Are Today's Values Better than our Parents'?

What happens when the people of a nation turn their backs on the values of the preceding generation?

My father was born in 1902. He lived through WWI, Prohibition, the Great Depression, WWII and the Korean War.

He witnessed the civil rights movement and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and he watched as Americans landed on the moon. These events and others shaped my dad's values and the way he lived his life.
And while I watched television, dad read books. I can recall him telling me about the Horatio Alger books he had read as a boy, and how the heroes always succeeded through brains and hard work. I recently read one such Alger book, The Young Salesman.

One reviewer, has described the "Alger philosophy" as "strive and succeed." And he lists the element of Alger's philosophy: hard work, study (informal rather than formal), loyalty, abstaining from alcohol, frugal living, importance of dress and personal grooming, personal integrity, speaking and writing effectively, non-creedal religious values, avoidance of violence and revenge, speaking the whole truth, protecting the weak and unfortunate, duty to mother and/or sisters, courtesy, accepting the success of others, emphasis on a secure home, accepting assistance of benefactors, expectation and acceptance of own success, eschewing class hatred.

Dad said after reading Alger's works, he decided he wanted to make his living as a salesman. And that's what he did. But perhaps, being an Irishman, it was too much to expect he would abstain from alcohol. Indeed when Prohibition ended, dad went to work as a liquor salesman and "opened up Indiana."

But dad accepted, with perhaps that one exception, all of the other Alger values. He worked all his life; the idea of living off the dole was utterly un-American to him.

When his siblings needed financial help, dad helped. When his sister-in-law died, he brought her son into our home, and raised him as his own.
By his reading, he was self-educated. I was always amazed at his grasp of history and geography, and his understanding of government. I can recall him explaining clearly the meaning of a "blue-ribbon grand jury" to me when I asked what it meant after hearing the term, while listening on the radio to "Twenty Questions."

I can also recall absolute loyalty to my mother, his parents, his friends and his family.

I can recall that after WWII, when his future employer asked him to take the job of his friend with whom he had sold liquor just after the end of Prohibition, dad declined and told the employer to keep Sam on, and that he (dad) would work under Sam. Only if it became clear that Sam could not return, would he take Sam's place.

Dad and mom also opted to live within their means. Except in the case of their mortgage, they never bought "on time." Alger was reinforced by the lessons of the Great Depression.

Dad also accepted the idea of wearing a businessman's suit. I recall that when occasionally he played softball with us, he would wear suit pants and winged-tipped shoes. And on his daily afternoon round of golf, he dressed as the pros dressed. Shorts were never worn.

Dad said what he meant, and meant what he said. He had an unquestioned reputation for integrity. The notion that he might tell a lie to benefit himself was utterly foreign to him.

Dad was a divorced Catholic, yet he put his boys through Catholic grade school, high school, and college. He supported the church, and the high school generously, yet after his divorce, remarriage, and excommunication, he never again attended Mass.

When as a child I took it upon myself to lecture one of his friends on the superiority of the Catholic Church over the Episcopal Church, dad interrupted and asked, "Are you a bigot?"

One day when I was 5 I used the "n" word. Dad said, "I don't want you to ever use that word again. That word is disrespectful and is meant to hurt the negro's feeling. Don't use it." And one afternoon when a gentile member of the country club verbally abused a new Jewish member, dad intervened and said, "Stan, cut it out. He has as much right to be here as you do."

Dad believed in the Golden Rule. He held non-creedal religious values. He treated everybody with courtesy and respect. I never knew him to be jealous of the success of others. Instead he admired success.

And like his wealthy friends, he expected to succeed, and expected his boys to succeed. But still, he never cared about being rich.

It was enough for him that his job gave him financial comfort and security he hadn't known during the Depression, and provided his family with a secure home, and a quality education for his sons.

Horatio Alger's philosophy was my dad's philosophy. And without quite realizing it, I think it has also been largely mine. But is it the philosophy of modern America?

And if not, why not?

What was wrong with them?

Posted Online:  April 24, 2013, 2:13 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Why not Abolish Taxation and Simply Fire up the Printing Press?

If I have $1,000 in "savings," if a loaf of bread sells for $1, and if I have no other expenses, I can buy one loaf of bread daily for 1,000 days. But if the price of bread increases to $1,000 per loaf, my $1,000 will buy only one loaf of bread.

Donald Trump tells us -- daily, it seems -- that China is "manipulating" its currency to our detriment. But are our president and our Federal Reserve playing an equally clever (cynical?) game?

Traditionally, the Fed has managed our nation's money supply by raising or lowering its interest rate target for the inter-bank interest rate. The Fed generally achieves its target by selling government bonds to banks and other financial institutions, or by buying them back. When the Fed receives payment for these bonds, it decreases the amount of money in the economy, and when it pays for what it buys, it increases the amount of money in circulation -- while simultaneously affecting the price and yield of these government bonds.

But when the nominal interest rate is at zero or near zero, the Fed cannot lower the interest rate further. The Fed is left with its alternative of "last resort:" Quantitative Easing (QE). In that case, the Fed alters the supply of money in the economy without reference to increasing or decreasing interest rates, by buying bonds (or other assets) from the banks and other financial institutions. As it pays for its purchase, the Fed increases the money supply -- for the purposes of stimulating growth in the nation's economy.

Quantitative Easing No 1, or QE1, began on Nov. 25, 2008 when the Fed stated it would buy $600 billion in agency mortgage back securities (MSB) and debt. On March 18, 2009, the Fed advised it would expand the program and buy an additional $750 billion to purchase agency MSBs, and $300 billion to buy Treasury securities. (agencies in question are "Government-sponsored Enterprises," such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

QE2 was announced on Nov. 10, 2010 when the Fed stated it would buy $600 billion in longer-term treasury securities, at the rate of $75 billion per month.

QE3 was announced on Sept. 13, 2010 when the Fed stated it would make an "open-ended commitment" to purchase $40 billion in agency MSBs per month, until the labor market improved.

QE4 was announced on Dec. 12, 2012. This time, the Fed say it would authorize the purchase of up to $40 billion of agency MSBs per month, and would purchase $45 billion in longer-term Treasury securities per month. Through December 2012, the Fed pumped $2.9 trillion into the U.S. economy. So where did the Fed get that $2.9 trillion? From its printing press. It prints it!

So, is QE all bad? I don't think so. And if I don't, you can bet the president and the members of the Fed don't think so either.

The money that goes into the U. S. economy is spent to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, and manufactured goods from China, etc. In return, they get our money. We get oil. The Saudis get "paper." We get computers and TVs. The Chinese get "paper." Our cars run better on oil than on paper, and I would prefer to write my op-eds on a computer rather than on paper. Therefore, at first glance, what the president and Fed are doing appears to be utterly brilliant.

But there clearly is a downside at present, and in the near future there may be a disastrous downside. When we pay the Saudis and Chinese in paper, they can bring the paper into this country and buy goods, buildings and lands. And then American sellers end up holding the paper!

At present, that is not awful, but as more and more money is put in circulation by the Fed, the value of the money Americans hold in savings declines -- loses its purchasing power. For example, a short while back you could purchase an 18 oz. package of Oreo Cookies for $2.50, or less. Today, a 13 oz package of Oreos commonly runs $3.50. The beauty of that is, that the U.S. dollars that the Saudis and Chinese hold also lose their purchasing power. But it takes more dollars from savings to buy a gallon of Saudi gas.

The Fed is creating a house of cards. And unless the QEs stop, the value of all money in savings will be devalued or virtually wiped out. Of course if that happens, the president will have his "more equal" America -- his "equality of outcome." Everybody will be equally miserable -- just as they were in the old Soviet Union. There are three simple proofs that this can't work much longer.

-- The first is the USSR.
-- The second is today's European financial crisis.
-- The third is this: if the QE can go on forever, why tax Americans at all?

Why just not run the printing presses and print all the money we need to fund the military, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare and to buy Saudi oil and Chinese manufacturers?

Posted Online:  April 10, 2013, 2:43 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

The Rock Island County Courthouse: There is no Room!

