Demagoguing Social Security: Have they no shame?

Old Lady: This is terrible, Frank. When President Bush and his Wall Street pals privatized social security, they never told us we could actually LOSE our money.

Old Man: Please don’t cry, honey, but that’s the stock market for you. It goes up, but now that we need the money, it’s down.

Old Lady: Well, how much of our social security have we lost in the market?

Old Man: I can’t even think about it. I can’t believe that this is what privatization did to social security. Instead of guaranteed benefits, now we’ve got this mess. Social INSECURITY.

True Majority Action Radio Ad, currently being run by you know who [Emphasis in the Original].
*****************************************
The above is a current radio ad being run by those who oppose individuals having any control over how a portion of their social security funds are invested. They suggest doom and gloom will flow from the slightest bit of economic freedom. Too bad the FTC isn’t active when we have a real instance of deceptive advertising—indeed, a deception which is much more egregious than anything coming out of the corporate sector.

But, do these people who are so fearful of personal social security retirement accounts also oppose 401 (k) retirements accounts? I have not heard that, nor have I seen similar ads talking about how people have been or will be “wiped out,” due to 401 (k)s.

401 (k) accounts are, as most who will read this know, personal retirement accounts that individuals can use to place income received from employers into. The contributions by employees are often matched, up to a certain level, by employers [as is the case with social security]—without the contributions being taxed until withdrawn—which, in large part, is on retirement.

The 401 (k) accounts carry legal restrictions as to how the funds can be invested, and it is contemplated that the personal retirement social security accounts would have even greater legal restrictions on how those funds could be invested, with the idea in mind of constraining the riskiness of the portfolio.

For large numbers of, if not most, people, 401 (k) accounts are a more significant component of their retirement plans than social security. Yet seldom do you hear Democrats [the leading opposition force to personal retirement accounts] or others argue for the elimination of 401 (k)s because they permit individuals to have more risk in their retirement investment portfolios than they should. Why the inconsistency?

Indeed, why don’t we see ads, similar to the above, imploring the federal government to remove 401 (k)s as an investment opportunity for the citizens of America? The answer is that we already have these accounts; people generally know how well they work— so it is harder to fabricate falsehoods about them.

Are there folks out there who really think that over a thirty year period, or so, an investment in well diversified funds indexed to track the broad contours of the market at large, which could easily be the legal constraint for the personal social security retirement accounts, is likely to ever leave the individual investor impoverished, as the above tearful ad suggests? Because if our economy is such that that could happen, we will surely not be able to meet our social security obligations under the current finance as you go, Ponzi scheme, social security system, unless you envision raising social security payroll taxes on those lucky enough to be employed when the country is facing 25% unemployment. And, even the most ardent pro-taxers don’t suggest doing that.

In short, over the last 75 years, we have had one very significant contraction in the economy [depression, if you like, in 1929 and into the 1930s ] and a number of much less significant downturns in the economy. If we have another very significant economic contraction, as in the 1930s, those who are set to retire after the contraction hits will have problems under either retirement plan—personal retirement accounts or the current system.

And, it is more likely, if someone has a non-neglible, but not high, probability, of retiring during a downturn, but not a depression, that the individual’s retirement portfolio will have a much greater value from having, say, 26 years of fairly high returns and four years of losses, then 30 years of putting their money under the mattress, which is pretty much the current system.

So, cheer up old lady and old man, the market may have gone down for a year or two or three, but you are way ahead with your 4 per cent per year average rate of return personal retirement accounts than with the government’s equivalent to a 1.3 per cent per year average rate of return for its social security recipients under the current system. It is a matter of good economics and simple compounding. Do the math.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Terri Schiavo and Rev. Jackson: The odd couple?

“The Terri Schiavo case has now met the immutable law of six degrees of separation. The Rev. Jesse Jackson today joined Mrs. Schiavo’s parents in saying she is being, ‘starved to death,’ thus aligning the man who was yesterday defending Michael Jackson against allegations of child molestation to those insisting Mrs. Schiavo is being mistreated—thus separating the man who most loudly claims Republican voting fraud in Ohio last year from those now insisting that Congress overreached in legislating the Schiavo case into the federal courts. In short, for those who view this as an entirely political story, they don’t know what the Hell to think tonight.”

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," March 29, 2005.

Rev. Jackson prayed with Terri Schiavo’s parents last night. Terri Schiavo’s mother, Mary Schindler, said she wanted him there “for moral support. I feel good with him here. [He is] very strong. He gives me strength.” The Rev. Jackson in turn said, “This was just waiting for her to die. There is something about that that is profoundly immoral and unethical…She is not dying with dignity. She is being STARVED to death. She is being DEHYDRATED to death. We are now in a massive death watch. Look at her without food and water when we have food and water. That’s MERCILESS [Emphasis in the tone of the Jackson statement].”

As reported on “MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann," March 29, 2005.

One question that I didn't hear Olbermann raise is [although I could have missed it as I didn't watch the whole program], "Where has Rev. Jackson been for the last 12 days?" I mean, why did it take him so long to speak out and act on what he characterizes as "profoundly immoral."

Yes, I would concede what Judge Easterbrook [7th Circuit Court of Appeals] has emphasized in other contexts, "Wisdom come lately is better than wisdom not come at all." But if this is wisdom, why did it take so long for Rev. Jackson to go public with it? Usually, the guy can't get there fast enough. Aging reflexes?
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Christine Cegelis on TV: Single Parents, Single Payer, School vouchers and the 6th CD

This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Christine Cegelis, who is running in the 2006 Democratic Primary in the 6th Congressional District [20% in Northwest Cook County and 80% in DuPage County]. Cegelis was the Democratic nominee in the 2004 election and she got 44.2% of the vote, running against 30 year Republican incumbent Cong. Henry Hyde, previously Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and currently Chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

Almost everyone, except Cong. Hyde—who is agnostic, so to speak, on the matter, is predicting that Cong. Hyde will announce next month, perhaps at his 81st birthday party, that he will not run again in 2006. Such an announcement of an open seat in the 6th CD will surely precipitate competitive primaries in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, Virginia-- competition, the patron saint of the consumer, might yield two interesting, combative candidates who will agree to debate 35 times—the dream of political TV show hosts everywhere.

A partial transcript of the show with Democratic candidate Cegelis is included below. For an additional partial transcript of the show, hit the icon titled, “Could Bush have been right, Cegelis says no,” to the right, above or below this blog entry.
*********************************************
6th Cong. District Democratic Primary candidate Christine Cegelis debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz the War, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Ukraine, Israel, Palestine and issues related to the march of democracy; Social Security reform, including “personal accounts,” personal security, rates of return, and social security taxes; single payer health care; education, NCLB, school choice and school vouchers; the economy, jobs, tax cuts and much, much more.
********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Sometimes, people slip into poverty for a variety of reasons…maybe they are not educated [well]. There are a variety of things we can do along those lines, right? We can have a more educated work force, right?

Christine Cegelis [6th Cong. Dist. Democratic Primary Candidate]: It would be great if we did. But, in fact—

Berkowitz: How would we have a more educated work force?

Cegelis: What we are doing is we are cutting—

Berkowitz: We could even improve the quality of education in kindergarten through 12th Grade, right?

Cegelis: We could, but—

Berkowitz: Is that a state issue or a federal issue?

Cegelis: I think it is a little bit of both. I think it is everyone’s issue.

Berkowitz: It is. But, you were opposed to No Child Left Behind?

Cegelis: I am opposed to that because what is happening …is that it is costing the schools more than they are getting back in federal funds. It is causing our schools to be listed on the failing schools list and they are rejecting federal money now

Berkowitz: So, maybe we need some competition in public education. You would have a chance to vote on that if you were in Congress because they control Washington, DC, in a sense. They [the Congress] have passed a voucher program, a school choice, school voucher program for Washington, DC [a pilot program for 2000 kids, giving each parent $7500 to spend at the school of their choice].

Cegelis: Why would I want to have—I believe in competition and I believe in private schools. I am a Catholic. We have a Catholic school system. It is a wonderful school system. But, I don’t believe in vouchers. If you want the same—

Berkowitz: You don’t believe in school choice? So, you think—

Cegelis: I believe in—

Berkowitz: All of those Catholic individuals in your District, the 6th Congressional District, who want to send their kids to a private school, they should pay twice. They should pay for that education and also pay in property taxes for somebody else’s education. You think that is a fair system?

Cegelis: I think that is a very fair system.

Berkowitz: And a good—

Cegelis: It is a very fair system—

Berkowitz: It’s [fair] competition?

Cegelis: It is a reason why you choose to send your child to a private school. And, if you can afford to send your kid to a private school, then you can do it. And, actually with the Catholic School System--

Berkowitz: Shouldn’t everybody have that choice? Shouldn’t everyone want that choice? Where’s my backpack [Berkowitz reaches down for his UCLA backpack]

Cegelis: Well, that’s one of the reasons why the Catholic School System has been so good. It’s because the choice is that the Catholic Community has taken up the opportunity to help fund education. We, as a parish. We, as a community—we help fund people. We help make sure people that come in—and that is our priority.

Berkowitz: But, a lot of people are in failing schools and they don’t have the means to do this. And they can’t take the money that we are spending in the public schools [on them]—

Cegelis: But, we should—

Berkowitz: Here’s the $10,000 [that we spending per kid, per year in the Chicago Public Schools, give it to] every kid. And we say, here’s our backpack, we put it [the $10,000] in this backpack.

