IVI-IPO endorsement sessions

Today IVI-IPO held it's endorsement sessions for the following races: Lt. Governor, State Treasurer, State Comptroller, Cook County Assessor, President of the Cook County Board and MWRD commissioner.

IVI-IPO rules limit the committee interviewing the candidates to making recommendations to the IVI-IPO board if there aren't at least 100 members present (and at least 15% of the organization's members).

The one endorsement made by the committee which is binding upon the board was for President. The group endorsed Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (candidate questionnaire, pdf). Incumbent President Todd Stroger (questionnaire, pdf), Clerk of the Circuit Court Dorothy Brown (questionnaire, pdf) and MWRD President Terry O'Brien (questionnaire, pdf).

Someone asked Stroger about why he missed the candidate forum at DePaul University. He responded that he was at the 90th anniversary celebration at his church. I asked why his campaign manager didn't know his whereabouts. Stroger took responsibility for not calling the organizers of the candidate forum to say that he wasn't attending. He offered no explanation for his campaign manager's ignorance.

An IVI-IPO member suggested Stroger went to church in the morning and preferred to stay with the friendly audience rather than deal with the hostile audience at DePaul. This sounds about right to me.

Stroger said his toughest opponents in the race are the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune.

Brown had a large number of supporters at the event, but many of them were not voting members of IVI-IPO. Maywood Village President Henderson Yarbrough attended and indicated a preference IVI-IPO endorse Brown. Yarbrough works for the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

The committee recommended IVI-IPO endorse State Rep. Mike Boland (candidate questionnaire, pdf) for Lt. Governor. I spoke for Thomas Castillo (candidate questionnaire, pdf).

Castillo's presentation was organized the best. He had a clear agenda for the office and it seemed like a list of things on which he could make realistic progress (Castillo's issues page). The two issues that caused Castillo to trip up were abortion and the death penalty. Castillo said he was undecided about whether the law should require girls who are minors to notify their parents before getting abortions. And Castillo indicated he was open to resuming capital punishment because the system doesn't have the unfairness of Cdr. Jon Burge anymore.

Scott Lee Cohen (candidate questionnaire, pdf) and State Rep. Art Turner (candidate questionnaire, pdf) also appeared. When asked why he was running for lieutenant governor Turner responded, "Because my son wants to be state rep."

In the race for State Treasurer there is no incumbent, but Robin Kelly (candidate questionnaire, pdf) is the chief of staff for Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. Justin Oberman (candidate questionnaire, pdf) didn't make a strong case for change. The group recommended IVI-IPO endorse Kelly.

The group recommended Clint Krislov (candidate questionnaire, pdf) for Comptroller. Krislov is a former chair of IVI-IPO and is representing the organization in its lawsuit against the City of Chicago over the parking meter privatization. Current IVI-IPO chair Bob Bartell spoke in favor of endorsing Krislov. My take was that Krislov probably wouldn't have gotten recommended without this extra nudge.

Raja Krishnamoorthi (candidate questionnaire, pdf) gave the clearest, most organized presentation of what he's do if elected. State Rep. David E. Miller (candidate questionnaire, pdf) gave the best answer on the issue of regulating cemeteries. Miller favors shifting the responsibility from the comptroller to the agency that handles professional regulation.

The group also recommended IVI-IPO endorse Ray Figueroa (candidate questionnaire, pdf) over Joe Berrios (candidate questionnaire, pdf) for Cook County Assessor.

I was disappointed Melrose Park Village Clerk Mary Ann Paolantonio Salemi (candidate questionnaire, pdf) did not attend the endorsement session. She attended the IVI-IPO meet the candidate shindig on Thursday. She and I had a good talk. She said she had a proposal for reducing flooding in the west suburbs. I wanted to ask her more. But she didn't appear.

The group recommended IVI-IPO endorse Commissioner Barbara McGowan (candidate questionnaire, pdf), Commissioner Mariyana Spyropoulos (candidate questionnaire, pdf) and Todd Connor (candidate questionnaire, pdf). Even though Connor received the most votes in the straw poll of the group, after McGowan and Spyropoulos were recommended there was a push by a few, including Ald. Leslie Hairston to give the third endorsement to Kari Steele (candidate questionnaire, pdf).

