Jerry Moore's blog

For the third time (let's hope it's a charm), the Cook County Board of Commissioners has reduced the sales tax. They voted 12-5 earlier today to scale back last year's sales tax increase by one-half a cent.

Whereas supporters previously had only the right idea on their side, now they have the law. The Illinois General Assembly recently lowered the number of the board's 17 commissioners needed to override a veto by the County Board president from 14 to 11.

Seeing that 12 commissioners voted to lower the sales tax today, I'm fairly confident the measure will stick this time. County Board President Todd Stroger vetoed the first two attempts to reduce the sales tax, and supporters of the measure were unable to collect the 14 votes needed to override it.

Of course, Stroger didn't take the news well. He said he has opposed the notion of reducing the sales tax because this could impair the county's ability to deliver health care to low-income people. An article in the Chicago Tribune, however, challenges this assertion.

"The independent board overseeing the system has proposed a 2010 budget that reduces the reliance on local county taxes by $73 million, and an analysis by the non-partisan Civic Federation concluded only $46 million of the new tax revenue went to fund health care this year," according to the article.

Not a gracious loser, Stroger is now engaging in class warfare. He said today's votes appeared to go along economic lines, with those representing the wealthier people voting to scale the sales tax back and those representing poorer people voting to keep the higher tax.

“This has really become a battle of the haves and the have nots, and there are more haves than have nots,” Stroger is quoted as saying in the Tribune story. “When you don’t want to fund the services, the thing that gets hit hard the most is our universal health care. It’s not just about you, it’s about all of us. If we forget that, we forget what government is all about. It’s here to help people.”

Commissioner Tony Peraica, R-16th District, of Riverside countered Stroger's remarks by saying higher taxes hurt poor people harder than they do affluent people. But Commissioner William Beavers, D-4th District, of Chicago suggested that his constituents don't seem to mind paying high taxes.

“My people aren’t running across town to buy something from another county,” Beavers is quoted as saying in the Tribune story.

Yes, I'm sure Beavers' constituents are going to revolt once they realize they'll pay less for consumer goods. You just have to marvel at some people's logic.

Wow, Doug Ibendahl has me stumped: When it comes to deciding which GOP gubernatorial debate I'd like to watch this week, am I a champ or a chump?

The Republican Young Professionals group, of which Ibendahl is a co-founder, sent out an e-mail yesterday highlighting an article he wrote for the Web site Champion News. Ibendahl was comparing the gubernatorial debates among Republican candidates being held tonight (Wednesday) by the Homer/Lockport Tea Party and Joliet Tea Party organizations and one being held tomorrow (Thursday) by the Illinois Republican Party Finance Committee.

"There are two debates this week featuring the Republican candidates for governor," Ibendahl writes. "At the risk of playing favorites, I'll just say the first event on Wednesday night is for patriotic, God-fearing, real Americans. The second one on Thursday night is for poor souls who want to throw their hard earned money away to a faction that continues to divide and destroy our once proud Republican Party."

You see what I mean? Ibendahl doesn't mince words here. He puts the GOP faithful on notice and demands they pick sides.

But who, exactly, qualifies as a patriotic, God-fearing, real American? Let's break this down by adjective.

"Love of country" can be hard to define. One man's patriotism is another man's treason. Who gets to decide?

And what about flag-waving, national anthem-singing Americans who can't bring themselves to acknowledge the existence of a deity? George Will, a conservative icon, told Stephen Colbert last year that he was an agnostic. Does this mean Will is a chump?

And how can we tell "real" Americans from un-"real" Americans? What's the criteria? It used to be that Americans were people who held citizenship in the United States, regardless of their social/religious/political/economic views. It appears that's changed.

So the champs vs. chumps battle in the GOP is on. Considering how badly Republicans fared in statewide elections last year (they didn't win a single office), you'd think they wouldn't be looking to exploit inner divisions.

But what do I know?

P.S.

I strongly suggest that members of the Republican Young Professionals take thoroughly scrutinize their Web site. One link along the left-hand side shows a picture of John McCain and Sarah Palin with the words, "The ticket for America" (pssst, they lost last year). And below that is a link called the W Connection, which offers talking points about President Bush's agenda (I don't know how to break this news to you, but Dubya is no longer president).

