Rahm Emanuel on the tightropes with federal probe of Chicago police

The release of the video of the shooting of Chicagoan Laquan McDonald, that showed police officer Jason Van Dyke shooting him 16 times as he walked away from he, and other police, after calls that the seventeen-year-old was breaking into cars, and armed with a folding pocket knife, has thrust Chicago into an unwanted spotlight, as politicians, pundits, and citizens condemn the actions of the officer.

Most significant are the allegations that Mayor Rahm Emanuel, State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, and former Chicago Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy participated in a cover up of the crime that prevented not only the release of the tape, but charges against Van Dyke, which has resulted in televised protests of marchers against police brutality, along the city’s main downtown thoroughfares, including a Black Friday demonstration that resulted in a blockade of sales along posh Michigan Avenue, a street lined with expensive shops such as Chanel and Tiffany; preventing shoppers from beginning their Christmas shopping.

Monday’s notice by US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as a result of a request by Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, that a federal probe into the actions not only of the McDonald case, but the Chicago Police Department, has made national headlines, along with a Dept. of Justice Civil Rights division probe.

It’s been well established that police departments across the country have used excessive force against young black people that has resulted in their deaths, most specifically Freddie Gray in Baltimore, among others.

The McDonald case has also brought presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton into the fray with Sanders suggesting that all involved resign, and Clinton saying that there should be a federal investigation by Justice.

Last week, the so-called “top cop” McCarthy was out when reluctantly fired by Emanuel in the face of mounting public criticism,and calls for his resignation.  Voices have also been raised that Alvarez should resign for her 13 month delay in charging Van Dyke, but, she, so far has refused.

Much of the anger - especially that of Chicago’s black community has centered on Emanuel, who in 2013 closed 50 schools in the city’s black neighborhoods forcing grammar school students to cross gang-infested neighborhoods to get to their new schools, a move that prompted the hiring of citizen guards to protect them.

Adding fuel to the fire was an increase in crime during McCarthy’s  four year tenure, with shootings appearing almost daily in the local media, again mostly in black neighborhoods, but which also spread to downtown, affecting tourism. Then the local city magazine,Chicago, accused the police of lying about the number of crimes committed.

Taking most of these events -- many of them racially motivated -- into the city’s long history of segregation has meshed the problems of Chicago’s impoverished blacks with a seemingly endemic racism, that has resulted in a lack of quality education, access to employment and economic disinvestment onto the head of the mayor, whose responses often only feed the anger.  For example, when a federal probe was first suggested he called the action “misguided.” But, in the face of mounting criticism, now says that he welcomes it.

Emanuel’s mayorship was seen as fractured, before his reelection, and carried many of the hallmarks that he has despised in his predecessors: rubber stamp city council, a refusal to listen to conflicting opinions, resulting in a near kingship, versus the rule of law.  And, then after failing to gain a 50 plus one majority, a first in Chicago mayoral elections, had to face a contender in a runoff election, and which some are saying to ensure reelection, did not release the McDonald video, a charge that his spokesperson, Kelley Quinn, says is “patently false.”

Forced by a federal judge to release the tape, many city hall observers have accused him of “backing and filling” with his responses, and increased their calls for him to step down.

In other areas, most prominently city finances, Emanuel has been at odds with the severe issues that Chicago faces, notably, the pension payment hole that he plugged, primarily with a $588 million property increase, and a host of nickel-and-dime fees, that public finance attorney, David Fernandez, said in our interview for my Examiner column, was like the little boy putting his finger in the dyke to stem the flow of water, in the oft told children's story.

His failure to grasp the importance of a true budget may make the city even more vulnerable to financial distress, and even greater costs in high interest loans and more taxes for residents.

Adding to the mayoral woes are a possible teacher’s strike after protracted negotiations between the Chicago Teachers Union and the school board, but an action that belies years of mutual distrust between the city and the union, but which was further accelerated by the school closings. The vote to strike by its 27,000 members, will take place this week. It requires a 75 percent vote of approval and in 2012, the last time they struck, 90 percent of the teachers approved.

The spotlight on Emanuel has made the fifty-six year old mayor look far less stable in his role, despite a reputation, as a scrappy ingfigher with claws, much of it garnered from his time as chief of staff to President Obama.  At the helm of the nation’s third largest city, he cannot afford the ill will garnered by recent press headlines, many of whom now, make him seem defensive, hostile and ineffectual - especially with the McDonald case which makes his earlier campaign promises of transparency seem hollow. Combined with votes of no confidence in he, and his team, the outlook appears dark.

Alvarez, herself, has now faced a lack of support from two Cook County Board Commissioners, one of whom is Garcia, the other its president, the highly regarded board president, Toni Preckwinkle. She has also lost the support of the esteemed U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, whose support, along with the Hispanic vote, is critical for her keeping her job, with the upcoming March primaries. Close on the heels of these losses Alvarez also faces a rival contender for her office, who once worked for Preckwinkle.

With the increased vigilance by DOJ on the national epidemic of police misactions, the McDonald case also forces many to look at previous Chicago police confrontations, and a long history of abuse stretching back to the 1968 Democratic Convention where protesters were beaten in Grant Park, to the 1980’s where suspects, many of them black, were tortured by police commander, Jon Burge.

Most damaging are, as I also reported, accusations of a black hole detention center run by CPD on the city’s West Side, where even lawyers cannot find their clients.

The call now, from DOJ, and others, is an end to not only police brutality, but excusing bad behavior, long standing cronyism, and instead replacing them with lawful and effective policing; actions that have now resulted in the appointment of a special prosecutor.

For Emanuel, the question for many is two-fold: first what does he know and, secondly when did he know it; but most importantly how can Chicago best serve all its citizens, in fairness? Both of which seem in jeopardy, with its reputation in tatters, its economy increasingly fragile, and its leadership beset by federal probes, now CPD, but also former school superintendent Barbara Byrd Bennett, who was charged with kickbacks after a cooked $20.5 million no-bid contract for a suspect school principal training program. But, also the 2014 federal conviction of city comptroller, Amer Ahmad, who was handed a 15-year prison sentence.

Also, on Monday, Alvarez refused to convict another police officer, George Hernandez, accused of killing Ronald Johnson, in an altercation, who she says had a gun, in his hand, a charge vehemently denied by the Johnson family attorney. Increased calls for her resignation are sure to increase, along with more protests, and even more damaging, national media attention.

Many residents are now asking themselves if Emanuel can stay the course, or is this the darkness before the light? When asked if the release of the McDonald tape would have affected his reelection chances, he testily replied, “That’s a hypothetical.”

Kim Davis is freed from jail and claims victory for religious freedom

In what has perhaps become the face of fundamental Christian resistance to  a seemingly un-Godly society, Kim Davis the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of the recent Supreme Court decision, which said that not granting them is unconstitutional, was freed from jail on Tuesday, after being held in contempt of court, to the cheers of thousands of her supporters as she thanked God for her release, but would not say after her five day sentence, whether she would continue to block those licenses, once she returns to work.

"Thank you all so much. I love you all so very much," she said. "I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied, and you are a strong people. We serve a living God who knows exactly where each and every one of us is at. Just keep on pressing. Don't let down, because he is here. He's worthy."

Davis’ opposition rested on the principle, not only that she answers to a higher power, but that her resistance was based on religious freedom, a concept that many seem to misunderstand, or have misapplied in this case. Simply put, the concept rests on the right for freedom of thought, worship, conscience, and no restrictions, or abridgments of those expressions, and public assembly for those behaviors.

Many people have cited the First Amendment in this case, yet that amendment  - known as the establishment clause - says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For Davis, that line of defense is inapplicable, but it underscores a weak understanding of not only what religious freedom means, but how it is defined and exercised. In her case, as an elected official she is charged with upholding the rule of law of a government whose laws she swore to uphold. As Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, said in the Huffington Post, she “simply cannot place her own religious beliefs above those of the constitutional obligations of the state and the constitutional rights of our citizens. Davis should have found a way to reconcile her personal religious beliefs with her official responsibilities, or she should have resigned.”

There are accommodations for religious dissenters, and conscientious objectors to military draft and enrollment, are an example; and during Prohibition, sacramental wine was allowed. But in this case, accomodations for a public official were not possible for the reasons that Stone emphasized. Davis enters the picture by not offering an accommodation, to have, for instance, her deputies issue the licenses,or even recuse herself from the job, based on her religious convictions and beliefs. Had she done so, this would have been in keeping with the history of religious accommodations consistent with our tradition of separation of church and state, enshrined not in the Constitution, but in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, in 1802, where they complained of the infringement of their religious freedom by their state legislature.

“The Founders understood religious freedom as freedom of worship, essentially a private affair. What's happened is that it's been expanded to include freedom of religious expression and public behavior, which in this case means invoking religious freedom in order to avoid doing part of one's job as a public employee. And, it seems to me one cannot discriminate on the basis of one's religious convictions when doing the work of a government agency,” noted Dr. Ralph Keen, the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation Chair in Catholic Studies, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The central core of Davis’ defiance to federal law is her belief that same sex marriage is contrary to God’s will, as expressed in the Bible. She is unequivocal about that, but placing her in a wider cultural context is equally important. Richard McCarty, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Mercyhurst University in Erie, Pa, who specializes in intercultural experiences of faith, said in an emailed statement, “That people like Kim Davis are religiously opposed to marriage equality for same sex couples is not surprising. The vast majority of conservative evangelical Christians define marriage very specifically as the union between one man and one woman. What is surprising is that Kim Davis is confused about the difference between religious belief and religious accommodation.”

Agreeing with Stone, McCarty stresses one, perhaps overlooked, aspect of the whole affair: “It appears that Kim Davis has been very selective in her enforcement of religious law. In particular: she draws on a very literal reading of the Bible to oppose legal marriage for same-sex couples, and yet the New Testament—if interpreted literally throughout—does not permit remarriage after divorce. One can only guess that Kim Davis has actually issued marriage licenses for those pursuing second, third, or fourth marriages.”

In fact, many of her detractors have pointed out her own varied marital history as proof of her “wrongness”  and accusations of hypocrisy. McCarty cautions that “We ought to be careful, however, not to shame Kim Davis for her sexual and relational life—by doing so, we participate in a very similar moral agenda that Kim Davis is using against same-sex couples. Instead, the issue ought to stay focused on matters of religious accommodation.”

This case also brings up a collison course of sorts, between rights and values.He also thinks that a reflection on other examples might help. Speaking hypothetically, he notes that “Because the issue at stake is one of sexual ethics—and a highly debated one at that—let's imagine another scenario to make sure that our moral and political sensibilities are not skewed by partisan preferences. Imagine, for example, if Kim Davis was a Christian pacifist who was employed as a government clerk who refused to issue "conceal and carry" gun licenses because her pacifist faith opposes the use of lethal force—and thus, her faith opposes weapons that are primarily designed for lethal force against other human beings. [And also] imagine that she did issue gun licenses for hunting animals—something permitted by her faith. Surely we would hear an outcry that she does not have the right to refuse Americans our Second Amendment rights on the basis of her religious ideologies. Surely we would hear a call for her to "step down," or at least for her to direct someone else to issue the licenses. In a similar way, those critiquing Kim Davis are simply saying that while she may have the right to her own religious opinions, she does not have the right to enforce them on everyone else.”

.

Hillary Clinton: Beyond the emails

Hillary Clinton has a resume that is impressive by any standard: first lady of Arkansas, where she developed her emphasis on education and families; first lady of the United States where she took those skills and enlarged them onto a world stage, developing a reputation as hard-working, capable and even tough, but where she also came into her own; weathered the political storms of her zeal to reform health care, and handle with grace the Lewinsky scandal that threatened not only her marriage, and image, but also the presidency.  

Next came her run as a candidate for the presidency, and where many assumed that she would win - we even heard comments, such as “Well, she was really the president anyway,” or “She knows how to get things done, because she already did them.” The unexpected upset  came from a junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. The defeat was notable, where she commanded the podium, when accepting defeat, and  the reality that the numbers were just not there to make her the nominee.

Then the glorious coda as Secretary of State, in the Obama administration, where she re-defined shuttle diplomacy and was warmly greeted, and seen as an international celebrity,one that had “Made in America,” stamped all over her, but who also was able to transcend geographic boundaries. And, now she runs again, rebranded as the defender of the middle class, (she tends to love crusades) and a populist hero with images almost re-cast from “Our Town,” and with entourage in tow, she traverses Middle America, as easily as she did the borders of Western Europe.

And, then, the recent poll drop after it was revealed that she had a private email server, installed in her New York state home. from 2009 to 2013, that she used, not only for private matters, such as the planning of her daughter’s wedding, but where she also, on occasion, used it for communication as US Secretary of State. When this was revealed, her critics, not all of them Republicans, had a field day, questioning her judgement. This has continued unabated.

Clinton at first denied that there was anything untoward and even said, “I did not send classified material,” but later she would be forced to release copies of emails, under a federal court order, that State, then later her staff, agreed to turn over the server itself for examination, totalling 60,000; of which some 305 might be considered to contain classified information. The results have been mixed, with some saying that there were confidential exchanges that should have been on the government account that she was given, and not her own. And, recent reports indicate that the server was maintained by a relative startup, in a laidback office in Denver, Colorado.

For many the question of judgment crops up again, and while no one wants to recall the lengthy and expensive Whitewater investigation, of yesteryear, there seems to be no evidence of malfeasance, just bad judgement, pure and simple. But,  considering that unrehearsed move, maybe unresearched, might well damage her standings in the polls, and her path to the Oval Office, that many have seen as inevitable.

Some have wondered whether this was a case of overkill, from a woman that has been battered and bruised by the media, who were relentless in the pursuit and attack of a vulnerable woman, but fortunately did not end tragically like that of her friend, the late Princess Diana. It also speaks reams to the way the world reacts to powerful and symbolic women, like she and Diana. But, that is another discussion.

For Clinton, the dichotomy is that of a whip smart woman, educated at our best schools, and universities, nourished in the Christian tradition, whose heart seems to be built on that resulting faith, but whose Achilles heel seems to be that she doesn’t always think things through, or at the least, seek the advice of others, with the result that she has to later waste precious time on damage control, and detract from her message. Much like her Whitewater investments - which in hindsight can be blamed on a simple desire to make some money and help out old friends, all quite innocent. But, without stepping back to assess the consequences before that decision was made.

Can this be blamed on a baby boomer’s undernourished understanding of technology, or is it the developed paranoia of a woman who had been, too long, on the receiving end of attack journalism. Whatever the case, questions remain, even this early out, if this lack of forethought could have an adverse effect on the newly minted President Clinton, in her own administration.

Lately her staff has stepped up the control efforts to contain the damage, but as one of them was observed as saying, in brief, at least, this is better handled in August of 2015, than in August 2016.

The message for Hillary is to stand back and see what might be the laws of unintended consequences, for her actions, now and later, so that when “Hail to the Chief” is played in January 2017, it ain’t Donald Trump wearing the pantsuit.

Chicago schools budget might force another teachers strike while Emanuel worries

Monday’s announcement of the Chicago Public Schools 2015-16 budget brought more than just the requisite accounting; it also brought an avalanche of criticism of teachers, their union, and their supposed overweening power by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, plus the reality of increased taxes, and lay offs, both in the classroom and the executive suite.

The $5.7 billion operating budget, relies heavily on $480 million dollars of state funds, not guaranteed, and which Rauner says he will only give if there are changes in collective bargaining - in fact in a recent press conference he said, “The power of the teachers union has been overwhelming. Chicago has given and given and given. It’s created a financial crisis that the Chicago schools face now,” and that the budget showed the need for change, especially the “union-weakening provisions” as they were termed by the Chicago Tribune.

Adding fuel to the fire is a $676 million payment for teacher pensions due at the end of the school year. Branded as unsustainable by school leaders, also in the budget “are also numerous fiscal wild cards in the mix, including budget adjustments,” that might be used if there is agreement with the Chicago Teachers Union on a new contract noted the Chicago Sun-Times in their budget analysis.

If the $480 million does not materialize then there would be deeper classroom cuts, thousands of teacher layoffs, and resulting in increased class sizes, although historically laid off teachers would find employment at other schools. At present there will be 479 scheduled teacher layoffs due to enrollment and budget cuts, and taxpayers will pay more property taxes to help fill the gap; for example the Sun-Times suggested that for a home worth $250,000, the owner would have to pony up an additional $19 more to the tax payment.

$137 million is to come from tax increment funding, a budgetary maneuver, where taxes are frozen for a designated neighborhood, and the proceeds designed to help low income areas; but it has faced controversy for years, because the monies, in many instances have been used to finance such upscale enterprises as the posh French Market, several years ago.

Local Chicago Reader columnist Ben Joravsky has been deriding the misdirection of the program for years and said in a recent column, after Barbara Flynn Currie, a close ally of Democratic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, was dispatched to the Chicago City Council after Mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted a status report on his plea for more state aid, reported that she said, “Many wonder whether Chicago is in fact over-TIFed, with negative consequences for school budgets.”

Emanuel’s response was to extend the TIF districts, until 2034, for more money, “none of it guaranteed to help the schools,” Joravsky said, but with no public intention of how much he expects, or how he intended to spend it. But, if Monday’s announcement is accurate, then the amount is a drop in the bucket to what has been collected.

The new budget also includes a cut of $200 million in spending cuts, and $1 million in the office of the CEO for CPS, Forrest Claypool, who is hoping that the state government - ergo Rauner - agrees to a bail-out. But, the latter was adamant when he said: “We believe the right answer is to empower: The people of Chicago, the voters of Chicago, the mayor of Chicago, the school board of the Chicago Public Schools should be enabled to decide what gets collectively bargained and what doesn’t so they don’t end up with the teachers union having dictatorial powers, in effect and causing the financial duress that Chicago public schools are facing right now.”

CTU president Karen Lewis has made a number of statements, including an appearance on local CBS radio affiliate WBBM, Sunday, where she noted that no one had taken a look at alternative funding, and that the proposal to make teachers pay more for their pensions is a refutation of an earlier negotiated agreement, in lieu of a pay cut and now, should be phased in as a compromise, if at all.. She also suggested, in later remarks, that another strike was not welcome, but would be considered if necessary, deeming the proposed change “srikeworthy.”

In a news conference, Lewis was asked if there might be another strike, based on the new request for greater teacher pension contribution, in reality a pay cut, she responded, “If they persist on a 7 percent, all at once like a pay cut - a 7 percent pay cut - I don’t have to call for a strike. I think that our members will do that themselves “

Many observers have noted that this is exactly what is intended by Rauner’s remarks and Emanuel’s frustration - an effort to force the issue with the teachers, and as part of the national Republican gubernatorial efforts, to bust a teachers union, especially in the country’s third largest school system, this would be a pyrrhic victory for Emanuel and a total one for Rauner.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown also noted on Monday, that “What really seems to have Rauner excited, though, is the possibility that Chicago Democrats, led by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, may be ready and willing to force this change on the teachers by law if they won’t go along willingly.” As Brown says Emanuel, needing the money from Rauner, is in no position to push back, and also helps the governor do the same to all Illinois school unions; but he also said that the current pension pay arrangement is more typical, in the state, than Claypool would lead us to believe.

In all of these budgetary conversations one thread is certain: Emanuel and CPS need the money, Lewis and the CTU stand in the way of negotiations with Rauner, and Emanuel will do whatever he can to get the funds, and Lewis’s only tool is another strike.

In a late development Wednesday Claypool announced that CPS will no longer pick up the pension of central office staff, regional and non-union employees, for a savings of $11.1 million. The reduction is to be phased in over a three year period, with 2 percent this year, then another 2 percent the next, and finally 3 percent the year after that.

Lewis who made an appearance on the local PBS affiliate, WTTW, on ‘Chicago Tonight” said that she was supportive, if her members were, but, in the absence of hard numbers, it was “nebulous right now, it’s out there somewhere.”

Why Republicans hate the Federal Reserve Board and Dodd-Frank

Janet Yellen

In my Examiner column, last week, I reported on Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen’s appearance before the Senate and the House in their respective finance committees, the Senate Banking Committee  and the House Financial Services Committee, and that while she received a warm reception in the Senate she was roasted in the House. First up was her rough treatment by the House chair, Rep. Jeb Hensarling who asked several sharp questions regarding accountability and leadership structure, at the Board, which could be readily summed up as condescending.

The real fireworks came from Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisc.) who yelled at her that she had blocked an investigation into what seemed to be a questionable meeting with a firm that sells analysis and reporting to investors. The result was an anxious public, perhaps wondering at the reason for the ferocity of these attacks.

Before I discuss their twin ire at the Dodd-Frank act, here is some background from New York Magazine in 2011, on why Republicans seem to see the Federal Reserve Board as hell on earth. Earlier that year, a request was sent by leading Republicans requesting that the Board not intervene in giving Americans sorely needed jobs, and as the article noted: “now that the GOP has made it all but impossible for fiscal policy to be used to improve the economy, they want to make sure that the only other tool the government has at its disposal — monetary policy — isn't used either.”

Much of what has been a Republican juggernaut against the use of monetary policy has been directed at the actions, and structure of the board, but now even most pointedly at the Dodd Frank Act, which they revile as much as the ill-named Obamacare, formally known as “The Affordable Care Act”, which has given subsidies, and exchanges for health care, affecting millions of Americans.

But, let’s continue with more from New York Magazine, as they state, “The Republican letter claims that any reduction in interest rates would ‘harm the U.S. economy.”’ The trade-off in monetary policy is that faster growth could lead to higher inflation. Given rock-bottom inflation and sky-high unemployment, opting for growth right now seems like a no-brainer, but I concede that there is at least some theoretical, long-term inflation risk. The GOP's claim that reducing interest rates could harm short-term economic growth is silly.”

As hard is this is to believe, here’s a brief glance in the rear view mirror to inform you: It used to be liberal Democrats who attacked the Fed for caring more about low inflation than low unemployment, and while that is still true, by some so-called progressive economists, in the 1980s the Board was considered a conservative organization.

The tables have now turned and many of those Democrats and their heirs now view Fed bashing as an unfortunate byproduct of what many see as reactionary populism. By the the end of the century, ”the leaders of the Party were sophisticated folk who prided themselves on their willingness to refrain from ever criticizing the Fed. A 1999 Washington Post encomium to Robert Rubin described the outgoing Treasury Secretary, saying his key triumphs included refusing to “bash Greenspan and the Fed when they raised interest rates.”  This also spread to both parties who felt that even mild rebukes, such as that made by Steve Forbes, complaining about high interest rates and commodity prices, were too much.

Such was the change that great reverence was bestowed on the avuncular Alan Greenspan. Over time, Chairman Greenspan attained a political and cultural prestige that’s hard to fathom today. Not only did nobody in Congress question his decisions on monetary policy, they allowed — some say begged — him to lecture them on policy matters that lay entirely outside his purview.” And, after the great man had uttered his words, some called them obtuse utterings, “Democrats and Republicans were like children, arguing over which one Daddy Alan loved more.”

In the ensuing years, when the Greenspan halo became tarnished by the Great Recession, “Republicans opportunistically grasped onto previously marginal hard-money doctrines of cranks like Ron Paul — which, not coincidentally, gave them cover to choke off the last avenue of economic recovery, in turn offering them their best chance to return to power, continues the New York piece.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank

Onto the Dodd-Frank act from 2010 that passed Congress with unanimous opposition from the Republicans,and who hate the act (designed to prevent the excesses and dangerous practices that led to the recession), as much as they despise Obamacare and for many of the same reasons: an unprecedented and unneeded power, or abuse of power, by the federal government, but most importantly an overreaction to the financial problems of 2008, and a burden to the business community.   

Sponsored by Senators Chris Dodd and Barney Frank the act was a creation of the Obama administration to help prevent the practices, missteps and dangerous precedents, such as derivatives, which were  part of parcel of the economic debacle.  Specifically, it was designed to monitor risky financial systems, limit trading by banks that hold considerable reserves, provide new regulations for derivative trading, and protect consumers - but most of all prevent another financial crisis.

The most salient of criticism by the Republican is that the act over constrains the financial system with its myriad of regulations. The result, from the opposition, has been a partial implementation with many delays, and by 2013 only 40 of the 400 provisions were actually finalize

"The truth is Dodd-Frank was not chiseled in stone. Nobody brought it down to us from Mt. Sinai," said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who is leading the effort to change the law.

Some critics say that the act does not go far enough to protect the public, especially where some banks are seen as “too big to fail,”  but their voices are drowned out by the aforementioned critics.

One step forward has been the Volcker Rule which is designed to prohibit banks from trading from their own portfolio and limit the ownership of risky investments; it is a centerpiece of the act, but in January House Republicans forced a 2 year delay, which also had the support of 29 Democrats. The move was defended by lawmaker Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-Pa)  who felt that this was “a smart technical reform,” for an “overly burdensome law.”

All of this came together, in anger and partisanship, when Yellen made her twice required appearances on the Hill, to address lawmakers. While she seemed to have the quiet resolve of a matriarch, the future of protection for American consumers and for the world beyond our shores, because we, as a nation, cannot afford, or sustain another financial debacle.

Let the bloodletting begin: Can Chicago public schools make the grade?

Let the bloodletting begin. Wednesday Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel acknowledged the elephant in the room - a property tax increase of $225 million for City residents, a move that he claimed earlier that he was loathe to make, but yet, was almost inevitable in a climate of mistrust, misinformation and mistakes.

For a taxpayer with a home valued at $250,000 thousand, he will see an additional tax of $225 each year; and this is just one example of how Chicagoans will have to pay the piper to pay for the borrowing that Emanuel has been forced to do. In the most recent case to pay for the $634 million pension for Chicago public schools, the mayor has also forced cuts and layoffs in sports and also for some teachers.

Another minefield is that he is also asking teachers to pay the full 9 percent of their pension contribution, resulting in a de facto pay cut that has angered the teacher’s union, and will undoubtedly clog the stalled negotiations.

Emanuel has also adopted a bold public presence in the war of words when he said: ““I want Springfield . . . to get off their duff, start providing the political leadership to make decisions to right the decades worth of political wrongs that have existed over the years that got all of us to this point,” the mayor said, pounding the podium for emphasis, according to the Chicago Sun-Times

Behind the very real financial debacle called Chicago is also a game of political posturing that helps feed the frenzy for more, well - posturing. But, the dilemma is how can the schools thrive, and the scores excel, and the teachers not strike --- if the trains don’t run on time while the electorate takes more of a hit to the wallet, can the new Emanuel make the grade with residents?

Perhaps one of the soundest propositions is that “one of the tax hikes would be a “separate levy” of $50 million to bankroll school construction and pay off old projects. CPS has been empowered to impose a “capital improvement tax” for more than 20 years but “never activated” it. Emanuel is expected to take advantage of it,” also reported by the Sun-Times

The two separate tax proposals seem the best way to go  -- at this point -- but it’s questionable if the second matter can work: monies “siphoned away from operations to retire school construction debt,” and  “based on an untested legal theory that, although CPS is hamstrung by a state-imposed property tax cap, the City Council can authorize an even bigger increase and transfer the money to CPS,” a move that might bring he law of unintended consequences, but that time will only bear out.

Set against the background of the state’s partial shutdown, can the two ever get out of arrears? Gov. Rauner won’t negotiate unless the Democrats say uncle, and the philosophical divide between one that distrust government, and the other that believes that is is a good and necessary thing belies the words compromise, or negotiation.

Meanwhile there is enough name calling and bullying to make both Chicago and Springfield a real donnybrook. The fact remains that despite the hyperbole are high interest loans, junk bond status, a roiling battle with the teachers and a racial and economic divide that wreaks havoc with governance, versus reaction politics.

If Chicago and Illinois politicians only speak in sound bites, Chicago could well become another Detroit. What is there left to prevent that?

One area that is ripe for conversion is Illinois paying for all teacher pensions, except Chicago, that might make pension equality a reality, but again, it’s an unlikely scenario in the current climate.  And, “downstate” the euphemism that many Chicagoans use for any place outside of the city limits, are angry and say  that “it’s unfair Chicago Public Schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually outside the normal school funding formula through what are called block grants.”

So, if Emanuel has to give Lola what Lola wants, Lola being Gov. Rauner, does it begin with a temporary tax freeze? Stay tuned.