2009

Bad Ideas Never Die

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 No Comments

Over at Illinois Review, I am provided with a fine laugh as they promote the Laffer curve because of a visit from Laffer.  The Laffer curve was never a serious piece of economics as Jonathan Chait pointed out in a wickedly funny bit on how Republican economic policy has been formed.

Adherents of supply-side economics tend to describe the spread of their creed in quasi-religious terms. Irving Kristol subsequently wrote in a memoir, “It was Jude [Wanniski] who introduced me to Jack Kemp, a young congressman and a recent convert. It was Jack Kemp who, almost single-handed, converted Ronald Reagan to supply-side economics.” The theological language is fitting because supply-side economics is not merely an economic program. It’s a totalistic ideology. The core principle is that economic performance hinges almost entirely on how much incentive investors and entrepreneurs have to attain more wealth, and this incentive in turn hinges almost entirely on their tax rate. Therefore, cutting taxes– especially those of the rich, who carry out the decisive entrepreneurial role in the economy–is always a good idea.

After 8 years of unhinged faith based foreign policy, domestic policy and economic policy, they want more.  Evidence be damned.

Anything Happen While I Was Gone?

ArchPundit June 15, 2009 No Comments

Been busy, back to normal as the day continues…

Making Andy McKenna Look Good

ArchPundit May 19, 2009 No Comments

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZBKIxnThYk[/youtube]

Remember That Whole Thing About Burris Being a Piss Poor Comptroller?

ArchPundit May 19, 2009 No Comments

I covered Burris’ crappy record as a Comptroller back in late April.  What I missed was that he has been subpeonaed by the Funeral Director’s Association:

SPRINGFIELD — A group of funeral directors who say they have lost millions of dollars from mismanagement of a pre-need funeral trust fund have filed a subpoena against U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, seeking documents dating back as far as 1980.
Burris was Illinois Comptroller in that year and allowed the Illinois Funeral Directors Association to manage the trust. He later served as a lobbyist for the IFDA.
The plaintiffs, who are suing the IFDA for alleged mismanagement, say they want to know why Burris allowed the group to manage the trust, and they want records of his lobbying activities.
The (Springfield) State Journal-Register could not reach Burris for comment Friday, and Edward Wallace, an attorney for the plaintiffs, declined comment.

Credit to Illinois Review which just popped up on my Google alerts with the link.

Meet the New Hamlet, Same as the Old Hamlet

ArchPundit May 19, 2009 No Comments

Chris Kennedy has been getting pretty glowing coverage lately–in Chicago–not so much in Cleveland.  Kennedy’s Merchandise Mart company has clouted a deal through the Cuyahoga county board where the county will float $900 million in bonds to build a mart that Kennedy’s company will then own, having only to put up $20 million and get all the profits for 20 years and having all their property taxes comped.

It’s all about the juice:

“Kennedy’s comments came in support of Tim Hagan, who on Thursday publicly defended his close ties to the Kennedy family. Hagan said his relationships have not influenced his support of the medical mart project.  But Kennedy, MMPI’s president, said that his relationship with Hagan is why the company came to Cleveland. No one else in town had the influence.  ‘Who’s got the juice in that town?’ Kennedy wondered, granting exceptions for Hagan and Cleveland Clinic President and Chief Executive Toby Cosgrove. ‘We would not invest there if it weren’t for Tim Hagan.  Who else could get us to come there?” he said. ‘Nobody’s doing business in Cleveland.’”  (Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Med Mart Criticism Ripped; MMPI President Blasts City’s Negativity,” March 29, 2009)

Smell the change in the air!

This would make Todd Stroger proud:

Under threat of a lawsuit from The Plain Dealer, Cuyahoga County commissioners Tuesday promised not to approve a development agreement on the taxpayer-funded $425 million medical mart project until the public has at least a week to review the deal.

Commissioners and their attorney have negotiated the deal in secrecy with a private partner for over a year, giving taxpayers almost no details about how the public’s money will be spent or protected. The newspaper was prepared to sue commissioners Friday under the Ohio Open Records Law, resulting in negotiations to give the public an advance look.

