Discover rewarding casino experiences. 
|
Letters to the Editor and CommentaryCapitol FaxRich Miller’s Commentary on State GovernmentLast year, the state Senate Republicans tested anti-tax messages in their campaigns without much success. While almost all Senate Democrats had voted for a large income tax hike along with an expansion of the sales tax to services, the Republican message just didn’t work because the tax bill the Democrats backed never became the law of the land. But now that a tax increase has actually been approved, with all the resulting hype surrounding it, there could very well be a different outcome next year. The tax increase has become a part of the public consciousness, and not in a good way, either. The tax hike vote itself has received a ton of publicity, but the circus ever since has further burned into voters’ minds a highly negative and toxic message. There was Gov. Quinn’s infamous flip-flop, first claiming he’d veto anything over a one percentage point increase and then signing a two-percent hike. Then came the flood of high-profile bashing of our tax hike by Republican governors throughout the country - all of whom pledged to poach our corporations and our jobs. We had the widely reported but false stories about Caterpillar considering leaving and the statewide nervous breakdown which resulted. On top of all that, the state still has severe budget problems despite the cut in everybody’s take-home pay. Then, obviously, there’s the problem of rising Illinois unemployment since the tax hike took effect. This was also the first purely partisan tax increase since the state’s new Constitution was adopted two generations ago. In the past, tax hike roll calls were carefully structured in a bipartisan manner and the two parties generally avoided dealing with the issue during the following campaign cycle. Republicans and Democrats worked closely together two years ago to raise taxes to fund the state’s infrastructure program, for instance. Nobody heard a peep about that vote on the campaign trail last year. But the income tax is an entirely different matter. No Republican votes were on that bill. To make matters worse for the ruling Democrats, 2012 is a redistricting election year. Most legislators have lots of new constituents who don’t know who they are and won’t be prepared to cut them any slack. And, on top of everything else, a large number of state House Democrats ran last year on anti-tax platforms. House Speaker Michael Madigan even refused to recruit candidates who barely hinted that they’d vote for a tax hike. In the Quad Cities, for example, Madigan rejected his former staffer Porter McNeil in the primary when McNeil tried to stake out a middle ground between the more aggressively pro-tax Democrat Jerry Lack and the anti-tax Dennis Ahern. Madigan injected himself into the primary and backed Ahern, who turned out to be a total dud of a candidate whom Madigan eventually dumped. McNeil might’ve been able to hold former Rep. Mike Boland’s seat, but Madigan was so anti-tax at the time that McNeil wasn’t considered viable. Two months after the election, of course, Madigan completely switched gears and muscled through a 66 percent income tax hike. Democrats who followed his lead in both directions now find themselves in a serious pickle. They promised (or came right up to the line of promising) not to vote for a tax hike and then did it anyway before they were even sworn in for another term. The Republicans are now preparing to move in for the kill. And at this point their battlefield is quite large. President Barack Obama’s presence on the ticket will be a problem for the Republicans in some areas, but the president is now quite unpopular in many of the districts he won three years ago. If the economy doesn’t improve and if the national Republicans nominate a sane presidential candidate, then the House and Senate Democrats will have to find a way to win Downstate and suburban and exurban areas without his coattails. And the same thing goes for Democratic state legislators trying to move up the political ladder. At least two former legislators and one current legislator are running for Congress right now. All three voted for the tax hike. If they think that the national Republicans are going to give them a pass on that, then they’re dreaming. Heck, their Democratic primary opponents would probably be wise to use the issue as well.
Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com. Reaction to ‘High Level Democrat’Good morning, The beautiful blossoms on the front page this week (8/31/11) are spectacular! I hope the beans taste as good. Your reaction to the “high level” democrat rep. (8/31/11, “Troubling Comment From a Troubled State,” page 4, Section One) was the same as mine. The comments coming from the left about the tea party recently are just the beginning. They are cowards and do not have a shred of evidence of any racism or wrong doing. They will blame any and every evil they can on the tea party before any facts are even known. This is just the beginning. As the 2012 election draws closer, I am afraid the rhetoric will become louder and louder. You know, if they repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it. I think I will attend the tea party this Saturday in Sheboygan. The dems are race-baiting and intend to cause racial problems and, to a point, it is working. The flash mob beatings that occurred at the state fair here in Wisconsin are an example. Maybe that Civil War blog “disunion” has such vile commentary that it inspires one to think of suspending our rights. The sad thing is that anybody can say things on those blogs and claim to be whomever they want or belong to any group. I am so glad you have the courage to print what’s occurring. Hopefully it will touch enough people to get to the truth. Keep the faith, It’s the Spending, Stupid:A Crucial Historical Look at Federal-Government SpendingGuest Commentary By Dr. Paul KengorWe have failed to heed the lessons of economic history, with terrible consequences for our economy and country. And the most crucial of those lessons, particularly since the start of LBJ’s Great Society, is this: deficits have been caused not by a lack of income-tax increases but by recession and, most of all, by excessive government spending. The failure to learn that lesson is again on painful display, as President Obama travels the country pointing the finger at “the rich” for not forking over enough income. By this narrative, the 36 percent income-tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans is somehow robbing the poorest Americans, whose income-tax rate is zero percent; something one would never know from Democrats’ class rhetoric. Because I comment on this topic so frequently, especially in the context of Reaganomics, I constantly deal with these issues from a historical perspective. Here, I would like to make it easy for everyone to see the numbers themselves and understand the root of the problem. The answers are as easy as googling the words “historical tables deficit.” Two sources pop up: CBO historical tables and OMB historical tables. “CBO” is Congressional Budget Office; “OMB” is Office of Management and Budget. These are the official go-to sources for data on deficits, revenues, and government expenditures. Either source will work. To keep it simple, I’ll focus on the OMB numbers. At the OMB link is Table 1.1, titled, “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2016.” That is an official scorecard of spending by the federal government since the founding of the republic. Looking closely at the chart is an eye-opening experience. As the first two columns show, receipts (i.e., revenues) and outlays (i.e., expenditures) moved up and down throughout our history. In 1965, however, something historically unusual, something literally deviant, began: Spending increased every single year, non-stop, consistently, without exception, into the Obama presidency, from 1965-2009. There are few constants in the universe: gravity, the sunrise, the oceans, the moon. Add another: spending by the federal government; it rises every year. Significantly, revenues don’t increase every year. The most dependable reason for declines in revenues is not a lack of tax increases, or high enough income-tax rates, but recessions. Since 1965, as the data shows, annual revenues declined seven separate times. At the start of the Great Society, in 1965, revenues and expenditures were nearly equal, with expenditures only slightly higher, leaving a manageable deficit of $1.4 billion. By 2009, however, annual expenditures ($3.5 trillion) had far outpaced annual revenues ($2.1 trillion), leaving a record deficit of $1.4 trillion. Significantly, the biggest one-year drop in revenues was from 2008-9, when they declined from $2.5 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Worse, President Obama and the Democratic Congress responded with an $800-billion “stimulus” package that didn’t stimulate. In other words, they responded in the worst way: with another $800 billion in government spending. That further mushroomed the record deficits/debt we face. The math is very simple. Government spending, which has hampered growth rather than spark growth, caused this fiscal crisis. It is crucial to realize that this spending addiction is a new thing in American history. Previous generations of politicians showed much more restraint. Prior to 1965, expenditures were not following an ever-upward trajectory; expenditures decreased year-to-year frequently, nearly two-dozen times between 1901 and 1965, even during the administrations of big-government liberal presidents, like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. This changed in the mid-1960s, when the federal government began a serious spending problem. How do we communicate the crisis to the wider public, beyond charts and data? I suggest comparing the situation to a household: Your family’s annual revenue has probably not enjoyed a 40-year-plus consecutive increase. For some years, you were paid less. Perhaps you lost a job, took a pay cut, or switched jobs. Maybe your spouse was laid off, or left work to have a child. You bought a house one year, another 20 years later, spent a ton of money on your children’s college education, lost on a bad investment. I doubt your family’s yearly revenue has been a steady upward climb since 1965. Life obviously doesn’t work that way. And yet, imagine if each successive year, without fail, you spent considerably more money than the previous, including money that isn’t yours. You added debt each year, creating massive debts for your family and children. You paid taxes with a credit card. How long would this go on before you ended up with a credit downgrade or in jail? Get the picture? If President Obama and the Democrats don’t, they should. Warren Buffet certainly should. Our fiscal crisis is due not to insufficient income taxes but uncontrolled, undisciplined spending. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign slogan, “It’s the spending, stupid.” — Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism,” and his latest release, “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.” Trapped!Here’s a twist on the indigenous monkey trap: Our gourd full of nuts has a hole just large enough for a monkey to grab one nut, and still withdraw his paw. But a monkey is inherently greedy, and simply is incapable of limiting himself to one nut, instead filling his paw, which then leaves him forever trapped, as he cannot withdraw his nut-filled paw, and he cannot force himself to release any nuts. US businesses have an estimated $1,000B in overseas profits (WSJ) which cannot be returned to the US due to our government’s policy of charging US (and state) corporate taxes if the money is brought into the US. It would seem money is the only thing we’ll stop at the border! Only a few industrialized countries even impose a domestic tax on foreign earnings, and our rate is more than ten times the average of those countries which do. If we were to impose a more reasonable rate, say 5%, this trillion dollars would constitute the largest private sector investment in history. It would also provide $50B in tax revenue/deficit reduction, something that’s a bit hard to come by these days. This idea has been proposed to the President, and was soundly rejected. Like the proverbial monkey and the gourd, it would appear letting go of that 40% tax rate just isn’t possible. Mr. President, it’s a trap - let go of some nuts! In 2010, domestic corporate profits were $1,400B (BEA), while 2010 regulatory costs were $1,750B (SBA). Contemplate this – all the massive corporate profits in the country were surpassed by regulatory compliance costs. Congress soundly rejected regulating CO2 emissions, fully realizing that this incalculable increase in regulation costs could be the final nail in the coffin for American manufacturing. This apparently doesn’t concern our president, who is using the un-elected bureaucrats at the EPA to enact his CO2 emission regulations, in absolute defiance of the Legislative Branch, along with 4,257 other new regulations. In a recent letter from President Obama to Speaker Boehner, just seven rules were projected to cost $70B, which is well over a million $50k/yr jobs. Mr. President, it’s a trap - let go of some nuts! While the US federal corporate tax is the 2nd highest in the world, when state and local taxes are included, US employers face the world’s highest taxes, more than double the European Union average, and over 50% higher than even Communist China. Of course, employer’s tax burdens will only increase when the Health Care bill kicks butt in 2014. The “corporate jet tax credit”, properly called the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, was enacted by President Obama and the Democrat congress with no Republican votes. Even this minor credit will likely be taken away in this administration’s attempt to finish off American employers. Mr. President, it’s a trap - let go of some nuts! “The tighter you squeeze, the less you have.” - Thomas Merton Terry Smith Farm CzarsIosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili AKA Josef Stalin(1879-1953),forced hard core collectivism down the throats of the Soviet citizens. The exact number of human beings murdered or starved to death during his reign of terror is estimated to be well beyond 43 million plus,and as many as 25 million of those were peasant farmers. The “Man of Steel” ruthlessly confiscated the private property of millions,and those who resisted(or not) were brutalized and shot.Wow! Central planning and collectivism are neato! Right? Fast-forward to present day...President Dear Leader Chairman Maobama,the greatest Christian and human being to walk the earth since Christ himself,hath recently issued Executive Order #13575.This E.O. is a bloody stunner, folks. Language contained within includes “Coordinate & increase effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders”.Translation: To effectively blur and ultimately eviscerate the increasingly fragile line between private property(essential to LIBERTY) and state-owned land. Other language includes..”regarding the needs of Rural America”.Yeah,right. I mean,come on!,farmers have been sustaining themselves and the world for centuries and now we need freakin’ Farm Czars?!So,what does a scrawny street punk from Chicago know about the “needs” of farmers and Rural America? Any rational person’s response should be “Not a doggone thing!”,but one must first understand who this guy in the Oval Office truly is. Dear Leader Mahatma-bama has recently transformed himself into an omnipotent super-being!!!With amazing laser like powers!!!Able to leap tall boundings in a single build!!! Yeah yeah,something like that. Actually,most folks believe His Holiness is using precedent set by the Wickard v. Filburn Supreme Court decision set during the FDR Administration decision, in which a farmer was told he could no longer grow wheat for his own consumption,as he was producing more than allotted and thus was affecting Interstate Commerce and could be regulated by the federal government,is more than likely being used to continue the ridiculous bullying by central planners for the past 100 years or so. James Madison warned us repeatedly in the Federalist Papers about this kind of pure black-as-coal evil and nonsensical garbage early on while they were trying to promote the Constitution! By the by,how many folks are aware that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was recently incorporated against the states? Anybody? If you don’t think that this E.O. poises to smack down our entire Bill of Rights,then you need to just go back to your silent sleep..”Citizen!!!,Move along! Nothing to see here!!!”. Never mind that Dear Leader whined in the past about “Middle America bitterly clinging to guns and religion”,or when he broadcast to the world that “We do not consider ourselves a Christian Nation”.Obamessiah is a devout Christian(cuz he said so) and Josef Stalin wasn’t.And that’s ALL you need to know. Is the question posed by Lynn recently about Central planning via the “Rural Council” valid? I believe so,but only time will tell. However, I did NOT just compare our current President to Josef Stalin by referencing them in the same letter. And even if I did,what is anybody gonna do about it,take my Birthday away? Sincerely, Lincoln Eads ‘War On Drugs’ Snake Oil Cures Nothing, and Costs EverythingAfter 40 years of selling more than $1 trillion worth of War on Drugs to American taxpayers as an effective treatment for the drug problem, more and more taxpayers are questioning the soundness of this investment. Has the government delivered the product as promised? Has the problem been solved, or at least reduced? By the numbers, the War on Drugs is an abject failure. The costs in dollars and human life are steep. Most current studies show that increases in inner-city drug-law enforcement appear to create spikes in urban violence. Drug offenders, the vast majority of them nonviolent, comprise half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. Locking them up cost taxpayers $450 billion, and that does not include the cost of local jails and state prisons. So far this year, there have been approximately 900,000 drug arrests -- more than half (about 464,000) of those arrests involved only marijuana, an estimated 412,960 of those for simple marijuana possession. If we reap any benefits from this costly war, they are not obvious. The most recent report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) shows that well over half (56.1%) of American children report that they could easily obtain drugs if they wanted them. Among children between 12 and 17 years old, 14.3% (3,511 of those in the study) report being approached by a drug dealer in the past month. Drug use has declined a bit since the 1990s, but use fluctuates and the numbers will rise again in the future. Cocaine use spiked in the U.S. in the 1980s, American heroin use in the early ‘90s. There is no clear evidence of a meaningful reduction in drug use. The snake oil salesmen of 100 years ago made their living with “miracle cures” that they knew did not work. Their bottles often contained high volumes of alcohol or morphine, resulting in only temporary relief and long-term addiction. Today, the War on Drugs has proven almost as effective as snake oil -- no cure, no real relief, but American politicians are still hooked -- and the American taxpayers are still on the hook. Another difference: private sector con men are punished for their fraud. When the government is exposed as a snake oil salesman, it just keeps coming back for taxpayer money, at the point of a gun if necessary. But the taxpayers are waking up and demanding a new and more cost-effective strategy. One day soon, the government con will end. For more information on the War on Drugs, please consult Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance, NORML, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Christina Tobin Obamacare: Constitutionally InfirmGuest Commentary By Dr. John A. SparksA three-judge panel of the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the key feature of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known by many as “Obamacare,” is unconstitutional. The “individual mandate” portion of the legislation—a provision which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or suffer a monetary penalty—was found by the panel in a 2-1 decision to be constitutionally infirm. The two judges who wrote the opinion, one a George H. W. Bush appointee and the other a Clinton appointee, used 207 pages to analyze the legislative intent of the enactment, to explore the existing pertinent case law, and to carefully consider all the possible arguments for the individual mandate offered by both sides. In the end, their conclusion was that the question before them was “whether the federal government can issue a mandate that Americans purchase and maintain health insurance from a private company for the entirety of their lives.” The answer they gave was a resounding “no,” to which every American should respond with an “amen.” The opinion reminds us that the Constitution creates a federal government of numbered or enumerated powers. When Congress acts, it must stay within the boundaries of those powers. In other words, the federal government is not unlimited; it is limited. It is a government with considerable power, but it is also one whose actions must conform to the confines of the powers set out in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. If Congress exceeds those powers, it is acting unconstitutionally and the Supreme Court must rein it in. Chief Judge Dubina and Judge Hull have done exactly that. The Obama administration argued for the constitutionality of compulsory health insurance by asserting, among other things, that Congress has broad power to “regulate interstate commerce.” True, said Judges Dubina and Hull, the definition of interstate commerce has been expanded, especially from the New Deal to the present. However, they add, what the Obama administration is claiming is “unprecedented” and “breathtaking in its expansive scope.” If commercial activity is already occurring, it is very likely that Congress can regulate it, but this is quite different from compelling “individuals to enter into commerce” by forcing them to purchase health insurance and then penalizing them if they fail to do so. As the opinion says: “Every day, Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest and save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children’s education and their health care. The government [Obama administration] contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes.” That is exactly the issue. Will Americans retain the right to decide how much and where they will spend their money for health care? Or will they allow the Leviathan State to usurp that right? If the latter, then they should not be surprised to find that Congress’ voracious appetite for control of our daily lives will not be satisfied with health care, but will seek to dictate our choices of schooling, food products, energy, housing, and wearing apparel. Again, as the opinion warns: “The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore, Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.” Exactly so. Because the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, has held in favor of the constitutionality of compulsory health insurance, thus creating a conflict among the Circuits, this case will undoubtedly be heard by the Supreme Court. There will be no more important decision on the Supreme Court’s docket, for the outcome will determine whether we will remain a nation with a limited government dedicated to the preservation of liberty or become a nanny-state with the federal government as our nurse. — Dr. John A. Sparks is dean of the A. J. Calderwood School of Arts & Letters at Grove City College (Grove City, PA) where he teaches business law and constitutional law and is a fellow for The Center for Vision & Values. A graduate of Grove City College and the University of Michigan Law School, Dr. Sparks is a member of the State Bar of Pennsylvania. He can be reached at . “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill Capitol ReportBy Jim Sacia, State Representative, 89th DistrictDr. Peter Flynn, the Superintendent of Freeport District 145, is a man I hold in the highest esteem. Not only does he talk the talk he truly walks the walk, or in his case runs it having completed numerous marathons including, most recently, Boston’s. Did I mention he is in his early seventies? Simply put, he is a remarkable man. Each year as the school opens, he orchestrates an awesome welcome back and invites numerous individuals involved in the community to attend. Recently at the gathering he shared with us an amazing story about the way teachers can affect their students. A Freeport teacher heard from a student on facebook who had been in his class many years ago. The student had been a victim of sexual abuse and was too fearful to discuss the issue with him. She always remembered what the teacher told his students – “don’t ever let anyone else define who you are. Be yourself, stand on your own two feet and be proud of who you are”. The young lady told the teacher that perhaps he didn’t remember her, but his words profoundly affected her life to the point that she found the courage to seek help and was removed from the unbelievable situation. She went on to make something of her life and wanted him to know how positively he had affected her. The lesson of course is multi fold – 1. Facebook can have a positive effect as can other types of social networking. 2. Our teachers do amazing work on modest salaries and often affect young people in ways that can’t even be imagined. In this case, the teacher went back through his old yearbooks to be reminded who she was. The best lesson of all - stand for what we believe in and never let anyone else define us. Many politicians could learn from that one. My mobile office will be in Hanover Wednesday, September 7, 2011 from 11:30 to 1:00 parked near the restaurant. My mobile office will be in Milledgeville at City Hall on Main Street Tuesday, September 20, 2011 from 10:30 A.M. until noon. I always appreciate discussing issues with you. As always, you can reach me, Sally or Barb at or e-mail us at . You can also visit my website at www.jimsacia.com. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you.
|