Stella Black (candidate questionnaire, pdf) also appeared.

do you want to see the candidates in person?

IVI-IPO is having a meet the candidates party on Thursday evening and endorsements this weekend. See Prairie State Blue for details.

IL-05 Dems on military issues and executive power

In the special election for IL-05 (which includes Northlake and most of Melrose Park in Proviso Township) there will be a candidate forum Sunday, February 22, 1:30 - 4:00 PM at VFW Post 1284, 6940 W Diversey Ave, Chicago. I don't know which candidates will be there.

When I spoke to Jan Donatelli last week she made the point that the different forums tend to ask the same questions over and over. The field of candidates have been asked about the stimulus bill at every forum.

I do think that people organizing and moderating the questions at these forums should research the stuff that's been asked before. Much (most?) of it is available online.

I'm hoping the VFW forum will focus on matters of the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs and the State Department.

In preparation for the forum I pulled the Democratic answers from the IVI-IPO candidate questionnaires.

7.Do you agree with the current proposed level of funding for the military?

Carlos Monteagudo:

No. At a cost of 20 billion dollars a week, the moneys spent on executing the war in Iraq could be better used on activisties that would dramatically increase our heath, economic and global security.... (click here and scroll to #7 for the complete answer)

Mike Quigley (answer):

No. I believe there are savings tat can be found at the Pentagon that would probably be better spent on things like energy research and diplomacy, both issues that also promote our national security.

Charlie Wheelan (answer):

No. I believe we need a well-funded military, however, the Pentagon budget must reflect the priorities and needs of the wars we are currently fighting. I'd like to see some of the funds shifted to the Department of Veterans Affairs to support those who have served already and for funds to be added to the Department of State for additional diplomatic activity. We need to significantly improve the funding for the State Department and other non-military international activities.

Frank Annunzio:

No. Military spending has more than doubled since 2001 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost 170 billion dollars this year alone. I believe we should cut military spending in half over the next 5 years and utilize the money to buy down our debt, ensure that we never again have homeless veterans, and implementation of a single payer health care system.

Paul Bryar (answer):

No. President Obama has not yet proposed his military funding level. I believe that it should be different from the latest funding by the last administration. It should take into account re-shaping our military to deal with the threats of the 21st century.

Sara Feigenholtz (answer):

No. We need to direct more resources to provide assistance for return veterans and their families and work to expand access to health care services, including treatment for mental illnesses like PTSD.

Victor Forys:

Yes. I woul like to see the military spend more money on veterans services like traumatic brain injury, mental illness and PTSD which are currently not getting fully funded. I'd also like to see pay for enlisted personnel increased.

John Fritchey (answer):

No. As we withdraw from Iraq we must lower appropriations both to the overall Defense budget and the Global War on Terror supplement. President Obama plans to reduce Defense spending by 10%, and I believe we must continue to eliminate waste from the Department's operations, particularly in long-term weapon systems purchasing where costs continuously overrun projections. In general, a refocus on diplomacy should be accompanied by an increase in funding for State Department and particularly USAID programs, and a decrease in disproportionate military spending. One of our first priorities, however, must be to ensure our troops are fully and properly equipped to face whatever missions they are assigned.

Tom Geoghegan (answer):

No. We need to draw down our deployment levels in countries that are stable democracies like those in western Europe. These funds can be better deployed converting our energy systems to renewable sources and away from fossil fuels.

With the possible exception of Bryar, it seems like all the candidates favor reprogramming money now spent on the military (Department of Defense) to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State and energy research. I give Annunzio props for significantly cutting the DOD and using the money for converting to a single-payer health care system.

But if the Democrats agree that military spending should be cut, why hasn't it happened? In Democratic Congresses and under Democratic presidents military spending has increased. Why will it be different now?

Since there is little difference between the candidates on the military budget question, I'm going to include other questions about executive branch power.

10.Would you support congressional investigations into government contractors that have participated in Human Rights violations such as the rendition/torture flights?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo, Quigley
No: Wheelan
Quigley expanded:

If violations of the law are clear, then we must have accountability.

11. Would you support legislation banning such activities in the question above?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo, Wheelan
No: none
Declined yes/no answer: Quigley
Quigley:

I'm unsure as to the question. If there were human rights violations, they are already covered by US law.

12. Will you support legislation guaranteeing the protections of the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution to “enemy combatants” or others similarly detained by the US Government anywhere in the world?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo, Wheelan
No: none
Declined yes/no answer: Quigley

Quigley:

The constitution provides a means by which to legally address enemy combatants through international treaties. I think it is time to revisit the Geneva Conventions now that international, stateless enemies exist.

65.Would you support Congressional investigations of wrong-doing under the Bush administration?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo
No: Wheelan
Declined yes/no answer: Quigley

Forys expanded answer:

We are a country of laws not of me. We will not know where we are, unless we know where we came from. The statute of limitations has not passed on the crimes that were committed by the Bush Administration.

I graduated from UIC with a degree in Criminal Justice. Societies that do not provide justice to all their individuals can never be stable or free.

Monteagudo expanded answer:

Yes but not at the expense of getting things done in Congress moving forward. We must not get mired down in a criminal investigation or hearing that would take years to prosecute and could lead to viscous partisan bickering and government paralysis. I would rather see something like a truth and reconciliation commission created.

Quigley:

I believe we must move forward, but in instances of clear wrong-doing, we have to hold people accountable.

103. Do you support changes to the Military Commissions Act?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo, Quigley
No: Wheelan

107/108. Would you support legislation authorizing or prohibiting secret military tribunals?

Annunzio:

I do not support any type of military tribunal. This is unfair on many levels. We must ensure civil liberties for all.

Bryar:

I believe that secret military tribunals should be prohibited.

Feigenholtz:

I have always been a fierce supporter of the due proces for all individuals detained by American law enforcement. A secret military tribunal does not allow for this.

Forys:

I would support legislation prohibiting secret military tribunals.

Fritchey:

I would support legislation prohibiting secret military tribunals. As President Obama has said, we must reject the false choice between our ideals and our security. The secret military tribunals haphazardly fashioned by the Bush administration do not provide internationally accepted due process to prisoners in the war on terror, and have incited our enemies while alienating our allies. I was encouraged by President Obama's rapid steps to begin closing the Guantanamo Bay prison facility and I support a continued redesign of our anti-terrorism programs.

Geoghegan:

I do not support Secret Military Tribunals.

Monteagudo's answer began,

“Secret military tribunals are a dangerous affront to international rules of conduct....” Click link and scroll to #108 for the complete answer.

Quigley:

There are instances where trials must be conducted in secret to protect classified information, but they should be reviewed by Congress so that there is somebodyy accountable to the people involved.

Wheelan:

Our justice system is predicated on fair and open trials. Defendants in even the most terrible of crimes are entitled certain rights. Secret military tribunals would violate those basic rights.

109. Do you support legislation banning torture and inhumane treatment of detainees under US control?
Yes: Annunzio, Bryar, Feigenholtz, Forys, Fritchey, Geoghegan, Monteagudo, Quigley, Wheelan
No: none

IL05 Dems on Social Security

Once again I've taken candidate responses to the IVI-IPO candidate questionnaire. I'm trying to pull out the issues that are the most important from the 140+ questions.

47. What changes, if any, do you support regarding Social Security?

Victor Forys:

I oppose privatizing Social Security. I do not believe we need to make changes at this time. I support a bipartisan commission that will make long term recommendations that will ensure the solvency of Social Security. Social Security is solvent for decades to come and we must continue to ensure its long term viability by getting our financial house in order, regulating financial institutions and keeping the economy strong.

John Fritchey:

To fully fund Social Security I favor a modest raise in the cap on payroll taxes for higher income Americans....

Tom Geoghegan:

I want to expand Social Security, our public pension system, to replace, not overnight but in stages, the private pension system which has collapsed. Social Security now pays 38 to 39 percent of your working income. In other developed countries, it averages 65 percent....