“We are satisfied, but we are utterly disappointed with how this process has been conducted,” Plain Dealer Editor Susan Goldberg said. “It has been alarming to see elected officials operate with this level of disregard for the public’s right to know how its money is being spent and how decisions of enormous civic importance are being made.”

The development agreement will detail the county’s partnership with Merchandise Mart Properties Inc., which will build, own and operate the mart and convention center. MMPI will collect all profits from operating the mart and convention center. Commissioners increased the sales tax to free up money for the complex.

The newspaper decided to go to court because commissioners have deprived taxpayers of the ability to ensure the agreement makes sense — before the county hands over $425 million of public money to a private enterprise.

What a deal!

But don’t worry, Cuyahoga County Commissioner Hagan is all about transparency:

Hagan’s also upset that the PD dared to ask a really obvious and important question: how has Tim Hagan’s close relationship with the Kennedy family affected the negotiations with Med Mart developer MMPI and its president, Chris Kennedy?

This is the article that set Hagan off. The PD says one reason it threatened a lawsuit to get the county to reveal its latest agreement with MMPI is that it’s “concerned” about the Hagan-Chris Kennedy relationship.
At a meeting a year ago, when an earlier county-MMPI agreement was unveiled, even Jimmy Dimora mentioned Hagan’s awkward ties.

“Commissioner Hagan especially, because of his relationship with the Kennedy family, was in a very difficult position,” Dimora said then. “And he stood up for our community and for making sure we got a good deal. Even though [with] friendship, sometimes you try to be lax and easier with your friends, more understanding, he stood the line, which helped make sure that MMPI knew that we were serious and that we wanted to do the right thing for the taxpayers.”

That’s Hagan’s dilemma, his conflict of interest, right there. Of course the PD should ask about it.
I did too, last spring. “The assumption is that I would be compromised in those discussions,” Hagan said then. “I don’t want to give that impression. I certainly know people in this town as well or better that we’ve negotiated with.” (Today at the meeting, Hagan said Sam Miller and the Ratners of Forest City have given him $75,000 over the years, which didn’t keep him from rejecting their Med Mart site.)

“I know Chris Kennedy,” Hagan told me last year. “I went to his mother’s 80th birthday party. They’ve been friends of mine for almost 40 years. But the Kennedys no longer own Merchandise Mart, and he’s the president of the company. I don’t think that precludes my discussions with him.

“I think the public scrutiny and transparency of the deal put before the public is proof that I’ve tried to operate in the best interests of community first and foremost.”

Which is why the PD wants to see the new agreement!

Sudden urgency for Hagan began with Chris Kennedy’s involvement:

For three years, Cuyahoga County Commissioner Tim Hagan showed little urgency in seeking a site for a proposed $425 million convention center and medical mart. Just two weeks ago, he defended a proposed delay by saying: “We can’t twist anybody’s arm.”

But that all changed sometime between Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
Hagan suddenly became a driven man, twisting the arms of his fellow commissioners behind closed doors to choose where to build what many consider the county’s most important public project in years. The decision, if it holds, would mean the county has decided to spend nearly a half-billion public dollars without holding a meeting in public to discuss the basis for its decision.

To make it happen, Hagan overrode the concerns of the county’s $100,000 negotiator, who wanted time to bargain with landowners before committing to one site.

Why the sudden rush? Why all the secrecy? And why would a county government in the middle of a sweeping federal corruption investigation choose not to conduct its business in the most open way possible?

I’m completely baffled by the press falling all over Hamlet of the Mart and Hamlet on the Lake.  Both are nothing more than political hacks who think the world is their personal playground and I’m getting pretty fucking tired of the routine.  In contrast, we have two good progressives potentially running for the seat who have shown a committment to public service.  In the case of Jan, we see her being judged by the business dealings of her husband while two men in the race aren’t even judged by their own business dealings.  In the case of Alexi, we see him being the first to figure out a scam from an investment company among several states involved in the fund and he gets criticized over buying a fuel efficient state vehicle.

Solidly In The Game

ArchPundit May 6, 2009 No Comments

Bill Brady’s polling memo:

Statewide polling last week showed that Bill Brady’s campaign for Governor is moving forward. Head-to-head matchups between Brady and two presumed contenders for the Democratic nomination showed Brady earning support across the board and solidly in the game.

