Dan Hynes: a billion more each year; and the Hare Zinga debate
Crains on Dan Hynes talking about Illinois finances.
The state faces "a serious crisis" by 2010 unless lawmakers take a long-term view of state finances, Hynes told a business group in Chicago. But a spokeswoman for Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich said the administration was well aware of the problems when it came into office and has continued to alleviate them.Is Hynes voting for Blagojevich?
Hynes, a Democrat, said the state will have to pay about $1 billion more each year to keep up with growth in the built-in budget obligations. That's just about the amount of new money — through increased tax revenue, for example — the state has gained annually for the past 10 years, he said.
"If current trends continue and the state fails to address these looming issues, the state could face a serious crisis by fiscal year 2010," Hynes told the state finance task force of the Civic Committee.
Hare seems out of touch with Democrats too. Here's his response to Zinga in their first debate on Democratic calls for Bush's impeachement.
Hare, an aide to retiring U.S. Rep. Lane Evans, said he doesn't know of any Democrats talking about impeachment.Here are the sponsers for HJR0125: which
"I don't know where that one came from. That came from way out in left field," he said after debating Zinga in a forum hosted by WILL-TV.
Urges the General Assembly to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States, George W. Bush, for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and if found guilty urges his removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office in the United StatesRep. Karen A. Yarbrough, Sara Feigenholtz, Eddie Washington, Cynthia Soto, William Delgado, William Davis, Kenneth Dunkin, Wyvetter H. Younge, Arthur L. Turner, Esther Golar, Constance A. Howard, David E. Miller, Annazette Collins, Calvin L. Giles, Deborah L. Graham, Robin Kelly, Edward J. Acevedo, Michelle Chavez, Robert Rita and Lou Lang.
Democrats all I believe.
Update: ImpeachPAC has a list of all resolutions out there. Includes States of Illinoios and California. It's pending in Chicago, and on the ballot in Champaign and Urbana.
Update: And H. Res 635 co sponsered by Danny Davis and Jan Schawkosky.
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
It's not an obscure effort.
36 comments:
BB, last time I checked, Hare is running for U.S. Congress, not the Illinois House. Along those same lines, what does the congressional race have to do with Rod taking money? Republicans take bribes as well. Where's your post about Zinga being tied to Abramhoff??? I mean c'mon that's about as solid of a story as you posted.
I love how every post you have has an agenda. Every problem in this country is a result of the democraqtic party according to you.
You think that Hare should be responsible for everything done by any other democrat in the country, but Zinga is free and clear of any wrong doing that a republican might have done. Its a terrible double standard.
By the way, your link to the resolution wont work. Not sure if the link is bad or the page is just funked up.
HJR0124 is a petition to the U.S House of Representatives. If Hare elected, and if it goes to the House, Hare would have to respond to it.
Deleting comments now? Down with censorship!!! Just another case of the man keepin us down!!!
Jerry is free to repost. It was only one offensive word. I just try and keep with Miller's standards on this.
Sorry, I didn't see the actual post, I just like complaining!!!
Why is he out of touch with Democrats? when the majority of Democrats are not pursuing impeachment.
I count 65 dems in the State House, and I see about 20 people backing this bill.
I really don't like this current republican strategy of trying to scare people that if the Dems retake the US House and the Senate, then they are going to try to try to impeach Bush.
Back to this bill, it is not exactly flying through the Illinois state house even though the dems have a clear majority.
Are their Dems who want Bush impeached? sure, will their voices and arguements be heard in our representatives halls? I hope so. Will they succeed? I really really doubt it.
What is wrong about a Democrat saying people talking about impeachment are out of left field? This is the equivelent of a Republican saying that Intelligent Design should not be taught in Biology classrooms.
BB, last time I checked, Hare is running for U.S. Congress, not the Illinois House.
Why let a little thing like intellectual honesty get in the way of partisan spin?
Based on the bar Republicans set for impeaching a president (lying) Bush rightly should be impeached. That Republicans controlling Congress have not yet done so is testimony to their power-hungry hypocrisy and that Democrats likely would not even if in power is testimony to the ineffectiveness of their yella-bellied consultants.
NW,
H. Res 635 cosponsered by Danny Davis, Jan Schawkosky,
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Nothing dishonest about this resolution... you're for it, or you're against it; and do send Hare to Congress without knowing his stand on it; even if he's in a bit of a fog on it... something voters entitled to know.
BB - what is Zinga's stand on it? I do not beleive she is on record on the specific issue of whether or not she woudl vote for a Pelosi sponsored impeachment. Sure we can assume, but according to your 'anything to flame a democrat logic' everyone is guilty of being a weak on issues candidate until they specifically answer your questions on issues.
Bill Baar said...
HJR0124 is a petition to the U.S House of Representatives. If Hare elected, and if it goes to the House, Hare would have to respond to it.
9:30 AM
Why?
Is he going to be in charge of opening Congress's mail?
Also, please review the DKD/JS bill. It references investigating.
Are you against investigating whether the President of the United States engaged in improper activities?
What do you have to hide?
I don't imagine any of the Republican candidates for Congress would vote in favor of this:
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
I think it's fair game to ask all candidates how they would vote on this Resolution before the House, and I add Skeeter's question about whether they believe the Bush Administration is hiding anything.
Hare's gee whiz I've never heard of such a resolution from Democrats before is a non-response in my opinion.
Either that or the poor man is asleep at the wheel of politics.
Why are these groups going through the state legislatures when they could be working on issues affecting their respective states.
A State's legislature can transmit a charge of impeachment. The ImpeachPAC folks explain here.
Proviso Probe asked Karen Yarbrough to introduce one last April. And she did.
That's the power of the blogesphere.
BB - I will probably cross post this on CFB, but here goes anyways...
I know you like demanding information from democrats in order to look bad, but as a citizen of the 17th, I don't feel that Hare missing this is all that big of a deal. I would like to also point out that at no time did Zinga (or any other repub. for that matter) speak out against this particular resolution.
I took the time to look at the link you provided. I noticed that the only 'news' on the bill was that it went into subcommittee. The date on that move? December of 05. Was Phil Hare in congress in Dec? Was Phil Hare even a candidate in December? Now I know this might not fully explain why he hasn't heard of it, but I certianly wouldnt expect him as a district director to be familiar with every bill that simply goes directly into committee.
There has been little to no action on this bill with the exception of co-sponsors periodically signing on. While I realize that a few are from Illinois, I don't think that brings it to national attention. I personally had not heard of this amendment, and I doubt most people have. BB, if you personally are familiar with it, I congratulate you. You are in an exclusive club.
As I mentioned before, I feel this is a non-issue as far as selecting the next congressman for the 17th. And remember, Hare's lack of response is the same as Zinga's lack of a denoucnement, so if anything shouldn't the issue be a push???
Dan Hynes makes a lot of sense, and he should of never been elected in the first place, but doing a damn fine job
The impeach Bush on the IL State level is just symbolic and a waste of time
I don't like Bush, especially Iraq where my nehpew is right now
but impeachment is too far
Robbie,
How a candidate stands on this,
Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
is about the only issue in this election for me....everything else pretty secondary for the time.
anon 12:35
Hynes makes a lot of sense.
I'm stunned he chose to make sense now before the election because he sure threw egg in the Gov's face.
Bill,
If Iraq is the only issue, I assume you are voting Democratic?
Or in the alternative, do you agree with Mr. Bush that 130,000 troops is sufficient to fight for our very survival?
Wouldn't a reasonable President fighting for our very survival devote at least 500,000 troops? Isn't our very survival worth that many?
Or is it not really a fight for our very survival?
John Laesch is an ImpeachPac candidate.
Denny Hastert is not. So I'll vote Hastert.
Laesch also the fellow who used a little cleansing soap and water around the 14th district to out covert Lieberman bloggers among Democrats.
As a guy who voted for Lieberman in 2000, I'm sure Laesch wouldn't appreciate my unclean vote either.
When Democrats have candidates going about cleansing their party, it's a real bad sign.
Bridget posted the response from the Lieberman supporter Laesch outted. I think it shows Lieberman folks are a pretty class crowd. Much classier then the Democrat's candidate in my district.
BB - in case you missed it, Joe isn't a democrat anymore, he's running under the 'Connecticut for Joe party' last I knew.
