Progress Illinois

The announcement that Illinois will be taking part in a pilot program that eases the restrictions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was greeted with cautious cheers from educators yesterday. Complaints about NCLB have been widespread since the law went into effect in 2002, with many saying that the "one size fits all" model of regulating schools doesn't take into account the variety of challenges facing public schools. This new program aims to answer some of those concerns:

The Illinois plan would differentiate for the first time between schools that fail because the entire student body lags in math or reading and those that fail because a small group of students misses the mark.

The federal accountability law breaks students into groups based on race, ethnicity, language and special learning needs. If one group fails, the entire school fails, and consecutive years of failure can lead to harsh sanctions.

But under the new Illinois plan, sanctions would be targeted to help lagging groups. Schools, for example, that fail because English learners do not pass the test might have to upgrade their bilingual coursework, but wouldn't be forced to overhaul their entire curriculum.

While the program gives Illinois educators more flexibility, the Sun-Times editorial board argues today that reforms can only go so far inside the NCLB framework. They suggest these last-minute concessions by the Bush administration may simply amount to a desperate attempt to maintain other failed aspects of the policy:

[U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret] Spellings appears motivated by a desire to respond to complaints; this may also be a last-ditch effort to make the No Child law more acceptable so that it won't die after President Bush leaves office. She wants the law to stick around, pretty much as is, after she's gone. On that, she's wrong.

Still, the editorial board concludes that even minor reforms of the policy should be viewed in a positive light:

Some tinkering and a few pilot programs don't amount to the fundamental change needed to make this law work.

But the results of Spellings' experiments will, we hope, show us a better way.

In the past year, 61 percent of Chicago's working poor have had trouble getting access to food. That's according to a survey released yesterday by the Greater Chicago Food Depository. The 301 respondents all had "worked at least 20 hours a week for at least 27 weeks" and had incomes "below $17,871," reports Crain's. Here are some of the other findings:

Of those households struggling to secure food, 30% didn’t use any type of food assistance programs, while 43% had at least one family member using food stamps.

And 45% had at least one child enrolled in a free- or reduced-price school lunch program.

In 16% of the households, at least one family member was participating in Women, Infants and Children, a federal and regional food supplemental program for low-income families.

The data exemplifies two major failures in public policy: 1) even some people who work full-time can't afford basic human necessities, and 2) some of Chicago's impoverished still do not (or cannot) avail themselves of food-related assistance.

Indeed, 59 percent of respondents said they did not utilize soup kitchens. Of this group, 40 percent told surveyors that "people will look down on (you) if they know you use a food pantry." But the lack of quality facilities plays a role as well. In 2000, food banks nationwide received $250 million in federal funds through Title IV of the farm bill. Today, that number is $140 million.

Coincidentally, the report was released the same day Sen. Dick Durbin was in Peoria touting his Hunger Free Communities Act, a provision of the recently-passed farm bill that could bring an extra $53 million in Illinois food aid over the next decade. The bill is good news for local food banks feeling stretched by Republican budget cuts and the economic downturn.

Nonetheless, sponsors of the hunger survey think the situation may only get worse as the costs of fuel and food continue to skyrocket.

"The most remarkable thing about the spring session of the Illinois legislature is that it did anything at all." That's how Stateline.org begins its appraisal of legislative action taken in Illinois during the spring session.

Every year the non-partisan website issues an overview of political news from all 50 states. While most Illinoisans already know their state legislature can get a bit ... dysfunctional, this year's section on the Prairie State was particularly sobering:

The General Assembly sent Blagojevich only one third of the legislation it did last year: 283 bills in 2008 compared to 750 in 2007. [...]

Hundreds of bills died during the regular session as the result of a procedural dispute over Blagojevich’s health expansion plans that erupted into a balance-of-powers struggle.

The governor announced he would ignore the decisions of a legislative panel charged with approving administrative rules. [House Speaker Michael] Madigan tried to block the Blagojevich administration from writing any new rules, by attaching that condition to House bills. The Senate stripped the restrictions. The chambers never resolved the difference.

Today, Gov. Blagojevich announced that he's convening a special session next Wednesday in the hopes of dealing with the budget stalemate. So Stateline may need to revise its legislative recap sometime in the near future.

A full overview of state legislative news from around the country can be found here.

Last Thursday progressive supporters of Barack Obama who disagree with his position on legislation before Congress to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) started a group on MyBarackObama.com urging the candidate to "Get FISA Right." According to DailyKos, the group is now the fastest growing and fourth largest group on the website.

At issue is Obama's support of legislation that gives retroactive immunity to those telecommunication companies that helped the Bush administration eavesdrop on Americans in violation of FISA. Many Democratic lawmakers have tried to portray this bill as a "compromise" between Democrats and Republicans. The reality, argued convincingly in this article by The American Prospect's Julian Sanchez, is that the bill amounts to a full endorsement of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program and strips telecom companies of all accountability for their role in carrying out that policy.

Obama has stated publicly that he would prefer not to grant immunity, but he thinks the wiretapping program is essential to national security. The "Get FISA Right" group wants to pressure him to rethink those priorities.

Over the course of the presidential campaign, there's been a lot of talk about how the Obama campaign has created a dynamic online community where tens of thousands of supporters can interact on a daily basis. Regardless of where you stand on this particular issue, the "Get FISA Right" represents a fascinating new development -- a forum on Obama's website where large numbers of supporters are openly disagreeing with him on a specific policy.

And it's growing like wildfire. Membership stood around 7,000 when I came into work this morning. It's now at 8,387.

Conservative author and political commentator Dick Morris was dropping more idiot bombs on WIND's John and Cisco in the Morning yesterday. In the course of telling co-host Cisco Cotto why an Obama presidency would mean an end to life as we know it, Morris offered up some egregious distortions of the Democrat's tax plan -- distortions that he earlier peddled on Fox News, as Media Matters for America noted.

Here's what Morris had to say about Social Security:

Internal mp3

MORRIS: Obama says he' s not going to raise taxes on the average American -- that he's just going to raise them on the wealthy. But that's just not true. If you take a Chicago police officer whose married to a Chicago teacher, their income is about $120,000 a year together. Right now they pay Social Security taxes on the first hundred. Under Obama's plan they'd pay it on all $120,000. So the next $20,000 would suddenly be subject to tax for them, and that would be taxed at six-and-a-half percent or 6.2 percent for a total of $1,300 a year -- over $100 a month for extra taxes.

Media Matters easily debunked Morris' claims that Obama's plan would raise Social Security taxes on folks in that income bracket:

Obama's plan to raise the cap on income that is subject to Social Security taxes would include a "doughnut hole" that exempts income that is over the current cap of $102,000 but less than $250,000; Obama stated in a June 13 speech of his proposal that "[a]nybody under $250,000 would not be affected whatsoever. Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan."

Then came Morris' second lie -- this time about the capital gains tax:

Internal mp3

MORRIS: Old people who rely on corporate dividends and utility bond interest would have their dividend tax doubled [by Obama]. And anyone who owns stock -- and 52 percent of Americans do -- would have to pay double the capital gains tax.

Here's Media Matters on the claim that Obama's capital gains proposal would affect all stockowners:

Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax rate on individuals with income of less than $250,000. Moreover, an increase in capital gains taxes would not in any event affect most distributions from 401(k) and IRA accounts, which are taxed as ordinary income

But Morris' distortions weren't limited to the arena of tax policy.

Continue reading »

A study commissioned by British Petroleum indicates that emissions from the expanded BP oil refinery in Whiting, IN could be much greater than the company initially claimed. The report was drawn up by Trinity Consultants and submitted to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management as part of BP's application for new state permits. It shows that the current expansion of the plant could result in a 50 percent increase in Co2 emissions (BP has claimed emissions would only rise by 20 percent). In terms of greenhouse gas pollution, this increase is roughly the equivalent of putting 200,000 to 400,000 new cars on the road.

Meanwhile, Co2 is only one of several pollutants that could be emitted at higher levels, reports the Post-Tribune, which received the study via a public information request:

According to the report by Trinity Consultants, nitrogen oxides -- which can irritate the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract -- could increase up to 11 times the threshold amount. To reduce nitrogen oxide emissions during combustion, BP will install new heaters and retrofit or replace existing heaters. Carbon monoxide -- an odorless, colorless gas that can kill and at lower levels headaches, dizziness, nausea and fatigue -- could go up more than five times the threshold.

BP claims that the report is misleading because it lists the amount of pollutants the plant would emit if ran at maximum capacity. Environmentalists counter that BP is known for polluting past legally sanctioned levels, and its ability to do so at Whiting constitutes a serious environmental and public health risk. The state of Indiana has already awarded BP the necessary permits to expand the facility and construction is ongoing. However, the decision to allow the expansion faces a legal challenge from environmental groups.

We know that Jan Schakowsky is interested (not to mention the strongest progressive on the short list). And to everyone's surprise -- even his own -- Rahm Emanuel's name recently surfaced in a Robert Novak column on the subject. Now the Sun-Times' Michael Sneed is telling us that Tammy Duckworth could be tapped to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate if he is elected president:

Sneed hears rumbles that U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, who is this/close to Sen. Barack Obama, and U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel are talking up Illinois Department of Veterans' Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth as Obama's replacement -- if Obama is elected president.

Duckworth, a moderate Democrat, came a hair's breadth from defeating GOP Rep. Peter Roskam in 2006. Her name has already been proposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who would ultimately make the decision about Obama's replacement. If Sneed is right, Duckworth might have some support from the Democratic nominee as well (Durbin and Obama most likely stay in communication about such things).

Regardless, November is a long way off and we'll probably see more names ground through the rumor mill before the whole thing is done.

While his congressional campaign team positions him as a well-intentioned man of the people, Republican Marty Ozinga's legal troubles seem to just keep growing.

Last Friday, Circuit Court Judge John Barra allowed two more plaintiffs to challenge a land deal between Ozinga Bros. Cement and the town of Henry, IL. As we've previously reported, the town entered into a contract with the company to develop a mine and a port on the Illinois River. Part of that deal included an agreement by the town to give Ozinga Bros. what amounted to sole access to the new port. Local farmers Raymond Kunkel and Bill Maupin are joining the previous plaintiff, Kenin Edwards, in challenging Henry over that provision. The plaintiffs believe the town doesn't have the right to give Ozinga port access, while shutting out small businessmen like themselves:

The city's agreement with Ozinga bars the movement of mined materials through the port unless they come from property annexed or under an annexation agreement [between Henry, and Ozinga Bros.] The lawsuit alleges those terms amount to an "unconstitutional taking" of such property by preventing its full economic potential.

We've repeatedly noted Ozinga Bros.' ongoing legal battles with Henry residents, which follow the company's attempts to buy local land for the purposes of mining and transporting gravel (used to make cement).

The trouble began when Ozinga Bros. filed a lawsuit against Kunkel, an 83-year-old family farmer, alleging that he had sold property optioned by the company. When asked to give a deposition on the matter, Marty Ozinga claimed to have never had any direct communication with Kunkel regarding the deal. But he was subsequently contradicted by five witnesses who all recounted how he met personally with the farmer. Ozinga then submitted to a deposition, but shifted his version of events during the interview. The information that came to light in the depositions of both Ozinga and his company's vice president also lead to accusations that the company misled the town of Henry with regards to its plans for the farmland it was buying.