Cegelis: But, you know what, have you ever—

Berkowitz: And, we strap it on—

Cegelis: Have you ever been a single parent, Jeff? Have you ever been a single parent? Are you a single parent? Did you get up and take your kids to a different school every day? As a single parent—

Berkowitz: I want to help the single parents. If you are a single parent-- Are there single parents--

Cegelis: Well, you know what. Here it is, I am a single parent. And, I will tell you what. I am a single parent. And, I will tell you why I feel it so strong--

Berkowitz: You want this backpack?

Cegelis: I do not want that backpack.

Berkowitz: $10,000 in here—

Cegelis: No, I don’t.

Berkowitz: You can send this backpack [with your kid] to your school of your choice.

Cegelis: And, you know why [I don’t want this backpack]. This is useless to me if I can’t get my—

Berkowitz: $10, 000. Useless?

Cegelis: It is useless to me if I don’t have the time to take my child to a different school. If I don’t have time—

Berkowitz: Take her to a neighborhood private school right here in your neighborhood.

Cegelis: And, what if I don’t have a private school in my neighborhood.

Berkowitz: There will be one. Demand creates its own supply.

Cegelis: No, it doesn’t.

Berkowitz: If we give people—If we give people in the City of Chicago 2 billion dollars purchasing power [less than half of the CPS budget to cover half of the kids, all of whom are in failing schools].

Cegelis: I actually had to move my house. I actually got up and moved my house so that my kids could walk to school because I did not have the time to take my kids--

Berkowitz: You didn’t have a voucher choice.

Cegelis: But I didn’t have a private school either.

Berkowitz: That’s right. You didn’t-- because you didn’t have a voucher choice.

Cegelis: I don’t believe. I do not believe—

Berkowitz: If there were 2000 students in your little area-

Cegelis: No.

Berkowitz: Who might go to a public school [or several public schools] now. If we said to all their parents, you have a choice—trust me, there would be private schools created to compete with those public schools.

Cegelis: Trust me, you would not have, as a parent—

Berkowitz: That’s the free enterprise system.

Cegelis: As a parent, what I needed to have was a good public school close to me. As a community, we need to make sure that there are good public schools everywhere.

Berkowitz: You need a good school. Why would you care whether it is public or private? As long as it is a good school—

Cegelis: Because a private school—

Berkowitz: Where kids learn to read, write, do math. Why must it be public- as long as it is a good school. I don’t care. It could be public. It could be private. I don’t care. Why would you care?

Cegelis: I do care. Because private schools can then choose who they will accept and who they don’t. And, that is important because what if your kid is a—

Berkowitz: Like New Trier High School doesn’t choose. If you want to go to New Trier, you have to live in one of the most affluent areas in the state. You are saying that is fair? That’s the kind of choice [you have with public schools]. You think some low income person in your District could run over to New Trier. Even if they wanted to, they can’t. Even if you wanted to commute three hours—

Cegelis: That’s true. That’s why every school should be a good school. And that’s why we should be pushing for every school to be a good school. That’s why we shouldn’t take public funding away from schools that are struggling to put it into schools that aren’t struggling.

Berkowitz: This is how you make things good; It is by having competition. You’re in a business where if you are good, people hire you. If you are not good, they don’t. You want to be in a business in which everybody is picked randomly? Your competitors are picked even if they are no good in doing work? Is that the kind of system you want?

Cegelis: Schooling is a whole different story.

Berkowitz: We have to go on. The war in Iraq. Last time you said you were opposed. You would have voted not to authorize… [For an additional partial transcript of the show, relating to War and foreign policy-- hit the icon titled, “Could Bush have been right, Cegelis says no,” to the right, above or below this blog entry].
**************************
Christine Cegelis, candidate in the 2006 Primary for the sixth congressional district Democratic nomination, recorded on March 20, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of March 28] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, April 4 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See, directly below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
******************************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

ABCNewsgate

Brit Hume, on Fox News Channels’ daily national news show “Special Report,” stated yesterday:

“The New York Times reports that media outlets obtained that controversial memo highlighting political benefits of the Terry Schiavo case from Democratic aides who said it had been distributed to Senate Republicans. But according to Fox News contributor Fred Barnes, Top Senate Republicans including Majority Leader Bill Frist and Majority Whip Mitch McConnell never saw the memo. What’s more, the ‘talking points’ were printed on blank paper [with] no letterhead, date or signature [and] contained numerous factual and typographical errors. And ABC News, which first ran the memo under the headline ‘GOP talking points,’ now says they [ABC News] never meant to imply that ‘it [the talking points document] was created by Republicans.”

This is really rich. ABC News says that although it labeled a document as “GOP talking points,” it of course didn’t mean to imply that the document was created by Republicans. Linda Douglass [who is about as impartial as Harry Caray was in reporting on the Cubs] of ABC News, first reported on the document on March 18, 2005 and ABC put the full document on the ABCNews website on March 21, 2005, saying the document listed “talking points on the Terri Schiavo case,” and the document “was circulated among Republican senators on the floor of the Senate.” I wonder how anyone could think that ABC suggested that the document was created by Republicans.

The problems with ABC’s and other mainstream media’s handling and questioning of the authenticity of the so-called “Republican talking points memo,” are outlined in some detail in a column by John Hinderaker in yesterday’s WeeklyStandard.com. Perhaps the most striking problem is that no one has reported seeing any Republican distributing the suspect memo; the only people confirmed to have passed out the memo were Democratic staffers. Meanwhile, as Hinderaker reports, the usual lefties, e.g., Eleanor Clift and Ellen Goodman, have been using the memo to berate Republicans-- and Goodman, who writes for the Washington Post, the paper that won’t disclose what evidence it has for the memo’s authenticity, said: “And don’t forget the infamous ‘talking points memo,’ ABC News ‘found,’ reminding Republican Senators that ‘the pro-life base will be excited’ and it’s a ‘great political issue.”

No need for ABC to worry. Should they have to purge any of their staff due to the bungling of the reporting on Republican talking points, there is someone standing by with some time on his hands and he is, no doubt, ready and willing to step in for anyone who might be axed, and he knows something about the trials and tribulations of document authentication. His name? Why Dan Rather, of course.

As the French say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
*************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************************************

What are you looking at [tonight]? Can't do better than Giangreco and Berkowitz.

Pete Giangreco: You’re an economist. You understand. Risk and return. You always get a lower return for lower risk. Right? Social security is the bedrock. It’s worked for 70 years. They never missed a—

Jeff Berkowitz: Yeah. Almost a zero return and zero risk.
***********************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features Pete Giangreco, a Democratic Campaign consultant and partner at the Strategy Group [www.strategygroup.com]. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. Pistol Pete has worked on six Presidential campaigns and helped elect Governor Mark Warner in Virginia, Senator Barack Obama and Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois, and Pete currently does political message work for Illinois’ Governor and will no doubt work on Hot Rod's re-election campaign.
***********************************************
A partial transcript of the show with Giangreco is included, below. For an additional partial transcript of the show, hit the icon, Giangreco v. Berkowitz, to the right, above or below this blog entry.
**********************************************
Pete Giangreco debates and discusses with show host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz on tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” whether the national Democratic Party is “out of touch,” the Democratic Presidential possibilities of Senator Barack Obama [D-IL], Governor Mark Warner [D-Va], Governor Rod Blagojevich [D-IL], John Edwards, Senators John Kerry [D-MA], Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and Even Bayh [D-IN]; social security lockbockes, personal retirement accounts, insolvency and reform; the War in Iraq and the march towards democracy through-out the world; the Economy, Keynesians, deficits and tax cuts; Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s efforts to deal with state deficits, risky investment schemes and much, much more.
*******************************
Pete Giangreco: …That’s the funny thing about the social security fix that the President is talking about. There are 10 or 15 ways to solve social security. We are only arguing about one of them, which is these-- this private accounts, this privatizing, which by the way will cost us two trillion dollars in new debt--

Jeff Berkowitz: we don’t know that; we don’t know that.

Giangreco: Which you can’t be for—and, it guarantees this, it will create another government bureaucracy—

Berkowitz: When you say cost, it takes people who have been paying into the system and gives them the control over their money—

Giangreco: Right—

Berkowitz: You are saying that is a cost—

Giangreco: No, no, no—

Berkowitz: Because people are now going to control their money, what you mean is—

Giangreco: We have to borrow two trillion dollars to make it work.

Berkowitz: Yeah, because you will no longer have a Ponzi scheme available where—we wouldn’t allow people to do this privately where we take money from somebody and we give it to somebody else as [a] return [on their investment]. So, we are going to interrupt that and we are going to have to borrow as we get away from a Ponzi scheme way of doing social security toward a system of investment—

Giangreco: Right.

Berkowitz: So, there actually would be money [in the personal retirement accounts];[in the current system] where you say there is [money], there isn’t.

Giangreco: No. No. There isn’t money. There is debt.

Berkowitz: And people would invest it [the money].

Giangreco: Wait, wait, wait. You can’t say debt on the one hand is not money, and now say, if we just borrow our way out of this, we will be fine. Look, what the president is saying—

Berkowitz: We are transitioning to—

Giangreco: What the President is saying to people is to go down to your Payday Loan store and pay a usurious rate [of interest] and borrow all of this money and then try to invest it in the stock market and try to make up the deficit.

Berkowitz: [pay a] relatively low rate [of interest]. It is not even so different from your boy, Rod Blagojevich, I say that with respect—the person you’ve worked for.

Giangreco: Um um.

Berkowitz: The candidate.

Giangreco: Um um.

Berkowitz: A year or two ago, he [Gov. Rod Blagojevich] said there was a problem. He had a major problem with the [state] deficit. He needed two billion dollars. So, he said—what we’re going to do is, we’re going to sell about 10 billion dollars in securities and we’re going to invest it [the funds received from the sale of securities] and we’re going to make more [8%] than we will have to pay out [5%] as a return on those securities. And so, we’ll book the two billion dollar savings [the difference between what we anticipate paying out and what we anticipate earning in the stock market] and the deficit is taken care of. That was Governor Rod Blagojevich and if he had been a Republican, you would have called that a risky investment scheme.

Giangreco: That’s the way all 50 states do it.

Berkowitz: So, it’s Okay?

Giangreco: No, No.

Berkowitz: But, it’s investing money—it’s investing money to make a higher rate of return than it [the funds] cost you. With social security, we make 1.3% and we know we could make [at least] 3 or 4 percent.

Giangreco: It’s not an investment program, Jeff—that’s why your—

Berkowitz: It is an investment program.

Giangreco: No, No, No, it’s an insurance program.

Berkowitz: No, but I am saying, they are trying to make it into an investment program.

Giangreco: It guarantees. It guarantees. Do you hear the word guarantee?

Berkowitz: It guarantees-- as long as the government is willing to raise taxes to pay for it. That’s no guarantee.

Giangreco: The other part of this program is why it doesn’t work. They aren’t personal accounts. You don’t control them. It’s not your money.

Berkowitz: Are you talking about the President’s proposal now or the way it [currently] is?

Giangreco: Yeah, the privatizing. The proposal is- you can’t take the money out—

Berkowitz: Personal Retirement Accounts.

Giangreco: You can’t take the money out and the government tells you what you can invest it in. And, you have to create a whole new bureaucracy.

Berkowitz: They put constraints on [how you can invest the funds], just as they do with 401 (k)s [accounts that individuals can use to place income from employers into, often matched by employers—without the contributions being taxed until withdrawn—which, in large part, is on retirement].

Giangreco: It’s going to be even more expensive

Berkowitz: Why is it Okay [to do that] for 401 (k)s, but not for this?

Giangreco: No, No, No because—

Berkowitz: Do people make money on 401 (k)s? Yes they do.

Giangreco: Because they are worried that people are going to lose money, that’s why there are constraints here, that’s the whole point.

Berkowitz: Same with 401 (k)s. You can’t justify 401 (k)s and not justify these things [personal retirement accounts].

Giangreco: You’re an economist. You understand. Risk and return. You always get a lower return for lower risk. Right? Social security is the bedrock. It’s worked for 70 years. They never missed a—

Berkowitz: Yeah. Almost a zero return and zero risk.
****************************************
Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant, recorded on March 13, 2005 and as is airing tonight at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV] on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs.
*******************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Will Pat run for Guv? The Sphinx Speaks.

Berkowitz: ...Are you going to be running for Governor in the year 2006?

O’Malley: ...[Y]ou know what would be a surprise to a lot of people is that I wouldn’t.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: [you and your] wife Mary Judith- you have two children, grown children- right?

Former State Senator Pat O’Malley: Yes.

Berkowitz: And, now two grandchildren?

O’Malley: Yes. Two and we are expecting a third.

Berkowitz: Congratulations.

O’Malley: Thank you.

Berkowitz: And, so, Let’s get right down to it. Are you going to be running for Governor in the year 2006?

O’Malley: Well, you know, I could easily say stranger things have happened, but I don’t think it would be strange that I did. I think what would be strange, probably, you know what would be a surprise to a lot of people is that I wouldn’t.

Berkowitz: So, we would--it would be almost to say that it is likely that you will be running in the Republican Primary in March, 2006?

O’Malley: You know when we ran in 2002, there were three candidates running, an incumbent Attorney General [Jim Ryan], an incumbent Lt. Governor [Corinne Wood] and myself—I was the first one to announce—I stayed through the course in the race and I came in second. And, it surprised a lot of people that a state senator who did not have statewide name appeal could do as well. But, we did prove that you could do well downstate- people appreciated our message even though we came from the Chicagoland area. It took a while to crack that and get people to understand it, but the point is—

Berkowitz: To crack what?

O’Malley: To crack downstate. But, the reality is that people have come to accept that Pat O’Malley has the ability to appeal across the state. I can appeal not only in the suburbs where I live, but certainly in the southwest and northwest side of Chicago, which is where my roots are and of course downstate.
**************************************
O’Malley: …The facts in 2002 were that both my opponents spent right in the neighborhood of 8 million dollars.

Berkowitz: What did you spend?

O’Malley: We spent about 4 ½ [million dollars].

Berkowitz: Are you going to have to do that again?

O’Malley: I would say that you are going to have to spend that much or more.

Berkowitz: If you ran in the [2006 Gubernatorial] Primary?

O’Malley: Correct.

Berkowitz: You’d have to spend that [much] or more and how much of that—

O’Malley: And, by the way, all these other candidates who’ve put their names out there have not spent that kind of money. You know, running statewide is one thing; running statewide for Governor is a whole other experience. [Was this intended as a reminder from O’Malley to the others-- but especially to Topinka?].

Berkowitz: …How much of that 4 ½ million [dollars] that you spent last time was …your own funds?

O’Malley: Substantially, many of those dollars were our own resources?

Berkowitz: 70 or 80 %, something like that?

O’Malley: I would say, in that neighborhood.

Berkowitz: Would you do that again?

O’Malley: I wouldn’t like to.

Berkowitz: But, you could?

O’Malley: Life has been good.
**********************************
Berkowitz: We are going to continue to speak as the credits roll but I very much want to thank our guest, …former state senator Pat O’Malley, former candidate for Governor in 2002 in the Republican Primary… and perhaps a candidate in March, 2006 in the Republican Primary. Let’s just give an answer. Can we bank on it that you will be there; you’ll be running in the Republican Primary?

O’Malley: Nice try, good try.

Berkowitz: What’s the answer? Will you [be there].

O’Malley: I am going to share that information with everybody at the same time.

Berkowitz: When will that be? When will you make that decision?

O’Malley: It will be after this [legislative] session [in Springfield.]

Berkowitz: So, you are thinking about it and you will announce, one way or the other, right.

O’Malley: That’s correct.
*********************
Pat O’Malley, once and perhaps future Republican Primary candidate for Governor, recorded on March 26, 2005 and as will be airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs next week [week of April 4] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, April 11 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See the end of the blog entry, Giangreco V. Berkowitz to the right, above and below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
**********************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Cong. Kirk and Secretary Rumsfeld: The New Trier Mafia

Cong. Mark Kirk [R- Highland Park, 10th Cong. Dist.] and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, parallels in style and substance?

After working in various administrative and campaign positions for different congressmen and also working as an investment banker, Don Rumsfeld got his real start in politics in 1962 when the 8th Cong. District became an open seat. In those days, the 8th included "Chicago's 50th Ward, Evanston, Skokie, Niles, and Cook County's other north and northwest suburbs stretching from the lake to Elgin." [See Carol Felsenthal's "The Don," Chicago Magazine, June, 2001].

Rumsfeld had grown up in Winnetka on the North Shore, attending Crow Island Middle School and New Trier High School. At 29, Rumsfeld ran in and won a two person Republican primary in the 8th Cong. District, with so much assistance from New Trier Alums and North Shore notables such as Dan Searle, Arthur Nielsen and Robert Galvin that Rummy's supporters were often referred to as the New Trier Mafia [See Felsenthal, Id.].

At that time, the 8th was so Republican that the Primary essentially was the general election, not unlike current Democratic Primaries in the City of Chicago. After seven years in Congress, Rumsfeld was persuaded by President Nixon in 1969 to give up his safe seat in the 8th to become the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity [an outgrowth of LBJ’s War on Poverty].

Always good at timing and at understanding the machinery and levers of power in government, Rumsfeld saw the Nixon demise coming and got as far from Nixon and DC as he could, being appointed Ambassador to NATO in Brussels in 1972. Three years later, after being recalled to Washington and serving in a few positions for President Ford, Rumsfeld, at 43, became the nation's youngest Secretary of Defense under President Ford.

Congressman Kirk, as we have discussed before, grew up on the North Shore, graduated from New Trier High School and then held a variety of positions in and around Washington, DC, including a three year stint as Chief of Staff for 10th Cong. District Congressman John Porter, and ran and won, at 41, the 10th Cong. Dist. seat in 2000. That district now includes the North Shore and a good portion of what was included in the 8th Cong. Dist., when Rumsfeld was its congressman.

Cong. Kirk, now 45, or so, through his prior activity in the military reserves and otherwise, has acquired a bit of a reputation as a specialist in military preparedness, intelligence and national defense issues.

Could Kirk follow the Rumsfeld model and be appointed Secretary of Defense, at say, 49, by a President Frist or a President McCain? Does Kirk have or could he acquire, over the next two years, sufficient congressional or administrative experience to do it sooner, say, at 47, with an appointment by President Bush?