What's your district by the way? Who are your candidates?
Robbie, you missed my district...Hastert Laesh...
yes, of course Lieberman is no longer a Dem because Laesh and his friends at ImpeachPAC cleansing the party of us.
They won't impeach Bush but they'll decimate the party which is a point I make her periodically.
Let me get this right, Bill.
You've changed your mind.
Iraq is no longer THE ISSUE.
Instead, impeachment is THE ISSUE?
Is that right?
Still waiting for your thoughts on whether 130,000 is really sufficient for a Fight For Our Very Survival.
Bill,
Is it ok in your view for Republicans to go about "cleansing" their party?
If that's how you want to look at primaries, go right ahead -- but it's an overly cynical viewpoint if you ask me.
Democrats could have "cleansed" out Hillary (she voted for the war based on lies too, and has not backed down from that vote) ... but they didn't.
Your premise is false and you know it. Lieberman neglected his constituents, plain and simple. Any politician of any level or any party would be tossed out for the same reasons. He's missed half his votes during his time in office -- doesn't matter if he's "Republican", "Democrat", or "For Lieberman" he has failed to do the job the voters sent him to do.
Would you honestly vote for someone who only showed up half the time? Do you really want half a representative deliberating on your behalf? You'd be paying for the whole Senator, but only getting half the representation.
Now sure, Republicans (why is Republicans that are constantly defending a former Democrat???) will say "But, but, but he was kicked out and abandoned and cleansed because, well, because he supports the war in Iraq..." Well, yes and no. His consituents by and large disagree with the war -- so they would naturally tend to remove those people they disagree with from office. But more importantly Joe has been out representing himself more often than he's been bothering to represent them. He has neglected his constituents in vote and in deed.
--
As for your impeachment fetish, Republicans set the bar for impeachment at fibbing -- by that token this president has committed impeachable offenses every year he has been in office. He's been caught in bald-faced lies time and again.
Yet the Republicans do not impeach for those impeachable offenses (impeachable by the standard they set). Why is that? Are they gutless wonders hoping to cling on to their power and greed?
Appparently, neither Bill Baar nor the GOP really care about American troops.
Apparently Baar believes that Iraq is THE ISSUE despite the fact that under Bush we devote only 130,000 to a "fight for our very survival" and then we fail to provide them with adequate body armor.
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) offered an amendment to give the Guard and Reserve $1 billion to procure additional equipment, including body armor, in April 2003. But every single Republican voted to kill that amendment.
http://www.ifilms.tv/votevetsweb/
I definitely recall posting this morning on the related cap-fax post. I think it got deleted, did I do something wrong? Anyone have any ideas? Should I email Rich?
Robbie,
Don't try and get poor Bill into more trouble.
He had one of his "articles" deleted yesterday, and he is having a very hard time trying to get his thoughts together on the whole Iraq -- fight for our very survival -- 130,000 troops only -- let's not investigate the president matter.
He's having a tough time.
Back off and let the man think without us pointing out the massive holes in his reasoning. He doesn't need people like us being mean to him at this time.
Sorry skeeter, my mistake. Whats up with another deleted comment? I really need to watch more closely so I can see it before it gets deleted. Anyone catch what it said or who said it? Time for lunch!!! See you fools in an hour!!!111oneoneone
The deleted comment above was mine. There was an editing error so I deleted it (I tried to copy one comment but copied them all).
In the meantime, maybe our friend Bill can work on that one small question:
If Iraq is a fight for our very survival, why has he devoted only 130,000 troops?
If I was President of the United States and I believed that our country was facing a fight for its very survival, I would devote AT LEAST 500,000 troops.
Maybe Mr. Bush just doesn't care about our very survival.
Or maybe Mr. Bush, unlike Bill Baar, does not really see Iraq as a fight for our very survival.
Here's Kristol Skeeter in Wapo calling, like you, for more troops.
It's fair question. One I don't have an answer to off hand, but I think it would be a fair column to put before candidates for response.
They'll have to vote on budget as well as impeachment should it come to that.
