Archive for June, 2008
June 29th, 2008
I was talking with some guys the other day about the Rockford Fire Department. Recently retired chief Bill Robertson noted that 80 percent of the department’s calls are health emergencies; just 20 percent are fire-related.
That got me to thinking: Actually the department is an ambulance and EMS service that once in a while puts out a fire.
So, since we’re in a time of transition, between chiefs, why not redefine the department to reflect what it mostly does — treat emergnecy patients and take them to the hospital.
It seems to me we need to buy a whole lot more ambulances and retire some of those ancient fire wagons. Let’s call the department what it is: Rockford Rescue & Fire.
Just a thought or two.
June 29th, 2008
A letter writer, Mr. Cecil, wants me to run for mayor of Rockford. And as I told you all in an earlier post, I’ll soon be eligible because Mayor Excellence has decided my subdivision will become part of his domain.
I’m flattered that the writer thinks I’m qualified, and I may be, technically. However, I’m not good at pandering. I’d say something politically incorrect within 2 minutes of taking office and soon have 276, or maybe 6, pickets marching on my front lawn.
I am, however, continuing in my quest to become Under Assistant West Coast Promotion Man.
June 26th, 2008
Talk about landmark rulings: For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Here’s what the amendment says: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Since 1791 the battle has raged: Does the right belong to the states, or to individuals? The Court had never touched this hot potato before this term, when it decided to take up a case involving a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s absolute ban on residents owning handguns.
In the landmark 5-4 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court said individuals have gun rights exclusive of whether they belong to a militia.
Further, Scalia said that the amendment did not grant a new right, it protected a pre-existing right that developed over centuries in English law. The Founders, well versed on past attempts of English kings to use royal militias disarm regional enemies in England, were protecting individual citizens of the newly-organized United States against future attempts of governments to disarm them.
The Court did not strike down government’s right to regulate weapons or the kinds of weapons people can have. No one will be lining up to by tanks, bazookas or surface-to-air missles. Washington, D.C. and other communities and states may still limit gun use.
But it’s clear now that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, NOT the government.
What do you think about this? All opinions welcome.
June 23rd, 2008
I’m watching Glenn Beck, who has Ben Stein for a guest. Stein made a good point: We are devastating previously natural land in an effort to grow more corn for ethanol, but we won’t drill for oil on 2,500 acres in Alaska, or off shore. Strange.
Stein also noted that we’re perfectly willing to starve the Third World in order to make auto fuel out of a crop that’s better suited to feed people and animals.
Now, I have a confession to make. Two years ago I was gung-ho in favor of ethanol. I believed it would put the U.S. on the path to energy independence.
One year ago I was saying, hmmmmmm., is this really the right thing to do? And why are all these rich guys forming consortiums to build ethanol plants? And I figured naturally that the gub’ment was giving away free money for ethanol production. Yup.
Now, I’ve completed a 180 on ethanol made from corn with a massive federal subsidy. I’m agin it. It is ruining the environment and it is immoral. As Stein said, when food prices go up, Americans grumble and pay more. In Haiti, people starve.
June 23rd, 2008
I thought John McCain had a good idea today when he proposed a $300 million prize — a dollar for every American — for the person who develops a better battery to power future cars. Of course, everybody in the media laughed, but it kind of makes sense.
Motivation is key to every invention, and what inventor worth his salt wouldn’t look at that pot of money and say, Yes, I can. Oops, wrong campaign. Anyway, what do you think of McCain’s idea?
June 22nd, 2008
This is my Sunday, June 22 column. I’ve decided to start posting the column for those of you who would rather read the blog. I invite your comments, as always.
Chuck
RRSTAR.COM
Posted Jun 21, 2008 @ 08:07 PM
Barack Obama raised eyebrows last week when he reversed course and refused taxpayer funding for his presidential campaign. The Illinois Democrat could have received about $85 million from you and me, but that would have stopped him from raising more money on his own. Republican John McCain is accepting our tax dollars.Unlike the nominees, political parties can raise as much money as they like, and Republicans traditionally outraise Democrats. The so-called “527” groups that are not technically affiliated with the candidates can do the same. Clear advantage: McCain.
But Obama has mastered the art of Internet fundraising to counteract the GOP’s deep pockets. He garnered 1.5 million contributors, many of them giving small amounts of money. Obama could raise $500 million this way for the general election.
He’ll need the money, too. While I expect McCain to run a clean campaign, others won’t. Many people on the right are reluctant to back McCain, who has moderate tendencies. But they are absolutely panicked over the prospect of an Obama presidency.
Check it out. Just tune into an AM radio station and listen to some syndicated talk shows. The hosts are apoplectic that Obama is about to become the Democratic nominee. And this isn’t their usual critique of liberalism, which often makes you think. Rather, this is what sheer, “barbarians at the gate” panic sounds like. The shows reach tens of millions of voters. (And if you’re wondering, I’m not for censorship.)
You may not like Obama’s policies. I don’t like about half of them. But come on, folks. Obama is no radical. He is a mainstream Democrat in the tradition of the only president to be elected four times: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who reformed the American free enterprise system just enough to stop a socialist revolution. He had a funny name, too.
The recent floods are being blamed by some on climate change, the politically correct flavor of the month. More likely, the cause is a combination of factors. We can’t stop climate change in the short term, but we can halt irresponsible development along our nation’s rivers and streams.
I believe that we are paving over and building on too many acres of land that nature designed to absorb rainfall. Look for yourself. The rain falling on your lawn soaks in. The rain falling on your driveway cascades down to the street, into a storm drain and to a river. As nature’s lawns — flood plains — are replaced by concrete, more water heads to creeks and rivers, which overflow their banks and engulf homes, farms and businesses.
Holding ponds are required in many new developments, but they alone can’t solve the problem. Chronic flooding zones can be turned into benign parkland, as Rockford is doing in the Churchill Park area and Machesney Park is considering in parts of the village.
Some wetland progress was made along the Mississippi River after 1993’s “500-year flood.” But as U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin noted Friday while looking out at flooded homes near Machesney Park Village Hall, the 500-year flood is back.
You can’t blame people for building on land that hasn’t flooded before. That’s why we must reform land use policy to protect remaining flood plains, restore some that we destroyed, and create new ones. Either that, or Uncle Sam can prepare to write more and more FEMA checks.
June 20th, 2008
Remember last week’s Bash Madigan fest at a tractor company on South Main? We had a parade of Republican lawmakers — Bob Pritchard, Ron Wait, Dave Winters, Jim Sacia from the House, and Sen. Dave Syverson — urging passage of a $34 billion construction plan advocated by Gov. Blagojevich and Senate President Emil Jones, both Chicago Democrats. House Speaker Mike Madigan aslo a Chicago Democrat, is standing in the way of passage.
It’s ironic that these Republicans, who say they are for fiscal restraint most of the time, are urging passage of this risky spending scheme that relies on gambling expansion, leasing the lottery, and expanding gambling, including a casino in Chicago, which Mayor Daley doesn’t support, and won’t pay for because he says too much of the proceeds will go to the state, and not Chicago.
Anyway, I ran into this document while reading Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax. It’s from the Illinois Manufacturing Association, representing manufacturers throughout the state. It’s something all you capital plan cheerleaders ought to read seriously:
Here’s what the IMA says in a letter to lawmakers, about the capital plan:
TO: Members of the Illinois General AssemblyFROM: Greg Baise, President & CEO
Illinois Manufacturers’ Association
RE: Capital Infrastructure Program
DATE: June 16, 2008
Members of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association (IMA) met last week, and among other things, discussed the proposed $34 billion Illinois Works Program designed to build and repair Illinois’ aging infrastructure. Manufacturing companies have a vested interest in ensuring that Illinois maintains its roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure needs because they are used to move products and supplies while providing a means for employees to get to work. While the IMA supports an infrastructure program to meet the state’s basic needs, the IMA Board voted to oppose the massive Illinois Works Program for the following reasons:
1. Revenue Sources are Unstable
The $34 billion Illinois Works Program relies on three major revenue sources including an expansion of gambling, partial lease of the State Lottery, and increased taxes on motor fuel. Unfortunately, the state revenue sources that would fund this massive new program are suspect and could create additional hardships on Illinois taxpayers.
Illinois gaming revenue is down 17 percent since the start of the year due largely to the statewide smoking ban and economic downturn in the economy. Despite the slumping revenue, and possible new competition from neighboring states, Illinois Works relies on a huge expansion of gaming in the form of new casinos and additional gaming spots at current casinos and horse tracks to fund the infrastructure program.
Under Illinois Works, the State Lottery would be leased to a private vendor for fifty years for a one-time payment of $10 billion. In the past two decades, the Lottery has been a stable source of revenue, providing nearly $600 million year-in and year-out for the Common School Fund. According to proponents’ stated plans, Illinois would be leasing a $30 billion state asset for a one-time payment of $10 billion. It does not make financial sense to sell or lease a state asset for 30 cents on the dollar, especially in light of the time-tested reliability of the revenue it has made available for our children’s education.
Finally, Illinois Works creates a funding gap in the state budget by diverting the sales tax on motor fuel from the General Revenue Fund. While the state has experienced an increase in sales tax revenue because of rising gas prices, there has been a corresponding decrease in sales tax revenue coming from the sale of all other goods. Illinois sales tax revenues are performing poorly, growing less than 1 percent over last year. This means that there is no additional tax revenue to patch the hole in the General Revenue Fund.
