Bloomington, IL (February 3, 2012)--State Farm reports nearly 3,000 openings across the United States and Canada.
State Farm's commitment to creating innovative solutions to serve customers and policyholders is generating employment opportunities.
"As we continue to define our workforce to best meet our customers' evolving needs, we are seeking skills and talents from numerous diverse labor markets," said State Farm Vice President Human Resources, Mary Schmidt.
Named a top employer, State Farm is a family of insurance and financial services companies that together serve tens of millions of customers. Our business lines offer more than 100 products.
State Farm has offices in all 50 states and three Canadian provinces. Current openings exist in:
  • Claims
  • Customer Service
  • IT/Systems
  • Underwriting

State's Support Helping to Create 1,800 Jobs

BELVIDERE - February 2, 2012. One day after laying out the Illinois Jobs Agenda for 2012 in his State of the State address, Governor Pat Quinn today announced that Chrysler Group LLC is ramping up production at its Belvidere plant to help build its next generation of vehicles. The company has invested $700 million to retool the plant and will begin production of the new Dodge Dart in the second quarter of 2012. In fall 2010, Governor Quinn announced a business investment package for the company that is supporting the creation of up to 1,800 new jobs and has been instrumental to Chrysler's decision to expand in Illinois.

"The auto industry is essential to growing our economy. Illinois automakers and their suppliers are thriving today because we have helped meet their needs," Governor Quinn said. "By providing companies like Chrysler with the tools they need, we're helping them not only succeed but thrive."

As part of its investment, Chrysler opened a 638,000 square-foot body shop to support production of the Dart, in addition to installing new machinery, tooling and material handling equipment. The new body shop increased the size of the Belvidere assembly plant to 4.8 million square feet. The plant also includes a 330,000-square-foot stamping plant. The Belvidere facility currently produces the Jeep® Compass and Jeep Patriot.

The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) is administering the state's business investment package. The package consists of EDGE tax credits, Employer Training Investment Program (ETIP) job-training funds that will help enhance the skills of the company's workforce, and Large Business Development Program funds for capital improvements. Chrysler will also benefit from being located in an Enterprise Zone.

"The Rock River Valley has emerged as a strong leader in the transportation industry, and Chrysler has undoubtedly played a major role in building that reputation," said DCEO Director Warren Ribley. "Today we're pleased to stand beside them as they chart a course towards the future that includes their continued commitment to Illinois."

Illinois added more than 52,000 jobs in 2011, and has added nearly 100,000 jobs since 2010. Since January 2010, Illinois has added almost 20,000 manufacturing jobs.

For more information on why Illinois is the right place for any business, visit www.illinoisbiz.biz.

 

###


By Ben Velderman
EAG Communications
CHESTER, Pa. - Three thousand students at Pennsylvania's largest charter school face the imminent risk of having their school year cancelled in the coming days or weeks, and seeing their school "stop operations" entirely due to a lack of funds.
That grim reality is a direct result of decisions by officials in the nearby Chester Upland School District to keep state funds legally owed to the Chester Community Charter School, and to use them instead to bail the district out of its "self-inflicted budgetary crisis."
That's according to a legal brief filed by attorneys representing the Chester Community Charter School in response to last month's judicial ruling that gave the Chester Upland School District a $3.2 million state bailout, and left the charter school holding almost $7 million in I.O.U. notes.
Attorneys for the Chester Community Charter School (CCCS) say the school faces a very real risk of shutting down because it cannot pay its bills.
As a result, it is "extremely likely that Chester Community Charter will have to stop operations, turning in excess of 3,000 students, nearly 700 with disabilities, out on the streets in the middle of the school year."
Jeff Dailey, an attorney who represents the families of 10 Chester Community Charter students in the ongoing legal dispute, told EAG that his clients "include children with cerebral palsy, dyslexia, reading issues and others, all of whom are in jeopardy of having their school shut down."
The charter school is facing insolvency because of the school district's "theft of money that should have gone to educate kids attending non-profit publicly established charter schools, like CCCS," Dailey wrote in an email.
Several of his special needs clients chose to attend the charter school because of its successful track record of serving special needs students.
These students have blossomed academically and socially since attending the charter school, Dailey said. If CCCS is forced into bankruptcy, those special needs students would be forced to attend the traditional school district (CUSD), which is unable to sufficiently meet their needs.
The students' continued success is very much in jeopardy, Dailey said.
Bailouts for school district, I.O.U.s for charter school
In Pennsylvania, school funding occurs on a monthly basis. The state government gives money to each school district, based on the number of students within that district.
From those funds, the school district is legally obligated to pass along the per-pupil amount it owes to the local charter schools, as determined by the number of students attending each charter. The traditional school districts act as the middle man in funding charter schools.
If a school district fails to pay the charter as required by law, the state is to deduct the amount owed to the charter school from "any and all state payments made to the district," according to the Pennsylvania charter school law.
The Chester Upland School District has not made its full monthly payments to Chester Community Charter Schools since March 2011. Beginning in April 2011, the state took over the payments and has sent $23.5 million to the charter school, but still owes it about $6.8 million.
Last December, the Chester Community Charter School filed a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania to recover the almost $7 million it's owed by the Chester Upland School District and - indirectly - the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
The charter school needs the $6.8 million - and the $3 million it's legally entitled to receive every month -  to pay employees, vendors, and its building leases. If no action is taken, CCCS faces a total deficit of $21.8 million.
It now appears the charter school may not be receiving any money from the state until CUSD's lawsuit against the state is resolved in the spring. The school district is suing the state for extra funding to make up for its ballooning budget problems.
As part of last month's $3.2 million temporary bailout given to the Chester Upland School District, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson prohibited the Pennsylvania Department of Education "from withholding subsidies to the Chester Upland School District until further order of the court."
Baylson ordered that the $3.2 million be given to CUSD "for the payment of salaries and compensation to school district employees and to the vendors of the school district." 

