RSS Featured

Reports on Upcoming and Recent Events, Political Analysis, and More …

June 2015 Newsletter

 

Tenth Dems June Newsletter

Please follow the link to view our June newsletter as a pdf file:

https://tenthdems.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/201506NL.pdf

 

In this issue of Tenth News:

 

Read More »

Sen. Julie Morrison Sponsors Sensible Gun Legislation

June 2015 Newsletter

By Eleonora di Liscia

Illinois State Senator Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield) is working to bring sanity back into Illinois gun laws. Sen. Morrison is sponsoring a bill that would enable municipalities to once again regulate assault weapons.

In 2013, Illinois became the last state to enact a concealed carry law after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a ban was unconstitutional.  The resulting Concealed Carry Act then barred a municipality from regulating assault weapons unless the regulation was in place within 10 days after the Act’s July 9, 2013 effective date.

The City of Highland Park acted quickly, passing its assault weapons ban on June 24, 2013, just prior to the cut off. (For a statement by Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering, see sidebar.)  But for some gun owners any regulation is just too much.  A Highland Park resident, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, challenged the Highland Park law, arguing among other things that the law limited their options for armed self-defense.  On April 27, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their arguments and upheld Highland Park’s law.

The Seventh Circuit found that the gun owners had undermined their own argument that a ban on assault weapons wouldn’t prevent criminals from finding substitute weapons.  “If criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding home owners,” Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. The court also said that data established that laws like the Highland Park ban reduced gun crimes involving assault weapons and that some evidence linked the availability of assault weapons to gun-related homicides.

Prompted by the April 27 ruling, Sen. Morrison’s SB 2130 would strike the language in the Concealed Carry Act prohibiting municipalities from regulating assault weapons.

“This is about local control,” Morrison said in a statement. “Highland Park decided to protect its citizens by banning assault weapons. Every other city and village in Illinois should have that same right.”

The Illinois State Rifle Association has naturally said it will oppose the bill. At least one gun- nut site labelled Sen. Morrison an “anti-gun extremist” who has introduced a “dangerous gun control bill” that “would ban most of the possession of most of the guns you own now.”

But both the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Gun Violence Prevention PAC have praised the bill.

“Now that we have a court decision that affirms communities can ban assault weapons, I’m sure more of Illinois’ cities and towns will want to pass ordinances to keep their residents safe,” said Colleen Daley of the Illinois Council against Handgun Violence. “Senator Morrison’s legislation would help restore local control on this important public safety issue.”

This is a sidebar to the article about Julie Morrison’s proposed legislation.

Statement by Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park, Following Decision Upholding Her City’s Assault Weapons Ban

In 2013, when the State of Illinois passed legislation that offered the City of Highland Park a brief opportunity to regulate assault weapons, we made sure that the chance to protect our community wasn’t lost. Despite threats from special interest groups, we took decisive action to ban assault weapons in an effort to reduce the risk of a mass shooting.

 

As a mayor and the mom of four sons, the memories of Sandy Hook ran through my mind as we took the vote. Banning assault weapons is a commonsense step to reducing gun violence and protecting our children, our law enforcement officials, and our community from potential mass violence and grief.

While special interest groups challenged our decision, first the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and then the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Highland Park’s assault weapons ban ordinance is lawful under the U.S. Constitution.

While the court’s ruling allows all Illinois municipalities the opportunity to safeguard their residents, current Illinois state law limits their ability to enact their own firearm restrictions. Municipalities wishing to take the same or similar steps as Highland Park needed to do so within a 10-day window in 2013. That time has come and gone. Highland Park was among a handful of municipalities to pass an assault weapons ban back then.

Upon receipt of the news of the court’s ruling, I contacted State Senator Julie Morrison and urged her to draft legislation to amend state law to allow all municipalities the opportunity to take action at any time to ban assault weapons. Senator Morrison agreed that all Illinois municipalities should have the opportunity to protect their communities, and she introduced SB 2130 to the Illinois General Assembly on May 1.

We know that we cannot stop every violent crime, but we can and will continue to take sensible action and do our part to protect our children and families.

CONGRESS WATCH: DOLD AND KIRK: WHAT THEY SAY IS NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY DO

Untitled-2

By Laurence D. Schiller

Congressman Bob Dold and his mentor, Senator Mark Kirk, are fond of portraying themselves as moderate independents—as they must, if they want to win election in Blue Illinois. This is why it is so important to separate what these Republican legislators actually do from the press releases emanating from their offices.

