Civic News & Info
New Reports: Proposed Super Committee Cuts Poised to Weaken State and Local Economies PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Josh Rosenblum   
Monday, 31 October 2011 14:06

Non-lobbyists Show Secret Supercommittee Could Make Cuts to Over $621 Billion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in Their States

(Washington, DC) – As lobbyists in Washington converge on the Super Committee, local advocates in states represented by the 12-member “Super Committee” today released new reports detailing the projected fall-out resulting from the committee’s proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Information on the new reports was discussed at press conferences throughout the nation and in Washington where the Supercommittee met publicly for the first time in a month.  In the eleven Super Committee states represented, 20.3 million Americans receive Social Security, 18.5 million Americans receive Medicare, and 21.4 million Americans receive Medicaid.

Money Injected in to Super Committee Members’ States Economies By Programs

Social Security in Super Committee States

Medicare in Super Committee States

Medicaid in Super Committee States

Total Spent: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in Super Committee States

$267.3 Billion

$206.1 Billion

$147.5 Billion

$620.9 Billion

“You can see she would have no housing, day activities, medical, dental or prescription coverage without Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security,” said Tom Taranto and Diane McCormack of Dorchester, MA, with regard to their daughter Christina who was born with severe disabilities.

“Too often political and media elites talk about these programs as just cold, unfeeling facts and figures, as if they are divorced from the people whose lives they touch,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works. “Too often, the programs are talked about as ‘problems’ when in fact they really are ‘solutions’ – solutions that provide benefits that have been earned through the hard work of Americans.”

The so-called Congressional “Super Committee” is just 30 days from its deadline.  As lobbyists attempt to save tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the new reports reveal a possible economic crisis for many Americans should the committee vote to cut benefits.  The full reports are available at

"The American people oppose any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.  Our elected officials need to know that if they ignore this message, they do so at their own peril," said Ed Coyle the Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "This fall, as the Super Committee completes it work, the Alliance for Retired Americans will continue to educate and mobilize seniors and people of all ages on the need to strengthen – not cut – Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

Opinion poll after opinion poll show that the vast majority of Americans want no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.


Lt. Governor Simon, AARP to urge legislators to uphold SB1652 vet PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Kara Beach   
Tuesday, 25 October 2011 14:43

SPRINGFIELD – With legislators back in Springfield, AARP Illinois, other advocacy groups and community organizations are bringing the voice of Illinois consumers to the State Capitol to ensure the Governor’s veto of Senate Bill 1652 stands. The legislation, pushed by ComEd and Ameren, would increase electric rates annually for the next ten years, while eroding regulation that protects consumers. Today hundreds of residents from across the state, joined by Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, will rally outside AARP Illinois’ State Office in Springfield, before visiting legislators in the Capitol.

TIME: 1 p.m.

DATE: Tuesday, Oct. 25

PLACE: Outside AARP headquarters, corner of College and Edwards, Springfield


Braley Statement on Iowa Bridges Ranking Third Worst in US PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Jeff Giertz   
Tuesday, 25 October 2011 12:46

Report ranks Iowa bridges among most “deficient” in the country 


Washington, DC – Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after a report by the nonprofit group Transportation for America released today said Iowa has the third worst bridges in the United States in terms of their condition and upkeep:

“For four summers in college, I worked for the Poweshiek County Roads Department fixing roads and bridges.  Iowa’s economy moves on its roads.  If they’re crumbling, our ability to attract new jobs and new businesses to Iowa will crumble too.


“We can create jobs in the short-term and make a lasting boost to economic growth - not to mention keeping Iowans safe - by investing in new highways and proper maintenance of our bridges and roads.  We spent billions rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan – it’s irresponsible not to make the same investment here at home.”

The report says that nearly 22 percent of Iowa’s bridges statewide are considered structurally “deficient.”  The only states ranking below Iowa were Pennsylvania and Oklahoma.

The full report can be found at the following link:

# # #

Secretary Napolitano before the Judiciary Committee-Immigration, Fast and Furious, Grant Spending PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:52

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight Hearing of the Department of Homeland Security

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch.  It’s often an overlooked function for members of Congress.  It’s not always glamorous.  It’s hard work, and it can be frustrating because of bureaucratic stonewalling.

In 2008, I was glad to hear the President-elect talk about the most transparent government ever.  Unfortunately, up to this point, this administration has been far from transparent.

I’m glad the Secretary is here today.  This hearing will give us an opportunity to ask questions that have gone unanswered.  I’m frustrated by the less than forthcoming answers we receive from the administration.

We need a little bit more straight talk from this administration.  This Senator, for one, feels as though our concerns are often dismissed.