The numbers showed:
32% Brady
39% Quinn
29% Undecided

27% Brady
46% Madigan
26% Undecided

Brady is drawing expected support from Republicans but also gaining favor of African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats and independents. Both Governor Quinn and Attorney General Madigan have won multiple statewide elections, and both are current elected statewide officials. Brady’s not leading and has more work to do, but the polling suggests he’s clearly off to a good start.
— The poll was conducted by Public Policy Polling survey and included 991 Illinois voters. It was taken April 24-26 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

I don’t think solidly in the game means what Brady thinks it means.

PPP on General Election Matchups for US Senate

ArchPundit April 30, 2009 No Comments

Via Capitol Fax

Polling Memo:

Raleigh, N.C. – Roland Burris is so unpopular that even as Democratic as Illinois is, he
trails Republican Congressman Mark Kirk 53-19 in a hypothetical 2010 contest, the
newest survey from Public Policy Polling finds.

Even among Democrats Burris leads only 34-27, and among independents he trails 62-8.

Of course Burris is not likely to be the Democratic nominee next year.  But even with
him out of the picture Kirk looks competitive in some early match ups.  He is tied 35-35
with Alexi Giannoulias and leads Jan Schakowsky 37-33.

Those numbers aren’t quite as encouraging for Republicans as they may seem to be
though.  In each case only 19% of GOP voters are undecided, while more than 30% of
Democratic ones are.

“Right now there’s a lot of uncertainty among Democrats about their choices for the
Senate next year with an unpopular incumbent and candidates seemingly entering or
bowing out of the race on a daily basis,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling.  “Once they’re actually settled on a nominee next year that’s likely to change.”

Lisa Madigan, who has not shown interest in a Senate run, easily dispatches Kirk by a
margin of 49-33.

Madigan and Pat Quinn would also start out with strong advantages in the Governor’s
race.  Madigan leads Bill Brady 46-27 and Quinn has a 39-32 edge.  61% of voters say
they have no opinion about Brady one way or the other.

PPP surveyed 991 Illinois voters between April 24th
and 26th.  The survey’s margin of
error is +/-3.1%.  Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may
introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

General Election:

Burris  19%

Kirk   53 %

Schakowsky  33 %

Kirk                   37 %

Giannoulias 35 %

Kirk                35 %

Madigan  49%

Kirk           32 %

The one thing I’ll say, I don’t think Kirk wins in a race with Madigan for Governor given these numbers.  Madigan has numbers that are pretty damn amazing at this point. I don’t see how anyone beats her. I am uncomfortable with daughter father team, but it simply isn’t an issue for her and while it might be raised in a campaign, it’s not worked before and people know her better now.

Kirk’s problem–especially against Giannoulias in these numbers is that Kirk is about at the ceiling with black and hispanic voters for a Republican, but there are a quite a few undecideds in both categories.  Those are likely to disproportionately go to Giannoulias or even Schakowsky with a President Obama’s endorsement.   I just don’t see his winning coalition unless he can sweep all of the white voters and that’s not terribly likely given he cannot play on the wedge issues of gun and abortion.

State Journal Register’s new The Dome also has new twitter feed

ArchPundit April 30, 2009 No Comments

https://twitter.com/SJRthedome

http://thedome.sj-r.com/

Durbin on Cramdown Amendment

ArchPundit April 30, 2009 No Comments

Last night on The Ed Show:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9XcT7FuQHw[/youtube]

Last bit from today on Youtube:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHgxziLqCM[/youtube]

One other argument that I think takes the cake: “Senator, you understand the moral hazard here.  People have to be held responsible for their wrongdoing.  If you make a mistake, darn it, you’ve gotta pay the price.  That’s what America is all about.”  Really, Mr. Banker on Wall Street?  That’s what America is all about?  What price did Wall Street pay for their miserable decisions creating rotten portfolios, destroying the credit of America and its businesses?  Oh, they paid a pretty heavy price.  Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money sent to them to bail them out, to put them back in business, even to fund executive bonuses for those guilty of mismanaging.  Moral hazard, huh?  How can they argue that with a straight face? […]

