Best "Mess Fixer?" Madigan or Rauner?

Illinois' finances are an utter mess. Each party blames the other. So, who can fix it? Democrats or Republicans?

In 2013, then-Illinois Comptroller Judy Barr Topinka published a "Fiscal Focus" report which began:

"$127 Billion in Debt - Who Pays it Back? - You Do."

In that clear and chilling document, Comptroller Topinka wrote:

"Dollars today, cost us bigger dollars tomorrow.

"The State of Illinois ... provides funding for items such as roads, schools, mass transit projects, and environmental initiatives. However, as long as the state government must borrow money to provide for these ... needs, the interest costs will continue to eat away at our budget. In fiscal year 2013, Illinois spent $1.45 billion on its general obligation bonds’ interest payments alone. Every dollar spent on interest payments is a dollar not spent on some other pressing need."

Ms. Topinka went on to say, "Over the last four years, state officials have borrowed money for various purposes, totaling $16.1 billion. ... Taxpayers are on the hook for the principal and interest payments of these loans for the next 25 years."

She then asked, "What is in the number -- $127 billion?"

She explained:

"At any point in time, Illinois has various types of debt and obligations ...

"This Fiscal Focus ... primarily looks at bonded debt issued directly by the state that must be repaid by the state’s taxpayers. This bonded debt, $29.7 billion, is a firm number as there is a specific repayment schedule in place to repay this debt."

Comptroller Topinka went on to discuss a second, distinct and more worrisome sort of state debt -- pension liabilities.

"Most bigger [debt] numbers out there include the state’s pension unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities (UAAL). This is an estimate of the shortfall in pension assets to cover the estimates of the accrued liabilities ... As of June 30, 2013, this number, $97.5 billion, included the UAAL of the five state systems -- (1) the Downstate Teachers’ Retirement System, (2) the State Universities Retirement System, the (3) State Employees’ Retirement System, (4) the Judges’ Retirement System, and (5) the General Assembly Retirement System."

Comptroller Topinka was telling us that Illinois was in debt $127 billion at the time of her 2013 report; $29.7 billion of that, the state's bonded indebtedness, was a firm number. The remaining $97.5 billion was an estimated indebtedness. It was the best estimate of actuaries and accountant. It is what they believed was the underfunded amount owed to the beneficiaries of Illinois' five state pension systems.

So, has the Illinois debt situation improved?  No.

In the Illinois Comptroller's report of April 6, current Comptroller Leslie Munger writes, in a piece entitled "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," that Illinois now has $158 billion of unfunded retirement benefits due.

Comptroller Munger states, on the asset side of the state's balance sheet, Illinois holds $76.5 billion, but only $29.5 billion of that sum is "Available to Pay Bills." The state's bills, total $215.7 billion, therefore Illinois bills exceed available assets by $184.2  billion.

On the liability side of the balance sheet, the numbers are frightening and numbing. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on its other liabilities This does not include the $111.5 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.

Presently, there is budget deadlock between the state's new Republican governor, and the Democratic state Legislature. So who is to blame?

As much as I'd like to apportion the blame, I find it hard to blame the Republicans. There haven't been  enough of them in Springfield to matter. From January 2003 until January 2015, Democrats controlled the governorship and both houses of the state Legislature. During that period Illinois unfunded pension liabilities have risen from about $43 billion to about $108 billion.

To blame Republicans for Illinois' present fiscal mess you have to go back before 2002. Republican held the governorship from 1977 thru 2002,  and the state Senate from 1993 through 2002.

The Illinois House -- where all money bills start --  has been controlled by Democrats for 32 of 34 years; the Senate, for 24 of 34 years.

Can Gov. Bruce Rauner do any worse?

Posted: April 21, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016,  John Donald O'Shea

Danger of Putting Consumers Ahead of Jobs

"Ford Motor Co. plans to build a $1.6-billion auto assembly plant in Mexico, creating about 2,800 jobs there and shifting small-car production away from the United States at a time when moving jobs south of the border has become a major issue in the U.S. presidential campaign." -- Associated Press, Feb. 7, 2016

With every free-trade act, more American manufacturing businesses either go under or relocate to foreign countries. In America, the consumer appears to have won; the manufacturer, to have lost.

By way of illustration, consider GM and Ford -- two great U.S. corporations, who have had a history of being vital to the American's way of life and national defense.

