• Grew up in the Irish-Catholic section of Bridgeport.

• His favorite activity in high school (De LaSalle Institute) was playing basketball.

•  Interesting time for young Daley was when his father (elected to office in 1968) had to deal with the race riots.  The then 26-year old Daley experienced the grief directed against his dad by protesters, many of whom were upset about the Vietnam War and who were of an age closer to that of the young Daley.  Daley’s dad represented the old generation to the protesters.
• By 1974 Daley the elder had become very powerful and was instrumental in helping elect his son to the Illinois Senate.The nickname given by Daley’s Senate colleagues in the 1970′s was “Dirty Little Ritchie.”

• First real accomplishment for Daley was his election to State’s Attorney General in 1980 at age 38 (The elder Daley died in 1965.).  Daley won despite 48 of 50 aldermen backing Edward Burke, one of few the Democrats to win in 1980, the year of the “Regan Revolution.”

•  Campaign of 1983 a nasty one in which Harold Washington defeated Jane Byrne and Richard Daley for mayor, with Daley coming in third in this Democrat primary.  Daley angered his political base for splitting the white vote.

• The 1980′s were known for its council war.  It was a low point for Chicago, sometimes referred to as “Beirut on the Lake.”

• Elected as Chicago’s mayor in 1989 with a convincing victory.  Daley ran a different campaign from his 1983 mayoral attempt.  He vowed to be ” mayor of all people.”

• Keys advisers for Daley’s successful 1989 campaign were David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, David Wilhelm and brother Bill Daley.

• Daley served 22 years as Chicago’s mayor, the longest in Chicago’s history.

 

Keith Koeneman described the job of mayor as a very difficult one because of the high expectations for mayors. Example given were fixing pot holes and clearing streets of snow in a timely way.   Problem solving by mayors was then noted by Koeneman as similar to solving a Rubik cube. The first one might be relatively easy to solve, but successfully resolving all that follow becomes a much more difficult task and even an impossible one.

Daley’s Accomplishments:

1.  Strengthened race relations in Chicago.

2.  Took a big risk to improve schools and public housing in 1995, although Koeneman realizes that opinions do vary.  Koeneman lauded Daley for taking responsibility but did admit that Daley’s leadership in following through wasn’t all it should have been.

3.  Provided two decades of stability to the political and business communities.  From 1976 to 1989 there had been five different Chicago mayors.

4.  Considered the most important: The transformation of Chicago to a global city.  By 2010 Chicago ranked 6th in global cities after New York, London, Tokyo, Paris and Hong Kong.

Daley’s Mistakes:

1.  Decade-long, large structural budget deficits starting in 2001.  From 1989 to 2000 every budget was balanced. 2001 brought about Daley’s first operating budget deficit.

2.  Flawed parking meter deal was just a symptom of Illinois’s pension crisis and its large structural budget deficit.  It was done as a way to come up with a a quick fix.

3.  Failure to take on unions has contributed to Illinois’s insurmountable billions of pension debt and deficit accumulations.

4.  The midnight destruction of Meigs Field.

5.  Tolerance for political corruption, i.e., 48 went to jail in the hired truck scandal.

6.  Supported inapt political candidates for office like Todd Stroger and Rod Blogovitch.

7.  Allowed a high level of crime to persist.  Although much of the crime was beyond Daley’s control, he could have done more toward the end of his term.

Regarding the relationship between Mayor Daley, Barack Obama, and other Chicago players, Keith Koeneman began this account with Obama’s move to Chicago in 1980:  1.  Obama grew up in a political sense during Daley’s reign.  Both kept each other at  arm’s length.  It was perceived that Obama had in mind to replace Daley as mayor until Obama was elected on his own as an  Illinois senator in 1996.  2.  Upon Obama’s  election to the presidency in November of 2008, Obama took with him to the White House two “Chicago Boys,” Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod.  3. In announcing his retirement as mayor, it was highly unusual for Daley to have endorsed Rahm Emanuel as his replacement.

Random thoughts expressed by Koeneman, many during the question and answer period:

• For 22 years, from 1989 – 2003, Richard Daley was a good mayor, but from 2003 – 2011 he made lots of mistakes.  Explanation:  A  person remaining in office for too long — whether be a politician, school principal, or a CEO — is bound to get too comfortable in the job, whereas keeping power and being re-elected become paramount and leads to corruption.

• There is a parallel between Mayor Daley and Mayor Emanuel.  Both assumed office with great intensity.  Rahm Emanuel likewise appears to be giving his all to the job, but the “whole movie” must be seen first before judgment is made.

• Chicago will not go like Detroit because of a $460 billion economy in the greater Chicago area.

President and CEO, Joe Bast, applauded Koenemen for writing a book which doesn’t have an ax to grind.