In the recent past, both Kirk and Dold’s electoral victories have been assisted by the lack of attention and appallingly low voter turnout that has become typical of non-presidential election years. Kirk, who is perhaps the most vulnerable GOP senator in 2016, achieved election to the Senate in 2010, the year, as President Obama put it, Democrats received a “shellacking” in the mid-term elections. Dold, too, was first elected as part of that 2010 Republican juggernaut. And after losing to Brad Schneider in 2012, the year President Obama was reelected, Dold was able to regain the seat in the Democratic-leaning 10th in 2014 by sounding just enough like a moderate to squeak through. He exploited voters’ unhappiness with Congress, even though it was the Republican majority’s House leadership, abetted by an aggressively obstructionist Republican minority in the Senate, that paralyzed the government.

It is important to note that Dold, the self-styled moderate, made Congressman Paul Ryan’s list of most reliable conservatives, a list that includes the worst of climate deniers, fundamentalist evangelicals, xenophobes, and war hawks, all supporters of our modern day Robber Barons. Not a list that should help him in the 2016 election, but remember, this is the same Bob Dold who was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly in 2010 and begged to keep that quiet.

Clearly, what Dold does in Congress makes the Radical Right happy, no matter what he says to his moderate constituents. Here is an example: In a speech in Chicago on April 27, Dold said that the nation is in desperate need of plans to stimulate economic growth, upgrade infrastructure, whittle its national debt, and help the growing number of Americans in poverty. Can’t disagree, although on President Obama’s watch, the debt has been significantly reduced and the stock markets are at all-time highs.

But what did Dold do? He voted for the Republican budget, which decimates social services, including cutting food stamps, Head Start programs, and aid to education; takes health insurance away from 16 million Americans; and reduces Medicare and Medicaid from essential government programs to tax credits or block grants designed to benefit the insurance companies. (For a more detailed discussion of this budget, see “Congress Watch:  Dold and Kirk Vote To Gut Medicare and Other Health and Social Programs, Increase Defense Spending, and Lower Taxes on the Wealthiest Americans,” Tenth News, May 2015, https://tenthdems.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Tenth-Dems-newsletter-May-2015-v4.pdf#page=2.) Far from redressing the growing poverty in America, this Republican budget cuts essential services and would cause misery, sickness, and literal hunger to millions who should point their gaunt fingers at millionaire Bob Dold.

Further, this Republican budget fails to provide sufficient funds to address infrastructure problems, while cutting aid to mass transit and Amtrak, again services utilized by the working and middle classes.

Finally, this Republican budget provides yet another tax cut to the top one percent of Americans, which will reduce income to the Federal Treasury and increase the national debt, not reduce it. Dold’s insistence that tax cuts for the wealthy and reduced environmental controls on business create jobs flies in the face of the reality of what George H. W. Bush called Reagan’s voodoo economics. Trickle down economics don’t work and never will.

So there is a basic disconnect between Dold’s words that he wants to help people, and his actions, whereby he votes for the economics of the Robber Barons, regardless of the damage it does to average Americans. Dold has yet to understand the basic economic premise that it isn’t the rich who create jobs, it is consumer demand, and that demand is disappearing as the economic policies that Dold supports shift the wealth of America from the middle class to the very rich.

The other recent big news out of the House was the passage of the $89.2 billion National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA), which vastly expanded spending on defense, even as Republicans in the House, Dold included, failed to take responsibility for authorizing the war against ISIS. While Republicans in both houses of Congress have made sanctimonious noises about the need to meddle with and control nuclear talks with Iran, the House GOP leadership allowed a bill to pass that sets no limits on spending, number of troops sent to Iraq, or endgame for this conflict. Of course this is all politics. Constitutionally, Congress has no right to interfere in diplomatic negotiations, whereas it is supposed to be responsible for authorizing wars. The NDAA passed, supported by Dold, with 135 amendments, among which was stripping the ability of Dreamers to join the military and a scientifically fallacious “Pain Capable Children” provision designed to further limit women’s abortion rights. While Dold voted against these amendments initially, preserving a basis for him to claim that he is moderate on immigration and choice, when it mattered he voted for the NDAA with these provisions intact. This is a time-honored tactic. If Dold were truly pro-choice or supported immigration reform, he would have voted against the NDAA as a matter of principle. He did not.

