Forwarded to me by a friend. There is a Paul R. Hollrah on the net. I don't know if Mr. Hollrah wrote this piece or not but I agree with its contents. General MCChrystal would not be the first general would was forced to retire who knew more about was was going on in the field than any politician, or a community organizer turned president.
Merle
phollrah@fairpoint.net
The General and the Community Organizer
by Paul R. Hollrah
Channel-surfing from ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN through MSNBC and Fox News, the inside-the-beltway pundits had a field day trying to get inside the heads of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, General Stanley McChrystal, and McChrystal’s top aides. The one thing common to all of the analyses, by the most famous and highly-paid talking heads in the Western World, was that they are all wrong… dead wrong. What is certain is that they all owe General McChrystal and his senior aides an apology for assuming that they are lame-brained numbskulls.
The facts of the McChrystal case are not in dispute. General McChrystal and his senior officers allowed a reporter for Rolling Stone Magazine, Michael Hastings, to have almost unprecedented access during an extended stay in Paris. The extended stay was due, in part, to an excess of atmospheric ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, keeping the McChrystal party grounded for days. Hastings subsequently published a lengthy profile of General McChrystal on June 22, titled, The Runaway General.
In an interview with CNN, Hastings reported that he had a tape recorder in his hand most of the time and that McChrystal was “very aware” that his comments would find their way into print. He said, “McChrystal and his people set no ground rules for their conversations, although they did ask that some parts of their conversations were off the record.”
As Hastings wrote in his profile, McChrystal thought that Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass during their first meeting. Of their second meeting, an advisor to McChrystal quoted the general as saying that it was “a 10-minute photo op.” He went on to say, “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about (McChrystal), who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f_ _ _ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”
As General McChrystal flew from Afghanistan to Washington to face Obama in the Oval Office, the almost unanimous opinion of the talking heads was that the comments made by McChrystal and his staff were off the cuff and inadvertent. But to believe that is to totally ignore who these men are.
General McChrystal and his top officers are not simple-minded, knuckle-dragging brutes. To the contrary, they are intelligent, thoughtful, highly educated, patriots… graduates of West Point and other fine universities… who are dedicated to duty, honor, and country. To think that such men would be so careless as to speak unflatteringly of Obama, Biden, and other top administration figures, in the presence of a reporter for a notoriously left wing publication, defies logic… at the very least. To think that men who are trained to be careful and deliberate in everything they do, could do something so careless and so unguarded is simply beyond comprehension.
I would argue that McChrystal and his aides knew exactly what they were doing.
From the day that he became the handpicked “spear carrier” for Obama’s unique brand of warfare… playing at being Commander in Chief while playing to his far left constituency… McChrystal’s life had been one of constant frustration. After telling Obama exactly how many troops he needed to carry out his mission, Obama dithered for months before deciding to give him just half the troops he requested. McChrystal could not have been happy about that.
The Obama team insisted on new Rules of Engagement designed to reduce collateral damage (civilian casualties). Obama’s ROE required that U.S. troops must be able to see the enemy with weapon in hand before they were allowed to return fire. One videotape circulated on the Internet showed a platoon of Marines pinned down by enemy sniper fire. But since the enemy was firing from some distance behind the open window of a building, the Marines could not actually see the weapon being fired. Although they were taking deadly fire, they were prohibited by the ROE from putting small arms fire or an RPG through the window opening.
Under Obama’s politically correct ROE, our soldiers and Marines were required to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. McChrystal had to have been happy about that.
A strict new interrogation policy, dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder, required that prisoners must be delivered to an Interrogation Center within twenty-four hours of being captured or be released to return to the battlefield. A great deal of actionable intelligence was lost as a result and battle-hardened enemy fighters were returned to the field to kill Americans. McChrystal must have found that to be incomprehensible.
But the greatest insult to our troops in the field, and to the officers who lead them, may be a new battlefield medal designed by the Obama team. It is called the Courageous Restraint Medal and is awarded to soldiers and Marines who demonstrate uncommon restrain in combat by not firing their weapons even when they feel threatened by the enemy. Should we be surprised to learn that the preponderance these medals were awarded posthumously? McChrystal must have found that to be an insanity.
I suggest that, having his best military judgments subjected to the White House political sieve for nearly a year and a half, McChrystal decided that he’d had enough. And when he announced to his senior staff that he was prepared to retire they decided to push back… to make the most of a bad situation. It was clear that, if McChrystal were to simply take off his uniform and walk away, his retirement would be page-twenty news for a day or two before the mainstream media and the American people forgot all about him.
They had to make the most of his retirement because it provided a one-time opportunity to show the American people, as well as our enemies and our allies, that the man who claims the title of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military does not command the respect of our men and women in uniform. To make the most of that opportunity they had to choose their messenger very carefully.
They knew that, by openly showing their disrespect for Obama in front of just any newsman, they may not attract the attention they desired. Like any astute observer of the MSM, they knew that most reporters would turn on their own mothers if it meant a good story. But they could not take a chance that a mainstream media reporter might suffer a rare pang of conscience when confronted with the prospect of ruining the careers of some of the most senior officers in the War on Terror. They had to fix the odds as much as possible in their favor so they chose to use Michael Hastings and Rolling Stone Magazine.
During the long hours that General McChrystal was in the air between Kabul and Washington, Obama knew that he had just two choices… both bad. He could declare McChrystal to be an irreplaceable asset in the war effort, give him a public reprimand, and send him back to Kabul. Or he could fire McChrystal, sending a clear message that, at least in his own mind, he was the Commander in Chief.
In the former case, he was certain to appear weak and ineffectual… a man not totally in charge. In the latter case, he might at least win a few rave reviews from the Kook-Ade drinkers in the mainstream media. He chose the latter of the two options.
But what is now lost in all of the hand-wringing and speculation is the fact that McChrystal and his people have succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do. They wanted to plant the seed in the minds of the American people that Obama is not up to the task of being Commander in Chief and that he does not command the respect of the men and women of the uniformed services… from the newest Private E-1 up to the top four-star generals and admirals.
That seed is now firmly planted and it cannot be unplanted.
From this day forward, no one will have to tell the American people that Stanley McChrystal is a true warrior, a man’s man, and that Barack Obama is nothing more than a… community organizer. Well done, General
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Lincoln Museum Ticket Prices Rising - PJS, July 4, 2010
Rising operational costs force museum to increase fees for the 2nd time. On July 1 adult admissions increased from $10 to $12. Seniors and students pay $9 instead of $7.........
"Attendance remains good", says museum spokesperson David Blanchette, "but our costs continue to go up". Attendance for the first 5 months of 2010 was 130,699. Operational costs were $10.8 million in 2009. Revenues were $2,895,535 so the state paid around $7.45 million of taxpayers dollars to make up the shortfall.
This information should give some pause to the "movers and shakers" as to what is going on with the under-funded Peoria Riverfront Museum that has already spent $12 million or more without a shovel of dirt being turned.
My predictions have long been voiced. The PRM will start losing $2 million dollars a year in its 2nd or 3rd year after opening and that loss will increase as operating costs go up for the next 75 years. Where will the money come to make up the deficit.
You get one guess only.
"Attendance remains good", says museum spokesperson David Blanchette, "but our costs continue to go up". Attendance for the first 5 months of 2010 was 130,699. Operational costs were $10.8 million in 2009. Revenues were $2,895,535 so the state paid around $7.45 million of taxpayers dollars to make up the shortfall.
This information should give some pause to the "movers and shakers" as to what is going on with the under-funded Peoria Riverfront Museum that has already spent $12 million or more without a shovel of dirt being turned.
My predictions have long been voiced. The PRM will start losing $2 million dollars a year in its 2nd or 3rd year after opening and that loss will increase as operating costs go up for the next 75 years. Where will the money come to make up the deficit.
You get one guess only.
Bel-Wood County Owned Nursing Home
At my request, the Journal Star Editorial Board printed my Letter to the Editor (LTE) on June 12 under "In the Spotlight Column" titled 'Costs too high for county to keep supporting Be-lWood Nursing home'.
Since many of my readers do not read the JS, I am reprinted on this blog exactly as the JSEB edited it. At end I will add what additional information should have been made available to the property tax payers in Peoria County who paid $3,241,000 in direct and indirect property taxes in 2009 to support Bel-Wood. A total of over $17million from 2004-2009.
Here is my reprint from the JSEB:
"Imagine the dismay", wrote the JSEB on June 7, 2010, "when one County Board member sought to hit the brakes on the entire (BW) project." No surprise, as I voiced my concern on the JSEB page on June 6, 2009 (Bel-Wood meant to be a Safety Net"), plus numerous times in Peoria County Board Meetings.
Bel-Wood is not a safety net for the poor, as Peoria County Administration estimates that room rates will be only slightly below the private sector, which does accept Medicaid clients. The estimated cost for a new Bel-Wood has risen from $37 million to $54.6 million, all borrowed except the $5 million on hand.
Nursing home censuses are down substantially, some as low as 50% occupancy in the area. Bel-Wood has a daily average of 60 empty beds per day and hasn't had a waiting list for years. More elderly are receiving government-subsidized hoe care.
In 2003, an additional tax levy on property was approved to "maintain" BW Included was approximately $7 million in subsidy costs (taxpayer) dollars previously charge to Bel-wood to help cover operating expenses. The board was told this was common practice for County facilities, citing the Juvenile Center and the Care and Treatment Board. (Actually, my addition) the Juvenile Center subsidies are state mandated and the Care and Treatment Board subsidies are covered by grant money. Bel-Wood has no such mandates or grants to cover IMRF, FICA,etc.
Since the 2003 levy increase, property taxes of more than $17 million have supported Bel-Wood with these taxes paying off a previous, $4.1 debt and daily operating costs. Nothing was spent on a sprinkler system that must now be installed by the end of 2013. Nor a roof that needed to be replaced 10 years ago. In short, the building was not "maintained," as specified in the 2003 referendum.
Bel-wood has had 5 administrators in the last 10 years and has settled more than $750,000 in client claims and fines while carrying a substantial receivables deemed doubtful.
I reiterate that the county should join the 90-plus Illinois Counties that have sold or closed county nursing homes and support the private sector rather than compete against it. Peoria County spends a disproportionate amount of its resources (attorneys, union negotiations, human services, etc.) and time on problems at Bel-Wood.
Bel-Wood also supports 200 union member and the County Board seats 12 Democrats."
Here is information I could have added in my LTE but only so many words are accepted in a LTE. BW supports 161 IBEW union members and 29 non-union members. The reason the BW Fund has around $5 million available for the new building is because of tax dollars were only used to maintain Life-Safety issues, operating costs, not general maintenance such as a new roof, sprinkler system, plumbing, carpentry work, etc.
In order to avoid a new referendum to build a new Bel-Wood, administration and county board members interpreted the 2003 referendum that was worded to "maintain" Bel-Wood that easily passed as authority to replace the 42 year old facility with a new one. Not mentioned in the publicity surrounding the referendum was that BW carried a $4.1 debt but emphasized that Bel-Wood would probably close if the referendum didn't pass. Which as Mr. Monroe pointed out, was not true. Not mentioned was the poor effort that was made to collect past dues with one private pay client running up $141,000 deficit before any collection effort was made. Needless to say that Bel-Wood even today has doubtful accounts running into 6 figures.
No inventory control of drugs was in place, the filing of patient records was a disgrace and some records were destroyed for obvious reasons.
The nursing home business is specialized and Peoria County has a long list of failures including allegations that a union leader was caught in bed with a client in the building. The county should divest itself of this business to the private sector where failure at property taxpayers expense is not an option.
Since many of my readers do not read the JS, I am reprinted on this blog exactly as the JSEB edited it. At end I will add what additional information should have been made available to the property tax payers in Peoria County who paid $3,241,000 in direct and indirect property taxes in 2009 to support Bel-Wood. A total of over $17million from 2004-2009.
Here is my reprint from the JSEB:
"Imagine the dismay", wrote the JSEB on June 7, 2010, "when one County Board member sought to hit the brakes on the entire (BW) project." No surprise, as I voiced my concern on the JSEB page on June 6, 2009 (Bel-Wood meant to be a Safety Net"), plus numerous times in Peoria County Board Meetings.
Bel-Wood is not a safety net for the poor, as Peoria County Administration estimates that room rates will be only slightly below the private sector, which does accept Medicaid clients. The estimated cost for a new Bel-Wood has risen from $37 million to $54.6 million, all borrowed except the $5 million on hand.
Nursing home censuses are down substantially, some as low as 50% occupancy in the area. Bel-Wood has a daily average of 60 empty beds per day and hasn't had a waiting list for years. More elderly are receiving government-subsidized hoe care.
In 2003, an additional tax levy on property was approved to "maintain" BW Included was approximately $7 million in subsidy costs (taxpayer) dollars previously charge to Bel-wood to help cover operating expenses. The board was told this was common practice for County facilities, citing the Juvenile Center and the Care and Treatment Board. (Actually, my addition) the Juvenile Center subsidies are state mandated and the Care and Treatment Board subsidies are covered by grant money. Bel-Wood has no such mandates or grants to cover IMRF, FICA,etc.
Since the 2003 levy increase, property taxes of more than $17 million have supported Bel-Wood with these taxes paying off a previous, $4.1 debt and daily operating costs. Nothing was spent on a sprinkler system that must now be installed by the end of 2013. Nor a roof that needed to be replaced 10 years ago. In short, the building was not "maintained," as specified in the 2003 referendum.
Bel-wood has had 5 administrators in the last 10 years and has settled more than $750,000 in client claims and fines while carrying a substantial receivables deemed doubtful.
I reiterate that the county should join the 90-plus Illinois Counties that have sold or closed county nursing homes and support the private sector rather than compete against it. Peoria County spends a disproportionate amount of its resources (attorneys, union negotiations, human services, etc.) and time on problems at Bel-Wood.
Bel-Wood also supports 200 union member and the County Board seats 12 Democrats."
Here is information I could have added in my LTE but only so many words are accepted in a LTE. BW supports 161 IBEW union members and 29 non-union members. The reason the BW Fund has around $5 million available for the new building is because of tax dollars were only used to maintain Life-Safety issues, operating costs, not general maintenance such as a new roof, sprinkler system, plumbing, carpentry work, etc.
In order to avoid a new referendum to build a new Bel-Wood, administration and county board members interpreted the 2003 referendum that was worded to "maintain" Bel-Wood that easily passed as authority to replace the 42 year old facility with a new one. Not mentioned in the publicity surrounding the referendum was that BW carried a $4.1 debt but emphasized that Bel-Wood would probably close if the referendum didn't pass. Which as Mr. Monroe pointed out, was not true. Not mentioned was the poor effort that was made to collect past dues with one private pay client running up $141,000 deficit before any collection effort was made. Needless to say that Bel-Wood even today has doubtful accounts running into 6 figures.
