By Rich Trzupek

Last week’s exchange between Attorney General Eric Holder and Congressman Lamar Smith during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee sums up the Obama administration’s struggles with today’s foreign policy realities pretty darn well:

“In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam,” Congressman Smith said. “Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?”

“Because of… ?” Holder replied.

“Radical Islam,” Smith repeated.

“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” Holder said. “I think you have to look at each individual case.”

Smith tried again: “Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people…”

By all accounts, Smith is normally a mild-mannered guy, but he was starting to get a little cranky, asking the same question for the fourth time: “But was radical Islam one of them?”

“There are a variety of reasons why people do things,” Holder said. “Some of them are potentially religious…”

“Okay,” Smith said. “But all I’m asking is if you think among those variety of reasons radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did.”

“You see, you say ‘radical Islam,’” Holder protested. “I mean, I think those people who espouse a – a version of Islam that is not…”

“Are you uncomfortable attributing any actions to radical Islam?” asked Smith. “It sounds like it.”

Ya think?

And so it went. At the end of the dialogue, Holder finally allowed himself to use the words “radical” and “Islam” in the same sentence, albeit not actually next to each other. Can’t be too careful about these things.

I don’t think that the Attorney General would hesitate to place the words “right-wing” and “extremist” adjacent to each other, if some loony longing for the glory days of the Third Reich tried to blow something up. I also rather doubt that he would use the adjectives “radical” and “fundamentalist” in front of the noun “Christian” if somebody who believes themselves to be the avenging hand of God blew up an abortion clinic.

As a right-wing kind of guy and as a Christian, I would not be offended in the least in either case. In fact, I would expect Holder to use just such terms and I would want him to, if for no other reason than to make it clear that there is a difference between the “right-wing” and “right-wing extremists” and between Christians and radical, fundamentalist Christians. So why all the pussy-footing around in this case?

Is the administration trying to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities? Please. How can a sensible Muslim be offended if the Attorney General of the United States points out that fanatics whom everybody – with the apparent exception of Eric Holder – knows are acting in the name of their religion are in fact “radicals?”

More likely, this is part of the Obama administration’s continuing effort to de-Bush itself. Yeah, they’ll fight the war on terror, but now it’s an “overseas contingency operation,” which has the singular effect of sounding ludicrous to pretty much everyone on both sides of the political spectrum. But calling it the “war on terror” is much to W.

Holder’s latest tap-dance sounds like more of the same. Using the words “radical Islam” would make him sound just like that right-wing lunatic from Texas and God knows we can’t have that. Who knows what motivates somebody who spends five months in a terrorist training camp in Pakistan to try and blow up Times Square after all? It could be just about anything. Perhaps, as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hilariously suggested after the Times Square bomb plot was discovered, it was the result of discontent over health care.

Granted, you’d never hear George W. Bush, or anyone in his administration, offer such a patently transparent equivocation, but the same could be said of Bill Clinton and his gang. Does Holder understand how silly he sounds? Probably not, for this administration doesn’t seem capable of putting campaign-mode behind it.

Of course, conducting a campaign is the one thing that Obama and his cronies do very, very well. Leading a nation and dealing with religious fanatics who are trying to destroy western civilization? Not so much.

By Rich Trzupek

There’s a run on winter-wear in hell today, because I find myself in complete agreement with the Chicago Tribune. A May 6 editorial in the Trib chided House lawmakers for failing to pass a vouchers bill that would have allowed parents to get their kids out of some of the worst schools in the state and into a school of their choice. In a typical Mike Madigan tactic, the vote wasn’t recorded, but the enterprising fellows at Capitol Fax took a photo of the tally board before it could be officially disappeared.

Among your representatives in Examinerland, only Tim Schmitz (R-St. Charles) voted for the measure. Democrats Fred Crespo and Paul Froelich, along with Republican Randy Ramey all voted against and everybody should remember those votes.

There are a couple of reasons, neither of them good, to vote against voucher programs. One is, as Democrat representative Kevin Joyce observed with surprising candor, is that this is a “union issue.” By that, Joyce of course means it’s a teacher’s union issue. If parents can get kids out of failing schools, the teachers at those schools are going to have to find other employment.

Obviously, we can’t have that. Protecting teachers’ jobs at schools that don’t work is far more important than, you know, the kids they actually teach, or creating jobs at schools that do work courtesy of freedom of choice. The Democrat-preferred solution to Illinois’ educational woes, as it is to every problem, is more money. Just a few more bucks and everything will be both hunky and dory.