In Feb. 2011, Dan Ackerson, GM's former CEO told an audience in China:

"Almost seven out of every ten automobiles ... were made outside the U.S.

"We have 11 joint ventures with SAIC [Shanghai Auto Industry Corp.] and FAW [another Chinese entity] ... We're involved in vehicle manufacturing, sales, distribution, engineering design, downstream businesses such as telematics, financing and used cars. We operate 11 assembly plants in China. Four Power train plants in eight cities across the country. We have more than 2700 dealerships and sales outlets across [China].

"We regard our 11 joint ventures as our 11 keys to success -- not just in China, but globally. Our commitment of working in China, with China and for China remains strong and focused on the future."

"We're now building out of the advanced technology center, which will bring our research and development, that is centered largely in the United States -- we're going to diversify that -- more into China because we think this market is so critically important to the success of our company."



So, why does our government allow our great corporations to relocate -- expand -- overseas? Doesn't our government realize that when GM situates its plant in China, jobs in "manufacturing, sales, distribution, engineering design, and downstream businesses go to Chinese workers rather than American workers? Don't American workers lose high-paying jobs when seven of every ten automobiles are made outside the U.S?

Who benefits in America when American companies relocate to China or Mexico? When cheaper Chinese or Mexican goods flood into the U.S.?

Certainly not U.S auto workers. They lose their jobs. American consumers are the beneficiaries. Labor is cheaper abroad, therefore, given "free trade," Mexican and Chinese goods sold and imported into the U.S. are less expensive, and that benefits U.S. consumers. And since there are more consumers who want to buy at lower prices than there are laborers, politicians have catered to the consumers.

But consider an inherent danger.

During World War II, it was American industry and innovation that made certain America would win the war. In his message to Congress of May 16, 1940, FDR spoke of the U.S. producing 50,000 planes a year. That was only possible because America had industries -- such as the auto industry -- that could be converted to war production.

In 1941, 18,466 planes were produced. By 1943, 84,853. And in 1944, to 96,270. William S. Knudsen, FDR's Office of Production and Management chairman said, "We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, the like of which he had never seen, nor dreamed possible."

At Ford's Willow Run plant, bombers were produced at the rate of one an hour. By war's end, Ford alone had built 86,865 complete aircraft, 57,851 more airplane engines, thousands of engine superchargers and generators, and 4,291 military gliders.

So what happens when war comes, if all our auto plants are in China and Mexico? In WWII, we were the "Arsenal of Democracy." Will that be the case if we continue to allow all our manufacturers to relocate overseas? If all trained mechanics are in China and Mexico. French fries don't win wars.

America's choice to provide consumers low-cost goods at the expense of the American laborer may well have dire consequences.

Find Mr. Ackerson's remarks at youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo&feature=youtu.be. See what Fact Check.Org says about it at factcheck.org/2012/06/is-gm-becoming-china-motors/.


 Posted, April 15, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

"Divine Right" Judges - Death of Representative Government

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Constitution, as it was understood by the men who drafted and ratified it, is one vote away from being a dead letter.


In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Glossip v. Gross. The issue was whether the drug cocktail Oklahoma chose to effect a murderer’s execution, violated the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.


Not content with deciding that issue, Justice Stephen Breyer, employing his “modern view,” wanted to declare the death penalty unconstitutional in all cases:


“Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment; therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates the punishment.”


Justice Scalia relying on “original intent,” disagreed:


“Not once in the history of the American Republic has this Court ever suggested that the death penalty was impermissible. The reason is obvious. It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital ... crime, unless on ... indictment of a Grand Jury, and that no person shall be deprived of life ... without due process of law.”


“Nevertheless, today Justice Bryer takes on the role of the abolitionist ... arguing that the text of the Constitution and two centuries of history must yield to his ‘20 years of experience on this Court.’”


Justice Scalia has been called an “originalist” -- that is, someone who tries to construe the Constitution consistently with the intent of the founding fathers.


What is original intent?


Many Americans, including many who should know better, choose not to understand the meaning of original intent. By way of example, the 4th Amendment provides “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


When the 4th Amendment was adopted in 1789, automobiles and airplanes didn’t exist. “Original intent” does not require that cars and planes be excluded from 4th Amendment protection; rather, it requires they be accorded protection comparable to that given to 18th century coaches.


