Devotion and Money Tie Iranians to Iraqi City
By SAM DAGHER
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/middleeast/31karbala.html?th&emc=th
KARBALA, Iraq — Over just two days, about 80 Iranian pilgrims were killed in April in suicide bombings in Iraq. But even though the pilgrims are clearly a favored target for Sunni extremists in Iraq, and though the threat continues, it seems nothing will keep the Iranians from coming here.
Iraq allows up to 5,000 Iranian pilgrims to enter each day. The two countries have long had a complicated relationship.
The New York Times
Karbala’s economy depends on money spent by Iranians.
On a recent afternoon, a group of pilgrims from the Iranian city of Isfahan — many in tears and in a trancelike state — inched toward the shimmering golden-domed shrine ahead chanting “Hussein beloved” in Persian. Inside, Iranians jostled other pilgrims to grip the ornate gold and silver cagelike structure bearing the tomb of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson Imam Hussein, shrouded in green fabric embroidered with precious stones.
It is religious devotion that compels them to come. But Iran’s government is part of the equation, too, encouraging a greater Iranian presence in Iraq by supporting companies that control a lucrative segment of the pilgrimage business and renovating and maintaining Shiite shrines in Iraq.
While the United States and surrounding Arab nations worry about direct Iranian influence and support for armed groups, the pilgrimages present a small but important example of Iran’s rising soft power in Iraq. And it is something that makes Iraqis increasingly resentful.
Recently, the Interior Ministry banned Persian signs inside Karbala despite the fact most Iranian pilgrims speak no Arabic.
In April, Karbala’s residents demonstrated against the awarding of a contract to an Iranian company, Al Kawthar, to renovate the historic city center, including the area around the shrines of Imam Hussein and his brother Abu Fadhil al-Abbas, part of a $100-million project. Officials say they have been inundated with petitions against the Iranian proposal.
“We are Arabs, we will not accept to be colonized by anyone,” said Ali al-Hayawi, a hotel owner in Karbala catering to pilgrims, who is opposed to Iran’s involvement in the project. “We do not take orders from the Iranians.”
The dynamic in Karbala suggests that Iran may have a hard time exerting any deep sway among Iraqis, even among fellow Shiites, with suspicion playing out on several fronts. But at the national level, the relationship is more of a tug of war. The Iraqi government may want to keep Iran at arm’s length, but it also needs Iran economically and as a strategic ally.
Iran and Iraq have always had a contentious relationship, and it became more complicated with the American presence in Iraq.
The two predominantly Shiite countries share an 800-mile border and historical, cultural and trade ties, but attitudes on both sides remain colored both by ancient enmities and an eight-year war in the 1980s that left hundreds of thousands dead or maimed. Saddam Hussein did allow Iranian pilgrims back into Iraq in the mid-1990s, but it was a fraction of the current number and they were under the constant watch of his secret police.
Iraq signed an agreement with Iran in 2005 to allow up to 5,000 Iranian pilgrims in each day. Most come by land and stay for a week. There are also three daily flights now ferrying Iranian pilgrims to Iraq. Tehran wants to send many more and to improve the infrastructure in the shrine cities to allow it.
Karbala, for instance, receives millions of visitors each year but has a maximum hotel capacity of 23,000, local officials say.
Nationalists and Sunni extremists aside, many Iraqis welcome Iranian pilgrims, whose business is vital for the economies of this shrine city, nearby Najaf and the area around the Shiite shrine in the Kadhimiya district of Baghdad. And the government deploys its security forces liberally to protect them.
At the same time many Iraqis bristle at Iran’s perceived negative influence and meddling in internal politics, especially through the governing Iraqi Shiite parties that have been nurtured by Iran for years.
“Three-quarters of the power is in their hands,” said Haidar Abdul-Hassan, a shopkeeper in Karbala, referring to Iranians and their Iraqi allies.
Iraqi officials, eager not to be seen as beholden to Iran, become cagey and agitated when asked about Iranian influence in Karbala, insisting that it is minimal.
A closer look, though, reveals a different picture.
Behind the Imam Hussein shrine, through a dimly lighted hotel lobby and up a flight of stairs are the offices of Shamsa, a private Iranian company that has a virtual monopoly on Iranian pilgrimages to Iraq.
Shamsa gets to choose which Iraqi companies to deal with for the transportation, protection and accommodation of pilgrims. Almost all its partners are companies affiliated with Iraqi political parties close to Iran, according to those in the business. An example is the Ihsan private security company, which is close to the influential Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
Tucked inside a warren of alleys in Karbala’s bazaar are the nondescript offices of Setad Bazsazi Atabat Aliyat. It is a company owned by the Iranian government, involved in shrine renovation worldwide and busy at work here.
An entry on a whiteboard reads: “Deliver five air-cooling units to Imam Hussein’s shrine.”
Glossy graphic designs of the contentious Karbala shrine renovation project hang on the walls. The project entails demolishing old homes, enlarging the plaza between the shrines and constructing two underground levels and shopping malls. Al Kawthar, the Iranian company awarded the design contract, is a Setad affiliate.
Both operate in all shrine cities. Projects in Karbala alone include a hospital, several large hotels and apartment complexes and an Iranian-run religious seminary.
In May 2008, Setad’s chairman told Iranian news media that Iran donated nearly $1 billion to equip and renovate Iraq’s shrines. Shrine officials in Karbala at the time said the number was “highly exaggerated.”
The United States military commander for the nine mainly Shiite provinces south of Baghdad, including Karbala, said recently that while Iran reduced but did not completely cut off its “lethal support” and arming of militias in Iraq, it had sought to increase its soft power through charities and economic and political organizations.
“Some of it is good,” said the commander, Maj. Gen. Michael Oates. “My concern is the degree to which they may seek to influence Iraqi politics.”
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Pakistan Army Claims Control of Main Swat Town
Pakistan Army Claims Control of Main Swat Town
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/asia/31pstan.html?th&emc=th
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s military said Saturday that it had taken full control of Mingora, the most populous city in the Swat Valley, scoring a significant victory against Taliban forces three weeks after the start of an offensive in the area.
Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a military spokesman, said at a news conference that the army was able to flush out militants, in part with the help of locals who showed soldiers Taliban hiding places in hotels and other buildings. The military estimates it has killed more than 1,000 militants since the campaign began on May 8.
Mingora, 100 miles northwest of Islamabad, the capital, is the most important city in Swat, a resort area that was overrun by the Taliban. The campaign is seen as a test of Pakistan’s resolve to fight its growing insurgency, which has spread substantially in the past two years, and which the United States says is compromising efforts to quell a similar insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan.
General Abbas announced the killing of two militant commanders, Abu Syed and Misbahuddin, but said it was unclear whether any more senior leaders had been killed or captured. “We are refraining from announcing or declaring until we have something in hand — some proof, some smoking gun,” General Abbas said.
Pakistan’s military has conducted two previous operations in Swat, but each involved fewer ground troops than this offensive, and they were criticized as causing too much harm to civilians without discernible gains against the Taliban.
Now, General Abbas said, the Pakistani public seems to be firmly behind the expanded offensive. “The military feels it’s in a much better position to finish the job because it has public support,” he said.
Soldiers’ deaths have been commemorated in emotional public ceremonies, and news channels have been praising troops with segments with headlines like “All the Right Moves.”
