Americans killed in recognized American wars:
Revolutionary War: 4,435;
War of 1812: 2,260;
Mexican War: 13,283;
Civil War: 750,000 (est.);
Spanish-American War: 2,446;
World War I: 116,516;
World War II: 405,399;
Korean War: 36,576;
Vietnam War: 58,200;
Persian Gulf War: 382; and
Iraq/Afghanistan: 6,809.
Let us all pay tribute to those who have given their lives in the defense of our freedom.
To read or post comments, click on title.
Happy belated Law Day!
We had hoped to get this post written and published Thursday, but the Fates and our day jobs conspired against us. So please excuse the two day delay in our post about what President Dwight D. Eisenhower first proclaimed as a day for celebrating “our moral and civic obligation…to preserve and strengthen that great heritage” of liberty, justice, and equality under law which was this country’s Founders’ legacy to us.
Sadly, Law Day is virtually ignored by the vast majority of the American public. Something as stupid and meaningless as Groundhog Day gets 10 or 20 times the attention. And Cinco de Mayo and Bastille Day generate far more celebrations.
Saludo and salut.
Polls show that two-thirds of Americans cannot name a single Supreme Court justice, and only one-third can name the three branches of government. 51% of Americans can’t name even one of their U.S. senators, and only 25% can name both.
And that’s just the adults!
Worse yet, the study of “civics” has been dumbed down and relegated to just a small piece of what commonly is called “Social Studies” in the curriculum of most of our elementary schools. That’s what we understand is the case at D-64, which takes approximately one-third of our property tax dollars but does not appear to have made any meaningful commitment to improving civic education.
“Less than one-third of eighth graders can identify the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence, and it’s right there in the name,” laments retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance.”
The dumbing down of our children’s civic education should be a national scandal.
But probably only if TMZ picks up on it after catching Selena leaving a Beverly Hills nightclub.
Unfortunately, it seems that no small number of the civics-challenged reside right here in Park Ridge, judging from the comments submitted to this blog, comments published in our local papers, and comments made at public meetings of our various local governmental bodies.
For example, as recently as a month ago, a middle-aged resident attending one of our local governing body meetings wondered aloud why Maine Twp. High School District 207 couldn’t just give some of its reported surplus cash to the City so that the City could give it to the Library. The idea of D-207 and the City being two separate and distinct governmental entities and taxing bodies that could not legally pool their money or share their funding seemed totally lost on this resident.
How totally clueless is that? Seriously? How can a middle-aged Park Ridge resident not know that City government and its taxing authority are not the same as, or even part of, D-207 government and its taxing authority?
Another mystery to many (even those who have lived here for decades) is the fact that the City of Park Ridge, the Park Ridge Park District, and Park Ridge–Niles School District 64, don’t share the exact same boundaries and don’t contain the exact same constituencies. So some Park Ridge taxpayers aren’t Park Ridge Park District taxpayers, some D-64 taxpayers aren’t Park Ridge taxpayers, and (we suspect) some Park Ridge Park District taxpayers aren’t D-64 taxpayers.
Mayor Dave Schmidt and our aldermen regularly hear from residents complaining about the water temperature of Hinkley Pool, or D-64’s bus service, or parking at Maine South football games – despite the City having no authority over any of those matters.
Fortunately, Justice O’Connor is leading a crusade through icivics.org, a website for educators and students that uses games, lesson plans and activities to engage young and old alike in learning about our form of government and citizenship.
“We have to ensure that our citizens are well informed and prepared to face tough challenges,” she said. “If there is a single child not learning about civics or not being exposed to what they must do as citizens, then all our lives are poorer for that.”
Spot-on, Sandy.
But we can’t deal with it right now – it’s Cinco de Mayo weekend.
Care for a margarita?
To read or post comments, click on title.
When I wrote the 04.04.14 post, I expected a hue and cry from the apologists for the Park Ridge Public Library’s business-as-usual deficit spending and its reluctance to generate revenue or ask the taxpayers directly for more money (through a referendum) when, instead, it can just blame the City Council for not giving it more tax dollars.
And I wasn’t disappointed.
Ninety-five comments shattered the existing record for any one post. And even if nineteen of those came from Library employee Laura L. Enright, both in her own name and by her initials (“LLE”), the remaining 76 comments alone show what a hot-button issue the Library can be – especially when its executive Staff and the Library Board’s majority (Margaret Harrison, John Benka, Audra Ebling, Dorothy Hynous, John Schmidt and Jerry White) wants to play politics rather than manage responsibly.
Not surprisingly, most critics of the post chose to ignore the economic issues raised in it. Economics involves too many objective, measurable facts and basic mathematics. Instead, the critics chose to advance subjective emotional appeals, while also rejecting any ulterior motives of the Library’s senior Staff and the Board majority.