At the end of the day, this is a real test of where we’re going in this country.  Next up, after mortgages, credit cards.  Next week, the same bankers get to come in and see how much might and power they have in the Senate when it comes to credit card reform.  And the question we’re going to face, is whether or not this Senate is going to listen to the families facing foreclosure, the families facing job loss and bills they can’t pay, or whether they’re going to listen to the American Bankers Association, which has folded its arms and walked out of the room.  Well, I hope that we have the courage to stand up to them.  I hope this is the beginning of a new day in the Senate, a new dialogue in the Senate, that says to the bankers across America that your business as usual has put us in a terrible mess, and we’re not going to allow that to continue.  We want America to be strong, but if it’s going to be strong, you should be respectful, Mr. Banker, of the people who live in the communities where your banks are located.  You should be respectful of those families who are doing their best to make ends meet in the toughest recession that they’ve ever seen.  You should be respectful of the people that you want to sign up for checking accounts and savings accounts, and make sure that they have decent neighborhoods to live in.  Show a little loyalty to this great nation instead of just your bottom line when it comes to profitability.  Take a little consideration of what it takes to make America strong…

I’ll offer this Durbin amendment as I did last year.  When I offered it last year, they said, “Not a big problem, only two million foreclosures coming up.”  They were wrong.  It turned out to be eight million.  And if the bankers prevail today, and we can’t get something through conference committee to deal with this issue, I’ll be back.  I’m not going to quit on this […] At some point, the Senators in this chamber will decide, the bankers shouldn’t write the agenda in the United States Senate.

Kirk Set to Jump in Illinois Senate Race

ArchPundit April 30, 2009 No Comments

So sayeth Lynn Sweet

The assumption of the establishment of the Illinois GOP is that Kirk is a perfect candidate and they will throw their weight behind him.  The problem is that they’ve been dieting for a long time and the establishment isn’t what it once was.

The start of the Illinois Republican civil war really goes back to the 1990 election for Governor.  That year Jim Edgar, a moderate establishment type, was challenged by Steve Baer in the primary.  Edgar won that election and the 1994 primary against the other crazy Roeser–Jack. But the conservative challenges would continue and begin to be much more successful.

In 1992, five conservative GOP Senators were elected who challenged the moderate leadership:  Peter Fitzgerald, Chris Lauzen, Patrick O’Malley, Steve Rauchenberger, and Dave Syverson.  After 1994, we see the top of the ticket–either US Senate or Governor going to pro-life establishment types or conservative challengers have prevailed with the lone exception of Topinka who had multiple conservative opponents.

In 1996, conservative State Representative Al Salvi defeated  moderate Lieutenant Governor Bob Kustra for the US Senate nomination and in 1998 Peter Fitzgerald won the primary against moderate Comptroller Loleta Didrickson.  Even when conservatives haven’t won primaries, they have hobbled the more moderate establishment candidates.  Patrick O’Malley ran a scorched earth campaign against then Attorney General Jim Ryan in 2002 and Jim Oberweis ran a harsh campaign against Judy Baar Topinka in 2006, though the conservative vote was split between a few candidates.  The 2004 US Senate campaign was won by Jack Ryan who was conservative, but straddled the line with the establishment.  The US Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2008 were largely non-factors though the ultimate nominees were slightly more moderate.

Kirk is seen as a magic cure to the ills of the Illinois GOP that has been shut out of statewide office since 2006, has a Senate minority against a veto-proof Senate Democratic majority, and a Republican minority in the House in which the Dems are only a few seats from a veto proof majority.  And on the surface he probably is their best bet in a general election.  While one can (and I do) argue that he is far less indepedendent than he lets on, on four critical issues he sets himself apart from the national Republican Party (guns, gays, abortion, and the environment).

However, early signs point to social conservatives in the party to not be willing to go along with a Kirk candidacy and an insurgent conservative candidate seems likely to appear.  Yesterday I pointed to Tom Roeser explicitly rejecting Kirk and saying social conservatives will not work for him. While Roeser is a crank, he’s also an influential voice in social conservative circles having his own radio show weekly on WGN 890.

