Illinois GOP.org Roots

How Rahm Retaliated Against Bad Press

2011-04-15T23:42:00.000-05:00

So much for the new-and-improved, "I'm not a bully," Rahm Emanuel.

Since returning to Chicago to run for mayor, Emanuel has shied away from the public outbursts and vulgar language that famously earned him the nickname "Rahmbo."
But I've learned the new-and-improved Rahm has a way to punish the press when they report on stories he doesn't like. He cuts off access.

This week NBCChicago and Ward Room published details of the Emanuel Inauguration, which includes a plan to charge donors up to $50,000 for a premium seat at the swearing-in on May 16th. While noting that there will be "free, open and accessible" events around the ceremony, our writers took him to task for being the first Chicago mayor to charge a fee of any sort for his inaugural.

The Emanuel team says that money will pay for the event and save the taxpayers.

So the day after the "Mini White House Inaugural" was reported, the Emanuel team refused to notify NBC of rare one-on-one interviews allotted to our competitors. The TV business is competitive, but typically politicians and public figures who are involved with big events grant the same access to all-comers.

When we asked why we were left out of the mix, the Emanuel communications team implied they weren't happy with the coverage of the VIP inauguration. They didn't challenge facts, but were upset with tone. So they left us out.

It's an old game ... kill the messenger not the message; cut off the access.

The story continued on Friday, when during a press conference about Chicago Public Schools changes, Emanuel abruptly left the podium before taking questions about his inaugural, nor would he comment on a report about incoming communications director Chris Mather, who has racked up nine personnel complaints during her time at the USDA (See the above video for the Emanuel reaction and how I tried to follow up him.)

Remember what outgoing Alderman Berny Stone said about preparing Emperor Emanuel? Which Rahm replied "My family says I don't look good in a toga."

I have to agree.
BY Mary Ann Ahern // Friday, Apr 15, 2011 at 03:47 CDT

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/How-Rahm-Emanuel-Retailiates-Against-Bad-Press.html#ixzz1JerGhZtB

Flip Flop-9/11 suspects will be tried at Guantanamo,

2011-04-04T16:08:00.000-05:00

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., in a major reversal for the Obama administration, 'reluctantly' announces that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspects in the September 11 terror attacks will be tried before a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rather than in a civilian court in New York.

By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau

2:11 p.m. CDT, April 4, 2011
sc-dc-0405-holder-ksm-20110404
WASHINGTON — Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced "reluctantly" that the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and four other suspects will face justice before a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay rather than in a civilian court in New York.

The decision marks a major reversal both for President Obama and Holder, especially since the president initially promised to shut down the prison at the U.S. Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay — where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the others will now be tried.

"Sadly, this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning," Holder said, revealing that a 2009 indictment against Mohammed and the four others has sat for months under seal in federal court in New York, without ever proceeding. "But despite all the argument and debate it has engendered, the prosecution for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points."

Republican lawmakers, and some Democrats, who vigorously opposed a federal civilian trial for the alleged Sept. 11 plotters welcomed the news that the White House and Holder had reversed their earlier decision to move the defendants from Cuba to New York.

"For the sake of the safety and security of the American people, I'm glad the president reconsidered his position,'' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor. "Going forward, this model should be the rule rather than the exception."

In late 2009, the attorney general said that the trials of the five men would be held in the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, a decision that at first was met with general public approval.

But by early 2010, Holder and the Justice Department were running into steep opposition from New York politicians from both parties, along with much of the public, who were concerned that a civilian trial would cost too much, place New York once again in the terror spotlight, and possibly endanger the New York public. At the same time, there were mounting protests over a new Muslim mosque center near the trade center site as well.

Republicans were so incensed that on Capitol Hill, joining with a good number of Democrats, they passed legislation to prohibit spending any federal funds to move terror detainees from the Cuban prison to the U.S. for civilian trials.

That move in essence blocked the administration's attempts for civilian trials, and last month Obama announced that he was restarting the military tribunal process at Guantanamo Bay.

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Supreme Court supports tax breaks that subsidize religious schools

2011-04-04T15:51:00.000-05:00

The court rules, 5-4, in favor of Arizona tax credits for those who give money to parochial schools and says the credits cannot be challenged as unconstitutional. Justice Elena Kagan dissents, objecting to the court's distinction between tax breaks and tax subsidies.

By David G. Savage

1:16 p.m. CDT, April 4, 2011
sc-dc-0405-court-religion-web-20110404
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened the door to a new form of state support for religious schools, upholding special tax credits in Arizona for those who give money to church schools and ruling that critics may not challenge such a plan as unconstitutional.

The 5-4 decision goes further than ever before to shield government subsidies for religion from being challenged in court.

In the past, the court has said that taxpayers can go to court and sue if a state or a federal agency violates the 1st Amendment ban on subsidizing "an establishment of religion." Acting on such suits, courts struck down a series of state laws in recent decades that gave public money to parochial schools.

In Monday's decision, however, the court's conservative bloc ruled that dissenting taxpayers may not sue to challenge special tax breaks that subsidize religious teaching. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said a tax break differs from a direct subsidy because the money comes from the wallet of the person making the donation, not from the state.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0405-court-religion-web-20110404,0,1500419.story

Republican Numbers in Chicago

2011-03-22T09:46:00.000-05:00

Most Republican Wards in Chicago*

Ward Percentage Democratic voters Percentage Republican voters
41 74.3% 25.7%
42 76.3% 23.7%
43 78.8% 21.2%
38 81.1% 18.9%
45 81.4% 18.6%

Most Democratic Wards in Chicago*

Ward Percentage Democratic voters Percentage Republican voters
34 99.3% 0.7%
8 99.2% 0.8%
6 99.2% 0.8%
17 99.2% 0.8%
21 99.1% 0.9%

* based off ballots pulled during February 2010 primary election

Rahm Emanuel nearly swept black neighborhoods in mayoral victory

2011-03-21T10:38:00.000-05:00

Rahm Emanuel’s big victory in last month’s mayoral election was so resounding that he carried more than four out of every five precincts, according to a Chicago Sun-Times analysis that offers the first neighborhood-level look at how the mayor’s race was won.

Emanuel came out on top in 2,106 of the city’s 2,570 precincts, the analysis found.

Beyond that, it found that despite the presence in the mayoral election of former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, who emerged as the consensus African-American candidate, nearly every majority-black precinct went for Emanuel, whose campaign got a show of support from his former boss, President Obama. That helped Emanuel win 55 percent of the votes — enough to win the mayor’s race outright and avoid a runoff.

Second-place finisher Gery Chico carried 411 precincts, while Miguel del Valle won in 52, and Braun came out on top in only one precinct.

Chico — whose paternal grandparents came from Mexico — carried heavily Mexican-American neighborhoods on the city’s Southwest Side and Southeast Side.

And Chico’s campaign promise to try to avoid cutting pension benefits for city workers in the face of severe budget problems appears to have helped deliver Beverly, Edgewater and Edison Park — each home to many police officers, firefighters and other city workers. Emanuel did not make that same campaign promise.

A cluster of largely Puerto Rican precincts helped del Valle, who was born in Puerto Rico, carry his political base of Humboldt Park. It wasn’t quite enough to win him an entire ward in the mayoral voting — but he came close.

Some nearby precincts in which Mexican Americans now outnumber Puerto Ricans went for Chico, the analysis found.

“Other than political party identification, race is the most important clue to voting,” says Dick Simpson, the former alderman who is now a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Of Braun’s fourth-place showing, Simpson says that despite the common view that “people think it’s mostly because Carol Moseley Braun ran a bad campaign, it’s not clear [U.S. Rep.] Danny Davis or [state Sen. James] Meeks” — who dropped out of the campaign and supported Braun — “would have done much better.”

Simpson says of Emanuel’s ability to carry heavily black neighborhboods, “It is progress to the extent that it is not an automatic race vote. Voters are taking into account who will best take care of their needs.”

The lone precinct carried by Braun was in the Fuller Park neighborhood around 43rd Street and Wentworth Avenue on the South Side. Most of its voters live in the Minnie Riperton apartments, a Chicago Housing Authority senior citizens mid-rise complex.

Among them: David Whitehead, 71, a retiree who was a frequent — and unsuccessful — candidate for alderman and other public offices in the1980s and 1990s, including a loss in a 1996 Illinois Senate race to Obama.

Whitehead says he worked to get out the vote for Braun at the Riperton complex.

“I told people that, with my experience and what I know about these candidates . . . that Carol would be a better person,” says Whitehead.

Braun carried the precinct with 83 votes, to Emanuel’s 59.

Whitehead figures Braun would have done even better there if his old opponent hadn’t backed Emanuel.

“The president came on the TV and WVON radio saying, ‘I support Rahm Emanuel, he’s a good guy, he’s qualified,’ ” Whitehead says.

http://www.suntimes.com/4244583-417/rahm-emanuel-nearly-swept-black-neighborhoods-in-mayoral-victory.html

Revive Yucca Storage Facility

2011-03-19T16:52:00.000-05:00

Before the nuclear disaster in Japan, most people probably didn't know that there is something potentially worse than a nuclear reactor core meltdown. That's the breach and exposure of containers holding hundreds of radioactive rods of spent nuclear fuel.

That's what crews are battling at the crippled Fukushima nuclear facility.

Here's why that is potentially a bigger problem than a meltdown: In the Japanese reactors — as in many U.S. reactors — the spent fuel is housed in large water-filled pools in the reactor building but outside the concrete-and-steel fortress that surrounds the reactor core.

If the core melts down, any radiation released is likely to be partly bottled up by the containment vessel.

Not so for the spent fuel pools, which often contain far more radioactive material than in the reactor. If the water that keeps those rods cool drains or boils away, the used fuel can catch fire. Result: A dangerous plume of extremely high radioactivity spewed into the air.

Obvious question: Why do nuclear plants store spent fuel that way?

Obvious answer in the U.S.: Yucca Mountain isn't open. In the 1980s, the federal government launched plans to ship nuclear waste to a storage lair carved into the mountain in Nevada and let it slowly and harmlessly decay.

But lawsuits, politics and environmental challenges stalled the project for decades.

Last year — 12 years after it was supposed to open — the Obama administration declared Yucca dead and created a panel to study "alternatives."

"We're done with Yucca," White House energy adviser Carol Browner said at the time. "We need to be looking at other alternatives."

Alternatives that, presumably, weren't in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's backyard.

The decision to mothball Yucca was a huge mistake, and the Obama administration should recognize that in the wake of the nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan.

The storage caverns at Yucca would be 1,000 feet below the surface and 1,000 feet above the water table in the Nevada desert. They would be geologically stable. Water seepage from the surface is minimal.

Wake-up call: Illinois is home to more spent fuel rods than any other state in the nation.

The U.S. doesn't have another three decades to dither about where to store nuclear waste. Those spent fuel rods are piling up in reactors near major cities — including at the scuttled Zion nuclear power plant here. About 1,100 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods stand about a football field away from Lake Michigan. Another 6,100 tons are stored at other Illinois plants.

A breach of those fuel pools and a release of huge radioactive plumes could create a disaster as bad as, or worse than, Chernobyl.

In 1997, the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island studied the worst-case toll of a spent fuel conflagration. The scary results: 101 immediate deaths in a 500-mile range, 138,000 eventual deaths, 2,170 miles of land contaminated. Estimated economic damages: $546 billion.

Until the Japanese earthquake and tsunami ruined the Fukushima reactors, the likelihood of a spent-fuel cataclysm seemed remote. No, we're not going to have a 9.0 earthquake in Zion or tsunami on Lake Michigan. But let's not mask that there is substantial risk to stalling on a central, secure storage location for the nation's spent nuclear fuel.

In the short term, America's nuclear industry can reduce risks by moving more spent fuel from reactor buildings into dry casks — sturdy concrete and steel containers nearly the size of a truck trailer — elsewhere on site.

In the long run, however, nuclear waste shouldn't be scattered near population centers across the country. It should be entombed in Yucca Mountain.

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

Blacks and Republicans

2011-03-18T23:48:00.002-05:00

Thomas Sowell

San Francisco's irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city's streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray.

McCray's greeting to him was "You're 10."

"What are you talking about?" Willie Brown asked.

McCray replied: "I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you're only the 10th black person I've seen."

That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade.

A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, "You're the first black man I have seen around here in months!"

"It will be months more before you see another one," I replied, and we both laughed.

Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco, and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula, by high housing prices.

At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country. But the building restrictions-- and outright bans-- resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.

The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.

It so happens that these are counties where the voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.

Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable.

With all the Republican politicians' laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such policies of the Democrats as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.

If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.

It would be impossible for the Democrats to deny the facts, not only in coastal California but in similar affluent strongholds of liberal Democrats around the country. Moreover, environmental zealots are such an important part of the Democrats' constituencies that Democratic politicians could not change their policies.

Although Republicans would have a strong case, none of that matters when they don't make the case in the first place. The same is true of the effects of minimum wage laws on the high rate of unemployment among black youths. Again, the facts are undeniable, and the Democrats cannot change their policy, because they are beholden to labor unions that advocate higher minimum wages.

Yet another area in which Democrats are boxed in politically is their making job protection for members of teachers' unions more important than improving education for students in the public schools. No one loses more from this policy than blacks, for many of whom education is their only chance for economic advancement.

But none of this matters so long as Republicans who want the black vote think they have to devise earmarked benefits for blacks, instead of explaining how Republicans' general principles, applied to all Americans, can do more for blacks than the Democrats' welfare state approach.

College Illinois managers say prepaid tuition fund is stable

2011-03-17T12:02:00.000-05:00

Plan projected to have 31 percent shortfall, according to news report

By Jodi S. Cohen, Tribune reporter

Officials who manage the state's prepaid tuition program assured lawmakers Wednesday that the fund is stable despite past market losses and tuition increases that have been higher than anticipated.

The $1.12 billion fund is "healthy and in good shape," Andrew Davis, executive director of the Illinois Student Assistance Commission, said in a presentation to the House Higher Education Committee. The commission manages the College Illinois program.

About 33,000 families hold a total of 54,900 tuition contracts through the prepaid tuition program, which is advertised as a "worry-free way to pay for college." About 7,750 students this year are cashing in on their prepaid tuition benefits, with the fund paying out $47.7 million.

College Illinois officials were summoned to Springfield after a Crain's Chicago Business report that the plan is currently projected to have a 31 percent shortfall, and critics are questioning the agency's strategy to shift to more alternative, arguably riskier investments in hedge funds, real estate and private equity.

Davis was grilled at length Wednesday by Rep. Jim Durkin, R-Western Springs, who has submitted a bill calling for an audit of the fund. Durkin said he has a College Illinois contract.

"Last week I received a few phone calls from friends and an inquiry from my wife of whether we should pull the money out of the fund," Durkin said.

He told Davis he had "grave concerns" about the portfolio's increase in alternative investments and worried that families would pull their money out of the program.

Davis countered that the investments are not risky because more than 85 percent of the assets are liquid and can be turned into cash in less than one week.

But Davis acknowledged in an earlier Tribune interview that the plan's investment assumptions — based on a predicted rate of return and tuition increases — show that it could run out of cash a decade from now. If that should occur, the agency would have to ask the governor and General Assembly for a bailout, he said.

Like other investments, the plan's health can change quickly. The fund is dependent not only on market fluctuations, but also on how much Illinois' public universities raise tuition and therefore how much the fund will have to pay out as its beneficiaries attend college. The program currently predicts that University of Illinois tuition will go up 8.5 percent indefinitely — if it goes up less, the fund does better; if it goes up more, it does worse.

"We have come through a decade where tuition has gone up a lot, three times the rate of inflation," Davis said. "I don't think they can do that for another decade."

The plan was strong in 2007, when it was only 7 percent underfunded. Since then, the fund suffered market losses during the recession and as tuition went up more than predicted.

The fund's managers have changed their investment strategy, moving from having less than 2 percent in so-called alternative investments such as hedge funds to about 40 percent currently. The target is 47 percent.

Brian Battle, a director at Performance Trust Capital Partners, told the Tribune he questioned the investment strategy and doubted that the agency can get the long-term rate of return of 8.75 percent that it's predicting. The fund this fiscal year has a 14.1 percent return.

"They are underfunded and need to make up for it, so they are going to swing for the fence," Battle said. "It looks like Illinois is taking a lot of risk, and their assumptions are very aggressive."

Battle also has a personal stake, as he has a prepaid tuition contract for one of his children.

"I am concerned that the money won't be there when I need it," he said. "The other part is that I have the presumption that the state of Illinois will feel some moral obligation" to pay.

In addition to changing its investment strategy, the agency also has worked on other ways to strengthen the fund's solvency.

Families now pay significantly more for a contract, for example. An eight-semester contract for the U. of I. purchased today for a newborn costs $95,521. Five years ago, it was $41,493. Families pay different amounts depending on the age of their child and whether the contract is for the U. of I., another state four-year university or a community college.

If a student decides to attend a private university or go out of state, the plan pays a portion of the tuition based on the current mean-weighted average tuition at all Illinois public universities. Families can get their money back at any time, minus fees.

Davis said families shouldn't worry.

"In the context of what other solutions are available to people to pay for higher education … this is a safe and secure one," Davis said.

Tribune reporter Todd Wilson contributed.

jscohen@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-college-illinois-0317-20110316,0,1639505,print.story

2012 will be about Obama

2011-03-17T11:50:00.000-05:00

By David Hill

The greatest political deception of the month must be that PowerPoint presentation — the 10-slide deck that shows the president matched against various Republicans — that is being trundled around the country for showings to audiences of Democrat fat-cats. Naturally, I haven’t been invited to view it, but I am betting that the data shared with big donors does not show the “deserves reelection” percentage earned by the president. That would scare off the faint-hearted. So, instead, the deceivers show the head-to-head results of Obama versus Michele Bachmann. I can’t believe sophisticated contributors are falling for this.

Not only is this “data-based” sleight of hand misleading about the president’s empirical prospects — the larger strategic premise is flawed. Advisers to the president’s nascent reelection campaign keep talking about where they are today versus four years ago. Worse off, they acknowledge. But then they start criticizing the Republicans for not being where the Democrats were four years ago. It’s as if they think they (and even Republicans) are going to succeed by going back to the future.

All this logic is terribly flawed. Here’s why. The contest four years ago was for an open seat. Open-seat races are about all comers and both parties. The 2012 election will be a reelection contest. It will focus narrowly on the incumbent. Has Barack Obama handled the presidency well enough to deserve reelection? Virtually all incumbents, and even a few challengers, appear to resent this one-sided nature of reelection contests. But resentment doesn’t alter the reality.

Incumbents, including Obama, react to this certainty by doubling down on opposition research. They figure they can “make it all about the challenger” with enough dirt to induce people to forget about the incumbent’s failures. Sure, if you have pictures of the challenger committing an ax murder, you might turn the tables, but the standard oppo file doesn’t hold enough garbage to transform a reelection campaign into a referendum on the challenger. Like it or not, Jim Messina and David Axelrod, this is going to be a referendum on your administration. Get used to it. Don’t take it personally, either, like some sort of martyr. All incumbents face this judgment. If Obama had only had the wisdom to get seasoned by a Senate reelection campaign before running for the White House, he would have had some experience with this truth.

The takeaway from this for Republicans presidential aspirants is not to get sucked into the Obama alternate-reality scenario. Don’t start too early. That only helps the Democrat snipers sighting their targets. Republicans also should drop delusions that this is about their own biographies, accomplishments and policies. They must keep the judgment focused on the incumbent. Sure, Republicans can do some touting of their pasts, but always highlighting how their own deeds compare and contrast with the failures of the incumbent. Keep the heat on. It’s how incumbents are toppled.

There’s an even more practical reason that Republicans cannot be goaded onto the playing field too early: money. To run a proper presidential campaign, even with a skeletal, pared-down organization, will cost at least $50,000 a day. I didn’t say a week. I said 50 grand every day, seven days a week. Multiply that goal times eight or nine candidates and you are chewing through more than $50 million just in the next six months. There’s simply not enough in the pockets of the Republican faithful to bankroll that kind of spending. Hold off.

The question about deserving reelection is not asked often enough by the public pollsters. The last time The Hill reported Obama’s results, in December, only 42 percent said he’s worth another term. That’s far more telling than Obama’s double-digit lead over Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin in someone’s PowerPoint presentation.

David Hill is a pollster that has worked for Republican candidates and causes since 1984.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/david-hill/149759-2012-will-be-about-obama

Mandatory Spending to Exceed all Federal Revenues — 50 Years Ahead of Schedule

2011-03-16T12:23:00.002-05:00

Jeffrey H. Anderson

We have now gotten to the point — as I noted yesterday — where if national defense, interstate highways, national parks, homeland security, and all other discretionary programs somehow became absolutely free, we’d still have a budget deficit. The White House Office of Management and Budget projects that in the current fiscal year (2011), mandatory spending alone will exceed all federal receipts. So even if we didn’t spend a single cent on discretionary programs, we still wouldn’t be able to balance our budget this year — let alone pay off any of the $14 trillion in debt that we have already accumulated.

Just an Olympiad ago, in 2007, the picture was quite different. In fact, in that year, federal revenues not only exceeded mandatory spending, but they exceeded it by more than $1 trillion ($1.117 trillion, to be more exact). The next year, 2008, during which the gap fell to a still-huge $914 billion, the Bush administration released a report issuing a rather dire warning (p. 25). The report said that, “if left unchanged, mandatory spending alone is projected to exceed total projected Government receipts in approximately 50 years.” That dire prediction has now come true — about 50 years earlier than projected.

Through the years, mandatory spending has steadily increased (with some fluctuation from year to year) in relation to revenues. Here is mandatory spending as a percentage of total federal receipts, by year, according to published White House figures:

1970: roughly 33 percent
2000: 47 percent
2005: 61 percent
2010: 90 percent
2011: 101 percent

The trajectory seems clear. Meanwhile, President Obama has not proposed entitlement reform. He has, however, proposed adding a massive new entitlement: Obamacare. At the same time, the baby boomers’ retirements are looming, which means higher entitlement expenditures and a smaller proportion of the population available to finance them. In light of all of this, what do the Obama administration’s projections for mandatory spending as a percentage of total federal receipts look like, going forward? Here they are:

2012: 81 percent
2013: 73 percent
2014: 7o percent
2015: 69 percent

Seriously?

These estimates are made possible because (among other things) the Obama administration is projecting a 21 percent increase in federal receipts from 2011 to 2012. Never mind that we haven’t seen an increase like that in 40 years. In fact, the largest increase in the past 40 years has been 16 percent.

How is the Obama administration’s track record in forecasting such increases? For 2010, it projected a 9 percent increase in receipts. The actual tally was 3 percent. For 2011, it projected a 19 percent increase in receipts. Just one year later (in this year's budget), it has now modified that projection to less than 1 percent (actually, to 0.5 percent). So that’s a swing from projecting the highest increase in the past 40 years, to projecting essentially no increase at all — in just 12 months.

To tackle our very real fiscal crisis, we need serious numbers and serious leadership, not just blind hope that things will (somehow) change. Now that we are at the point where our total receipts cannot even cover our mandatory spending, entitlement reform would seem to be an obvious necessity. Yet only one house of one branch of the federal government has thus far shown any real signs of being able to see the obvious.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/mandatory-spending-exceed-all-federal-revenues-fiscal-year-2011_554659.html

Obama the invisible

2011-03-16T11:16:00.000-05:00

Anti-leadership amid world crises

John Podhoretz

Where is the president? The world is beset. Moammar Khadafy is moving relentlessly to crush the Libyan revolt that once promised the overthrow of one of the world's most despicable regimes.

So where is the president?

Japan may be on the verge of a disaster that dwarfs any we have yet seen. A self-governing nation like the United States needs its leader to take full measure of his position at times of crises when the path forward is no longer clear.

This is not a time for leadership; this is the time for leadership.

So where is Barack Obama?

The moment demands that he rise to the challenge of showing America and the world that he is taking the reins. How leaders act in times of unanticipated crisis, in which they do not have a formulated game plan and must instead navigate in treacherous waters, defines them.

Obama is defining himself in a way that will destroy him.

It is not merely that he isn't rising to the challenge. He is avoiding the challenge. He is Bartleby the President. He would prefer not to.

He has access to a microphone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If he tells the broadcast networks in the middle of the day that he has a major address to deliver on an unprecedented world situation, they will cancel their programming for him.

And yet, since Friday and a press conference in which he managed to leave the American position on Libya more muddled than it was before, we have not heard his voice. Except in a radio address -- he talked about education legislation.

And he appeared at a fund-raiser in DC. And sat down with ESPN to reveal his NCAA picks.

He cannot go on like this. Niall Ferguson, the very pessimis tic economic his torian, wrote the other day that the best we can now hope for is that Obama leaves the country in the same kind of shape that Jimmy Carter left it in.

That doesn't do Obama justice. Despite how disastrously he has handled the crises of the past two months, he can still turn his presidency around on a dime.

For Obama to save himself, he should be thinking about the example of an unlikely Republican predecessor: Richard Nixon.

The multifarious crises the president now faces are eerily similar to the kinds of calamities that greeted Richard Nixon in his first term from 1969-1972. Then, as now, the world was on fire. Wars erupted between China and the Soviet Union, India and Pakistan, even El Salvador and Honduras.

Jordan was nearly taken over from within by the Palestine Liberation Organization. There were humanitarian disasters in Biafra (the result of civil war), Bangladesh (due to flooding) and Nicaragua (deadly earthquake).

There was more, much more -- including a war he inherited in Vietnam, just as Obama has the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You get the point.

Nixon in 1968, unlike Obama 2008, was elected as a minority president with only 43 percent of the vote. Yet, in 1972, he won what, in some measures, was the most lopsided election in American history with 61 percent.

Nixon achieved it, in large measure, because he appeared to be a serious man grappling in deadly earnest with the serious problems presented to him by a world careening out of control.

He demonstrated high competency when it came to matters on the world stage. He and his team (primarily Henry Kissinger) developed coherent policies and strategies for coping with the world. There was no question, to friend or foe, that he was fully engaged, paying attention, deeply involved.

Nixon was an awful president in many ways, including in some of his foreign-policy choices. But he left no doubt that foreign policy and America's leadership in the world outside its borders was of paramount importance to him.

All this had the effect of elevating Nixon during his time in office, so that when it came to running against George McGovern in 1972, Nixon seemed like a Titan and McGovern a pipsqueak.

How Nixon conducted himself in office in times of crises made possible his triumphant re-election. Right now, how Obama is conducting himself in a time of crisis is having the opposite effect.

He began his presidency as a potential colossus -- but if he doesn't change, he will finish it as a pipsqueak. Pipsqueaks don't win second terms.

johnpodhoretz@gmail.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_the_invisible_Ass40MBstf15MAr9DYAORK#ixzz1GmPZCNbv

Illinois Pension Crisis Eludes Easy Solutions .

2011-03-16T10:27:00.000-05:00

By MICHAEL CORKERY

Lawmakers in Illinois say they may try to fix the state's ailing pension system by asking current workers to pay more into the plan, though the approach faces substantial legal and political obstacles.

The lawmakers are also entertaining the politically difficult idea of applying broader pension changes made this year for newly hired employees to current workers. Those include raising the retirement age and scaling back on annual cost-of-living raises.

Whatever approach is embraced, it remains unclear whether such strategies would fix the Illinois system, which is 45% funded. That makes it the most under-funded state plan in the U.S., according to Moody's Investor's Service.

The proposals come as Illinois focuses on home-grown solutions to its pension difficulties after Gov. Pat Quinn created a stir when he said in his budget proposal last month that the state may need a "federal guarantee" of its pension funds—a reference his office now says was a mistake.

"It should have been edited out," David Vaught, the governor's budget director, said in an interview. "We don't think we need a bailout."

The warning contained in the 472-page budget document raised fears that the state could go hat in hand to Washington, a scenario that some U.S. lawmakers have feared could spur other states to do the same.

Now in Illinois, talk of state-centered pension fixes has drowned out any whispers of a federal bailout.

"There is growing momentum for additional pension reform and this is something that definitely should be looked at," said Mr. Vaught.

He added that if the legislature voted to increase employee contributions in the current legislative session, Mr. Quinn, a Democrat, "would not stand in its way."

Those comments come as Michael Madigan, a Democrat and speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, has floated the idea of cutting pension benefits for current workers.

Several states including Illinois have already made the legally and politically expedient moves of changing new-worker benefits, such as upping the retirement age. The Illinois measure for new workers will bring some near-term savings, though much of the cost reductions don't kick in until the first wave of newly hired Illinois workers retires a few decades from now.

But rolling back benefits for current workers is likely to prove more difficult.

Illinois has stringent constitutional protections for pension benefits, according to several legal experts. A recently passed bill in nearby Wisconsin requiring employees to contribute to their pensions has already spurred talk of legal challenges there. Many employees in the Wisconsin retirement system contribute nothing to their pensions. Illinois teachers now contribute as much as 9.4%.

One proposal by Republican Illinois House Minority Leader Tom Cross, to increase contributions for some workers to as much as 20%, among other measures, would save an estimated $25 billion.

Critics say these proposals will go only part way in erasing the $82 billion unfunded pensions liability that is projected to grow to $139.8 billion in 2030

The recent stock rally has helped shore up many state pension funds. but Illinois's shortfall is growing. The problem is largely the result of the state's failure for years to make actuarially recommended contributions to the fund.

"Even if you pass aggressive reform, you still have to fund the current liabilities and that is a big number," said Daniel Hankiewicz, pension manager of the state Commission on Government Forecasting & Accountability.

In the past two years, Illinois has had to borrow several billion dollars to make its required contributions to the pension system. Critics say that indicates that the state's pension benefits are simply unaffordable.

Legislative leaders have asked the commission's actuaries to calculate the savings that could come from extending some of the changes the state applied to new workers in 2010 to current workers.

Others dispute a crisis exists. The Teachers Retirement System, one of five funds in the state's pension system and which has 372,000 members, is 48% funded (actuaries typically recommend that plans be at least 80% funded). Fund administrators are not concerned about meeting annual obligations to retirees, says spokesman Dave Urbanek.

"Don't confuse the mortgage with the mortgage payment," he says. "Can I make my entire mortgage payment today, no. But I can make my monthly payments. That is the same with us. We are deeply in debt, but our heads are above water."

The issue may end up being settled in the courts. The chief legal counsel to Illinois Senate President John Cullerton, a Democrat, released a long legal memo earlier this month arguing that retirement benefits cannot be altered unilaterally by the legislature.

The Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a group of business leaders, asked law firm Sidley Austin LLP to look into the issue.

In a memo last year, Sidley argued that the state constitution only protects benefits that have already been accrued.

That leaves open to change benefits that will be earned through future government service, Sidley argued. The law firm has also argued in a separate memo that if the pension funds run out of money, the state does not guarantee that it will pay out benefits.

The legal memo prepared for Mr. Cullerton says the state constitution ensures pension payments will be made, even if the funds run dry.

Write to Michael Corkery at michael.corkery@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703566504576202893269340046.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

Atty. general: Ill. must release FOID card list

2011-03-01T17:58:00.000-06:00

By JOHN O'CONNOR

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois State Police stood their ground Tuesday after the state's attorney general determined the agency must disclose the names of people authorized to own guns in Illinois to comply with public records law.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan's public access counselor issued a letter Monday night rejecting state police arguments that releasing the information is an unwarranted invasion of privacy prohibited by the state public records law or that its disclosure would automatically endanger the lives of gun owners or those who don't have firearms.

State police determine who gets Firearm Owners Identification cards but have always kept the information confidential.

Despite the decree, the names likely won't be uncloaked soon. A state police lawyer indicated in a letter Tuesday the agency planned to ask a judge to decide the matter. And Republican lawmakers have filed legislation to make names permanently private.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Associated Press requested in September the names of each FOID cardholder in the state and the expiration date of each card. State police denied the request, prompting the public access counselor's intervention.

"The General Assembly has clearly determined that it is in the public interest to provide a system for identifying those who are qualified to acquire or possess firearms through the issuance of FOID cards," assistant public access counselor Matthew Rogina wrote. "The public, therefore, has a legitimate interest in ISP's enforcement of the FOID card act."

The attorney general indicated that addresses and telephone numbers of cardholders should remain private information.

There are more than 1.3 million Illinois FOID cardholders, state police spokesman Scott Compton said.

Media interest in the issue spurred lawmakers to action. There is Republican-sponsored legislation in both the House and Senate. Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville, said his bill spells out that information about who is exercising his constitutional right to own a gun should not be made public.

"You can own a handgun, and information about whether you do or don't is private information," Stephens said. "There is no reason for anyone or any government agency to make available to you or anyone else whether I have a FOID card."

Most states, unlike Illinois, allow taxpayers to carry concealed weapons. Information was public when those laws took effect, but in the past decade, an increasing number of states -- as many as three dozen -- have put it under wraps, said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"There should be public scrutiny on any licensing system, whether it's to own or to buy or to carry," Malte said. "The public has a right to know how well those systems are working, especially when it involves firearms."

Information about firearms -- and the state police enforcement of gun laws -- has been the subject of several AP requests during the past decade. In most cases, state police have denied disclosure.

In 2005, state police officials told the AP they were powerless to take action against a civilian ISP employee who had guns in his truck at the agency's training academy, where he threatened his estranged girlfriend, also an employee. He later shot her before turning the gun on himself.

A state police firearms official later testified in an unrelated court case that officials could have yanked the man's guns but chose not to.

Checking the administration and enforcement of gun laws by federal officials was the city of Chicago's intent when it sued in federal court in 2002. Because Illinois courts have not addressed the issue, Rogina crafted his decision by relying in part on the Chicago ruling, which found no privacy violation as the federal government had claimed.

The state police and gun-rights groups also argue that publicizing names of those with permission to own guns puts them and others at risk. Knowing who has guns means criminals know whom to burglarize, or worse, said Todd Vandermyde, Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

"You potentially make us targets," Vandermyde said. "Or, on the inverse, you could say, 'These are the homes that don't have FOID cards so it's likely they don't have guns, so therefore they make better targets.'"

The state police made the same argument, but the attorney general dismissed it as "speculative and conclusory."

"ISP has offered no details to support its argument that disclosure of this information to the AP would result in a safety threat to any individual," Rogina wrote.

Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican sponsoring the Senate bill making FOID information private, called on state police interim director Patrick Keen not to release any information until the Legislature can act.

People who want guns but don't want their names publicized might choose not to comply at all with FOID laws, Dillard said.

"This is not about guns -- it's about privacy and public safety," Dillard said.

------

The bills are HB7 and SB27.

------

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-gunowners-disclos,0,5686959.story

Rasmussen-58% Favor Government Shutdown Until Spending Cuts Are Agreed Upon

2011-02-28T12:15:00.000-06:00

Monday, February 28, 2011

As Republicans and Democrats in Congress haggle over the budget, most voters would rather have a partial shutdown of the federal government than keep its spending at current levels.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of Likely U.S. Voters would rather have Congress avoid a government shutdown by authorizing spending at the same levels as last year. Fifty-eight percent (58%) says it’s better to have a partial shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on what spending to cut. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The partisan differences are striking. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats prefer avoiding a shutdown by going with current spending levels. But 80% of Republicans -- and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party -- think a shutdown is a better option until the two sides can agree on spending cuts.

Congress never passed a budget for 2011 but authorized spending for a few months. That authorization will expire soon, and Congress must act quickly or some federal government services could be shut down. Payments for things like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits would continue, however.

A plurality (48%) of all voters believe that a partial government shutdown would be bad for the economy. Twenty-five percent (25%) say a shutdown would be good for the country economically, while 15% say it would have no impact.

Democrats are worried about the economic impact of a partial government shutdown. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of those in the president’s party say a shutdown would be bad for the economy. However, Republicans and unaffiliated voters are evenly divided on the topic with nearly as many saying a shutdown would be good for the economy as bad.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 24-25, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

In general, just 27% of all voters think Congress should now authorize spending for 2011 at the same levels as last year. Six percent (6%) want more government spending, but 61% say Congress should authorize less spending that there was the year before.

The majority of voters for years have said that cutting taxes and reducing government spending are best for the economy.

The federal government was last partially shutdown for five days in 1995 and 21 days in 1996. In both cases, CNN reports, the stock market moved higher on the news.

Republicans want to cut $57 billion more out of the federal budget for the current year than Democrats do. As negotiations continue on a long-term agreement, the two sides on Friday agreed to a two-week budget extension that includes $4 billion in cuts.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of voters say they are following news reports about the federal budget debate at least somewhat closely, with 49% who are following Very Closely.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats think Congress should authorize spending at the same levels as last year, while another 14% think there should be more spending. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliated voters believe Congress should approve less spending than there was the year before.

This is another issue that the Political Class and Mainstream voters don’t see eye-to-eye on. Seventy-six percent (76%) of those in the Political Class would rather see spending continue at current levels to avoid a shutdown; 70% of Mainstream voters prefer a shutdown until Democrats and Republicans can agree on spending cuts.

Voters have consistently rated cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term as the more important of several budget priorities the president listed early in 2009, but few voters expect him to hit his goal.

The documents the White House includes with the president's $3.7 trillion proposed budget for 2012 project that government spending will top $4 trillion in the next two to three years, but most voters aren't aware of that increase amidst all the talk of spending cuts.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters say, generally speaking, that the president’s new budget proposal cuts government spending too little, but despite House Republican plans to cut substantially more, a plurality of voters don’t think the GOP goes far enough either.

Then again, 70% of voters think voters are more willing to make the hard choices needed to reduce federal spending than politicians are.

Though a plurality still gives Congress a poor grade, voters are showing slightly less negativity towards the legislators than they have in several years. Now that the new Congress is fully settled in, favorability ratings have dropped for all of the top leaders except House Speaker John Boehner.

Voters now trust the GOP more than Democrats on all 10 of the most important issues regularly surveyed by Rasmussen Reports including the economy and taxes.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2011/58_favor_government_shutdown_until_spending_cuts_are_agreed_upon

RTA hires Mike Madigan’s son-in-law for top lobbying job

2011-02-26T12:21:00.000-06:00

BY DAVE MCKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chiefdmckinney@suntimes.com

SPRINGFIELD — The son-in-law of House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has landed in a $130,000-a-year job as the chief lobbyist for the Regional Transportation Authority, the transit agency announced Friday.

Jordan Matyas was named the RTA’s deputy executive director and will oversee the agency’s government affairs section, beginning March 1.

RTA Executive Director Joe Costello said Matyas’ “extensive legal and legislative background” makes him well-suited to oversee the RTA’s lobbying at the local, state and federal levels.

“We are pleased to have Jordan join our executive team to help further solidify public transit’s role in our region,” Costello said in a prepared statement.

RTA spokeswoman Diane Palmer said the agency had multiple applicants for the position, which had been vacant since last year. She said the job was posted on the transit system’s website.

Palmer would not say whether there was any relationship between Matyas’ hiring and the demise of legislation in January that would have led to the ouster of RTA Chairman John Gates, who has had a strained relationship with the House speaker.

“It seems a little shaky this bill comes up and disappears, and then the next thing you know a relative of the speaker is getting hired in a pretty high-paying position,” said Rep. Randy Ramey (R-Carol Stream). “I’d suspect we should have an investigation, but I don’t who should do that? The attorney general? Maybe not.”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan is the speaker’s daughter and Matyas’ sister-in-law.

Michael Madigan spokesman Steve Brown defended Matyas’ hiring.

“Jordan is a talented guy. That’s a good selection the RTA made. I’m told they went through their normal hiring employment process. Beyond that I wouldn’t have any comment,” Brown said, refusing to discuss the Gates legislation.

“Ramey’s insults are typical of the Republicans. Just like the insults from billboards and other things, typical Republicans,” Brown said. “It’s why they’re the minority party more than anything else.”

Last November, the Sun-Times reported on Matyas’ lobbying efforts on behalf of Veritech Solutions, a Florida company that tracks payday loans for the state.

Legislation the company – and Matyas — pushed last year imposed new reporting requirements on the payday loan industry, meaning a windfall worth millions of dollars for the company.

Matyas, who married the speaker’s daughter Tiffany last July, helped draft the payday loan legislation with staff of Attorney General Lisa Madigan. The attorney general denied knowing anything about Matyas’ role with Veritec or his work with her office.

Matyas served as the state director for the Humane Society of the United States and last year helped bring to light controversial legislation GOP gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady introduced involving dog euthanasia, an initiative Gov. Quinn used against Brady in the gubernatorial campaign.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/4013028-418/rta-hires-mike-madigans-son-in-law-for-top-lobbying-job.html

LA Times Editorial-Day of reckoning on pensions

2011-02-26T11:41:00.000-06:00

The housing bubble and subsequent Wall Street collapse wreaked havoc on the nation's retirement savings, as many pension funds and 401(k) plans suffered losses of 30% or more. State and local governments are now facing huge unfunded pension liabilities, prompting policymakers to scramble for ways to close the gap without slashing payrolls and services. But a new report from the Little Hoover Commission in Sacramento makes a more troubling point: Many state and local government employees have been promised pensions that the public couldn't have afforded even had there been no crash.

The commission's analysis of the problem is hotly disputed by union leaders, who contend that the financial woes of pension funds have been overblown. The commission's recommendations are equally controversial: Among other things, it urges state lawmakers to roll back the future benefits that current public employees can accrue, raise the retirement age and require employees to cover more pension costs. Given that state courts have rejected previous attempts to alter the pensions already promised to current workers, the commission's recommendation amounts to a Hail Mary pass. Yet it's one worth throwing.

A bipartisan, independent agency that promotes efficiency in government, the Little Hoover Commission studied the public pension issue for 10 months before issuing its findings Thursday. Much of the 90-page report is devoted to making the case that, to use the commission's blunt words, "pension costs will crush government." Without a "miraculous" improvement in the funds' investments, the commission states, "few government entities — especially at the local level — will be able to absorb the blow without severe cuts to services."

The problem is partly demographic. The number of people retiring from government jobs is growing rapidly, and longer life expectancies mean that a growing number of retirees will collect benefits for more years than they worked. But the report argues that political factors have been at least as important in driving up costs, starting with the Legislature's move in 1999 to reduce the retirement age for public workers, base pensions on a higher percentage of a worker's salary and increase benefits retroactively. The increases authorized by Sacramento soon spread across the 85 public pension plans in California.

Compounding the problem, the state has increased its workforce almost 40% since the pension formula was changed and boosted the average state worker's wages by 50%. Local governments, meanwhile, raised their average salaries by 60%. Much of the growth came in the ranks of police and firefighters, who increased significantly in number and in pay.

There's nothing inherently wrong with generous pension plans. Pensions, after all, are just a form of compensation that's paid after retirement, not before. The problem, particularly for local governments, is that the plans are proving to be far costlier than officials anticipated or prepared for. By their own reckoning, the 10 largest public pension systems in California had a $240-billion shortfall in 2010.

When the funds don't have enough money to cover their long-term liabilities, state and local governments are compelled to increase their contributions. In Los Angeles, the report says, the city's retirement contributions are projected to double by 2015, taking up a third of the city's operating budget. It projects that governments throughout the state will have to raise their contributions by 40% to 80% over the next few years, then maintain that higher rate for three decades.

The more tax dollars governments have to devote to pensions, the more they'll have to take from other programs or from taxpayers. That means more layoffs or pay cuts for public employees, higher taxes, fewer services, or all of the above.

The situation won't be so dire if the plans earn more on their investments than expected. But with the plans typically counting on annual returns near 8%, or twice the "risk-free" level suggested by some analysts, it seems just as likely that they'll earn less than that, forcing local governments to contribute even more.

The Legislature and some local governments have sought to ameliorate the situation by reducing benefits for new hires and persuading current workers to contribute more to their pension funds. The commission's report, however, argues that these moves aren't sufficient. The savings from the lower pensions for new employees won't be realized for many years, and the increased contributions aren't nearly enough to close the funding gap.

The only real solution, the report contends, is to reduce the benefits that current employees are slated to earn in the coming years. That's hard to do. California courts have held that pensions for current employees can be increased without their approval, but not decreased unless they're given a comparable benefit in exchange. Nevertheless, the commission calls on the Legislature to give itself and local governments explicit authority to trim the benefits that current employees have not yet accrued, without touching the amounts they have already earned. It also calls for a hybrid retirement plan that combines a smaller pension with a 401(k) plan and Social Security benefits, as well as the elimination of a variety of loopholes used to inflate pensions.

The commission is right about the importance of reducing the liabilities posed by current employees. And though picking a fight with unions over unilateral reductions in pensions probably isn't the solution, the report should persuade both sides to do more at the negotiating table to prevent pension costs from swamping state and local budgets. As the commission notes, public employees in California enjoy some of the most generous pension plans in the country. Those plans won't do them much good, however, if their employer can't afford to keep them on the payroll.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Tribune Editorial- Democrats GO HOME

2011-02-26T11:22:00.000-06:00

In the far northwest corner of Wisconsin, state troopers staked out the home of a local legislator, knocking on his door but failing to find him and return him to his job at the Capitol. They came up similarly empty in their search for the rest of 14 Democratic state senators who fled Madison to block a vote that would curtail bargaining rights for public unions.

With their showy boycott, though, the Democrats are merely doing what countless lawmakers of all political persuasions, at all levels of government, have done less explicitly for decades: They have run away from the mathematical certainty that this much revenue can pay for only that much spending.

The consequences of their boycott will ratchet up early next week. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that a refinancing of state debt must be accomplished by then to free up $165 million. If the Legislature fails to approve that, it will have to come up with more budget cuts.

The Wisconsinites should go home. So should the Indiana lawmakers who abandoned their Legislature in copycat fashion. They need to show they can be responsible stewards of the public purse.

But that responsibility is what they're really hiding from, just as their counterparts in local, state and federal governments have done for decades before them.

And that's the overarching wrong here: Our public officials — Washington, Springfield, City Hall, are you there? — need to stop hiding from the raw arithmetic of unsustainable spending. They need to emerge from their burrows, admit that taxpayers have caught them with red ink all over their hands, and firmly align government expenses with revenues.

Protesters complain — many from afar — that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has gone beyond budget needs and set out to bust public-employee unions. If the people of Wisconsin feel that way, they surely will punish Walker and his fellow Republicans at the ballot box.

But remember, Wisconsin just had an election, and the voters picked Walker. He did not mask his politics — or his intent to reduce state spending on personnel. Just as voters in many states yanked from office many politicians who have spent their careers taxing, borrowing and spending with little attention to how much government citizens want and can afford.

We'll all learn together when and how the Wisconsin and Indiana melodramas end. And while we don't applaud people who collect paychecks for jobs they shirk, all of us owe measured thanks to the carpetbagging legislators — or, as critics call them, the flee-baggers.

These lawmakers on the lam unwittingly have reminded us that elections have consequences. And the consequences Americans evidently want in 2011 involve making all manner of governments live within their means.

From that emphatic sentiment, no public officials should run and hide — by leaving town or, as is more common, by delaying difficult decisions about how much to spend.

Reagan in Chicago (IV)

2011-02-11T17:06:00.000-06:00

Thomas F. Roeser 10 February 2011

Some people think there’s been a Parson Weems flavor to the buildup of Ronald Reagan. Yes, it’s true– but it’s by no means comparable to that of JFK. We live now in a purposely engendered romanticized bubble invented by liberaldom’s twisted historian-hack, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. where everything about John Kennedy is pronounced great. His womanizing hasn’t dented his stature at all—whereas Richard Nixon who accomplished the major coup of splitting the Sino-Soviet bloc, a major turning-point in the Cold War—is regarded as evil, corrupt and a disgrace.

Why is that? Liberal media? Sure. But also style. Nixon’s was a hyper-aggressive style. Kennedy’s was relaxed, filled with surety but low-key.

Just recently the Kennedy family women, dominated by Maria Shriver has driven out of circulation a Kennedy documentary that is unfavorable.

But Parson Weems, who told saccharine little stories about how George Washington owned up to cutting down the cherry tree and how the 1st president threw a silver dollar across the Potomac was not much different: his goal was to build a godly image of Washington. Ridiculous fellow. Washington couldn’t have thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac because one wasn’t coined until shortly before his death. Besides , the Potomac’s width made it impossible. Others correcting Weems said it was more likely that he threw a hunk of slate across the Rapahonnock which at its narrowest point was about a hundred feet wide.

My point is: who cares? Bonnie Rockne, the widow of Knute, cared and she made sure that the 1940 script “Knute Rockne: All American” showed a man flawless in every way. Actually if she had allowed the real Rockne to emerge, the stature of the great coach wouldn’t have been diminished.

As the immaculately researched “Shake Down the Thunder” [by Dr. Murray Sperber: 20303] shows, Rockne…who lived as a kid in Logan Square…invented his own rules because when he coached there were very few. Sperber went to the basement of the athletic department and unearthed Rockne’s correspondence.

He was no saint nor was he a devil. He was a wildly successful football coach at a small cow college. Catholics disappointed by the defeat of Al Smith…feeling bigotry had something to do with it…turned to huzza’ing for the cow college. Rockne was a sharpie who played all the odds and got away with it since there was no NCAA but there was a Carnegie Foundation which inspected but had no power to enforce. Carnegie frequently called Rockne for hyper-aggressive recruiting, paying athletes under the table and winking when they ditched classes.

Nobody got away with more derelictions than George Gipp who was an outstanding baseball player. He didn’t have enough high school credits to qualify but he got in anyhow. He was 20, started in as a school waiter but quit, inventing a unique jobs program—earning money shooting pool (a real pool shark) and playing cards with professional gamblers traveling salesmen and hangers-on around the bars in South Bend. He made so much money that he could afford to move out of the dorm and take up lodging at the Oliver Hotel in South Bend, the best residence hotel in the city and home to business travelers who played high-stakes billiards and pool well into every night.

Rockne knew about it; he didn’t snitch to the priests—but then they’d have to be blind, deaf and mute not to know. He knew he had a goldmine in Gipp from the day the kid…who never played football before…drop-kicked a 62-yard field goal into the wind against Western State Normal of Michigan in a freshman game on Oct. 7, 1916. Gipp’s transcript shows that for two of his four full school years he received no grades whatever.

Finally the priests couldn’t stand it and expelled Gipp. Every big school bid for him. Rockne fended them off but the toughest time he had was with West Point which offered many more bucks than anyone else—the school’s head being none other than Douglas MacArthur. All the while, Rockne lobbied the South Bend business community and wealthy alumni to get the school to re-admit Gipp. The Notre Dame president yielded, gave Gipp an oral examination which to nobody’s surprise the kid passed.

Rockne’s scheme for getting the school publicity was ingenious. He knew that sportswriters in Chicago and elsewhere were underpaid so he hired them as part-time referees. Again, there were no conflict of interest rules. Rockne made sure that if the sportswriter didn’t praise Notre Dame he’d never get hired again.

After reading the 635-page book I think if Warner Brothers had made the true film about Gipp it’d have been more of a winner than it had with the heavily romanticized version. But of course Bonnie Rockne wanted her dead husband to go down as a Catholic saint. Now we get to Ronald Reagan’s portrayal of Gipp.

“Did you ever see the film `Knute Rockne All American’?” Reagan asked me after I told him I doubted he could cut it for the presidency both for his then rightist philosophy and his largely non-fact-filled speaking style. I said yes—usually on the Night Owl movie programs.

Reagan was by no means a big name when he landed the part of George Gipp….a part he incessantly lobbied for—including making a personal visit to Bonnie Rockne. His very first film was shot only three years earlier—a clunker called “Love is On the Air.” By the time he got her approval for Gipp he had done 19 films—including “Dark Victory” where his role was far down the list…topped by Bette Davis, George Brent and Humphrey Bogart. But Bonnie Rockne saw it and she approved Reagan.

Interestingly enough, the part of George Gipp lasted only ten minutes in the 97-minute movie. Lloyd Bacon, the director, wanted to show Gipp was a novice in football, was a baseball player—which was accurate.

“The script writer would do the script over and over,” he told me. “It would have to pass muster with Mrs. Rockne. We actually shot some rushes which after she saw, she vetoed. She had complete control of the script.”

Then he told me of a scene that was shot which she vetoed for one reason or another. Gipp is pictured throwing a baseball to another guy—a very impressive toss that went far-far down the baseball field. Rockne—played by veteran actor Pat O’Brien [1899-1983] fitted with a plastic nose to resemble Rockne’s—is drilling his squad and sees this kid through the baseball far down the field. After the rush was filmed she vetoed it….wanting Gipp to kick a football a huge distance instead. That was a big fight. Gipp authenticists insisted he throw a baseball; she wanted a football. She won as she did every other disagreement.

But the failed baseball take was the one that Reagan said was most meaningful to him, even though it wasn’t used.

“Pat O’ had the nickname `One Take O’Brien’” said Reagan. “He was a big star—having done `Angels with Dirty Faces’ with Cagney. I was just beginning and if I didn’t do well, they could get rid of me for another replacement—providing Mrs. Rockne approved, of course.

“The original script called for him to dazzled by how far Gipp through the baseball. So in this take O’Brien walks over to me and this was his line: `Hey, kid—if you can throw a football like you threw that baseball, you’ve got a job on my team: are you game?’

“My line was to be, `Gee, Rock I sure would like to try.’”

Reagan said he did the line at least ten times. Each time O’Brien would have to walk over to him and toss out the same line…following which Reagan would deliver the line with different inflections and each time the director would shout “cut!” At least ten times.

Finally the sun went down and shooting was over for the day. Lloyd Bacon, the director, called both Reagan and O’Brien to his office.

“He said to me `Reagan, we don’t have to stick with you in this picture! In fact, after seeing those takes I’m ready to ditch you right now! But we’ll try again tomorrow!. O’Brien, take him out and show him what I want! You know what I want! Show him! If it doesn’t work on the second or third try, he’s out!.`”

Reagan said O’Brien took him to a bar with a full mirror behind the bartender where the bottles were lined up.

“Reagan,” said O’Brien, “how old are you anyway?”

Twenty-nine.

“Gipp is supposed to be nineteen…ten years younger than you. Reagan, you come across as a cocky Irish kid—know-it-all. Gipp is supposed to be a shy, humble kid, impressed with Rockne. Unsure of himself—which is what you’re not. Reagan, Bacon wants you to look…what’s the word?…deferential. Now here’s how to do it. You’ve always heard that the camera tells the truth. I’m here to say the camera is…seducible! It can be fooled! The way to show deferential…meaning you have a lot to learn…is to bob your head how can I say it…bob your head humbly. I can’t think of any other word but deferential. You bob your head and say `Gee, Rock, I sure would like to try.’ Incidentally Reagan, you have a lot to learn too. Keep that style—head bobbed, deferential. Make it your mark. It’ll serve you well. Now while I drink this bourbon practice it over and over in front of this mirror—bob your head deferentially and say `gee Rock, I sure would like to try’”

Reagan said they stood at the bar, O’Brien ordering one after another saying “again…again….again.”

After the fifth drink, O’Brien said “it’s getting better. Now go home and stand in front of your bathroom mirror and do it a hundred times and hope you’ll remember how to do it tomorrow.”

Reagan said he did—and on the second take Bacon said “excellent.” He said he had to abandon the style for his next film “Santa Fe Trail” where he played the headstrong George Custer (with Errol Flynn as J.E.B.Stuart) but practiced it again for other films, especially his one masterwork…that of a youth maimed by a sadistic surgeon “King’s Row.”

“The reason I learned from that one is this,” he told me. “When I was running against Pat Brown for governor I had to debate him and our research people delivered a book this thick”—extending his two hands—“for me to memorize about the details of California government. Brown was a kind of walking encyclopedia of state government since he had been there so long and I was running as a citizen, non-politician.

“Well I prepared for that debate but details wouldn’t stick which was funny because I never had any trouble memorizing before. So I called O’Brien. He came over and said, `Ron, your role is to be the good-hearted guy coming in as a citizen not a politician. Remember your old line, `Gee Rock, I sure would like to try’? You know what you want to do with California government don’t you? You got to go back to basics, show the camera you’re humble, have a lot to learn but want to learn it. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to match Brown on details. Give `em three or four points—tell the camera `I sure would like to try.’”

When he finished, the two cops and I agreed: he had the formula.

“So,” he said, unconsciously bobbing his head deferentially, “when I have to debate John Anderson or Bush or Carter who have all these statistics in their head….I remember the four or five points I want to make—and…”

It was time to put him on the plane for Santa Barbara.

When he flew off I experienced a strange sense of loss—knowing I’d never see him up close again. But through the years whenever he’d have a news conference and an obnoxious guy like Sam Donaldson would raise his hand and say:”Mr. President….you were wrong about such-and-such..”

Details.

And I’d see him standing at the podium, head lowered slightly, saying “well…”

Gee Rock, I sure would like to try.

It presaged a new turn in political forensics. The old wise-guy Hubert Humphrey rat-a-tat-tat rhetoric was over…supplanted by a reasonable, humble, twinkling civility. The only time I saw him flummoxed as president was after Iran-Contra. And even then the style eventually returned to serve his needs.

That’s why what I learned that day with him has made all the difference.

Style.

**

Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/reagan-in-chicago-iv/

Debt-ceiling debate stirs up speculation

2011-02-11T11:25:00.000-06:00

Fiscal disaster or political theater?

By Patrice Hill- The Washington Times

The White House is warning of financial Armageddon this spring if Congress fails to raise the Treasury's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, but many on Wall Street are skeptical that the looming spending clash will produce anything but riveting political theater.

Wall Street ratings agencies are not particularly worried that the U.S. Treasury will be forced into default, and some traders and investors say they are less concerned about the market impact of an extended partisan spending war than its potentially adverse effect on the economy and the nation's social fabric.

Republicans, though far from united over what to do about the debt ceiling, nearly all want to couple the measure with some kind of major spending cuts or reforms.

Some freshman Republicans backed by the tea party say they will not vote for any increase in the debt ceiling at all, in a bid to force draconian, immediate spending cuts. Others are drafting a plan that would allow selective increases in the debt to finance Social Security payments, military spending and interest payments to Treasury's bondholders.

A leading Senate conservative and tea party favorite, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, wants to attach a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution on legislation that would increase the debt limit.

The proliferation of Republican plans to try to force major spending cuts and reforms as their price for raising the debt ceiling has prompted dire White House warnings that such plans risk forcing the Treasury into default and setting off financial turmoil in markets worldwide.

But to David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's Corp., both sides are manufacturing an "artificial crisis."

He expects the clash over the debt limit to be mostly "high-octane political theater" rather than a major market-moving event. But he said there's a small chance the highly charged political atmosphere could produce a real blowup.

"It's a political game of chicken — a way of making the other side flinch," he said, adding that credit agencies take a dim view of what has become a ritual fight over the debt limit that occurs each time it is put before Congress.

"The problem with games of chicken, of course, is that there is always the risk that neither side flinches," however "irresponsible" that might be since Congress already has approved the spending increases and tax cuts that caused the debt to rise, Mr. Wyss said.

The Treasury can employ a number of "exceptional measures" that would extend the deadline for passing a debt-ceiling increase by some estimates into July or August. Once the limit is reached, the government would either have to cut spending immediately or put off paying its debt obligations in a first-ever default on U.S. government securities.

"Default by the U.S. Treasury could cause significant and long-lasting financial and economic disruption," Mr. Wyss said, but "we don't believe there is a significant chance of this occurring, as implied by our 'AAA' U.S. sovereign credit rating and its stable outlook."

Mr. Wyss added that "temporary delays in raising the debt ceiling will most likely have no effect because such delays have occurred many times before."

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke was not so nonchalant about the looming spending clash in an appearance before the House Budget Committee on Wednesday. He stressed the danger of letting Treasury's borrowing authority lapse and sought to discourage Republicans from crossing that threshold.

"Failure to pay interest on the debt would create an enormous crisis in financial markets," would raise the interest rates that Treasury pays for years to come, and would make reducing the deficit much harder because of the higher debt payments, he said. "We could have a seizing of the system that would be quite detrimental to the economy."

Mr. Bernanke also was cool to the strategy championed by some Republicans to enable the Treasury to keep making debt payments and payments on a few politically favored programs while prohibiting borrowing for other spending programs. He said that plan would present "technical" difficulties that would have to be worked out, at a minimum.

Mr. Bernanke's warnings about letting the debt ceiling lapse echoed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner's prediction earlier this year of "catastrophic damage to the economy" that would be "potentially much more harmful than the effects of the financial crises of 2008 and 2009."

On Wednesday, Mr. Geithner conceded that "there's always a little political theater" over the debt legislation and expressed greater confidence that Congress "will act as it always has to meet its obligation."

David Greenlaw, an economist with Morgan Stanley, said he expects only a "modest impact" on financial markets from a "major political battle" peaking in July and August, when the ceiling is close to being reached after Treasury exercises various stalling measures and accounting gimmicks to delay the crunch.

Mr. Greenlaw said no one can be sure how the political drama will play out.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has said he will use the debt-ceiling resolution as a vehicle to try to force spending cuts. At other times, however, he has said that legislators will act like "adults" and raise Congress' self-imposed debt ceiling when needed.

Among other things, "it's not clear that his message is getting through to the rank and file," Mr. Greenlaw said, noting that Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, is leading the charge for the tea party in circulating a petition opposing any further hikes in the debt ceiling.

The tea party plans are reminiscent of a move by House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the GOP's 1995-96 standoff with President Clinton, in which he declared that it was better to default on the debt than to not balance the budget. He relented after his stance became a political liability for the GOP.

The 1990s confrontation, which produced extended government shutdowns as well as threats of default, had "noticeable spillover effects on the bond and currency markets," Mr. Greenlaw said.

"We expect to see an extended period of threats and counterthreats play out over the course of the spring and summer, leading to auction delays … and investor uncertainty," Mr. Greenlaw said. The "showdown could rattle investor confidence" a bit.

But after much storming about, he predicted the debt ceiling would be raised and the confrontation would accomplish little in terms of forcing significant spending cuts or budget reforms.

The $50 billion to $100 billion of discretionary spending cuts demanded by House Republicans, for example, would do little to lower $1 trillion deficits for long, he said.

"What's really needed from the standpoint of fiscal reform are long-term measures to reign in the deficit" such as the reforms in Social Security, Medicare and taxes recommended by President Obama's deficit commission in December, he said.

That point was made by the Fed chairman and Mr. Wyss as well.

Robert Dugger, managing partner at Hanover investments, expects this year's debt-limit confrontation to cause a few ripples in the markets. But he said it will mostly serve to highlight that the country is in a period of civil strife as it moves toward a period of budget austerity.

"Civil tension is rising," he said. "Budgets contain the fabric of civil commitments that hold us together."

Mr. Dugger thinks the drastic budget cuts being pushed by conservatives will bring out resistance from the left wing and result in strikes and labor stoppages as seen among New York City sanitation workers and government employees in Greece when confronted with draconian budget cuts last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/10/debt-ceiling-debate-stirs-up-speculation/print/

The Pat O’Brien Instruction for Ronald Reagan

2011-02-09T16:40:00.000-06:00

Thomas F. Roeser 9 February 2011

Probably the most interesting thing I learned from Ronald Reagan in the four hours I spent with him before getting him to the plane to Santa Barbara in 1979 was not his Chicago abode or watching him fix the bathroom plumbing in the O’Hare Hilton room but his genius for soft theatricality in politics.
For the hard-arguments were not on his side.

You must remember the political conditions that existed then. A major conservative columnist was James J. Kilpatrick, 59, a syndicated columnist who tangled each Sunday for nine straight years as the crotchety rightwing voice paired against Shana Alexander every Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” This was before cable, before the Internet. There was only broadcast television and Kilpatrick…formidable and convincing (living down the fact that he had been a forceful even racist segregationist in the `50s) …syndicated to 172 papers…was the most prominent right-wing voice of the time—far more powerful than George Will has come to be. Or William F. Buckley for that matter. Buckley had an elite conservative magazine. Will was a bow-tied intellectual, a columnist, with the maddening proclivity to trace tax policy back to an offhand remark made by William the Conqueror to his mistress in 1066.

Kilpatrick was the average guy conservative.

Kilpatrick made all kinds of news in 1979 when he pronounced that for the upcoming election of 1980 “Ronald Reagan is a little long in the tooth,” saying he missed his chance by inches in losing the nomination to Jerry Ford—but the future demanded somebody more viable than a 68-year-old ex-movie actor and governor. Sixty-eight was then fearfully old to run for president, as medicine was not so advanced; there were no heart bypasses such as saved me from death in 2004; no operations for subdural hematoma, the delicate brain operation which spared me from certain death–after a four-hour surgery in 1985. People checked out regularly in their late `60s with no weeping or gnashing of teeth. For proof check the obits today. People are in their late `80s, mid-`90s.

So Kilpatrick’s sentence of Reagan as too old was devastating. Not only that but in January of 1979 Reagan’s longtime adversary, Nelson Rockefeller, died of a massive heart attack at 71. It did not assuage things that Rocky was engaged in a strenuously amorous physical pursuit at the apartment of a 27-year-old girl devotee research assistant who at his command did not call 911 but helped the old codger dress and cabbed him to his Manhattan office before she made the call whereby by the time the wagon came the billionaire philanthropist was dead. (She doesn’t have to worry about her old age now by the way—her finances are all taken care of. So long as she doesn’t write a book.)

I was far from a close Reagan operative in 1979…although the only Quaker officer to be for him—the remainder following the CEO and playing it safe by being for John Connally… but I was close enough that I could perceive the Reaganites were gravely shaken by Rocky’s death. Besides there were a whole younger crop—Connally who for the life of me I never saw the attraction although that year he graciously lectured at my Kellogg school class at Northwestern…Poppy Bush (GHW) former CIA director, UN ambassador and China emissary…white-thatched, self-righteous John B. Anderson later to bolt the party and run as an independent…the ever-present Bob Dole, then as ever unburdened by ideological conviction…Howard Baker who was a prominent Republican Senator…and Phil Crane who was running to Reagan’s right. And a host of little guys.

Social conservatives like me really had no choice but Reagan although intriguingly he had signed the most liberal abortion bill in the U. S. as California governor (almost but not quite tied by Rocky in New York). But Reagan had hit the sawdust trail and became an outstandingly articulate advocate for pro-life with an evangelist’s fervor. Connally was pro-abort as were Baker and Bush (known as “rubber George” because he urged the government to dispense far more condoms than they had been to developing nations). Anderson was an angry fire-eating patriarch about “a woman’s right to choose.”

Dole was on the issue as he was on everything else. He had beaten an abortionist doctor in a close race in Kansas where he became an instant pro-lifer but after being returned to the Senate had shut up about it. Crane…then probably the handsomest dog running with jet black hair and flashing smile… gave lip-service to it but he really was more of a libertarian and as with everything else in the House was inactive…”he comes down to take his meals” Henry Hyde said of him… being content to while away his time on frivolities…for which he ultimately whizzed away his solid district.

Reagan was not only the most viable pro-lifer and excepting Crane a sort of walking Cato Institute…to the right of everyone else. People were still rubbing their scabs about Vietnam and everybody was skittish of undue foreign entanglements…were talking détente… but Reagan was touting “why not victory?” Everybody was generally in favor of ERA (except Crane of course) but not Reagan. The Watergate scandal was still resonating and Republicans were flirting with more and more 1st amendment control over campaign donations—but not Reagan. He wanted unlimited campaign donations so long as they were made public right away.

Everybody was for gun control—but not Reagan.

*********************************************************

When he finally fixed the plumbing in the room and sat down to the steak sandwich, I said this:

“I’m really for you but for the life of me I don’t see how you’re going to win. We have a lady in this state, Phyllis Schlafly…”

He said, “I know and like Phyllis very much.”

“So do I,” I said….”but she ran twice for Congress and couldn’t get elected.

Now when he was sensible and a conservative, I was very much for John Anderson…until he got goofy. He’s one hell of a debater. What I want to know is…you’re going to have to debate these guys. Your positions are the same as mine. And given the prevailing temper of this country for liberal ideas, how are you going to sound different than Phyllis Schlafly? The other thing is one guy who is just your age and who co-founded ADA with you when you were a Democrat, Hubert Humphrey is rat-a-tat a walking encyclopedia. You’re not.
“ What I’m getting at is this: Are you just a cult figure of the right…making great speeches…a movie actor who happened to hit it right in California with a vibrant Orange county conservatism and an inept governor in Pat Brown? In essence how do you sell this thing?”

The cops in the room were aghast at my frankness but this is what I did all the time. Fortunately for me, at Quaker they liked it and not only tolerated it but welcomed it…and even encouraged me to get on the radio and WTTW as a commentator and write for the Sun-Times—so long as I didn’t identify Quaker with my views.

Digression: I was usually identified on WBEZ as “a corporate executive.” Bruce DuMont almost upended me years down the road by identifying me as “a cereal executive with offices in Quaker Tower.” End of digression.

I added: “For example, Carter is a detail man….Connally is a former treasury secretary. He can talk debentures that sound persuasive even though most people think he’s talking dentures. John B. Anderson…a longshot… is a student of legislative policy. He talks about a bill and how it appeared in subcommittee …how it was changed in full House committee…how the Senate fooled around with it and changed it such-and-such…how the conference committee rectified this and that—adding a section saying this and that.

“Bush gives off a séance about national security stuff he can’t tell us about because he headed the CIA. Then when he talks about foreign policy it’s stuff he picked up at the UN. Ask about China and he’s been our emissary.
“ I guess I’ve only heard you give exhortatory speeches but how are you going to make out in the scuffle of debates in primaries leading up to the convention?”

This was too much for one cop who went to the bathroom and stayed there for awhile.

Reagan said: “I learned something when I did `Knute Rockne’. Did you ever see it?”

I said I see it regularly when I’m up at midnight every Saturday.

He said: “Let me tell you that I think the answer to your question I learned when I made the film.”

Inwardly I groaned. But he told me something that changed me from that time on…convincing me that I was munching steak with a political genius…one who could well change the dynamics of Republican politics from then on.

**

Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/the-pat-obrien-instruction-for-ronald-reagan/

Emanuel resurfaces in Blagojevich case

2011-02-09T15:44:00.000-06:00

Ousted governor claims prosecutors have withheld recordings of calls between his chief of staff and Emanuel
By John Chase and Annie Sweeney, Tribune reporters

The specter of Rod Blagojevich resurfaced Tuesday in Rahm Emanuel's run for Chicago mayor, thanks to a court filing by the ousted governor, who faces a retrial on federal corruption charges.

Emanuel caught a public relations break when the second trial for Blagojevich, a former political ally, was moved back from its scheduled January start to April 20. That has made it easier for Emanuel to sidestep questions about his role as an intermediary in late 2008 between Blagojevich and then-President-elect Barack Obama over whom the governor should appoint to succeed Obama in the U.S. Senate.

In a court filing late Monday, Blagojevich's legal team claimed prosecutors have withheld recordings of alleged telephone calls that would show the former governor was not trying to sell Obama's seat for personal gain, including at least one call between Emanuel and Blagojevich's former chief of staff, John Harris.

The calls would help prove Blagojevich was simply orchestrating a legal political deal to name Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the post, his attorneys argued. Blagojevich believed Emanuel could help him broker the Madigan deal, according to the filings.

Emanuel and Obama were mentioned repeatedly in the first Blagojevich trial, but evidence suggested they were wary of the former governor and there was no suggestion they did anything wrong. Blagojevich was convicted of lying to federal investigators but the jury deadlocked on more serious corruption charges.

After a campaign speech Tuesday, Emanuel said he wasn't concerned the matter could hurt him in the Fed. 22 election. He noted a widely publicized report by the Obama administration detailed contacts between Emanuel, Blagojevich and Harris and noted nothing improper occurred.

"The report of over two years ago indicates there were about four conversations and it also indicates a conversation about Lisa Madigan," Emanuel said.

The U.S. attorney's office declined to comment

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-chicago-mayor-race-0209-20110208,0,1900439.story

II: HOW I FOUND REAGAN’S CHICAGO ABODE—AND MORE.

2011-02-08T17:55:00.000-06:00

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Marking the centennial of Ronald Reagan’s birth, this is a continuation of the story of our having lunch in 1979 at the O’Hare Hilton which led to the discovery of his abode in Chicago (1914-15). ******************************************************.
John Sears said to meet Reagan at Allegheny airlines at Gate K-8 at O’Hare.
“One thing,” he added. “There’ll be two Chicago cops there, in uniform. They’re off-duty and doing this on their own because they love the guy. This is their way of helping out. I don’t think the Police Department knows about it but that’s their problem. Believe me you’ll find them helpful.”I asked why.“You don’t get it, do ya? A lot of people don’t. This guy [Reagan] is one of the most familiar of Americans—because he’s been in the movies since 1937, hosted `Death Valley Days’…gone on to be governor, has had his own radio program on and on. Because the guy’s more familiar than most politicians, you’re going to have to have some help getting through the crowd—believe it!”
I didn’t….because for years I had met dignitaries at O’Hare and escorted them to their limos. The week before I picked up John Connally and we walked through the concourse with only a few heads turning. The month before I did the same with Poppy Bush, two weeks before that with Bob Dole…the winter before with Howard Baker. The last real political celebrity I ushered in was in 1964 when I picked up Everett Dirksen. It took awhile to get him to our limo because he looked like…well….Dirksen—hair askew, jowls sagging, eyes bugged out, wearing a rumpled suit with shoulders sprinkled with snowy dandruff , lips pursed, not unlike Bert Lahr playing The Cowardly Lion in `The Wizard of Oz.’ But even so it was not a strenuous exercise. Some people wanted to chat with him but I kept saying, `Sorry---the Senator has to keep moving; he’s late for an appointment!”
“I’ll give you a tip,” Sears said. “You’re going to want to take him to the Seven Continents [the elite restaurant at O’Hare]. Don’t. You’ll never get a word in. Get a room at the O’Hare Hilton and order lunch. Order him a lean steak sandwich and a coke. The cops must be with you. You don’t have to buy their lunch. They’re happy just to be with the guy.”
I did it—ordered the room in my name; had the key in my pocket and ordered four lean steak sandwiches with cokes….for all of us: Reagan, me and the cops.
******************************************************
I got to Gate 8 and there was only me, the gate attendant and the two cops. The plane’s arrival was called and we….the cops and I…waited for everybody to debark. The last guy off the plane was Reagan, hair meticulously combed, superbly trim in a blue suit, red tie—and carrying his own overnight bag. One cop sprinted to his side to take the baggage check for pickup downstairs.
Thanks, he said. Here it is. Guess we’ll meet you at the car. He gave me a warm glance for reassurance. I introduced myself: Tom Roeser from Quaker Oats.He bobbed his head deferentially and said, so softly I had to put my ear near his lips (and in those days my hearing was perfect), said with eyes twinkling : Well tell me, do you fellas still make the old-fashioned steel-cut?
Steel cut is the coarse oatmeal with part of the edible hulls included that your mama said would put hair on your chest.I said yes.
They served it at Eureka, he said (referring to his college in southern Illinois located between Peoria and Bloomington where he graduated in 1932 when I was age four).He added: You could live on that even if you ate nothing else.I asked to take his overnight bag. He smiled and declined. At 68 he was trim but his face, ruddy, lined and craggy, showed every year. And he did have a small hearing problem. In the concourse when people engaged him, he instinctively put a cupped hand to his left ear.
I noticed we were gradually being surrounded by gawkers.“Ronald Reagan?” one guy asked. His voice wasn’t that loud but in the way things do, it attracted others—those who are quick to note when something’s happening in a crowd.He nodded, modestly. Here I must point out a distinct contrast. Hubert Humphrey’s centennial comes this May. I was assigned to cover him in Minnesota for a wire-service as he sought a second term in what was 1954’s most important Senate targeted contest. Like Reagan, Humphrey was born in a small town, above a drug store…and after years in politics had huge visibility. But Humphrey’s style was 100% different. He’d do the standard political thing, barge up pushily like a small town convention barker, pump hands, toss out pointed, often funny reposts.
Reagan…maybe because of his low-key-appealing unassuming nature had people in the concourse barging up to him. By that time we started walking and by the time we got to K-6 we were picking up quite a few gawkers.“Governor!” a guy shouted: “Do you think you can beat Carter?”Well, he said, somebody better!The famous lean, craggy face opened in a grin, cupped his hands around his lips and asked softly-- Had enough?
There was a loud response: “Hell yes!” said one guy.Now we were at K-4.
“Folks,” shouted the cop to the walkers who numbered about forty , “we have to keep on movin’.” “Ron!” shouted a guy on the other side of the concourse—and Reagan stopped, some of those trailing us bumping into each other. Yes?
“I got a bet with a guy here for $50,” he shouted. “What was your name in “King’s Row”’? They encircled him now, he lowering his head in a kind of new-guy-in-town attitude.Drake McHugh, he said softly.
“See that?” the guy said to his pal. “I was right! Fork over the dough, Henry!” Henry, Reagan said quietly, almost to himself, yet everybody heard: If you had gotten to me first, I’d have told you and you’d still have your fifty! The crowd, now reaching more than sixty, roared. The guy said: “Hey, he called me Henry—Reagan did!”
Now we had a good hundred around him as we got to K-1 and the escalator going downstairs under the street to the O’Hare Hilton. He stopped and turned to the crowd.Here’s where I get off! Good luck everybody—and thanks! “Have you ever seen anything like it?” the cop said to me.
I answered truthfully: No, never. It’s an answer I can give today 58 years after the first political candidate I ever covered. Upstairs in the hotel, our lunch and his baggage were waiting. He took off his jacket and went to the bathroom to wash his hands. He came out a minute later and said:Guess what? What? He said, cupping his ear: Hear that? Leaky faucet.
“Watch this,” said a cop. “We’ve seen this before.” Reagan said: As I told them (nodding to the cops) when I used to travel the mashed potato circuit and even before when I had to make out-of-town appearances, I’d every so often get a hotel room with a faucet that leaks just like that one in there.…so, he said, I’d bring along these.
He opened his overnight case and after fiddling around pulled out a purple cloth kit something like your mother had for her fancy silverware knives and forks. Except lined up were silver wrenches of different sizes. He pulled one out carefully and marched to the bathroom. I went along….and I tell my grandchildren I stood there in the bathroom with the man who was to become the 40th president…as he skillfully undid the faucet, inspected the screw that ran the waterflow, carefully applied the small wrench, bit his lip as he tugged and the drip-drip-drip stopped instantly.There, he said, that son-uv-a-gun won’t keep anybody awake any more. We returned to the main room; he sat down we all started in on our steak sandwiches.Not bad, he said as we all nodded in agreement: We all have to thank Quaker Oats for this.I said teasingly: I was thinking of importing some steel cut oatmeal for us but decided this was better. You made a wise decision, he said and the cops agreed.That’s where we had a conversation I’ve never forgotten—from roughly noon to about a quarter after three in the afternoon.

HOW I DISCOVERED REAGAN’S CHICAGO ABODE…AND MORE.

2011-02-08T17:43:00.000-06:00

Tom Roeser

Monday, February 7, 2011

Thirty-two years ago…on a Spring morning in 1979…my phone rang at the Merchandise Mart HQ of Quaker Oats (where I was veep-government relations aka lobbyist). On the line was John Sears, lawyer, former top staffer to John Mitchell in the Nixon Justice Department. I always held John in the highest regard, ever since he and I were canned in 1970 for different reasons by the Nixonians…I returning to Quaker and he to a lucrative law practice.
John had run the Reagan challenge to Jerry Ford at the convention of 1976 and had come within inches of dislodging the 38th president with a spirited challenge from the former governor of California. I had told him I’d like to help in the general election of 1976 but Ford made the cut.
“What are you doing next Tuesday?” Sears asked in his soft, unpretentious voice.
Nothing. Why? You coming to town?
“No. Better than that. Reagan is going to spend a few hours in Chicago, changing planes….flying in from Charlotte, will arrive at 11:35 a.m. and will have to wait for a change of planes before he goes out at 4:30 p.m. for Santa Barbara. That gives you a few hours to get your boss and a few other CEOs together to grab lunch with him….maybe at the O’Hare Hilton….and you seeing him on the plane to California afterward. Can you pull something like that together?”
I said I thought I could. Reagan hadn’t announced yet for 1980 but it was very much in the cards.
Repeat: I said I thought I could. But I found to my dismay I couldn’t. The year before, Big Jim Thompson had been elected governor (with George Ryan for lieutenant governor) and had committed the state GOP to mushy, non-Reagan accommodationist politics—meaning that the party’s leaders were supportive of anyone but…for ideological reasons… Reagan. Big Jimbo saw himself as having potential for president and so he had his emissaries “joining” various campaigns as moles. The biggest chunk signed up for John Connally, the former Texas governor: that included George Ryan and the Illinois Tool Works crowd—headed by Harold Byron Smith, Jr., prodigious fund-raiser and GOP leader extraordinary: former state chairman, national committeeman, fund-raiser for the Republican state senate and House,
Connally was the decided favorite. The next biggest group was for George H.W. Bush. Still other moles went to Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee…Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas with one lonely outcast sent to help Rep. Phil Crane. Later as Reagan grew in popularity one mole was dispatched to his campaign—Sam Skinner. God’s angry progressive was running as well—Congressman John B. Anderson but of course Big Jimbo wasn’t interested in him because they were both liberals but still two moles were sent in hope that if Anderson were to be elected somehow there might be a cabinet office open for Big Jimbo. The only prominent Illinoisan for Reagan was Dan Terra, a billionaire head of a printing ink company.
Normally it should have been an easy trick to line up guys to have lunch with a leading though unannounced presidential candidate but the CEOs were all so timid they felt they didn’t want to jeopardize their standing.
So I reluctantly called Sears after a few days of futility and said I struck out.
I expected I’d be chewed out but instead Sears said: “Not surprising. Just what I thought. “
Then there was a long pause as he thought.
“Well,” he said, “how would you like to have lunch with the old man. Cripes, somebody has to see he gets on the plane for Santa Barbara!”
I said: Well, John, he doesn’t want to have lunch with a punk like me.
“Of course he doesn’t. But he likes to tell stories and you like to tell stories and I can’t let him just sit around in the Admirals Club of American Airlines alone for four hours! I tell you, he’s one of the most recognizable of Americans. People go to him like flies to honey! He’s so damn nice he’ll have some guy bending his ear in the Admirals’ Club about whether or not he ever met Clark Gable. So I’m deputizing you to see that doesn’t happen. See, you’ll be his aide for four hours. I can’t pay you anything but I figure your payment will be in talking with him. He’s a great guy. You’ll be surprised to know that he’ll talk your ear off about old time Hollywood. Is it a deal?”
That was the start of the most fascinating lunch I ever had…with, as it turns out, one of the great presidents of the 20thcentury.

Ronald W. Reagan

2011-02-05T19:19:00.001-06:00

Jim Hanson Feb 5th

In his day he was reviled in ways that George W. Bush could commiserate about. He was denigrated as just an actor, a lightweight, an extremist and many other insults. And yet now he is revered by most including many on the left
His crime at the time was an Unapologetically American attitude, and it served him, and us, quite well. He stood up to the most existential threat this planet has ever faced, nuclear Armageddon. It is hard to convey to kids who don’t even know what the Soviet Union was that there was a serious concern that we could actually destroy the planet. Not in the wimpy Al Goreacle-d way they are whingeing about now, but actually snuff out the human race in a nuclear winter. This was not just the left wing buttheads, it was a legitimate worry for anyone paying attention.

He stood for human rights and dignity and the right of all people to choose their own government and live free from oppression. And when he talked about it you knew he meant it. The Soviet Union was in full on expansionist mode and recruiting satellites and proxies to expand their influence. Our answer was Ronald Reagan and gunboat diplomacy. BAM! It didn’t always work, and of course we made compromises and worked with some evil bastards. But in the end it we prevailed and he was prophetic when he said “… freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.”. And the world can thank Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher & Pope John Paul II for that. There are others, Lech Walesa for certain, who deserve high praise, but that troika was the driving force in the fight for liberty and freedom.

His good nature and steadiness were a comforting factor when the price of failure was annihilation. It is a level of dignity and grace under pressure we haven’t seen in any politician since and not many before (if any). The stakes in our international duel with the Soviets was survival. Our systems were mutually incompatible and theirs required a constant expansion to bring more of the proletariat into the fold. So Reagan planted the flag, and said this will not stand. It was a bold stance and much assailed by the Realpolitik crowd as well as the entire left. The fights over the nuclear missiles we had in Europe were epic, both here and there. I saw some first hand in Germany, and will never forget the protester on 15 foot stilts trying to step over the 10 ft fence around a US nuke base, and the Polizei blasting him dead in the chest sending him ass over tea kettle backwards. Heck back then when people asked what I did, I told them I worked for Ronald Reagan, and I was damn proud of it.

The current chaos is creating a kind of Reagan nostalgia. Agree with the man or not, but you knew where he stood and you knew the political winds would not sway him. Some straight talk about freedom from a man who has inspired hundreds of millions around the world right now would be welcome. Lech Walesa knows who he wants to thank.

When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can’t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.

Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.

I bet the protesters in Egypt, or the poor bastards who preceded them in Iran, would love to hear the support of the most powerful man on the planet. Or more importantly for their governments to hear it. Belief in freedom and the rule of democracy is the greatest gift America has given the world. We should never fail to stand tall and refuse to countenance tyranny. We do our country, our security and the world as a whole a tremendous good every time we reaffirm those beliefs.

So thanks President Reagan, for the inspiration, the example, the strength and the dignity. America is exceptional, we were founded that way and remain the shining city on the hill the rest of the world wishes they lived in.

Reagan: A Memoir

2011-02-05T19:16:00.000-06:00

William B. Allen Feb 5th 2011

Governor Reagan – that’s how we referred to him for the fourteen years before he became President – made us one with him from the beginning. The highest moment of my personal appreciation arrived on election night in 1966. It was not merely personal, however, for in that moment I imbibed confidence in the renewal of the American commitment to self-government and the defeat of Soviet tyranny – making the world safe for self-government once again. Reagan’s greatness lay in the greatness of the task he set for himself and for America and the gifts given him by God that enabled him to complete the task. His entry onto the political stage crystallized and rendered coherent the purpose of national politics in a local theater. The statesmanship that initiated recovery from welfare-state dependency, revived our economic prosperity, and faced down communism – Reagan tore down the Iron Curtain even more certainly than Gorbachev tore down the Berlin Wall – consisted more in bringing Americans to think better of themselves.

Of very many examples, one remains dearest to me. In 1977, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of ISI (Intercollegiate Studies Institute), he delivered an address widely reported in the press as Reagan’s attempt to gain the center of American politics by moving to embrace affirmative action within the conservative movement. The idea was nothing less than a surrender to the Eastern establishment of the Republican Party. Unbelieving and moved with alarm, I wrote to him seeking an explanation. He responded at length in one of his famous hand-written letters, pointing out where the media had gotten things wrong and re-committing to the idea of a color-blind America. My confidence was restored in the vision of the statesman who, a year earlier, had asked us all to imagine ourselves leaving a time-capsule for a later generation that, upon opening it, would recognize in us a people that loved liberty as much as they did – which could happen only if we left them that liberty to love. There was the Reagan I had known in 1966, and upon whose election I was moved, in company with his daughter, Maureen – contemplating the victory we had gained in the gubernatorial election – to exclaim with joy, “We have saved America!” That is Ronald Reagan’s legacy: he committed us to save America.

JUDGE RULES HEALTH CARE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

2011-01-31T16:23:00.000-06:00

Judge uses Obama’s words against him
By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.

Judge Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution — including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton’s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance, and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

In the heat of the primaries in 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted Mr. Obama‘s opposition to an individual mandate could come back to haunt him: “If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”

Mr. Obama has since defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate, arguing it’s the linchpin of the program to bring in more customers, which is key to expanding the availability and affordability of insurance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Vindication for Bush’s Freedom Agenda- Commentary magazine

2011-01-31T12:40:00.000-06:00

Peter Wehner - 01.28.2011 - 11:41 AM

As popular unrest sweeps the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunisia to Yemen to Egypt, it’s worth recalling the words and warning of President George W. Bush – in this case, his November 19, 2003, address at Whitehall Palace in London, where Bush said this:

"We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. …

As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found.

Now we’re pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."

During the course of the Bush presidency, his “freedom agenda” was criticized from several different quarters, including foreign-policy “realists” who believed that the bargain Bush spoke about — tolerating oppression for the sake of “stability” — was worth it.

It wasn’t. The core argument Bush made, which is that America must stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity — the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance — was right. No people on earth long to live in oppression and servitude, as slaves instead of free people, to be kept in chains or experience the lash of the whip.

How this conviction should play itself out in the real world is not self-evident; the success of such a policy depends on the wisdom and prudence of statesmen. Implementing a policy is a good deal harder than proclaiming one. Still, it seems to be that events are vindicating the freedom agenda as a strategy and a moral insight, as even the Obama administration is coming to learn.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/388326

British Anglicans Preparing Mass Defection to Roman Catholic Church

2011-01-30T13:07:00.001-06:00

LONDON -- Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported.

It follows a campaign by a former Anglican bishop in protest at its stance on the ordination of women and gay clergy.

Father Keith Newton has encouraged Anglicans to join the Ordinariate -- a special branch of Catholicism established by the Pope -- to welcome protestant defectors.

Despite the efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglo Catholics have begun leaving following the conversion of three Anglican bishops in mid-January.

The Church of England said that 1,000 of its 13,000 parishes were opposed to the ordination of women.

At St. Barnabas church in Tunbridge Wells, southeastern England, the parish priest said that a majority of his parishioners want to defect -- and he is considering going too.

Father Ed Tomlinson believes that traditionalists who oppose the ordination of women have been badly let down by Church leaders.

The priest was told if he and his followers leave they will no longer be allowed to hold services, even on a shared basis, at St. Barnabas.

"The whole thing stinks to high heaven," he said.

"The Archdeacon made it abundantly clear that he does not want to entertain the notion of shared worship space and that he would resist my remaining here in any capacity."

The Ordinariate talks of recruiting members in waves with the first beginning training at Lent and they hope many more will follow.

"A little acorn it may have been at the moment, it could grow into a mighty oak," one local church-goer said.

"Was this the thing that started to undo the reformation?"

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Church-Of-England-Congregations-Being-Torn-Apart-Before-Lent-Over-Roman-Catholic-Ordinariate-Offers/Article/201101415918730?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15918730_Church_Of_England_Congregations_Being_Torn_Apart_Before_Lent_Over_Roman_Catholic_Ordinariate_Offers

An Unserious Speech Misses the Mark

2011-01-28T21:17:00.000-06:00

Peggy Noonan

The audience found it tiresome. Here’s why it was irksome as well.
The Wall Street Journal: January 27, 2011

It is a strange and confounding thing about this White House that the moment you finally think they have their act together—the moment they get in the groove and start to demonstrate that they do have some understanding of our country—they take the very next opportunity to prove anew that they do not have their act together, and are not in the groove. It’s almost magical.

The State of the Union speech was not centrist, as it should have been, but merely mushy, and barely relevant. It wasted a perfectly good analogy—America is in a Sputnik moment—by following it with narrow, redundant and essentially meaningless initiatives. Rhetorically the speech lay there like a lox, as if the document itself knew it was dishonest, felt embarrassed, and wanted to curl up quietly in a corner of the podium and hide. But the president insisted on reading it.

Response in the chamber was so muted as to be almost Xanax-like. Did you see how bored and unengaged they looked? The applause was merely courteous. A senator called the mood on the floor “flat.” This is the first time the press embargo on the speech was broken, by National Journal, which printed the text more than an hour before the president delivered it. Maybe members had already read it and knew what they were about to face.

The president will get a bump from the speech. Presidents always do. It will be called a success. But it will be evanescent. A real moment was missed. If the speech is remembered, it will be as the moment when the president actually slowed—or blocked—his own comeback.

The central elements of the missed opportunity:

• An inability to focus on what is important now. The speech was more than half over before the president got around to the spending crisis. He signaled no interest in making cuts, which suggested that he continues not to comprehend America’s central anxiety about government spending: that it will crush our children, constrict the economy in which they operate, make America poorer, lower its standing in the world, and do in the American dream. Americans are alarmed about this not because they’re cheap and selfish but because they care about the country they will leave behind when they are gone.

President Obama’s answer is to “freeze” a small portion of government spending at current levels for five years. This is a reasonable part of a package, but it’s not a package and it’s not a cut. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who called it “sad,” told a local radio station the savings offered “won’t even pay the interest on the debt we’re about to accumulate” in the next two years. The president was trying to “hoodwink” the American people, Mr. Coburn said: “The federal government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. It’s 27% bigger than it was two years ago.” Cuts, not a freeze, are needed—it’s a matter of “urgency.”

• Unresponsiveness to the political moment. Democrats hold the White House and Senate, Republicans the House, the crisis is real, and the next election is two years away. This is the time for the president to go on the line and demand Republicans do so, too. Instead, nothing. A freeze.

• An attitude that was small bore and off point. America is in a Sputnik moment, the world seems to be jumping ahead of us, our challenge is to make up the distance and emerge victorious. So we’ll change our tax code to make citizens feel less burdened and beset, we’ll rethink what government can and should give, can and should take, we’ll get our fiscal life in order, we’ll save our country. Right?

Nah. We’ll focus on “greater Internet access,” “renewable energy,” “one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” “wind and solar,” “information technology.” “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail.” None of this is terrible, but none of it is an answer. The administration continues to struggle with the concept of priorities. They cannot see where the immediate emergency is. They are like people who’d say, “Martha, the house is on fire and flames are licking down the stairs—let’s discuss what color to repaint the living room after we rebuild!” A better priority might be, “Get the kids out and call the fire department.”

• Unbelievability. The president will limit the cost of government by whipping it into shape and removing redundant agencies. Really? He hasn’t shown much interest in that before. He has shown no general ideological sympathy for the idea of shrinking and streamlining government. He’s going to rationalize government? He wants to “get rid of the loopholes” in our tax code. Really? That’s good, but it was a throwaway line, not a serious argument. And he was talking to 535 representatives and senators who live in the loopholes, who live by campaign contributions from industries and interest groups that pay protection money to not get dinged in the next tax bill.

On education, the president announced we’re lagging behind in our public schools. Who knew? In this age of “Waiting for Superman” and “The Lottery,” every adult in America admits that union rules are the biggest impediment to progress. “Race to the Top” isn’t the answer. We all know this.

As for small things and grace notes, there is often about the president an air of delivering a sincere lecture in which he informs us of things that seem new to him but are old to everyone else. He has a tendency to present banalities as if they were discoveries. “American innovation” is important. As many as “a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school.” We’re falling behind in math and science: “Think about it.”

“I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories. . . . I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans.” But our deterioration isn’t new information, it’s a shared predicate of at least 20 years’ standing, it’s what we all know. When you talk this way, as if the audience is uninformed, they think you are uninformed. Leaders must know what’s in the national information bank.

He too often in making a case puts the focus on himself. George H.W. Bush, always afraid of sounding egotistical, took the I’s out of his speeches. We called his edits “I-ectomies.” Mr. Obama always seems to put the I in. He does “I implants.”

Humor, that leavening, subtle uniter, was insufficiently present. Humor is denigrated by serious people, but serious people often miss the obvious. The president made one humorous reference, to smoked salmon. It emerged as the biggest word in the NPR word cloud of responses. That’s because it was the most memorable thing in the speech. The president made a semi-humorous reference to TSA pat-downs, but his government is in charge of and insists on the invasive new procedures, to which the president has never been and will never be subjected. So it’s not funny coming from him. The audience sort of chuckled, but only because many are brutes who don’t understand that it is an unacceptable violation to have your genital areas patted against your will by strangers.

I actually hate writing this. I wanted to write “A Serious Man Seizes the Center.” But he was not serious and he didn’t seize the center, he went straight for the mush. Maybe at the end of the day he thinks that’s what centrism is.

http://peggynoonan.com/

Controversial Muslim cleric caught being smuggled into U.S. over Mexico border

2011-01-28T12:38:00.000-06:00

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:04 PM on 28th January 2011

U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada - curled up in the boot.
Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.
The 43-year-old was deported from Canada to his homeland Tunisia in 2007 after it emerged he had lied on his refugee application about having served jail time in France

His fire and brimstone sermons and rabble-rousing antics catapulted him into the public eye during his short tenure as imam at a Montreal mosque.
He branded homosexuality a disease and led protests over cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's illustrations poked fun at Islam and were published in a Danish newspaper in 2006.
He also caused anger when he campaigned for a bigger mosque to accommodate Montreal's burgeoning Muslim population

But after his deportation he complained that he had been physically and mentally tortured during the 13-hour flight repatriating him to Tunisia, a claim Canadian authorities deny.
He was being held as a material witness in the criminal case against Mr Lawler, who has been charged with immigrant smuggling.

Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling cartel $5,000 to take him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'
According to the court documents, a Mexican guide led Jaziri and a Mexican immigrant over the border fence near Tecate.
They then trekked across the rugged terrain under cover of darkness to a spot popular for drivers who pick up immigrants for smuggling runs into San Diego.
He allegedly told officials he had flown from Africa to Europe, then to Central America and Chetumal, Mexico, on the Mexico-Belize border, where he took a bus to Tijuana.

Lise Garon, a professor of communications at Laval University in Quebec City, told the Los Angeles Times: 'His nickname in Quebec was the controversial imam.

'I think he was deported because people hated his ideas.'
His case drew support from the Muslim community as well as Amnesty International after he claimed he would be tortured if sent back to Tunisia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351385/Controversial-Muslim-cleric-caught-smuggled-U-S-Mexico-border.html#ixzz1CMAfwiMu

The State of the Union Is... Leaderless

2011-01-28T10:28:00.001-06:00

By Ruth Marcus

DAVOS, Switzerland -- The state of the union is ... leaderless.

Sounds harsh, but when it comes to digging America out from what President Obama calls its "mountain of debt," I'm becoming increasingly worried that this assessment is accurate.

The president talks the talk about fiscal responsibility. But the evidence suggests he's not willing to spend the political capital to translate that talk into action.

Judge Obama by his own standards. "We have to signal seriousness in this," he told The Washington Post just before the inauguration, "by making sure that some of the hard decisions are made under my watch and not under somebody else's."

So what hard decisions has the president made? On the plus side of the ledger, the president worked to ensure that the costly expansion of health coverage was coupled with potentially cost-saving measures to control Medicare spending. Emphasis on potentially.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, he proposed a five-year freeze on discretionary spending, two years longer than his previous offer.

But as the president himself recognized, this kind of nibbling around the edges of the budget is entirely inadequate.

"To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough," he said. "It won't." Except the president then offered nothing else of substance about what else he envisioned -- and would be willing to push for.

Some serious people with unquestioned bona fides on fiscal responsibility grasped at wispy tendrils of seriousness in the president's remarks. He mentioned Social Security! He talked about tax reform! I hope they are right but fear they are deluding themselves.

Examine the president's words, and you see nothing new or specific. It hardly constitutes bravery to call for a bipartisan Social Security fix that doesn't slash benefits. At that level of generality, who would disagree?

The health care law -- if implemented as planned -- is merely a down payment on cost containment. But the president's only specific was to repeat his offer to join with Republicans on medical malpractice reform. This is attacking a mountain with a teaspoon.

Corporate tax reform is a great idea but not a solution to the fiscal problem. The president's opening bid was to fix the corporate tax code without adding to the deficit.

As to the individual income tax system, the president repeated his stale complaint that "we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans." No mention of the affordability of the tax cuts for everyone else.

In fact, when the president discussed income taxes, he cited the need to "simplify the individual tax code" without daring to whisper that the real goal needs to be more revenue. "Members of both parties have expressed an interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them," Obama said. Joining up is not my definition of leadership.

Administration officials insist that proffering more in the State of the Union would have been self-defeating. Negotiating in public does not work, this argument goes. Do corporate tax reform first and the larger overhaul will come more easily.

This would be more convincing if the president's behind-the-scenes track record were more reassuring. Obama put little muscle behind the legislative effort to create a fiscal commission. Then, having established one by executive order, he did nothing to assure its success, according to sources close to the process. The commission was tantalizingly close to getting the super-majority needed for congressional action -- former Service Employees Union President Andy Stern had promised to be the 14th vote, the sources said -- but the administration did not lift a finger to help by lobbying other Democrats.

On Tuesday, the most Obama could manage to choke out about his own commission was that "I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress."

Into this disturbing vacuum of leadership come Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner and Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who have assembled a bipartisan group pushing for tax reform and other deficit reduction this year.

When I spoke with them after the speech, they emphasized two points: that nothing would be accomplished without presidential involvement, and that it would be a mistake to let things slide into the election year or, inevitably, beyond.

"Every one of these painful choices gets harder every day we don't do anything," Warner said.

Wise words. If only we had heard more of that from the president himself.

(c) 2011, Washington Post Writers Group

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/28/the_state_of_the_union_is_leaderless_108682.html

Emanuel asks Illinois Supreme Court for emergency stay

2011-01-25T00:15:00.000-06:00

Posted by Kristen Mack, David Heinzmann, Hal Dardick and Dawn Rhodes; Tribune reporters

Attorneys for Rahm Emanuel late today asked the Illinois Supreme Court to prevent Chicago elections officials from printing ballots for the Feb. 22 mayor's election without his name.

Emanuel's legal team also said they will ask the state's highest court on Tuesday to hear their appeal of a decision by an appellate court today to knock him off the ballot on the grounds he doesn't meet residency requirements.

Chicago elections officials said today they have to begin printing the 2 million or so ballots needed for the election as well as preparing electronic voting machines for early voting that begins next Monday.

Emanuel held a news conference before the legal filings to try to reassure voters his campaign to succeed retiring Mayor Richard Daley continues.

"I have no doubt at the end we'll prevail in this effort," Emanuel said at a news conference. “We’ll now go to the next level to get clarity."

“I still own a home here, (I) look forward to moving into it one day, vote from here, pay property taxes here. I do believe the people of the city of Chicago deserve a right to make a decision about who they want to be their next mayor," Emanuel said.

In a 2-1 ruling, the appellate panel said Emanuel does not meet the residency requirement of having lived in Chicago for a year prior to the election. The judges reversed a decision by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, which had unanimously agreed that Emanuel was eligible to run for mayor.

"We conclude that the candidate neither meets the Municipal Code's requirement that he have 'resided in' Chicago for the year preceding the election in which he seeks to participate nor falls within any exception to the requirement," the majority judges wrote. "Accordingly, we disagree with the Board's conclusion that he is eligible to run for the office of Mayor of the City of Chicago. We reverse the circuit court's judgment confirming the Board's decision, set aside the Board's decision and ... order that the candidate's name be excluded (or, if necessary, removed) from the ballot."
The majority opinion was written by Appellate Justice Thomas E. Hoffman and concurred with by Presiding Appellate Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.

Appellate Justice Bertina E. Lampkin wrote a dissenting opinion.

"I disagree with the majority's contrary conclusion that the candidate is not eligible to be on the ballot because that conclusion is based on an analysis of two issues --- establishing residency and a statutory exemption to the residency requirement --- that are not relevant to the resolution of this case."

Emanuel said he meets requirements despite serving as President Barack Obama's White House chief of staff.

“Fundamentally, when a president asks you to serve the country as his chief of staff, that counts as part of serving your country," Emanuel said. I have no doubt that in the end we will in the prevail at this effort. As my father always used to say, nothing is ever easy in life. This is just one turn in the road.”

“The Supreme Court has an obligation, not an obligation, to hear the case, to make a decision quickly," said Emanuel, who stumbled over his talking point. "So both not only voters have a clarity they need, but there’s a clarity to the issues we are discussing in front of the voters as it relates to the challenges that we have as a city for our future."

Time is of the essence, however. Early voting starts a week from today on Jan. 31.

Langdon D. Neal, the elections board chairman, issued a statement: "We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor."

During a conference call, elections officials said they would send the ballots to the printer tonight and printing would begin Tuesday.

“We’ve basically hit the go button,” elections spokesman Jim Allen said. “We needed to do this on the 18th, we were waiting for this decision. We going to press now, we have to.”

“A candidate who is removed from the ballots by the court’s has until Feb. 15 to file as a write-in,” Allen said.

"This is all unchartered territory," Allen said.

The appellate court judges heard the case last week. To read the opinion, click here.

Emanuel is the front-running candidate in the race to succeed Mayor Richard Daley. The latest Tribune poll showed Emanuel at 44 percent, more than double his closest rival, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

The news crashed Emanuel's campaign web site this afternoon.

Opponent Gery Chico told reporters he was very surprised by the ruling and said he has never made Emanuel's residency a campaign issue.

"I believe in ballot access," Chico said outside a fundraiser at a River North restaurant shortly after the ruling. "We will continue vigorously with our campaign, with or without Rahm Emanuel."

Chico sidestepped questions about whether he was happy for the development. "I've said from Day One of this campaign that I haven't paid much attention to who's on or who's off, who's in the race."

When asked whether Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke should recuse herself from the case because of Chico's longstanding ties with her husband, Ald. Ed Burke, Chico shook his head, and said it was not an appropriate question for him to consider. "I'm a candidate for mayor. I don't tell the Illinois Supreme Court what to do," he said.

Opponent Carol Moseley Braun, who was second in the Tribune poll, described the news as a "major milestone" for her campaign.

"Our campaign for mayor has always been about standing with all families in every neighborhood of this great city," Braun said. "Nothing about that has changed with today's appellate decision. . . Today's decision is a major milestone for our campaign, but the decision doesn't make one neighborhood safer, one senior more secure, one child better educated or give one unemployed person a job."

Braun also pitched herself as a candidate who could appeal beyond her African American base to all Chicagoans.

“I am extending a hand of friendship to all the fine Chicagoans who have been supporting Mr. Emanuel and all those who haven’t made up their minds yet,” she said. “We all love this city and want to see it move forward, and I hope that everyone will join us in that effort.”

When asked if she hoped Emanuel’s removal from the ballot would be an opportunity for her to raise more campaign cash, she responded:

“We’ve always had a poor campaign with a rich message. While we hope that it will be less poor, at the same time our message is consistent and the same — that I have the ability to deliver for all the people of Chicago to help move our city in the right direction.”

Opponent Miguel del Valle, the city clerk, issued a statement.

“Those who thought that Rahm Emanuel’s election was a foregone conclusion: Now, the voters are going to really have an opportunity to choose the next mayor of the city of Chicago,” del Valle said.

Hours after the appellate court ruling, Emanuel supporters gathered for brief a rally outside the offices of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, the folks that last month had unanimously confirmed his eligibility to run for mayor.

Donning signs which said "Keep Rahm on the ballot" and "We stand by Rahm," the group chanted that they should have the choice of who to elect as mayor.

"We need to make sure that we don't get a mayor by default," said campaign co-chair Juan Rangel, the head of the United Neighborhood Organization. "We have to make sure that the people get to decide this election."

Opponents say Emanuel doesn't meet the one-year residency requirement because he was in Washington serving as President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.

Before today, Emanuel had won rulings by the election board and in Cook County Circuit Court. Today’s ruling seems certain to be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Emanuel, a former North Side congressman, had served Obama in Washington from January 2009 until October.

Posted at 12:35:28 PM in 2011 Chicago election, 2011 Chicago mayor's race

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/appellate-court-says-emanuel-should-be-removed-from-ballot.html

Rahm Emanuel Puts A Smile on the Face of “The Chicago Squid”

2011-01-19T12:13:00.000-06:00

Thomas F. Roeser

Last week the white-run Squid…the peculiar living organism formed to elect Democrats (misnamed an inanimate “machine”) which has multi-quivering tentacles into business, labor, academe, media and the Roman Catholic chancery, a thousand eyes, sucks up nutrients, nurtures wastrels and discharges idealists as effluent…found three great reasons to celebrate the undeniable highest point of its 80-year existence.

I’ll start the way late-night comic David Letterman does—with the third reason and lead up to the first.

Three Big Reasons The Squid is Overjoyed.

3rd Biggest Reason: A Returned (Slightly) White Chicago Majority.

Despite its exploitation of blacks and Hispanics for massive vote turnout since the 1930s and giving them little in return, the Caucasian-led Squid has been worrying for decades about the day when blacks take over city control in perpetuity. What the media don’t report is: The Squid isn’t an equal opportunity outfit. Never has been.

The second lowest point for it was in 1983 when Harold Washington, the city’s first African American mayor, won election…although it was stalled from running things due to the Vrdolyak 29. The absolute lowest was when Washington won reelection in 1987 picking up enough council allies to turn back the Vrdolyak 29. A sub-highpoint for it was shortly after reelection at the point where he was supreme, when Washington slumped over his desk, dead of a massive heart attack. The white-dominated inter-regnum lasting two years paved the way for the coronation of Richard M. Daley aka Richard II.

Richard M. Daley gave the city bread and circuses, higher taxes, a massive park in its front yard and flower pots lining the boulevards and privatized parking meters that hit hard at the middle class. He spent the moon. With no interference from his Squid council he plunged the city into a financial abyss with its nearly $15 billion IOU to its pension fund dwarfing its $6 billion annual budget. From 2005-09 city expenses grew at a clip more than double the rate of inflation—with the gap bridged by one-time revenue sources such as the privatization of the Chicago Skyway (17% of day-to-day operations will be paid that way in 2011).

Property taxes are sky-high; yet not a penny of its nearly $800 million revenue the city will reap this year is earmarked for police, fire and other cash-starved day-to-day operations.

High taxes caused many blacks to flee the city. Daley II also demolished much of public housing which his father, Richard I had created, causing the Old Man’s enemies to charge they were nothing less than filing cabinets for the black poor. Under Daley II, Chicago’s phenomenally high property taxes coupled with housing vouchers induced the poor to move to blue-collar suburbs where costs are much lower. Result: The black population fell 11% since 2000; number of whites tripled; whites slightly edge blacks for the first time since 1980 (a smidgen over a third white, a smidgen under a third black and the balance Latinos most of whom either can’t or don’t vote…which The
Squid hopes will stay that dormant, Asians etc)..

Other middle class blacks moved back to their ancestral South which has a much more hospitable climate for diversity, an improved tax climate and job opportunities. This produced census figures showing that for the first time since 1980 the city has a white majority—richer, yuppies, affluent singles, gays. Hispanics mark a 7% growth but not much to worry about, . Asians making up the total. Thus the outlook is good for The Squid to keep white leadership with the Irish dominant…while still relying, plantation-style, on the remaining black poor to do the political grunt work and get absolutely no power in reward.

2nd Biggest Reason: No Serious Alternative to Rahm Emanuel. .

This would have been a golden chance for the black community to loft up some extraordinary qualified candidates, such as John Clark, president of ComEd and the brilliant Terry Peterson, senior veep of Rush Medical Center who was an outstanding boss of mass transit. But these talented African American managers and others like them aren’t interested in running because the city’s financials are a can of worms. Nor are they close to the city’s oracular, media-celebrated real black messiah, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Jackson, whose own kids even call him “Reverend Jackson,” not Dad or Pop, sought to challenge The Squid with a creature of his own.

After a well-publicized caucus he and his surrogates came out with endorsement for Carol Moseley Braun, the first black woman U. S. Senator. Most serious observers—not in the major media here, however said “you can’t be serious!” On the surface okay but when she grudgingly complied with the rule to reveal past income tax forms, it was clear she is in dreadful personal financial shape, owing $250,000 to a backer and the possessor of a Hyde Park house that is barely afloat with four mortgages. When the Teamsters union ran a poll last week, Rahm Emanuel, was far ahead of Moseley Braun—so far ahead that it looks like he’ll win going away on Feb. 22 with no need of a runoff.

The Gray Wolves, the resurrected 1920s-style venal white Squid aldermen who don’t mind seeing the city go to rack-and-ruin if they can make money out of it—and who have subtly opposed Emanuel….largely funding the residency suits against him… now are cautiously coming to his. Because Emanuel has no moral core he is ideal for the mayoralty and co-leadership of The Squid (with Speaker Michael Madigan) and neither can he be rolled by the Gray Wolves for the pure and simple reason his reputation for the future (he wants to ride a tough-bitten mayoralty ala Andrew Cuomo as NY governor to become the first Jewish president)… would be irreparably damaged—so he is the best in a lousy selection.

1st Reason: At Last—A Daley in the White House!

The Squid doesn’t really doesn’t give a rat’s eyelash about Barack Obama believing (rightly) he’s an amateur who couldn’t even beat the lazy mumbling, inept Bobby Rush for Congress, an inexperienced, Harvard-University of Chicago radical dreamer, flaky and undependable without the street-sense of a ward committeeman (his ability to wreak harm on the country being of no consequence to it since The Squid regards patriotism as irrelevant to its existence). But it’s ecstatic about the ascension of Richie Daley’s kid brother to become chief of staff. Why?

Remember The Squid has no ideology. And Bill Daley has none either…but he has the swashbuckling buccaneer qualities on money-raising and strategy it loves. He was (1) born in Bridgeport, ancestral home of the Daleys; (2) has been a bank president; (3) at the highest point earned $5 million a year; (4) came to the White House fresh from supervising the Washington lobbying efforts of the nation’s second largest bank, JPMorgan/Chase. The Squid adores lobbyists except the goo-goo kind and Bill Daley’s certainly not one of those.

He’s been (5) a director of Chicago-based Boeing the giant military contractor which can only do well if we’re either waging war or preparing to wage one…(6) a director of Abbott Laboratories, the huge global drug outfit that has a massive stake in cutting a deal with ObamaCare which has used Billy Daley up until the minute of his White House appointment to kill the tax on medical devices that would save it $20 billion.

Up until last week Daley (7) tried to weaken the structure of the newly-passed Consumer Financial Protection program and jiggle around with suggestions of a more malleable agency head…which earns The Squid’s admiration. He’s been (8) a lobbyist for foreign corporations (Nestle and a Canadian oil company)…the one who (9) until last week was seeking to influence the payback terms of TARP, making it easier for his bank to pay back the money, a prodigious political fund-raiser. And last if not least, (10) his appointment has been lavishly praised by Obama’s most skilled enemies—the U. S. Chamber of Commerce and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal!

But the icing on the cake is (11) he’s a bona fide Squid operator conscience-exempt from queasiness which by itself…without any birthright at all…puts him at the table with Eddie Burke, Dick Mell. In his spare time he had the idea some years ago in creating the HDO, the Hispanic Democratic Organization as a brilliant vehicle to enlist Latinos. Chicago Streets and San commissioner, Al Sanchez, its leader just got 20 years for rigging personnel records to reward loyal Hispanics while Billy’s big brother the mayor said “everybody who knows me knows I had nothin’ to do with it.” Of course he didn’t. It was Billy.

That’s all that’s needed: The Squid is in love.

**

Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/rahm-emanuel-put-a-smile-on-the-face-of-the-chicago-squid/

Illinois schools revive 'moment of silence'

2011-01-19T11:08:00.002-06:00

Students take part for the first time since law was suspended

Just before 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, students at Lakes Community High School rose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, then, before falling back into their seats, paused for eight seconds of silence.

Senior Prince Miles mused about the day's assignments.

Sara Quinn, a freshman, thought about the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.

And senior Tomas Brandt didn't have a chance to reflect on much at all.

"It's so quick, I sort of missed it," he said.

The scene in Lake Villa was replayed in dozens of classrooms Tuesday as students paused for a quiet moment for the first time since a law that mandates a period of "silent prayer or silent reflection" in Illinois public schools was suspended more than two years ago.

Contending that the 2007 law overstepped the bounds of church and state separation, a suburban teenager and her atheist-activist father sued the state two weeks after the law took effect. The law was ruled unconstitutional but later was upheld. A federal district judge lifted the injunction banning the practice last week.

The on-and-off history of the law confounded many school officials, who wondered how to heed state law without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Several districts plan to follow the example cited by the federal appeals court in its ruling last October. The judges highlighted Arlington Heights-based Township High School District 214's practice of pausing for 15 seconds of silence before reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

The northwest suburban district — where the teenage plaintiff, Dawn Sherman, attends classes — intends to reinstate the observance Monday after students finish their finals.

But from Elgin to Lemont, dozens of schools revived the practice Tuesday.

In Lincolnshire, Stevenson High School's moment of silence began during the video announcements that start each morning with the Pledge of Allegiance, a spokesman said. The screen read: "Good morning. And now, a moment of reflection." It faded to black for 10 seconds and returned to the school's news of the day.

Students in Round Lake Beach's Avon Center School began the day with 15 seconds of "silent reflection."

Third-grade teacher Lisa Henricksen related the law to lessons about government and history, drawing on themes that resonated with the young students.

"Do you know what they're asking us to do? To kind of reflect on our day," Henricksen said. "What kind of choices are we going to make? What kind of people do we want to be? What can we do to have a good day?"

The flurry of discussion and debate mystified many students.

"I think it's a good idea in theory, but if it starts this much controversy, it's just not worth it," said Lakes High School senior Rachel Ferguson during an advanced government class discussion devoted to the topic. "At this point, it's just a distraction."

Tribune reporters Megan Craig and Carolyn Rusin contributed to this report.

tmalone@tribune.com
Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/ct-met-moment-of-silence-0119-20110118,0,4321821.story

Border wars

2011-01-19T10:51:00.000-06:00

Despite the tax increase, Illinois remains the go-to state for employment

While I appreciate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's zeal to debate economic development in the Midwest, no amount of rhetoric changes the fundamental facts: Illinois is the economic engine of the Midwest, and our efforts to stabilize and reform our budget only strengthen our competitiveness in the global economy.

As The New York Times editorialized last weekend, criticism of Illinois' recent tax and budget reforms "… makes great political theater. But businesses and voters in Illinois, and around the country, should take a closer look at the facts and figures, including their own."

Facts are stubborn things, and it's time to set the record straight.

Even with the temporary increase, Illinois' personal and corporate taxrates are lower than Wisconsin's and comparable to other nearby states. For years, we have collected revenues at rates far below those of our neighbors — one of the contributing factors to our current financial instability. Last week's reforms actually bring us in line with our neighbors.

In addition to Illinois' lower or comparable rates, our corporate tax structure is based on the location of a business' customers — not where the business itself is located. At the behest of the business community, Illinois changed the way it collects corporate taxes in recent years; as a result, a company's taxes due to Illinois won't change if it relocates.

The corporate tax rate is not an obstacle for companies to locate and invest in Illinois. Frankly, our state's unstable finances have stood in the way of business investment. Businesses crave stable economic environments, which is why I supported and signed into law unprecedented limits on state spending, real budget reforms and the revenues we need to meet our obligations. We are putting our financial house in order, which will only make Illinois a stronger competitor.

With these reforms, we will be able to take greater advantage of our state's existing advantages: a strategic location that has made us the hub of the nation's rail network and the aviation gateway to the world; an unmatched transportation infrastructure that makes us the distribution center of North America; unparalleled intellectual resources through our world-class universities and research institutions; and a long-standing place as one of the world's top financial centers. And Illinois' commitment to green energy and high-speed rail is making us a world leader in the 21st century economy.

Our efforts to forge strong business partnerships have paid off, as companies continue to locate, grow and create jobs in Illinois. Boeing is manufacturing in Metro East; Nippon Sharyo recently left Wisconsin to expand its rail-car manufacturing in Illinois; and online innovator Groupon is staying in its hometown of Chicago, even as it catapults onto the global stage.

Illinois has 78 consulates, 44 foreign trade commissions, 26 foreign chambers of commerce and more than 1,500 subsidiaries of foreign companies. We are the nation's sixth largest exporter, and the Midwest's gateway to the world. Illinois is competing globally.

Make no mistake, Gov. Walker, there's no room for short-sighted vision and political gamesmanship in the international competition for jobs.

It is time for the Midwest to come together to better compete in the global marketplace. Illinois can help the entire region meet the demands and opportunities of global business. A key factor in our position in the global marketplace will hinge on whether states make the hard decisions — as Illinois has done — to address the impact of the recession on their budgets and take the difficult steps necessary to achieve fiscal stability.

Rather than political rhetoric and scare tactics, we should focus on finding ways to collaborate and bring more jobs to the region.

We have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to facing these challenges together.

One more stubborn fact — the Chicago Bears, the pride and joy of Illinois, are going to bear down and win on Sunday.

Pat Quinn is the governor of Illinois. He is a Democrat.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0119-illinois-20110119,0,3624016.story

Border war

2011-01-19T10:35:00.000-06:00

To the Land of Lincoln: Wisconsin is 'Open for Business'

By Scott Walker, Jeff Fitzgerald

January 19, 2011

Wisconsin and Illinois are two very different states (and we are not just talking about Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears fans).

In Springfield, Gov. Pat Quinn and lawmakers approved massive tax increases on individuals and employers. They put off difficult decisions, like reining in public-sector benefits and reducing the growth of government, for another day.

While Illinois legislators may call those tax increases temporary, the reality is that by avoiding the hard decisions now, they are creating larger budget problems for the future. Illinois leaders have made it clear that they do not have the will to solve the state's budget problems except through greater tax increases.

In contrast to the mess in Illinois, we convened a special session of the Wisconsin Legislature to focus on jobs. Our message is simple: "Wisconsin is Open for Business."

We are reducing taxes on our businesses and health savings accounts, reforming our state's regulatory and litigation environment and transforming our Department of Commerce into a public-private partnership that focuses on economic growth. Of special note to companies south of our border, we are passing legislation that will exempt companies that come to Wisconsin from corporate taxes for two years.

During that time, we'll be continuing to lower taxes, curb spending and transform Wisconsin's business environment. Our hard work begins with this year's budget, where we will reduce spending by making the long-term reforms necessary for a sustainable balanced budget, all without raising taxes.

Tuesday, on the road signs along our state borders, we unveiled a different message aimed squarely at our neighbors. In place of the name of our state's governor, the signs announce that Wisconsin is "Open for Business."

Looking at the big picture, it's clear that Wisconsin is a better deal for business. Wisconsin's corporate tax rate is too high at 7.9 percent, but we will work to lower it by making the difficult decisions in our budget. Illinois' corporate rate is 7 percent, but the state also charges a personal property replacement tax — on top of the corporate rate — of 2.5 percent. The two taxes combined make Illinois' effective rate 9.5 percent for corporations. Illinois also has a much higher sales tax rate, which reaches as high as 9.75 percent, more than 4 points higher than Wisconsin's.

Businesses make decisions based on trends, and the contrast between Wisconsin and Illinois could not be greater. Wisconsin is heading in a pro-growth direction. Illinois is not. Add in Wisconsin's high quality of life — there's a reason Illinois residents enjoy so many weekends and vacations up here — and suddenly moving to Wisconsin is a smart business move.

To those of you who are frustrated with the high cost of doing business in Illinois, our message is clear: "Escape to Wisconsin!"

Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin, Jeff Fitzgerald is speaker of the House and Scott Fitzgerald is the Senate's majority leader. All are Republicans.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0119-wisconsin-20110119,0,5851127.story

Quinn, former state rep. say job not traded for tax-hike vote

2011-01-18T09:39:00.000-06:00

by mark konkol Staff Reporter

During her final days in office, former state Rep. Careen Gordon scored a lucrative state job after casting an important vote that helped pass Gov. Quinn’s controversial 67 percent income tax increase.

Gordon (D-Morris) and a spokeswoman for the governor said there wasn’t any deal to trade Gordon’s vote for the $85,886-a-year seat on the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.

“There was no quid pro quo,” Quinn spokeswoman Annie Thompson said Saturday. “Bottom line, she was appointed because of her extensive background in criminal justice. . . . She was just the ideal candidate.”

Gordon, who recently moved to Chicago, was an assistant state’s attorney in Will and Kankakee counties. In 2000, she also worked as an assistant attorney general under former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan.

Gordon refused to answer questions about how she became a candidate for the board seat. But she denied using her vote on the tax crease bill as leverage for the job.

“There was no deal. That’s untrue,” she said. “My background is a perfect match for someone on the Prisoner Review Board. I’m done talking about it. I’m done being called a liar.”

The tax increase, which Quinn signed into law last week, passed the House with 60 votes, the minimum needed for approval.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady said in a statement that he’s not buying Quinn’s claim that Gordon’s appointment came after the vote. “That’s like saying it was simply a coincidence that the governor vetoed McCormick Place reforms last year after getting a $75,000 donation from the Teamsters Union,” Brady said in the statement.

http://www.suntimes.com/3329780-417/gordon-quinn-tax-vote-state.html

Billion-Dollar Baby: A Cautionary Tale

2011-01-14T14:36:00.000-06:00

She is somebody somebody sent.

In the best—or maybe it’s the worst—tradition of local politics. And she was pressured into voting for a multi-billion dollar hike in the state income tax in the wee hours of Wednesday morning. By her Democratic Party allies in Springfield.

Some of her friends and neighbors may be unhappy with the tax vote but she won’t be facing any political consequences or voter backlash. And here’s why: She stepped down as an Illinois State Representative at noon on Wednesday. After one week on the job. That’s right—one week. She was, in simple terms, the lamest lame duck in a feckless Springfield flock. A billion-dollar baby.

“She” is Kathy Moore, a Lincoln Park friend and former public school teacher who was put in that unenviable position by the stark reality of political hide-and-seek. Or, in this case, seek-and-hide. Her reliably Democratic 11th District, which includes Lincoln Park and Lakeview, elected a brand new state representative, Ann Williams, in November, to replace John Fritchey, a popular long-time rep who won election to a seat on the Cook County Board. Fritchey began his new job in December, so Williams could have been sworn in as a state rep a month ago to represent the district in the lame-duck session going on in Springfield this past week. That was her initial plan.

But there were questions about how she would vote if a tax plan was on the lame-duck agenda. Williams claims that local Democratic leaders, including Fritchey and Senate President John Cullerton, wanted her commitment to support the tax hike before arranging for her to be sworn in. They say she got cold feet and decided not to start early—choosing instead to wait until Wednesday, when the rest of the freshman legislative class was sworn in.

(That, parenthetically, will save the taxpayers a few bucks because Williams won’t qualify for a more generous legislative pension than the one awaiting the new class in Springfield, thanks to a modest pension reform bill that took effect on Jan. 1. But her decision will cost the 11th District politically because, instead of moving to the top of the seniority list of new legislators by starting in December, she will be near the bottom since she’s entering with all of the other newbies, and her last name begins with “W,” a letter near the end of the alphabet. Oh well.)

Meanwhile, back at the raunch—yes, I said raunch and not ranch—Williams’s decision not to be seated early meant the political bosses in the district—Fritchey, Cullerton and the other ward committeemen—had to find someone else to fill the seat for the one-week lame-duck session. So they recruited Kathy Moore, the wife of Tom Moore, a well-known Lincoln Park zoning lawyer—because Kathy had the time and the willingness to “serve.” And down I-55 she went. Admitting sheepishly at a party last week that “they tell me what (voting) button to push and I push it.” Democracy in action.

So when the tax bill passed, without a single vote to spare, our lawmaker-for-a-week was a major reason. She says she’s not happy about voting for a gargantuan tax increase but she doesn’t think that she, or the state, had any other choice. Even though, as of Sunday, she hadn’t seen a bill. Or a press release. Or a fact sheet. Or a list of cuts, accountability measures and streamlining to go along with the increase.

“I hope it works,” she said wistfully in a text message on Wednesday morning. Williams says, for the record, that she would’ve had a hard time supporting the tax bill in its present form.

In any event, Kathy Moore was back home in Chicago by Wednesday night after morphing into a regular resident following her week as a political pumpkin. Kind of like “Cinderella” in reverse. And she may not be the life of the cocktail parties in the neighborhood for awhile, at least among the well-healed wine-and-cheese folks who will have several-thousand fewer dollars in their pockets for each of the next four years.

As for Ann Williams, the newly elected House member, she assumed her duties as the new representative of the 11th district at noon on Wednesday. And my spies at her Springfield welcoming parties report there was no evidence of any dust, dirt or snow from the rock she’s been hiding under.

Don’t you just love the Illinois Way? And can’t you see why we love being civic watchdogs?

Quinn-Says not dishonest with taxpayers for campaigning during the 2010 election on a 1 percentage point increase

2011-01-12T12:58:00.000-06:00

Posted by Ray Long at 12:01 p.m.

Gov. Pat Quinn said today he will sign a major income tax increase as soon as it hits his desk and rejected criticism that he had misled taxpayers by saying during his campaign that he would only sign a smaller increase.

With no votes to spare and no Republican support in either the House or Senate, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly sent the measure to the Democratic governor early this morning after hours of bombastic debate. The action came in the waning moments of the lame-duck session just before a new General Assembly is sworn in.

The measure would raise the personal income tax-rate by 67 percent and the business income tax rate by 46 percent.

"We had an emergency, a fiscal emergency," Quinn said during a statehouse news conference this morning, just hours after the state Senate voted to send him the tax legislation.

Quinn said "no" when asked if he had been dishonest with taxpayers for campaigning during the 2010 election on a 1 percentage point increase in the income tax rate but now agreeing to sign the 2 percentage point hike.

The governor sought to justify the larger increase in part by saying fiscal experts had told leaders the state's financial problems were escalating in the last two months.

"Our house was burning," Quinn said. "Our fiscal house was burning."

Quinn negotiated the tax plan with fellow Democrats who control the legislature and had to wade into the details just before midnight Tuesday to get the measure over a final hurdle when African-American senators balked at revisions to the deal.

The House passed the bill hours earlier Tuesday night -- likewise without a vote to spare and with nary a Republican in support.

The plan nearly faltered in the Senate when black lawmakers balked at the House’s decision to remove a property-tax relief component from the plan and failure to approve a cigarette tax hike for schools. But Quinn met privately with members of the Senate black caucus, who said he pledged to pump $250 million from the income tax increase into schools for each of the next four years.

"A lot of them are my friends and we worked together in campaigns and we believe in working together in important things that help children," Quinn said when reporters caught up to him after the Senate vote.

Asked if there was a lot of horse trading to win support, Quinn said "not really. Everybody voted their conscience."

Quinn deferred most questions until a news conference scheduled for 10:30 a.m., just hours before lawmakers elected in November were to be sworn in as the General Assembly starts a new session. Democrats relied on the votes of some lame-duck lawmakers to push through the tax increase.

"We were happy that the Senate voted that way and the House did too, and we'll talk about it tomorrow," Quinn said, forgetting that he meant a little later today.

Democrats argued the tax increase was needed to rehabilitate the state’s deadbeat image, but Republicans predicted it would drive businesses out of state.

“We have just come through the worst economic crisis in our lifetime…and we have not paid our bills,” Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, told lawmakers shortly before the vote. “We are going to have to cut…even with this tax. We’re going to have to spend less money then we have in the last two years. And it’s going to be tough. But we are going to have our bills paid.”

Republicans, powerless to stop the Democratic agreement, were left to blame the majority party for lacking the guts to make tough budget choices.

“So here we are in the very end of this lame duck session on a late night putting more burden on the hardworking people of this state,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon. “Here’s an investment tip, put a lot of money into moving vans.”

“You may think you're stabilizing this budget but you’re not,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine. “You’re bankrupting our state with this bill.”

The Senate debate was interrupted shortly before 1 a.m. when a state lawmaker collapsed on the floor of the chamber. State Rep. David Miller, D-Lynwood, was watching the debate near state Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, when he collapsed as Republican leader Christine Radogno was making what was expected to be one of the final speeches of the night.

Medical personnel and concerned lawmakers clustered around Miller and then took him out on a stretcher. He appeared to be conscious when he was wheeled out to a waiting ambulance, and the debate resumed. Earlier in the night Miller had voted in favor of the tax plan--because of his unsuccessful bid for state comptroller, Tuesday was his last day in the Legislature.

"I’m a little bit off my game here," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, the Republican leader. "We certainly all hope Rep. Miller is ok."

Radogno went on to say she was glad Democrats were "owning" the blame for the state's dismal budget situation, but she said the spending restrictions in the bill were not good enough.

Earlier in the night the House, expected to be the more difficult place to gain traction, approved the tax measure 60-57.

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan chided Republicans for their refusal to support the proposal, after he and Democratic leaders who control the Senate spent days negotiating the size and scope of the tax plans behind closed doors with Quinn.

“They're on the sidelines,” Madigan said of Republicans. “They don't want to get on the field of play.”

The Senate, which approved a similar-size tax hike in May 2009 with more of the proceeds going to education, was temporarily hung up over the concerns of the black caucus. But after a meeting with Quinn, Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Maywood, said education funding had been “worked on” with Quinn.

Sen. Emil Jones III, D-Chicago, said black senators received a promise from Quinn that he would designate $250 million more to education over each of the next four years. The money would be generated by the increased income tax and had originally been designated for property tax relief. The final bill eliminated the property tax relief, freeing up those funds, Jones said.

Senators also gave final approval to a House passed plan that would allow the state to borrow nearly $4 billion to make its annual payment for public employee pensions. The House approved the plan last year.

The tax votes were the latest demonstration of a Legislature that has turned increasingly liberal since the November election, coming in the wake of a death penalty ban approved Tuesday and civil unions for gay and straight couples approved last month.

Quinn and Democratic legislative leaders raced to move the tax plan, which would raise the personal tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent, before a new Legislature with fewer Democrats is seated. At least seven lame-duck Democrats, who will be out of office Wednesday, voted for it.

“Illinois is in crisis, absolute financial crisis, and there is no way we can dig ourselves out of the crisis without increased revenues,” said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. “There is no way, no way, we can cut our way out of the deficit we face.”

But Republicans argued that Democrats who have controlled state government since 2003 should make stringent budget cuts before seeking a massive income tax hike during a struggling economy.

“I can’t figure out how this plan does anything for our real problems. Our real problem is spending, the increased spending, the mentality that we have,” said Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville. “We’ll continue to throw money into a hole that has no bottom.”

House Democrats twice failed to get the required support from Republicans to approve a massive $8.75 billion borrowing plan aimed at using a portion of new income tax revenue to pay billions of dollars in overdue bills. The measure needed 71 votes because it added to the state’s debt, but it got only 65 votes on a first ballot and 68 on a second.

Sponsoring Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley, said failure to pass the borrowing plan would mean it would take up to eight years to pay off providers of state services who have waited months for their money.

Prospects for the tax hike had been questionable throughout the Legislature’s final day as Quinn held a number of one-on-one meetings with rank-and-file lawmakers, seeking votes needed to pass the tax package. Quinn entered the House chamber shortly after the vote to thank representatives who voted for the plan.

House passage of the income tax hike came after representatives voted 66-51 against a plan to boost the state’s 98-cent-per-pack cigarette tax by $1.01. The cigarette tax hike would have been earmarked to provide more than $300 million in new spending for schools, a provision sought by African-American lawmakers in exchange for their backing of a higher income tax.

In trying to sell the tax package, supporters sought to portray a sense of urgency, saying the failure to act to fill a $15 billion budget deficit, including a looming $8 billion in overdue bills, would lead to the state teetering into insolvency, its bond rating reduced to junk status.

“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die,” said Miller, D-Lynwood, just hours before his collapse.

Under the bill that went to Quinn, the current 3 percent personal income tax rate would go to 5 percent until 2015, when it would drop to 3.75 percent. To gain more support among lawmakers, the plan would further lower the tax rate in 2025 to 3.25 percent.

For businesses, the current 4.8 percent corporate rate would go to 7 percent until 2015, when it would drop to 5.25 percent.

The plan calls for the corporate rate to fall in 2025 to the current 4.8 percent.

The tax increases, which would take effect retroactively to Jan. 1, would raise an estimated $6.5 billion over a full-year period.

In addition, the measure would attempt to limit spending in each of the next four budget years — $36.8 billion in the 2012 budget year, $37.5 billion in 2013, $38.3 billion in 2014 and $39 billion in 2015. The state’s auditor general would determine if lawmakers and the governor exceed those spending limits. If the limits are exceeded, the higher income tax rates would revert to current levels.

“This is not a game, not a trick. It’s a real spending cap,” Cullerton said. “We’re really trying to handcuff ourselves and the governor in our spending.”

But Republicans contended the limits would still allow growth in spending at a rate of 2 percent a year over the next four years, rather than require specific cuts to programs in the state budget.

Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said voters across the country spoke in November, voting for lower taxes and less government. Reis held up a map of Illinois that he said represents how many counties Quinn won in November to show that most of Illinois is against a tax hike, except the three counties Quinn won. "Three-county Quinn," Reis called the governor.

Quinn, who campaigned on a smaller income-tax increase, won Cook County, the state's most populous region, and that propelled him to 47 percent of the vote and victory over Republican Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington. State Board of Elections totals show Quinn winning four counties: Cook, Alexander, Jackson and St. Clair.

Posted at 12:03:10 PM in Governor, Legislature

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/quinn-on-tax-hike-our-fiscal-house-was-burning.html

But Do Please, Brer Madigan, Don’t Fling Me in Dat Springfield Brier-Patch

2011-01-12T12:51:00.000-06:00

Jim Leahy 11 January 2011

You have to hand it to Speaker Madigan, knowing the political landscape and the way the last election went he is going to pass a tax increase and still let some Democrats look like fiscal conservatives. Yes he and the Governor float a huge 75% and of course the voters hit the roof. But for the last few days Madigan has allowed some of suburban and downstate members come out aggressively against big spending and government expansion.

So now when the tax increase comes out as a paltry 40% or so every one of these Democrats in the next election can use the footage of them demanding that the “Needed increase” be reduced and spending caps be put into place. How much better can things get for a Democrat? They get more money to pay for their huge spending over the last decade with huge tax increases and still will be able to claim fiscal conservatism! Wow! And the media is doing it’s job by providing the camera time for the members from red areas. Providing cover for past spending with questions like “is this something like a trigger being put into place that if you over spend the tax increase is nullified?” Or “Does this mean you can stomach a tax increase if they put a hold on spending?”

My own Representative Karen May (D-58) has been every where in the media going so far as to put out an email with the following paragraph:

“.Thanks for the encouragement many of you gave to me for the media coverage of my leadership in the House for fiscal sanity as we contemplate revenues to return to us to strong financial health. I will fight down to the final minutes of the 96th General Assembly on Wednesday.” She went on to claim “I also want you to know that on Thursday, the House passed HB 5420, which I co-sponsored, which will implement significant reforms to our Medicaid system, in order to both rein in costs and improve care. The bill will tighten eligibility standards for the Medicaid program, increase the use of managed care, provide payment for performance and increase the use of electronic records. The bill will also increase penalties for Medicaid fraud, and provide for greater responsibility in the payment of claims. The bill is estimated to save the state $774 million over five years, money which can help us pay down our deficit.”

Imagine that, a member of the party that has been in control for over 8 years, and has spent the state into oblivion with huge expansions of government, can say with a straight face she is providing leadership for fiscal sanity! By the time this is over, these Democratic legislators will get awards from tax payer groups for being so fiscally conservative. They saved us from a 75% increase and a increase in the corporate tax rate that would make it the highest in the industrialized world.

The Republican leadership had better get in front of this now by reminding the voters how we got into this mess. Remind voters that the Democrats “significant reforms” were requiring people to prove they lived in Illinois!. My God how fiscally conservative can you get? Maybe next, Republicans and these newly conservative Democrats could demand a list of people enrolled in All Kids or even to get a list of all of the services the state provides? No that’s asking to much don’t you think? One step at a time.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/but-do-please-brer-madigan-dont-fling-me-in-dat-springfield-brier-patch/

Quinn congratulates Democrats on income tax increase

2011-01-12T09:39:00.000-06:00

Posted by Ray Long and Monique Garcia at 2:15 a.m.

A triumphant Gov. Pat Quinn congratulated fellow Democrats early today after the Illinois Senate and House sent him a major income tax increase without a single Republican vote in favor.

Quinn smiled and shook hands on the floor of the Senate around 1:30 a.m. after the Senate voted 30-29 for the bill, which would raise the personal income tax-rate by 67 percent and the business income tax rate by 46 percent.

The House passed the bill hours earlier Tuesday night -- likewise without a vote to spare and with nary a Republican in support.

The plan nearly faltered in the Senate when black lawmakers balked at the House’s decision to remove a property-tax relief component from the plan and failure to approve a cigarette tax hike for schools. But Quinn met privately with members of the Senate black caucus, who said he pledged to pump $250 million from the income tax increase into schools for each of the next four years.

"A lot of them are my friends and we worked together in campaigns and we believe in working together in important things that help children," Quinn said when reporters caught up to him after the Senate vote.

Asked if there was a lot of horse trading to win support, Quinn said "not really. Everybody voted their conscience."

Quinn deferred most questions until a news conference scheduled for 10:30 a.m., just hours before lawmakers elected in November were to be sworn in as the General Assembly starts a new session. Democrats relied on the votes of some lame-duck lawmakers to push through the tax increase.

"We were happy that the Senate voted that way and the House did too, and we'll talk about it tomorrow," Quinn said, forgetting that he meant a little later today.

Democrats argued the tax increase was needed to rehabilitate the state’s deadbeat image, but Republicans predicted it would drive businesses out of state.

“We have just come through the worst economic crisis in our lifetime…and we have not paid our bills,” Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, told lawmakers shortly before the vote. “We are going to have to cut…even with this tax. We’re going to have to spend less money then we have in the last two years. And it’s going to be tough. But we are going to have our bills paid.”

Republicans, powerless to stop the Democratic agreement, were left to blame the majority party for lacking the guts to make tough budget choices.

“So here we are in the very end of this lame duck session on a late night putting more burden on the hardworking people of this state,” said Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon. “Here’s an investment tip, put a lot of money into moving vans.”

“You may think your stabilizing this budget but you’re not,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine. “You’re bankrupting our state with this bill.”

The Senate debate was interrupted shortly before 1 a.m. when a state lawmaker collapsed on the floor of the chamber. State Rep. David Miller, D-Lynwood, was watching the debate near state Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, when he collapsed as Republican leader Christine Radogno was making what was expected to be one of the final speeches of the night.

Medical personnel and concerned lawmakers clustered around Miller and then took him out on a stretcher. He appeared to be conscious when he was wheeled out to a waiting ambulance, and the debate resumed. Earlier in the night Miller had voted in favor of the tax plan--because of his unsuccessful bid for state comptroller, Tuesday was his last day in the Legislature.

"I’m a little bit off my game here," said Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, the Republican leader. "We certainly all hope Rep. Miller is ok."

Radogno went on to say she was glad Democrats were "owning" the blame for the state's dismal budget situation, but she said the spending restrictions in the bill were not good enough.

Earlier in the night the House, expected to be the more difficult place to gain traction, approved the tax measure 60-57.

Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan chided Republicans for their refusal to support the proposal, after he and Democratic leaders who control the Senate spent days negotiating the size and scope of the tax plans behind closed doors with Quinn.

“They're on the sidelines,” Madigan said of Republicans. “They don't want to get on the field of play.”

The Senate, which approved a similar-size tax hike in May 2009 with more of the proceeds going to education, was temporarily hung up over the concerns of the black caucus. But after a meeting with Quinn, Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Maywood, said education funding had been “worked on” with Quinn.

Sen. Emil Jones III, D-Chicago, said black senators received a promise from Quinn that he would designate $250 million more to education over each of the next four years. The money would be generated by the increased income tax and had originally been designated for property tax relief. The final bill eliminated the property tax relief, freeing up those funds, Jones said.

Senators also gave final approval to a House passed plan that would allow the state to borrow nearly $4 billion to make its annual payment for public employee pensions. The House approved the plan last year.

The tax votes were the latest demonstration of a Legislature that has turned increasingly liberal since the November election, coming in the wake of a death penalty ban approved Tuesday and civil unions for gay and straight couples approved last month.

Quinn and Democratic legislative leaders raced to move the tax plan, which would raise the personal tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent, before a new Legislature with fewer Democrats is seated. At least seven lame-duck Democrats, who will be out of office Wednesday, voted for it.

“Illinois is in crisis, absolute financial crisis, and there is no way we can dig ourselves out of the crisis without increased revenues,” said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. “There is no way, no way, we can cut our way out of the deficit we face.”

But Republicans argued that Democrats who have controlled state government since 2003 should make stringent budget cuts before seeking a massive income tax hike during a struggling economy.

“I can’t figure out how this plan does anything for our real problems. Our real problem is spending, the increased spending, the mentality that we have,” said Rep. Roger Eddy, R-Hutsonville. “We’ll continue to throw money into a hole that has no bottom.”

House Democrats twice failed to get the required support from Republicans to approve a massive $8.75 billion borrowing plan aimed at using a portion of new income tax revenue to pay billions of dollars in overdue bills. The measure needed 71 votes because it added to the state’s debt, but it got only 65 votes on a first ballot and 68 on a second.

Sponsoring Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley, said failure to pass the borrowing plan would mean it would take up to eight years to pay off providers of state services who have waited months for their money.

Prospects for the tax hike had been questionable throughout the Legislature’s final day as Quinn held a number of one-on-one meetings with rank-and-file lawmakers, seeking votes needed to pass the tax package. Quinn entered the House chamber shortly after the vote to thank representatives who voted for the plan.

House passage of the income tax hike came after representatives voted 66-51 against a plan to boost the state’s 98-cent-per-pack cigarette tax by $1.01. The cigarette tax hike would have been earmarked to provide more than $300 million in new spending for schools, a provision sought by African-American lawmakers in exchange for their backing of a higher income tax.

In trying to sell the tax package, supporters sought to portray a sense of urgency, saying the failure to act to fill a $15 billion budget deficit, including a looming $8 billion in overdue bills, would lead to the state teetering into insolvency, its bond rating reduced to junk status.

“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die,” said Miller, D-Lynwood, just hours before his collapse.

Under the bill that went to Quinn, the current 3 percent personal income tax rate would go to 5 percent until 2015, when it would drop to 3.75 percent. To gain more support among lawmakers, the plan would further lower the tax rate in 2025 to 3.25 percent.

For businesses, the current 4.8 percent corporate rate would go to 7 percent until 2015, when it would drop to 5.25 percent.

The plan calls for the corporate rate to fall in 2025 to the current 4.8 percent.

The tax increases, which would take effect retroactively to Jan. 1, would raise an estimated $6.5 billion over a full-year period.

In addition, the measure would attempt to limit spending in each of the next four budget years — $36.8 billion in the 2012 budget year, $37.5 billion in 2013, $38.3 billion in 2014 and $39 billion in 2015. The state’s auditor general would determine if lawmakers and the governor exceed those spending limits. If the limits are exceeded, the higher income tax rates would revert to current levels.

“This is not a game, not a trick. It’s a real spending cap,” Cullerton said. “We’re really trying to handcuff ourselves and the governor in our spending.”

But Republicans contended the limits would still allow growth in spending at a rate of 2 percent a year over the next four years, rather than require specific cuts to programs in the state budget.

Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said voters across the country spoke in November, voting for lower taxes and less government. Reis held up a map of Illinois that he said represents how many counties Quinn won in November to show that most of Illinois is against a tax hike, except the three counties Quinn won. "Three-county Quinn," Reis called the governor.

Quinn, who campaigned on a smaller income-tax increase, won Cook County, the state's most populous region, and that propelled him to 47 percent of the vote and victory over Republican Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington. State Board of Elections totals show Quinn winning four counties: Cook, Alexander, Jackson and St. Clair.

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/quinn-congratulates-democrats-on-income-tax-increase.html

Tribune Editorial-Goodbye, jobs

2011-01-12T09:36:00.000-06:00

At least 1/11/11 will be easy to remember. On that day, with the state of Illinois mired at 48th place nationwide in job creation, Democratic leaders dragged through the lame-duck House a tax plan sure to make many employers do their hiring somewhere else.

We'll leave to the Tax Foundation and other data outfits the task of calibrating precisely how much more uncompetitive Illinois becomes if the Senate passes and Gov. Pat Quinn signs this fiasco into law. Quinn and the rank-and-file Democrats who launched the enormous tax grab will own what happens next. So will House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton. Governors such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, their treasuries already enriched by refugee employers who've fled Illinois, should send the Springfield Democrats orchids and champagne.

Those Illinois Democrats have, for two do-little years, dodged a choice: Reduce spending, raise taxes, or enact some mix of the two. Cutting overhead would offend their friends in the public employee unions and other pet constituencies. Ask retired state workers to pay something for their health care? Cap employee pensions? Perish the thought.

So — get this — not only are they raising taxes to avoid budget cuts, they're including a provision to let their spending continue to rise — year after year.

We hoped for smarter legislating Tuesday night as we watched debate unfold in the House. One after another, representatives rose to expose that central flaw — among many strong contenders — in the Democratic tax plan. The bill, falsely advertised as fiscal discipline, is "designed to increase spending," thundered Rep. Jack Franks of Woodstock, one of a few outlier Democrats to vote against the bill. "This legislation will merely continue to feed the beast."

Find us an employer, or a potential employer, who doesn't awaken Wednesday thinking, "They spent and borrowed Illinois into penury, they refused to cut spending as I have, and now my workers and I are supposed to pay for all that?"

Some will, of course. Not every company can leave. But many big employers can see where they're welcome and where they're tax fodder for arrogant pols.

Remember that Illinois needs 600,000 more people working to restore employment to the level it was a decade ago. Then burn 1/11/11 into your brain — along with the phrase "Goodbye, jobs."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-legislature-0112-bd-20110111,0,4534433.story

Daniels: Illinois tax hikes good for Indiana

2011-01-10T14:07:00.002-06:00

By Dan Carden

INDIANAPOLIS | Gov. Mitch Daniels thinks Illinois' proposed 75 percent hike in its corporate and personal income tax rates will be great -- for Indiana.

In an exclusive interview Friday with The Times, the Republican governor said he looks forward to welcoming to the Hoosier State any Illinois business or resident that wants to pay less in taxes.

"We already had an edge on Illinois in terms of the cost of doing business, and this is going to make it significantly wider," Daniels said.

Illinois lawmakers are poised to vote next week on a plan that will raise the state's personal income tax rate to 5.25 percent from 3 percent, hike the corporate income and personal property replacement tax rates to a combined 10.9 percent and add an extra tax of $1 per pack of cigarettes. The income tax hikes would be retroactive to Jan. 1 and be reduced after four years.

Hoosiers pay a 3.4 personal income tax rate, while Indiana's corporate income tax rate is 8.5 percent.

The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group in Washington, noted if the proposed corporate tax hike becomes law, Illinois businesses will pay the highest combined national-local corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

That is the wrong course for Illinois to take, Daniels said.

"Folks in Illinois will eventually have to decide: Is this working well enough for us or do we want something different?" he said. "Point one of our anti-recession strategy here is to avoid doing what they've now decided to do."

Daniels has enacted deep budget cuts and eliminated many government programs to keep Indiana's budget balanced without a tax hike during his six years in office.

The money raised by the Illinois tax increases will help the state pay some $8.5 billion in overdue bills and make a $3.7 billion payment owed to government worker pension funds. Schools also would receive additional funding while property taxpayers would get a small annual rebate.

Despite the tax increase, Daniels said he's pleased to see Illinois finally may start paying its bills.

"That's just borrowing by a different name. They've been borrowing from the poor businesses that are suckers enough to do business with the state," he said.

Daniels also said he's surprised that two states as geographically and historically similar as Indiana and Illinois could be in such dissimilar financial shape.

"It does show that you can make very different choices, and the contrast between the choice we've made and the one they have is stark," he said. "Obviously I think ours is wiser, but self-governance means people get what they vote for."

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/article_27130bf0-6ebf-529f-9e40-4b8c9f205f93.html#

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

2011-01-10T10:28:00.000-06:00

By Michelle Malkin • January 10, 2011 03:19 AM

The Tuscon massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.

***

The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:

I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

***
I. PALIN HATE

Flashback — pointing a fake gun at the head of a Sarah Palin likeness sitting next to a cardboard cutout of her daughter in a museum display

Getty has since yanked the photo, but as one commenter who saw the photo at Getty’s site before it was yanked noted: “To see that image presented as if it were completely normal and purchasable was shocking.”

Flashback — trendy “ABORT Sarah Palin” stickers:

Flashback — Palin-hating artwork designating her an “M.I.L.P.” (Mother I’d Like to Punch). Hat tip: Edge of Forever:

Flashback — Palin Derangement Syndrome mobsters in Philly: “Let’s stone her, old school”

Flashback — Madonna bashing Sarah Palin and shrieking “I will kick her ass:”

Flashback — Sandra Bernhard bashing Sarah Palin and cursing her head off with hate warping her crazed face:

Flashback — Why Sarah Palin Incites Near-Violent Rage In Normally Reasonable Women.

Flashback — the Democratic Underground indulging in name-calling the MSM ignores:

Reader Monica M. sent me a link to the Democratic Underground’s latest thread for commenters to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and then to “spread [them] all over the ‘net.” There are now nearly 100 filthy, hate-filled responses and counting. Among the “nicer” entries: “Cruella,” “Gidget,” “Governor Jesus Camp,” “VPILF,” “Fertilla the Huntress,” “Iditabroad,” and “KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE BITCH FROM HELL!!”

…Peer with me further into the liberal sinkhole again and behold P.D.S. in full bloom. Note that this site is raising money for Barack Obama and that an ad for their fundraiser appears at the top of the thread. Is Obama going to accept their cash? Know your enemy:

…The Photoshop entries getting thumbs up from DU commenters:

Flashback — “F**k the rich:” Class-war arsonist on the loose

Flashback — Anti-war, anti-Bush loons attack girl in wheelchair

Flashback — Gems from Journolist…“F—ing Nascar retards…”; “Sarah Spitz, producer of the KCRW public radio program ‘Left, Right and Center,’ which is heard on a number of NPR stations across the country, wrote on JournoList that if she witnessed Limbaugh dying of a heart attack, she would ‘laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out.’”

Flashback — “I hope Glenn Beck kills himself”

Flashback — The Democrat Rep. Pete Stark Raving Mad archive

Flashback — Malik Zulu Shabazz, “Prepare for war”

Flashback — 2007 New Black Panther Party block party rap: “bang for freedom,” “put the bang right into a cracker’s face,” and if you’re going to bang, bang for black power… hang a cracker [unintelligible] . . .if you’re going to bang, bang on the white devil. . . . burying him near the river bank with the right shovel. . . . community revolution in progress…. banging for crackers to go to hell, we don’t need em:”

Flashback — The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob

Before election day, national media hand-wringers forged a wildly popular narrative: The Right was, in the words of New York Times’ columnist Paul Krugman, gripped by “insane rage.” Outbreaks of incivility (some real, but mostly imagined) were proof positive of the extremist takeover of the Republican Party. The cluck-cluckers and tut-tutters shook in fear.

But when the GOP took a beating on Nov. 4, no mass protests ensued. No nationwide boycotts erupted. Conservatives took their lumps and began the peaceful post-defeat process of self-flagellation, self-analysis, and self-autopsy. In fact, there’s only one angry mob gripped by “insane rage” in the wake of campaign 2008: The mob of left-wing, same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved a traditional marriage initiative, Proposition 8, by 52-48.

Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 have responded with threats, fists, and blacklists.

That’s right. Activists have published an “Anti-Gay Black List” of Prop. 8 donors on the Internet. If the tables had been turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies’ list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming “McCarthyism” faster than you can count to eight. A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign has been besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who have disrupted the business, intimidated patrons, and brought employees there to tears. In fear for their jobs and their lives, workers at El Coyote Mexican Café pooled together $500 to pay off the bullies.

Scott Eckern, a beleaguered artistic director at the California Musical Theatre, was forced to resign over his $1,000 donation to the Prop. 8 campaign. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Rich Raddon, is next on the chopping block after the anti-Prop. 8 mob discovered that he had also contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. Calls have been pouring in for his firing.

Over the past two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic, and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website “JoeMyGod,” are common across the left-wing blogosphere: “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting “Mormon scum.” The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religious-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the “hate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper’s car was keyed with the slogans “Gay sex is love” and “SEX;” another car’s antenna and windshield wipers were broken.
Anti-Prop. 8 radicals chase Christian evangelists out of San Francisco’s Castro district:

Anti-Prop. 8 radicals stomp on elderly Prop. 8 supporter’s cross:

Flashback — Anti-Prop. 8 mob rings in 2009 with more church vandalism

Flashback — Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob

Flashback — NYTimes finally acknowledges that anti-Prop. 8 mob is harassing traditional marriage supporters

IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE

Flashback — The Playboy hatef**k list (screencapped in full here – NSFW)

Flashback — Sex, Violence and Hate: the Top 10 Most Disgusting Attacks on Conservative Women

Flashback — Montel Williams to GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann:

WILLIAMS (1:30:32): Michele, slit your wrist.

Go ahead… or, do us all a better thing [sic].

Move that knife up about two feet.

Start right at the collarbone.

Flashback — The four stages of conservative female abuse

Flashback — The Ladies of the Spew “bitch” and moan

Flashback — Laura Bush hatred at the SFChronicle

Flashback — Another day, another hate wish

Flashback — “The bitch is dead meat.”

V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists & unions

Left-wing mob shuts down speech at Columbia University…

Left-wing mob shuts down speech at UNC-Chapel Hill…

Left-wing mob blocks military shipments in Olympia, WA…

Left-wing mob illegally trespasses and breaks into a home in Baltimore in the name of “social justice”…

Left-wing SEIU/NPA mob descends on D.C. bank exec’s home, harasses son

Flashback — March 2009 – The rule of the mob:

Animal rights’ terrorists have firebombed researchers’ homes and Molotov cocktail-bombed their cars and been convicted of inciting threats, harassment, and vandalism against employees of a private company engaged in animal research.

Environmental terrorists have set developments on fire.

Self-proclaimed “bank terrorist” Bruce Marks, who I reported on last March, has been threatening bank employees in their homes and harassing their children for years:

IT MAY SEEM LIKE AN UNUSUAL CHOICE, given that Marks is a controversial character who once infamously called himself a “bank terrorist.” But this is no ordinary time, and it seems uniquely suited to Marks’s curious blend of in-your-face activism, customer-focused service, Machiavellian angling, and social-justice passion.

Over the years, as part of his permanent campaign to browbeat banks into giving fair loans to low- and moderate-income people, Marks and his yellow-T-shirted followers have swarmed shareholders’ meetings with enough force to shut them down. They have picketed outside the schools attended by the children of bank CEOs, pressing the youngsters in signs and chants to answer for the actions of their daddies. And they even once distributed scandal sheets to every house in one CEO’s neighborhood, detailing the affair he was allegedly having with a subordinate. In time, that CEO, like most of the others that NACA targeted, sat down with Marks and signed a deal.

To those who found his tactics an outrageous invasion of bank executives’ personal lives, Marks refused to acknowledge any line between home and work. “What you do is who you are,” he says. “It’s all personal.”
And last weekend, of course, the ACORN mob chartered a bus — with twice as many outrage-stoking MSM photographers in tow — to menace AIG executives in their homes.

Flashback — The Green War on Children

Flashback — Torch-wielding leftists at UC Berkeley attack chancellor’s home

Flashback — Campus chaos: Social justice mobsters attack police, smash windows over tuition hikes; Update: “Who’s (sic) schools?”

Flashback — The left-wing bullies in Robert Reich’s backyard

Flashback — Big Labor’s legacy of violence

VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE

Flashback — August 2010…An open-borders activist smacks a man with a camera covering the Arizona state capitol protest over SB 1070…

Flashback — November 2009…Far Left’s ANSWER goons attack foes of illegal immigration

The slogan on the back of a protesting Puerto Rican singer from the band Calle 13 says “Luz verde para invadir Arizona.” Translation: “Green light to invade Arizona:”

“Smash the state”…

Flashback — The May Day angry mob you won’t see…

Escalating violence in the name of mass illegal alien amnesty…

They came, they saw, they threatened or committed violence in the name of open borders and workers’ rights. But alas, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman’s columns decrying the insane rage and hate of the May Day angry mob got lost in the mail.

In Santa Cruz, they carried torches and vandalized at least 18 businesses:

Downtown business owners spent Sunday repairing shattered windows and doors after a May Day rally Saturday night turned into a riot with approximately 250 people marching along Pacific Avenue, some carrying makeshift torches, throwing large rocks and paint bombs, and spray-painting walls with graffiti.

At least 18 businesses suffered damage during the rally in honor of international workers that began at 9 p.m. and escalated into mayhem around 10:30 p.m., police said. Investigators estimated damage at $100,000, though some business owners said it could be more. No injuries were reported.

On Sunday, sea green-colored glass littered sidewalks where windows and glass doors had been smashed. Maintenance workers, many getting called in the middle of the night, boarded up windows with plywood until new sheets of glass could be installed.

The vandalized businesses included Urban Outfitters, Peet’s Coffee, Noah’s Bagels, Jamba Juice, Velvet Underground and Dell Williams Jewelers. The unoccupied Rittenhouse building also was damaged. A police car was vandalized with rocks and paint, department spokesman Zach Friend said.
In San Francisco, anti-illegal immigration activists were attacked by the May Day marchers:

LISA AMIN GULEZIAN, REPORTER: Allan, for the most part the event was peaceful, but just about an hour ago, three people were attacked and two others were arrested. The people who were assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law.

They said a large group of immigrants’ rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.

PARKER WILSON, BAY AREA ANARCHIST: They said we were racists, and that we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco, and what they were saying. They said we needed to get out and they called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me.

Flashback — The American flag comes second…

VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE

January 20, 2005. At Seattle Central Community College, Army recruiter Sgt. Jeff Due and his colleague, Sgt. 1st Class Douglas Washington were surrounded by an angry mob of 500 anti-war students. The recruiters’ table was destroyed; their handouts torn apart. The protesters threw water bottles and newspapers at the soldiers, shouted profanities, and wielded their fists. The far Left Students Against War had been agitating to kick the recruiters off campus. The college administration refused to punish the mobsters.

Jan. 31, 2005. A little more than a week after the Seattle ambush, a shockingly fair and rare report from the NYT disclosed that recruiters in Manhattan reported that a door to their office had been beaten in. Anarchist symbols were scrawled in red paint on the building. On the same day, NY police collared a young Manhattan College junior and charged him with throwing a burning rag into an Army recruiting station and ruining the door locks with super glue. The radical student “was caught carrying a handwritten note declaring that a ‘wave of violence’ would occur throughout the Northeast on January 31, aimed at the ‘military industrial complex’ in response to American military actions.’”

Feb. 1, 2005. At a South Toledo, Ohio recruitment center, unhinged protesters hurled manure all over the building. They broke windows and sprayed vulgar grafitti — “War is Shit” — on office property. An e-mail sent to local TV station WTOL-TV by a group calling itself, yes, “War is Shit,” claimed responsibility for the property destruction. The crapweasels were never caught. WTOL reported:

“If they don’t like this country that much they should do it the right way by changing with votes. Shouldn’t do it with actions like that,” said Steve Klostermeier, a bystander. Mike Gibson agreed, saying, “I think it’s terrible. I think they’re blaming the people who fought to give them the right to do stuff like that. They should have the courage to stand up and say it rather than doing stuff like that.”

Mid-Feb. 2005. 20-year-old anti-war goon Brendan Walsh is sentenced to five years in federal prison for hurling a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Vestal, NY military recruitment office in 2003. Celebrated as a hero to the anti-war/anarchist movement, he pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to damage or destroy a building by arson and was expected to be released to a halfway house last month.

…April 2006. The infamous UC Santa Cruz ambush on military recruiters takes place. The thugs gloated about throwing a rock at the recruiters’ SUV. Recruiters, who had been similarly driven off campus the previous year, reported slashed tires. One employee at the career center was injured in the melee. Photos here. The capitulationist campus administration had known in advance about the ambush plans and did nothing. Instead of condemning the speech-stifling lawlessness of the anti-war mob, unhinged sympathizers attacked me for publishing the public contact information of the thugs’ propaganda officers and also outrageoulsy blamed me for the subsequent suicide of the troubled UC Santa Cruz president, Denice Denton. They continue to lie about what happened.

Just a few weeks later, more anti-recruitment attacks break out. A reader alerted me to this vandalism at UNC Chapel-Hill and sent photos taken by her son, an ROTC cadet on campus:

Then, in Minnesota, via the Minneapolis Star Tribune
S-T caption: Three people were apprehended this afternoon by police after pouring paint on an Army recruiting station near the University of Minnesota during an antiwar demonstration.

…In Maryland, anti-recruiter vandals smashed a Rockville Air Force recruitment center:

…In Maryland, anti-recruiter vandals smashed a Rockville Air Force recruitment center:

In an attempt to discover how a bunch of murdering cowards like the US Air Force enjoy finding themselves on the other end of some flying projectiles for a change, at around 3:00 AM this morning an autonomous cell of the Red & Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) used bricks and other common household items to smash the shit out of the Air Force recruiting center in Rockville, Maryland. Do we even need to explain the motivation for our actions? A shout out to our comrades from the Borf: Revolution or Bust Faction (BORFROBF), who late last year gave a similar treatment to the military recruitment center in Silver Spring. Consider this a modest response to your “dare to those here in the heart of the imperial beast to step it up”. In suburbs so hollow, may the echo of our actions be long and loud! Big ups to all those out there who claim RAAN. Fuck them haters who don’t realize we are but a few of the millions of ant’s bites which can topple this elephant once and for all. No war but class war, communism or bust! IT’S A DO OR DIE SITUATION – WE WILL BE INVINCIBLE!
And in Lufkin, TX, , Army and Navy recruiters were the targets of vandals who keyed their cars, smashed their windows, and shot at their vehicles with “with what appeared to be a high-powered pellet gun.”

Jan. 2007. Anti-war radicals lay siege to the US Capitol and smash windows at the recruitment center on 14th and L.

Pittsburgh anti-recruiter organizers shut down a military recruitment station for a whole day. They brandish hateful signs like this:

August 2007. In New England: Suspect charged with leaving fake bomb at recruitment office.

A city man was arrested Tuesday on charges that he twice left a fake bomb package at a military recruitment office, police said. Francis Monaghan, 68, was charged with two counts of first-degree breach of peace, a felony, and two counts of reckless endangerment, said Lt. Sean Cooney. “He made certain incriminating statements,” Cooney said. “He did express some anti-war feelings. We think that was at least partially his motivation.” Monaghan was being held on $100,000 bond. An envelope slipped into the recruiting station mailbox on Bedford Street Monday morning contained batteries and other “bomb-making components,” Cooney said. The package was nearly identical to an envelope left at the same U.S. Army/U.S. Air Force station last months, police said. Both bore “unusual writing” and were placed in the station’s mailbox, Cooney said.
September 2007. The far Left group, Iraq Veterans Against the War calls on followers to commit fraud to interfere with military recruiters. The sabotage action was part of a larger, coordinated campaign with the International ANSWER racket to obstruct military recruitment centers in Washington and across the country. Other socialist partners in crime:

http://www.notyoursoldier.org/
http://www.warresisters.org/
http://www.afsc.org/youthmil

Anti-war punks shut down the Times Square recruitment station:

The New York chapter of the War Resisters League kicked off a week of actions against military recruitment in New York by shutting down the Times Square Recruiting Station Saturday morning. Three members of the WRL were arrested, but the recruiting station remained closed for the rest of the day as the WRL maintained its presence there, joined in the afternoon by the Rude Mechanical Orchestra. The three arrestees were charged with disorderly conduct and released four hours later.

October 2007. Code Pink defaces the Berkeley recruitment center, branding our troops as assassins:

June 2009: And now this: Shooting at military recruiting center; 1 dead, 1 wounded; suspect is anti-military Muslim convert

VIII. And finally, the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

Gainsville, Fla., Democrat David P. McCally was charged with battery after he allegedly barged into a local GOP office, assaulted a cardboard cutout of President Bush, and punched a local Republican chairman in September 2004. (Credit: Alachua County Jail.)

In March 2004, Carol Lang, a campus secretary at City College in New York, reportedly assaulted a police officer trying to arrest unruly anti-war protesters. Police arrested Lang and charged her with second-degree assault, disorderly conduct, and obstructing governmental administration. (Credit: New York Police Department.)

At the same protest at which Carol Lang was arrested, police arrested students Justin Rodriguez, left, and Nicholas Bergreen. They charged Rodriguez with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. They charged Bergreen with assaulting a police officer. (Credit: New York Police Department.)

Police arrested Corey Robert Cooke of Ellicott City, Md., in September 2004 and charged him with malicious destruction of property after he allegedly used a power tool to cut down a Bush-Cheney sign. (Credit: Howard County Police Department.)

Howard County, Md., police arrested Peter Lizon, left, and Stephanie Louise Lizon in October 2004 and charged them with malicious destruction of property. Mr. Lizon allegedly destroyed Bush-Cheney signs with a bayonet. His wife allegedly acted as the lookout. (Credit: Howard County Police.)

Nashville police arrested Andrew Thurman, left, and Frederick Stevenson in Septmeber 2004 and charged them with theft and unlawful weapons possession after they found guns and 71 Bush-Cheney signs in Thurman’s car. Policy say they stole the signs from Nashville, Tenn., yards because Thurman was angry at President Bush for sending his brother to Iraq. (Credit: Nashville Police Department.)

Nathan Winkler of Tampa, Fla., was arrested and charged with aggravated stalking in March 2005 for allegedly terrorizing a mother who had a Bush-Cheney bumper sticker on her car. Click on the video here to listen to an excerpt of the mother’s frantic call to 911. Winkler reportedly had a handmade sign in his window that read, “Never forget Bush’s illegal oil war murdered thousands in Iraq.” (Credit: Tampa Police Department.)

Florida Democrat Barry Seltzer allegedly tried to run down congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac as she was campaigning in Sarasota, Fla., in October 2004. See the arrest report here. (Credit: Sarasota Police Department via The Smoking Gun.)

In April 2005, Earlham College suspended Josh Medlin after he threw an ice cream pie at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Medlin pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor battery charge two weeks ago. (Credit: Indianapolis Police Department.)

In March 2005, Western Michigan University police arrested Samuel Mesick and charged him with a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace after Mesick threw a cup of salad dressing on Pat Buchanan. Buchanan chose not to press felony assault charges. Click here to see video footage of the attack. (Credit: Kalamazoo Police Department.)

Police cited Bruce Charles of Portland for disorderly conduct after Charles threw a shoe at former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle in February 2005. (Credit: Portland Police Department.)

In April 2005, Indianapolis police arrested Joshua Miner of Danville, Ind., on charges of criminal mischief, a felony. Miner allegedly smashed glass panels at a monument to Medal of Honor recipients. (Credit: Indianapolis Police Department.)

In May 2005, police arrested Ajai Raj and charged him with disorderly conduct after he asked a vulgar question and made lewd hand gestures after a speech by conservative author Ann Coulter at the University of Texas at Austin. Read the arrest report here. (Credit: The Smoking Gun.)

Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde son of congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee), was one of five paid Kerry campaign workers in Milwaukee who allegedly slashed the tires of 20 vans that had been rented by Wisconsin Republicans as part of their Election Day 2004 get-out-the-vote effort. (Credit: Milwaukee County Police.)

Michael Pratt, son of former Milwaukee mayor Marvin Pratt, is another alleged tire-slasher. (Credit: Milwaukee County Police.)
Three other alleged tire-slashers: Lewis Caldwell (top-left), Justin Howell (top-right), and Lavelle Mohammed (bottom). (Credit: Milwaukee County Police.)

In March 2004, Claremont McKenna College visiting professor of psychology Kerri Dunn falsely claimed she discovered anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-woman graffiti spray-painted on her 1992 Honda Civic. Dunn was convicted of two felony counts of attemped insurance fraud and one misdemeanor count of filing a false police report. (Credit: Claremont Police Department.)

Phillip Edgar Smith, left, and William Zachary Wolff were arrested after they threw custard cream pies at conservative author Ann Coulter during her speech at the University of Arizona in October 2004. Read the arrest report here. (Credit: Pima County Jail via The Smoking Gun.)

December 2009 – Palin-hater Jeremy Olson arrested for attempted assault and disorderly conduct after hurling two tomatoes at the Alaska governor from a second-floor mall balcony in Minnesota. He missed and hit a cop. Olson was cheered as a “hero” by Palin-haters.

March 2009 — Document drop: FBI charges anti-Semitic nutball with threats against GOP Rep. Cantor & family; “…you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.”

August 2010 — Michael Enright, liberal interfaith film company volunteer, stabbed a Muslim NYC cabbie and faces trial this year. Liberals rushed to hang the entire Right for the crime.

As I said last summer: “They cannot help themselves. Wasn’t it just a few hours ago that I blogged about another act of Democrat vandalism falsely blamed on the the Tea Party? Why yes, yes it was. From GOP fake hate crime hoaxer Ashley Todd to suicide census worker Bill Sparkman, there remains an unrestrained impulse among too many to falsely scream political violence when it doesn’t exist — and to ignore it where it does exist…But like I said just a few hours ago and like I’ll certainly have to say again and again and again in the future: Being a Tea Party-bashing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.”

Over to you, Krugman and Company.

To see the pictures go to link:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374

Who Knew? Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Others Connected To Fannie and Freddie

2011-01-07T12:59:00.001-06:00

William Daley Served On The Fannie Mae Board And Received Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars In Deferred Compensation And Stock Options. “After Clinton passed over Daley for a Cabinet post in his first term, he appointed him to the Fannie Mae board. Daley reported collecting $24,814 in director’s fees in 1996 from the firm. He also listed deferred compensation and stock options from Fannie Mae worth between $215,000 and $500,000.” (Charles R. Babcock and Barbara J. Saffir, “In Wealth, Clinton Team Doesn’t Look Like America,” The Washington Post, 6/24/97)

Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson Recruited Daley For Fannie Mae. “Fannie’s government relations operations dramatically expanded in the mid-1990s, when then-CEO Johnson recruited Washington A-listers Robert Zoellick, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations; Lawrence M. Small, former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and William M. Daley, commerce secretary in the Clinton administration.” (Lisa Lerer, “Fannie, Freddie Spent $200M To Buy Influence,” The Politico, 7/16/08)

Daley’s Son Is A Former Lobbyist For Fannie Mae. “Daley is a former Fannie Mae board member. Daley’s son, William Daley Jr., is a former lobbyist for Fannie Mae. Daley Jr. is now with Morgan Stanley, and he is registered with Cook County and the State of Illinois as a lobbyist for the firm.” (Lynn Sweet, “Ad Ties Obama To Machine,” Chicago Sun-Times, 9/23/08)

Daley’s Subprime Mortgage Mess: “That said, the potential appointment of someone who was sour on the major elements of the president’s domestic legislation to the top-ranking presidential position creates some uncomfortable optics. So too does Daley’s position, from 2005 through 2007, as a co-chair of the Chamber of Commerce’s ‘Commission on the Regulation of Capital Markets in the 21st Century’ — a committee that played a role lobbying on derivatives regulation and consumer protections — as well as the fact that JPMorgan Chase, where he served as an executive, had a $30 billion subprime mortgage business.” (Sam Stein, “William Daley, Rumored Chief Of Staff Nominee, Opposed Consumer Protection Agency,” Huffington Post, 1/4/11)

“A Longtime Democratic Operative, [Current National Security Adviser Tom] Donilon For Six Years Beginning In 1999 Was A Registered Lobbyist And Top Executive At Fannie Mae, Leaving In 2005. His Tenure Coincided With Efforts In Congress To Rein In The Mortgage Giant With Tougher Regulations And Greater Oversight.” (Pete Yost, “On Housing, Donilon At Center Of Regulatory Fight,” The Associated Press, 10/9/10)

Donilon Was At The “Head Of An Unceasing Anti-Regulatory Campaign.” “At Fannie Mae, Donilon was the key player whose job it was to battle any regulatory initiatives from Capitol Hill, said two people familiar with Donilon’s tenure at the housing mortgage giant. Donilon designed and implemented Fannie Mae’s public affairs strategy, which included Capitol Hill and anything that might affect opinion there, said one of the two people, a former Democratic Party official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be able to speak candidly. The second person, a former housing industry executive intimately familiar with of Fannie Mae’s operations, agreed that Donilon was at the head of an unceasing anti-regulatory campaign that the company waged throughout his tenure.” (Pete Yost, “On Housing, Donilon At Center Of Regulatory Fight,” The Associated Press, 10/9/10)

Donilon Received “More Than $10 Million In Salary, Bonuses And Stock Option” Just Between 2001 and 2004. “Lawmakers would surely have raked him over the coals about the more than $10 million in salary, bonuses and stock options the firm reported paying him just between 2001 and 2004.” (Josh Gerstein, “Donilon’s Resume: Policy, Law And Fannie Mae,” Politico, 10/08/10)

Damon Munchus Worked As “A Senior Financial Analyst For Credit Portfolio Strategies At Fannie Mae.” “Prior to the Treasury Department, his financial services and capital markets experience ranged from being a member of President Obama’s FDIC Agency Review Transition Team, a Vice President within the Investment Banking Division of Jefferies and Co., and a senior financial analyst for credit portfolio strategies at Fannie Mae.” (Cyprus Advisory Team, Cyprus Advisory, Accessed 1/4/11)

Munchus Worked At Fannie Mae As A Senior Financial Analyst Prior To Working On Obama’s Transition Team And At Treasury. (Center For Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/4/11; Damon Munchus Revolving Door Profile, opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/4/11)

EVEN THOUGH FANNIE AND FREDDIE HELPED PAVE THE WAY FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

President Bill Clinton Admitted His Policies Regarding Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Paved Way For Current Financial Crisis. “Clinton … said that Democrats weren’t entirely blameless, stating that they should have highlighted problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and ‘tried more aggressively to regulate derivatives.’ He also acknowledged that there was possible danger in his administration’s policy of pressing Fannie Mae, the mortgage company, to lower its credit standards for lower- and middle-income families seeking homes. ‘I think, through the lens of this, it looks like that was true,’ Clinton said.” (Walter Alarkon, “Clinton Rejects Blame For Financial Crisis,” The Hill, 9/25/08)

Clinton: Democrats Responsible For “Resisting Any Efforts By Republicans” To Tighten Regulations At Fannie & Freddie. CLINTON: “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (ABC’s “Good Morning America” 9/25/08)

Since The Early 1990s, Barney Frank Pushed Fannie And Freddie “To Break Its Rules, Lower Its Standards, And Buy Risky Loans.” “To hear Barney Frank tell it, he bears no responsibility for the housing bubble or for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But his record as a member of the House Financial Services Committee tells a different story. As far back as 1991, Frank was pushing Fannie Mae to break its rules, lower its standards, and buy risky loans.” (Bruce Feirstein, “100 To Blame: Barney Frank, Richard Fuld, And More,” Vanity Fair, 9/15/09)

“Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac, The Mortgage-Finance Companies Operating Under U.S. Conservatorship, Could Draw A Total Of $363 Billion In Treasury Department Aid Through 2013 If The Housing Market Worsens, The Federal Housing Finance Agency Said.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Fannie, Freddie May Draw $363 Billion, FHFA Says,” Bloomberg, 10/21/10)

Even Under A Best-Case Scenario, Taxpayers Could Still Need To Provide $142 Billion In Bailouts. “Under the best-case scenario, which assumes a strong near-term recovery in the housing market, the total cost to taxpayers would be $221 billion, or $142 billion after dividends. A middle-ground scenario would require total aid of $238 billion, or $154 billion after dividends. So far the companies have drawn $148 billion and returned $13 billion in dividends to Treasury.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Fannie, Freddie May Draw $363 Billion, FHFA Says,” Bloomberg, 10/21/10)

Fannie And Freddie Will Likely “Be The Most Expensive Legacy” Of The Financial Crisis. “Fannie Mae asked the U.S. government for an additional $8.4 billion in aid after posting an $11.5 billion net loss for the first quarter, the latest sign that the bailout of the mortgage investor and its main rival, Freddie Mac, is likely to be the most expensive legacy of the U.S. housing-market bust.” (Nick Timiraos, “Fannie Mae Needs $8.4 Billion More,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/11/10 )

“While Many Banks And Even American International Group Have Repaid Or Are Working To Reimburse The Government, The Likelihood Of Fannie And Freddie Doing So Is Slim, Their Regulator Said.” (Zachary A. Goldfarb, “Fannie, Freddie Bailout Could Double, Regulator Says, The Washington Post, 10/21/10)

WHICH DIDN’T STOP OBAMA FROM TAKING CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FANNIE AND FREDDIE EMPLOYEES

Fannie Mae Employees Gave Obama Over $118,000 In Campaign Contributions Since 2003. (Center For Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/5/11)

While Freddie Mac Employees Gave Obama An Additional $41,000. (Center For Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/5/11)

Obama Was The Top Recipient Of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Contributions In 2008. (Center For Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/5/11)

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/the_subprime_white_house##ixzz1AMYFNxcj

Chicago Boy, 2.0

2011-01-07T12:47:00.000-06:00

William Daley will be a pragmatist in an ideological White House..

When Barack Obama picked fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff in late 2008, we applauded the choice as a sign of the President-elect's political maturity. "Mr. Emanuel," we wrote, "can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center."

Bill Daley, we've come to praise you.

Yesterday, Mr. Daley was appointed to succeed Mr. Emanuel, and perhaps to help a politically chastened President fulfill the hopes we had for his first chief of staff. The younger brother of the outgoing Chicago mayor is a Democratic moderate who has spent the last decade in private business, most recently as a senior executive at JP Morgan Chase. In the 1990s he was instrumental in helping Bill Clinton pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, and he later served as a pro-free trade Commerce Secretary. As a scion of the Daley dynasty, his political instincts are not in doubt.

Mr. Daley was also among the first top Democrats to see the political risks the Obama Administration ran as Mr. Emanuel was letting no crisis go to waste. "Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come," he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in late 2009. Sixty-three former Democratic Representatives might now be wondering why they didn't heed that advice sooner.

Not surprisingly, the progressive blogosphere is reacting to Mr. Daley's appointment by howling at the moon. "As more about [Mr. Daley's] activities since leaving the Clinton administration have emerged, the worse [his appointment] looks," wrote one writer on the Daily Kos. But Mr. Obama knows her vote won't be in doubt in 2012. Meanwhile, Mr. Daley can help him try to recapture the constituencies most disappointed by his first two years, particularly political independents and the business community.

Still, we've been wrong before. Whether we're wrong again rests less with the pragmatic Mr. Daley than with the man of the left who is now his boss.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576066094081529156.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies

2011-01-07T11:28:00.000-06:00

The administration waives allies through the health law's onerous restrictions..

By KARL ROVE

A primary task for the new Republican House majority is to undo as many of the pernicious effects of ObamaCare that it can. One of these effects is the spectacle of employers going hat-in-hand to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for waivers from some of the law's more onerous provisions.

In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers "mini-med" coverage—low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out. This followed announcements by some employers that they would have to drop these plans because they did not meet the new health law's requirement that 85% of premium income be spent on medical expenses.

By early December, HHS had granted 222 such waivers to provide mini-med policies for companies including AMF Bowling and Universal Forest Product, as well as 43 union organizations. According to the department's website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies.

Then, on Dec. 21, Ms. Sebelius announced that insurance companies seeking rate increases of 10% or more in the individual or small group market must publicly justify the hikes under standards set by her department.

Insurance regulation has traditionally been a state responsibility, and 43 states must already approve proposed insurance-rate increases. ObamaCare does not authorize HHS to deny rate increases, but the agency said that if a state "lacks the resources or authority" to conduct the kind of review the agency wants, it will conduct its own.

This proposed regulation will erode the states' dominant role in insurance regulation, centralizing more power in Washington. The HHS announcement also mentioned that it will set different thresholds of what constitutes an "unreasonable" increase for every state by 2012.

The Obama administration's behavior to date suggests that it will not hesitate to take care of its friends. The Senate Republican Policy Committee's health policy analyst, Chris Jacobs, points out that the administration has already given an extravagant gift to the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), a key player in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The AARP provided a big chunk of the $121 million spent on ads supporting the bill's passage, as well as $21 million on lobbying in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. HHS's proposed regulations on Dec. 21 exempted the AARP's lucrative "Medigap" plans from the rate review and other mandates and requirements.

The AARP and other Medigap providers can require a waiting period before seniors with pre-existing conditions have to be covered. Insurers covering those under 65 cannot.

The AARP is also exempt from the new law's $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit's last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won't pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

It's not hard to connect the dots. The Obama administration is using waivers to reward friends. On the flip side, business executives will be discouraged from contributing to the president's opponents or from taking any other steps that might upset the White House or its political appointees at HHS.

This is not what people had in mind when candidate Obama promised in his acceptance speech in August 2008 to undo "the cynicism we all have about government."

In a speech at the University of Iowa last March, the president heralded health-care reform as "a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly." Determining whether that is true will be another task for House Republicans. They have an obligation to look into this matter, and Mr. Obama can hardly object. It was former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom the president frequently quotes, who wrote in 1913 that sunlight "is the best of disinfectants."

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576063892468779556.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Democrat lawmakers push 75% state income tax increase

2011-01-07T08:21:00.000-06:00

Personal rate would rise to 5.25% from 3% for 4 years

By Ray Long and Monique Garcia, Tribune reporters

SPRINGFIELD — — Gov. Pat Quinn and top Democratic lawmakers reached a tentative agreement Thursday on a major, post-election income-tax increase and a $1-a-pack cigarette-tax hike to stabilize the state budget and provide a cash infusion for schools.

The plan, detailed by Senate President John Cullerton following closed-door meetings with the governor and House Speaker Michael Madigan, still faces a review by rank-and-file members of the Democratic-led legislature in the waning days of a lame-duck session.

Under the proposal, the state's 3 percent personal income-tax rate would rise to 5.25 percent for four years, then fall to 3.75 percent. All told, that's a 75 percent increase.

The personal income-tax hike is expected to net the state roughly $6.2 billion, and a corresponding corporate income tax increase could raise an additional $1 billion, Cullerton said. The rate businesses pay would temporarily jump from 4.8 percent to 8.4 percent.

The cigarette tax increase, which is expected to raise $377 million, would go into what was described as a "lock box" to increase education funding. Lawmakers said they hoped to double that amount using other funds to provide more than $700 million in new school funding this spring.

To gain votes for the package, the plan also would provide $325 in property tax credits to homeowners this year and a direct check to taxpayers in subsequent years.

As a measure of how desperate state government's finances are, Cullerton said the state would use the income-tax hike to borrow $12.2 billion. Of that, $8.5 billion would pay overdue bills and $3.7 billion would cover a government worker pension payment lawmakers skipped when putting together the current budget, he said.

"I think it's the right time to do it because we are in desperate need of paying our bills," Cullerton said. "Just think about how we're going to be after we pass this. We would have all our bills, all those people that are owed money, $8 billion would go back into the economy. People will be paid on time. Our credit rating will be dramatically improved."

The proposal still could be changed slightly as lawmakers pore over the finer points, Cullerton added.

The first vote on the tax package will be in the House, but lawmakers were left guessing whether the legislation would be ready to consider by Friday or, failing that, when they return Sunday.

"I think it will pass the Senate, but it has to pass the House first," Cullerton said.

Madigan declined comment, but spokesman Steve Brown said "things are progressing, but I'm not prepared to offer any details at this time, and I certainly wouldn't predict when there might be a vote."

Quinn is to be sworn in to a four-year term Monday, two days before the legislative session ends and the reset button is hit as the new General Assembly is seated. The Senate returns Monday, and could send Quinn the tax hike only hours after he takes the oath of office, leaving him largely in a take-it-or-leave-it position.

Almost from the day he took over from the ousted Rod Blagojevich in early 2009, Quinn has called for an income tax increase to right the state's books. He campaigned on the proposal that the state should raise the personal income tax to 4 percent from 3 percent. Though Quinn won with only 47 percent of the vote, he declared his victory a "mandate" to raise taxes.

Last summer, Quinn's budget director predicted in an interview that Illinois would raise the state income tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent in early January. The governor admonished the aide for speaking out of turn and suggested David Vaught's comments were misunderstood by an out-of-state reporter.

Now lawmakers are considering a tax hike that's even higher.

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont called it "dishonest" for Quinn to consider an income tax hike that's more than twice as much as he embraced during the campaign.

"To me, that's kind of a bait and switch, and I think it's wrong, and it's wrong to do it in a lame-duck session," Radogno said.

Quinn released a statement saying he's working with Cullerton and Madigan to "build framework that will allow the state to pay its bills, stabilize the budget and strengthen the Illinois economy."

Major details began falling into place this week after members of the Black Caucus, particularly in the Senate, rejected the notion of raising an income tax without guaranteeing new money for schools and property tax relief for homeowners.

In May 2009, the Senate approved legislation to raise the income tax to 5 percent, extend the sales tax to some services, provide property tax relief, give targeted tax breaks to the poor and pump up money for education. The legislation was championed by Cullerton and Sen. James T. Meeks, D-Chicago. But Meeks, fellow African-Americans and Latino senators balked when high-level talks this time failed to include those items.

The move by Democrats in the closing days of the post-election session reflects a dramatic final effort to deal with a state budget reeling from years of overspending, the compounded effects of the recession on unemployment and tax revenue, and massive borrowing to cover the need for a tax increase.

With Illinois' financial problems escalating each budget year, the state is facing prospects of a $15 billion budget deficit and more than $8 billion in overdue bills to providers of social services, primarily to the poor. At the same time, its massively underfunded public employee pension system faces the prospect of selling off assets to help cover retirement payments.

Though Democratic leaders, particularly Madigan, maintained the need to get the votes from minority Republican lawmakers to pass a tax hike, it is questionable that the size of the increase — despite a significant portion being designated as temporary — will win many GOP votes.

In a move aimed at winning over some Republican support, the House sent Medicaid reforms to the governor. Medicaid applicants would be required to prove Illinois residency as well as show one month's income before they could sign up. Recipients would no longer be automatically re-enrolled, and those abusing the system could face a $2,000 fine.

Income limits would also be put in place for the All Kids health insurance program. To qualify, applicants would have to have an annual income at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or $66,150 for a family of four.

Also in the House, lawmakers defeated a second attempt to allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. The bill fell four votes short.

Tribune reporter Rick Pearson contributed from Chicago.

rlong@tribune.com

mcgarcia@tribune.com

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-tax-hike-0107-20110107,0,6270739,full.story

God was behind Big Bang, universe no accident: Pope

2011-01-06T09:08:00.001-06:00

By Philip Pullella Philip Pullella – 1 hr 23 mins ago
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – God's mind was behind complex scientific theories such as the Big Bang, and Christians should reject the idea that the universe came into being by accident, Pope Benedict said on Thursday.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St Peter's Basilica on the feast day.

While the pope has spoken before about evolution, he has rarely delved back in time to discuss specific concepts such as the Big Bang, which scientists believe led to the formation of the universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

Researchers at CERN, the nuclear research center in Geneva, have been smashing protons together at near the speed of light to simulate conditions that they believe brought into existence the primordial universe from which stars, planets and life on earth -- and perhaps elsewhere -- eventually emerged.

Some atheists say science can prove that God does not exist, but Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality ..."

He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered.

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said.

Benedict and his predecessor John Paul have been trying to shed the Church's image of being anti-science, a label that stuck when it condemned Galileo for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, challenging the words of the Bible.

Galileo was rehabilitated and the Church now also accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

The Catholic Church no longer teaches creationism -- the belief that God created the world in six days as described in the Bible -- and says that the account in the book of Genesis is an allegory for the way God created the world.

But it objects to using evolution to back an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/ts_nm/us_pope_bigbang

Illinois Senate advances Medicaid reform measure

2011-01-06T08:24:00.000-06:00

The Illinois Senate overwhelmingly approved a Medicaid reform measure that many agree is a good step forward on the way to restructuring Illinois’ health care program for the poor and disabled
Currently, there are 2.8 million Illinois residents enrolled in Medicaid, and the program is at an all-time, unsustainable high. For years the Senate Republican Caucus has said that the state simply can’t keep up with the growth of the Medicaid program, which has consumed more and more of the budget each year.

House Bill 5420 targets inefficiencies in the system that will not only help contain the unsustainable growth of the program, but also ensure program recipients are receiving the best possible health care.

State Sen. Dale Righter (R-Mattoon) was a sponsor of the legislation, and said that the measure embraces the national trend toward managed care principles. For many years Senate Republicans have urged a movement towards managed care which has been shown to reduce costs, while improving patient care.

“Utilization of managed care principles will increase dramatically over the next four years under this legislation. Ultimately 50 percent of all people will be required to be in a system of care coordination, or managed care, which will provide for better care for the enrollees and save taxpayer money over the long haul,” explained Righter.

If signed into law the measure would eventually eliminate the “Section 25” loophole that has allowed the state to pay Medicaid providers late. Over the years this loophole has enabled Illinois government to defer payments to doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and nursing homes while portraying deficit spending as “balanced.” House Bill 5420 will eliminate the ability of state government to do that.

Righter noted that one of the most important components of the bill is a two year moratorium on any new Medicaid programs or expansions of Medicaid programs, which is meant to send a clear signal that Illinois needs to control program expansions.

“One of the real issues Republicans have had over the last several years with regards to public assistance programs is the unwillingness of the state’s leaders to tighten down on eligibility or verification of the people who are on Medicaid. This bill will make a dramatic change." Righter said, explaining that the measure will require more accurate reporting to better reflect an applicant's true income.

The senator also explained that the legislation will also require active redetermination: “In other words, if someone has been on the program for 12 months, it’s been the practice of the HFS over the last several years to simply send a letter out asking if their circumstances have changed. Even if they didn’t get a letter back, the patient was left on the program. That’s going to come to an end.”

Another key provision of the bill will impose reasonable income restrictions on the state's "All Kids" programs, which previously did not contain any income limits. An auditor general review last year found that even at the highest income levels, which could exceed $100,000, taxpayer dollars were subsidizing health insurance costs.

Having been advanced by the Senate, House Bill 5420 now moves to the Illinois House for consideration.

Senate Republican Caucus
309 State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62706

This is what you voted for IL-Democratic leaders push for income-tax compromise

2011-01-06T08:16:00.000-06:00

By Ray Long and Monique Garcia, Tribune reporters

SPRINGFIELD — — House Speaker Michael Madigan took the rare step Wednesday of walking the floor of the Senate to garner support for a major income-tax increase, a move some Democratic lawmakers hope will lead to a compromise as a lame-duck session draws to a close.

The lobbying effort unfolded as the Senate overwhelmingly approved reforms in the state's expensive Medicaid program that are aimed at consolidating health care, cutting fraud and waste, and saving money.

Madigan, who is also Illinois Democratic Party chairman, joined Senate President John Cullerton in fanning out on the Democratic side of the full Senate shortly after the two Chicago powerhouses emerged from a closed-door summit with Gov. Pat Quinn, a longtime booster of an income tax hike.

The plan would raise the personal income tax rate to 5 percent from 3 percent, potentially for two to five years, largely to stabilize the state's woeful budget. Lawmakers also would raise the personal income tax an additional one-quarter to one-half percentage point beyond that to borrow money to start paying down a multibillion-dollar backlog of bills.

But several Democratic senators are unhappy because they're being asked to vote for a tax hike that would not provide more money for schools or property tax relief. A similar 67 percent hike in the income tax rate the Senate approved in May 2009 would have done just that and more. But that plan stalled in the House.

"What we're indeed asking people to do now is to pay more money but not receive any of the benefits other than us paying down our debts," said Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, who championed the earlier proposal. "If we act now but we don't include any property tax relief, or any money for education, it is the fear of some of ours that we'll never get around to it.

"If that's the proposal on the table, from my perspective, it's unacceptable," said Meeks before Madigan stopped by his desk.

Madigan made the point to senators that Illinois needs to get its finances in order, pay the backlog of bills, and improve a credit rating that is so low it is costing the state more to borrow money, according to several lawmakers.

"This is Madigan's, certainly his way of telling you that, 'something has to be done, and I'm going to be the one to do it,'" said Sen. Lou Viverito, D- Burbank, a longtime Madigan ally who spoke to the speaker for several minutes.

Viverito said he is hopeful Madigan can craft a compromise plan that would be accepted in the Senate, possibly with some of the components of the version that previously passed the chamber.

Cullerton said the parties in negotiations are "very close" but still needed to reach an overall framework.

After exiting the Senate, Madigan declined to give specifics or to predict if the House would vote this week. He placed the blame on Republican lawmakers who have shown little interest in jumping aboard a tax increase proposal.

"They are continuing on a campaign plan which means they are not participating in governmental decisions," Madigan said.

No votes were taken on a tax hike Wednesday, but the Senate did agree 58-0 on Medicaid reforms long sought by Republicans.

Under the legislation, Medicaid applicants would be required to prove Illinois residency and show one month's income before they could sign up. Recipients would no longer be automatically re-enrolled and those abusing the system could face a $2,000 fine.

Income limits would also be put in place for the All Kids health insurance program — $66,150 for a family of four. Officials said the limit would result in about 3,100 children losing coverage.

Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno said she is happy with movement on Medicaid reforms, but is waiting on changes to workers' compensation laws and the education system before she would consider a tax increase.

"We did try to help them from getting into this mess in the first place," said Radogno, of Lemont. "Democrats have been in place for eight years; they have created this hole, and if they feel the way out of it is a tax increase, they have the votes to pass it."

rlong@tribune.com

mcgarcia@tribune.com

Illinois Has Days to Plug $13 Billion Deficit That Took Years to Produce

2011-01-04T10:28:00.000-06:00

By Tim Jones - Jan 3, 2011 2:58 PM CT

Illinois lawmakers will try this week to accomplish in a few days what they have been unable to do in the past two years -- resolve the state’s worst financial crisis.

The legislative session that began today as the House convened will take aim at a budget deficit of at least $13 billion, including a backlog of more than $6 billion in unpaid bills and almost $4 billion in missed payments to underfunded state pensions.

The fiscal mess is largely of the lawmakers’ own making, and failure to address the shortages threatens public schools, local governments and other public services, said Dan Hynes, the state’s outgoing comptroller.

“We’ve reached a very critical and concerning point,” Hynes said in an interview in his Chicago office, with packing boxes stacked in the corner. “What’s missing right now is a general understanding by the public of where we are, of how bad it is, and what the fallout would be if we don’t deal with it properly.”

What the public may not appreciate, Wall Street does. Illinois shares with California the lowest U.S. state credit rating from Moody’s Investors Service, which in September forecast possible “further financial deterioration.” Unlike California, Moody’s assigned Illinois a negative outlook.

Illinois’s deficit, about half its $26 billion general-fund budget, puts it among the U.S. states confronting $140 billion in shortfalls in the coming fiscal year after closing $160 billion in gaps this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research group.

Debt Costs Rising

Hynes, 42, predicted the deficit might rise to $15 billion by midyear, and that prospect has come with a price tag. The cost of insuring Illinois debt against default rose to a five- month high last week as the state headed into this year without a plan to finance a $3.7 billion pension-fund contribution.

Insuring $10 million of Illinois debt against default cost $350,000 a year on Dec. 29, more than California’s $298,000, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Illinois and Arizona were the weakest states in a Dec. 30 financial-strength index report from the Chicago office of BMO Capital Markets, a financial services company.

Lawmakers meeting in Springfield will consider spending cuts, an expansion of casino gambling and a proposal from Democratic Governor Pat Quinn to borrow $15 billion to pay overdue bills and help fill the budget hole.

The bill before the House would create five new casinos, including one in Chicago, and authorize electronic gaming at horse-racing tracks and nine existing casinos. The measure has passed the Senate.

Borrowing Plan

Quinn, 62, also has proposed boosting the state income tax to 4 percent from 3 percent, raising about $3 billion a year.

The governor needs Senate approval of a borrowing plan to make this year’s payment into the pension funds. The Illinois State Board of Investments will start buying back assets sold to pay benefits if lawmakers approve the debt sale, William Atwood, executive director of the panel, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television today.

The three pensions run by the board, which manages $10 billion, have been selling assets to pay retirees since Illinois failed to contribute for the fiscal year that began July 1.

Borrowing by Illinois is what credit analysts, Hynes and bond investors point to as a major reason why the state’s financial standing fell so far so fast.

Gross Criticism

Bill Gross, who runs the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California, said Illinois was one of the states whose debt he would avoid.

“Illinois is probably in the worst shape,” Gross said in a Dec. 28 interview on CNBC.

The widening gap between Illinois’s expenses and revenue drew criticism from Moody’s. The disparity underscored the state’s “chronic unwillingness to confront a long-term, structural budget deficit,” it said in a Dec. 29 study.

The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and politicians’ unwillingness to cut budgets explain the descent since 2008, said Tom Johnson, president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois. Annual sales and income-tax revenue fell for the first time in modern history, he said.

“The state was hoping for a quick recovery or inflation, and they didn’t get it,” Johnson said in a telephone interview. “And there was no appetite to reduce the escalating costs of spending.”

‘Revenues Went South’

The falloff in revenue aggravated the state’s historic practice of delaying payments to vendors and carrying those costs on from one year to the next.

“Revenues went south, spending went north,” Johnson said. “It’s unsustainable.”

The current-year budget deficit of $13 billion is roughly half the size of the state’s general-fund budget. Borrowing to pay bills continues. In November the state sold $1.5 billion of bonds backed by tobacco settlement payments to help pay vendors.

“We have seen a lot of the budgetary tools that really don’t qualify as real solutions used, whether it’s short-term borrowing, pension borrowing, delays in payments, the sale of future revenues,” Hynes said.

Illinois business leaders have warned that the state’s failure to properly fund pensions means the plans will run out of money to pay promised benefits before the decade ends.

“We’re in the midst of the most severe financial crisis in recent memory,” Miles White, chairman of Abbott Park, Illinois- based Abbott Laboratories, said Sept. 27 at a forum on state affairs.

Operating Expenses

“The state has been spending $3 for every $2 it takes in, and borrowing to cover its current operating expenses,” said White, chairman of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago.

The state had $64 billion of assets to pay estimated liabilities of $126.4 billion as of June, or less than half the amount needed for almost 723,000 workers, retirees and other beneficiaries, according to bond documents.

The question facing lawmakers is whether they can reverse the slide into more debt. The gravity of the situation is registering with the General Assembly, said James Nowlan, a former member of the state House and now a senior fellow at the University of Illinois Institute of Government & Public Affairs.

“I think they’re finally educated that all the one-time adjustments and shenanigans have been pulled, and they are now facing the fiscal abyss,” Nowlan said in a telephone interview. “But maybe I’m too hopeful.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tim Jones in Chicago at tjones58@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/illinois-must-plug-13-billion-deficit-in-days-that-took-years-to-produce.html

She Told Us So

2010-12-30T15:47:00.002-06:00

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/

Gitmo Is Not a Recruiting Tool for Terrorists

2010-12-30T11:51:00.000-06:00

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

Lame Duck has to go

2010-12-30T11:26:00.001-06:00

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.

Berlin sees most snow in December since 1900s

2010-12-29T13:25:00.002-06:00

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

White House Plans to Push Global Warming Policy, GOP Vows Fight

2010-12-29T13:21:00.000-06:00

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/

Special forces wary of 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal

2010-12-28T10:21:00.000-06:00

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

60 min-Another humiliation Tribune editorial

2010-12-21T10:26:00.000-06:00

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. …

Kirk stabs Vets in the back supports DADT repeal

2010-12-18T13:43:00.000-06:00

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.

___

Democrat seeks to force climate rule vote

2010-12-17T11:45:00.000-06:00

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

House passes temporary extension of Bush-era tax cuts, 277-148

2010-12-17T11:31:00.000-06:00

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

Republican Opposition Kills $1.2 Trillion `Omnibus' U.S. Spending Measure

2010-12-17T11:19:00.000-06:00

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

Reid Abandons Massive Omnibus Spending Bill

2010-12-17T11:15:00.002-06:00

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

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law

2010-12-13T11:39:00.001-06:00

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

Can Madigan deliver?

2010-12-13T11:08:00.001-06:00

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

From Audacity to Animosity - Peggy Noonan

2010-12-10T10:24:00.000-06:00

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

Senate fails on repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell'

2010-12-09T15:34:00.000-06:00

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

Familiar names on pension watch list for DuPage

2010-12-09T15:24:00.002-06:00

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

Obama muffed U.S. motto

2010-12-09T15:16:00.000-06:00

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/

Trib Editorial----Focus, Governor

2010-12-08T11:56:00.000-06:00

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

Dems stand in way of Obama's tax deal

2010-12-08T11:51:00.000-06:00

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

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted

2010-12-07T09:10:00.000-06:00

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

Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record, e-mails and interviews show

2010-12-06T14:54:00.002-06:00

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

Rahm Emanuel ballot challenges to be heard today

2010-12-06T08:45:00.002-06:00

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

Bp. Paprocki Defends Faith; Corrects Gov. Quinn

2010-12-04T12:49:00.000-06:00

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/