Cal Thomas
Sarah Palin deserves an apology. When she said that the new health-care law would lead to "death panels" deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed.
Now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers -- The New York Times -- that she was right. Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration's real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives. These could include directives to forgo aggressive treatment that could extend their lives.
This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats deciding who is "fit" to live and who is not. The effect this might have on public opinion, which by a solid majority opposes Obamacare, is clear from an e-mail obtained by the Times. It is from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who sent it to people working with him on the issue. Oregon and Washington are the only states with assisted-suicide laws, a preview of what is to come at the federal level if this new regulation is allowed to stand. Blumenauer wrote in his November e-mail: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the 'death panel' myth."
Ah, but it's not a myth, and that's where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.
Doctors once swore an oath, which reads in part: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Did Dr. Berwick, a fan of rationed care and the British National Health Service, ever take that oath? If he did, it appears he no longer believes it.
Do you see where this leads? First the prohibition against abortion is removed and "doctors" now perform them. Then the assault on the infirm and elderly begins. Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don't measure up to constantly "evolving" government standards.
It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public as the ultimate benefit. The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens.
When life is seen as having ultimate value, individuals and their doctors can make decisions about treatment that are in the best interests of patients. But when government is looking to cut costs as the highest good and offers to pay doctors to tell patients during their annual visits that they can choose to end their lives rather than continue treatment, that is more than the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.
It can't happen here? Based on what standard? Yes it can happen in America, and it will if the new Republican class in Congress doesn't stop it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2010/12/30/she_told_us_so/page/full/
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Gitmo Is Not a Recruiting Tool for Terrorists
The president is wrong to claim that it is. In fact, al Qaeda and its affiliates rarely mention the prison..
By KARL ROVE
In his Dec. 22 news conference, President Barack Obama claimed that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was "probably the No. 1 recruitment tool" for al Qaeda and its affiliates. This is an escalation: Earlier this year he merely called it "a tremendous recruiting tool" for Islamic terrorists.
But the president is wrong to assign such importance to Gitmo and, by implication, to suggest it would be a major setback to al Qaeda were he to close it, as he promised but failed to do by the end of his first year in office. Shuttering the facility would not take the wind out of terrorism, in part because it is not, and never has been, its "No. 1 recruitment tool."
If it were, then al Qaeda leaders would emphasize it in their manifestos, statements and Internet postings, mentioning it early, frequently and at length. They don't.
Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reviewed 34 statements and interviews of top al Qaeda leadership since January 2009. Writing for the Weekly Standard, he reported only seven references to Guantanamo in just three public pronouncements.
In the same period, however, Mr. Joscelyn found top al Qaeda leaders mentioned Crusaders (their label for Western leaders and military) 322 times, Palestine 200 times, Gaza 131 times, Jews 129 times, Israel 98 times and Zionists 94 times. Al Qaeda leaders also talked more about Afghanistan (333 mentions), Pakistan (331), Iraq (157), Somalia (67), Yemen (18) and even Chechnya (15) than they did about Guantanamo.
New York Daily News reporter James Gordon Meek obtained similar results last January. U.S. government officials told him that al Qaeda and its affiliates "griped" about Guantanamo in only 58 out of hundreds of public statements and interviews between 2003 and 2009.
Far more numerous and more extensive in these documents are complaints about the existence of Israel, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Western notions of democracy and freedom, Western culture, and the fact that al Qaeda's leaders see America as the obstacle to their achieving a restoration of the Golden Age of Islam.
Take Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's Sept. 15, 2010, statement entitled "Nine Years After the Start of the Crusader Campaign." He is one of al Qaeda's top strategists, and his statement was meant to draw attention, being released close to the anniversary of 9/11. Of its 12 pages, nearly four are devoted to Pakistan, two to the conflict in Afghanistan, nearly two to Egypt, two to the plight of the Palestinians, and two to al Qaeda's prospects for victory. Gitmo receives one mention—in a single sentence about how the Quran was "humiliated" in "Guantanamo, Iraq and elsewhere."
The lesson is obvious: Al Qaeda will invent any excuses to justify its war on America and the West. If one excuse is no longer salient, another pops up. Al Qaeda's rhetoric also moves in cycles. When things were going badly for the United States, as they were in Iraq in 2006 or Afghanistan in late 2007 and early 2008, al Qaeda's chieftains emphasized their growing chances for defeating America.
It is the combination of a fierce, unquenchable hatred for the U.S. and a profound sense of grievance against the modern world that helps Islamists to draw recruits—not the presence of the brig at Guantanamo Bay.
Perhaps while he is on his Hawaiian vacation, the president might consider spending a few hours with a slim volume entitled "Messages to the World," a collection of the writings of Osama bin Laden. He would discover Guantanamo Bay has only a tactical utility, not a strategic importance, in al Qaeda's ideology.
In addition, what would replace detention in a secure facility—criminal trials in civilian courtrooms—would provide al Qaeda with the biggest and most effective venue possible to inflame passions in the Islamic world.
Public trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, would turn him into a martyr, provide al Qaeda an international stage on which to condemn the West, and draw on the resentment and dissatisfaction in the Muslim world to motivate a new generation of terrorists.
If undermining al Qaeda's recruitment efforts is the goal, then our commander in chief's wisest course of action is to keep Guantanamo Bay open.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576049442686515496.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
By KARL ROVE
In his Dec. 22 news conference, President Barack Obama claimed that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was "probably the No. 1 recruitment tool" for al Qaeda and its affiliates. This is an escalation: Earlier this year he merely called it "a tremendous recruiting tool" for Islamic terrorists.
But the president is wrong to assign such importance to Gitmo and, by implication, to suggest it would be a major setback to al Qaeda were he to close it, as he promised but failed to do by the end of his first year in office. Shuttering the facility would not take the wind out of terrorism, in part because it is not, and never has been, its "No. 1 recruitment tool."
If it were, then al Qaeda leaders would emphasize it in their manifestos, statements and Internet postings, mentioning it early, frequently and at length. They don't.
Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reviewed 34 statements and interviews of top al Qaeda leadership since January 2009. Writing for the Weekly Standard, he reported only seven references to Guantanamo in just three public pronouncements.
In the same period, however, Mr. Joscelyn found top al Qaeda leaders mentioned Crusaders (their label for Western leaders and military) 322 times, Palestine 200 times, Gaza 131 times, Jews 129 times, Israel 98 times and Zionists 94 times. Al Qaeda leaders also talked more about Afghanistan (333 mentions), Pakistan (331), Iraq (157), Somalia (67), Yemen (18) and even Chechnya (15) than they did about Guantanamo.
New York Daily News reporter James Gordon Meek obtained similar results last January. U.S. government officials told him that al Qaeda and its affiliates "griped" about Guantanamo in only 58 out of hundreds of public statements and interviews between 2003 and 2009.
Far more numerous and more extensive in these documents are complaints about the existence of Israel, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Western notions of democracy and freedom, Western culture, and the fact that al Qaeda's leaders see America as the obstacle to their achieving a restoration of the Golden Age of Islam.
Take Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's Sept. 15, 2010, statement entitled "Nine Years After the Start of the Crusader Campaign." He is one of al Qaeda's top strategists, and his statement was meant to draw attention, being released close to the anniversary of 9/11. Of its 12 pages, nearly four are devoted to Pakistan, two to the conflict in Afghanistan, nearly two to Egypt, two to the plight of the Palestinians, and two to al Qaeda's prospects for victory. Gitmo receives one mention—in a single sentence about how the Quran was "humiliated" in "Guantanamo, Iraq and elsewhere."
The lesson is obvious: Al Qaeda will invent any excuses to justify its war on America and the West. If one excuse is no longer salient, another pops up. Al Qaeda's rhetoric also moves in cycles. When things were going badly for the United States, as they were in Iraq in 2006 or Afghanistan in late 2007 and early 2008, al Qaeda's chieftains emphasized their growing chances for defeating America.
It is the combination of a fierce, unquenchable hatred for the U.S. and a profound sense of grievance against the modern world that helps Islamists to draw recruits—not the presence of the brig at Guantanamo Bay.
Perhaps while he is on his Hawaiian vacation, the president might consider spending a few hours with a slim volume entitled "Messages to the World," a collection of the writings of Osama bin Laden. He would discover Guantanamo Bay has only a tactical utility, not a strategic importance, in al Qaeda's ideology.
In addition, what would replace detention in a secure facility—criminal trials in civilian courtrooms—would provide al Qaeda with the biggest and most effective venue possible to inflame passions in the Islamic world.
Public trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, would turn him into a martyr, provide al Qaeda an international stage on which to condemn the West, and draw on the resentment and dissatisfaction in the Muslim world to motivate a new generation of terrorists.
If undermining al Qaeda's recruitment efforts is the goal, then our commander in chief's wisest course of action is to keep Guantanamo Bay open.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576049442686515496.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
Lame Duck has to go
Jim Leahy
What would have happen if in 2006, in a lame duck session of congress, the outgoing GOP majority repealed Social Security as we know it by mandating personal private accounts? Then the next day the Department of Education was closed down? Then the next day the Department of Commerce was closed? And as a topper the congress put a flat tax in place? All promises made to voters by Republican candidates and legitimate policy positions for conservative voters.
Do you think the Main Stream Media (MSM) would have been talking of George W Bush as the Come Back Kid? Would the MSM be happy that W had lived up to campaign promises? Would the MSM call it “W’s rebound”? All of the above have been done this week referencing President Obama and the Lame Duck Congress actions. You bet your behinds they wouldn’t! There would have been more calls for impeachment than there were for the (still in place) Patriot act!
There would have been Headlines proclaiming that the bills have been passed by a congress that is at the lowest polling level since polling was started (Until this congress). There would have been calls for abolishment of Lame Duck Congress’s for ever. There would have been calls for the incoming congress to repeal everything the Lame Duck Congress passed in total and demands for investigations by the new congress bypassing the Department of Justice. In the MSM view it would have been the beginning of the end of our democracy. But the opposite has been the case for this Congress and the MSM.
What the hell is going on? Didn’t we just have an election? Didn’t the American people just give these people the boot? There was a historic election that gave the Republicans one of the largest land slide victories in the history of the country. It went from coast to coast from Municipal offices to Governors, State Legislatures, The House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Only 6 weeks ago there was this huge wave that was supposed to change everything. And what did we get? We got liberalism on steroids! None of this could have been passed by a Congress wanting reelection; proven by the fact that none of it passed when the liberals ran every part of government, with a veto proof majority in the Senate, until they had nothing to lose.
Let’s look at what has happened since November 2nd 2010. The Feds are now in charge of what our kids eat (FDA), they have taken over the internet (FCC), and they have implemented a policy of searching people at the airports that a decade ago would have caused a fury (TSA). They have now mandated that homosexuality be accepted by people even if its against their religion.They are giving up our National Security advantage by negating our Missile defense system in the START Treaty with the Russians. They have also caused the price of oil to skyrocket by killing our offshore oil industry. And they have made the Unemployment System into a new unending welfare program that has nothing to do with insurance anymore. And all we get is cheers from our self proclaimed protectors in the MSM.
Until last week, I would have said “That’s why the new conservative media is growing” but now I’m not as optimistic that the new media can or will be able to keep the government in check. Where are all of the civil libertarians right and left who were everywhere during the Bush administration? Where are the Tea Party’s? Why the different reactions?
Can or will this be reversed by the new Congress? Some things like the START Treaty can’t be. Will the new members who claim to be Tea Party members remember why they were elected? Can we ever get our liberties that have been lost back? If history is any illustration, sadly, no. What can we do to make sure this never happens again?
I think that future Lame Duck Congresses should be severely limited on what they can pass. Maybe if congress doesn’t finish its work in the future; an automatic continuing resolution to keep the government running will go into place until the newly elected congress is sworn in. If there is an emergency the new Congress could be seated a month early so we can be sure to have people who are accountable to the electorate making these important votes. The process we have now leaves room for abuse by a failed leadership to pass legislation without any checks and balances. One thing is for sure this can’t be allowed to happen again.
What would have happen if in 2006, in a lame duck session of congress, the outgoing GOP majority repealed Social Security as we know it by mandating personal private accounts? Then the next day the Department of Education was closed down? Then the next day the Department of Commerce was closed? And as a topper the congress put a flat tax in place? All promises made to voters by Republican candidates and legitimate policy positions for conservative voters.
Do you think the Main Stream Media (MSM) would have been talking of George W Bush as the Come Back Kid? Would the MSM be happy that W had lived up to campaign promises? Would the MSM call it “W’s rebound”? All of the above have been done this week referencing President Obama and the Lame Duck Congress actions. You bet your behinds they wouldn’t! There would have been more calls for impeachment than there were for the (still in place) Patriot act!
There would have been Headlines proclaiming that the bills have been passed by a congress that is at the lowest polling level since polling was started (Until this congress). There would have been calls for abolishment of Lame Duck Congress’s for ever. There would have been calls for the incoming congress to repeal everything the Lame Duck Congress passed in total and demands for investigations by the new congress bypassing the Department of Justice. In the MSM view it would have been the beginning of the end of our democracy. But the opposite has been the case for this Congress and the MSM.
What the hell is going on? Didn’t we just have an election? Didn’t the American people just give these people the boot? There was a historic election that gave the Republicans one of the largest land slide victories in the history of the country. It went from coast to coast from Municipal offices to Governors, State Legislatures, The House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Only 6 weeks ago there was this huge wave that was supposed to change everything. And what did we get? We got liberalism on steroids! None of this could have been passed by a Congress wanting reelection; proven by the fact that none of it passed when the liberals ran every part of government, with a veto proof majority in the Senate, until they had nothing to lose.
Let’s look at what has happened since November 2nd 2010. The Feds are now in charge of what our kids eat (FDA), they have taken over the internet (FCC), and they have implemented a policy of searching people at the airports that a decade ago would have caused a fury (TSA). They have now mandated that homosexuality be accepted by people even if its against their religion.They are giving up our National Security advantage by negating our Missile defense system in the START Treaty with the Russians. They have also caused the price of oil to skyrocket by killing our offshore oil industry. And they have made the Unemployment System into a new unending welfare program that has nothing to do with insurance anymore. And all we get is cheers from our self proclaimed protectors in the MSM.
Until last week, I would have said “That’s why the new conservative media is growing” but now I’m not as optimistic that the new media can or will be able to keep the government in check. Where are all of the civil libertarians right and left who were everywhere during the Bush administration? Where are the Tea Party’s? Why the different reactions?
Can or will this be reversed by the new Congress? Some things like the START Treaty can’t be. Will the new members who claim to be Tea Party members remember why they were elected? Can we ever get our liberties that have been lost back? If history is any illustration, sadly, no. What can we do to make sure this never happens again?
I think that future Lame Duck Congresses should be severely limited on what they can pass. Maybe if congress doesn’t finish its work in the future; an automatic continuing resolution to keep the government running will go into place until the newly elected congress is sworn in. If there is an emergency the new Congress could be seated a month early so we can be sure to have people who are accountable to the electorate making these important votes. The process we have now leaves room for abuse by a failed leadership to pass legislation without any checks and balances. One thing is for sure this can’t be allowed to happen again.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Berlin sees most snow in December since 1900s
BERLIN, Dec. 28 (Xinhua) -- German capital Berlin has experienced more snow this month than any other December of past 110 years, as more bitter cold is expected in the country's east, the German Weather Service (DWD) said Tuesday.
