Pages

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Breaking Down The Chicago Mayoral Field



Breaking Down The Chicago Mayoral Field
Watch the interview now.
The Chicago mayoral field is taking form. Toni Preckwinkle and Bill Daley are in. Luis Gutierrez is out. And of course, numerous other candidates are still making a push. But does anyone offer a new vision for Chicago? On this edition of Illinois Rising, Dan Proft and Pat Hughes ask that question, and break down the field with expert analysis from longtime Chicago political reporter Charles Thomas.

Watch the interview now and share your thoughts on Facebook and Twitter using #UpstreamIdeas.
Also in the news:
"Producing quality agitprop is a team effort. So it’s nice to see the Democrat Socialists rally for the Obamas to help them consummate their $50 million Netflix production deal." Listen to the latest ":60 Of Sanity" from Dan Proft now.
If Marty Moylan keeps his head down in the spotlight of the year’s most prominent moral issue, then what do you think he does when his leaders present bills that quietly tax you out of your home? Watch "Two Minute Warning" with Pat Hughes now.

We Need a Revolution in Trade Enforcement



We Need a Revolution in Trade Enforcement

We Need a Revolution in Trade Enforcement
Since he was a candidate, President Trump has said free trade must also be fair. He has consistently challenged anti-competitive and unfair practices by our trading partners while working to forge new agreements.
The most recent example of this is the announced deal with Mexico – which his critics had claimed would never happen – and the potential deal with Canada, which has been spurred and shaped by Trump’s toughness.
President Trump’s success in international trade is happening because he understands every trade partner is self-interested and, if allowed, will take actions to benefit their own population and economy. Since the United States is the largest market in the world this gives us enormous leverage in negotiating trade deals.

While the tough negotiating approach has been working, there is a key piece missing. For Trump’s trade revolution to work, there must be a revolution in trade enforcement. It doesn’t matter how fair and equitable new trade agreements are written if other countries are happy to sign them and then cheat.
So, as a part of his revolution in trade, President Trump must build a new, dramatically more effective enforcement system that constantly monitors all trade agreements and quickly acts when parties bend, break, or ignore the rules.
The current multinational, globalist system simply moves too slow to be effective. Countries that disregard the rules have years to make money and dominate markets by cheating the system before they face any consequences. Meanwhile, for those countries who are keeping their words, justice delayed is justice denied. The current, slow system only benefits the cheaters.
An important example of something this revolutionized trade enforcement system should monitor and check are unfair state subsidies.
State subsidies are devious because they unfairly eliminate financial pressure on foreign competition, which in turn allows the companies in subsidizing countries to lower prices, expand distribution, or upgrade products without concern on how to pay for it – or whether the market even wants it.
One example of this system of cheating through state subsidies is the more than $50 billion in state subsidies that have gone to airlines in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) since 2004. With state subsidies, these airlines have been able to ignore market considerations and dump excess capacity all over the world in order to push out competition and gain market share – destroying market-based U.S. aviation jobs in the process.
Earlier this year, President Trump’s administration signed historic agreements with Qatar and the UAE to create transparency and accountability frameworks to expose the full levels of state subsidies flowing to these airlines. This leadership by President Trump has led to statements and understandings by the European Union and Japan to address state subsidies in aviation.
However, the U.S. seriousness about these state subsidies is being tested. Prior to commitments to the Trump administration, the Qatari government-backed Qatar Airways cleverly invested in Meridiana, a small privately owned airline that formerly operated out of Sardinia. Before Qatar intervened, Meridiana had lost more than $50 million in both 2015 and 2016, had reduced the number of flights to just 54 per day, and had only 15 aircraft with no new orders in sight.
Enter Qatar Airways. While the investment from Qatar Airways is capped at 49 percent, it is the Qatar CEO who has made the announcements about Meridiana’s future. A future that rebrands the airline as Air Italy, relocates the airline from Sardinia’s small market to the financial and industrial center of Italy in Milan, expands the fleet with more than 50 new planes from Qatar’s existing fleet and order books, and expands service by nearly 350 percent.
Certain facts about this are incontrovertible. First, Qatar Airways, in both action and word, is in full control of Meridiana/Air Italy. Second, Qatar Airways will report losses over the last two year in excess of $1 billion, so the investment in Meridiana/Air Italy is unquestionably a state subsidy from the Qatari government. Third, Qatar Airways’ expansion of Meridiana/Air Italy flights to the U.S. is directly counter to the assurances provided by the Qatari government to the Trump administration at the beginning of the year. This final point is what the Trump administration must address.
Once again, President Trump’s intuition has proven right. Despite assurances of fairness, our international trading partners are seeking to gain an unfair advantage. This is why Trump’s trade revolution also needs a revolution in trade enforcement.

