September 27, 2019
Chicago Sun-Times
Before Illinois spends $45 billion on highways and bridges, Sandoval should hit the road
For a couple of decades, Illinois has allowed roads and bridges to crumble, which doesn’t make much sense for a state whose economy is based on being a transportation hub for the nation.
But now that our state is poised to spend $45 billion on new capital projects, including those roads and bridges, we’ve got a related problem: A key figure in deciding how that money will be spent is state Sen. Martin Sandoval, D-Chicago, whose political war chest is bursting with donations from construction firms and others who stand to benefit on the capital plan.
That kind of blatant conflict of interest is as old as Illinois. But in this case there is an easy fix.
Sandoval should be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Transportation Committee, and he no longer should be the Senate majority whip.
As compromised as Sandoval already was, it’s also troubling that he’s in the crosshairs of the FBI. Agents on Tuesday raided his home and offices in Cicero and Springfield, carrying out boxes of documents, and also raided government offices in three suburbs in his Senate district.
In other circumstances, we might agree with Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who says that nothing should be done about Sandoval right now. Despite the FBI raids, no charges have been filed. The feds could be looking for something that comes to nothing.
But that argument ignores what we know for sure: Sandoval’s been raking it in from the construction crowd.
Over the last four quarterly reporting periods, Crain’s Chicago Business reported, he has received $432,000 in donations, and much of that came from businesses waiting in line for hefty contracts to build things.
The biggest identified sector of donations to Sandoval is construction, according to VoteSmart.org. The Illinois State Board of Elections lists political campaign gifts from a range of transportation-related entities, such as engineering, planning, building materials and construction companies, as well as unions that work on transportation projects.
Those in need go out of their way to please. What were we to think in 2016 when Pace, the suburban bus service - which relies on state transportation funding - hired Sandoval’s son?
“These are the types of questions the campaign finance system raises constantly,” said Alicia Kaplan, policy director of Reform for Illinois. “It is a broader issue of public trust in the system.”
Many states ban corporate contributions to politicians to prevent such conflicts of interest.
Sandoval raises much more campaign money than he needs to defend his safe legislative seat. That puts him in a position to expand his influence - and conceivably that of his donors - by passing along money to other lawmakers.
The better part of caution says Sandoval should be nowhere near the center of decision-making when the Illinois Legislature doles out that $45 billion.
___
September 28, 2019
(Arlington Heights) Daily Herald
A polarizing, but sadly unavoidable, inquiry
The nation may not yet be entirely caught in the grip of impeachment fever, but a shift in the poll numbers suggests that since last week, we have gained a temperature.
Such circumstances usually call for plenty of liquids and a period of bed rest, and perhaps it’s in all of our interest to follow that regimen now, as the U.S. House of Representatives officially begins an inquiry into the possible impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Impeachment talk regarding Trump began even before he took the Oath of Office, and it’s too bad that in the intervening months, this has become a national preoccupation, a certain pitch-by-pitch polarizing entertainment of sorts.
For too many people, and far too often, impeachment is seen not as a last-ditch mechanism to remove a criminally incompetent leader but as a handy tool to wield against an indomitably obstinate political opponent.
This has been our consistent impression of the impeachment undercurrent that has gurgled beneath the surface of some of Trump’s most-ardent Democratic opposition. Many Trump critics seem insistent not on contending with the president through the force of argument and numbers but by simply shooing him out of the way.
As frustrated as we have been with many of the president’s policies and episodes of unbecoming behavior, that perception has always made us uneasy, and we have generally felt, as we stated flatly in an editorial following Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress, that, “Right now, the only thing an impeachment attempt would do is further divide us all.”
That was in July. Coincidentally, two days before we published that editorial, President Trump had a phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which rough transcripts show he urged an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, the chief roadblock at that moment to Trump’s re-election.
Now that it has learned of that conversation, is the nation developing a stomach for impeachment it did not have two months ago?
Is the nation willing to put the distractions, the talking heads and the talking points aside and listen dispassionately to the evidence, wherever it leads?
Speaking for ourselves, we have to admit we are feeling our temperature rise.
A president of the United States has admitted, indeed boasts of, pressuring the head of a foreign nation to take direct action against a political rival. Just writing that sentence fills us with a sense of dread.
But is it enough to consider invoking a process that aims to remove a duly elected president by legislative fiat rather than a vote of the electorate? We are not quite there yet. But neither are we closing the door.
So much of the debate has focused on whether there was or wasn’t a quid-quo-pro in Trump’s request for “a favor.” An important issue to resolve, to be sure. But it should not distract us from what already is undisputed fact: The president reached out to a foreign power to ask that it investigate his top political rival.
Viewing that soberly, removed from the manipulative passions of politics, what patriot cannot be troubled?
For some, that by itself might be enough to consider. But, we need to know more. As a nation, we may regret the taste of the medicine, but our rising temperature requires it all the same.
___
September 29, 2019
The (Carbondale) Southern Illinoisan
Health care in the United States must change. Our lives depend on it.
The United States remains home to some of the greatest doctors, surgeons and medical facilities in the world.
People come to the United States from all over the world for specialized treatment. But, without question, there are serious deficiencies in the overall system. The World Health Organization ranked 190 nations on the overall quality of healthcare. The United States was ranked 37th.
Countries ranked ahead of the United States included France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Greece and Portugal. Canada took Western Hemisphere honors, earning the 30th spot.
Cost of healthcare services in the United States is prohibitive. A CNBC report this year found that about 530,000 American families seek bankruptcy protection every year because of medical costs. About 65 percent of American bankruptcies are related to medical expenses.
The horror stories involving costs and insurance entanglements are everywhere.
Anecdotally among newspaper staffers, there is a diabetic taking the minimal insulin dose each month. The cost - after insurance - is about $400 per month, for a drug that, barring a new medical breakthrough, will have to be taken until the staffer passes away.
Assuming costs don’t rise, a highly doubtful supposition, the cost of this medication for the next 40 years will be $192,000 - which is just the out of pocket cost.
The State of Illinois has taken note of the onerous costs. Sen. Andy Manar D-Bunker Hill, has sponsored a bill that will cap monthly insulin costs for some insurance plans at $100 per month. That is not insignificant, but much better than costs of $400 or more.
Prescription drug costs are a problem, but hardly the only issue with American healthcare.
Business Insider recently reported that the average cost of childbirth, without complications, is $10,808. That cost can rise to $30,000 with pre-and post-natal care. A $30,000 expenditure is significant for anyone, particularly for young families.
Insurance issues add unnecessary complications and heartburn.
Another staffer reported a family member was contacted by the insurance company regarding coverage while still in the hospital. And, most families have spent long hours arguing with insurance companies over coverage for necessary drugs and wellness visits that are supposed to be covered.
The current system is leaking at the seams. Yet, our politicians are immobilized by ideology and fear of being voted out of office.
The Affordable Care Act was passed during the Obama administration to address some of these needs. Obviously, the ACA was not a panacea. However, repeal and replace that was promised has gone nowhere, leaving Americans to foot astronomical bills they cannot pay.
And, there is no viable alternative on the horizon, at least nothing that would garner support in both the House and Senate.
Democratic presidential candidates are campaigning on various plans, ranging from Medicare for all, to plans remarkably similar to the status quo. We’re not sure where the answer lies, but it is painfully clear the current system cannot sustain itself.
European countries have socialized medicine. Obviously, taxes would have to increase. But, without hefty insurance premiums, Americans might be better off. Bloomberg news and the Wall Street Journal both reported recently that healthcare coverage for the average American family has surpassed $20,000.
The other fear regarding government involvement in healthcare is the loss of choice regarding medical procedures - remember the “death panel” fearmongering when the ACA was being debated. The counter to that argument is the iron grip insurance companies now have on treatment.
Given the American aversion to government control, a hybrid system of some sort will likely be implemented. The one thing that is certain - something has to change and it has to change quickly. Democrats and Republicans have to rise above party squabbles and work for us - our lives depend on it.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.