McHenry County Blog

Barrington Health Care Forum held by 8th Congressional District Republican candidate Joe Walah May 4th.

8th District Republican congressional candidate Joe Walsh held another health care forum on May 4th.

That was shortly after Fox News took a swipe at him.

It does not look as if the negative piece on Fox affected attendance too much.

This was the second Health Care Forum Walsh has held since winning the primary election. Incumbent Melissa Bean has never had an open-to-the-public Town Hall Meeting that constituents could attend.

Rep. Bean Ducks Walsh Health Care Forum (again); Residents Turnout for Thoughtful Policy Discussion

(Barrington, IL )–Melissa Bean may have declined Joe Walsh’s invitation, but more than a hundred concerned 8th district residents turned out for Walsh’s health care forum on Tuesday evening at the Barrington Park District Community Center.

In contrast to Rep. Bean’s controlled, closed-door, invite-only forums, Walsh’s was open to the public.

“It’s important that those who seek to hold public office make themselves available to the public they wish to serve,” said Walsh. “I hear daily from residents who are afraid of what this federal takeover of health care is going to do their insurance costs, their quality of care, and their job security.”

Walsh was joined by several experts for the discussion:

• Pediatrician Dr. Arie Friedman of Premiere Pediatrics,
• Urologist Dr. James P.  Brown of Associates in Urology Ltd. and
• Peter Fotos, Director of Government Relations at the Heartland Institute.

Speakers at the Barrington Health Care Forum, from left to right, were Peter Fotos, Director of Government Relations at the Heartland Institute, Joe Walsh, Pediatrician Dr. Arie Friedman, Urologist Dr. James P. Brown of Associates in Urology Ltd.

“I think it is important that the residents hear the facts from the people who know and understand this bill and its consequences, including those actually engaged in the practice of medicine,” said Walsh.

Both doctors gave presentations on the bill which they have, unlike many members of Congress, actually read.  “

Peter Fotos shared an insight from his inside-the-beltway experience.

“I know the girl that wrote most of this bill, I worked with her in DC.  And, I think that even she would tell you this isn’t the bill it was supposed to be,”

Fotos said.

Walsh reiterated his commitment to pursue a repeal, reform and replace of the Obamacare legislation if elected.

“This health care takeover was against the will of the people and against the will of 8th district families,” said Walsh.

“It is obvious that Rep. Bean isn’t interested in what her constituents think but I am concerned. Rep. Bean has made it clear she puts her party ahead of her district.  I will put the economic and quality of life interests of 8th district residents first.”

Walsh also noted the recent HHS report on the cost of Obamacare, noting it exposed the empty rhetoric of Rep. Bean on the issue of deficit reduction.

“Rep. Bean kept regurgitating the party talking points that the health care takover would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first ten years but even the administration’s own Department of Health and Human Services is now essentially saying this was a $500 billion lie,”

said Walsh.

The HHS report cited by Walsh also stated projected spending increases “could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable.”

Walsh said he would be hosting more forums and he would continue inviting Melissa Bean to participate.

“I hope residents stay engaged and remember in November that when the time came to choose between her party and her district, Melissa Bean voted to serve the political interests of her party instead of the economic interests of her constituents,” said Walsh. “Voters have a crystal clear choice in this election.”

An interesting twist on the health care debate is a Wauconda forum being held by 8th congressional district challenger Joe Walsh.   More interesting was the Republican’s invitation to incumbent Melissa Bean to attend.

Since she refused to hold any Town Hall meetings prior to the vote, no one expects her to show up.

Here’s the Walsh release:

8th District Health Care Forum Thursday Night!!

Melissa Bean

Joe Walsh

Please join our expert panel to discuss the recent health care vote and how it will affect the lives of 8th district families and businesses.

Unlike Melissa Bean’s private meetings, this forum will be open to the public. The panel will be fielding questions from the audience and sharing their information and experience relative to the government overhaul of the health care system that makes up 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

What: Health Care Forum
Sponsored by: Candidate for Congress Joe Walsh
When: Thursday, April 8, 2010
Time: 7 – 8:30 pm
Where: American Legion Post 911, 515 South Main St. Wauconda, IL

Panelists:

• Dr. Arie Friedman, MD, Pediatrician, Premier Pediatrics, S.C.
• Dr. George W. Christy, MD, Cardiologist, Advocate Christ Medical Center
• Peter Fotos, Director of Government Relations, The Heartland Institute
• Joe Fehsenfeld, President CEO, Midwest Printed Circuit Services, Inc.
• Joe Walsh, Candidate for Congress, Illinois 8th district

It has taken a long time for the Reverend and State Senator James Meeks to gain the courage to tell the truth about Chicago schools and point out paths to improving student performance.

