The Capitol Fax Blog » Champaign refuses federal grant

Thursday, Feb 18, 2010

* Here’s something you don’t see every day. The Champaign city council voted to reject a small federal grant to expand underage-drinking enforcement. The reasoning may surprise you…

Prior to the vote, council member Tom Bruno said he would vote against acceptance of the grant because it raises questions about “the morality of accepting federal grant money for local purposes.”

Bruno said he has heard comments questioning the practice of taking dollars from nationwide taxpayers for a project that only benefits the local community.

Even the mayor voted to reject the grant, and hinted that he might also support rejecting a far larger, $30 million federal grant for high-speed Internet infrastructure…

Mayor Jerry Schweighart’s comments prior to Tuesday’s denial foreshadowed an anticipated vote on whether the city should accept a much larger grant to build a high-speed Internet network.

“We should be careful in accepting this grant in a small amount or a large amount like $30 million that’s coming down the pipe,” said Schweighart, who also voted not to accept the grant.

The irony here, of course, is that the area is awash in state and federal money because of the University of Illinois. All the K-12 schools get state and federal money. Champaign gets its portion of local government revenue sharing from the state.

So, if the Champaign city council wants to take this to its logical extreme, they’d start funding everything locally. One wonders what they’ll think about “outside” funding if a natural disaster ever strikes.

* Meanwhile, over in Aurora, the city has pulled out of a local meeting of Rep. Lou Lang’s statewide job creation task force…

On Feb. 26, Lang is set to be the special guest at a job creation luncheon organized by [Aurora Alderman Stephanie Kifowit]. The luncheon is being arranged through the alderman’s office, and Kifowit has asked that the $30 ticket price be made payable to the city of Aurora. The money, she said, will go toward paying for the lunch and for postage for the invitations.

Earlier this week, Kifowit sent an e-mail blast to nearly 1,000 people, inviting them to the event. But when she did so, she used an e-mail program paid for by her campaign committee, Friends of Stephanie Kifowit, and this program automatically appended the committee’s information to her message.

Below the body of the message, in fine print, each e-mail read “Paid for by Friends of Stephanie Kifowit,” followed by her campaign address.

Oops.

* In other local government news, the Rockford Register Star reports that the upcoming federal census could give 3 area communities home rule powers…

The legal status affords cities greater powers of taxation and other matters of government, such as code enforcement.

State law provides that a community automatically gets home rule status when its population reaches 25,000 or greater.

Belvidere was at 20,820 in 2000. Loves Park had a special census in 2005 that put the city at 22,476, and a year later a special census in Machesney Park found 22,704 living within its borders.

Rockford had home rule taken away by voters in 1983. Various attempts to reinstate it since have failed.

* Related…

* [Rockford], police union say talks have been ‘productive’

* [Normal]transportation center may open by 2012

* Tri-City Port gets $6 million in stimulus money

* Mid-America Port doesn’t get $48.9 million grant from TIGER program

* Three counties receive FEMA funds to supplement emergency food and shelter programs

* East Peoria eager to start road work

* Monmouth [city] council favors tax changes: One would increase the sales tax 1 percent and the other would eliminate the wheel tax sticker. If the council approves the measures, the city also would lower its portion of property taxes by an estimated 20 percent when the tax levy is set in December.

* Peoria councilman: Address middle-class flight: Spears also accused the council and the city’s staff of making decisions over the years that have helped drive away the middle class. He provided an example of a resident within his district who moved out because that person did not have a big enough driveway for a boat or an extra vehicle.

* $2 million in cuts proposed for Urbana schools

* Milton proposes $5.3M in school budget cuts

* SJ-R Opinion: Rochester schools face fiscal reality

* SJ-R Opinion: Both sides must give to find [Springfield] budget fix

* Federal stimulus funds to benefit Sangamon County health building

* Sandwich may hike liquor license fees

- posted by Rich Miller

47 Comments

- Doug - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:14 am:
And why should the Federal Government be funding internet infrastructure in Champaign?

- John Boy - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:21 am:
Doug - It’s all part of the circle of life.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:25 am:
Doug, why did Pres. Eisenhower build the Interstate Highway System? It’s in the nation’s interest to have integrated, efficient communications. Good for business of all kinds.

Remember Schoolhouse Rock and the Preamble to the Constitution? Promote the general welfare?

I’d ask Mr. Bruno what definition of “morality” he’s referring to. National governments have supported “local” projects forever. It’s called building a nation.

- The Doc - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:25 am:
Doug, tread carefully down that slippery slope. Perhaps there are more than a few Champaign residents and businesses that could benefit from such a grant.

Why would you reflexively reject these funds?

- Justice - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:27 am:
One must ask what strings are attached to the money the Feds are providing? I too would like to know why the Feds are funding this Internet Highway for Champaign and not for every city in the US?

Wasn’t part of the stimulus bill to pay for placing fiber throughout the nation, along with rebuilding the total infrastructure including bridges, roads/highways, water, sewer, and power? What ever happened to that promise?

Beware of Feds bearing gifts. The fine print can be a real doozy!

- western illinois - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:28 am:
The Monmouth tax swap is very popular and will result in a slight rev increase.
Monmouth for a change seems to be doing btter than the rest of the state.
If the state had done this in the Edgar years perhaps the state situation would not be as bad as it is

- Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:36 am:
The big issue I see with Champaign’s grant rejection is that it kills a project that partners like the city of Urbana and the University of Illinois agree on. If this is how cavalierly the city of Champaign treats its relations with neighboring local authorities, good luck getting going on anything that requires cooperation between local governments in the future. No matter whether you think it’s good or bad policy, the fact is that five different local governments agreed on it, and now one has effectively vetoed it after the grant was awarded, simply to score political points. For that reason this is a foolish decision in my eyes.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:39 am:
There is a difference between state and federal money. Name me a downstate city that isn’t dependent on some Prison, University, or other Government Institution supported by their local economy. The difference is that these are primarily funded by the state. The entire downstate economy would crumble without State tax dollars.

If we take the founder’s argument, the Founding fathers expected the state governments to operate as their people wished with mostly self imposed limits. It never expected the Federal Government to use the commerce clause to control local policy.

Their objection seems to be with Federal funding. True every local school district accepts Federal Dollars, but then howl and screamed when No Child Left Behind created mandates they couldn’t pay for, or face losing the money they already received. This isn’t rocket science when you directly accept federal funding, you leave the door open for the Federal Government to twist your arm.

Further, where is the Federal Government getting this money from? They are borrowing it. And yes, every Republican and Democratic administration before also engaged in deficit spending. If ALL governments do not think about the long term consequences of unsustainable spending, they will end up being required to take measure like New Jersey. And no, not all 50 states can receive a bailout without it showing up in our tax bills. I wish every local government would second guess where their grants come from, and think about what is the fiscally responsible choice for this nation. Unfortunately, most governments have this “pig at the trough” mentality that if one pig is eating chow, then we need to also eat the chow.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:45 am:
–Name me a downstate city that isn’t dependent on some Prison, University, or other Government Institution supported by their local economy. The difference is that these are primarily funded by the state.–

Don’t count on it. Lots of fed money flows through the state for all sorts of institutions.

The founders, starting with Hamilton and Jefferson, disagreed quite strongly on the relative powers of state and national governments.

A guy from Springfield and one from Galena settled the matter at Appromatox Courthouse a long time ago.

- Hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:46 am:
Something seems fishy about that Champaign City Council vote.

One could see this vote as taking a stand against big government spending, but at the same time I’m skeptical if maybe this is just the city council finding an excuse to look the other way when it comes to Champaign bars selling to minors. Let’s get real… if the city council really gave a crap about underage drinking they’d make the entrance age 21.

And as for Doug’s comment about why the federal government should be investing in Internet infrastructure in Champaign? They already are and have been for decades at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and its that federal support that made U of I one of the top computer engineering schools.

What happened to this country and the Republican party that Republicans can’t see any benefits to grants to local governments or public projects? I mean I know it’s in the post-Reagan GOP DNA to hate FDR and everything he stood for, but besides Eisenhower and his highways what of Lincoln and his support for federal taxpayer dollars going to land for settlers and public education at land grant universities that was the bedrock of the founding of the Republican Party? Lincoln only got into politics in the first place because he wanted federal government dollars spent to improve transportation back when he was a flatboat captain on the Sangamon.

- Scooby - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:48 am:
This isn’t some deep philosophical exercise in government, this is about having roughly 30,000 voters between the ages of 18-20 who only vote in city elections when enforcing the drinking age is the main issue.

- Steve-O - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:51 am:
The more you depend on the Federal government, the more intrusive the Federal government becomes. Maybe the City of Champaign doesn’t want all of the strings that are attached to receiving federal funds.

- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:51 am:
So, if the Champaign city council wants to take this to its logical extreme…

This appears logical only if you believe that if you can trace a dollar that shows up locally as having originated with a federal grant, then you have no right to turn your back on other federal grants.

It cannot be denied that there is a logic to it.

Yet, we are living at a time when spendthrifts in DC are bankrupting the US. We are on the verge of economic catastrophe. At what point are we going to wake up and start realizing where this money came from - and that it takes from others who need the money?

Just because something is a good idea, and that the time may be right, doesn’t justify bankrupsy. This isn’t an issue where we have to do these things. Claiming something is infastructure doesn’t make bankrupsy any easier.

This state is broke. This country is broke. While it may be logical to some to accept the Federal money, at what point is it logical to break the bank, rob our children and lose our ability to deal with foreign countries blackmailing us over our debt?

It is 2010. The golden goose is on life support.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:55 am:
Of course the fed money runs through those institutions, but the majority of funding still comes from the state, not the feds.

Agreed on those guys from Springfield and Galena, but even in the 1870’s, the thought was never to create endless grants, jobs bills, roads bills, etc. Today, reconstuction would have been thought of as a jobs package, not as a means to force the south to correct their wrongs towards the rights of man.

As far as economic policy, as long as it was in the state, it was the state’s responsibility. The feds were expected to regulate INTERstate commerce, not INTRAstate commerce. Even those guys from Springfield and Galena believed that.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:56 am:
===the thought was never to create endless grants, jobs bills, roads bills, etc.===

You don’t know your history too well. Lincoln was always a big capital bill guy, both in Springfield and as president.

- John Bambenek - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:57 am:
Federal dollars eventually come with federal strings which end up costing the locals more than what they got from the feds to begin with. Don’t believe me? I have four words for you: No Child Left Behind.

Even though the federal government is an overwhelmingly minor funder of local education, induspitubaly they have the most control.

Justify that system to me, then you can give the Champaign City Council crap.

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:57 am:
===just the city council finding an excuse to look the other way when it comes to Champaign bars selling to minors===

Excellent point.

- OneMan - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 9:59 am:
I got the Kifowit e-mail, struck me as a bit strange.

Also if you look at her D-2’s from when she ran for mayor and look at the

D-2 Semiannual Report
1/1/2008 to 6/30/2008

You will see what appears to be a transfer in from Citizens for Lou Lang

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:02 am:
To Hisgirlfriday -

What happened to the Republican party is that enough of the party members who stood idle through the years, knowing we were spending ourselves into deficit, finally began speaking up. They have finally been convincing enough to be telling our party elites to stop being irresponsible and the piggy bank has limit.

And many Democrats have starting telling their party elites the same thing.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:05 am:
Rich, I don’t dispute his state spending. I do dispute that mentality on a federal level, although he was never truly tested seeing how he was in War his entire presidency. And the public works projects the federal government engaged in were always to benefit multiple states, not for one municipality, in one county.

- Tom Joad - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:05 am:
The Champaign City Council pretends they are tough on underage drinking by going after the students. When it comes to going after the bars, they don’t want to kill the golden goose, and do little to close down the bars.
Some of these bars have been serving underage kids for the last 40 years!
The grant must have required a crackdown on the licensees and not just the students!

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:09 am:
The state is just as liable. They come in twice a year, create press events, issue a few tickets, and then are never seen until the next semester.

If the state felt this was a real epidemic, they are certainly in their rights to send the state police in to solve the problem. If the golden goose is the motivation, the state is just as liable.

- Pat collins - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:12 am:
they’d start funding everything locally

One might mention that people in Champaign pay all sorts of federal taxes, so they ought to get some of it back.

- Rob N - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:14 am:
Schweighart’s still mayor? Oof.

- sad - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:17 am:
re-broadband money-
there was an article a couple of weeks ago in a champaign paper foreshadowing the rejection of the broadband funds. some “consultant” was quoted as saying it was “too much, too fast.” LOL. no pun intended of course. it is sad when the logic to defeat something having to do with technology, is actually the point of the technology. (ie. much faster speeds) make no mistake about it- this country is falling dreadfully behind when it comes to internet speeds and access.
i guess some would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:19 am:
Yes, People in all 50 states pays federal taxes.

We all get some of it back in the safety our Military provides us, and the many Federal Departments that operate on our behalf.

We don’t need pork projects to feel like we “got our fair share.”

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:26 am:
–And the public works projects the federal government engaged in were always to benefit multiple states, not for one municipality, in one county.–

Land grant colleges. Homestead Act.

- dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:32 am:
I would like to think that many people are taking a hard look at how things have been done. These are the kinds of projects that are frequently referred to as pork barrel spending. We all know how that goes. It’s pork if it is for another state and “building essential infrastructure” if it is happening in our state/district. If the fed gov’t didn’t take so much of our hard earned income we would have more of it locally to decide what we want to spend it on. We hear that alot.

The important question that should be asked is - can we handle this ourselves? Is it vital to national interests? The road building programs noted above like the interstate highway for instance, that is the kind of thing the fed gov should be doing. States can handle other roads and highways. That kind of infrastructure requires gov involvement. I don’t think high speed internet falls into that, IMO.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:35 am:
Homestead Act applied to US Federal Territories, which the constitution and founders agreed was within Federal Jurisdiction.

The Land Grant Colleges. True, Lincoln Signed, but one condition was that all states received equal funding. Ok you got ONE example that may carry weight.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:43 am:
Mike, I’d suggest that Mr. Lincoln, through his colleagues Mr. Grant, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Sheridan, involved the federal government heavily in the intrastate commerce of Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, Virgina, etc.

- Captain Flume - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:49 am:
== . . . if the Champaign city council wants to take this to its logical extreme, . . .==

It may be “extreme”, but I fail to see why it is a logical extreme. Is weaning yourself away from taxpayer-supported projects wrong if you believe that all taxpayers do not have a benefit from it? Just because the council voted against accepting this grant, doesn’t make all grants wrong by inference or implication. Let’s stop using the slippery slope/camel’s nose fallacies. Analyse the event on its own terms, such as the city council not wanting to turn away tax dollars generated by local pubs who serve underage drinkers (as was mentioned above).

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 10:53 am:
Intrastate commerce isn’t even an issue if those States who succeed from a nation, then subsequently start possessing and attacking the government they just succeeded from. These events happened even before Lincoln was sworn in.

Second, the Constitution does not provide grounds for succession, so the succession was unconstitutional.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:06 am:
–Intrastate commerce isn’t even an issue if those States who succeed from a nation…–

Dude, I was kidding. Lincoln did not recognize secession, he said there was a state of rebellion in some areas.

The attempts to secede did not succeed.

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:13 am:
Sorry, didn’t pickup on the sarcasm, lol. On that note, I would agree with you on their strong involvement in the Intrastate commerce. :)

- Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:19 am:
===Analyse the event on its own terms===

Except that the alderman and the mayor both put it in the broadest possible “moral” terms.

Pingback Champaign Says “No” to Fed Funds | Illinois Alliance For Growth - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:40 am:
[…] Here’s something you see every day. A left leaning member of the media criticizes the Champaign City Council for taking a step towards responsible governing: “* Here’s something you don’t see every day. The Champaign city council voted to reject a small federal grant to expand underage-drinking enforcement. The reasoning may surprise you… […]

- Mike - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:41 am:
Analyzing the event, I feel that this is part of a growing movement of States, and local governments to refuse grants in the name of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, as your related news articles show, other municipalities still have no problem taking stimulus funds, grants and other federal dollars for local purposes.

I personally find the actions responsible, but even if you refuse a grant in the name of responsibility, with the way the grants are currently structured, passing up a grant means some other city, state or local government will get that money.

As far as changing the system, either Washington will need to cut available grants, end pork spending altogether, or some other reform. I am not holding my breath for any sort of real reforms to come to fruition as much as I hope they would.

- Ezra - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:44 am:
It just so happens that the grant the City of Champaign turned down was to pay for stepped up bar patrols to try to cut down on underage drinking. The “principle” on the Champaign City Council is do nothing that might impair the ability of minors to drink in bars. The council’s “principles” doesn’t keep it from accepting other federal money.

- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 11:57 am:
“the morality of accepting federal grant money for local purposes.”

I suppose we can divulge our inner hair-splitting and legalese and question this quotation as presented. If we do so, then we can probably dismiss it as faulty thinking.

But let’s look beyond the actual words and take into consideration what they are doing here. After all, the reactions I’ve been reading over this, take a similar consideration and then use hair-splitting and legalese to undermine the rational behind the quote to back up their ideological beliefs. Obviously it isn’t hard to do.

A lot of folks here don’t like hearing that someone may be turning away money. They see their own needs and justify receiving this money from the Feds. The fact that someone is questioning it, and then bases their decision not to take the money on moral reasons, insults what they think is only fair.

Let’s acknowledge that we find our governments on the verge of bankrupsy - because they are - and recognize that doing the things that got us here, have to end. Who is going to start being an adult? We have been cursing the General Assembly for it’s lack of leadership here. The US Congress is about as popular as H1N1 because of this. When is someone going to say, “STOP!”?

Maybe we seeing that point reached.

I am a moral person. Ask my Mom. Or my Reverend. I’ve always given to help the less fortunate. Enough for a nice tax deduction, so you can ask my Accountant if I am a moral guy. It is moral to help those in need.

But not when it means doing something immoral in order to do it. We have been crossing a line repeatedly, throwing out lifelines to society’s continual cries for help and are no longer using our own ropes. We are using other’s. Our kids. Our grandkids. This isn’t right. It isn’t moral any more. We shouldn’t stop finding ways to help our neighbors, but we have to recognize when we are using immoral means to do something we consider moral.

We’re there.

Spending your children’s inheritance in order to continue living beyond your means is a moral issue. Pretending that there is a magic funding solution that will bail everyone out as you spend beyond your means is also a moral issue. Knowingly spending money you have no way of paying back is a moral issue.

Robin Hood may have claimed that he robbed the rich to give to the poor, but that should not be an acceptable moral position for a government to take.

The Great Recession will change things. It will continue to hurt us for years. If we do not change the way we are prioritizing, taxing and spending - if it does not reform our governments - then we will not leave our society a better place for our indebted future generations.

This is our sacrifice. This is our time. It is time to say, “STOP!”

- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:38 pm:
— But not when it means doing something immoral in order to do it. —

If you want to play the morality card, you have to weigh both sides of the question.

Killing someone: Immoral.

Killing someone who poses an immediate threat to your own life: Moral.

Here, the Champaign City Council isn’t just rejecting a federal grant out of principle. They are saying that principle outweighs the benefits of the grant, aimed at tougher enforcement of underaged drinking laws in Champaign.

In case you’re not familiar with Champaign, 90% of the bars are in Champaign.

And here’s another tip: it ain’t about the wishes of underaged college student voters. College student voter turn-out in municipal elections is miniscule.

Its about the clout those bars have with the Champaign City Council.

I lived in Champaign when Schwieghart was Police Chief. Underaged drinking flourished, as it does now.

I’m not complainin’…I’m just sayin’

- Skoien4Life - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
No need to debate the Federalist papers here. As a few have said, this comes down to one thing: the power of local businesses over the Champaign city council. Champaign / U of I are not willing to really change the party environment of that campus. The only thing they are willing to do: blow a lot of smoke, create some powerless committees, and disengage themselves from any liability when something bad happens.

To be honest, I don’t blame them. If the school isn’t getting any money and the sports suck, why would anyone go to Champaign if not to drink?

- Sacks Romana - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:02 pm:
Yeah, that reasoning is BS. For anyone who lived in C-U, or pretty much any large college town, it’s obvious that this is about the intentional non-enforcement of underage drinking. To repeat everything stated above:
1) 30,000 underage drinkers is a huge economic force, and unfortunately not a political one;
2) The bars and their owners in Champaign are easily the largest non-University special interest;
3) The police and city make a nice chunk of change off of ticketing underage drinkers (over $150 a ticket when I was there several years ago), which they find far preferable to any sort of real enforcement or preventative measures.

Two more thoughts:
1) Any rational person knows that the issue isn’t with 18-21 year olds drinking (if you can vote, smoke, get married, join the military etc), it’s with the ridiculous culture of excessive binge drinking, something I doubt the city or federal government care to really address (if they even can/should).

2) Everyone will be fine with the mayor passing up this federal grant. There will be hell to pay if they reject the one for internet infrastructure.

- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 2:47 pm:
Good point Sacks.

I triple-dog-dare the Champaign City Council to reject $30 million for internet improvements.

- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 3:23 pm:
Not Dependent on State. Peoria and the Quad Cities. QCs depend on Feds for Arsenal
Small towns only Monmouth and Kewannee and Sterling dont

- Tom Joad - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 3:27 pm:
Hey Mike: Last year the sttate went to Champaign and closed down two bars and took one of their license,s away.
The state doesn’t have enough agents to do the job of the local police in Champaign.
The aldermen look the other way, and maybe someone should look into why that is so.

- wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 4:00 pm:
–But let’s look beyond the actual words and take into consideration what they are doing here.–

When someone is making a case in writing, I don’t look “beyond the actual words.” LOL. Whatever that means.

Except in your case, VMan. I just look for the source of ridicule. You don’t disappoint.

- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Feb 18, 10 @ 7:19 pm:
As a Champaign native and UI grad (old enough to remember when the legal drinking age was 19 for a few years) I agree 100% with those who write that the Fed grant rejection over there is all about the Benjamins, and not about the morality.

Would be interesting to know if the City has taken any of this immoral grant money in the past…and btw, the City underage drinking ticket is now $280. No wonder the cost of college is reported as skyrocketing.

Joad, the State Liquor Commission made their annual appearance at the “Unofficial St. Paddy’s Day” fiasco last year and TEMPORARILY closed a couple joints for Happy Hour violations.

The scariest part of that exercise, which had zero effect on the overall drunkenness and debauchery, was seeing ex. Sen. Pat Welch wearing a big shiny badge and raid jacket (”Liquor Police?”) and helping lead the raids. Hope he wasn’t packing heat.

IIRC, Welch used to close a tavern or two when he was here in the ‘patch, but not that way…

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.