Berlin and the surrounding state of Brandenburg have never seen such a thick snow in December for more than a century, as some places received 40 centimeters of snow since Dec. 1, the weather agency said.
Snow embraced the capital city, which has a population of 3.4 million people, on this year's Christmas, while the last white Christmas that Berliners remembered was in 2001, with only 10 centimeters of snow on the ground.
Heavy snowfalls will continue in parts of Germany in the coming days. The DWD said temperatures would plummet to minus 20 degrees Celsius in the east this week, or even colder. Fresh snowfalls may set new depth records in some places. However, temperatures in the west are more modest, from minus two to two degrees on Wednesday.
Local police warned that people, especially the homeless, would freeze to death on such freezing cold nights in the country's east, since a frozen 16-year-old girl in Lower Saxony was found dead in the open air on Saturday night.
Due to the large-scale snowfall, rail transports and flights may encounter delays or cancellations, and long traffic jams are expected on roads.
Local media said about 2,100 snow-clearers would work overnight to remove snow from roads in the city as they extended night shifts and bring forward early ones.
Editor: Xiong Tong
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-12/29/c_13668400.htm
Berlin and the surrounding state of Brandenburg have never seen such a thick snow in December for more than a century, as some places received 40 centimeters of snow since Dec. 1, the weather agency said.
Snow embraced the capital city, which has a population of 3.4 million people, on this year's Christmas, while the last white Christmas that Berliners remembered was in 2001, with only 10 centimeters of snow on the ground.
Heavy snowfalls will continue in parts of Germany in the coming days. The DWD said temperatures would plummet to minus 20 degrees Celsius in the east this week, or even colder. Fresh snowfalls may set new depth records in some places. However, temperatures in the west are more modest, from minus two to two degrees on Wednesday.
Local police warned that people, especially the homeless, would freeze to death on such freezing cold nights in the country's east, since a frozen 16-year-old girl in Lower Saxony was found dead in the open air on Saturday night.
Due to the large-scale snowfall, rail transports and flights may encounter delays or cancellations, and long traffic jams are expected on roads.
Local media said about 2,100 snow-clearers would work overnight to remove snow from roads in the city as they extended night shifts and bring forward early ones.
Editor: Xiong Tong
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-12/29/c_13668400.htm
White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight
By Kimberly Schwandt
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.
On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.
"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs," said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Dan Howells of Greenpeace disagrees.
"I was looking at some advertisements from the 1970s where they were making the very same arguments about stopping acid rain. And that didn't turn out to be a job-killer. In fact, it created jobs in some places," said Howells, the environmental group's deputy campaign director. "The more we keep making these decades-old arguments, the more we won't be creating the jobs of the future and working towards the new energy economy."
The administration says it has the power to issue the regulation under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that directed the agency to make a determination on whether carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming, was a hazard to human health.
Rep Fred Upton, R-Mich., the incoming House Energy Committee Chairman, penned an op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal along with Americans for Prosperity president Tim Phillips, and charged that Congress should act.
"The best solution is for Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright. If Democrats refuse to join Republicans in doing so, then they should at least join a sensible bipartisan compromise to mandate that the EPA delay its regulations until the courts complete their examination of the agency's endangerment finding and proposed rules," the op-ed read in part.
With Republicans taking control in the House, the GOP will be in a better position to take on some of these policies, and members are promising a fight if the Obama White House moves forward with any carbon crackdown. There was bipartisan support for a bill proposed this year that would have stripped the EPA of the power to set carbon emissions limits. GOP lawmakers could bring the measure back.
The White House seems prepared for a fight.
The administration recently circulated a memo from the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren to the heads of all federal departments and agencies calling for "a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency."
Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/28/white-house-plans-push-global-warming-policy-gop-vows-fight/
HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.
On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.
"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs," said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Dan Howells of Greenpeace disagrees.
"I was looking at some advertisements from the 1970s where they were making the very same arguments about stopping acid rain. And that didn't turn out to be a job-killer. In fact, it created jobs in some places," said Howells, the environmental group's deputy campaign director. "The more we keep making these decades-old arguments, the more we won't be creating the jobs of the future and working towards the new energy economy."
The administration says it has the power to issue the regulation under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that directed the agency to make a determination on whether carbon dioxide, blamed for global warming, was a hazard to human health.
Rep Fred Upton, R-Mich., the incoming House Energy Committee Chairman, penned an op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal along with Americans for Prosperity president Tim Phillips, and charged that Congress should act.
"The best solution is for Congress to overturn the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations outright. If Democrats refuse to join Republicans in doing so, then they should at least join a sensible bipartisan compromise to mandate that the EPA delay its regulations until the courts complete their examination of the agency's endangerment finding and proposed rules," the op-ed read in part.
With Republicans taking control in the House, the GOP will be in a better position to take on some of these policies, and members are promising a fight if the Obama White House moves forward with any carbon crackdown. There was bipartisan support for a bill proposed this year that would have stripped the EPA of the power to set carbon emissions limits. GOP lawmakers could bring the measure back.
The White House seems prepared for a fight.
The administration recently circulated a memo from the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren to the heads of all federal departments and agencies calling for "a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency."
Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/28/white-house-plans-push-global-warming-policy-gop-vows-fight/
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Special forces wary of 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal
By Rowan Scarborough
-
The Washington Times
Special-operations troops think the elite force is facing difficulties by accepting open gays into one of the military's more politically conservative communities.
Interviews with current and former commandos reveal that to maintain unit cohesion of Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs or other elite covert warriors, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command need to make a special effort to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know the rules of conduct.
"I'm unsure how the Defense Department will define 'openly gay,' " said one Green Beret officer. "I can envision all sorts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, class after class, accusations flying, and more strains on our soldiers. We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to establish the new rules of the road and to implement them."
Of particular interest is how Navy SEALs, the macho sea, air and land commandos who put great emphasis on physical prowess, will accept gays.
"If an open gay does his job, I think he'll be accepted," said retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, a former Navy SEAL. At retirement in 1992, Adm. Worthington commanded the Naval Special Warfare Command, the unit that mints new SEALs in a demanding qualification process.
"I don't think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training," Adm. Worthington said.
"My opinion is that they're probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that."
Gay-advocacy groups said they know of no research that estimates the percentage of gays in support or desk jobs, compared with close-knit combat occupations, such as special operations and infantry.
Integration in what are called special-operations forces (SOF) is particularly important in the war on terrorism. Covert units are active in Afghanistan hunting down insurgents. Troops are expected to bond closely in small units and survive in harsh forward camps.
Special Operations Command oversees about 60,000 troops, including active and reserves. Of those, about 19,000 are combatants, what the command calls operators
"It would be premature for me to speculate on how USSOCOM will implement the new policy," spokesman Kenneth McGraw said.
In March, Adm. Eric Olson, who heads Special Operations Command, was asked about the ban during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"I believe the time has come to consider a change to 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Adm. Olson said. "But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that should include the conduct of the review that [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those policies as well."
The Pentagon has begun a process expected to last several months to usher in open gays, with the first step the writing of regulations and education program to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know what is expected of them.
"Put the word out," said Adm. Worthington. "If you hit on somebody, you're going to get in a fistfight. You may not like it. I just think if they maintain their composure, they don't bother anybody." The Washington Times interviewed three Army Green Berets who deployed to Afghanistan. They asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the press.
"Our folks tend to be more mature, so that may make it easier," said one officer, who supported repeal. "But, many parts of the SOF community are very white and conservative. That already hurts minority recruitment and will inevitably have an adverse affect on outwardly gay male soldiers." A 1999 Rand study found that "blacks are particularly underrepresented [in SOF] when compared with their presence in the source populations."
The Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel is leading the creation of new open-gay regulations.
Another Green Beret officer said he fears Pentagon bureaucrats are so removed from barracks life they will not take privacy into account.
"It is such a complicated issue, and the military itself doesn't seem to realize what it may be in for in the coming years," the officer said.
"Take the issue of showers. Is a soldier wrong for not wanting to shower with a gay soldier?" he asked "The definition of 'coed' needs to be defined, and it is not adequately covered by existing regulations. I think there will be very interesting lawsuits in the future raised by conservative soldiers as a backlash."
The first Green Beret commando said the military does not even know how many gays are in the active force, making it difficult to target education programs. "So is it worth the strains, is it worth the cost, especially at a period in time when combat soldiers are indeed stressed and the economy is in bad shape?" the officer said.
"My rhetorical question is, 'Why couldn't we have waited until a period of relative peace to implement these changes? That's what we did with racial integration; that's what we did to go to an all-volunteer force."
A former ground intelligence officer who worked with some of the most secret special-operations warriors told The Times: "I believe it will be less of an issue in SOF units where operators are typically more intelligent out-of-the-box thinkers who have gone through an extremely challenging bonding process together."
The Pentagon working group set up to recommend how - not whether - to integrate open gays found the most resistance among Marine Corps and Army combat personnel - the ones who deploy in small units and intimate surroundings.
More than 60 percent of Marines, for example, said avowed gays will hurt their unit's effectiveness. The survey did not specifically query special operators.
The working group's report contained this observation: "These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter - a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.
"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "
Said Adm. Worthington: "It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble. That becomes a good order and discipline sort of thing. The services are going to have to tighten up on regulations."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/special-forces-wary-of-dont-ask-repeal/?page=3
-
The Washington Times
Special-operations troops think the elite force is facing difficulties by accepting open gays into one of the military's more politically conservative communities.
Interviews with current and former commandos reveal that to maintain unit cohesion of Army Green Berets, Navy SEALs or other elite covert warriors, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command need to make a special effort to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know the rules of conduct.
"I'm unsure how the Defense Department will define 'openly gay,' " said one Green Beret officer. "I can envision all sorts of new regulations or changes to existing ones, class after class, accusations flying, and more strains on our soldiers. We will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, to establish the new rules of the road and to implement them."
Of particular interest is how Navy SEALs, the macho sea, air and land commandos who put great emphasis on physical prowess, will accept gays.
"If an open gay does his job, I think he'll be accepted," said retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, a former Navy SEAL. At retirement in 1992, Adm. Worthington commanded the Naval Special Warfare Command, the unit that mints new SEALs in a demanding qualification process.
"I don't think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training," Adm. Worthington said.
"My opinion is that they're probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that."
Gay-advocacy groups said they know of no research that estimates the percentage of gays in support or desk jobs, compared with close-knit combat occupations, such as special operations and infantry.
Integration in what are called special-operations forces (SOF) is particularly important in the war on terrorism. Covert units are active in Afghanistan hunting down insurgents. Troops are expected to bond closely in small units and survive in harsh forward camps.
Special Operations Command oversees about 60,000 troops, including active and reserves. Of those, about 19,000 are combatants, what the command calls operators
"It would be premature for me to speculate on how USSOCOM will implement the new policy," spokesman Kenneth McGraw said.
In March, Adm. Eric Olson, who heads Special Operations Command, was asked about the ban during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"I believe the time has come to consider a change to 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Adm. Olson said. "But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that should include the conduct of the review that [Defense] Secretary [Robert M.] Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on a change in the policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those policies as well."
The Pentagon has begun a process expected to last several months to usher in open gays, with the first step the writing of regulations and education program to ensure both homosexuals and heterosexuals know what is expected of them.
"Put the word out," said Adm. Worthington. "If you hit on somebody, you're going to get in a fistfight. You may not like it. I just think if they maintain their composure, they don't bother anybody." The Washington Times interviewed three Army Green Berets who deployed to Afghanistan. They asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak to the press.
"Our folks tend to be more mature, so that may make it easier," said one officer, who supported repeal. "But, many parts of the SOF community are very white and conservative. That already hurts minority recruitment and will inevitably have an adverse affect on outwardly gay male soldiers." A 1999 Rand study found that "blacks are particularly underrepresented [in SOF] when compared with their presence in the source populations."
The Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel is leading the creation of new open-gay regulations.
Another Green Beret officer said he fears Pentagon bureaucrats are so removed from barracks life they will not take privacy into account.
"It is such a complicated issue, and the military itself doesn't seem to realize what it may be in for in the coming years," the officer said.
"Take the issue of showers. Is a soldier wrong for not wanting to shower with a gay soldier?" he asked "The definition of 'coed' needs to be defined, and it is not adequately covered by existing regulations. I think there will be very interesting lawsuits in the future raised by conservative soldiers as a backlash."
The first Green Beret commando said the military does not even know how many gays are in the active force, making it difficult to target education programs. "So is it worth the strains, is it worth the cost, especially at a period in time when combat soldiers are indeed stressed and the economy is in bad shape?" the officer said.
"My rhetorical question is, 'Why couldn't we have waited until a period of relative peace to implement these changes? That's what we did with racial integration; that's what we did to go to an all-volunteer force."
A former ground intelligence officer who worked with some of the most secret special-operations warriors told The Times: "I believe it will be less of an issue in SOF units where operators are typically more intelligent out-of-the-box thinkers who have gone through an extremely challenging bonding process together."
The Pentagon working group set up to recommend how - not whether - to integrate open gays found the most resistance among Marine Corps and Army combat personnel - the ones who deploy in small units and intimate surroundings.
More than 60 percent of Marines, for example, said avowed gays will hurt their unit's effectiveness. The survey did not specifically query special operators.
The working group's report contained this observation: "These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter - a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.
"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "
Said Adm. Worthington: "It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble. That becomes a good order and discipline sort of thing. The services are going to have to tighten up on regulations."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/special-forces-wary-of-dont-ask-repeal/?page=3
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
60 min-Another humiliation Tribune editorial
Illinois lawmakers, you need to see this even as Gov. Pat Quinn pushes you to approve another $4 billion in taxpayer debt for this state's pension system: Go to cbsnews.com and, at the top of the page, click on "60 Minutes." See the photo of the sleek Illinois State Police cruiser? Feeling a little home-state pride? Don't. Instead, invest 13 minutes and 50 seconds in a segment from Sunday's show, "State Budgets: Day of Reckoning." It's one more humiliation for mismanaged state governments. Pay attention to the part that starts, "And nowhere has the reckoning been as bad as it is in Illinois …"
Yes, there's Comptroller Dan Hynes, awash in $6 billion in bills he can't pay: "The first words out of my mouth are usually an apology." There's criticism of borrowing. And reckless spending. And costly benefits for public employees. And budget tricks to avoid facing reality.
Why, you'll think "60 Minutes" is channeling the last few years of Tribune editorials. Then go to Springfield in January and tell Quinn, "No, we are not borrowing $4 billion more. We're cutting spending and pensions." Tell Quinn about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's warning to public employee unions. Condensed: If you don't partner with me on fixing this pension system, you won't have pensions.
Do watch this, legislators, including the part about you:
"The most alarming thing about the state issue is the level of complacency," Meredith Whitney, one of the most respected financial analysts on Wall Street and one of the most influential women in American business, told correspondent Steve Kroft. …
Yes, there's Comptroller Dan Hynes, awash in $6 billion in bills he can't pay: "The first words out of my mouth are usually an apology." There's criticism of borrowing. And reckless spending. And costly benefits for public employees. And budget tricks to avoid facing reality.
Why, you'll think "60 Minutes" is channeling the last few years of Tribune editorials. Then go to Springfield in January and tell Quinn, "No, we are not borrowing $4 billion more. We're cutting spending and pensions." Tell Quinn about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's warning to public employee unions. Condensed: If you don't partner with me on fixing this pension system, you won't have pensions.
Do watch this, legislators, including the part about you:
"The most alarming thing about the state issue is the level of complacency," Meredith Whitney, one of the most respected financial analysts on Wall Street and one of the most influential women in American business, told correspondent Steve Kroft. …
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Kirk stabs Vets in the back supports DADT repeal
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate set the stage for passage Saturday of legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops, and President Barack Obama said it was "time to close this chapter in our history"
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
A 63-33 test vote — 60 votes were need to advance the measure — earlier Saturday paved the way for passage, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a final vote would come at 3 p.m. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week, so Senate approval would send the measure to the White House.
Even after the measure were to become law, the policy change wouldn't go into effect right away. Obama and his military advisers would have certify that the change wouldn't hurt the ability of troops to fight, and there would also be a 60-day waiting period. Some have predicted the process could take as long as a year before Bill Clinton-era policy is repealed.
With an end to the ban, "no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay," Obama said in a statement. "And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love."
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for Obama, who made repeal of the policy a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,'" said Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. Speaking on the Senate floor minutes before the test vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party in favor of repeal. Republicans supporting the bill were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the only Democrat to oppose repeal, did not vote.
The GOP lawmakers swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Obama said the policy "undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend." He also said "we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness."
"It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed," he added.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
___
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
A 63-33 test vote — 60 votes were need to advance the measure — earlier Saturday paved the way for passage, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a final vote would come at 3 p.m. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week, so Senate approval would send the measure to the White House.
Even after the measure were to become law, the policy change wouldn't go into effect right away. Obama and his military advisers would have certify that the change wouldn't hurt the ability of troops to fight, and there would also be a 60-day waiting period. Some have predicted the process could take as long as a year before Bill Clinton-era policy is repealed.
With an end to the ban, "no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay," Obama said in a statement. "And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love."
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for Obama, who made repeal of the policy a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
"As Barry Goldwater said, 'You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,'" said Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Sen. John McCain, Obama's GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. Speaking on the Senate floor minutes before the test vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn't have the votes to stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
"They will do what is asked of them," McCain said of service members. "But don't think there won't be a great cost."
In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party in favor of repeal. Republicans supporting the bill were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the only Democrat to oppose repeal, did not vote.
The GOP lawmakers swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Obama said the policy "undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend." He also said "we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness."
"It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed," he added.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the "defining civil rights initiative of this decade."
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
"This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn't think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units' ability to fight.
The Pentagon's uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
"I don't want to lose any Marines to the distraction," he told reporters this week. "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction."
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units' morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
___
Friday, December 17, 2010
Democrat seeks to force climate rule vote
By DARREN GOODE
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is pressing forward on his drive to vote this month on his plan to delay Obama administration climate regulations for two years, threatening to go directly to the Senate floor and force a vote to include it in a catch-all spending bill.
Rockefeller has told Senate leadership “that he will insist on a vote” on his measure to block the Environmental Protection Agency global warming rules set to take effect next month.
“If left with no other option, Senator Rockefeller will seek to suspend the rules on the Omnibus Appropriations bill to bring up his legislation,” his office said in a statement. Such a maneuver would require 67 votes, which he is unlikely to get.
A POLITICO analysis shows at least 56 senators would likely support Rockefeller’s amendment.
Rockefeller has been trying for months to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule a vote on his amendment. The West Virginia Democrat has said he would hold Reid to a promise he gave Rockefeller to hold a vote this year.
"The time has come for us to make a decision on the energy future of our country," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement. "While there are still ongoing discussions about how Congress should proceed, I want to make it clear that I intend to get a vote this year on my EPA-suspension legislation. I know there is bipartisan support for this legislation, and if necessary, I will seek to suspend the rules and bring this up for a vote. This is too important for us to delay any further."
But holding a vote on the two-year delay could be an embarrassing symbolic rebuke to the Obama administration. Rockefeller’s plan has no realistic shot of becoming law even if it passes the Senate, given the lack of desire by House Democratic leaders to take it up and a White House veto threat.
Rockefeller’s plan may earn more traction in the next Congress, with Republicans controlling the House and narrowing the Democratic majority in the Senate.
Reid’s office did not immediately respond for comment.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46508.html#ixzz18ONTsF19
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is pressing forward on his drive to vote this month on his plan to delay Obama administration climate regulations for two years, threatening to go directly to the Senate floor and force a vote to include it in a catch-all spending bill.
Rockefeller has told Senate leadership “that he will insist on a vote” on his measure to block the Environmental Protection Agency global warming rules set to take effect next month.
“If left with no other option, Senator Rockefeller will seek to suspend the rules on the Omnibus Appropriations bill to bring up his legislation,” his office said in a statement. Such a maneuver would require 67 votes, which he is unlikely to get.
A POLITICO analysis shows at least 56 senators would likely support Rockefeller’s amendment.
Rockefeller has been trying for months to get Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule a vote on his amendment. The West Virginia Democrat has said he would hold Reid to a promise he gave Rockefeller to hold a vote this year.
"The time has come for us to make a decision on the energy future of our country," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement. "While there are still ongoing discussions about how Congress should proceed, I want to make it clear that I intend to get a vote this year on my EPA-suspension legislation. I know there is bipartisan support for this legislation, and if necessary, I will seek to suspend the rules and bring this up for a vote. This is too important for us to delay any further."
But holding a vote on the two-year delay could be an embarrassing symbolic rebuke to the Obama administration. Rockefeller’s plan has no realistic shot of becoming law even if it passes the Senate, given the lack of desire by House Democratic leaders to take it up and a White House veto threat.
Rockefeller’s plan may earn more traction in the next Congress, with Republicans controlling the House and narrowing the Democratic majority in the Senate.
Reid’s office did not immediately respond for comment.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46508.html#ixzz18ONTsF19
House passes temporary extension of Bush-era tax cuts, 277-148
By Russell Berman and Mike Lillis
The House gave final approval late on Thursday night to a temporary extension of the George W. Bush-era tax rates, delivering a significant but politically bruising victory to President Obama.
The $858 billion legislation now heads to the president’s desk for his signature. It extends the Bush tax cuts across the board for two years, slashes the employee payroll tax by 2 percent for one year, renews the estate tax and extends unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months.
The vote was 277-148, and the bill gained a majority of both Democrats and Republicans despite complaints from each party’s political base. The legislation deepened divisions in the Democratic ranks and burst open festering tensions between House Democrats and the White House.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had herded her divided caucus through the contentious process, said afterward she was pleased with the outcome despite her reservations about the bill.
Asked whether the emotional tax-cut vote had damaged the morale of the Democrats as the 111th Congress evolves into the 112th, Pelosi downplayed any lingering rancor.
"They're glad this is behind us, and they're ready to go forward," Pelosi told The Hill after the vote. "They're ready for the fight."
In the end, only one member of the House Democratic leadership, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), supported the final bill. Pelosi did not vote, and Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), John Larson (D-Conn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) all opposed the legislation.
During an early-afternoon vote on an unrelated matter, No. 2-ranking GOP Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.) and his Democratic counterpart, Hoyer, huddled in the back of the chamber.
According to a staffer familiar with the five-minute confab, Cantor asked Hoyer if the Democratic leader needed GOP votes to support the procedural vote on a rule governing debate of the tax package. Even though Democrats pulled the rule vote because they feared losing that effort, Hoyer declined Cantor’s help.
The outreach by Republicans was one of the ways in which GOP leaders ramped up their whip effort while their Democratic counterparts appeared to implode as a caucus.
In all, 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted against the deal, including conservative stalwarts Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Citing jobless benefits not paid for and an extension of the tax cuts set to expire in two years, during the next political season, those members felt they could get a better deal out of President Obama after they take power in a little under three weeks.
But Cantor and Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made a dogged effort to rally support for the negotiated package that would ensure “certainty” in the near future.
Minutes before the final vote, the House turned aside a Democratic amendment to raise the estate tax provision in the bill. Incorporating that change would have sent the bill back to the Senate and faced certain Republican opposition there.
The president argued the deal was the best he could get from Republicans who refused to budge on extending tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans, which Democrats wanted to end. The action by Congress prevents a broad tax increase from taking effect when the current rates expire at the end of the year.
The last votes Thursday capped a fractious three-week debate after Obama abandoned his Democratic allies in the House to cut a deal with Senate Republicans. House Democrats revolted over the pact, decrying the president for capitulating on one of his party’s signature domestic priorities: ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
“This basically concedes the argument to the supply-side Republican failed economic policies,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said.
Other Democrats denounced the bill for exploding an already soaring federal budget deficit. “Wake up and listen to the sirens,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said on the House floor. “I can’t believe you talk about this bill as fiscal sanity. It’s fiscal insanity.”
The House Democratic Caucus held a non-binding vote to reject the Obama-GOP deal a week ago, but within days the Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill and Pelosi moved ahead with a vote.
House liberals made one last stand on Thursday, forcing the Speaker to pull the tax bill from the floor for several hours because of objections to the amendment process.
While the Democratic leadership decided to allow one attempt to amend the Republican-favored estate tax provision in the Senate-passed bill, liberals complained that the procedure party leaders crafted would not have allowed them to register their objections directly on the legislation.
“The original rule did not allow members to have a clean up-or-down vote on the bill,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said.
After a huddle with members on the House floor and a hastily scheduled meeting in her office, Pelosi agreed to rework the process, allowing separate votes on the estate tax amendment and the underlying legislation.
Pelosi herself did not lobby members on the tax bill, leaving the White House to rally support for a deal it alone had negotiated with Republicans. Vice President Biden delivered a personal pitch to House Democrats, and Obama called lawmakers himself in the days leading up to the vote.
And while lawmakers predicted the Senate bill would pass once it came to a vote in the House, the Obama administration was concerned enough to whip votes against the estate tax amendment in the final hours, a House leadership aide said, not wanting a last-minute change to send the legislation back to the Senate and unravel the accord.
House Republicans broadly backed the measure, some of them reluctantly. Like many other GOP lawmakers, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said he wanted to see the tax rates extended permanently, but his top priority was preventing a tax hike on Jan. 1. “In this legislation I see the glass half-full,” he said on the floor. He acknowledged conservatives who said the GOP could have held out for a better deal. But he concluded: “Personally I am not willing to take a chance. I am going cast the aye vote. I am going to stop the job-killing tax increases.”
In a floor speech Thursday night, Pelosi endorsed the estate tax amendment but pointedly refused to explicitly back the underlying bill. The GOP-favored inheritance tax of 35 percent for individuals worth more than $5 million, the Speaker said, “is not good policy. It does have not have a favorable impact on the deficit. It does not create jobs. It does not grow the economy.”
As to the overhaul compromise, Pelosi said, “Members will have to make their own decisions.
“I applaud President Obama for his side of the ledger,” Pelosi said. “I’m sorry the price that had to be paid for it is so high.”
— Molly K. Hooper and Michael M. Gleeson contributed reporting.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/134161-house-passes-temporary-extension-of-bush-era-tax-cuts
The House gave final approval late on Thursday night to a temporary extension of the George W. Bush-era tax rates, delivering a significant but politically bruising victory to President Obama.
The $858 billion legislation now heads to the president’s desk for his signature. It extends the Bush tax cuts across the board for two years, slashes the employee payroll tax by 2 percent for one year, renews the estate tax and extends unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months.
The vote was 277-148, and the bill gained a majority of both Democrats and Republicans despite complaints from each party’s political base. The legislation deepened divisions in the Democratic ranks and burst open festering tensions between House Democrats and the White House.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had herded her divided caucus through the contentious process, said afterward she was pleased with the outcome despite her reservations about the bill.
Asked whether the emotional tax-cut vote had damaged the morale of the Democrats as the 111th Congress evolves into the 112th, Pelosi downplayed any lingering rancor.
"They're glad this is behind us, and they're ready to go forward," Pelosi told The Hill after the vote. "They're ready for the fight."
In the end, only one member of the House Democratic leadership, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), supported the final bill. Pelosi did not vote, and Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), John Larson (D-Conn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) all opposed the legislation.
During an early-afternoon vote on an unrelated matter, No. 2-ranking GOP Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.) and his Democratic counterpart, Hoyer, huddled in the back of the chamber.
According to a staffer familiar with the five-minute confab, Cantor asked Hoyer if the Democratic leader needed GOP votes to support the procedural vote on a rule governing debate of the tax package. Even though Democrats pulled the rule vote because they feared losing that effort, Hoyer declined Cantor’s help.
The outreach by Republicans was one of the ways in which GOP leaders ramped up their whip effort while their Democratic counterparts appeared to implode as a caucus.
In all, 112 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted against the deal, including conservative stalwarts Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Citing jobless benefits not paid for and an extension of the tax cuts set to expire in two years, during the next political season, those members felt they could get a better deal out of President Obama after they take power in a little under three weeks.
But Cantor and Chief Deputy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made a dogged effort to rally support for the negotiated package that would ensure “certainty” in the near future.
Minutes before the final vote, the House turned aside a Democratic amendment to raise the estate tax provision in the bill. Incorporating that change would have sent the bill back to the Senate and faced certain Republican opposition there.
The president argued the deal was the best he could get from Republicans who refused to budge on extending tax cuts for the highest-earning Americans, which Democrats wanted to end. The action by Congress prevents a broad tax increase from taking effect when the current rates expire at the end of the year.
The last votes Thursday capped a fractious three-week debate after Obama abandoned his Democratic allies in the House to cut a deal with Senate Republicans. House Democrats revolted over the pact, decrying the president for capitulating on one of his party’s signature domestic priorities: ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
“This basically concedes the argument to the supply-side Republican failed economic policies,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said.
Other Democrats denounced the bill for exploding an already soaring federal budget deficit. “Wake up and listen to the sirens,” Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.) said on the House floor. “I can’t believe you talk about this bill as fiscal sanity. It’s fiscal insanity.”
The House Democratic Caucus held a non-binding vote to reject the Obama-GOP deal a week ago, but within days the Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill and Pelosi moved ahead with a vote.
House liberals made one last stand on Thursday, forcing the Speaker to pull the tax bill from the floor for several hours because of objections to the amendment process.
While the Democratic leadership decided to allow one attempt to amend the Republican-favored estate tax provision in the Senate-passed bill, liberals complained that the procedure party leaders crafted would not have allowed them to register their objections directly on the legislation.
“The original rule did not allow members to have a clean up-or-down vote on the bill,” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said.
After a huddle with members on the House floor and a hastily scheduled meeting in her office, Pelosi agreed to rework the process, allowing separate votes on the estate tax amendment and the underlying legislation.
Pelosi herself did not lobby members on the tax bill, leaving the White House to rally support for a deal it alone had negotiated with Republicans. Vice President Biden delivered a personal pitch to House Democrats, and Obama called lawmakers himself in the days leading up to the vote.
And while lawmakers predicted the Senate bill would pass once it came to a vote in the House, the Obama administration was concerned enough to whip votes against the estate tax amendment in the final hours, a House leadership aide said, not wanting a last-minute change to send the legislation back to the Senate and unravel the accord.
House Republicans broadly backed the measure, some of them reluctantly. Like many other GOP lawmakers, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said he wanted to see the tax rates extended permanently, but his top priority was preventing a tax hike on Jan. 1. “In this legislation I see the glass half-full,” he said on the floor. He acknowledged conservatives who said the GOP could have held out for a better deal. But he concluded: “Personally I am not willing to take a chance. I am going cast the aye vote. I am going to stop the job-killing tax increases.”
In a floor speech Thursday night, Pelosi endorsed the estate tax amendment but pointedly refused to explicitly back the underlying bill. The GOP-favored inheritance tax of 35 percent for individuals worth more than $5 million, the Speaker said, “is not good policy. It does have not have a favorable impact on the deficit. It does not create jobs. It does not grow the economy.”
As to the overhaul compromise, Pelosi said, “Members will have to make their own decisions.
“I applaud President Obama for his side of the ledger,” Pelosi said. “I’m sorry the price that had to be paid for it is so high.”
— Molly K. Hooper and Michael M. Gleeson contributed reporting.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/134161-house-passes-temporary-extension-of-bush-era-tax-cuts
Republican Opposition Kills $1.2 Trillion `Omnibus' U.S. Spending Measure
By Brian Faler - Dec 16, 2010 11:01 PM CT
A $1.2 trillion “omnibus” spending bill loaded with thousands of lawmakers’ pet projects known as earmarks is dead in the U.S. Senate after the chamber’s top Democrat conceded that he didn’t have the votes to overcome Republican opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said yesterday that he was abandoning the measure after several Republicans he had been counting on withdrew their support of the plan to fund the government through Sept. 30, 2011. He said he would work with Republicans to write a shorter-term funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, in its place.
Reid said the Senate would also take test votes tomorrow on legislation to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving opening in the military, as well as a measure that would grant legal status to some younger illegal immigrants.
The House passed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal bill Dec. 15. The immigration legislation, called the DREAM Act, would allow people who came to the U.S. illegally before age 16 and remained for at least five years to gain legal residency after completing two years of college or military service. The House passed it on Dec. 9.
The decision to kill the omnibus measure was a key victory for Republicans, who lined up against the legislation even though most had used it to secure funding for projects in their home states. Republican complaints included the time they were given to consider the 1,924-page measure, which was introduced Dec. 14.
Republican Objections
Reid “doesn’t have the votes, and the reason he doesn’t have the votes is because members on this side of the aisle increasingly felt concerned about the way we do business,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
“For many of our members, it was not so much the substance of the bill but the process” that spurred opposition, he said.
Critics of earmarks hailed the bill’s defeat. “This is a great, great victory for the American people,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “I want to thank those that made the calls, those that sent e-mails, those that stood up and called into the talk shows all over America and said, ‘We’ve had enough.’”
Democrats, who control the Senate with 58 votes, needed to pick up the support of at least three Republicans to overcome stalling tactics after Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, announced her opposition to the bill.
Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett had announced he would support the measure, while Ohio Republican George Voinovich had said he was leaning toward backing it. Both lawmakers leave office when the new Congress convenes in early January.
‘Walked Away’
Reid said that though he had been counting on support from as many as nine Republicans, “in the last 24 hours, they’ve walked away.”
Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, complained that Republicans opposed the measure even after his colleagues cut billions from the bill to meet their spending demands.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday urged lawmakers to approve the legislation, saying “a yearlong continuing resolution, as far as I’m concerned, for the Department of Defense is the worst of all possible worlds -- the omnibus is not great, but it beats a yearlong continuing resolution.”
The resolution currently funding government on a temporary basis expires tomorrow. Reid yesterday didn’t reveal the duration of the new resolution being crafted.
‘Hypocrite’ Charge
The earmark issue prompted sharp debate among lawmakers, with Reid calling Republicans hypocrites for threatening to sink the omnibus bill while failing to rescind earmarks they included in it.
“If you went to ‘H’ in a dictionary and found ‘hypocrite,’ under that would be people who ask for earmarks but vote against them,” he told reporters.
All but a handful of lawmakers in both parties had requested about $8 billion in earmarks in the bill. McConnell had secured more than $100 million in such projects, according to the Washington-based budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
McConnell has called for a resolution to fund the government until Feb. 18, which would make it easier for Republicans to begin cutting spending when they take control of the House in January and have a larger minority in the Senate. Under McConnell’s plan, lawmakers would need to pass another funding measure legislation to prevent the government from shutting down.
The derailing of the omnibus bill is the latest in a series of breakdowns this year in the congressional budgeting process. Democrats failed to approve an annual tax-and-spending blueprint or any of the 12 annual appropriations bills needed to fund agencies for the 2011 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.
“There’s no more basic work than the funding of the government -- that’s the first thing we ought to be doing,” said McConnell. “As a result of not doing the basic work of government, here we are, at the end, struggling with this issue.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
A $1.2 trillion “omnibus” spending bill loaded with thousands of lawmakers’ pet projects known as earmarks is dead in the U.S. Senate after the chamber’s top Democrat conceded that he didn’t have the votes to overcome Republican opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said yesterday that he was abandoning the measure after several Republicans he had been counting on withdrew their support of the plan to fund the government through Sept. 30, 2011. He said he would work with Republicans to write a shorter-term funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, in its place.
Reid said the Senate would also take test votes tomorrow on legislation to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving opening in the military, as well as a measure that would grant legal status to some younger illegal immigrants.
The House passed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal bill Dec. 15. The immigration legislation, called the DREAM Act, would allow people who came to the U.S. illegally before age 16 and remained for at least five years to gain legal residency after completing two years of college or military service. The House passed it on Dec. 9.
The decision to kill the omnibus measure was a key victory for Republicans, who lined up against the legislation even though most had used it to secure funding for projects in their home states. Republican complaints included the time they were given to consider the 1,924-page measure, which was introduced Dec. 14.
Republican Objections
Reid “doesn’t have the votes, and the reason he doesn’t have the votes is because members on this side of the aisle increasingly felt concerned about the way we do business,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
“For many of our members, it was not so much the substance of the bill but the process” that spurred opposition, he said.
Critics of earmarks hailed the bill’s defeat. “This is a great, great victory for the American people,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “I want to thank those that made the calls, those that sent e-mails, those that stood up and called into the talk shows all over America and said, ‘We’ve had enough.’”
Democrats, who control the Senate with 58 votes, needed to pick up the support of at least three Republicans to overcome stalling tactics after Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, announced her opposition to the bill.
Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett had announced he would support the measure, while Ohio Republican George Voinovich had said he was leaning toward backing it. Both lawmakers leave office when the new Congress convenes in early January.
‘Walked Away’
Reid said that though he had been counting on support from as many as nine Republicans, “in the last 24 hours, they’ve walked away.”
Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, complained that Republicans opposed the measure even after his colleagues cut billions from the bill to meet their spending demands.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday urged lawmakers to approve the legislation, saying “a yearlong continuing resolution, as far as I’m concerned, for the Department of Defense is the worst of all possible worlds -- the omnibus is not great, but it beats a yearlong continuing resolution.”
The resolution currently funding government on a temporary basis expires tomorrow. Reid yesterday didn’t reveal the duration of the new resolution being crafted.
‘Hypocrite’ Charge
The earmark issue prompted sharp debate among lawmakers, with Reid calling Republicans hypocrites for threatening to sink the omnibus bill while failing to rescind earmarks they included in it.
“If you went to ‘H’ in a dictionary and found ‘hypocrite,’ under that would be people who ask for earmarks but vote against them,” he told reporters.
All but a handful of lawmakers in both parties had requested about $8 billion in earmarks in the bill. McConnell had secured more than $100 million in such projects, according to the Washington-based budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
McConnell has called for a resolution to fund the government until Feb. 18, which would make it easier for Republicans to begin cutting spending when they take control of the House in January and have a larger minority in the Senate. Under McConnell’s plan, lawmakers would need to pass another funding measure legislation to prevent the government from shutting down.
The derailing of the omnibus bill is the latest in a series of breakdowns this year in the congressional budgeting process. Democrats failed to approve an annual tax-and-spending blueprint or any of the 12 annual appropriations bills needed to fund agencies for the 2011 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.
“There’s no more basic work than the funding of the government -- that’s the first thing we ought to be doing,” said McConnell. “As a result of not doing the basic work of government, here we are, at the end, struggling with this issue.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net
Reid Abandons Massive Omnibus Spending Bill
Guy Benson
Victory: The omnibus bill is dead.
Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that following a mass exodus of Republican support, he does not have the votes to pass the dreadful, Obamacare-funding, earmark-riddled $1.2 Trillion omnibus bill. He will not file cloture on it. Reid said he and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will enter talks on passing a simple, temporary continuing resolution in its place. Bottom line: Democrats lost this fight, and a united Republican front secured victory.
Democrats will, however, file cloture on the DREAM Act and DADT repeal, with votes expected Saturday. DREAM is likely to be a non-starter. As we reported earlier, Sen. Joe Lieberman believes he has the votes to overcome a filibuster and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That task was certainly made easier by Democrats' decision to scrap the omnibus. All eyes now turn to the House Democrats and the fate of their series of delicate votes on the tax deal. Stay tuned...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/12/16/breaking_reid_abandons_massive_omnibus_spending_bill
Victory: The omnibus bill is dead.
Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that following a mass exodus of Republican support, he does not have the votes to pass the dreadful, Obamacare-funding, earmark-riddled $1.2 Trillion omnibus bill. He will not file cloture on it. Reid said he and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will enter talks on passing a simple, temporary continuing resolution in its place. Bottom line: Democrats lost this fight, and a united Republican front secured victory.
Democrats will, however, file cloture on the DREAM Act and DADT repeal, with votes expected Saturday. DREAM is likely to be a non-starter. As we reported earlier, Sen. Joe Lieberman believes he has the votes to overcome a filibuster and repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That task was certainly made easier by Democrats' decision to scrap the omnibus. All eyes now turn to the House Democrats and the fate of their series of delicate votes on the tax deal. Stay tuned...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/GuyBenson/2010/12/16/breaking_reid_abandons_massive_omnibus_spending_bill
Monday, December 13, 2010
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Larry O'dell, Associated Press – 23 mins ago
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.
He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.
Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.
The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia
RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.
He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.
Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.
The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_virginia
Can Madigan deliver?
As we note in the editorial above, House Speaker Michael Madigan recently created a special bipartisan Illinois House committee to push education reform.
Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, who co-chairs the new committee, told us it will look to do "stuff we've never even touched on before, because we haven't had the political fortitude to tackle these things."
Well, well. Merging such ambition and such clout just might lead to great things.
Among the items on the committee's radar screen:
•Making sure that teacher performance — not seniority — is a "primary factor" in layoffs.
•Making it tougher to get tenure and easier to fire tenured teachers who aren't performing.
•Ending the "dance of the lemons," in which teachers fired from one school are able to bump better teachers with less seniority in other schools.
•Curbing teachers' right to strike.
That's an excellent agenda. Teachers should be paid very well for outstanding performance. No one should be guaranteed a job just for showing up. Tenure and tradition and milquetoast administrators make it almost impossible to fire bad teachers. And traditional pay scales provide no incentive to teach well.
Illinois should join the 37 states that ban teachers from striking. Kids suffer the most in a teachers strike. They're the collateral damage when schooling is disrupted.
The special committee will launch hearings this week. We'd like to suggest the committee's first reading assignment: A chapter in a 2009 Urban Institute book. Its conclusion: Firing the least effective 6 to 10 percent of teachers would catapult American kids from near the bottom of the international pack in academic achievement to the top ranks. That's an astonishing measure of how valuable a good teacher is and how harmful an ineffective one can be.
"It is unclear why we permit a small group of teachers to do such large damage," Stanford economist Eric Hanushek wrote in "Creating a New Teaching Profession."
"The majority of teachers are effective. They are able to compete with teachers virtually anywhere else in the world. Yet these effective teachers are lumped in with a small group of completely ineffective teachers, who are permitted to continue damaging students' educational experiences."
We often have grade school and high school students visit the editorial board. We usually ask them: Do you know who are the best and worst teachers in your school?
Of course they do. It's inspiring—and harrowing—to hear them tell the stories of the best and the worst.
Here's your chance, lawmakers. Focus on the kids … and deliver.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-madigan-20101213,0,7642521.story
Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, D-Aurora, who co-chairs the new committee, told us it will look to do "stuff we've never even touched on before, because we haven't had the political fortitude to tackle these things."
Well, well. Merging such ambition and such clout just might lead to great things.
Among the items on the committee's radar screen:
•Making sure that teacher performance — not seniority — is a "primary factor" in layoffs.
•Making it tougher to get tenure and easier to fire tenured teachers who aren't performing.
•Ending the "dance of the lemons," in which teachers fired from one school are able to bump better teachers with less seniority in other schools.
•Curbing teachers' right to strike.
That's an excellent agenda. Teachers should be paid very well for outstanding performance. No one should be guaranteed a job just for showing up. Tenure and tradition and milquetoast administrators make it almost impossible to fire bad teachers. And traditional pay scales provide no incentive to teach well.
Illinois should join the 37 states that ban teachers from striking. Kids suffer the most in a teachers strike. They're the collateral damage when schooling is disrupted.
The special committee will launch hearings this week. We'd like to suggest the committee's first reading assignment: A chapter in a 2009 Urban Institute book. Its conclusion: Firing the least effective 6 to 10 percent of teachers would catapult American kids from near the bottom of the international pack in academic achievement to the top ranks. That's an astonishing measure of how valuable a good teacher is and how harmful an ineffective one can be.
"It is unclear why we permit a small group of teachers to do such large damage," Stanford economist Eric Hanushek wrote in "Creating a New Teaching Profession."
"The majority of teachers are effective. They are able to compete with teachers virtually anywhere else in the world. Yet these effective teachers are lumped in with a small group of completely ineffective teachers, who are permitted to continue damaging students' educational experiences."
We often have grade school and high school students visit the editorial board. We usually ask them: Do you know who are the best and worst teachers in your school?
Of course they do. It's inspiring—and harrowing—to hear them tell the stories of the best and the worst.
Here's your chance, lawmakers. Focus on the kids … and deliver.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-madigan-20101213,0,7642521.story
Friday, December 10, 2010
From Audacity to Animosity - Peggy Noonan
No president has alienated his base the way Obama has.
Peggy Noonan
We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. He spent his first year losing the center, which elected him, and his second losing his base, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.
President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who'll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.
Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who'll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."
As for the left, they ignore his accomplishments and are always looking for "weakness and compromise." They are "sanctimonious," "purist," and just want to "feel good about" themselves. In a difficult world, they cling to their "ideal positions" and constant charges of "betrayals."
Those not of the left might view all this as straight talk, and much needed. But if you were of the left it would only deepen your anger and sharpen your response. Which it did. "Gettysburg," "sellout," "disaster."
The president must have thought that distancing himself from left and right would make him more attractive to the center. But you get credit for going to the center only if you say the centrist position you've just embraced is right. If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."
In politics, the angry person is generally understood to be the loser, which is why politicians on TV always try not to seem angry. And politics is always, at the end of the day, a game of addition, not subtraction.
Mr. Obama's problem is not only with the left of his party. Democratic professionals, people who do the work of politics day by day, don't see him as a bad man or a sellout, but they scratch their heads over him and privately grouse. They don't understand a Democratic president who, in the midst of a great recession, in our modern welfare state, doesn't know how to win support! The other night Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, was on "Hardball" sounding reasonable on the subject of Mr. Obama, but I thought his eyes, his visage, his professionally pleasant face were screaming: Those crazy birthers are wrong, he's not from another country—he's from another galaxy! He doesn't do politics like any normal person!
The left has been honestly disappointed in Mr. Obama. He did not come through as they think he should have in myriad ways—the public option, closing Guantanamo, war, now the tax plan. But—and this makes it all more complicated and fascinating—the left does not say Mr. Obama has been revealed to be at heart a conservative, or a Republican. Most of them know he is one of them—his worldview is more of less theirs, his assumptions are theirs. Does anyone doubt he would have included a public option in health care if he thought he could have? He judged that he couldn't. He didn't have the numbers in the Senate. It isn't an argument about philosophy or ideology. It's only an argument about what's practical and possible.
Some on the left argue that if only the president had talked more, and more passionately, if he'd worked it harder, he could have brought the country to support leftist programs. But why do they think this? The general public has seen the president out there for two years talking and promoting a generally leftist direction. Voters demonstrated in elections through 2009 and '10 that a generally leftist direction is not what they want.
All of this—the disenchantment of the left, the confusion of the party's professionals—has led to increased talk of a primary challenger to Mr. Obama in 2012.
And here too the president's position would be without parallel.
When Pat Buchanan challenged an incumbent president in his party's presidential primary in 1992, he was going at George H.W. Bush from the right. Mr. Bush's base wasn't the right, it was the party's center. His support came from people who said not "I am a conservative," but "I am a Republican." Mr. Bush wasn't challenged from his base.
When Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting president of his party in 1980, he was going at Jimmy Carter from the left. But Mr. Carter's base wasn't the left, it was more or less in the party's center.
When Ronald Reagan challenged a sitting president of his party in 1976, he was going at Gerald Ford from the right. Like Mr. Bush, Ford's base wasn't the right, it was the party's establishment. Eugene McCarthy in 1968 the same—he challenged Lyndon Johnson from the left, while Johnson's base within the party was the establishment.
Modern presidents are never challenged from their base, always by the people who didn't love them going in. You're not supposed to get a serious primary challenge from the people who loved you. But that's the talk of what may happen with Mr. Obama.
The Democratic Party is stuck. Their problem is not, as some have said, that they don't have anyone of sufficient stature to challenge the president. Russ Feingold and Howard Dean have said they aren't interested, but a challenger can always be found, or can emerge. If anything marks this political age, it's that anyone can emerge.
The Democrats' problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He'd lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency.
There is only one Democrat who could possibly challenge Mr. Obama for the nomination successfully and win the general election, and that is Hillary Clinton. Who insists she doesn't want to.
What are the Democrats to do? If you are stuck with a president, you try to survive either with him or, individually, in spite of him. Some Democrats will try to bring him back. How? Who knows. But that will be a great Democratic drama of 2011: Saving Obama.
The White House itself still probably thinks the Republicans can save him, by overstepping, by alienating moderates. But so far, on domestic matters, they're looking pretty calm and sober. They didn't crow at the tax compromise, for instance, even though they knew the left is correct: It wasn't a compromise, it was a bow. To reality, but a bow nonetheless.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009943102291486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Peggy Noonan
We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. He spent his first year losing the center, which elected him, and his second losing his base, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.
President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who'll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.
Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that he hates the deal he just agreed to, hates the people he made the deal with, and hates even more the people who'll criticize it. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."
As for the left, they ignore his accomplishments and are always looking for "weakness and compromise." They are "sanctimonious," "purist," and just want to "feel good about" themselves. In a difficult world, they cling to their "ideal positions" and constant charges of "betrayals."
Those not of the left might view all this as straight talk, and much needed. But if you were of the left it would only deepen your anger and sharpen your response. Which it did. "Gettysburg," "sellout," "disaster."
The president must have thought that distancing himself from left and right would make him more attractive to the center. But you get credit for going to the center only if you say the centrist position you've just embraced is right. If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."
In politics, the angry person is generally understood to be the loser, which is why politicians on TV always try not to seem angry. And politics is always, at the end of the day, a game of addition, not subtraction.
Mr. Obama's problem is not only with the left of his party. Democratic professionals, people who do the work of politics day by day, don't see him as a bad man or a sellout, but they scratch their heads over him and privately grouse. They don't understand a Democratic president who, in the midst of a great recession, in our modern welfare state, doesn't know how to win support! The other night Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, was on "Hardball" sounding reasonable on the subject of Mr. Obama, but I thought his eyes, his visage, his professionally pleasant face were screaming: Those crazy birthers are wrong, he's not from another country—he's from another galaxy! He doesn't do politics like any normal person!
The left has been honestly disappointed in Mr. Obama. He did not come through as they think he should have in myriad ways—the public option, closing Guantanamo, war, now the tax plan. But—and this makes it all more complicated and fascinating—the left does not say Mr. Obama has been revealed to be at heart a conservative, or a Republican. Most of them know he is one of them—his worldview is more of less theirs, his assumptions are theirs. Does anyone doubt he would have included a public option in health care if he thought he could have? He judged that he couldn't. He didn't have the numbers in the Senate. It isn't an argument about philosophy or ideology. It's only an argument about what's practical and possible.
Some on the left argue that if only the president had talked more, and more passionately, if he'd worked it harder, he could have brought the country to support leftist programs. But why do they think this? The general public has seen the president out there for two years talking and promoting a generally leftist direction. Voters demonstrated in elections through 2009 and '10 that a generally leftist direction is not what they want.
All of this—the disenchantment of the left, the confusion of the party's professionals—has led to increased talk of a primary challenger to Mr. Obama in 2012.
And here too the president's position would be without parallel.
When Pat Buchanan challenged an incumbent president in his party's presidential primary in 1992, he was going at George H.W. Bush from the right. Mr. Bush's base wasn't the right, it was the party's center. His support came from people who said not "I am a conservative," but "I am a Republican." Mr. Bush wasn't challenged from his base.
When Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting president of his party in 1980, he was going at Jimmy Carter from the left. But Mr. Carter's base wasn't the left, it was more or less in the party's center.
When Ronald Reagan challenged a sitting president of his party in 1976, he was going at Gerald Ford from the right. Like Mr. Bush, Ford's base wasn't the right, it was the party's establishment. Eugene McCarthy in 1968 the same—he challenged Lyndon Johnson from the left, while Johnson's base within the party was the establishment.
Modern presidents are never challenged from their base, always by the people who didn't love them going in. You're not supposed to get a serious primary challenge from the people who loved you. But that's the talk of what may happen with Mr. Obama.
The Democratic Party is stuck. Their problem is not, as some have said, that they don't have anyone of sufficient stature to challenge the president. Russ Feingold and Howard Dean have said they aren't interested, but a challenger can always be found, or can emerge. If anything marks this political age, it's that anyone can emerge.
The Democrats' problem is that most of them know that the person who would emerge, who would challenge Mr. Obama from the left, would never, could never, win the 2012 general election. He'd lose badly and take the party with him. Democratic professionals know the mood of the country. Challenging Mr. Obama from the left would mean definitely losing the presidency, as opposed to probably losing the presidency.
There is only one Democrat who could possibly challenge Mr. Obama for the nomination successfully and win the general election, and that is Hillary Clinton. Who insists she doesn't want to.
What are the Democrats to do? If you are stuck with a president, you try to survive either with him or, individually, in spite of him. Some Democrats will try to bring him back. How? Who knows. But that will be a great Democratic drama of 2011: Saving Obama.
The White House itself still probably thinks the Republicans can save him, by overstepping, by alienating moderates. But so far, on domestic matters, they're looking pretty calm and sober. They didn't crow at the tax compromise, for instance, even though they knew the left is correct: It wasn't a compromise, it was a bow. To reality, but a bow nonetheless.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009943102291486.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Senate fails on repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell'
By Roxana Tiron - 12/09/10 04:06 PM ET
The Senate on Thursday dealt a severe blow to the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, dimming the chances for the Clinton-era ban to be scrapped this year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to garner the necessary 60 votes for a procedural motion to start considering the 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a provision to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. The final vote was 57-40.
Most Republicans stuck to their pledge to block any bills until a deal is reached on the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and government spending for 2011 is resolved. Republican Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have expressed support for repealing the law, both voted no.
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia also voted against cloture.
Several Republicans indicated they would support scrapping the ban, but they wanted to see an open debate process on the defense authorization bill, including the ability to offer a series of amendments. Those Republicans included Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who voted in favor of cloture on Thursday, as well as Brown and Murkowski, who on Thursday voted against proceeding to the bill.
Murkowski's statement of support for repealing the Clinton-era law Wednesday had given repeal advocates the necessary certainty that they would have the 60 votes necessary to make repeal happen.
But Collins, the GOP's chief negotiator on the defense bill, on Thursday said she was "perplexed" and "frustrated" that Reid would allow the defense bill to become the "victim" of politics. Collins had wanted more time to debate amendments.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132745-senate-fails-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell
The Senate on Thursday dealt a severe blow to the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, dimming the chances for the Clinton-era ban to be scrapped this year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to garner the necessary 60 votes for a procedural motion to start considering the 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a provision to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. The final vote was 57-40.
Most Republicans stuck to their pledge to block any bills until a deal is reached on the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and government spending for 2011 is resolved. Republican Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who have expressed support for repealing the law, both voted no.
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia also voted against cloture.
Several Republicans indicated they would support scrapping the ban, but they wanted to see an open debate process on the defense authorization bill, including the ability to offer a series of amendments. Those Republicans included Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), who voted in favor of cloture on Thursday, as well as Brown and Murkowski, who on Thursday voted against proceeding to the bill.
Murkowski's statement of support for repealing the Clinton-era law Wednesday had given repeal advocates the necessary certainty that they would have the 60 votes necessary to make repeal happen.
But Collins, the GOP's chief negotiator on the defense bill, on Thursday said she was "perplexed" and "frustrated" that Reid would allow the defense bill to become the "victim" of politics. Collins had wanted more time to debate amendments.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132745-senate-fails-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell
Familiar names on pension watch list for DuPage
Thursday, December 09, 2010
The National Taxpayers United of Illinois is hopping mad about public sector pensions, and wasn’t shy about naming names at its Wednesday press conference.
“Governor Pat Quinn has proposed a 33 percent increase in the state personal income tax, but an even worse state income tax increase is alive and well,” NTUI President Jim Tobin said, speaking at the College of DuPage.
Tobin said the bill — Illinois House Bill 174, passed by the state Senate last year — would also include a 7 to 10 percent sales tax on 39 different services, including Internet providers and cable television services.
Tobin made clear what he sees as the driving force behind the push for higher taxes. “Most of the income tax increase will go to finance pensions,” he said. “It won’t go to the needy or poor.”
Tobin referred to many of the pensioners as “pension millionaires” and noted that a state trooper retiring at 50 years old with 25 years of service would collect $5 million in pension money if he lived to 81; a teacher with a salary of $100,000 could retire at 55 and collect $3 million if he lived to the same age.
Tobin put the issue in the context of the $13 billion in unfunded pension mandates with which the state is struggling. “Obviously the state will go bankrupt if this continues,” he said.
A former candidate for statewide office himself, Tobin was scathing in his use of former Gov. Jim Edgar as the face of the swelling pension problem. Tobin said Edgar’s pension was $130,908, in addition to his annual salary of $177,630 for serving as a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois. “This man never had an honest job in his life,” he said. “His main goal since 1996 has been promoting an income tax increase.”
Tobin offered a three-part solution to the state’s pension dilemma.
First, Tobin wants public employees to begin paying into Social Security like private sector workers, augmenting the system with 401(k) accounts. Second, current pensioners should be required to contribute something to their pensions to help defray costs. Last, all pensioners should pay half of their health care premiums.
If Tobin has his sights set on policy solutions, his daughter Christina Tobin has an idea how to ensure a more transparent, open government in Illinois. “We have the wrong people in office,” said the founder of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.
Noting the recent controversy in Naperville over candidates for City Council being removed from the ballot, Tobin suggested following the lead of other states that give office-seekers the option of paying a filing fee in lieu of the standard practice of collecting signatures — signatures that often are the subject of lengthy and costly challenges.
She also advocates changing Illinois to a proportional representation system — legislative seats allocated based on the percentage of the vote a particular party earned — and using open-faced software to record votes and help guard against election fraud.
When told that challenging the votes of a candidate is an accepted and time-honored practice in Illinois, Tobin responded, “I don’t accept it. I’m here to shed light on open elections.”
Responding to a common argument that some jobs — cops and kindergarten teachers — are too strenuous for people past 50, Jim Tobin said, “Yes (they should have to work), just like teachers in the private system.”
The highest DuPage County pensions paid out by the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund are to Robert Dunsmuir, Wheaton Park District, ($140,889 yearly), Allen Poole, city of Naperville ($140,672), Ronald Reinecke, DuPage County ($140,121), Keith Frankland, Woodridge Park District ($135,339), and Raymond Morrill, Wheaton Park District ($133,953).
The highest DuPage pensions from the Teachers Retirement System are Gary Catalani, Wheaton Community Unit School District 200 ($237,195), Mary Curley, Hinsdale CCSD 181 ($226,645), Lawrence Baskin, Glen Ellyn CCSD 89 ($211,013), Donald Weber, Naperville CUSD 203 ($196,768), and James White, Queen Bee SD 16 ($192,875).
The figures are from the Illinois Taxpayers Education Foundation and are based on the figures available July 1
http://ht.ly/3mEp6
The National Taxpayers United of Illinois is hopping mad about public sector pensions, and wasn’t shy about naming names at its Wednesday press conference.
“Governor Pat Quinn has proposed a 33 percent increase in the state personal income tax, but an even worse state income tax increase is alive and well,” NTUI President Jim Tobin said, speaking at the College of DuPage.
Tobin said the bill — Illinois House Bill 174, passed by the state Senate last year — would also include a 7 to 10 percent sales tax on 39 different services, including Internet providers and cable television services.
Tobin made clear what he sees as the driving force behind the push for higher taxes. “Most of the income tax increase will go to finance pensions,” he said. “It won’t go to the needy or poor.”
Tobin referred to many of the pensioners as “pension millionaires” and noted that a state trooper retiring at 50 years old with 25 years of service would collect $5 million in pension money if he lived to 81; a teacher with a salary of $100,000 could retire at 55 and collect $3 million if he lived to the same age.
Tobin put the issue in the context of the $13 billion in unfunded pension mandates with which the state is struggling. “Obviously the state will go bankrupt if this continues,” he said.
A former candidate for statewide office himself, Tobin was scathing in his use of former Gov. Jim Edgar as the face of the swelling pension problem. Tobin said Edgar’s pension was $130,908, in addition to his annual salary of $177,630 for serving as a distinguished fellow at the University of Illinois. “This man never had an honest job in his life,” he said. “His main goal since 1996 has been promoting an income tax increase.”
Tobin offered a three-part solution to the state’s pension dilemma.
First, Tobin wants public employees to begin paying into Social Security like private sector workers, augmenting the system with 401(k) accounts. Second, current pensioners should be required to contribute something to their pensions to help defray costs. Last, all pensioners should pay half of their health care premiums.
If Tobin has his sights set on policy solutions, his daughter Christina Tobin has an idea how to ensure a more transparent, open government in Illinois. “We have the wrong people in office,” said the founder of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.
Noting the recent controversy in Naperville over candidates for City Council being removed from the ballot, Tobin suggested following the lead of other states that give office-seekers the option of paying a filing fee in lieu of the standard practice of collecting signatures — signatures that often are the subject of lengthy and costly challenges.
She also advocates changing Illinois to a proportional representation system — legislative seats allocated based on the percentage of the vote a particular party earned — and using open-faced software to record votes and help guard against election fraud.
When told that challenging the votes of a candidate is an accepted and time-honored practice in Illinois, Tobin responded, “I don’t accept it. I’m here to shed light on open elections.”
Responding to a common argument that some jobs — cops and kindergarten teachers — are too strenuous for people past 50, Jim Tobin said, “Yes (they should have to work), just like teachers in the private system.”
The highest DuPage County pensions paid out by the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund are to Robert Dunsmuir, Wheaton Park District, ($140,889 yearly), Allen Poole, city of Naperville ($140,672), Ronald Reinecke, DuPage County ($140,121), Keith Frankland, Woodridge Park District ($135,339), and Raymond Morrill, Wheaton Park District ($133,953).
The highest DuPage pensions from the Teachers Retirement System are Gary Catalani, Wheaton Community Unit School District 200 ($237,195), Mary Curley, Hinsdale CCSD 181 ($226,645), Lawrence Baskin, Glen Ellyn CCSD 89 ($211,013), Donald Weber, Naperville CUSD 203 ($196,768), and James White, Queen Bee SD 16 ($192,875).
The figures are from the Illinois Taxpayers Education Foundation and are based on the figures available July 1
http://ht.ly/3mEp6
Obama muffed U.S. motto
by Stephen Dinan
Members of Congress on Monday called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly labeled E pluribus unum the U.S.'s motto in a speech last month, rather than "In God We Trust."
The lawmakers, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, also said the president was making "a pattern" of dropping the word "Creator" when he recites the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.
"By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society," the representatives said in a stern letter asking for him to correct the speech.
Last month, while speaking at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Mr. Obama was trying to stress the similarity of the U.S. and Indonesia and said "it is a story written into our national mottos."
"In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum — out of many, one," he said, then compared it to the Indonesian motto, "Bhennika Tunggal Ika — unity in diversity."
The official motto of the U.S., designated by a 1956 law, is "In God We Trust." E pluribus unum is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, and appears on the ribbon held in the beak of the eagle that dominates the obverse side of the seal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2010/dec/6/obama-muffed-us-motto/
Members of Congress on Monday called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly labeled E pluribus unum the U.S.'s motto in a speech last month, rather than "In God We Trust."
The lawmakers, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, also said the president was making "a pattern" of dropping the word "Creator" when he recites the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.
"By misrepresenting things as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent you are casting aside an integral part of American society," the representatives said in a stern letter asking for him to correct the speech.
Last month, while speaking at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Mr. Obama was trying to stress the similarity of the U.S. and Indonesia and said "it is a story written into our national mottos."
"In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum — out of many, one," he said, then compared it to the Indonesian motto, "Bhennika Tunggal Ika — unity in diversity."
The official motto of the U.S., designated by a 1956 law, is "In God We Trust." E pluribus unum is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, and appears on the ribbon held in the beak of the eagle that dominates the obverse side of the seal.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2010/dec/6/obama-muffed-us-motto/
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Trib Editorial----Focus, Governor
What's a governor to do? Having given the state's largest public employee union a no-layoff pledge until mid-2012, Pat Quinn is in a bind. So he has pursued another way of trimming payroll costs: He's offering to give members of the Illinois State Police early raises if they retire by Dec. 31.
Correction: Quinn is doing a favor for his own beleaguered budget by shifting part of his burden to … the state's pension system. Yes, the same state pension system that is pathetically underfunded. Worst in the nation, in fact. Too many governors have given too many sweeteners to too many public employees. The state's unfunded retirement obligations — overly generous pensions and overly generous retiree health care — total an estimated $130 billion that doesn't show up in the state budget. That equals about a half-decade of spending from the state's general operating funds.
In sum: Illinois is the poster child for how to run a pension scheme into the ground — and to stick future governors and taxpayers with the costs. Yet Quinn is handing that overwhelmed system an anticipated 70 to 90 more retirees who'll arrive bearing still another pension sweetener.
To be eligible for Quinn's offer, troopers need to be 50 years old with 25 years of service, or 55 years old with 20 years of service. They can use accumulated time-off credits to help satisfy their years-of-service requirements. And, on their last day of work in 2010, they'll receive 6 percent cost-of-living raises that are scheduled for calendar 2011.
Age 50? Think about that. Some of these retirees may spend the entire second halves of their lives — the next 50 or more years — drawing pensions from Illinois taxpayers. And while we have you: Has anyone offered you a 6 percent cost-of-living increase? In this time of low inflation? We didn't think so.
The governor's office told us Tuesday that many of these senior troopers were expected to retire as soon as they received their cost-of-living raises next year. Makes sense: Sticking around for those raises would feather their pension calculations with the highest possible final salary. Under this deal, the retirees don't have to work at all next year — and they get the juicier pension benefits pronto. In return, the state saves money by offloading these high salaries: If 70 percent of the eligible troopers accept Quinn's offer, the state expects to save about $500,000 in payroll expense.
If that were the end of it, Quinn's offer might make sense. But the governor's office couldn't provide one crucial number: What will the troopers' early arrival cost the state pension system? Taxpayers are on the hook for that, too, just as they are for the budget. We'll bet the governor lunch at any place of his choosing that he's shifting way more than $500,000 in burdens from his budget to the failing, flailing pension system.
In the big picture, we're not talking about a lot of money. Of course, that same lame excuse — In the big picture, we're not talking about a lot of money — is precisely how previous Illinois governors justified crippling the pension system. Those governors didn't have enough state revenue to buy labor peace with salary money, so they bought it with pension giveaways. Remember, the long-term health of the pension system is always future governors' problem.
Gov. Quinn, enough with special deals that leave taxpayers even more burdened than they were. Your state is broke, Illinois' pension system soon enough will be broke, and you need to stop the bleeding in both of those realms. Please, Governor, focus.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-quinn-20101207,0,1353372.story
Correction: Quinn is doing a favor for his own beleaguered budget by shifting part of his burden to … the state's pension system. Yes, the same state pension system that is pathetically underfunded. Worst in the nation, in fact. Too many governors have given too many sweeteners to too many public employees. The state's unfunded retirement obligations — overly generous pensions and overly generous retiree health care — total an estimated $130 billion that doesn't show up in the state budget. That equals about a half-decade of spending from the state's general operating funds.
In sum: Illinois is the poster child for how to run a pension scheme into the ground — and to stick future governors and taxpayers with the costs. Yet Quinn is handing that overwhelmed system an anticipated 70 to 90 more retirees who'll arrive bearing still another pension sweetener.
To be eligible for Quinn's offer, troopers need to be 50 years old with 25 years of service, or 55 years old with 20 years of service. They can use accumulated time-off credits to help satisfy their years-of-service requirements. And, on their last day of work in 2010, they'll receive 6 percent cost-of-living raises that are scheduled for calendar 2011.
Age 50? Think about that. Some of these retirees may spend the entire second halves of their lives — the next 50 or more years — drawing pensions from Illinois taxpayers. And while we have you: Has anyone offered you a 6 percent cost-of-living increase? In this time of low inflation? We didn't think so.
The governor's office told us Tuesday that many of these senior troopers were expected to retire as soon as they received their cost-of-living raises next year. Makes sense: Sticking around for those raises would feather their pension calculations with the highest possible final salary. Under this deal, the retirees don't have to work at all next year — and they get the juicier pension benefits pronto. In return, the state saves money by offloading these high salaries: If 70 percent of the eligible troopers accept Quinn's offer, the state expects to save about $500,000 in payroll expense.
If that were the end of it, Quinn's offer might make sense. But the governor's office couldn't provide one crucial number: What will the troopers' early arrival cost the state pension system? Taxpayers are on the hook for that, too, just as they are for the budget. We'll bet the governor lunch at any place of his choosing that he's shifting way more than $500,000 in burdens from his budget to the failing, flailing pension system.
In the big picture, we're not talking about a lot of money. Of course, that same lame excuse — In the big picture, we're not talking about a lot of money — is precisely how previous Illinois governors justified crippling the pension system. Those governors didn't have enough state revenue to buy labor peace with salary money, so they bought it with pension giveaways. Remember, the long-term health of the pension system is always future governors' problem.
Gov. Quinn, enough with special deals that leave taxpayers even more burdened than they were. Your state is broke, Illinois' pension system soon enough will be broke, and you need to stop the bleeding in both of those realms. Please, Governor, focus.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-quinn-20101207,0,1353372.story
Dems stand in way of Obama's tax deal
By Jeannine Aversa and Paul Wiseman Dec 8, 2010 11:35AM
The tax deal struck by President Obama and congressional Republicans essentially would give Americans a pay raise — pumping money into the economy almost immediately and probably creating hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next two years, economists say. The plan faces strong opposition from Democrats, making its passage uncertain.
The compromise already has economists raising their forecasts for growth next year, mainly because it includes a surprising one-year cut in Social Security taxes. The amount of that cut — 2 percent of pay for most American workers — instantly becomes more take-home money. Critics complain that the deal would further swell the $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit.
Two central parts of the agreement extend income-tax cuts that would have expired Dec. 31 and renew benefits for the long-term unemployed. Those were both expected. But they still give a psychological boost to shoppers in the midst of the holiday shopping season.
Ariel Investments President Mellody Hobson said failure to extend the Bush tax cuts would have amounted to “an anti-stimulus.” The payroll tax cut will be “very helpful for the average person,” and reform of the alternative minimum tax means “millions of individuals are going to be excluded from that,” she said. “I think that’s a very good thing for a lot of people.”
The activist group Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that the plan would save the average taxpayer just under $3,000 next year. The top 1 percent of earners would save nearly $77,000 on average. And the poorest 20 percent would get an average tax break of $396.
Under the deal, the president and the GOP agreed to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed for 13 more months. That aid had expired Nov. 30. Up to 2 million unemployed people would have run out of benefits by year’s end. On long-term unemployment aid, the Labor Department says every $1 spent generates $2 in economic growth. The Center for American Progress predicts that extending those benefits through next year will generate or save 520,000 jobs.
Economists note that cutting Social Security taxes and extending unemployment benefits free up more cash for low- and moderate-income families who are most likely to spend it.
http://www.suntimes.com/2730969-417/deal-tax-benefits-average-economists.html
The tax deal struck by President Obama and congressional Republicans essentially would give Americans a pay raise — pumping money into the economy almost immediately and probably creating hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next two years, economists say. The plan faces strong opposition from Democrats, making its passage uncertain.
The compromise already has economists raising their forecasts for growth next year, mainly because it includes a surprising one-year cut in Social Security taxes. The amount of that cut — 2 percent of pay for most American workers — instantly becomes more take-home money. Critics complain that the deal would further swell the $1.3 trillion federal budget deficit.
Two central parts of the agreement extend income-tax cuts that would have expired Dec. 31 and renew benefits for the long-term unemployed. Those were both expected. But they still give a psychological boost to shoppers in the midst of the holiday shopping season.
Ariel Investments President Mellody Hobson said failure to extend the Bush tax cuts would have amounted to “an anti-stimulus.” The payroll tax cut will be “very helpful for the average person,” and reform of the alternative minimum tax means “millions of individuals are going to be excluded from that,” she said. “I think that’s a very good thing for a lot of people.”
The activist group Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that the plan would save the average taxpayer just under $3,000 next year. The top 1 percent of earners would save nearly $77,000 on average. And the poorest 20 percent would get an average tax break of $396.
Under the deal, the president and the GOP agreed to extend benefits for the long-term unemployed for 13 more months. That aid had expired Nov. 30. Up to 2 million unemployed people would have run out of benefits by year’s end. On long-term unemployment aid, the Labor Department says every $1 spent generates $2 in economic growth. The Center for American Progress predicts that extending those benefits through next year will generate or save 520,000 jobs.
Economists note that cutting Social Security taxes and extending unemployment benefits free up more cash for low- and moderate-income families who are most likely to spend it.
http://www.suntimes.com/2730969-417/deal-tax-benefits-average-economists.html
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted
By David Rose
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'
Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.
Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17RHAni66
Last updated at 4:17 PM on 5th December 2010
A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.
World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'
Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.
This isn't meant to be happening. Climate science orthodoxy, as promulgated by bodies such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), says that temperatures have risen and will continue to rise in step with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and make no mistake, with the rapid industrialisation of China and India, CO2 levels have kept on going up.
According to the IPCC and its computer models, without enormous emission cuts the world is set to get between two and six degrees warmer during the 21st Century, with catastrophic consequences.
Last week at Cancun, in an attempt to influence richer countries to agree to give £20billion immediately to poorer ones to offset the results of warming, the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute warned that global temperatures would be 6.5 degrees higher by 2100, leading to rocketing food prices and a decline in production.
The maths isn't complicated. If the planet were going to be six degrees hotter by the century's end, it should be getting warmer by 0.6 degrees each decade; if two degrees, then by 0.2 degrees every ten years. Fortunately, it isn't.
Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.
They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.
When the Met Office issued its December 2009 preThere-diction, it was clearly expecting an even bigger El Nino spike than happened in 1998 - one so big that it would have dragged up the decade's average.
But though it was still successfully trying to influence media headlines during Cancun last week by saying that 2010 might yet end up as the warmest year, the small print reveals the Met Office climbdown. Last year it predicted that the 2010 average would be 14.58C. Last week, this had been reduced to 14.52C.
That may not sound like much. But when one considers that by the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees, it is quite a big deal. Above all, it means the trend stays flat.
Meanwhile, according to an analysis yesterday by David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2010 had only two unusually warm months, March and April, when El Nino was at its peak.
The data from October to the end of the year suggests that when the final figure is computed, 2010 will not be the warmest year at all, but at most the third warmest, behind both 1998 and 2005.
There is no dispute that the world got a little warmer over some of the 20th Century. (Between 1940 and the early Seventies, temperatures actually fell.)
But little by little, the supposedly settled scientific ' consensus' that the temperature rise is unprecedented, that it is set to continue to disastrous levels, and that it is all the fault of human beings, is starting to fray.
Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous 'hockey stick graph' showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a ' medieval warm period' around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.
Other research is beginning to show that cyclical changes in water vapour - a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide - may account for much of the 20th Century warming.
Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.
One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.
He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.'
After the leak, Trenberth claimed he still believed the world was warming because of CO2, and that the 'travesty' was not the 'pause' but science's failure to explain it.
The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html#ixzz17RHAni66
Monday, December 6, 2010
Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record, e-mails and interviews show
By Andrew Becker
Center for Investigative Reporting
Monday, December 6, 2010; 12:08 AM
For much of this year, the Obama administration touted its tougher-than-ever approach to immigration enforcement, culminating in a record number of deportations.
But in reaching 392,862 deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year, according to agency statistics. ICE also ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol.
When ICE officials realized in the final weeks of the fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, that the agency still was in jeopardy of falling short of last year's mark, it scrambled to reach the goal. Officials quietly directed immigration officers to bypass backlogged immigration courts and time-consuming deportation hearings whenever possible, internal e-mails and interviews show.
Instead, officials told immigration officers to encourage eligible foreign nationals to accept a quick pass to their countries without a negative mark on their immigration record, ICE employees said.
The option, known as voluntary return, may have allowed hundreds of immigrants - who typically would have gone before an immigration judge to contest deportation for offenses such as drunken driving, domestic violence and misdemeanor assault - to leave the country. A voluntary return doesn't bar a foreigner from applying for legal residence or traveling to the United States in the future.
Once the agency closed the books for fiscal 2010 and the record was broken, agents say they were told to stop widely offering the voluntary return option and revert to business as usual.
Without these efforts and the more than 25,000 deportations that came with them, the agency would not have topped last year's record level of 389,834, current and former ICE employees and officials said.
The Obama administration was intent on doing so even as it came under attack by some Republicans for not being tough enough on immigration enforcement and by some Democrats for failing to deliver on promises of comprehensive immigration reform.
"It's not unusual for any administration to get the numbers they need by reaching into their bag of tricks to boost figures," said Neil Clark, who retired as the Seattle field office director in late June, adding that in the 12 years he spent in management he saw the Bush and Clinton administrations do similar things.
But at a news conference Oct. 6, ICE Director John T. Morton said that no unusual practices were used to break the previous year's mark.
"When the secretary tells you that the numbers are at an all-time high, that's straight, on the merits, no cooking of the books," Morton said, referring to his boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. "It's what happened."
ICE declined to make any officials available for interviews. In selected responses to e-mailed questions, spokesman Brian P. Hale wrote that the agency did nothing different from previous years but did not deny that ICE had focused on voluntary returns when it faced a shortfall weeks before the fiscal year ended. Rather, field offices were reminded of the voluntary return option, he said.
"ICE offered eligible aliens . . . the opportunity to accept voluntary return," Hale said. "The decision to accept VR [voluntary return] was the aliens'."
Those efforts did not appear to result in a spike in voluntary returns. Statistics provided by ICE show that voluntary returns peaked at 8,960 in June, before dipping and then leveling off in the last two months of the fiscal year. A total of 64,876 immigrants were voluntarily returned to their home countries in 2010.
Chris Crane, president of the American Federation of Government Employees National Council 118, the union that represents ICE immigration agents and officers, said offering voluntary return was not common practice for the agency. The union has been at odds with Morton over what it calls lax enforcement and gave him a no-confidence vote in June.
"It's breaking the rules to break the record," Crane said. "You don't change the way you do business to meet some quota. Morton said we don't do quotas. But that's what this is."
New accounting
On Oct. 1 - the start of fiscal 2011 - Robin F. Baker, an acting ICE assistant director, cheered field directors on to the finish line in an e-mail obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.
"We are just 1061 shy of 390,000. However, we still get to count closed cases through Monday, October 4th so . . . keep having your folks concentrate on closing those cases," Baker wrote.
Starting in 2009, ICE began to shut its books for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 in the first few days of October. Any deportations that take place in one fiscal year but are confirmed after Oct. 5 are added to the next fiscal year's statistics.
Based on the new accounting approach, the agency counted 19,422 removals from 2009 in the 2010 statistics. In 2010 itself, 373,440 other people were deported.
Current and former ICE employees also point to an expanded U.S.-Mexico partnership as another way the agency increased overall deportation numbers.
Known as the Mexican Interior Repatriation Program, the bilateral effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments focuses on reducing the deaths of migrants attempting to cross the border during the scorching Arizona summer. Mexicans caught by Border Patrol agents in the Sonoran Desert region and southern Arizona are turned over to ICE agents, who carry out the removals to Mexico.
In a February memo, James M. Chaparro, ICE's head of enforcement and removal operations, called on field directors to "maximize" participation in the program, which he outlined as one of the ways to increase removals and "move us into position to meet or exceed the fiscal year goals."
Since its launch in 2004, the program had never started earlier than July 7. This year, the first flight full of Mexicans departed June 1. By starting in June, ICE tallied 6,527 returns that in the past would have been handled - and counted - by the U.S. Border Patrol. Overall, a record 23,384 Mexicans between June and September accepted flights back to Mexico City, and then a bus ticket to their home town, at a cost of almost $15 million.
ICE spokesman Hale said the agency started the program early because of available funds and a timely agreement between the United States and Mexico. He acknowledged that some of the immigrants removed through the program were caught or detained hundreds of miles from Arizona.
"Select individuals from west Texas were offered an opportunity to volunteer for safe return to their place of origin in the interior of Mexico," Hale said.
He also confirmed that Mexican nationals detained near Seattle - possibly as many as 500 immigrants, according to one local officer - were also included on the flights.
A year-end scramble
The surge to break the deportation record in the final weeks of the fiscal year consumed the agency, said a high-ranking immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
"They had everyone burning the candle at both ends to reach 390,000," the official said. "They were basically saying anything you can do to increase the overall removal number, that's what you should do - over everything else."
lIn the Seattle area, immigration officers were instructed to give the voluntary return option to immigrants who did not face mandatory detention and didn't have attorneys.
lIn the Atlanta area, ICE officers were told to persuade immigrants who had already asked to see an immigration judge to instead voluntarily leave the country.
lIn Chicago, officers were told to stop releasing eligible immigrants and monitoring them with electronic ankle bracelets, which might spur more to accept voluntary removals, according to a Sept. 22 e-mail.
"Due to our increase in funding for detention for the remainder of the fiscal year, do not release anyone on an order of recognizance at this time," James McPeek, an assistant field office director in Chicago, wrote in the e-mail to employees. "Another option is to offer a VR [voluntary return] and keep in custody - this will increase our removal numbers for the fiscal year."
An ICE employee in Louisiana, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, estimated that over a two-week period at least 100 to 150 Mexican nationals, some of whom had multiple drunken driving convictions, had their court cases reassigned as voluntary return, which was not common practice. ICE agents elsewhere reported similar numbers.
Several ICE employees said, however, that once the fiscal year ended, their offices reverted to infrequently offering the return option. In the Pacific Northwest, some employees received an e-mail stating just that.
"Effective immediately: do not offer V/Rs [voluntary returns] to aliens who have been convicted of or are pending DUI," ICE supervisor Elizabeth Godfrey wrote Oct. 4.
ICE's goal for 2011 is to remove 404,000 immigrants.
Andrew Becker is a reporter for the Center for Investigative Reporting. He can be reached at abecker@cironline.org. CIR is a nonprofit news organization based in Berkeley, Calif., dedicated to producing investigative journalism. Its stories have appeared frequently in The Washington Post and other newspapers.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Center for Investigative Reporting
Monday, December 6, 2010; 12:08 AM
For much of this year, the Obama administration touted its tougher-than-ever approach to immigration enforcement, culminating in a record number of deportations.
But in reaching 392,862 deportations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement included more than 19,000 immigrants who had exited the previous fiscal year, according to agency statistics. ICE also ran a Mexican repatriation program five weeks longer than ever before, allowing the agency to count at least 6,500 exits that, without the program, would normally have been tallied by the U.S. Border Patrol.
When ICE officials realized in the final weeks of the fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, that the agency still was in jeopardy of falling short of last year's mark, it scrambled to reach the goal. Officials quietly directed immigration officers to bypass backlogged immigration courts and time-consuming deportation hearings whenever possible, internal e-mails and interviews show.
Instead, officials told immigration officers to encourage eligible foreign nationals to accept a quick pass to their countries without a negative mark on their immigration record, ICE employees said.
The option, known as voluntary return, may have allowed hundreds of immigrants - who typically would have gone before an immigration judge to contest deportation for offenses such as drunken driving, domestic violence and misdemeanor assault - to leave the country. A voluntary return doesn't bar a foreigner from applying for legal residence or traveling to the United States in the future.
Once the agency closed the books for fiscal 2010 and the record was broken, agents say they were told to stop widely offering the voluntary return option and revert to business as usual.
Without these efforts and the more than 25,000 deportations that came with them, the agency would not have topped last year's record level of 389,834, current and former ICE employees and officials said.
The Obama administration was intent on doing so even as it came under attack by some Republicans for not being tough enough on immigration enforcement and by some Democrats for failing to deliver on promises of comprehensive immigration reform.
"It's not unusual for any administration to get the numbers they need by reaching into their bag of tricks to boost figures," said Neil Clark, who retired as the Seattle field office director in late June, adding that in the 12 years he spent in management he saw the Bush and Clinton administrations do similar things.
But at a news conference Oct. 6, ICE Director John T. Morton said that no unusual practices were used to break the previous year's mark.
"When the secretary tells you that the numbers are at an all-time high, that's straight, on the merits, no cooking of the books," Morton said, referring to his boss, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. "It's what happened."
ICE declined to make any officials available for interviews. In selected responses to e-mailed questions, spokesman Brian P. Hale wrote that the agency did nothing different from previous years but did not deny that ICE had focused on voluntary returns when it faced a shortfall weeks before the fiscal year ended. Rather, field offices were reminded of the voluntary return option, he said.
"ICE offered eligible aliens . . . the opportunity to accept voluntary return," Hale said. "The decision to accept VR [voluntary return] was the aliens'."
Those efforts did not appear to result in a spike in voluntary returns. Statistics provided by ICE show that voluntary returns peaked at 8,960 in June, before dipping and then leveling off in the last two months of the fiscal year. A total of 64,876 immigrants were voluntarily returned to their home countries in 2010.
Chris Crane, president of the American Federation of Government Employees National Council 118, the union that represents ICE immigration agents and officers, said offering voluntary return was not common practice for the agency. The union has been at odds with Morton over what it calls lax enforcement and gave him a no-confidence vote in June.
"It's breaking the rules to break the record," Crane said. "You don't change the way you do business to meet some quota. Morton said we don't do quotas. But that's what this is."
New accounting
On Oct. 1 - the start of fiscal 2011 - Robin F. Baker, an acting ICE assistant director, cheered field directors on to the finish line in an e-mail obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.
"We are just 1061 shy of 390,000. However, we still get to count closed cases through Monday, October 4th so . . . keep having your folks concentrate on closing those cases," Baker wrote.
Starting in 2009, ICE began to shut its books for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 in the first few days of October. Any deportations that take place in one fiscal year but are confirmed after Oct. 5 are added to the next fiscal year's statistics.
Based on the new accounting approach, the agency counted 19,422 removals from 2009 in the 2010 statistics. In 2010 itself, 373,440 other people were deported.
Current and former ICE employees also point to an expanded U.S.-Mexico partnership as another way the agency increased overall deportation numbers.
Known as the Mexican Interior Repatriation Program, the bilateral effort between the U.S. and Mexican governments focuses on reducing the deaths of migrants attempting to cross the border during the scorching Arizona summer. Mexicans caught by Border Patrol agents in the Sonoran Desert region and southern Arizona are turned over to ICE agents, who carry out the removals to Mexico.
In a February memo, James M. Chaparro, ICE's head of enforcement and removal operations, called on field directors to "maximize" participation in the program, which he outlined as one of the ways to increase removals and "move us into position to meet or exceed the fiscal year goals."
Since its launch in 2004, the program had never started earlier than July 7. This year, the first flight full of Mexicans departed June 1. By starting in June, ICE tallied 6,527 returns that in the past would have been handled - and counted - by the U.S. Border Patrol. Overall, a record 23,384 Mexicans between June and September accepted flights back to Mexico City, and then a bus ticket to their home town, at a cost of almost $15 million.
ICE spokesman Hale said the agency started the program early because of available funds and a timely agreement between the United States and Mexico. He acknowledged that some of the immigrants removed through the program were caught or detained hundreds of miles from Arizona.
"Select individuals from west Texas were offered an opportunity to volunteer for safe return to their place of origin in the interior of Mexico," Hale said.
He also confirmed that Mexican nationals detained near Seattle - possibly as many as 500 immigrants, according to one local officer - were also included on the flights.
A year-end scramble
The surge to break the deportation record in the final weeks of the fiscal year consumed the agency, said a high-ranking immigration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
"They had everyone burning the candle at both ends to reach 390,000," the official said. "They were basically saying anything you can do to increase the overall removal number, that's what you should do - over everything else."
lIn the Seattle area, immigration officers were instructed to give the voluntary return option to immigrants who did not face mandatory detention and didn't have attorneys.
lIn the Atlanta area, ICE officers were told to persuade immigrants who had already asked to see an immigration judge to instead voluntarily leave the country.
lIn Chicago, officers were told to stop releasing eligible immigrants and monitoring them with electronic ankle bracelets, which might spur more to accept voluntary removals, according to a Sept. 22 e-mail.
"Due to our increase in funding for detention for the remainder of the fiscal year, do not release anyone on an order of recognizance at this time," James McPeek, an assistant field office director in Chicago, wrote in the e-mail to employees. "Another option is to offer a VR [voluntary return] and keep in custody - this will increase our removal numbers for the fiscal year."
An ICE employee in Louisiana, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, estimated that over a two-week period at least 100 to 150 Mexican nationals, some of whom had multiple drunken driving convictions, had their court cases reassigned as voluntary return, which was not common practice. ICE agents elsewhere reported similar numbers.
Several ICE employees said, however, that once the fiscal year ended, their offices reverted to infrequently offering the return option. In the Pacific Northwest, some employees received an e-mail stating just that.
"Effective immediately: do not offer V/Rs [voluntary returns] to aliens who have been convicted of or are pending DUI," ICE supervisor Elizabeth Godfrey wrote Oct. 4.
ICE's goal for 2011 is to remove 404,000 immigrants.
Andrew Becker is a reporter for the Center for Investigative Reporting. He can be reached at abecker@cironline.org. CIR is a nonprofit news organization based in Berkeley, Calif., dedicated to producing investigative journalism. Its stories have appeared frequently in The Washington Post and other newspapers.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Rahm Emanuel ballot challenges to be heard today
Posted by Kristen Mack at 7 a.m.
A hearing is scheduled to take place this morning on the slew of challenges attempting to knock former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot.
The Chicago Board of Elections has set an 11 a.m. hearing to be presided over by Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who once unsuccessfully ran for Cook County Board president as a Republican.
"We look for people with a good working knowledge of the election code, who have no possible conflicts and who, most importantly, can conduct a fair and impartial hearing," said Jim Allen, an elections board spokesman. "Mr. Morris fits all those qualifications."
The objections to Emanuel's candidacy largely center around whether he meets the residency requirements. Emanuel says he meets the standard because he owns a home here, has voted here and always intended to move back from Washington. Election law attorney Burt Odelson, who filed the major ballot challenge says the fact that Emanuel rented out his home, instead of leaving it empty, means he’s not a resident.
Morris, the hearing officer, will make a recommendation to the city elections board, which will rule on the various attempts to knock Emanuel off the Feb. 22 ballot.
The elections board today also will begin the process of hearing the more than 300 additional objections lodged against 19 other mayoral candidates and dozens of aldermanic candidates
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/12/rahm-emanuel-ballot-challenges-to-be-heard-today.html
A hearing is scheduled to take place this morning on the slew of challenges attempting to knock former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot.
The Chicago Board of Elections has set an 11 a.m. hearing to be presided over by Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who once unsuccessfully ran for Cook County Board president as a Republican.
"We look for people with a good working knowledge of the election code, who have no possible conflicts and who, most importantly, can conduct a fair and impartial hearing," said Jim Allen, an elections board spokesman. "Mr. Morris fits all those qualifications."
The objections to Emanuel's candidacy largely center around whether he meets the residency requirements. Emanuel says he meets the standard because he owns a home here, has voted here and always intended to move back from Washington. Election law attorney Burt Odelson, who filed the major ballot challenge says the fact that Emanuel rented out his home, instead of leaving it empty, means he’s not a resident.
Morris, the hearing officer, will make a recommendation to the city elections board, which will rule on the various attempts to knock Emanuel off the Feb. 22 ballot.
The elections board today also will begin the process of hearing the more than 300 additional objections lodged against 19 other mayoral candidates and dozens of aldermanic candidates
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/12/rahm-emanuel-ballot-challenges-to-be-heard-today.html
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Bp. Paprocki Defends Faith; Corrects Gov. Quinn
Thomas F. Roeser 3 December 2010
The column I did yesterday about usage of the “Fundamental Option” dodge…the heresy that one can go ahead and do whatever he/she wants on moral questions and escape guilt if the sinner does not abjure God…is illustrated vividly today by Catholic Gov. Pat Quinn. He said on passage of civil unions “my religious faith animates me to support this bill.” Indeed? He also supports abortion in its many forms to equate with the current decadent tastes of liberal, rudderless politicians who do everything possible to be elected.
Therefore it was heartening to see Quinn’s Springfield bishop, Thomas Paprocki, counter with this statement: “If the governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”
Regarding Quinn’s declaration that “religious faith animates me to support this bill,” Bishop Paprocki said wryly, “he did not say what religious faith that would be—but it is certainly not the Catholic faith.”
The battle over civil unions which passed House and Senate and awaits Quinn’s signature which he has said he would supply—earning him standing applause from the Democratic-controlled legislature—has been one of the finest hours not just for Francis Cardinal George but for an unsung hero of the fight—the Illinois Catholic Conference’s Robert Gilligan. I was a lobbyist himself—27 years in Washington for The Quaker Oats company—and I have never, ever, seen a staffer with better acumen on strategy combined with an eloquence of statement to the media. Consistently Bob Gilligan has been foremost in public as well as private advocacy, pointing out in testimony and to the media that the legislation threatens to substantially alter the legal definition of what constitutes a family, predicting that future generations might have to learn harsh lessons about the unintended consequences of social engineering.
He has pointed out that while individuals may enjoy this lifestyle and maintain that it is a “right,” a culture cannot sustain itself by approximating homosexual or heterosexual shacking-up with marriage—the consequences leading to a European model of living and ultimate diminution of lifetime commitment, leading to chaotic coupling that provide a shrinking population and family breakdown.
Gilligan’s fine work has been duplicated by other pro-family lobbyists such as Paul Caprio, Ralph Rivera and the Rev. Robert Vandenbosch—but for the purpose of this website which concentrates on Catholic advocacy, Bob Gilligan’s attainments are noble and eloquent.
It is instructive to see how sectors of the relativistic Left in the
Church have responded to Paprocki-George-Gilligan in posts to websites. I’ll show a few (there are less intelligible ones linked) to demonstrate how Catholic training in theological verities have declined:
“If the majority of Catholics support this belief [passage of civil unions], which they do, then it is a Catholic belief. The beliefs of a few old men carry no more weight than any similar number of other Catholics and certainly these pseudo celibate old men cannot claim to speak for God.” Meaning that moral law is what a majority say it should be.
“Sounds like the Bishop is a right-wing Republican. Maybe such unions are natural. If they are, the law would seem to accord with the Natural Law.”
In essence both comments proclaim that whatever you do that seems natural is the Natural Law.
That whirring you hear is Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine and the entirety of philosophers of the Judeo-Christian Westspinning in their graves.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/bp-paprocki-defends-faith-corrects-gov-quinn/
The column I did yesterday about usage of the “Fundamental Option” dodge…the heresy that one can go ahead and do whatever he/she wants on moral questions and escape guilt if the sinner does not abjure God…is illustrated vividly today by Catholic Gov. Pat Quinn. He said on passage of civil unions “my religious faith animates me to support this bill.” Indeed? He also supports abortion in its many forms to equate with the current decadent tastes of liberal, rudderless politicians who do everything possible to be elected.
Therefore it was heartening to see Quinn’s Springfield bishop, Thomas Paprocki, counter with this statement: “If the governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative for which he is accountable to the voters. But if he wishes to speak as a Catholic, then he is accountable to Catholic authority and the Catholic Church does not support civil unions or other measures that are contrary to the natural moral law.”
Regarding Quinn’s declaration that “religious faith animates me to support this bill,” Bishop Paprocki said wryly, “he did not say what religious faith that would be—but it is certainly not the Catholic faith.”
The battle over civil unions which passed House and Senate and awaits Quinn’s signature which he has said he would supply—earning him standing applause from the Democratic-controlled legislature—has been one of the finest hours not just for Francis Cardinal George but for an unsung hero of the fight—the Illinois Catholic Conference’s Robert Gilligan. I was a lobbyist himself—27 years in Washington for The Quaker Oats company—and I have never, ever, seen a staffer with better acumen on strategy combined with an eloquence of statement to the media. Consistently Bob Gilligan has been foremost in public as well as private advocacy, pointing out in testimony and to the media that the legislation threatens to substantially alter the legal definition of what constitutes a family, predicting that future generations might have to learn harsh lessons about the unintended consequences of social engineering.
He has pointed out that while individuals may enjoy this lifestyle and maintain that it is a “right,” a culture cannot sustain itself by approximating homosexual or heterosexual shacking-up with marriage—the consequences leading to a European model of living and ultimate diminution of lifetime commitment, leading to chaotic coupling that provide a shrinking population and family breakdown.
Gilligan’s fine work has been duplicated by other pro-family lobbyists such as Paul Caprio, Ralph Rivera and the Rev. Robert Vandenbosch—but for the purpose of this website which concentrates on Catholic advocacy, Bob Gilligan’s attainments are noble and eloquent.
It is instructive to see how sectors of the relativistic Left in the
Church have responded to Paprocki-George-Gilligan in posts to websites. I’ll show a few (there are less intelligible ones linked) to demonstrate how Catholic training in theological verities have declined:
“If the majority of Catholics support this belief [passage of civil unions], which they do, then it is a Catholic belief. The beliefs of a few old men carry no more weight than any similar number of other Catholics and certainly these pseudo celibate old men cannot claim to speak for God.” Meaning that moral law is what a majority say it should be.
“Sounds like the Bishop is a right-wing Republican. Maybe such unions are natural. If they are, the law would seem to accord with the Natural Law.”
In essence both comments proclaim that whatever you do that seems natural is the Natural Law.
That whirring you hear is Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine and the entirety of philosophers of the Judeo-Christian Westspinning in their graves.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/bp-paprocki-defends-faith-corrects-gov-quinn/
Santo gave Chicago his heart
Cubs legend with passion and with no apologies
My brother Peter, one of two Cubs fans in our baseball-divided family, called to leave a one-word message on a cold morning that was about to get even colder.
"Santo," he said, and I knew.
Many of you most likely received a call just like it, or made one yourself, and said the name just like my brother said it. Santo.
In Chicago, Ron Santo is a name that is all about heart. He wasn't the prettiest baseball player at third base, or the smoothest broadcaster. He wasn't tricky or slick. Sometimes he'd groan in the booth, or cheer, and sophisticated baseball snobs derisively called him a homer because he was such a fan.
Such baseball snobs often treat the game — and all sport — as if it were a bone-dry cathedral built on cold logic, reason and statistics. But if it is a church of sorts, then the fans know it is built on passion and tears.
So, Santo put his heart out there honestly and without reservation every day for decades, on the field and behind that microphone. And by putting his heart out there, he risked it, and Chicago understood and loved him for it.
The calls went out on Friday morning, baseball fans tolling the news that he was gone. Perhaps your heart broke a little, for Chicago and the Cubs and for baseball, and maybe for your own youth, too, if you were lucky enough to see the man play ball.
He'd stand at the plate in the days before batting gloves, stooping to pick up a handful or two of dirt. He'd rub his hands with it, rubbing them past the wrists, to dry them of sweat. Then he'd pick up his bat and stare into the cold eyes of pitchers with names like Gibson, Ryan, Koufax and Drysdale.
Baseball is a game of numbers, and Santo's numbers put him right up there at the top of the game. He was a dangerous hitter in the years of the high pitcher's mound, when dominant pitching was more important to the Lords of Baseball than the pharmaceutically enhanced muscles they embraced years later.
The fact that Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame — after a career of five consecutive Gold Gloves, nine All Star appearances and 342 home runs — is an indictment of baseball. Sure, they'll rush to enshrine him now that he has passed away, and further damn themselves for their selfishness.
Yet whatever the Lords of the Game know or don't know, we fans knew. Most of us out in White Sox country on the South Side and in the south suburbs liked him too.
When we were kids — even us Sox fans — we'd go up to the plate at our own fields and pick up the dirt and wash our hands and stare at the pitcher and do a Santo.
"It's that feeling he gave me when he played," my brother said. "Ronnie's uniform was dirty. He'd get the ball and make the play. He did what he had to do."
And that included playing with diabetes and keeping his mouth shut about it until later, when he realized that he could help kids and others suffering from the disease just by talking about it. What was even more impressive is that he did it all without complaint, without seeking any sympathy.
Later, I turned on WGN radio as ace broadcaster Dave Kaplan — another great Cubs fan with one of the biggest Cubs hearts around — was talking about giving Santo a ride home after a Cubs victory.
Santo had gone through that first amputation, and the early prosthetic was causing him problems. There was some bleeding. So, he removed the fake leg and propped it in the car as Kaplan drove.
Dave told him how he'd worn Santo's No. 10 as a Little Leaguer, then looked at the prosthetic and told Santo how sorry he was.
"What are you complaining about?" Santo said. "We won the game, didn't we?"
An entire generation knew Santo from his work in the Cubs broadcast booth on WGN radio as the color man, the analyst, the fan.
But he was a player first, and though he finished his career with the White Sox, he was always a Cub, with 14 years at Wrigley. And he played like he announced.
For those of you who weren't here to understand, back when Santo played in the late 1960s, the city was going to hell. There were riots and protests and more riots and fires. Violence and anger, racial and political, were the lyrics of summer in Chicago.
Then 1969 happened, and for most of that magical season, the Cubs were in first place and the wild enthusiasm helped heal things. And every game would start with the late Jack Brickhouse's immortal phrase, "Santo, Kessinger, Beckert and Banks, the infield third to first."
After every home victory, Santo would jog toward the clubhouse jumping and kicking his heels for joy.
"I'll never forget how he kicked his heels," Peter said. "The feeling he had when he did it. That feeling he gave us."
And that's how many of us want to remember him, on a baseball field. Jumping for joy, heels clicking like a kid, that great heart pumping.
jskass@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-1205-20101205,0,2842101.column
My brother Peter, one of two Cubs fans in our baseball-divided family, called to leave a one-word message on a cold morning that was about to get even colder.
"Santo," he said, and I knew.
Many of you most likely received a call just like it, or made one yourself, and said the name just like my brother said it. Santo.
In Chicago, Ron Santo is a name that is all about heart. He wasn't the prettiest baseball player at third base, or the smoothest broadcaster. He wasn't tricky or slick. Sometimes he'd groan in the booth, or cheer, and sophisticated baseball snobs derisively called him a homer because he was such a fan.
Such baseball snobs often treat the game — and all sport — as if it were a bone-dry cathedral built on cold logic, reason and statistics. But if it is a church of sorts, then the fans know it is built on passion and tears.
So, Santo put his heart out there honestly and without reservation every day for decades, on the field and behind that microphone. And by putting his heart out there, he risked it, and Chicago understood and loved him for it.
The calls went out on Friday morning, baseball fans tolling the news that he was gone. Perhaps your heart broke a little, for Chicago and the Cubs and for baseball, and maybe for your own youth, too, if you were lucky enough to see the man play ball.
He'd stand at the plate in the days before batting gloves, stooping to pick up a handful or two of dirt. He'd rub his hands with it, rubbing them past the wrists, to dry them of sweat. Then he'd pick up his bat and stare into the cold eyes of pitchers with names like Gibson, Ryan, Koufax and Drysdale.
Baseball is a game of numbers, and Santo's numbers put him right up there at the top of the game. He was a dangerous hitter in the years of the high pitcher's mound, when dominant pitching was more important to the Lords of Baseball than the pharmaceutically enhanced muscles they embraced years later.
The fact that Santo isn't in the Hall of Fame — after a career of five consecutive Gold Gloves, nine All Star appearances and 342 home runs — is an indictment of baseball. Sure, they'll rush to enshrine him now that he has passed away, and further damn themselves for their selfishness.
Yet whatever the Lords of the Game know or don't know, we fans knew. Most of us out in White Sox country on the South Side and in the south suburbs liked him too.
When we were kids — even us Sox fans — we'd go up to the plate at our own fields and pick up the dirt and wash our hands and stare at the pitcher and do a Santo.
"It's that feeling he gave me when he played," my brother said. "Ronnie's uniform was dirty. He'd get the ball and make the play. He did what he had to do."
And that included playing with diabetes and keeping his mouth shut about it until later, when he realized that he could help kids and others suffering from the disease just by talking about it. What was even more impressive is that he did it all without complaint, without seeking any sympathy.
Later, I turned on WGN radio as ace broadcaster Dave Kaplan — another great Cubs fan with one of the biggest Cubs hearts around — was talking about giving Santo a ride home after a Cubs victory.
Santo had gone through that first amputation, and the early prosthetic was causing him problems. There was some bleeding. So, he removed the fake leg and propped it in the car as Kaplan drove.
Dave told him how he'd worn Santo's No. 10 as a Little Leaguer, then looked at the prosthetic and told Santo how sorry he was.
"What are you complaining about?" Santo said. "We won the game, didn't we?"
An entire generation knew Santo from his work in the Cubs broadcast booth on WGN radio as the color man, the analyst, the fan.
But he was a player first, and though he finished his career with the White Sox, he was always a Cub, with 14 years at Wrigley. And he played like he announced.
For those of you who weren't here to understand, back when Santo played in the late 1960s, the city was going to hell. There were riots and protests and more riots and fires. Violence and anger, racial and political, were the lyrics of summer in Chicago.
Then 1969 happened, and for most of that magical season, the Cubs were in first place and the wild enthusiasm helped heal things. And every game would start with the late Jack Brickhouse's immortal phrase, "Santo, Kessinger, Beckert and Banks, the infield third to first."
After every home victory, Santo would jog toward the clubhouse jumping and kicking his heels for joy.
"I'll never forget how he kicked his heels," Peter said. "The feeling he had when he did it. That feeling he gave us."
And that's how many of us want to remember him, on a baseball field. Jumping for joy, heels clicking like a kid, that great heart pumping.
jskass@tribune.com
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-1205-20101205,0,2842101.column
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)