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on the group's part. Hey, we all have to hold tight to our dreams. But really, the Bush presidency and 2008 campaign are over. Let's all move on, OK?

I'll be discussing current events with Ray Hanania at 8 a.m. tomorrow on his radio program on WJJG AM 1530. Ray streams the program live on his Web site for the show, www.RadioChicagoland.com. He also has podcasts of his programs. So tune in to WJJG or check out Ray's Web site. Rock on!

Here's a headline that's sure to get attention: "Gay Activists Despise AFTAH Because We Expose their Radical Agenda."

The AFTAH in question is the Carol Stream-based Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Peter LaBarbera, the group's president, posted an item a few days ago on his Web site pertaining to the "attack" to which he and like-minded individuals have been subjected.

The most-recent harassment campaign, LaBarbera said, has come on the heels of AFTAH publicizing its upcoming fundraiser. The banquet will be held at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights.

(Imagine what the conversations will be like from one table to another at a banquet for a group called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality! Not only do you have a group solely dedicated to obsessing itself with what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, now you have supporters fueling such a group so it can continue obsessing itself with what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. How bizarre is that?)

LaBarbera pointed out that Joe Jervis promoted the AFTAH banquet on his blog, which in part covers gay culture. Jervis urged his readers to buy tickets to the event in order to spice it up. He also wrote that people who don't want to buy tickets are invited to join members of the Gay Liberation Network at their protest of the banquet.

Jervis noted that Matt Barber will be at the event promoting his new book, "The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War." The blog posting also publicized the phone number to make a reservation for the fundraiser.

Here's where the trouble really begins. LaBarbera said that gays have been making harassing phone calls to the Concerned Women of America member who's been taking reservations.

I certainly don't condone harassing phone calls, no matter how much you differ with someone's opinion. There's a way to register your opposition of someone's viewpoint, but pestering someone with repeated calls isn't an effective manner to accomplish this.

LaBarbera, however, overreacts a tad to the way Jervis publicized the information. LaBarbera has the woman's name and phone number on a few of his Web posts, even the one where he's objecting to Jervis publicizing this information. Is he the only one authorized to promote the event?

He also contradicts himself when he claims that some people lied when leaving bad reviews of Barber's book on Amazon.com. LaBarbera indicated that people couldn't have read the book yet because it won't be released until Nov. 3.

In the same post, however, LaBarbera said that signed copies of the book obtained in advance of its release will be available at tomorrow's AFTAH banquet. So how does LaBarbera know that those who left bad reviews are lying? If AFTAH can get advanced copies of the book, why can't other people?

And both Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble list the book as being in stock now through their Web sites and available for immediate shipping. So LaBarbera as well as two booksellers have demonstrated that people can access the book in advance of Nov. 3.

LaBarbera falls short in his claim to be exposing the radical gay agenda. The only agenda gay people have in opposing AFTAH is a desire to be looked upon as human beings worthy of equal treatment under our laws, which is our nation's bedrock principle.

But however misguided their efforts, its AFTAH's right to publicly state their opposition to homosexuality. In the same vein, it's the right of gay people to publicly state their opposition to groups like AFTAH.

If gay activists actually show up at tomorrow's event, it will certainly make for a lively banquet. Bon appétit, mon amis!

OK, this whole germ thing is starting to get a little freaky.

When 972 students failed to show up yesterday, St. Charles East High School canceled its classes and extracurricular activities for the rest of the week. That's almost one-half of the student population! Officials said many students exhibited flu-like symptoms.

Being a creature of the Cold War, I'm blaming the Ruskies for the widespread illness in the United States. I don't care if the Soviet Union dissolved nearly 20 years ago — the commies are up to something.

The news that half a high school has been impacted by disease can't be comforting at all to local hypochondriacs. I've never obsessed about picking up bugs from other people, but the empirical evidence has given me plenty of doubts.

Do I really want to pick up that telephone receiver? Can I trust that this dish doesn't have some virus? Has this hallway recently been occupied by someone who's passing out bacteria faster than Santa doles out gifts at Christmastime?

Perhaps people like Adrian Monk are on to something. Sure, they spend their lives afraid that their own shadow is going to make them sick. But I'll bet they actually stay pretty healthy.

So, are you a germaphobe? Do you fixate over every tiny bug you may encounter? How has the outbreak of the flu (including H1N1) altered your daily routine?

I'd love to hear some stories, so please let me know. You can leave a message here, or you can e-mail me at jmoore@musuburbanlife.com. But please wear a mask and surgical gloves when you contact me, just in case.

After listening to a week and a half of public debate, I've concluded that most people are wrong about why the International Olympic Committee awarded the 2016 Summer Games to Rio de Janeiro rather than to Chicago.

The conventional wisdom about Chicago losing the Olympics is that those pitching the campaign failed to do what a Chicago political machine has always done best: Make sure all the votes are there to ensure victory.

The problem with this theory is that the Chicago political machine wasn't running the IOC election and had nothing to offer to the voters. Ward bosses usually pass out jobs to the faithful to make sure they get to the polls and put the right people into office. With the IOC, those pitching Chicago could only ask for their votes with no clue as to the outcome.

Many IOC members were determined to give the 2016 Olympics to Rio regardless of what campaign any other city made. Chicago was looked upon as the strongest contender, and perhaps that's why European and Asian members of the IOC voted overwhelmingly against Chicago in the first round of the final vote. Why risk leaving Rio's biggest competitor in the running when it could be elminayed off the bat?

So Chicago wasn't going to get the 2016 Games, no matter what. In contrast to local elections where mechanics running the political machine could "fix" problems as they came up (e.g., ensure ballots from the stronghold of an opponent go missing), Chicago officials could only stand by and watch as their dreams were dashed.

All the promises they got from IOC members to support Chicago's bid didn't mean anything because there was nothing of value to swap. Precinct captains have the power to punish those believed to have failed in achieving the political machine's goals.But even Mayor Richard M. Daley has nothing over the IOC, so this was an election he couldn't control.

If I didn't work in the news industry, this item would strike me as hilarious.

ABC News has issued an apology to the White House after one of its reporters publicized via Twitter potentially embarrassing comments that President Obama made during a CNBC interview. Obama reportedly called Kaye West a "jackass" in reacting to West's behavior the other night during the MTV Video Music Awards program.

Terry Moran from ABC News tweeted the following: "Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a 'jackass' for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT's presidential."

And in responding to Politico.com, an ABC News spokesperson said: "In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."

First of all, I'm not sure why ABC is reporting on an interview that CNBC is conducting with Obama. Aren't there plenty of original stories for ABC to follow?

And did Terry Moran know that the "jackass" comment from Obama came during an off-the-record portion? Or was this an understanding between just Obama and CNBC? I don't believe Moran would be ethically tied to an off-the-record agreement between Obama and another news agency.

But what gripes me the most is the groveling that ABC News believes it has to do to Obama for not muzzling his "jackass" comment. Is ABC News committed to cherry-picking comments that will serve only to put Obama in a positive light? Is this legitimate reporting?

No wonder so many people have given up on the press. Who wants to watch a bunch of spineless weasels make themselves look like fools?

There is a nauseating piece of "Patriot Day" propaganda making its way around cyberspace, and those spreading it should be ashamed of themselves. It's obviously designed to coincide with memorials to the victims of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

An e-mail I received late last night asks in its subject line, "Do you remember 1987 ..." It includes a picture of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and then launches into a story about testimony Oliver North gave that year as part of the congressional investigation into the Iran-Contra scandal.

The story has North testifying that he spent nearly $60,000 on a home security system. North defended the expenditure because a terrorist was after him. The U.S. senator grilling North, Al Gore, asked him the name of the terrorist who wanted to kill him. North replied, "Osama bin Laden."

According to the story, North told Gore that Bin Laden was "the most evil person I know of." North added, "I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the Earth."

In the middle of the e-mail is a photo of the twin towers engulfed in flames. The e-mail ends with a photo of Ground Zero after the debris was cleared out.

Wow, that's quite a story. Oliver North saw way back in 1987 that Osama bin Laden was a threat to world peace. If only Al Gore — and everyone else — had listened to North, 9/11 may never have happened.

In the only problem with such a compelling tale is that it's not true.

Osama bin Laden was confronting the Soviet military in Afghanistan as part of the mujahedeen in 1987, backed by the U.S. government. North testified that he had received the security system as a gift, worth $16,000, but said he didn't know if it was financed by revenue diverted from the arms-for-hostages controversy.

It also turns out that Gore was not one of the U.S. senators pressing North for details about Iran-Contra. Gore was not a member of the Senate committee participating in the hearings. And North claimed that terrorist Abu Nidal was out to kill him, not Osama bin Laden.

So North is not the sage that some political opportunists want us to believe he is regarding 9/11. Rather, North is an unrepentent criminal and pathological liar whose actions put us in more danger, not made us safer.

I would say that were it not for a legal technicality, North would be serving time in prison — but even this may not be true. Had he been convicted, former President George H.W. Bush probably would have pardoned North just like he let six other Iran-Contra criminals off the hook.

So despite trampling all over the U.S. Constitution, North is exalted as a hero by so-called "law and order" conservatives (which doesn't surprise me, seeing how these people admire fellow criminal and professional psychopath G. Gordon Liddy). North now hosts his own TV program on the Fox News Channel and has authored several books. What a shame that he profits so handsomely from his lawlessness.

A 1994 article by the late David Hackworth, a decorated Vietnam veteran, chronicles North's numerous lies. Here is the link:

http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/wannabees/OllieNorth.html

While North's fans want to skew history to erase the evil he committed, 9/11 shouldn't be part of their revision of the truth. What happened that day was horrible enough. These propagandists mustn't be allowed to compound the tragedy by using it for their own benefit.

Sadly, I believe the Obama administration is setting itself up for failure when it comes to reforming the nation's health care system.

There's no question that some reforms are long overdue. But Obama is looking to meet the same as did former President Bill Clinton with a gargantuan plan that won't pass. And once it fails, no one will want to go near it for at least another decade.

Clinton tried tackling the entire health care problem in one swoop. And when the plan did a crash and burn, neither the president nor anyone in Congress had any interest in picking up the pieces and starting over.

So 16 years later, we still have the same health care system with even bigger problems. Obama is repeating Clinton's error of trying to resolve everything at once.

He'll end up with an enormous monstrosity that scares the bejesus out of many people. And it will fail because Obama will have to make concessions to Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Republicans that progressives won't accept or appease the progressives at the expense of everyone else.

On a teleconference today with bloggers and Republican House members, I asked U.S. Reps. Judy Biggert, R-13th District, of Hinsdale and Peter Roskam, R-6th District, of Wheaton if they thought the health care reform effort would go easier if legislators decided to work on a few significant measures a year for several years. I heard former House Speaker Newt Gingrich discussing this very approach this morning on NPR, and I've long thought this would be more effective.

The teleconference was hosted by U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the chief deputy Republican whip. In addition to Biggert and Roskam, it featured U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa.

The event was organized in preparation of Obama's speech tonight on health care reform.

Both Biggert and Roskam agreed that dividing the health care reform effort into manageable stages was more sensible. Democrats and Republicans could work on separate bills such as insurance portability and tort reform this year and then take on remaining issues over the next few years.

This would be the best way to proceed because the plan is now an all-or-nothing proposition. If something is somehow passed, it will be a convoluted bill with lord knows what contained inside.

But the bill has become so controversial because of its size that most Republicans and some Democrats are leery of voting for it. It's more likely that it will fail, just as Clinton's plan failed, and health care reform will be tabled for a long time.

Supporters of Obama's health care reform initiative may balk at the notion of splitting the measure into chunks. I understand their concern; they believe detractors will easily swat away individual measures as they come up.

But what good is holding out for everything if doing so will get you nothing in the end? It's easier to vote against a huge health care reform bill that is too complicated for many people to understand. Hashing out a series of legislative measures that will eventually bring needed reform to the health care system is a wiser approach.

Cheers to the good old days, when alcohol didn’t cost as much.

The increase on sales tax for alcohol went into effect today. A six-pack of beer will cost you nearly 3 cents extra, while wine is going up by 13 cents a bottle and a fifth of hard liquor by 81 cents. The sales tax on a gallon of hard liquor will increase by more than $4.

Don’t worry, teetotalers with a sweet tooth will pay more as well. The sales tax increase also covers candy and soft drinks.