Is Bankruptcy the Answer?

Those U.S. States which are currently mired in an epic fiscal crisis continue to be the talk of the town in Washington. I've discussed this issue at length in prior posts (see "Share the Debt?" and "Oh boy, Illinois!"). But now there are new developments that virtually obligate me to revisit the issue, developments that could forever change the future of public employee pensions and the municipal bond market.

As I've mentioned before, the prospects of a federal bailout for those states that run out of money is slim to none. Senator John McCain laughed in response to receiving that question in an interview on Fox News Channel. More recently, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) stated that under no circumstances will Congress consider a federal bailout for cash-strapped states. Also, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) offered the following assessment: "Should taxpayers in Indiana who have paid their bills on time, who have done their job fiscally be bailing out Californians who haven't? No. That's a moral hazard that we are not interested in creating."

Given the sentiment on Capitol Hill, what then are states like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey going to do if they reach a point where they can no longer pay their bills? The answer may lie in a controversial plan being discussed among several lawmakers that will allow these states to declare bankruptcy. Current bankruptcy law allows municipalities, but not states, to seek protection in federal bankruptcy court. Extending the same option to states will allow them to escape the crushing debts they have incurred as the result of excessive borrowing and spending. But is this really the best way to go?

There are strong advocates on both sides of the issue. House Republicans and Senators from both parties are interested in pursuing this option, with nudging from high-profile bankruptcy lawyers and even former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate. But they are treading very carefully, since it would be difficult to get a bill through Congress given the constitutional hurdles and the complexities of bankruptcy law. They are also cognizant of the fact that fears of even the discussion of such a law could make the states’ problems worse by discouraging investors.

On the other side, you have Democrats who are concerned about pensions for public employees and retirees, bond investors who fear that they'll wind up at the end of the line as unsecured creditors, and even former Bush adviser, Karl Rove. Allowing a state to declare bankruptcy will enable it to alter contractual obligations to public employees and retirees, dramatically decreasing their pensions. Thus it comes as no surprise that people like Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, are mounting a massive effort to lobby against it. Karl Rove has stated publicly that bankruptcy should not be considered until all other options have been exhausted. Rove believes that bankruptcy will make it much harder for states to borrow money because lenders will fear they might never get paid back.

Make no mistake about it; allowing the states to declare bankruptcy will have dire consequences for stakeholders. To understand this fully, look no further than the town of Prichard, Alabama. Prichard is the first known municipality in the United States to declare bankruptcy, having done so in 2009. As a result, they stopped sending pension checks to retirees. The town was sued, but to no avail. How can a court force a town to pay out pensions if there is no money to do so? That left almost 200 retirees with no income, but in some cases, a tragic outcome.

Nettie Banks, 68, a retired Prichard police and fire dispatcher, was forced to file for bankruptcy herself. Alfred Arnold, a 66-year-old retired fire captain, had to return to work as a shopping mall security guard in an effort to keep his house. Eddie Ragland, 59, a retired police captain, accepted help from colleagues, bake sales and collection jars after he was shot by a robber, leaving him badly wounded and unable to get to his new job as a police officer at the regional airport. But far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. “When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house,” said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. “He was a proud enough man that he wouldn’t accept help.”

Could this catastrophe occur on a grander scale? Does the situation in Prichard, Alabama offer a glimpse into the future for several U.S. states? If so, then prepare for descent into a maelstrom of uncertainty, crisis, and pandemonium. But there is still time to save the ship from sinking, though states will need to endure deep, painful budget cuts in order to do so. They'll have to sacrifice educational programs, employee benefits, state parks and recreation, and so many other things that state residents hold dear. Clearly, this route is the lesser of two evils, and one that governors will pursue if they have any common sense at all.

It continues to boggle my mind that public employees in New Jersey lash out at Governor Christie and secretly wish for his sudden and painful death. Do they not understand what is going on? How can it be that tens of thousands of people are so engrossed in their own needs and wants that they are completely oblivious to how close their state is to the verge of bankruptcy? Well, I've got news for them. If they don't get on board and start supporting the governor's agenda, then they could wind up like Nettie Banks, Alfred Arnold, Eddie Ragland, or worst of all, Prichard's retired fire marshal who died all alone in his home. In order to avoid going down this road, massive spending cuts and major concessions from the public employee unions will be necessary. In the end, let's hope and pray that sanity prevails so that New Jersey, as well as all the other cash-strapped states, doesn't suffer the same fate as Prichard. 

The New Holy Innocents

Over 2,000 years ago, a very tragic event occurred in the land of Judea. King Herod the Great, in response to an announcement by the magi that the "King of the Jews" had been born, ordered that all male infants in Bethlehem be executed. This event came to be known as the "Massacre of the Innocents," and the children who were killed came to be known as the "Holy Innocents." They are considered to be the first Christian martyrs, and were eventually canonized as saints by the Roman Catholic Church. Every year we celebrate their feast day on December 28th. I have developed a devotion to them over the course of my life, and often ask for their intercession, especially during trying times.

In this day and age, a new group of holy innocents has emerged. They are the many children who have been slaughtered through the horrific, but legal, act of abortion over the course of the last 38 years here in America. For it was on January 22, 1973, that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in the case of Roe vs. Wade. It was a controversial decision that dramatically changed the landscape of our country.

By now, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. The "pro-choice" activists (who I will more accurately refer to as "anti-life") claim that life does not begin until the moment we are born. A fetus is not a human being. "It" has no rights. "It" can be discarded like yesterday's trash. "It" is not entitled to life, liberty, and happiness like all other Americans. To the anti-life movement, abortion is not a social issue. It is a personal issue, one to be decided by a woman in consultation with her doctor. It's her body, and thus her choice.

For the life of me, I have never understood how someone can possibly believe this argument. When you see the graphic images of those children who have been murdered through abortions, how can someone deny that they are human beings? The anti-life movement would rather us not be able to view these images, or for pro-lifers to display them during peaceful protests. Why? Because ignorance is bliss.

Those of us who are pro-life know full well that life begins at conception. We need not say why, because God has already said it for us:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5).

Thus Sacred Scripture tells us that God has a plan for us even before we are born. To destroy that life is to destroy God's plan, and to intentionally destroy God's plan is an evil act. Nothing can be more straightforward.

The anti-life argument that abortion is not a social issue is extremely short-sighted. To say that it doesn't have a direct effect on the moral compass of our nation is to deny the truth. To argue this point, I turn to two future saints: Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

Pope John Paul II called our culture a "culture of death." To him, nothing epitomized this characterization more than the legalization of abortion. If we allow the most innocent human beings to be directly attacked and brutally murdered, then what message are we sending? Mother Teresa backed up the pope's argument by stating that a society which allows abortion will always be plagued by violent crime. How can you tell people not to kill each other in the streets when you are permitting them to kill innocent babies? Mother Teresa said that society will never be able to fully recover unless it first recognizes the grave evil that results from the acceptance of abortions.

There has been some progress in reversing this travesty, but not nearly enough to get to where we as a civilized society need to be. The ban on partial-birth abortions (abortions in the last trimester of pregnancy) is a small step, but it merely implies that life doesn't begin until a fetus reaches the age of six months. How can someone arbitrarily say that life begins at six months in the womb, or five months, or four months? It is completely illogical. Life is life, and it begins at the moment of conception.

What really upsets me about this issue is how the anti-life movement has managed to place the burden of proof on pro-lifers. Here's what I mean. The anti-lifers have basically said, "If you believe that life begins at conception, then prove it. Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt." But why is that acceptable? Why is the burden of proof not on the anti-life movement, who should have been forced to prove beyond any doubts that life does not begin at conception? After all, they are the ones who are committing, or at least supporting, an act. When you act, you must be able to justify your actions. You must be able to give a legitimate reason for why you're doing what you're doing. But they have never been forced to do so, and that is a massive miscarriage of justice.

I have argued in previous blog posts that as America has drifted further and further away from God, and religion has become less and less a factor in our lives, the evil we see on a daily basis increases in both frequency and severity. Abortion is yet another perfect example of this. Look at what has led up to it. Is the lack of sexual morality not the major reason why abortion is so commonplace? When children were better instructed in faith and morals, unwanted pregnancies were extremely rare. As religion became less relevant and sexual morality less prevalent, the number of unwanted pregnancies exploded. Common sense should tell us that there would be no need for abortions if this casual attitude toward sex never developed.

One thing I want to make clear is that I am fully aware that having an abortion is rarely an easy decision for a woman. It must be especially hard if the woman is an innocent victim of rape or incest. But another fact that the anti-life movement has tried to sweep under the rug is that having an abortion can lead to extreme psychological and emotional distress. Many a woman has fallen into deep depression and suffered irreparable damage by going through with the decision to have an abortion. So while the decision itself can be excruciating, the act is often far more devastating than the woman could have ever imagined.

Several years ago, I did volunteer work at St. Joseph's Social Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. They had a soup kitchen, collected clothes for the needy, and offered counseling services for substance abuse and women who were considering having an abortion. One day, I sat in on one of the counseling sessions and marveled at how one of the counselors convinced a young woman to carry her pregnancy to term. When the young woman left, I complimented the counselor and praised her for her uncanny insight. Only then did she tell me that she once had an abortion herself, and that the guilt was so overwhelming that it nearly drove her to commit suicide. Thus she had decided to dedicate her life to educating young women and preventing them from making the same mistake she did. I could never forget her story and how her voice resonated with the determination to help others make the right moral choice.

I still truly believe that one day, America will look back and realize the mistakes that led to her decline. Our leaders will save the ship before it sinks, by leading people back to God and back to having faith and morals. Once we get there, we as a nation will realize how horrible abortion is, and what a grave mistake it was to legalize it all the way back in 1973. The plaintiff in that case, Ms. Norma Jean McCorvey, has come full circle and now realizes that what she did was wrong. Just as she herself has realized the error of her ways and become a staunch pro-life advocate, so I believe that our entire country can one day do the same.

Playoffs? Let's Talk About...Playoffs!

Today, the second round of the NFL play-offs will begin with two intriguing match-ups. In the early game, the Steelers will host the Ravens in what is sure to be a knock-down, drag-out slobber-knocker. They'll be meeting for the third time this season after having split their two regular season contests. In the night game, the Green Bay Packers travel to Atlanta to take on the Falcons.

The Steelers and Ravens always match up well because they play very similar styles of football. Traditionally, both teams are known for hard-hitting, staunch defensive units that are extremely effective at stopping the run and causing turnovers. On the offensive side of the ball, neither team could ever be confused with San Diego's old "Air Coryell." They have always been run-first offenses bent on shoving the ball down their opponents' throats, then using it to set up the pass. Both of their match-ups this season were decided by three points, so it would be difficult to imagine this game not being close. Joe Flacco has never beaten Ben Roethlisberger head to head, but I think this is the game where he finally breaks through. He's been a bear on the road in the play-offs, and I think Jersey Joe will get it done at Pitt and keep the Ravens rolling.

If I were the Falcons, I'd be more than a little nervous. Yes, they had a great season and deserve to be the number one seed with homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. The Dirty Birds have three great offensive players in Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, and Roddy White, each of whom can carry the team on their shoulders. I also have a lot of respect for an organization that cut ties with Michael Vick and moved on to draft a young player out of Boston College as their franchise quarterback. To me, it is very satisfying to see how well this situation has worked out for them, and I am very happy for Arthur Blank and the entire Falcons' organization.

But Green Bay comes into town as a VERY dangerous team. Everyone knew they had a lethal passing attack. Everyone knew they had play-makers on the defensive side of the ball, especially Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson. But after Ryan Grant went down for the season in week one, their rushing attack became anemic, even bordering on non-existent. That made them one dimensional, and thus it was a stretch for anyone to predict a deep playoff run for the Pack. Yet last week in Philadelphia, a young RB named James Starks stepped up and rushed 23 times for 123 yards. Starks didn't even play in the first eleven games, nor did he play in weeks 15 or 16. But he came through big-time when his team needed him most, and if he can do the same this week, then I believe the Packers will leave Atlanta with a win and an NFC Championship Game berth.

On Sunday, the Seahawks will make the trip to Soldier Field to take on the Bears. Sorry, Seattle fans, but do you really think a sub-.500 team belongs in the championship game? No way. The Bears will find a way to win this one and host the NFC Championship. It will seem like old times, and I mean very old, when the Packers roll into Chicago the following week. This rivalry has existed since 1921 and is currently the league's longest with the two teams having met each other a total of 181 times.When you think of all the great players who have participated in this rivalry, from Hutson to Sayers to Starr to Butkus to Payton to Favre, you could probably form an all-time NFL team from those players alone. Hopefully this one will also be a classic that only adds to the rich history between these two franchises. My prediction is that Green Bay will come out on top and complete the sweep of three road playoff wins to advance to the Super Bowl.

OK, now for the big one. The last game of the weekend will take place in Foxborough, MA, where the New York Jets will battle the New England Patriots. These teams faced each other just weeks ago, with the Pats laughing their way to a 45-3 rout. How then can the Jets possibly turn it around so soon and manage to get the upper hand this time? They can't. Sorry, Jet fans, but it's not going to happen. The J-E-T-S come into this game as 9-point underdogs, and with good reason. Regardless of what Rex Ryan may say, there is no way that this team can forget how badly they got destroyed on this same field just weeks before. Psychologically, it's virtually impossible.

In previewing the NY-NE match-up, I can't help but think of how another New York team upset the Pats in the post-season just three years ago. That would be the New York Giants, who defeated the 18-0 Patriots by a score of 17-14 in Super Bowl XLII. But I would argue that this situation was very different. I will never forget the last game of the 2007 regular season, when Coach Tom Coughlin made a conscious decision to play all of his starters in a home game against New England. The G-Men had nothing to gain. Their playoff seeding had already been determined, but Coughlin did not want to hand the Patriots an automatic win as they were striving to become the first 16-0 team in NFL history.

On the first play of that game, Eli Manning threw a long pass down the middle of the field to Plaxico Burress, who leaped over two Patriot defenders to come down with the reception. Right then and there, you knew it was going to be a game. And it was. The Giants hung tough with the Patriots all night, and even won the battle at the line of scrimmage. But New England won the war, and left the Meadowlands with a win to cement their place in history at 16-0.

In all my years of watching NFL football, I never saw a loss do so much for a team's confidence. Up to that point, the Giants could have been considered the worst 10-5 team ever. They looked lethargic, turned the ball over too many times, and were fading quickly down the stretch. But something happened in that game. Somehow, trading blows and standing tall against the league's best team gave them a burst of energy that transformed them into an entirely different team. Big Blue went on to win three play-off games on the road, at Tampa Bay, at Dallas, and on the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field. They earned a rematch with the Patriots in the Super Bowl, with many so-called "experts" not giving them a chance to win. But Giant fans knew better, because we saw how our team hung with them just weeks before. Why would anyone doubt that they could do so again?

When the Giants pulled off an incredible feat and ruined the Patriots' dreams of a perfect season, many NFL fans could not believe what they had witnessed. But again, you have to remember that the Giants had a psychological edge in that they had played the same team just weeks before and proved that they could match up well with them. Now if the Giants had lost that game, say 45-3, then there's no way that they pull off the upset in the Super Bowl. Coughlin's decision would have backfired in that his team would have known that they were not in the same league as New England. But in the end, the coach made the right call and deserved all the credit he received for leading the Giants to their third Super Bowl victory.

If the Jets had played well against New England last month, then I would say that they'd have a good chance of upsetting the Patriots at home. But given the severity of the beatdown, I don't see how the Jets can rebound. Sure they beat the Pats in their first meeting, but that was a long time ago. This last loss is still fresh in their minds, and they are not going to be able to overcome it. The Patriots will go on to host the AFC Championship against the Ravens, and will advance to the Super Bowl to face off with the Green Bay Packers in a rematch of Super Bowl XXXI. Should my prediction come true, I'll be rooting for Aaron Rodgers to bring another championship trophy to TitleTown, USA. As for wearing a cheese on my head, well...that's not gonna happen.

Lessons from Tucson

It has now been almost one week since Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a Congress on Your Corner event in Tucson, Arizona. America suffered a national tragedy as six people were killed, including a federal judge and a nine year-old girl, and several others seriously injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In my view, there are many lessons to be learned as a result of this horrific crime and the events that have followed it.

The first lesson we need to learn is that more security is needed at public events where politicians are scheduled to appear. I fully understand that public officials want to make themselves accessible to their constituents, and it is quite admirable that so many of them fear losing touch with the needs of the people whom they serve. But in this day and age, you're asking for trouble if you allow the average citizen to have such close contact with leaders without being searched. I mentioned in my previous post that I was shocked at the lack of security when I attended Governor Christie's town hall meeting in Paramus. Given where I was seated, I could have pulled a gun and fired at least three shots before anyone could have stopped me. I appreciate the governor's position that he will not be motivated by fear, but there is a fine line between fear and imprudence. Having more security at these events is not only wise, it is obligatory if you really want to ensure the safety of everyone present.

The second lesson we have learned is that the liberal press will jump on every opportunity they have to demonize the conservative movement. The New York Times, MSNBC, and several other media outlets blamed pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck for the shooting. They criticized the Tea Party, and they singled out Sarah Palin for the cross-hairs she had placed on a map to highlight districts where incumbent Democrats were vulnerable to defeat in the past election. This is a page straight out of Rahm Emanuel's playbook: let's take a tragedy and use it to our political advantage any way that we can. It is a despicable tactic that should be denounced by those on both the left and the right.

Next, we learned that the liberal media could not have been more wrong in their assertions. When the smoke cleared and the investigation proceeded, several interesting facts began to emerge. It was discovered that Jared Lee Loughner did not watch cable news, did not follow politics that closely, and was actually registered to vote as an independent. He was a pot-smoking, skull worshipping atheist who had read the Communist Manifesto. If you were going to demonize anyone over this incident, you'd then have to look to the atheists, drug addicts, and Communists. In the end, all the liberal media did was erode their credibility even further, if that is even possible.

Another lesson we learned is that a memorial service for a national tragedy, or any tragedy for that matter, should not be held on a college campus. I was disgusted by the rally-like atmosphere at the service, where students whooped and hollered and clapped their hands like they were at an Arizona Wildcats' sporting event. Later, it was revealed that the White House was stunned by this behavior and never expected it to happen. That's understandable, but what I can't comprehend is why something was not done about it. President Obama could have gone to the microphone, put up his hand, and simply said "Please." I think that one word would have sent the message needed to make the tone more appropriate for such a solemn occasion.

But I think the most important lesson we learned is that mental illness is an issue that needs to be at the forefront of our nation's agenda. The only reason that politics became associated with the tragedy is that both a congresswoman and federal judge were shot. President Obama can make calls to tone down the political rhetoric all that he wants, the reality is that it had nothing to do with the shooting. The real issue we need to discuss is how to combat mental illness in such a way so as to prevent such an incident from occurring yet again.

When you look at the statements given by Loughner's friends, former classmates, former teachers, etc., the profile of a mentally ill young man clearly emerges. From the bizarre things he said to the socially unacceptable stunts he pulled to his laughing out loud for no apparent reason, it is obvious that this is someone in dire need of psychological help. Yet he never received the help he so desperately needed. Why not? It is quite evident that he was not the type of person who was going to seek out help on his own. Someone needed to refer him, or even have him committed. But who?

We now know that Loughner had previous run-ins with the law. He was arrested at age 16 for underage possession of alcohol. He has also been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia, and the police had been called several times to his home for domestic disturbances. As of right now, we don't know exactly what the domestic disturbances were about. But my guess would be that his parents feared him and that they were the ones who called the police on him for behavior that they deemed to be dangerous. I could be wrong, but that is my best guess based upon what we know so far.

Loughner attended Pima Community College, where both his classmates and teachers grew to fear him. They suspected that he might one day pull a gun on them, based on his bizarre statements and erratic conduct. He also had run-ins with the campus police there, often times because of his rudeness in the school library. In the end, the college decided to expel him.

So when we look back at this chain of events, we must ask whether anything could have been done along the line that might have prevented Loughner from carrying out his evil task. The local police knew his situation. His family was clearly aware that something was wrong. The college he attended knew that he had severe mental issues. Yet nothing was done, despite the fact that Arizona's criteria for having someone committed is less stringent than most other states.

And so, the final and most important lesson we need to learn from the Tucson tragedy is how families, schools, local police departments, and mental health professionals can work together to get people the psychological help they need. It is now estimated that over 25% of adults suffer from mental illness at some point during their lives. There is no telling what someone will do when they are severely depressed, having a manic or psychotic episode, or suffering from schizophrenia. Such people need treatment, whether through counseling, medication, or both. Looking back, it is very sad for me to think that these lives could have been saved if Loughner received the help he needed and simply took a pill once or twice a day. I hope that our federal and state governments will take a long hard look at this issue in light of what has happened. We need to come up with strategies to deal with this issue effectively, or at least effectively enough to prevent another Tucson-like tragedy from taking place.

My First Town Hall

Today, I attended a town hall meeting with Governor Chris Christie at the Elks' Lodge in Paramus. This was my first time attending one of these events, so I wasn't quite sure what to expect. Needless to say, it turned out to be an interesting experience.

The first thing that really stood out to me was the lack of security. One would think that after what happened in Tucson, AZ this past week, security at the town hall would be super tight. I went there fully expecting to be patted down and/or scanned by a metal detector. But that didn't happen. Those who were attending simply walked right in and were immediately escorted to an open seat. To be quite frank, I found this a bit disconcerting. Governor Christie has incited some strong feelings, both good and bad, among his constituents during his first year in office, and he has been a lightning rod for both criticism and controversy. Thus I couldn't help but wonder why security at the event was so lax. I'm sure it has something to do with the costs involved, but it still boggles my mind. I guess you'd have to say that Gov. Christie is a very brave man!

It was advertised that doors would open at 10am, but they actually opened up much earlier than that. The governor walked in at approximately 10:40 to a rousing ovation. It was standing room only, and the event did in fact reach its maximum capacity, forcing authorities to turn some people away. By my estimations, there were approximately 300 people in attendance. All of the local politicians were there of course, and the governor acknowledged several of them when he came into the room.

He started the meeting by reiterating his talking points from the State of the State address last Tuesday. Governor Christie explained in detail why we need to continue to cut spending, how the pension fund is $54 billion in the red, and that the state employee health benefits fund is even worse off. The governor informed us that the average cost of health benefits for state employees is $22,000 per year. Employees themselves only cover $900 of that cost, with the state picking up the tab for the remaining $21,100. This is why the fund for health benefits is now over $60 billion in the red, and the governor emphasized that state employees need to contribute more to their health plans, both in the way of premiums and co-pays.

Governor Christie then spent a good 5-10 minutes discussing teacher tenure. He picked two women in the audience and asked their names. When the first one identified herself as Mary, he asked her to imagine that she was a teacher and he was her principal. The governor then played the part by pretending to have her in his office for her end-of-year evaluation. He told her what a wonderful job she did, how much her kids love her class, how well they've done with their grades and test scores, and how well-respected she is by the parents and her colleagues. For this, he said, you'll receive a pat on the back and a 4% raise for next year.

Then he turned to the second woman, whose name was Trish. He proceeded to tell Trish what a terrible job she had done over the past year. Her kids didn't enjoy being in her class, they performed poorly in their grades and on the standardized tests, several parents complained about her, and she's often the last one to report to work in the morning and the first one to leave. For that, the governor said, we'll give you a 4% raise.

The point he was making is that this is what happens when teachers have tenure. Those who deserve to be rewarded more get the short end of the stick, while those who deserve to be penalized and/or disciplined for poor performance actually get rewarded. The governor then said that he was more concerned about the Marys of the state than the Trishes. Why? Because they might become discouraged and start doing less and less, since they are not rewarded any more than their colleagues who don't work nearly as hard. They may even leave the state or leave the teaching profession altogether. Through tenure reform, the governor is hoping to keep the stars of the teaching profession (and he acknowledged that there are many), while dumping those who simply don't deserve to be in charge of educating our children. I thought he did an excellent job in getting this point across.

When it came time to take questions, I was amazed by how many hands went up. If I guessed correctly and there were roughly 300 people in the room, then at least 100 of them raised their hands. The governor proceeded to call on people, often picking those who stood out for one reason or another. One gentleman had on a bright multi-colored sweater, while a woman who got picked was wearing a scarf with a unique design. The governor called on another lady because she was wearing orange and blue. Later, he would state that his being a huge fan of the New York Mets influenced this decision. That was the only time during the entire meeting that he actually got booed. He then blamed it on the Yankee fans and showed his sense of humor by calling his team a bunch of sad sacks. "Why would you boo us? You've got 27 championships. What do we have? I think we might even already be mathematically eliminated for the 2011 season!" he said to rousing laughter and applause.

In all, I would say that he took seven or eight questions. Most of them had to do with personal situations. It just so happened that of the very few who had the opportunity to address the governor, two of them were mothers of autistic children. Obviously, they expressed concerns over the possibility of cuts being made to special education, and the governor assured them that education for autistic children was one area that would not be cut. Another lady expressed discontent that she had a house built and was trying for months to get her certificate of occupancy. His staff took her contact information and promised to help her. Yet another had been trying to reach the state controller's office for four months. Governor Christie asked her is she was a betting woman. When she said no, he responded, "Well rest assured, you can safely bet that you'll get a response now!" His staff took her contact information as well.

By about ten minutes after noon, the governor expressed his regret that he would now have to leave and could no longer take questions. As you might guess, there was a collective sigh among the audience, and he responded by saying, "Hey, what are you all upset about? I actually have to go back to Trenton." He clearly meant that while he had to go and deal with the angry politicians and massive problems that were awaiting him, we would get to return to the comfort of our homes.

Overall, I was impressed by the governor's candor, the fact that he was able to articulate his positions clearly, and his ability to think on his feet. I thought there were a couple of obscure questions that might catch him off guard, but he took them in stride and offered up an intelligent response without the least bit of hesitation. What surprised me the most about him was his sense of humor. When you view the bombastic manner with which he confronts his attackers in all of those YouTube videos, one would hardly imagine that a softer side of him could possibly exist. But he drew laughs from the audience on several occasions, and shared a couple of personal stories as well that gave us a great deal of insight into who this man really is and where he comes from.

I would definitely attend another town hall meeting with the governor if the opportunity presented itself. I was disappointed that I did not get the chance to address him though. With the report of his task force on higher education being released this past week, the timing was perfect for me to share my experiences from my ten years as a university administrator. I felt I had something to offer, but in the end it was not to be. Maybe next time.

Oh boy, Illinois!

In previous posts, I've discussed the dire financial situation in many of our states. I also pointed out the four states that are in the most trouble, namely California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. Well yesterday, one of those states took a drastic step to close their monumental budget gap. In Illinois, state lawmakers worked overnight to pass a 66% increase in the rate of personal income tax, from 3% to 5%. They also increased the corporate tax from 4.8% to 7%. They worked to push it through as the lame duck session expires, since Republican gains in the legislature would have made it impossible to pass. In the end, the tax hikes passed by the bare minimum majorities of 60-57 in the House and 30-29 in the Senate.

What a disgrace. For the life of me, I cannot begin to comprehend what these politicians were thinking. Did they not get the message from voters on 11/2/10? Are they even listening? Essentially they're telling the taxpayers, "Due to the way we've mismanaged and overspent our funds over the past several years, we now have to take more of your money." They're treating their constituents like pack animals, putting the burden on their backs and stacking it higher and higher to see just how much they can carry. It is absolutely disgusting.

In this economy, what do they think will happen as a result of these tax increases? People are already spending less, so will they spend more now that they'll be paying $1,666 in taxes for every $1,000 they paid last year? Will people want to move to Illinois now that the tax rate has increased, or do you think more will leave? Will businesses be flocking there to pay a 7% tax rate, or will more businesses consider moving out of state? Of those businesses that stay, will they hire more workers or hire less? The answers to these questions are so obvious that I need not address them.

What's even more disturbing is that the legislature claimed that the tax cuts are only temporary. Sure, and maybe the Cubs will win the World Series this year too. Please. That statement is as disingenuous as they come. Everybody in the Illinois Statehouse knows that these tax hikes will become permanent eventually.
As House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said, "It's a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary."

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn actually defended the massive tax increase and vowed to sign them into law as soon as they reach his desk. He is in complete denial, dismissing the notion that the increase in corporate taxes will decimate businesses. Like his fellow Democrats in the legislature, he feels entitled to take more money from the people he serves to solve the state's budget woes. Just another tax and spend liberal who believes that the money we make belongs to them, not to us.

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has been a polarizing figure during his first year in office, but I would pose a question to those who are so against his determination to balance the budget by cutting spending. Would you really prefer to live in a state that doesn't think twice about raising the income tax level by 66%? Do you want to live in a state that drives out businesses and decimates their hiring practices by increasing the corporate tax from 4.8% to 7%? I don't see how anyone can answer "yes" to either of these questions. But if you did, then do yourself a favor. Move to Illinois, because such massive tax increases will not be instituted under Christie's watch.

I'm very interested to see what comes of the tax hikes in Illinois. I'll be following the situation closely to see if businesses leave, if hiring goes down, if unemployment goes up, etc. My prediction is that the Democrats will rue the day they pulled this political stunt in the dead of night, ramming it through the lame duck session before more Republicans could take office. They'll live to regret it, and pay the ultimate price for ignoring the message of the voters. They say that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes. But come next election, the Democrats in Illinois will find out that those two things are one and the same.

Westboro Worships a Different God

As we prepare to bury the victims of Saturday's tragic shooting in Tucson, most Americans, decent people that we are, will stand with the grieving families and offer our prayers and support. Most, not all. For once again, members of the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting at the funerals of the victims. They'll be carrying signs, such as "God Hates You" and "Destruction is Imminent," and shouting all kinds of hateful remarks about how America deserves to suffer because we've distanced ourselves from God.

The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety over the past several years by holding demonstrations at the funerals of soldiers killed in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those soldiers died as the result of an improvised explosive device (IED). Thus the church's members are known to carry signs saying, "Thank God for IEDs." They truly believe that God is punishing America for its sins, mostly for being accepting of homosexuals. Though they have also mentioned the evils of abortion and divorce from time to time as well.

So now that they have decided to show up in Tucson, apparently they also believe that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was some sort of messenger from God. They view the victims of the shooting as being deserving of what they got, and all those who grieve as being deserving of their suffering. It is a warped view of a God who is all-loving, all-merciful, and incapable of violating His nature by inflicting harm.

Before going any further, allow me to state that I am a devout Catholic. I believe that abortion is an intrinsically evil act, and I am opposed to divorce. I also believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that homosexuality in and of itself is a grave disorder. This is what my faith teaches me, and this is what I believe.

That being said, there is no way that I or any other good Christian could possibly embrace the doctrine being preached at Westboro Baptist Church. In one of my previous blog posts, I discussed how America has been slowly but surely distancing itself from God for decades now. I also showed in that post how disastrous the results have been, using our public schools as a measuring stick. But it is paramount that we all understand what this really means. It means that we are making conscious choices that have dire consequences. It does not mean that God is somehow punishing the human race, hurling down lightning bolts at those who decide to cross Him.

There is an explanation as to why so many of our soldiers have been killed by IEDs. There is an explanation as to why the victims in Tucson were brutally murdered last Saturday. There is in fact an explanation for every evil act that has ever been committed in the history of the world. This explanation is simple, yet profound, and it was expounded by Saint Augustine over 1500 years ago when he addressed "the problem of evil."

The question has been asked many times. If our God is all-good, then why does evil exist? Evil, states Augustine, is a direct consequence of free will. When God created man, He endowed him with free will. In my view, this was done in order to allow for true love to exist. Love, by its very nature, must be a free act. God could have created a race of automatons who simply did what He told them to do. But if He had, then love would have been an impossibility. And so we were given free will, and thus we have the freedom to make our own choices as we go through life. We can draw closer to God, or distance ourselves from Him. We can believe in Him, or reject Him completely. We can choose to do good and abide by His will, or we can choose to perform evil acts with catastrophic results. In the end, it's all up to us.

So let there be no doubt as to why our soldiers die, and as to why those innocent people in Tucson were shot. These things happen because people make the choice to carry out evil acts and harm their fellow man. God isn't the one who kills our soldiers. Terrorists do. God is not the one who carried out the shooting in Tucson. Jared Lee Loughner did. Westboro Baptist Church has it all wrong. God is all-good, and thus incapable of evil. He does not punish us. Rather, we punish ourselves and others by making bad choices and carrying out sinful acts. It is particularly tragic when innocent people are harmed or even killed as a direct result of another person's conscious decision to do evil. But such is the consequence of free will. It is the only way true love can exist, and at the same time it is the only way that evil can exist.

As I write this post, the good people of Tucson have united and are preparing for Westboro's funeral protests. Dozens of volunteers are making "angels' wings" approximately eight to ten feet in length. They will wear these wings in order to shield the protesters from those who come to mourn the victims. Several others will form a wall by locking arms, and bikers have even vowed to cordon off the families from the protesters. Earlier today, Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay at least 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate, and is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.

Lats fall, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought against Westboro Baptist Church by the father of a soldier killed in Iraq whose funeral was protested by the group in 2006. The father, Albert Snyder, had won a multimillion-dollar verdict against the church, claiming invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether free speech can be curbed at specific locations and events. I am hoping that the court does the right thing and rules in favor of Mr. Snyder. It may be too late for him, but it's not too late to save others from enduring such hateful remarks at the most solemn time of their lives: when they're burying a loved one and saying their final good-byes.

What may well trouble me more than anything else is the fact that many people who are not religious, struggle with their faith, or flat out don't believe in God will point to this and say "Ah ha!" They will dismiss all of Christianity because of the twisted philosophy of a small Kansas-based church whose congregation is mostly comprised of the pastor's extended family. That may well be the gravest injustice of all, that Westboro Baptist is misrepresenting our God, our faith, and everything we stand for as Christians. I suppose the rest of us can only do what we can to live our faith and show the world what it means to worship a God who is all-good and all-loving. Through this post, I hope that maybe I can reach someone, even if it's just one soul, who might otherwise have thought less of Christianity because of the abhorrent actions of Westboro Baptist.

But as atrocious as Westboro's planned protests are, this is not a time to channel our energy toward hatred. It is a time to mourn the victims, to stand with the families who have suffered such terrible loss, and to give them our prayers and support. Let us pray for them, and let us pray that the Supreme Court does the right thing by ruling against Westboro Baptist. If they do, then the funeral protests will finally come to an end, and we may well never hear the name "Westboro Baptist" in the press again. Unless, of course, a group of people decide to picket them, holding signs that say, "Thank God for the Supreme Court."