Our Constitution was not a document drafted by philosophers. Almost every line included was designed to insure that the abuses of the English kings, who claimed to rule by divine right, did not come to America. America was to be ruled by law, not by royal whim. That is the meaning of Article VI supremacy clause, “This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.”



Constitution supreme law


Note that our constitution, and not the fiat of a king or president, is the “supreme law” of the land.


But if the “intent of the men who created the constitution” is to be abandoned for more “modern” or “progressive” constructions, then whose intent should be utilized? Barack Obama’s? Donald Trump’s? Jesse Jackson’s? David Duke’s?


There are nine Supreme Court justices. Does each have a right to construe the constitution according to his own lights? Did we eschew governance by the “divine right kings” only to replace it with the “divine right of judges?”


With Justice Scalia on the bench, Americans were assured of a judge who would attempt to follow the law as it was given him by the founders, rather than make it up or change it to comport with his more enlightened notions of what the law should be.


Presently there are four judges on the court who read the constitution in a way so that it comports with their more enlightened notions of what the law should be. If the Senate confirms a fifth, the constitution as the founders understood it, is a dead letter. It will be an era of “divine right” judges.



Posted: March 16, 2016, QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea

Why Indict Spies if Clinton Won't Protect our Secrets?

As I read two news stories, I was disgusted by the obvious double standard under which the Obama administration is operating -- a double standard which does plain violence to the rule of law.

The first, by the Associated Press, March 23, tells us that “Seven hackers tied to the Iranian government were [indicted] Thursday in a series of punishing cyberattacks on dozens of banks and a small dam outside New York City, intrusions that reached into America’s infrastructure and disrupted the financial system.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, “The attacks were relentless, systematic and widespread. They threatened our economic well-being and our ability to compete fairly in the global marketplace, both of which are directly linked to our national security.


“The seven accused hackers worked for a pair of Iranian computer companies linked to the Iranian government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ...”

“One of the ... hackers is accused of repeatedly gaining access to the control system of the Bowman Avenue Dam, a small flood-control structure ... about 20 miles north of New York City ... The hacker would have been able to operate the sluice gate ... but the gate had been disconnected for maintenance.”

The second, a Jan. 19 NBC News piece, captioned “Hillary Clinton emails held info beyond top secret: IG” said:

“Emails from Hillary Clinton’s home server contained information classified at levels ... meant to protect some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence ...

“In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence community’s internal watchdog says some of Clinton’s emails contained information classified ‘Top Secret/Special Access Program,’ a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

“Two American intelligence officials tell NBC News these are not the same two emails from Clinton’s server that have long been reported as containing information deemed Top Secret.

“Clinton ... has repeatedly said that none of the information she sent or received while Secretary of State was marked ‘classified,’ ... But it’s become clear that classified information bled into the emails, which were sent over unencrypted channels open to interception by foreign intelligence agencies.

“Charles McCulllough, the intelligence community’s Inspector General, said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees that he has received sworn declarations ... [which] cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IG element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP [SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM] information.

“The special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough ... had to receive clearance ... before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.”


Why am I disgusted? What’s the double standard? Why is it criminal for Iranian spies to hack our economic secrets, while at the same time, our secretary of state acts with abject stupidity and utter recklessness sends/receives confidential, secret, top secret and special access program information” “over unencrypted channels open to interception by foreign intelligence agencies?”

Mrs. Clinton tells an all-too gullible American public that none of the information she sent or received on her personal server while secretary of state was marked “classified.” But that is not the test.

Whether a document is classified doesn’t depend on whether it is stamped or marked “classified.” It is determined by the degree of damage its disclosure would cause our national security. Additionally, classified information is released only on a need-to-know basis; not to everybody with an appropriate security clearance.

When Hillary sent or received emails on her private server she had a non-delegable duty to determine whether disclosure of the information could damage our national security. The Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives put it this way:

“In all cases, it is the sensitivity of the information that determines classification. An unmarked, handwritten page can just as easily contain classified national security information as a document containing classification markings. When in doubt, treat handwritten notes concerning intelligence, military, diplomatic, or emergency planning matters as classified national security information.”

It makes no sense to indict Iranians for espionage/hacking while our own secretary of state sends/receives our nation’s top secrets” information in unencrypted emails.

Posted: April 2, 2016. QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, 

John Donald O'Shea