In my last op-ed, I wrote that the Rock Island County Courthouse was both physically and functionally obsolete. That conclusion was premised on incontrovertible facts, including:

-- In 2013, the circuit clerk has 43 employees;
-- In 1894, the Circuit Clerk had two or three employees;
-- The 1897 courthouse plans called for the circuit clerk to have two offices: one, 26' x 30,' and the other 26' x 20 feet.'

Doubters have expressed the opinion the county should simply remodel the courthouse. But the building isn't big enough to accommodate the number of people who work there -- and who use the building. Remodeling won't increase the building's usable space.

Go look! Don't argue that the building should be remodeled, unless -- after seeing it with your own eyes -- you can honestly say: There presently is plenty of room for the courts, officeholders and employees, and all the people using the building; that remodeling will increase usable space; and if you remodel, you have plenty of space the next 10 years. During your visit, check out:

-- Traffic Courtroom B

If upon entering, you don't immediately see something bizarre, you've entered the wrong courtroom. It has a non-removable, load-bearing wall separating the front-half from the back-half! The people sitting on the benches in the back can't see the judge, and the judge can't see them, unless they look through one of the two doors leading from the front to the back, or watch on television!
Equally bizarre is that two judges are often assigned to work in that courtroom at the same time. Since that is impossible, Judge No. 2 conducts court in chambers rather than the courtroom.

-- Traffic Courtroom A

The set-up is similarly goofy. The rear of the courtroom sits in alcove to the left of the bench. Again, some sitting there are out of view of the judge and vice versa. And on busy days, two judges handle the case load -- one in court and the other in chambers.

Remodeling two traffic courtrooms to make four simply won't work. There is not enough space. Chopping each in half to make four courtroom will only exacerbate the situation. These are high volume courtrooms which handle in excess of 30,000 case per year.

Today when a courtroom is built, it must meet Supreme Court standards. There is no way chopping two courtrooms into four could come close to meeting those standards. Courtrooms are supposed to be of a certain square footage, and come with chambers for the judge's office, a bench, space for the attorneys and litigants. Rearranging, remodeling or reconfiguring won't meet those standards.

-- Circuit Clerk's Office (3rd Floor)

As you walk into Room No. 1, you are walking into a 520-square-foot room. An L-shaped counter divides it into two parts: a smaller area for the public, and larger work area, for clerks.

The area where the public comes to file cases is 90 square feet. The counter is about 80 square feet. A copying machine takes up 18 square feet. On the clerks' side of the counter is a work aisle. There is a second aisle accessing the copy machine. Combined, they are about 99 square feet.
Finally, there are four desks in cubicles, which take up 195 square feet. That leaves about 38 square feet. You couldn't put another clerk in the room without creating bunk-desks! This office has been remodeled and reconfigured repeatedly over the last 50 years to maximize the space. There is no more!

Room No. 2. measures roughly 750 square feet. Fifty years ago, this was a large, open roomy office. It has been reconfigured into a cramped, unfriendly space.

On the west wall of the room are modern filing cabinets. These, and the load-bearing pillars, take up an area of 122 square feet. East side of the cabinets is a service aisle which takes up 56 square feet. East of the aisle are two desks in cubicles. This entire area is about 147 square feet.
At the north end of the cubicles, is another desk and a short aisle, perhaps 50 square feet. At the south end of the cubicles, there is another desk, taking up another 20 square feet.

To the east is the main aisle, from the previously described front office, to another office at the north end of the building. This takes up 120 square feet.
Finally, east of the main aisle and running along the windows, are three more desks/cubicles, in an area about 147 square feet.

The remaining space, about 90 square feet, leads to a small office that thrusts out on the east (front) side of the courthouse.

I defy you to come up with a way to "remodel" either of these two clerks offices to make better use of the space, or jam in another employee.
The point is: the space is already well-utilized. There is no more room.
I am not advocating razing the present courthouse. It can be used for office space -- if you get the courtrooms and the circuit clerk's office into a new building. But as a courthouse, it is utterly inadequate and obsolete.

It can't be remodeled, reconfigured, or chopped further to provide the county with safe, adequate courtrooms, chambers, jury rooms and related facilities.
There is no room!

Posted Online:  April 3, 2013, 2:56 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea