Category: Philosophical

Rep. Ellsworth on Health Care Reform: ‘In My Core I Know it’s the Right Decision for Hoosiers’

Posted on by TL

Announces Support for Bill to Reduce Costs, Improve Access to Affordable Insurance Options, Ends Insurance Company Abuses, Cut the Deficit by $1 Trillion and Prevent Federal Funding of Abortion

Washington, D.C.–(TURNINGLEFT)– March 19, 2010. Later this week, the House is expected to consider legislation to reform our nation’s health care system. The Affordable Health Care for America Act will reduce health care costs, prevent federal funding of abortion, reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion and improve Hoosiers’ access to affordable insurance options. Rep. Brad Ellsworth today announced he will support the bill and issued the following statement:

“Like most Americans I was frustrated by this process throughout. Unfortunately many in both parties made snap judgments on whether or not they would support this bill based on politics, not policy. I was sent here to look at all sides of the argument in a thoughtful manner and I knew that the status quo was no longer acceptable. I needed to answer only one question when deciding whether to support this reform: will this bill benefit Hoosiers? Put simply, in my core I know it does.”

“There is no issue more important or more personal to every single Hoosier than our health and well-being. My job is to look beyond all the political games, study the bill carefully, and do my best to make the right decision for Indiana.”

“After months of meetings and conversations with thousands of Hoosiers, health care experts and pro-life advocates, I am confident supporting health care reform is the right decision for Hoosiers.”

“Starting this year, children with pre-existing conditions will never again be denied coverage. Indiana small businesses will get the tax breaks they desperately need to reduce their health care costs and invest those savings in growing their businesses and creating jobs for Hoosiers. And our seniors will see significant savings on their prescription drug bills as we start to close the Medicare Part D donut hole.

“As a pro-life Hoosier, one of my central concerns has been preventing federal funding of elective abortion. Throughout my brief time in Congress, I have held firm to my pro-life principles, even when it meant going against my party, and I am proud of my 100% pro-life voting record on abortion-related issues. I have spent time listening carefully to constituents, pro-life leaders, policy experts and reading all the details of every bill. After assurance from the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Nuns and pro-life advocates I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles and upholds the policy of no federal funding for elective abortions. More than that, it invests $250 million in support services for women facing unplanned pregnancies and over a billion dollars to help families afford adoption services. These investments will reduce the number of abortions in America.”

“In addition to meeting my pro-life principles, the plan reduces costs, improves access to affordable insurance options, covers pre-existing conditions, and does not add one penny to the deficit – my five principles for health care reform.”

Source: ellsworth.house.gov

Remarks by President Obama on Health Care Reform, March 3, 2010 (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–March 3, 2010 – 1:50 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today. And I want to thank Julie, Barbara, Roland, Stephen, Renee, and Christopher, standing behind me — physicians, physicians assistants, and nurses who understand how important it is for us to make much needed changes in our health care system.

I want to thank all of you who are here today. I want to specially recognize two people who have been working tirelessly on that — on this effort, my Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius — (applause) — as well as our quarterback for health reform out of the White House, Nancy-Ann DeParle. (Applause.)

We began our push to reform health insurance last March, in this room, with doctors and nurses who know the system best. And so it’s fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close.

Last Thursday, I spent seven hours at a summit where Democrats and Republicans engaged in a public and very substantive discussion about health care. This meeting capped off a debate that began with a similar summit nearly one year ago. And since then, every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made.

Everything there is to say about health care has been said — (laughter) — and just about everybody has said it. (Laughter.) So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and America’s businesses.

Now, where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the American people. Health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. Families can’t afford it. Businesses can’t afford it. The federal government can’t afford it. Smaller businesses and individuals who don’t get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. And insurance companies freely ration health care based on who’s sick and who’s healthy; who can pay and who can’t. That’s the status quo. That’s the system we have right now.

