Why Be or Vote for a RINO?

                 "So, because you are lukewarm -- neither hot nor cold -- I am about to 
                  spit you out of my mouth. -- Revelations 3:16

Nelson A. Rockefeller, R-N.Y, sought the presidency in 1960, 1964 and 1968.

He was generally described as a "moderate" Republican. A less-than-kind commentator once described his presidential agenda as, "Me too, but not so much," indicating that Rockefeller wanted everything the Democrats wanted, but not so much.

I have never been able to understand why anybody would wish to be a RINO (Republican in Name Only), or why anybody would ever vote for one! Why vote for a Democrat "lite" when you can vote for the genuine free-spending thing? If you like what the Democrats are peddling, why not vote for a Democrat?

As I look at recent American presidential races, the landscape is littered with dead RINOs, run over by Democrats on their way to the White House. In 1976, moderate Republican Gerald Ford was done in by the Jimmy Carter Express.

In 1988 George H. W. ("Read my lips") Bush, in the guise of a conservative, beat Michael Dukakis. Then, in 1992, Bush (having broken his pledge not to raise taxes) lost to Bill Clinton when he appeared to be running as a moderate.

In 1996, President Clinton dispatched moderate Bob Dole. In 2008 President Obama buried moderate Republican John McCain. And in 2012, President Obama, running as Santa Claus, bumped off Mitt Romney, who couldn't make up his mind what he was.

Since the passage of Obamacare, Republicans in Congress have voted 40 times to repeal it -- knowing full well that their votes were utterly meaningless! With the Democrats in full control of the Senate, House Republicans knew that their bill had less than the chance of snowball in hell in the Senate, and even less than that, had it ever gotten to the president's desk.

Their votes in the House were political theater, and lousy political theater, at that.

Now the tea party branch of the Republican Party talks about refusing to vote money for Obamacare -- to "defund" it. If the Republicans truly hate Obamacare as much as they say they do, this is the foolproof way to kill it dead.

If they refuse to fund, we won't have to, in the words of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "read the bill to find out what is in it." It will be dead as a dinosaur!

But RINOs in the house are afraid to defund. They fear losing their precious seats (along with their power and perks) in Congress. So they are content to do nothing. Therefore, at this juncture it is not clear whether the Republicans have the guts to put their seats in Congress where their mouths are.

And then the Republican Party wonders why people think it is worthless -- why people won't vote for it.

If Obamacare is really as bad as the Republicans say, if it is really going to destroy jobs and the economy, why not do what is right? Why not find the guts? Put principle over politics.

Then again, if the RINOs have their feckless way, who needs them? And who needs the Republican Party? Who in their right mind is going to vote for a Democrat Lite when they can vote for a bona fide Democrat?

Republicans whine that President Obama and the Democrats are spending the country into bankruptcy. Their inane answer is to pass an Omnibus Spending Bill. But they fear to make the true cuts they whine are necessary for fear the president will veto the bill, and the Republicans will be blamed. So they engage in more banal political theater.

If the Republican in the House are serious, they have it in their hands to control the game, and to force the president to take the blame for any irresponsible veto. Instead of an Omnibus Spending Bill, pass separate spending bills for each programs the House Republicans deem worthwhile:

-- Social Security;
-- Medicare;
-- Military Procurement;
-- Veteran's benefits;
-- Food Stamps (SNAP program); etc.

At the same time, pass NO appropriation for Obamacare. Then watch and see if Mr. Obama really is willing to veto the individual appropriations for Social Security, Medicare, etc. If he does, he will not be able to avoid the blame.

Posted Online:  Aug. 21, 2013, 2:23 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Those Darn Democrat "Obstructionists!"

When the Affordable Care Act was crammed through Congress, without a single Republican vote, Republicans were labeled as "obstructionists."

In the full flush of victory, President Obama promised Americans (youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E) that:

-- "We will keep these promises to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period! If you like your heath-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period!" -- June 15, 2009

-- "First of all, if you've got health insurance and like your doctor, like your plan, you can keep your doctor, keep your plan." July 16, 2009

-- "No matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or your health-care plan you can keep it." -- Aug. 15, 2009

-- "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period!" -- Aug. 22, 2009

-- "If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job ... nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Sept. 9, 2009

-- "Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." Jan. 27, 2010

But lately, even the president's most loyal supporters are beginning to sound like Republican "obstructionists."