But you know what? That won’t work, because it hasn’t worked. We’ve got over three decades of experience of pouring more and more money into public education in this state and our kids fall farther and farther behind. Yes, public schools have had to cut back of late and that has hurt, but we still spend far more – in terms of real dollars – per student today than we did thirty years ago for public education and far more per student than infinitely more successful private institutions of learning. Isn’t it about time we gave choice a chance? Isn’t it about time we give kids a chance?

While “protecting union jobs” logic, such as it is, explains the votes of the forty-four Democrats who voted “nay,” I’m baffled why an otherwise reliably conservative lawmaker like Ramey and twenty one other Republicans would vote against vouchers. There is an argument that vouchers are an added expense – you’re essentially funding public and private educational systems for a time – but it’s not really an expense, it’s an investment.

Yes, the failing public schools will stumble along for a while on the taxpayer’s dime, but after a while they’ll be forced to either: a) clean up their acts, or b) close up shop. Either way, the tax-payers and most importantly the kids win in the long run. If GOP lawmakers voted against this investment on account of cost, they’re being terribly short-sighted. If they were courting the teacher’s union vote, they should turn in their party credentials.

Don’t assume that the twenty-two Democrats who voted for vouchers are actually in favor of vouchers either. By and large, they represent “safe” districts that are, have been and probably always will be controlled by Democrats. They’re not going anywhere, so it doesn’t matter if they annoy the unions or not.

The cynicism that percolates through Springfield is mind-boggling. One wonders how legislators can look themselves in the mirror each morning, much less face their constituents. That’s why there’s a tsunami heading downstate in November and everybody knows it.

It would be a mistake to view Republican gains in Illinois this election cycle as mere repudiation of Democrats. It’s more than that. Voters are sick of politics as usual here and it’s pretty clear that we haven’t been governed properly since Jim Edgar left office. If the GOP in Illinois is given the chance to govern in November, they better heed that message or they’ll soon find themselves on the outside looking in – again.

By Rich Trzupek

Last year, the Civic Federation, a non-partisan organization that watches government spending, supported the idea of a state tax hike in order to close the state of Illinois’ massive budget gap. Actually, “gap” isn’t a good enough word. “Chasm” describes the difference between revenue and spending more accurately. But, I digress.

Anyway, having argued for a tax hike last year, the Civic Federation pulled back from that position this year for one very good, and very simple, reason: they don’t trust the Democrat-controlled General Assembly to rein in spending. The more that you feed the beast that is big government, the hungrier the beast gets for more tax dollars. Kudos to the Civic Federation for pointing that out.

The organization came to this conclusion in their report analyzing Governor Pat Quinn’s proposed 2011 budget. The first three paragraphs of the Executive Summary are worth repeating:

“The Civic Federation opposes Governor Pat Quinn’s $52 billion FY2011 recommended operating budget for the State of Illinois because it is unbalanced and does too little to address the State’s fiscal crisis. The Governor’s recommended budget borrows billions to pay for operations while continuing to ignore the massive backlog of unpaid bills, which will make the State’s financial condition worse.

Although the Civic Federation is encouraged that Governor Quinn has signed significant pension reform legislation and recommends some reductions in spending, we cannot support his FY2011 State of Illinois operating budget because it does not effectively stabilize state finances or substantially reduce the State’s $12.9 billion deficit going into FY2011.

The Governor’s FY2011 budget recommendation would create a $10.6 billion deficit, consisting of an operating deficit of $4.7 billion and a carry forward deficit of $5.9 billion from the prior year. The recommended budget proposes borrowing $4.7 billion to close the operating deficit. Even after borrowing to pay for the operating deficit, the State will end FY2011 with the same carry forward deficit of $5.9 billion.”

And it goes on from there. Quinn and the Dems are trying to apply a band-aid, when major surgery is called for. One cannot help but wonder if Mike Madigan and his allies in the capitol secretly hope that Bill Brady beats Quinn in November. That would have the effect of dumping this ugly mess into the lap of Republican governor with the unspoken directive: you figure it out.

Whatever the next governor does, the solution is sure to be deeply unpopular. We’ve already seen how state employees react to the suggestion of budget cuts and it’ll only get worse if a governor proposes the deep, meaningful slashes necessary to restore sanity.