Would Kirk take Paul Wolfowitz's old position in the Defense Department, if offered. That might be great experience for someone looking to become Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld said, last Sunday, to Stephanopoulous that he did not have anyone in mind for that position, yet. However, Rumsfeld did say one option was the businessman type with large department management experience, which is not exactly Cong. Kirk.

Compare and contrast the styles of Kirk and Rumsfeld, below.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Let me just go quickly to the War in Iraq. Right now, we are spending-- how much would you say we spend per year, or over the last year in our military effort in Iraq?

Cong. Mark Kirk: I don’t know offhand—

Berkowitz: About a hundred billion dollars? Or in excess of that?

Kirk: The most recent supplemental [request to the budget] that the Congress adopted was 81 billion dollars for the efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider War on Terror.

Berkowitz: Now, is that an effort that you think the United States might have to sustain for the next year or two and could it sustain it and would you favor doing so?

Kirk: Well, hopefully, what we will do is rally the international community to support the democratic, newly elected government of Iraq. That’s why it was so important to see the positive statements from President Chirac in France, Chancellor Schroeder in Germany— now that the days of Saddam Hussein and his regime are over and we need to support the newly elected government whose President and Prime Minister, we are told, will be announced next week.

Berkowitz: Is there a timetable that you favor for withdrawing troops or do you think that the United States, at least for the next year or two, needs to keep a substantial number of troops in Iraq.

Kirk: I think that we need to make sure that the democratically elected government [in Iraq] is a success.

Berkowitz: One last thing, can I—[ Before Berkowitz could complete the question, he was advised by a Kirk staffer that the Congressman had to go and that the interview was over. Cong. Kirk stepped away from the camera].
**************************************
Cong. Mark Steven Kirk [R- Highland Park, 10th Cong. Dist.] interviewed on March 22, 2005 after a program held at DePaul University to discuss issues related to the treatment of the military reserve, including their treatment by their employers after they are called to active duty as well their treatment by the government.
***************************************
George Stephanopoulous: If you had actual intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was in Iran, do you think that the United States has the right just to go in and get him, without asking for permission.

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld: Obviously you wouldn’t get permission.

Stephanopoulous: That’s my point.

Rumsfeld: And those are questions for the President of the United States.

Stephanopoulous: What would be your recommendation?

Rumsfeld: I give my recommendations to the President of the United States, not to George Stephanoupolous
**************************
ABC’s Sunday national news show, This Week, March 20, 2005
***************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

“Could Bush have been right?” "No," says Christine Cegelis.

What you are looking at-- Cegelis on "Public Affairs."

Next week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Christine Cegelis, who is running in the 2006 Democratic Primary in the 6th Congressional District [20% in Northwest Cook County and 80% in DuPage County]. Cegelis was the Democratic nominee in the 2004 election and she got 44.2% of the vote, running against 30 year Republican incumbent Cong. Henry Hyde, previously Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and currently Chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

It is a pretty safe bet that Cong. Hyde will announce next month, perhaps at his 81st birthday party, that he will not run again in 2006. Another safe bet is that such an announcement of an open seat in the 6th CD will precipitate competitive primaries in both the Democratic and Republican Parties [with Democrat Christine Cegelis [Rolling Meadows] and Republican State Senator Peter Roskam [Wheaton] leading the charge in their respective primaries].

A partial transcript of the show with Democratic 6th CD Primary candidate Cegelis is included, below.
********************************
Jeff Berkowitz: …The War in Iraq. Last time [you were on the show, in Sep., 2004] you said you were opposed, you would have voted not to authorize military action in Iraq.

Christine Cegelis: I would have [voted not to authorize].

Berkowitz: Last time you said, in September, 2004, we were not on the way to democracy. Because I said, if we are on the way to democracy [in Iraq], if you could have done that [by taking military action in Iraq], would that have been a good thing, and you stopped me, and you said-- No, we weren’t on the way to democracy. Now, we have had an election nearly two months ago in Iraq—

Cegelis: Okay. So, what’s going on? Can we leave?

Berkowitz: But, are we on the way to democracy [in Iraq] now?

Cegelis: I don’t know. Are we? I still don’t know that we are on the way to democracy because—

Berkowitz: You still think the United States is less safe that it was two and half years ago?

Cegelis: Absolutely.

Berkowitz: And we were better off in having Saddam Hussein there in Iraq.

Cegelis: You know, better off—we talk about—

Berkowitz: You gotta choose. You gotta choose one or the other. Because if you say we are less safe, then you must mean we were better off the way it was before and that was with Saddam Hussein.

Cegelis: I feel—I feel we are less safe—I’ll tell you why I think we are less safe—we have, we have lost faith with the world. Our allies are concerned about us as being there and I am concerned about our allies being there for us. I think that we have created in-- tensions in the middle east that we didn’t need to create. Now, if we are in fact on the road to democracy in Iraq, why don’t we just pull our troops out now? We have, if we feel that they are there, then let’s go. I don’t understand why we are not going.

Berkowitz: Because we are on the way, you know-- They haven’t even established a government yet.

Cegelis: Well, they have had an election—

Berkowitz: Yes, and they are negotiating as we do with the give and take of democracy

Cegelis: And the election—

Berkowitz: And they are trying to form a coalition government.

Cegelis: That seems to look like a theocracy to me—

Berkowitz: And that takes time. They can then form a security system. I mean, we have seen this march from Afghanistan to Iraq—now to Lebanon and Ukraine. There is a march of democracy sweeping the world, in which we are participating and accelerating and you are saying

Cegelis: All I am concerned about—

Berkowitz: That democracy is not a good thing?

Cegelis: No, I—democracy is a good thing. I just don’t—

Berkowitz: You like what happened in the Ukraine?

Cegelis: [long sigh]

Berkowitz: You are not sure?

Cegelis: [A laugh]

Berkowitz: You would like to have seen the bad guys in there?

Cegelis: You know. Again. I would like to know more about the situation before I make a comment.

Berkowitz: Really? Because I thought everybody thought that was a good thing. The good guys who were properly elected [in the Ukraine] got installed in government instead of the bad guys stealing the election. And, you are not sure?

Cegelis: I think it was absolutely great that the Ukrainian people were able to be out there as strongly as they were. And I think that shows-- and that was their decision. They were—

Berkowitz: Would it be good to have a democracy in Lebanon without Syria pushing and pulling at what they shouldn’t be?

Cegelis: And I would like to see the Lebanese take control of their own company [I mean] country, again.

Berkowitz: Would you like to see a democracy in Palestine?

Cegelis: I’d love to see a democracy in Palestine.

Berkowitz: But we are moving in that direction in all of those cases.

Cegelis: Cases. But, I am also concerned about—

Berkowitz: Are the Democrats, you know, just saying we don’t like this because Bush did it as opposed to—maybe they should like it.

Cegelis: Should like what?

Berkowitz: [There are] even people in Europe who are saying—you see those headlines, “Could Bush have been right?” By people who were critical [of the Iraq War]. Would you agree that that is a question perhaps the Democratic Party should be asking. Could Bush have been right?

Cegelis: I think an unjustified war is not right. I think morally it is not right. And, I am concerned about that. Because we didn’t go in there to establish democracy. I don’t think that is what we were told we went in there for. Were you told that we went in there to establish democracy?

Berkowitz: One of the three reasons, one of the reasons--

Cegelis: One of the reasons? What was the reason?

Berkowitz: There were three major reasons.

Cegelis: When was the—

Berkowitz: One was weapons of mass destruction—

Cegelis: Okay, were there weapons of mass destruction?

Berkowitz: No, there weren’t—

Cegelis: Okay.

Berkowitz: Or, at least so far. They may have been exported at that time. They still may be hidden. But, as of now, we haven’t-

Cegelis: They are under the sand somewhere, right. Okay-

Berkowitz: But certainly, one of the major reasons we went, you know-- one was the humanitarian reason—

Cegelis: No, No, No, No.

Berkowitz: One was the humanitarian reason: 300,000 [Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein]-

Cegelis: I don’t remember hearing a humanitarian reason.

Berkowitz: Well, yeah, they were all there.

Cegelis: I thought weapons of mass destruction was it.

Berkowitz: Talk to Paul Wolfowitz, who is now going to be heading up the World Bank.

Cegelis: Um, um.

Berkowitz: Those were the three things. And the third thing we were saying was we need to establish a more—a model democracy in Iraq, because that will cause democracy to spread. Because people in Egypt and Saudi Arabia will say, “If they can do it, why can’t we.” You are right. It [a model democracy in that part of the world] was not the main reason. There were three. But it was a reason. And, if it turns out to be beneficial, should we say, oh well, it was only our third reason?
***********************************
Berkowitz: You know on the War issue, you are very different from [Cong.] Melissa Bean [D- Barrington, 8th Cong. Dist.], going back to that. She won in a district—she moved to the center. Could you say you are on the left? Is that a problem?

Cegelis: I said that on the war issue I still am very much against the war. I still am very much against us having gone into that war and I think that there are many people in my district who are beginning to feel that—

Berkowitz: Really, a majority? You think a majority will turn out and say you were right on the war?

Cegelis: I think it might be. Very much so. In fact, I wouldn’t doubt that that was one reason why I did so well the first time [in 2004].