For example, just this week, 19 Senators received a response to a letter we sent to the President about immigration policies.  The response didn’t come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  It didn’t even come from Secretary Napolitano.  It came from a bureaucrat in the Office of Legislative Affairs.  The response was non-responsive.  It’s as if our concerns are trivial and insignificant

The issue we wrote to the President about was the prosecutorial discretion directives being issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

In June of this year, Assistant Secretary Morton released a memo directing and encouraging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion.  Officers were asked to consider the alien’s length of presence in the U.S., the circumstances of the alien’s arrival in the U.S., particularly if the alien came as a young child, their criminal history, age, service in the military, and pursuit of education in the U.S.

On August 18, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through an untold number of cases currently pending before the immigration and federal courts to determine if they can be “administratively closed.”

Combined, this memo and this initiative are alarming, especially to those of us who firmly believe in the rule of law.  These policies seem to contradict that very important philosophy.

We have many unanswered questions from this administration about their prosecutorial discretion initiatives.  For example, how many cases will the working group sort through?  What standards will be used for adjudicating cases?  Will those already ordered removed be considered for relief?  Will those with a criminal conviction be eligible for discretion?  How much in taxpayer money will be expended for this effort and when will the working group finish its work?  What will happen to individuals who have their cases “administratively closed”?

We want answers.  We want transparency and accountability.  We want to be a part of the process.  The American people are shareholders, and they deserve to be consulted when major immigration policy is being formulated.

Americans also want to be told the truth.

That brings me to my frustration about the administration’s deceptive marketing tactics in claiming that they have deported more undocumented people than ever before.  Secretary Napolitano continues to use statistics that are inflated and inconsistent with the official data produced by the Office of Immigration Statistics.  The Office of Immigration Statistics has been around for a while – since 1883 to be exact.  I’d like to know why the Secretary cherry-picks what numbers she wants to use and refuses to use the statistics provided by the Office of Immigration Statistics.

The department has a credibility problem here.  The Washington Post uncovered the story last December.  Their headline says it all:  “Unusual Methods help ICE break deportation record.”  The administration, including the Secretary, use figures prepared by ICE.   ICE uses a different methodology, counting deportations from previous years and operating a repatriation program longer to pad the numbers.  The Office of Immigration Statistics, on the other hand, only counts removals that actually took place during that year.  Let me provide another example.  Secretary Napolitano gave a speech at American University on October 5th, saying that in 2010, ICE removed over 195,000 convicted criminals.  However, the official statistic from the Office of Immigration Statistics is 168,500.  That’s a difference of 27,000.

The point is – we don’t know what to believe.  The department is using different methodologies from one year to the next.  Homeland Security personnel, according to the Washington Post, are encouraging immigration officials to do what they can to increase the overall removal number.  There’s funny business going on, and the department’s credibility is at stake.

But, don’t just take it from me.  Even the President acknowledged that the numbers are dubious.   During a recent online discussion aimed at Hispanic voters, President Obama said that, “the statistics are a little deceptive.”

So, I’d like to hear from the Secretary why they continue to use these “deceptive” statistics, and why the department chooses to use ICE figures, which are embellished and inconsistent, rather than the data from the Office of Immigration Statistics.

I’d also like assurances, which I have asked for repeatedly, that this administration isn’t using creative ways to keep as many undocumented people in this country.  I have been voicing concern about this since the amnesty memo was released last summer.  We’ve talked a lot about deferred action and parole, but there were many more ideas in the memo.  For example, one of the most egregious options laid out in the memo was a proposal to lessen the “Extreme Hardship” standard.  Under current law, aliens are inadmissible for 3 or 10 years if they have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days or one year, respectively.  The department has discretion to waive the grounds of inadmissibility if it would result in extreme hardship.  The amnesty memo states, “To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances for receiving them, Citizenship and Immigration Services could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for “extreme hardship.”  Proponents argue this is needed for family unity, and that the 3- and 10-year bars are overly burdensome.

If the standard is lessened, untold numbers of undocumented individuals will be able to bypass the 3-year and 10-year bars that are clearly laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  I expect to hear from the Secretary if such a plan is being discussed by anyone within the department.  If it is, I will warn her that such an action, in my opinion, would be another blatant attempt to circumvent Congress and the laws we put in place.

On a final matter related to immigration, I’m very concerned by the administration’s inconsistent position when it comes to suing states for enacting various immigration laws.  The administration has sued Arizona and Alabama, two states that have enacted laws requiring their law enforcement officers to cooperate with the federal government on immigration matters.  News reports claim that attorneys are considering challenges to other state laws, including Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina.

But, what about cities and states that ignore federal law?  What about Cook County, Illinois, where the county adopted a new policy that orders sheriffs to ignore all federal requests to detain immigrants after they complete their sentence or post bail?  According to the Washington Post, “Less than a month after the board acted, more than 40 suspected illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of felonies have walked to freedom instead of into the arms of federal agents.”  This policy clearly puts the public at risk.

The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws.  This latest attempt to challenge a state’s efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.  I would like to know the Secretary’s thoughts about the actions of Cook County.

Next, I am interested to hear about efforts to slim down the Department of Homeland Security’s massive bureaucracy in order to make it more efficient in executing its mission.  I know that another committee is working on that issue, but it is also of concern to this committee because redundancy in programs inevitably leads to poor coordination of effort and waste of resources.  Every dollar available to the department should be spent on securing our borders, protecting critical infrastructure, and identifying and catching terrorists.  Thus, I am especially interested in learning about the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Policy, which has almost 200 personnel and more than $50 million for its budget.  I should note that I am not singling out Homeland Security in this regard; just last week I sent a letter to the Super-Committee urging the elimination of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy as a way to save money, since its functions seem redundant of other offices.   My consistent goal is to identify organizational reforms that will streamline the bureaucracy, save money, and better accomplish the mission.

I am also interested in hearing about how the department is implementing recommendations to improve FEMA’s process for awarding preparedness grants.  In 2010, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, found that FEMA “does not compare and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs to mitigate potential duplications and redundancy.”  As a result, 11 of the 13 programs that GAO reviewed allowed grant recipients to purchase interoperable communications equipment, such as radios.  GAO found that a single state agency could apply simultaneously to four of those programs and receive funding from all four.  FEMA would not realize the redundancy because it has different review processes for each of the four programs.  Similarly, GAO found that the responsibility for program management of the thirteen grants is split among five organizations.  Thus, for one program, the Office of Infrastructure Protection selects critical infrastructure sites for funding to enhance protection, but cannot validate with FEMA whether an applicant has requested similar protection under other grant programs.  Again, this type of redundancy inevitably leads to waste of resources and undermines the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.  I am eager to hear how the department has addressed this problem.

Finally, I have asked Secretary Napolitano in the past about the involvement of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer being detailed in Phoenix to ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious.  I also asked Secretary Napolitano at a hearing back in June about whether she had had any communications about Fast and Furious with her former chief of staff, Dennis Burke, who was the U.S. Attorney in Arizona responsible for Fast and Furious.  I did not get any response back from her.  Mr. Burke is to be commended, to some extent, for being the only person to resign and take responsibility for the failed operation.  Of course, I do not believe he should feel obligated to be the only fall guy.  If there are other higher-ranking officials at the Justice Department who should also be held accountable, they should also step up to take responsibility.

Thanks to the Secretary for appearing before us today.  I look forward to hearing from her.


Statement from Governor Pat Quinn Regarding Senate Bill 744 PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Katelyn Tye   
Monday, 24 October 2011 15:14

CHICAGO – October 17, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today released the following statement regarding Senate Bill 744.


“Over the past several months, my administration has conducted a thorough review of Senate Bill 744. After decades of fiscal mismanagement and ethical problems, a quick fix with significant and long-lasting consequences for our state is not the answer. My office has spent months examining the proposed bill’s potential economic, ethical, revenue and regulatory impacts. We studied the effects of gaming here and in other states. And I have met – at length – with both the bill’s supporters and opponents.


“Following this comprehensive review, I have determined this bill falls well short of the best interest of the people of Illinois. I will not sign SB 744 as it is currently proposed.


“To promote and protect the interests of the people of Illinois, I can only support a smaller, more moderate expansion that prevents corruption and provides adequate revenue for education.


“Illinois cannot expand gambling at all without ensuring proper oversight and full integrity. The Illinois Gaming Board must be equipped with ultimate oversight authority and the necessary tools to continue its exemplary record of keeping corruption out of our gaming industry.


“To prevent conflicts of interest, I also ask the legislature to take the additional step of banning campaign contributions to elected officials by gaming licensees and casino managers, as lawmakers in other states have done. If we allow any gambling expansion in Illinois, we should do so in good conscience, without the excessive influence of those that may benefit from such an expansion.


“Second, as I have said repeatedly, I believe the current bill is top-heavy with too many new gambling locations. I will only support a smaller, more balanced and modest expansion. As long as I’m Governor, Illinois will not become the Las Vegas of the Midwest.


“Lastly, I feel it is critical for any expansion to provide adequate revenue for state education and infrastructure. Any unfair tax breaks for lucrative casinos buried into this bill must be scaled back to ensure that the revenues generated go where they should – to statewide education and infrastructure.


“The attached framework represents a way forward on this issue, and I look forward to working with members of the General Assembly.”



<< Start < Prev 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Next > End >>

Page 168 of 207