My brother used to have a dog, a big mutt, who’d lived only to fetch a green tennis ball. All day long that dog would carry the ball around and beg you to throw it for him. And he’d bring it back and want you to throw it again…and again…and again…all day long. The dog didn’t want to do anything else. And because he had that ball in his mouth all day, it got all wet and slobbery…pretty gross…and you didn’t really want to touch it, but the dog would insist. That was his only trick. I think the dog was kind of dim.
That dog reminds me of Peter Roskam. Peter was at it again today…his one trick…trying to scare the hell out of his constituents, and it is getting pretty old. Roskam proudly tweeted earlier today that his followers should watch him on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting where he had spoken about “Al-Quaeda possibly coming to Illinois”. Turns out he was on with Rep Bruce Braley, a Democrat from Iowa’s 1st District, which is right across the Misssissippi from Thomson, Illinois, home of the prison that is being considered to house inmates presently incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Here’s the video:
Roskam spouted the same tired old talking points, trying to scare you. Braley, on the other hand, demonstrated what we would expect from a Congresman: he had been out to the site and inspected it, had been briefed by federal officials, had talked it over with citizens. Why can’t we have a real Representative like Braley, firmly rooted in reality?
Braley wasn’t the only one to call Roskam on his scare tactics. Just yesterday BOTH major Chicago newspapers criticized the antics of Roskam, Mark Kirk, and the other Republican fearmongers.
Here’s what the Tribune had to say:
…when Republicans heard that the Obama administration is looking at buying the largely vacant Thomson Correctional Facility to house some detainees now held at Guantanamo (as well as ordinary maximum security prisoners), they reacted as though Osama bin Laden had been given the keys to a missile silo…
…Give us a break. A super-maximum security prison, such as Thomson would become, is not what most of us associate with the word “neighborhood.” The critics seem to forget that no one has ever escaped from a supermax. If having a terrorist imprisoned on our soil were an invitation for his confederates to slaughter innocent Chicagoans, it would surely have happened already…
…We don’t think the residents of Illinois will buy into the panic the opponents are trying to stoke. And while the change would surely bring economic benefits and jobs to a depressed corner of the state, the best reason for using Thomson for these inmates is that Guantanamo needs to be closed and they have to be locked up securely somewhere…
…It’s a vital responsibility that Illinois citizens are not likely to shirk.
And the Sun-Times:
America’s federal prisons are full of people who scare the hell out of us — mob hit men, mass murderers and international terrorists. We arrest and charge such fiends, give them a fair trial and, if they are found guilty, lock them up. We do not quake in fear. We do not shelve our values. We do not cheap out on due process — a fair day in court for even the worst human beings, homegrown or foreign.
…Kirk’s scare talk might do him wonders with the GOP base, but it won’t convince a single terrorist that this nation has a backbone.
Nor will it create a single job in northwest Illinois…
…Federal prisons are skilled in dealing with high-risk inmates (the mobster Frank Calabrese Sr. comes to mind) who try to plot from behind bars. They are subjected to special administrative measures, which typically include solitary confinement, drastic restrictions on visitors and a close eye on all communications.
In the case of the Guantanamo detainees at Thomson, they will be isolated from other prisoners and supervised by the Department of Defense. Under DOD rules, they will be allowed visits only from lawyers.
Guantanamo, where American values go to die, is nothing more than a worldwide recruitment tool for terrorists.
Even Republican stalwarts Grover Norquist, Bob Barr, and and David Keene are critical of Roskam and Kirk’s scare tactics:
The scaremongering about these issues should stop. Using a state of the art but little used prison facility like the one at Thomson, Illinois – with any appropriate security upgrades our law enforcement professionals deem necessary – makes good sense for the tax payers who invested $145 million in the facility and who are seeing millions wasted every month at the costly, inefficient Guantanamo facility. It makes sense for the community which will benefit from the related employment and has absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities. But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions.
So I wish Peter Roskam would just shut up about Guantanamo and Thomson. His rhetoric is becoming about as attractive as that dog’s slobbery green tennis ball.
*************************************************
On to health care reform. Peter Roskam emitted another tweet this afternoon pointing to an article he wrote for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government. (Guess the Tribune and the Sun-Times weren’t taking his calls.) The piece is titled: “Pelosi’s Healthcare Vision: Government Mandate or Jail”. It seems to be aimed directly at the Teabaggers, the only ones, I think who still take Roskam seriously.
Roskam starts out:
“Failing to purchase “acceptable health insurance coverage” could result in a fine punishable “up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” Those are direct quotes from a letter of analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a non-partisan analysis committee in Congress. While that policy may not be one of Nancy Pelosi’s main talking points about her healthcare takeover legislation, it is an undoubtedly destructive portion of her healthcare bill, part of the reason it passed with only two votes to spare.”
There’s a picture of a scary prison corridor inserted after that paragraph.
Yes, more b.s. on the individual mandate. Yes, the House bill requires most Americans to purchase health insurance, with government subsidy if their income is such that they can’t afford it on their own. And yes, there is a tax that is applied only to those who opt out. The rationale for the mandate and the tax is to try to insure that everyone is covered, because when people who can afford insurance don’t buy insurance, we all end up paying for their care when they get into trouble. In effect, we are all already taxed for their irresponsibility.
When Peter Roskam refers to jail time, what he is really talking about is potential penalties that may apply to people who don’t pay their taxes. It the same as with any tax. If you refuse to pay your federal or state income taxes long enough, eventually you’ll go to jail.
Christopher Weaver, writing at Shot’s – NPR’s Health Blog today, did a good job of debunking Roskam on the mandate:
In any event, imprisonment of tax evaders is usually reserved for the most outrageous cases. The letter to Camp notes that the Internal Revenue Service usually pursues unpaid taxes through the civil process — meaning no jail time. In 2008, fewer than 500 people were incarcerated because of the penalties the Republicans are fretting about.
So again, Peter Roskam, is just stirring up needless fear in the minds of his most impressionable constituents. The rest of us are just growing weary and irritated.
On a brighter note:
Our future Congressman, Ben Lowe of Wheaton, today initiated a capability for online donations at his website. I hope everyone will visit and give him some help to get his campaign up and running.