Carlos Monteagudo is skeptical of claims there is a shortfall that threatens Social Security benefits. His advocates studying the issue. His first response will be to see if small adjustments to the “cost of living allowance” (COLA) will address any shortfall.

Mike Quigley:

We have to deal with Medicare first. Social Security is solvent for decades and it is the most successful government program in history. We need to maintain this program, especially now in economically difficult times.

Charlie Wheelan:

The tools for restoring the long-term health of Social Security are straightforward well known.... We must enact some combination of the following four policies to ensure social security's long-term solvency:

1.Reduce benefits of future retirees (most likely by raising the retirement age, or by taxing the benefits of higher income retirees)....

2.Increase the payroll tax, either by raising the tax rate (currently 12.4% split between employers and employees) or raising the cap so that the tax is levied beyond the current cap of $102,000.

3.Allow more young immigrants into the U.S., so they can begin paying taxes into the system.

4.Increase worker productivity so existing tax rates can generate enough new revenue to fund the extra burden of an aging population. This is a lovely solution but we have no direct control over productivity.

I would likely support some combination of these measures. The most logical would be to increase the retirement age (since life expectancy has grown far beyond what it was when the program was designed) and raising the cap so the payroll tax is collected on a higher proportion of the incomes of wealthy Americans.

Wheelan went on to raise concerns about Medicare.


Frank Annunzio:

I would change the taxable income to a much higher level of $500,000 and from $125,000 to $500,000 would be taxed at a 1.5% higher rate.

Paul Bryar:

I believe our Social Security system should remain public. I oppose privatization of Social Security....

Sara Feigenholtz:

Jumpstarting the economy to create jobs will mean more workers paying into the system, which is exactly what Social Security needs right now.

Providing strong protections against any moves to privatize social security is also an immediate priority....

Currently the wages subject to the Social Security tax are capped at approximately the first $100,000 of income. As part of keeping Social Security solvent in the long-term, Congress might consider lifting or adjusting that cap.

While protecting Social Security, we must seek to help Americans save more for retirement. I support proposals to promote employer-sponsored savings plans, such as 401(k)s, as well as tax credits to encourage working families to put more of their income into savings plans.

If you want a more robust Social Security retirement program, Geoghegan is your candidate.

The concensus among the other candidates seems to be that to the extent there is a shortfall it should be covered by raising the cap on FICA withholdings. Currently Americans pay FICA taxes on the first $102,000 of salary, wages and other non-investment compensation. By raising this amount to $202,000 the government would collect an extra $12,400 from each person making $202,000 per year or more. This is arguably a stiff tax increase for people making $150-250,000 per year.

Forys' call for a bipartisan commission is a teachable moment. The Republican Party—the hardcore Republican activists—were opposed to Social Security when it was created and favor dismantling the program. At one event Republican activists were chanting, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Social Security has to go!” (You can watch it on You Tube.) Part of the GOP opposition is ideological; part of it is practical. Successful government programs make citizens feel more comfortable seeking government solutions to other problems. As Quigley noted, Social Security is the most successful government program in history. If the GOP can radically reduce Social Security than no government program is safe.

So Forys is being naïve about having a bipartisan commission on Social Security. The current Republicans didn't negotiate in good faith when they were in the majority. The aren't negotiating in good faith now that they are in the minority. So, why should anyone expect the GOP to negotiate in good faith as part of a bipartisan commission on Social Security?

Quigley and Wheelan are correct to identify Medicare as being a more imminent problem than Social Security. To the extent Social Security will be a problem the problem will arrive in 30-40 years. Medicare taxes will be insufficient to pay guaranteed benefits in the near future.

Wheelan's response is textbook. You can learn from reading his answer. His comments about productivity reflect his ideological perspective.

Wheelan beliefs in the supply-demand paradigm so completely that he thinks people are paid based on how productive they are. I disagree. U.S. society produces a certain amount of goods and services. And the remuneration for these goods and services are distributed according to a system that values assholes who write bad loans and doesn't value women who care for children.

If we had a system that didn't compensate high-end professionals quite so lavishly we could afford to pay regular folk better.

