Progress Illinois

On multiple occasions this month, Fox Chicago has parroted conservative talking points about the health care bills circulating in Washington and their purported effect on Medicare. So it probably should come as no surprise that the station's anchors would fail to rebut such claims when put forward by their guests.

Still, it's irritating to watch this exchange between GOP Rep. Peter Roskam and Fox Chicago Sunday host Jack Conaty yesterday. In the first minute of his appearance, Roskam asserts that the House health care bill "goes after seniors" because it cuts "Medicare by $500 billion." Watch it:

Democrats have proposed reforms that will slow or eliminate some Medicare spending overtime. These include a number of measures, such as changes to the flawed physician payment system and the elimination of unnecessary subsides to the wasteful Medicare Advantage program. By ironing out inefficiencies, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this policy change could achieve $500 billion in gross savings over ten years. That money would be plowed back into the system to expand care to those who lack coverage. But benefits for most seniors will not be cut be cut as a result. And for those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private providers to compete for Medicare patients, all they would lose would be extraneous add-ons like vision care or gym club memberships, not standard coverage. Conaty should have these facts at his fingertips.

Continue reading »

A week after Mayor Daley unveiled his bad news budget -- which relies on skimming $370 million from asset reserve funds to help plug a $520 million deficit -- aldermen began hearings on the city's finances this morning. Over the past five years, Chicago has collected upwards of $3 billion for privatizing several major public assets: specifically, the parking meters, downtown garages, and Skyway.  But due to the bad economy and the resulting drop in revenues, the Daley administration has tapped all but $730 million of the reserve funds.  But rather than own up to the fact he has been using these privatization deals as a crutch, the mayor has instead indicated that he is open to hawking additional public assets. "Everything is on the table," he told the Tribune editorial board last week, including the water and sewer systems.

On FOX Chicago Sunday this week, Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd Ward) warned that if Daley is allowed to ram through another parking meter-style deal, the city would be "in big trouble." Moreover, he pointed out that the ongoing privatization talk is emblematic of a bigger problem. "[The city] needs a new influx of ideas and policies," he told co-hosts Jack Conaty and Dane Placko. "The old way of doing things no longer works." Watch it:

Continue reading »

Last week, we documented how the Reader's stellar investigation into Mayor Daley's $1 billion "shadow budget" had reinvigorated the public debate around tax increment financing (TIF) -- just in time for the city's budget talks with aldermen.  Over the weekend, FOX Chicago Sunday's Dane Placko picked up the ball, saying that "every Chicago taxpayer should read" the latest article by Ben Joravsky and Mick Dumke. With the city's financial problems coming to a head, Placko told viewers, "Imagine how this budget would look if we weren't dealing with this huge TIF problem." Considering that TIF siphoned $552 million off the tax rolls last year alone the possibilities are indeed vast.  He then touched on an issue that we've written about extensively, noting that "a lot of the money is going to corporations to remodel buildings and such." Watch it:

PLACKO: In this week's article, the Reader outlines how the city maintains what is essentially a second budget, which it refuses to release. Even aldermen only get to see TIF information for their own wards. Not the big picture. And this is significant because the mayor controls a pot of TIF money that has grown to $1 billion, one-sixth the size of the entire budget. With so much money going to TIF, property taxes in non-TIF district have to go up to cover the money that's not going to the general revenue fund. Imagine how this budget would look if we weren't dealing with this huge TIF problem -- and a lot of the money going to corporations to remodel buildings and such.

"People have been getting upset about TIF for years," co-host Jack Conaty added, "I think it's going to peak here shortly."

Continue reading »

Could the insurance industry's approval of Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) watered-down health care bill help galvanize support for a public option? Illinois' own Rep. Jan Schakowsky thinks so. Appearing on Fox Chicago Sunday this past weekend, she told host Jack Conaty that the rally on health insurance stocks last week -- following the introduction of Baucus' bill, which does not include a public plan -- perfectly illustrates who stands to benefit from that proposal. And Schakowsky says that only strengthens progressives' argument in favor of more robust reform.  Watch it (relevant portion begins at the 2:40 mark):

CONATY: Is the public option in health care reform still alive in Washington?