Kristol may well be right, and note,
One reason to prefer having Iraqis hold secured areas is that indigenous forces, in theory, don't risk creating the kind of nationalist reaction that can be prompted by a foreign occupying army -- i.e., us. But in the current environment of sectarian bloodletting, all signs are that American troops are more trusted and more welcome than Iraqis. Many Sunnis -- confronted by Shiite militias -- now accept our troop presence, and moderate Shiite leaders want us to stay. In fact, the chief fear of Iraqis in Baghdad neighborhoods patrolled by Americans is apparently that we will leave, not that we will remain.
Harvard Law School's William Stuntz recently made the core point powerfully: "The territory over which we fight is among the most strategically important in the world. Victory will place the most dangerous regime on the planet, Iran's fascist theocracy, in serious peril. Defeat will leave that same regime inestimably strengthened. If there is any significant possibility that the presence of more American soldiers on the ground would raise the odds of success, not putting those soldiers on the ground is a crime."
Administration spokesmen have jettisoned talk of "staying the course" in Iraq in favor of "adapting to win." If those words are to have meaning, the administration can't simply stay the course on current troop levels. We need to adapt to win the battle of Baghdad. We need substantially more troops in Iraq. Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.
I think this question should be place before all the candidates...
...I don't think it's incitement to get their stands on it.
And Kristol recommends additional numbers which I've never seen you able to recommend Skeets
...and let me add... nothing wrong or unpatriotic about cut-and-run... if we don't plan on winning this... and don't plan on doing what-ever it's going to take... it seems to me the patriotic thing to do is get out...quick.... it's when candidates dodge these questioins, as Hare did when he said he was unaware of any Democrats calling for impeachment, that I think we're getting insulted almost by politicans.
Bill,
I'm not calling for more troops.
I find it interesting that you apparently claim (your writing is far from clear) that Iraq is THE issue of the day, and you accuse Democrats of lacking clarity on that issue, but you will not share your own views on the subject.
Do YOU believe that Iraq is a fight for our very survival?
It is a pretty simple question. Anyone thinking clearly on the topic should be able to answer in a second.
Do you have an answer?
...you accuse Democrats of lacking clarity on that issue, but you will not share your own views on the subject.
Do YOU believe that Iraq is a fight for our very survival?
It's a fight for survival for our Arab and Kurdish allies attempting to build a democratic Iraq.
If we fail, Kerry's War of Last Resort option kicks in.
We would fight that as a War of Anniliation. Our very survival not at stake, although I think the probability of an eventual catastropic WMD attack on a American city is very high. But we would prevail with devastating destruction wrought on the middle east.
Read Ahmed Al-Jarallah's editorial in in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa warning Ahmadinejad of the grave risk he's brought upon Iran.
Or Bernard Lewis today on Bernard Lewis: Bring Them Freedom, Or They Destroy Us.
If bringing them freedom and democracy fails, no American President would sit back and wait for them to destroy us. Kerry's War of Last resort was about the devasting first strike when no other options are left.
We should never allow ourselves to do be in the position to have to do that again to a people.
I'm not calling for more troops.
If your not calling for more troops, although you often suggest that, and oppose Bush's current stance; and you oppose cut-and-run (which strikes me as the patriotic thing to do if this has become a massive failure) then what in the world to you favor Skeeter? What else is left?
I don't view Iraq as a fight for our very survival. I view it as a distraction from the fight againt our real enemies. That's why I do not advocate more boots on the ground.
The problem is that people like you do claim that is a fight for our very survival, but then want to do it on the cheap.
You don't want to send enough troops. In fact, if we have sent troops to win, Bush has sent far too few. If Bush has sent troops just to die, he has sent far too many.
You also don't want to pay for body armor. Like the ad said -- Good body armor is life and death, and every single Republican Senator voted against Landrieu's amendment. Not one Republican wants to support our troops.
Watch the view I posted. It is shocking.
You claim that this is a fight for our very survival, but you don't want to sacrifice anything for that fight.
That is just pathetic. Either you are lying about it being a fight for our survival, or you don't really care if we survive.
Which is it?
And as long as your GOP pals keep voting against body armor, you don't get to talk about caring about national security.
I just want to get to the good stuff about drunken Phil Hare dancing naked on a table in the Quad Cities and all the other skeletons in his closet.
Post a Comment