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Every adult in the state owes $4,000 for teacher health care costs; pensions not included




·         By Cole Lauterbach | Illinois News NetworkTop of Form
Bottom of Form
FILE - School, classroom

Shutterstock photo
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Every adult in Illinois is on the hook for $4,000 in retired teacher health care costs, according to a new study showing the state has no money saved to pay for the growing cost of its promises.
The report released Tuesday by Bellwether Education Partners estimates that Illinois owes $54 billion in future health care costs that have been promised to teachers after retirement. That’s the sixth-most of any state when divvied up by each state’s adult population. This is not included in the estimated $130 billion in unfunded teacher pension liabilities.
Thirty-five states offer post-employment health coverage to teachers, of which Illinois is one, according to the report.
“For too long, employers were able to promote the benefits without recognizing their long-term costs,” the report said. “That reckoning is coming, and there are better and worse ways to tackle it.”
Chad Aldeman, principal at Bellwether, said the growing bills from health care could edge out dollars intended for the classroom.  
“Less money is going to current services like schools or teachers that are in the classroom right now,” he said, adding that the costs are bound to grow as retirees live longer and health care costs increase.
The growing cost will have to be paid for by either cuts to retiree benefits, tax hikes, or a combination of both, Aldeman said.
Health care benefits, like pension payments, are a promise made by the state and local school districts but, unlike pensions, the benefits aren’t protected from diminishment by Illinois’ constitution.
States should put qualified retirees into health care exchanges, the report said, and rescind coverage of retirees making more than a certain amount.
“The state is providing retiree benefits even to a retired superintendent who’s making $150,000 or $200,000 a year in a pension and they get free healthcare on top of that,” Aldeman said. “That may not be a good use of public dollars.”



Christian Socialism Is a Sinful Mix of Greed and Envy

Written by Peter Heck
I recently read a thought-provoking, though ultimately misguided, article by Daniel Jose Camacho from the faith-oriented left-wing commentary website Sojourners.  In it, Camacho argued against the preoccupation many American Christians have with capitalism, suggesting that,