No inventory control of drugs was in place, the filing of patient records was a disgrace and some records were destroyed for obvious reasons.
The nursing home business is specialized and Peoria County has a long list of failures including allegations that a union leader was caught in bed with a client in the building. The county should divest itself of this business to the private sector where failure at property taxpayers expense is not an option.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Roger Monroe on Bel-Wood, Peoria County Nursing Home
Here's what Roger Monroe, who writes a monthly column for the local newspaper, Community Word, wrote in the March 2003 in his column, "Straight Talk", urging voters to vote "no" on the referendum to continue to MAINTAIN Bel-Wood by raising property taxes:
"Vote 'No' on Bel-wood tax -- as well intentioned as the BW tax levy proposal is, I think voters should reject it come April 1. TOO MUCH..TOO SOON. For starters Peoria County Board Members, who approved putting the referendum on the ballot, are asking for too much money during these hard and difficult times. Currently, the Peoria County Board and Bel-Wood are gobbling up the full 2 1/2% levy to the tune of over $400,000. Now they want to triple that tax rate to 6% providing another $800,000! This means taxpayer would be paying some $1.2 million (now $3 million in direct and indirect property taxes, in 2009, my quote) annually to support a nursing home with less than 300 residents. That's too much, too soon. I ARGUED that when the large increase idea was presented to the County Board."
Monroe continues, "My 2nd reason", for opposing the large jump in the BW tax levy for (property) tax payers is based on the belief the home still suffers management problems ($700,000+ in lawsuits settled recently, my quote). It needs to prove to taxpayers administrative efficiency. I can't ignore its history of state violations, poor survey results, including loss of accreditation, and numerous complaints about resident care. If taxpayers give $1.2 million(actually $3 million in year 2009, my quotes) without demanding better management, look for the county to seek more money within 5 years." (Actually 6 years, the new taxes starting coming in in 2004, and now seeking roughly $54 million plus, approximately $49 million in borrowed money, my quotes)
End of Monroe's quotes in April 2003.
In May, 2003, Monroe wrote in the CW, "Bel-Wood Success - Congratulations are due those who worked so hard for passage of the tax increase. Readers of my column know I didn't support the increase, etc......Further, I keep hearing that BW is accepting residents who have lived outside of Peoria County, so taxpayers are subsidizing their care too. If true, (it is, about 24 residents do not live in Peoria County as of 2010, my quote) the counties where they live should share the cost. (They don't, my quote) While I congratulate the the supporters of the BW tax they were a little disingenuous in suggesting BW might have to close if the referendum didn't pass.(The wording on the Referendum said 'To Maintain BelWood'. it wasn't maintained except for life-safety issues, my quotes) Monroe continues, "Wrong, Bel-wood cannot close or even be leased without a referendum."
In April 2002 Monroe had written in the CW, "The Bel-Wood Fiasco" concluding his lengthy diatribe by concluding "here's another example of why your (BW) taxes are so high".
More Monroe quotes. "I hate to bring it up since some (JS?, my quote, nothing has changed at the JS) like to keep it out of the news, but BW lost close to $2 million last year. One Peoria County Official told me if BW can increase its current 263 census, (its 231 as of June 30, 2010), to 280, the nursing home will begin to show a profit. I don't know what he is smoking because I can remember when the home had 290 residents and it was losing $500,000 a year."
So these are Monroe's writings back in 2002 and 2003. Yet, here is what he wrote in the July 2010 Community Word just off the press:
"Widmer Oposes? (It's 2 pp's, Roger) Bel-Wood. Peoria County Board Member Merle Widmer is a nay-sayer. He was strongly opposed to the RP that continues to be one of the more successful riverfront ventures." (successful, really??? with 35% coming from across the river and in competition with the local tax-paying private sector while park services decline, my quote) Monroe continues, "He's fired off more than one salvo against BW. But he isn't the first. I remember when Gary Stella (and, also, Board Chairman Jim Christopher, my quote) who both questioned the wisdom of the county and its taxpayers subsidizing the nursing facility. Widmer's argument, though based on some erroneous statement's, deserves serious discussion by county officials." (Erroneous, I have my facts all documented, my quotes).
Nowhere in Monroe's July, 2010 column does he mention that he recommended to his readers to oppose the 2003 referendum. Interesting. Actually I strongly supported the 2003 referendum and have a Certificate of Appreciation from BW. The referendum was to "Maintain" BW.
We didn't maintain the facility.
Administration and the board allowed it to deteriorate, rather than maintain. We received grant money for a Sprinkler System in 2007 (we used it for architects, consultants, engineers, for a new building instead) and we could have installed a new roof anytime. Electrical and plumbing should have been replaced or maintained just as we did to the original Courthouse that was built about the same time as Bel-Wood. After all, BW was supported by $17 million in property taxes, both direct and indirect from 2004-2009.
Monroe continues, "I chaired the Health Services Committee and the first referendum committee seeking approval for a tax increase. It passed by a 2-1 margin." (Note Monroe doesn't mention that he urged voters to vote "No" on the 2003 referendum). Monroe continues, "Things are different today. Medicare and Medicaid make up the the vast majority of the daily census. (Actually, Medicaid patients total around 165, private pay around 50 and Medicare around 20, my quotes) Meanwhile, the County Board has approved plans for a new building. (224 beds, my quotes) People may remember the first estimated cost was $28 million, (actually $26-29 million, my quotes) yet not a shovel has been turned and now we hear quotes of $54million. Like a lot of new construction, when finished, the cost will be higher. Medical care costs are sky rocketing. Can taxpayers afford to support BelWood?"
End of his July 2010 "Straight Talk" column.
For those of you who might be interested in reading "Costs too high for county to keep supporting Bel-Wood nursing home", as I wrote 'In the Spotlight' issue of the JS on 6/13/10, I will reprint it on this site.
"Vote 'No' on Bel-wood tax -- as well intentioned as the BW tax levy proposal is, I think voters should reject it come April 1. TOO MUCH..TOO SOON. For starters Peoria County Board Members, who approved putting the referendum on the ballot, are asking for too much money during these hard and difficult times. Currently, the Peoria County Board and Bel-Wood are gobbling up the full 2 1/2% levy to the tune of over $400,000. Now they want to triple that tax rate to 6% providing another $800,000! This means taxpayer would be paying some $1.2 million (now $3 million in direct and indirect property taxes, in 2009, my quote) annually to support a nursing home with less than 300 residents. That's too much, too soon. I ARGUED that when the large increase idea was presented to the County Board."
Monroe continues, "My 2nd reason", for opposing the large jump in the BW tax levy for (property) tax payers is based on the belief the home still suffers management problems ($700,000+ in lawsuits settled recently, my quote). It needs to prove to taxpayers administrative efficiency. I can't ignore its history of state violations, poor survey results, including loss of accreditation, and numerous complaints about resident care. If taxpayers give $1.2 million(actually $3 million in year 2009, my quotes) without demanding better management, look for the county to seek more money within 5 years." (Actually 6 years, the new taxes starting coming in in 2004, and now seeking roughly $54 million plus, approximately $49 million in borrowed money, my quotes)
End of Monroe's quotes in April 2003.
