Capitol Fax

Rich Miller's commentary on State Government

"It's tough to scream 'witch hunt' when your client is riding a broom," cracked one Statehouse reporter the other day after Gov. Rod Blagojevich's defense attorney Ed Genson claimed the atmosphere following Blagojevich's arrest was "a real witch hunt."

Genson's protestations have mostly fallen on deaf ears, particularly with the Illinois House's impeachment committee. The committee has shot down his objections time and time again in a clear attempt to make sure Genson knows he is not in a courtroom and has few, if any, legal legs to stand on.

Genson often hasn't helped himself or his client. He got off on the wrong foot in his first appearance before the committee by demanding the immediate removal of three committee members. Genson claimed their statements from earlier in the week showed they had already made up their minds about the governor. The request was rejected out of hand by House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who chairs the special impeachment committee.

Truth be told, there are few if any members in the entire House who have never said a prejudicial word about the governor. But the committee is not a jury, so their personal beliefs about the governor's alleged guilt don't matter. Genson's motion had no hope of success.

Actually, that pretty much sums up Genson's current situation. No hope.

Genson has repeatedly asked for subpoena powers and for more time to prepare his case. Denied. He has claimed that the evidence being used by the committee contained in the federal criminal complaint against Gov. Blagojevich isn't really evidence, that it was gathered "illegally" and so the committee's use of it is "illegal." He was reminded, again, that the committee is not a court and therefore introducing the evidence was perfectly legal.

Genson demanded that the committee set a firm standard for deciding the governor's guilt. Denied. He objected to the use of "hearsay" evidence, which was itself based on "hearsay." Shot down in flames.

"This is Alice in Wonderland," Genson sighed at one point, frustrated by his inability to make any headway. Genson's main point is that the governor talked big but did nothing wrong. "It is just people jabbering," Genson said of the FBI's surreptitiously recorded conversations. "There is no evidence that anyone ever did anything." Evidence, however, is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to the impeachment process.

Genson has complained repeatedly that his client is up against an impossible situation. "The Constitution, the laws are lacking," he said of the Illinois Constitution's bare minimum impeachment requirement of 60 House votes. The House essentially needs no reason to impeach. They just need the votes.

Majority Leader Currie summed up the Genson/Blagojevich dilemma during a recent press conference. Currie was asked about the trick box that Genson and Blagojevich were in, particularly the complete lack of formal standards for ruling that there is enough evidence to impeach.

Currie's answer was simple, but undoubtedly maddening to Genson. Individual members would have to decide what their own impeachment standards are, she said. Currie pretty much confirmed how impossible the situation is for Genson and his infamous client when she added: "The evidence will lead me to believe what the standard is." In other words: Rules? Rules? We don't need no stinking rules!

I'm quite fond of Genson personally, but as I told you above Genson hasn't helped himself with committee members, either. Besides demanding that several step aside, he has often forgotten to shut off his microphone. At one point during a recent impeachment hearing, Genson was talking to an aide about a phone message. "Tell her the truth," he was heard to say while his microphone was on. "I'm stuck at this stupid hearing."

Oops.

Things just aren't going well for the famous trial lawyer.

Also, despite what Genson claims, there is no witch hunt. The witch hunt is over. The "witch" was arrested by the feds this month and now the House has him tied to the stake. The House's next job is to pile up the kindling beneath the witch's feet. The Senate's task is to light the fire and remove the witch from office, one way or another.

Simply put, Genson is preordained to lose this case. And it's all perfectly legal, proper and justified.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.

Highway 20 Sea Change

In a few weeks president-elect Obama will announce a new economic stimulus package. He has stated that he is pleased that the state governors already have shovel-ready projects all set to go, including new roads and expansions of two-lane highways to four-lane highways. I hope that Mr. Obama will establish criteria that will exclude new roads and the expansions of existing roads from the funding package and that he will ask the governors to restrict their road projects to maintaining existing roads and bridges and encourage them to put most of their transportation funds into public transportation.

In northwest Illinois, the expansion of Highway 20 is a perfect example of a highway project whose time has come and gone. Building a four-lane highway may have made sense twenty-five or thirty years ago; however, the need for new and expanded highways is past. Historically, between conception and completion a new road is already obsolete. The amount of traffic the new road was designed to handle has exceeded the day the new road is opened for traffic. Fortunately, the reverse will soon become the norm. Americans are changing their driving habits. Both miles driven and highway fatalities are down. Where possible, shippers are moving away from long distance trucks and switching to rail. Soon, there will be fewer trucks on the road. People are switching to mass transit, and Amtrak ridership is setting new records. If an expansion of Highway 20 were to be undertaken today, by the time the new road is completed, it will carry less traffic than the current highway.

There are many reasons for this sea change in attitudes. Here are just two. First of all, the interstate highway system itself is too expensive to build and maintain. No major road is ever finished. There is the yearly maintenance, but more costly is the fact that major roads are always being improved: widened by adding new lanes, improving the shoulders, improving the entrance and exit ramps, adding new signage or modifying existing signage, modernizing toll booths or removing toll booths, and upgrading bridges. It is a costly and never ending burden. The more roads we build, the more expense we build into the system. Today, we can't even pay for road salt.

Second, because there is no public transit, many American families are forced to maintain two or more autos. All these vehicles mean that most people always have a car note; most automobile owners are perpetually in debt. Today, many people trade in their car when the amount of debt on the car exceeds the cars bluebook value. Americans can't afford to bail out the automobile manufacturers by buying new cars and going deeper and deeper in debt. One of the structural weaknesses in the economy is the amount of consumer debt. Every economist warns that consumer debt has to be lowered. If the government bails out the Big Three and it is business as usual, that can only mean more and more consumer debt.

Hopefully, the new stimulus package will focus the big bucks on mass transit. And hopefully the bailout of the Big Three will focus on this new reality as well. The auto manufacturers should be told: Here's your money and here are the rules. Build two or three pickup trucks, designed for work. Build a sedan or two based on the size of a current mid-size car. Build some specialty vehicles for first responders. Do not build any V-6's or V-8's, no Hummers, fewer SUVs. Cars should be built and designed for transportation, not as status symbols or reflections of ones imagined personality. Lots of hybrids. Work on an all-electric car and lots of small, smart cars for short trips. Borrow European and Japanese models and build cars at least as efficient as theirs. Build cars designed to be recycled when they wear out. Except for specialty vehicles, all vehicles will get 50 mpg by 2020. Also, as part of the bailout package, the government will buy your unsold inventory of new hummers, SUVs. and V-8s (recycle as much as you can from them and trash the rest). And as part of the stimulus package, people will be given a coupon worth the blue book value of their gas guzzlers to buy a hybrid or they can use the coupon toward energy star appliances, solar panels, solar hot water heaters or new windows and insulation for their homes. Let's get the gas guzzlers off the road. But don't dream of building millions of cars a year ever again.

It is going to be slightly different in rural areas like Carroll County, which doesn't have a large base of people to support a public transit system. However, even in Carroll County we can do more car pooling, buy more fuel efficient vehicles, combine trips and drive fewer miles.

Peak oil means that the price of gas will only continue to rise. We can no longer afford the private transit system as it now exists. Soon there will be nine million people in the world. There is not enough steel, cement, gasoline, plastic or even physical space to give most of those nine million people a car. And finally, but just as important, the reality of global warming dictates that we act now to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels and drastically reduce our carbon footprint.

Chuck Wemstrom

Mount Carroll

Impeachment Survey

In light of the recent federal charges against Governor Rod Blagojevich, the drum beat for impeaching him has increased. The Committee for Legislative Action (CLA) has been asked to survey how much interest there is in Impeachment.

The CLA was established in 1995 to bring sunlight to raising Fees and Taxes and other questionable behaviors. I serve as the State Chairman.

The first action for Impeachment must come from the House. If they pass the Impeachment Resolution the matter goes to the Senate where there is a trial and the Senators act as the jury.

The statewide numbers, for those who have participated in the Impeachment survey, show 90% of respondents support Impeaching Rod Blagojevich. Those that participate in the survey will also receive e updates as the question of removing Governor Blagojevich from office unfolds.

The survey results are posted, broken down by Senate District, on the CLA website: http://www.CommitteeForLegislativeAction.org . The numbers show what voters in specific Legislative Districts think about Impeachment.

You may also make a donation to help the effort on the question of Impeachment at: http://egon.cmititestbank.com/cla/contribute/contribute.asp or by mailing a check to CLA, 220 West Howard Street, Pontiac IL, 61764. Your help is needed to fund the outreach because no tax dollars are used by CLA. If donating online, be sure and memo in the comments section "Impeach" and we will know where to credit it.

Dan Rutherford

State Senator

Chairman CLA

220 W. Howard Street

Pontiac, IL 61764

Tough Questions

This forum offers more insight of cardiac death organ donation and supports the current standards as being ethical and correct while also analyzing the tough questions regarding the procedure. Just thought you might be interested in seeing a more detailed discusssion which provides both viewpoints.Visit http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/08/does-donation-after-cardiac-death-dcd.html

Dan Peterson

Mt. Carroll, IL

A Live Issue

A recent letter (Dec. 24) objecting to a more cautious approach to organ transplantation stated that "no mainstream religion opposes organ donation." That is only one of numerous errors, misinformation and misunderstanding by the writer.

If one agrees that Popes speak for the Catholic Church, then the opinions of Benedict XVI, now reigning, and his predecessor, John Paul II, on this complicated subject contradict the above claim.

However, before quoting Pope Benedict on the specific moral problems associated with the practice of extracting organs for transplantation, let me repeat what he said in his introductory remarks to participants in an International congress last month:

"Organ transplants that are in line with the ethic of giving require the commitment of all sides to invest every possible effort in formation and information, so as to increasingly awaken consciences to a problem that directly affects the lives of so many. It would be necessary, then, to overcome prejudices and misunderstanding, dispel suspicions and fears and substitute them with certainties and guarantees, so as to create in all people an awareness, ever more widespread, of the great gift of life."

"Formation and information," "awaken consciences," "overcome prejudices and misunderstanding," "dispel suspicions and fears," "substitute them with certainties and guarantees." Those important phrases cannot be repeated too often.That is what this debate is all about.It appears that the writer of the most recent letter does not agree.

Before getting into specifics regarding the practice itself, the Holy Father said: It is usefulto reflect on this advancement of science so that the multiplication of transplant petitions do not change around the ethical principles upon which it rests. As I said in my first encyclical, the body can never be considered as a mere object (cf. "Deus Caritas Est," No. 5.) To do otherwise would impose on it the logic of the market. The body of each person, together with the spirit that is given to each one individually, constitutes an inseparable unity upon which is impressed the image of God himself. To prescind from this dimension brings to mind points of view that are incapable of understanding the totality of the mystery present in each person. It is necessary, then, that priority must be given to respect for the dignity of the human person and the protection of individual identity."

In other words, "First of all, let's keep the horse before the cart." He is well aware of the "long waiting list of those whose only hope for survival is linked to the small number of non-useful donations," but that in itself does not justify throwing caution to the winds merely to meet the market's demand by expanding the definition of death so much that it could become perilous to fall asleep.

Why? Because "Any reasons for buying and selling organs, or the adoption of utilitarian and discriminatory criteria, would clash in such a way with the meaning of gift that they would be invalidated, qualifying them as illicit moral acts. Abuses in transplants and organ trafficking, which frequently affect innocent persons, such as children, must find the scientific and medical community united in a joint refusal. They should be decidedly condemned as abominable."

Regarding the technique itself, "With frequency, organ transplantation takes place as a completely gratuitous gesture on the part of the family member who has been certifiably pronounced dead. In these cases, informed consent is a precondition of freedom so that the transplant can be characterized as being a gift and not interpreted as a coercive or abusive act."

Informed consent.What a crucial condition that is.Are organ donors being fully informed by their doctors as to all that's involved in such operations? Do doctors explain in detail what it means to be brain dead, even though their hearts are still beating and their lungs are still breathing, and how the doctors know for certain? How can an organ donor know ahead of time what protocol will be in effect in the emergency room he or she is taken to? And why isn't there just one universal protocol? Do organ donors even ask such questions before registering?

"In any case," the Pope continued, "it is useful to remember that vital organs can be extracted only "ex cadavere" [from a dead body], which posses it's own dignity and should be respected. Over recent years science has made further progress in ascertaining the death of a patient. It is good, then, that the results receive the consensus of the entire scientific community in favor of looking for solutions that give everyone certainty. In an environment such as this, the minimum suspicion of arbitrariness is not allowed, and where total certainty has not been reached, the principle of caution should prevail."

Pope John Paul II agreed. "It remains a fundamental precept that life is to be protected and defended, from its conception to its natural end. . . .Every transplant must take into account that it is never licit to kill one human being in order to save another."

I think it is clear from the experts I have quoted so far that (1) the entire scientific community is far from agreement, (2) the minimum of suspicion of arbitrariness has not been eliminated and (3) total certainty is still a distant goal. Therefore, caution should prevail until those three conditions have been met.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Paul Byrne, who I have referred to before, is convening a conference on this controversy in Rome on Feb. 19. Catholic scientists, philosophers and theologians attending it hope to meet privately afterwards with the Holy Father to urge him to condemn vital organ transplantation that accelerates death before the soul leaves the body. The fact that so many Catholic scholars and experts oppose what some members of the hierarchy favor proves that the Church has not yet come to a consensus either way.

He writes, "It is sinister to discover how far some members of the medical profession will go to retrieve organs from a brain-injured patient they call a "brain dead" donor. Without forgetting that such organs are sold for transplanting into another patient's body fort large sums of money, that adds to their billion-dollar industry, let us ask ourselves these questions:

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they give them intra-venous fluids?

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they give them intra-venous feeding?

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they sometimes give them blood transfusions?

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they give them thyroid hormones?

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they give them adrenal hormones?

If "brain dead" donors are dead, why do they need anesthesia when they excise their organs? Isit because the anesthesiologist and nurses are uncomfortable when the supposed "cadaver," who is breathing with the assistance of a ventilator, moves as they cut into their chest and abdomen to extract the heart, liver or pancreas from their body?

If the "brain dead" donor is dead, why do they give the donor a paralyzing agent? Is it to reassure the concerned medical staff that when the transplant surgeon removes the organs, the "brain dead" donor does not move with pain as before the paralyzing drug was used? It is curious to note that even though the donor is paralyzed, the heart rate and blood pressure increase when his heart is being extracted.

How can a so-called "brain dead" expectant mother continue to give life to her infant in the womb for months while during this time the transplant surgeons call the mother a cadaver?

How can a so-called "brain dead" mother, after delivery of a live baby, produce breast milk when the transplant surgeon assures the family that the brain is dead? If in this single example, a major flaw indicates activity from the brain, it is obvious that existing technology is incapable of detecting hidden brain activity, such as the intricate functions of the pituitary gland, which are attached to the hypothalamus, an additional part of the brain that affects the pituitary gland that must be silently functioning very effectively in the so-called "brain dead" donors. The transplant society ignores the fact that breast milk is the result of the activity of the pituitary gland in the brain that sends the signals for the production of prolactin, whose levels rise in order to produce milk for the baby?

It is also interesting to note that when this last question was posed to the pro-"brain death" physicians who attended the Pontifical Academy of Sciences session in February 2005, none of them denied that the pregnant mother who was declared "brain dead" could produce milk from the breasts after birth. Such an admission contradicts their assurance that the "brain dead" patient has no brain activity!

Good questions for both potential organ donors as well as recipients to ponder.

Richard O'Connor

Pearl City, IL

Business As Usual

The Blagojevich scam seems to be a continuation of the Chicago-style politics that have been running rampant since before Al Capone's time. I saw in the list of the charges that Gov. Rod threatened to withhold an $8 million grant from a children's hospital until the CEO donated $50,000 to his campaign fund. This does not bode well for the 2016 presidential race.

