Can Congress Tax Americans on the Right to Breath?

(Editor's note: This is the second of two columns on the constitutionality of Obamacare.)

Last Thursday, I opined that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) under Congress' power to provide for the general welfare.

The second issue, is this: Did Congress under Article I, Section 8 have the power to fund Obamacare by imposing an individual mandate? That is, does Congress have power to require every American (or their employer) either to purchase health Insurance from a health insurance carrier or to pay a fine?

There is, of course, the possibility that the court will uphold the legislation under the commerce clause. But is an American reading a book in his own living room engaged in interstate commerce? Can it fairly be said that because 20 or 50 years from now, he may be unable to pay for hospital care, and that the government may be required to pay those bills, that he is presently engaged in interstate commerce? Or that his present conduct affects interstate commerce?

Does the power to regulate interstate commerce give Congress power to require individual Americans to engage in commerce -- that is, to buy insurance? I don't think so.

It is one thing to regulate the conduct of someone engaged in or intending to become engaged in the near future. It is a very different thing to tell someone that he must get engaged in interstate commerce.

The commerce clause argument in favor of the individual mandate, however, is also premised on Congress' additional power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

It will be argued that the individual mandate has been determined by Congress to be "necessary" or "proper" to support the health care scheme. When an America has health insurance, that limits the risk that the government, somewhere in the future, will be required to pay that American's health care bills, or, at least, substantial portions thereof.

It can be argued that if an American refuses to buy such coverage, the penalty will create a fund which the government can use to pay his uncovered bills. But if that were the case, then the "penalty" is very much like a "tax," (I am using the word "tax" in its everyday nontechnical sense.) To put it another way, forcing someone to pay money to the government to provide a fund to help the government deal with health care costs looks to me to be more in the nature of an exercise of the "taxing" power," than a "regulation of commerce."

Therefore, it seems to me that if the individual mandate is to be upheld, the justification will again have to be found in the taxing power. Congress clearly has ... "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Note, there is no mention that Congress has power to collect penalties to provide for the general welfare.

So, is the individual mandate a tax? A duty? An impost? An excise? As used in Article I, Section 8, the word "tax" is used in a technical sense. In common parlance, we refer to duties, imposts and excise as "taxes." But in Article I, Section 8, a "tax" is something other than a duty, impost or excise.

Section 8 clearly provides that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare." But as requiring someone to buy insurance is not a tax on "income," the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration," clearly has no application.

And if it is a "tax," it is clearly unconstitutional because Article 8 provides, "No capitation, or other direct tax (as opposed to a 'requisition') shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." And whatever else can be said about the individual mandate, no one has claimed that it was created "in proportion to the census."

Additionally, it is obvious that the individual mandate is not a duty or and impost. Duties and imposts are levies on goods imported into the U.S.

So, if it isn't a tax ( in the constitutional sense), a duty or an impost, then to be authorized by the Constitution, it would have to be an excise. Is it?

An excise is a tax on doing something. It can be a tax on the production, use, sale or transfer of goods. Or it can be a tax on doing business, on the right to employ another, or on earning income. It can be a tax on passing one's property to an heir or legatee at death. So, if it is an excise, what "doing something" is being taxed? Breathing? Living? Being a citizen? Will the court for the first time say that Congress can lay and excise on the privilege of "being an American?" Or can Congress levy an excise on the privilege of "doing nothing" (not buying insurance)?

And of course, while Congress has been given "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," neither that section nor any other empowers Congress to require Americans to buy goods or services from anyone.

The court will find that Congress has power to provide for national health care. It seems to me that Alexander Hamilton's argument will again prevail, just as it prevailed when the U. S. Supreme Court upheld Social Security in the 1930s.

So, I think the constitutionality of the act will turn on my second question: Can Congress lay an excise on the right of Americans to breathe, live, or to be Americans?

The court never has said Congress has that power up until now. I am guessing it won't do so now. If it allows the funding penalty to stand, it will have to say that an excise can be a tax on"doing something, and even on doing nothing.

If Congress has such power, bye, bye liberty. It could require every American to purchase insurance coverage from the day he is born until the day he dies. And it could then also tax eating, sleeping, breathing .....

But given the fact that our forefathers came to America in search of liberty, it is really hard to believe that they gave Congress power to tax their right to breathe or be Americans.



Posted Online: Dec. 14, 2011, 2:30 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Will the Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare? Part 1

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") is constitutional.

The high court has stated that it will rule on the issues by July 4, 2012. As I see it, the court will consider two principal issues:

-- Could Congress rationally determine that it had power to create a national health care system (and that it needed to do so), and

-- Could Congress fund the system, by requiring Americans (or their employers) either to buy their own health insurance, or to pay a penalty.

Whether the legislation will be declared "constitutional" or "unconstitutional," will probably be based on the court's reading of Article 8 [1] of the U. S. Constitution, which provides:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;"

The first issue is this: Could Congress fairly conclude that it might pass Obamacare (and needed to do so) in furtherance of the general welfare?

Arguments on that issue were first made almost immediately after our constitution was adopted. Those who argue that the law should be upheld will in all likelihood cite the 1791 Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives by Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury.

"The National Legislature has express authority 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare,' with no other qualifications than (a) that 'all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and (b) that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution, and (c) that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.'

"These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms 'general welfare' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. ... The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

"No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

Those, on the other hand, who believe the law to be unconstitutional will probably reference the writings of John C. Calhoun, especially his South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. (Note, however, that Calhoun's position squares rather nicely with the last paragraph of Hamilton's report. But Hamilton's last paragraph has been largely forgotten or ignored by Congress and the courts.) Calhoun wrote:

"It is a bold and an unauthorized assumption, that Congress has the power to pronounce what objects belong, and what do not belong to the general welfare; and to appropriate money, at its discretion, to such as it may deem to belong to it.

"No such power is delegated to it -- nor is any such necessary and proper to carry into execution those which are delegated.

"This (the Constitution) pronounced to what limits the general welfare extended, and beyond which it did not extend.

"To prove, then, that any particular object belongs to the general welfare of the States of the Union, it is necessary to show that it is included in some one of the delegated powers, or is necessary and proper to carry some one of them into effect -- before a tax can be laid or money appropriated to effect it.

"For Congress, then, to undertake to pronounce what does, or what does not belong to the general welfare -- without regard to the extent of the delegated powers -- is to usurp the highest authority -- one belonging exclusively to the people of the several States in their sovereign capacity. "

I think Congress could fairly find that health care is a "nationwide" issue, and not merely a "local issue," and that it therefore could enact health care legislation in an effort to provide for the "general welfare." In the 1930s, Congress determined that it could provide for old-age pensions (Social Security) in furtherance of the "general welfare." The Supreme Court deferred to that Congressional determination and upheld the Social Security Act. I think it will likewise determine that Congress can enact national health care legislation in furtherance of the "general welfare."

Posted Online: Dec. 07, 2011, 2:27 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Can 'Latinization,' Chant, Incense Make Church More Relevant?

The Catholic Church is coming out with a new translation of the Mass in the period before Christmas this year.

Is this is an effort to deal with the problem of declining membership which was recently described in a parish bulletin?

"The Catholic bishop of Peoria has begun a process of realigning the parishes of the diocese. Parishes will be 'clustered,' and, in some cases, merged

The bishop is doing so because the diocese has less priests to go around, and because the diocese, which claimed 220,000 Catholics in 1990, has seen the number dwindle to 160,000. There are, therefore, fewer people in the pews on Sunday and less children in the Catholic schools. Indeed, the three Catholic elementary schools in the Illinois Quad-Cities are what remains, after elementary school mergers.

Alleman which had 1,400 students in the late 1960s, now has only 440."

Add to that information, the following: a large Moline parish, which used to have Sunday Mass every hour with and additional Mass in the gym, now offers only three.

Why? What explains why the diocese has 27 percent fewer Catholics? How can the decline be stopped?

Can the loss of membership be explained by the fact that the Catholic Church has an all-male priesthood? Probably not. Few if any Catholics leave the church because it has a celibate male clergy. They've grown up with that.

Can it be explained by papal claims of infallibility? Again, probably not. If someCatholics disagree with the Pope's teaching ( e. g., on contraception), they generally don't leave the church; they simply ignore the teaching.