If Kirk decides and gets the party’s all-but-official nod, the party can kiss goodbye any hope that social conservatives will support Kirk. I divide Republican moderates as either pro-choice or pro-abort. Kirk has made no bones about the fact that he is a hard-left pro-abort. He supports not only abortion on demand but has spoken against the Born Alive bill which guarantees nutrition, comfort and medical care to babies born alive from botched abortions…which puts him squarely in Barack Obama’s pro-abortion camp. He supports partial birth abortion, public funding for abortion, total ban on parental consent and use of embryonic stem cells for experimentation. In short, where Jim Edgar could have been called pro-choice (he opposed partial birth abortion), Kirk is hard-line all the way.

It might be ameliorated if Kirk were to run for the U. S. Senate but as governor and leader of the party in Illinois, he would assuredly shut down any remaining pro-life dissent and would be a variant of Big Jimbo Thompson on the issue.

Roeser isn’t alone.  The Illinois Family Institute ran a column the other day saying:

This wasn’t the first threat from Illinois Review about his future prospects.  Eric Wallace went ballistic at the notion there shouldn’t be a litmus test for the US Senate nomination:

Then, quite to my surprise, this past Monday, March 23, 2009 Senator Cornyn of Texas was heard heralding the very same thing—“no litmus test”. And to whom is he speaking of to the Main Stream Media—none other than Congressman Mark Kirk. Cornyn goes on to say  “we need a moderate to win in a democrat-leaning State”.

I have a few problems with this “litmus test” rhetoric. First of all, the pro-life plank is part of the National GOP platform as well as the Illinois state GOP platform. Pro-family planks are also a part of the GOP platform, at both the federal and state level. Mark Kirk does not reflect the State party or the National party platform on either of these issues.

Secondly, the fact that party leadership would suggest there be no “litmus test” from one side of the mouth; and then from the other purport a seemingly self-serving statement that only a moderate can win, is in essence a “litmus test”. In other words, according to Senator Cornyn (and others) any viable candidate from Illinois need only apply if he/she is a social-moderate. Is this not a litmus test? But of course it’s your litmus test; and without question, it’s OK.

=============

Lastly, don’t get me wrong– I respect Kirk, McKenna and Cornyn. From what I know of them they are all good people, and sincere. But I’m convinced they’re sincerely wrong about who can win in this State. And unfortunately, if they are attempting to steer the election of the next US (IL) Senate candidate from the GOP side without a primary fight- they are sorely mistaken. There are those, including this writer, who will fight for our principles and not lay them down in the name of party unity.  Our Party is no better than the Democrats if we jettison principle for expediency. Why would anyone follow a party that painstakingly crafts a platform; and then ignores it in order to garner a few more votes? Like Esau we would be selling our birthright for a bowl of soup.

Let all who claim to be conservatives be put on notice. A day is coming, and is already here, when we must stand and choose a side. Will you stand on/for principles? Or will you simply go along to get along?  We will never see reform until “we stand for what say we believe and actively engaging in the political process that represents us”. This is at the very heart (and purpose) of Freedom’s Journal Magazine. Finally, what I found most compelling about that meeting in Springfield was Gov. Huckabee, who although not in the room when the chairman spoke, irrefutably contradicted his opinion. Huckabee encouraged us to “stand for life and defend those who cannot defend themselves”. He challenged everyone in the room to stand on principle, because that is how we’ll win elections. I agree with Gov. Huckabee. I plan to stand on principle. How about you?

So what does this mean for Kirk? It means he’ll get a primary challenge from the right.  His fundamental problem is that no establishment type  has gotten 50 % of the vote in a primary since George Ryan in 1998 and he was nominally pro-life.  Even when establishment types have won since 1996, other than Judy Baar Topinka, they have been pro-life:  Jim Ryan, George Ryan and say Jim Durkin (and I’m not counting Durbin’s last opponent who could have lost to the wacky Andy Martin).  While the Illinois GOP establishment may want to clear the field for Kirk, they have not successfully done such a thing in 20 years.

Kirk essentially is going to be a pinball switching back and forth between trying to be the moderate the Republicans need in a general election and the conservatives the party faithful will demand in the primary.   The end result will be a candidate who has no identity and will not appeal to independents or social conservatives.

The Illinois GOP condition:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.