Mark Kirk, who, by the way, has the lowest rating in the Senate for writing bipartisan bills and zero points from GovTrack.us for failing to support eight government transparency bills, also voted for the GOP budget, contradicting his stated desire to help the average Illinoisan. But I think his actions, or, more accurately, non-actions, on the Loretta Lynch nomination for Attorney General and the Human Trafficking bill are most indicative of how Kirk operates. Lynch’s nomination, held up for five months, longer than any cabinet nomination of the past three administrations, was hostage to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desire to hurt the President in any way possible. Although the majority of Senators supported the nomination, McConnell refused to bring it to the floor for a vote.

While Democrats pressured McConnell, Mark Kirk said and did nothing. With public opinion roundly condemning the Senate leadership, McConnell decided to tie the nomination to a widely supported bill on human trafficking, saying he would bring it up as soon as that bill was passed. But, of course, there was a hitch. When Democrats weren’t looking, the Republicans slid in a provision that would have curtailed the ability of victims of trafficking to terminate pregnancies, and Democrats objected. (For a detailed discussion of this bill, see “Congress Watch:  Kirk Signs Open Letter to Iran; Goes Along with Republican Leadership on Abortion Restrictions and Anti-Immigrant Homeland Security Funding Bills,” Tenth News, April 2015, at p. 11, https://tenthdems.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tenth-Dems-newsletter-Apr.-2015-v5-1.pdf#page=10.)

Eventually, the anti-choice language was removed, the bill passed, and Lynch was confirmed. And Kirk? He had nothing to say about the human trafficking bill controversy.  Yet immediately after Lynch’s confirmation, he trumpeted how he was involved in the bipartisan effort to get her in. Really? When it mattered, when McConnell was playing his political games, there wasn’t a peep out of Kirk or his office. For five months he did nothing but toe the party line, showing what an ineffective voice he is for those for whom he says he advocates. His lack of action speaks far louder than his statements after the fact.

Dold and Kirk?  Be very skeptical of what they say.  Watch what they do.

Note to Self: Be Sure to Attend the Power Lunch Again Next Year!

By Rosemary Heilemann

powerlunch 1

On Monday, May 18, the International Ballroom at the Chicago Hilton was packed from corner to corner at Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s 14th Annual Ultimate Women’s Power Lunch.  Even more than the numbers, the enthusiasm and energy of more than 2,000 strong women and the men who admire them, including dozens of Tenth Dems, threatened to burst the very walls.

Co-hosts Josina Morita, former candidate for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, and Hon. Stephanie D. Neely, former treasurer of the City of Chicago, welcomed the crowd warmly and read a moving letter of encouragement from Hillary Clinton.  Then, after acknowledging candidates and elected officials, our host delivered her prepared remarks.

Rep. Schakowsky talked about growing up in Rogers Park.  She described a time when ordinary working people could live comfortably, without worrying about putting food on the table, reasonably expecting that their children would live a better life than theirs.  She contrasted that time with ours, a time when, in the words of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, “most families come home to a full plate of worry.”  Yet, Rep. Schakowsky said, the United States has never been wealthier.  Since 1980, GDP has grown by 77 percent and worker productivity has increased by 75 percent.

The bad news?  Despite our national prosperity, 80 percent of workers have seen no improvement in their standard of living.  The excess money from all this productivity has mostly gone to the top one percent of earners.  At the same time, this year’s federal budget has cut 40 percent from health and welfare programs, including SNAP (food stamps), that will hurt one million people.  These policies are bad for the people and bad for the economy.  When working people get paid, they spend most of their income, which stimulates the economy.  It is estimated that the $1.3 trillion in excess earnings of the highest paid individuals would create 10 million jobs if that money were actually spent.

But Rep. Schakowsky followed this dismal picture with good news.  Federal tax laws and changes in government regulations over many years have created our lopsided economy, and loopholes and policies that created economic inequality can be undone.  The Democratic Women’s Congressional Caucus, adopting the theme “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds,” is writing bills to address economic inequality, bills calling for increases in social security benefits; government-supported child care, pre-school, and elder care; support for women entrepreneurs; and reduction of college debt.

There is a renewed progressive mood in the country, Schakowsky said.  Studies have shown that progressive ideas such as closing corporate loopholes, increasing capital gains taxes, increasing the minimum wage, providing true pensions, reforming immigration, and imposing higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires are popular.  Women are tending to vote Democratic because they are looking for candidates who understand their issues.

Elections really matter, and the key is to engage the electorate.  Only one-third of eligible voters turned out for the 2014 election.  “We are smart enough, strong enough, and determined enough to make changes in 2016,” Schakowsky said.