During the latest race to the White House, everybody could not figure out how a Senator from Illinois could out-raise the competition 4:1. Well, now we all know how it's done. Gov. Rod's list of charges was over 70-pages long, with multiple charges per page, most involving "Pay to Play" scams.

With this in mind, some of us would like to know how Gov. Rod had time to perform his legitimate duties in Springfield? It seems that keeping track of the money flooding into the campaign fund daily, as well as dreaming up new and creative ways to extort even more money, was in itself a full-time job. I doubt he had time to work his magic during the daily commute by plane from Chicago to Springfield, at taxpayer expense.

On CNN the day of the arrest, Gov. Rod looked cheerful. His cocky attitude left us with the impression that he had protection from criminal prosecution. The bail was set at $4,500. Ten percent down later, it was business as usual in Springfield/Chicago. I understand that in the past week, the Federal Prosecution was asked to back off, and sadly it seems they have. Very powerful people control our government, but not necessarily the ones who have been elected.

There seems to be only one way to clean up Illinois Government. Each governor-appointed position held since former Gov. Ryan should be told to clean out their desk. We know they got their job by paying very well for it. Once the job was bought, the corruption had to continue in order to reclaim their "start up capital."

Federal intervention seems to be in order in this tough job. But the Fed will encounter stiff resistance from powerful people every step of the way. Yes, it will be a long, hard road. But on the other hand, if a man who was born and raised to the age of seven in another country can become President, anything is indeed possible.

Chet Peugh

Chadwick, IL

Capitol Report

By Jim Sacia

State Representative

89th District

The work of the Impeachment Committee continues Monday December 22nd started with testimony from retired Assistant US Attorney John Scully explaining for the benefit of the Committee how the US Attorney's Office and the FBI arrive at authorizing for a Title III (legal wiretaps) and monitoring devices.

Mr. Scully did a commendable job explaining the legalities to establishing probable cause, the checks and balances to insure that all criteria are met as the process finds its way to a US Deputy Attorney General. It wasn't news to me having lived it many times in my former life as an FBI Agent. It was important for my colleagues to hear the process to insure that they understood the criteria used by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in his outlining of cause for the arrest of our Governor.

We next heard testimony from Matt Brown and Ed Bedore of the Procurement Policy Board. Testimony that jumped out was after this Administration took office in 2003 they established 500 new parking spaces around the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. (These are State paid parking spaces.) Mr. Bedore noted that their agency cancelled 215 spaces saving you the taxpayer over $500,000 per year. The looming question of course is what would be saved if the Governor governed from Springfield. Numerous other irregularities were noted prompting Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) "Is this Administration side stepping the board?" The answer: just one word, "Yes."

Cindi Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, delivered stunning testimony outlining immeasurable instances of the $25,000 club. She referred to a Chicago Tribune investigation that found 235 checks for exactly $25,000 each payable to the Governor's campaign. Three-fourths of them came from people and organizations that had gotten something favorable from the Administration, such as contracts, board appointments, well-paying policy positions and regulatory actions. This is what is commonly called "Pay to Play."

Auditor General Bill Holland had testified before us last week. Mr. Holland referred to a company awarded a state contract for 18 Million dollars that did not exist before the contract was awarded. His next comment kind of summed things up, "It's good work if you can get it."

Some of you may wonder why I am sharing so openly with you. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune by Connecticut State Representative Mike Lawlor answered the question. He states,"Impeachment is a political remedy for a political problem." He goes on to say, "If you feel that your state government is at risk due to actions of your Governor, you should exercise the extraordinary power your Constitution gives to you. Remove him from office."

We are not jurors in the legal sense. "You may seek out your own information. You may hold pre-conceived opinions. You may consult with your constituents about your vote. You may base your decision on whatever information is available to you. This is not a criminal trial." The late President Gerald Ford said, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

Representative Lawlor was a member of the Committee in 2004 determining should then Connecticut Governor John Rowland be impeached. Our Governor will get his day in court to answer his Federal criminal charges. Our obligation is quite different.

As always, you can reach me, Sally or Barb at 815/232-0774 or e-mail us at jimsacia@aeroinc.net. You can also visit my website at www.jimsacia.com. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

world wide web prairie advocate