"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)


Showing posts with label IL Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IL Senate. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Finally Mark Kirk Quits House, Joins Senate after Democrat Leadership Stalled

It is about time that Mark Kirk was seated in the Senate late yesterday.  If he had been a Democrat Harry Reid would have seated him right away.  Kept hearing there was a problem with paperwork -- always is when a Republican takes a Democrat seat.  We learned that from Scott Brown in MA when his paperwork was also delayed.

This seat is sweet as it is the seat that Obama held and now will be held by a Republican for the next six years.  Kirk was seated early because the election was to fill out the term of Obama and also for the new term that starts on January 3, 2011!

Congratulations to Mark Kirk, our newest Republican Senator!

Kirk Quits House, Joins Senate
By Jessica Brady
Roll Call Staff
Nov. 29, 2010, 6:12 p.m.

Sen. Mark Kirk was officially sworn in Monday, handing Republicans another vote in time for the crucial days of the lame-duck session.

Kirk won the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama in Illinois and is the third of three new Senators to join the chamber during the lame-duck session. The former House Member won both his own six-year Senate term and a special election to replace appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) for the remainder of this year. He resigned his House seat Monday to move across the Capitol.

A fiscal hawk, Kirk takes his seat just as Members prepare to debate how to extend expiring tax cuts enacted President George W. Bush and a continuing resolution or omnibus spending bill to keep the government funded next year. An appropriator in the House, Kirk is an opponent of earmarks and has said he will oppose any Senate omnibus measure laced with funding for special projects. Kirk also penned an editorial Monday in the Chicago Tribune in which he called on the Senate to adopt a moratorium on earmarks. The newly minted Member will get his chance to push that cause later Monday evening when the Senate considers an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to adopt such a moratorium.

Excerpt: Read More at Roll Call

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Illinois Senate Race: Mark Kirk Releases New Ad "Kidding" against Mob Banker Giannoulias

At the same time that the NRSC has their new ad on the air in Illinois highlighting Giannoulias' Support for Higher Taxes, Mark Kirk has out his new ad, Kidding, which highlights how bad Giannoulias' would be in the Senate after the way he has been handling money as the State Treasurer in the Bright Start college savings program which has lost millions under his leadership. We would be remiss if we did not mention how Giannoulias also loaned money to mobsters as a loan officer in the family owned Broadway Bank (NOTE: Broadway bank went under).

Last week, the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board slammed Giannoulias “damning non-denial about loans to criminals” following his appearance on Meet the Press. The Tribune also published a front-page feature on the collapse of Illinois’ Bright Start college savings program, which reported for the first time that Giannoulias and his staff were aware of the fund’s increasing risk but “at each turn Giannoulias stuck with the firm’s strategy, even as the housing market soured and losses accelerated.” (Kirk for Senate)
October 18th, 2010

Giannoulias Loaned Millions to Mobsters, Wiped Out College Savings in Bright Start and Now Seeks Higher Taxes and More Spending in the Senate?
You Must Be Kidding.


The Kirk for Senate campaign today unveiled a new TV ad framing the obvious question facing voters in Illinois – after loaning millions to mobsters at Broadway Bank and then losing millions more in Bright Start college savings as State Treasurer, why would anyone send Alexi Giannoulias to the U.S. Senate to raise taxes and increase spending?

Click Here for complete script and fact check.  Watch the ad below:




NRSC Launches New Ad in Illinois Highlighting Giannoulias’ Support for Higher Taxes

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 @ 10:10 AM
In Illinois, the NRSC launched a new independent expenditure TV ad entitled “Tax Hike,” highlighting failed mob banker Alexi Giannoulias’ support for higher taxes during the nation’s worst economic crisis in a generation. National Journal’s Hotline On Call reports:

The committee is airing a new ad using Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias's (D) words against him. "Alexi Giannoulias has a message for Illinois," the narrator says before a clip of Giannoulias rolls. "We need an income tax increase," Giannoulias says. The ad, obtained by Hotline On Call is significant because Giannoulias will face off with Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in their second of three debates on Tuesday:




Meanwhile, the Associated Press notes that Giannoulias is hypocritically avoiding taking any responsibility for his long, reckless record:

Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias describes himself as someone with the judgment and guts to make his own decisions, even if it means standing up to people with more experience. But when pressed Monday on decisions that turned into political liabilities, Giannoulias often passed the buck. His family bank doing business with criminals? Someone else handled that, Giannoulias explained in an interview with The Associated Press, and the loans met all the technical requirements. And the loan to shady political insider Antoin "Tony" Rezko? Giannoulias said he wasn't handling loans by that point and no one at his bank asked his opinion. What about his state treasurer's office putting money into a troubled investment fund? That's what the financial experts assured him was the best move, Giannoulias said.
We cannot fathom Giannoulias in the Senate.  We would bet that he would be another short term Senator due to ethics problems.  Illionois has had enough of that with the Governor and Senate seats so now is the the time to send Mark Kirk to the Senate and Giannoulias to the Unemployment Line.  Maybe some of Giannoulias mob friends can help him out with a new job that would better suit him.  Handling the people's money is not something he should be doing.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

IL Senate: Family bank good for Giannoulias' taxes, bad for his campaign

The Democrat candidate and friend of Obama, Giannoulias, has already learned to lie in order not to pay taxes. Just think what he could do if elected to the Senate. We already know he approved loans to the mob and now we find out he scammed the IRS by claiming hours he worked at the bank while telling people on the campaign trail he no longer worked there.  Guess you could call this typical Chicago style politics.

We love this part:

Most recently, Kirk criticized Giannoulias for trying to claim he wasn't involved in the bank when Broadway approved a controversial loan for a project headed by Rezko, who was convicted in the federal corruption probe of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration. Giannoulias' answer has been that he wasn't involved in the bank when the loan was approved in February 2006.

In the recent interview, Giannoulias acknowledged that while he was still at Broadway when that loan was approved, he was only involved in closing out his existing accounts and knew nothing about any new loans.

"For loans like the one you're talking about (Rezko) where I had nothing to do with or my name was never on it, I don't think there's any inconsistencies," he said.
According to Giannoulias he had nothing to do with the Rezko loan and then added his name wasn't on the paperwork? Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Friend of Rezko, friend of Obama, and friend of Chicago Dems and he wants everyone to believe because his name was not on the loan, he didn't even know about it. If I remember right the VP of the bank who got us our mortgage didn't have his name on the paperwork either.

Last thing the US Senate needs is someone like Giannoulias who never knows anything about corruption that surrounds him.

Family bank good for Giannoulias' taxes, bad for his campaign
U.S. Senate hopeful tells voters he was gone from the ailing institution by late 2005 — but he told the IRS something else

By John Chase, Tribune reporter

12:04 a.m. CDT, September 29, 2010

U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias tells voters he was gone from his troubled family bank by late 2005, but that's not what he told the Internal Revenue Service.

Giannoulias was able to take a $2.7 million tax deduction last year because he reported working hundreds of hours at Broadway Bank in 2006.

Giannoulias says there's no contradiction, and in fact there is no suggestion the Democratic state treasurer took a tax break he didn't deserve. Rather, the issue highlights the fine line Giannoulias walks on the campaign trail in explaining exactly what he did at Broadway and when he did it.

The bank was at the top of his résumé when he was a 30-year-old first-time statewide candidate in 2006 with few professional highlights. But in his tight Senate race against Republican Mark Kirk, his tenure as a senior loan officer at Broadway is a bull's-eye for critics who hit him for the bank's loans to mob figures as well as troubled lending that contributed to Broadway's collapse earlier this year.


Saying he left in 2005 gives Giannoulias maximum distance from the bank's questionable lending practices, the April takeover by federal regulators and other controversies such as a loan by the bank to convicted influence peddler Antoin "Tony" Rezko in early 2006.

But by reporting that he worked at least 500 hours at Broadway in 2006, Giannoulias was able to get a break that helped him avoid paying federal income tax for 2009.

Giannoulias said he has been clear that he left the "day-to-day" operations of the bank in September 2005 to prepare his first run for public office, but was on paid leave until May 2006 when he left completely to campaign full time for treasurer.

That 2006 work consisted of roughly 30 hours a week closing out his responsibilities before quitting as a bank officer, and didn't involve making new loans, Giannoulias explained in a recent interview. It was more than enough to qualify him for the tax break, he said.

IRS regulations allow taxpayers to deduct business losses from certain types of corporations if they've logged significant hours there for five of the last 10 years. Giannoulias started at the bank in 2002, so working at least 500 hours in 2006 qualifies Giannoulias for the tax break.

Before leaving day-to-day operations in September 2005, "I was there, I think I worked seven days a week," Giannoulias said.

