DOWNSTATEILADVOCATE.COM

Health Care, Chicago Style

2010-03-05T04:12:00Z

Our former illustrious Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached because he was "allegedly" trying to sell the open Illinois Senate seat vacated by President Obama. He was quoted on an FBI wire tap as saying, "I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing". What did Blago want in return? Money.

Then there's another Chicago politician, this time he's in Washington DC - 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact. This politician is struggling to find the votes within his own party to vote for his monstrosity of a health care reform bill. He knows that if this thing passes, his party and his presidency will have something to finally hang their hat on. You could almost hear his inner monologue as he ponders, "I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing". (Just off hand, does President Obama's inner voice use a teleprompter also?) Then it dawns on him! There's an empty judgeship he needs to fill and Rep. Jim Matheson (D - UT) just happens to have a brother who wants that job. Lo and behold, President Obama nominates Scott Matheson for the empty judgeship and thereby has another possible vote. Blago has got to be proud the way that went down.

The bloggers go wild, the White House denies, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) tries to provide cover for the hometown boy. It all seems to be another vast right wing conspiracy trying to damage President Obama. But then, Erick Erickson over at Redstate.com finds Media Matters backs up the original story from the Weekly Standard. Oops.

Effingham Sports Center

2010-03-02T17:13:00Z

Responsible government. Isn't that what we all want out of our federal government, our state government, and even our local government? It doesn't seem to be that hard of a concept, just spend only what you have and foster a positive business environment. Unfortunately, no level of government seems to understand what responsible government is these days, especially the Effingham City Council.

The City of Effingham is running a deficit in their general budget of about $2 million which the City Council borrowed the difference from the TIF district account to "balance the budget". Effingham is bleeding money and our city is still looking to build the Sports Center next to the interstate. Amazing. They say it won't cost the tax payer a dime. We know how long that promise lasted when they purchased the Rosebud Theatre. Let's examine some of the problems with this Sports Center and show why ultimately, the plans should be scrapped and the Effingham City Council should move on to the business of staying out of business that competes with business. They should be doing what they can to attract business instead of attempting to put businesses out of business, but I'm getting ahead of myself. There are two major areas of contention we have with the Sports Center, and a few minor areas as well. Let's take a look at the two major areas first, then we'll examine the other problems.

Competition

Government should not be in competition with private industry, period.

On January 11, 2008, the Effingham Daily News reported about a trip some citizens and Mayor Lange took to Centralia and Highland to look at the Sports Centers in those two cities. Many were impressed, but one citizen pointed out that the Centralia and Highland Sports Centers did not have fitness centers in their facilities. This same citizen expressed a possible need for such plans to be included in Effingham's Sport Center. Mayor John Lange was then quoted as saying,

Mayor John Lange said plans have not included a fitness center out of consideration for existing fitness-oriented businesses.

“We don’t want to put anybody out of business,” Lange said.

Yet, the current plans (which are a far cry from the original plans which included an ice rink) for the Effingham Sports Center do have a fitness center built into them. As a result, the city of Effingham will be in direct competition with private owned fitness centers. This begs the question of how can these private businesses compete with a city that can charge less than The Zone, Get Fit or Draves memberships and expect these private businesses to stay afloat. The private businesses do not have the theoretical bottomless pockets that the city of Effingham has and if they lose enough members to the Effingham Sports Center, some private fitness businesses will be forced to shut their doors.

The Effingham Park District would also be competing against the city, despite nobody wanting to openly admit it. Centralia's Sport Center manager, Dee Berry, is quoted in the same article above as saying,

“This is the first place realtors bring somebody buying a house here,” she said, adding having the center seems to cut down on misbehaving youngsters."

Isn't this applicable to our current Effingham Park District? The EPD's Mission Statement alludes to just that:

"The Effingham Park District is dedicated to providing recreational programs, activities and facilities that enrich the individual, strengthen families and benefit the community."

So what happens if the Effingham Sports Center starts offering youth basketball programs? Having coached youth basketball at EPD in the past, the number of kids participating in their winter program is down from years past. If they are not getting enough money to cover the costs of these programs because of reduced participants, the EPD will have to do one of three things: cut programs entirely, raise participation fees, or raise their tax levee.

My old Economics professor once told us "monopolies are price setters, not price takers". The reasoning behind that statement is where there is no competition, prices are set by the monopolist, not the market. The City of Effingham is looking to establish a monopoly on sports recreation in this city, in my humble opinion. As a result of having tax payers, Hotel/Motel tax dollars, or private donors, the city will be able to drive out any competition. For example, take a look at Standard Oil from the 1920s before the company was broken up by the US government. The Standard Oil monopoly did not get broken up because of vertical integration or the size of the company, but Standard Oil was broken up because they controlled most of the resources and were selling their oil cheaper than the competition could afford to do, thereby pushing their competitors out of the market. Sound familiar? I think it does.

Lastly, if there was such a demand for such a facility, where are the private investors jumping at the opportunity? If private investors don't see profit and have not built such a lavish facility, then what makes the Effingham City Council believe they will succeed where others see failure?

Funding

After the purchase of the Rosebud Theatre by the City of Effingham, there is no more money left in the Hotel/Motel tax account to adequately fund all the projects proposed. Hank Stephens, Effingham's Economic Consultant, even stated as much prior to the Rosebud Theatre bailout, as quoted in the Effingham Daily News December 16, 2009,

With other projects already slated for use of hotel-motel tax funds, there is not enough remaining in the hotel-motel tax account to sustain payments over 20 years to purchase the Rosebud building, according to Economic Development Consultant Hank Stephens.

As a result, the city council (though they now deny it) has been pushing for a .5% food and beverage tax to help offset the purchase of the Rosebud, which would in turn help find the funding for the Sports Center. Needless to say, not many people are going to like the idea of their taxes being raised, directly or indirectly, to help pay for the Sports Center or Rosebud.

With these funding problems in mind, how does this effect the feasibility study done showing that in the best case scenerio, the Sports Center would be paid off in 7 years; worst case scenerio would be up to 38 years? It would be interesting to see to say the least, especially in this economic climate...

Other Arguments

Who is going to run the Sports Center? It is my understanding that Rink Management has been out of the picture for quite some time now, and how does that effect the overall cost of running the facility?

What about the local schools? How will they be able to utilize the facility? The local schools are owed plenty of money from the state and budgets are tight, so if there were any plans to establish swim teams at the local schools (which one school board member said has not even come up at this point), how would the schools find the money to use the facility?

If the fitness center is not included in the plans, how often will the building be used? It seems that the entire project is based on getting people to use the facility at all times via the fitness center instead of just opening the doors for tournaments or meets.

Money is tight all around. How will schools or organizations justify spending the extra money to attend and stay overnight (the weak justification for using the Hotel/Motel money) or add another tournament or meet to their schedule? Ask any teenager what there is to do in Effingham and they'll tell you nothing. Don't think that coaches and athletic directors don't recognize this as well. Do you spend the money going to a meet near or in Indianapolis, Springfield, St. Louis or Chicago, or do you spend money to come to Effingham to have your players twiddling their thumbs when they are not competing?

If the private fitness center businesses close, then how much money will the city lose in tax money? Besides, Commissioner Karen Flach raised another point regarding the purchase of the Rosebud that is more than applicable to these businesses as well. She was quoted in the Effingham Daily News, November 4, 2009,

Public Property Commissioner Karen Flach was concerned about the theater’s cost to the city and what would happen to the investment if it did not generate enough revenue to keep the doors open.

"We’re going to be stuck with that building and property,” Flach said.

Think of The Zone downtown Effingham. We would have an empty building on Jefferson Ave., downtown if they closed their doors as a result of the Sports Center. What if the Sports Center did not go over and failed to live up to expectations? Will the city bail out the Sports Center or will we "be stuck with that building and property"?

Final Thoughts

First, the Sports Center should be scrapped for the reasons I stated above, least of which is the destruction of private business that the Sports Center will compete against.

Second, if it isn't scrapped, there should be a new feasibility study conducted to take into account our city and state finances, the current national economic climate, the reduction of positive income via the Hotel/Motel tax, impact to the Effingham Park District, and area school funding.

Finally, the residents of Effingham should be allowed to vote on this project in a BINDING referendum because as Mayor Lange is quoted on the City of Effingham website from August 6, 2007,

“The Sports Center is one unique project that these funds can be used for that will benefit everyone,” said Stephens, adding because the funds are restricted they can only be used for certain projects.

Mayor John Lange reminding residents that this is a “community project.”

“This project is about you, the community,” said Lange. “It is not an ‘I’ project. It is the community’s project.”

Tell me what you think. Call the Effingham City Council members. Write letters to the editor. Attend the City Council meetings with signs protesting this irresponsible government spending. Your silence is their consent!!!

Health Care Reform Urban Myths

2010-02-26T00:08:00Z

President Obama and the Democrats had a super majority in Congress which would allow them to pass whatever they wanted whether the Republicans wanted it or not. However, even the leftist policies of the Democrat leadership was too much for their own members. No matter, they used legislative bribery to bring some of the lower hanging fruit into the fold. Now, the Democrats must get their own people to vote for a bill that neither house in Congress can truly agree on. They dallied and now have lost their super majority in the Senate.

Urban Myth 1: It's the Republicans' fault we didn't get a health care reform bill passed and signed into law.

Does anyone remember the big wooden door that Neil Cavuto used to keep on camera during his show? Behind that big door, the Democrats, Rahm Emmanuel, and David Axelrod were hammering out the health care bill without inviting Republicans.

Urban Myth 2: The Republicans' refuse to take part in crafting health care reform.

So today, we were treated with hours upon hours of on camera "negotiations" between President Obama, the Democrat leadership and the Republican leadership. At the end of the day, President Obama hinted that the Democrats were prepared to go it alone on health care. Obama was alluding to the reconciliation process which the Democrats would use a budgetary maneuver that requires 51 votes instead of the usual 60 votes in the Senate. It's no secret that the Democrats have been planning to use this "nuclear option" for a few weeks now so basically today was nothing more than a complete waste of time. It was meant to embarrass Republicans, but I think it kind of backfired on the President.

Urban Myth 3: It's the Republicans' fault that they won't negotiate.

South Park, whether you like the show or not, always has great political and social commentary. Listening to Obama at the end of a long day of "negotiating", I was reminded of a clip where the boys at South Park were trying to muster up the courage to test an urban myth they knew that if you say "Biggie Smalls" 3 times in a mirror, Biggie Smalls will appear. This clip reminded me of what the Democrats have been doing for the last few weeks in front of the cameras instead of a mirror. "We looking at reconciliation", "we'll pass it without the GOP", "we're going to plan B". Threats, threats and more threats. If they had the courage, they'd go ahead and do it but they know they'll pay for it in November. They don't want to do it alone because they won't have anyone to blame but themselves.

"Reconciliation". "Reconciliation". "Recon..." Your move Dems, it's always been your move.

Current Events Quiz

2010-02-25T04:32:00Z

For one of my education classes this week, we have been learning how to write tests so I thought I'd give it a try on here. Let's see how you can do:

True/False
Read each statement and decide whether the statement is true or false.

1. T     F     The spending policies of President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are sending this country toward bankruptcy.

2. T     F     You are better off today than you were one year ago.

3. T     F     If Governor Quinn raises our taxes, Illinois will bleed jobs faster than it already has.

4. T     F     Man-made global warming exists.

Matching
Match the best answer to the choices given.

President Obama_____                                                                 A. Believes in socialist ideas

Van Jones______                                                                            B. Believes the CIA are liars

Vice-President Joe Biden______                                                 C. Member of "Chicago Mafia"

Nancy Pelosi______                                                                       D. Has no idea what is going on

Rahm Emmanual_______                                                            E. Idiot

Multiple Choice
Pick an answer that best satisfies the question.

1. What is the biggest "Chicken Little" moment?
         a. Global Warming
         b. Swine Flu
         c. Passing the "stimulus package" will avoid double digit unemployment
         d. John McCain suspending his campaign to help fix the economy

2. What is the biggest lie told in Washington DC?
         a. "Health Care reform is a bi-partisan effort"
         b. "I paid my income taxes"
         c. "We're not monetizing our debt"
         d. "Hope and Change"

3. Who is behind the thrashing of Toyota in front of Congress?
         a. Car industry unions
         b. Government Motors and Chrysler
         c. Anti-business Democrats
         d. The powerful Horse Buggy lobby

4. What will Governor Pat Quinn recommend during his State of the State speech?
         a. Raise taxes
         b. Borrow gobs of money
         c. Cut tax breaks for businesses
         d. Cut non-union government jobs
         e. Punt

Fill in the blank
Provide an answer in the blank that best completes the sentence.

1. If Speaker Madigan has his way and eliminates the Lt. Governor office, ________________ would be the next in line to succeed the governor should he/she be unable to fulfill his/her duties.

2. Illinois is __________________ in debt with a ____________% unemployment rate.

3. ________________ and _______________ are responsible for that giant sucking sound surrounding the Illinois budget.

4. It has been ________________ years since the Chicago Cubs have won a World Series. (sorry, couldn't resist)

5. The ____________________ is the document the Tyranny of the Majority refuse to read or respect.

Send in the answers and let me see how you did. Good luck!!

Everything Said Has Been Said Before

2010-02-19T22:27:00Z

There are those within the government - at all levels - that believe they can regulate your lives and what you do during the coarse of the day. Most people didn't complain when they banned smoking in bars and restaurants here in Illinois. At least the ban is not as bad as some other states or communities that have banned smoking even in people's own homes. It doesn't really matter whether you smoke or not, that is not the point of this article. The point I want to make is the gradual increase of government intrusion into our lives.

At the beginning of the year a new law took effect here in Illinois that banned texting on your cellphone while driving. Proponents said that texting created "distracted driving" and can help contribute to car accidents. To that, I ask the lawmakers who thought this was a great idea if they plan on banning small children from riding in cars (because they cry, or throw a hissy fit because they want McDonald's), or the application of make-up (I've been stuck at green lights behind these people), or eating while driving? No? Why not? All these things are distracting to drivers as well and may cause car accidents, but yet we allow them.

Fresh off the presses at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch yesterday was an article discussing IL Rep. Karen May (D - Highland Park) wanting to get a bill through the General Assembly that would ban ALL cellphone usage while driving. She believes the law banning texting is virtually unenforcible because law enforcement can't tell whether someone is using their phone to text or to talk. As a result, she believes her proposal to ban all cellphone usage while driving would solve the problem of distracted driving AND fix a difficult to enforce law.

Is IL Rep. May alone in wanting to ban cellphones? Apparently not if you believe a Harris poll conducted last year that found 80% wanted a texting ban and 60% wanted a total cellphone ban while driving.

After reading both of the above articles, I realized I had heard these arguments and polling somewhere before. A few semesters ago, I did a research paper about the radio industry from its inception to modern day. While doing the research my paper, I recalled coming across two separate news articles from the NY Times (back when they were still the "paper of record"):

The article on the left is from 1930. Do the arguments against radios in cars sound a bit familiar to the arguments regarding cell phones? The article on the right is from 1934. Notice the results of the poll conducted in the article - 56% opposed to radios in automobiles. Sure, 63% said they did not have a radio in the car, but if you go back and read the Harris poll article, you will see that of the 60% that felt cellphones should be banned while driving, 80% admitted to using cellphones while driving. History has a way of repeating itself.

We always seem to support those initiatives that don't effect us directly - higher income taxes, more government regulation, banning cigarettes, or banning texting. By the time government does get around to effect your life in some way, it's too late. Precedent has been set. We have to stop government intrusion even when it effects someone other than yourself. Every little loss of liberty willingly given up adds up overtime. By the time we realize what has happened...too late. Stay vigilant.

Beware The Third Party - Revised

2010-02-18T00:35:00Z

In every election it seems there is one or two people that come out of the woodwork to run as an independent candidate in various races across this fine land. We saw a 3rd party candidate almost win in the NY-23 special election which gave some established politicos pause and sent shockwaves across both parties. But does that mean the 3rd party is viable or does it give a warning that if we are not careful, we'll end up with the same incumbents in Congress and in Springfield that we have spent all of last year rallying against?

NY-23 gave 3rd party candidates a boost, but what are the lessons learned from that race? First, we know that the GOP candidate in that race, Dede Scozzafava, was nothing more than a Democrat in a pants suit. We also know that the Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman was the real conservative in the race. But what was the overall outcome? First, conservatism gained a renewed interest and respect within the GOP and those "leaders" within the GOP and outside the GOP who supported Scozzafava had egg on their face the second she dropped out of the race and supported the Democrat Bill Owens. One lesson learned - vet your candidates. However, the largest lesson learned was that the Democrat still won the seat in that race. So did conservatives or the GOP win that election night? Not so much, but many began to see a shift in the political winds.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against a Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton. There was another candidate in that Presidential race as well - H. Ross Perot. In November 1992, Clinton won the White House with by a plurality - 43.01% versus Bush's 37.45%. Where did the rest of the votes go? They went to H. Ross Perot - 18.91%. Now, if you peel off just 6% of Perot's vote count, Clinton loses (at least the popular vote; I don't have the time or the resources to break down the Electoral College state by state). If Perot was not in the race at all, how might that election and the next 20 years have played out?

In 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush was up against Vice President Al Gore for President. There was also a 3rd party candidate in that race - Ralph Nader. The Electoral College decided that election (some would say the US Supreme Court) with Gore winning the popular vote and Bush winning the Electoral College vote. Bush won 47.87%, Gore won 48.73% and Nader took 2.73%. Now, considering the intense closeness of that race, what if Nader hadn't been in the race and his 1.73% of the vote he got in Florida went to Gore? Considering that Gore lost Florida by .01%, that's a difference maker to say the least because Florida's . I can't imagine the ridiculousness of a Gore presidency, but how would the last 9 years been different?

In the 2006 Illinois Governor's race, a soon to be disgraced Rod Blagojevich was up against Judy Baar Topinka. In this race, Blago won 49.79%, Topinka won 39.26%. Again, a 3rd party candidate was in the race - Rich Whitney. Whitney took 10.36% of the vote. Despite Blago winning by a good margin, one can only wonder how the vote count might have been different if Whitney wasn't in the race.

In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, the incumbent - Sen. Norm Coleman - was going up against a blowhard comedian Al Frankin. Again, there was a 3rd party candidate in this race - Dean Barkley. After the polls closed, Coleman's lead was very, very slim. After a recount (with possible shenanigans with ballots), Frankin came out on top and took his seat in the Senate. How did a clown become a Senator? Dean Barkley is how. After the recount, Frankin had 41.99%, Coleman had 41.98% and Barkley had 15.5%. It doesn't take a math major to figure out the results if Barkley had not been in the race.

We bring ourselves full circle to the elections of 2010. Much has been made about the possibility of the Tea Parties starting a 3rd Party. In my opinion, this would be absolutely disastrous. We live in a two party system, like it or not. 3rd parties serve a purpose by bringing issues to the forefront of elections that might have otherwise been ignored or glossed over by the major party candidates. But that's where it ends. Too many times the 3rd Party has played the spoiler rather than the victor. Why do I bring this up? Three reasons...

First, one of the dangers the GOP face is a Sarah Palin independent run. She has left the door open to such a possibility in previous interviews, but recently has said that the Tea Parties need to "pick a party". She goes on to state that the party chosen should be an "R or a D" due to our two party system. Even the "Rogue One" gets the idea that a 3rd party is dangerous to enacting real change.

Second, Illinois is the epitome of a two party system state. In addition, we face the danger of 3rd party or independent runs here in Illinois regarding the US Senate race. Now I know most of us have some serious issues with Mark Kirk, and Alexi Giannoulias is a definite no, however, a 3rd party run would hand Giannoulias, Obama's protégé, the open Illinois Senate seat. Right now, there are 3 candidates that have declared or are considering declaring their intentions to run as an independent against Kirk and Giannoulias - Robert Zadek, Dr. Eric Wallace, and Michael Niecestro. All three are self-described conservatives that would peel votes away from Mark Kirk. Whether any of them can put together a strong enough campaign is one thing, but with many Tea Parties, 9-12 groups, and conservatives looking for someone or anyone who is aligned with their beliefs to support, they could pose a serious risk to turning Illinois back toward the shade of red.

Third, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is in serious trouble in his re-election bid. JD Hayworth is ahead in the polls against Reid, which would be awesome to say the least if Reid is defeated. However, there is a wrinkle in the race now because the Tea Party in Nevada has entered a candidate as a 3rd Party run risking splitting the conservative vote and endangering a Reid defeat. Time will tell if

I have to admit there is a bit of romanticism voting for the 3rd party as a protest against the 2 major parties, however, as I always write about on here, the law of unintended consequences will ALWAYS come up and bite you in the butt. Take another look at some of the examples I sited above. If enough people vote 3rd party, the 3rd party doesn't necessarily win, but they effect an entire outcome of an election and therefore the policies supported or enacted by those that won said elections. In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, Frankin became the 60th Democrat vote in the US Senate making any GOP filibuster a moot point (until Scott Brown's election changed that). Blago won re-election here in 2006 and helped send Illinois further down the spiral. Those are just two examples, but it has been repeated time and time again. Sure, you can point at Jesse Ventura winning Governor in Minnesota as an independent, but for every Ventura, there's a hundred or more examples than just the ones I stated above. So I urge you to resist the temptation of voting 3rd party, because nothing good can possibly come from it. I'm not saying we all need to automatically jump on the Mark Kirk bandwagon or any other GOP or Democrat with questionable votes or records, but at least wait to make your decision - the fate of Illinois and our country depends on it.

I'm Sorry, Did We Say You Could Be Excused?

2010-02-13T18:57:00Z

The Illinois General Assembly last year legalized video poker machines in an effort to raise $200 - 300 million to fund a construction bill that would build schools and fix roads. I think I've heard that "gambling will fund education" line before and we've all see how well that has worked out for Illinois schools' budgets.

First, the idea that Illinois would raise that type of cash is ludicrous to say the least. Before the legalization, just about every bar paid out on their Cherry Master machines so gambling outside of casinos is nothing new. Every once and awhile, the Gaming Commission or the Illinois Revenue Service would do a raid and fine a bar for paying out on their machines - but everyone still paid out regardless of or the possibility of the raids. I remember telling a state legislator (who voted against the legalization) that the cash they hoped to raise was a farce because of what I have seen through personal experience where I work. Before the economic collapse, there would be truck drivers lined up waiting to play the Cherry Masters. So much so that the tavern added another machine. After the economic collapse, you would have had no problem finding a machine to play. In fact, you might have been the only one playing those machines all week. You see, disposable income went out the door for many truck drivers, and other drivers were laid off because of the economy. This lack of people playing the machines is happening elsewhere as well, so how Illinois expected to raise up to $300 million is beyond me.

Second, the video poker legalization is typical of Illinois and government in general. God forbid someone make a dollar in this state without Illinois taking their "fair" share. Just like how the state raided a number of taverns for having Super Bowl boards. If the state can't get a cut, they don't want it at all. Furthermore, like it or not, Cherry Master machines helped keep some businesses in business. Now, the Cherry Masters are gone from just about everywhere and the new "state controlled" video poker machines may not even be installed until October this year. Times were already tough after the smoking ban, then the economy hits, and then the General Assembly takes away a decent source of revenue. What about the revenues lost by the businesses that service, own and rent out those Cherry Masters. How many jobs have been or will be lost because of video poker legalization? I know of at least one company that is laying off their workers and may even have to shut their doors at some point. That silly law of unintended consequences always seems to rear its ugly head, doesn't it.

Finally, the General Assembly include a provision that counties, municipalities, or townships could opt out of the video poker scam and ban the machines out right. There is a growing number of localities that have done just that. Some have done it to protect their casinos and others have done it because of the social ills that follow with gambling. So those localities are free and in the clear, right? Oh no, not when the state of Illinois needs and wants money...

Take a look what some members of the General Assembly have in store for those that have opted out. HB 5313 reads:

Amends the Video Gaming Act. Provides that, if a municipality or county prohibits video gaming pursuant to the Act, then the Board, with the cooperation of the Department of Revenue, shall impose a monthly surcharge in an amount determined by the Board that the municipality or county would have been contributing under the Act had the municipality or county not prohibited video gaming, which shall be based on the maximum amount of machines that may be located within the municipality or county. Provides that, if a municipality or county fails to remit the surcharge, then the amount of the monthly surcharge shall be deducted from any amounts certified to be allocated to the municipality or county from the Local Government Distributive Fund in the next consecutive monthly allocation. Makes conforming changes in the State Revenue Sharing Act. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.

Well then. So basically you have to have video poker or else lose funds or pay a fine. Seems like a scene from a mafia movie - if you don't pay some protection money, something bad might happen. Likewise, you'll pay Illinois what they want, otherwise, something bad might happen. Nothing like Mike Madigan and his boys riding roughshod over the people, local government, and businesses of Illinois.

This whole thing is indicative of how the current Illinois government has a complete and utter disdain for business and the people in this state. We are looked at nothing more than a cash cow for their runaway spending and for funding political favors to their favorite lobbies. Meanwhile, Illinois sits at 11.1% unemployment (most likely close to 15% unofficially) and the budget is just over $12 billion in the hole. Instead of trying to make Illinois as business friendly as possible, we find ourselves losing businesses and jobs. Just ask Chicago how that unfriendly business climate is working out. Maybe we should consider changing our state's name from Illinois to South Michigan, Chicago could be renamed West Detroit, and the state motto could be "You make it, we'll tax it, and we'll spend it".

The Government Of One

2010-02-13T15:31:00Z

Is there a reason why we still have all three branches of government in Illinois? In theory (and according to the Illinois Constitution), the Governor has the veto power over legislation. Who cares about that when the Speaker of House Mike Madigan won't let anything he doesn't like get to the Governor's desk let alone voted on.

Campaign finance reform in Illinois was passed last year but had absolutely no teeth to it. It was basically giving lip service to a commission's findings that would have possibly made Illinois politics a bit less corrupt. The meat and potatoes of the commission's findings was limiting campaign financing by political leaders and parties. Madigan hates this provision because over the years, he has funneled money from his campaign coffers or the Democrat party coffers to races he needed to win. You see, Madigan is not only Speaker of the House, but he is also the Democrat Party Chairman. Both parties funnel money, but Madigan has been a master at it. Despite being one of 4 states without similar campaign finance laws limiting these types of donations, Madigan essentially has killed the ethics reform - for now. Minority Leader Tom Cross said it best,

"When one person dictates whether or not a bill or a concept, an idea, a new thought, can be debated or not – it's not a democracy," said House Republican leader Tom Cross of Oswego. "That doesn't work."

Time after time, Madigan has sat on bills that he does not agree with. No votes. He uses the power of the Speakership to kill anything he doesn't care for whether it's campaign finance reform or concealed carry. For over 10 years Madigan has ruled - and I mean ruled in every sense of the word - the Illinois House.

Madigan is going one step further. As many of you know, Scott Lee Cohen was duly elected as the Democrat Lt. Governor nominee. Then, by some miraculous feat, it comes out that he has a very checkered past (domestic abuse charges, steroid abuse, ex-prostitute ex-girlfriend, late on child support payments - all "allegedly") All this stayed silent despite a 3 month long campaign before the election where nothing was said which makes me a bit suspicious. In Illinois it seems if you don't like who was elected, God knows we'll find a way to get who we want on the ballot. This goes double for the Democrats this time around. Cohen has since resigned as Lt. Gov. nominee, but now the Democrats are scrambling to replace him. Madigan will have his say in the process as well. Click here for a great article outlining the Democrats' problems in picking a replacement for Cohen.

The bigger news, in my opinion, is Madigan wanting to abolish the Lt. Gov. office for good. The estimated savings would be $2.5 million a year, but as Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune points out,

A problem with this proposal is that it creates the possibility of an abrupt change in party control in Springfield based on one tragic accident, one fatal illness or one big hairy scandal.

If the attorney general is a Democrat and the governor is a Republican, then it doesn't seem right to me -- doesn't seem fair to the voters who elected a Republican governor -- to install a Democrat as governor if, God forbid, the Republican governor should drop his hairdryer into the bathtub.

And the prospect of such a change in party rule would therefore introduce conflicts of interest into any future impeachment proceedings. Again, God forbid. Imagine that, in early 2009, a Republican attorney general had been next in the line of succession instead of a Democratic lieutenant governor. The Democratically controlled House might well have been less inclined to bring impeachment charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and the Democratically controlled Senate might have been less inclined to convict.

Reverse a few of those party affiliations and it's easy to imagine a hypothetical situation in which lawmakers would be more inclined to pursue impeachment and removal from office than they would be if no party switches at the top were in the offing.

Or consider the situation of a governor who is very ill or deeply enmeshed in some ghastly personal scandal. His or her decision whether to step down might well be strongly influenced by the party affiliation of the successor, leaving us with a weakened governor.

We amended our state constitution roughly 40 years ago to make party nominees for governor and lieutenant governor run as team precisely to avoid this problem of perverse succession.

King Madigan's proposal is to eliminate the Lt. Gov. office in 2015, and then make the line of succession go through the Attorney General's office after 2015. Hmmm. Who holds that office now....oh, that's right, his daughter, Lisa Madigan. Barring an appointment to the US Supreme Court (which I think will happen if Ginsburg or Stephens retires - especially Ginsberg) or her running for another office in 2014; she would be the successor to the Governor's mansion. Since her father doesn't seem to be going anywhere soon, we could possibly have family dynasty in 2 of the 3 branches of government should the Governor not be able to complete his or her duties after 2015.

Some have other suggestions from having Gov. Quinn run solo without a Lt. Governor running mate leaving the office unoccupied to making Governor/Lt. Governor candidates run together in the primaries - similar to what McKenna and Murphy tried to do. There's also another proposal to eliminate the Lt. Gov. office and combine the Comptroller and Treasurer into one office. But what happens if Quinn runs solo, somehow defeats Brady/Plummer and for some odd reason has to resign before his term is up? Lisa Madigan would take over since there is no Lt. Gov. spot. Don't think for one second that Mike Madigan has not thought that one through.

Let's face it. One man controls the Illinois government right now. One man dictates what legislation sees the floor of the General Assembly. One man holds the purse strings. One man wants to continue to control Illinois politics. How does one man do all these things? Because we let him. The first way we can help defeat Madigan is to return the Illinois House back to the Republicans. Right now, the GOP would have to pick up at least 11 new seats and hold on to what they have in order retake the House and oust Mike Madigan from Speaker. It would be doubly great if Bill Brady beats Quinn AND the GOP take back the House. Then, maybe we can get something done in this state - like attracting businesses and jobs, reducing our debt, and real campaign/ethics reform for starters.

Where Do We Go From Here: The Future Of The Tea Parties

2010-02-07T18:03:00Z

Most of us agree that our government's spending problems did not begin on Jan. 20th, 2009 with the inauguration of Barack Obama. However, since that day, spending has gone off the charts and our national debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. At the time in addition to TARP, the "stimulus" package was being discussed. In the process of this expansion of governmental powers and government spending, Rick Santelli of CNBC lit a powderkeg that exploded into the Tea Party movement.

Many of us heard the clarion call and held or attended our own Tea Parties on April 15th or before. We rallied against government spending, the national debt/deficit, and the massive expansion of government control/regulation (also known as socialism). The media and detractors asked us where we were before Obama was elected. We answered that we didn't like what was going on then either, but when push comes to shove, we have decided to shove back - especially when the tyranny of the majority was so willing to stomp on the Constitution. At some point we decided to say enough is enough!

We can sit here and rehash the issues, but that's not what I want to discuss with you right now. A friend of mine wrote some advice to the Tea Parties on his blog a little while ago where he discussed what he thought the Tea Parties should focus on. He was concerned that the Tea Parties were losing their direction and should focus on fiscal issues instead of incorporating social issues. When we had lunch together a short time later, the subject came up again and I had to respectfully disagree with him. However, after thinking about it for awhile and seeing the results in Massachusetts and here in Illinois, I have had a change of heart.

The Tea Parties were forged in the spirit of the American Revolution. We rallied against a government that was acting more like the madness of King George III than Jefferson or Madison's vision of government. We rallied against the trampling of our Constitutional rights given to us under the Bill of Rights. We rallied against the government expanding its powers past what is lined out in Article I, Sec. 8, 9, and 10. We rallied as a President refused to live with the confines of Article II when he started buying car companies and taking over banks. But nowhere at those original rallies did we rally for pro-life, defense of marriage, or other social issues.

As this last primary season went full steam ahead, the social issues began to find their way to the forefront at Tea Party rallies. But is this what the Tea Parties have become? Have the Tea Parties morphed into a catch-all for conservatives, both fiscal and social? In a nutshell, I would say no. Let me explain by what I have observed over the last year.

Many of us have seen both political parties lean further and further left, especially the Democrats under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I also believe there are a great many of us who are not only fiscal conservatives but also social conservatives. I also believe that many of us wore our beliefs on our sleeves when we began to choose who we would support in the primary and who we ultimately voted for. I also think there are generally more Republicans and Independents than Democrats that make up the Tea Party crowed. As a result, not everyone agrees on the social issues and I believe that if we focus on those exclusively or if we allow those issues to drive the Tea Parties instead the fiscal issues we will run into some serious problem later on. In essence, we would be allowing what many of us are trying to do to the political parties happen to us. Many of us have taken up positions within the grassroots levels of both political parties and mostly the Republicans. We are attempting to change both political parties but it just happens that one party is already closer ideologically to Tea Parties than the other. I myself serve as a precinct committeeman.

I know many at first glance of this article will disagree with it. However, the Tea Parties are separate from political parties. We seek to change the political parties, but if we move away from our original intent, then we risk two things: 3rd party and alienation of voters. First, if the Tea Parties become the catch-all for conservatives, then what is stopping the Tea Parties from becoming a 3rd party other than filing the paperwork, electing officers and establishing a platform? I've never voted 3rd party, I never will, and I will never be associated with a 3rd party. 3rd parties do allow for the discussion of different issues that the major party campaigns may ignore or may not want to discuss. On the other hand, 3rd parties in elections have allowed people to be elected that might not have been - Bill Clinton (Ross Perot), George W. Bush (Ralph Nader), Rod Blagojevich (Rich Whitney) , and Al Frankin (Dean Barkley). Secondly, the Tea Parties are running a risk of alienating independents and some Democrats by focusing on social issues. Many of the Independents shy away from social issues or fail to see social issues as a critical part of vetting a candidate. Likewise, many of the more conservative Democrats may not agree with some of the social issues that conservative Republicans believe in. The one thing that everyone can agree on is fiscal responsibility.

All of this brings me to ask what we should do now that the primary is over and the nominees have been chosen. Bill Brady is currently leading (and will most likely end up winning) as the GOP candidate for governor. Brady beat out a strong run by Adam Andzrejewski, which had support from many, if not most of the Tea Parties and 9-12 groups. I think the Tea Parties will be able to easily support Bill Brady in his run for Illinois Governor. The problem lies with Mark Kirk who won the GOP US Senate nomination. I think we all know that despite Kirk's stances, he's better than Alexi Giannoulias - Obama's protégé. We as Tea Partiers rallied against Mark Kirk because of his vote on Cap and Trade and a few other questionable fiscal issues. Conservative Republicans were against Kirk because of fiscal concerns and his liberal social issues stances. The question that we face now is whether the Tea Parties can or should support Mark Kirk instead of a 3rd party candidate or sitting at home on Election Day in November. You already know my feelings toward 3rd parties, so that leaves the other part of the question.

We know Mark Kirk voted for Cap and Trade. We know that he has some other questionable votes or stances on fiscal issues. He has since sworn not to support Cap and Trade as a Senator. We do have to take into account that he represented one of the more liberal Republican districts in Illinois. So, do we fault him for listening to his constituents like we all say our elected officials should do? I would say yes and no. No fault in listening to his constituents, but yes because some issues fiscal or otherwise have wider implications than just one district or one state. I also look at Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Many of the Tea Parties supported his campaign, despite his pro-choice stance (notice fiscal issues overrode the social issues with Tea Parties). So, what needs to happen before Tea Parties and conservative Republicans can support Mark Kirk?

For Tea Parties and after talking with Tea Party friend in the Metro St. Louis area, Kirk should have to sign a pledge, literally and figuratively with the Tea Parties agreeing to a set of fiscal issues that he must adhere to if he wants Tea Party support. It must also be done publicly with the media present so he can't back out of that pledge so easily. One issue that Tea Parties and conservative Republicans both should demand is a new chairman of the Illinois Republican Party. Pat Brady, the current chairman of the IL GOP, burned the bridges with conservatives, Tea Partiers, and 9-12ers when he called us a "fringe element". Conservative Republicans should demand that Kirk back off his support of partial birth abortion, and his opposition to parental notification and 2nd amendment freedoms. We will never be able to get Kirk to be pro-life, but we should demand that he support the conservative position as closely as he can. We don't have to decide this now, the election isn't until November, but these problems are something that we all need to start thinking about because we will have to face these problems head on eventually.

Finally, I want to direct my attention to the overall direction of the Tea Parties and some things I saw during the primary season. First, the Tea Parties and others seemed to have skated the fine line between the ideals of the American Revolution and the attitude (not the results) of the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution. The American Revolution absorbed the politicians of the pre-Constitution era into the new American government. The "first" generation of Americans did not shun those that had been in office for a long time, just look at Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and many others that served in government from a young age until later in their lives. This is a sharp contrast to Robespierre era after of the French Revolution where citizen councils called nobles, politicians and businessmen in front of them and sentenced them for what they represented - no matter if they agreed with what was happening after the French Revolution or supported the 3rd Estate during the monarchy. I saw much of this during my travels where some Tea Parties tossed some candidates to the side of the road just because they had held office for years. It didn't seem to matter if they were good people who believed in the Tea Party ideals; they were admonished just the same because of what they represented - "establishment", "career politician", etc. I feel we must be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water if you will. In the endless pursuit of good men and women to represent us locally, in Springfield, or in DC, we should not be so quick to dismiss those that believe in what we do, but who have been fighting our fight for years. Granted, when they serve for a long time, they have voting records to defend, but there is no way we will ever find the perfect politician who will vote 100% with us as Tea Partiers or conservative Republicans. Besides, there is only one person who walked this Earth that was perfect and he died so that we might be saved.

The above picture is Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, in front the tribunal that eventually sentenced her to die for her "crimes" against the people of France. She was sentenced to death for not so much for what she supposedly did, but for what she represented. This picture and my history lessons remind me of the old saying, "The Revolution will eat her children". Robespierre and his council went too far and they lost their heads as well and almost cost the life of Thomas Paine - supporter of the American Revolution and political philosopher who influenced our Founders profoundly. What was the eventual outcome of the Reign of Terror post-French Revolution? Restoration of the monarchy which later gave rise to the dictator Napoleon. If we are not careful, we too will be consumed by our revolution against the socialist forces pushing against us. If that happens, we may end up with more of we rally against now or worse. Aristotle put it best, "Everything in moderation".

In closing, thanks for hanging with me during this long rant. These are just some ideas that I have been wrestling with since the election last Tuesday. These are ideas that we will have to address soon as well. Please let me know your thoughts, even if you disagree with me. I just know one thing. If we lose sight of what we are doing and we don't stay focused on our original intent, we risk losing the entire movement through fracturing or becoming too all encompassing. I think back to the founder of MADD. She resigned her position as head of the organization because MADD had taken a turn away from the original intent that she founded it on of prevention of drunk driving. After winning political battles and gaining traction, MADD expanded their scope to opposing almost anything alcohol related to the point of becoming pseudo-prohibitionists. Stay focused.

SUPER BOWL SUNDAY!!!!

2010-02-07T14:30:00Z

OK, it's Super Bowl Sunday. Who do you like? I'm going with the Saints. I think today's game with be epic. Two #1 seeds in the Super Bowl. You couldn't have written a better script!

Saints over the Colts - 38-35.

Quote of the Day

2010-02-06T21:32:00Z

Today would have been Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday.

The best quote about Reagan's birthday comes from JC Hagen regarding Reagan's birthday and the record snowstorm today out east:

"Reagan wins: DC shut down on his birthday."

Good stuff.

Why The Number "41" Is Important

2010-02-04T22:16:00Z

Is "41 is the new "60" because today Scott Brown was sworn in as the junior Republican Senator of Massachusetts?

60 was the number of votes needed to pass substantive (excluding some budgetary) legislation and to bust up any filibuster attempt in the Senate. 60 seats is how many the Democrat Caucus held in the Senate. 60 is the number of votes the Democrats had to pass health care - but didn't. 60 is the number of votes they had to pass the Employee Free Choice (HA!) Act - and they didn't. 60 is the number of votes they need to confirm a Supreme Court justice which brings me to my first point.

According to ABC.com, there are 2 Supreme Court justices that are considering retirement or that ABC thinks may retire sometime in the near future. So which is more important now, 41 or 60? My belief is 41. I know that Justice Sotomoyer was confirmed by a larger margin than the 60 votes, but her vote really did not upset the balance of power on the court. I still disagree with her confirmation because of many of her stances and association with groups like La Raza. However, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens retire, it will be extremely difficult for President Obama to replace the 2 justices, especially Ginsburg, with truly liberal judges. Therefore, the ideological leanings of the court could change which could have a large impact on cases heard in front of the Supreme Court. It is also possible that the 5-4 splits that have been taking place over the last few years could go 6-3. It will be interesting to see if the GOP can stay together long enough to filibuster any judge nominee they deem too liberal - good ole 41.

But then again....

Maybe 1 is the new 60. It will only take one GOP defector to break their own filibuster or vote with the other side of the aisle to pass something. I am definitely pointing the finger at Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, Dick Lugar, and George Voinovich who don't hold to the conservative side on all the issues or are self proclaimed "mavericks".

Maybe 51 is the new 60. The Democrats have been talking about the "nuclear option" in regards to health care reform. The plan calls for passing a somewhat reduced version of health care reform as a piece of budgetary legislation, but that would require scrapping what they passed and going back to the drawing board. it's not impossible to do, and I wouldn't rule it out. This move would basically be political suicide, but the Democrats would still love to be able to hang their hat on health care reform and also hand President Obama some kind of victory within his first 2 years of office.

Finally, maybe 0 is the new 60. What President Obama can't get passed through Congress, he'll use the bureaucratic process at various government agencies to get the job done anyway. For instance, he might be able to get Card Check without having a Congressional vote via the National Labor Relations Board if Craig Becker gets through the Senate confirmation (he used to be a lawyer for SEIU and AFL-CIO). President Obama has already leveled the threat against Congress to use the EPA to enact Cap and Trade with or without Congressional help. What's stopping him for using other agencies or his multitude of czars to enact other policies that Congress for the most part has had or would not have a say in enacting? Then there is the backlash facing several incumbent Democrat Senators that are up for re-election. Many Senators once though "safe" are trailing badly in the polls or their approval ratings are below the magic 50%. If the Democrats and especially President Obama feel that all is lost in the Senate, they may not object to Congress being sidelined by government policy wonks and unelected government agents.

Whichever number you think is the new 60, the fallout from Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts is the equivalent to whacking a beehive with a stick. What ensues is mass hysteria as the once mostly peaceful and ordered world of the Senate has been turned upside down. While we hail Scott Brown has the stop gap against the Democrats railroading legislation through, we should not lose sight that Brown is not as conservative as people think. We should keep a close eye on him, especially as critical votes on a myriad of issues are set to present themselves in front of the Senate this year. So which number will it be - 41, 1, 51, or 0? Only time will tell.

If you haven't voted....

2010-02-02T22:55:00Z

Please vote (and grab you neighbor while you're at it).! Turnout is very low in Chicago. This election may very well come down to central and southern Illinois voter turnout!

Let's get the vote out and get the right candidates on the ballot!!!!

Killing JFK's Vision of NASA And American Technological And Military Superiority

2010-01-29T23:56:00Z

Some people seem to open their mouths without knowing what they say. President Obama seems to fit this category quite nicely lately (ok, maybe not just lately, but you get what I'm saying). If it's not chastising the Supreme Court in front of Congress (which no other President has EVER done), it's his recent plans to cut NASA's budget. NASA has been defending itself and its budget for quite a long time. I still remember attending a press conference in front of the Capital Building in Washington DC when then Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) was doing what he could to kill the International Space Station (called Spacestation Freedom at the time).

We have all forgotten how shocked the West was when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957. We found ourselves in a "space technology gap" to borrow a phrase from one of my favorite movies, Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned How to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

JFK knew when he delivered his a speech in 1961 in front of a joint session of Congress where he outlined his vision of putting a man on the moon, that the United States was behind the Soviet Union in space technology. He knew that it was vital that the United States be the leader in technology and in essence, to be the most advanced nation on Earth:

Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.

He continues to lay out expenditures and the purposes of those expenditures. See if anything JFK proposes rings a bell:

...an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.

....an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.

...an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.

Amazing! We actually have accomplished these projects or currently have these projects in place (e.g. weather satellites, communication satellites)

NASA's budget is minuscule compared to the rest of the federal budget. The contributions NASA has given us, many we can't think living without in our technology driven lives. So what are some of the products NASA has brought to us? Good question. Let's take a look...

Computers:
GPS, Semiconductor cubing, structural analysis, Windows virtual news reader, air quality monitor, virtual reality

Consumer products:
Enriched baby formula, water purifying systems, scratch resistant lenses, pool purification, portable coolers, trash compactors, Teflon, cell phones

Environmental:
Solar energy, weather forecasting aid, fire resistant material

Medicine:
Voice controlled wheelchair, breast cancer detection, cool suit

Industry:
Micro lasers, engine lubricant, interactive computer training

And numerous safety contributions. I've listed just a few things here, but if you visit this site, you will see a longer list that is a snap shot of the more than 6,300 patents NASA has been awarded. To gut this agency would be a horrible mistake. I know, the free marketers that are reading this will say that private business should be in charge of doing space travel, etc. First, I would say that nothing is really stopping private enterprise from doing space travel right now other than cost. Second, I think out of all the bloated agencies that the federal government has, NASA is actually one that works. Can they do a better job curtailing costs? Yes, and I believe they have done that. This was evidenced by the Spirit and Opportunity missions when they lowered the costs and still completed the missions.

I'd like to remind people what could happen when DC goes around cutting programs willy nilly. Today, Russia released photos of their new stealth fighter - and we killed the F-22 (putting American workers out of jobs too). The powers that be said we didn't need it. The F-22 was a plane for a different time and a different battlefield. All I have to say to that is, how soon until these new Russian stealths show up in N. Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba or China? Then what? So we lessen our military prowess and our scientific edge all in one year. Congratulations President Obama, coupled with your economic plans, NASA and military cuts, you'll make us a 3rd World nation yet!!

Recommendations For Feb. 2nd

2010-01-29T22:45:00Z

Sorry I haven't been writing as often recently. Between politics and school, I have been very busy and I haven't had much time to research topics for articles. Soon as the primary season is over, I should be able to free up time to pen again on a regular basis. Thank you for your patience and continued reading.

Primary season is very contentious because there are many good candidates to choose from. Some are better than others but that doesn't take away from who that person is or what they stand for (except Mark Kirk for whom these statements do not apply). Here are my recommendations, but first, let me say that the Effingham Tea Party has endorsed only one candidate - Patrick Hughes. Every recommendation after the Senate race is my own personal picks so take them for what you want. One other thing, am I the only one that gets 10 robocalls a day asking me to vote for one candidate or another? Ugh. I've gotten at least 5 from Matt Murphy in the last 3 days.

US Senate - Patrick Hughes. Don Lowery, John Arrington, and Kathleen Thomas are all good conservatives and good people, but Hughes has the best chance and is rising fast in the polls and has narrowed the gap considerably and has the endorsements of Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others.

Governor - Bill Brady. I also like Adam, and he has some great ideas, however, I feel Brady is the best choice at this time (he's not perfect on all the issues though). If our state was in better financial standing, I may have said yes to Adam, but seeing the way things are, we need someone that has experience as a businessman AND with the workings of Springfield. That being said, I hope Adam doesn't leave politics altogether if he loses on Feb. 2nd because I think he has a great future in Illinois politics ahead of him and is a nice guy as well. If Adam happens to read this - start now, the Republicans need a good challenger to go up against Durbin in 2 years. And hurry before Judy Baar Topinka gets any ideas....

Lt. Governor - Jason Plummer. I like his youth, energy, and plans to expand the traditional role of Lt. Governor. Brad Cole is a very close second.

Sec. of State - Robert Enriguez. Running unopposed.

Att. General - Steve Kim. No opposition.

Treasurer - Dan Rutherford. Super nice guy if you ever get to meet him. Should be great if elected. He is also unopposed.

Comptroller - Jim Dodge. I can't bring myself to vote for Judy Baar Topinka again. Besides, Dodge seems like he'll do a good job if elected.

Finally, I do support the city manager referendum. We need a change. Our city government is out of date and out of touch.

I know some of you may not agree with my choices for Governor on down, but these are the people I think that will make the best candidates in November.

Effingham City Manager Referendum - Updated

2010-01-12T04:30:00Z

We attended the informational meeting tonight regarding the referendum on the ballot to change the Effingham City Government from a Commissioner form of government to a City Manager/Council form of government.

There will be two more informational meetings: Thursday at the New Hope Church at 5:30pm and on January 25th at 6:30pm at the Council Chamber at the Effingham City Hall. Please read more about the city manager form of government.

One of the most interesting facts we learned about this evening was that Effingham's budget has bloated itself to the size of a city with the population of 100,000! And we're only 13,000 strong! Sad. Our budget has increased 4.4 times over the course of time to a budget of $29 million, $8 million in payroll, 5 unions, numerous funding sources, and has unique and complex TIF districts.

The presentation was great by Scott Kabbes and Matt Hirtzel. They outlined the problems with the current form of government and how only 2.1 % of cities of our size still have a Commissioner form of government.

A former city manager from Normal, IL - Dave Anderson - was present to detail what and why a city manager is good for Effingham. He gave us 12 points which I'll list here and it's not word for word, but a paraphrase of what he said:

1. The city manager would be a full time employee of the city which would have the time the part time commissioners do not have to run the city.
2. A huge budget like Effingham's requires qualified leadership (experience and education) to manage.
3. Easier to keep up with constantly changing Federal and State laws.
4. Allows for better communication of the State of the City to commissioners and public
5. Handles franchise and contract agreements
6. Hires, trains, and disciplines city employees except civil service, fire and police.
7. Helps make the city government productive and efficient.
8. Helps remove/lessen local politics/loyalties from decisions.
9. Is trained in city government/administration.
10. Better fiscal control over budget and expenses of the city.
11. Handles day to day operations of the city
12. One person is the focal point of the government.

On the ballot you will see this question: "Shall the city of Effingham adopt the managerial form of government?"

If you live within the city of Effingham, I urge you to vote YES on this referendum.

In Case You Weren't Stimulated Enough

2010-01-09T15:39:00Z

Last year about this time, we were told the we had to have a "stimulus" package to "save or create 3.5 million jobs". I still to this day don't know how you count "saved" jobs. Either way, if you take a look around, those jobs are nowhere to be found as the December jobs report shows a loss of an additional 85,000 jobs. The unemployment rate sits at 10% and our country is up to its eyeballs in debt. Both of these numbers fail to take into account how many people have stopped looking for work or collecting unemployment. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said about the $787 billion stimulus package?

“After all the debate, this legislation can be summed up in one word: Jobs. The American people need action and they need action now.”

And definitely don't forget that the stimulus package would not have passed the Senate without the aid of then Republican Arlen Specter and Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Now, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are calling for an additional "jobs" bill. Notice the language here. It's not a "stimulus" bill any more, but a "jobs" bill. Own the language, own the debate. It puts the Republicans on a defensive front automatically. It's one thing to oppose a "stimulus" bill, but another to oppose a "jobs" bill. I wonder how much Ben Nelson or Mary Landieu kind of buy offs will have to be in the jobs bill for it to pass the Senate.

There are several problems with the old stimulus package and the new "jobs" bill. First, the government cannot create jobs, period. The original stimulus package showed us this and the new "jobs" bill will be more of the same as it was still true when FDR tried the same things. Second, I openly question whether this is another ploy to buy votes. The first stimulus package was chocked full of pork barrel spending and the uneven distribution of stimulus dollars by 2 to 1 Democratic districts to Republican districts. It is probably not lost on the Democratic leadership and the White House that the Democrats are in trouble in the polls, re-election races, and with retirements. How can they show shore up their withering Democratic electorate? Spend, spend, spend. Expect more pork in the name of jobs. Expect more debt. Expect the same results as the first stimulus package.

Mark Levin Endorses Patrick Hughes for US Senate!

2010-01-09T02:16:00Z

Dateline January 8th, 7:30ish pm. Patrick Hughes just finished giving a great interview with Conservative talk show host and best seller Mark Levin. What happened you might ask?

Mark Levin has endorsed Patrick Hughes as the only real Reagan conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate here in Illinois!

Congratulations Patrick! Remember, let's get to the polls in huge numbers on February 2nd! If you would like to help with the campaign or donate, please visit Patrickhughesforsenate.com!

Say no to "He Who Shall Not Be Nominated" aka Mark Kirk!

Face The Issues Meeting in Alton, IL

2010-01-07T19:39:00Z

The “FACE THE ISSUES MEETING”

And Brunch

Saturday January 16^th from 10am to 1:30pm

At the St. Patrick Church Annex in Grafton IL

This event is sponsored by the

ALTON TEA PARTY & Alton YOUTH TEA PARTY Groups

Due to the smaller venue we will have limited space

Email abra@gtec.com or call 618 709 6667 to RSVP! Hurry while space is available!

Rosebud Theatre

2010-01-07T01:06:00Z

Last night I attended the Effingham City Council meeting where they were to vote on purchasing the Rosebud Theatre.

The city decided unanimously, 5-0, to purchase the building with hotel-motel tax dollars, but there are a few problems that the city has failed to take into consideration regarding this purchase.

1. Mayor Lange at the November 17th city council meeting was asked to sit on the Arts Connection of Central Illinois committee - the non-profit group slated to run the new Rosebud. Mayor Lange last night did not decide that this was a conflict of interest and therefore failed to recuse himself from the vote.

2. Commissioner Flach gave a short speech about how the Rosebud should be given another opportunity for success. She stated that in the 2 years that it was in operation the first year was mismanaged and the second year suffered from the worse economic times in decades. I agree, but what about every other business that has suffered the same fate? The city should not be a safety net for businesses that cannot make it for economic reasons or otherwise.

3. After Commissioner Flach gave her speech, she immediately moved to adopt the resolution without the community members present (including myself) getting one last opportunity to make their opinions known.

4. The city does not have enough money in the hotel-motel tax account to pay for the purchase according to Hank Stephens, Economic Development Director. The Effingham Daily News story today said:

During a December council meeting, City Attorney Matt Hortenstine said the arts group is interested in a possible .5 percent food-and-beverage tax increase in the city, which has been discussed as a way to help fund the purchase of the theater.

However, the proposed food-and-beverage tax was not discussed at Tuesday’s meeting.

Currently, the city does not have the power to impose the tax. However, the nonprofit group has indicated it may be interested in trying to get community support and legislative action that would give the city the authority to impose the food-and-beverage tax.

If imposed, the .5 percent sales tax increase would be assessed on prepared food and beverages purchased at restaurants and bars, not grocers or convenience stores. The sales tax increase would make a $10 meal at a restaurant cost 5 cents more. Hortenstine estimated the tax could generate about $300,000 per year. That revenue would be used to pay off the bonds on the Rosebud facility.

5. We were assured that the purchase of the Rosebud would not cost the Effingham tax-payer a dime, but now, one of the same people that gave us that assurance - Janie Oldfield (ex-President/CEO of old Rosebud and current head of ACCI) - says that they may try to push for a .5% food/beverage tax to help offset the purchase costs. However, the city needs permission from the Illinois General Assembly to do so. Here's where it gets fun....

According to some very reliable sources, neither the city or anyone from the ACCI have contacted ANY of the 6 General Assembly lawmakers that represent Effingham County. Needless to say, I'm sure they're not happy about not being consulted on a proposed tax that would effect part of their districts they represent. What I can tell you is I've also heard their phones have been ringing off the hook with concerned citizens after the Effingham Daily News article on Monday announcing the vote scheduled for the next day. I'd also be willing to bet that most of the lawmakers would think the purchase was not the smartest idea considering the full funding was not in place.

Furthermore, after consulting some politicos in town last night, there is now an active and vigorous search for people that want to run for city council or mayor next election. This part did not have to happen if those elected would have realized why the people of Effingham elected them in the first place. Or did they not notice we replaced 4 out of the 5 spots on the council?

Effingham faces a budget shortfall of $2.3 million which had a band aid put over it when the city borrowed money to "balance the budget". Drive around Effingham and you will see more houses for sale in town than I've seen in my 20+ years of living here. Jobs are hard to come by and those that you can find pay minimum wage or are found via temp agency. But yet let's give bailouts to Chuck Keller for his hotel/convention center and the Rosebud Theatre, and for good measure, let's build a Sports Complex to compete with private businesses and hope that tournaments decide to move or start in it.