This is awesome. Just awesome.
Chicago's own Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney from the Northern District of Illinois, has been appointed as a special counsel in the investigation related to the leak of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame (the wife of prominent Bush critic Joe Wilson).
The 'outing' of Valerie Plame to punish Wilson, which put her life and potentially other CIA operatives' lives in danger, is a crass and treasonous political move by someone in the Bush Administration.
But who?
That's what Patrick Fitzgerald is authorized to find out.
And as we know in Illinois, that man doesn't care what title someone has. He has indicted former Governor George Ryan. And now, he wants to question President George W. Bush.
And President Bush is thinking about hiring a private criminal defense lawyer!
MAN ALIVE! This is a ton bigger than whether a President had oral sex with a 22-year-old or made some money on a real estate deal. A President who might have known about a treasonous leak of an undercover intelligence officer is hiring a criminal defense lawyer.
This is HUGE!
This is not been part of the mainstream press (at least, what I've seen). I read about it in this Alternet article .
One thing about the article -- John Dean (the author) says that the Fitzgerald team based in Chicago doesn't know their way around Washington and that they haven't made friends with the Washington press corps.
Yeah. . .so they don't follow 'protocol' by avoiding a real investigation of powerful people, or suck up to journalists (like Bob Novak, an otherwise good columnist) who might be covering up for corrupt Administration officials. These guys know what they're doing. They are pursuing the powerful. They did it in Illinois (and continue to do so).
And my prediction: Fitzgerald won't blink before charging the President, the Vice-President, or any higher-up in the Administration or the establishment press with any crime if he finds they've done something wrong. And the D.C. Establishment has no idea what's coming.
I love it. Now, how about some press! Where are you John Kass (author of fantastic columns on Fitzgerald's independence and an unabashed Bush fan)? Ready to cheer on Fitzgerald's latest independent investigation?
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Good news -- federal judge tosses out prohibition on transit agencies accepting ads about drug war
From the Drug Policy Alliance:
---
Enormous Victory for Alliance as Judge Tosses Rep. Istook's Free-Speech Gag
Thursday, June 3, 2004
Not allowing drug policy reform advertising on subways, trains and buses is blatantly unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled June 2 in a lawsuit filed by the Alliance and our partners against the federal government. The judge's decision effectively strikes down a law passed by Congress this year that prohibited the Drug Policy Alliance and other reform groups from buying ad space on the Washington, DC subway system to attack the unjust imprisonment of marijuana users.
---
I called up the Drug Policy Alliance last year to ask why more advocacy wasn't happening in Illinois on the budget-busting drug war. And the Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann got on the phone.
I encourage you to join their organization. You can join here. Those $20 contributions do add up.
---
Enormous Victory for Alliance as Judge Tosses Rep. Istook's Free-Speech Gag
Thursday, June 3, 2004
Not allowing drug policy reform advertising on subways, trains and buses is blatantly unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled June 2 in a lawsuit filed by the Alliance and our partners against the federal government. The judge's decision effectively strikes down a law passed by Congress this year that prohibited the Drug Policy Alliance and other reform groups from buying ad space on the Washington, DC subway system to attack the unjust imprisonment of marijuana users.
---
I called up the Drug Policy Alliance last year to ask why more advocacy wasn't happening in Illinois on the budget-busting drug war. And the Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann got on the phone.
I encourage you to join their organization. You can join here. Those $20 contributions do add up.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
848 on WBEZ Thursday morning
Just taped an interview with Steve Edwards, host of 848 on WBEZ.
The interview was about Mayor Daley and Chicago as the Greenest City in America, following up the Conscious Choice story from April. We did it with Lisa Chamberlain from Metropolis magazine, who did the interview with Mayor Daley with me and wrote a good article.
The story should air this Thursday during 848 (starts at 9:35 am) so tune in if you can (online or on air).
Update: you can listen to the story here or stream the RAM file here.
The interview was about Mayor Daley and Chicago as the Greenest City in America, following up the Conscious Choice story from April. We did it with Lisa Chamberlain from Metropolis magazine, who did the interview with Mayor Daley with me and wrote a good article.
The story should air this Thursday during 848 (starts at 9:35 am) so tune in if you can (online or on air).
Update: you can listen to the story here or stream the RAM file here.
Did Reagan's massive military budget-buster hasten the breakup of the USSR? Naaaah.
That's the standard story: the USSR went broke because they couldn't keep up with the arms race with the US (and we sort of went broke in the 80s to finance that massive military, but that's another story).
Sam Smith at the Progressive Review helps to debunk that myth. Freedom-loving people in the Soviet Empire broke open the USSR -- and the patriots and champions in the Soviet Union who destroyed the empire deserve far more of the credit than the financially-irresponsible policy makers in DC during the 80s.
Here's the link.
Sam Smith at the Progressive Review helps to debunk that myth. Freedom-loving people in the Soviet Empire broke open the USSR -- and the patriots and champions in the Soviet Union who destroyed the empire deserve far more of the credit than the financially-irresponsible policy makers in DC during the 80s.
Here's the link.
Covering birth expenses -- why punish employers of young women?
Thanks to Senator Chris Lauzen's always-thoughtful Voice from the Senate Floor (the current one is here), I had a thought about the way we current cover the medical cost of births.
According to Senator Lauzen, Medicaid (through the State-administered FamilyCare) covers two out of every five births in the state.
What about the other three?
A good chunk come from for-profit insurance companies that make money by charging higher premiums and approving fewer hospital bills. So there are companies making money off of births.
Here's the interesting part. Consider a small business with six or seven employees. They do buy health insurance for workers. Now, the owner is hiring an eigth employee. A man and a woman both apply. Both of them plan to have kids in the next couple of years.
If the company hires the woman, those birth costs will be absorbed by the other seven employees, and all of their premiums will rise.
If the company hires the man, those birth costs will not be absorbed by the other seven employees (assuming the mother has her own insurance, or if not, just change the hypothetical to make the same point to a single man), and premiums will not rise.
So the current way of funding 3 out of 5 Illinois births through for-profit insurance companies is essentially a tax on hiring women.
Right? If that's not right, someone explain it to me.
And if that is right, then it seems to be the best way to promote economic development for small business is to take the burden of covering the cost of births off of the company's balance sheet, and have the state cover every birth.
That takes away the unfair distortions in the hiring market (go ahead and hire young soon-to-be mothers, small business owners, as your premiums will not rise!) and should lower the cost of insurance as the insurance companies will no longer have to pay for births. Of course, government spending will rise, but I'll bet it will either come out in the wash (the amount of government spending on all births will roughly equal the amount of business expenses on births) and potentially the government can do it cheaper because there wouldn't be hundreds of different insurance bureaucracies to navigate through for every birth.
I think I'm going to ask Senator Iris Martinez to put in a bill.
UPDATE (6/11): Senator Martinez is very interested. We're working on researching this issue now to see if there really is a problem of discrimination in the hiring market against women based on the cost of maternity insurance, and also if our proposed remedy makes sense. Any help would be appreciated, both on the research end and with finding more supporters.
This, by the way, would be my dream job. Helping to pass innovative state laws -- models for the nation -- that promote the general welfare and help to form a more perfect union. I'm doing some of that now in my spare time without any financial backers. If I had some backers. . . .
According to Senator Lauzen, Medicaid (through the State-administered FamilyCare) covers two out of every five births in the state.
What about the other three?
A good chunk come from for-profit insurance companies that make money by charging higher premiums and approving fewer hospital bills. So there are companies making money off of births.
Here's the interesting part. Consider a small business with six or seven employees. They do buy health insurance for workers. Now, the owner is hiring an eigth employee. A man and a woman both apply. Both of them plan to have kids in the next couple of years.
If the company hires the woman, those birth costs will be absorbed by the other seven employees, and all of their premiums will rise.
If the company hires the man, those birth costs will not be absorbed by the other seven employees (assuming the mother has her own insurance, or if not, just change the hypothetical to make the same point to a single man), and premiums will not rise.
So the current way of funding 3 out of 5 Illinois births through for-profit insurance companies is essentially a tax on hiring women.
Right? If that's not right, someone explain it to me.
And if that is right, then it seems to be the best way to promote economic development for small business is to take the burden of covering the cost of births off of the company's balance sheet, and have the state cover every birth.
That takes away the unfair distortions in the hiring market (go ahead and hire young soon-to-be mothers, small business owners, as your premiums will not rise!) and should lower the cost of insurance as the insurance companies will no longer have to pay for births. Of course, government spending will rise, but I'll bet it will either come out in the wash (the amount of government spending on all births will roughly equal the amount of business expenses on births) and potentially the government can do it cheaper because there wouldn't be hundreds of different insurance bureaucracies to navigate through for every birth.
I think I'm going to ask Senator Iris Martinez to put in a bill.
UPDATE (6/11): Senator Martinez is very interested. We're working on researching this issue now to see if there really is a problem of discrimination in the hiring market against women based on the cost of maternity insurance, and also if our proposed remedy makes sense. Any help would be appreciated, both on the research end and with finding more supporters.
This, by the way, would be my dream job. Helping to pass innovative state laws -- models for the nation -- that promote the general welfare and help to form a more perfect union. I'm doing some of that now in my spare time without any financial backers. If I had some backers. . . .
Friday, June 04, 2004
Miami police crackdown on peaceful protesters during FTAA reprimanded
Good news out of Miami. A civilian panel overseeing the actions of Miami police during the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement neogitations in Miami last year came out with a draft report that reads, in part:
''The members of the Independent Review Panel strenuously condemn and deplore the unrestrained and disproportionate use of force,'' reads the panel's draft executive summary, released last week.
``Most importantly, we extend our heartfelt apologies to the visitors who came to our city to peaceably voice their concerns, but who were met with closed fists instead of open arms.''
---
The Miami Herald article is here.
In too many civic gatherings, the police get freaked out by wild talk of anarchists coming to burn down the city and they take it out on citizens with rough arrests, beatings and pepper spray.
I was in L.A. during the Democratic National Convention in 2000, and the police totally overreacted there. In the middle of a Rage Against the Machine concert outside the Staples Center, while I was handing out instant runoff voting pamphlets to delegates going into the Center (through a massive chain-link fence, mind you), the police came in with a wall of horses, shields and pepper spray and forced everyone out of the way. Then they started shooting bean bags and rubber bullets. I saw an old lady get hit. I saw a young hippie girl get hit in the face. For no reason.
Reporters were scrambling. At one point, I felt compelled to raise my arms! As in: don't shoot me.
Especially with the increased merging of police and the military, we've got to keep our law enforcement sane and civil and not let a few bad apples (who are sometimes in charge) spoil the bunch.
''The members of the Independent Review Panel strenuously condemn and deplore the unrestrained and disproportionate use of force,'' reads the panel's draft executive summary, released last week.
``Most importantly, we extend our heartfelt apologies to the visitors who came to our city to peaceably voice their concerns, but who were met with closed fists instead of open arms.''
---
The Miami Herald article is here.
In too many civic gatherings, the police get freaked out by wild talk of anarchists coming to burn down the city and they take it out on citizens with rough arrests, beatings and pepper spray.
I was in L.A. during the Democratic National Convention in 2000, and the police totally overreacted there. In the middle of a Rage Against the Machine concert outside the Staples Center, while I was handing out instant runoff voting pamphlets to delegates going into the Center (through a massive chain-link fence, mind you), the police came in with a wall of horses, shields and pepper spray and forced everyone out of the way. Then they started shooting bean bags and rubber bullets. I saw an old lady get hit. I saw a young hippie girl get hit in the face. For no reason.
Reporters were scrambling. At one point, I felt compelled to raise my arms! As in: don't shoot me.
Especially with the increased merging of police and the military, we've got to keep our law enforcement sane and civil and not let a few bad apples (who are sometimes in charge) spoil the bunch.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Affordable housing plan killed by Cook County Recorder of Deeds Gene Moore
Mark Brown has a great column here in today's Sun-Times about how Cook County officials killed a smart program to get more affordable housing in Illinois. The culprit? Gene Moore.
I won't paraphrase the column anymore than I already have, but those guys were working on this bill hard all session, and the bill should have passed.
Let's consolidate some of these county offices (recorder of deeds, clerk, clerk of the circuit court, assessor), save some money and have fewer people to monkey around with good state legislation.
I won't paraphrase the column anymore than I already have, but those guys were working on this bill hard all session, and the bill should have passed.
Let's consolidate some of these county offices (recorder of deeds, clerk, clerk of the circuit court, assessor), save some money and have fewer people to monkey around with good state legislation.
The NYC September convention and changing state election law for Bush -- more news
The Chicago Sun-Times in this article and the Illinois Leader in this article cover the election bill manueverings that ended in Senate President Jones not calling the bill in the last late hours of the regular Senate session, so it now must each 36 votes (with three Republican Senators) in order to make it to the Governor.
I think that (a) Democrats have done a pretty bad job of framing this issue, as no part of the story involves placing blame at the Bush campaign's table for trying to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by holding a political rally in New York in September, in clear violation of Illinois state law and (b) Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill in the Democratic-friendly provisions of the election bill, as a grace period for voter registration up to 14 days before the election also helps any Republican campaigns that are actually trying to register new voters (like Judy Baar Topinka is aggressive trying to do) and that the exlcusion of the Department of Natural Resources from the bill's requirement to provide voter registration does not prohibit the Department from going ahead and providing the forms.
I'd like to make a prediction on the passage of this bill, but I thought it would be passed by now. I have to assume that it is now part of the negotiations over the upcoming Big Deal to pass the budget as a chit from the Senate Dems to the Senate GOP. But if the Republicans do go to court and get a federal judge to put Bush on the ballot, then there isn't much reason for three Republican Senators to vote for the thing (if they stick to their apparent perception that Republicans don't need to register new voters!) But, to be fair, I think the other thing driving the Republicans opposition to the bill is a sense that they deserve a vote on just putting Bush on the ballot without any other issues. The only problem with that sense is that the Senate already gave them that clean vote which passed unanimously (much to my chagrin), and Speaker Madigan chose not to call that bill in the House.
I think that (a) Democrats have done a pretty bad job of framing this issue, as no part of the story involves placing blame at the Bush campaign's table for trying to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by holding a political rally in New York in September, in clear violation of Illinois state law and (b) Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill in the Democratic-friendly provisions of the election bill, as a grace period for voter registration up to 14 days before the election also helps any Republican campaigns that are actually trying to register new voters (like Judy Baar Topinka is aggressive trying to do) and that the exlcusion of the Department of Natural Resources from the bill's requirement to provide voter registration does not prohibit the Department from going ahead and providing the forms.
I'd like to make a prediction on the passage of this bill, but I thought it would be passed by now. I have to assume that it is now part of the negotiations over the upcoming Big Deal to pass the budget as a chit from the Senate Dems to the Senate GOP. But if the Republicans do go to court and get a federal judge to put Bush on the ballot, then there isn't much reason for three Republican Senators to vote for the thing (if they stick to their apparent perception that Republicans don't need to register new voters!) But, to be fair, I think the other thing driving the Republicans opposition to the bill is a sense that they deserve a vote on just putting Bush on the ballot without any other issues. The only problem with that sense is that the Senate already gave them that clean vote which passed unanimously (much to my chagrin), and Speaker Madigan chose not to call that bill in the House.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Insightful article by Cal Skinner
The Illinois Leader has this article by Cal Skinner that helped me to understand some of the state budget dynamics.
I think we should raise the income tax to 4% or 5% instead of having the lowest income tax rate in the Midwest at 3%. Even Indiana has a higher income tax rate at 3.4%.
Also, Rich Miller has a great tidbit in yesterday's Capitol Fax -- James Meeks, the Independent state senator from the south suburbs, has called himself a free agent. And if you ask me, the fact that his grace period bill didn't get called in SB 955 (or that Speaker Madigan didn't call SB 2133 which still remains in Rules) has something to do with his unhappiness with the Democratic Party leadership this week.
I think we should raise the income tax to 4% or 5% instead of having the lowest income tax rate in the Midwest at 3%. Even Indiana has a higher income tax rate at 3.4%.
Also, Rich Miller has a great tidbit in yesterday's Capitol Fax -- James Meeks, the Independent state senator from the south suburbs, has called himself a free agent. And if you ask me, the fact that his grace period bill didn't get called in SB 955 (or that Speaker Madigan didn't call SB 2133 which still remains in Rules) has something to do with his unhappiness with the Democratic Party leadership this week.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Dateline Springfield: Somebody put a tent over this circus
Maybe someone can explain this logic.
Until midnight, your party is running the show. So you've got the last day (May 31st) to get your bills out before the Republican caucus, with increasing solidarity, gets dealt in since the requirement to pass a bill raises from 50% to 60%.
So on the last day with lots of bills that the Republicans have (wisely or unwisely) chosen to oppose, what do you do?
I know: not pass any of them.
You, instead, putz around all day, and when you get to business at 8 at night, then you debate a budget bill for three hours that -- get this -- can't pass the House since they've adjourned.
Leaving you no time to pass any of the bills, and giving the Republicans a veto over all legislation.
That is what happened tonight.
The grace period legislation might have died. It should have passed the Senate. It didn't. Why not?
You tell me.
They just didn't get around to it.
Sloppy and disorganized.
The problem is that the bill got sucked out of the regular legislative process of getting assigned to a substantive committee, getting a hearing, getting voted onto the floor, etc. Instead, Speaker Madigan decided to put all election-related bills into an omnibus election bill, SB 955.
And that didn't pass the Senate tonight.
The grace period voter registration bill did pass the Senate back in March, but Speaker Madigan decided not to let it follow the regular course. Instead, it stopped in the House Rules Committee. That bill is SB 2133.
So now, June 1st, Senate Republicans have a veto over passing any legislation, and they have shown no interest in the grace period. It's perceived as a Democratic bill. That assumes that Republicans don't work to register voters, but hey, maybe they're right. Democrats sure seem to like the bill more than Republicans, so maybe they're on to something.
I'm just flabbergasted.
This has to be considered a major screw-up. Not just my little bill that I worked on. The fact that Democrats dealt in the GOP into this budget (because they sure didn't pass a budget) is a massive screw-up.
With no good excuse.
Until midnight, your party is running the show. So you've got the last day (May 31st) to get your bills out before the Republican caucus, with increasing solidarity, gets dealt in since the requirement to pass a bill raises from 50% to 60%.
So on the last day with lots of bills that the Republicans have (wisely or unwisely) chosen to oppose, what do you do?
I know: not pass any of them.
You, instead, putz around all day, and when you get to business at 8 at night, then you debate a budget bill for three hours that -- get this -- can't pass the House since they've adjourned.
Leaving you no time to pass any of the bills, and giving the Republicans a veto over all legislation.
That is what happened tonight.
The grace period legislation might have died. It should have passed the Senate. It didn't. Why not?
You tell me.
They just didn't get around to it.
Sloppy and disorganized.
The problem is that the bill got sucked out of the regular legislative process of getting assigned to a substantive committee, getting a hearing, getting voted onto the floor, etc. Instead, Speaker Madigan decided to put all election-related bills into an omnibus election bill, SB 955.
And that didn't pass the Senate tonight.
The grace period voter registration bill did pass the Senate back in March, but Speaker Madigan decided not to let it follow the regular course. Instead, it stopped in the House Rules Committee. That bill is SB 2133.
So now, June 1st, Senate Republicans have a veto over passing any legislation, and they have shown no interest in the grace period. It's perceived as a Democratic bill. That assumes that Republicans don't work to register voters, but hey, maybe they're right. Democrats sure seem to like the bill more than Republicans, so maybe they're on to something.
I'm just flabbergasted.
This has to be considered a major screw-up. Not just my little bill that I worked on. The fact that Democrats dealt in the GOP into this budget (because they sure didn't pass a budget) is a massive screw-up.
With no good excuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)