the state cigarette tax. He couldn't get the votes for that a few weeks ago. But with a May 31 deadline hanging over legislators, he is hoping they will be more amenable. After that date, more votes will be needed to pass a budget, so Republicans will get a bigger say.
Most of his package will be borrowing -- borrowing against $1 billion in expected tobacco settlement money over the coming years, against dedicated state funds, etc. Quinn will also try again to get money to meet the state's pension obligations. If he can't, the state will just defer payment until after the Nov. 2 elections, costing the state's pension funds millions or billions of dollars down the road.
In the meantime, the state stretches out its payments to social service providers who, in turn, have to cut services. The worse the deficit gets, the more inclined the bond agencies are to downgrade the state's credit rating, which in turn means the state must pay more to borrow money.
Cutting money to preventive programs such as drug addiction and prison-release after-care programs to prevent prisoners reoffending could end up costing the state more in the long run, but they appear likely to be cut anyway.
Quinn has been meeting with members of the legislative Black Caucus who have sought his assurance that cuts he would make under the proposed emergency powers for himself would not be to teen-reach programs, summer jobs for youth, early childhood education, family case management, child care that supports low-income mothers, violence prevention programs, teacher programs like "grow your own teacher," alternative education programs, digital divide programs, HIV outreach, adult education, etc.
"Lots of legislators have individual programs or causes they have worked for," Quinn said. "I'm not excited about cutting education."
Asked Friday if further cuts to the Department of Corrections would mean more early-release of prisoners, a practice that has already brought bad press for Quinn, the governor said, "No." He said he hopes not to cut from corrections, health or education. Of course, those areas account for most of the spending in the budget.
Even if Quinn gets everything he asks for from the Legislature, that still leaves a $6 billion deficit.
"It's not like the demand for those services go down with the cut. These are vulnerable populations. Really bad things can happen, including crime and violence," Martire said. "Take the case of the violent husband. The $6,000 funding for his domestic abuse treatment is cut. So he becomes violent and beats up his wife. She has to go to the hospital. He has to go to prison, which costs the state $30,000. They've lost their income and she has hospital bills to pay. She has to get a job. She's not going to be the only victim. The kids now have been witnesses or victims of abuse and they're not getting treatment and their mom is working full time."
The governor's Republican rival, Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), said cuts are the only answer.
"The governor's got to lower spending down to a balanced level," Brady said. "I don't think he's capable of doing what needs to be done. I would treat every agency equally, reduce spending by 10 percent, then ask my department heads to identify the highest priorities."
But Quinn, Madigan and Cullerton have not consulted the minority Republicans, said a spokeswoman for House Republican Leader Tom Cross.
"It's been a puzzling process," she said. "The Democrats have decided that this is what they prefer to do and keep the minority party out of the negotiations."
You may have noticed signs up at your hospital, town government office or social service agency letting you know a program has been canceled because the state has not been paying its bills on time, if at all.
Expect even more of that in the days to come.
Even the best options are bad as legislators return to Springfield today to take another whack at fixing a budget that spends $13 billion more than it takes in.
Legislators don't want to be on record voting to cut popular programs, so they appear poised to transfer that authority to Gov. Quinn, then leave town before he starts making cuts so they can let him take the blame.
"The only way we are going to get the cuts we need is for the governor to do it," Quinn said Friday. "We are in an economic emergency in this state. Both parties are reluctant to make cuts. I am not reluctant to do what has to be done for the taxpayers. I did it last year."
Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo) proposes cutting two state departments, and another renegade group of legislators will hold a news conference this morning outlining their proposed cuts.
"We've been communicating with the governor's office," said state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest). "We've also worked with [Speaker of the House Mike] Madigan and [Senate President John] Cullerton. I think there's an agreement to put these things on the bill as amendments and vote them up or down."
So far, in the tightly controlled state House of Representatives, the only plan moving forward is the usual approach: no big cuts; no income tax hike; just more borrowing to cover the budget hole. But Garrett said 1/3Madigan‚s staff has been extremely responsive, as has Cullerton, to giving the renegades a vote on their proposals to cut state contracts and tinker with Medicaid and retirees‚ insurance.
With the Nov. 2 general election looming, Madigan does not want any of his members on record supporting an income tax hike, so that's off the table. Republicans don't want to be on record supporting borrowing $3.7 billion to make the state's pension payment -- and Quinn needs at least one Republican vote -- so that may still be off the table.
"It'll be a pile of hot garbage. The House and Senate don't want to specify what gets cut. They'd rather hang the governor with that," said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. "Politically, for the speaker, it's good to hang a starving budget on the governor instead of himself."
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said, "The speaker has been talking to people every day. He's been in touch with the governor, members, President Cullerton."
One tax hike remains on the governor's wish list: a dollar-a-pack increase in the state cigarette tax. He couldn't get the votes for that a few weeks ago. But with a May 31 deadline hanging over legislators, he is hoping they will be more amenable. After that date, more votes will be needed to pass a budget, so Republicans will get a bigger say.
Most of his package will be borrowing -- borrowing against $1 billion in expected tobacco settlement money over the coming years, against dedicated state funds, etc. Quinn will also try again to get money to meet the state's pension obligations. If he can't, the state will just defer payment until after the Nov. 2 elections, costing the state's pension funds millions or billions of dollars down the road.
In the meantime, the state stretches out its payments to social service providers who, in turn, have to cut services. The worse the deficit gets, the more inclined the bond agencies are to downgrade the state's credit rating, which in turn means the state must pay more to borrow money.
Cutting money to preventive programs such as drug addiction and prison-release after-care programs to prevent prisoners reoffending could end up costing the state more in the long run, but they appear likely to be cut anyway.
Quinn has been meeting with members of the legislative Black Caucus who have sought his assurance that cuts he would make under the proposed emergency powers for himself would not be to teen-reach programs, summer jobs for youth, early childhood education, family case management, child care that supports low-income mothers, violence prevention programs, teacher programs like "grow your own teacher," alternative education programs, digital divide programs, HIV outreach, adult education, etc.
"Lots of legislators have individual programs or causes they have worked for," Quinn said. "I'm not excited about cutting education."
Asked Friday if further cuts to the Department of Corrections would mean more early-release of prisoners, a practice that has already brought bad press for Quinn, the governor said, "No." He said he hopes not to cut from corrections, health or education. Of course, those areas account for most of the spending in the budget.
Even if Quinn gets everything he asks for from the Legislature, that still leaves a $6 billion deficit.
"It's not like the demand for those services go down with the cut. These are vulnerable populations. Really bad things can happen, including crime and violence," Martire said. "Take the case of the violent husband. The $6,000 funding for his domestic abuse treatment is cut. So he becomes violent and beats up his wife. She has to go to the hospital. He has to go to prison, which costs the state $30,000. They've lost their income and she has hospital bills to pay. She has to get a job. She's not going to be the only victim. The kids now have been witnesses or victims of abuse and they're not getting treatment and their mom is working full time."
The governor's Republican rival, Sen. Bill Brady (R-Bloomington), said cuts are the only answer.
"The governor's got to lower spending down to a balanced level," Brady said. "I don't think he's capable of doing what needs to be done. I would treat every agency equally, reduce spending by 10 percent, then ask my department heads to identify the highest priorities."
But Quinn, Madigan and Cullerton have not consulted the minority Republicans, said a spokeswoman for House Republican Leader Tom Cross.
"It's been a puzzling process," she said. "The Democrats have decided that this is what they prefer to do and keep the minority party out of the negotiations."
Tribune Editorial- ANOTHER VOTE ON SCHOOL CHOICE
In early May, the Illinois House failed to pass a bill that would offer private school tuition support to 30,000 kids who go to the city's most-crowded and worst-performing public elementary schools in Chicago. But there's still a chance to pass the bill.
"I think the 60 votes are sitting there right now," says Rep. Kevin Joyce, D-Chicago, the bill's chief House sponsor.
Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>
That's the magic number for a majority in the House. When the tuition bill was called for a vote, sponsors believed they had 60 members ready to support it. A handful of those expected supporters didn't come through, though. And as the tally went on and it was clear the bill would fail, other supporters switched their votes to "no." They didn't want to irk the teachers unions if the bill was going to come up short anyway.
"I had members come to me two minutes before (voting) closed and said, 'We're off,'" Joyce said.
Joyce put the measure on postponed consideration, before the final vote was recorded, so the bill can be revived. And he believes the votes are there. The bill has already passed the Senate.
The key is to get another vote in the House, which goes back to work in Springfield on Monday.
Budget matters are going to consume the final days of the session. But there has to be time for legislation that would give a wonderful opportunity to so many kids without costing the state more money.
To recap: The kids would be given a voucher by the state worth about $3,700, which they could apply to private school tuition. The Chicago school system would manage the program. Chicago would lose the $3,700 it gets from the state, but would also shed the cost of educating the child. The state, the city—and most important, the child—come out ahead.
A vote now, rather than waiting for lawmakers to reconvene in November, would give Chicago ample time to prepare for a school choice program that would launch in Fall 2011.
So, let's go. One more vote.
"I think the 60 votes are sitting there right now," says Rep. Kevin Joyce, D-Chicago, the bill's chief House sponsor.
Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>
That's the magic number for a majority in the House. When the tuition bill was called for a vote, sponsors believed they had 60 members ready to support it. A handful of those expected supporters didn't come through, though. And as the tally went on and it was clear the bill would fail, other supporters switched their votes to "no." They didn't want to irk the teachers unions if the bill was going to come up short anyway.
"I had members come to me two minutes before (voting) closed and said, 'We're off,'" Joyce said.
Joyce put the measure on postponed consideration, before the final vote was recorded, so the bill can be revived. And he believes the votes are there. The bill has already passed the Senate.
The key is to get another vote in the House, which goes back to work in Springfield on Monday.
Budget matters are going to consume the final days of the session. But there has to be time for legislation that would give a wonderful opportunity to so many kids without costing the state more money.
To recap: The kids would be given a voucher by the state worth about $3,700, which they could apply to private school tuition. The Chicago school system would manage the program. Chicago would lose the $3,700 it gets from the state, but would also shed the cost of educating the child. The state, the city—and most important, the child—come out ahead.
A vote now, rather than waiting for lawmakers to reconvene in November, would give Chicago ample time to prepare for a school choice program that would launch in Fall 2011.
So, let's go. One more vote.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Quinn Abolishes Wasteful Office of Education
Well, finally our Illinois governor did something I agree with. Pat Quinn abolished a state funded office. If only this wasn't the first and likely the last time he'll do such a thing.
On Sunday, Quinn signed an order to abolish the state office of education, a complete waste of money, an office from which former Superintendent Charles Flowers embezzled over $400,00 to fill his pockets.
The agency did nothing of use, really, at least nothing that other agencies couldn't easily do instead and that is precisely what will now happen. Duties this useless office performed will go back where they belong.