The closing of the Library for 14 summer Sundays, recommended by the executive Staff and approved by the Board majority, stands as the single most egregious display of mismanagement and political gamesmanship perpetrated against anybody who uses the Library on summer Sundays, as well as against those Staff members who might end up losing more pay from closed Sundays than they will gain from the raises those closings arguably will be financing. But the apologists for Library standard operating procedures and the political gamesmanship being used to preserve those SOPs can’t seem to fathom the facts about what’s going on.
So today’s post will recite actual statements about the summer Sunday closing as presented in their most tangible official form: the Library Board meeting minutes, which are intended to capture the substance of everything that is said during meetings, although not with verbatim accuracy.
Minutes of December 17, 2013 Library Board Meeting
Board member Charlene Foss-Eggemann objected to summer Sunday closings, noting “that Sundays, even in the summer, are important to people, some of whom may work six days a week and Sundays may be the only day they can get to the Library.” (Minutes, Page 3)
Board member Joseph Egan “believes the Library should charge a nominal fee to come up with $20,000 to keep the Library open on Sundays in the summer.” (Minutes, Page 4)
Board member Robert Trizna “agrees with Mrs. Foss-Eggemann…[because] Sunday had the highest average visits per hour.” (Minutes, Page 3)
Board member John Schmidt “noted that his impression was that one of the reasons for closing on Sundays in the summer was to make a visible impact with the public; whereas the other cuts being made are not as visible to the public.” (Minutes, Page 3)
Director Janet Van De Carr “noted that to Mr. Schmidt’s point, if the Board feels it is important for the community to be aware that the Library is definitely being negatively impacted by the decisions made by the City Council then having a visible reduction is one way of proceeding.” (Minutes, Page 3)
Board member Dorothy Hynous “stated that the most significant impact is to close on Sundays…[because] it is the thing Library-goers will notice.” (Minutes, Page 6)
Board member John Benka (in response to Board president Margaret Harrison’s suggestion that summer Sunday closing be re-visited) stated “it’s already done – it was decided at the Committee meeting…[and he] is not in favor of opening it up to another vote.” (Minutes, Page 6)
Ms. Hynous “agrees with Mr. Benka; that it was voted on in Committee. (Minutes, Page 6)
Board member Jerry White “stated that [summer Sunday closing] was already passed in Committee and [he] doesn’t understand why it is being discussed at length tonight.” (Minutes, Page 6)
Board member Audra Ebling “stated that the Committee already discussed all of these matters and did all the work at the Committee meetings.” (Minutes, Page 5)
Minutes of January 21, 2014 Library Board Meeting
Mr. Trizna stated “[h]e believes the revenue from charging for computers will pay the $20,000 to keep the Library open on Sundays in the summer.” (Minutes, Page 8)
Ms. Hynous “asked then why not just charge $1.00 per book [use]?” (Minutes, Page 8)
Minutes of February 18, 2014 Library Board Meeting
Mr. Trizna “brought up the matter of closing on Sundays during the summer…thus depriving the people of service on a Sunday while a third of those [summer closed Sundays] could be opened if the Library was not forfeiting money” through the Food For Fines program. (Minutes, Page 4)
Mr. Schmidt “stated that the Library is ‘depriving’ people of service on Sundays because the City Council, which is voted in by the public, has reduced the amount of money the Library has to work with….” (Minutes, Page 4)
Minutes of March 18, 2014 Library Board Meeting
Mr. Trizna stated that “he doesn’t see the logic in closing on [summer] Sundays, on what appears to be the busiest day of the week.” (Minutes, Page 2)
“Mr. Egan asked Mr. Trizna if his is suggesting the Board bring the matter [of summer Sunday closings] back to a vote, to which Mr. Trizna said, ‘no, I can count heads’.” (Minutes, Page 2)
* * *
If you read through those Minutes you will find the foregoing excerpts highlighted in yellow. One thing you will not find, however, is any Library Staff member or any member of the Board majority expressing his/her interest in discussing how to keep the Library open any of those 14 summer Sundays. You also won’t find any of them proposing ways to raise revenues – or further cutting expenses – sufficient to keep the Library open those summer Sundays. In fact, you’ll find that none of them voiced any real concern about the effect of those closings on the Sunday users or Sunday Staff.
And don’t expect to find any encouraging words about a referendum from that crowd. Mr. Schmidt comes closest, on Page 6 of the March meeting Minutes, with a non-committal “at least now the discussion of the matter is on the record in the minutes” – such as it was. But Mr. Benka deserves special mention for his conclusion (at Page 5 of the December 2013 Minutes), drawn from the results of the recent Community Health Survey, that voters might not vote to give the Library extra money via a referendum because “they are used to quality service for nothing.”
Can you say “freeloaders,” John?
What these meeting minutes demonstrate, in these public officials’ “own” words, is what we wrote in our previous post: managing the Library effectively has taken a back seat to the executive Staff’s and Board majority’s attempt to wage political war on City Hall for more money. To that Staff and Board majority, Sunday Library users are mere pawns and acceptable collateral damage in that war
And you can now add the Library’s Sunday staff members to the “pawn” column, too, even if they don’t realize it.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and publisher
Member, Park Ridge Library Board
To read or post comments, click on title.
If you are a regular Sunday user of the Park Ridge Library, you’ve just become a pawn in a local political battle.
That’s because the Library is scheduled to be closed every Sunday this summer, from Memorial Day through Labor Day. And that closing for 14 Sundays is being done purposely to anger you Sunday users enough to demand that Mayor Dave Schmidt and the City Council give the Library the hundreds of thousands of additional tax dollars the Library wants, but isn’t getting, from City Hall.
The customary five hours (from noon until 5:00 p.m.) you Sunday Library users have enjoyed for more than a decade have become acceptable collateral damage to Library Director Janet Van De Carr and her executive staff (“Staff”), and to Library Board members John Benka, Audra Ebling, Margaret Harrison, Dorothy Hynous, John Schmidt and Jerry White. And you Sunday users have become cannon fodder in their political battle with City Hall, viewed by them the way King Edward Longshanks viewed the Irish in “Braveheart”: expendable.
Why the Sunday shutdowns?
First and foremost, because the Library Board and Staff want to cause pain to the group of Library users they consider least valuable and least dependent on the programs and services Staff is most concerned about preserving and expanding – the vast majority of which are offered during the week even though Sunday per-hour Library attendance is often higher than any other day of the week.
But what is most frustrating, dishonest and just plain wrong with the way the Library Board and Staff has gone about stiffing you Sunday users is the misinformation/disinformation campaign that is being employed to actually mislead the taxpayers on what the Library is doing, and why.
For example, The Board and Staff issued a January 23, 2014 Press Release about the Library’s finances and operations that is most notable for the information it omits.
Let’s start with the fact that it makes no mention whatsoever of the cost of keeping the Library open those 14 summer Sundays, which is believed to be only about $20,000. Nor does it mention that roughly that same $20,000 will, instead, be spent on raises for Library employees. This Board and Staff don’t want the Sunday users or the taxpayers to think that the Library will be closed 14 Sundays this summer just so Library employees can get raises.
The Board and Staff also don’t want you Sunday users or the taxpayers generally to know that, if the Library charged users of the Library’s computers a nominal $1 fee per log-in, the Library’s own computer usage figures through February 2014 suggest that such a charge could generate over $63,000 of new revenue on an annual basis.
That’s right, folks: over $63,000. Three times the cost of keeping the Library open those 14 Sundays this summer. Enough to keep the Library open and pay for those employee raises.
But as infomercial king Ron Popeil would say: “Wait, there’s more!”
The Library regularly shows movies and runs a variety of programs for which it charges nothing. Yet based on the Library’s program attendance figures, just a nominal $1 admission fee for those movies and programs could generate another $31,000.
Don’t expect to see those figures in any of the propaganda the Library is generating to goad its Sunday users into fighting its battle against City Hall. The Library Board and Staff don’t want you Sunday users or the taxpayers generally to even consider the possibility that the way the Library currently is being run isn’t the only way, or even the best way. And they hate any data that suggests otherwise.
Even if it’s their own.
Which is why those figures also don’t appear anywhere on the Library’s anonymous “survey” that asks the people who have been getting free programs whether they want to start paying for them. That survey apparently does not prevent respondents from taking that survey as many times as they want, so “ballot box” stuffing is permitted if not tacitly encouraged (despite the perfunctory “Only one survey per person, please” request). And the Board’s and Staff’s preferred answer to the pay-to-play questions is “no.”
The survey is the Board’s and Staff’s attempt to stave off any Library funding referendum, especially in light of the recent suggestion of such a referendum by Mayor Schmidt and Ald. Dan Knight (5th). That’s because, despite their insistence that the Library is so beloved and treasured that the taxpayers want nothing less than for the Council to give the Library whatever additional funding it asks for, none of those Board or Staff members want to give those taxpayers an actual vote on that funding via a referendum question – especially on the November general election ballot when turnout is expected to be much heavier than for our local elections in April 2015.
An actual vote – democracy instead of bureaucracy, or oligarchy – on additional Library funding carries too great a risk of the Board and Staff being proved wrong. They know (as did the Park Board when it arrogantly refused to ask the voters whether it should spend $8 million for the new Centennial water park) that the voting taxpayers often see “amenities” where bureaucrats and sycophantic public officials see “essentials.”
It’s one thing to manipulate pawns and a rig-able survey. It’s quite another to manipulate a majority of the voters.
Especially when sombody else is counting the votes.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and publisher
Member, Park Ridge Library Board
To read or post comments, click on title.
Today is election day. “Primary” election day, to be sure, but election day nonetheless.
For too many people, this isn’t a “real” election because it doesn’t decide who will actually win a particular office, just who gets to compete for it in November. And, for some strange reason, that doesn’t seem to mean all that much to them.
Sadly, we understand how that came to be…at least here in Illinois, one of the most mismanaged and corrupt states in the country.
For over 30 years Michael Madigan and the Democrats have dominated the General Assembly. And with the help of co-conspirator Republican governors like “Big Jim” Thompson, “Slim Jim” Edgar and George “No. 16627-424” Ryan, they created “The Combine” that changed our state from a prosperous leader into a pathetic, quasi-bankrupt shell.
And, over those same 30 years, they have provided far too many choices that seem like brain cancer versus congestive heart failure.
So we’re not saying conclusively that things would have been different if more voters had turned out for primary elections. But how could it NOT have improved things, given how badly they have turned out?
Case in point: The biggest blow to corruption in this state in at least 50 years was struck by former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, who pushed through the appointment of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald over bi-partisan Combine objections. But the only reason Sen. Fitzgerald had the opportunity to strike that blow was because he was able to buck the Republican establishment in 1998 and defeat favored Loleta Didrickson in the primary – giving him the chance to beat an inept and ethically-suspect Democratic Sen. Carol Moseley Braun in the general election that year.
No Sen. Fitzgerald, no U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald. Simple as that. And no 11 years of prosecutions and convictions of Govs. Ryan and Blagojevich, of Combine guru Bill Cellini, and of other corrupt politicians and Outfit crooks, etc.
All because of primary election results.
Whether there’s one or more Fitzgerald-Didrickson choices on either the “D” or the “R” ballot today is an unanswered question. Sometimes you can’t see these things clearly except in hindsight.
Which is why even choosing between brain cancer and congestive heart failure can still be a meaningful choice. One might be more treatable than the other, just like one candidate might be slightly less terrible than the other.
Or maybe, as in the case of Fitzgerald v. Didrickson, just plain better; and in certain ways most of us never even anticipated.
If you want change for the better in Illinois, you aren’t going to make it happen by staying home.
VOTE!
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and Publisher
UPDATE (03.20.14) Figures from the Cook County Clerk’s office indicate that a measly 11.29% of registered Maine Township voters showed up at the polls for this primary election. No wonder representative democracy in Illinois is verging on terminal.
To read or post comments, click on title.
Harry Porterfield, a newsman with Channel 2 news in Chicago, used to host a feature called “Someone You Should Know.” Today’s post is about someone in Park Ridge that you should know: Dick Barton.
In our our 02.12.13 post about last year’s Dave Schmidt v. Larry Ryles mayoral campaign, we called Barton the “ubiquitous local public relations and marketing hired gun.” At that time, Barton was backing Ryles, as he had backed then-mayor Howard Frimark against then-ald. Schmidt in the 2009 campaign.
Following that 2009 election we published a 04.24.09 post critical of Barton for his letter to local newspapers in which he assumed a faux above-the-fray posture in asking citizens and officials alike to “put away our petty disagreements” and “put aside any hurt feelings” arising out of “friction…[created] between neighbors, church members, those in civic organizations of all types and between rival groups of candidate supporters.”
As we noted back then, Barton didn’t “get it”: he didn’t “get” that the differences between Frimark and Schmidt on such significant matters as honest and transparent government, taxes, spending and debt were anything but “petty” – just like he didn’t “get” that the “friction” of competing ideas and policies was a GOOD thing, vastly preferable to those meaningless personality and style beauty contests that historically had defined Park Ridge elections.
Personality and style, however, are the tools of Barton’s trade, along with networking and deal-making. And a lot of his networking and deal-making have involved the public sector, where slickness is always preferable to friction.
So we read with interest the 02.21.14 article in the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate questioning whether Barton was being paid by Maine Township government for campaign work performed for Maine Twp. Supervisor – and Maine Twp. Republican Committeeman candidate – Carol Teschky. (“Maine Township’s $42K spokesman Dick Barton: Campaign work ‘non-compensated.’”)
Whether the campaign work Barton is doing for Teschky is an outright conflict of interest with his paid duties for Maine Twp. is unclear at this time, as is whether he was actually doing Teschky campaign work while on the clock for Maine Township.
But the situation sure looks and smells strange, especially given that Barton reportedly has been on the Township’s dime for 14 years (since 2000), according to the H-A story. And although we might have missed it, we don’t recall seeing or hearing anything about the Township bidding out its public relations contract or issuing any RFP for those services during the entire time Barton has been handling its p.r.
Which is not surprising, given the way things operate in Maine Township, which we recently heard referred to as “Provenzano-ville” because of the dominant presence of Highway Commissioner Bob Provenzano – who began working on his second public-sector pension as a Township payroller upon retiring from the Cook County Hwy. Dept. in 1998. He also was Township Collector from 1993 to 1994, and a Township trustee from 1994 to 1998.
But back to Barton.
Barton’s fingers have been in so many pies locally that it’s hard to keep tabs on what hat he’s wearing at any given time – something we noted in our posts of 07.25.08, 03.13.09 and 07.13.09. More recently, and relevant to the situation about which the H-A is reporting, on 06.07.12 Barton was promoting a fundraiser for the “Maine Township Incumbents” (including Teschky and Provenzano) while the very next week he was shilling for Teschky and Provenzano while talking up Maine Township’s Community Garage Sale.
Barton reportedly even moonlight’s as a stringer/reporter/photographer for the Park Ridge Journal, resulting in an almost comical situation where he was an honoree at a Park Ridge Chamber of Commerce event covered by the Journal, after which he wrote a letter to the Journal’s editor complimenting him on the Journal’s coverage of the Chamber’s event!
This kind of alter-ego activity isn’t new to him.
In a letter to the editor written in his capacity as Park Board president and published in the 05.01.08 issue of the H-A, Barton singled out from among “a range of businesses” sponsoring the Park District’s Earth Day event a certain “Green Transportation Solutions, a Park Ridge-based consulting firm specializing in environmental issues” – without mentioning that GTS was part of his then-Barton & Barton, Ltd. (now Barton Marketing Group) business that counted the Park District as one of its clients, “past and present.”
On a local scale, Barton appears to have been masterful in creating an economic synergy from his public-sector, private-sector and political contacts, including landing the Park Ridge Chamber of Commerce as a client and a warm endorsement from executive director Gail Haller. We don’t begrudge him one ounce of his success – so long as it doesn’t come at the taxpayers’ expense.
But we have to wonder whether at least some of those relationships and those networking opportunities have come at taxpayer expense. That sure would explain why Barton has always been an unabashed spender of tax dollars and an equally unabashed advocate of such spending, including when he was on the Park Board from 2005-2009 and ever since. Frankly, we can’t remember him ever arguing for ways to avoid spending, or actually saving, the taxpayers’ money.
But apparently that doesn’t concern a certain someone you should know, who has spent the past 14 years wasted away again in Provenzano-ville.
SIDEBAR: The editor and publisher of this blog has been a friend of Teschky’s opponent, Charlene Foss-Eggeman, for several years; and he has contributed to Foss-Eggeman’s campaign.
To read or post comments, click on title.
Since we started this blog way back in 2004, we have assiduously focused our attention on those units of local government serving the Park Ridge community. Frankly, that has been more than enough of a challenge for our modest abilities and limited time.
But we are making a notable exception today, in advance of what we expect will be the Illinois General Assembly’s passage of a 327-page pension “reform” bill, the final text of which was circulated less than 24 hours ago to the state senators and representatives who will be voting on it later today.
Having read about, observed and even met a number of the current seat-fillers down in Springfield over the past several years, we suspect most of them would be challenged simply to read that bill in its entirety before today’s vote is held. But to understand it well enough to meaningfully vote on it? At least another week, but only if they had the assistance of competent legal counsel.
This being Illinois, however, we fully expect the bill to pass before sunset.
The last time Illinois public pension policy was “reformed” was forty-plus years ago, when a majority of the Illinois Constitutional Convention (“Con Con”) delegates included a provision in the state’s new constitution that guaranteed the promise of public pensions as creating “an enforceable contractual relationship” that “shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Whether and to what extent this new 327-page “reform” bill can pass that 1970 constitutional guarantee, in whole or in part, is anybody’s guess. So is whether it will come anywhere close to saving all the $160 billion its proponents are wildly claiming it will, even over the 30 years it’s supposed to take for those savings to accrue.
Frankly, we don’t have the time or the inclination to address everything that’s wrong with just the light-speed process by which this particular piece of legislation has advanced from its skeletal form the afternoon before a four-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend to its full 327-page text less than 24 hours before the expected vote. That process alone should be viewed by the taxpayers of this state as nothing short of the insulting slap in the face its proponents intended it to be.
But that assumes a fact not yet in evidence: that it’s still possible for Illinois taxpayers to perceive insults after three decades of living in serfdom under the thumb of Darth Madigan, dark lord of the Sith.
Those encouraging this legislative rush to judgment point to its “bi-partisan” support by Madigan, his Dark Side senate ally John Cullerton and fuzzy-thinking Ewoks like Christine Radogno and Jim Durkin – four of the five “leaders” who, along with former House Minority “leader” and fellow Ewok Tom Cross, have been at the legislative helm of our listing ship of state while two of our last three governors (one from each party, furthering the “bi-partisan” theme) have been imprisoned and Illinois’ finances have sunk to a notch or so above insolvency.
Trusting such an inept crowd to successfully reform our state’s absurd pension system is like trusting a cardiac surgical team with a history of chronic malpractice to get its next quadruple bypass right. It’s as if “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” were Einstein’s definition of sanity.
Given how crucial true pension reform is to Illinois’ future, and how complex the problems presented by it are, serious debate and deliberation on a legitimate reform bill should easily take at least a few weeks, not merely a few hours. But with the editorial boards of both Chicago daily newspapers and a host of other cheerleaders wildly clapping and stamping their feet for speedy passage, “serious” anything is too much to ask.
To paraphrase “Senator Padme Amidala” in “Star Wars Episode II – Attack of the Clones”: “So this is how pension reform dies… with thunderous applause.”
But on the bright side, the Illinois General Assembly makes the workings of the Park Ridge City Council, even on its worst days (and nights), seem like a beacon of light in the abyss of Illinois government.
UPDATE (12.04.13) We wish we could claim a special gift for correctly predicting that the 327-page pension “reform” bill would pass by sunset yesterday, less than 24 hours after its final language was first circulated. Shooting fish in a barrel with a 12 gauge, however, would have been more challenging.
Not that conclusive proof will ever be available, but we suspect that 90% or more of the public officials in Springfield who voted for the bill yesterday hadn’t even read it. Sadly, that makes them no different from our legislators in Washington, most of whom appear to rely on staffers – or, more likely, highly-paid special interest lobbyists – to tell them what a bill says and why they should, or should not, vote for it.
That’s what we now have in this country: a government of the politicians, by the bureaucrats, for the special interests. Or is it a government of the bureaucrats, by the politicians, for the special interests?
All we know is that the taxpayers are never one of those special interests.
Will this pension “reform” bill really save the taxpayers of this state $160 billion by 2044? Of course not. Only small children and idiots would believe projections like that – which are almost always wrong, and usually very wrong. Plus, there are so many variables involved that ascertaining and analyzing cause and effect (or finding fault and placing blame) becomes exponentially more difficult with every passing year.
That’s not even taking into consideration the strong possibility that certain portions of the bill – the ones that might actually be good for Illinois taxpayers, naturally – could be declared unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court, yet “severable” from the rest of the bill rather than invalidating the whole bill. So taxpayers could end up being stuck with all the costly “bad” parts of the bill and none of the really cost-saving “good” ones.
That’s what we assume the public employee unions are counting on, and their friends in the General Assembly (including Madigan, Cullerton and other union tools) are hoping for. Given the way this bill was handled and the fly-speck level of integrity possessed by its major proponents down in Springfield, we wouldn’t be surprised if some of those “anti”-employee provisions were actually drafted to make them easier for the Supreme Court to pitch.
Not surprisingly, not one of the officials who voted for this bill yesterday can be expected to still be holding a seat in the General Assembly when the final results of this bill are tallied up 30 years from now. And a substantial portion of today’s voters will be worm food by then, too – unable to say to Sen. Dan Kotowski or Rep. Marty Moylan: “You donkeys…we told you this wouldn’t work.”
Assuming Danny K and Marty M are still on the right side of the grass themselves by then.
It’s a lot like the Uptown TIF, for which proponents were projecting $20 million-plus of net revenue by the end of its 23-year term. Now, only 10 years after it was passed and the City locked itself into tens of millions of dollars of bonded debt, not one of the elected officials responsible for passing it remains in City Hall and accountable to the taxpayers for the major economic drain it has become, or for the $20 million-plus of net deficits now being projected for it.
Meanwhile, former mayor and TIF architect Ron Wietecha resigned his office and moved to Barrington before the TIF was even passed. And former mayors Mike Marous and Howard Frimark, along with all those City Council members who supported the TIF project’s multi-millions of dollars of debt and subsidies to the developers, remain out of sight anytime their red-haired stepchild is publicly discussed.
That’s the inherent problem with plans based on multi-decade projections of dubious merit, using assumptions that no sane individuals would make, even when blind drunk and playing Mississippi Stud at Rivers Casino on a Tuesday night. That’s also why even a corrupt, communistic, economically doomed governmental system like the one employed by the former Soviet Union rarely extended its projections beyond five years, thereby giving it a constant series of “five-year plans.”
But our geniuses in Springfield used a 30-year projection for this pension “reform” bill because they needed a 30-year timeline to make the math work for all their made-up numbers.
Already the “victorious” legislators, their sycophants, apologists, and what masquerades as a keen-eyed, vigorous press are proclaiming pension peace for our time. If you could dress them all in dark Chesterfield overcoats, umbrellas in one hand and waving copies of the bill over their heads with their other hand, you might think Neville Chamberlain had risen from the dead and been multiply cloned – and totally clowned.
But at least Great Britain had a Winston Churchill standing in the wings to salvage Chamberlain’s folly.
All we’ve got are the likes of Sen. Kwame Raoul (D. Chicago) who, when urging a “Yes” vote, limply warned: “We cannot continue to be the embarrassment of the nation.”
Way too late for that, Kwame.
To read or post comments, click on title.
Fifty years ago today this country lost the promise of a limitless future.
It wasn’t really limitless, of course. As Einstein taught us, the only two things that are limitless (his term was “infinite”) are the universe and human stupidity. But to people of a certain age, attitude and experience back in 1963, if felt limitless…and exhilarating!
President John F. Kennedy – “JFK” – wasn’t a great president. No president can become “great” in less than three years on the job. Even the few true “greats” (with the exception of Lincoln) needed at least two full terms.
And JFK had enough political failures (the Bay of Pigs fiasco), misadventures (his foray into Vietnam) and trepidations (his wariness on civil rights) to, arguably, disqualify him even from consideration as one of the “greats” – notwithstanding his deft/brilliant statesmanship in defusing the Cuban missile crisis that effectively pulled the whole world back from the brink of nuclear war.
But he had a gift for inspiration no subsequent president has been able to match…marked by an amazing combination of wit, charm, intelligence and style not seen in any politician since.
In just his inaugural address alone, he opened minds, galavanized wills and touched hearts in speaking of “[t]he torch [that] has been passed to a new generation of Americans” willing to “pay any price, bear any burden” to spark a fire of freedom, the glow from which could “truly light the world.”
But the exhortation in that inaugural address that defined JFK’s presidency and the public spiritedness it inspired were the immortal words:
“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
On this 50th anniversary of his tragic assassination, we here in Park Ridge – not unlike all Americans – should ask ourselves why we have we not had leaders with JFK’s ability to inspire us toward pursuit of the common good rather than toward the pursuit of individual, private advantage? Sadly, the answer probably lies less in the quality of our leaders than in the quality of those of us who elect them.
On a local level, until we once again think more about what we can do for our community than what our community can do for us – and what private advantages we can gain at others’ expense – we have no hope of recapturing the spirit, the optimism and the vision JFK inspired.
And until we can put aside all those foolish partisan, social, racial and other divisions and embrace the spirit of his admonition “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer,” government and politics on every level will remain mired in the unproductive, zero-sum games that have come to predominate.
We need more givers and contributors, less takers and users. We need more focus on the common values and experiences that unite us rather than on the forces that divide us. And we need to be idealists, but without illusions – as Kennedy once described himself.
JFK’s presidency embodied a spirit of unity and confidence that could nurture credible prospects of an ever-brightening future. Whether that spirit can be recaptured 50 years later is an open question that many politicians and special interests already have answered: “No.”
But we owe a duty to ourselves and our posterity to try.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and Publisher
To read or post comments, click on title.
It was called “Armistice Day” when Pres. Woodrow Wilson proclaimed November 11, 1919 as the United States’ version of what other countries called a “Remembrance Day” – a day to remember those members of the armed forces killed during World War I, the misnamed “War to end all wars.”
But unlike in other countries, Armistice Day became a day to remember and honor all American veterans, living and dead, for their service to our country. Memorial Day was our day to remember and honor those American servicemen/women who gave their lives in the line of duty. In 1938 an act of Congress made November 11 of each year “Armistice Day” and a legal holiday; and in 1954 the name was officially changed to “Veterans Day.”
Currently there are approximately 23 million living American veterans. Roughly 1.2 million are World War II vets, although they are dying at the estimated rate of over 600 each day. Another 2.8 million are Korean War vets. The largest number of living veterans, approximately 7.8 million, served during the Vietnam War, although veterans of the “Gulf” wars (August 1990 to the present) number more than 5.2 million. Significantly, an estimated 3 million of those living veterans are receiving compensation for service-connected disabilities.
We’ve been fighting wars for more than a decade, and the cost of providing health care and disability benefits for our veterans continues to climb. Last year the Dept. of Veterans Affairs spent approximately $48 billion on disability benefits alone, and this year’s costs are expected to hit the $57 billion mark. That’s four times the $15 billion spent in 2000.
And that number will continue to climb because we’ve made so much progress in treating wounded soldiers that some of the most seriously wounded can now survive – albeit often with a service-connected disability. Some 630,000+ veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have full or partial disabilities, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And those disabilities include traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorders that were either undiagnosed or neglected in earlier generations of veterans.
As a result, the backlog of overdue unprocessed disability claims is about 400,000, down from the 600,000 outstanding unprocessed claims as recently as March of this year. But hundreds of thousands of new claims continue coming in from veterans who have done their duty to their country.
And we must do ours.
Irrespective of one’s political views about war, we as a country owe those veterans the best care and benefits available as a debt of honor. As former Wisconsin congressman David Obey stated:
“This country owes them all a debt of gratitude. The down payment on that debt is making sure that we live up to Lincoln’s charge: to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.”
That’s going to mean more money and a more efficient Veterans Administration, just for starters. And fewer wars would certainly help. Unfortunately, that can’t and won’t be accomplished today.
But if you know any veterans, you can at least offer a simple “Thank you for your service.”
And then write your congressman and voice your support for making sure all our veterans, and especially those who were injured while in harm’s way, get the help and support they have earned with their blood.
Robert J. Trizna
Editor and publisher
To read or post comments, click on title.
Labor Day 2013 brings a mixed bag for people who work for their living, and we’re not talking about hot dogs v. hamburgers, ribs v. chicken, Bud v. Miller Lite.
According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), “real” unemployment – which includes the currently unemployed, the under-employed, the “marginally attached” unemployed, and the “discouraged workers” who have given up looking for work – has dropped from 15% a year ago to a shade over 14%.
Unfortunately, median household income is only $51,000, or $4,000 below what it was in pre-recession 2007. That suggests the jobs being created that reduced unemployment by a percentage point aren’t as good-paying ones as they were pre-recession.
Meanwhile, young adults are graduating from colleges and universities with mountains of debt but without solid prospects for the kind of employment that might provide them the kind of incomes needed to pay off those debts and begin living independently of their parents.
What’s the solution?
We don’t have one. But we do have a few observations that might at least get folks looking in the right direction.
First, we need to stop lying to ourselves about the country’s economic situation for purely partisan purposes. Voodoo economics as advocated BOTH by Democrats (“double the minimum wage immediately”) AND by Republicans (“Even $1 of tax increases is too much for $10 of spending cuts”) hasn’t worked in good times, and it sure won’t work today. Or tomorrow, for that matter.
Second, any rebuilding of the middle class will require a re-commitment to the U.S. returning to a manufacturing power rather than continuing its slide toward a predominately “service” economy. And we’re talking 21st Century manufacturing, not post-WWII rust-belt style manufacturing. Anybody who can’t see how increasingly “intelligent” machines will perform an increasingly larger share of routine services, especially the more mundane ones like super-sizing your fries, is wearing blinders.
Third, those who demean the American entrepreneurial spirit with foolish and divisive statements like “you didn’t build that” also demean the labor – mental and physical – of the people who did, indeed, “build that.” Thomas Edison did build General Electric (presumably with “one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration”); Henry Ford did build Ford Motor Company; Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak did build Apple; Phil Knight did build Nike; Jeff Bezos did build Amazon; and the list goes on and on.
More importantly, they built those businesses while learning from the same teachers, using the same roads and bridges, relying on the same police and fire protection, etc., that the rest of us did. So, for the most part, they didn’t have any special advantages over the rest of us that the “you didn’t build that” meme implies.
Similarly, anybody who demeans the contributions of organized labor over the past 100-plus years also demeans the work-based standard of living that has made this country the most prosperous one the world has ever known, with the longest-running stable constitutional government in the history of the world. It was the trade/industrial union movement that brought us most of the work-related laws and benefits we now take for granted, like:
Contrast those contributions with the contributions public sector unions have brought about since their rise to prominence over the past 20-30 years, which appear to be confined to:
That’s what you get from a system of employment that is more socialistic than capitalistic, and which enables and actually rewards collusion between public-sector unions and the politicians who pander to those unions in return for political support – at the taxpayers’ expense.
So on this Labor Day, consider spending a few minutes contemplating how we can restore to prominence the private sector labor and management that built this country – while reducing the growing dominance of the collusive public sector labor and politics that is undermining it.
To read or post comments, click on title.