“Capitalism is so deeply ingrained in our Christianity that it is the default.  Yet, this arrangement is neither natural nor inevitable.”
Such a perspective was anything but surprising coming from a Sojourners publication.  After all, the online magazine is the modern iteration of socialist Jim Wallis’s anti-capitalist magazine “The Post American.”  Wallis, who himself championed communism throughout the 1970s, changed the name to Sojourners as part of a strategy to wrap socialist ideas in Christian terminology.
Camacho has joined that movement, speaking favorably in this particular article of the many “Christian socialists” of the New Deal era, while denigrating free-market Christians.  He goes so far in that effort that while talking about Education Secretary Betsy DeVos owning 10 yachts, he asks and answers:
“Can someone who owns 10 yachts enter the kingdom of God? I’m not sure.”
If Camacho is truly “not sure,” than Camacho is leaning on his own understanding rather than trusting the word of God Himself.  Many times throughout Scripture God uses material prosperity as a method through which He blesses people – Abraham, Solomon, even Zacchaeus come to mind.  In modern parlance, Solomon owned a heck of a lot more than 10 yachts.  What prevents one from entering the kingdom of God isn’t wealth, it is making that wealth their idol, or first love.  That was the problem with the Rich Young Ruler that Jesus encountered.  If Betsy DeVos loves her yachts more than God, that will be her problem.  If she doesn’t, yachts don’t keep you out of heaven.
That glaring confusion over a fairly elementary Biblical concept should send red flags up for any discerning Christian reading Camacho’s article.  As is so often the case with Sojournerscommentaries, this article appears to originate in political dogma, with words of faith merely sprinkled on top for flavor.
If Camacho’s thesis had been that free market capitalism too often leads to greed and exploitation, I would find little to disagree with.  All Christians should be cognizant of the moral considerations accompanying any economic policy.  But that’s where Sojourners in general, and this piece specifically, goes utterly tone deaf.
Free market capitalism’s propensity towards sliding into greed and excess pales in comparison to the economic system Camacho is tempting his readers to entertain.  The heart of socialism is greed.  If feeling entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor is not greed, after all, what is it?  Yet that (along with a side of envy) is the backbone, the foundation, of socialist economic policy.
Socialism robs an individual of their creativity, their ingenuity, their resourcefulness – in many ways it robs them of their resemblance to their Creator.  Unsurprisingly this has devastating effects not only on a human’s soul, but upon the community or culture that is so ordered.  Remarkably Camacho even illustrates that, albeit inadvertently.  He writes,
“Factor in the increasing unaffordability of basic needs like housing and health care, and ballooning student debt, and it’s not hard to see why more and more Americans are struggling to get by. According to a study released this week, 47 percent of working Californians are now struggling with poverty.”
Has Camacho paused to consider the origins of many of the very problems he laments?  Though this is admittedly an oversimplification of two complex concepts, housing and healthcare costs have gone up not as a result of free markets, but the distortion of both through third parties and government regulation.
Student loan debt is almost exclusively a government-manufactured problem.  By refusing to allow a market correction (the bursting of the college loan bubble) to take place, government has perpetuated the escalating costs.
And there is no state in the union more closely aligned with far-left socialist economic policy, including heavy taxation and massive social programs, than California – the very state Camacho notes is experiencing a poverty crisis.
Christianity transcends economic policy.  Jesus brought a spiritual kingdom, not a political one.  But for Christians we have a responsibility, it would seem, to discourage public policy that increases human suffering.  That’s why it’s confusing to see Camacho and all those at Sojourners wearing the name of Christ advocating for it.

This article was originally published at PeterHeck.com

Friday, September 28, 2018

Fighting back against globalism requires an honest movement to decentralize



By Brandon Smith

Over a decade ago, critics of the liberty movement would often argue that it was not enough to simply point out all the problems plaguing our economy — we needed to also offer solutions. Of course, a common Alinsky tactic is to demand your opponents solve all the world's ailments before they can earn the right to complain about problems. "If you can't give us a solution, then stop going on and on about the problem," they would squeal.
I don't agree that our right to analyze the instabilities of our financial system is predicated on our ability to fix the issue outright. In fact, that sounds rather insane. How can we fix the problem if we don't educate the public on the problem first? However, I do think that the only people who have the drive and the knowledge to ultimately come up with a solution are those in the liberty movement. Who else is going to try? Who else is even qualified?

