There might be no more fitting monument for Barack Obama's presidency than a presidential library and museum built in Chicago by close cronies with $100 million that the notoriously corrupt, Democrat-controlled government of flat-broke Illinois doesn't have. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Democrat lawmakers are backing off just such a plan after an Illinois House committee, minus Republican members, approved spending that $100 million via what Fox News calls “a procedural move that allowed them to use votes from a previous meeting.” Illinois owes about $7 billion in past-due vendor bills and has a $100 billion pension shortfall. Still, its Democrat House speaker wants to borrow that $100 million for the Obama library — despite not knowing where the money would come from or how it would be repaid.
But hey, this is Illinois. And with Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's former chief of staff, as Chicago mayor, Chicago businessman and Obama crony Martin Nesbitt leading the project's nonprofit foundation, and Susan Sher, Michelle Obama's former chief of staff, heading University of Chicago involvement, don't expect legislative shenanigans — or the state's dire financial straits — to be real obstacles.
Competing Obama library proposals expected from Hawaii and New York City, due at the foundation by June 16, might be ideas as bad as this Chicago plan. But it's hard to believe they'd reflect as tellingly so much that's wrong with Obama's Chicago-style administration.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.