Can it be explained by the church's teachings on homosexuality or abortion? While a scant few might leave over those issues, I think it highly unlikely that that has caused 60,000 to walk.

What about its teaching on remarriage after divorce without a church annulment? According to a 2008 study the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, 28 percent of Catholics are divorced. Catholics who are divorced and who remarry without first obtaining an annulment, are barred from receiving the Eucharist. (And it is estimated that only 10 percent of divorced Catholics get annulments.)

Do Catholic barred from taking communion for that reason continue as Catholics? Some do; most, I would guess, don't. And what about their children? Are they raised as Catholics? Sent to Catholic elementary schools and high schools?

Does the church's policy of denying the Eucharist to divorced Catholics who remarry without church permission explain, at least in part, why there are fewer Catholics? Has denying the Eucharist to Greeks and Protestants brought them back, or has it hardened the divisions? Can you bring people back to the church by telling them that they are not entirely welcome? Is that how Christ treated "sinners?"

There are, however, some non-doctrinal factors which may be driving Catholics away.

When I was younger, Sunday Masses normally ran about 40 minutes. (Masses then were scheduled every hour-on-the-hour. It took 10 minutes to clear the church and 10 minutes to refill it.)

The same Mass, which even now often runs no more than 18 minutes on a weekday, is now more often than not stretched to an hour and 15 minutes on Sunday.

How? The explanation is simple: processions, meditations, chants, additional music and longer sermons, and special ceremonies.

As a result, the Mass has lost its pace and its focus, and ceased to be meaningful. Such Masses cannot hold the interest of most modern Catholics used to movies, and television shows which succeed largely because they are coherent and brilliantly paced.

And what of the extended homilies? All too often they consist of nothing more than a rehash of that Sunday's scriptural readings. Rambling, incoherent homilies are more often than not irrelevant to the daily life of both young and older Catholics. They are rarely meaningful.

For a priest to be successful, he must be able to relate to his congregation. The time a priest spends with the congregation during his homily is precious. It is probably the only time during the week he will have with most of his parishioners.

Christ was successful in his ministry largely because he was a charismatic figure who spoke with "authority" as he delivered his message. Would thousands of people have followed him into the wilderness had he rambled on incoherently, or chanted much of his message in a "latin-ized" vernacular? Christ succeeded because his message was relevant, meaningful and well-delivered.

I ask these questions because the church is coming out with a new translation of the Mass in the period before Christmas this year. Catholic are enthusiastically told that the new English Mass will be a "better and more accurate translation of the old Latin Mass."We are also told we will be "singing the Mass more," and that much of the new Mass "is intended to be chanted."

My question is why? Did Christ speak Latin? Did Christ chant? Use incense? Will a more "Latin-ized" Mass be more relevant and meaningful to American Catholics? To young American Catholics? Is their any likelihood, that the revised "Latin-ized" Mass will draw fallen-away Catholics back to the church? Non-Catholics?

Or will more Catholics find worship increasingly irrelevant and less meaningful?

My guess is that turning the clock back to Trent and pretending that Vatican II never happened will not bring fallen-away Catholics back home or draw non-Catholics to the Church. I await the ad hominem response.


Posted Online: Nov. 25, 2011, 6:00 am - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Illinois Senate: When Does a Contribution Become a Bribe?

I am neither for nor against Smart Grid.

I write because I am appalled by reports that two utility companies, Ameren and Commonwealth Edison, and their friends generously poured money into the campaign coffers of members of the Illinois Legislature at a time when the utilities were lobbying for passage of that legislation.

These allegations show that the Illinois State Senate is a sewer.

When a judge takes "gifts" from a litigant whose case is pending before the judge, we call it a "bribe," and the judge goes to jail.

But when a legislator takes thousands of dollars from somebody who wants the legislator to vote a certain way on a bill, the money paid is characterized as a "campaign donation."

The Better Government Association (BGA) states that on May 31, the Illinois Senate passed a controversial bill to raise energy rates and revamp the grid.

In the 18 months ending June 30, Ameren and ComEd interests gave more than $400,000 to all but six members of the Senate. And in the three months after Gov. Pat Quinn's veto, they gave more than $170,000 to state legislators and party organizations, according to Illinois State Board of Elections records.

Since Jan. 1, 2010, members of the General Assembly and their political organizations received more than $1.5 million from the utilities. Last week 98 legislators voted to override the veto, 71 voted against and eight voted present. All told, 177 legislators shared in the $1.5 million utility "contribution." You do the math.

The McHenry County Blog obtained this information from a spreadsheet prepared by Campaign for Political Reform. Donations are for the 2011 calendar year through Oct. 18th. ComEd and Ameren got their rate hike and veto override on SB 1652 on Oct. 19. The Blog notes that there is a possibility of additional, last-minute contributions.

The blog lists the 2011 utility contributions to the 39 Senators who voted for Smart Grid.

It also notes a contribution to the Senate Democratic Victory Fund -- $89,250 --and to the Republican State Campaign Committee -- $42,650. The Democratic Party Senate campaign fund is controlled by Senate President John Cullerton. The Republican Party Senate campaign fund is run by Minority Leader Christine Radogno.

Here's the McHenry County Blog's list:

-- Radogno $38,000

-- Kirk Dillard $19,000

-- Mike Jacobs $16,750

-- Dale Righter $13,930

-- Antonio Munoz $13,850

-- Don Harmon $11,500

-- Toi Hutchinson $11,000

-- James Meeks $11,000

-- Bill Brady $9,500

-- Annazette Collins $8,250

-- A. J. Wilhemi $7,700

-- Mattie Hunter $7,000

-- Carole Pankau $6,350

-- John Millner $6,050

-- Donne Trotter $6,000

-- John Jones $5,750

-- Kimberly Lightford $5,500

-- William Haine $5.450

-- Terry Link $5,000

-- Michael Noland $4,750

-- Matt Murphy $4,250

-- Pam Althoff $4,000

-- David Leuchtefeld $3,358

-- Kwame Raoul $2,500

-- Sue Rezen $2,000

-- Maggie Crotty $1,500

-- John Cullerton $1,500

-- Linda Holmes $1,250

-- Iris Martinez $1,250

-- Emil Jones, III $1,000

-- William Delgado $1,000

-- David Koehler $750

-- Martin Sandoval $500

Did ComEd and Ameren pass out the money to ensure an ethical government? Do they honestly believe senators who pocketed the money were so honest and able that if they weren't reelected it would be a disaster for the people of Illinois?

Did they give money in the hope that the senators would consider only the merits of SB1652 -- free of all other considerations?

Did they give the money to induce them to vote against the bill?

Did they give the money to influence them to vote in favor of the bill, and subsequently to vote to override the governor's veto? Or did they simply give the money because these were the best senators money could buy?

And how generous does the contribution have to be to buy a legislator's vote?

Every senator, of course, would deny he was influenced by campaign donations. But what is the appearance? Does it look like an attempted bribe? Does it smell like a one?

If any judge in Illinois took even a $1,000 campaign contribution from any litigant before his court, he would properly be removed from the bench and indicted for corruption. Why should the rule be different for senators or representatives?

Back in the 1990s I wrote lyrics for a song for a Gridiron show, to the tune of Cole Porter's "Anything Goes." It was in an era of Illinois judges being arrested for corruption; the days of "Operation Greylord." My lyrics:

"When a judges take's bribes that's shocking.

Such graft sets the courthouse rocking,

to jail he goes, as "Greylord" shows.

"But when the cash is thrown at Congress

All rules are trashed and largess is apropos.

As everyone knows.

"Though "bribes" are still crimes these days

there are "gentler" ways

To describe outlays

that the lobbyist pays

Inside the beltways

To influence the ways

That his client's bill should go.

"When "bribes" become "campaign donations"

These artful equivocations augment cash flows.

Everything goes!"

Until the voters clean up this cesspool in Springfield, they deserve whatever the Legislature chooses to do to them. Does anyone out there care?

Posted Online: Nov. 10, 2011, 7:54 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Do We Need a $70 Billion Department of Education?

President George W. Bush, gave us No Child Left Behind and to ensure that its goals were met, the U.S. Department of Education's budget was increased from $14 billion to $60 billion.

His goal was to ensure that American children would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. Now 37 states are asking to be exempted from meeting that goal. President Obama believes the law is so flawed that he has invited the states to obtain waivers. States are required to submit their own plans to show how they will meet the law's requirements.

If you go to the Education Department website, it states that it "administers a budget of $69.9 billion in discretionary appropriations. It also states that "education in America is primarily a State and local responsibility."

The department has about 5,000 employees. Its mission is: "to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access." To that end, the primary functions of the department are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on U.S. schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."

President Obama has called upon Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to provide an additional

-- $30 billion to support teachers' jobs

-- $25 billion to upgrade existing public school

-- $5 billion to modernize community colleges

But where does Congress get the money to send to the states in support of education? And where does the federal government get the power to be involved in education at all? You can search the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) for the rest of your life and you won't find any express grant of power to Congress to deal with "education."

Americans who favor national power would argue that Congress has power to make laws to fund and regulate education either (a) under its power to "lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for ... the general welfare," or (b) under its power to "regulate commerce."

Those who believe education is a power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th Amendment believe federal government intrusion in education is an unconstitutional usurpation of power. President Reagan in his 1982 State of the Union called for "dismantling" the education department. The 1996 GOP platform stated, "The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula ... This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools."

In the early day, the federal government was not in the business of making laws or providing funds for education. Until the Civil War, education was entirely left to states, religious organizations and people. A timeline, prepared by the Cato Institute, shows how long it took for Congress to discover that it had power to become involved in education.

-- 1862: The Morrill Act provides grants of land to the states, which may be sold and the proceeds used to fund colleges that focus on agricultural and mechanical studies.

-- 1867: Congress appropriates $15,000, and creates of a Department of Education, with four employees to act as a clearing house of data for educators and policy makers.

-- 1868: After a bitter fight over federal encroachment in education, Congress downgrades the new department to an Office of Education within the Department of Interior. Education did not regain its separate departmental status until 1979.

-- 1890: A second Morrill Act empowers the Office of Education to provide regular funding of the land-grant colleges.

-- 1907: The Morrill Acts are amended to add federal funding for vocational education.

-- 1911: The State Marine School Act authorizes funding of nautical schools in 11 specified cities.

-- 1917: The Smith-Hughes Act funds vocational schools. The Act imposes a range of detailed federal rules on recipient institutions.

--1930s: The New Deal funds an array of educational activities including school construction and repairs, the hiring of teachers, loans to school districts, and grants to rural schools. These programs create precedents for later permanent education subsidies.

Quite apart from constitutional arguments, however, there is a more fundamental question: Why do we even need Washington involved in education? Each year, 70 billion tax dollars are siphoned out of the state and sent to Washington to fund the education department and its activities. Now the president wants to take more.

Why not abolish the department, and let the states keep that $70 billion? Why are state and/or local bureaucrats less able to manage tax dollar than federal bureaucrats?

Are the states incompetent to "promote student achievement?" If the states are left with the tax dollars flowing to Washington, couldn't the states provide Pell-like grants, and financial aid? Are the states unable to prepare students for "global competitiveness?"

Has federal involvement made things better?

If given the same money and left to their own device, why are the states less able to "foster educational excellence" than bureaucrats in the education department?

Are states wanting in their capacity to "establish policy" for education? Are the states inferior at "collecting data" to better their schools?

Can't the state's and the federal and state courts enforce "equal access" and "civil rights" in the schools in the absence of the department?

So, Congress passed No Child Left Behind to solve a problem. Then when the law turns out to be a $46 billion bust, we grant three-fourths of the states waivers and tell them to come up with their own plans.

Was this a waste of $46 billion?

Indeed, is the education department a waste of $70 billion?

Don't forget, in 1867 the education department had four employees; it now has 5,000.

If you're a family of four, you're paying $900 a year for this. Would that money be better spent on local school? On your own family?


Posted Online: Oct. 25, 2011, 3:07 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Will Concealed Carry Laws Make Illinois Any Safer?

Illinois state Rep. La Shawn Ford, an African-American, third-term Democrat representing a West Chicago District, told the Chicago Sun-Times on Sept, 8 that he would support "concealed carry" legislation if it came up for a vote in the General Assembly. Rep. Ford said he "knows it sounds bad," but that his constituents desire to legally protect themselves with firearms.

"They're saying we're making criminals out of law-abiding citizens. They're saying you're only siding with the criminals because the criminals could care less about the law."

In the years that I served in the state's attorney's office and on the bench I never questioned the wisdom of outlawing the carrying of concealed weapons. I simply accepted the premise that if more people carried guns, it would translate into more gun violence. Mass killings over the past few years have caused me to begin to question my long-held beliefs.

-- On Nov. 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire with an automatic pistol at the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. The shootings ended only when Hasan was shot and disabled by civilian police officer Sgt. Mark Todd. The soldier-victims were unarmed.

-- On Jan. 8, 2011, 19 people were shot by Jared Loughner, 22, as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords met with her constituents. Six, including U. S. District Judge John M. Roll, and Christina Green, 9, were killed, and Rep. Giffords was shot through the head. The victims were unarmed.

-- On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, shot to death 69 people in Norway at a youth retreat. One of the first victims was an unarmed off-duty police officer hired to provide security. Police in Norway generally do not carry firearms. Breivik's victims were unarmed.

-- On Sept. 7, 2011, Edwardo Sencion of Carson City killed four and wounded eight others at an IHOP restaurant. Three of the dead were members of the Nevada National Guard. The victims were unarmed.

Our Second Amendment provides, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I have previously written why I think we have a Second Amendment. "At the time the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, no city in the United States had an organized police force. ...

"The counties had their sheriffs, but in an era before telephones, a sheriff at the county seat miles away afforded the frontiersman scant protection against marauding Indians, burglars and robbers. In the backwoods, a family's personal security rested on their ownership of guns. That was the patent reality in 1791."

In 1850, a French economist and philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise "The Law," succinctly explained that the law's first purpose is "self defense."

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

"Each of us has a natural right -- from God -- to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the ... collective right -- is based on the individual right."

With that in mind, I am now asking myself:

First, assuming all four incidents might have occurred even if the carrying of concealed weapons had been permitted, had there been people carrying concealed, would one or more of gunmen have been shot before they killed and wounded as many as they did?

Second, if a person intent on committing mass murder knows that a number of his intended victims or bystanders -- especially those standing behind him -- may be armed, might he be deterred?

Third, if citizens competently trained in firearm safety and without criminal records or mental health problems are allowed to carry concealed, is their any real likelihood that unlawful shootings will increase due to misuse of that privilege?

Fourth, are there reliable statistic in states which permit concealed carry to answer my third query?

The Chicago Redeye has written that there were 34 gun homicides in Chicago during July 2011. Would gang members be as inclined to use guns if they knew their intended victims or bystanders might also be carrying concealed?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that unarmed citizens have little or no chance against heavily armed criminals bent on committing mass murder. When somebody like Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan uses a semi-automatic pistol that can fire 20 rounds from a clip as fast as he can squeeze the trigger, the police are probably not going to arrive in time to prevent the slaughter. And as long as smaller clips can be exchanged almost instantaneously, banning 20-round clips won't solve the problems.

At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, pistols and long guns generally fired a single shot. Reloading gave others time to counterattack or run. Modern automatic and semiautomatic weapons deprive victims of those options. And every one of the incidents cited demonstrates that having armed police just minutes away is not enough.

I can't think of any meaningful alternative except concealed carry to stop mass murders. Can you? Washington D.C. and Chicago have a strict handgun bans. Law-abiding citizens comply, but the criminals don't. Would concealed carry cut down on murders and mass murder, or just lead to more shootings? I don't know. Do you?

I have no desire to carry a weapon, but do I have any right to tell one of Rep. Ford's constituents, living in a crime ridden part of Chicago, that they are wrong to want protection?

Posted Online: Oct. 11, 2011, 3:47 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Awful Return on Q-C Investment

On Sunday, The Dispatch/Argus ran a laudatory front-page article: "Q-C Cashes in." The lead to that article crows. "Stimulus put $164M into area." With that "$164M in spending, 191 jobs were created or retained" in the 17th Congressional District.

That means each of those jobs cost the American taxpayers $858,639! It looks to me, like you and I just got fleeced.

To help you make up your own mind, here are some figures.

-- There are about 310 million Americans.

-- As of 2010, the population of the Quad-Cities metropolitan area was 379,690.

-- Therefore, one of every 810 Americans live in Q-C Metro area.

