Why Should Israel Be Worried?

Israel is a very small nation of about 8,000 square miles. It is 263 miles long, and 9-7 miles wide. It could fit into Florida eight times.

On Aug. 15, according to a report from the respected Middle East Media Research Institute, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated, "As the morning star once rose on the Islamic Revolution's victory (in Iran) ... it will again rise, (this time,) on the cause of Palestine, and this Islamic land will undoubtedly be restored to the Palestinian nation, (while) the superfluous, mendacious and false Zionist (regime) will be eradicated from the geographical landscape..."

During the first eight months of 2012, Iranian proxies have fired some 353 rockets into Israel -- rockets supplied by Iran. So, if you live in Israel, can you risk allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Until recently, the United States has had a "special relationship" with Israel. Indeed, the 2008 Democrat Platform said exactly that.

"Our starting point (for our Middle East Policy) must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

In furtherance of the U. S. "commitment to the security of Israel," the 2008 platform went on to say, "The United States and its ... partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements."

The platform also recognized that, if Israel was to be a defensible nation, it was unrealistic to require thatIsrael give all land that it had won at war since 1949. "All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return (by Israel) to the armistice lines of 1949."

Finally, the platform stated, "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

Compare that with the 2012 Democrat Platform, as originally adopted.

" President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security.

"For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years.

"The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in the region.

"And we have deepened defense cooperation -- including funding the Iron Dome system -- to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

"The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.

"It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

"A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

"At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel.

"We will continue to support Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years.

"And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements."

If you are the Israeli prime minister, why would you be nervous? Clearly, the 2012 Democrat platform didn't unequivocally throw Israel under the bus, but equally clearly, there were four unequivocal assurances that were deleted, which could not have been reassuring:

-- The "special relationship."

-- America's promise to "isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism."

-- Support for not returning to "1949 borders," and

-- The plank about "Jerusalem being the capital of Israel."

(That latter provision was voted back in by a "floor vote" at the 2012 convention, where notwithstanding the ruling of the chair, it sounded like delegates voted against putting it back in. )

So, why would the Israeli prime minister want a face-to-face meeting with the U.S. President? Why would he want the U. S. to draw a a "red line" or a "line in the sand" saying to the Iranians that it mean war with the U. S. for Iran to cross that nuclear line?

And of course, what does it look like to Israel when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and allows Iraq to come unraveled? When the American president announces a "deadline" for America to leave Afghanistan? When we stands idle as the Syrian dictator murders his own people? When America "leads from the rear" in Libya? And when the America apologizes for a YouTube video while its ambassador is murdered, and its embassies are demolished all over the Muslim world? If we can't protect our own embassies, why would the Israelis believe we will protect them?

Given that, if you were Israel, would you strike Iran while you still had the chance -- before Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, which in the words of the "Supreme Leader" would enable Iran to "eradicate Israel"?

Posted Online: :   Sept. 25, 2012, 1:38 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Are You Really Better Off? Crunch the Numbers Yourself

Candidates in both parties are asking, "Are you financially better off now than you were four years ago?" What do you think? Are you?

Here are a few statistics.

-- The number of persons said to be living in poverty in January 2009 was 39.8 million. Today that number is 43.6 million.

-- The August jobs report released Sept. 7 revealed that 368,000 Americans simply gave up looking for work. That number was nearly four times larger than the 96,000 people who actually found jobs. The government also reported that the "labor force participation rate" fell to 63.5 percent — the lowest figure since September of 1981.

-- In January 2009, the national debt was $10.627 trillion. Today it is over $16 trillion. There are about 300 million Americans. Therefore, your share of the national debt in January 2009 was roughly $35,000. Today, it is roughly $53,000. But there are problems with these numbers.

First, they are impersonal. They are huge numbers, but unless you are living in poverty, or unemployed, they are just numbers to you.

Second, while they are government statistics, we hesitate to rely on them because, in the words of a great 19th-century British statesman, "figures lie, and liars figure." For you, therefore, to accurately answer the question, "Are you better off?" I think it is better to look at the more immediate things that affect your daily life.

I have formulated a series of questions, which should make it very clear whether you were better off in January 2009 than you are now.

-- What was your salary in January 2009? What is it now? What was the percentage increase (or decrease)?

-- If you are on pension, what was your monthly pension benefit in January 2009? What is it now?

-- If you are on a pension, was the Legislature or your employer looking for a way to reduce your pension in January 2009? Is it now?

-- What was your health insurance situation in January 2009? Have you lost health insurance? Has your employer reduced the share he or she paid? Increased the share you pay? If you're a state employee or retiree, is the Legislature requiring you to pay more or is it about to?

-- What was the value of your home in January 2009? What is it today? Are you current on your mortgage, or underwater?

-- Has the cost of schooling your children increased? College? Grad school?

-- Are you paying state income tax today at a rate in effect in January 2009? Or has the Legislature increased it?

-- Has your municipality increased sewer rates? Water rates?

-- Are you paying the same real estate tax you were paying in January 2009?

-- Do you have cable? Are you paying the same monthly amount you were in January 2009?

-- The average price of gasoline in January 2009 was $1.83 per gallon. What are you paying today?