Knowing the influence of Chicago school teachers, many of whom are undoubtedly in his mega-church (Salem Baptist Church), his coming out in favor of vouchers, which would give parents the power to select the school of their choice, is truly a bold move on Meeks’ part.

Read his words in a Chicago Tribune op-ed piece yesterday:

“For the first time in my personal and political career, I am exploring the idea of vouchers and charter schools to help facilitate choice and enhance academic performance.

“Why should we continue to make investments in a system that is bankrupt and weighed down with bureaucracy?

“We must begin making decisions that are in the best interest of children, such as mandatory teacher evaluations. Since the will to change the system is nonexistent, we should allow students the flexibility to attend schools outside their district. What once worked before, such as the local school councils, may have run its course in today’s competitive environment.

“They say the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. We can no longer afford to have the blood of every child on our hands.”

I don’t know if Meeks will expend as much energy on trying to provide parents the tools to extract a decent education from Chicago (and, maybe even private) schools, but he deserves an “attaboy!” for opening his eyes.

It won’t rank with the opening of Paul’s eyes after he was struck blind on the road to Damascus, but it is the type of leadership that resulted in the Cook County Board’s banning of video slot machines in unincorporated areas.

Would I be being picky if I pointed out that the Heartland Institute has been advocating the logic of vouchers for well over a decade?

I see “Cardinal Mundeline” commenting on Dan Johnson-Weinberger’s Illinoize post entitled,

“Our common purpose: Meeks, black students and New Trier education“

suggests this action by the Chicago Catholic Schools:

“Maybe the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago should close down for the 1st week of school and enroll all their students in the Chicago Public School System and see how much money they save the taxpayers.

“The Private schools save tax money and stop overcrowding. They also provide a good quality education for less money than the per pupil amount at New Trier.”

I don’t know about Cardinal George, but when I made that suggestion Rockford’s Bishop Thomas Doran while visiting him with the Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast, I didn’t get the answer that would have put pressure on state legislators to subsidize private schools.

While watching Channel 5′s coverage of the story, there was an interview of a high school student. Wise beyond his years, he suggested that the money should be allocated to each child.

I think his words were, “The money should follow the child.”

That sounds so very much like what Bast and I were promoting in Rockford in the 1990′s.

I see “Cardinal Mundeline” commenting on Dan Johnson-Weinberger’s Illinoize post entitled,

“Our common purpose: Meeks, black students and New Trier education“

suggests this action by the Chicago Catholic Schools:

“Maybe the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago should close down for the 1st week of school and enroll all their students in the Chicago Public School System and see how much money they save the taxpayers.

“The Private schools save tax money and stop overcrowding. They also provide a good quality education for less money than the per pupil amount at New Trier.”

I don’t know about Cardinal George, but when I made that suggestion Rockford’s Bishop Thomas Doran while visiting him with the Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast, I didn’t get the answer that would have put pressure on state legislators to subsidize private schools.

While watching Channel 5′s coverage of the story, there was an interview of a high school student. Wise beyond his years, he suggested that the money should be allocated to each child.

I think his words were, “The money should follow the child.”

That sounds so very much like what Bast and I were promoting in Rockford in the 1990′s.

It just occurred to me that there is a local angle to the call of the Rev. and St. Sen. James Meeks

(Ind.-, then D-Chicago, then running for governor, then not)

for Chicago children to apply for admittance to suburban schools on the first day of class.

I suggested a similar tactic to Rockford Catholic Bishop Thomas Doran.

Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, and I met with Doran in the mid-1990′s to solicit his support for portable scholarships for Illinois students. You might refer to such scholarships as “vouchers.”

He was favorably inclined, as you might imagine. The grasp of the political process he demonstrated led me to think it was similar to what a ward committeeman might have.

I suggested immense pressure could be brought to bear on the legislators who would have to approve such legislation by merely sending the parochial school students to the public school they would otherwise attend.

Imagine how school boards and administrators might react if all Catholic grade school sent all of its students to the public school they would otherwise legally attend.

Think of what the reaction might be if all students from Crystal Lake’s St. Thomas, the Apostle, School showed up at West, South, North, Coventry, Canterbury, Glacier Ridge, and Indian Prairie Elementary Schools.

Multiply that statewide.

Maybe the transfer students could be pried in, but the action would definitely cause serious problems.

And any problems would be more than the one day of publicity that Meeks is promoting.

Bisphop Doran’s reaction was one of concern for his students.

It was something like, “We can’t do that. It would hurt the students.”

How different is that approach to what Meeks is promoting.

To their credit not all of Chicago’s inner city ministers are not lining up behind Meeks.

Meeks has floated an open enrollment process

What’s that?

“…allowing students to attend any public school in the state regardless of whether it is part of the school district where they live.”

If only Meeks had the courage to introduce and advocate a portable scholarship plan!

Then, private schools would start near the public schools. You can buy a lot of private school education for the $10,000 a year Chicago Public Schools spend.

Chicago schools would have the ability to compete for the favor of the students’ parents.

And we know what competition does.

Chicago schools could hardly get worse.

= = = = =
The Chicago Sun-Times headline from two years ago shows, State Senator James Meeks is adroit at getting headlines.

It just occurred to me that there is a local angle to the call of the Rev. and St. Sen. James Meeks

(Ind.-, then D-Chicago, then running for governor, then not)

for Chicago children to apply for admittance to suburban schools on the first day of class.

I suggested a similar tactic to Rockford Catholic Bishop Thomas Doran.

Joe Bast, head of the Heartland Institute, and I met with Doran in the mid-1990′s to solicit his support for portable scholarships for Illinois students. You might refer to such scholarships as “vouchers.”

He was favorably inclined, as you might imagine. The grasp of the political process he demonstrated led me to think it was similar to what a ward committeeman might have.

I suggested immense pressure could be brought to bear on the legislators who would have to approve such legislation by merely sending the parochial school students to the public school they would otherwise attend.

Imagine how school boards and administrators might react if all Catholic grade school sent all of its students to the public school they would otherwise legally attend.

Think of what the reaction might be if all students from Crystal Lake’s St. Thomas, the Apostle, School showed up at West, South, North, Coventry, Canterbury, Glacier Ridge, and Indian Prairie Elementary Schools.

Multiply that statewide.

Maybe the transfer students could be pried in, but the action would definitely cause serious problems.

And any problems would be more than the one day of publicity that Meeks is promoting.

Bisphop Doran’s reaction was one of concern for his students.

It was something like, “We can’t do that. It would hurt the students.”

How different is that approach to what Meeks is promoting.

To their credit not all of Chicago’s inner city ministers are not lining up behind Meeks.

Meeks has floated an open enrollment process

What’s that?

“…allowing students to attend any public school in the state regardless of whether it is part of the school district where they live.”

If only Meeks had the courage to introduce and advocate a portable scholarship plan!

Then, private schools would start near the public schools. You can buy a lot of private school education for the $10,000 a year Chicago Public Schools spend.

Chicago schools would have the ability to compete for the favor of the students’ parents.

And we know what competition does.

Chicago schools could hardly get worse.

= = = = =
The Chicago Sun-Times headline from two years ago shows, State Senator James Meeks is adroit at getting headlines.

Appearing before the McHenry County College Board Monday night was McHenry’s Steve Stanek. In his post at Chicago’s Heartland Institute, Stanek has undoubtedly done more research on baseball stadiums and convention centers than anyone at the college

Here’s what he said:

Thank you for putting me on your agenda. And thank you to Donna Kurtz who surprised me with a phone call a couple of weeks ago and invited me to meet you and discuss this stadium issue. Because I’ve already sent you a lot of material, I promise to be brief.

Many years ago I was a student here at MCC. Several weeks ago Regan Foster from the Northwest Herald called me for an article she was writing, and I told her I love MCC – and I meant it.

The affection I feel for MCC is why I have been peppering you with letters and economic research papers and inviting you to contact the researchers themselves. I believe this stadium deal could do economic harm to the college and the region.

As you know from my letters, I am research fellow at The Heartland Institute, a free-market policy group in Chicago. I am also managing editor of Budget & Tax News, a monthly publication that covers budget, tax and economic development issues. The publication goes to all Congressmen and Senators, all state lawmakers, and about 9,000 municipal officials in the 350 largest cities.

In doing this work I regularly read economic reports and economic development studies by people who work independently of business groups, industries or specific businesses. I also regularly speak with researchers themselves.

A humorist named Artemus Ward once joked,

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.”

The researchers I am talking about believe in the truth behind Ward’s jest and devote themselves to sorting out what’s so from what ain’t so.

These researchers regularly disagree over other things like the minimum wage or income tax cuts or the economic impacts of illegal immigration. Yet they overwhelmingly agree the promised economic benefits of sports facilities usually are overblown.