That's fine for the school district, but what about the charter school?
"The recent temporary deal between the Department of Education and the Chester Upland School District does not provide any money for the charter schools, and effectively closes off funding for the rest of the year," Dailey said.
On Monday, the Commonwealth Court denied the charter school's request for immediate payment from the state, and effectively said the school will have to make do until the scheduled hearing in April.
The court's decision means the charter school's deficit will be "$10 million on February 5 and over $13 million on March 5," an amount that "imperils CCCS and its students," charter school officials said in a press release.
"The implication of the ruling is that the charter school - and its three thousand Chester students - should suffer the negative effects of program reductions and layoffs in order to establish credibility for our reasonable efforts to obtain funding required to continue to provide high quality education to the children of the City of Chester," the release reads.
Charter suffers due to district mismanagement
Chester Community Charter School is not only the largest charter school in Pennsylvania, but it educates 60 percent of all K-8 students in the city of Chester.
Charter school officials note that the school has functioned within its financial means, and is only facing a financial crisis because CUSD officials have illegally withheld funding.
While the charter school receives less than the state's $13,700 per pupil average, its students have achieved Annual Yearly Progress (as defined by the No Child Left Behind law) for three consecutive years, according to the press release.
In contrast, the Chester Upland district "spends more than $17,000 to educate each student enrolled in a district school," Pennsylvania Education Secretary Ronald Tomalis recently wrote in a letter to state Sen. Andrew Dinniman.
"Moreover, CUSD has been the beneficiary of extraordinary state assistance for years," Tomalis writes, including "$9.5 million in special appropriations over and above those provided through the traditional means of funding all Pennsylvania's school districts."
"The District knows that it budgeted improperly, and it knows that it overspent available revenues," Tomalis writes.
While the Chester Upland district has mismanaged its resources and illegally spent the charter schools' resources, it is Chester Community Charter students who stand to suffer the consequences.
The charter school has taken out loans to meet its payroll, rent payments and daily expenses. The interest charged on these loans means the charter school will have less money to spend on students in the future.
"If CCCS is unable to make these payments, it will have catastrophic effects on CCCS's ability to continue operations," CCCS Chief Financial Officer Robert Olivo wrote in an affidavit.
Pennsylvania taxpayers are left to wonder why state officials are letting one of the state's most effective and fiscally responsible charter schools twist in the wind, even while more money is being poured into an ineffective and irresponsible government-run school district.
If Pennsylvania citizens want to understand what's wrong with their state's public education system, the case of Chester Community Charter School versus the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Education is a good place to start.
Contact Ben Velderman at ben@edactiongroup.org or (231) 733-4202

Council will Help Illinois Reach Ambitious Goal of Doubling Exports by 2014 

SPRINGFIELD - February 1, 2012. As part of his State of the State address today, Governor Pat Quinn announced the formation a new council that will help Illinois reach his ambitious goal of doubling the number of state exports by the end of 2014. The Governor's Export Advisory Council will work with the Governor and other state officials and agencies to provide recommendations aimed at improving Illinois' standing in the international marketplace.

"Illinois is home to world-class goods and services, and we should utilize all of our assets in order to market them around the world," Governor Quinn said. "Expanding trade opportunities in growth markets like China, Australia, Brazil and India puts Illinois products in the international marketplace and creates jobs here at home."

The council, which is headed by Navistar chairman and CEO Daniel C. Ustian, will work to increase exports by providing recommendations on state policies and programs with the goal of fully leveraging Illinois' competitive strengths in the international marketplace. The council will also advise the Governor on trade advocacy positions at the federal level, and council members will serve as international ambassadors for Illinois. Members will work to promote Illinois firms and the inherent advantages Illinois can offer countries seeking trade opportunities.

"The key for Illinois manufacturers and other businesses is to foster a strong environment for growth, and Governor Quinn shares my passion for creating those opportunities by developing a strong trade policy," said Ustian. "We have great companies and Illinois is rich in assets and talented workers. With business leaders and the Governor's administration working together, we can gain a competitive edge in the global economy."

The Governor's aggressive focus on harnessing and promoting the strength of Illinois companies abroad will have a significant impact on job creation at home. Devising and successfully implementing strategies to meet the 2014 target will result in the addition or retention of nearly 230,000 jobs in Illinois.

The Governor's Export Advisory Council will be made up of CEOs and other prominent leaders from the private and public sectors whose work in the international marketplace has uniquely positioned them to provide insight into Illinois' ability to significantly expand exports. For a complete list of members, please see the attachment.

The council will meet several times a year and will work with the Illinois Departments of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, and Agriculture. After identifying challenges to expand exports, the council will recommend policies and programs that will help Illinois better compete at a global level. It will also work with their peers in the private sector and Illinois companies to promote Illinois as a great state to do business.

For more information about Governor Quinn's State of the State address, please visit www.illinois.gov, and for more information about why Illinois is a great place to do business, please visit www.illinoisbiz.biz.

###

 

By Victor Skinner
EAG Communications
WASHINGTON, D.C. - It's no secret that Big Labor is dependent on dues and fees automatically withdrawn from the payroll checks of union members and non-members alike.
The automatic deductions funnel millions of dollars into public sector union coffers each year, with a portion frequently going toward partisan political causes and liberal candidates who promise to preserve or expand the unions' forced dues racket.
But this vicious cycle is finally being challenged in states and municipalities around the nation. Perhaps the most important challenge, Knox vs. Service Employees International Union, was heard earlier this month by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is one of a growing number of examples of how public employees, including public school teachers, are pushing back against forced union dues - something many consider a violation of their First Amendment rights. American citizens should not be forced to financially support an organization or political causes they don't agree with, union objectors rightly contend.
By forcing members and non-members to subsidize its radical political agenda, Big Labor may have finally cooked its Golden Goose.
SEIU wants to run from the case
The Supreme Court case stems from a "special assessment" that was automatically withdrawn from union and non-union state employees' checks in 2005 to help defeat a ballot proposal in California that would have made it illegal to force employees to pay dues that would be used for political purposes.

The plaintiffs, who are non-union members who pay a reduced fee in lieu of union dues, claim their rights were violated when they were charged more than their regular fees to support a union political effort.
They filed a lawsuit with the help of the National Right to Work Foundation, and a federal district court ordered SEIU to pay some of their money back, records show.
SEIU appealed the decision, the appeals court sided with the union, and the objecting non-union state employees took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then a funny thing happened. The union decided that it didn't want to pursue the case anymore, refunded the employees the full amount of the "special assessment," and is now arguing that the case is moot because there is no longer a claim, records show.
The NRTWF attorneys representing the employees say the case is still important because it would settle the question of whether union officials must give employees a chance to object to a special assessment before the union sticks its grubby hand in the cookie jar. Plus, the union never really acknowledged wrongdoing or promised not to do it again, NRTWF attorney James Young argued.
During the hearing, several justices keyed in on an important question: Why does the union want to drop its case now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it?
SEIU attorneys contend it's because the employees' money has been repaid in full, the union has complied with the district court's original order, and everything is now resolved.
We doubt very much that's the case.
Union leaders fear legal precedent
We believe that the real reason the union wants to run away from the case is to avoid the chance of a precedent-setting ruling that would inhibit its legal ability to take money from members and non-members to support political causes.

The union probably also fears a more expansive ruling, which could deny the right of public sector unions to automatically deduct dues from paychecks under any circumstances.
It's not clear when the court will issue a ruling in the case.
"In essence, the union has to acknowledge wrongdoing before a case is moot, and they've never done that," said Young, the attorney representing the plaintiffs.
"They fear what this court will do, and I think they have reason to," Young said, adding that a ruling could potentially have broad implications for how unions charge members and non-members.
A veteran labor attorney in Wisconsin, who has been representing school boards for decades, recently told EAG that public sector union leaders are mostly concerned with preserving the flow of dues money, and preserving the right to use that money for political causes they believe in.
He noted that many teachers unions across Wisconsin scrambled last year to extend their collective bargaining agreements with school boards. They wanted to get that done before the implementation of Act 10, which made it illegal for schools to deduct union dues from employee paychecks once the union contracts expire.
Union leaders in many districts were willing to sacrifice many employee perks to get their contracts extended. The one perk they desperately wanted to preserve was automatic dues deduction from paychecks, according to the attorney.
"All of a sudden they would call me and say, 'Let's settle this contract,'" the attorney said.  "It's all about the kids, right? The kids? Ha! They sold their members out for dues."
Employees don't pay when it's not required
There is a reason union officials are vigorously fighting to preserve the automatic dues deduction system.
Washington Post columnist George Will laid it out in an editorial during Big Labor's battle over Act 10 in Wisconsin last year.
"After Colorado in 2001 required public employees unions to have annual votes reauthorizing collection of dues, membership in the Colorado Association of Public Employees declined 70 percent. In 2005, Indiana stopped collecting dues from unionized public employees; in 2011, there are 90 percent fewer dues-paying members," Wills wrote.
"In Utah, the end of automatic dues deductions for political activities in 2001 caused teachers' payments to fall 90 percent. After a similar law passed in 1992 in Washington State, the percentage of teachers making such contributions declined from 82 to 11."
Perhaps union members are hesitant to voluntarily pay because they don't believe the benefits they receive from their unions are worth the dues. Perhaps it's because they don't like their union's aggressive political activities and negotiating tactics.
Regardless, the SEIU case and Right-to-Work legislation pending in numerous states is turning up the heat on Big Labor's forced dues racket.
And that's encouraging progress for public employees who have been forced to fund Big Labor's antics for far too long.
Contact Victor Skinner at vskinner@edactiongroup.org or (231) 733-4202

Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on Finance Hearing

"Extenders and Tax Reform: Seeking Long-Term Solutions"

Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012

There are almost 60 provisions that expired at the end of 2011, and there are even more that expire at the end of 2012. There is general agreement that all of these extenders need to be reviewed in the context of comprehensive tax reform. As we begin to consider what such reform would look like, it is important to discuss what, if any, goals and objectives, other than revenue collection, the tax code should accomplish.

The provisions that expired at the end of last year have various objectives. The non-revenue policy objectives vary from energy independence to job creation, from encouraging donations to charity to incentivizing capital investments and research.

This Committee has held numerous tax reform hearings the past two years.  Yet, we have not discussed what we should do about the numerous non-revenue policy objectives included in the current tax code.  This has also been ignored by the various witnesses who have come before the committee, including those here today.

In his written testimony, Mr. Johnson whimsically picks winners and losers by focusing on the revenue impact but fails to address the non-revenue reasons for many of the expired provisions.  He says they should remain dead. However, he does appear to support a movement to alternative fuels "because we import oil from trouble spots in the world and because fossil fuels pollute and lead to global warming".

However, he believes the existing regime of tax incentives should be eliminated because movement to alternative fuels is better accomplished through a carbon tax.  He also states that the oil industry is undertaxed.  While I appreciate his support for alternative energy, his statements ignore the need to consider whether tax provisions should be part of a domestic energy policy that includes oil drilling.

Ms. Sherlock, a witness at the December 14, 2011, hearing on energy tax extenders, noted in her written testimony, "the income tax code has long been used as a policy tool for promoting U.S. energy priorities".

The oil and gas industries have received massive, permanent tax breaks for over a hundred years.

In contrast, tax incentives for alternative energy have existed only for a few decades and have always been temporary. These incentives first appeared in the 1970s, in direct response to the oil crisis and they help to incentivize renewable resources.

Yet, discussions on incentives for the oil industry and for alternative energy often fail to consider that a key reason to support renewable energy sources should be energy independence.

The United States sends more than $400 billion each year overseas to buy foreign oil.  Now more than ever, the United States needs to ramp up domestic production of traditional energy -- including oil, natural gas, and coal -- and expand alternative fuels and renewable energy -- including wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and geothermal.

The U.S. Treasury pays out an average $84 billion a year to defend the shipping lanes by which foreign oil reaches the United States.  I do not see these costs in discussions of cost effectiveness of energy tax incentives.

Aside from energy independence, it is also important to consider the number of domestic jobs supported by the energy sector.

Clearly, in the short-term, Congress should extend tax incentives for alternative energy sources.  With the economy still sputtering, we cannot afford the job losses that occur from pulling the rug out from under industries like biodiesel and wind that are still developing.

In the long-term, however, we need to consider whether a permanent and comprehensive energy tax policy is appropriate and, such a policy should be developed in the context of comprehensive tax reform.

For sure, we need a tax system that is less complicated, fairer, and will make us more competitive in the global economy.  However, we need to consider whether and how to balance these principles against non-revenue policy objectives of priorities.  Energy independence is only one such objective.

-30-


Invest Illinois Venture Fund Providing Access to Capital for Young, High-Growth Companies to Create Jobs and Grow the Economy

CHICAGO - January 31, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn today announced the first investments from the state's new venture capital fund to support two Illinois start-up businesses, Buzz Referrals, Inc. and AuraSense Therapeutics. The Invest Illinois Venture Fund (IIVF) is a new venture capital program that is part of the $78 million Advantage Illinois program launched by Governor Quinn last October. The program supports young, innovative Illinois companies that show high growth potential, can demonstrate their place in the market and already have other investors.

"This new venture fund is allowing us to help small and start-up businesses increase innovation and competition, expand, and create good-paying jobs," Governor Quinn said. "We must continue to do everything we can to provide small businesses and entrepreneurs with the tools they need to grow in order to boost the economy, create jobs and compete in the global marketplace."

The state's $575,000 investment in Chicago-based start-up Buzz Referrals and Evanston-based AuraSense Therapeutics will help the two companies leverage $10.5 million in indirect private investment. The additional capital will help these companies continue to grow their businesses and create jobs. The additional capital will help these companies continue to grow their businesses and create jobs.

Founded in 2011, Buzz Referrals is a high-growth start-up business that develops and operates an online platform that creates custom referral programs based on social media. The platform allows corporations, small businesses, agencies, brokers and nonprofits to create and track online messaging that can be shared via email, social networks and word-of-mouth to maximize their contacts and customers. The IIVF helped Buzz Referrals leverage additional investments, which will enable the company to increase its staff size from four full-time employees to 20 full-time employees over the next two years.

"We'd like to thank Governor Quinn and the state of Illinois for their commitment to entrepreneurship and startups through the Invest Illinois Venture Fund," said Jordan Linville, CEO and co-founder of Buzz Referrals. "Buzz Referrals offers simple and cost-effective solutions to help businesses acquire new customers through referral marketing. The IIVF's funding and resources will accelerate our growth and help Buzz Referrals be a leader within this space."

AuraSense Therapeutics, founded in early 2011, is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing and commercializing spherical nucleic acid (SNA™) constructs, which can help fight diseases such as heart disease, cancer, skin conditions and bacterial infection. With the capital leveraged through the IIVF, the company expects to greatly accelerate the development and growth of multiple therapeutics and create dozens of jobs over the next three years.

"We are delighted to have Illinois' new venture fund as part of the syndicate investing in AuraSense Therapeutics. Their participation is not only important validation of the AuraSense mission and gene regulation platform, but also will be key in transitioning the technology to important new therapeutics for a wide variety of debilitating diseases," said Chad Mirkin, co-founder of AuraSense Therapeutics.

Governor Quinn launched the Advantage Illinois program in October 2011 to provide Illinois businesses and entrepreneurs with the access to the capital they need to start new companies and expand existing businesses. Advantage Illinois will leverage $78 million in federal funding that will allow businesses to bring innovative ideas and new products to market, and accelerate job creation and economic growth in Illinois. The IIVF is supported by the Governor's Illinois Innovation Council, which is actively working to execute strategies to enhance awareness of capital availability in Illinois and connect the dots between great ideas and the partners who can help turn ideas into companies and products.

In addition to the IIVF, the Advantage Illinois program is comprised of several components to spur institutional lending, including the Capital Access Program (CAP), the Participation Loan Program (PLP) and the Collateral Support Program (CSP). Some small businesses may also be eligible to receive Advantage Illinois financing. Businesses interested in participating in the IIVF may submit their applications online to DCEO at www.ildceo.net/AdvantageIllinois.

Advantage Illinois builds upon Governor Quinn's commitment to enhancing business growth. The Advantage Illinois initiative is expected to generate a minimum of at least $10 in new private lending for small and medium-sized businesses for every $1 of federal funding, resulting in around $800 million of private sector investments and loans being pumped into the economy over the next few years. The Brookings Institution recently noted more than 95 percent of new jobs are derived from business expansions or start-up activity.

Administered by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO), funding for Advantage Illinois is being provided by the U.S. Treasury through the State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI), which was created as part of the American Small Business Jobs Act signed into law by President Obama in 2010.

"Through the IIVF, we are giving businesses a booster shot in the form of deploying new tools to ease the credit crunch they have experienced in recent years, improve the field of play and give Illinois companies an advantage against the competition," said DCEO Director Warren Ribley. "We will continue to target investments in every area of the economy to help keep moving Illinois forward."

Governor Quinn announced the first investments from the state's new venture fund today at Chicago-based Excelerate Labs, a business incubator and accelerator for startups driven by proven entrepreneurs and investors. Today's announcement is part of Governor Quinn's aggressive business agenda that is helping move the Illinois economy forward. The state maintains a large portfolio of programs, which is designed to help Illinois businesses thrive in today's economy. For more information, please visit www.ilbiz.biz.

 

###

(ROCK ISLAND, IL)–Kristin Lohse, Davenport, IA, was presented the Royal Neighbors of America 2011 Employee of the Year Award by Cynthia Tidwell, President/CEO.

The award program was created to annually recognize an employee who demonstrates professionalism and integrity; shares knowledge and resources with others; embraces the organization's mission; and goes above and beyond to respond to external and internal customers. Employees are nominated for this prestigious award by fellow co-workers. The award comes with a vacation package of Kristin's choice, valued at up to $2,000, and three extra vacation days.

Kristin joined Royal Neighbors in 2010 as a marketing specialist. Her responsibilities include planning and managing the implementation of marketing projects involving branding, product management, research, advertising, member management, and distribution strategies.

"Kristin has been a great addition to our team," said Ms. Tidwell. "Her strong work ethic, professionalism, and marketing expertise are a wonderful asset to our organization."

Royal Neighbors of America, one of the nation's largest women-led life insurance organizations, exists for the benefit of its members. It offers insurance products to fulfill financial needs of growth, savings, and protection. Members receive valuable benefits and can participate in volunteer activities through the organization's local chapters to help make a difference in their communities. The organization's philanthropic efforts are dedicated to changing women's lives through its national programs, including the Nation of NeighborsSM Program, and through the Royal Neighbors Foundation, a 501c(3) public charity.

Headquartered in Rock Island, IL, with branch offices in Mesa, AZ, and Austin, TX, Royal Neighbors serves more than 215,000 members and is licensed to do business in 42 states and the District of Columbia.

For more information about Royal Neighbors of America, call (800) 627-4762, or visit www.royalneighbors.org.

Picture: Kristin Lohse, Royal Neighbors of America 2011 Employee of the Year, at left, and Cynthia Tidwell, President/CEO of Royal Neighbors, at right.

 

END


Greensboro, NC - January 30, 2012– The C12 Group is celebrating its 20th year as America's leading equipper of Christian chief executives through its peer CEO roundtables and cutting-edge business and ministry resources.  C12 was founded in 1992 by Buck Jacobs, a dedicated Christian CEO and author, who began working with business leaders that desired to "go deeper" in their businesses. For the last 20 years, Buck has witnessed the steady growth of new Chairs and members becoming part of C12.  He remarked, "The greatest blessing that I have in C12 is seeing and hearing how it serves and contributes to others."

The C12 Group has grown to more than 1000 members in 100 groups and 75 metro areas across America.  In recent months, new C12 Groups have been launched in Albuquerque, Houston, Northern Virginia, Little Rock, Central Maryland and Central Wisconsin.  C12 Group members span from a wide variety of industries and range in size from $1 million to more than $1 billion in annual sales.   All of this started from one Christian CEO roundtable practice with three groups in the Tampa Bay area.  According to Don Barefoot, C12's President and CEO, "C12 has been a source of blessing to more than 3000 Christian CEOs, Presidents and Owners, as well as an estimated 12 to 15 million stakeholders in these companies."

Because of the growth of C12, Chairs and members are increasingly being sought for quotes by national publications and to speak at national conferences like the Dallas' Right Now Conference in Nov. 2011 where Don Barefoot and a local Dallas-area C12 member spoke and the upcoming June 2012 Business Ethics Today Symposium in Philadelphia where Buck Jones is scheduled to speak.

The C12 Group was founded in 1992 by Buck Jacobs.  C12's growing network of more than 100 groups in 75 metro areas across America and is comprised of Christian CEOs and business owners who are seeking to grow both professionally and spiritually through iron-sharpening-iron interaction with other like-minded chief executives.

#  #  #

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

The Erosion of Checks and Balances

Monday, January 30, 2011

One week ago today, I addressed the Senate on President Obama's decision to bypass the Senate and the Constitution by making four "recess" appointments at a time when the President's recess appointment power did not apply.  I explained in detail why the legal memo released by the Obama Administration attempting to justify President Obama's actions did not hold legal water.  Last Thursday, I laid out the case that this is not an isolated incident or a technical legal squabble.  Rather, the President's recent actions are part of a pattern of disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances.  Today I would like to address why such criticisms are justified and why they are necessary.

First, is it legitimate for a U.S. Senator to criticize a legal opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel and the Senate confirmed head of that office?  I have no doubt that senators may criticize such opinions and, when the facts warrant, ask whether that office and its head are exercising the independence that is required for the Constitution to be upheld.  Some in the media apparently disagree.  They say that it is wrong for a senator to ever criticize a Senate confirmed official's independence and judgment.  They say that all a senator can do is criticize the official's substantive arguments.  Nonsense.  When the media makes these claims, it merely  seeks to divert attention from the weakness of the opinion's actual conclusions and reasoning.

In my statement last week, I laid out my disagreements with the content of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.  Of course, senators and administration officials can reach different conclusions on the law.  Each can have a reasonable point of view.  But that is not the case here.