In May, 2003, Monroe wrote in the CW, "Bel-Wood Success - Congratulations are due those who worked so hard for passage of the tax increase. Readers of my column know I didn't support the increase, etc......Further, I keep hearing that BW is accepting residents who have lived outside of Peoria County, so taxpayers are subsidizing their care too. If true, (it is, about 24 residents do not live in Peoria County as of 2010, my quote) the counties where they live should share the cost. (They don't, my quote) While I congratulate the the supporters of the BW tax they were a little disingenuous in suggesting BW might have to close if the referendum didn't pass.(The wording on the Referendum said 'To Maintain BelWood'. it wasn't maintained except for life-safety issues, my quotes) Monroe continues, "Wrong, Bel-wood cannot close or even be leased without a referendum."
In April 2002 Monroe had written in the CW, "The Bel-Wood Fiasco" concluding his lengthy diatribe by concluding "here's another example of why your (BW) taxes are so high".
More Monroe quotes. "I hate to bring it up since some (JS?, my quote, nothing has changed at the JS) like to keep it out of the news, but BW lost close to $2 million last year. One Peoria County Official told me if BW can increase its current 263 census, (its 231 as of June 30, 2010), to 280, the nursing home will begin to show a profit. I don't know what he is smoking because I can remember when the home had 290 residents and it was losing $500,000 a year."
So these are Monroe's writings back in 2002 and 2003. Yet, here is what he wrote in the July 2010 Community Word just off the press:
"Widmer Oposes? (It's 2 pp's, Roger) Bel-Wood. Peoria County Board Member Merle Widmer is a nay-sayer. He was strongly opposed to the RP that continues to be one of the more successful riverfront ventures." (successful, really??? with 35% coming from across the river and in competition with the local tax-paying private sector while park services decline, my quote) Monroe continues, "He's fired off more than one salvo against BW. But he isn't the first. I remember when Gary Stella (and, also, Board Chairman Jim Christopher, my quote) who both questioned the wisdom of the county and its taxpayers subsidizing the nursing facility. Widmer's argument, though based on some erroneous statement's, deserves serious discussion by county officials." (Erroneous, I have my facts all documented, my quotes).
Nowhere in Monroe's July, 2010 column does he mention that he recommended to his readers to oppose the 2003 referendum. Interesting. Actually I strongly supported the 2003 referendum and have a Certificate of Appreciation from BW. The referendum was to "Maintain" BW.
We didn't maintain the facility.
Administration and the board allowed it to deteriorate, rather than maintain. We received grant money for a Sprinkler System in 2007 (we used it for architects, consultants, engineers, for a new building instead) and we could have installed a new roof anytime. Electrical and plumbing should have been replaced or maintained just as we did to the original Courthouse that was built about the same time as Bel-Wood. After all, BW was supported by $17 million in property taxes, both direct and indirect from 2004-2009.
Monroe continues, "I chaired the Health Services Committee and the first referendum committee seeking approval for a tax increase. It passed by a 2-1 margin." (Note Monroe doesn't mention that he urged voters to vote "No" on the 2003 referendum). Monroe continues, "Things are different today. Medicare and Medicaid make up the the vast majority of the daily census. (Actually, Medicaid patients total around 165, private pay around 50 and Medicare around 20, my quotes) Meanwhile, the County Board has approved plans for a new building. (224 beds, my quotes) People may remember the first estimated cost was $28 million, (actually $26-29 million, my quotes) yet not a shovel has been turned and now we hear quotes of $54million. Like a lot of new construction, when finished, the cost will be higher. Medical care costs are sky rocketing. Can taxpayers afford to support BelWood?"
End of his July 2010 "Straight Talk" column.
For those of you who might be interested in reading "Costs too high for county to keep supporting Bel-Wood nursing home", as I wrote 'In the Spotlight' issue of the JS on 6/13/10, I will reprint it on this site.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Invasion of the Jellyfish
I believe all should read the 40th Special Edition of the July-August Smithsonian. What a shocking revelation of what unintended consequences can do to our environment and our publicly shared oceans.
Don't overlook reading "The Last Page" on the last page. Also, Forty things you need to know about the next 40 years including comments by one of my favorite fiction writers, Carl Hiaasen, page 105.
Don't overlook reading "The Last Page" on the last page. Also, Forty things you need to know about the next 40 years including comments by one of my favorite fiction writers, Carl Hiaasen, page 105.
"The American Thinker" on Illegal Immigration
The suing of Arizona but not Missouri by the United States Government is underway. All to divert our attention to our sorry economic crises and this administrations failure to properly regulate deep drilling in the gulf and their sorry response once the "sometime to be expected, happened". And of course, to divert on our attention to close our borders like all, including 3rd world countries have already done. Europe waited to long. The sad results of our failure and Europe's failures are forthcoming daily.
Merle
June 21, 2010
Why sue Arizona and not Missouri?
Timothy Birdnow
In a visit with Ecuadorian officials Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let slip that the Obama Administration intends to sue the state of Arizona over recently passed immigration laws. While Hillary's speaking out of turn may have forced the Administration's hand, a Justice Department spokesman confirmed that the DOJ was building a case against Arizona and would likely bring suit in the near future.
There is one puzzling aspect to this, though; if they thought this violated the Constitution, why didn't the Administration protest when Missouri did what Arizona is now doing?
Over the last five years Missouri has systematically put in place the provisions recently enacted by Arizona. If Arizona's laws are so draconian and, as Michael Posner told the Chinese, are a detestable violation of human rights, why didn't the DOJ begin crafting a legal challenge to the Show-Me State?
Missouri laws are quite similar to those of Arizona, and they preceeded the Grand Canyon State's law.
First came HJR 7 in the Year of Our Lord 2007 and approved by Missouri voters with 86.3% of the vote:
"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2008, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:
Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 34, to read as follows:
Section 34. That English shall be the language of all official proceedings in this state."
This was followed by the comprehensive HB 1549 bill which became law August 28 2008
Some of the highlights of the bill include:
- "43.032. 2. No municipality shall enact or adopt any sanctuary policy."
-208.009. 1. No alien unlawfully present in the United States shall receive any state or local public benefit, except for state or local public benefits that may be offered under 8 U.S.C. 1621(b). Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the rendering of emergency medical care, prenatal care, services offering alternatives to abortion, emergency assistance, or legal assistance to any person.
- 3. In addition to providing proof of other eligibility requirements, at the time of application for any state or local public benefit, an applicant who is eighteen years of age or older shall provide affirmative proof that the applicant is a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States or is lawfully present in the United States
- " 3. All public employers shall enroll and actively participate in a federal work authorization program."
- "302.063. The department of revenue shall not issue any driver's license to an illegal alien nor to any person who cannot prove his or her lawful presence pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and the regulations promulgated thereunder. A driver's license issued to an illegal alien in another state shall not be honored by the state of Missouri and the department of revenue for any purpose."
- "2. There shall be a presumption that releasing the person under any conditions as provided by section 544.455 shall not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required if the circuit judge or associate circuit judge reasonably believes that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States. If such presumption exists, the person shall be committed to the jail, as provided in subsection 1 of this section, until such person provides verification of his or her lawful presence in the United States to rebut such presumption."
- "577.722. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly transport, move, or attempt to transport in the state of Missouri any illegal alien who is not lawfully present in the United States"
- Plus this amendment:
" 28.824. All law enforcement officers shall inquire into the citizenship andimmigration status of any person under arrest for a violation of any state law or municipal ordinance, regardless of the person's national origin, ethnicity, or race. In all such cases where a person indicates
that he or she is not a citizen or national of the United States, the law enforcement agent shall verify with the federal government whether the alien is lawfully or unlawfully present in the United States, under 8 U.S.C. 1373(c). If the alien is verified to be unlawfully present in the United States, the law enforcement officer shall cooperate with any request by federal immigration authorities to detain the alien or transfer the alien to the custody of the federal government."
There are also penalties applied to businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens.
State Representative Will Kraus gives a good overview of the Missouri law in the Lee's Summit Journal.
Missouri also bans in-state tuition aid for illegal aliens at state junior colleges.
So, why should the Arizona law be unpalatable when Missouri's was never worth challenging? The Department of Homeland Security estimated Arizona's illegal population at 560,000 in 2008, while the Pew Hispanic Center estimates between 400 and 450 thousand back in 2005. Pew's 2005 estimates for Missouri were between 35 and 65, so Arizona's illegal population is larger than Missouri's by about a factor of ten. 560,000 potentially new Democratic Party Voters and union members!
But there is more, much more; Arizona is not just a repository but a portal, the figurative Gibraltar of the U.S. According to the AZ Capitol Times:
"Overall, illegal immigration through those two states, New Mexico and Arizona has declined from nearly 1.2 million in 2005 to 541,000 last year, according to the Border Patrol. In Arizona, illegal crossings fell from 578,000 in 2005 to nearly 250,000 last year - before the recent rise."
So, last year a quarter of a million people came in through Arizona. Where did they go? Everywhere, and that is why the Obama Administration is desperate to prevent Arizona's law from working.
One leg of Obama's plan to Democratic political hegemony, to a new New Deal, rests on opening the nation wide. What happened in Missouri is small potatoes, because the important thing is to get these people here, not to protect their rights. Unhappy illegals can leave Missouri for Illinois and prosper. PEW's estimate for Illinois in 2005 was anywhere between 375-425 thousand illegals - ten times the number in Missouri - and that before the new laws were enacted. The worry is not about civil rights, but about keeping the flood of invading peoples coming.
Fredo Arias-King, former foreign relations aid to Vicente Fox, explained back in 2006
"While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American."
After his first 100 days, President Barack Obama told a hand-picked crowd in Missouri:
"we're working to remake America."
And that, my friends, is Gospel Truth!
(Hat tip: Dana Mathewson)
Posted at 09:32 AM | Email | Permalink | 30 Comments | Share
Recent Articles
NASA = No Americans in Space Anymore?
Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?
Repeal the 20th Century?
Thanks to Otis McDonald and the Supremes
Shooting Hoops with Kagan
Why Cloward-Piven Will Eat Itself
If You Want to Immigrate Here
Civil Rights of My Fathers
Why Kagan Is Unqualified -- and Dangerous
Hearst's Modified Limited Hangout
Blog Posts
A Dem losing faith in Obama's Iran policy?
White House Salaries Made Public
Unemployment rate down to 9.5% but few private sector jobs created
Graph of the Day for July 2, 2010
More unintended consequences from Obamacare
Obama one of the best presidents evah!
California welfare ATM cards work at strip clubs too!
Pelosi: Unemployment benefits create jobs?
The decreasing relevancy of Obama's presidency
Aren't We Supposed to Laugh at Clowns?
Monthly Archives
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
More...
Merle
June 21, 2010
Why sue Arizona and not Missouri?
Timothy Birdnow
In a visit with Ecuadorian officials Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let slip that the Obama Administration intends to sue the state of Arizona over recently passed immigration laws. While Hillary's speaking out of turn may have forced the Administration's hand, a Justice Department spokesman confirmed that the DOJ was building a case against Arizona and would likely bring suit in the near future.
There is one puzzling aspect to this, though; if they thought this violated the Constitution, why didn't the Administration protest when Missouri did what Arizona is now doing?
Over the last five years Missouri has systematically put in place the provisions recently enacted by Arizona. If Arizona's laws are so draconian and, as Michael Posner told the Chinese, are a detestable violation of human rights, why didn't the DOJ begin crafting a legal challenge to the Show-Me State?
Missouri laws are quite similar to those of Arizona, and they preceeded the Grand Canyon State's law.
First came HJR 7 in the Year of Our Lord 2007 and approved by Missouri voters with 86.3% of the vote:
"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2008, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:
Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 34, to read as follows:
Section 34. That English shall be the language of all official proceedings in this state."
This was followed by the comprehensive HB 1549 bill which became law August 28 2008
Some of the highlights of the bill include:
- "43.032. 2. No municipality shall enact or adopt any sanctuary policy."
-208.009. 1. No alien unlawfully present in the United States shall receive any state or local public benefit, except for state or local public benefits that may be offered under 8 U.S.C. 1621(b). Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the rendering of emergency medical care, prenatal care, services offering alternatives to abortion, emergency assistance, or legal assistance to any person.
- 3. In addition to providing proof of other eligibility requirements, at the time of application for any state or local public benefit, an applicant who is eighteen years of age or older shall provide affirmative proof that the applicant is a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States or is lawfully present in the United States
- " 3. All public employers shall enroll and actively participate in a federal work authorization program."
- "302.063. The department of revenue shall not issue any driver's license to an illegal alien nor to any person who cannot prove his or her lawful presence pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and the regulations promulgated thereunder. A driver's license issued to an illegal alien in another state shall not be honored by the state of Missouri and the department of revenue for any purpose."
- "2. There shall be a presumption that releasing the person under any conditions as provided by section 544.455 shall not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required if the circuit judge or associate circuit judge reasonably believes that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States. If such presumption exists, the person shall be committed to the jail, as provided in subsection 1 of this section, until such person provides verification of his or her lawful presence in the United States to rebut such presumption."
- "577.722. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly transport, move, or attempt to transport in the state of Missouri any illegal alien who is not lawfully present in the United States"
- Plus this amendment:
" 28.824. All law enforcement officers shall inquire into the citizenship andimmigration status of any person under arrest for a violation of any state law or municipal ordinance, regardless of the person's national origin, ethnicity, or race. In all such cases where a person indicates
that he or she is not a citizen or national of the United States, the law enforcement agent shall verify with the federal government whether the alien is lawfully or unlawfully present in the United States, under 8 U.S.C. 1373(c). If the alien is verified to be unlawfully present in the United States, the law enforcement officer shall cooperate with any request by federal immigration authorities to detain the alien or transfer the alien to the custody of the federal government."
There are also penalties applied to businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens.
State Representative Will Kraus gives a good overview of the Missouri law in the Lee's Summit Journal.
Missouri also bans in-state tuition aid for illegal aliens at state junior colleges.
So, why should the Arizona law be unpalatable when Missouri's was never worth challenging? The Department of Homeland Security estimated Arizona's illegal population at 560,000 in 2008, while the Pew Hispanic Center estimates between 400 and 450 thousand back in 2005. Pew's 2005 estimates for Missouri were between 35 and 65, so Arizona's illegal population is larger than Missouri's by about a factor of ten. 560,000 potentially new Democratic Party Voters and union members!
But there is more, much more; Arizona is not just a repository but a portal, the figurative Gibraltar of the U.S. According to the AZ Capitol Times:
"Overall, illegal immigration through those two states, New Mexico and Arizona has declined from nearly 1.2 million in 2005 to 541,000 last year, according to the Border Patrol. In Arizona, illegal crossings fell from 578,000 in 2005 to nearly 250,000 last year - before the recent rise."
So, last year a quarter of a million people came in through Arizona. Where did they go? Everywhere, and that is why the Obama Administration is desperate to prevent Arizona's law from working.
One leg of Obama's plan to Democratic political hegemony, to a new New Deal, rests on opening the nation wide. What happened in Missouri is small potatoes, because the important thing is to get these people here, not to protect their rights. Unhappy illegals can leave Missouri for Illinois and prosper. PEW's estimate for Illinois in 2005 was anywhere between 375-425 thousand illegals - ten times the number in Missouri - and that before the new laws were enacted. The worry is not about civil rights, but about keeping the flood of invading peoples coming.
Fredo Arias-King, former foreign relations aid to Vicente Fox, explained back in 2006
"While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American."
After his first 100 days, President Barack Obama told a hand-picked crowd in Missouri:
"we're working to remake America."
And that, my friends, is Gospel Truth!
(Hat tip: Dana Mathewson)
Posted at 09:32 AM | Email | Permalink | 30 Comments | Share
Recent Articles
NASA = No Americans in Space Anymore?
Is Elena Kagan Morally Blind?
Repeal the 20th Century?
Thanks to Otis McDonald and the Supremes
Shooting Hoops with Kagan
Why Cloward-Piven Will Eat Itself
If You Want to Immigrate Here
Civil Rights of My Fathers
Why Kagan Is Unqualified -- and Dangerous
Hearst's Modified Limited Hangout
Blog Posts
A Dem losing faith in Obama's Iran policy?
White House Salaries Made Public
Unemployment rate down to 9.5% but few private sector jobs created
Graph of the Day for July 2, 2010
More unintended consequences from Obamacare
Obama one of the best presidents evah!
California welfare ATM cards work at strip clubs too!
Pelosi: Unemployment benefits create jobs?
The decreasing relevancy of Obama's presidency
Aren't We Supposed to Laugh at Clowns?
Monthly Archives
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
More...
Friday, July 02, 2010
Porker of the Month
Most politicians, Democrat or Republican seldom see a taxpayer dollar they don't want to spend. The Democrats alone did not get us in the shape we are in. Republican Shelby is typical although not as bad as the now deceased Byrd from West Virginia and retired John Murhta, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, Rangel........... all still in office but hopfully not much longer.
Merle
ShelbyPorker of the Month: Senator Richard Shelby Porker of the Month: Sen. Richard Shelby
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) Porker of the Month for blocking the Obama administration's attempts to eliminate funding for Constellation, a NASA program that is chronically behind schedule and over budget. Initiated under former President George W. Bush, Constellation aims to put man back on the moon by 2020. However, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee led by former aerospace executive Norm Augustine have criticized NASA's management of the program. Sen. Shelby, whose state is home to Radiance Technologies, a NASA contractor and major Shelby campaign contributor, co-sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 emergency war supplemental bill that would shield Constellation from proposed budget cuts. "Americans are being forced to tighten their belts and the economy is limping along, but that doesn't deter the porkers in Congress, like Sen. Shelby, who are still spending and rewarding government contractors orbiting the program. Sen. Shelby's actions just perpetuate the notion that politicians in Washington are living on a completely different planet," asserted CAGW President Tom Schatz. For launching pigs into space and contributing to the black hole of deficit spending, CAGW names Sen. Shelby June Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month.
Merle
ShelbyPorker of the Month: Senator Richard Shelby Porker of the Month: Sen. Richard Shelby
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has named Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) Porker of the Month for blocking the Obama administration's attempts to eliminate funding for Constellation, a NASA program that is chronically behind schedule and over budget. Initiated under former President George W. Bush, Constellation aims to put man back on the moon by 2020. However, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee led by former aerospace executive Norm Augustine have criticized NASA's management of the program. Sen. Shelby, whose state is home to Radiance Technologies, a NASA contractor and major Shelby campaign contributor, co-sponsored an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 emergency war supplemental bill that would shield Constellation from proposed budget cuts. "Americans are being forced to tighten their belts and the economy is limping along, but that doesn't deter the porkers in Congress, like Sen. Shelby, who are still spending and rewarding government contractors orbiting the program. Sen. Shelby's actions just perpetuate the notion that politicians in Washington are living on a completely different planet," asserted CAGW President Tom Schatz. For launching pigs into space and contributing to the black hole of deficit spending, CAGW names Sen. Shelby June Porker of the Month. Read more about the Porker of the Month.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Quinn's Budget Scalpel
I do agree with Governor Quinn that some entitlement money should be cut. Years ago when I was more involved with social agencies in Peoria I counted over 70 tax-payer funded social agencies that dealt with teens and teen problems. At that time, I felt that some of these agencies should be combined and the community given information as to how much money was being spent per kid SERVED. And I don't mean how many kids were listed on inflated rosters as was the case on one of the boards on which I served.
With all these social agencies, it is and has been highly evident that far too many kids are falling through the "cracks" and into the Juvenile Court System and worse.
I do not know the budget of the Boys and Girls Club nor how much their administrator and staff is being paid but I do know that most of the people who send money to this organization are not aware that the former B & G headquarters was closed May 1, 2007, yet its location appeared on fund-raising advertising brochures as late as October 2008. The old headquarters is currently being used by the contractors building the Harrison school. It is my belief that the City of Peoria contributed $25,000, this request asked for by Councilmen Gulley and Turner, for a new roof for this building yet as of a month ago, no new roof. (Turner is the Councilman who never set foot in the basement of Lincoln Library yet put his name on a flier that said the "library basement was damp and dark" which could have been corrected by dropping the lights out of the ceiling and putting in a humidifier. He also admitted to me that he hadn't visited this library and twice cancelled appointments to go with me and see what he supported to the tune of millions of dollars on what will be a largely empty shell similar to the Southside Library where hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent including putting in an $80,000 elevator; the building and all now closed).
It reminds me of the time I was elected Treasurer of the Southside Development Association presided over by former Councilman James Polk. I asked how much money was in the treasury? The answer; no money. I was told to go see then City Manager Peter Korn and ask for money from the City. Mr. Korn informed me that the City had just given this organization $25,000. I went back to the group and asked where the money was. No one knew. At the next meeting I was voted out as treasurer.
Another tax-payer funded operation called Community Builders should bear more scrutiny. It started out with great hype, see positive articles starting in 2005 in the JS about Community Schools and the faith based Community Builders role. None of these programs have succeeded in spite of $150,000 seed money administrated by Joyce Banks. Target schools were to be Manual High, only activity is a not too well attended computer center with 20 computers and administrated by paid workers from Workforce Development, Trewyn, where the few kids who come and go at will, mainly eat, cut up and play basketball. No adults ever show up for after school activities with their kids according to the janitors and my own personal visits. Garfield, I know of no after school activities attended by kids and parents. Perhaps they do.
I know that the new Harrison School is hyped to be a community center. Why did they need to wait on a new school when they couldn't even keep the B & G Headquarters open and never gave the now closed Southside Library, a chance? As to Harrison, we will see a couple years after it has opened.
Back in January 2000, a person named Beverly Prevette of Peoria had a LTE printed by the JS, "Teen-agers have needs Peoria's leaders aren't addressing". Boy were you correct, Beverly. But don't worry, the new unpaid for zoo and the yet to be built museum will take care of that problem. Oh, you need to PAY to get in these places? I see.
Yes, I know we have some programs that appear to engage a number of kids out of the 20,000 or more in Peoria, but we lead the state, or are in the top 3, in teen age venereal diseases, single mothers, drug dealing and teen crime and unwed pregnant girls.
And dropouts. And welfare recipients. And we are going to look after the old with a $56 million new reduced room nursing home that will house up to 150 or so Medicaid residents to complement our new museum, a new hotel while existing ones appear to be closing, the fairly new ballpark, not too well attended according to the media, the new underutilized zoo (the new $5 million parking lot never got built and after a year and one giraffe death, it doesn't appear one is needed), underutilized expanded and new $27 million libraries (think of the new edifice rising along side Rt. 6 and less than 5 miles from the new expanded underutilized Dunlap Library)all built or being built with borrowed money, plus other amenities..........like trails??
All of these financed because we DON'T have the money including our new schools at Glen Oak and Harrison, both recommended to be closed. Who said that? Go back and read the 3 day Summitt community input meeting report or read my blog dated May 3, 2002 or better yet, get a copy of the Summitt report from #150 administration. Perhaps by now our new Superintendent Lathan has read through the numerous studies made since year 2000.
Negative? No, I just keep all these records in my filing system filled with broken promises and missed projections.
With all these social agencies, it is and has been highly evident that far too many kids are falling through the "cracks" and into the Juvenile Court System and worse.
I do not know the budget of the Boys and Girls Club nor how much their administrator and staff is being paid but I do know that most of the people who send money to this organization are not aware that the former B & G headquarters was closed May 1, 2007, yet its location appeared on fund-raising advertising brochures as late as October 2008. The old headquarters is currently being used by the contractors building the Harrison school. It is my belief that the City of Peoria contributed $25,000, this request asked for by Councilmen Gulley and Turner, for a new roof for this building yet as of a month ago, no new roof. (Turner is the Councilman who never set foot in the basement of Lincoln Library yet put his name on a flier that said the "library basement was damp and dark" which could have been corrected by dropping the lights out of the ceiling and putting in a humidifier. He also admitted to me that he hadn't visited this library and twice cancelled appointments to go with me and see what he supported to the tune of millions of dollars on what will be a largely empty shell similar to the Southside Library where hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent including putting in an $80,000 elevator; the building and all now closed).
It reminds me of the time I was elected Treasurer of the Southside Development Association presided over by former Councilman James Polk. I asked how much money was in the treasury? The answer; no money. I was told to go see then City Manager Peter Korn and ask for money from the City. Mr. Korn informed me that the City had just given this organization $25,000. I went back to the group and asked where the money was. No one knew. At the next meeting I was voted out as treasurer.
Another tax-payer funded operation called Community Builders should bear more scrutiny. It started out with great hype, see positive articles starting in 2005 in the JS about Community Schools and the faith based Community Builders role. None of these programs have succeeded in spite of $150,000 seed money administrated by Joyce Banks. Target schools were to be Manual High, only activity is a not too well attended computer center with 20 computers and administrated by paid workers from Workforce Development, Trewyn, where the few kids who come and go at will, mainly eat, cut up and play basketball. No adults ever show up for after school activities with their kids according to the janitors and my own personal visits. Garfield, I know of no after school activities attended by kids and parents. Perhaps they do.
I know that the new Harrison School is hyped to be a community center. Why did they need to wait on a new school when they couldn't even keep the B & G Headquarters open and never gave the now closed Southside Library, a chance? As to Harrison, we will see a couple years after it has opened.
Back in January 2000, a person named Beverly Prevette of Peoria had a LTE printed by the JS, "Teen-agers have needs Peoria's leaders aren't addressing". Boy were you correct, Beverly. But don't worry, the new unpaid for zoo and the yet to be built museum will take care of that problem. Oh, you need to PAY to get in these places? I see.
Yes, I know we have some programs that appear to engage a number of kids out of the 20,000 or more in Peoria, but we lead the state, or are in the top 3, in teen age venereal diseases, single mothers, drug dealing and teen crime and unwed pregnant girls.
And dropouts. And welfare recipients. And we are going to look after the old with a $56 million new reduced room nursing home that will house up to 150 or so Medicaid residents to complement our new museum, a new hotel while existing ones appear to be closing, the fairly new ballpark, not too well attended according to the media, the new underutilized zoo (the new $5 million parking lot never got built and after a year and one giraffe death, it doesn't appear one is needed), underutilized expanded and new $27 million libraries (think of the new edifice rising along side Rt. 6 and less than 5 miles from the new expanded underutilized Dunlap Library)all built or being built with borrowed money, plus other amenities..........like trails??
All of these financed because we DON'T have the money including our new schools at Glen Oak and Harrison, both recommended to be closed. Who said that? Go back and read the 3 day Summitt community input meeting report or read my blog dated May 3, 2002 or better yet, get a copy of the Summitt report from #150 administration. Perhaps by now our new Superintendent Lathan has read through the numerous studies made since year 2000.
Negative? No, I just keep all these records in my filing system filled with broken promises and missed projections.
Vagueness and Unintended Consequences of Laws
"Wonderland", by Dan Henninger, Columnist of the WSJ, who wrote today a classic description of the void-for-vagueness in the 2000 plus pages of the ObamaCare health bill. He lists a classic example of this doctrine from a 1926 doctrine of Justice George Sutherland. Sutherland wrote "a statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning....violates the first essential of due process of law."
Henninger says, "that any such common-sense rule still exists in law, politics or life is a wonder." "If only on principle, someone from the GOP, (I've given up on 98%of the Democrats in Congress and most everywhere else) should start demanding that all federal legislation pass a "void-for-vagueness" test. In this congressional session, none would survive. If the Supreme Court can demand clarity of behalf of convicted felons, (think Skilling and Scrushy, see my 7/1/05 blog "More Opportunities for Pillage" who the sentencing judge said in this bribery and corruption case, 'damaged public trust in state government'. Sound familiar?) How about demanding clarity on behalf of everyone else, who until their luck runs out, remain innocent?"
The full story can be found on the opinion page of the WSJ under the title of, "A Plague of Vagueness".
Lot's of luck to small business people who should be voting a Republican ticket this November as their "luck is running out" under this administration.
Now just 12 months out of the OC (ObamaCare) bill comes the commonly called Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This several thousand page bill which Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling says, "There are probably three unintended consequences on every single page of this bill", is another large chunk of meat, no bones, thrown to the Bar Association and especially to the tort attorneys.
Henninger says, "that any such common-sense rule still exists in law, politics or life is a wonder." "If only on principle, someone from the GOP, (I've given up on 98%of the Democrats in Congress and most everywhere else) should start demanding that all federal legislation pass a "void-for-vagueness" test. In this congressional session, none would survive. If the Supreme Court can demand clarity of behalf of convicted felons, (think Skilling and Scrushy, see my 7/1/05 blog "More Opportunities for Pillage" who the sentencing judge said in this bribery and corruption case, 'damaged public trust in state government'. Sound familiar?) How about demanding clarity on behalf of everyone else, who until their luck runs out, remain innocent?"
The full story can be found on the opinion page of the WSJ under the title of, "A Plague of Vagueness".
Lot's of luck to small business people who should be voting a Republican ticket this November as their "luck is running out" under this administration.
Now just 12 months out of the OC (ObamaCare) bill comes the commonly called Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This several thousand page bill which Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling says, "There are probably three unintended consequences on every single page of this bill", is another large chunk of meat, no bones, thrown to the Bar Association and especially to the tort attorneys.
Thomas Sowell on Tyranny
Dr. Sowell is not the only one in fear we are heading where Obama wanted to take us all along. You better be paying attention. I highly recommend reading this intellect with COMMON SENSE. Merle Widmer
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By THOMAS SOWELL
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By THOMAS SOWELL
When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.
Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.
"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.
In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.
The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.
Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.
And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.
But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."
Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.
With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.
If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.
Dodd, Keep the Poor, Poor the Chavez Way
Stimulus Spending: A Losing Bet
Posted by Van Helsing at 8:05 AM | Comments (1)
Where did all the $zillions of pork barrel "stimulus" loot go? Obviously not into creating jobs; that's accomplished by cutting taxes, not by wasting mountains of money, thereby forcing them to be raised. The cash went down absurd moonbat rat holes and into the pockets of crony capitalists and other assorted friends of our rulers. Here's an example:
With the support of Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., the federal government has awarded $54 million to Connecticut's politically well-connected Mohegan Indian tribe, which operates one of the highest grossing casinos in the U.S.
The tribe runs the sprawling Mohegan Sun casino, halfway between New York City and Boston, which earned more than $1.3 billion in gross revenues in 2009. Each tribe member receives a cut of the profits, a number a tribal official said was "less than $30,000" per capita per year. The stimulus money is a loan from a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development program that is meant to help communities of less than 20,000 people that have been "unable to obtain other credit at reasonable rates and terms and are unable to finance the proposed project from their own resources."
Liberal economics in a nutshell: the rich get richer, the poor are paid to stay poor, and everyone else gets their pockets turned inside out.
Posted by Van Helsing at 8:05 AM | Comments (1)
Where did all the $zillions of pork barrel "stimulus" loot go? Obviously not into creating jobs; that's accomplished by cutting taxes, not by wasting mountains of money, thereby forcing them to be raised. The cash went down absurd moonbat rat holes and into the pockets of crony capitalists and other assorted friends of our rulers. Here's an example:
With the support of Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., the federal government has awarded $54 million to Connecticut's politically well-connected Mohegan Indian tribe, which operates one of the highest grossing casinos in the U.S.
The tribe runs the sprawling Mohegan Sun casino, halfway between New York City and Boston, which earned more than $1.3 billion in gross revenues in 2009. Each tribe member receives a cut of the profits, a number a tribal official said was "less than $30,000" per capita per year. The stimulus money is a loan from a U.S. Department of Agriculture rural development program that is meant to help communities of less than 20,000 people that have been "unable to obtain other credit at reasonable rates and terms and are unable to finance the proposed project from their own resources."
Liberal economics in a nutshell: the rich get richer, the poor are paid to stay poor, and everyone else gets their pockets turned inside out.
Hoyer - Middle Class Tax Cuts Too Costly
WASHINGTON — A top House Democrat said Tuesday that tax increases will eventually be necessary to address the nation's mounting debt, raising a difficult election-year issue as Democrats fight to retain control of Congress.
In the near term, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.
Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000 — at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
"As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told a forum on deficit reduction.
The tax cuts will be a big political issue in many congressional elections this fall, providing potential fodder for both political parties. Democratic leaders have yet to lay out a schedule for dealing with the tax cuts, but many rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them before the elections, so they can campaign on passing tax cuts for the middle class.
Republicans argue that many of the high earners who would face tax increases under Obama's plan are small business owners struggling to stay afloat in a tough economy.
If the Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't extend the tax cuts before the elections, Republicans are ready to pounce, highlighting the looming tax increase that awaits nearly every U.S. taxpayer in January. Democrats would be left in the awkward position of promising to extend the tax cuts in a lame duck session following the elections, after nearly two years of inaction by the current Congress.
In the short term, deficit spending has been necessary to stimulate the economy, Hoyer said.
"I don't think this is the time to increase taxes," Hoyer told reporters after the forum.
But in the longer term — after the economy has improved — Congress will have to rein in spending and raise taxes to tackle the debt, Hoyer added.
"Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.
Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to come up with ideas to reduce the budget deficit and has said that all options must be on the table, including spending cuts and tax increases. The commission is scheduled to release its recommendations Dec. 1.
Republicans, however, have refused to embrace any talk of tax increases.
"It's now official," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday. "Top Democrats on Capitol Hill are starting to signal their intention to raise taxes on the middle class."
House Republican Leader John Boehner said, "The majority leader is dead wrong about the future of this country, and what we need to do, right now, to make sure the American dream is alive and well for our kids and grandkids."
On the spending side, Hoyer said Congress should consider raising the retirement age for full Social Security and Medicare benefits, and making those benefits progressive so that wealthier recipients get less than the needy.
Topics
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/ap/hoyer-permanent-middle-class-tax-cuts-too-costly-96882209.html#ixzz0sRtOp1Pz
In the near term, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.
Tax cuts enacted under former President George W. Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, affecting taxpayers at every income level. President Barack Obama proposes to permanently extend them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000 — at a cost of about $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
"As the House and Senate debate what to do with the expiring Bush tax cuts in the coming weeks, we need to have a serious discussion about their implications for our fiscal outlook, including whether we can afford to permanently extend them before we have a real plan for long-term deficit reduction," Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told a forum on deficit reduction.
The tax cuts will be a big political issue in many congressional elections this fall, providing potential fodder for both political parties. Democratic leaders have yet to lay out a schedule for dealing with the tax cuts, but many rank-and-file Democrats want to extend them before the elections, so they can campaign on passing tax cuts for the middle class.
Republicans argue that many of the high earners who would face tax increases under Obama's plan are small business owners struggling to stay afloat in a tough economy.
If the Democratic-controlled Congress doesn't extend the tax cuts before the elections, Republicans are ready to pounce, highlighting the looming tax increase that awaits nearly every U.S. taxpayer in January. Democrats would be left in the awkward position of promising to extend the tax cuts in a lame duck session following the elections, after nearly two years of inaction by the current Congress.
In the short term, deficit spending has been necessary to stimulate the economy, Hoyer said.
"I don't think this is the time to increase taxes," Hoyer told reporters after the forum.
But in the longer term — after the economy has improved — Congress will have to rein in spending and raise taxes to tackle the debt, Hoyer added.
"Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.
Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to come up with ideas to reduce the budget deficit and has said that all options must be on the table, including spending cuts and tax increases. The commission is scheduled to release its recommendations Dec. 1.
Republicans, however, have refused to embrace any talk of tax increases.
"It's now official," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday. "Top Democrats on Capitol Hill are starting to signal their intention to raise taxes on the middle class."
House Republican Leader John Boehner said, "The majority leader is dead wrong about the future of this country, and what we need to do, right now, to make sure the American dream is alive and well for our kids and grandkids."
On the spending side, Hoyer said Congress should consider raising the retirement age for full Social Security and Medicare benefits, and making those benefits progressive so that wealthier recipients get less than the needy.
Topics
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/ap/hoyer-permanent-middle-class-tax-cuts-too-costly-96882209.html#ixzz0sRtOp1Pz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)