Democrats and Republicans agree that this is a serious problem for America. And we agree that if we do nothing -– if we throw up our hands and walk away -– it’s a problem that will only grow worse. Nobody disputes that. More Americans will lose their family’s health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. More small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. More insurance companies will deny people coverage who have preexisting conditions, or they’ll drop people’s coverage when they get sick and need it most. And the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. On all of this we agree.

So the question is, what do we do about it?

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who’ve suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry — whether it’s state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I’m concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for their patients. (Applause.)

Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. I can tell you as the father of two young girls, I would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system. First, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. No longer would they be able to deny your coverage because of a preexisting condition. No longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. No longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. No longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California — up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market. Those practices would end.

Second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves — because if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it’s good enough for the people who pay their salaries. (Applause.)

The reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. It’s an idea that many Republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded.

And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it’s going to provide better deals for people than they can get right now in the individual marketplace, then we’ll offer you tax credits to do so — tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. After all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the least well off are able to get coverage through Medicaid. So it’s the middle class that gets squeezed, and that’s who we have to help.

Now, it is absolutely true that all of this will cost some money — about $100 billion per year. But most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion a year that America already spends on health care — but a lot of it is not spent wisely. A lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. So within this plan, we’re going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. We’re going to eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies; set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and a lot of profits as millions of Americans are able to buy insurance; and we’re going to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share on Medicare.

The bottom line is our proposal is paid for. And all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who can’t afford health insurance. It would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors. And it would help train new doctors and nurses and physician assistants to provide care for American families.

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions — families, businesses, and the federal government. We have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care — ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like Medicare. But we do this while protecting Medicare benefits, and extending the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade.

Our cost-cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current Senate bill, which reduces most people’s premiums and brings down our deficit by up to a trillion dollars over the next two decades — brings down our deficit. Those aren’t my numbers; those are the savings determined by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the Washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of Congress in terms of how much stuff costs. (Laughter.)

So that’s our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year. It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans — including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform, and curbing waste and fraud and abuse in the health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform — provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many — probably most — Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Now, some also believe that we should, instead of doing what I’m proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say we just can’t afford to help them right now — which is why the Republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million.

The problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you can’t prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; you can’t limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. The insurance reforms rest on everybody having access to coverage.

And you also don’t do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they’re forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about a thousand bucks per family. You can’t get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. So the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.

Now, both during and after last week’s summit, Republicans in Congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. But given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help.

Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over. They’re continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last for another decade, or even more. The American people, and the U.S. economy, just can’t wait that long. So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. (Applause.)

We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for the past year but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the Children’s Health Insurance Program, that was used for COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. (Applause.) And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well — every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician’s assistant. Make your voice heard.

This has been a long and wrenching debate. It has stoked great passions among the American people and their representatives. And that’s because health care is a difficult issue. It is a complicated issue. If it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. As all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. And as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship, and misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

But that’s not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. That’s not an excuse for us to walk away. We can’t just give up because the politics are hard. I know there’s been a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. How will this play? What will happen with the polls? I will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that’s not what this is about. That’s not why we’re here.

This is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. This is about what reform would mean for the small business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers or offering coverage to the employees she has. This is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who will be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives and get a regular checkup once in a while, and have some security about their children if they get sick.

This is about what reform would mean for all those men and women I’ve met over the last few years who’ve been brave enough to share their stories. When we started our push for reform last year, I talked to a young mother in Wisconsin named Laura Klitzka. She has two young children. She thought she had beaten her breast cancer but then later discovered it had spread to her bones. She and her husband were working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. And now she spends time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well.

This should not happen in the United States of America. And it doesn’t have to. (Applause.)

In the end, that’s what this debate is about. It’s about what kind of country we want to be. It’s about the millions of lives that would be touched and, in some cases, saved by making private health insurance more secure and more affordable.

So at stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I do not know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. (Applause.)

And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.

