Judy Biggert

On Federal Spending, Biggert Tries To Have It Both Ways

Adam Doster — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:20:14 -0700

When back in the 13th Congressional District, Rep. Judy Biggert sure likes to praise the result of bills she opposed on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this year, the Hinsdale Republican lauded two transportation projects in her district that were funded through an appropriations bill she had voted against. Then in early October, she called for a six-month extension of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit -- initially implemented via the federal stimulus bill she vehemently opposed. Yesterday, she went even further, applauding the arrival of two stimulus grants (amounting to $10.9 million) intended to upgrade Naperville's municipal electric utility.

The political opportunism here is self-evident. In February, just as the stimulus negotiations were wrapping up, Biggert spread lies about a 2007 report on the economic benefits of tax cuts by President Obama’s Economic Council of Advisers Chairwoman Christina Romer and eventually voted against the package. Just this past month, she issued a statement suggesting that "it's long past time for Congress to reject the big-spending approach to recovery that has clearly failed to stimulate job growth or ease the financial burden on struggling families." But then she sayd those stimulus programs directly benefiting her constituents are worthy of federal support?

She can't have it both ways. And judging from his comments to us over the summer, Democratic challenger Scott Harper plans to drive home this point.

Will Biggert, Republicans Block Student Loan Reform Bill? (UPDATED)

Adam Doster — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:14:04 -0700

Right on schedule, it appears the House is ready to reform the student loan system, one of President Obama's most important policy priorities. Reports in Washington verify that the House leaders will put the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (H.R. 3221) to a full vote as soon as today.

While it faces a tougher road in the Senate, House Democrats are expected to approve the legislation overwhelmingly. That's because the reforms make a ton of economic and moral sense. Currently, the federal government subsidizes the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program to the tune of $55 billion a year. In turn, private insurance companies administer the loans, which are identical to the government's Direct Loan Program. Even with the government backing, lenders dish out those subsidized loans with high interest rates and massive late fees. Those practices are unjustified, though, considering how little risk the loans carry. After all, even bankrupt borrowers can't discharge their accumulated debt.

SAFRA would phase out these subsidies and instead redirect most of the resources into its government lending program, saving the government an estimated $13 billion. The dollars they will save will be used to expand the Pell Grant program and create new programs to boost community college budgets, increase college completion rates, and improve early childhood education. Sounds good, right?

Not according to Republican Rep. Judy Biggert, who voted down the measure in committee this past July, likely because of pressure from the banks who would lose their lending business after the change. We are going to keep a close eye on the roll call to see if in a state that's currently cutting need-based scholarships, our legislators stand with students or with the banks who pad their campaign coffers.

UPDATE (3:25 PM): Not only did Biggert side with the banks, but six of her Republican colleagues in Illinois did as well. H.R. 3221 passed moments ago by a 253-171 margin. Rep. Tim Johnson (R-15th) was one of just six GOPers to cross party lines and vote in favor of the bill. The rest, including U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk, voted no.

Biggert Blames Dems For Lack Of Bipartisanship

Adam Doster — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:22:46 -0700

After a month of boisterous town halls across the country and stalled negotiations on Capitol Hill, President Obama is set to address both chambers of Congress tonight about health care reform. When he takes the podium, he won't face appreciably worse political conditions than when lawmakers left town for their August recess. In some sense, the dynamic has shifted in the Democrats' favor.

Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, has circulated a plan among committee members that he hopes to put up for a vote by next week. While it's much less expansive than other bills being deliberated -- subsidy levels are too low, the employer mandate is too weak, and it does not include a public option -- it could be strengthened before a full Senate floor vote or in conference. Baucus heads the only committee with jurisdiction over health care that hasn't yet passed a bill, so the most important thing to note here is that the wheels are starting to move again on the Hill.