I have seen many ideas come and go over the years. The thing about solutions is that while you might get most people to agree on the problem, getting a majority of them to agree on a solution is a nightmare. Then, once enough people agree on a solution, you then have to find a way to motivate them to act on it. The masses often want desperately to help themselves, they just don't like it when a lot of effort or sacrifice is required.
This is why we only tend to see organized activism and a push toward self-sufficiency after a crisis has already struck. Most human beings require obvious incentive before they become motivated. They need immediate gratification. The people that can see the long game, who can see the incentives years or generations down the road, we call "leaders." The hope is that one day every individual can be educated to the point that they can self-lead; that each individual will become an innovator and problem solver in their own right.
One solution to fight back against subversive globalism that I have promoted for most of my career as an analyst for the movement is decentralization. And I still hold to this day that it is the only practical way to protect free people from the threats created by international banks and globalist institutions bent on shaping the world to their will. This solution, though, requires individual action.
Globalists desire a world system that forces everyone to participate, either through fear or necessity. This system is designed to promote dependency (slavery) while also promoting a feeling of isolation and helplessness. It is meant to erase self-reliance as a model for living, while also squashing any potential for voluntary organization. To go to war with such a system, we have to achieve the opposite goals.
Liberty activists have to lead by example, first by educating the public on the concept of the non-aggression principle — the principle that force is not an acceptable method of compelling a group of people to organize in the way you wish. Force is not incentive, it is criminal. Force is only an acceptable reaction when someone else is trying to harm or enslave you and those around you. This concept is paramount to the long-term survival of any society. It should be codified and taught to each new generation.
Next, liberty activists need to organize locally into voluntary groups based on mutual aid. Modern civilization has been directed over many decades to assume that participation in the system is mandatory and that the survival of the system is paramount over the rights or prosperity of the individual. But a system that is hostile to individual liberty does not deserve to exist. It should not be allowed to survive.
People have to walk away and build something else.
Voluntarism is the key to changing decades if not centuries of misallocated human labor and time. Imagine a world in which every person is a "free agent," and they join groups (or partnerships) based on shared goals or shared beliefs rather than being born into servitude — fuel to keep a global machine that does not care about them running. They join these groups based on their abilities, merit and how they might help a particular project progress. Then they leave the group whenever they wish or when the project is done.
In other words, voluntarism is a kind of return to a tribal system, but one in which many tribes exist temporarily based on what they plan to achieve. The incentive to better one's self would be high in a voluntary society, for you are competing against every other individual that is also improving their own skill sets and knowledge for a spot in each project or tribe.
Voluntarism is perhaps a lofty vision, but one that can be pursued in steps. One of the first steps is individual self-sufficiency and production.
Decentralization requires each person and group to become production capable. There was a time not more than a century ago when the majority of Americans learned skill sets through family or apprenticeship that gave them the ability to produce necessary goods and services. This idea has all but disappeared today. The principle of self-reliance is treated almost as a joke in popular media now. And many municipalities actually punish individual attempts at growing one's own food or collecting water. Production is discouraged through overt taxation and bureaucracy. Nevertheless, these things have to be done if we are to break from the existing system.
Learning a trade skill is something anyone can do to improve their chances at survival. Organizing into trade groups that barter their skills and goods is the next step.
Tribalism is commonly presented in the mainstream as a barbaric and outdated mode of living, which is why I highly recommend it. The more centralized civilization becomes, the less varied its ideas are, the less self-sufficient it is and the more easily controlled it is. This is the point, of course. Globalists use any means at their disposal to enforce centralization not because they think it will serve to better mankind, but because it gives them more dominance over mankind.
Tribes may have their differences or even come to conflict if they do not respect the nonaggression principle. But any war that erupts between two tribes is never going to match the horror of the centralized military industrial complex with its never-ending wars on a global scale. By the same token, tribalism prevents the possibility of a single world system that claims to "end war" while enslaving the populace through dependency and force. One ring to rule them all is not the answer. It never was.
It is my belief that the human endeavor to improve life and improve how we interact with the Earth itself must be worked toward by decentralized efforts, otherwise the chances of civilization being led down a destructive path by a small group of psychopathic people is high.
Today, most innovation is bottlenecked through control mechanisms that only benefit the elites. They promote their puppets to government and in exchange government provides them special protection. Most science revolves around their goals alone, not the betterment of humanity. Most social discourse is designed to divide people in anger and cultism rather than provide greater understanding. Geopolitically, they preach about the erasure of national borders and the unification of society, while at the same time using trickery and subversion to trigger wars all over the world. They have a monopoly on the direction of human progress, but not a monopoly on human thought... not yet.
Our job is to dismantle their monopolies by starting our own competing systems that serve our interests far better. In this way we create redundancy that shields us from economic collapse, engineered or otherwise. In fact, if we become more independent as producers and organize our own local economies, we might even welcome the collapse of the globalists system as a useless parasitic husk, rather than fear its collapse as a sign of the "Apocalypse."
Globalist efforts to co-opt decentralization movements are rampant, which tells me that the model is indeed a threat to them. The cryptocurrency scam is one such example; it was originally sold to the liberty movement as a "decentralizing" currency system that would provide anonymity in trade and an alternative that would crush central banks. Instead, we find that crypto provides the exact opposite of anonymity as a perfect tracking mechanism through the blockchain and that international bankers love blockchain tech as they invest heavily in the arena.
Another example of co-option is the propaganda surrounding the narrative of the new "multi-polar" world order. The claim that nations are moving away from the dollar-based reserve currency system as a means to "decentralize" is a lie. They are in fact moving away from the dollar, but also quietly into the arms of the IMF and its SDR basket as various countries congeal into a single global currency system. That is to say, they are getting ready to trade one centralized system for an even more centralized system.
There is no decentralization happening today, and it will not happen on a national scale ever. It must happen at the local level; from the bottom up, not the top down.
I also realize that if movements to decentralize locally become successful and the idea catches on, globalists will attempt to use violence to stop us. If this occurs, at least we will be far more equipped to respond as self-sufficient and organized producers. The violence question must be answered in a separate article from this one. Independence comes first, and we can declare it by decentralizing away from the existing and festering totalitarian model.

What's behind the destruction of Brett Kavanaugh?


What's behind the destruction
of Brett Kavanaugh?
 

By Bob Livingston

Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who has accused Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault more than three decades ago, will get her day in court today. That is, if she shows up for the Senate Judiciary hearing.

We hear from the progressive left and the propaganda media that Ford's accusations are credible, but that she doesn't have to prove them. The burden of proof, we're told, is on the accused. Welcome to the new star chamber.

A star-chamber is a system of entrapment that provides no escape. The accused is made to testify against himself and then punished upon confession of guilt.

The term credibly accused is nonsense. It replaces the rule of law with the rule of smear. Anyone can "credibly accuse" anyone of anything at any time.

American jurisprudence hinges on the presumption of innocence. The 5thAmendment guarantees the right of due process; the 6th the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to confront your accuser(s).



Ford's legal team — a group of Democrat activists and political hacks — have been at times both crawfishing and making impossible demands on the Senate Judiciary committee before agreeing to allow her to testify, even though Ford and Democrat politicians both on and off the Judiciary Committee have stated she needs to be heard. Her legal team had not turned over to the committee documents that purport to bolster her claims late Wednesday.

The leftist politicians pushing Ford headlong into setting herself up for perjury thought Ford's unsubstantiated claims — supposed witnesses named by Ford all refute her claims or deny having knowledge of them — against Kavanaugh would cause him to back down and President Donald Trump to withdraw the nomination. When that didn't happen, they began fighting a delaying action in order to drag other "accusers" into the fray.

A second one arrived, but her claims were so specious even The New York Times wouldn't publish them. Again, none of the witness she herself named affirmed her story. Then a third one, associated with the Creepy Porn Lawyer, possible Democrat presidential candidate and currently appearing on every propaganda cable news show Michael Avenatti, appeared with claims even more outlandish than the first two.

As stated above, the term credibly accused is specious nonsense. Kavanaugh cannot possibly "credibly defend" himself because the charges against him from the first two accusers are so flimsy that not even a month or year has been established for the events; much less a day and time. The third accuser's claims that Kavanaugh and friends were running a high school drug and rape gang and she willingly attended more than 10 of them as a 19-year-old woman, is so preposterous that it's almost laughable.