The alternative – tax hikes – would make state employees and those who depend on entitlement programs very happy indeed, but would really annoy the rest of us who work for a living. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t kind of decision, so why not let the other guy deal with it? It’s not like Mike Madigan and his Chicago cronies have to worry about their jobs or anything.

In a way, you’re already feeling the effects of tax hikes, or you likely soon will. The state has already reduced the share of the state income tax that it returns to municipalities and Quinn wants to cut that back even further. Under the governor’s proposal the amount of state income tax returned to municipalities would drop by nearly a third, from ten per cent of what residents pay the state, to seven per cent.

Municipalities are struggling in this economy as much as anybody and, by and large, these small units of government are already running as lean as they can. When the state reduces the amount of money – your money – that it returns to communities, towns across the state will have little choice but to raise taxes or cut services that are actually essential, like police, fire and water. Most of the time, I would be willing to bet, municipalities are going to look at that Hobson’s choice and – albeit reluctantly – conclude that it’s better to ask residents for more money than it is to imperil those functions of local government that they need.

It’s a shame that Illinois is in the position it’s in, but it’s not like we couldn’t have seen this coming. If a humble scribe like yours truly could have seen this coming eight years ago, our representatives in Springfield should damned sure have known. But, when it comes to those senators and representatives with a “D” behind their names, it’s clear that either: a) they didn’t know, or b) they didn’t care.

In the first case, the best one can say is that they’ve been negligent, if not downright stupid. In the latter case, they’ve failed to do their job of representing the people in order to get themselves elected. Either way, it’s pretty clear that they should no longer be entrusted with the future of the people of Illinois and, come November, here’s hoping that the people take action and throw the bums out.

By Rich Trzupek

Sometimes those anti-government protesters go too far. Take this quote, for example, that was uttered in front of a frenzied crowd that roared their approval:

“They can run, but they can’t hide. We’re gonna be over there this afternoon, and we’re gonna find you. And if you try to leave town without doing your job, we’re gonna chase you. And when you come back home, we’ll be there.”

Surprising, isn’t it, that a quote like that didn’t get a lot of play in the mainstream media? That’s just the sort of inflammatory rhetoric that they are constantly accusing the right of spouting and the kind of sound bite that they desperately scour tea-party rallies in search of, almost entirely in vain. So why wasn’t this bit of anger called out by CNN, MSNBC and the like?

Perhaps it has something to do with who said it: Henry Bayer, director of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union. Bayer and thousands of AFSCME members rallied in Springfield last week in order to urge lawmakers to – can you guess? – raise taxes.

Mind you, I don’t have an actual problem with what Bayer said. I rather have a problem with the double-standard that the mainstream media employs when it comes to rhetoric like this. Sarah Palin tells conservatives that it’s time to “reload” and the paranoid left, with the full cooperation of their pals in the MSM, decides that the ex-Alaskan governor was issuing a call to arms, when it should be patently obvious to anyone with an IQ above fifty that Palin was talking about political battles, not those involving firearms.

Bayer promised legislators that “we’re going to chase you” and “we’re going to find you,” which – if taken literally – sounds pretty darned ominous. Imagine if someone from the right had employed the same words with regards to Nancy Pelosi or president Obama. The left would be hysterical, certain that violence was nigh.

Surely, Illinois legislators don’t have to worry about their safety following Bayer’s angry words. For one thing, Bayer and his followers are Democrats and are therefore both afraid of guns and also unlikely to expend the energy necessary to chase somebody, particularly if doing so might cause them to miss an episode of “Two and a Half Men.” Still, the blatant hypocrisy of the mainstream media is a sight to behold, ain’t it?

The rally itself was remarkable in its own right. One can only assume that AFSCME members and Bayer have been living in a cave for the last year. Illinois is bleeding jobs and red ink and their self-serving solution is a tax hike? What planet do these people come from? Not only do state legislators know that they will get their butts booted out of office so fast that their shoes wouldn’t catch up for two weeks if they approved a tax hike, the mood of the people – who have been taxed dry – is plain to see.

Illinois doesn’t need more cash, it needs to manage the cash it has like responsible adults. Don’t take my word for it. Instead, consider the words of a Democrat: state senator Jack Franks who said this in a letter published in the Chicago Tribune:

“Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. State revenue this year is at the third-highest level in the history of Illinois. We have more money than we had in 2007… Those who see an income tax increase as the only solution do not understand the problem… We have to shrink the size of government through better accounting and restrained spending.”

Let’s be clear on this, since experience has shown that some of the Cheap Seats’ more liberal readers can be a little slow on the uptake. Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem. When you compare state revenues in 2010 to revenues in 2000, you will find that the state takes in fifty per cent more bucks into its coffers today than it did a decade ago. The reason – the only reason – that this state is massively in debt, can’t pay its bills and borrows like mad to make up for ever-increasing shortfalls is out of control spending that is entirely the responsibility of the Democrats who have been in sole control of state government for the majority of the decade.

Kudos to Franks, who said what needed to be said. He is something of an exception among Dems – a guy who doesn’t mindlessly toe the party line, a la senator Mike Noland. Franks called out Blago over questionable state purchasing practices long before it was fashionable to do so and he spoke to the truth when it comes to spending. In certain circles, Franks has the reputation of being something of a gadfly. I don’t know the man, so I’m not qualified to comment, but it doesn’t really matter. If more Illinois Dems were willing to call out the obvious failings of their leadership, instead of mindlessly following the commands of “Chicago First” politicians like Mike Madigan, Prairie State conservatives like me would have a whole lot less to complain about.

By Rich Trzupek

- Not sure which is more remarkable: the flurry of radical proposals that USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is churning out on an almost monthly basis, or the way the mainstream media is completely ignoring what she’s been up to. In little more than a year, Jackson has developed new air quality standards that will make it just about impossible to build a new fossil-fuel fired power plant in this country, set up an Ocean Policy Taskforce that will prove more effective than anything at stopping off-shore drilling and is steadily working on a rewrite of storm water regulations that will impact the cost and availability of a whole new host of consumer products previously untouched by EPA’s grasping hands.

If they are seen through to fruition, all of these initiatives will be costly to consumers and drive even more jobs overseas to nations that don’t have a similarly dazzling array of well-intentioned, but ultimately pointless, rules. Veteran readers of the Cheap Seats know that your humble correspondent does battle with the EPA in the day job on a daily basis, so I have certain, well-earned bias against that particular agency. But, Jackson’s EPA is a bureaucracy on steroids. Privately – very privately – many EPA staffers have been shaking their heads in disbelief as well, for they understand that if Jackson has her way, there’s going to be very little industry left for them to regulate.

- Last week Trey Parker and Matt Stone, aka: the last two guys in Hollywood with any guts, took a shot at radical Islam. No, that’s not right. In the April 18 episode of South Park, Parker and Stone were merciless in exposing the cowardly hypocrisy of those who enable the intolerance of the jihadists out fear of violent retribution. The response from the jihadis was predictable. How dare Parker and Stone attack Islamic intolerance and violence. They must be killed! The situation might be termed ironic, if it wasn’t so pathetic.

And how has Hollywood reacted? You know, the Hollywood chock full of “courageous” celebrities ever-ready to defend freedom of expression, diversity and creativity? Nary a word. Oh sure, George Clooney can make a film that goes after Joe McCarthy and that’s gutsy, because Tailgunner Joe has such a legion of admirers fifty-three years after his death. But a couple of their own go after a violent, hateful ideology and the silence is deafening.

- The images of Streamwood police officer James Mandarino beating a motorist were truly horrific and it’s hard to imagine any circumstances that would have justified Mardarino’s actions. I never met him while I was covering Streamwood, but, by all accounts, Mandarino was an exemplary, well-liked cop, which makes this incident all the more puzzling.

There’s plenty of justifiable outrage to be had but, unfortunately, cop-haters will also use this incident to paint with a very broad brush. Among those who should not be tarred nor feathered is Al Popp, Streamwood’s Police Chief. I’ve been privileged to know Al for a lot of years and have watched both him and his department at work more than – I’m sure – anyone who is not employed by the village. Popp is a public servant in every sense of the word, as honorable as anyone I have known and a stand up guy to boot. Knowing the kind of department that Popp runs, I’m sure that he was as shocked to see that film as anyone and, to his credit, he didn’t hesitate to do the right thing. Al will weather this storm and he doesn’t need me – or anyone – to defend him or his department. But, he’s had the backs of the residents of Streamwood for a lot of years, in countless ways that most people don’t even realize, so it’s only right for somebody to have his back now.

- Former President Bill Clinton trotted out the ghost of Timothy McVeigh to warn everyone about the dangers of something called right-wing extremism, which includes soccer moms coming out to tea-party rallies to protest big government, apparently. This is, of course, just another way of telling conservatives to shut the hell up.