On April 18, 2013, Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the principal authors of Obamacare, told the Senate, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

A few days before, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D.-W.V, also instrumental in drafting the law, said "it is just beyond comprehension... (it is) the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress."

And now, leaders of three great Democrat-leaning labor unions are joining the Cassandras. James P. Hoffa, Teamsters president, Joseph Hansen, United Food and Commercial Workers president and D. Taylor, UNITE-HERE president, have written:

"Dear Leader (Harry) Reid and Leader (Nancy) Pelosi:

"When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class...

"We have been strong supporters of ... affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

"Since the ACA was enacted, we have been ... seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans ... Our arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. ...

"We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios: First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation ... The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

 Second, our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the administration, our employees will be treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded to other citizens...

"And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable ...

"The Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans...

"Corrections can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as the President pledged."

And now a fourth union, the National Treasury Employes Union, which represents the IRS employees who will enforce Obamacare, also wants out!

And, by the way, President Obama and his Office of Personnel Management now have decreed that those impoverished folks in Congress, and their staffers (who earn $75K to $175K per year) will have you and me pick up 75 percent of their Obamacare insurance costs.

Michael Cannon, a health-care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute explained why this is happening: "The whole problem with 'Obamacare' is this: the only people who can implement it properly are people who are competent enough to plan one-sixth of the economy, and no such people exist."

George Orwell was right, "Some animals are more equal than others!"

Posted Online:  Aug. 14, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

These are America's Locust Years

                            "Washington's taken its eye off the ball."
                                                 — President Obama, July 24, 2013 Galesburg

As I look at America's last five years, I see a rudderless country, drifting ever faster into the maelstrom. I see no serious effort on the part of President Obama or Congress to deal with the great issues facing America.

Instead, we are led by a president and two parties intent only on gaining/retaining power and distributing the spoils to loyal supporters. And as long as supporters get their "bread and circuses," everybody goes on living in a fool's paradise.

By "bread and circuses," I mean pensions, Social Security and our other forms of corporate and individual welfare. With apologies to Winston Churchill, I call these our "Locust Years."

Consider just some of the problems America is facing:

-- Social Security is going broke.

-- Medicare Part A is going broke.

-- Immigrants pour across our southern border.

-- Billions of dollars are spent buying foreign oil -- often from our enemies.

-- The Muslim world -- Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, etc. -- is in chaos.

-- North Korea is developing longer range missiles, and threatens us and its neighbors with nuclear attack. Iran is trying to build a bomb.

-- A real unemployment rate (U-6) of 13.8 percent.

-- An overall unemployment rate among "young people" (ages 18-24) of 18 percent; among young blacks of 28.2 percent; among young Latinos at 16.6 percent.

-- Our cities and states are going bankrupt, and as they do, bondholders and public employees and pensioners face economic ruin.

What serious efforts are being undertaken to deal with these problems?
I see none; only bread and circuses.

The bankruptcy filing by the City of Detroit, is the first shoe to drop. Chicago's bond rating has just been reduced to Aa3 with a "negative outlook." A hundred other cities are close to bankruptcy.

24/7 Wall St labels California the nation's "worst run state." It's per capita debt is $4,008. It has a 20.7 percent budget deficit. Its unemployment rate is 11.7 percent, while 16.6 percent of its people live below the poverty line. Its S&P credit rating is the worst of all the states. Moody's says it is second worst.

Recently California voters passed a ballot initiative which raises sales and income taxes on people who make $250K or more. The Tax Foundation says that the state's increased taxes make it the country's third worst state to do business in.

In some respects, Illinois is in even worse shape -- though it lacks the honor of being labeled "worst." Illinois per capita debt of $4,790 is worse than California's.

It's budget deficit also is worse: 40.2 percent. Its unemployment rates is 9.8 percent and 15 percent of its people live below the poverty line. Standard and Poors gave Illinois the second worst credit rating.

And Illinois state pensions systems are $85 billion "underfunded." In January 2013, S&P downgraded Illinois' credit rating to "A- with a negative outlook." Moody's lowered it from A3 to A2 with a "negative outlook." And now Fitch has downgraded the state to "A- with a negative outlook."

