Peoria Pundit

Conservative Republicans aren’t the only ones criticizing the $700 billion bailout. Lefty blog TPM is running this lucid commentary:

The basic argument for the bailout is that the banks are filled with so much bad debt that the banks can’t trust each other to repay loans. This creates a situation in which the system of payments breaks down. That would mean that we cannot use our ATMs or credit cards or cash checks.

That is a very frightening scenario, but this is not where things end. The Federal Reserve Board would surely step in and take over the major money center banks so that the system of payments would begin functioning again. The Fed was prepared to take over the major banks back in the 80s when bad debt to developing countries threatened to make them insolvent. It is inconceivable that it has not made similar preparations in the current crisis.

In other words, the worst case scenario is that we have an extremely scary day in which the markets freeze for a few hours. Then the Fed steps in and takes over the major banks. The system of payments continues to operate exactly as before, but the bank executives are out of their jobs and the bank shareholders have likely lost most of their money. In other words, the banks have a gun pointed to their heads and are threatening to pull the trigger unless we hand them $700 billion.

In other words, let the system run it’s course. There will be some suffering, but the mechanisms already in place will keep us out of the 2nd Great Depression that we’ve been warned about.

Frankly, I think a little suffering just might be the lesson we need to teach us the folly of interference in the free market for the purpose of establishing economic parity among citizens.

GateHouse media guru Howard Owens writes on his blog that the media hasn’t been doing a particularly great job examining whether or not the $700 bailout really is needed, comparing it to a similar situation:

Whether you supported the war or not, the complete lack of alternate voices in much of the reporting of America’s newspapers should cause you concern.

Many critics of the war before and since have referred to Bush’s push for invasion as “the rush to war.”

That phrase echoed through my mind much the past week as Bush and Congressional Democrats hastily set to work on a $700 billion bailout of New York’s financial institutions. It is no stretch to call it a “rush to bailout.”

I’ve been neglecting my duties.

Anyone who reads this blog can quickly figure out which politicians I prefer over others.

But I’d like to think that when the candidates I like take positions with which I strongly disagree, I will say so.

I’ve put off writing at length about the controversy over the “bill” some folks want to charge President Bush of the Aaron Schock Congressional campaign for the $38,000 in police and security services provided during the July 25 fund raiser.

Frankly, I’m not a fan of Schock. I think Democratic challenger Colleen Callahan would make a better Congressperson.

And I chortled to myself as Callahan and Peoria City Council member Gary Sandberg scored points with the voting public by complaining about the costs the city picked up providing protection during this rather elitist affair.

But I am somewhat amazed it’s getting as much traction as it has. Folks, I hate to break it to you, but it is the job of local police to provide assistance to the Secret Police when they are in town protecting the life of the the leader of the free world. This is true whether the event features a lame-duck incumbent raising cash by charging $5,000 a pop for a photograph at a closed-door event, or if it’s some junior senator (without a shot in Hell of winning his party’s nomination for President) stumping for a former colleague outside the Peoria County Courthouse.

Putting a dollar amount on the services of the men and woman of the Peoria Police Department cheapens their contribution to the city. They are not hired guns. They are not security guards. To be asked by the Secret Service to coordinate and cooperate in the protection of the president of the United States of America is both their duty and their privilege. It has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with protecting the public.

But if you want to take politics into the equation, consider this: Do we really want elections in which candidates have to pay municipalities for the protection they receive? If minor party candidates and independents like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney or Chuck Baldwin had to pay even a fraction of $38,000 every time they made a campaign appearance, they wouldn’t be making a lot of campaign appearances.

During a presidential race, candidates might make eight stops a day. Some of them are fund-raisers not dissimilar to the one we’re discussing. Add that up over a year-long presidential campaign, and we’re talking about huge sums of money. I’d ask anyone griping about the elites who showed up for Schock’s Weaver Farms event to stop and consider how adding millions of dollars to the cost of a campaign will make for easier for non-elites to get involved.

It would be the easiest thing for the Schock campaign to just write a check (which is something I suggested as a way to end the controversy). But I’m thinking now that it would set a precedent, so let’s forget that idea.

And don’t worry, I’ll be going back to giving folks reasons to vote for Colleen Callahan soon.

OK … so let’s set forth the facts.

President Bush was in town at a fundraiser. He was charging well-to-do Republicans $5,000 to have their picture taken with him.

While in town, he had his picture taken with Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard.

Ooooo … what a scandal.

The Journal Star is deeply concerned.

“As is very common for presidential visits, the Secret Service offered the opportunity to local law enforcement to be able to meet the president,” Settingsgaard said in an e-mail to the Journal Star. “I shook his hand, said a kind word and they snapped a picture.”

What we’re not sure about, though, is whether the chief paid the $5,000 asking price for the picture, if he got to keep the photograph for free, or if he even walked off with a photograph. Plus, who was “they?” He declined to answer follow-up questions we had about the picture.

The Journal Star is deeply concerned. Trouble is, I don’t know if they are deeply concerned that Settingsgaard paid $5,000 or if he DIDN’T pay $5,000. If he did pay, then it’s a case of a public employee being overly political, I suppose. If he didn’t, then his posing for a picture may constitute some form of a gratuity from the Bush administration to Settingsgaard.

I believe that I am speaking for a great majority of Peorians when I say: “Oh, get a frigging life.” I’m sorry all to hell that Settingsgaard’s reply wasn’t as specific as you would like, but it seems clear that the chief got his picture taken with the president because politicians like to have their picture taken with police officers. At this point in Bush’s career, posing for a picture with Settingsgaard did more for GW’s reputation than the other way around.

Feh. I’m willing to bet the “concern” being expressed anonymously comes from those who are overly worried about the money the city spent providing security during Bush’s visit.

Phil and Jamie: Your show on 1470WMBD ends at 6 p.m.

Blogger Bash starts at 6 p.m. this Tuesday at Richard’s on Main. It’s a short walk from your studio in Civic Center Plaza.

Why not stop by, enjoy a refreshing beverage of your choice and get to know those of us who comprise the Peoria Blogosphere.

It’s all off-the-record fun.

In today’s column, Phil Luciano lets readers know that he is a member of the faculty at Bradley University, a fact he did not mention in two recent columns that sided with BU students regarding the last week’s incident in which an allegedly intoxicated city council member confronted members of Sigma Nu over multiple noise complaints stemming from a late-night outdoor drinking party.

And I have to hand it to Phi. He graciously conceded that this fact should have been included in the columns and then he apologized for not doing so.

Just kidding. His apology consisted of one word, “oopsie.” He then devoted the rest of the column ridiculing anyone who suggested he was Bradley’s “stooge.” He cited several obnoxious phone calls and emails to prove his point about his critics.

I’m betting as least some of those emails and phone calls were more lucid and sincere (at least more sincere than Phil’s apology), but he won’t share those because they don’t prove his point that anyone who would criticize him is a moron.

My message to Phil: You’ve dipped your toe into the cleansing waters of journalistic transparency by revealing the potential conflict of interest regarding Bradley University. Why not dive in and share ALL your emails on the subject?

If you have been considering buying one of the many fine items available at my CafePress Store, now is the time. CafePress is offering free shipping on orders of $60 or more. All you need to do is enter the coupon code “60THANKS.”

The offer ends at midnight Sept. 28.

(Press release)

Peoria, IL – “Peoria has unacceptable levels of crime…we need a new approach for prosecuting criminals…that’s why we need Darin LaHood as State’s Attorney.” So begins the first paid television advertisement of the election season for the Peoria County race for top prosecutor.

Darin LaHood, the challenger candidate who has secured endorsements from every police organization in Peoria County began airing this commercial today (Friday, September 26th).

“The stakes are high in the State’s Attorney’s race,” said LaHood.

“Over the past year I’ve been campaigning and people have repeatedly told me that they’re feeling less and less secure in their own neighborhoods. I maintain that our present system of criminal justice in Peoria County is falling short of what we expect and deserve and it is my goal to win the State’s Attorney’s race to make Peoria County safer for all of us.”

Thanks to widespread support and hundreds upon hundreds of individual donors, LaHood has worked hard to be in a position to wage a television advertising campaign. LaHood expects to maintain a television presence throughout the campaign season.

“I am thankful to the hundreds of people who believe enough in this campaign to help us fund our operations. This is yet another clear signal that folks in Peoria are tired of having the dubious distinction of the highest crime rate in the state and that my plans for reversing this trend are gaining a lot of attention.”

LaHood has earned the support of all nine police organizations in the County; the collective reasoning amongst the different bureaus is that the present State’s Attorney has not done enough to keep repeat, violent criminals off Peoria Streets and it is time for a change.
Police unions representing the City and County of Peoria, Bartonville, Chillicothe, Peoria Heights and the Correctional Officers, as well as departments in Elmwood, Glasford and Norwood have all publicly announced support for LaHood.

Forty-year old Darin LaHood presently practices law with the Peoria Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Prior to that, he served as Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor for four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood gained experience as a county prosecutor during years spent as an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen are both Peoria natives and are raising their three children in their hometown. They are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign

Put aside the issue of whether or not your campaign is obligated to reimburse $38,000 to the City of Peoria for expenses if occured suring President Bush’s visit to your fund raiser. Don’t even consider the legal and ethical issues.

Just send the city a check, no questions asked, no admission of guilt, just a desire to not burden taxpayers. Better yet, invite the photographers to a check-passing ceremony on the floor of the City Council’s chambers. I’m sure my friend Gary Sandberg would be happy to attend such a happy event.

Essentially, you would be achieving victory by surrendering.

Phil Luciano once again discusses the conflict between Bradley University students and neighbors. And once again, he essentially sides with students by claiming that the problem isn’t the noise, litter, public drinking, fireworks, public urination and the occasionally fatality. The problem is that the permanent residents and property taxpayers aren’t making the students feel welcome.

This is Luciano’s second column in as many days about the issue. And for the second time, he failed to mention that he gets a paycheck from Bradley University. That’s a potential conflict of interest at least as large as the fact that I’m friends with Barbara Van Auken.

Some observations on this matter:

• Many of the folks who are criticizing Van Auken for confronting Sigma Nu over its outdoor drinking party would be criticizing her if she had done nothing about the problems these residents are trying to fight. City Council elections are coming up, and battle lines are being drawn. I fully expect the editorial and news pages of the Journal Star to pimp for whoever runs against Van Auken.
• I’ve lived next door to a crack house. I’ve lived a few blocks from a frat house. If I had to chose between the two, with no other options, I’d be hard pressed to come to a decision.
• Luciano quotes an anonymous father of some anonymous frat kid, upset that the neighbors are picking on his precious little snowflake. This speaks volumes to me. Would Luciano quote a permanent resident anonymously? Doubt it.