It may be useful to look back on how the Clinton administration privately reacted to the Oklahoma City bombing. In his 1999 memoir “Behind the Oval Office” Clinton advisor Dick Morris reprinted the agenda for a White House meeting held four days after the tragedy. Here are the top three items on that agenda:

A. Temporary gain: boost in ratings — here today, gone tomorrow

B. More permanent gain: Improvements in character/personality attributes — remedies weakness, incompetence, ineffectiveness found in recent poll

C. Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans

The last is the most significant, in the context of Clinton’s remarks. Liberals love the idea of right-wing violence, because it naturally distances people from conservatives. The tea-parties have been peaceful protests against swollen government, unmarked by violence. So, in the absence of any real violence to fuel fear and outrage, Clinton is more than happy to make some up. Lovely.

By Rich Trzupek

I love letters to the editor. This week we got a great one, in which the author quite sincerely, if dubiously, decries the fact that so many Republicans and conservatives want to hang the “socialist” tag on Barack Obama, his administration and his allies in a Congress controlled by fellow Democrats. That charge, our correspondent says, is wholly unfounded, mean-spirited and inflammatory. The president is simply investing in America. This is, of course, the kind of argument that a great many of the president’s supporters make all of the time.

Obama has spent money and increased national indebtedness to a degree that knows no parallel in American history outside of the monumental effort that was World War II. That’s deeply troubling, especially when we consider what it means for our children’s futures, but government spending in and of itself does not create socialism. Socialism is a matter of institutions; who controls those facets of a society that allow it to function: private individuals and enterprises or government? If the answer is predominantly the former, then you have a nation based on individual liberty and capitalism. If the answer is mostly the latter, you’re part of a socialist system, whether you’re willing to admit it or not.

After America and the Allies won World War II, the country was left with a massive debt, but it was a debt burden that Americans willingly shouldered because the investment was dedicated toward a specific, one-time only purpose and because it did not create any permanent institutions that would hinder or control free enterprise in the long run. In 1941, there is no way that Americans would have invested in the war, or would have approved of taking on massive debt to fight the war, if they believed that doing so would have created more dependence on government. The independent, “frontier” spirit still ran strongly through the veins of the average American back then.

The debt obligations that the Obama administration is happily creating are secondary, albeit troubling, issues. The larger problem is the fact that Obama is forcing government dependency upon the populace on an unprecedented scale. The healthcare bill is the most troubling, but hardly the only, example of the neo-socialist state Democrats are creating. One sixth of the United States economy is now under the control of the federal government. That’s stunning. That’s unprecedented. The faceless, soulless bureaucrats from the IRS who administer the tax code are both feared and despised. But, the IRS bureaucracy is nothing compared to the kind of bureaucracy that the health care bill creates. And, once a bureaucracy is entrenched, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Republicans can make noise about repealing the healthcare bill – and nobody would be happier to see that happen than I – but it’s hard to see how that could happen at any point in time, much less while Obama is president.

The GOP may win a majority in one or both chambers of Congress in November, but it won’t be a veto-proof majority. That means that healthcare is here to stay through at least 2012. That’s quite enough to time to establish the kind of dependence that will make it impossible to get rid of, just as happened with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and host of other government programs that provide government goodies. They become “indispensible” in the public’s eyes and therefore untouchable politically, and thus our ability to make choices for ourselves slowly erodes in favor of nanny-state socialism.

Am I pessimistic? You bet. It was recently revealed that about half of the population of the United States not only pays no net income tax, they actually get more money back from the government than they put in. We’re not talking about returns in terms of programs, assistance and all the rest, we’re talking about actual cash money. If you’re one of those people, what’s not to like? Effectively, you’re not paying taxes, you’re getting a nice subsidy courtesy of the rest of us suckers. If the government can do that for you, why wouldn’t you want more government?

General Motors and Chrysler, in a free market, would have declared bankruptcy, restructured their crippling debt obligations (chiefly caused by unsustainable pension programs) and moved on. Instead, the US government took them over and taxpayers became responsible for their past and future red ink. Yeah, that kind of sounds like socialism to me.

There are nations that prefer socialism, like Sweeden for example. Perhaps that’s America’s destiny now and, if it includes the equivalent of the Sweedish Bikini Team, there may be an upside. But don’t be fooled about what’s going on. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Obama and the Democrats can protest all they want about the way that their actions are being portrayed by crabby conservatives like me, but the evidence is plain to see. The government runs your life more than it ever has, and we’re not even halfway through the Obama era.

By Rich Trzupek

President Obama has done what many believed was impossible: he rammed a health control bill down the throats of the American people despite their objections, in seemingly complete disregard for the consequences, which would seem to include massive Republican gains in the House and Senate come November. Obama is a political animal, groomed for office in that most partisan of political zoos, the state of Illinois. How can this move possibly make any sense for the president or his party?

It may, but in only one circumstance: if Democrats obtain access to a heretofore unknown and uncounted voting bloc that can tip the balance of the electorate in their favor, no matter conventional wisdom circa 2010. There are, by best estimates, about eleven million illegal aliens residing in the United States today. By and large, those illegal aliens are poor and relatively uneducated. They desperately want to be citizens of the United States, so as to reap the undeniable benefits of citizenship in this great nation. As citizens, they would fall under the protection of the government, which – as we all know – won’t do a single thing that might let a single citizen fall through the safety net that we are obliged to provide.

Democrats understand this. Eleven million new voters dependent on the tender mercies of government are Democratic voters, by definition. The Dems will use charges of racism and claims of equity to push their immigration agenda forward, but the stakes here should be clear. If the Democrats get those voters, they will establish a dominant presence that will take decades to undo, if it can be undone at all.

Barack Obama has openly declared his position on the issue. As part of his immigration plan, the president said that he would support “…a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.”

As of today, the president has put immigration on the back burner, but how long is it likely to stay there? All that stands in the way of amnesty for eleven million illegal aliens residing in the United States is a single Republican vote in the Senate. It’s unlikely that one of the forty one Senators from the GOP is going to be suicidal enough to cave in on the issue, but that assumes that there will continue to be forty one Republican Senators in Washington all the way through November.

If the Dems are going to get this game changer, somebody has to go. Obama and Axelrod are Chicago politicians and they know that when somebody gets in your way, the best way to get what you want is to get rid of them. Just look at the current make up of the Chicago city council. Almost forty per cent of the alderman sitting in the council today have been appointed by Richie Daley.

All it will take is one trumped up scandal to make the right Republican Senator resign and Obama is back to a filibuster-proof Senate. But it’s got to be the right Republican: one who represents a state where a Democratic governor or a state legislature controlled by Democrats can name his successor. Don’t you believe for a minute that David Axelrod and his minions aren’t looking very, very carefully into the lives a few, potentially-vulnerable Senators. The prize at the end of this particular rainbow is far too tempting for these thugs in the White House to leave any stone unturned.

Fox News pundit Ralph Peters has called immigration policy the most important issue that we face today. He’s absolutely right. As bad as health care reform was, amnesty for eleven million people who broke the law in entering the United States and who continue to break it by living here would be infinitely worse. Injecting that many government-dependent, sure to be Democratic voters into the electorate would change the two party system and the nature of our Republic forever. This is not about race, color or perceived prejudiced. This is about the rule of law and a healthy balance of power. Whatever your party affiliation, you have to realize this is just plain wrong. We can only hope that our representatives in Washington understand that too.

By Rich Trzupek

It’s nice to hear a Democrat congressman speak to the truth, even unwittingly. Talking about the healthcare bill last week, Montana Senator Max Baucus got straight to the point: “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Time to redistribute the wealth, in other words. “Mal-distribution,” if it’s a word, is an interesting choice of words. “Mal” has Latin roots. It means “evil.” Assuming that Baucus actually understood what he was saying – and that’s admittedly a stretch when it comes to Democrats – Baucus believes that the accumulation of money and other assets, the capitalist system in other words, is inherently evil and needs to be reformed. Wouldn’t it have been nice if Baucus had made this position clear before he cast a vote in favor of Obmacare?

When conservatives described the health care bill in terms identical to those Baucus used, they were vilified in the mainstream media. How dare anyone accuse the president and his party of socialism! The bill would make the health care system better, not redistribute wealth through government fiat. The truth, which should have been blindingly obvious to anyone this side of Nancy Pelosi, was that conservatives were spot on. The American people knew it and, it would seem, so did an empty Democratic suit like Max Baucus.

It’s worth noting that Baucus doesn’t have much to personally worry about when it comes to this whole wealth redistribution thing. He was born into money and, thanks to his position as a member of Congress, he is shielded from the worst effects of the expensive health care tsunami to come. When you plot to rob from the rich and give to the poor, it’s much more convenient when other peoples’ monies are involved.