Republicans are furious with this new push. And their latest bogus talking point, floated this morning by Rep. Judy Biggert on WFLD's Good Day Chicago, is that the Democrats are not being sufficiently bipartisan. Watch it (the quote begins about three minues in):

BIGGERT: We on this side have never had a seat at the table. Anything that we have brought up has gone to deaf ears, nor have we even been asked to participate. Bipartisan agreement really has to take into account the things that we think our important. We all care about having everybody have health insurance if they want it. And I think there are certain reforms that need to be made -- the preexisting conditions, the affordability of it that allows people to purchase it, but that’s about as far as we go. Eighty-five percent say they like the health care plan that they have and the President came out in the beginning and said that would be true. In the Education and Labor committee, I offered that amendment to the bill in the markup of the bill and it was unanimously voted down by the other side of the aisle.

It's important to remember that the Democrats do not need Republicans to pass this bill. The electorate chose a Democratic president last year. The party holds strong majorities in both chambers. Americans broadly support the major reforms included in most of the Democratic bills. And even if conservative Democrats can't stomach the large but deficit-neutral price tag, congressional leaders can use the reconciliation process to pass the more politically-risky measures with an up-and-down vote in the Senate.

Nonetheless, the White House and Sen. Baucus -- to their detriment, perhaps -- are going to great lengths to include GOP lawmakers in the process, despite appeals from progressives to forge ahead. President Obama urged the so-called Gang of Six to keep up their bipartisan talks, even after Baucus and company blew through its original deadline to appease the concerns of Republican Senators. Sen. Olympia Snowe has had several meetings with White House officials about expanding subsidies and implementing a public option trigger plan.

And what do Democrats get in return?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) returned to his homestate and urges people to fund his campaign so he can "defeat Obama-care." Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) promoted "the rationing of [America's] health care" during the GOP's weekly radio address. Meanwhile, legislators like Biggert have intentionally lied about their opponents' proposals. Even the amendment that Biggert proposed -- which she described on Fox as "ensuring that anyone who likes the health care they have right now to keep that health care, rather than get forced into a government-run plan" -- was misleading. Nobody would be forced into a public option. It would be one choice among many offered to those who qualify. Biggert's bill was not defeated out of partisan spite. It was voted down because it made no sense.

If the Republicans had ever negotiated in good faith, Biggert might have a valid point. But they haven't. And they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Biggert Joins Right-Wing In Drumming Up Fears About Obama's School Speech

Adam Doster — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:48:40 -0700

At lunchtime today, teachers across the nation have the opportunity to broadcast a videotaped speech by President Obama urging students to work hard in school and discover their passions. "We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems," Obama says, according to the text of the speech. "If you don't do that -- if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country."

When word broke of Obama's plans, Rep. Judy Biggert -- like many of her fellow Republicans -- raised irrational concerns that it might amount to political indoctrination. Last week, the Hinsdale Republican issued a statement blasting the White House for failing to make the text of the speech public in advance (the White House did so yesterday):

With no opportunity to review the text of the President’s remarks, it’s little wonder why parents and educators are concerned that the Administration could be sending kids a thinly-veiled political lesson rather than simply encouraging students to fulfill their potential. Already, I’ve heard from parents who feel compelled to keep their children at home. This is exactly why the federal government rightfully steers away from dictating educational agendas to local schools.

The SouthtownStar's Phil Kadner has the correct response to this strange fear: "Have we really reached the point where a president's remarks to schoolchildren need to be screened?" From his Friday column:

Did any of these people, I wonder, speak out in protest when students were encouraged to write letters supporting our troops? That's considered a patriotic act. But it could also be criticized as supporting the war effort, about as political a decision as any.

I've seen governors in this state arrive at public school buildings, surround themselves with children and professional administrators, only to tout their political agendas. There was hardly a peep from taxpayers.

We can just add this to the list of other questionable behavior from Biggert in recent months, including her effort to take credit for a transit bill she voted against and and her decision to circulate literature falsely claiming that the Democratic health reform effort would lead to government-directed euthanasia. Strange choices for someone who represents a quickly bluing district.

Health Care Roundup: Public Plan Troubles, Biggert Whacked by Sun-Times

Adam Doster — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:27:24 -0700

The August recess is in full swing. Here's the latest health care news:

More Hedging On The Public Option

The big news nationally is that the White House hinted again yesterday at a willingness to drop a public insurance option from the health care reform packages if it means ultimately passing a bill. While progressives activists have pushed hard for a robust government-run program to compete with private insurers, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN that a public option was “not the essential element” for reform. This isn't the first time the Obama administration has hedged on this point, but at this stage in the negotiations, it should send a strong signal to moderate and liberal Democrats where the president currently stands.

In its place, Senate Democrats will likely turn to non-profit cooperatives, an alternative already favored by the Gang of Six senators on the Finance Committee. Ezra Klein's June interview with Sen. Kent Conrad is a good place to get caught up on the specifics. The New York Times' briefly explains the idea here:

The co-op, modeled after rural electric and agricultural cooperatives in Mr. Conrad’s home state, would offer insurance through a nonprofit, nongovernmental consumer entity run by its members. Mr. Axelrod said one downside of a co-op, from Mr. Obama’s point of view, was that it might be unable to “scale up in such a way that would create a robust” competitor to private insurers.

Will that concession go far enough to win the support of moderate Democrats who remain on the fence? None of Illinois' still undecided lawmakers -- including Reps. Debbie Halvorson, Bill Foster, and Melissa Bean -- have explicitly identified the public option as the major problem with the bills working through Congress. However, if they felt the inclusion of a government-run plan left them vulnerable to overblown conservative attacks about expanding government, co-ops could give them some leeway while preserving some choice on the private market. Of course, the full House would still face a vote on a bill that includes the public option; it would likely be gutted in the Senate version, where moderate votes are really needed, and then negotiations would begin over specifics in conference committee. And the entire package could crumble if progressives in the House revolt, like Rep. Jan Schakowsky and her colleagues vowed to do last month. Stay tuned.

Sun-Times Whacks Biggert Over Scare Tactics

Last week, Rep. Judy Biggert deliberately distributed literature at a town hall falsely claiming that the health care bills working through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia. Admitting that the statement was "a little inflammatory," she told the Daily Herald that "I probably wrote it when I was mad." Today, the Sun-Times editorial board nails Biggert and other conservatives for promoting these ridiculous lies:

Democratic health-care reform will require "end-of-life counseling for seniors that might encourage them to give up when facing serious illness," read a flier passed out by U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert of Hinsdale. Now, [Iowa Sen. Chuck] Grassley and other conservative Republican politicians want to make sure seniors are denied what is in fact a reasonable and desirable benefit. They have removed coverage for end-of-life counseling from the Senate's version of the health reform bill.

Shame on all of them. [...]

When mainstream, usually respected politicians pick up the lie, repeat it and lend it their credibility, they do a massive disservice to the very people they claim they are helping -- senior citizens who have an understandable anxiety about any potential changes to their health-care benefits.

During WTTW's Chicago Tonight week in review show on Friday, the first 10 minutes were devoted to health care. The segment focused in large part on what Obama can do to combat the misinformation about his administration's health care proposals. Conspicuously absent from the debate was any mention of the media's role in fact-checking politicians who play fast and lose with the facts. Watch it here:

While the national media has put out a few decent pieces on this front as of late, they were slow to respond and are still fumbling with the details. Locally, the media isn't doing much better. As a result, it's going to be tough for the truth to catch up with the lies.

Edit Boards Call For More Town Hall Meetings

Sen. Dick Durbin is taking some shots from editorial boards in the state for his decision not to hold a town hall meeting on health care reform. From the Daily Herald:

But it also seems like it's such a transcendent issue for all of us that our representatives in Washington ought to make an attempt to listen to their constituents. It also seems to us that any public hearing could be controlled easily enough by rules of decorum that are stated in advance and then enforced. Local government does this all the time.

Sen. Durbin is, presumably, the second most powerful person in the U.S. Senate.

If that's the case, what is he afraid of?

The State Journal-Register agrees, arguing that Durbin and fellow congressmen Rep. John Shimkus "should reconsider and face their constituents." But the paper also notes that town hall participants need to change their temperament if they want lawmakers to take their concerns seriously:

This is one of the most complex and important issues to face the American people in decades. This page doesn’t have an opinion today on which approach will work best. We do know the American people need to rationally talk with their representatives and senators, continue to educate themselves and be willing to listen when answers are provided.

Kirk, Biggert, And Bachmann Join Forces

Adam Doster — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:29:49 -0700

Rep. Mark Kirk has served Illinois' 10th District for a decade now. And over the years he's amassed a comprehensive voting record, attaching his name to hundreds of bills on countless topics. But HJ Res 41 could be the looniest of them all.

In a series documenting that "the more ludicrous bills that are introduced" on Capitol Hill, Congress Matters blogger Casual Wednesday outlines the details of this bill, introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota):

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States.

Strangely, 37 House members signed on as co-sponsors -- including Kirk and fellow Illinois Republican Judy Biggert -- despite the fact that there is no real effort to create a "global currency."

Not sure how this slipped under our radar back in April. But better late than never.

Health Care Round-Up: Biggert Promotes Euthanasia Lie, Costello And Halvorson Waffle

Adam Doster — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:44:15 -0700

Here is our latest round-up of health care news:

Biggert Promotes Euthanasia Lie

Last night in Naperville, Reps. Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk entertained questions about health care reform at a town hall forum. No violence or rowdiness was reported -- after all, both are strongly opposed to the Democratic proposals -- but Kirk, who's now a U.S. Senate candidate, continued to suggest that health care reform would harm people with life-threatening illnesses and would cost the government too much money. Biggert, on the other hand, took her criticism one step farther. According to the Daily Herald's editorial board, the Hinsdale Republican joined the Palin brigade, passing around literature claiming that the bills working through Congress would lead to end-of-life euthanasia:

Misinformation will continue to abound. At a forum Wednesday in Naperville, guest speaker U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert, a Hinsdale Republican, distributed a flier stating the Democrats' proposal will require counseling of seniors that might encourage those who are seriously ill to "give up." Later, she admitted to Politics & Projects Editor Joseph Ryan "that was a little inflammatory."

This is a tendentious myth that has been widely debunked. The language in multiple bills actually says that physicians will be paid through Medicare to counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life. The sessions would take place once every five years and would be completely voluntary. As Jonathan Cohn writes, health care opponents are "swiftboating health reform." Sadly, Biggert knows that this criticism is ridiculous. So why is she distributing such an obvious lie?

Costello: Health Care Reform Too Complex

Rep. Jerry Costello has made quite clear that he would oppose any health care reform package if it didn't include language to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. But he has other objections, as well, according to the AP:

In southwestern Illinois, Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, have opted not to host town hall meetings about health care, preferring to hear from constituents by appointment or in small groups.

Both lawmakers opposed the health-care reform measures that have been voted out of the Democrat-led committees. Costello doesn't like the bills' complexities, while Shimkus objects to the absence of market-based solutions, including tax breaks, to soaring health-care costs.

Costello opposses the bill because it has too many complexities? Democrats are hoping to implement a massive overhaul of the American health insurance system, which accounts for 15 percent of the nation's GDP. It should be complex!

After voting against Obama's climate change bill, it's worth asking if Costello realizes he has a "D" next to his name.

Halvorson Backtracking?

Rep. Debbie Halvorson is feeling pressure from all sides on health care reform and she's yet to take a conclusive policy stance. But this indecision stands in direct opposition to her campaign rhetoric, in which she repeatedly hit opponent Marty Ozinga for being "out of touch" on the issue. After we flagged a CAN-TV interview in which Ozinga stated that "there are very few people nowadays that have no health service at all" because the uninsured can "go to the hospital and you get taken care of," Halvorson and the DCCC even unveiled a series of campaign ads noting health care reform was one of Halvorson's top priorities. Backtracking on that promise is a bad political move, writes SouthtownStar columnist Kristen McQueary:

If Halvorson votes against whatever plan emerges, she will add fuel to the criticism often directed at her that she's a vapid flip-flopper.

Before running for Congress, she was Senate President Emil Jones' right hand in the state Senate, nurturing proposals for state-funded health care expansions. She was lead sponsor on legislation mandating cervical screenings and crafted a bill to lower prescription drug costs for senior citizens.

She is on record, over and over, lamenting the health care status quo.

