WASHINGTON, DC...U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL), a proponent of President Bush’s plan to eliminate the double taxation of dividend income, spoke recently by phone with Dr. Glenn Hubbard, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, about the importance of passing the dividend exclusion this year.

Fitzgerald, who last year led a Senate investigation into the collapse of Enron as the ranking member of the Senate Consumer Affairs Subcommittee, has called the dividend tax repeal a "significant and needed corporate reform that will encourage strong companies to pay dividends and discourage future Enron ‘pump-and-dump’ schemes."

Hubbard and Fitzgerald continued a dialogue about the dividend exclusion plan that began earlier this week, when Fitzgerald and other senators met with President Bush, Hubbard, and Budget Director Mitch Daniels to discuss the president’s economic package. Fitzgerald told Hubbard that he would help however he can to move the dividend proposal through Congress.

"Ending the double taxation of dividends is a more significant corporate reform than anything in the Sarbanes-Oxley bill," said Fitzgerald, referring to the corporate governance package approved last year. "We learned from Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and others that the pressure to keep the stock price high can lead management to resort to accounting trickery and other machinations rather than focus on building a solid business foundation. By taxing corporate income only once – when it is actually earned and not again when dividends are paid – we will encourage companies to earn real money and return some of those earnings to shareholders. President Bush’s proposal is designed to prevent future Enrons from building houses of cards at investors’ expense."

Fitzgerald also said the dividend tax exclusion is of particular importance to seniors and anyone with a pension that is at all invested in the market. Seniors, who receive 51 percent of all dividend income in the U.S., and those with pensions invested in the market should be acutely interested in measures, like the dividend tax exclusion, that will discourage Enron-like behavior.

The study notes that among registered Latinos, about half call themselves Democrats, one-fifth call themselves Republicans and another fifth call themselves independents. Yet, their ambivalence is noteworthy. In a poll of registered Latinos, 45 percent say the Democratic Party is more sympathetic to their needs than the Republican Party (10 percent) but four in 10 feel there is no difference between the parties. The poll, published last October, showed respondents had more confidence in the Democrats' handling of the economy (53 percent). When President Bush was added to the equation, the Democratic margin all but evaporated, with 42 percent having more confidence in Bush and 45 percent favoring the Democrats.

Compared with bloc-voting African Americans, Latinos unquestionably are more likely to build a Republican majority.

''More than half of Latino voters think that abortion should be illegal in most (31 percent) or all (24 percent) cases,'' the study reports.

That's a conservative cultural bedrock that helps Republican presidential candidates. The intriguing point is that this is a view shared by African Americans, but black voters are so latched to the Democratic Party that the nuances of their opinions don't count for much because of their one-party solidarity. (White voters are the heaviest abortion supporters, but even here the margin is slight, with 53 percent saying it should be legal in all cases).

The cultural conservatism of Latinos on most issues makes them an easier fit for Republicans. Forty-six percent of registered, foreign-born Latinos hold that having a child without being married is unacceptable, compared with 33 percent native- born.

''At a time when the rest of the nation is almost evenly split along partisan lines, Latino voters appear to straddle some of the sharpest divides in American politics today,'' the study finds. ''Though most Latinos identify with the Democratic Party, this party affiliation comes with notable ambivalence, and on some social issues they express a conservatism that sets them apart from their white counterparts.''

Of 35 million Hispanics, who make up nearly 13 percent of the population, a far smaller number are registered to vote: about 5.9 million in the presidential election of 2000. A big job for the Republican Party would be activating those Latinos who are U.S. citizens. All told, 57 percent were registered in November 2000--the second-lowest reported registration rate of major racial-ethnic groups. But the political reward for Republicans is great.

The study shows that Latinos believe in big government and are willing to pay higher taxes to support it.

''Registered Latinos voice strong support for various immigration proposals,'' the study says.

Commenting on the study, the Washington Times finds that it shows Latinos ''overwhelmingly frown on loose morals of American popular culture and express ambivalence that their children will not share the same values as they.''

Hispanics hold a markedly optimistic view of America. Upwards of 90 percent believe that the ''opportunity to get ahead'' is greater here than in their home countries--which is tailor-made to the Republican vision of entrepreneurship. This is where the GOP should concentrate its work if it is to remain a vital force in U.S. politics. If the old stand-pat vision continues, the GOP will be a party of whites and no one else. Fortunately, George W. Bush, with a vested interest in 2004, won't let that happen.

SB 101 (special rights for homosexuals) will probably be heard on Wednesday, February 26 in the Senate Executive Committee.

It's imperative that you alert your grassroots and e-mail lists to begin calling all Senators now to tell them to vote "No on SB 101."

What is wrong with SB 101?

Adding "sexual orientation" to the Human Rights Act

What does SB 101 actually allow in adding "sexual orientation" to the Human Rights Act?

DEFINITION of "sexual orientation" in SB 101

"’Sexual orientation’ means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attraction, or having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not traditionally associated with the person’s designated sex at birth."

Did you know that SB 101 is so bold that it includes pedophiles in the definition of sexual orientation, where last year’s HB 101 specifically excluded pedophiles?

Did you know that SB 101 is so bold that it specifically stresses that sexual orientation includes "behavior?" Whose "behavior" and what kind of "behavior?"

Whether these are amended from the bill or not, following are some of the other major problems and concerns with this bill.

1) The bill is unconstitutional on its face since it ignores Boy Scouts of America et al v. Dale (2000), in which the U.S. Supreme Court said the Boy Scouts were protected under the First Amendment under the right of expressive association, giving them the right to associate with those having the same moral standards. SB 101 makes no provision to protect this constitutional right, thus causing forced litigation on value-based organizations like the Boy Scouts of Illinois and others.

2) There is really a very limited religious exemption protection for churches, synagogues, mosques, or other religious institutions in the Human Rights Act. For example, under the current statute a Baptist church seeking to hire a youth director can refuse to hire a Lutheran candidate looking for such a position based upon his/her particular religion. However, if SB 101 is passed into law, the Baptist church would be forced to hire a Baptist youth director who states he is an avowed homosexual, even though that lifestyle is against that church’s moral teachings. This will force litigation on churches for practicing their religious beliefs.

3) There is no religious exemption protection in SB 101 for an individual’s religious beliefs. We believe this bill violates First Amendment Constitutional right to practice his/her religious beliefs. This will certainly result in litigation.

4) Businesses with as few as 15 employees can be forced to hire cross-dressers if SB 101 was passed into law. Under SB 101, the only way businesses could stop cross-dressing is by requiring all employees to wear a unisex uniform or have a unisex dress code. Most businesses have a dress code of some type, requiring men to wear one type of clothing and women to wear another (dresses, blouses and slacks or skirts). If SB 101 becomes law, men who choose to wear the women’s uniform could not be "discriminated" against ("gender-related self-identity, appearance").

5) SB 101 has the potential to undermine Illinois’ marriage law. While supporters of SB 101 state that the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in the Baker v. State case was based upon the Vermont constitution’s Common Benefits Clause, there were additional factors that influenced the courts to require the legislature to recognize civil unions. The Illinois Constitution has an Equal Protection

Clause that has the potential to be used in conjunction with the other factors that influenced the Vermont Court’s decision.

Vermont passed legislation that homosexual couples could adopt, therefore recognizing that the "family" was not just a mother and father with children, but those homosexual couples who adopted children also qualified as families. Illinois already allows homosexual couples to adopt.
The Vermont legislature passed legislation adding sexual orientation to the Vermont Civil Rights Act. Therefore, homosexual couples should be allowed to have the same benefits as married couples. SB 101 is the equivalent of Vermont’s law.
Vermont added "sexual orientation" to their hate crimes law. Illinois already has "sexual orientation" in its hate crimes law.
6) There are at least 27 known "sexual orientations," including zoophilia (beastiality), exhibitionism (the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification), and necrophilia (sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse).

7) SB 101 is not a "live and let live" bill. Depending on the section of the Human Rights Act, people who "violate" the law can be subject to fines up to $10,000 for the first offense and $25,000 on the second offense, as well as paying actual damages, attorney’s fees, court costs, and civil remedies such as an explicit right to sue the "violator". Under certain circumstances, even jail time could be imposed. We believe it is unacceptable for the Illinois General Assembly to pass legislation, which could violate sincerely held religious beliefs, resulting in such severe penalties.

8) We believe that society has a responsibility to protect our children. No one questions that a man who is a heterosexual should not be a camp counselor where he would be placed in a tent with girls. All of us would feel uncomfortable with that. Why should we not feel uncomfortable with a law that would protect a gay man from being a camp counselor where he would be placed in a tent with boys. We are not picking on the homosexual, for we adamantly would oppose placing the heterosexual in a tent with girls as well. We are not saying that either one would be a child molester, but, we as a society want to take no chances in protecting our children.

9) The Human Rights Act currently requires businesses to not discriminate when providing public accommodations. These include bathrooms and restrooms. That means a man who cross-dresses and behaves like a woman could be protected in going into women’s washrooms and showers.

For all these reasons and more, we urge a "NO" vote on SB 101.
****************************
To get contact numbers for Illinois State Senators click on the story link
Jim

==> Margaret Thatcher