SCHAKOWSKY: I think it's more alive now. After Sen. Baucus introduced his bill, if you look at the stock market, the value of insurance companies soared. It spiked right up because they see this is a perfect deal. How about it? You mandate that everyone get insurance. And then you don't have any competition for the private insurance companies. That's nirvana for them and for the stockholders as well.

So we absolutely need to have some real competition in these uncompetitive markets.  And I think a public option certainly is the way to go.

Think Progress' Igor Volsky took note of the insurance industry's enthusiasm for Baucus' proposal last week and added some additional context. "[S]ince the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option," he wrote, "health insurance stocks have been on the rise."

Progressives should do all they can to highlight the correlation between watered-down reforms and insurance industry enthusiasm.

Continue reading »

Yesterday, Fox Chicago Sunday devoted one of its three segments to an interview on cap-and-trade legislation with David Sykuta of the Illinois Petroleum Council.  Here's how they teased it: "The people who put gas in your car say Illinois residents are in for a major price spike thanks to cap-and-trade."  So you can guess how the segment went. 

In his most egregious claim, Sykuta asserted that cap-and-trade will result increase gas prices by "$1.40 a gallon in the next 10-12 years."  That $1.40 figure may seem familiar, as it was cited by President Bush when he vetoed the Climate Security Act last year.  But it comes from an Environmental Protection Agency study that found prices would rise that much over the next 40 years -- not the next decade.

Then there was this delightful exchange between co-host Jack Conaty and Sykuta:

SYKUTA: Well, we think we're doing a good job with the environment and energy.  Things are much better now than they've ever been.  They're getting better every year.

CONATY: So you don't buy the "polar bears are drowning" theory of the environment?

SYKUTA: I think we're making a lot of progress and I think some in the environmental community are very good at isolating photos and making them look different than what reality is.

Ugh.  What are the chances of one day seeing a similar segment with the Sierra Club's Jack Darin or the Environmental Law and Policy Center's Howard Learner?  We won't hold our breath.

There is a lot to recommend Sen. James Meeks income tax plan, a bill we've written about extensively over the past year. Meeks' boost in the personal tax rate is higher than Gov. Pat Quinn's original proposal (2 percentage points, rather than 1.5), which has led some to believe that it is less politically viable.  But to the contrary, by generating more revenue, the bill could actually give lawmakers "something to be proud of."  Those voting in favor of it could tell their constituents that they've doubled the state property tax credit, delivered relief to low-income earners by increasing the personal exemption and the state's Earned Income Tax Credit, and taken a step towards fixing the state's underfunded and inequitable school funding system. Indeed, unlike various other proposals floating around, it actually passed one of the legislative chambers.

Yet HB 174 continues to receive little attention this month, even as legislative leaders have met regularly on the budget plan. It's as if Gov. Quinn, Speaker Michael Madigan, and the Republican leadership forgot that the Senate existed.

Senate President John Cullerton is hoping to change that. In an appearance on Fox Chicago Sunday this past weekend, the Chicago Democrat assured viewers that Sen. Meeks' bill -- which Cullerton championed -- is not off the table yet. He reiterated his belief that the bill should be the blueprint for the current negotations, adding, "We just want the elements of our proposal to be considered." Watch it:

Over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lamont) blasted Gov. Pat Quinn's ongoing campaign to raise awareness about the devastating effects the state's 50-percent "bare-bones" budget would have on people who use state services. As the Daily Herald reported, the GOP lawmaker called Quinn's approach "a shameless use and abuse of human service providers and the constituencies they serve."