Your own consultant, Economics Research Associates, has an issue paper by Steven E. Spickard, a senior vice president there. Spickard wrote, and I quote:

“[F]or economic development purposes, sports stadiums and arenas are not particularly effective at creating jobs and income.”

Spickard studied major league sports facilities and some of you may be thinking, well, we’re talking about a minor league stadium. But Spickard’s analysis holds true for minor league facilities, and many others have included minor league facilities in their studies and have reached the same conclusions.

Just two months ago, Harvard University Professor Judith Grant Long testified before a Congressional subcommittee in Washington, DC. She said her research showed professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey have received subsidies totaling $18.5 billion since 1990.

Here’s what she said about that:

“There is absolutely no evidence that $18.5 billion in public benefits have been generated since 1990 to compensate.”

And I have already sent you a research article by Adam Zaretsky, an economist for the U.S. Federal Reserve, who wrote,

“Has financing a sports stadium ever been the best alternative? Research shows ‘No.’”

Entire books have been written about this.

One is

Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.

Another is

Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums

by Professors Andrew Zimbalist of Smith College and Roger Noll of Stanford University.

The professors write:

“A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.”

Tomorrow – Convention Centers

Appearing before the McHenry County College Board Monday night was McHenry’s Steve Stanek. In his post at Chicago’s Heartland Institute, Stanek has undoubtedly done more research on baseball stadiums and convention centers than anyone at the college

Here’s what he said:

Thank you for putting me on your agenda. And thank you to Donna Kurtz who surprised me with a phone call a couple of weeks ago and invited me to meet you and discuss this stadium issue. Because I’ve already sent you a lot of material, I promise to be brief.

Many years ago I was a student here at MCC. Several weeks ago Regan Foster from the Northwest Herald called me for an article she was writing, and I told her I love MCC – and I meant it.

The affection I feel for MCC is why I have been peppering you with letters and economic research papers and inviting you to contact the researchers themselves. I believe this stadium deal could do economic harm to the college and the region.

As you know from my letters, I am research fellow at The Heartland Institute, a free-market policy group in Chicago. I am also managing editor of Budget & Tax News, a monthly publication that covers budget, tax and economic development issues. The publication goes to all Congressmen and Senators, all state lawmakers, and about 9,000 municipal officials in the 350 largest cities.

In doing this work I regularly read economic reports and economic development studies by people who work independently of business groups, industries or specific businesses. I also regularly speak with researchers themselves.

A humorist named Artemus Ward once joked,

“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we do know that just ain’t so.”

The researchers I am talking about believe in the truth behind Ward’s jest and devote themselves to sorting out what’s so from what ain’t so.

These researchers regularly disagree over other things like the minimum wage or income tax cuts or the economic impacts of illegal immigration. Yet they overwhelmingly agree the promised economic benefits of sports facilities usually are overblown.

Your own consultant, Economics Research Associates, has an issue paper by Steven E. Spickard, a senior vice president there. Spickard wrote, and I quote:

“[F]or economic development purposes, sports stadiums and arenas are not particularly effective at creating jobs and income.”

Spickard studied major league sports facilities and some of you may be thinking, well, we’re talking about a minor league stadium. But Spickard’s analysis holds true for minor league facilities, and many others have included minor league facilities in their studies and have reached the same conclusions.

Just two months ago, Harvard University Professor Judith Grant Long testified before a Congressional subcommittee in Washington, DC. She said her research showed professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey have received subsidies totaling $18.5 billion since 1990.

Here’s what she said about that:

“There is absolutely no evidence that $18.5 billion in public benefits have been generated since 1990 to compensate.”

And I have already sent you a research article by Adam Zaretsky, an economist for the U.S. Federal Reserve, who wrote,

“Has financing a sports stadium ever been the best alternative? Research shows ‘No.’”

Entire books have been written about this.

One is

Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit.

Another is

Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums

by Professors Andrew Zimbalist of Smith College and Roger Noll of Stanford University.

The professors write:

“A new sports facility has an extremely small (perhaps even negative) effect on overall economic activity and employment. No recent facility appears to have earned anything approaching a reasonable return on investment. No recent facility has been self-financing in terms of its impact on net tax revenues. Regardless of whether the unit of analysis is a local neighborhood, a city, or an entire metropolitan area, the economic benefits of sports facilities are de minimus.”

Tomorrow – Convention Centers

But not too deeply.

I was hoping the NW Herald would root out some of the duplicity and secret documents involved in the McHenry County College baseball stadium proposal.

The free enterprise Heartland Institute’s Steve Stanek, a resident of McHenry and former reporter who covered McHenry County, has been trying to the get the dominant newspaper in McHenry County to focus on the financial angle of the baseball stadium for weeks.