Thank you very much, everybody. Let’s get it done. (Applause.)

END
2:09 P.M. EST

Source: whitehouse.gov

GOP Demands White House Post Health Care Proposal Online, Then Attacks When WH Does

Posted on by TL

Three cheers to the Party of No! If Obama does anything, the GOP is against it, even if they specifically asked him to do it.

No matter what it is.

From Open Left:

On February 8th, Republican House leader John Beohner sent a letter to the White House, demanding that the White House post online any health care proposal it wished to discuss at the health care summit:

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?

So, four days later, the White House accepted this demand, and announced it would post a legislative proposal online more than 72 hours before the summit:

Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package.

Boehner’s response defies logic:

Boehner’s condemnation comes as the White House announced it would post comprehensive healthcare reform legislation online before the meeting. The Ohio Republican said it is now clear that Democrats intend to move ahead on their own course regardless of negotiations.

"A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper," Boehner said in a statement. "We now know that instead of starting the ‘bipartisan’ health care ‘summit’ on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats– a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation’s economy and affect every family and small business in America."

Boehner’s request is not ancient history; it happened February 8 of this year.

There you have it, the Party of No. Impossible to work with at every turn.

Time for Reconciliation, to keep Democracy moving.

Nod to Americablog for this.

Wash. Post Says Obama Favors Targeted Killings of Terrorists Over Captures

Posted on by TL

From the Washington Post:

When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.

The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.

The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.

I’m not sure what to make of this. If this report had come out under the Bush Administration, no doubt I would have been critical, but I still would have tried to understand. This certainly shifts the debate on which party is tougher on terrorism. According to the report, "The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous." Republicans charge that the administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and imprison them, according to the Post.

I’m not ready to render judgment — need to keep reading, see if there really has been a shift in policy, or if this article represents the armchair conclusions of a pair of journalists.

At least we don’t have to worry about charges of waterboarding under President Obama.

Kudos to Dahr Jamail; Army to Discharge Single Mom Rather Than Court-Martial Her

Posted on by TL
Alexis Hutchinson

Army Spc. Alexis Hutchinson with son Kamani Hutchinson. (Photo: Alexis Hutchinson)

This is wonderful news for Army Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, and really wonderful news for her son Kamani.

Mom will not be court martialed. Kamani has his mother with him. Every day.

That’s absolutely awesome.

And thank the Army. Technically, Army Spc. Hutchinson violated the law, but she did so for the right reasons. Answering the call to serve in Afghanistan would have left her son, literally, an orphan. So, instead of facing court martial, Army Spc. Hutchinson will be granted an administrative discharge from the Army.

Mom and the United States Army all come out looking good in this one. Thanks to Dahr Jamail and Truthout for breaking the story.

From ENEWSPF:

On Thursday, February 11, Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother of an infant son, was informed she would be granted an administrative discharge from the Army.

Last fall, Hutchinson was ordered to prepare to deploy to Afghanistan. On November 5, 2009, after her childcare plans fell through, Hutchinson was faced with the dilemma of having no one to take care of her son when she deployed to a war zone.

She chose not to show up for the plane to Afghanistan and missed her deployment. When she reported for duty the following day the Army arrested her and took away her son, who was allegedly placed in an Army day care. His grandmother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland, California, picked him up a few days later. Alexis was granted leave to go home for the holidays in December, and returned to Georgia with her baby, Kamani, in early January.

After Hutchinson returned to Georgia in January, the Army filed court-martial charges against her and refused to discharge her under the Army regulations that clearly allow for discharges for reasons of parenthood responsibility. Truthout broke the story on January 14.

Makes you want to cry. Really. Then stand up, salute the flag, and maybe cry some more. Or say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Every once in a while, it’s nice to see a story end well.

eNews Park Forest Editors Endorse John C. Griffin for Judge in the 15th Subcircuit

Posted on by TL

From ENEWSPF:

Our pick for judge in the 15th Subcircuit, Phelan vacancy, is Judge John C. Griffin of Palos Heights. Griffin has four opponents, and was appointed to the bench in 2008. He sits in the Chancery Division.

Judge Griffin is a true Democrat. One of his opponents in the Democratic Primary is a life-long Republican who is seeking election in 2010 as a Democrat. This opponent has stated that he recognizes that it’s impossible to be elected from this region as a Republican. This opponent has been Republican supervisor in Bloom Township for several years (having defeated now State Senator Toi Hutchinson when she ran as the Democratic candidate for supervisor in 2005).

When endorsing judges, we rely on the experts, especially experts who belong to bar associations.

The Chicago Council of Lawyers found Judge Griffin qualified, writing:

Judge Griffin was admitted to practice in 1976. For 31 years he was in private practice
primarily handling real estate, zoning and development-related matters. In March 2008, he was
appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to a judicial vacancy. He has served in Traffic Court
and currently presides over mortgage foreclosure matters in the Foreclosure/Mechanic’s Lien
Section. Judge Griffin is reported to have good legal ability and an excellent temperament. He
had a good reputation as a hard-working and knowledgeable attorney and is praised for his
courtroom management skills and for being well-prepared. The Council finds him Qualified for
the Circuit Court.

In addition, Judge Griffin has been found qualified or recommended (per each organization’s policies) by all associations performing review:

  • The Chicago Bar Association – Qualified
  • Illinois State Bar Association – Qualified
  • Cook County Bar Association – Recommended
  • Chicago Council of Lawyers – Qualified
  • Women’s Bar Association of Illinois – Recommended
  • Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago – Recommended
  • Puerto Rican Bar Association of Illinois – Highly Qualified
  • The Decalogue Society of Lawyers – Recommended
  • Asian American Bar Association – Recommended
  • Hellenic Bar Association of Illinois – Recommended
  • Black Women Lawyers’ Association of Greater Chicago, Inc. – Recommended

We give Judge John C. Griffin our highest recommendation, and encourage all in the 15th Subcircuit to vote for him.

I’m quoting the entire endorsement — with permission — but I want to focus on one point in particular.

What, indeed is a Democrat? What, indeed, is a Republican?

One of John Griffin’s opponents was a Republican who ran as a Republican against Congressman Jesse L. Jackson Jr.; and he was the unsuccessful Republican candidate against Democratic Judge Anna Demacopoulos in 2008.

Judge Griffin is a true, life-long Democrat, a true member of the Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama. I urge you to vote for John C. Griffin to fill the 15th Subcircuit judicial vacancy. Besides all of those Democratic credentials, I have met with John Griffin several times. He’s an ethical person. Ethics are crucial in a judge. I sense an incredible sincerity when I speak with John.

Vote for Judge John C. Griffin. He deserves nomination to be the Democratic party’s candidate in the November election.

Weekly Address: President Obama Addresses This Week’s Supreme Court Decision (Video and Text)

Posted on by TL

Washington, D.C.–January 23, 2010.

One of the reasons I ran for President was because I believed so strongly that the voices of everyday Americans, hardworking folks doing everything they can to stay afloat, just weren’t being heard over the powerful voices of the special interests in Washington. And the result was a national agenda too often skewed in favor of those with the power to tilt the tables.

In my first year in office, we pushed back on that power by implementing historic reforms to get rid of the influence of those special interests. On my first day in office, we closed the revolving door between lobbying firms and the government so that no one in my administration would make decisions based on the interests of former or future employers. We barred gifts from federal lobbyists to executive branch officials. We imposed tough restrictions to prevent funds for our recovery from lining the pockets of the well-connected, instead of creating jobs for Americans. And for the first time in history, we have publicly disclosed the names of lobbyists and non-lobbyists alike who visit the White House every day, so that you know what’s going on in the White House – the people’s house.

We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks.

This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act.

I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.

