Congressional stuff
Friday, Jun 13, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I’ve never thought that this was much of an issue, but this development may hinder the Republicans’ efforts to make hay out of it in other districts…
Concrete company president Martin Ozinga III has no plans to relocate from Homer Glen, which lies just inside the 13th Congressional District represented by Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Hinsdale.
Ozinga’s residence has not been raised as an issue by either of his November opponents, state Sen. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete, and Green Party candidate Jason Wallace of Normal.
Ozinga’s campaign manager, Andy Sere, noted Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Barrington, lives outside her 8th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Dan Seals lives just outside the 10th Congressional District, where he hopes to unseat Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park.
“The fact that he lives a mile or so outside the district while still living in the district’s biggest county has not come up with any of the voters he has spoken with,” Sere said. Whether Ozinga would move into the district if he won the election has not been discussed. “Frankly, it hasn’t come up,” he said.
* Meanwhile, Congresscritter Melissa Bean is criticized for missing an important House vote…
8th Congressional District challenger Steve Greenberg [sic] is firing away at U.S. Rep Melissa Bean for missing a vote last week on what he calls “the largest tax increase in American history … of at least $683 billion over the next years.”
Bean was absent for House Roll Call 382, a non-binding budget resolution which representatives narrowly adopted 214-210.
The Barrington Democrat later filed a statement with the Congressional record indicating she would have voted against the measure. […]
Bean’s staff did not explain why she was one of only 10 House members to miss the vote.
* But the Dems are firing back at Greenberg…
A pair of lawsuits filed against Greenberg’s family businesses in Cook County Circuit Court allege the companies defaulted on a $1.5 million bank loan and failed to pay a law firm more than $60,000 in legal fees.
Greenberg would not comment on the lawsuits this week except to call them “frivolous.”
“Over 80 percent of companies get sued,” he said. […]
“As if his disastrous candidacy were not telling enough, Steve Greenberg’s business dealings show a deep contempt for following the rules or living up to his commitments,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer said.
* Related…
* Roskam: district’s No. 1 concern is gas prices
* GOP says fraud may have cost groups $750,000
* Scandal Hampers NRCC’s Ability to Get Loans: The committee will need to hire an outside firm to conduct a standard audit of its books for 2007, and until that audit is complete, the NRCC will not be able to take out any bank loans to fund independent expenditure campaigns in late-breaking races.
* Did Rezko have hand in airport bill?
* Durbin’s net worth rises after oversight discovered
- so-called "Austin Mayor" - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 10:45 am:
“Roskam: district’s No. 1 concern is gas prices”
Roskam pledged to address the districts concern by continuing to mindlessly rubber-stamp the Bush/Cheney/Oil Inc energy policies that gave the district $4.19 per gallon regular gas.
– SCAM
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 10:57 am:
I can’t make any sense of this airport story.
Halvorsen favors a 7-member board with one gubernatorial appointment. Jackson favors a 9-member board with five gubernatorial appointments, effectively giving the governor control.
But Jackson says somehow Halvorsen is shilling for Blago and Rezko? Never was good at math.
- Ghost - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 11:11 am:
Is halvorson serious with this quote?
=== “If you’ve got elected people, it’s very partisan,” Halvorson said. “Appointed people don’t run for election and don’t accept campaign contributions.” ===
People “appointed” by elected officials are non-partisan non-political? Appointed officials are the worst of the worst when it comes to partisianship. They are not elected so they do not awnser to the people for their conduct or decisions. They are beholden and usualy controlled by those who appointed them, and to whom they are depedent on re-appointment.
Jacksons idea is no better, making a majority of the board appointed people (by the Gov!!) renders the safeguards of having elected officials useless.
No more “appointments”. Look at Sangamon county “appointments” its all partisan names and political favors.
- trafficmatt - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 1:23 pm:
SCAM,
Your partisanship is getting in the way of common sense.
The Republicans (including that mean, evil, wicked pair of Bush/Cheney -wwwwooooooo), proposed:
Drilling in ANWAR - democrats blocked it
Increasing nuclear - democrats blocked it
Increasing Refining capacity - democrats blocked it
Using Oil Shale - democrats blocked it
Increasing the electrical transmission capacity - democrats blocked it.
Peter Roskam could do a whole lot more if it wasn’t for the Democrats getting in the way.
- Bill Baar - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 2:10 pm:
Not to mention Durbin and Obama’s letter on keeping out Brazilian ethanol…
- Squideshi - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 2:16 pm:
I can’t help but think that not living in the district is going to be an automatic disadvantage, as there will, no doubt, be some voters for which this is an issue. I’m surprised that the Republicans couldn’t find anyone within the district willing to run as their candidate for this office.
- JonShibleyFan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 2:36 pm:
According to the DOE, if Congress opened drilling in ANWR, oil prices would indeed drop: $.75 per barrel.
Seventy-five cents.
Per barrel.
- Huh? - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 2:56 pm:
If Ozinga won’t live in the district that he represents, why should I vote for him? It is disrespectful for Ozinga to run and not live within the district. It is like he is saying, “I want to represent you, but you’re not good enough to live with.”
- archpundit - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 3:26 pm:
===According to the DOE, if Congress opened drilling in ANWR, oil prices would indeed drop: $.75 per barrel.