Apparently he finally got through to someone.

Stanek is the main person quoted in Reagan Foster’s front page Sunday article entitled,

The subhead is

Interestingly enough, the headline the online edition more honestly reflects the contents of the story than does the subhead above. The internet edition reads,

The fact is, the NW Herald could not find an economist who pointed to a successful publicly owned and subsidized baseball stadium.

Northern Illinois University Associate Professor of Public Administration Michael Peddle, whom the NW Herald reports has a Ph.D. in economics, says he “think(s)” that “minor league sports have been…much more successful than a lot of people would have guessed ahead of time.”

But, he doesn’t name any and doesn’t even say that any were “successful”—just “much more successful than a lot of people would have guessed ahead of time.

Not an opinion upon which I’d base $10 million in debt (plus the high, non-tax free interest over 20 years).

And I remember MCC’s reply to my Freedom of Information request for

“copies and citations of any scholarly articles that back up the assertion that baseball stadiums can make money for a local government.”

The college’s response was

“The college asserts that there are no documents responsive to your request.”

Frankly, I think MCC knows more about the subject than the NIU professor. If they could have found one, they would have provided it.

The best the professor can come up with is

“there are a number of times this has been done that it has been pretty self-sufficient. The 20 years’ [agreement] thing makes me a little bit nervous, but let’s just say I don’t find the claims to be incredible.”

“Pretty self-sufficient.”

He’s worried about the 20 year agreement length.

How reassuring.

If that is the most rousing endorsement that someone can find from an economist whose credentials beyond an econ doctorate are not mentioned, I’d say look at the article going up on McHenry County Blog tomorrow. It is from a Harvard University professor.

To her credit, reporter Regan Foster points out–twice–that McHenry County College refuses to release the September 27, 2006, no-bid feasibility study upon which the stadium proposal is based and which MCC taxpayers paid Mark Houser’s Equity One $70,000 to produce.

That document signed by MCC President Walt Packard also guaranteed Houser

”At the completion of the feasibility study and independent review, if the College elects to proceed with the project, the College will contract with EquityOne or it’s (sic) assigns to develop the project on the College’s behalf.”

This self-serving and, therefore, tainted study turned out to be worth another no-bid contract–this one for $400,000–to Houser and, I believe, a way to hide details of the construction project from the public. He is being paid on that $400,000 contract, even though zoning approval has not yet occurred.

Houser’s buddy, baseball promoter Pete Heitman says the numbers weren’t “pulled out of the sky.”

“They were evaluated and massaged, and we feel really comfortable we can meet those numbers.”

Regardless of their source and manipulation, the projections and their underlining assumptions have never been evaluated by any sports economist to find out if the benefits of the stadium will outweigh its costs.

McHenry County College dares not do that.

The odds are overwhelming that such a review would spotlight problems with Heitman’s proposal.

All the college has to say for itself in Sunday’s article is that the media had concentrated only on the baseball stadium.

After McHenry County Blog revealed on March 12, 2007, that a baseball stadium was being considered, the next day the NW Herald ran a front page story the next day on the topic.

Naughty Northwest Herald.

Reporting the news that MCC had kept secret since sometime last fall, I guess. (Officials refuse to tell me when the baseball stadium first made a revised master plan.)

The first commenter under the Sunday Northwest Herald story says,

“The Cash Flow Analysis Prepared by EquityOne Sports Development (MCC’s partner in the project) has been released.

“It shows a TOTAL NET LOSS of $1,881,878 after year 5 and a TOTAL NET LOSS of $696,554 after year 10.

“Do the taxpayers or the students pay for those losses?”

Very in-ter-est-ing.

There’s another story promised for tomorrow’s NW Herald:

“Read what representatives of the Frontier League have to say about McHenry County’s proposed Health, Wellness and Athletic Complex”

Now there’s a neutral source.

Talk about giving the tax eaters a home court advantage. The NW Herald doesn’t even give “day before the election” favorable coverage to its favorite political candidates who are in trouble.

I’ve been told the Frontier League gets a $300,000 franchise fee, if the deal goes through. (If that’s wrong, please let me know how much the league gets paid, initially, and each year thereafter.)

Commissioner Bill Lee ducked out the back door of the MCC board room the night the first pitch was made. Three reporters were waiting outside of the door he entered. He also ducked his head as I was taking his photo entering the board room. That’s a smiling Heitman on the left.

Finally, anyone want to bet against there being a NW Herald editorial on Tuesday endorsing the city council’s approval of the baseball stadium?