[Show concludes, Cegelis gets the last word. How did that happen? The guest is not supposed to get the last word. Berkowitz better talk to his crew.]
*****************************************
Christine Cegelis, candidate in the 2006 Primary for the sixth congressional district Democratic nomination, recorded on March 20, 2005 and as will be airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs next week [week of March 28] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, April 4 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. Hit the icon, Giangreco v. Berkowitz, to the right, above or below this blog entry, and go to the end of that blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Cong. Mark Kirk neutral on Personal Retirement Accounts

Republican Congressman Mark Steven Kirk, often referred to as the Congressman from the North Shore, represents the 10th Congressional District. He won an open seat in 2000 when Cong. John Porter, known as a social moderate and fiscal conservative, called it quits after serving the District for 21 years. Kirk, 40 at the time, won a 10 person Republican primary in 2000, with about 32% of the vote, edging out his closest competitor, the rather youngish [29] and relative political novice, Shawn Donnelly, who outspent Kirk by a considerable margin and who came in second with 22% of the primary vote. Facing a tough general election contest with eight year State Rep. Lauren Beth Gash [D- Highland Park], Kirk won by about 2 percentage points, or 5500 votes, with significant help from the New Trier Republican Organization, Committeeman Tolbert Chisum. New Trier Township, where Kirk grew up and went to school, gave him a 3300 vote margin.

In 2002, Cong. Kirk won easily over then Chicago Kent Law School Dean Hank Perritt, with 71% of the vote. Perritt was not viewed as a strong candidate for a variety of reasons, including lack of name recognition and funding. Also, Mark Kirk received some redistricting help in 2002 when the powers that be decided to give him some of then Cong. Phil Crane's Republican voters from the 8th Cong. Dist. in return for some of Kirk's Democratic voters. Ironically, Kirk ended up needing the help much less than Crane-- and the re-districting helped defeat Crane last year, along with some more important factors, e.g., Crane's ineptness and Cong. Melissa Bean's [D-Barrington] very well run campaign.

In 2004, Cong. Kirk won re-election fairly easily over Democrat Lee Goodman, with 65% of the vote. Goodman, a lawyer by training and now a mediator, ran a campaign based on large part on his anti-Iraq War views and what he claimed was Kirk's strong tendency to tow the Republican Party line. Goodman's themes, or perhaps his personality, did not seem to click with the increasingly centrist 10th.

The 10th Cong. Dist., after many years of being viewed as quite Republican, has moved Democratic over the last decade, including narrow victories for the Democratic Presidential candidates in the last two elections, with a 53% to 47% margin of victory for Senator John Kerry.

Cong. Porter, who faced a number of conservative primary challenges [including one that received about 40% of the vote] was said to know how to "vote his district." Cong. Kirk, who served a three year stint as Porter's Chief of Staff and who received Porter's endorsement near the end of the 2000 Primary [and perhaps tacit support from the Porter Organization before], says, below, he is listening to his district on Social Security. And, I imagine, he will "vote his district." To date, Cong. Kirk has encountered no primary challenges.

We caught up with Cong. Kirk yesterday, for a short interview, or as he put it, a "Public Affairs," quickie. He seemed to be on a tight schedule and he said he would give me five minutes and he gave me three, but who's counting.
***********************************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Let me switch to another topic…social security. Are you a supporter-- still a supporter of the personal retirement accounts that President Bush has proposed?

Cong. Mark Kirk [R- Highland Park, 10th Cong. Dist.]: Well, we don’t have a proposal yet from the President and so we will have to see when he puts pen to paper on what he is actually proposing. At this point we have just a couple of paragraphs in a State of the Union address-- which is not enough to make a solid opinion on.

Berkowitz: But, do you support the concept of, you know-- the general concept is that individuals might have control as to say a third of their funds that are taxed—4%, they are taxed at 12% [12.4% of their salary up to $90,000 for social security]-- to direct those [funds] in terms of how they’re invested in stock and bonds, at least [that would be the case for] individuals below a certain age. Would that general concept be something that you would support?

Kirk: We are looking for really three things from me. No. 1, that it not affect anyone 55, or older; that their benefits be maintained. That we also look for a system that is fair. And, that it may treat younger workers better—who right now feel that they will never see a social security check. But, we have no details. And, so, I am going to reserve judgment and keep listening to my District.

Berkowitz: Are you saying that concept of personal retirement accounts, if put together properly, is something you could support?

Kirk: We have no details and so I am reserving judgment.
*********************************
Cong. Mark Steven Kirk [R-Highland Park, 10th Cong. Dist.] interviewed on March 22, 2005 after a program held at DePaul University with Cong. Judy Biggert[R- Hinsdale, 13th Cong.Dist.; coincidentally, also a New Trier High School Alumna] to discuss issues related to the treatment of the military reserve, including their treatment by their employers after they are called to active duty as well their treatment by the government.
***************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Giangreco v. Berkowitz, on TV, Round 1

Pete Giangreco: See, that’s the thing, Jeff. You gotta look at the bottom line. This [personal retirement account] plan, at its heart, and you agreed with this the other day, does nothing to make the plan more solvent.

Jeff Berkowitz: No, I didn’t agree with that…

Giangreco: Tell me how it does. I will give you 30 seconds.

Berkowitz: Thank you...
************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Pete Giangreco, a Democratic Campaign consultant and partner at the Strategy Group [www.strategygroup.com]. Pistol Pete has worked on six Presidential campaigns and helped elect Governor Mark Warner in Virginia, Senator Barack Obama and Gov. Blagojevich in Illinois, and Pete currently does political message work for Illinois’ Governor and will no doubt work on Hot Rod's re-election campaign.

See the end of this blog entry for a detailed "Public Affairs," suburban airing schedule. The show with Pete Giangreco will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on next Monday night, March 28 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
A partial transcript of the show with Giangreco is included, below.
**********************************************
Pete Giangreco debates and discusses with show host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz whether the national Democratic Party is “out of touch,” the Democratic Presidential possibilities of Senator Barack Obama [D-IL], Governor Mark Warner [D-Va], Governor Rod Blagojevich [D-IL], John Edwards, Senators John Kerry [D-MA], Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and Even Bayh [D-IN]; social security lockbockes, personal retirement accounts, insolvency and reform; the War in Iraq; Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s efforts to deal with the deficit and much, much more.
*******************************
Pete Giangreco: What would you say to the people who don’t opt for privatized [personal retirement] accounts? Yet, they are going to have their benefits cut by 40%. What are they going to—

Jeff Berkowitz: Well, they’re not. You are talking about changing—

Giangreco: No, No, No. That’s a fact.

Berkowitz: Excuse me. There is a change in indexing that people are talking about--

Giangreco: No, they are going to get their benefits cut—

Berkowitz: Irrespective [of what is done regarding personal retirement accounts]. That 40% thing is such a pile of bunk. Because what you are talking about--

Giangreco: It’s a fact. It’s the only way—

Berkowitz: Explain to the people [watching this]. Explain to the people what you are talking about: a change from a wage index to a price index [that is used to adjust benefits upward to take account of inflation].

Giangreco: Right now, if you are under 55, your benefits could be cut up to 40%.

Berkowitz: They could be cut irrespective of this [proposed change to personal accounts]. We have an index now that is inappropriate. It escalates benefits at too high a rate [more than the relevant rate of inflation]. We are talking about a change that would make it more appropriate and you’re saying that—

Giangreco: Could I finish?

Berkowitz: Yes, you may.

Giangreco: The only way they get any savings out of this is to cut the benefits by up to 40%. So, for those who opt out, they can try to see if they can game the market and try to beat the 40% that they are losing. Most people won’t, by the way, because under their historical gains in the stock market—you don’t make enough over time. Time value of money. You are better off having money in your hand. A bird in the hand is always worth more than two in the bush [Pun intended?]. And that is the problem with this problem. On top of that, the two trillion dollars in debt and the debt service alone—there is no chance for most people to come out ahead. And, if you don’t want a risk, you don’t have the option—you still get a guaranteed benefit [risk?].

Berkowitz: If the negatives [about personal retirement accounts] are so strong, the Democrats should have the faith to be willing to sit down at the table and try to persuade people who differ with them in the marketplace of ideas

Giangreco: We are, and we are—

Berkowitz: But you are saying, the Democrats are saying, We can’t sit down [until the Republicans take personal retirement accounts off the table]—you know it’s like the North Koreans saying, “I won’t come to this table unless you give us this.” You are adopting the North Korean approach. Sit down at the table and discuss it.

Giangreco: I would say that the President’s approach is sort of like those who said the only way to save the village is to kill it, is to burn it down. And, we won’t—

Berkowitz: More than half—

Giangreco: See, that’s the thing, Jeff. You gotta look at the bottom line. This plan, at its heart, and you agreed with this the other day, does nothing to make the plan more solvent.

Berkowitz: No, I didn’t agree with that. [some] people say that. Because if you allow people—

Giangreco: Tell me how it does. I will give you 30 seconds.

Berkowitz: Thank you. You know, if you have—Right now, total taxes going into this program, employee and employer [of social security are] about 12.2% [of salary, up to the first $90,000 of annual income]. The proposal is to take a third of that-4% of that salary that is currently being taxed and going into social security and give individuals [some] control [over the investment of those funds], and if they can earn, as historically people have [in the stock market] at least 3 or 4 % [per year], perhaps higher—

Giangreco: Um, um.

Berkowitz: Currently they are only getting [the equivalent of] 1.3 %. They may say, "well I will tell you what, we will split the difference [between 1.3 % and 4 %]." Some of that [higher rate of return] will go to them directly and some of that will go to assist others [or to pay for the transition costs]. So, to the extent that there is an insolvency issue, that’s addressing some of the insolvency issue.

Giangreco: And, the way they paper it over is to borrow two trillion dollars, isn’t it?

Berkowitz: Well, you are borrowing—Eventually, you are trying to shift away from a program that is a Ponzi scheme to one that is much more based on investment and savings and productivity and that allows people to exercise some choice [on how their social security taxes are invested].

Giangreco: But they don’t exercise choice. They can’t control the money—

Berkowitz: Well, we are going to continue to speak as the credits roll, but I very much want to thank our guest, Pete Giangreco [Partner at the Strategy Group, www.strategygroup.com].

Giangreco: It’s been fun, as always.

Berkowitz: …the theme of this program was—“Are the Democrats out of touch?”

Giangreco: No, because—

Berkowitz: Let me throw out a topic—[First there was the focus on] National Security, then there was the War, then the whole effort for democracy, then the whole effort for peace. I am not saying that the Democrats don’t want the President to be successful. I am not saying that the Democrats are not being patriotic. But, when you hear them, you get the impression that the Democratic Party [thinks it] would be better off if the President were to fail at these various initiatives. And when he starts to succeed, in a sense the Democrats aren’t too happy about that. The American people will be plenty happy if these initiatives succeed. We have had elections in Iraq. We have had peace break out in Israel and Palestine. We have had elections and democracy break out in Ukraine. Would you give the President some credit for this wave of [democracy]--

Giangreco: Now that we are stuck in Iraq, we have to see it through. I think the argument was why [go to war] there when both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, Bush’s people, thought there was no connection to Al Qaeda for 9-11.

Berkowitz: Not all Democrats are saying that. [show concludes].
*******************************************
Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant, recorded on March 13, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs tonight and this week [week of March 21] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, March 28 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21[CANTV]. See directly below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Oberweis: Got milk? Got net worth?

Jim Oberweis: …I think this is going to be a four to five million dollar primary campaign and the general [election] is probably going to take fifteen million.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, how much can you put in of your own, of the Oberweis wealth?

Oberweis: Uh, we are going to make sure that we win?

Berkowitz: What’s your net worth?

Oberweis: Well, my primary assets are my two businesses: Oberweis Asset Management and uh, Oberweis Dairy. So, when they are private businesses, there is no readily ascertainable—

Berkowitz: You got a pretty good idea.

Oberweis: Uh, they are nice businesses. I am very happy with both.

Berkowitz: What would you say? 50 million, 100 million [dollars] for net worth?

Oberweis: I would say they are nice businesses and I am happy with both.

Berkowitz: Can you borrow on those [businesses] in terms of financing your campaign?

Oberweis: My credit is excellent.

Berkowitz: So, might you actually end up putting 10 or 15 million dollars in of your own, by borrowing on that, based on what those businesses are worth?

Oberweis: My credit may not be that good [laughter by Jim].

Jim Oberweis, 2006 Republican Primary Governor Candidate to be, interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it was cablecast throughout the City of Chicago tonight, at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. This show was recorded on March 13, 2005
************************************
This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Pete Giangreco, Democratic Campaign Consultant and partner at the Strategy Group. For a detailed suburban airing schedule, hit the icon titled "School Choice, school vouchers: A mantra for Jim Oberweis," and located to the right--above or below this blog entry, depending on your computer settings.
*******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Oberweis: It’s the Money and Name Recognition, Stupid.

Jeff Berkowitz: Does that scare you? Might he [Ron Gidwitz] be able to write a bigger check than you could write?

Jim Oberweis: I am sure he could write a bigger check than I could write. I have little doubt about that. However…
*****************************************
Tonight’s City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” features March, 2006 Republican Primary Candidate for Governor Jim Oberweis. The show airs throughout the City of Chicago at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].

A partial transcript of the show with Jim Oberweis is included, below. An additional partial transcript of the show is accessible at the “School Choice, School Vouchers: a Mantra for Jim Oberweis” icon, to the right or below this blog entry.
**********************************************
Jim Oberweis (R- Sugar Grove), who came in 2nd in both the 2002 and 2004 Republican U. S. Senate Primary races, will announce his candidacy for Governor by early June. Jim debates and discusses with show host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz “pay to play,” job growth in Illinois and nationally, taxes and spending in Illinois; ethics under Governor Blagojevich; Oberweis’ net worth and self- funding of his campaign, his competitors for the Guv nomination, school choice, guns, assault weapon bans, tort and medical malpractice reform, non-economic damage caps, tax pledges, abortion, corruption, George Ryan and much, much more.
***********************************
Berkowitz: …You said … we should go back to levels of what we were spending [in state government in Illinois] eight to ten years ago.

Jim Oberweis: No, actually what I said was perhaps five years ago. Perhaps even that is not necessary. We had a five billion dollar increase in revenue from the state last year alone. If we went back to spending levels of one year ago, we would have a surplus in our budget, without the accounting gimmicks that the Governor has been throwing in there.
*********************************
Berkowitz: Have you asked [former State Senator] Pat O’Malley to support you?

Oberweis: I have talked to Pat about that. I think Pat has not yet made up his mind whether he would be interested in supporting me, or someone else or running himself.

Berkowitz: All right. But, it’s a possibility right?

Oberweis: It’s a possibility. Yes.

Berkowitz: There’s [DuPage State’s Attorney] Joe Birkett, who ran for Attorney General. He’s been making noises. You think he might be in [the race for Governor] as a conservative?

Oberweis: Joe is a great guy. I like him a lot. I think he is a great leader of our Party. But, my guess is like Steve Rauschenberger, finances are going to be a major concern, a major problem for both Joe and Steve.

Berkowitz: And not… for you, why is that?

Oberweis: Because I am willing to stand up and write a very substantial check.

Berkowitz: Of your own.

Oberweis: To get things started.

Berkowitz: Another person who probably could write a significant check is our guest of last week, Ron Gidwitz.

Oberweis: No question about it.

Berkowitz: Does that scare you? Might he be able to write a bigger check than you could write?

Oberweis: I am sure he could write a bigger check than I could write. I have little doubt about that. However, I think that the statewide recognition that I have built up over the last couple of years and the goodwill that I have built up by serving the party in the last decade will be in good stead [sic]. I am very comfortable in that regard.

Berkowitz: Now, would you call Ron Gidwitz a moderate Republican or a liberal Republican?

Oberweis: I don’t know all of his stands. I think he will have to make that clear. But, it seems to me, from what I have seen, that he and Judy [Baar Topinka] would represent the liberal wing of the Party [But, See Rich Miller's Capitolfax of today and Lynn Sweet's Chicago Sun-Times column of today, both of which exalt Topinka's poll showing her within three points of Blago. Of course, neither Miller nor Sweet mention any polling data showing Topinka winning a Republican Primary-- which could be a bit of an obstacle to a Judy Baar candidacy for Governor].

Berkowitz: …what about [Cong.] Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th Dist.], where does he fit?

Oberweis: Somewhere in between. Certainly some of the things that he has done have not been what the conservatives would like to have seen. But, other things-- I mean he has taken a Right to Life stand—

Berkowitz: He was one of three congressmen back in 1994 not to support the Contract with America. Right?

Oberweis: Yes, which was very disappointing.

Berkowitz: Is that a blot on his name when he runs in the Republican Primary?

Oberweis: Uh, I believe it will be.

Berkowitz: And, what about [DuPage County Board Chairman] Bob Schillerstrom? Might he come in the race? Would he be a moderate?

Oberweis: I am fairly sure that he will not be involved in this Governor’s race from everything I have heard.
************************************
Jim Oberweis, 2006 Republican Primary Governor Candidate to be, interviewed on "Public Affairs," as it is being cablecast throughout the City of Chicago tonight, March 21 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV]. This show was recorded on March 13, 2005
************************************
The City of Chicago edition of “Public Affairs,” is cablecast throughout the City of Chicago every Monday night at 8:30 p.m. on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
******************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
*******************************

Questions for possible Guv Candidate Pat O'Malley

We are taping Christine Cegelis tomorrow, mid-day, for our television show, "Public Affairs." Democrat Cegelis ran a relatively close race [losing 56-44] in a fairly “Republican District,” in 2004 against Cong. Henry Hyde [R-Wood Dale; 6th Cong. Dist.]. Cegelis is running again in the 6th and it is anticipated] that (1) Cong. Hyde will make this term his last one and (2) Cegelis will face opposition in the March, 2006 Democratic Primary. [See link, to the right or below, to the blog entry about Cong. Hyde's plans for the future].[To review partial transcripts of our shows with Cegelis and Hyde of last September, please go the Sep. 30 archives icon to the right or below and scroll down to Sep. 28 and 20 for Hyde and Sep. 20 and 14 for Hyde.]

We are taping, a week from today, former State Senator and 2002 Republican primary gubernatorial candidate Patrick O'Malley [O'Malley came in second with 29% to Jim Ryan's 44% and Corinne Wood came in third with 27%] . The current thinking among various pundits is that there is a reasonably good chance that Pat O'Malley will enter the March, 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary.

If you have any questions or topics you would like to see covered in our separate tapings with Christine Cegelis and Pat O'Malley, please email them to me [JBCG@aol.com] and I will consider raising them with our guests. We will not attribute the topic or question to you, but instead will indicate that the topic or question was raised by a "reliable source," or an "inquiring mind." If you would like us to indicate your first name and village or city of residence-- if we use your question, please so advise.
*********************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Alternatives to Filibusters and Nuclear Options

With the “nuclear option,” [removal of the Democrats’ ability to filibuster judicial nominees, resulting in a full Senate vote on federal judges voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee] likely to be exercised by the Republicans in the U. S. Senate this spring, it is perhaps timely to reflect a bit on how federal judicial nominees are selected in the “progressive” state to our north.

Take for example, self described rookie, 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes. Judge Sykes was confirmed by the Senate on July 1, 2004 in what she referred to as a very non-controversial Senate confirmation hearing, even though her vote was 70-27 and opposed vigorously by Illinois’ Senior Senator, Dick Durbin. Judge Sykes, speaking at an Appellate Lawyers Association lunch meeting in the Loop on Tuesday, said her confirmation hearing was so non-controversial that most of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee did not attend.

Non-Controversial? Well, not completely. Judge Sykes did not go into the details during her remarks, but she did make reference to a “dust-up,” regarding some procedural issues relating to written questions she had received. Senator Durbin, now the minority Whip in the Senate, sent written questions to Judge Sykes during her confirmation process, including questions about the praise she gave [in a ruling she made as a Milwaukee County Circuit court judge; Sykes subsequently was appointed to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court by then Governor Tommy Thompson in 1999] two anti-abortion protestors at their sentencing in 1993 for obstructing access to a Milwaukee clinic.

Although it was reported that Sykes told the protestors that she had “great respect for their ultimate goals,” Sykes, in her written response to Senator Durbin noted the severity of the 60 day jail term she handed down and she claimed not to have had knowledge, at the time of the sentencing, of any evidence about the multiple prior arrests of the two protestors. See the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 8, 2004.

Judge Sykes, speaking on Tuesday to the Appellate Lawyers Association about her route to the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals said:

“The selection process for this particular position occurred in a little different fashion than it does elsewhere around the country. The White House decided to use the bi-partisan Selection Commission which has long been established in Wisconsin for screening candidates for the Federal Bench for U. S. Marshall positions and for U. S. Attorney positions. There was some open question about whether it would be used for Court of Appeals vacancies, but the decision was made that it would be and so the Selection Commission was fired up and accepted applications and screened the candidates and forwarded a list of four finalists to Senator Kohl and Senator Feingold [the two Democratic U. S. Senators from Wisconsin]. They then vetted the four finalists and interviewed each of us and by September, 2003…indicated their approval of all four finalists and then the process proceeded from there. My nomination went to the Senate in November of 2003…”

What was intriguing about Judge Sykes’ remarks was her mention of a bi-partisan commission to recommend federal judicial candidates. So, in a question and answer session that followed her remarks, I asked her:

“For the last three or four decades and probably longer, judicial philosophy and political affiliation for appellate court nominations have been something that most presidents and their advisors have looked at, and the current Presidency certainly does that as well. It sounds like in your case they [the Bush Administration] chose to defer to the [bi-partisan commission] system they have set up in Wisconsin. Is that correct? Did they defer completely or was there some interest as to what your [judicial] philosophy was and where you were on the spectrum between, say, liberal and conservative-- and so forth?”

7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes responded:

“I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but the decision was made to use the bi-partisan Selection Commission. There is a certain amount of self selection that goes on among the candidates for these positions. I don’t think anybody who is on the liberal end of the spectrum applied because that would have been a futile effort. I mean, even with the bi-partisan Commission, obviously the White House was going to choose the conservative, so, you know, the candidates for the position, those of us who ultimately applied and went through the bi-partisan Commission process understood what the White House’s requirements were and what the White House has been looking for in judicial nominations. Does that answer your question?”

Jeff Berkowitz followed up: This Commission has been set up for a while?

Judge Diane Sykes: It has been.

Berkowitz: So, if [we were talking about the time period when] Clinton were President, they [the Commission] would similarly nominate individuals who would tend to be liberal, based on the understanding you just stated?

Judge Sykes: That’s right.
*********************************************
So, there you have it. A recognition, apparently, in the State of Wisconsin and by its two Democratic Senators, that nominations to the federal court should be qualified in terms of background, experience, integrity, etc., but under a Democratic Administration, we can expect that the President will want nominees who tend to be more on the “liberal” side and under a Republican Administration, we can expect that the President will want nominees who tend to be more on the “conservative,” side, and the bi-partisan Selection Commission in Wisconsin apparently accommodates the preferences of Presidents from both parties.

Indeed, following Sykes' Senate confirmation, Wisconsin Democratic Senator Feingold, said, "There are a number of topics on which we do not see eye to eye, but I believe Justice Sykes is well qualified to fill this seat on the Seventh Circuit." Senator Feingold also praised the federal nomination process used for Wisconsin judicial candidates during the last 25 years. Wisconsin Law Journal, June 30, 2004.

Wisconsin's Democratic Senior Senator, Herb Kohl, echoed Wisconsin's junior senator in support of Sykes nomination, stating, "Justice Sykes has earned a reputation as a fine lawyer and a distinguished jurist during her career in Wisconsin." Id.

A lesson for how to deal with Democratic judicial filibusters and Republican nuclear options in light of the power of the President under Article II of the U. S. Constitution to nominate judges subject to the Article II advice and consent powers of the Senate?
**************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

Roskam lines up endorsements contingent on Cong. Hyde not running.

The Chicago Tribune’s Rudolph Bush and Rick Pearson reported yesterday that Cong. Henry Hyde is saying that he has not made up his mind whether he will seek another term. Lynn Sweet, in Tuesday’s Sun-Times, reported that Cong. Hyde will make up his mind in April. However, Bush/Pearson report that unnamed “Republican aides,” have said that Hyde will announce his retirement around his 81st birthday in mid-April. Sweet also states, “she is told he [Hyde] has decided to retire and is unlikely to reverse course.”

Okay, I will raise the ante even further and state unequivocally that Cong. Hyde will announce in April that he will not seek another term.

As Lynn Sweet points out in her comprehensive piece on Cong. Hyde, the Congressman is currently extremely active as the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee. The matters he is overseeing as Chairman range from making sure that John Bolton is smoothly confirmed by the Senate as the new U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations to U. N. Reform to the Middle East [including Jordan and Libya] to dealing with European arms sales to China to dealing with the Afghanistan drug trade and the impact of that trade on that country’s emerging democracy to Aids funding for African and Caribbean countries.

In light of all that activity, it is unlikely that Hyde would choose to give up his seat and his Chairmanship of the International Relations Committee any sooner than he has to, which by Republican House Leadership rules, is January, 2007.

However, the Republican House Leadership’s six-year term limits on Committee chairmen means if Hyde stays in Congress he could no longer chair the International Relations Committee. Nor could he go back to chairing the Judiciary Committee, as he did from 1995-2000. Perhaps he could get a waiver from the party’s term limits, but probably not. Further, although mentally more alert than colleagues who are half his age, his physical mobility is limited by back and other health problems.

And, as Congressman Hyde made clear to me on my television show last September when I asked him about his health and how long he planned to stay in Congress, this is a man of grace and realism, who knows when to leave the dance:

Jeff Berkowitz: Your health is good right now?

Cong. Henry Hyde: Yeah, I am not getting any younger. But, I am still alert and anxious to proceed.

Berkowitz: You are guaranteeing your voters that you are there and good for another two years?

Hyde: Oh, very, very good.

Berkowitz: How long do you think you will stay [in Congress]?

Hyde: Oh, I don’t want to answer that question now but surely all good things come to an end.

Always the Gentleman and the Diplomat, that was Cong. Hyde’s way of saying “this far and no farther,” i.e., that he planned to stay in Congress until 2006, but not after that.

Sweet reported in Tuesday’s Sun-Times article that State Sen. Peter Roskam is “exploring another run for Congress,” this time in the 6th Cong. Dist., having lost a close primary to Cong. Biggert in 1998 in the 13th Cong. Dist. [50% go 40%]. The Bush/Pearson Tribune article quotes Roskam as saying he would “seriously consider running for [the seat],” but that Henry Hyde is his Congressman and that if Henry runs again in 2006, Roskam would of course support Hyde and not run himself.

But, of course, Roskam would not run against Hyde. Roskam is also a gentleman and he would defer to Hyde if he chose to run for another term not only because that would be good politics but also because Roskam just thinks that is the right thing to do. Anybody who has known Senator Roskam for more than five minutes could predict that decision by him.

However, Roskam does make it clear that he is doing more than “exploring.” That is, if Cong. Hyde announces in April, as I predict, that he will not seek another term, State Senator Roskam will not only be ready to announce that he is a candidate in the Republican Primary for the 6th Cong. Dist. seat, but that he has lined up some significant endorsements. The endorsements will all be contingent, of course, on Hyde not running and on Roskam becoming a candidate in the 6th CD Republican primary, which of course Peter won’t do until Hyde announces he is not seeking another term.