She repeated this line of attack on FOX Chicago Sunday yesterday, calling the governor's strategy "cynical and almost immoral." But in doing so, Radogno completely ignores the outside constraints imposed on the General Assembly that make it virtually impossible to cut what she desires. Watch it here (the revelant clip begins at the 5:07 mark):

RADOGNO: What he’s done though is he’s said the shortage is exclusively in the human services area and I think in a cynical and almost immoral attempt to make those people put extraordinary pressure for the tax increase. The fact of the matter is, at the 50 percent level, government could continue for another six months while the necessary changes and reforms were brought into place.

Quinn certainly deserves some criticism for how he's handled the budget process so far. But the reason he is now focusing his proposed cuts on social services providers is simple: It's his only choice.

Continue reading »

At some point in the near future, the emotionally-charged debate surrounding gay marriage and civil unions is going to feel very dated. A majority of Americans now back civil unions, over 40 percent back gay marriage, and support for both is climbing at a staggering clip. Since November 2003, for example, public opinion in favor of civil unions has increased 13 percentage points. And the vast majority of people under 45 -- 64 percent in a recent CBS poll -- want gay marriage or civil union laws on the books. In other words, the arguments against granting equal rights to people regardless of their sexual orientation are failing to penetrate. As The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates once quipped, the opposition is too often characterized by irrational revulsion.

This fact was displayed quite strikingly on FOX Chicago Sunday. Rep. Greg Harris -- one of the General Assembly's two openly gay members* and the chief sponsor of HB 2234, a state civil unions bill -- thoroughly refuted the objections of Thomas More Law Center legal counselor Peter Breen. While Harris reinforces that his bill just extends contractual rights to everyone in committed relationships -- including the rights to share in health care decisions, visit the hopsital, and to probate if no will is written -- Breen wrongly asserts that the law would change employment and adoption code, thereby taking away the right of religious organizations to hire or promote adoptions selectively. Watch it here:

Continue reading »

Mark Kirk isn’t the only Illinois Republican dishing out bogus anti-stimulus talking points to local reporters. Arguing against the current economic recovery package on FOX Chicago Sunday yesterday, Rep. Peter Roskam attempted to convince viewers that the House Republicans’ alternative plan (PDF) -- focused almost entirely on tax cuts -- is more cost-effective than the package favored by Congressional Democrats. Watch it:

ROSKAM: The better way is to lower the tax rates broadly. There was an alternative plan that was put forward that President Obama’s own chairman of his economic council of advisers [Christina Romer], her evaluation and her formula looked at this and said, you know what, this alternative plan actually in two years will create 6.2 million jobs. Now put that in context -- that’s twice as much job creation at half the cost.

We’re going to outsource our rebuttal to Wonk Room, which last month ably knocked down the GOP’s argument that Romer's research supports their assertion that “tax cuts actually provide more immediate relief and more jobs” than direct spending:

Continue reading »

In his Southtown Star column today, Rich Miller wrote that State Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) walked away from a private meeting with John McCain last Wednesday "open to the possibility" of endorsing the Arizona Republican for president. Miller reports that during their meeting, McCain made his pitch for why the GOP is stronger on the issue of immigration reform:

McCain reminded Sandoval that the last president to do anything major about immigration reform was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Sandoval claimed McCain told him that the immigration issue would be "one of the hallmarks of my presidency." Reagan's immigration policy included an amnesty program for those here illegally, but McCain never uttered the "A" word.

Appearing on Fox Chicago Sunday yesterday, Sandoval repeated McCain's history lesson, adding that McCain was the last member of Congress "to propose immigration reform":

Of course, there's a big problem with Sandoval giving McCain credit for proposing immigration reform -- namely, that McCain has since said he would vote against the bill in question.

Indeed, during the January 30 Republican debate, Los Angeles Times reporter Janet Hook asked McCain about the comprehensive immigration reform measure -- S. 1348 -- that he worked on and initially supported: "At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?" McCain responded: "No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first." Watch it:

Miller reports in his column that after their conversation last Wednesday, McCain requested "that they continue to meet, which Sandoval agreed to do." Maybe the next time they sit down, Sandoval can ask McCain about his constant changing of position on this issue.

In the meantime, it'd be nice if he didn't repeat GOP talking points on the local airwaves.