For another example, unionized auto workers working for American companies get paid more than non-unionized workers working for Japanese companies in the South. If the federal government made it easier for workers to unionize they would make more money. On paper they would seem more productive to people like Wheelan because they would make more money.

So, passsing laws that make it easier to unionize would pushback (or eliminate) the date of reckoning for Social Security. But Wheelan is so committed to his supply-demand ideology that people are paid according to their productivity that he doesn't even consider raising the pay of regular folk.

I'm a little surprised that Feigenholtz favors encouraging employer-sponsored savings plans with tax credits. Low-income families don't pay federal income taxes, so the idea that low-income families can be encouraged to save through tax credits reflects ignorance of the federal tax code or that Feigenholtz has the most facile understanding of policy. Unfortunately, Feigenholtz seems to avoid policy specifics. Her comments about employer-sponsored savings plans make me suspect that Feigenholtz's vague answers on other policy matters means that she just doesn't know much about policy issues.

IL05 Dems on health care and amnesty for undocumented workers

Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organizations (IVI-IPO) has queried the candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives in IL-05. (The Proviso portion of the district is Northlake and most of Melrose Park.) The questionnaire is long, over 140 questions on issues. That's not including questions candidates have to answer about their campaigns and personal lives.

I have pulled out some of the responses that I consider either more important or will be more interesting to the Proviso Probe audience.

I picked the issue of single-payer health care because the U.S. health care system has serious problems. It's too expensive. The HMOs and insurance companies preferred business model is to make it hard for their clients to get coverage or to make it difficult to get the insurers to pay the bills.

The out-of-control health care costs are a burden for state and local government as well as businesses and organized labor.

Single-payer health care is a subset of universal health care. Universal health care sound good, but it doesn't fix all the unpleasant (and unnecessary) hassles of dealing with HMOs and insurance companies in a for-profit system.

One of the problems (among many) in basing health coverage on employment is that when someone is considering taking an ethical stand when an employer is violating the law or basic decency the whistleblower is risking losing her/his health coverage and that of his/her family. If you want people to behave ethically at work you should want health care coverage delinked from employment. Would you risk losing health care for your children to draw attention to your employer cheating the customers?

IVI-IPO asked, "Do you support comprehensive, universal, single-payer health care?" (It's question 67 if you click through the links.)

Frank Annunzio: Yes.

Paul Bryar: No. Bryar favors having “access” to health care at “affordable” prices.

Sara Feigenholtz: Yes

John Fritchey: Yes. Fritchey also provided some details which show he is an incrementalist, but that he's put some genuine thought into how to get there from where were are now.

Tom Geoghegan: Yes

Carlos Monteagudo: Yes. “I believe that health is a human right.”

Mike Quigley: “It is our job to convince the public that single-payer is the most efficient and effective method of keeping people healthy.” Quigley seems to favor incremental reforms to the health care system. (Quigley did not provide an answer on the yes/no question about single-payer health care.

Charlie Wheelan: No.

Bryar's answer is unsatisfactory to me because it's what we have on some level. If you get sick enough you do get to visit the hospital before you die. The question is, does the United States value it's citizens who don't have health insurance (or have crappy insurance) enough that they can get routine medical care before their conditions worsen.

Monteagudo's answer is the most passionate by making health care a moral issue.

Fritchey's answer reflected the most thought.

I'm a little surprised that Quigley seems to be waiting for single-payer to become popular. Yeah, the answer reflects the reality that the health reformers have to persuade more people of the merits of single-payer, but do you get the impression he wants to fight to make the case in Congress? Or wait for others to fight and then vote the right way?

My dear friend, Arnie Bryant, differed with me on immigration. I tend to favor letting people who want to be U.S. citizens become U.S. citizens. And I favor protecting the dignity and rights of immigrants documented or not. Arnie was more of the Lou Dobbs camp.

I mention Arnie because there are people I respect immensely who disagree with me on immigration completely.

IVI-IPO asked (question #121), "Do you support amnesty for undocumented immigrants currently working in the country?"

Annunzio: Yes. No comments.