All of us, regardless of party, should be worried that it will be that much harder to get fair, common-sense financial reforms, or close unwarranted tax loopholes that reward corporations from sheltering their income or shipping American jobs off-shore.

It will make it more difficult to pass commonsense laws to promote energy independence because even foreign entities would be allowed to mix in our elections.

It would give the health insurance industry even more leverage to fend off reforms that would protect patients.

We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

And we don’t intend to. When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with Members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision. We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.

A hundred years ago, one of the great Republican Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, fought to limit special interest spending and influence over American political campaigns and warned of the impact of unbridled, corporate spending. His message rings as true as ever today, in this age of mass communications, when the decks are too often stacked against ordinary Americans. And as long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you.

Source: whitehouse.gov

On the Complete Disintegration of the Village of Matteson

Posted on by TL
Matteson fractured

The Southtown Star reported today that the Village of Matteson layed off 22 employees without warning Tuesday, the result of a reported $2.3 million budget gap. The Matteson Village Board hired financial consulting firm Theobald Associates in April at an estimated cost of over $200,000. Estimates are that the 22 layoffs will save the village $900,000 per year.

This is astounding, and the entire South Suburbs should be very concerned.

From the Southtown Star:

WHO GOT THE AX?

On Tuesday, Matteson laid off 22 village employees in efforts to trim a $2.3 million budget deficit. Those let go included two building inspectors, a building permit technician, two secretaries, a clerk, three administrative assistants, two customer service representatives, a community affairs coordinator, a community affairs assistant, a fire inspector, a community service officer, a building maintenance worker, four park maintenance workers and a park maintenance supervisor.

AFFECTING OPERATIONS

Matteson deputy village administrator Brian Mitchell said the layoffs this week of 22 employees might result in longer waits to pay village bills and the cancellation of some village-sponsored events, such as the Taste of Matteson. Additionally, he said, the firings will affect the village’s ability to plow snow. Although main thoroughfares always will be plowed no matter the time of day, “curb-to-curb” snow removal on the side streets will wait until morning if it snows overnight.

It is of interest that the mayor’s wife, Toni Ashmore, was not let go.

Morale at Matteson Village Hall is understandably low:

Matteson resident Matt Stipek said he witnessed the ugly, post-layoff scene after stopping by village hall Tuesday morning to pick up recycling bags.

“The lady there at the counter was crying, and the other ones looked like they just saw a murder,” he said. “The one lady who was trying to get recycling bags for me was catatonic.”

Matteson is a crucial business hub for surrounding communities. The intersection of Lincoln Highway and Cicero has been a long time coming back. Lincoln Mall is at a crucial juncture right now. The out lots are doing well, but the mall itself needs nurturing and attention.

Just a few years ago, Matteson hosted a “Green Day,” touting the opening of new businesses. Then U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama was in attendance. Things looked so promising, before the Great Bush Recession.

Matteson residents should be concerned. Crisis necessitates a cohesive board which clearly has the interests of the residents at heart. Matteson’s board has been combative for far too long.

In November, Matteson fired the village administrator, an incredibly stupid move, as I’ve already noted. Haney was clearly not fired for cause.

That leaves politics.

According to some close to the village, the former village administrator would not* give his public blessing to the most recent raise the mayor intended to give his wife, the Director of Community Affairs.  If so, kudos to him.

When Andre Ashmore ran for mayor, he promised that his wife would not be employed long with the village. This week, he told the Star:

“We’re looking at all contracts, services, stuff that we contract out,” Ashmore said. “When I say everything is on the table, everything is on the table.”

Why, then, is the mayor’s wife still employed with the village?

I’m hoping groups of citizens are organizing now, preparing to put good, ethical people on the ballot.  Matteson has not completely disintegrated yet, but it is not now in a good place.

The South Suburbs need Matteson to recover.

* Errata: This posting originally said that the former village administrator would give his blessing to the most recent pay raise the mayor intended to give his wife.  That is incorrect.  We regret the error and we are grateful to a reader for bringing that error to our attention.