The endorsements for Roskam that he tells me he has already lined up, contingent as stated above, are an impressive start for Senator Roskam:

Cong. Judy Biggert [R- Hinsdale, 13th CD].
Cong. [and potential gubernatorial candidate] Ray LaHood [R- Peoria, 18th CD]
State Sen. and DuPage County Republican Chairman Kirk Dillard [R- Westmont, 24th Dist.]
State Sen. Dave Sullivan [R-Park Ridge, 33rd Dist. and whose district includes Elk Grove Village, an important component of the 6th CD]
State Rep. Randy Hultgren [R- Wheaton, 95th Dist and Roskam’s State Rep.]
State Rep. John Millner [R- St. Charles, 55th Dist.]
Greg Baise, President of the Illinois Manufacturers Association
Ed Murnane, President of the Illinois Civil Justice League [promoter of Tort Reform] for the last decade and a former Reagan Administration official

Considering the bitter primary that Senator Roskam had with Cong. Biggert in 1998 and the sharp differences between the two on social issues, some might be surprised to see Biggert as an early endorser of Roskam. However, they should not be. Soon after the primary, I am told, matters were patched up between the two and both have spoken well of the other to me.

If Hyde, as is expected, announces he is not seeking another term, the additional potential Republican candidates for his seat include Tom Marcucci, the Mayor of Elmhurst, and State Senator Carol Pankau. Marcucci has a re-election election on April 5, 2005, so he is not saying much about the 6th CD race at this time. Pankau was a state rep. in the district that includes Bloomingdale and now is a state senator in a district that includes Roselle. Pankau has not returned our calls. State Senator Dan Cronin [R- Lombard, 21st Dist.], who considered a run in the 6th CD, announced a few weeks ago that he would not make the run.

Other Republicans are expected to join the race if Cong. Hyde makes the 6th CD an open seat. However, as of now, if the seat becomes an open one, the Republican primary nomination is Roskam’s to lose.

On the Democratic side, the only candidate in the 6th CD race so far is Christine Cegelis, who ran in 2003-04 and received 44% of the vote [a little better than now Cong. Bean did in her first run against Cong. Crane in 2002]. Cegelis made the last day of her 2004 campaign the first day of her 2006 campaign, trying to model her efforts after Melissa Bean’s upset win over Cong. Crane in the 8th Cong. Dist. Although, Cegelis anticipates that her Republican opponent, if she is her party’s nominee again, will be someone other than Cong. Hyde. That makes at least two of us.

Roskam will portray himself as a Reagan-Bush-Hyde conservative and reject any attempt by Democrats or others to label him as “Hard Right,” even as Christine Cegelis, I imagine, will reject any attempt to label her as “ Hard Left.” However, if it is a Roskam-Cegelis match-up in the general election in November, 2006, the voters will have a “choice, not an echo.”
***************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************

School Choice, School Vouchers: a mantra for Jim Oberweis

This week’s suburban edition of “Public Affairs,” features Jim Oberweis, who is expected to announce, within 30 to 90 days, his candidacy for Governor in the 2006 Republican Primary. See the end of this blog entry for a detailed suburban airing schedule and for more about the show with Jim Oberweis. This show will also air throughout the City of Chicago [in the regular “Public Affairs,” City of Chicago time slot] on next Monday night, March 21 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21 [CANTV].
**********************************************
Jim Oberweis (R) debates and discusses with Show Host and Executive Legal Recruiter Jeff Berkowitz pay to play, jobs, taxes, tax pledges and spending in Illinois; ethics under Governor Blagojevich; Oberweis’ net worth, self- funding of his campaign and his competitors for the Guv nomination; school choice; guns, concealed carry and assault weapon bans; tort and medical malpractice reform, non-economic damage caps; abortion; corruption, ethics and George Ryan; and much, much more.
*******************************
A partial transcript of the show with Jim Oberweis is included, below.
****************************
Jeff Berkowitz: Tell me what you want [for education reform].

Jim Oberweis: I believe that money is not the sole answer. Clearly we’ve seen private schools educating children for half of what our public school system has been educating them. We need competition with the public school system to help improve the education opportunities.

Berkowitz: In 30 seconds, what would you do in terms of working with the state legislature to bring about school choice? 30 seconds.

Oberweis: There are so many things that it would be very difficult to answer in 30 seconds. Vouchers are certainly part of the solution. Providing more control to parents is a part of the solution. Rewarding the best teachers with higher incomes instead of rewarding them for how long they’ve taught. Eliminating tenure for grade school or high school teachers would help to bring about competitiveness within the teaching system and certainly measuring and rewarding schools that do well is a part of it.

Berkowitz: But, school vouchers, school choice, that’s a mantra for you.

Oberweis: Yes.

Berkowitz: All right, the social issues. Senate Bill 3186- it just passed and became law. You understand that legislation?

Oberweis: What is 3186?

Berkowitz: Known also as the gay rights legislation

Oberweis: Oh, yes.

Berkowitz: It bans discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to so, that is to protect gays and lesbians and transgenders and I think, cross-dressers.

Oberweis: I think Senate Bill—what was it? 3037? -- was just introduced to roll that back and reverse that?

Berkowitz: …you would like to roll that back? You don’t think we should prevent discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation.

Oberweis: I don’t believe that there should be special rights based on—

Berkowitz: Is that special rights? If we simply say that you should not discriminate on that basis against gays and lesbians.

Oberweis: Well, should people—

Berkowitz: In terms of employment and housing.

Oberweis: I think there should not be a law that provides special rights to that category and you know, you know the argument.

Berkowitz: So, you oppose that legislation.

Oberweis: And there are churches that do not believe in homosexuality.

Berkowitz: You could make an exception for churches and there was somewhat of an exemption for churches. It is not clear—

Oberweis: That’s right. It is not clear—

Berkowitz: But, if you could take care of that, would you generally favor that notion of legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in housing and employment?

Oberweis: I don’t think we should create special—

Berkowitz: So, you would oppose that legislation?

Oberweis: Yes.

Berkowitz: …As Governor, would you like to see a ban on assault weapons throughout the state of Illinois.

Oberweis: I am satisfied with the law as it is now, with that [the federal ban] having lapsed.

Berkowitz: We are going to continue to speak as the credits roll, but I very much want to thank our guest, Jim Oberweis… Would you roll back the Brady bill? Do you believe in background checks? Do you believe ex-cons shouldn’t be allowed to own guns?

Oberweis: I believe that ex-cons should not be allowed to buy guns.

Berkowitz: Do you favor the notion of background checks?

Oberweis: I think within reason- if it can be done cost efficiently and in a fairly short-term basis, yes.

Berkowitz: The City of Chicago? Do you think they are doing the wrong thing when they don’t allow individuals to possess guns? They can’t own them. They can’t possess them. They can’t protect themselves in their own home.

Oberweis: A lot of this stuff is crazy. The Wilmette situation—

Berkowitz: Would you roll that back in Chicago if you could?

Oberweis: Well, I need to know more specifics--

Berkowitz: Concealed carry. Do you favor concealed carry?

Oberweis: I am not the Mayor of Chicago.

Berkowitz: No, for the State of Illinois, would you like to see concealed carry? People could carry guns to protect themselves. 31 states have it.

Oberweis: There may be opportunities to do that. Yes. There may be--

Berkowitz: Abortion. You are 1000% pro-life.

Oberweis: Yes.

Berkowitz: You would like to see a constitutional amendment that would prevent people, all people, from having abortions [except to protect the life of the mother], is that right?

Oberweis: At a minimum, I would like to see states be able to make that decision, rather than the federal government.

Berkowitz: CTA, should…the state be subsidizing the CTA?

Oberweis: You know it is so easy to just pour money on a situation and try to create success with that. Money does not alone solve our problems.

Berkowitz: [Illegal] immigration. The President took the wrong position on [this with] amnesty?

Oberweis: We have a great President and I agree with him on 95% of the issues and I happen to disagree [with him] on the amnesty. I believe it is a blanket amnesty program. Blanket amnesty will cause more of that illegal activity.

Berkowitz: You would like to see a mandatory program to check social security numbers? By employers?

Oberweis: I would, indeed.

Berkowitz: You think that would correct the situation.

Oberweis: I believe that would take away the economic incentives for people to break the law by coming here illegally and those people who are still coming here illegally are the ones we could really focus on worrying about.
***************************************
Jim Oberweis (R), likely candidate for in the 2006 Republican Primary for Governor, recorded on March 6, 2005 and as is airing on the Suburban edition of Public Affairs this week [week of March 14] and on the City of Chicago edition of Public Affairs on Monday night, March 21 at 8:30 pm on Cable Ch. 21. See, below, for a detailed suburban airing schedule.
*******************************
The suburban edition of "Public Affairs," is regularly broadcast every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8:30 pm on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Bannockburn, Deerfield, Ft. Sheridan, Glencoe, Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lincolnshire, Riverwoods and Winnetka.

The suburban edition also is broadcast every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 19 in Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Niles, Northfield, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Wilmette and every Tuesday night at 8:30 p.m. on Comcast Cable Channel 35 in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, Glenview, Golf, Des Plaines, Hanover Park, Mt. Prospect, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Prospect Heights, Schaumburg, Skokie, Streamwood and Wheeling.
*****************************************
Jeff Berkowitz, Host and Producer of Public Affairs and an Executive Recruiter doing Legal Search, can be reached at JBCG@aol.com
***********************