This theater would be comical if not for the stakes involved.

The leftists claim to be champion of women, and that defending women from the predatory patriarchy is what the fight against Kavanaugh is about. That is sophistry. If the leftist politicians pushing this narrative against Kavanaugh cared about women they'd direct some of their outrage at Keith Ellison, Senator Robert Menendez, Bill Clinton and the dozens of congressweasels that have used the federal treasury to pay off women they've sexually harassed.

This fight is about abortion and the ability to legislate from the bench through an activist judiciary. Never mind if they have to destroy three women, Kavanaugh, his wife and children to win it.

Leftist politicians and their propaganda media enablers worship in the cult of abortion. They are willing to destroy the rule of law, common decency and as many people as necessary to defend their "right" to murder babies in the womb.

When you're so evil that preserving the murder of the most innocent is your primary goal, other souls destroyed along the way are acceptable collateral damage. 


Benford urges fellow candidates to earn, not buy votes



Thursday, September 27, 2018

Update from Orland Mayor Pekau



Our last Village Board meeting had only one major item on the agenda which was a consultant’s presentation about the evaluation of our existing fields and a potential new complex.   However, at the end of the meeting, Trustee Carroll elected to attack me during his board comments.

As you recall, the Village Board agreed to have consultants look at our existing field complexes, when the Trustees decided to postpone the repairs of John Humphrey Complex.  The report examined the John Humphrey Complex, Centennial Park and Cachey Park.  The findings were as follows:

  • Cachey Park is a good size for a soccer complex, but its location would make parking and high usage rates very difficult.
  • Centennial Park’s layout is good for recreational use, but poor for tournament usage.
  • John Humphrey has a good layout for tournaments, but has the lowest usage and is in the poorest condition of all of the fields.
  • The Village’s fee structure is overly complex and we are charging less than market rates for the usage of our fields.
  • The scheduling of our fields for just a few hours on Saturday are impeding other weekend uses.

The consultant had the following recommendations for our existing fields:
  • Use all of the money allocated for repairs on the John Humphrey Complex
    • Expand field #4 for to a 90’ infield so it can host several different ages
    • Eliminate field 5 so that field 6 can be made into a 70’ infield
    • Make High Point field #11 a full-size field
    • Regrade the fields and infields
    • Install new back stops
    • Recommend installing irrigation system
  • Develop a new field allocation system that reduces the number of tiers to one resident and one non-resident rate (currently there are six)
  • Re-allocate scheduling to keep the Humphrey Complex available for weekend tournament usage

These recommendations make sense for a number of reasons.  First, it will make all of the fields at John Humphrey usable for all ages (which it currently is not).  Second, our in-house programs will have more fields available during the week with an improved John Humphrey complex and minor scheduling changes can free up the complex for weekend use for tournaments.  These tournaments bring 50 to 60 teams (and families) to Orland Park.  The families will stay in Orland Park (we have a couple of new hotels coming), eat in Orland Park and shop in Orland Park.

The consultants also looked at the possibility of a new complex.  Their report recommends an eight-field baseball/softball complex with full size (330’) baseball fields configured as two 4-plexes with concessions in between.  The fields will be artificial turf so they can be used as full-size soccer, lacrosse and football fields as well. According to their analysis, the economics indicate that this complex pays for itself between the weekend tournaments, concessions and economic impact to Orland Park.  The study suggests that this is worth exploring further.  In spite of what you may hear, this study doesn’t mean that we are moving forward with building a complex but that we keeping this option on the table.  If it can be built in a fiscally responsible way (private/public partnership, sponsorships, donations, etc.) then the benefits are many – new fields for our kids, direct economic benefits to the Village to provide services for our residents and indirect economic benefits to our local businesses.

The only other eventful item was Trustee Carroll’s rant, personally attacking me, which can be found here https://www.orland-park.il.us/CivicMedia?CID=Board-of-Trustees-Meetings-2#, at 45:35 seconds.  here are the excerpts (my editorial comments in italics, my board comments follow):
  • “In the last 30 days it appears the campaign season must be starting up again.  The mayor’s blog posts, his supporters repeating those blog posts all over social media, fake news are up and running, and illegal robocalls have started all over again. Some of the things, I have to point out because they slander me” (I guess the Regional, Prairie and Daily Southtown are now fake news)
  • “Post on September 10th, posted during regular business hours, a political post that was completely false.”  (News flash – posts can be scheduled at a date and time)
  • That I wrote in the post that “we will have no reserves for 4 years, so this is great progress”.  (Trustee Carroll conveniently left out the rest of the wording.  The entire written word is as follows: The good news is if we adjust the budget by the $2.85 million presented, we will maintain a healthy operating reserve for 5 years.  If we do nothing, we will have no reserves for four years, so this great progress.)
  • He says that staff has not been given clear direction. (I encourage anyone to go to the meeting audio and see if the direction was clear)
  • Trustee Carroll states that every time someone on staff comes up with a cut, someone has a problem with it.  He wants me to “show some leadership and identify what cuts he’s comfortable with because every time the team comes up with a cut, there is as problem with it and it hasn’t gotten anything accomplished” (The was only one cut that the board disagreed with -- was cutting the Veterans Programs to save $7K. Trustee Carroll made it clear that he supports cutting the Veterans Program.)
  • “You can’t do a budget unless you know how much money you make.”  (This is true, but you do your budget based on money you know is coming in, not on taxing our residents more to make up the shortfall as Trustee Carroll would like to do)
  • “Time and time again we’ve asked staff to come up with more and more cuts… At the last meeting he was asked to come up with another half million in cuts.” 
  • “I don’t know how we can discuss throwing $600,000 at a concert.” (Conveniently, Trustee Carroll fails to identify that those are the expenses for 3 concerts, but doesn’t mention the offsetting revenue which is over $600,000 and could be as high as $850,000.)

My response at the meeting was as follows:
  • Trustee Carroll should do a little more research before attacking me.  The robo-call, which was also sent to me, attacked Trustee Carroll for his gaming vote.  Last I checked I voted the same way.  I am also against an aldermanic form of government.  If he has a problem with it, we’ve been through this before, call the FCC. I repeat again, I have nothing to do with the robo-calls. As you all know by now, if I have a problem with an issue I address it directly, not anonymously.
  • Regarding the reserve requirement, our reserves in 4 years will be below zero.  That chart was never shown to the public until my State of the Village, though it existed for 4 to 5 years before I was elected.  We have a good reserve policy but we need to make some changes to keep the reserves at those levels, which is exactly what we are trying to do.
  • The budget direction was very clear.  $2M in revenue and $2M in cuts.  Trustee Carroll agreed to that.  At the last budget hearing we were given $1.27 Million in cuts, of which 350,000 was a funds transfer not an expense cut.
  • The only cut that we did not agree to was a $7,000 cut to the Veterans Program which would have cut the person who does our Memorial Day Program, our Veterans Day Program, our steak fry, our fishing derby, our Liberty run and who just did our wildly successful golf outing.  This person, along with our Veterans Commission raised approximately $25,000.
  • I thanked Trustee Gira and her husband for volunteering at a hole during the golf outing, Trustee Ruzich for coming to dinner, Trustee Calandriello for purchasing a dinner ticket and Trustee Dodge for playing.  I failed to acknowledge Trustee Fenton for sponsoring the drink cart – I apologize for missing this at the board meeting.

At the end of the day, budget discussions are difficult, particularly when costs are rising faster than revenues.  This means that hard decisions have to be made.  Yes, services that are extremely costly and benefit only a few, will likely be cut.  However, I believe that the Village has a long way to go to become more efficient and many of our cuts will have little to no long-term impact on our core services.  We have a lot of excellent staff and they will find better, less expensive ways to provide our critical services.