Obama on Attempted Al Qaeda Christmas Airline Bombing: “The Buck Stops Here”

Posted on by TL

A few days after Christmas, I thought about Harry Truman and the sign that he kept on his desk at the White House, "The Buck Stops Here."

President Obama said that today.

From the Sun-Times:

President Barack Obama suggested Thursday he would not fire anyone for the attempted Christmas airline attack, saying it appears the security lapses that led to the near-disaster were not the fault of a single individual or institution.

“Ultimately the buck stops with me,” said the commander in chief.

He declared anew that the government had the information to prevent the botched attack but failed to piece it together. He announced a range of changes designed to fix that, including wider and quicker distribution of intelligence reports, stronger analysis of them and new terror watch list rules.

But, added Obama, “When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”

What a change of pace from some of the previous Occupants. We’re going to have to let that sink in a bit — having a President take responsibility.

He didn’t even try to parse the word "is."

Change Has Come to America: Health Insurance Reform About to Happen

Posted on by TL

All news from Democrats and the White House is positive. It looks like reform of our for-profit health insurance system is about to happen. Is the reform on the table perfect? No. None of the sides are perfectly content with the changes, including Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats, and the Party of No.

But it’s about to happen. I don’t like to make predictions. This time, I’m assured by positive words out of Washington today.

From Yahoo! News:

From the White House to Capitol Hill, Democrats on Tuesday confidently predicted Senate passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul after the bill cleared its second 60-vote test and the time was set for a final tally.

Coming to the Senate floor in the middle of the afternoon, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced an agreement to vote on final passage at 8 a.m. Thursday, Christmas Eve. It would mark the 25th consecutive day of Senate debate on health care.

“The finish line is in sight,” Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said at a news conference with other Senate leaders and cheering supporters. “We’re not the first to attempt such reforms but we will be the first to succeed.”

At the White House, spokesman Robert Gibbs declared: “Health care reform is not a matter of if. Health care reform is now a matter of when.”

Obama said the Senate legislation accomplishes 95 percent of what he wanted on health care. “Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill,” the president said in an interview with The Washington Post.

Senate Democrats remained behind their compromise bill over steadfast Republican opposition. A motion to shut off debate and move to a vote on a package of changes by Reid passed 60-39.

The final 60-vote hurdle, limiting debate on the bill itself, is expected to be cleared Wednesday afternoon, setting up the Thursday morning-before-Christmas vote on the legislation, which at that point will need only a simple majority to pass.

Do you know what it means if the bill only passes with a simple majority?

It means it passes. It’s done.

The Almighty Left (and I include myself in that call, for all the times I lashed out) needs to stop whining about this bill and thank the President, thank Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, thank Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, thank them all. This will be the largest overhaul of our health care system in several lifetimes.

I was listening to Ed Schultz this afternoon whining about the health care reform bill, calling it a “Republican bill.”

Nonsense, Ed.  That’s just silly.  Stop it all ready.  This bill means reform.  This bill represents what happens when the Left, the Right and the Middle sit down to talk.  Congress is working again.  Congress is learning how to be a deliberative body again.  That in itself is call for celebration.

Think of it: no more exclusions from coverage for pre-existing conditions. That alone is worth our thanks.

Remember, thank President Obama. Those of us on the Left need to remember that governing is different from the poetry of the campaign. Governing is tedious. Governing means compromise. Governing means setting policy. Governing means changing direction slowly sometimes, like an ocean tanker. The geek in me remembers the early episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, when Captain Picard would command, “All stop!” And the helm would reply, “Answering all stop!”

And we would wait for a moment while the Enterprise stopped.

It didn’t happen instantaneously. Nothing that big stops that quickly.

Change has come to America, but America is a big ship. Change, lasting and true change, takes time.

Passage of this bill will be huge. We should all be happy.