There’s more to come of course. There always is. A “Value Added Tax” (VAT) is likely in our future, because it’s obvious to everyone that the country can not continue to run up debt at this rate without causing a complete economic meltdown. Spending cuts would be nice, but that’s not going to happen under this administration. A corporate tax increase perhaps? Already done. (That was one of the hidden gems in the healthcare bill). The VAT sounds reasonable, because it’s distributed over, well, everything. The VAT is sort of a national sales tax, but it’s really much more. Government will assess the VAT on every transaction, not just – as is the case with a sales tax – on the finished product. Government will be there with its hand out every step of the way in manufacturing process, taxing every good, every service – darn near everything.

The net effect is to make the goods that Americans buy and the services Americans use that much more expensive, but since those costs are loaded on behind the curtains, the politicos figure that few will notice for very long. When fighting for the VAT, Democrats will undoubtedly bring up the fact that some conservatives have supported that means of taxation in the past. True enough, as far as that statement goes. The rest of the story is this: conservatives have championed the VAT as an alternative to the income tax, not as another tax piled on top of the income tax.

When will this come down? After the elections in November of course. Democrats are hurting politically right now and they’re not suicidal enough to pass a tax increase before the elections take place. Expect that the White House’s “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” will make that recommendation, thus giving the Obama administration cover. If there is one thing this president is very good at, it’s hiding behind committees that always seem to recommend exactly the kind of action that he wanted to take anyway. And when will the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issue its report? In December, silly. That’s one month after the election and, sadly, that’s also business as usual in our nation’s capital.

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS – MARCH 24, 2010

By Rich Trzupek

Chaos in the nation of Greece, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the European Union, ought to give thoughtful Americans pause. The economic mess that the Greeks have gotten themselves into, which is nearly as bad as the economic mess in that the General Assembly and Democratic governors have gotten Illinois into, serves as an object lesson as to what happens when legislators create government mandates and entitlements that are simply unsustainable.

In Greece, the government can no longer ignore all those past due notices, as will happen in the United States down the road, and the citizens of that ancient nation can not bear with the thought of losing all the government-provided goodies they have gotten used to.

Part of the problem the Greeks have is an aging population. There are less productive young people to pay for the government programs that support increasing numbers of retirees. In Greece, you not only get to retire in your fifties, you are guaranteed a comfortable pension for the rest of your life when you do.

That model is not unlike what has been happening in Illinois, by the by. A compliant, short-sighted series of General Assemblies have gleefully created generous pension programs for some public employees and forced municipal units of government to fund the same kind of programs for others. Those of us in the private sector, who are in charge of our own retirement plans, are thus forced to set money aside for own golden years and those of an increasing number of public sector employees.

Pension woes are not all that ails Greece of course. Greeks became addicted to government over the decades and, as inevitably happens, government grew in size, power and, most of all expense. Sure, you can make the productive people pay more taxes in order to pay for all the great things that big government does, but eventually that becomes counter-productive. At some point, people get fed up working their butts off to pay for a growing class of freeloaders. Why bother? The well runs dry and government wakes up one day to find that there is no money left to pay for all the programs that it has put into place.

That’s where Greece is today. The European Union pooled its resources to bail the Greeks out, but reasonably asked for certain economic reforms as a condition of providing the cash. Without such reforms, Greece would be back aboard the same sinking ship in no time. The EU’s conditions were not only unacceptable to the freeloader class in Greece, those conditions were positively insulting. How dare anyone demand fiscal responsibility! The freeloaders went nuts, starting rioting and generally made it clear that they were entitled to every last bit of largesse that they wanted.

In a way, the Greek response is rather similar to the way some college students reacted when they learned that tuitions were going up at state colleges in Illinois, less the rioting of course. But, the pious sense of outrage and moral justification were there all the same. Not that this was surprising, considering that the youthful set voted overwhelmingly to elect a president who has spent his life sucking off the public teat and whose wife was indignant about having to actually pay off her student loans, despite the fact that she was earning $300,000 a year in some made-up job at the time. Entitlement is in. Personal responsibility? That is so 1980s.

And so here we are today, with government debt spiraling out of control. Since Reagan left office, every administration has increased entitlement spending, with the consent of Congress. Clinton managed to do so while creating a surplus, but that was the result of the “peace dividend” that America realized as national defense was downsized following the end of the Cold War. Clinton’s record on entitlement spending is no better than any of the rest.