The fight in Swat has been against an enemy that is largely local, General Abbas said. Just 10 percent of the militants are from outside the valley, mostly from Central Asia and Afghanistan; a handful are from Waziristan, a tribal area in Pakistan’s northwest that is a no-go zone for the military and a stronghold for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The military estimates that there were 5,000 militants in the valley before the operation.
“It’s not a monolithic force,” General Abbas said.
Pakistan has said it plans to conduct its next campaign in Waziristan.
In Mingora, militants were hiding in hotels and other private buildings, posing as civilians, General Abbas said. They had converted some buildings into bunkers. Soldiers also found five tunnels, 100 feet long and 12 feet wide, filled with arms.
The fighting has displaced what the United Nations and Pakistani officials estimate to be as many as three million people, and Pakistan’s information minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, said the government was responding as fast as it could to the humanitarian crisis.
The military has said it is not keeping track of civilian casualties in the campaign. General Abbas said Saturday that 81 soldiers had been killed and 250 wounded since its start.
A team of 21 doctors reached Mingora on Saturday to reopen the hospital there for the wounded who have been stuck in their homes, Mr. Kaira said. The gas has been turned on, and generators are being put in place to get the water supply working.
It will take two weeks to restore electricity, which has been off since the military operation began, General Abbas said. Twenty-five tons of rations have been sent for about 40,000 people who are assumed to be stranded in Swat, he said.
“Civilians are in desperate need of provisions,” General Abbas said.
Salman Masood contributed reporting.
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/world/asia/31pstan.html?th&emc=th
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan’s military said Saturday that it had taken full control of Mingora, the most populous city in the Swat Valley, scoring a significant victory against Taliban forces three weeks after the start of an offensive in the area.
Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a military spokesman, said at a news conference that the army was able to flush out militants, in part with the help of locals who showed soldiers Taliban hiding places in hotels and other buildings. The military estimates it has killed more than 1,000 militants since the campaign began on May 8.
Mingora, 100 miles northwest of Islamabad, the capital, is the most important city in Swat, a resort area that was overrun by the Taliban. The campaign is seen as a test of Pakistan’s resolve to fight its growing insurgency, which has spread substantially in the past two years, and which the United States says is compromising efforts to quell a similar insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan.
General Abbas announced the killing of two militant commanders, Abu Syed and Misbahuddin, but said it was unclear whether any more senior leaders had been killed or captured. “We are refraining from announcing or declaring until we have something in hand — some proof, some smoking gun,” General Abbas said.
Pakistan’s military has conducted two previous operations in Swat, but each involved fewer ground troops than this offensive, and they were criticized as causing too much harm to civilians without discernible gains against the Taliban.
Now, General Abbas said, the Pakistani public seems to be firmly behind the expanded offensive. “The military feels it’s in a much better position to finish the job because it has public support,” he said.
Soldiers’ deaths have been commemorated in emotional public ceremonies, and news channels have been praising troops with segments with headlines like “All the Right Moves.”
The fight in Swat has been against an enemy that is largely local, General Abbas said. Just 10 percent of the militants are from outside the valley, mostly from Central Asia and Afghanistan; a handful are from Waziristan, a tribal area in Pakistan’s northwest that is a no-go zone for the military and a stronghold for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The military estimates that there were 5,000 militants in the valley before the operation.
“It’s not a monolithic force,” General Abbas said.
Pakistan has said it plans to conduct its next campaign in Waziristan.
In Mingora, militants were hiding in hotels and other private buildings, posing as civilians, General Abbas said. They had converted some buildings into bunkers. Soldiers also found five tunnels, 100 feet long and 12 feet wide, filled with arms.
The fighting has displaced what the United Nations and Pakistani officials estimate to be as many as three million people, and Pakistan’s information minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, said the government was responding as fast as it could to the humanitarian crisis.
The military has said it is not keeping track of civilian casualties in the campaign. General Abbas said Saturday that 81 soldiers had been killed and 250 wounded since its start.
A team of 21 doctors reached Mingora on Saturday to reopen the hospital there for the wounded who have been stuck in their homes, Mr. Kaira said. The gas has been turned on, and generators are being put in place to get the water supply working.
It will take two weeks to restore electricity, which has been off since the military operation began, General Abbas said. Twenty-five tons of rations have been sent for about 40,000 people who are assumed to be stranded in Swat, he said.
“Civilians are in desperate need of provisions,” General Abbas said.
Salman Masood contributed reporting.
Contractors Vie for Plum Work, Hacking for U.S.
Contractors Vie for Plum Work, Hacking for U.S.
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JOHN MARKOFF
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/31cyber.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
MELBOURNE, Fla. — The government’s urgent push into cyberwarfare has set off a rush among the biggest military companies for billions of dollars in new defense contracts.
The exotic nature of the work, coupled with the deep recession, is enabling the companies to attract top young talent that once would have gone to Silicon Valley. And the race to develop weapons that defend against, or initiate, computer attacks has given rise to thousands of “hacker soldiers” within the Pentagon who can blend the new capabilities into the nation’s war planning.
Nearly all of the largest military companies — including Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — have major cyber contracts with the military and intelligence agencies.
The companies have been moving quickly to lock up the relatively small number of experts with the training and creativity to block the attacks and design countermeasures. They have been buying smaller firms, financing academic research and running advertisements for “cyberninjas” at a time when other industries are shedding workers.
The changes are manifesting themselves in highly classified laboratories, where computer geeks in their 20s like to joke that they are hackers with security clearances.
At a Raytheon facility here south of the Kennedy Space Center, a hub of innovation in an earlier era, rock music blares and empty cans of Mountain Dew pile up as engineers create tools to protect the Pentagon’s computers and crack into the networks of countries that could become adversaries. Prizes like cappuccino machines and stacks of cash spur them on, and a gong heralds each major breakthrough.
The young engineers represent the new face of a war that President Obama described Friday as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” The president said he would appoint a senior White House official to oversee the nation’s cybersecurity strategies.
Computer experts say the government is behind the curve in sealing off its networks from threats that are growing more persistent and sophisticated, with thousands of intrusions each day from organized criminals and legions of hackers for nations including Russia and China.
“Everybody’s attacking everybody,” said Scott Chase, a 30-year-old computer engineer who helps run the Raytheon unit here.
Mr. Chase, who wears his hair in a ponytail, and Terry Gillette, a 53-year-old former rocket engineer, ran SI Government Solutions before selling the company to Raytheon last year as the boom in the military’s cyberoperations accelerated.
The operation — tucked into several unmarked buildings behind an insurance office and a dentist’s office — is doing some of the most cutting-edge work, both in identifying weaknesses in Pentagon networks and in creating weapons for potential attacks.
Daniel D. Allen, who oversees work on intelligence systems for Northrop Grumman, estimated that federal spending on computer security now totals $10 billion each year, including classified programs. That is just a fraction of the government’s spending on weapons systems. But industry officials expect it to rise rapidly.
The military contractors are now in the enviable position of turning what they learned out of necessity — protecting the sensitive Pentagon data that sits on their own computers — into a lucrative business that could replace some of the revenue lost from cancellations of conventional weapons systems.
Executives at Lockheed Martin, which has long been the government’s largest information-technology contractor, also see the demand for greater computer security spreading to energy and health care agencies and the rest of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But for now, most companies remain focused on the national-security arena, where the hottest efforts involve anticipating how an enemy might attack and developing the resources to strike back.
Though even the existence of research on cyberweapons was once highly classified, the Air Force plans this year to award the first publicly announced contract for developing tools to break into enemy computers. The companies are also teaming up to build a National Cyber Range, a model of the Internet for testing advanced techniques.