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold - 

 

An interesting survey by the Pew Foundation shows that gun crimes, including homicide, have been steadily decreasing irregardless of an increasing number of guns owned by citizens. Despite the recent headlines, homicides in schools have dropped at a similar rate, and are the lowest level in recent history.

But despite this decrease, most people think gun crimes are increasing, largely because of what they hear from main stream media and anti-gun politicians. According to a Rasmussen poll released on Friday, May 10, while gun killings have plunged 39 percent since 1993, and non-fatal gun crimes have dropped 69 percent in the same period, those who want gun control think that gun crime is up. Rasmussen reports that only 7 percent of adults believe there are fewer gun owners in the country than there were 20 years ago — and more importantly, 64 percent of those who want more gun control think that gun crime has escalated.

How can this be?

Ever since the Justice Department released its study on Tuesday, May 7th showing that firearms-related homicides in the U.S. annually declined 19 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, anti-gun proponents have been silent.  There has not been a peep out of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg since the report was issued. The President has ignored it.  Both are doing what they do best to avoid sabotaging their agenda by keeping the report secret from the American people so restrictions can be passed on Second Amendment rights. As for the mainstream media with its natural anti-gun bias, coupled with the adage about TV news — “if it bleeds, it leads” — it is a given that hyper-coverage will follow any gun-related death compared to other news events.

Gun control supporters, including Nancy Pelosi, credit the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban for this decrease.  Homicides in the US peaked in 1993-1994 and have decreased steadily since that time. However, the rate of decrease did not change when the AWB lapsed in 2004. There is no credible evidence that the 1994 law had any effect whatsoever, in part because it limited the importation of these weapons but not domestic manufacturing. At best, the law focused on cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors which have no effect on lethality. Semi-automatic versions of military assault weapons remain a popular form of firearms being purchased, accounting for about 10% of all sales. If we include semi-automatic handguns, included in the 2013 ban proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the percent is closer to 80%.

There also remains confusion in the minds of the American people over the role of so-called assault weapons in gun-related crimes.  Might the anti-gun people being going after the wrong guns by design, when handguns, not rifles, are used to commit most gun crimes?   According to FBI data, approximately 90 percent of firearms homicides and two-thirds of firearms suicides are committed with handguns.  In homicides, the contrast between handguns and assault weapons is stark, yet it is only assault weapons that capture the headlines and elicit reform measures.

The recent defeat of Senator Feinstein’s 2013 gun legislation is but a temporary lapse in the gun control agenda. Anti-gun politicians, including Dianne Feinstein, have stated that they would like to confiscate all guns but don’t think it’s politically feasible. Gun registration would be the innocuous first step toward that goal and has been used to that end in California, New York and several other states.

Registration was proposed overtly in the Feinstein 2013 Assault Weapons bill, wherein most semi-automatic rifles and handguns would be classified as “NFA” items (National Firearms Act of 1936), the same as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. NFA classification requires extensive background checks, approval from local law enforcement, mountains of paperwork and months of delay, not to mention a $200 tax stamp. Most important, ownership of the weapon cannot be transferred, but must be surrendered to the Government upon death of the owner.

Assuredly this was a bit much for the public and Congress to digest. However, registration is a necessary part of the so-called “Universal Background Check” law proposed by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and a watered-down version by Sen Manchin (D-VA) and Sen.Toomey (R-PA). Records of all private sales would be retained by the Federal government, including serial numbers and the names and addresses of the parties involved. Any loss, theft or destruction of a firearm would be reported to the Attorney General, within 24 hours, under penalty of law.

Gun control advocates like to point to “civilized western countries” like Great Britain, which ban or severely limit private gun ownership. The homicide rate due to firearms in Great Britain is 1.2 per 100k, compared to 4.2 for the United States. Perhaps it is surprising that the figure is not zero, considering the comprehensive firearm ban in that country. In the US, the state of Utah has a homicide rate of 1.5, yet residents of Utah own firearms at a higher rate than other states, and can carry them freely (when licensed), even on school property, and licenses to carry are readily available. The rate in NYC is 4.7, despite the strict firearm laws and stop-and-frisk police tactics. In Chicago, which has adefacto ban on firearms, the homicide rate is an abysmal 17. (From the rants by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, you would think white suburbanites were creeping into the city, murdering its residents.)

More telling is the demographic factor. Non-whites account for 84% of gun-related homicides in the US, which places the homicide rate for whites at less than 0.7. By this measure, the US places well below that of Great Britain and Australia (0.92). Switzerland is cited as a country with a lot of guns and few homicides, about 85/year. With only 6 million people and extremely low diversity, this is still 1.4 /100K. As we see, the US doesn’t come off so badly after all.

Statistics clearly illustrate that gun control does not reduce crime.  It has just the opposite effect.  While over the last 40 years the number of guns per 1000 people has increased, serious violent crimes have decreased. Among the top ten killers in the U.S. homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list.  Almost 20 times more people die in the United States from medical errors than they do from firearm homicides.  In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Now consider Chicago, which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted:

Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even high in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.  

Ten myths have been exploited for years to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

For those who maintain that the US is more dangerous than any other “wealthy” country, it might be educational to move to Europe, but keep your doors locked and the lights on.

By Nancy Thorner - 

Following  Dr. Herb Walberg at the Heartland Author Series on May 9 was  Joseph Bast — certainly no stranger to those in attendance as president of the Heartland Institute — who continued the discussion as co-author of Education and Capitalism. Joe Bast studied economics at the University of Chicago and since 1984 has coauthored or edited nearly 100 policy studies and nine books.  Heartland’s first book, published in 1986, was on school reform. The authors, who included Bast, called for the adoption of tax credits.

Of all the policies issues covered by The Heartland Institute — budgets and taxes, education, health care, environment, technology — Bast said he considers education the most important issue of all as knowledge is the most important factor in determining a nation’s wealth, scientific progress, and economic freedom. Then too, students will grow up to be voters.

 To Dr. Walberg, school choice means that families can choose the best public or private (parochial or independent) schools for their children.  School choice was described as resembling free enterprise by encouraging innovation, competition, reduced costs, better performance, and accommodation to a variety of parental preferences.

Walberg then went on to explain how school choice has reached a turning point in the last ten years, thereafter he defined various forms of school choice.

1.  Charter schools are now found in the bulk of the states, although some states do limit their number and size. The origin of charter schools can be traced back to 1991 in Minnesota.  Today the number of charter schools nears the 5,000 mark in the U.S.  Charter schools are supported with public funds but are privately governed and managed, although there is a movement under foot in Chicago to unionize its charter schools.

2.  Tuition tax credits are growing in more than ten states.  Parents are allowed to deduct private (that is, parochial and independent) school tuition from their state income taxes.  Most states, however, limit what a parent can deduct.  Also, since the poor don’t pay taxes  tax tuition credits are of no assist to them.

3.  Vouchers are possibly the most controversial and have a long way to go.  Vouchers award publicly and privately funded scholarships to families for their children to attend private schools in deference to public schools.

4. About fifty are considering “parent trigger” legislation which closes failing schools upon a majority vote from the parents.  Parents elect to either charter the school for private management, send children to another public school, or shut the failing school.

Stressed was that research has shown that charter and private schools excel both in achievement and a higher rate of graduation, and that both parents and students are more satisfied in these settings.  As an added benefit, the average cost of a private school is about one half the cost of what a near by public school would spend per student.

A study by the Mathematica Policy Research group found that students in the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) network of charter schools — 41,000 students in 20 states — were eight months ahead of their public school peers in reading, eleven in mathematics, and 14 months ahead in science.  There are Kipp schools in Chicago.

Of concern is the poor performance of our top high school students when paired against top students in other countries.  Having seventeen of the top universities in the world, it is not complimentary that most of the top students hail from India or China.  Reasons given by Walberg for our nation lagging behind at the high school level:  1)  Only a minimal level of competence is required, and 2) Energy and money goes into bringing up the bottom instead of challenging top students.

In the most recent international achievement survey U.S. student ranked 27th in mathematics and 21st in science, yet this nation has the highest per-student spending in the world with the exception of Luxembourg.  Long-term studies of test scores from ninety countries indicate that despite differences in culture, those countries having the largest percentages of students in the top five percent when scored against the top five percent of scores in other countries,experienced a faster rate of economic growth.

Lastly, Dr. Walberg accounted for why the present traditional public school system isn’t rising to new international achievement standards.  Over the course of 150 years more and more bureaucracy ensued as school districts became bigger replacing smaller, self-contained units.  State came first to take away what had been local control of education.  Now the federal government is on the move with Common Core, a devised set of curriculum standards for literature, math, etc., which most states have signed on to for implementation in their school districts.

Such interference by government only advances school choice proponents and the establishment of charter and private schools.  Other things being equal, private organizations perform on the average better than government-run organizations at a lower cost and with more satisfaction for staff, parents and students.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/05/heartland-re-asserts-connection-between-education-and-capitalism-.html

By Nancy Thorner - 

This week the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the so-called “Gang of 8″ immigration reform package.

Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric you are hearing. The bill will provide amnesty now, with citizenship later and declines to seriously address the border security issue. There are those who wish to distract you from the real issues surrounding the debate. It can’t be denied that the Gang of 8 immigration reform package undermines the rule of law and is harmful to law-abiding Americans.