If the Office of Legal Counsel is to be the "constitutional conscience of the administration" that some in the media characterize it to be, it must exercise a certain level of independence.  As I mentioned in my statement, when a President who takes an expansive view of his power asks Justice Department officials who  owe their job to him whether he has the constitutional or legal authority to take action, there is always the chance that pressure will overtake their responsibilities to provide their best legal judgment.  That is why at Ms. Seitz confirmation hearing and in follow up communications, we took such painstaking effort to give her the opportunity to state on the record her commitment to providing independent legal advice.  To make sure that she would place loyalty to the law and the Constitution above her loyalty to the President.

Ms. Seitz promised to act independently.  She promised not to stand idly by if she thought the Constitution was being violated.

The only way to tell whether the office has given independent advice - the only way to tell whether pressure has been resisted - is to review the arguments and reasoning that OLC provides.  The media cannot address whether criticism of the head of that office is independent and has used good judgment without such a review.  It is not enough that the media might agree with her conclusion.

In this case, the analysis in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion was so poor as to raise legitimate questions concerning judgment and independence.  The Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to give the President objective legal advice before he acts.  It is not supposed to provide a weakly thought out rationalization for a presidential decision to act that has already been made.  Here, the arguments in the opinion are so weak that a fair-minded person can question the independence and judgment of the opinion's author.

For instance, the opinion is internally inconsistent.  It correctly recognizes that a president's ability to make recess appointments turns on the capacity of the Senate to conduct business.  But in determining whether the pro forma sessions constitute a recess, the opinion does not consider at all the capacity of the Senate to conduct business and on what it could do.  Rather, it relies on what individual senators said.  And it ignores not only what theoretically the capacity the Senate had to act, but even its actual actions.

Similarly, the established meaning of "recess" is the same each time it appears in the Constitution.  Giving the term the same meaning means that the President can make recess appointments, but that this is a limited power.  The Office of Legal Counsel opinion, contrary to clearly established precedent, inconsistently defines the term "recess" differently when it is used in different parts of the Constitution.  The only thing consistent in the opinion is that it interprets "recess" each time in a way that expands the power of the President to make recess appointments, and in such a way as to leave open the question whether that power is limited in any meaningful way.

Former federal circuit judge Michael McConnell, himself a former Justice Department lawyer who has defended presidential power, found the arguments in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion to be so "implausible" that "[i]t is difficult to escape the conclusion that OLC is simply fashioning rules to reach the outcome it wishes."  Since the outcome the Office of Legal Counsel wishes is to expand presidential power contrary to the text of the Constitution and also many decades of historical practice, it is quite fair to question the independence, judgment, and adherence to statements made during the confirmation process by the head of that office.

The media, again focused more on personalities than on substance, will say that the Bush Administration reached a similar conclusion, so how could Ms. Seitz be criticized?  First, President Bush did not make recess appointments when the Senate was in pro forma session.  Second, President Bush did not even claim that he could make such recess appointments, while declining to do so.  Third, his Office of Legal Counsel did not issue any opinion that would be binding on future Justice Department advice.

Unlike the public actions of the Senate confirmed head of OLC, a lower level official in the Bush Administration apparently wrote a secret memorandum to the file on this subject.  The existence of such a memorandum was not known until the Office of Legal Counsel opinion referred to it and sought to rely on it.  It is not possible to evaluate the reasoning of that memorandum because the Department of Justice has not agreed to release it despite my request that it do so.

If the Office of Legal Counsel is to exercise the independent judgment that is necessary for it to properly perform its functions, it cannot rely on secret memos from lower level officials.  That approach creates incentives for the Office of Legal Counsel heads to avoid accountability.  An incentive is created for the preparation of secret memoranda that make outlandish claims of presidential power.  No one knows of the memo, so its arguments do not face the transparency of public scrutiny.  The President and the Office of Legal Counsel take no responsibility for its conclusions.

Then the Office of Legal Counsel later issues a public opinion on the subject.  To bolster very weak arguments, it cites the earlier memo.  It avoids transparency as well, by keeping the memorandum secret, so no one can see that the opinion's weak arguments may be supported by only other weak arguments.  And it avoids accountability by suggesting that this question was already decided, by an earlier Office of Legal Counsel.  Instantly, the number of administrations that support expanded presidential power goes from zero to two, neither one of which is said to be responsible for that expansion.  That bootstrapping can never lead to a reasoned, objective analysis of presidential power.  It cannot produce the independent Office of Legal Counsel that Ms. Seitz promised the Senate that she would provide.

The media has also made the strange argument that Ms. Seitz's opinion must be professional and her judgment and independence cannot be questioned because of her high professional reputation.  This is backward.  The legitimacy of the arguments contained in a legal opinion is not established by the reputation of the person who wrote them.  Reputations are not static.   They are established by the quality of the professional work, not the other way around.

In the past, a Democratic prominent senator called for a judge to resign because of his legal work as Office of Legal Counsel head.  The Washington Post in an earlier editorial criticized the opinions of other Bush Administration OLC lawyers as displaying "the logic of criminal regimes" and "bringing shame to American democracy."  If the Post truly believes that criticizing Office of Legal Counsel lawyers beyond the pale, they should retract their earlier opinion and condemn the far harsher rhetoric that was hurled against Bush Office of Legal Counsel lawyers.

Now I would like to explain why my criticisms were not just legitimate, but necessary.  Last Thursday, I laid out in great detail a long series of abuses of executive authority, and usurpations of legislative authority, by President Obama and his Administration.  In fact, he's made his willingness to bypass Congress a campaign issue with slogans like "We can't wait for Congress" splashed across the White House website.  President Obama has made the decision to run for re-election not on his record, for obvious reasons, but against Congress.  In doing so, he's daring Congress to defend its role as the representative of Americans from each of the 50 states in the face of his unilateral agenda.

Some have suggested that this is a clever political trap laid by President Obama-that if Congress resists the President's power grabs, it will validate his slogans and play into his electoral strategy.  That may or may not be true.  However, the stakes are greater than the next presidential election, and the implications of the President's actions will be felt well beyond any short term political gain.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution foresaw the temptation by one branch of government to try to usurp the powers of others.  In Federalist 51, James Madison explained how the Constitution was designed to prevent power grabs through an ingenious system of checks and balances.  He wrote-

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

Of course, this assumes a desire on the part of each branch to guard its constitutionally granted powers.  If some members of Congress are not willing to resist an encroachment because they place party loyalty above their constitutional responsibilities, or if members are reluctant to push back for fear of political consequences, then the system of checks and balances will not work as intended.  All members of Congress swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That is our first obligation.

I would like to be clear that this is not an argument about constitutional semantics, but one of fundamental principle.  As Madison explains in Federalist 51, the "separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government" is "essential to the preservation of liberty."  This also goes beyond an argument about the ends to which President Obama has used the new powers he has claimed.  His agenda is controversial to be sure, or he would not have had to bypass Congress.  Still, even those who support this President's policies should not be so quick to look the other way.  Once the walls separating the powers allotted to each branch of government are eroded, they will not easily be rebuilt.

The most eloquent expression of the philosophy on which our nation was founded is in the Declaration of Independence.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."  Based on these fundamental principles, the Constitution laid out a form of government designed to protect individual rights by resisting the concentration of power.  This can be frustrating to those who would like a more activist government.  Still, these features of our Constitution perform an important role in preventing one faction of Americans from dominating another.

I am sure that President Obama is convinced that his agenda is what's best for the country and that the ends justify the means in pursing that agenda.  Naturally, he doesn't see any danger in concentrating power in the Presidency, because he believes he will use that power wisely.  Moreover, he has gone out of his way to identify himself with the school of thought that the constitutional separation of powers is an outdated barrier to change.

Last month, President Obama gave a speech in Kansas in which he sought to link his agenda to Teddy Roosevelt's famous "New Nationalism" speech at the same place in 1910.  The original speech marked the beginning of Roosevelt's break with many of his past policies and with the incumbent Republican president, William Howard Taft.  Roosevelt then went on to challenge Taft in the 1912 election on the Progressive Party ticket.

In the 1910 speech, which President Obama paid tribute to, Roosevelt described his New Nationalism as "...impatient of the impotence which springs from overdivision of governmental powers."  He explained that his philosophy, "...regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare."  The progressive view of the separation of powers was described at length in Woodrow Wilson's Constitutional Government in which he writes, "The makers of the Constitution constructed the federal government upon a theory of checks and balances which was meant to limit the operation of each part and allow to no single part of organ of it a dominating force; but no government can be successfully conducted upon so mechanical a theory.  Leadership and control must be lodged somewhere..."  Of course, he determines that President is where this "leadership and control" should be lodged.

This philosophy seeks to fundamentally transform the United States from a nation founded on the principle that protecting the unalienable natural rights of each citizen is the paramount goal of government, to one that empowers an enlightened elite to take whatever actions they deem necessary to correct perceived wrongs in society.  This may start out with good intentions.  But, there is no guarantee that, once our constitutional protections are gone, future leaders will always act in the most enlightened way.  In fact, the single-minded pursuit of a better society at the expense of individual rights has led to some of history's worst tyrannies.

Moreover, not only is a concentration of power in the Executive Branch contrary to the founding principles of our nation, it is foreign to the realities of American civic life.  With a country as large and diverse as ours, no one individual can claim to speak on behalf of all Americans.  Our constitutional system, based on federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances, helps ensure that each American has the opportunity to live their life as they see fit.  I return to the words of James Madison, "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."  The voices of all Americans deserve to be heard through their elected representatives in Congress.  That is what is at stake here.  Those of us who were elected to represent the people of our state should do just that or we don't deserve to be here.

-30-


Pages