Military experts said Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, which have long been major players in the Pentagon’s security efforts, are leading the push into offensive cyberwarfare, along with the Raytheon unit. This involves finding vulnerabilities in other countries’ computer systems and developing software tools to exploit them, either to steal sensitive information or disable the networks.
Mr. Chase and Mr. Gillette said the Raytheon unit, which has about 100 employees, grew out of a company they started with friends at Florida Institute of Technology that concentrated on helping software makers find flaws in their own products. Over the last several years, their focus shifted to the military and intelligence agencies, which wanted to use their analytic tools to detect vulnerabilities and intrusions previously unnoticed.
Like other contractors, the Raytheon teams set up “honey pots,” the equivalent of sting operations, to lure hackers into digital cul-de-sacs that mimic Pentagon Web sites. They then capture the attackers’ codes and create defenses for them.
And since most of the world’s computers run on the Windows or the Linux systems, their work has also provided a growing window into how to attack foreign networks in any cyberwar.
“It takes a nonconformist to excel at what we do,” said Mr. Gillette, a tanned surfing aficionado who looks like a 1950s hipster in his T-shirts with rolled-up sleeves.
The company, which would allow interviews with other employees only on the condition that their last names not be used because of security concerns, hired one of its top young workers, Dustin, after he won two major hacking contests and dropped out of college. “I always approach it like a game, and it’s been fun,” said Dustin, now 22.
Another engineer, known as Jolly, joined Raytheon in April after earning a master’s degree in computer security at DePaul University in Chicago. “You think defense contractors, and you think bureaucracy, and not necessarily a lot of interesting and challenging projects,” he said.
The Pentagon’s interest in cyberwarfare has reached “religious intensity,” said Daniel T. Kuehl, a military historian at the National Defense University. And the changes carry through to soldiers being trained to defend and attack computer and wireless networks out on the battlefield.
That shift can be seen in the remaking of organizations like the Association of Old Crows, a professional group that includes contractors and military personnel.
The Old Crows have deep roots in what has long been known as electronic warfare — the use of radar and radio technologies for jamming and deception.
But the financing for electronic warfare had slowed recently, prompting the Old Crows to set up a broader information-operations branch last year and establish a new trade journal to focus on cyberwarfare.
The career of Joel Harding, the director of the group’s Information Operations Institute, exemplifies the increasing role that computing and the Internet are playing in the military.
A 20-year veteran of military intelligence, Mr. Harding shifted in 1996 into one of the earliest commands that studied government-sponsored computer hacker programs. After leaving the military, he took a job as an analyst at SAIC, a large contractor developing computer applications for military and intelligence agencies.
Mr. Harding estimates that there are now 3,000 to 5,000 information operations specialists in the military and 50,000 to 70,000 soldiers involved in general computer operations. Adding specialists in electronic warfare, deception and other areas could bring the total number of information operations personnel to as many as 88,700, he said.
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JOHN MARKOFF
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/31cyber.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
MELBOURNE, Fla. — The government’s urgent push into cyberwarfare has set off a rush among the biggest military companies for billions of dollars in new defense contracts.
The exotic nature of the work, coupled with the deep recession, is enabling the companies to attract top young talent that once would have gone to Silicon Valley. And the race to develop weapons that defend against, or initiate, computer attacks has given rise to thousands of “hacker soldiers” within the Pentagon who can blend the new capabilities into the nation’s war planning.
Nearly all of the largest military companies — including Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — have major cyber contracts with the military and intelligence agencies.
The companies have been moving quickly to lock up the relatively small number of experts with the training and creativity to block the attacks and design countermeasures. They have been buying smaller firms, financing academic research and running advertisements for “cyberninjas” at a time when other industries are shedding workers.
The changes are manifesting themselves in highly classified laboratories, where computer geeks in their 20s like to joke that they are hackers with security clearances.
At a Raytheon facility here south of the Kennedy Space Center, a hub of innovation in an earlier era, rock music blares and empty cans of Mountain Dew pile up as engineers create tools to protect the Pentagon’s computers and crack into the networks of countries that could become adversaries. Prizes like cappuccino machines and stacks of cash spur them on, and a gong heralds each major breakthrough.
The young engineers represent the new face of a war that President Obama described Friday as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” The president said he would appoint a senior White House official to oversee the nation’s cybersecurity strategies.
Computer experts say the government is behind the curve in sealing off its networks from threats that are growing more persistent and sophisticated, with thousands of intrusions each day from organized criminals and legions of hackers for nations including Russia and China.
“Everybody’s attacking everybody,” said Scott Chase, a 30-year-old computer engineer who helps run the Raytheon unit here.
Mr. Chase, who wears his hair in a ponytail, and Terry Gillette, a 53-year-old former rocket engineer, ran SI Government Solutions before selling the company to Raytheon last year as the boom in the military’s cyberoperations accelerated.
The operation — tucked into several unmarked buildings behind an insurance office and a dentist’s office — is doing some of the most cutting-edge work, both in identifying weaknesses in Pentagon networks and in creating weapons for potential attacks.
Daniel D. Allen, who oversees work on intelligence systems for Northrop Grumman, estimated that federal spending on computer security now totals $10 billion each year, including classified programs. That is just a fraction of the government’s spending on weapons systems. But industry officials expect it to rise rapidly.
The military contractors are now in the enviable position of turning what they learned out of necessity — protecting the sensitive Pentagon data that sits on their own computers — into a lucrative business that could replace some of the revenue lost from cancellations of conventional weapons systems.
Executives at Lockheed Martin, which has long been the government’s largest information-technology contractor, also see the demand for greater computer security spreading to energy and health care agencies and the rest of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But for now, most companies remain focused on the national-security arena, where the hottest efforts involve anticipating how an enemy might attack and developing the resources to strike back.
Though even the existence of research on cyberweapons was once highly classified, the Air Force plans this year to award the first publicly announced contract for developing tools to break into enemy computers. The companies are also teaming up to build a National Cyber Range, a model of the Internet for testing advanced techniques.
Military experts said Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, which have long been major players in the Pentagon’s security efforts, are leading the push into offensive cyberwarfare, along with the Raytheon unit. This involves finding vulnerabilities in other countries’ computer systems and developing software tools to exploit them, either to steal sensitive information or disable the networks.
Mr. Chase and Mr. Gillette said the Raytheon unit, which has about 100 employees, grew out of a company they started with friends at Florida Institute of Technology that concentrated on helping software makers find flaws in their own products. Over the last several years, their focus shifted to the military and intelligence agencies, which wanted to use their analytic tools to detect vulnerabilities and intrusions previously unnoticed.
Like other contractors, the Raytheon teams set up “honey pots,” the equivalent of sting operations, to lure hackers into digital cul-de-sacs that mimic Pentagon Web sites. They then capture the attackers’ codes and create defenses for them.
And since most of the world’s computers run on the Windows or the Linux systems, their work has also provided a growing window into how to attack foreign networks in any cyberwar.
“It takes a nonconformist to excel at what we do,” said Mr. Gillette, a tanned surfing aficionado who looks like a 1950s hipster in his T-shirts with rolled-up sleeves.
The company, which would allow interviews with other employees only on the condition that their last names not be used because of security concerns, hired one of its top young workers, Dustin, after he won two major hacking contests and dropped out of college. “I always approach it like a game, and it’s been fun,” said Dustin, now 22.
Another engineer, known as Jolly, joined Raytheon in April after earning a master’s degree in computer security at DePaul University in Chicago. “You think defense contractors, and you think bureaucracy, and not necessarily a lot of interesting and challenging projects,” he said.