Asked what he was doing at the bank in early 2006, Giannoulias said, "I think the biggest difference is I wasn't taking on new customers. I was just finishing up what I needed to do, so I don't know how the hours worked out, but it wasn't a full-time job.

Excerpt: Read More at Chicago Tribune

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Preserving the Senate Rules

This Executive Summary from Senator John Thune (R-SD), Chairman of the US Senate Republican Policy Committee, details the extent these Democrats in control of the Senate led by Harry Reid will go to in order to pass legislation against the Rules of the Senate that are currently place. They are there for a reason but that doesn't make Obama's Democrats any difference as long as they can get their socialist agenda rammed through in the Senate like they do in the House. How do they propose to that? Permenantly change the rules of the Senate.

Any Democrat that backs this outlandish proposal needs to be defeated on November 2nd 2010, in November 2012, or November 2014 which ever date they are up for re-election. This group of 'dishonest' Democrats will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. They could care less what their constituents in their states are saying as long as they can pass what 'they' deem is important to their constituents. They won't listen to phone calls, Town Halls, emails, faxes, or office meetings as they have the Obama agenda they are shoving down every one's throats and nothing else matters.

The idea that they want to negate the voices of the 60 million people who did not vote for Obama and the Democrats is so wrong that it defies belief.

To add to this we have a Republican Governor Charlie Crist in Florida who is throwing a temper tantrum that he is not winning the Florida GOP primary for US Senate who now wants to go Independent to run and make that a much harder seat to keep in Florida. We will keep it, but Crist belongs in the Democrat Party with his arrogance and non-regard for the State of Florida and the people who voted him as a Republican the privilege of becoming their Governor. Just like a Democrat he turns his back on the people of Florida for his own person wishes. With his going Independent, he must support the rules change like this or he wouldn't be running. He would be supporting Marco Rubio.

This may be the most important issue today in the Senate as the Obama Democrats attempt to permanently change the rules. When Republicans take back the Senate and we will, watch the Democrats squeal it is not fair if this is passed. That's how they work -- only what is good for them counts not what is good for the Country. That wasn't always the way in the Senate when we had honorable people serving. There is nothing honorable about most of today's Democrats in the Senate as they have demonstrated time and time again.

Getting more obvious by the day that Obama and his lapdog Democrat leadership have no regard for the Constitution. Obama unfortunately we can understand because he wasn't raised red, white, and blue American but Harry Reid? Obama was mentored by a Communist during his formative years and it shows. His friends have always been radicals and probably why no one at Columbia even remembers him.

This is why you vet a candidate for any office which was something the MSM did not do in the last Presidential election. Why because they would have been called racist like the rest of us that didn't support Obama because of his agenda, his lack of experience, and his associates? That race card is still getting played today, but it is not working like they want it to work. Most of us don't care what they call us today because we will continue to oppose the socialist agenda of Obama and his Democrat lapdogs in Congress.

Please call your Senators and tell them to oppose this tactic to overturn what has stood for over 200 years. There was a reason the Founding Fathers made two unequal Houses and now the Obama Democrats want to destroy that. Senator Thune is giving the facts of what the Obama Democrats are trying to do. It is now time for all of us to support him and the Republicans in the Senate to make sure this does not happen.

April 21, 2010

Preserving Senate Rules:
Guaranteeing All American Voices are Heard


Executive Summary


Not content with historically large margins and control of all three elected branches of
government, some members of the majority party now propose to gut the right to
extended debate. This right has long been the hallmark of minority power in the Senateand one that ensures bipartisan legislation that commands the wide support of the American people.

The Founders deliberately designed a system of checks and balances, one in which
minority voices play a prominent role in the political process. One aspect of this system is the unique nature of the United States Senate.

Two key features of Senate Rules are the right to amendment and the right to extended debate. Those rules help promote bipartisan and mainstream legislation, while tempering the potential excesses of one-party rule.

Frustrated by the Senate’s rules, the current majority repeatedly has used procedural tactics to limit the ability of the minority party to offer amendments or meaningfully participate in legislation. In fact, the current Majority Leader has used procedural tactics to block the minority from offering amendments more often than any Majority Leader in history.

Claims that the current minority is engaged in unprecedented obstruction cannot be
substantiated. The number of times cloture is filed or invoked is less demonstrative of obstruction than of an impatient majority bent on short-circuiting debate and eschewing bipartisan legislative solutions.

Several Senate Democrats, with apparent support from their leadership, have begun to push for a fundamental change in Senate rules. If successful, they would turn the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives, a body in which the majority party has almost limitless power.

These proposals are both unwise and lacking in historical perspective. When
Republicans gained a majority in the Senate in 1995, they voted to defend the rights of the minority party.
Background

In parliamentary systems, like that in Great Britain, the barest of majorities can control the
government with an iron fist. Not so in the United States, where the Framers designed a system
of checks and balances to guard against the tendency of temporary majorities to overreach and
do great harm to the Republic. They accomplished this by limiting federal power and dividing
that power between the three branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

Not content with these moderating structural designs, however, they went further. The Framers divided the Congress into two bodies—House and Senate—and built a Senate with features that
guaranteed that body would be less susceptible to temporary swings in public opinion: senators
would hold six-year terms, would represent an entire state rather than a single district, and would be chosen by the state legislatures (until the 17th Amendment, after which they were elected directly by the states’ citizens).

Some of today's Senate Democrats, frustrated that a majority as large as theirs still faces some
limits to its power, have begun suggesting that the rules of the Senate be changed to diminish the power of the minority and expand the powers of the current, and future, majorities. This hasty— and dangerous—proposal should be resisted, and rejected, by Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.

Senate Rules Give Voice to the Minority

In the 2008 presidential contest, 52.9 percent of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate,
while a substantial minority of 45.6 percent—almost 60 million citizens—voted for the
Republican candidate.1 The presidency, of course, is a winner-takes-all contest under the
Electoral College and Barack Obama, the Democrats’ nominee, was duly elected. The voters
also sent substantial majorities of Democrats to Congress, both in the House and the Senate.

The House of Representatives operates under bare majoritarian rules. If America were governed by only the White House and the House of Representatives, the President and his partisan allies could enact any law they fancied, with little debate. The 60 million people who preferred another course would have no choice but to sit on the sidelines, waiting patiently until the next election.

As the Founders knew, however, our country works best when all Americans participate in
guiding the ship of state. For this reason, they designed a Senate in which each state, regardless
of population, gets equal representation, offering substantial protection for minority rights.
Moreover, by giving the Senators features like six-year terms, the Framers wanted to limit the
influence of temporary swings in public sentiment, ensuring that a broad array of Americans
support legislation. The result is that the most extreme proposals of a momentary majority can
be thwarted, or moderated. Because of the Senate, what becomes law is more likely to represent a mainstream consensus.

A legendary story has it that Thomas Jefferson once asked George Washington why the Framers created a second legislative body. Washington is said to have responded by asking 1“Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” “To cool it,” responded Jefferson. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”2 Whatever the historical accuracy of this story, it has a core of truth to it. Indeed, in the words of James Madison, one of the primary authors of the Constitution: “The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system and with more wisdom” than the House of
Representatives.3 The Senate has always served as a moderating force in our national politics.

A recent example of how the Senate can work to improve legislation is provided by the 2007
Energy Bill, H.R. 6. The bill passed by the House contained massive tax increases and onerous
federal mandates. Although the House-backed version commanded majority support in the
Senate, a determined minority opposed the bill by denying cloture and insisting on extended
debate.4 Later, after the majority moderated the bill to remove the taxes and some of the
mandates, the legislation was reconsidered and passed the Senate by a large margin, with only
eight Senators voting against it.5

The Senate performs its unique function in American politics because it follows markedly
different practices and procedures than those of the House of Representatives. In the House, the
majority holds the power to set the rules for debate and can even decide what, if any,
amendments will be considered. The majority in the House also has the power to cut off debate
at any time. By contrast, the Senate has traditionally operated under the principles of unlimited
debate and a free amendment process. Many procedural steps in the Senate effectively require
“unanimous consent,” that is, all members of the Senate must agree to proceed. An individual
Senator often has considerable power to lodge objections and have his or her say. In short, the
rules compel senators to consult each other and achieve consensus.

One-Party Rule in the 111th Congress

Congressional Democrats currently have a 76-vote majority in the House of Representatives and, until recently, had 60 seats in the Senate. These significant majorities are far greater than any enjoyed by Republicans in more than 80 years. The solid majority control of the House has already allowed for rapid passage of a wish list of Democratic priorities, including a government takeover of health care, a job killing “cap and trade” bill, and other measures.

Under the rules of the Senate, majority leadership does not have the same ability to jam bills
through without any input from the minority. That has not stopped the current Senate majority, however, from using every procedural tool at its disposal to limit, and even shut down, minority
debate and input into legislation. These maneuvers include: bypassing the committee process;
blocking floor amendments proposed by the minority; and precipitously ending debate, as well as the use of the fast-track budget reconciliation process to pass healthcare legislation.
_____
1 http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
2 Richard F. Fenno, Jr., The United States Senate: a Bicameral Perspective (1982), at 5.
3 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, June 7.
4 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00
213
5 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00
430

Excerpt: Please Click Here to read more details.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Dems defend candidate for Ill. senator - Alexi Giannoulias Not Dropping out of IL Senate race

Republicans launched this ad that appeared in the Chicagoist.com article back in February and by the first part of April, the Chicago Tribune after researching confirmed what the ad said. Simple amazing that Democrats are continuing to stand by Giannoulias even though behind the scenes they admit that the bank is going to go bankrupt under the weight of bad loans. We are wondering if the Obama administration is going to do a bailout since they are long time friends.

Tribune: Broadway Bank Lent $20M To Felons While Giannoulias Worked ThereThat sound you heard this morning was tens of thousands of the state's Democratic voters performing a *facepalm* upon reading a Tribune report that while Dem. U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias was a senior loan officer at his family's Broadway Bank, the bank lent $20 million to convicted felons. Giannoulias himself didn't talk to the Tribune for the report but said in a statement that he was one of many senior loan officers at the time and didn't have anything to do with these particular loans. Meanwhile, Republicans around the state are saying, "We told ya so," as the story confirmed claims made in an ad launched the morning after this February's primary.


Excerpt: Read more at Chicagoist.com
The Giannoulias family was involved with Obama as far back as his first state senate campaign in 1996. It has been long rumored here in Chicago that Obama obtained a sweetheart deal on his first town home here in Chicago - which he could not have afforded otherwise - and guess who the financing came from for that house? We've been told it was Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias bank. Obama received his first loan courtesy of Rezko to buy a condo under suspicious circumstances since he didn't qualify at a regular bank. Source: American Thinker

With all this background between Obama and Alexi Giannoulias, why would anyone expect a Democrat in IL to drop out of the race for the US Senate no matter what was in their background. Another famous person from Chicago, Hillary, couldn't find the Rose billing records for a long time and they magically appeared one day on a table.

Now we have the senior loan officer for the Browdway bank, Alexi Giannoulias, at the time two loans were made to felons as outlined in the Chicago Tribune headlines, "$20 MILLION IN BANK LOANS TO FELONS" saying he doesn't know anything about the loans.

When are the voters of Illinois going to wake up and realize when you elect a Democrat from Chicago chances of them being on the corrupt side are very high these days. They all seem to be out of the same group of people who will lie, cheat, and steal to gain power.

Are the Democrats going to ask him to step aside? Highly doubtful as he fits their mold they want in the Senate of someone with baggage who can be controlled.

Dems defend candidate for Ill. senator
By Mike Robinson and Philip Elliott
ASSOCIATED PRESS
April 3, 2010

CHICAGO (AP) -- Democrats are quietly worrying about whether Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias can win President Barack Obama's old Senate seat. His family's bank is believed to be on the verge of collapse and reportedly made $20 million in loans to two convicted felons.

Republican Rep. Mark Kirk is already accusing Giannoulias of lying to the voters about the loans, and his campaign is guaranteed to be pounding away at the bank's problems in millions of dollars worth of television ads.

But the 34-year-old Giannoulias is still electable if he meets the bank embarrassment head on and strikes back at the Republican congressman as more conservative than this Democratic-trending state, Democratic insiders say.
Democrats brush aside any talk of getting Giannoulias to bow out of the race.

"Alexi Giannoulias is running a strong campaign on the issues that matter to the people of Illinois -- like job creation and the economy," says Deirdre Murphy, national press secretary of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Giannoulias was not granting interviews Friday as the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story with the headline: "$20 MILLION IN BANK LOANS TO FELONS." The story detailed how Broadway Bank, a Giannoulias family-owned institution in Chicago, had lent large sums to convicted felons Michael "Jaws" Giorango and Demitri Stavropoulos.

The fact that Broadway had loaned the men millions -- Stavropoulos was convicted of running a multistate bookmaking ring and Giorango of promoting a nationwide prostitution ring -- was a campaign issue when Giannoulias ran for state treasurer in 2006. But the Tribune reported it reviewed court files and other documents that showed millions more -- a total of more than $27 million worth of mortgages to Giorango, his land trusts and companies since 1999, $20 million of which was loaned when Giannoulias was a senior loan officer.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times