Rep. Schakowsky yielded the floor to Saru Jayaraman, co-founder of ROC United, a group fighting for improved conditions for restaurant workers.  Ms. Jayaraman told us that one-twelfth of American workers are restaurant workers, the lowest paid of all occupations.  Because of exceptions successfully lobbied for by the restaurant industry, the minimum wage for such tipped workers is well below that legislated for other workers—$2.13 per hour under federal law and $4.95 in Illinois.  In her allotted five minutes, this dynamic young woman made the case for eliminating this discrepancy, explaining that by designating workers as “tipped,” restaurant owners relieve themselves of the obligation to pay a living wage.

In the wake of these dynamic introductory speakers, keynote speaker Sister Simone Campbell came to the podium.  Well-known since 2012 for her “Nuns on the Bus” national tour, Sister Simone spoke calmly and softly, with the confidence of one who has been a registered lobbyist, speaker, educator, and activist since 1978.  Her message was that every one of us can accomplish something if we engage with others.  Change, she said, requires that we build relationships, learn people’s stories, and then tell those stories—in short, open our hearts and then “gossip.”   People are hungering to belong to something, which is why they sometimes get attached to leaders who do not serve their best interests.  Sister Simone encouraged us to build a sense of community with people we encounter, to ask questions about their lives, and to learn and share their stories.

Sister Simone’s remarks invoked a palpable sense of community in the ballroom, and her quiet confidence inspired optimism.  Such group experiences strengthen our determination to continue to work for the changes that will benefit our country and its people.  This was my first Ultimate Women’s Power Lunch, and it surely will not be my last.

powerlunch2

Why Our Restrictive Immigration Policy is Just Plain Wrong

immigration

by Barbara Altman

My strong opposition to the American policy that radically limits immigration has always been based on a combination of historical fact and my view of right and wrong.  After all, unless we’re full-blooded members of an indigenous tribe, every one of us can trace our ancestry to a land outside the borders of the United States. With the exception of those whose ancestors came here involuntarily as part of the slave trade, we can all find someone in our family tree who came to America looking for a better life.  Given these historical facts, who are we to tell the current crop of foreigners looking for a better life that they can’t come to “our country”?  It may strike you as naïve, but I long for us to live by the words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and “lift the lamp beside the golden door.”

Generally, when I try to support these views with policy arguments, I can come up with only anecdotal evidence.  Look at all the immigrants who contributed to the ascendancy of this nation in the 20th century, I say – Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi. Madeleine Albright, I.M. Pei, George Balanchine – the list is endless. And why, I’ve always asked, do we bring foreign students to the United States to study at our colleges and universities, only to make it impossible for them to remain in this country and apply that education to improving our nation?  Finally, I reason that, excepting those with nefarious intent, immigrants tend to be the cream of the society they’ve fled.  That is, it’s the very people who have the courage and the grit to risk everything to leave the familiar and travel to a foreign land where they may not even understand the language who have the most to offer their adopted country.

So imagine my delight to read the economic argument that supports my open-border bias in The New York Times Magazine for March 29.

According to economist Adam Davidson, writing in his weekly “On Money” column, those who oppose open borders in the belief that immigrants take jobs that otherwise would go to workers already in the United States have got it not just wrong, but actually backwards.  Jobs, Davidson explains, are not a “lump,” and employment is not a zero sum game.  Every new worker in the United States, just by being employed, stimulates the creation of additional jobs—jobs for the people who rent her an apartment, who check him out at the grocery store, who sell her a car and gas to run it, who teach his children…well, you get the idea.  Davidson says that it’s a fact that population growth stimulates economic growth and that, therefore, whether the population grows because birthrates increase or because of immigration, the result is essentially the same. Certainly, it stands to reason that if one of those foreign students we allow to remain in the United States starts the next technically innovative business, she will create innumerable new jobs for those of us already residing in this country.

Also, according to Davidson, an influx of workers at the low end of the wage scale makes the economy work more efficiently.  He gives examples using the construction industry, arguing that everyone is better off if the skilled craftsmen on the job aren’t also the workers hauling and sweeping.  Haulers and sweepers can be paid less per hour than skilled workers, and employing them will free up the higher-earning skilled workers to focus on the tasks that demand their skills.

So my wish is that we stop expending political energy on thinking of ways to stop immigration and start focusing on the best way to open up our country to immigrants—while weeding out criminals and anyone else intending us harm, of course.  It turns out that not only would such a policy constitute a return to fundamental American ideals, but it would also be good economics.