The Pentagon’s interest in cyberwarfare has reached “religious intensity,” said Daniel T. Kuehl, a military historian at the National Defense University. And the changes carry through to soldiers being trained to defend and attack computer and wireless networks out on the battlefield.
That shift can be seen in the remaking of organizations like the Association of Old Crows, a professional group that includes contractors and military personnel.
The Old Crows have deep roots in what has long been known as electronic warfare — the use of radar and radio technologies for jamming and deception.
But the financing for electronic warfare had slowed recently, prompting the Old Crows to set up a broader information-operations branch last year and establish a new trade journal to focus on cyberwarfare.
The career of Joel Harding, the director of the group’s Information Operations Institute, exemplifies the increasing role that computing and the Internet are playing in the military.
A 20-year veteran of military intelligence, Mr. Harding shifted in 1996 into one of the earliest commands that studied government-sponsored computer hacker programs. After leaving the military, he took a job as an analyst at SAIC, a large contractor developing computer applications for military and intelligence agencies.
Mr. Harding estimates that there are now 3,000 to 5,000 information operations specialists in the military and 50,000 to 70,000 soldiers involved in general computer operations. Adding specialists in electronic warfare, deception and other areas could bring the total number of information operations personnel to as many as 88,700, he said.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Cheney Seeks Book Deal on Bush Years and More
Cheney Seeks Book Deal on Bush Years and More
By JIM RUTENBERG and MOTOKO RICH
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23cheney.html?th&emc=th
WASHINGTON — With his sustained blitz of television appearances and speeches, former Vice President Dick Cheney has established himself as perhaps the leading Republican voice against President Obama.
Not a bad time, then, to be in the market for a multimillion-dollar book contract.
Mr. Cheney is actively shopping a memoir about his life in politics and service in four presidential administrations, a work that would add to what is already an unusually dense collection of post-Bush-presidency memoirs that will offer a collective rebuttal to the many harshly critical works released while the writers were in office and beyond.
Already working hard to meet publishers’ deadlines is an informal writers’ workshop of historic proportions: President George W. Bush; Laura Bush, the former first lady; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.; former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Karl Rove, the former presidential political mastermind.
Members of the Bush group are in regular contact as they seek to jog their memories, compare notes and trade stylistic tips in their new lives as authors, according to friends and current and former aides.
The coming crush of books reflects what former Bush officials describe as a desire to produce their own drafts of history after gritting their teeth for so long over the works of the journalists and disgruntled colleagues who penned the first, second and third drafts before them.
Adding to the eagerness is that Mr. Bush and his team had no vocal defender in the presidential campaign last year, when even the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, often attacked their stewardship.
“This is a group that kept their powder dry for a long time,” said Ed Gillespie, the former counselor to Mr. Bush, who stays in close contact with his colleagues. “People will get a firsthand account of the real nature of the decisions and the choices this administration had to make, and maybe there are some things people weren’t free to say at the time that they can say now that can shed some light on some things.”
Then again, the money isn’t bad, either.
A person familiar with discussions Mr. Cheney has had with publishers said he was seeking more than $2 million for his advance. That sum may prove hard to get in this economic climate, especially given his generally low approval ratings, which publishers view as a potential — but not certain — harbinger for sales.
While Mr. Bush got an advance estimated to be well into the millions for a look into 12 of his most important decisions, his payout is not believed to be as large as that of former President Bill Clinton for his memoirs, which drew a $15 million advance.
Mr. Rumsfeld was not paid an advance by his publisher, Sentinel, of Penguin Group USA, and has committed to donating his share of any proceeds to his nonprofit foundation. (Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Obama, for that matter, were represented in their contract talks by the Washington lawyer Robert B. Barnett.)
Mr. Cheney’s friends say he does not need the money and has made clear in his talks that he is eager to give a full accounting of his life in politics that will debunk his many critics.
According to a person familiar with a meeting that Mr. Cheney had with a publisher, the former vice president is proposing a memoir that would function not only as the story of his role in four Republican administrations but also as a history of “the entire Republican ascendancy going back to Nixon.” This person did not want to be named because of the confidentiality of the talks.
Mr. Cheney has talked with houses including HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, where Mary Matalin, his close friend and adviser, is editor in chief of Threshold, the conservative imprint that is also publishing Mr. Rove’s book. Marji Ross, president and publisher of the conservative publisher Regnery, said she and others at the house had talked informally to Mr. Cheney and Mr. Barnett. But Ms. Matalin’s long history with Mr. Cheney has made her imprint a logical home for his book.
John Hannah, a senior adviser to Mr. Cheney at the White House, said that when he spoke to Mr. Cheney a few weeks ago the former vice president was trying to figure out how to strike a balance between his life story and his hotly debated tenure serving with Mr. Bush. “The question was, Do you do the 40 years in Washington, given all his experiences in different jobs and perspectives?” Mr. Hannah said. “Or do you need to do something fairly quickly to answer and to discuss the last eight years?”
As the talks continue, Mr. Cheney is writing out his thoughts longhand in an office above his garage in Virginia and is in frequent contact with the other newly minted Bush administration authors, right on up to Mr. Bush.
A report by U.S. News & World Report about a visit by Mr. Cheney to Mr. Rumsfeld’s Washington office in March prompted speculation that they were trying to match up their stories, which a Rumsfeld spokesman, Keith Urbahn, denied. He said there was likely to be a greater divergence of views in the coming books than some might expect.
Mr. Rumsfeld, who is working almost full time on his book, feeding dictation to aides culling his personal papers, often differed with counterweights in other departments, like Ms. Rice. “There’s a great deal of truth to the adage of where you stand is where you sit,” Mr. Urbahn said.
Ms. Rice has a three-book deal with Crown, Mr. Bush’s publisher. Douglas Brinkley, the historian, said she indicated to him late last year that she deemed it appropriate to wait for the president to publish his book, scheduled for 2010, before she published hers on the White House.
Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington, and Motoko Rich from New York. Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Washington.
By JIM RUTENBERG and MOTOKO RICH
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23cheney.html?th&emc=th
WASHINGTON — With his sustained blitz of television appearances and speeches, former Vice President Dick Cheney has established himself as perhaps the leading Republican voice against President Obama.
Not a bad time, then, to be in the market for a multimillion-dollar book contract.
Mr. Cheney is actively shopping a memoir about his life in politics and service in four presidential administrations, a work that would add to what is already an unusually dense collection of post-Bush-presidency memoirs that will offer a collective rebuttal to the many harshly critical works released while the writers were in office and beyond.
Already working hard to meet publishers’ deadlines is an informal writers’ workshop of historic proportions: President George W. Bush; Laura Bush, the former first lady; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.; former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Karl Rove, the former presidential political mastermind.
Members of the Bush group are in regular contact as they seek to jog their memories, compare notes and trade stylistic tips in their new lives as authors, according to friends and current and former aides.
The coming crush of books reflects what former Bush officials describe as a desire to produce their own drafts of history after gritting their teeth for so long over the works of the journalists and disgruntled colleagues who penned the first, second and third drafts before them.
Adding to the eagerness is that Mr. Bush and his team had no vocal defender in the presidential campaign last year, when even the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, often attacked their stewardship.
“This is a group that kept their powder dry for a long time,” said Ed Gillespie, the former counselor to Mr. Bush, who stays in close contact with his colleagues. “People will get a firsthand account of the real nature of the decisions and the choices this administration had to make, and maybe there are some things people weren’t free to say at the time that they can say now that can shed some light on some things.”
Then again, the money isn’t bad, either.
A person familiar with discussions Mr. Cheney has had with publishers said he was seeking more than $2 million for his advance. That sum may prove hard to get in this economic climate, especially given his generally low approval ratings, which publishers view as a potential — but not certain — harbinger for sales.
While Mr. Bush got an advance estimated to be well into the millions for a look into 12 of his most important decisions, his payout is not believed to be as large as that of former President Bill Clinton for his memoirs, which drew a $15 million advance.
Mr. Rumsfeld was not paid an advance by his publisher, Sentinel, of Penguin Group USA, and has committed to donating his share of any proceeds to his nonprofit foundation. (Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, and Mr. Obama, for that matter, were represented in their contract talks by the Washington lawyer Robert B. Barnett.)
Mr. Cheney’s friends say he does not need the money and has made clear in his talks that he is eager to give a full accounting of his life in politics that will debunk his many critics.
According to a person familiar with a meeting that Mr. Cheney had with a publisher, the former vice president is proposing a memoir that would function not only as the story of his role in four Republican administrations but also as a history of “the entire Republican ascendancy going back to Nixon.” This person did not want to be named because of the confidentiality of the talks.
Mr. Cheney has talked with houses including HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, where Mary Matalin, his close friend and adviser, is editor in chief of Threshold, the conservative imprint that is also publishing Mr. Rove’s book. Marji Ross, president and publisher of the conservative publisher Regnery, said she and others at the house had talked informally to Mr. Cheney and Mr. Barnett. But Ms. Matalin’s long history with Mr. Cheney has made her imprint a logical home for his book.
John Hannah, a senior adviser to Mr. Cheney at the White House, said that when he spoke to Mr. Cheney a few weeks ago the former vice president was trying to figure out how to strike a balance between his life story and his hotly debated tenure serving with Mr. Bush. “The question was, Do you do the 40 years in Washington, given all his experiences in different jobs and perspectives?” Mr. Hannah said. “Or do you need to do something fairly quickly to answer and to discuss the last eight years?”
As the talks continue, Mr. Cheney is writing out his thoughts longhand in an office above his garage in Virginia and is in frequent contact with the other newly minted Bush administration authors, right on up to Mr. Bush.
A report by U.S. News & World Report about a visit by Mr. Cheney to Mr. Rumsfeld’s Washington office in March prompted speculation that they were trying to match up their stories, which a Rumsfeld spokesman, Keith Urbahn, denied. He said there was likely to be a greater divergence of views in the coming books than some might expect.
Mr. Rumsfeld, who is working almost full time on his book, feeding dictation to aides culling his personal papers, often differed with counterweights in other departments, like Ms. Rice. “There’s a great deal of truth to the adage of where you stand is where you sit,” Mr. Urbahn said.
Ms. Rice has a three-book deal with Crown, Mr. Bush’s publisher. Douglas Brinkley, the historian, said she indicated to him late last year that she deemed it appropriate to wait for the president to publish his book, scheduled for 2010, before she published hers on the White House.
Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington, and Motoko Rich from New York. Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting from Washington.
First Death for Washington Assisted-Suicide Law
First Death for Washington Assisted-Suicide Law
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23suicide.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
SEATTLE — A woman with pancreatic cancer has become the first person to die under a law passed last year allowing doctor-assisted suicide in Washington, according to an advocacy group that pushed for the law.
The woman, Linda Fleming, 66, of Sequim, Wash., died Thursday evening after taking lethal medication prescribed by a doctor under the law, according to a news release by the group, Compassion and Choices of Washington. The release said Ms. Fleming received a diagnosis of Stage 4 pancreatic cancer a month ago, and “she was told she was actively dying.”
Ms. Fleming was quoted in the release as saying: “I am a very spiritual person, and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear-minded and alert at the time of my death. The powerful pain medications were making it difficult to maintain the state of mind I wanted to have at my death.”
In November, voters approved the Death with Dignity Act, 58 percent to 42 percent, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to allow assisted suicide. The laws in both states have been deeply controversial, particularly among religious groups. Washington passed its law after the United States Supreme Court in 2006 rejected an effort by the Justice Department to block Oregon’s law, which took effect in 1998.
In Montana, a state judge ruled in December that doctor-assisted suicide was legal under the state’s Constitution, but the state is appealing that decision.
Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, said the group was “not leading a campaign in any other state right now.”
The Washington and Oregon laws allow terminally ill patients who are at least 18 and have been found mentally competent to self-administer lethal drugs under the prescription of a doctor.
In Oregon, 401 people used the law through 2008. Since the law took effect in Washington in March, six prescriptions for lethal medication have been dispensed, but a spokesman for the State Department of Health, Donn Moyer, said it had not received any forms saying a patient had used the medication. Under the law, doctors who write such a prescription have 30 days to report that it had been used.
Mr. Moyer, saying privacy laws prevented the state from providing information about a specific death, said he could not confirm Ms. Fleming’s death.
In Oregon, not everyone who received a prescription has taken the drugs.
Some critics fear that physician-assisted suicide will pressure people with terminal illnesses who have low incomes or are disabled to end their lives to avoid becoming a financial burden to loved ones. Supporters cite studies that they say have refuted that idea.
Ms. Fleming, who was divorced, filed for bankruptcy in 2007 with $5,800 in credit card debt, according to court records and a lawyer who had represented her, Hugh Haffner.
Mr. Haffner said that when she filed for bankruptcy, Ms. Fleming, a former social worker, had been unable to work because of a disability and lived in subsidized housing on $643 in monthly disability checks.
Virginia Peterhansen, who said she had befriended Ms. Fleming about six months ago through a book group, said Ms. Fleming bought a 1982 Oldsmobile station wagon days before she was told she had cancer and that she had hoped to learn to contra dance.
Robb Miller, the executive director of Compassion and Choices of Washington, said that he had spoken to Ms. Fleming and that, although he was unaware of her bankruptcy filing, her situation presented “none of the red flags” that might have given his group pause in supporting her. He said Ms. Fleming’s two children and her former husband “were involved and supported her choice.”
The family could not be reached for comment.
Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: May 22, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/23suicide.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
SEATTLE — A woman with pancreatic cancer has become the first person to die under a law passed last year allowing doctor-assisted suicide in Washington, according to an advocacy group that pushed for the law.
The woman, Linda Fleming, 66, of Sequim, Wash., died Thursday evening after taking lethal medication prescribed by a doctor under the law, according to a news release by the group, Compassion and Choices of Washington. The release said Ms. Fleming received a diagnosis of Stage 4 pancreatic cancer a month ago, and “she was told she was actively dying.”
Ms. Fleming was quoted in the release as saying: “I am a very spiritual person, and it was very important to me to be conscious, clear-minded and alert at the time of my death. The powerful pain medications were making it difficult to maintain the state of mind I wanted to have at my death.”
In November, voters approved the Death with Dignity Act, 58 percent to 42 percent, making Washington the second state — after Oregon — to allow assisted suicide. The laws in both states have been deeply controversial, particularly among religious groups. Washington passed its law after the United States Supreme Court in 2006 rejected an effort by the Justice Department to block Oregon’s law, which took effect in 1998.
In Montana, a state judge ruled in December that doctor-assisted suicide was legal under the state’s Constitution, but the state is appealing that decision.
Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, said the group was “not leading a campaign in any other state right now.”
The Washington and Oregon laws allow terminally ill patients who are at least 18 and have been found mentally competent to self-administer lethal drugs under the prescription of a doctor.
In Oregon, 401 people used the law through 2008. Since the law took effect in Washington in March, six prescriptions for lethal medication have been dispensed, but a spokesman for the State Department of Health, Donn Moyer, said it had not received any forms saying a patient had used the medication. Under the law, doctors who write such a prescription have 30 days to report that it had been used.
Mr. Moyer, saying privacy laws prevented the state from providing information about a specific death, said he could not confirm Ms. Fleming’s death.
In Oregon, not everyone who received a prescription has taken the drugs.
Some critics fear that physician-assisted suicide will pressure people with terminal illnesses who have low incomes or are disabled to end their lives to avoid becoming a financial burden to loved ones. Supporters cite studies that they say have refuted that idea.
Ms. Fleming, who was divorced, filed for bankruptcy in 2007 with $5,800 in credit card debt, according to court records and a lawyer who had represented her, Hugh Haffner.
Mr. Haffner said that when she filed for bankruptcy, Ms. Fleming, a former social worker, had been unable to work because of a disability and lived in subsidized housing on $643 in monthly disability checks.
Virginia Peterhansen, who said she had befriended Ms. Fleming about six months ago through a book group, said Ms. Fleming bought a 1982 Oldsmobile station wagon days before she was told she had cancer and that she had hoped to learn to contra dance.
Robb Miller, the executive director of Compassion and Choices of Washington, said that he had spoken to Ms. Fleming and that, although he was unaware of her bankruptcy filing, her situation presented “none of the red flags” that might have given his group pause in supporting her. He said Ms. Fleming’s two children and her former husband “were involved and supported her choice.”
The family could not be reached for comment.
Alain Delaquérière contributed research.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ridge disagrees with Cheney
Ridge disagrees with Cheney
By Alexander Mooney
Copyright by CNN News
May 22, 2009 Posted: 03:52 PM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/ridge-i-disagree-with-cheney/
(CNN) — Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told CNN former Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated charge the Obama administration has made the country less safe is wrong.
"Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney," the Pennsylvania Republican and former Bush administration official told CNN's John King, adding he "does not" think the country is more vulnerable to an attack under President Obama.
Ridge's comments come after both Obama and Cheney gave dueling speeches on national security, during which the president sharply condemned Bush administration interrogation practices while Cheney vigorously defended them.
In the interview with CNN, set to air in full on State of The Union with John King Sunday, Ridge said he disagrees with "the approach both men are taking."
"It's just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president," he said. "It's gotta go beyond the politics of either party."
The former Pennsylvania governor also took issue with a portion of Obama's speech, during which he said some Bush national security decisions were based on "fear, rather than foresight."
"I'm surprised that President Obama, who I really, truly believe knows better, would make such a statement," said Ridge. "The men and women in charge of America's security, whether they're military, or the intelligence community — the president, the vice president, the attorney general, the FBI director — did everything they could at the time to prevent another attack on America. And did it consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law."
Ridge, who served as the country's first homeland security secretary in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, said he's "disappointed in the president" for spending time criticizing past actions of the Bush administration."
"He keeps looking backwards to justify what he's doing now and I don't think at the end of the day — I think that becomes more politics than policy, and I don't think it's the kind of approach that we need to bring America together on this very important issue," he said.
By Alexander Mooney
Copyright by CNN News
May 22, 2009 Posted: 03:52 PM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/ridge-i-disagree-with-cheney/
(CNN) — Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told CNN former Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated charge the Obama administration has made the country less safe is wrong.
"Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney," the Pennsylvania Republican and former Bush administration official told CNN's John King, adding he "does not" think the country is more vulnerable to an attack under President Obama.
Ridge's comments come after both Obama and Cheney gave dueling speeches on national security, during which the president sharply condemned Bush administration interrogation practices while Cheney vigorously defended them.
In the interview with CNN, set to air in full on State of The Union with John King Sunday, Ridge said he disagrees with "the approach both men are taking."
"It's just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president," he said. "It's gotta go beyond the politics of either party."
The former Pennsylvania governor also took issue with a portion of Obama's speech, during which he said some Bush national security decisions were based on "fear, rather than foresight."
"I'm surprised that President Obama, who I really, truly believe knows better, would make such a statement," said Ridge. "The men and women in charge of America's security, whether they're military, or the intelligence community — the president, the vice president, the attorney general, the FBI director — did everything they could at the time to prevent another attack on America. And did it consistent with the Constitution and the rule of law."
Ridge, who served as the country's first homeland security secretary in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, said he's "disappointed in the president" for spending time criticizing past actions of the Bush administration."
"He keeps looking backwards to justify what he's doing now and I don't think at the end of the day — I think that becomes more politics than policy, and I don't think it's the kind of approach that we need to bring America together on this very important issue," he said.
Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - State pols all talk, no action on reform/ Chicago Tribune Editorials - You call this reform? AND How it works
Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - State pols all talk, no action on reform
copyright by THe Chicago Sun-Times
May 22, 2009
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1586269,CST-EDT-edit22a.article
Only in Illinois would politicians talk about reform and do the exact opposite.
Springfield politicians talk about putting limits on what fat-cat contributors can donate to them.
But in the process they craft a proposal that only increases the big-money power of legislative leaders.
Springfield politicians talk about beefing up the state's woefully weak law that is supposed to give voters access to information their governments would rather keep hidden.
In reality, they only want to water down real reform.
And amid all this so-called reform, how do they plan to pay for many state construction projects?
By making video poker machines legal across the state.
That move would put hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's pocket, sure, but it would also enrich the gangsters who control many of those machines in the Chicago area.
You can't make this stuff up.
• • Consider campaign contribution limits. Right now, Illinois has no contribution limits for state politicians, but Gov. Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission has suggested limits in line with established federal campaign donation limits.
The commission also has recommended capping the amount the state's top political leaders can donate from their huge war chests to local races. Those big donations from the top pols -- and here we're talking about House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton -- create a legion of legislators beholden to them.
So, what happened?
Madigan, Cullerton, et al, have decided they might be willing to enact campaign contribution limits on individuals, businesses and unions -- but limits that are so high and generous they would be virtually meaningless. And, of course, Madigan, Cullerton, et al, show absolutely no willingness to limit their own ability to shower money on their fellow politicians.
In short, under the ruse of reform, our state's political leaders -- especially Madigan and Cullerton -- would effectively increase their own power by marginally reining in campaign contributions by everybody else, except themselves.
Nifty trick, no?
• • If you wonder why we need a better law to force local governments to release public information, consider a court case decided Thursday.
In 2006, a Wheaton resident submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of his local school superintendent's employment contract, just the kind of document the Freedom of Information Act, known as FOIA, is supposed to cover. The school district told the citizen, Mark Stern, to take a hike.
Stern sought an opinion from the Illinois attorney general's office, which ruled the document should be released. The district still brushed him off. Stern sued, and the school district fought him in court for three years.
On Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court stated the obvious: The contract needs to be released.
Stern's legal battle shows the problem with the law. Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office is free to issue decisions on FOIA battles to help ordinary citizens, but unless those decisions are binding, government agencies can blow them off.
Making those decisions legally binding is a key reform. Any FOIA "improvement" without it is no reform at all, no matter what the politicians try to sell you.
• • Speaking of goofy claims, consider the argument being made by some supporters of legalizing video poker. Once the machines are ringing and rattling in corner bars across the state, they say, the machines' operators and distributors will be required to pass criminal background checks -- and that will regulate the mob right out of the business.
Last time we checked, though, mobsters don't apply for licenses in their own names. They use front people with clean records.
Why do politicians think they can get away with this nonsense?
Because in Illinois they always have -- and will again, unless you get good and steamed.
Here's what you need to do:
Call House Speaker Mike Madigan at (217) 782-5350 and Senate President John Cullerton at (217) 782-2728.
Tell their folks that come election time, you'll work against them and the local candidates they support, unless you get real reform.
It's now or never.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - You call this reform?
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit1may22,0,3468772.story
"Dear Good Government Supporter," begins the letter from Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. "On Wednesday, the Illinois House passed another in a series of bills that will comprise the most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years."
The bill Madigan refers to would eliminate the legal mechanism that awards automatic pay raises to lawmakers unless both houses vote to reject them, something they rarely get around to doing. Only in Illinois can you pass a law that holds lawmakers accountable for giving themselves a raise and call it reform. But we'll take it.
Elsewhere on Wednesday, we got a good look at what the rest of this "significant and far-reaching reform package" might look like. It is, in a word, appalling.
House and Senate leaders began circulating a draft rewrite of the state's toothless Freedom of Information Act. The current law, among the worst in the nation, provides government officials with a mother lode of legal excuses to withhold information from the public. The version drafted by legislative staffers may be even worse. Don Craven, acting director of the Illinois Press Association, says that given a choice between current law and the new-and-improved version he saw Wednesday, he'll take the old one. We're with him.
In between those versions was a good bill, drafted by staffers for Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan. With input from the Illinois Reform Commission, the press association, law-enforcement agencies, municipalities and government watchdog groups, the attorney general's office negotiated a compromise that nobody loved but most could support. That goes for us too.
That package would remove roadblocks and close loopholes now invoked to withhold public records. It includes penalties for governments that ignore the law. It would establish a "public access counselor" to issue binding opinions in records disputes between citizens and governments. It wasn't perfect, but it was significantly better than the status quo -- until the legislative staff got ahold of it.
Out came the criminal penalties. Back in went the long laundry list of technical exemptions. Out came the language meant to put some teeth in the deadlines that public officials routinely ignore when dealing with records requests.
Out came this sentence: "Disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy." If a cop cracks up the cruiser, in other words, it's none of your business.
The working bill also would allow -- some would say encourage -- a public body that keeps records electronically to release them as printouts, even if the requester asks for an electronic copy instead. Why would they want to? Because paper documents can't be searched electronically, are harder to share and can be prohibitively costly because the requester must pay by the page. This provision is a blatant attempt to thwart transparency, not to foster it. This is not our idea of reform.
Perhaps the most nakedly self-serving change: In the version of the bill circulating Wednesday, the language had been tweaked to give the public access counselor authority to resolve complaints involving the executive branch only.
That sort of chutzpah has Mike Madigan written all over it. The surprise is that he would torpedo a bill in which his daughter, the attorney general, had invested so much time and political capital. It seems clear, though, where the speaker stands: He's no champion of government transparency.
We could go on and on, Dear Good Government Supporter, but you get the picture. "The most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years" is a pretty low bar, when you think about it. There are a lot of excellent reform proposals in the hopper, but the session is winding down and most of them seem to be getting worse instead of better.
So when lawmakers boast about passing a law to end passive pay raises, it's important to recognize the gesture for what it is: They're throwing you a bone. Make sure you let them know you want more, much more, or you won't get it.
They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - How it works
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit2may22,0,3861989.story
It's crunch time in Springfield, that special season when good intentions fall by the wayside and late starters burst onto the scene and streak across the finish line. Anything can happen.
Those ethics proposals drafted by the Illinois Reform Commission? Gov. Pat Quinn expects they'll be voted on at "15 minutes to midnight" on adjournment day, and we don't doubt it. As you can see from the editorial above, lawmakers' vows to clean up state government are fading to hems and haws as the deadline nears. Watch closely.
A $29 billion program to build and rebuild roads, schools, bridges and transit projects, though, suddenly sprouted legs. The House and Senate this week approved a bunch of taxes -- plus legalized video gambling -- to finance it.
Video gambling was a non-starter for years. But last week, a bill to make it legal suddenly came steaming out of a House committee. The plan is to allow video games like poker and blackjack in bars, restaurants, truck stops and fraternal lodges and tax the proceeds. That would raise $200 million or $375 million or even $600 million a year, depending on whose rosy projection you like.
This plan has been panned in years past. Critics call video poker "the crack cocaine of gambling," and even people who think casinos are a fine idea don't necessarily want gaming stations sprinkled throughout their neighborhoods. Illegal video gambling is already a thriving mob enterprise. Lawmakers have been smart to steer clear of it.
But now it's video poker to the rescue. Where the heck did that come from? It's "another one of those remarkable Springfield coincidences," Greg Hinz at Crain's Chicago Business recently wrote.
Joe Berrios is the chief lobbyist for the video poker industry. He's also one of three members of the Cook County property tax appeals board.
House Speaker Michael Madigan's law firm specializes in property tax appeals.
Senate President John Cullerton is also an attorney. He specializes in tax appeals too.
The fate of video poker largely rested in their hands.
Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
Not Berrios: The proposal has been "out there for years;" he's lobbied "everyone" in Springfield and the video poker industry pays him only about $25,000 to $30,000 a year, he told Hinz.
Oh, one other thing that comes from Hinz's very productive blog. Madigan has bottled up a bill that would reduce the number of votes needed to override a veto by the president of the Cook County Board. The bill passed the Senate 57-0. Yes, it would allow the County Board to top Todd Stroger and kill the egregious county sales tax increase.
But it can't even get to a vote in the House.
Now what's going on there? Why would Madigan keep this from a vote?
"If you look through Mr. Madigan's financial disclosure reports, the contributions from county employees almost leap off the page," Hinz writes.
This is how things work, and how people think, in Springfield. Which is why we're pushing so hard to pass meaningful ethics reform.
The smart money says video poker is coming. Ethics reform, though, is a much longer shot.
copyright by THe Chicago Sun-Times
May 22, 2009
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1586269,CST-EDT-edit22a.article
Only in Illinois would politicians talk about reform and do the exact opposite.
Springfield politicians talk about putting limits on what fat-cat contributors can donate to them.
But in the process they craft a proposal that only increases the big-money power of legislative leaders.
Springfield politicians talk about beefing up the state's woefully weak law that is supposed to give voters access to information their governments would rather keep hidden.
In reality, they only want to water down real reform.
And amid all this so-called reform, how do they plan to pay for many state construction projects?
By making video poker machines legal across the state.
That move would put hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's pocket, sure, but it would also enrich the gangsters who control many of those machines in the Chicago area.
You can't make this stuff up.
• • Consider campaign contribution limits. Right now, Illinois has no contribution limits for state politicians, but Gov. Quinn's Illinois Reform Commission has suggested limits in line with established federal campaign donation limits.
The commission also has recommended capping the amount the state's top political leaders can donate from their huge war chests to local races. Those big donations from the top pols -- and here we're talking about House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton -- create a legion of legislators beholden to them.
So, what happened?
Madigan, Cullerton, et al, have decided they might be willing to enact campaign contribution limits on individuals, businesses and unions -- but limits that are so high and generous they would be virtually meaningless. And, of course, Madigan, Cullerton, et al, show absolutely no willingness to limit their own ability to shower money on their fellow politicians.
In short, under the ruse of reform, our state's political leaders -- especially Madigan and Cullerton -- would effectively increase their own power by marginally reining in campaign contributions by everybody else, except themselves.
Nifty trick, no?
• • If you wonder why we need a better law to force local governments to release public information, consider a court case decided Thursday.
In 2006, a Wheaton resident submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of his local school superintendent's employment contract, just the kind of document the Freedom of Information Act, known as FOIA, is supposed to cover. The school district told the citizen, Mark Stern, to take a hike.
Stern sought an opinion from the Illinois attorney general's office, which ruled the document should be released. The district still brushed him off. Stern sued, and the school district fought him in court for three years.
On Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court stated the obvious: The contract needs to be released.
Stern's legal battle shows the problem with the law. Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office is free to issue decisions on FOIA battles to help ordinary citizens, but unless those decisions are binding, government agencies can blow them off.
Making those decisions legally binding is a key reform. Any FOIA "improvement" without it is no reform at all, no matter what the politicians try to sell you.
• • Speaking of goofy claims, consider the argument being made by some supporters of legalizing video poker. Once the machines are ringing and rattling in corner bars across the state, they say, the machines' operators and distributors will be required to pass criminal background checks -- and that will regulate the mob right out of the business.
Last time we checked, though, mobsters don't apply for licenses in their own names. They use front people with clean records.
Why do politicians think they can get away with this nonsense?
Because in Illinois they always have -- and will again, unless you get good and steamed.
Here's what you need to do:
Call House Speaker Mike Madigan at (217) 782-5350 and Senate President John Cullerton at (217) 782-2728.
Tell their folks that come election time, you'll work against them and the local candidates they support, unless you get real reform.
It's now or never.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - You call this reform?
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit1may22,0,3468772.story
"Dear Good Government Supporter," begins the letter from Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. "On Wednesday, the Illinois House passed another in a series of bills that will comprise the most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years."
The bill Madigan refers to would eliminate the legal mechanism that awards automatic pay raises to lawmakers unless both houses vote to reject them, something they rarely get around to doing. Only in Illinois can you pass a law that holds lawmakers accountable for giving themselves a raise and call it reform. But we'll take it.
Elsewhere on Wednesday, we got a good look at what the rest of this "significant and far-reaching reform package" might look like. It is, in a word, appalling.
House and Senate leaders began circulating a draft rewrite of the state's toothless Freedom of Information Act. The current law, among the worst in the nation, provides government officials with a mother lode of legal excuses to withhold information from the public. The version drafted by legislative staffers may be even worse. Don Craven, acting director of the Illinois Press Association, says that given a choice between current law and the new-and-improved version he saw Wednesday, he'll take the old one. We're with him.
In between those versions was a good bill, drafted by staffers for Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan. With input from the Illinois Reform Commission, the press association, law-enforcement agencies, municipalities and government watchdog groups, the attorney general's office negotiated a compromise that nobody loved but most could support. That goes for us too.
That package would remove roadblocks and close loopholes now invoked to withhold public records. It includes penalties for governments that ignore the law. It would establish a "public access counselor" to issue binding opinions in records disputes between citizens and governments. It wasn't perfect, but it was significantly better than the status quo -- until the legislative staff got ahold of it.
Out came the criminal penalties. Back in went the long laundry list of technical exemptions. Out came the language meant to put some teeth in the deadlines that public officials routinely ignore when dealing with records requests.
Out came this sentence: "Disclosure of information that bears on the public duties of public employees and officials shall not be considered an invasion of personal privacy." If a cop cracks up the cruiser, in other words, it's none of your business.
The working bill also would allow -- some would say encourage -- a public body that keeps records electronically to release them as printouts, even if the requester asks for an electronic copy instead. Why would they want to? Because paper documents can't be searched electronically, are harder to share and can be prohibitively costly because the requester must pay by the page. This provision is a blatant attempt to thwart transparency, not to foster it. This is not our idea of reform.
Perhaps the most nakedly self-serving change: In the version of the bill circulating Wednesday, the language had been tweaked to give the public access counselor authority to resolve complaints involving the executive branch only.
That sort of chutzpah has Mike Madigan written all over it. The surprise is that he would torpedo a bill in which his daughter, the attorney general, had invested so much time and political capital. It seems clear, though, where the speaker stands: He's no champion of government transparency.
We could go on and on, Dear Good Government Supporter, but you get the picture. "The most significant and far-reaching reform package that has been enacted in several years" is a pretty low bar, when you think about it. There are a lot of excellent reform proposals in the hopper, but the session is winding down and most of them seem to be getting worse instead of better.
So when lawmakers boast about passing a law to end passive pay raises, it's important to recognize the gesture for what it is: They're throwing you a bone. Make sure you let them know you want more, much more, or you won't get it.
They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves.
Chicago Tribune Editorial - How it works
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
May 22, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0522edit2may22,0,3861989.story
It's crunch time in Springfield, that special season when good intentions fall by the wayside and late starters burst onto the scene and streak across the finish line. Anything can happen.
Those ethics proposals drafted by the Illinois Reform Commission? Gov. Pat Quinn expects they'll be voted on at "15 minutes to midnight" on adjournment day, and we don't doubt it. As you can see from the editorial above, lawmakers' vows to clean up state government are fading to hems and haws as the deadline nears. Watch closely.
A $29 billion program to build and rebuild roads, schools, bridges and transit projects, though, suddenly sprouted legs. The House and Senate this week approved a bunch of taxes -- plus legalized video gambling -- to finance it.
Video gambling was a non-starter for years. But last week, a bill to make it legal suddenly came steaming out of a House committee. The plan is to allow video games like poker and blackjack in bars, restaurants, truck stops and fraternal lodges and tax the proceeds. That would raise $200 million or $375 million or even $600 million a year, depending on whose rosy projection you like.
This plan has been panned in years past. Critics call video poker "the crack cocaine of gambling," and even people who think casinos are a fine idea don't necessarily want gaming stations sprinkled throughout their neighborhoods. Illegal video gambling is already a thriving mob enterprise. Lawmakers have been smart to steer clear of it.
But now it's video poker to the rescue. Where the heck did that come from? It's "another one of those remarkable Springfield coincidences," Greg Hinz at Crain's Chicago Business recently wrote.
Joe Berrios is the chief lobbyist for the video poker industry. He's also one of three members of the Cook County property tax appeals board.
House Speaker Michael Madigan's law firm specializes in property tax appeals.
Senate President John Cullerton is also an attorney. He specializes in tax appeals too.
The fate of video poker largely rested in their hands.
Does anyone see a conflict of interest here?
Not Berrios: The proposal has been "out there for years;" he's lobbied "everyone" in Springfield and the video poker industry pays him only about $25,000 to $30,000 a year, he told Hinz.
Oh, one other thing that comes from Hinz's very productive blog. Madigan has bottled up a bill that would reduce the number of votes needed to override a veto by the president of the Cook County Board. The bill passed the Senate 57-0. Yes, it would allow the County Board to top Todd Stroger and kill the egregious county sales tax increase.
But it can't even get to a vote in the House.
Now what's going on there? Why would Madigan keep this from a vote?
"If you look through Mr. Madigan's financial disclosure reports, the contributions from county employees almost leap off the page," Hinz writes.
This is how things work, and how people think, in Springfield. Which is why we're pushing so hard to pass meaningful ethics reform.
The smart money says video poker is coming. Ethics reform, though, is a much longer shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