"We want to make sure the money that we spend in Illinois for education goes to schools and learning, and not to bureaucracy and corruption," Quinn said. "This action will eliminate an unneeded bureaucracy that was going in the absolutely wrong direction for education, and I think it's an important day for everyone in Illinois."
It was a good decision.
Now, Gov. Quinn, can I interest you in getting rid of the State Comptroller's office? And there's more. Can talk?
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
On Sunday, Quinn signed an order to abolish the state office of education, a complete waste of money, an office from which former Superintendent Charles Flowers embezzled over $400,00 to fill his pockets.
The agency did nothing of use, really, at least nothing that other agencies couldn't easily do instead and that is precisely what will now happen. Duties this useless office performed will go back where they belong.
"We want to make sure the money that we spend in Illinois for education goes to schools and learning, and not to bureaucracy and corruption," Quinn said. "This action will eliminate an unneeded bureaucracy that was going in the absolutely wrong direction for education, and I think it's an important day for everyone in Illinois."
It was a good decision.
Now, Gov. Quinn, can I interest you in getting rid of the State Comptroller's office? And there's more. Can talk?
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Friday, May 14, 2010
New McCormick place work rules
May 11, 2010
Senate Bill 28 passed and sent to Governor Quinn for signature on May 7, 2010
The following is a detailed breakout of the contents of Senate Bill 28 as it passed the Illinois General Assembly. This legislation is an extensive reform of the Chicago convention industry aimed at solving the problems with a comprehensive and long-term approach.
I Authority Trustee: Jim Reilly Named Trustee
The Trustee, named in the legislation as James Reilly, has the power and duties for 18 months of the MPEA Board and CEO and he runs the day-to-day operations of the Authority. He assumes the role on the effective date of the Act and serves until the new Board appoints a new CEO.
Special duties include:
entering into a private management contract to run McCormick Place;
entering into a marketing agreement with CCTB;
recommending whether to separate Navy Pier from McCormick Place or some other change in governance;
enforcing exhibitor rights;
submitting monthly reports to the Interim board;
making decisions regarding work rules in consultation with an Advisory Council.
II 7-Member Interim Board: 18-Month Term With Power To Veto Any Action Of The Trustee
Mayor appoints 3, Governor appoints 3 with advice and consent of Senate, members select a seventh member to serve as Chair; at least 1 board member must be from labor and 1 must have convention industry experience. They have the power to veto any action of the Trustee by a 5/7 vote, so long as Board takes action within 30 days of receiving monthly report detailing action. The Trustee must notify Interim Board prior to entering into a contract for 24 months or more or one with a value of $100,000 or more and the Board has 10 days to reject it. Terms of current MPEA Interim Board members expire on the effective date of the bill. New members, except Chair, must be appointed within 30 days and they serve an 18 month term. Members of any previous MPEA Boards are not permitted to be appointed.
III 9-Member Board: Assumes Operation Of Authority After 18 Month Period
The post Trustee MPEA Board comes into being at the end of the 18 month period. The Mayor appoints 4 members, the Governor appoints 4 with advice and consent of Senate, and the members of the Board select a seventh to serve as Chair. Again, at least 1 member must be from labor and 1 must have convention industry experience. Members of any previous MPEA Boards are not permitted to be appointed (this does not apply to the interim board members serving during the 18th month Trusteeship). The terms are staggered 4-year terms and the Board is created on the first Monday after the 18th month. The Trustee remains in control until the full Board is constituted and CEO is appointed. The new Board must hire a CEO to run day-to-day operations and the CEO reports to the Board.
IV Role Of The CCTB: Authority Enters Into Marketing Contract
The bill provides that the Authority enters into marketing agreement with CCTB, provided the organization amends it bylaws to reflect a governance structure laid out in the law. This would be a 25-member Board of Directors with members serving 3-year staggered terms with a two-term limit. The Chair would be appointed by the Mayor from among the business and civic leaders of Chicago who are not engaged in the hospitality business. The MPEA Board Chair or designee is an automatic member (and also serves on the Executive Committee). Of the remaining 23 members, no more than 5 members may be from the hotel industry; no more than 2 members may be from the restaurant and attractions industry, no more than 2 members from the trade show industry and no more than 2 members from unions. In addition, the Director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity serves as ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board. Furthermore, members cannot have a conflict of interest with MPEA. The Chair selects an Executive Committee of 5-9 members (includes MPEA Chair).
Once CCTB enters into a marketing agreement with MPEA, it receives 75% of the proceeds from increasing the Chicago airport departure fee on taxis, limos and charter buses. This is estimated to be between $4.6 million and $5.4 million annually, more as O’Hare and Midway expand capacity.
V Ethics Provisions
Trustee, Interim Board members, Board members, MPEA employees, and their spouses or immediate family members, must abide by the Governmental Ethics Act (including filing of statements of economic disclosure). They are prohibited from using their position for personal or financial gain, accepting any gifts for personal use (does not include travel covered for work reasons), holding or pursuing employment or office that may conflict with official duties, and having a financial interest, directly or indirectly, with a party to a contract. A revolving door prohibition for trustee, board members and employees is instituted whereby they cannot accept employment or compensation for services from person or business if the trustee, member, employee participated personally or substantially in the award of a contract or in making a licensing decisions. The bill prohibits the Authority from entering into a consulting contract with the current CEO, Interim Board members, or future Board members. Finally, the Authority must develop an annual ethics program.
VI Exhibitor Rights: Establishes “House Rules” For Exhibitors And Labor
Booths - Any exhibitor on Authority premises shall be permitted to do the following:
Exhibitor and exhibitor's employees are permitted in a booth of any size, the use of a ladder and hand tools to (i) set up and dismantle exhibits on Authority premises; (ii) assemble and disassemble materials, machinery, or equipment; or (iii) install signs, props, ballots, other decorative items.
Exhibitor and exhibitor's employees are permitted in a booth of any size to (i) deliver, plug-in, connect, operate electrical equipment, computers, audio-visual devices; (ii) re-position or re-skid items in their booth; (iii) unload and load materials from a privately owned car with the use of a dolly or non-motorized hand cart.
Labor Costs - A contractor or show manager may only charge an exhibitor for labor services as follows:
Monday - Friday: Straight-time for consecutive 8-hour period between 6am-10pm, with straight-time and a half each hour after 8-hour period; double-time for work between midnight and 6am.
Saturday: Straight-time and a half for consecutive 8-hour period, with double straight-time for each hour after 8-hour period; double-time for work between midnight and 6am.
Sunday and State/Federal Holidays: Double straight-time for any hours worked.
“Reasonable markup” is allowed.
May only charge in 30 minute increments.
Electrical Services - Show managers may retain an electrical contractor of their choice, provided the entity is approved by the Authority. If show manager uses the Authority’s electrical contractor (FOCUS One or its succesor) the Authority must offer the services at a rate not to exceed the costs of providing the service.
Food – The Authority must offer the services at a rate not to exceed the costs of providing the service and exhibitors may bring in food or beverage for personal consumption.
VII Work Jurisdiction: Establishes Advisory Council
To reduce confusion and increased costs, the Authority has power to establish work jurisdiction and the scope of work of union employees. Authority consults with the newly created Advisory Council and makes the determination. Determination is made after considering, in their totality and not in isolation, the following factors: the training and skills required to perform the task, past practices on Authority premises, safety, and the need for efficiency, and exhibitor satisfaction. Any disputes between labor and the Authority is subject to binding arbitration.
All stewards of unions must be working stewards, with no more than 1 per labor organization per building per show. No more than 2 man-crews. An exhibitor or show manager may “call by name” specific union employees.
VIII Audits
Authority must hire entity approved by the State’s Auditor General to conduct audits, at least 2 per calendar year, to ensure the reforms have resulted in cost reductions for exhibitors and that those costs have been passed on to exhibitors. If findings demonstrate an entity has not passed on the savings, the Authority has the ability to ban entities from doing business on Authority grounds (this should only be used in extreme cases).
IX Authority Finance: Debt Refinancing. Capital Improvements and Operational Support
The bill provides the Authority with $80 million in operating support to replace revenues from electrical, plumbing and food services. This support occurs over a 4-year period and is delivered in increments of $20 million each year - transmitted to the Authority as “surplus revenue”. Current law provides that Authority‘s “surplus revenue” is dedicated to either (a) debt service or (b) capital improvements. This bill provides that “surplus revenues” may be used for operations of the Authority in FY 2011-2015 in an amount not to exceed $20 million annually or $80 million in total. Some of this money is achieved through actual revenue surplusses ($25 million) and the rest is achieved by postponing repayment of the Authority's current delinquent balance for past draws against GRF ($55 million) until July 20, 2015. After July 20, 2015, any Authority “surplus revenues” shall be reduced by 50% to repay the $55 million in past draws from the State’s General Revenue Fund.
This approach will also alllow replenishment of the Authority's depleted Reserve Fund, while avoiding egregious pressure on the Authority by temporarily reseting the Authority's mandatory Reserve Fund account balance, $30 million under current law to $15 million in 2011. Balances will return to $30 million in 2012.
The bill authorizes the Authority to sell naming rights for McCormick Place with 75% of the revenues from any sale(s) being applied to Authority‘s debt service and 25% as revenue to the Authority:
Through refinancing of the current MPEA debt, the Authority will have the ability to improve its infrastructure and secure sustainable revenues by raise $450 million in new money. The Authority's initial project outline prioritizes new capital expenditures for a) hotel expansion, b) Lakeside Center (East Building) improvements, and c) Navy Pier (Festival Hall and Skyline Stage) improvements.
To pay for the refinancing, the bill extends by 18 years the Authority levied taxes to Fiscal Year 2060. Current law sunsets these taxes and deposits in 2042, corresponding with the retirement of the Expansion debt. Extending these collections 18 years beyond the retirement of the current debt allows for collateral against which new bonding may occur. Present MPEA taxes are a 1% on prepared food and beverage in a specified district, 2.5% city hotel tax, 6% Cook County auto rental tax, and a departure fee at O'Hare and Midway.
Links to PDF files containing copies of the bill and the two key votes can be found here:
Senate Bill 28 (House Amendment #2 combined with House Amendment #4):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SB/09600SB0028ham002.htm
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SB/09600SB0028ham004.htm
House of Representatives Roll Call Vote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/house/09600SB0028_05062010_029000T.pdf
Senate Roll Call Vote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/senate/09600SB0028_05072010_002001C.pdf
Senate Bill 28 passed and sent to Governor Quinn for signature on May 7, 2010
The following is a detailed breakout of the contents of Senate Bill 28 as it passed the Illinois General Assembly. This legislation is an extensive reform of the Chicago convention industry aimed at solving the problems with a comprehensive and long-term approach.
I Authority Trustee: Jim Reilly Named Trustee
The Trustee, named in the legislation as James Reilly, has the power and duties for 18 months of the MPEA Board and CEO and he runs the day-to-day operations of the Authority. He assumes the role on the effective date of the Act and serves until the new Board appoints a new CEO.