That’s at peak production only. What are you trying to give everyone an inflated sense of the importance of ANWR?
- archpundit - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 3:29 pm:
===Increasing Refining capacity - democrats blocked it
How did Democrats block it? Refining capacity isn’t the problem anyway. The problem is world demand is up. Refining capacity hasn’t been increased because the market did this wondrous thing and encouraged efficiency instead of building new refineries.
It’s funny how the actual markets are ignored when talking about markets.
- JonShibleyFan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 3:51 pm:
Now, Mr. Archpundit, if you don’t want to save micro-fractions of a penny on every gallon of gas you pump in 20 years, that’s your business.
Me, I’m ready to get those obstructionists out of the way of Congressional-superstar-in-waiting Peter Roskam!
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:14 pm:
There are many problems.
Refining capacity is a problem.
World demand is a problem.
Environmental angst is a problem.
A weak dollar is a problem.
Depending on motors moving our goods, is a problem.
Depending on motors moving our people, is a problem.
Gas taxes are too high, and are a problem.
Political machinations are a problem.
A Middle East war is a problem.
A political party opposed to oil companies is a problem.
Sitting on the 3rd largest proven oil reserves in the world and being too afraid to get it, is a problem.
Hating your neighbor’s utility vehicle, is a problem.
Folks believing that expensive gas is a good thing, is a problem.
People demanding a government solution, is a problem.
Misinformation and propaganda is a problem.
We’ve been arguing over these problems for 35 years without resolve.
I think we just like to argue.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:21 pm:
If you are afraid to drill in ANWR, you can quote the latest lie that only $.75 would be saved per barrel.
If you believe in drilling in ANWR, you can quote the lastest lie that $1.44 per gallon would be saved.
You can find any number to justify any political position you want to take regarding ANWR. No one really knows a thing, yet they are all blathering. How much oil is there? No one knows. How much will a barrel of oil be going for when ANWR goes online? No one knows. How long would it take to get ANWR online? No one knows.
Yet everyone has an opinion and is screaming that they are correct.
I think we just like to argue.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:21 pm:
You’re missing the biggest one.
Oil companies continue to buy contracts in a hyper-inflated trading market, which just supports the speculators’s game.
Look what happened when the big grain buyers stood back for a couple days in the 1988 drought (after limits were off and prices really skyrocketed), or when the big oil companies refused to play the speculators’ game and stood down for less than a day after the Iraq land invasion started during HW Bush’s term.
Prices plunged.
We’re getting hosed.
- PhilCollins - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:30 pm:
Huh?, do you think that Rep. Bean is disrespectful, to the voters of the 8th Cong. Dist.? She has represented that district for three years and five months, but she hasn’t lived in that district, during that time.
- JonShibleyFan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:38 pm:
“the latest lie that only $.75 would be saved per barrel.”
That “lie” comes from the US Department of Energy.
The Secretary of Energy is Samuel Bodman. He’s in favor of drilling in ANWR. He was appointed by President Bush, who is in favor of drilling in ANWR. The report was requested by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who, you may have guessed, is in favor of drilling in ANWR.
If there is a lie at work here, I suspect it is not of the nature which you imply.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:42 pm:
The Kankakee paper has an article about the Halvorson-Jackson feud and points out a new reality.
…Their feud over the massive project will only deepen if she is elected to the Congress this fall…
Do we want to see the Illinois Democratic Civil War spill into a new fight between two Illinois Congressmembers? Jackson is a proven Congressman, Halvorson has many questions to answer. I don’t want to see a federal-level congressional feud over anything. I’d stick with the guy I know over the gal who’s lived in Jones’ pocket the past decade.
Democrats have to be pretty unhappy about this.
- JonShibleyFan - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 4:57 pm:
“I don’t want to see a federal-level congressional feud over anything.”
The very article you linked to indicated that already occurred when Jerry Weller proposed legislation subjecting the airport to federal procurement guidelines and placing it under control of the county in which it has been proposed.
“The guy you know” has no position on the airport. So how is it that you can guarantee there will be no continuation of the “federal-level congressional fued” that had already begun?
- archpundit - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 5:05 pm:
More simply for the people in the 11th, if a Ozinga is elected to a Congress with a Democratic majority there will be no stopping Jackson at the federal level. As soon as Weller was in the minority, Jackson did away with the restrictions Weller put on the airport that included Will County control and federal procurement rules.
I’m no fan of Weller, but I think he got that right.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 5:28 pm:
No one knows about ANWR? I beg to differ. The US Geological Survey and the DOE have excellent numbers.
http://energy.usgs.gov/alaska/anwr.html
A clear, brief analysis from 2001 may be found here: http://www.geotimes.org/may01/anwr.html
From the article: “A certain number of barrels of oil per day have to flow though the pipeline to keep it operational. If it runs dry, the laws under which it was constructed mandate that it be torn down and the area be returned to its natural state. Oil companies — namely big Alaskan players including BP, Phillips Alaska and ExxonMobil — stand to lose money if that happens. They are looking for ways to keep the line up and running.”
Bottom line on ANWR is that any production will simply offset the declines in other north slope fields. We won’t get a boost from ANWR, it would turn a downward slope in production into a flat line.
- jerry 101 - Friday, Jun 13, 08 @ 9:21 pm:
here’s a solution: don’t build an airport we don’t need.