Health Care Round-Up: Schock Misleads, Bean And Foster Still Undecided

Adam Doster — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:30:55 -0700

As the national battle over health care reform enters a crucial stage and lawmakers make their case to voters during the August recess, we're going to be regularly tracking the latest health care news across Illinois. Here's our first update:

Schock's Misleading Memo

While Illinois Democrats were busy advocating for comprehensive health care yesterday, Illinois Republicans kept up their effort to stand in the way of such reform. This morning over his Twitter feed, Rep. Aaron Schock sent along a memo, prepared by Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-WI), providing (PDF) "key facts about the House Democrat health care bill for the 18th District of Illinois." But as you'll see, Cantor and Schock use the term facts rather loosely. Here's the first of many distortions in the two-page sheet:

Independent analysis by the Lewin Group shows that 2 out of every 3 people would lose their current coverage, including up to 114 million people who receive health benefits through their employer or other current coverage if a government-run plan “competes” with private companies.

The Lewin Group is hardly "independent." In fact, it's "wholly owned" by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers. And the Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary analysis (PDF) of the House Democrats' so-called "tri-committee" bill last week and found that a net 3 million people will gain employer-based insurance under the Democratic plan.

But Schock and Cantor aren't done:

Nearly 11 million seniors choose Medicare Advantage plans as the coverage that best meet their needs. Specifically, the Democrats have proposed cutting Medicare spending for the 14,002 seniors in the 18th District who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan.

In fact, Medicare benefits will not be cut, nor will the Medicare Advantage plan be discontinued. Instead, Obama has proposed ending the large public subsidies to the private insurance companies who participate in the program. As budget director Peter Orszag explained this spring, the White House is proposing that these companies compete to offer their services, thereby saving taxpayers an estimated $150 billion over 10 years. (Also, it's more than ironic that Schock, a congressman staunchly opposed to a public option, is so worried about protecting benefits provided through the nation's very popular single-payer program.)

The Schock memo also demagogues about health care reform's potential effect on small businesses, citing Heritage Foundation research claiming that 41,700 small businesses in Illinois will be required to pay higher taxes because of a proposed 2 percent surtax on individuals with more than $280,000 in income. But the Heritage figures are way overblown. Only "1.9 percent of filers with any small-business income are projected to face either of the top two income tax rates in 2009,” according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Roskam Misreads Polling ON WLS

Rep. Peter Roskam added his voice to the health care debate this morning, telling WLS Radio’s Don Wade & Roma that support for Obama's health care approach is "just dropping like a stone." Listen (The entier interview is available here):

Internal mp3

People really understand health care. We’ve had a really robust national conversation and debate ever since the Clinton administration in 1993 did the big push on that plan. And we’ve been talking about it, all of us. And when you start to say that you’re going to be taking choices away, that wait times are going to go up, and ultimately this is going to be very costly, the public gets it. And the White House, with all due respect, I think they are really underestimating the public.

The polls tell a different story. The Center for American Progress' Ruy Teixiera points to Pew Research Center data proving Americans are still broadly supportive of the president's goals: 79 percent support "requiring insurance companies to sell health coverage to people, even if they have pre-existing medical condition;" 65 percent support "requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those who can’t afford it;" 63 percent support "raising taxes on families with incomes of more than $350,000 and individuals earning more than $280,000;" and 52 percent support "a government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." "Don’t believe the hype," Teixiera concludes. "Health care reform is alive and kicking."

Bean, Foster Still Undecided

For the President's reform agenda to pass both chambers, conservative Democrats are going to need to come along for the ride. But two congressmen from Chicago's suburbs, Reps. Melissa Bean and Bill Foster, remain on the fence, according to the Daily Herald:

Bean's Schaumburg office has been protested by activists on both sides of the issue. Most recently, she said she was "unconvinced" the current plan will provide a net benefit to the middle class while reigning in costs.

Foster supports the plan "in theory," a spokeswoman has said, but neither lawmaker will likely face a vote until some version of the plan moves to the House floor this fall.

DCCC Blitzes Biggert

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is also targeting Rep. Judy Biggert with its "Health Care ER" campaign. The goal of the blitz, which will include volunteer calls, emails, and tele-town halls, is to "hold targeted Republicans accountable for protecting health insurance companies' profits ... at the expense of affordable health care."

Biggert Protects Wall Street, Hurts Students

Adam Doster — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:11:09 -0700

If a simple reform to a federal education program could save the government $86.8 billion over the next 10 fiscal years, one would think it'd be easy to convince an economic conservative like Rep. Judy Biggert to champion the change. Not so.

Last week, the House Education and Labor Committee passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a bill to transform the $92-billion student loan market. As currently constructed, the government subsidizes the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program to the tune of $55-billion a year. But the loans offered by private insurance companies are virtually identical to those the government dispenses through its the Direct Loan Program. And those companies -- including industry leader Sallie Mae and Wall Street titans like Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan -- turned what was once an altruistic program into a big business, charging interest rates and hefty late fees for unsecured loans while simultaneously pursuing stressed borrowers who themselves can't discharge the accumulated debt though bankruptcy.

As part of his budget, President Obama called on Congress to phase out these subsidies and instead redirect some of the resources into the government lending program. Any additional capital would be used to fully fund the Pell Grant program as well as create new programs to boost community college budgets, increase college completion rates, and improve early childhood education. When given the chance to vote on the measure last week in committee, Biggert joined 16 other Republicans (PDF) in turning it down. (Rep. Phil Hare voted in favor.)

What could have led the Hinsdale Republican to vote against the interest of needy students in her district? The influence of the banking industry, which is lobbying heavily on this issue and which Biggert is often susceptible, probably played a role. The financial servicers argue that the move limits a student's "choice of lenders." That seems unlikely -- Higher Ed Watch reminds us that the Education Department found that one lender made at least 80 percent of students' federal loans at 921 participating colleges. And students trying to overcome the crushing cost of college are most concerned about the cost of loans, which the government can offer more cheaply.

Rep. George Miller, chairman of the Education committee, tells Rueters that he hopes to bring the bill up for a full vote "probably right after the August break." We will keep our eye out for it.

At the state level, Rep. Mike Boland (D-East Moline) is taking his own steps to help students pay for school. At a round-table discussion at Elgin Community College yesterday, the House Higher Education Committee chair outlined a new bill he's proposing called the Illinois Challenge Scholarship:

A 'C' average plus a clean rap sheet plus a high school diploma could equal a free year at community college in Illinois. [...]

The Challenge Scholarship, he said, would require eighth-grade students and a parent or guardian to sign a pledge to maintain a 'C' average throughout high school and to avoid arrest or suspension from school for drugs, alcohol or violent behavior.

This seems like a great idea worth pursuing. But we shouldn't be so quick to bestow good will onto Boland. After all, he voted against (PDF) a temporary tax increase that resulted in the elimination of the entire Monetary Award Program for the spring 2010 term. That means 137,000 students across the state will lose grants after the first semester next year.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user JanetandPhil.

Biggert Takes Credit For Transit Bill She Voted Against

Adam Doster — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:46:43 -0700

Last Thursday, the House passed a $123.1 billion transportation and housing appropriations bill that included an 8 percent boost for the Section 8 housing voucher program and $4 billion for President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. It also included $1.5 million in funding for two projects requested by Rep. Judy Biggert -- a Metra Station in Tinley Park and freight-related traffic relief along Ogden Avenue in Aurora. “These important investments will create local jobs and help keep our area’s road and transit systems working for commuters,” Biggert said in a statement Friday. “I’m very grateful to my House colleagues for recognizing the rapidly growing transportation needs of communities and centers of commerce in our suburban area.”

The Naperville Sun covered the story as well, quoting Biggert saying that the freight relief "will help to mitigate that impact and keep traffic flowing along one of our most important regional arteries." But the paper forgot one tiny detail -- along with the rest of Illinois' Republican delegation, Biggert voted against the bill. The Sun staff report also falsely asserted that she "sponsored" the measure (in fact, she did no such thing).

Biggert's effort to have it both ways is unfortunately par for the course with House Republicans this year. That's the story the Sun should be writing about.