Detroit's bondholders, employees and pensioners are demanding a federal bailout." Bailing out one city is possible. But what happens when Washington is called upon to bail out 99 more cities, and the states of California, Rhode Island, Illinois, Arizona and New Jersey (with it $6,944 per capita debt), not to mention Social Security and Medicare?

What if the Obamacare cost estimates, as is probable, were grossly understated? What if we can't really provide insurance for 39 million people (including 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants) without the government providing additional billions of dollars? What if there is no free lunch?

In 1948, Mr. Churchill penned "The Gathering Storm," the first volume of his history of World War II, and the events leading up to that tragedy. In the fifth chapter, "The Locust Years," Churchill described the five-year period from 1931-1935, the years when Hitler came to power, when the European Democracies still put their trust in the "collective security" promised by the League of Nations, when the United States and Europe were mired in the Great Depression and isolation, and when the British government looked with unseeing eyes on ominous events in Germany.

Mr. Churchill decried the lack of leadership of Britain's national government, in these words:

"Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success regardless of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigor in ... leaders of the ... government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems ... the utter devotion ... to sentiment apart from reality ... and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries ... beyond comparison in human experience."

Change only the word "Europe" to "the world," and Mr. Churchill could well have been speaking of America's last five years.

Unless America addresses its problems without delay, America will soon pay an awful forfeit for its lack of leadership, for its Locust Years, and for its policy of bread and circuses.

President Obama has lamented "Washington's taken its eye off the ball." But he and John Boehner are Washington -- Washington at its most feckless.

Posted Online:  Aug. 10, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Federal Government Now Has Unlimited Power

On June 28, 2012, in National Federation of Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote, "The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits."

Then, in the remainder of that opinion upholding the Obamacare law and its"penalty" as a "tax," Justice Roberts administered the coup de grace to all pretense that the federal government was in truth one of limited powers:

"The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

"There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

The chief justice then upheld the Obamacare "tax" and took to its logical conclusion what Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton had written in his 1791 Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives:

"The National Legislature has express authority 'to lay and collect taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general welfare,' with no other qualifications than (1) that 'all ...excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and (2) that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census' ... and (3) that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.'

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of (Congress) to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare ... 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."

Under Hamilton's formulation, Congress is the sole judge of what concerns the general welfare. Where Roberts goes beyond Hamilton is that Roberts would say Congress has power to tax not only acts, but omissions. Under the Roberts' formulation, Congress -- once it determines that its tax concerns the general welfare -- can tax anything! It can tax buying insurance or not buying insurance. It can tax eating broccoli, or not eating broccoli. It can tax having children or not having children. It can tax engaging in a sexual act or not doing so.

In 1828, during the course of the nullification crisis, John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest, foresaw the threat to the the sovereignty of the states by vesting in any branch or department of the federal government the power to "act as judge" in controversies between the federal and the state governments, and between the federal government and the people -- that is, to "act as judge" in a case where it also was either "plaintiff" or "defendant."

"If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that (the states) hold their portion by the same tenure as (the General), it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. 'The right of judging,'  in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the 'exclusive right of judging' of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised) is to convert it, in fact,into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights. It is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion."

To say that Congress alone is the sole judge of the general welfare and that once Congress decides that an activity -- or inactivity -- concerns the general welfare and should be taxed, is to give Congress unlimited power.

When that power is coupled with the power of the federal government to define what is and what isn't religious activity, and what is or what isn't free speech all notions that the federal government is a government of "limited powers" becomes a cynical fiction.

The "power to tax," in the words of Chief Justice John Marshal, is the "power to destroy." If you doubt that assertion, simply consider what the Internal Revenue Service has been doing to
conservative groups. Tea party-type groups exist to speak in favor of limited government. The government, by labeling their free speech as "political activity" seeks to abolish their 1st Amendment rights.

By denying that the Catholic Church, in operating universities and charities, is engaged in religious activity, the government seeks to deny the church "the free exercise of religion," Roberts' holding is a logical extension of Hamilton's position. But in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "the law is not logic; it is experience."

The American experience is that we declared independence when a king tried to tax sugar and stamps. Would the people who ratified our Constitution have done so had they understood that it would mean what Mr. Justice Roberts now says it means? No way!

Posted Online:  Aug. 03, 2013, 11:00 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea