SUNDAY, MARCH 4, 2012 AT 4PM

THE CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

30 N. CLINTON STREET, IOWA CITY

IOWA CITY - SUNDAYS AT FOUR, a free community arts series, will present JOY KILLS SORROW, a Boston-based string band, on March 4 at 4pm, at the Congregational United Church of Christ, 30 N. Clinton Street in Iowa City.

Joy Kills Sorrow is a "newgrass" band with five young performers who joined together in Boston after their classical training.  Iowa City native Bridget Kearney is the bassist and primary songwriter for the band.

Come and spend an hour with the lamenting music of the heartland, singular stories of heartache and laughter, beautiful string arrangements and pure ensemble singing.

For more information on the SUNDAYS AT FOUR series, call 319-337-4301 or visit the church's website at www.uccic.org.  The Congregational United Church of Christ is located at 30 N. Clinton Street, across from the University of Iowa Pentacrest.  The Church is handicapped-accessible.

By: Marsha Friedman

We recently lost a legend, boxing coach and trainer Angelo Dundee, the cornerman for world heavyweight champ Muhammad Ali.

I'm a huge fan of world championship boxing - and boxing doesn't get huger than Ali!

He was one of the great athletes who relied on "Angie" to advise him in the ring. Neither Ali nor Sugar Ray Leonard, both powerful and gifted, were crazy enough to think they could win all by themselves.

And yet, look at how many of us make that very mistake!

I published Celebritize Yourself in the spring of 2009. At the time, I'd been in public relations for nearly 19 years. My book was a how-to, based on my experience, for building yourself as an expert in your field - an expert celebrity, if you will.  Part of the method in my book is how to get lots of media exposure and how to be a great guest. Hello!? Of course I didn't need anyone's help with media for Celebritize Yourself! And even if I thought I did, how foolish would that look - the PR expert getting help with her PR?

But the reality is, we all need a coach. Ali and Leonard needed Coach Dundee. Giants quarterback Eli Manning needed Coach Tom Coughlin on Super Bowl Sunday. Tiger Woods has a swing coach and he had a life coach, his dad Earl Woods. Judging from the way things turned out after the elder Woods passed away, Tiger still needed a life coach.

When I set out to develop my media message for Celebritize Yourself, I found it a much bigger challenge than I'd expected. What comes completely naturally for me in helping clients was not at all natural when it came to my own book. Spending months immersed in writing will do that to a person. I became so involved in writing, I had a hard time stepping back and objectively assessing the options.

So I called my good friend Lee Habeeb, a media coach to many of the stars of talk radio: Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt and Bill Bennett.

Lee readily came to my rescue - and assured me that getting some coaching for my own book promotion was not only quite all right, it was essential. We spent many hours discussing critical messages he saw in Celebritize Yourself that I never would have spotted on my own - being too blinded by the trees to have any view of the forest.  We worked on sound-bite answers and alternate ways to get my message out.  He shared experiences from his days as executive producer of The Laura Ingraham Show, when guests would be cut short because of how boring they were or their infomercial approach. All good lessons from a pro.

So often I've heard writers and entrepreneurs, some of whom have spent years on their projects, say they plan to "handle the marketing" alone after they've finally finished. That's like entering a crowded playing field wearing blinders. When you're so close to what you've created, when you've been living with it in your head for so long, it's difficult to see the full spectrum of marketing angles and possibilities.

Your novel about brothers fighting against each other in the Civil War could also make you the perfect person to talk about patriotism, family, fraternal bondsand the importance of standing up for personal convictions.

Your supplement for joint pain could be a springboard for a Valentine's Day talk radio discussion of enjoying romance despite chronic pain; it could become an article with tips for exercises to supplement the supplement; it could even turn into a story about active grandparenting.

After you've poured heart and soul into a book, product or business, at the very least, get some coaching from friends who know your project, or fellow writers and entrepreneurs who have had their own successes.  Best of all would be finding people with experience in the media. Brainstorm the possibilities for publicizing your effort and you'll soon see the potential for angles and messages that are far greater than you might have imagined alone.

If you've set high goals and you're serious about the results, consider hiring a professional. It worked for Muhammad Ali!

About Marsha Friedman

Marsha Friedman is a 21-year veteran of the public relations industry and a sought after national public speaker on the power of publicity. She is the founder and CEO of EMSI Public Relations (www.GuaranteedNationalPR.com), a national firm that provides PR strategy, promotion and publicity services to corporations, entertainers, authors and professional firms. Marsha is also the author of the book, Celebritize Yourself: The 3-Step Method to Increase Your Visibility and Explode Your Business. When she is not running her business, she has Cherish the Children, a non-profit foundation that helps under-privileged local foster children.

Prepared Opening Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Executive Business Meeting

Thursday, February 16, 2012

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

We have a request to hold over the Hurwitz nomination.  We can voice vote out the remaining nominees - Baker, Lee, Tharp and Russell.

 

Before we vote on the nominations, I'd like to say a few words about the release of the President's fiscal 2013 budget that was released earlier this week.  Specifically, I want to talk about the Department of Justice budget which this committee has a distinct interest in reviewing.

 

The Justice Department budget, like the rest of the President's fiscal 2013 budget, is loaded full of budgetary gimmicks and sleight of hand.

 

While the budget claims to be nearly $1.8 billion below the fiscal 2012 appropriations, many of the savings achieved in this budget are one-time recessions from existing balances that remain in Justice Department accounts.  These one-time recessions are more than just deceiving, they are actually harmful to the long-term viability of the federal government's budget.

 

For example, those who attended yesterday's hearing heard from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about how the Justice Department has been carrying over a balance in the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program dating back as far as fiscal 1999.  According to GAO, those funds include $27 million sitting in an account that could be deobligated and used to offset future appropriations.  This is the same tactic being used by the department throughout the rest of its budget.

 

Now, using unspent or unallocated funds is a good thing?and the department shouldn't be carrying over significant balances?otherwise, we'll need to cut down future appropriations.  However, this becomes a problem when these one-time recessions are used to offset base-line spending increases?as the department's fiscal 2013 budget does.

 

These one-time recessions are used to mask spending increases for a variety of Justice Department accounts.  For instance, the Marshals Service has a net increase of $29 million, but it only appears to be a $12 million increase to the baseline when offset with $17 million in one-time recessions from construction and salary funds.  The FBI appears to be reduced by $48 million, but in reality the FBI sees a net budget increase of $114 million, offset by a one-time recession of $162 million.

 

Same story with the Drug Enforcement Administration budget where they show a net increase of only $10 million, when in fact the baseline increase is $25 million offset by $15 million in recessions.  The list goes on and on throughout the rest of the budget.

 

Perhaps the most concerning part of the department's budget is the fact that many of the spending increases will be paid for out of the Crime Victims Fund.  This fund was created in 1984 by the Victims of Crime Act.  It is financed by fines and penalties paid by convicted federal offenders, not from tax dollars.  The funds in the account are to be used for victim's services and assistance.

 

For years, the fund has had an administrative cap placed on it by the Appropriations Committee.  This arbitrary cap limits the amount of funds that go to help victims, creating an additional funding stream for appropriators to pay for programs they want to fund.

 

The fiscal 2013 budget does manage to increase this cap from $705 million, to just over $1 billion.  This should be good news for victims, but it is not.

 

Instead of providing this money to victims, the department's budget, in the department's own words, "proposes to preserve important OVW and OJP grant programs that directly or indirectly assist victims of crime by funding them through [Crime Victims Fund] receipts...rather than with discretionary budget authority."  So, instead of asking Congress to fund grant programs, the department is asking to use Crime Victims Fund money to pay for programs that "indirectly assist victims".

 

This is a significant change and one that allows the Justice Department to continue to increase funding for bureaucratic components like the Criminal Division, Civil Division, Tax Division, and law enforcement components like the FBI, DEA, and Marshals, while decreasing net expenditures.

 

What this does is essentially allow the Justice Department to increase the size of the bureaucracy, without looking like they're spending more money.  Instead, the crime victims fund takes the hit.

 

This is not a budget that seeks to lead for the future.  It is not a budget that faces the reality that the federal government is too big already.  It is an election year ploy to say they are cutting the budget while using gimmicks to pay for it.

 

The only solace is that Majority Leader Reid has already signaled that he has no intention of bringing such a dead on arrival budget to the Senate floor.

 

So, keeping with the practice that the Senate Majority has followed for more than 1,000 days, we don't really need to worry about voting for the gimmicks in the department's budget.  However, we'll need to keep an eye out so that these gimmicks don't find their way into an appropriations bill.

 

Thank you.