truesee's Blog

 

Peter Grier

Staff writer
April 11, 2011 at 5:33 pm EDT

 

Should Donald Trump and Sarah Palin run together as a shovel-ready Republican presidential ticket?

We bring this up because over the weekend, the ex-governor of Alaska gave the current reality-show star an attaboy for his embrace of “birtherism.” You know, the school of thought that holds that President Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not eligible for the job he now has, constitutionally speaking.

“I appreciate that ‘The Donald’ wants to spend his resources in getting to the bottom of something that so interests him and many Americans – you know, more power to him,” Ms. Palin said Saturday on Fox News’s “Justice With Judge Jeanine.” “He’s not just throwing stones from the sidelines; he’s digging in there. He’s paying for researchers to find out why President Obama would have spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate.”

Mr. Trump is doing pretty well among Republican voters at the moment, so he would bring some political appeal into such a partnership. He’s basically running like he’s already a boss, as opposed to some of the other candidates, who by comparison seem like applicants for the job.

Since he promotes himself as a business success and economic maven, Trump might be expected to appeal to economic conservatives. Palin, in contrast, has deep roots among social conservatives and tea party types. Put that together, and you might have a winning coalition.

I know what you’re thinking: How would such a team work? It’s easy. One would simply have to promise to pick the other as his/her VP candidate. Even during the primary season, they could travel the country and campaign together. Just think of it – Donald Trump and Sarah Palin on the same podium, kicking heinie and taking names. That might create an attention vortex so powerful that every political reporter in America would be sucked into it, and coverage of all other candidates would end.

Trump could drag Palin into his “Celebrity Apprentice” series. Underlings might have to prove themselves by tagging along on a moose hunt, say, or serving as a chaperon on Palin’s children’s dates. And Trump could guest on a very special “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” in which he scouts possible casino locations in the frozen northland and maneuvers to keep the fierce Alaska winds off his strands of hair.

Which one would run as a presidential candidate, which would run as a possible VP? We’ll let them solve that problem, as it’s a subject we are loath to touch. However, we will mention one possible creative solution: a co-presidency, in which one is the titular top of the ticket, but promises that the other will serve beside him (or her) as an equal.

Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford discussed something like this at the 1980 Republican convention. The theory was that the Gipper and the ex-president would make an unbeatable Batman-and-Robin political team. But the whole thing faded away when it turned out Mr. Reagan and his advisers didn’t really want to cede much power, and George H.W. Bush got picked instead for VP.

A Little Village Academy student cringes at an enchilada dish served at his school. Many students throw away their entrees uneaten and say they would rather bring food from home. The school, though, does not allow students to bring in their own lunches, unless they have a medical condition or a food allergy. (Monica Eng, Chicago Tribune / February 17, 2011)

Monica Eng and Joel Hood, Tribune reporters

3:42 a.m. CDT, April 11, 2011

ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410

Fernando Dominguez cut the figure of a young revolutionary leader during a recent lunch period at his elementary school.

"Who thinks the lunch is not good enough?" the seventh-grader shouted to his lunch mates in Spanish and English.

Dozens of hands flew in the air and fellow students shouted along: "We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch! We should bring our own lunch!"

Fernando waved his hand over the crowd and asked a visiting reporter: "Do you see the situation?"

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Carmona said she created the policy six years ago after watching students bring "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for their lunch. Although she would not name any other schools that employ such practices, she said it was fairly common.

A Chicago Public Schools spokeswoman said she could not say how many schools prohibit packed lunches and that decision is left to the judgment of the principals.

"While there is no formal policy, principals use common sense judgment based on their individual school environments," Monique Bond wrote in an email. "In this case, this principal is encouraging the healthier choices and attempting to make an impact that extends beyond the classroom."

Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.

"Some of the kids don't like the food they give at our school for lunch or breakfast," said Little Village parent Erica Martinez. "So it would be a good idea if they could bring their lunch so they could at least eat something."

"(My grandson) is really picky about what he eats," said Anna Torrez, who was picking up the boy from school. "I think they should be able to bring their lunch. Other schools let them. But at this school, they don't."

But parent Miguel Medina said he thinks the "no home lunch policy" is a good one. "The school food is very healthy," he said, "and when they bring the food from home, there is no control over the food."

At Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side, officials allow packed lunches but confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.) Principal Rebecca Stinson said that though students may not like it, she has yet to hear a parent complain.

"The kids may have money or earn money and (buy junk food) without their parents' knowledge," Stinson said, adding that most parents expect that the school will look out for their children.

Such discussions over school lunches and healthy eating echo a larger national debate about the role government should play in individual food choices.

"This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility," said J. Justin Wilson, a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry.

"Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Wilson said. "This is the perfect illustration of how the government's one-size-fits-all mandate on nutrition fails time and time again. Some parents may want to pack a gluten-free meal for a child, and others may have no problem with a child enjoying soda."

For many CPS parents, the idea of forbidding home-packed lunches would be unthinkable. If their children do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals, such a policy would require them to pay $2.25 a day for food they don't necessarily like.

"We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk," education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach wrote in an email. Her son attends Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview. "Not only would mandatory school lunches worsen the dietary quality of most kids' lunches at Nettelhorst, but it would also cost more out of pocket to most parents! There is no chance the parents would stand for that."

Many Little Village students claim that, given the opportunity, they would make sound choices.

"They're afraid that we'll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won't be as good as what they give us at school," said student Yesenia Gutierrez. "It's really lame. If we could bring in our own lunches, everyone knows what they'd bring. For example, the vegetarians could bring in their own veggie food."

"I would bring a sandwich or a Subway and maybe a juice," said seventh-grader Ashley Valdez.

Second-grader Gerardo Ramos said, "I would bring a banana, orange and some grapes."

"I would bring a juice and like a sandwich," said fourth-grader Eric Sanchez.

"Sometimes I would bring the healthy stuff," second-grader Julian Ruiz said, "but sometimes I would bring Lunchables."

Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare

Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.  At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire.

The discovery came on the eve of an oversight hearing focused on the workings of an obscure agency known as CCIO -- the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  CCIO, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the implementation of Section 1102 of the Affordable Care Act, which created something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 -- shortly after Obamacare was passed -- and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.

The idea was to subsidize unions, states, and companies that had made commitments to provide health insurance for workers who retired early --  between the ages of 55 and 64, before they were eligible for Medicare. According to a new report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services, "People in the early retiree age group…often face difficulties obtaining insurance in the individual market because of age or chronic conditions that make coverage unaffordable or inaccessible."  As a result, fewer and fewer organizations have been offering coverage to early retirees; the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program was designed to subsidize such coverage until the creation of Obamacare's health-care exchanges.

The program began making payouts on June 1, 2010.  Between that date and the end of 2010, it paid out about $535 million dollars.  But according to the new report, the rate of spending has since increased dramatically, to about $1.3 billion just for the first two and a half months of this year. At that rate, it could burn through the entire $5 billion appropriation as early as 2012.

Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.

Republican investigators count the early-retiree program among those that would never have become law had Democrats allowed more scrutiny of Obamacare at the time it was pushed through the House and Senate.  Since then, Republicans have kept an eye on the program but were not able to pry any information out of the administration until after the GOP won control of the House last November.  Now, finally, they are learning what's going on.

Jason Lanning

Bay News 9

Reporter
Last Updated: Monday, April 11, 2011

TAMPA -- 

A Tampa mother was arrested after physically expressing her concern about her son's grades.

According to the Tampa Police Department, 35-year-old Day-maris Vazquez was taken into custody on Sunday on child abuse charges.

Police said Vasquez hit her 12-year-old son with wooden and metal spatulas because he got an F on his report card.

Authorities said Vazquez broke the boy's glasses, choked him and threatened to kill him.

She remains in jail after bond was denied for her Monday morning.

Officials said she will remain in jail on an immigration hold.

 

She will have a chance to appeal her immigration hold, but not until the criminal charges against her are resolved, according to officials.

“It was smart for him to wait, because now he can use the Ryan plan as a benchmark,” says John Kenneth White, a political scientist at Catholic University in Washington. “He can say, ‘We’re not turning Medicare into a voucher system.’ ”

Sara Dedek, 26, charged with attacking two police officers and drug offenses. (Chicago Police Department / April 9, 2011)

Andy Grimm Tribune reporter

3:36 p.m. CDT, April 10, 2011

A 110-pound woman arrested on drug charges sent two female police officers to the hospital after scuffling with the officers inside the Monroe District police station on Saturday, authorities said.

Sara Dedek, 26, who is 5 feet, 4 inches tall with blond hair streaked with fluorescent pink dye, was charged Sunday with two counts of aggravated battery of a police officer.

Prosecutors said a female officer broke her ankle when Dedek shoved her down the stairs at the station, and Dedek injured the thumb of another officer who was attempting to restrain her from fleeing. The officers were moving Dedek from another part of the station after she had been searched, prosecutors said.

Dedek, of the 2400 block of North Springfield Avenue, had been arrested for possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia in the 700 block of West 14^th Street. A caller reported seeing Dedek and a man both inside a parked car "shooting up" a police report states, and the arresting officers found suspected heroin, a syringe and a can that had been cut to be  used in preparing and injecting drugs.

Judge Donald Panarese Jr. on Sunday ordered her held on $150,000 bond.

 

Walker/Getty

 

 

The White House stopped just short of dismissing Donald Trump as a clown Sunday - calling him a "sideshow" act with "zero chance" of becoming president.