-- When you go to the grocery store, are you paying more or less? Here are a few of my comparisons from my receipts:

16 oz. peanut butter (4/5/09) -- $1.47; 28 oz. peanut butter summer 2012, $4.

16 oz. strawberries (4/5/09) -- $1.77. 32 oz strawberries summer 2012 --$4.99.

1 gallon skim milk (8/15/09) -- $1.79. Summer of 2012 -- $2.99.

18 oz. Oreo Cookies (4/5/09) -- $2. 16.6 oz Oreo Cookies Summer 2012 -- $2.49

2 qt. Breyers Ice Cream (4/5/09) -- $2.50. 1.5 qt. Breyers Ice Cream Summer of 2012 -- $3.

You should be able to calculate whether you income has increased more than your expenses, or vice-versa.

If your income has increased more than your expenses, you should be in better shape financially. If not, you are probably in worse shape.

It looks to me like things are going from bad to worse. And, with the present administration, I see no meaningful plan to make things better.

The president's plan would raise taxes. Those paying a marginal tax rate of 36 percent would see their rate increase to 39.6 percent. The Heritage Foundation reports that in 2011 the federal income tax on individuals raised $1,091,500,000,000.

But for ease of understanding, assume that every taxpayer's federal income tax was raised by 3.6 percent on all income (which clearly won't be the case!). That would raise a tad less than $40 billion per year.

But when you consider that the White House's Office of Management and Budget projects that the 2012 deficit will be, $1.33 trillion, you're talking about less than 4 percent of that figure -- a drop in the bucket!

It is for that reason that I give the president's plan to tax the "rich" an extra 3.6 percent a vote of no confidence.

The simple truth is this, 50 percent of the American people paid $1.091 trillion in income tax during 2011. If each of them paid 100 percent more (rather than 3.6 percent more), it would raise an additional $1.091 trillion -- not enough to cover the projected 2012 deficit of $1.33 trillion. The president's plan is nonsense.

It's good class warfare and good politics, but the numbers simply don't work.

Posted Online: :  Sept. 19, 2012, 2:16 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Hope and Change Is a Soundbite, Not Serious Policy

"The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairman, Democratic National Committee

The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds should be mandatory reading for any American planning to vote in November. It is not a partisan document.

Three of the six trustees are prominent Democrats and members of the Obama administration: Timothy F. Geithner, Treasury secretary, Hilda L. Solis, Labor Secretary and Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services secretary.

The Medicare program has two components:

Hospital Insurance (HI), otherwise known as Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital, home health, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled.

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled.

Part D provides subsidized access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries and premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees.

(Medicare also has a Part C, which serves as an alternative to traditional Part A and Part B coverage. Under this option, beneficiaries can choose to enroll in and receive care from private "Medicare Advantage" and certain other health insurance plans that contract with Medicare. These plans receive prospective, capitated payments for such beneficiaries from the HI and SMI Part B trust fund accounts.)

So, what shape is Medicare in? According to the Medicare Trustees, "The estimated exhaustion date for the HI trust fund (Part A) remains at 2024 .... As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years."

Things are not as gloomy for the SMI component. "The SMI trust fund is adequately financed over the next 10 years and beyond because premium and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to match expected costs."

But if Medicare Part A fund is estimated to be "exhausted" in 2024, what will seniors do in 2024? If the fund is "exhausted" it isn't going to be there to pay for "physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled." Such payments as are made, will be reduced, and paid only from current revenues.

If the Medicare Part A fund will be "exhausted" in 2024, the head in the sand approach is abject stupidity. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (speaking of Social Security) says, "The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." But when the fund is heading to exhaustion in 12 years, doesn't doing nothing amount to "putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans?"

At the minute, there is only one candidate running for the presidency or vice-presidency who has put a plan to fix Medicare on the table. The response by the president, vice president and the Democrats has been to accuse that candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, the only guy with the guts to put a plan on the table, of "wanting to push grandma and her wheelchair off the cliff."

Here is what Mr. Ryan writes on his website:

"It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America's health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America's social contract with retired workers."

Not content with that "broad statement of principles," candidate Ryan proposes remedies to take effect in 2023, when those presently 55 and under begin to reach retirement age.

"Beginning in 2023, when workers currently under the age of 55 become eligible for Medicare, seniors would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange.

"Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.

"The Medicare Exchange would provide all seniors with a competitive marketplace where they could chose a plan the same way members of Congress do.

"All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs.

"Health care plans would compete for the right to serve Medicare beneficiaries."

What is clear is that Mr. Ryan's remedy:

-- Does not effect current retirees.

Would be applicable only to people presently 55 and under who will reach retirement in 2023 or after.

-- Would give Americans reaching retirement age in 2023 a choice, to go with "a traditional Medicare Plan," or a "private plan."

Congressman Ryan's plan may be good or bad. But at least he has had the guts to put it on the table for debate. Calling Mr. Ryan or his plan names does not seriously address the issue. Running political ads showing a Ryan look-a-like pushing an old lady off the cliff is not serious discussion.

We deserve more from President Obama and the Democrats. What are the details of his plan to keep Part A from becoming exhausted? Doing nothing and avoiding the issue is not a "plan."

Medicare Part A is going broke. "Hope and Change" without more will not save Medicare. Where is the Harry Truman-type of leadership?

Posted Online: :  Sept. 09, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share