Not only did I wish him well; I had the chance to do it in person. Our election parties were only two doors apart in Wrigleyville on Tuesday night. So after I spoke to our supporters, I walked over to congratulate Mike at his party. He and his staff were wonderfully gracious. (I stayed for about an hour and a half.)

They said what I know to be true: We ran a great campaign. We started with absolutely nothing in November and built an organization that everybody took seriously by Election Day. We were substantive on the issues; we had refreshing, creative advertising; we built an impressive and dedicated group of supporters.

I really appreciate how many people worked so hard on my behalf. That’s really the only hard part about losing. So many people gave generously of their time and money. I wish I could have represented them in Congress. But I also understood the odds from the beginning. There were 12 Democratic candidates; 11 of them have to write letters like this.

I would like to thank Pat Mogge and his staff for working so tirelessly on our behalf. They were the force behind our impressive campaign.

And, of course, Leah and our kids were enthusiastic teammates from the beginning. No one should have to endure the rigors of a campaign without a solid home base. For us, it was a family adventure, albeit exhausting, that had many wonderful moments. Who will forget Sophie, 8, making calls to undecided voters?

I have no regrets. You change the process by engaging in it, win or lose. In my concession speech, I told the story of how I had covered Paul Tsongas when he launched his long shot run for the presidency against George H. W. Bush in 1991. At one point I asked Tsongas if he really thought he could win. He replied, “I don’t have to win. My goal is to run a race that my grandchildren will be proud of.”

We did that. Thanks for being a part of it.

All the best,

Charlie

1. What is the most important issue in this race, and who is most qualified to deal with it? I believe it’s the economy, and that I’m uniquely qualified to deal with economic issues. I teach public policy at the University of Chicago and wrote a book called Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science that has been published in 10 languages. I’ve spent my entire adult life working on issues like education, health care, tax policy, and transportation.
2. Why do we end up with so many corrupt politicians? Because we keep electing the same kind of people. Whenever we have a political opening — like this Congressional seat — we always go looking for a replacement in the same places, as if there is some kind of political farm league. But that means we usually end up with career politicians who have a powerful incentive to protect their careers.
   
   If you want a different outcome, elect a different kind of candidate. As I always say on the stump, “Chicago produced both Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama—but only one of them taught at the University of Chicago. So stick with that model!”
3. Can one representative really make a difference? Yes. In fact, the U.S. has a long history of academics who have become highly effective politicians (on both sides of the aisle): Paul Douglas; Daniel Patrick Moynihan; Paul Wellstone; Newt Gingrich; Hubert Humphrey; Phil Gramm; Woodrow Wilson. They were all professors before they went to Washington. And they all “punched above their weight” because they brought an intellectual heft to the job that they could put to work right away on important issues.

This is a great time for substance over politics, and that is exactly what I would like to bring to the job.

So tomorrow before you vote, ask yourself these questions. I think you’ll feel very comfortable that the answers begin with voting for me.

Sincerely,

Charlie

Monday March 2, 2009
6:30-8:30

420 1/2 W. Diversey Pkwy
Chicago, IL 60614

RSVP to wheelan302@gmail.com

What prompted that thought?

I learned that one of my opponents, Sara Feigenholtz, will receive $250,000 in support from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They are not giving her the money directly; instead they will be buying a quarter of a million dollars in advertising on her behalf in the final week of the campaign.

That’s a lot of money. It will probably amount to roughly a third of Sara’s total spending (and it’s more than half of what we will spend in total). While there is nothing illegal about this arrangement with the SEIU, it’s not healthy. Nobody gives a quarter of a million dollars to a political candidate without expecting something in return. I don’t believe that a single labor union—or any other special interest group—should be in a position to spend so much money that it could actually determine the outcome of a Democratic primary. And, just for the record, the SEIU was the largest donor to Rod Blagojevich.

Our campaign has raised a lot of money—individual donor by individual donor. I’ve come to believe that individual contributions are healthy. I raise money by getting in a room with people and making my pitch. People ask me where I stand on issues, as they should, and then make a decision on whether to support me or not. By federal law, no person can give more than $2,400. That’s not chump change, but it’s not enough to affect where I stand on any particular issue.

But $250,000 is different! He who pays the piper calls the tune. That shouldn’t be a single organized interest with deep pockets.

To see those principles, click here.

With our current economy, we need someone who understands economics to help lead the way in Washington. I can do it. For more information, please see “On the Issues: The Economy” on this site. And if you agree, vote for me next Tuesday.

The following is a list of some of the top economic minds in the country who have signed a petition expressing their support for the “economic principles embraced by Charlie Wheelan in his campaign for congress in the Illinois 5th district”.

cforms contact form by delicious:days

However, the President’s plan can be improved in a way that would accomplish both of those objectives while minimizing the cost to taxpayers and holding borrowers accountable for imprudent borrowing decisions. The government should place a lien on any property that is eligible for mortgage relief equal to the difference between the old and new mortgages. If the property is eventually sold at a profit, as is likely to happen with many of these properties when the real estate market eventually recovers, then taxpayers ought to recover some or all of the government funds that were used to keep homeowners in their homes during these difficult times.

As an example, the program might work like this in the 5th District:

A homeowner currently has a $200,000 mortgage on a home in Franklin Park that is now worth $180,000 and the payments are no longer affordable. The President’s plan would avert foreclosure by offering a new, more affordable $150,000 mortgage. However, this plan should also include a lien on that home for $50,000, which is the amount of taxpayer-funded relief offered to this homeowner.

If the property is eventually sold for $280,000, the government would receive $50,000 at the time of the sale. The property owner would still benefit from the appreciation in the value of the property; however, it is fair that the taxpayers be reimbursed for having averted foreclosure during this sharp downturn in the real estate market.

If a home does not appreciate in value before being sold, then the lien would not be exercised. Similarly, if a property appreciates only modestly, then only some percentage of the lien would be collected. The point of the program is simply to recover the cost of taxpayer assistance from the profits that would otherwise go to homeowners who have benefited from this government program.

President Obama’s plan is a crucial step towards stabilizing the housing market. This modification would reduce its total cost for taxpayers and impose a reasonable responsibility on the homeowners who take advantage of the mortgage relief.

“Congress is contemplating a bailout of the American auto companies. My advice: Don’t do it! Yes, this is a time for government to act aggressively to stop the negative feedback loops that have infected the economy. But giving money to the dysfunctional Big Three is not a good way to do it.

“Sending loans to Detroit will not stop the slow rot that has been going on for 40 years. Management has presided over decades of poorly designed cars that have less and less appeal in the global marketplace; labor has been inflexible and unrealistic, making it harder and harder for the American firms to make a good car at a competitive price.”

What should we do instead? Two things: 1) Improve the safety net for ALL workers who are suffering as the result of the economic crisis, not just the workers in one industry. And 2) Focus government efforts on intervening in industries that are fundamentally healthy, but for the current crisis. We need to keep healthy businesses alive, rather than propping up those that are fundamentally sick. The automakers fall into the latter category, not the former.

Early Voting in Chicago:

February 16th – February 26th

Monday- Friday 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

Saturdays & Holidays: 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

Sundays 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. ONLY at the Chicago Board of Elections Office

• West - Wright College, Science Building, 4300 N. Narragansett Ave.
• Central - North Park Village Administration Building, 5801 N. Pulaski Road
• East - Lincoln Park Library, 1150 W. Fullerton Ave.
• Downtown - Chicago Election Board, 69 W. Washington St., Lower Level

Early Voting in the Western Suburbs:

Monday-Friday 8:30 until 5:00

Saturday 9:00 until 5:00

• Elmwood Park Village Hall, 11 Conti Parkway, Elmwood Park
• Melrose Park Village Hall, 1000 N. 25th Ave., Melrose Park

You can vote any day this week or join us at the Campaign Headquarters this Saturday at 10:00 a.m. to go vote with me.