Special duties include:
entering into a private management contract to run McCormick Place;
entering into a marketing agreement with CCTB;
recommending whether to separate Navy Pier from McCormick Place or some other change in governance;
enforcing exhibitor rights;
submitting monthly reports to the Interim board;
making decisions regarding work rules in consultation with an Advisory Council.
II 7-Member Interim Board: 18-Month Term With Power To Veto Any Action Of The Trustee
Mayor appoints 3, Governor appoints 3 with advice and consent of Senate, members select a seventh member to serve as Chair; at least 1 board member must be from labor and 1 must have convention industry experience. They have the power to veto any action of the Trustee by a 5/7 vote, so long as Board takes action within 30 days of receiving monthly report detailing action. The Trustee must notify Interim Board prior to entering into a contract for 24 months or more or one with a value of $100,000 or more and the Board has 10 days to reject it. Terms of current MPEA Interim Board members expire on the effective date of the bill. New members, except Chair, must be appointed within 30 days and they serve an 18 month term. Members of any previous MPEA Boards are not permitted to be appointed.
III 9-Member Board: Assumes Operation Of Authority After 18 Month Period
The post Trustee MPEA Board comes into being at the end of the 18 month period. The Mayor appoints 4 members, the Governor appoints 4 with advice and consent of Senate, and the members of the Board select a seventh to serve as Chair. Again, at least 1 member must be from labor and 1 must have convention industry experience. Members of any previous MPEA Boards are not permitted to be appointed (this does not apply to the interim board members serving during the 18th month Trusteeship). The terms are staggered 4-year terms and the Board is created on the first Monday after the 18th month. The Trustee remains in control until the full Board is constituted and CEO is appointed. The new Board must hire a CEO to run day-to-day operations and the CEO reports to the Board.
IV Role Of The CCTB: Authority Enters Into Marketing Contract
The bill provides that the Authority enters into marketing agreement with CCTB, provided the organization amends it bylaws to reflect a governance structure laid out in the law. This would be a 25-member Board of Directors with members serving 3-year staggered terms with a two-term limit. The Chair would be appointed by the Mayor from among the business and civic leaders of Chicago who are not engaged in the hospitality business. The MPEA Board Chair or designee is an automatic member (and also serves on the Executive Committee). Of the remaining 23 members, no more than 5 members may be from the hotel industry; no more than 2 members may be from the restaurant and attractions industry, no more than 2 members from the trade show industry and no more than 2 members from unions. In addition, the Director of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity serves as ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board. Furthermore, members cannot have a conflict of interest with MPEA. The Chair selects an Executive Committee of 5-9 members (includes MPEA Chair).
Once CCTB enters into a marketing agreement with MPEA, it receives 75% of the proceeds from increasing the Chicago airport departure fee on taxis, limos and charter buses. This is estimated to be between $4.6 million and $5.4 million annually, more as O’Hare and Midway expand capacity.
V Ethics Provisions
Trustee, Interim Board members, Board members, MPEA employees, and their spouses or immediate family members, must abide by the Governmental Ethics Act (including filing of statements of economic disclosure). They are prohibited from using their position for personal or financial gain, accepting any gifts for personal use (does not include travel covered for work reasons), holding or pursuing employment or office that may conflict with official duties, and having a financial interest, directly or indirectly, with a party to a contract. A revolving door prohibition for trustee, board members and employees is instituted whereby they cannot accept employment or compensation for services from person or business if the trustee, member, employee participated personally or substantially in the award of a contract or in making a licensing decisions. The bill prohibits the Authority from entering into a consulting contract with the current CEO, Interim Board members, or future Board members. Finally, the Authority must develop an annual ethics program.
VI Exhibitor Rights: Establishes “House Rules” For Exhibitors And Labor
Booths - Any exhibitor on Authority premises shall be permitted to do the following:
Exhibitor and exhibitor's employees are permitted in a booth of any size, the use of a ladder and hand tools to (i) set up and dismantle exhibits on Authority premises; (ii) assemble and disassemble materials, machinery, or equipment; or (iii) install signs, props, ballots, other decorative items.
Exhibitor and exhibitor's employees are permitted in a booth of any size to (i) deliver, plug-in, connect, operate electrical equipment, computers, audio-visual devices; (ii) re-position or re-skid items in their booth; (iii) unload and load materials from a privately owned car with the use of a dolly or non-motorized hand cart.
Labor Costs - A contractor or show manager may only charge an exhibitor for labor services as follows:
Monday - Friday: Straight-time for consecutive 8-hour period between 6am-10pm, with straight-time and a half each hour after 8-hour period; double-time for work between midnight and 6am.
Saturday: Straight-time and a half for consecutive 8-hour period, with double straight-time for each hour after 8-hour period; double-time for work between midnight and 6am.
Sunday and State/Federal Holidays: Double straight-time for any hours worked.
“Reasonable markup” is allowed.
May only charge in 30 minute increments.
Electrical Services - Show managers may retain an electrical contractor of their choice, provided the entity is approved by the Authority. If show manager uses the Authority’s electrical contractor (FOCUS One or its succesor) the Authority must offer the services at a rate not to exceed the costs of providing the service.
Food – The Authority must offer the services at a rate not to exceed the costs of providing the service and exhibitors may bring in food or beverage for personal consumption.
VII Work Jurisdiction: Establishes Advisory Council
To reduce confusion and increased costs, the Authority has power to establish work jurisdiction and the scope of work of union employees. Authority consults with the newly created Advisory Council and makes the determination. Determination is made after considering, in their totality and not in isolation, the following factors: the training and skills required to perform the task, past practices on Authority premises, safety, and the need for efficiency, and exhibitor satisfaction. Any disputes between labor and the Authority is subject to binding arbitration.
All stewards of unions must be working stewards, with no more than 1 per labor organization per building per show. No more than 2 man-crews. An exhibitor or show manager may “call by name” specific union employees.
VIII Audits
Authority must hire entity approved by the State’s Auditor General to conduct audits, at least 2 per calendar year, to ensure the reforms have resulted in cost reductions for exhibitors and that those costs have been passed on to exhibitors. If findings demonstrate an entity has not passed on the savings, the Authority has the ability to ban entities from doing business on Authority grounds (this should only be used in extreme cases).
IX Authority Finance: Debt Refinancing. Capital Improvements and Operational Support
The bill provides the Authority with $80 million in operating support to replace revenues from electrical, plumbing and food services. This support occurs over a 4-year period and is delivered in increments of $20 million each year - transmitted to the Authority as “surplus revenue”. Current law provides that Authority‘s “surplus revenue” is dedicated to either (a) debt service or (b) capital improvements. This bill provides that “surplus revenues” may be used for operations of the Authority in FY 2011-2015 in an amount not to exceed $20 million annually or $80 million in total. Some of this money is achieved through actual revenue surplusses ($25 million) and the rest is achieved by postponing repayment of the Authority's current delinquent balance for past draws against GRF ($55 million) until July 20, 2015. After July 20, 2015, any Authority “surplus revenues” shall be reduced by 50% to repay the $55 million in past draws from the State’s General Revenue Fund.
This approach will also alllow replenishment of the Authority's depleted Reserve Fund, while avoiding egregious pressure on the Authority by temporarily reseting the Authority's mandatory Reserve Fund account balance, $30 million under current law to $15 million in 2011. Balances will return to $30 million in 2012.
The bill authorizes the Authority to sell naming rights for McCormick Place with 75% of the revenues from any sale(s) being applied to Authority‘s debt service and 25% as revenue to the Authority:
Through refinancing of the current MPEA debt, the Authority will have the ability to improve its infrastructure and secure sustainable revenues by raise $450 million in new money. The Authority's initial project outline prioritizes new capital expenditures for a) hotel expansion, b) Lakeside Center (East Building) improvements, and c) Navy Pier (Festival Hall and Skyline Stage) improvements.
To pay for the refinancing, the bill extends by 18 years the Authority levied taxes to Fiscal Year 2060. Current law sunsets these taxes and deposits in 2042, corresponding with the retirement of the Expansion debt. Extending these collections 18 years beyond the retirement of the current debt allows for collateral against which new bonding may occur. Present MPEA taxes are a 1% on prepared food and beverage in a specified district, 2.5% city hotel tax, 6% Cook County auto rental tax, and a departure fee at O'Hare and Midway.
Links to PDF files containing copies of the bill and the two key votes can be found here:
Senate Bill 28 (House Amendment #2 combined with House Amendment #4):
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SB/09600SB0028ham002.htm
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SB/09600SB0028ham004.htm
House of Representatives Roll Call Vote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/house/09600SB0028_05062010_029000T.pdf
Senate Roll Call Vote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/senate/09600SB0028_05072010_002001C.pdf
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Highland Park High School scraps team trip to Arizona
Reveling in its first conference championship in 26 years, the Highland Park High School girls varsity basketball team has been selling cookies for months to raise funds for a tournament in Arizona. But those hoop dreams were dashed when players learned they couldn't go because of that state's new crackdown on illegal immigrants.
Safety concerns partly fueled the decision, but the trip also "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values," said District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. That explanation, though, smacks of political protest to parents upset by the decision.
The news, which was broken to the team Monday by coach Jolie Bechtel, comes as critics of Arizona's controversial law call on professional athletes and others to boycott the state.
Last month a New York congressman asked Major League Baseball to pull next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, and protesters recently picketed Wrigley Field when the Arizona Diamondbacks played the Cubs.
But tossing a high school team into the heated debate has left parents and players baffled and angry.
"Why are we mixing politics and a basketball tournament?" said Michael Evans, whose daughter Lauren is a junior on the team. "It's outrageous that they're doing this under the guise of safety."
Lauren Evans said she thought the concern was probably that one of the players could get stopped and questioned.
"It shouldn't be a problem," she said. "I don't think it makes much sense. We shouldn't be a threat. We just want to play basketball."
District 113 Superintendent George Fornero declined comment, saying it "wasn't just my decision." He referred calls to Hebson.
Hebson said Arizona is off-limits because of uncertainty about how the new law will be enforced. Signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last month, it makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.
Hebson said the turmoil is no place for students of Highland Park High School, which also draws from Highwood.
"We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe and be able to enjoy the experience," Hebson said of the tournament, which will be played in December. "We wouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee that."
Asked if there are undocumented players on the team, or if anyone associated with the team is in the country illegally, Hebson said she did not know.
Parents and players interviewed said they knew of no one who fits that description.
The high school's Web site boasts of a "relatively diverse" student population of 80 percent white, 15 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian and 2 percent African-American.
"Many of the parents feel that this should be resolved in the judicial court, not the basketball court," said Cynde Munzer, whose daughter, Lena, is a freshman on the team.
"I disagree personally with the Arizona legislation, but I also feel strongly about young women's rights," Munzer said. "They don't want to get involved in politics."
Subrina Collier, whose daughter Briana is a junior on the team, said even if someone were worried about presenting immigration papers in Arizona, it should be a personal decision to stay away. She called the administration decision a misplaced political statement.
The school district is looking for another tournament for the Giants, officials said.
The girls basketball team at Mundelein High School was in Scottsdale, Ariz., in December for the tournament hosted by Desert Mountain High School, said coach Brian Evans.
Evans called Desert Mountain High School "unbelievably hospitable" during his team's trip. Officials there declined comment about Highland Park's decision not to participate.
Meanwhile, other Chicago-area organizations continue to wrestle with their involvement in Arizona.
Local immigrants' rights activists delivered a letter Tuesday to the Chicago-based American Bar Association that urged the group to cancel a conference slated for this week in Arizona.
At Highland Park, basketball player Marguerite Biagi, a junior, said she disagrees with the law but still wants to visit Arizona.
"It's ultimately the state's decision, no matter what I think," she said. "Not playing basketball in Arizona is not going to change anything."
Cynthia Dizikes, Dan Simmons, Oscar Avila and Lisa Black contributed.
-- Jeff Long
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/highland-park-basketball-team-trip-to-arizona-scrapped.html
Safety concerns partly fueled the decision, but the trip also "would not be aligned with our beliefs and values," said District 113 Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson. That explanation, though, smacks of political protest to parents upset by the decision.
The news, which was broken to the team Monday by coach Jolie Bechtel, comes as critics of Arizona's controversial law call on professional athletes and others to boycott the state.
Last month a New York congressman asked Major League Baseball to pull next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix, and protesters recently picketed Wrigley Field when the Arizona Diamondbacks played the Cubs.
But tossing a high school team into the heated debate has left parents and players baffled and angry.
"Why are we mixing politics and a basketball tournament?" said Michael Evans, whose daughter Lauren is a junior on the team. "It's outrageous that they're doing this under the guise of safety."
Lauren Evans said she thought the concern was probably that one of the players could get stopped and questioned.
"It shouldn't be a problem," she said. "I don't think it makes much sense. We shouldn't be a threat. We just want to play basketball."
District 113 Superintendent George Fornero declined comment, saying it "wasn't just my decision." He referred calls to Hebson.
Hebson said Arizona is off-limits because of uncertainty about how the new law will be enforced. Signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer last month, it makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.
Hebson said the turmoil is no place for students of Highland Park High School, which also draws from Highwood.
"We would want to ensure that all of our students had the opportunity to be included and be safe and be able to enjoy the experience," Hebson said of the tournament, which will be played in December. "We wouldn't necessarily be able to guarantee that."
Asked if there are undocumented players on the team, or if anyone associated with the team is in the country illegally, Hebson said she did not know.
Parents and players interviewed said they knew of no one who fits that description.
The high school's Web site boasts of a "relatively diverse" student population of 80 percent white, 15 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian and 2 percent African-American.
"Many of the parents feel that this should be resolved in the judicial court, not the basketball court," said Cynde Munzer, whose daughter, Lena, is a freshman on the team.
"I disagree personally with the Arizona legislation, but I also feel strongly about young women's rights," Munzer said. "They don't want to get involved in politics."
Subrina Collier, whose daughter Briana is a junior on the team, said even if someone were worried about presenting immigration papers in Arizona, it should be a personal decision to stay away. She called the administration decision a misplaced political statement.
The school district is looking for another tournament for the Giants, officials said.
The girls basketball team at Mundelein High School was in Scottsdale, Ariz., in December for the tournament hosted by Desert Mountain High School, said coach Brian Evans.
Evans called Desert Mountain High School "unbelievably hospitable" during his team's trip. Officials there declined comment about Highland Park's decision not to participate.
Meanwhile, other Chicago-area organizations continue to wrestle with their involvement in Arizona.
Local immigrants' rights activists delivered a letter Tuesday to the Chicago-based American Bar Association that urged the group to cancel a conference slated for this week in Arizona.
At Highland Park, basketball player Marguerite Biagi, a junior, said she disagrees with the law but still wants to visit Arizona.
"It's ultimately the state's decision, no matter what I think," she said. "Not playing basketball in Arizona is not going to change anything."
Cynthia Dizikes, Dan Simmons, Oscar Avila and Lisa Black contributed.
-- Jeff Long
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/highland-park-basketball-team-trip-to-arizona-scrapped.html
The Pearson Report May 12, 2010- President ISRA
May 12, 2010
I read recently where one of these gun control groups was characterizing the ISRA as being "against gun violence prevention." Even when I considered the source, I was still taken back a bit by this misrepresentation of what the ISRA stands for. The officers and directors of the ISRA along with the membership as a whole are very much in favor of gun violence prevention. In fact, we see the ISRA as having a leadership role in preventing gun violence. At the same time, we are also the state's leading opponent of gun control schemes - especially those disguised as "gun violence prevention" efforts.
Whereas the gun control movement believes that the key to "gun violence prevention" lies in choking off the availability of firearms to law abiding citizens, we at the ISRA believe that the real key to preventing violent crime is to push back hard against the people who actually commit the crimes in the first place.
According to the Chicago Police Department, about 88% of murderers have previous criminal records. Of those previous offenders, about 80% have more than 6 past arrests. Amazingly, the same reports indicate that 75% of murder victims have arrest records at the time of their deaths. A reasonable person just has to wonder why people who have been through the justice system are so much more likely to either murder, or be murdered, than the general population. Time in prison is supposed to "fix" these people, isn't it? To put it bluntly, I think that there is clearly something wrong with our so-called justice system.
The anti-gunners would have us believe that the problem isn't recidivism. No, they'd make some nonsensical claim that it's hard to be a saint in the city and that the so-called "easy availability of guns" is too great of a temptation for these angels with dirty faces to overcome. The bottom line is that the anti-gunners believe that taking your guns away from you will make all these violent ex-cons "go straight." Do you believe any bit of that? I think it is a lot of bunk.
The problem we have here is the fact that the liberal social engineers who have taken over our justice system have turned our penal institutions into domestic terrorism training camps. The thugs walk into prison bad, and come out even worse. Aberrant behavior is no longer corrected, it is encouraged and, as a result, the streets of Illinois are some of the most dangerous in the nation. Thanks to the worsening economy, we're sure to see an escalation in violent crime as cash-strapped prisons are emptied and viscous criminals migrate into suburbia and rural areas.
So, how does the ISRA differ from the gun-grabbers on the issue of gun violence prevention? First off, we believe that the best deterrent to violent crime is the unfettered exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights - including recognizing the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms for protection of self and family. We do not believe that self defense is the exclusive privilege of those who can afford private security or those who have taxpayer-funded contingents of armed bodyguards. Bringing Illinois into line with 48 other states that honor the right of self defense is the ISRA's top priority.
Our second priority in combating criminal violence is our work to repeal and rescind laws and regulations designed to discourage free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. As it stands, state and local regulatory agencies expend tremendous resources enforcing rules and regulations that target the behavior and preferences of law abiding firearm owners. We feel that it would be better to redirect those resources to the apprehension and punishment of violent criminals. In our legislature, much too much rancor is generated by the endless debate over senseless gun control proposals. The needs of the state would be better served if our legislature were to be free of the gun control debate so that its efforts could be focused on cutting crime, restoring integrity, and fostering hope for a better tomorrow.
Yet another ISRA priority is the correction of laws and regulations that carry a huge cost of compliance for lawful firearm retailers. This high cost of regulatory compliance serves as a barrier to market entry by FFL entrepreneurs. This barrier to entry stifles competition and raises the possibility of de facto rationing of our 2nd Amendment rights when slim profit margins clash with arbitrarily high costs of regulatory compliance. In short, exercise of our rights cannot be separated from economic realities. We will not stand by and allow the anti-gunners utilize the economy as a weapon against the right to keep and bear arms.
So there you have it in black and white - the difference between the ISRA and the anti-gunners. On one hand, you have the ISRA solution to violent crime - a solution that empowers citizens to provide for their own defense against criminals and unshackles business to supply the citizenry with the tools they need to be safe. On the other hand, you have the gun control movement that thinks the solution to gun violence is to demonize the ISRA, hold poetry contests, and take guns away from law-abiding citizens. You decide which you think is better.
Before I close this edition, I'd like to remind the readers that the Illinois General Assembly is currently on a short recess. Just because these guys are out of town, it doesn't mean that the danger of draconian, Chicago-style gun laws has gone away. All 100+ gun control proposals sponsored by the Daley Gun Grabbing Machine earlier this session remain alive and well, just waiting to be called for a floor vote. None of these bills dies until session ends in early 2011. So, do not let down your guard. If you see your representative or senator in your neighborhood, remind them time and time again that you stand with the ISRA and are opposed to any bill that will, in any way, inhibit the free exercise of your Second Amendment rights. Be sure to stop by the ISRA web site and check the latest news from Springfield.
Remember, gun control is a disease - you are the cure. .
I read recently where one of these gun control groups was characterizing the ISRA as being "against gun violence prevention." Even when I considered the source, I was still taken back a bit by this misrepresentation of what the ISRA stands for. The officers and directors of the ISRA along with the membership as a whole are very much in favor of gun violence prevention. In fact, we see the ISRA as having a leadership role in preventing gun violence. At the same time, we are also the state's leading opponent of gun control schemes - especially those disguised as "gun violence prevention" efforts.
Whereas the gun control movement believes that the key to "gun violence prevention" lies in choking off the availability of firearms to law abiding citizens, we at the ISRA believe that the real key to preventing violent crime is to push back hard against the people who actually commit the crimes in the first place.
According to the Chicago Police Department, about 88% of murderers have previous criminal records. Of those previous offenders, about 80% have more than 6 past arrests. Amazingly, the same reports indicate that 75% of murder victims have arrest records at the time of their deaths. A reasonable person just has to wonder why people who have been through the justice system are so much more likely to either murder, or be murdered, than the general population. Time in prison is supposed to "fix" these people, isn't it? To put it bluntly, I think that there is clearly something wrong with our so-called justice system.
The anti-gunners would have us believe that the problem isn't recidivism. No, they'd make some nonsensical claim that it's hard to be a saint in the city and that the so-called "easy availability of guns" is too great of a temptation for these angels with dirty faces to overcome. The bottom line is that the anti-gunners believe that taking your guns away from you will make all these violent ex-cons "go straight." Do you believe any bit of that? I think it is a lot of bunk.
The problem we have here is the fact that the liberal social engineers who have taken over our justice system have turned our penal institutions into domestic terrorism training camps. The thugs walk into prison bad, and come out even worse. Aberrant behavior is no longer corrected, it is encouraged and, as a result, the streets of Illinois are some of the most dangerous in the nation. Thanks to the worsening economy, we're sure to see an escalation in violent crime as cash-strapped prisons are emptied and viscous criminals migrate into suburbia and rural areas.
So, how does the ISRA differ from the gun-grabbers on the issue of gun violence prevention? First off, we believe that the best deterrent to violent crime is the unfettered exercise of our 2nd Amendment rights - including recognizing the right of all law-abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms for protection of self and family. We do not believe that self defense is the exclusive privilege of those who can afford private security or those who have taxpayer-funded contingents of armed bodyguards. Bringing Illinois into line with 48 other states that honor the right of self defense is the ISRA's top priority.
Our second priority in combating criminal violence is our work to repeal and rescind laws and regulations designed to discourage free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. As it stands, state and local regulatory agencies expend tremendous resources enforcing rules and regulations that target the behavior and preferences of law abiding firearm owners. We feel that it would be better to redirect those resources to the apprehension and punishment of violent criminals. In our legislature, much too much rancor is generated by the endless debate over senseless gun control proposals. The needs of the state would be better served if our legislature were to be free of the gun control debate so that its efforts could be focused on cutting crime, restoring integrity, and fostering hope for a better tomorrow.
Yet another ISRA priority is the correction of laws and regulations that carry a huge cost of compliance for lawful firearm retailers. This high cost of regulatory compliance serves as a barrier to market entry by FFL entrepreneurs. This barrier to entry stifles competition and raises the possibility of de facto rationing of our 2nd Amendment rights when slim profit margins clash with arbitrarily high costs of regulatory compliance. In short, exercise of our rights cannot be separated from economic realities. We will not stand by and allow the anti-gunners utilize the economy as a weapon against the right to keep and bear arms.
So there you have it in black and white - the difference between the ISRA and the anti-gunners. On one hand, you have the ISRA solution to violent crime - a solution that empowers citizens to provide for their own defense against criminals and unshackles business to supply the citizenry with the tools they need to be safe. On the other hand, you have the gun control movement that thinks the solution to gun violence is to demonize the ISRA, hold poetry contests, and take guns away from law-abiding citizens. You decide which you think is better.
Before I close this edition, I'd like to remind the readers that the Illinois General Assembly is currently on a short recess. Just because these guys are out of town, it doesn't mean that the danger of draconian, Chicago-style gun laws has gone away. All 100+ gun control proposals sponsored by the Daley Gun Grabbing Machine earlier this session remain alive and well, just waiting to be called for a floor vote. None of these bills dies until session ends in early 2011. So, do not let down your guard. If you see your representative or senator in your neighborhood, remind them time and time again that you stand with the ISRA and are opposed to any bill that will, in any way, inhibit the free exercise of your Second Amendment rights. Be sure to stop by the ISRA web site and check the latest news from Springfield.
Remember, gun control is a disease - you are the cure. .
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Audit rips All Kids health care, cites widespread abuse
By John Patterson | Daily Herald staff writer
SPRINGFIELD - An audit of the All Kids health insurance program reveals state health care agencies have widespread problems managing millions of taxpayer dollars largely spent on benefits for undocumented immigrants.
Auditors found people getting benefits beyond age cut offs, no verification of whether enrolled children live in Illinois, conflicting policies on family income and misclassified immigrants, some of whom could be legal and eligible for federal health care dollars but instead are paid solely with state money.
The list of shortcomings unearthed in former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's vaunted health care plan goes on to include claims being covered even though families stopped paying premiums and a lack of documentation on a multimillion-dollar marketing campaign.
Told of the numerous findings, Itasca Republican state Sen. Carole Pankau was flabbergasted.
"Wow," said Pankau, who's routinely pushed legislation calling for greater accountability of the health care program. "It's sad."
Blagojevich's All Kids program took effect in July 2006, just in time for his re-election bid, and served to deflect attention from swirling ethical quandaries and federal investigations of his administration. It added children whose family income was twice the federal poverty level and all undocumented immigrant children.
A family of four making less than $29,328 annually can qualify for no-cost care. Premiums and co-pays begin and increase with family income, but a family of four with annual income as high as $176,413 can qualify for coverage. As of June 30, 2009, there were 71,665 children enrolled, 75 percent of which - 54,073 - were classified as undocumented immigrants, auditors found, though they cautioned mistakes in state All Kids data suggest the number is inflated. Of the nearly $79.1 million in claims paid under the program, nearly $55 million were for undocumented immigrants. The program took in just $8.9 million in premiums.
The numbers counter past claims by the state's main health care agency. In 2008, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services declined repeatedly to provide the Daily Herald with information regarding undocumented enrollees. Asked why, she said the issue was a "political football" and, "At the end of the day it's a minuscule number of participants that's undocumented."
The new head of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services agreed problems exist and would be fixed.
"I am committed to carefully reviewing the ways in which HFS can tighten up eligibility policy and procedures to assure accountability while at the same time assuring our beneficiaries are treated fairly and preserving our federal funding," Director Julie Hamos said in a letter.
Gov. Pat Quinn named Hamos to take over the agency last month. She replaced Barry Maram. A publicist for Blagojevich did not respond to a request for comment. The state's All Kids website now carries Quinn's name.
At times the audit encapsulated some of the broader, big picture criticism of state government and its lack of spending accountability. For instance, auditors requested 100 case files and in reviewing 98 of them could find no routine process used to verify All Kids enrollees lived in Illinois. Auditors said the other two case files were unavailable because the health care departments couldn't find one and the other was "inaccessible due to mold."
Auditors found one health care agency that, when calculating family income, included stepparent pay. But a different agency did not tally stepparent pay. As a result, those looking to enroll through the first agency were directed to the second for a better deal.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=379925&src=109
SPRINGFIELD - An audit of the All Kids health insurance program reveals state health care agencies have widespread problems managing millions of taxpayer dollars largely spent on benefits for undocumented immigrants.
Auditors found people getting benefits beyond age cut offs, no verification of whether enrolled children live in Illinois, conflicting policies on family income and misclassified immigrants, some of whom could be legal and eligible for federal health care dollars but instead are paid solely with state money.
The list of shortcomings unearthed in former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's vaunted health care plan goes on to include claims being covered even though families stopped paying premiums and a lack of documentation on a multimillion-dollar marketing campaign.
Told of the numerous findings, Itasca Republican state Sen. Carole Pankau was flabbergasted.
"Wow," said Pankau, who's routinely pushed legislation calling for greater accountability of the health care program. "It's sad."
Blagojevich's All Kids program took effect in July 2006, just in time for his re-election bid, and served to deflect attention from swirling ethical quandaries and federal investigations of his administration. It added children whose family income was twice the federal poverty level and all undocumented immigrant children.
A family of four making less than $29,328 annually can qualify for no-cost care. Premiums and co-pays begin and increase with family income, but a family of four with annual income as high as $176,413 can qualify for coverage. As of June 30, 2009, there were 71,665 children enrolled, 75 percent of which - 54,073 - were classified as undocumented immigrants, auditors found, though they cautioned mistakes in state All Kids data suggest the number is inflated. Of the nearly $79.1 million in claims paid under the program, nearly $55 million were for undocumented immigrants. The program took in just $8.9 million in premiums.
The numbers counter past claims by the state's main health care agency. In 2008, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services declined repeatedly to provide the Daily Herald with information regarding undocumented enrollees. Asked why, she said the issue was a "political football" and, "At the end of the day it's a minuscule number of participants that's undocumented."
The new head of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services agreed problems exist and would be fixed.
"I am committed to carefully reviewing the ways in which HFS can tighten up eligibility policy and procedures to assure accountability while at the same time assuring our beneficiaries are treated fairly and preserving our federal funding," Director Julie Hamos said in a letter.
Gov. Pat Quinn named Hamos to take over the agency last month. She replaced Barry Maram. A publicist for Blagojevich did not respond to a request for comment. The state's All Kids website now carries Quinn's name.
At times the audit encapsulated some of the broader, big picture criticism of state government and its lack of spending accountability. For instance, auditors requested 100 case files and in reviewing 98 of them could find no routine process used to verify All Kids enrollees lived in Illinois. Auditors said the other two case files were unavailable because the health care departments couldn't find one and the other was "inaccessible due to mold."
Auditors found one health care agency that, when calculating family income, included stepparent pay. But a different agency did not tally stepparent pay. As a result, those looking to enroll through the first agency were directed to the second for a better deal.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=379925&src=109
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Republicans Sell Out Chicago Schoolkids
In Illinois, GOP legislators side with teachers unions.By WILLIAM MCGURN.
In the 19th century, Illinois was the land of Lincoln. In the 20th, it was the birthplace of Ronald Reagan. In the 21st, Illinois has given us a new breed of Republican: Roger Eddy.
Mr. Eddy is what they call a downstater, an assemblyman who serves an east-central Illinois district hugging the Indiana border. His day job turns out to be in government as well, as a public schools superintendent.
Last week Mr. Eddy became the face of the Republican failure to get a voucher bill through the Illinois assembly. The bill had passed the Senate. Yet despite being pushed by a remarkable coalition involving fellow Republicans, a free-market state think tank, and a prominent African-American leader, only 25 Republicans in the House voted yes. That was 12 votes short. Mr. Eddy was one of 23 Republicans who killed it by voting no.
"Last week was a missed opportunity for children in Chicago's worst and most overcrowded schools, and it was a missed opportunity for Republicans," says Collin Hitt, who handles education issues for the Illinois Policy Institute. "It's not often that a minority Republican party has the chance to advance cornerstone policy with key African-American support. The good news is that the legislation remains alive, and this bill has another chance."
In fairness, Democrats voted against the bill in larger numbers, which is to be expected of a party in thrall to the public employee unions. Still, the GOP failure is striking. Republicans typically complain about not getting black support for reforms that would benefit primarily black families. In this case, however, they had that support, in the form of the Rev. James Meeks, a African-American state senator leader whom Barack Obama has called a spiritual adviser.
Mr. Eddy says it's not fair to characterize him as a teachers union yes-man. In a long phone conversation, he says he supports some things that don't make the unions happy. He points to Race to the Top, as well as reforms that would make it easier for public schools to get rid of bad teachers and hire good ones.
Maybe. Mr. Eddy sure has his objections down pat, here raising constitutional concerns, there talking about inconclusive studies, here again saying vouchers would not help all the Chicago schoolchildren. One fact not open to debate is this: According to the Illinois State Board of Elections, since 2002 Mr. Eddy has accepted more than $76,000 in campaign contributions from the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, and the Chicago Teachers Union.
When asked about these contributions, Mr. Eddy suggests that maybe the unions give him money because they value his knowledge of public education. Hmm. Is that really what the Illinois Education Association and the Illinois Federation of Teachers are looking for in a state pol? More to the point, why is a Chicago teachers union giving its money to a man from a largely rural district more than 200 miles downstate?
Let's keep in mind the context here, too. Less than a month ago, the same teachers unions that have given so generously to Mr. Eddy made up a large chunk of the 15,000 protestors who converged on the state capital shouting "Raise Our Taxes" as the solution to the state's $13 billion budget gap. Even state Democrats are not going to vote for a tax increase going into a difficult election. But Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is calling for one, and Mr. Eddy says he would not vote for one—unless he sees "huge reforms."
As for Mr. Eddy's complaint that vouchers help only some of the students and not all of them, Mr. Meeks isn't buying. He says it's a matter of "triage"—you help the worst off first. He likens Mr. Eddy to a fire chief who arrives at a burning building and declares, "Since we can't save everyone we're not going to save anyone." And he complains that people like Mr. Eddy keep moving the goalposts.
The pity is there were 25 Republicans who did come through. The Republican house leader did what he could. One Republican legislator, a former public school teacher, was in tears on the House floor, begging for this bill. All these people went out on a limb with Mr. Meeks—and Republicans like Mr. Eddy sawed that limb off.
"Republicans had an opportunity here to show they really mean it when they say vouchers are the answer for the inner city," says Mr. Meeks. "If we could do this in Chicago, it would have caught on nationwide. That's what the teachers unions are afraid of, and that's why they opposed it. I wonder what were the House Republicans who voted 'no' were thinking?"
Good question.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703880304575236110265227270.html
In the 19th century, Illinois was the land of Lincoln. In the 20th, it was the birthplace of Ronald Reagan. In the 21st, Illinois has given us a new breed of Republican: Roger Eddy.
Mr. Eddy is what they call a downstater, an assemblyman who serves an east-central Illinois district hugging the Indiana border. His day job turns out to be in government as well, as a public schools superintendent.
Last week Mr. Eddy became the face of the Republican failure to get a voucher bill through the Illinois assembly. The bill had passed the Senate. Yet despite being pushed by a remarkable coalition involving fellow Republicans, a free-market state think tank, and a prominent African-American leader, only 25 Republicans in the House voted yes. That was 12 votes short. Mr. Eddy was one of 23 Republicans who killed it by voting no.
"Last week was a missed opportunity for children in Chicago's worst and most overcrowded schools, and it was a missed opportunity for Republicans," says Collin Hitt, who handles education issues for the Illinois Policy Institute. "It's not often that a minority Republican party has the chance to advance cornerstone policy with key African-American support. The good news is that the legislation remains alive, and this bill has another chance."
In fairness, Democrats voted against the bill in larger numbers, which is to be expected of a party in thrall to the public employee unions. Still, the GOP failure is striking. Republicans typically complain about not getting black support for reforms that would benefit primarily black families. In this case, however, they had that support, in the form of the Rev. James Meeks, a African-American state senator leader whom Barack Obama has called a spiritual adviser.
Mr. Eddy says it's not fair to characterize him as a teachers union yes-man. In a long phone conversation, he says he supports some things that don't make the unions happy. He points to Race to the Top, as well as reforms that would make it easier for public schools to get rid of bad teachers and hire good ones.
Maybe. Mr. Eddy sure has his objections down pat, here raising constitutional concerns, there talking about inconclusive studies, here again saying vouchers would not help all the Chicago schoolchildren. One fact not open to debate is this: According to the Illinois State Board of Elections, since 2002 Mr. Eddy has accepted more than $76,000 in campaign contributions from the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Federation of Teachers, and the Chicago Teachers Union.
When asked about these contributions, Mr. Eddy suggests that maybe the unions give him money because they value his knowledge of public education. Hmm. Is that really what the Illinois Education Association and the Illinois Federation of Teachers are looking for in a state pol? More to the point, why is a Chicago teachers union giving its money to a man from a largely rural district more than 200 miles downstate?
Let's keep in mind the context here, too. Less than a month ago, the same teachers unions that have given so generously to Mr. Eddy made up a large chunk of the 15,000 protestors who converged on the state capital shouting "Raise Our Taxes" as the solution to the state's $13 billion budget gap. Even state Democrats are not going to vote for a tax increase going into a difficult election. But Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is calling for one, and Mr. Eddy says he would not vote for one—unless he sees "huge reforms."
As for Mr. Eddy's complaint that vouchers help only some of the students and not all of them, Mr. Meeks isn't buying. He says it's a matter of "triage"—you help the worst off first. He likens Mr. Eddy to a fire chief who arrives at a burning building and declares, "Since we can't save everyone we're not going to save anyone." And he complains that people like Mr. Eddy keep moving the goalposts.
The pity is there were 25 Republicans who did come through. The Republican house leader did what he could. One Republican legislator, a former public school teacher, was in tears on the House floor, begging for this bill. All these people went out on a limb with Mr. Meeks—and Republicans like Mr. Eddy sawed that limb off.
"Republicans had an opportunity here to show they really mean it when they say vouchers are the answer for the inner city," says Mr. Meeks. "If we could do this in Chicago, it would have caught on nationwide. That's what the teachers unions are afraid of, and that's why they opposed it. I wonder what were the House Republicans who voted 'no' were thinking?"
Good question.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703880304575236110265227270.html
Monday, May 10, 2010
Top of IL Republican ticket leads in liberal Daily Kos Poll
A poll taken by the Daily Kos a left leaning Blog has Mark Kirk and Bill Brady leading their Opponents Alexi Giannoulias and Pat Quinn. The Poll was taken between May 3rd and May 5th and has a margin of error of +or- 4%
Daily Kos/Research 2000 Illinois Poll
Research 2000, MoE 4%, May 03, 2010 - May 05, 2010
FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE
VERY FAV FAV UNFAV VERY UNFAV NO OPINION
GIANNOULIAS 11 27 29 17 16
KIRK 16 23 21 11 29
QUINN 15 22 25 24 14
LEE COHEN 8 11 13 11 57
BRADY 16 19 19 18 28
BURRIS 9 16 26 26 23
DURBIN 20 28 18 15 19
OBAMA 27 29 22 17 5
Alexi Giannoulias
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 38 46 16
MEN 35 51 14
WOMEN 41 39 20
DEMOCRATS 58 27 15
REPUBLICANS 11 75 14
INDEPENDENTS 37 43 20
18-29 42 43 15
30-44 40 45 15
45-59 37 46 17
60+ 34 49 17
Mark Kirk
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 39 32 29
MEN 45 28 27
WOMEN 33 36 31
DEMOCRATS 15 49 36
REPUBLICANS 71 10 19
INDEPENDENTS 41 30 29
18-29 34 37 29
30-44 36 34 30
45-59 41 30 29
60+ 43 28 29
Pat Quinn
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 37 49 14
MEN 34 53 13
WOMEN 40 45 15
DEMOCRATS 59 22 19
REPUBLICANS 9 83 8
INDEPENDENTS 34 54 12
18-29 40 46 14
30-44 38 48 14
45-59 36 51 13
60+ 34 52 14
Scott Lee Cohen
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 19 24 57
MEN 20 22 58
WOMEN 18 26 56
DEMOCRATS 28 18 54
REPUBLICANS 9 30 61
INDEPENDENTS 16 27 57
18-29 20 23 57
30-44 19 24 57
45-59 19 24 57
60+ 18 24 58
Bill Brady
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 35 37 28
MEN 39 34 27
WOMEN 31 40 29
DEMOCRATS 11 59 30
REPUBLICANS 70 8 22
INDEPENDENTS 34 35 31
18-29 31 41 28
30-44 34 40 26
45-59 35 36 29
60+ 38 33 29
Roland Burris
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 25 52 23
MEN 21 56 23
WOMEN 29 48 23
DEMOCRATS 43 34 23
REPUBLICANS 4 70 26
INDEPENDENTS 20 60 20
18-29 29 48 23
30-44 27 49 24
45-59 25 54 21
60+ 21 56 23
Dick Durbin
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 48 33 19
MEN 44 38 18
WOMEN 52 28 20
DEMOCRATS 72 12 16
REPUBLICANS 15 65 20
INDEPENDENTS 49 30 21
18-29 52 29 19
30-44 51 32 17
45-59 47 33 20
60+ 45 35 20
Barack Obama
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 56 39 5
MEN 51 46 3
WOMEN 61 32 7
DEMOCRATS 85 10 5
REPUBLICANS 16 80 4
INDEPENDENTS 56 39 5
WHITE 48 47 5
BLACK 92 4 4
HISPANIC 71 21 8
18-29 65 30 5
QUESTION: If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Alexi Giannoulias, the Democrat, or Mark Kirk, the Republican?
ALEXI GIANNOULIAS MARK KIRK UNDECIDED
ALL 38 41 21
MEN 35 45 20
WOMEN 41 37 22
DEMOCRATS 65 14 21
REPUBLICANS 7 81 12
INDEPENDENTS 31 39 30
WHITE 32 50 18
BLACK 66 4 30
HISPANIC 52 19 29
18-29 44 36 20
30-44 41 38 21
45-59 36 43 21
60+ 35 45 20
CHICAGO/COOK 52 24 24
COLLAR 19 62 19
CENTRAL 36 47 17
SOUTHERN 33 49 18
QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, Bill Brady, the Republican, or Scott Lee Cohen, an Independent?
PAT QUINN BILL BRADY SCOTT LEE COHEN UNDECIDED
ALL 35 39 3 23
MEN 31 43 4 22
WOMEN 39 35 2 24
DEMOCRATS 61 12 6 21
REPUBLICANS 5 79 0 16
INDEPENDENTS 27 38 2 33
WHITE 29 46 4 21
BLACK 63 5 0 32
HISPANIC 46 26 0 28
18-29 38 34 5 23
30-44 37 37 3 23
45-59 35 40 3 22
60+ 33 41 0 26
CHICAGO/COOK 53 19 5 23
COLLAR 13 63 0 24
CENTRAL 31 45 2 22
SOUTHERN 28 48 2 22
QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, or Bill Brady, the Republican?
PAT QUINN BILL BRADY UNDECIDED
ALL 36 39 25
MEN 33 44 23
WOMEN 39 34 27
DEMOCRATS 63 12 25
REPUBLICANS 5 79 16
INDEPENDENTS 28 37 35
WHITE 30 46 24
BLACK 65 5 30
HISPANIC 47 25 28
18-29 39 34 27
30-44 38 37 25
45-59 36 40 24
60+ 33 41 26
CHICAGO/COOK 55 19 26
COLLAR 13 63 24
CENTRAL 31 44 25
SOUTHERN 29 48 23
QUESTION: Would you be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports and will work to improve the new health care reform law, or a candidate who will work to repeal it completely?
SUPPORTS REPEAL NOT SURE
ALL 51 35 14
MEN 47 39 14
WOMEN 55 31 14
DEMOCRATS 83 9 8
REPUBLICANS 13 75 12
INDEPENDENTS 43 31 26
Demographics
MEN 289 48%
WOMEN 311 52%
DEMOCRATS 257 43%
REPUBLICANS 182 30%
INDEPENDENTS/OTHER 161 27%
WHITE 459 76%
BLACK 83 14%
HISPANIC 44 7%
18-29 70 12%
30-44 182 30%
45-59 227 38%
60+ 121 20%
CHICAGO/COOK COUNTY 248 41%
COLLAR COUNTIES 140 23%
CENTRAL 117 20%
SOUTHERN 95 16%
Methodology
ILLINOIS RESULTS – MAY 2010
The Research 2000 Illinois Poll was conducted from May 3 through May 5, 2010. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration of distribution by county.
The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as for gender or party affiliation.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/5/5/IL/489
Daily Kos/Research 2000 Illinois Poll
Research 2000, MoE 4%, May 03, 2010 - May 05, 2010
FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE
VERY FAV FAV UNFAV VERY UNFAV NO OPINION
GIANNOULIAS 11 27 29 17 16
KIRK 16 23 21 11 29
QUINN 15 22 25 24 14
LEE COHEN 8 11 13 11 57
BRADY 16 19 19 18 28
BURRIS 9 16 26 26 23
DURBIN 20 28 18 15 19
OBAMA 27 29 22 17 5
Alexi Giannoulias
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 38 46 16
MEN 35 51 14
WOMEN 41 39 20
DEMOCRATS 58 27 15
REPUBLICANS 11 75 14
INDEPENDENTS 37 43 20
18-29 42 43 15
30-44 40 45 15
45-59 37 46 17
60+ 34 49 17
Mark Kirk
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 39 32 29
MEN 45 28 27
WOMEN 33 36 31
DEMOCRATS 15 49 36
REPUBLICANS 71 10 19
INDEPENDENTS 41 30 29
18-29 34 37 29
30-44 36 34 30
45-59 41 30 29
60+ 43 28 29
Pat Quinn
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 37 49 14
MEN 34 53 13
WOMEN 40 45 15
DEMOCRATS 59 22 19
REPUBLICANS 9 83 8
INDEPENDENTS 34 54 12
18-29 40 46 14
30-44 38 48 14
45-59 36 51 13
60+ 34 52 14
Scott Lee Cohen
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 19 24 57
MEN 20 22 58
WOMEN 18 26 56
DEMOCRATS 28 18 54
REPUBLICANS 9 30 61
INDEPENDENTS 16 27 57
18-29 20 23 57
30-44 19 24 57
45-59 19 24 57
60+ 18 24 58
Bill Brady
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 35 37 28
MEN 39 34 27
WOMEN 31 40 29
DEMOCRATS 11 59 30
REPUBLICANS 70 8 22
INDEPENDENTS 34 35 31
18-29 31 41 28
30-44 34 40 26
45-59 35 36 29
60+ 38 33 29
Roland Burris
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 25 52 23
MEN 21 56 23
WOMEN 29 48 23
DEMOCRATS 43 34 23
REPUBLICANS 4 70 26
INDEPENDENTS 20 60 20
18-29 29 48 23
30-44 27 49 24
45-59 25 54 21
60+ 21 56 23
Dick Durbin
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 48 33 19
MEN 44 38 18
WOMEN 52 28 20
DEMOCRATS 72 12 16
REPUBLICANS 15 65 20
INDEPENDENTS 49 30 21
18-29 52 29 19
30-44 51 32 17
45-59 47 33 20
60+ 45 35 20
Barack Obama
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 56 39 5
MEN 51 46 3
WOMEN 61 32 7
DEMOCRATS 85 10 5
REPUBLICANS 16 80 4
INDEPENDENTS 56 39 5
WHITE 48 47 5
BLACK 92 4 4
HISPANIC 71 21 8
18-29 65 30 5
QUESTION: If the election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Alexi Giannoulias, the Democrat, or Mark Kirk, the Republican?
ALEXI GIANNOULIAS MARK KIRK UNDECIDED
ALL 38 41 21
MEN 35 45 20
WOMEN 41 37 22
DEMOCRATS 65 14 21
REPUBLICANS 7 81 12
INDEPENDENTS 31 39 30
WHITE 32 50 18
BLACK 66 4 30
HISPANIC 52 19 29
18-29 44 36 20
30-44 41 38 21
45-59 36 43 21
60+ 35 45 20
CHICAGO/COOK 52 24 24
COLLAR 19 62 19
CENTRAL 36 47 17
SOUTHERN 33 49 18
QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, Bill Brady, the Republican, or Scott Lee Cohen, an Independent?
PAT QUINN BILL BRADY SCOTT LEE COHEN UNDECIDED
ALL 35 39 3 23
MEN 31 43 4 22
WOMEN 39 35 2 24
DEMOCRATS 61 12 6 21
REPUBLICANS 5 79 0 16
INDEPENDENTS 27 38 2 33
WHITE 29 46 4 21
BLACK 63 5 0 32
HISPANIC 46 26 0 28
18-29 38 34 5 23
30-44 37 37 3 23
45-59 35 40 3 22
60+ 33 41 0 26
CHICAGO/COOK 53 19 5 23
COLLAR 13 63 0 24
CENTRAL 31 45 2 22
SOUTHERN 28 48 2 22
QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Pat Quinn, the Democrat, or Bill Brady, the Republican?
PAT QUINN BILL BRADY UNDECIDED
ALL 36 39 25
MEN 33 44 23
WOMEN 39 34 27
DEMOCRATS 63 12 25
REPUBLICANS 5 79 16
INDEPENDENTS 28 37 35
WHITE 30 46 24
BLACK 65 5 30
HISPANIC 47 25 28
18-29 39 34 27
30-44 38 37 25
45-59 36 40 24
60+ 33 41 26
CHICAGO/COOK 55 19 26
COLLAR 13 63 24
CENTRAL 31 44 25
SOUTHERN 29 48 23
QUESTION: Would you be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports and will work to improve the new health care reform law, or a candidate who will work to repeal it completely?
SUPPORTS REPEAL NOT SURE
ALL 51 35 14
MEN 47 39 14
WOMEN 55 31 14
DEMOCRATS 83 9 8
REPUBLICANS 13 75 12
INDEPENDENTS 43 31 26
Demographics
MEN 289 48%
WOMEN 311 52%
DEMOCRATS 257 43%
REPUBLICANS 182 30%
INDEPENDENTS/OTHER 161 27%
WHITE 459 76%
BLACK 83 14%
HISPANIC 44 7%
18-29 70 12%
30-44 182 30%
45-59 227 38%
60+ 121 20%
CHICAGO/COOK COUNTY 248 41%
COLLAR COUNTIES 140 23%
CENTRAL 117 20%
SOUTHERN 95 16%
Methodology
ILLINOIS RESULTS – MAY 2010
The Research 2000 Illinois Poll was conducted from May 3 through May 5, 2010. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration of distribution by county.
The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as for gender or party affiliation.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/5/5/IL/489
Illinois makes millions selling personal information
By Chris Essig, The Southern Springfield Bureau | Posted: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:00 am
SPRINGFIELD - This year's census has some citizens fearing they are giving away too much personal information to the federal government.
But in Illinois, state officials already sell personal information to insurance companies, federal and state government agencies, and others, raking in millions of dollars along the way.
Personal information found on driver's licenses, driving records, vehicle registration, and insurance information is available to not only law enforcement, but other outlets as well. The Secretary of State's office holds the information and charges a fee of $12 per record to companies who wish to look at the data.
Last year, the state made $61.1 million selling personal information. In 2007, the Secretary of State's office received in $64.3 mil-lion, while in 2008 it brought in $63.9 million.
The majority of the income comes from insurance companies, who primarily request information to determine if they wish to cover someone and what rates to set, said Henry Haupt, spokesperson for the secretary of state's office.
"It is a valuable tool for companies to use in their underwriting," added Kevin Martin, executive director for the Illinois Insurance Association.
Citizens do not have access to the same level of information. By contrast, citizens can view driving records, but not someone's address or other "personally identifiable information," Haupt said.
This comes at a time when some citizens are expressing concerns about filling out their census forms because they feel they are giving away too much personal information.
Citizens often are concerned about giving away personal information on a census form, but it is nothing new or unexpected, said Muriel Jackson, media specialist for the Chicago Regional Census Center.
The U.S. Census Bureau takes a number of steps to ensure confidentiality, including screening census workers, Jackson said.
In Decatur, some citizens have said the questions on the forms are too personal. Odds are, every form returned will not include every question answered, said Mark Smith, a member of the area's census committee.
"Some have a total aversion to the government," said Smith. "You either trust (the census) or you don't trust it."
The Decatur township has response rate is 75 percent, higher than the national rate of 72 percent and the state rate of 73 percent. In downtown Decatur, however, some areas have a response rate in the mid-40s.
Some national pundits have called for a national boycott of the census, including Fox News host Glenn Beck, and U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Ron Paul, R-Texas. U.S. Census Bureau director Robert Groves recently downplayed the effect of the conservative boycott, however, saying he is heartened by the high level of participation.
Smith has not seen signs of an organized boycott in the Decatur area.
Because the census is used to determine how much federal funding an area will receive, census workers are encouraging citizens to fill out the forms.
"We need that count," said Smith.
chris.essig@lee.net / 217-789-0865
http://www.thesouthern.com/news/article_0a5fd6a0-4b6b-11df-a353-001cc4c03286.html
SPRINGFIELD - This year's census has some citizens fearing they are giving away too much personal information to the federal government.
But in Illinois, state officials already sell personal information to insurance companies, federal and state government agencies, and others, raking in millions of dollars along the way.
Personal information found on driver's licenses, driving records, vehicle registration, and insurance information is available to not only law enforcement, but other outlets as well. The Secretary of State's office holds the information and charges a fee of $12 per record to companies who wish to look at the data.
Last year, the state made $61.1 million selling personal information. In 2007, the Secretary of State's office received in $64.3 mil-lion, while in 2008 it brought in $63.9 million.
The majority of the income comes from insurance companies, who primarily request information to determine if they wish to cover someone and what rates to set, said Henry Haupt, spokesperson for the secretary of state's office.
"It is a valuable tool for companies to use in their underwriting," added Kevin Martin, executive director for the Illinois Insurance Association.
Citizens do not have access to the same level of information. By contrast, citizens can view driving records, but not someone's address or other "personally identifiable information," Haupt said.
This comes at a time when some citizens are expressing concerns about filling out their census forms because they feel they are giving away too much personal information.
Citizens often are concerned about giving away personal information on a census form, but it is nothing new or unexpected, said Muriel Jackson, media specialist for the Chicago Regional Census Center.
The U.S. Census Bureau takes a number of steps to ensure confidentiality, including screening census workers, Jackson said.
In Decatur, some citizens have said the questions on the forms are too personal. Odds are, every form returned will not include every question answered, said Mark Smith, a member of the area's census committee.
"Some have a total aversion to the government," said Smith. "You either trust (the census) or you don't trust it."
The Decatur township has response rate is 75 percent, higher than the national rate of 72 percent and the state rate of 73 percent. In downtown Decatur, however, some areas have a response rate in the mid-40s.
Some national pundits have called for a national boycott of the census, including Fox News host Glenn Beck, and U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Ron Paul, R-Texas. U.S. Census Bureau director Robert Groves recently downplayed the effect of the conservative boycott, however, saying he is heartened by the high level of participation.
Smith has not seen signs of an organized boycott in the Decatur area.
Because the census is used to determine how much federal funding an area will receive, census workers are encouraging citizens to fill out the forms.
"We need that count," said Smith.
chris.essig@lee.net / 217-789-0865
http://www.thesouthern.com/news/article_0a5fd6a0-4b6b-11df-a353-001cc4c03286.html
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Meet the Unemployable Man
David Wessel at capital@wsj.com
The betting is that the Labor Department's Friday snapshot of the job market will show that employers added workers in April, perhaps even that the unemployment rate fell.
That would be good news, but not good enough. It's hard to exaggerate how bad the job market is. Here's one arresting fact: One of every five men 25 to 54 isn't working.
Even more alarming, the jobs that many of these men, or those like them, once had in construction, factories and offices aren't coming back. "A good guess…is that when the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working," Lawrence Summers, the president's economic adviser, said the other day.
This is not one of the many things that can be blamed on subprime lending, inept regulators or Goldman Sachs. "The Great Recession has reinforced prevailing labor market trends that were under way long before the recession," David Autor, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, observed in a recent paper commissioned by two Democratic-leaning think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project.
Demand for workers who haven't much education—which includes many men, particularly minority-group men—is waning. A shrinking fraction of them are working. Some are looking for work; some have given up. Some are collecting disability benefits or an early-retirement pension. Some are just idle. On average, surveys find, the unemployed in the U.S. spend 40 minutes a day looking for work and 3 hours and 20 minutes a day watching TV.
For 50 years, the fraction of men with jobs in what once were prime earning years has been trending down. Over the same decades, the share of women who work has been rising, a significant social change that lately has cushioned the blow of Dad's unemployment for many couples.
Women have suffered less in this recession. They were more likely to be in health care and other jobs that weren't hit as hard as construction and manufacturing. They are increasingly likely to have the education so often required to get or keep a good job these days.
That's good for their families. But will there be good-paying jobs in the future for prime-age men, particularly the ones who don't go to college?
Americans have worried for decades that the economy won't produce enough jobs. But the economy always provided. As farm jobs were eliminated by mechanization, factories hired more. As factories increased productivity and moved work offshore, more Americans got jobs in health care and other services. And the economists said to all those who had been worried about perennial, persistent unemployment: We told you so!
Yet nothing in the textbooks says that the supply and demand for workers will intersect at a wage that is socially acceptable. At the high end, demand for skilled workers and those who rely on their brains will return when the economy does. At the other end, jobs in restaurants, nursing homes and health clubs—the jobs that are hard to automate or outsource—will come back, too.
In the middle, there will be some jobs for workers without much education, for the plumbers, electricians and software technicians. But not enough to go around.
Men who in an earlier era would have been making good money on the assembly line are, and will be, working security or greeting at Wal-Mart, jobs that almost anyone can do and thus jobs that don't pay well.
If they're working at all. Today, 6.5 million workers have been out of work for six months or more, and that includes only those who are still looking for work. History suggests the longer they're unemployed, the less likely they are ever to work again. Faster economic growth would help a lot, but won't suffice.
One way to resist these market forces is to reduce the supply of workers who aren't in demand and increase the supply of workers who are. That is, educate more and better: Fix K-12 schools, improve worker-training programs, strengthen community colleges, give more aid to college students. All this is wise, but most of it will take a long time.
Another option is on the demand side: Force employers to be less efficient so they have to hire more, or limit imports of goods that threaten jobs of less educated, prime-wage men—solutions with unwelcome side effects.
The government, Mr. Summers said, can increase demand for labor in the short run. Spending more public money on infrastructure, he argued, will both strengthen the economy for the future and employ out-of-work construction workers.
A third option is surrender to market forces and tax the winners to subsidize the losers. Sending checks to idle men is unappealing, but the government could do more to supplement wages (or health insurance costs) for those who work at low wages.
Each approach has shortcomings. So does doing nothing. Sidelining a huge part of an entire generation of men would waste human potential, create economic misery for their families and fuel political discontent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/capital.html#articleTabs=article
The betting is that the Labor Department's Friday snapshot of the job market will show that employers added workers in April, perhaps even that the unemployment rate fell.
That would be good news, but not good enough. It's hard to exaggerate how bad the job market is. Here's one arresting fact: One of every five men 25 to 54 isn't working.
Even more alarming, the jobs that many of these men, or those like them, once had in construction, factories and offices aren't coming back. "A good guess…is that when the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working," Lawrence Summers, the president's economic adviser, said the other day.
This is not one of the many things that can be blamed on subprime lending, inept regulators or Goldman Sachs. "The Great Recession has reinforced prevailing labor market trends that were under way long before the recession," David Autor, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, observed in a recent paper commissioned by two Democratic-leaning think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project.
Demand for workers who haven't much education—which includes many men, particularly minority-group men—is waning. A shrinking fraction of them are working. Some are looking for work; some have given up. Some are collecting disability benefits or an early-retirement pension. Some are just idle. On average, surveys find, the unemployed in the U.S. spend 40 minutes a day looking for work and 3 hours and 20 minutes a day watching TV.
For 50 years, the fraction of men with jobs in what once were prime earning years has been trending down. Over the same decades, the share of women who work has been rising, a significant social change that lately has cushioned the blow of Dad's unemployment for many couples.
Women have suffered less in this recession. They were more likely to be in health care and other jobs that weren't hit as hard as construction and manufacturing. They are increasingly likely to have the education so often required to get or keep a good job these days.
That's good for their families. But will there be good-paying jobs in the future for prime-age men, particularly the ones who don't go to college?
Americans have worried for decades that the economy won't produce enough jobs. But the economy always provided. As farm jobs were eliminated by mechanization, factories hired more. As factories increased productivity and moved work offshore, more Americans got jobs in health care and other services. And the economists said to all those who had been worried about perennial, persistent unemployment: We told you so!
Yet nothing in the textbooks says that the supply and demand for workers will intersect at a wage that is socially acceptable. At the high end, demand for skilled workers and those who rely on their brains will return when the economy does. At the other end, jobs in restaurants, nursing homes and health clubs—the jobs that are hard to automate or outsource—will come back, too.
In the middle, there will be some jobs for workers without much education, for the plumbers, electricians and software technicians. But not enough to go around.
Men who in an earlier era would have been making good money on the assembly line are, and will be, working security or greeting at Wal-Mart, jobs that almost anyone can do and thus jobs that don't pay well.
If they're working at all. Today, 6.5 million workers have been out of work for six months or more, and that includes only those who are still looking for work. History suggests the longer they're unemployed, the less likely they are ever to work again. Faster economic growth would help a lot, but won't suffice.
One way to resist these market forces is to reduce the supply of workers who aren't in demand and increase the supply of workers who are. That is, educate more and better: Fix K-12 schools, improve worker-training programs, strengthen community colleges, give more aid to college students. All this is wise, but most of it will take a long time.
Another option is on the demand side: Force employers to be less efficient so they have to hire more, or limit imports of goods that threaten jobs of less educated, prime-wage men—solutions with unwelcome side effects.
The government, Mr. Summers said, can increase demand for labor in the short run. Spending more public money on infrastructure, he argued, will both strengthen the economy for the future and employ out-of-work construction workers.
A third option is surrender to market forces and tax the winners to subsidize the losers. Sending checks to idle men is unappealing, but the government could do more to supplement wages (or health insurance costs) for those who work at low wages.
Each approach has shortcomings. So does doing nothing. Sidelining a huge part of an entire generation of men would waste human potential, create economic misery for their families and fuel political discontent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/capital.html#articleTabs=article
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Illinois House rejects vouchers
CPS | Would have let 30,000 kids switch to private schools
May 6, 2010
BY DAVE McKINNEY AND STEVE CONTORNO Staff Reporters
SPRINGFIELD -- A bid to arm up to 30,000 students in the lowest-performing and most-overcrowded Chicago public schools with vouchers so they could transfer to private schools went down in flames Wednesday amid heavy opposition from teachers unions.
The legislation devised by Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) drew only 48 votes in the House, far fewer than the 60 votes necessary to pass what would have been the largest urban voucher program in the country.
"I've lost bills before. That's just part of life," said Rep. Kevin Joyce (D-Chicago), the bill's chief House sponsor. "But these kids had a great opportunity with some really strong leadership. Today, those kids lost out because the people that are a part of that system are afraid of one little change: giving kids an opportunity to go to a better school."
Opponents included the Chicago Teachers Union, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association.
Their legislative allies said allowing the best students to leave the lowest-achieving schools would only make a bad educational environment worse.
"We are attempting to destroy public education for some children. And when we do that, we deny all of them an opportunity to be the best they can be," said Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), who voted against the plan. "It's so unfair."
Joyce kept the voucher plan alive through a parliamentary maneuver, but it won't resurface during the remaining two scheduled days of the Legislature's spring session. Instead, Joyce said he may try to revive it after the fall elections.
In other legislative action, the Senate sent a revised plan to the House that would stop free mass-transit rides for middle- and upper-income senior citizens.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2241842,CST-NWS-leg06.article
May 6, 2010
BY DAVE McKINNEY AND STEVE CONTORNO Staff Reporters
SPRINGFIELD -- A bid to arm up to 30,000 students in the lowest-performing and most-overcrowded Chicago public schools with vouchers so they could transfer to private schools went down in flames Wednesday amid heavy opposition from teachers unions.
The legislation devised by Sen. James Meeks (D-Chicago) drew only 48 votes in the House, far fewer than the 60 votes necessary to pass what would have been the largest urban voucher program in the country.
"I've lost bills before. That's just part of life," said Rep. Kevin Joyce (D-Chicago), the bill's chief House sponsor. "But these kids had a great opportunity with some really strong leadership. Today, those kids lost out because the people that are a part of that system are afraid of one little change: giving kids an opportunity to go to a better school."
Opponents included the Chicago Teachers Union, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association.
Their legislative allies said allowing the best students to leave the lowest-achieving schools would only make a bad educational environment worse.
"We are attempting to destroy public education for some children. And when we do that, we deny all of them an opportunity to be the best they can be," said Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), who voted against the plan. "It's so unfair."
Joyce kept the voucher plan alive through a parliamentary maneuver, but it won't resurface during the remaining two scheduled days of the Legislature's spring session. Instead, Joyce said he may try to revive it after the fall elections.
In other legislative action, the Senate sent a revised plan to the House that would stop free mass-transit rides for middle- and upper-income senior citizens.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2241842,CST-NWS-leg06.article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)