In 2009, Congress (then controlled by the Democrats) passed at President Obama's request the $840 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly referred to as the ARRA, or as the Obama Stimulus Act.

So, if one out of every 810 Americans lives in the Q-C Metro area, and if the Q-C Metro area had received its proportionate share of stimulus funds -- one out of every 810 stimulus dollars -- we should have received $1,037,038,037. Instead we got a lousy $164,000,000! What happened to our other $873,000,000?

Again, if there are 380,000 people in the metro area, and if we received $164 million ARRA funds, we each got an average of $431. I don't recall getting my $431. Do you recall getting yours? Or did Washington decide somebody needed the money more than you or I did?

Of course, there is good news, as well as bad news. Washington didn't tax us to raise the $840 billion in ARRA funds.

Had Washington taxed all 310 million Americans equally, every American would have seen a new tax bill for $2,710. That's the good news! The bad news is that Washington borrowed the $840 billion, instead. So every American -- man, woman and child -- now owes an additional $2,710.

So the bottom line is this: for a $431 Washington handout that you and I didn't get, we each have been left with a bill for $2,710 -- which we did get!

So who got the $164 million? Those lucky people who the brilliant bureaucrats in Washington decided were worthier in all likelihood, than you or I.

Isn't "income redistribution" wonderful? The likelihood is that you didn't get a penny of stimulus money. And for that you -- and every member of your family -- each have been left with a debt of $2,710!

Of course, there are the "fortunate few" who Washington has deigned to enrich.

The owners of dilapidated Illinois Oil Co. building in Rock Island, and the Washington Square Apartments in Moline (or their successors in interest) have to be dancing in the streets. It's a wonderful thing to have your neighbors renovate your building at their expense. Those of us who have maintained our properties, it seems, have made a disqualifying mistake, for which we deserve to be punished -- by having our income redistributed.

So if these renovations are such "great investments," why weren't they undertaken by private sector investors with private funds? Or are the guys in Washington who gave us Solyndra the only ones smart enough to recognize a "great investment?"

My mother used to say "God helps those who help themselves."

Washington calls that old-fashioned, and says, "We'll help those that don't -- with your money!"
John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.


Posted Online: Sept. 21, 2011, 3:10 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Treasury's Savingsman: U.S. Should Take Own Advice

The greatest lessons about saving money hit us when we're kids, especially from nursery rhymes, like Simple Simon, who never had money.


Always spending, never saving.

Then there was the Old Lady who had to live in a shoe because she relied totally on Social Security. And of course Humpty Dumpty would have fared much better had he put aside a little cash for his long term health care.

Hey, good lessons to remember. Saving for your financial future is no fairy tale, because if you don't have a goose that lays the golden eggs, you better "Choose to Save."

While driving recently, I heard a public service announcement (PSA) from the U.S. Treasury, which seems to fit very well with what I had planned to say in this op-ed. When I went to the Internet to try to find the text, I found that it was one of the Treasury's "Choose to Save Public Service Announcements." (http://www.choosetosave.org/psaplayer/index.html)

What particularly struck me about the ad was that it was 100 percent out of phase with the insanely irresponsible deficit spending coming from Washington. It gave me at least an iota of hope that somebody in Washington understands that buying-on-time ("deficit spending") is incompatible with saving for a secure future. Indeed, the PSAs on the site sounded a lot like my father and mother.

The Great Depression taught my parents a number of lessons that they practiced for the rest of their lives, and taught their boys.

On many occasions, my dad said that the cause of the stock market crash was the "buying of stocks on margin." Before "Black Friday," a person could buy a stock by putting 10 percent "down," and owing the rest. It was a way of buying stock "on time."

People who bought on 10 percent margin, made fortunes — as long as stock prices rose, and as long as they were able to sell at the appreciated prices! But when the market precipitously dropped on Black Friday, and when margin calls went out for the other 90 percent, few people could come up with it. Those that couldn't, lost the 10 percent they had put "down," and found themselves liable for the other 90 percent.

From their Depression experiences, dad and mom formulated rules designed to allow them to survive next depression.

Rule No.1: Never buy on time.

Rule No. 2: If you can't pay cash for it, don't buy it! Wait until you can pay cash.

Rule No. 3: Never pay interest. If you have to spend money paying interest, you will have that much less money to spend on things you really want.

Dad and mom made one exception to their rule. When they bought a house after World War II, they took out a mortgage.

They made a judgment that they could, on dad's income, afford to pay that mortgage. But to protect themselves as far as possible, Dad bought mortgage insurance to insure the house would be paid for in the event of his death.

For all other purchases, including automobiles, my parents saved and paid cash.

Mom was proud to tell how she bought their first radio with pennies she had saved. Dad, being a businessman, understood that business expansions generally required borrowing. But borrowing, even for that, was never dad's first option.

He frequently said, "there are two ways to make money: earn more, or spend less.

Mom and dad both believed in "putting something away for a rainy day."

Having survived the Depression, mom and dad always operated on the theory that they wanted things to be better for their boys. They never would have asked us to pay for their home, their car or even their medical expenses.

Throughout my life, I have followed their advice. I have always found paying cash for something makes you think twice before you buy it. To this day, I always ask myself if I want it badly enough to deplete my savings. It is amazing how many "things" I haven't bought over the years because I felt that I would be better off not depleting my savings.

These are old-fashioned notions. I suppose that at least half the people in the country would reject them as antiquated. They follow a modern precept: "If you want it, buy it and pay for it later." The treasury seems to disagree:

Announcer. And now, another adventure with Savingsman!

Attractive Young Woman. (Shopping) Oh dear! I can't afford that!

Evil Credit Card Guy. Charge it! You can pay it off later

Savingsman. Not so fast Credit Card Guy.

Attractive Young Woman. Savingsman!

Savingsman. Don't let him entice you ma'am, Credit Card Guy can lead you to big trouble ... you need a savings plan!

Attractive Young Woman. You're right Savingsman!

Savingsman. Get this Ballpark Estimate worksheet at choosetosave.org. It will help you get started!

Attractive Young Woman. Gee, thanks Savingsman!


Posted Online: Sept. 13, 2011, 3:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Constitution Is a Flexible, Living Document -- Within Limits!

The Constitution gives Congress explicit power to regulate commerce among the states. Every baby born in America will eventually use public transportation and the interstate highway system. Population increases require greater congressional expenditures to build and maintain those systems.

So to prevent increases in the population with the attendant costs to the public, would Vice President Joe Biden (recall his recent China trip) say that Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states to limit the number of children a family might be allowed to have to one or two? To require the use of contraception or abstinence?

When the Constitution was adopted, the governments of the several sovereign states were not abolished. But the very people who set up the states, decided that states were good at some things, and not very good at others. Those powers the states possessed, but were not very good at exercising, were taken away and vested in the new federal government.

The powers vested in Congress are generally known as "enumerated powers" because they are "enumerated" in Article I. That article has not been amended since the date it was adopted. The 18 enumerated powers include:

-- Power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S.

-- To borrow money on the credit of the U. S.

-- To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.

-- To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

-- To coin money, and regulate the value thereof.

-- To establish post offices and post roads.

-- To punish piracies and felonies on the high seas.

-- To declare war.

-- To raise armies.

-- To provide and maintain a navy.

-- To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers.

There is no grant of power to Congress to establish a religion, regulate speech, or abolish the right to bear arms. But what if Congress, having enumerated powers, expanded them under the theory that the Constitution was a non-rigid, flexible, dynamic, living document, and under the theory that such an expansion was "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution one of its 17 other enumerated powers? What if Congress decided that pursuant to the power granted to it to "lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare," that it was "necessary and proper" that it should subsidize the Catholic faith over the Jewish faith?

What if Congress decided that the holy days of the disparate religions were burdening interstate commerce, and that it should establish one religion under its power to regulate commerce so as to remove the time lost by disparate holy days?

To make sure that sort of thing didn't happen, 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was passed because the American people were afraid that even though Congress had only been given certain enumerated powers that, left to its own devices, it would, like every other government, seek to expand those powers in the name of necessity. The First Amendment contains an unequivocal statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging freedom of speech or the press." The Second provides that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Most Americans are aware of at least some of the amendments. But few seem to be aware of the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere is Congress given the power to say what marriage is, or what a state may prohibit as constituting, murder, burglary, or theft.

Nowhere is Congress given power to say whether a man and his wife my opt to use a contraceptive. As the states clearly had power to define marriage, and punish criminal offenses before the Constitution was enacted, and since no such power was delegated to Congress, these are powers "reserved to the states." And a married couples choice to employ or not to employ a contraceptive is similarly a question "reserved" either to the "states" or the "people." As a further guarantee, the 9th Amendment provides, "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That means, the fact that Constitution expressly says that a man has a right to trial by jury does not mean that he does not also "retain" the right to share a contraceptive with his wife.

The Preamble states that a goal of the new Constitution was to "promote the general welfare." But if Congress can pass any law that it deems "promotes the general welfare," why bother to enumerate 18 specific powers? They become surplusage. And the Bill of Rights becomes a nullity.

Conservatives do not deny the Constitution is a dynamic, living document. But they believe it must be construed as the founding fathers intended it to be construed -- with the states and people exercising the "reserved powers" and with Congress exercising only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution -- which the people of the states decided could better be exercised by a federal government!

So, when you authorize the painter to paint your living room, is it also "necessary and proper," or for your "general welfare" for him to paint your car?


Posted Online: Sept. 07, 2011, 2:23 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

Expropriate Exploiters' Wealth? It's Been Tried Before!

Multibillionaire Warren Buffet does not feel he is paying enough federal income tax.

He suggests the government tax him more. ... what does he mean by "more?" Is he suggesting taxing billionaires out of existence?

Would you be in favor of abolishing billionaires? Millionaires? What about corporations with net incomes in excess of $1 million? If so, why? To eliminate the deficit?

Remember, if taxes on individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million were doubled, it would only cut our $1.5 trillion deficit by roughly 17 percent. So if making the "super-rich" pay their "fair share" is your solution to eliminating the deficit, you might wish to consider "nationalizing" their wealth, instead.

And if you favor "nationalizing their wealth," how do you define "billionaire?" "millionaire?" (Bs and Ms.)

Do we define Bs and Ms based on how much property they own? Or is a B someone with an annual adjusted gross income of a $1 billion or more?

If you classify people based on their annual income, then abolishing Bs and Ms is as easy as raising the taxes they pay. You might, for example, pass a law which says "all persons with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million shall pay a tax sufficient to reduce their after-tax income to $999,999.99." Or perhaps to $100,000!

But if you define Bs and Ms based on the net value of their estates, then you will probably need to pass an excise tax, taxing the privilege of being rich or owning property in a sum sufficient to reduce the net worth of each to $999,999.99, or less. After all, that is the theory of the Obamacare's individual mandate. If not having health insurance "affects interstate commerce," surely sitting on a mountain of money which the government could better use to stimulate the economy also adversely "affects interstate commerce."

Of course, abolishing Bs, Ms and corporations has been tried before. In 1918 the USSR enacted a Constitution that abolished capital and created a Republic of Soviet workers. And for 70 years, people lived dismal, bleak incentiveless lives, until the whole system collapsed in 1990.

Here are a few excerpts from the "enlightened" 1918 Soviet Constitution:

"Article 3. Its fundamental aims being abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, ... and victory of socialism in all countries, the ... Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies further resolves:

"a. Private land ownership is hereby abolished, and all land is proclaimed the property of the entire people ... on the principles of egalitarian land tenure.

"b. All forests, mineral wealth, waters of national importance ... and agricultural enterprises are proclaimed the property of the nation.

"c. The Soviet laws ... are ... confirmed ... to guarantee the power of the working people over the exploiters, as a first step towards the complete conversion of factories, mines, railways and other means of production and transportation into the property of the Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Republic.

"d. The Congress of Soviets regards as a first blow at international banking and financial capital, the Soviet law on the annulment of loans negotiated by the governments of the tzar, the landlords and the bourgeoisie ...

"e. To ensure the sovereign power of the working people and to rule out any possibility of restoration of the power of the exploiters, ... the creation of a socialist Red Army of workers and peasants, and the complete disarming of the propertied classes are hereby decreed."

So, before you decide to nationalize the income and the assets of Bs, Ms and greedy corporations, think twice. The America of your dreams, could very well end up looking a whole lot like the workers' paradise formerly known as the USSR. And if you are too young to remember the USSR, take a trip to Cuba.

It's only 90 miles away!

So why defend Bs and Ms (those who have lawfully amassed and lawfully utilize their wealth)?

It is not because I admire them or want to be one of them. It is because I am unwilling to exchange traditional American "equality of opportunity," for Soviet-style "equality of outcome."

As long as America has its Bs and Ms, you and I retain the liberty to become Bs and Ms. I defend them because I won't engage in class warfare, and because I refuse to covet my neighbors' goods. Because if their wealth can be expropriated, so can yours and mine.

Posted Online: Aug. 24, 2011, 2:46 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

America's Problem Isn't Debt Ceiling, It's Our Deficit Spending

It is 1:54 p.m. If at this minute you were to go to U.S. Debt Clock.org, you would see the national debt is $14,554,052,607,778, and rising fast by the second.

You would also see, that this year's federal budget deficit is $1,401,818,811,257 and rising by the second.

President Obama demands the debt ceiling be raised and matter fixed so that the problem will not have to be faced again until after the 2012 election. But assuming Congress passed a clean bill which dealt only with raising the debt ceiling, would that really fix the problem? If you think so, you are delusional.

The debt ceiling is only a symptom of decades of annual deficits. The country incurs a deficit when expenses exceed revenues. It is the deficit that increases the national debt. If we have to raise the debt ceiling by $1.4 trillion it is because we have a $1.4 trillion deficit this fiscal year.

There really are only two ways to eliminate this $1.4 trillion deficit:

-- Raise taxes, or

-- Cut spending. Borrowing only kicks the can down the road, and, because it involves interest payments, it increases the deficit. So anyone who tells you that we can fix the problem simply by raising the debt ceiling is an idiot or a con man. In fact, given roughly the same spending, and the same revenues, a year from now at this time we will have another $1.5 trillion deficit, and will therefore have to raise the debt ceiling by another $1.5 trillion.

So, if you are one of those who believes we can fix the problems by raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (hereinafter called M&Bs), here are figures published by the IRS. Read them, and then draw your own conclusions.

-- The IRS reports that in 2008, 140,436 taxpayers reported incomes greater than $1 million but less than $1.5 million.

-- 59,469 reported incomes greater than $1.5 million, but less than $2 million.

-- 86,329 reported incomes greater than $2 million, but less than $5 million.

-- 21,390 reported incomes greater than $5 million, but less than $10 million.

-- 13,480 reported incomes in excess of $10,000,000.

If you add those numbers, you will find that in 2008 there were 321,000 U. S. taxpayers who reported incomes in excess of $1 million

The same report shows that those M&Bs paid $249,019,545,000 in federal income taxes, after all credits.The total number of taxpayers in 2008 was 90 million. Income tax they paid after, all credits, was just over $1 trillion. As such, 321,000 out of 90 million paid just under 25 percent of all federal income taxes paid in 2008. That means .3 percent of the taxpayers paid 25 percent of all federal income taxes. This year, America will have a $1.5 trillion deficit. That means expenses will exceed revenue by $1.5 trillion.

So what's the solution?

The Republicans say cut $1.5 trillion from this year's budget. The president demands "shared sacrifice." He wants M&Bs to pay their fair share. So what is it? In 2008, the M&Bs paid $250 billion in taxes.Was that "fair" then?

What if we doubled their taxes this year? What if the M&Bs were required to pay $500 billion this year. That would still leave us $1.25 trillion deficit. But, if their taxes were doubled, would they then be paying their "fair share?" Would that be enough "shared sacrifice?"

What if the M&Bs 2011 income tax was quadrupled? That would generate $.75 trillion in new revenues, and would leave us with a deficit of only $750 billion. Would that be their "fair share?" Would that be sufficient "shared sacrifice?"

In 2008, taxpayers -- other than the M&Bs -- paid roughly $.75 trillion in federal income taxes. If the millionaires and billionaires are going to have their taxes quadrupled to raise $.75 trillion in new taxes, perhaps the remaining 99.7 percent of taxpayers would be willing to have their taxes doubled to generate the other $.75 trillion necessary to balance the budget. Would that be "fair?" Would you be willing to "share the sacrifice" to that extent?

Of course, 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. If you would be willing to double what you pay, I am certain they would be willing to double, treble or even quadruple what they pay. I am, of course, not naive enough to think that Americans with taxable incomes of less than $1 million who actually pay taxes, really want to see their taxes doubled. So, if you actually pay taxes, and you don't want them doubled, how much more are you willing to pay to eliminate the deficit? Anything less than a 100 percent increase won't do it, even if taxes are quadrupled on the M&Bs.

And of course if you are only willing to pay an additional 10 percent, why is it "fair" that the M&Bs pay an additional 100 percent or 300 percent -- while 51 percent of the American people pay nothing? At what point does taxing the M&Bs become naked plunder?

The bottom line is this: if you quadruple the income tax the M&Bs pay, you will still have a $.75 trillion deficit. So how much more are you willing to pay to cover the balance?

By the way, as I finish this revision, the U. S. Debt Clock now reads $14,544,068,702,280. And it is 2:25 p.m.

Posted Online: Aug. 18, 2011, 7:55 am - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

The Buck Stops Here, or Does It?

President Harry S Truman had a little sign on his desk which said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

In his farewell address, he explained its meaning for anyone who didn't get it: "The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job:"

When I was in second grade in 1948, Sister Mary Margaret passed out a ballot.

We could vote for either Gov. Dewey or President Truman.The president got only two of 30 votes. One was mine. When President Truman won reelection, I felt a whole lot smarter than the Chicago Tribune. Its Nov. 3, 1948 banner headline, proclaimed: "Dewey Defeats Truman!"

But President Truman wasn't always right.

As a young man in 1922, he flirted with the Ku Klux Klan (although he never was initiated, and never attended a meeting). He also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments in his diary.

His 1946 proposal to draft coal miners into the army to end their strike, would cost him the labor vote today and his 1952 order to his secretary of commerce to seize control of the nation's steel mills, meant to insure a steady supply of steel to the armed forces fighting the Korean War, shocked many Americans. including a majority of the United States Supreme Court, which held that absent Congressional authorization, that the president -- though he was Commander in Chief -- lacked Constitutional power to nationalize an industry -- even in time of war.

Mr. Truman became an "accidental president" when FDR died in April of 1945.

From the day that Harry Truman took office, he came face to face with the "buck."

He had a choice.

He could either "pass the buck," or grapple with it. And whether you approve or disapprove of his decisions, he had the guts to do what he thought was right for America.

Barely four months after he took office, he was faced with the biggest decision any president had ever been forced to make. America had the atom bomb. Should he order it to be dropped on Japan? He did. On Aug. 6, 1945, 140,000 died in Hiroshima. On Aug. 9, 80,000 more were killed in Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on Aug. 14, 1945.

Mr. Truman knew the devastation the bombs would cause, but he also knew that if America tried to invade the Japanese home island that there would be as many as a million American casualties. Many have condemned President Truman for dropping the bombs. But Mr. Truman never backed down.

"I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

Eleanor Roosevelt later said that President Truman had "made the only decision he could." The bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."

But that was only one of Mr. Truman's momentous decisions.

When The Soviet Union threatened to gobble up Greece and Turkey, and perhaps all of war-torn Europe, President Truman announced what has been called the Truman Doctrine: "the policy of the United States to support free people who (were) resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Truman Doctrine changed America's foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from detente to active containment.

Then to give teeth to his policy, Mr. Truman encouraged the U.S. Senate to approve the NATO treaty which said, "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."

When economic chaos in postwar era portended a communist takeover of the European democracies, President Truman authorized implementation of the Marshall Plan.

When Russia tried to cut off Berlin from the West, President Truman ordered th the Berlin Airlift to break the Berlin Blockade, even though he could not be sure that Russia would not respond with military action.

In an effort to avoid further wars, President Truman backed the formation of the United Nations.

When Hubert Humphrey demanded a strong civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, Harry Truman embraced it, notwithstanding the fact that Strom Thurmond would bolt the convention, split the Democratic Party and run as a "Dixiecrat."

Then putting his "money were his mouth was," Harry Truman two weeks later, issued Executive Order 9981, which racially integrated the U.S. Armed Services -- knowing this would cost him the support of many in his party.

And then, overcoming his youthful anti-Semitic attitudes, Harry S. Truman, notwithstanding dire warnings of a potential Arab backlash, which might result in loss of access to Middle East oil, recognized the state of Israel in May of 1948 -- 11 minutes after Israel declared itself a nation!

And of course, when General Douglas MacArthur, one of America's greatest heroes, forgot who was commander-in-chief, Harry S Truman fired him, knowing that his decision would be wildly unpopular.

So why do I call myself the "last Truman Democrat?" Because Harry Truman had the guts to try to put the good of the country above partisan politics.

Were he president today, there'd be no sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stopped with George Bush."




Posted Online: Aug. 04, 2011, 10:35 am - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

The IRS: America's Income Redistriction Service!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said, "we must simplify and streamline our broken tax system ... so everyone pays his or her fair share -- including corporations."

President Obama never tires of calling for "shared sacrifice."

At roughly the same time, Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News reported that "More than half of American households (51 percent) pay no income tax."

His guest, Neal Boortz, added that many of the "poor," rather than paying federal income tax, instead receive checks from the federal government. So, in effect, the government is paying a reverse "tax" to the poor. Is this "shared sacrifice?"

So, what is the fair share that the "rich" should be paying? What is the fair share that corporations should be paying? What is the fair share the "poor" should be paying? But perhaps, more importantly, who gets to say what amounts to a fair share? And who gets to label someone as "rich" or "poor?"

Let's take a simple example. A single man makes $1 million a year on a device that he spent 10 years of his life inventing. What is the fair share he should pay in federal income tax: 20 percent; 40 percent; 60 percent; 90 percent?

And who gets to say so? People with comparable incomes? The 51 percent who pay no federal income tax? Congressmen who are elected by the 51 percent who pay no federal income tax?

Let's take a second simple example. A single man earns $10,000 a year? What is his fair share: 0 percent; 5 percent; 10 percent; 15 percent? And who gets to say so?

At the outset, I don't think it is possible for one who pays no tax to claim he is paying any "share," much less his fair share. When a person "shares" he gives a portion of what he has to another.

Giving your neighbor nothing is not "sharing." It's doing nothing. In Mark's Gospel, we have the story of a poor widow who put two coins worth a few cents into the temple treasury. Christ praised her because she gave from her livelihood, rather than from her surplus. Would He have done so if she had walked by and given nothing? Would that have been "shared sacrifice?"

Is a fair share nothingmore than a percentage? Or, does it take account of the efforts that the wage earner expended to earn his income? Does it take account of the fact that nobody else lifted a finger to help him earn his income? Does it take account of how hard the wage earner worked? His genius in earning the income? What he spent to educate himself to be able to generate the income he has achieved?

What is fair about a married couple earning $250,000 paying 35 percent of their income as federal income tax? Is it more or less fair to say they should pay 50 percent? Where is the line between "fair" and "arbitrary?"

And is it "fair" that someone who earns $10,000 a year, and receives a free public education, medical care and food stamps, should have a right to vote to increase his neighbor's income tax, if he pays no income tax himself. Is it "fair" for someone with "no skin in the game" to have a vote to raise taxes on whoever he labels "rich" without voting to raise his own taxes -- at least a little?

By the way, when does one become "rich?" Or is "rich" like "fair share" in the eye of the beholder?

In a democracy, the majority rules. And that is precisely what bothers me. Since the passage of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes, the courts have never deemed any income tax to be a Fifth Amendment "confiscation of private property for public use," so as to require the government to pay "just compensation" for the "taking" (via taxation).

With the passage of the 16th Amendment, the only "check" upon the government setting income tax rates on the "rich" at 75 percent or even 99 percent, or determining that anyone with an income as small as $25,000 was "rich," has been the fact that everybody paid some tax, and that nobody liked paying more taxes.

Now that 51 percent of "taxpayers" pay no taxes, it is not going to take long before they figure out that it is in their best interest to elect congress and a president who will tax the "rich" at higher and higher rates, and who will insure that those who pay no taxes will be left alone.

The income tax will clearly be shown to be what it is fast becoming: a legal system for plundering your neighbor. As long as everybody is adversely affected by tax increases, there is a practical, if not constitutional, "check" on taxes being raised: self interest. But once 51 percent of the people believe they are unaffected by tax increases on their "wealthy" neighbors, that "check" is gone.

So, as the Internal Revenue Service morphs into the Income Redistribution Service, there is at least some good news:

We will still be able to call the tax collector the IRS.


Posted Online: July 20, 2011, 2:51 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea

How Long Can Illinois Physicians Afford to See Medicaid Patients?

In 2010, Illinois spent $15.5 billion to provide medical care for the poor, according to a recent Associate Press article. (Up from $7.5 billion in 2000.)

The U.S. Census Bureau says that the 2010 Illinois population was 12,830,632. By simple division, the average cost to each resident of Illinois to pay for medical care for the poor is $1,200 per year.

The same said that under the budget passed by the Illinois Legislature, doctors and hospitals have been promised virtually the same fees for services rendered to those on Medicaid that they had received during the prior year. But the amount budgeted to pay for those fees is $1.2 billion short.

The shortfall, however, is only part of the problem. In addition, there are $6 billion of overdue and unpaid medical bills from prior years. Therefore, next year at this time, it appears that there will be $7.2 billion in unpaid medical bills.

Doctors and hospitals will have to wait longer to be paid. A spokesman for the governor suggests a 30-day payment wait might be expected to increase to 120 days.

But is that for "new" bills, or for the bills already six months overdue? In light of this, what can the doctors and the hospitals say other than, "It's better to be paid money eventually, than not to get it at all."

But if doctors and hospitals know they will get paid "eventually," and "eventually" gets 20 percent longer each year, how long will it be before the doctors and the hospitals can no longer wait for "eventually" to happen?

When you buy food from the grocery store and eat it within a few days, it's a little unfair to promise the grocer you will pay him in six months or so. If your grocer is required to pay within 30 days for the meat and potatoes he sells in his store, how is he going to pay his supplier and employees if you don't pay him?

When I was a boy, our family doctor was Dr. Cahill. I don't ever recall going to his office, but I recall him making a house call when I got the chicken pox. But medicine has changed.

Today the practice of medicine is more complex. The doctor is assisted by a clerk/receptionist, an office nurse, a scheduler, an insurance billing assistant, a Medicare billing assistant, etc.

These employees all have to be paid, and the doctor doesn't have the luxury of telling his staff he will pay them in six months or whenever he "eventually" gets paid by the State of Illinois.

When a doctor is forced to wait six months to be paid for seeing Medicaid patients, he had better have a sufficient number of privately insured patients to allow him to meet his employee payroll, to pay for his malpractice insurance, to pay the rent on his office, to pay himself a reasonable salary, etc.

If he doesn't, he won't be in business when "eventually" finally comes. I don't think Dr. Cahill faced these problems.

I think it is fair to say that the state's ability to pay doctors and hospitals isn't going to improve as long as the economy remains in the doldrums, and tax revenues remain low. But then, what happens when Obamacare kicks in?

What happens to those doctors and hospitals who, because of private insurance payments, are now able to wait six months to be paid for services rendered to Medicaid patients?

If doctors' revenues fall sharply, what does that do to their ability to see Medicaid patients, and wait months to be paid? If doctors has to see more non-Medicaid patients (because those patients no longer have private insurance) to keep their revenues at pre-Obamacare levels, does this mean that the doctors and the hospitals will have less time to see Medicaid patients?

I don't know. But if a doctor is used to a certain level of income, and what he can charge patients is reduced, he will need to see more patients to generate the same income. And I suspect, that means, he will be able to see fewer of the poorest patients.

Especially, if the state cuts fees paid, or turns "eventually" into something even longer.



Posted Online: July 6, 2011, 2:53 p. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea



John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.

Does it Matter that a Congressman Is a Liar?

Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., has resigned.

So, what had he done that required him to do so? Sent inappropriate photos of himself to women? Demonstrated deplorable judgment? Lied?

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., himself censured for ethics violations by the House a year ago, purports to be nonplussed at all the fuss. He sees Mr. Weiner's conduct only as something of a sexual nature. Mr. Rangel describes himself as someone who "knows immoral sex when I hear it." Mr. Rangel also sees the bright side of things: "(Mr. Weiner) wasn't going with prostitutes; he wasn't going out with little boys; he wasn't going into men's' rooms." Rangel would have us believe that he doesn't "know why they're selecting Anthony;" and adds "he can be an effective congressman, if the press just gets ... his back." Rangel ostensibly appears to be blissfully unconcerned that Mr. Weiner might have demonstrated deplorable judgment, or that he has now confessed to being a willful liar.

So, is it important for a member of Congress to always act with integrity and good judgment? Fifty-two percent of the people polled in Weiner's district apparently don't think so.

Would they reach the same conclusion if Mr. Weiner were a judge?

Assume "Judge Weiner" enjoyed the best of health, was a brilliant, tireless worker and possessed a saintly judicial temperament. Would they vote for him, if they knew he was a persistent liar with deplorable judgment?

Years ago, a prominent local attorney told me that "a man has no business being a judge if he lacks integrity." I unreservedly agree. And I would also add that the bench is no place for a man with puerile judgment.

Judges with integrity decide cases on their merits. They don't take bribes. They recuse themselves if they feel they can't be fair to both sides. They don't listen to ex parte communications. They don't accept "gifts" from attorneys or litigants, and they don't make rulings calculated to advance their judicial careers. Judges with good judgment don't do things, on or off the bench, that they know will cause embarrassment to themselves, their families or to the judicial system.

Integrity is the public's guarantee that the judge will conscientiously apply the law, and exercise his best judgment to determine the facts so as to make the legally correct ruling.

But what about Congressmen? A judge without integrity harms or improperly benefits only the litigants who appear in his court. A congressman by voting for the passage of a law can harm -- or benefit -- millions.

On June 6, 2011, Weiner faced the press and admitted, "I lied."

Weiner said he panicked when Andrew Breitbart revealed a picture that Weiner had put on the Internet, so he made up a story about his account being hacked.

Only when the noose tightened, did Mr. Weiner admit, , "I have made terrible mistakes. ... I have not been honest. The picture was of me and I sent it... I lied because I was embarrassed."

Supporters argued that his sexual proclivities are private matters (even though the congressman published them on the Internet?). They've told us he's "smart," and suggest his brilliance makes him indispensable.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. Either a man has integrity, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. Or should we be satisfied with congressmen who lie only 50 percent of the time, or just when it is to his advantage to do so?

Equally bad, is Mr. Weiner's appalling lack of judgment. What he is really saying is that he used terrible judgment by making salacious suggestions online, and in putting pictures of himself on the Internet. Then when it looked like he would be embarrassed by what he did, he used more bad judgment and decided to lie to see if he could get away with it. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying to the press at a press conference. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying from his congressional office. And now he has been forced to admit that by his lies and bad judgment, he brought himself and his office of public trust into disrepute.

Before resigning, Mr. Weiner asked forgiveness. Implicit in that, is that was that he expected us to forget that he is a brazen liar, and a man of reprehensible judgment. But why should we? We had conclusive evidence that he would repeatedly lie to save his skin. We were asked to believe that in other matters he would act with integrity in the future. But why should be believe that a congressman who has demonstrated me-first ethics will put the public welfare first in all matter?

The real question is can the republic survive if we entrust it to politicians who lie and attempt to cover their lies whenever it is to their advantage to do so?


Posted Online: June 28, 2011, 5:00 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea

Undertaxed? Depends on What You Demand from Washington

The Associated Press tells us that there is a "dirty little secret that most Americans don't want to hear: We're under taxed." AP argues that Americans are under taxed because federal income taxes are less than 18 percent of gross domestic product (the historic average).

So are you under taxed?

Your answer may depend upon whether you are one of the 50 percent who pays federal income tax, or the other 50 percent who doesn't. Of course, it is entirely possible that you believe that only your neighbor should be paying more.

But I would argue whether you are under taxed really depends on what you demand of Washington.

Very few Americans today realize that from 1787 up until the Civil War in 1861, no American paid any federal income tax. In those days, the federal government paid its way with imposts and excises taxes. At least after 1816, if a British manufacturer wanted to sell his manufactured goods in the U. S., he had to pay a duty or an import tax to get them in. Somebody who turned corn into liquor for sale to his fellow Americans, had to pay an excise tax.

The income tax is what is know as a direct tax. A direct tax is a tax on individuals or their property. A direct tax is the opposite of a requisition. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to levy a direct tax. The articles limited Congress to making "requisitions" upon the state governments. Then it was up to the states to levy the tax for the federal government -- which they often failed to do.

This "defect" in the articles, was one major reason why the Founding Fathers created our present Constitution.

But our Founding Fathers were not fools. They gave Congress the power to levy direct taxes, but out of fear that a majority might abuse that power to tax the minority for the majority's benefit, they required that direct taxes had to be in "proportion to the census."

During the Civil War, the courts looked the "other way" when Congress passed a federal income tax to finance the war. But when Congress reinstated the federal income tax after the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as a "direct tax" not in "proportion to the census."

It was not until 1913, that the 16th Amendment was passed that Congress was given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source, without apportionment among the several states.

The point is this: There were many generations of Americans who would have disagreed when the AP claims we're under taxed, and that we should pay more federal income tax. Equally inane is the AP contention that unless the income tax is at least 18 percent of gross domestic product, (the historic average) that we are under taxed.

The difference between Americans of today, and Americans of the period before the Civil War, is this: Americans of today want governmental services and subsidies.

In ante-bellum America, there was sharp disagreement between the New England states and the Western states over whether it was even constitutional to use public revenues to finance public improvements, such as a "national road."

The Erie Canal was built with state, and not federal money. And there was near violent disagreement between the manufacturing states of the North, and the agricultural South over the tariff.

The manufacturers of the North wanted protection against cheap foreign manufacturers. The South wanted to buy imported goods without paying a tax to do so.

In pre-Civil War America, the federal government didn't need to tax the American people at least 18 percent of the gross domestic product because it wasn't in the business of providing all the subsidies and services to the American people that modern Americans demand.

Have you ever heard of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)? According to the General Services Administration, which publishes the catalog, the CFDA is a compendium of federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. It contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the Federal government.

The catalog provides a full listing or all 2,135 federal assistance programs that you fund when you pay your federal taxes, as well as detailed descriptions of those 2,135 programs. According to the CFDA, your tax dollars go to fund programs o :

-- State and local governments;

-- Federally-recognized Indian tribal governments;

-- Territories (and possessions) of the United States;

-- Domestic public, quasi-public organizations;

-- Private profit and nonprofit organizations;

-- Specialized groups; and individuals.

According to the CFDA's May 2 update, when you pay federal taxes you are supporting 427 subsidy programs of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as a plethora of subsidy programs controlled by other agencies, including, 231 subsidy programs of the Department of Agriculture, 220 of the Department of the Interior, 170 of the Department of Education, and 125 out of the Department of Justice.

There was a time when Americans did not have 2,135 federal assistance programs.

If you want 2,135 such programs, then the AP may be right. You deserve to pay higher taxes. There is no free lunch.




Posted Online: May 20, 2011, 2:34 pm - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea

Do You Really Know How Much Tax You pay? Does Anyone?

Recently, I opined that how much federal income tax you should pay depends on what benefits you demand of government. Now, I suggest that to answer that question intelligently, you also need know what other taxes you are paying.

Assume you are single executive without dependents and an adjusted gross income of $155,000, with a home assessed at $400,000. On that, you will be paying these very "conspicuous" taxes:

-- Federal income tax: $30,000;

-- Illinois 5 percent income tax: $7,600;

-- Rock Island County real estate tax: $10,900;

-- FICA (6.25 percent on first $106,800 of earnings): $6,675;

-- Medicare (1.45 percent): $2,500;

-- Sales tax (city, 1 percent and State 6.25 percent) $1,500.

That totals roughly $59,000, or about 38 percent of your adjusted gross income. But is that all the taxes you pay? If you think it is, you need a court-appointed guardian. Apart from inflation, there are a plethora of "hidden taxes" you pay -- perhaps unknowingly. Modern government provides a vast range of service for the citizen, as diverse as maintaining an army, paying government pensions and collecting garbage.

Most hidden taxes seem small. But some, like sewer and water, are significant.And they come at your from almost every direction, and in many guises. That quarterly $150 "user fee" you pay for city water and sewer adds up to $600 per year.

The $3.81 you pay each month on your cable bill adds up to an annual tax of $46. The $12.83 "taxes, governmental surcharges and fees" you find each month on your cell phone bill multiplies out to $154 a year. The $2.54 you pay each month for your landline phone adds up to an annual tax of $30. If your electric bill runs $35 per month, over a year you will pay $31 in taxes.

If your natural gas bill runs $150 per month, over 12 months your sundry taxes will run about $102. If you use 12 gallons a gas per week for your car, in addition to general sales taxes, you will pay 37.4 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes, or $233 annually.

And if you buy 600 gallons of gasoline per year at $3.85 per gallon, you will pay a $70 a fuel storage tank tax. That's another $1,400 per year. Hidden federal taxes include:

-- A gasoline tax of about 18.4 cents per gallon;

-- Cigarette tax at $1 per pack;

-- Telecommunication's tax at 3 percent on local calls;

- Air travel tax at 7.5 percent of the price of a domestic airline ticket, plus $3.70 for each segment of the trip;

-- Alcoholic beverages taxed at $13.50 per proof gallon;

-- New truck excise tax at 12 percent of the purchase price;

-- Vaccine tax at 75 cents per dose,

-- Indoor tanning tax, at 10 percent of price;

-- Taxes on sporting goods, fishing equipment, 10 percent tax on price; Archery equipment, 45 cents per shaft and 11 percent of the sales price per quiver; shotguns, rifles and ammo at 11 percent of the sales price, and handguns and ammo at 10 percent of the sales price;

-- Tax on coal mined underground or on surface, 4.4 percent of sales price.

Not to be outdone, Illinois also imposes "hidden taxes." Included are:

-- State gasoline tax at 19 cents per gallon, plus a 3 percent underground storage tanks tax;

-- State cigarette tax at 98 cents per pack;

-- State taxes on alcohol; liquor at $8.55 per gallon, table wine at $1.39 per gallon, beer at 23 cents per gallon;

-- An electricity excise tax at the rate of a third-of-a-cent per kilowatt hour; a gas utility tax at the lower of 5 percent of current charges before taxes or 2.4 cents per therm;

-- Illinois Commerce Commission tax at one tenth-of-a-cent;

-- Telecommunications tax at the rate of 7 percent;

-- A 911 fee at 73 cents per month.

And then there are municipal taxes. In Moline we have:

-- A hotel/motel use Tax of 2 percent of rental charge, a hotel/motel operators' occupation tax at 5 percent of all gross rental receipts and a special service area motel/hotel tax at 1 percent of all gross rental receipts;

-- A 2 percent tax on premiums paid to foreign fire insurance companies;

-- Motor fuel tax of a penny per per gallon;

-- A 1 percent sales tax;

-- An amusement tax of 3 percent of admission for venues over 8,000 seats;

-- A video tax at the rate of 5 percent of gross receipts;

-- A prepared food and liqore tax at 1.5 percent of the sales price;

-- A utility tax of 3 percent of gross receipts which is scheduled to increase to 5 percent;

-- An electrical usage tax of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, which will increase to 36.6 per k/hr on Jan. 12, 2012.

Then, of course, we pay for water at $25 per month, plus $3.80 for each 1,000 gallons used, and for sewer at$20 per month, and $4.08 for each 1,000 gallons of water metered. And if you buy a new car that gets 22 mpg, you will pay a $1,000 "gas guzzler" tax; $7,700 if it gets less than 12.5 mpg.

And the list goes on: building permits, license plates, driver and commercial drivers licenses, court fines and cost, dog licenses, fishing and hunting licenses, marriage licenses, fees to record deeds and mortgages, fees for birth and death certificates, septic tank permits, recreational vehicle taxes, road and bridge tolls, fees to dispose of used motor oil and dead batteries.

So if you are one of those people not content with paying a mere 38 percent of your income in the six "conspicuous" taxes I described, you might want to calculate how much you are paying in "hidden taxes" before you lead the charge to raise income taxes.Or if you are guilt-ridden over your untaxed income, feel free to donate it to the government.

Governments like hidden taxes.

How much do you pay?

Do you know?

Does anyone?



Posted Online: June 16, 2011, 9:09 am - Quad-Cities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea


Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea