Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (26330)	1/7/1999 8:31:00 AM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 67261

Safire's latest... jim ----------------------------- New York Times January 7, 1999 ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE Let the System Work WASHINGTON -- The White House message is plain: If the Senate dares to call Monica Lewinsky as a witness, the Clinton lawyers will drag out the impeachment trial clear through to the summer and blame the G.O.P. for shutting down the Government. Yesterday the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, snapped a partisan salute, announcing "universal, unanimous opposition to witnesses." Why such hardball against taking Lewinsky testimony in public? The ostensible reasons are that the young woman's account would embarrass the President, offend the dignity of the Senate, corrupt the public morals and take a day or two away from saving Social Security in 2034. The real reason is that her testimony cuts both ways. On the first count of impeachment -- lying under oath before a grand jury -- Monica is a witness for the prosecution. But on the second count--witness -tampering to obstruct justice -- she can be treated by Clinton lawyers as a witness for the defense. That makes it awkward for either side to attack her credibility. Take the perjury charge first. The President in his civil sworn deposition claimed never to have touched Ms. Lewinsky intimately, and before the grand jury stuck to that absurd tale of total passivity. She testified to the contrary in clinical detail. The Senate is obliged to decide which one has been -- and still is -- lying under oath. On the obstruction charge, however, Ms. Lewinsky went out of her way to swear: "No one ever told me to lie. No one ever promised me a job." The Clinton lawyers made a strong point of this volunteered assertion before the House, and surely will again at trial. Prosecutors will counter that although the President never specifically said "Lie!" he suggested a false cover story that corruptly influenced her testimony. Still, her defense of Clinton carries weight. Are senators sitting as jurors duty bound to hear directly from her, since she is already on the record? Yes. If jurors are sworn to decide impartially whether to believe her story or the President's, they are obliged to listen to her testimony (and his, if he wishes) firsthand, including decorous cross-examination. House Judiciary members failed to do their duty on this; senators should not. When dire warnings of "national paralysis" were made before the House impeachment vote, the majority leader, Trent Lott, set minds at ease by assuring us that any Senate trial could be conducted fairly in three weeks or less. Now it's up to him to deliver on that promise of promptness within constitutional procedure, and equally up to Senate Democrats not to march in partisan lockstep with a Clinton filibuster if they don't get their preferred witness-free trial. We all know what outcome a substantial majority of the public wants, and therefore how unlikely is Clinton's removal by two-thirds of the Senate. But the notion of a quickie trial prearranged to be aborted after a few days by a vote of one-third of the senators was a non-starter for good reason: A vote that stipulated that serial perjury is not cause for removal would set a terrible precedent. The Chief Justice can be trusted to go by the book and move the proceedings along. Most senators, after the Daschle hissy fit to bar all witnesses passes, can be trusted to act as serious participants in a constitutional corrective. We can hope that this time the impeached will act in the national interest -- which is also his own best interest -- not to disrupt or delay the trial or seek to discredit its participants. A majority of the Senate, after a sufficient presentation and rebuttal of testimony, may well vote to suspend the trial and take up a resolution of censure. An up-and-down verdict vote would be more courageous, but a document of disapprobation gives senators opposing his removal a way to get right with their less forgiving constituents. Respect the impeachment process; the system will work if we let it. Senate jurors and the Chief Justice, not pollsters or pundits or pressure groups, will set the pace and length of the trial. The State of the Union address can wait a couple of weeks and then get a respectful hearing. Laying out the case in a way that historically justifies stern Senate censure is not an interruption of the nation's business. This month, it is the nation's business. Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company --------------------------------------- nytimes.com Free registration required.

To: Ish who wrote (26330)	1/7/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

When I field trialed and fished in Wisconsin, I visited with many of the residents, read the local papers and real estate guides. Income, sales and property taxes were all less than Illinois. Gas was 10 cents a gallon cheaper. Ish, I hate to dispute your excellent anecdotal information, but you are wrong. Illinois state income tax is a flat 3%, Wisconsin tops out (at $20k income, no less) at 6.7-6.9% Illinois gas tax is 19.3 cents/gallon, Wisconsin is 25.4. Property taxes are harder to compare, but overall, Wisconsin wins over Illinois by a considerable margin. As of '94, the most recent full comparison I found, Illinois had an overall state & local revenue of 14.5 % of total personal income, Wisconsin was 18.4 %. Figures from taxadmin.org taxadmin.org taxadmin.org I apologize to all for polluting this august forum with this liberal/commie propagada.