2. Illinois Works Lacks Transparency
At a time when the state is facing a fiscal crisis, owing billions of dollars to health care providers and facing the worst funded pension system in the United States, it defies common sense to pass a massive new public works program that contains billions of dollars in unallocated, lump-sum spending or does not contain a mechanism to evaluate the merits of a project. Does anyone in this state truly believe having huge sums of cash deposited into nebulous accounts with no true guidelines about how it is to be spent is good public policy?
Illinois’ next public works program should be fully transparent to ensure businesses and taxpayers that projects have merit and are not based on politics.
3. Illinois Works is Excessive
In 1999, the Illinois FIRST program totaled $12 billion to fund countless projects across the state, some of which are on-going today. The Illinois Works Program is nearly 3 times larger that the state’s last infrastructure program and seemingly contains a laundry list of projects. Because of the ongoing financial problems that plague Illinois, the state’s new infrastructure program should be smaller and smarter – accessing the federal matching dollars and addressing only the most pressing needs. Illinois cannot afford a massive new program using unstable revenue.
Moving forward, the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association is prepared to work with you to help address our state’s infrastructure needs in a smart and meaningful way.
June 17th, 2008
John McCain is also calling for more nuclear energy development. This is a proven and safe technology. Eighty percent of France’s electricity is generated by nuclear power plants similar to the Byron plant. This story has more to say about McCain’s plan than my earlier post. Congressional candidates Don Manzullo, the GOP incumbent, and Bob Abboud, the Democratic opponent, both advocate more nuclear energy, with Abboud calling for an “interstate highway program” size effort to build 100 nuclear plants.
McCain is also expected to criticize Darth Cheney, who said in 2001 that energy conservation was not important, just a personal virtue.
Again, nothing Obama has said so far indicates he sees the immediacy of how the ever-increasing price of gasoline is become a major campaign issue. I predict that by September gas will be over $5 a gallon and that it will be THE Biggest issue of the presidential campaign.
And no, we are not going to turn the entire state of North Dakota into a wind farm.
June 17th, 2008
John McCain will win a lot of voter approval for his latest policy position on energy, which is different from his old position on energy, but who cares? It’s politics. McCain now says we should end the ban on offshore drilling in US. waters and begin drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, two things I’ve advocated in a recent column. He points out that the U.S. has 21 billion barrels that are off limits to drilling. Meanwhile, the Chinese are drilling oil in Cuba’s waters, roughly 50 miles from Florida. Offshore drilling rigs are safe — they withstand hurricanes, and they’ve been working safely in the North Sea for three decades. That’s one of the world’s roughest stretches of ocean.
McCain will also call for conservation, warning that we face $7 per gallon gasoline in the near future unless we change our ways. That will require him to change his ways. McCain has been trying to kill Amtrak for years, along with two Bushes and Bill Clinton, who was more of a benign neglect kind of guy when it came to mass transit.
Meanwhile, Obama is in the “O-zone” on energy. What in God’s name would a windfall profits tax do to benefit the public, other than RAISING the price of gas???? Yet, that’s what he advocates, along with no realistic solutions to the crisis we face right now.
That is not change we can believe in. That’s not even change.
June 17th, 2008
If you’re the Republican Party or its standard-bearer John McCain, how do you beat Barack Obama?
More and more, it seems that the answer will be: Make him seem weird. That’s what’s been happening so far, and I’m pretty sure it’ll continue. After all, McCain lacks support among the GOP’s conservative core, because he’s simply not a conservative and has the voting record in the Senate to prove that. He needs those voters, though. But if he keeps pandering to the right, he can’t get the votes of moderate Republicans, independents, and disaffected Hillary supporters. He needs their votes, too.
What to do? Make the race a referendum on the safety of an old reliable. The Mc Cain camp won’t do this officially, of course; they’ll leave that to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugth and right wing 527 groups on the Internet. They’ll make McCain kindly “Grandpa Joe” who’s dealing with that strange new neighbor who moved in across the street. Uh oh! There goes the neighborhood. That, in coded language, is the GOP’s way of convincing people skittish about electing a black man to stay with the white guy, whatever you think of his policy positions.
What would be the consequences of turning the country over to the guy with the middle name of Hussein. I won’t be surprised if some 527 comes up with a bumper sticker that is a play on Bernie Epton’s GOP mayoral campaign against Harold Washington in the 1983 Chicago election: Vote Epton, before it’s too late.
Only this time it will be, “Vote McCain, before it’s to late.”
Previous Posts