Liberals and Democrats, along with the president himself, continue to blame our current sorry state of affairs on George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been expensive, but that’s not the real problem. America can afford to fight a war. The problem with George W. Bush, and George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama is that all of them, without exception, signed onto the proposition that government can, and has the obligation to, solve every problem of every individual in the United States. They signed bills that created huge obligations for future generations, and did little to fix programs like Social Security (although, to his credit George W. Bush did make the effort) that are doomed to fail.

What Barack Obama has done, and what he promises to do, will hurtle this nation farther down the road toward being Greece, faster than any other administration in history. An aging baby-boomer like me may not live to see a Greek-style crisis in America, but I’ll guarantee that – unless things change dramatically and soon – our kids sure will.

By Rich Trzupek

It’s hard to believe that anyone could pick worse candidates than the party that gave Illinois gubernatorial candidates like ex-governor/current convict George Ryan and the unbearably bland Judy Barr-Topinka, but Illinois Democrats are giving the GOP a run for their money this year. First they gave us disgraced former lieutenant governor candidate Scott Lee Cohen and now comes troubling revelations about their Senatorial candidate, state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. One has to wonder: does anybody check a candidate’s background these days?

Giannoulias is a protégé of the current president, which should have set off an alarm bell or two. When you’re tied into the Obama/Axelrod crowd, the chances of having a few skeletons hanging out in your closet rise exponentially. In 2006, Obama had this to say about Giannoulias:

“He’s one of the most outstanding young men that I could ever hope to meet. He’s somebody who cares deeply about people.”

When somebody tells you that an Illinois Democrat “cares deeply about people,” you are well-advised to check to make sure that you still have your wallet. Giannoulis is no exception. According to Crain’s Chicago Business, Giannoulis stands to make $10 million off his role as owner of Broadway Bank, even though that bank is almost certainly about to go under.

The president throws a hissy fit every time some Wall Street banker receives a bonus that the White House finds unseemly, even when the bank in question has long-since repaid taxpayers and is actually turning a profit. So do we hear similar howls of outrage when Giannoulis is poised to pocket a $10 million even as his bank slides down the dumper? The only sound to be heard from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is that of crickets chirping.

Giannoulias was the senior lender at Broadway Bank from 2002 through 2006. Among the people that he approved for loans was one Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a fellow Giannoulias would describe as a “colorful character.” Giorango is colorful indeed, with a long police blotter that includes multiple convictions for bookmaking a running a prostitution ring.

Perhaps we can give Alexi the benefit of the doubt. He can’t be expected to check the criminal record of everyone he loans money to – some $11.8 million in the case of Jaws and his associates – right? Giannoulias said as much to the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune recently. However, if he figured that the Trib’s progressive sympathies would lead to journalistic memory failure, he was to be sorely disappointed. Tribune columnist John Kass picks up the story:

“With the Tribune’s editorial board, Giannoulias was asked how his relationship with Giorango developed, and at what point did he learn that Giorango, whom he described as a “colorful character,” had a criminal background. “I learned of it primarily when I was running for the office of state treasurer (in 2006),” Giannoulias said. “I mean, I don’t remember the exact date, whether it was during the primary or during the general. I think it was during the primary.” He was promptly reminded that on April 27, 2006, during his campaign for treasurer, he told Tribune reporters that he had discussed Giorango’s criminal past with him. The discussion took place as Giannoulias worked on millions of dollars’ worth of bank loans for Giorango. It was years before Giannoulias’ entry into politics.”

Oopsie.

As always, it’s useful to employ the “Bush test” when considering the way the mainstream media has, or in this case mostly has not, covered a story. On its face, the tale of Alexi Giannoulias would seem to have all the makings of a spectacular, national scandal. Consider:

Friend of the president? Check.

Big businessman making huge personal profits while screwing the public? Check.

Questionable dealings with shady characters? Check.

Lying to the public? Check.

If the above described a buddy of a George W. Bush, is there any doubt that the mainstream media would be lathering at the mouth to take such a candidate down? The only thing that keeps the Giannoulias story from getting more press is the fact that he owes allegiance to the political party that the old media is convinced is saving the nation. Sure, they’ll happily look the other way. After all, Giannoulias is merely a greedy, incompetent liar who lends millions to criminals. It’s not like he’s a Republican for Christ’s sake. That would be more than the MSM could stand.

But, Illinois being Illinois, it probably doesn’t matter. Giannoulias has the support of the Chicago machine, so he’d probably have a better than even chance of getting elected even if the MSM was carrying this story every hour, on the hour. Clout matters, not integrity or performance. That’s the Chicago way.