On Monday, May 6, Heritage’s Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector, released a highly anticipated study about the cost of immigration reform. His study concluded that “Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 tr5illion in taxes.” In other words, they would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion in combined federal, state, and local benefits. The annual net cost would be roughly $112 billion. The majority of expense would be the result of increased educational and welfare costs.”

Daniel Horowitz, in writing about Robert Rector’s Executive summary about the fiscal cost of unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer, pegged it as an “Open Borders + Welfare State = Disaster.”  http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013/05/06/robert-rectors-study...

Admittedly, writes Horowitz:

Some people don’t like to hear it, but the reality of today’s redistributive society is that the higher-skilled population transfers a tremendous amount of wealth to the lower-skilled population in the form of the tax code, entitlements, welfare, and social services.  Do we really need to import so many new low-skilled illegal and legal immigrants over the next decade to exacerbate the current unsustainable dynamic?  

Further writes Horowitz, additionally there are a number of likely factors that could result in an even higher cost:

1. What is there are more than 11.5 million illegals?  What if fraudulent documents allow more people to receive amnesty?  In 1986, 25% of applications were fraudulent.  A similar dynamic now wold cost an additional $1.6 trillion, according to Rector.

2. This bill allows the amnestied immigrants to bring in spouses and minor children.  The cost would top $600 billion per 1 million more family members

3.  Every amnesty encourages more illegal immigration , especially when the enforcement is nothing more than a promise.  The number of border crossing have already tripled in recent months.  

And what about the fairness issue?  The “Gang of 8″ immigration reform package is unfair to the two to three million immigrants waiting lawfully to enter the United States, and will make our immigration problem worse, as it will only encourage more illegal immigrants to enter unlawfully.  Unfortunately Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has been drawn into the Gang of 8 by Democrat Senator Schumer to sweeten the pot under the assumption and hope that conservative Republicans will this time accept an immigration reform package hook, line, and sinker because of Rubio’s endorsement.

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/05/open-border…

Daniel Sumner, director of the University of California Agricultural Issues Center and a professor at UC Davis, had this to say: “Riddled with market interventions and tax transfers, the U.S. farm support system should be wound down in the next farm bill, which should be the last.” http://finance.yahoo.com/news-worlds-most-outdated-law-why-184316...

In the 50′s justifications for farm subsides might have been necessary as many farmers tended to be poor and subsidies were needed to prop up and sustain rural economies.  This is no longer true.  Since farms account for only a small percentage of rural employment, subsidies are now going to large corporations which dominate the agriculture industry.  It also might have made sense during the time of Vietnam (1960 – 1970) when the wool and mohair subsidy was put in place to ensure a supply of combat uniforms for those fighting in Vietnam.

Take away these few isolated exceptions and for decades no one has been able to provide a reason why subsidies should be sustained.  Farm subsidies now include federal crop insurance, trade barriers, and arcane price regulations for milk and other products.  Does it make sense to provide crop insurance for export and biofuels crops like corn and soy beans, when no federal subsidies are needed for lettuce, broccoli, alfalfa, which have fared at least as well over the years as have the favored crops of grain, cotton and oilseed?

The Farm Bill was among the first instances in the long and discredited tradition where countless disparate programs are wrapped into one massive spending bill, resulting in bills too big to read and filled with sweeteners that only each narrow interest knows where to find.

In 2012 the House Farm Bill amounted to nearly a $1 trillion dollars ($957 billion). In 2008 the farm bill came to $604 billion, an increase of  63% between 2008 and 2012.  This year’s outlook looks to be much the same, which brings to mind this question:  “When will this nightmare finally end?”

A surprise to most readers is that 80% of the bill goes for funding the federal food stamp program known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance), which  is essentially a cash transfer, having almost no relation to food and no significant connection to farming of any other feature of the farm bill.

There are now 46 million individuals on food stamps, compared with 17 million in 2000 and 30 million in 2008 respectively.  One out of every seven Americans are now on food stamps.  Farm Bill supporters have married food stamps and farm subsidies in order to create the dynamic to generate support to pass farm subsidies, while the powerful farm lobby still claims that farmers need safety nets for protection from the free market and the weather.

U.S. representatives need to answer why they they support hundreds of billions in food stamps.  Since fraud is rampant in the food stamp program, when are legislators going to fix the system so food stamps aren’t handed out to millions of individuals who don’t qualify for them?  Better left to another article is how food stamps are being used to buy a myriad of goods other than food!

Congress must sever SNAP from the farm bill.  According to Daniel A. Sumner in an article published in The Atlantic, the next farm bill should be the shortest in history.  It should also be the last.  Sumner suggests transferring the few programs that merit government attention in the farm program to appropriate legislation and departments and shutting the rest down.

Collectively, the subsidies serve no purpose in this modern, profitable agriculture market.

In reference to the building itself, Sumner sees it as a added bonus for Washington visitors:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/worlds-most-outdated-law-why-184316...