Bryar: Yes, when combined with path to citizenship. Also favors enforcement focused on employers who hire undocumented workers.

Sara Feigenholtz: No answer, but lengthy platitudes.

Victor Forys: “I do not support amnesty, but I support legalization and allowing people to work and live in the U.S. while they apply for permanent residency or citizenship.” Forys has a number of paragraphs that start with bolded sentences.

• Create a dependendable and workable guest worker program.
• End the backlog of people who have applied to come to the U.S. from other countries.
• Pass the DREAM Act.
• Stop families from being torn apart.
• Ensure immigration applicants are treated with dignity.
• Modify or eliminate the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision

John Fritchey: "YES, I support a fair and responsible path to citizenship for undocumented individuals residing in the United States and contributing positively to our communities.” He also wants to eliminate visa backlogs and “create a responsible guest worker program”.

Tom Geoghegan: Yes. “I support providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants to join our society and enjoy the benefits of this great country.”

Carlos Monteagudo: Yes, if pay back taxes, a penalty and don't have criminal backgrounds.

Mike Quigley: No. “I support a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. I also support lowering the cost of citizenship for immigrants.”

Charlie Wheelan:

Yes. “I will work hard to create a more diverse and inclusive nation. To that end I support a comprehensive immigration bill that includes both border enforcement and a path to citizenship for undocumented individuals who currently reside in the United States.

“I would also support increasing the number of visas granted to family members of U.S. citizens and permanent U.S. residents. Similarly, I support an increase in the number of HB-1 visas (those issued to highly-skilled foreign workers), in order to strengthen our workforce and move our economy forward.”

Feigenholtz has established a pattern of avoiding giving answers in favor of statements that are vague. At the DePaul candidate forum many people thought she did poorly because she didn't take strong positions on much of anything. Feigenholtz says all sorts of stuff about her mom being an immigrant, but if she's for a "path to citizenship" why not say it?

Monteagudo took the time to think about the issue and include the caveat that criminals aren't welcome to apply and reminding people that taxes and fines have to be paid.

I'm not sure what Quigley means by lowering the cost of citizenship. Reducing government paperwork fees? Reducing the need for lawyers to get involved?

Forys gave the most specific answer. If elected, I see him being a leader in Congress on the issue of immigration.

Unions usually have concerns about guest worker programs. As I understand it there are a couple main objections. One, unions are concerned that a hostile administration (like the Bush administration) would allow too many workers as a tool for reducing wages and breaking unions. Two, guest workers would presumably have fewer rights than citizens. And unions are worried that one group of workers will be played-off against another.

However, defenders of guest worker programs would probably counter that allowing a large amount of illegal immigration (this source estimates 5% of the workforce lacks legal work status) to fill low wage jobs has all the problems of a bad guest worker program with no benefits except a false sense of security.

I'm skeptical of guest worker programs, but am open to good guest worker programs supported by politicians who are friends of organized labor immigrants (like Fritchey and Forys); I'm opposed to guest worker programs supported by people who are Neo Liberals and otherwise hostile to organized labor, like Charlie Wheelan.

Wheelan's answer about investing in border security sorta sounds good, until you realize that most illegal aliens came to the United States legally and overstayed their visas. People illegally crossing the border are the minority. And there's no practical system that will make the border impenetrable. The Bush administration loved that border security stuff. If the increase in funds under Bush and the GOP didn't make our borders secure, how much more money does Wheelan want to spend on this? How many millions of dollars would Wheelan spend to keep a 1,000 low-wage workers from illegally crossing the border?

Wheelan supports more H1-B visas. Many tech workers strongly disagree with this. They argue that there isn't a shortage of people who can do computer programming and other technical work in the United States; it's that employers would rather pay immigrants lower salaries than pay experienced U.S. citizens higher salaries.

Wheelan sees the benefits to corporations, employers and shareholders when low wage programmers and tech workers are brought into the United States, but he seems to have a blind-spot about the plight of tech workers who are already here. It seems weird that in a period of record unemployment that one of Wheelan's priorities is to bring cheaper labor into the country.