Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.
Robert Frost
The Illinois State Supreme Court Decision:
Rahm Emanual's Eligibility to Run for Chicago Mayor: Thumbs DOWN!
First of all, let me point out I have no dogs in this fight: I don't really care which Democrat mismanages the city (so long as the federal government doesn't bail out Chicago). Second, I'm not a fan of what I regard as unnecessary restrictions on elective office (or jobs). In part, that's why I haven't really concerned myself with the debate over Barack Obama's birth certificate. To be honest, I don't agree with the Constitutional requirement barring eligibility of naturalized citizens from the Presidency. A number of jobs (e.g., school teachers) requires local residency, which I think unduly restricts the potential employee pool. I personally feel that Rahm Emanuel, a former area multi-term Congressman, knows the city quite well and has been a legitimate resident for years and have absolutely no problem with his running for the job of mayor. The issue is, when you do have a residency requirement, whether or not it's salient to the job requirements, do you enforce it reasonably, consistently and fairly?
But for the court to rule 7-0 that, in fact, Rahm Emanuel was a resident over the past year in Chicago, is absolutely ludicrous. (Although it doesn't really affect the decision outcome per se, it seems fairly clear at least two judges (including the chief justice) had appearance of conflict of interest.) It all boils down to a lack of specificity of what is meant or intended by the criterion, and it seems fairly clear that by any common sense interpretation, Rahm Emanuel has not been a resident of the city of Chicago.
I should point out that Emanuel had several other sympatheizers, including former Republican Governor Jim Edgar and Attorney General Jim Ryan, whom felt that the appellate court, in reversing Emanuel's residency, had created a "new" standard: what about Lincoln and others, whom worked out of state? In fact, the election code clearly says: "No elector or spouse shall be deemed to have lost his or her residence in any precinct or election district in this State by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States, or of this State."
In fact, the state Supreme Court mocked the appellate court:
[The] appellate court found that the candidate unquestionably was a qualified elector, it concluded that he did not meet the residency requirement of section 3.1–10–5 because he did not “actually reside” or “actually live” in Chicago for the entire year next preceding the election. The court did so without ever explaining what it meant by the terms “actually reside” or “actually live.”Doesn't that remind you of Clinton's sophistic comment "that depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"? Or Justice Potter Stewart's famous discussion of hardcore porn "I know it when I see it"? I wonder what the justices would have said if the appellate court had simply said, "I know what it means to be a Chicago resident during the year preceding an election, and Rahm Emanuel was not such a resident."
Now I suspect that the city may need to tighten up exactly what it means in the future so this won't happen again, e.g., you show evidence of timestamped residential bills in your name (electric power, car insurance, newspaper, cable, water, and phone); the post office actively delivers mail, only in your/your family's name, to your local address and/or local post office box; vendor invoices and delivery receipts to your address; past year magazines or other regular publications with your stamped address; your auto insurance and registration tied to your local residence; all wages are subject to any relevant local and state income tax; you can show a pattern of personally signed (credit card slips), timestamped transactions by local merchant (e.g., restaurant, oil changes, gasoline, dry cleaning, grocery, home repairs and parking); Sunday church contribution receipts by date; and independently verified attendance at local meetings and events (photos, sign-in sheets, roll calls, documented in-person interviews or local media appearances).
I've done the road warrior bit as a consultant, but my travel expenses were well-documented (hotel, auto, restaurant, flights, and airport parking) and I returned home on weekends, picked up mail, shopped and worked out--and flew out Sunday afternoons/evenings. I suspect many legislators do the same type thing (and/or hold town halls, etc., on weekends).
Now I think what I just wrote here is just a common sense partial listing off the top of my head; why it didn't seem to occur to the justicies, say, items you have to submit to show proof of residence for getting a drivers license or registering to vote and ask if Rahm Emanuel would be able to qualify for residency beyond merely owning property in Illinois. They admit, at one point, Rahm Emanuel is paying income taxes both Illinois and DC. (I suspect that Rahm Emanuel is paying wage taxes in DC and passive rental income in Illinois.) I was not impressed by the fact, say, he left some personal items at the house (say, the garage or attic). I don't think it was particularly relevant.
The way I see it (but again, those lawyers and legislators in Illinois are so smart, maybe they already thought of this), there are two types of residency--active and inactive. In my view, Rahm Emanuel's residency was inactive, and he would reestablish active residency once he moved back into his own house (or a new purchased property). I was a military brat whom lived on military bases (technically not part of the states in the sense you didn't pay state sales taxes, etc., on base), so I could see why my Dad was still technically a Massachusetts resident even though most of Air Force career he lived out of state (and he never reestablished residency once he retired). But it was natural for him to cast a Massachusetts ballot if he was going to vote. That being said, if Fall River has had a residency requirement for city office, I would agree my Dad didn't qualify, having had lived outside the state for over 15 years.
More to the point, the Illinois Supreme Court simply ignored inconvenient truths. It wasn't just whether Rahm Emanuel was a resident in theory, but whether he was a resident over the past year. Saying that he owned the house and paying taxes on the property doesn't mean squat; the tenants are covering his property taxes through their rent. I'm sure lots of people own homes in multiple states. Interestingly, the Supreme Court brings up the example of what if they spent 10 months in Chicago and 2 months in, say, their Florida winter home. Do they qualify? Here's my take: they didn't say "former residents"; they didn't say the last 2 or 3 months before the election; they didn't say property owners. It was clear they didn't want carpetbagging candidates (like Alan Keyes during the 2004 Illinois US Senate campaign); they wanted candidates well-versed in CURRENT local issues. Maybe Rahm Emanuel has kept up with how badly his fellow progressives have run the city of Chicago into the ground.
I am not impressed with elaborate houses of cards that lawyers and legislators build to the extent that the Illinois State Supreme Court rules UNANIMOUSLY against a common sense reading of what a prior year residency requirement plainly means:
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. (Matthew 11:25)
HELL, NO! We Won't Go! AMTRAK V. 2.0:
NOW--An Even FASTER Way to Burn Tax Money
Tea Party Express: Are You Listening?
Shuster (R-PA), Mica (R-FL) Are F-CINO
"Fiscal Conservative In Name Only"
This is EXACTLY how a Republican Congress in the 2000's lost its way: they become chairs of various committees--and then pursue spending that has more to do with exercising power than to fiscal discipline. Shuster is head of the Railroad Subcommittee and Mica is chair of the superset Transportation Committee. And both of them are promoting the smoke-and-mirrors accounting of Barack Obama's high-speed rail initiative.
What part of Japan's enormous public debt (over twice their GDP) resulting in recent debt downgrades do people not understand? (Japan has "invested" heavily in high-speed rails.) China seems to be adapting the concept to mega-cities (e.g., a 42M metropolis to the northwest of Hong Kong.) But in many cases the main motivation in China's case was to divert passengers from slow rail in order to improve freight train utilization; the problem is the prices of high-speed trains approached the prices of airline seats, beyond the budget for many Chinese, whom simply downsized to more affordable long-distance bus services--aggravating China's already congested highways. Can anyone say "unexpected consequences"?
Follow-Up to Taco Bell Beef Kerfuffle
I did a write-up on this last Wednesday--and I'm proud to that I'm one of the few bloggers I know whom have come down primarily on Taco Bell's side of the dispute. In fact, almost every other post is accepting the allegation, chapter and verse. The plaintiffs in the case have been very secretive about the nature of their sampling and testing which is a red flag to any empirical researcher like myself.
But it would be very unusual for company management to have published its ingredient list (before the incident) and to directly argue that 88% of its taco meat mix is ground beef unless it was confident through whatever quality control processes are done that the results would bear this out. There's a huge difference between 35% and 88% that is far beyond any conventional standard error of measurement.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- A powerful snowstorm hit the East Coast this week, leaving Washington DC under a blanket of snow. As you know, snow is another form of water. The facts that the $1.5T deficit federal government was "under water", and spendthrift Democrats were heading down that slippery slope seem apropos.
- If you ever wanted to know how President Obama managed to pull off a hat trick of 3 consecutive $1.3T-plus federal deficits, look no further than his hometown of Chicago. With a FY2011 budget deficit of $520M (it would be worse except Mayor Daley got a billion bucks for privatizing parking meters) and the school budget another $1B in the red, you'll be glad to know some things never change--like unrealistic, unsustainable special interest promises: mayoral candidate Gery Chico has promised to find $200M in operational efficiencies and bloated administrative budgets to fund another 2000 police officers. On a separate note, Chico has won the endorsements of the city's police and fireman unions.
Van McCoy, "The Hustle"
