Taxing Rich to Help Poor - Some Background

On Jan. 6, The Dispatch-Argus ran a piece, "Tax the rich to help the poor."

Some years ago, Father Bob Lee gave a short sermon. It ran only five minutes. I've listened to thousands of others. But Fr. Lee's is the only one that has stuck with me. The topic of his homily was, "What must we do to be saved." Matthew 25: 31-46.

“When the Son of Man comes ... he will separate the people ... He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“He will say to those on his right, ‘Take your inheritance .... For I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink ...

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me ... for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink ... Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Christ enjoined these duties on us as individuals. He wasn't speaking to governments. We were individually charged with being charitable to those in need. Christ said he came to save men; not to set up either a capitalist or socialist utopia. Had he wanted to be king, he could have continued multiplying loaves and fishes. The people would have made him king. John 6:25

Did Christ ever tell the Roman government that it had a duty to support the poor through taxes? Nevertheless, based on Christ's teachings, the church's catechism has extrapolated that message. But even so, does one get to heaven by paying his taxes? Would Christ buy the argument, "OK, I was never charitable, but I paid my taxes, and thereby helped the poor. Therefore, I belong in heaven?

In his great social encyclical, "Rerum Novarum" (1891), Pope Leo XIII penned what is generally regarded as the church's foundational document on social justice. Pope Leo, in the main, discussed the co-relative rights/duties of capital and working men, affirmed the right of private property, and condemned Socialism and the excesses of capitalism.

Speaking critically of socialism, Leo wrote:

"The socialists ... are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State .... The remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own ... [Without private property] no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry... [Socialism would result in] the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. The main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected."

Perhaps because the focus of the encyclical is on the rights/duties of capital/laborer, it speaks only briefly of the duties of the state to the poor, but appears to define the poor.

"The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family ... is a great ... error.

"True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid."

Prior to our Great Depression, aid to the American poor was largely provided by charitable individuals, the churches, some civic organizations, and units of local government. When during the Depression, those sources were overwhelmed, the federal government necessarily became involved and remains involved to this day.

Today it is generally agreed that some part of the nation's resources should be used to help those in genuine permanent, and even temporary, need. But who is in need and how much is debated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church - dealing with the Seventh Commandment - sets out at considerable length the church's current teachings on social justice, private property, common stewardship, and our duties toward the poor, inter alia. (Word limits preclude further discussion here. Read it!) That article provides guiding principles. It does not, however, set out specific numbers as to what is fair, just, and enough in a particular case.

My next op-ed will marshal some specific numbers to help you start to judge for yourselves: What is fair? Just? How much more, if any, the rich must be taxed to help the poor? The needy?

Posted: QCOline.com January 16, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

A modern-day Christmas Carol

Do you make charitable donations? Christmas donations? If so, how do you decide to whom you will give? Do you ever wonder whether the money that you give really goes for your intended purpose?

As I have grown older, I have come to believe that my donations should go to those who have the greatest need - those incapable of caring for themselves. I also have come to believe my donations should be local. As an old curmudgeon, I want to be in position to see that the organization that solicits my donation is faithfully using the money efficiently and consistently for their stated charitable purpose.

There is an organization in the Quad-Cities simply known as "The Arc." Its main office is on 9th Street in Rock Island. The Arc was founded in 1952 by parents of children with either physical or mental disabilities.


I write to ask you to consider helping The Arc this Christmas and beyond.

I write to say a personal thank you to The Arc. On June 1, 1973, my wife was pregnant. A few days later, our son was born. Hours after his birth, we were told by my friend and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Greenberg, that Tom was seizuring, and that his EEG showed chaotic electrical patterns in all regions of his brain.

Like most parents, we ran from Chicago's Children's Memorial, to Iowa City, to Mayo, in hopes something could be done to change Tom's future. Nothing could. His mom and I raised him into his 20s. He spent time at The ARC's (it was then known as the "ARC" it is now called "The Arc") Opportunity Center in Moline, and then at Blackhawk Special Education.

And then something happened. His mom, who had been on the old ARC Board, learned there was a vacancy at an ARC group home in Moline. She felt this eight-person facility was the best of all the ARC facilities. She felt that the time had come to place Tom.

At first, I balked, but her arguments were persuasive.

We were getting older? A time would come when we'd be incapable of caring for Tom. He'd be well cared for and with peers. He'd have his own home. She convinced me, and we placed Tom (and his Rockola Jukebox).


It was probably the best decision we could ever have made for him. It takes caring people to provide 24-hour care for eight physically and/or mentally disabled adults.

Today, Tom is healthy, and happy. He views the group home as his "home." He enjoys visiting with us every week, but he is always ready to go back to "his house." He has friends, Marla and Joe, there.

Today The Arc runs 14 small six-to-eight-person group homes. In addition, it provides Arc Industries. There, its clients, among other things, make cardboard boxes of every size and shape. (If you need boxes - one or a thousand - call and give them your business).


Other Arc clients clean the Butterworth Center and the Lodge at Blackhawk State Park. The Arc is a 5-1(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Today, it employs a staff of 219 persons; 171 of those are directly involved with care of the disabled clients; 142 provide direct support (primary care), and 29 are either on-site group home supervisors, or case workers. The remaining 48 provide staff support - including the executive director, and the director of development, etc.

Nearly 80 percent of The Arc budget goes to staffing, 4.5 percent to supplies,. 4.7 percent to maintenance. 1.6 percent for transportation (the 18 vans used to transport clients and staff), 3.62 percent covers miscellaneous expenses. and 8.7 percent goes for interest expense.

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote of the duty of the state to provide for those "in exceeding distress ... without any prospect of extricating themselves from their extreme necessity."

When children of God are disabled, unable to care for themselves, and living in our community, should anyone - other than perhaps family - occupy a higher place in our plans for charitable and Christmas-giving?

Do we wait for the state to provide them welfare, or should we, at Christmastime, include these - as well as your favorite needy - in our charity?

Posted: QCOline.com December 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Immigration Policy Unconstitutional, Incoherent

Politics aside, I can think of only three possible reasons we are accepting 90,000 illegal immigrant children from Central America:

-- The Constitution requires it;

-- We need more children in the U.S;

-- Christian charity.

The purposes for which our federal government was established are set out in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

"... to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Is there anything in the Preamble about "securing the blessings of liberty to children of Central America?" Iraq? North Korea? In the Constitutions' enumerated powers, Congress was granted no power to provide for the welfare of children of foreign nations. The only power granted to Congress related to immigration is the power "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

The president is granted no power whatsoever relative to immigration. His duty is limited to faithfully enforcing the laws made by Congress.

If the U.S. has a duty to the children of Central America, it must be as an incident of the congressional power to "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." But Article I, specifically states Congress has power "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" -- not of Central America.

If the administration's open border policy is premised on the argument that we need 90,000 more children in this country each year, then why in the name of God have we aborted -- killed -- more than 50 million of our own children? And why are liberals demanding that the government, insurance companies and employers provide abortifacients under Obamacare so that we might kill more of our own fetuses and have fewer live births? If America needs more children, why are we killing our own?

If we admit Central American children as a matter of Christian charity our priorities are out of whack.
The liberal left in this country is apoplectic over the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. They rant that it is impossible for a family-owned corporation -- or any other corporation -- to have religious rights and/or religious beliefs. They shriek that it is utterly inappropriate for such corporations to deny abortifacients to their employees on account of the religious beliefs of owners. But how can the same people who contend that it is wrong for owners of a corporation to use the corporation to carry out their religious beliefs insist that it is right for them to use the government -- a enormous corporation -- to act upon their religious notions of "Christian charity?" How is the latter logically consistent with opposition to the Hobby Lobby decision?

Do not misunderstand. I am in favor of individuals practicing Christian charity. I believe it is meritorious for a person to use his own goods to help those in need.

I also am in favor of Congress using tax dollars to provide for the "general welfare of the people of the United States;" e.g., Social Security.

But there is an egregious double standard at work here. As an act of love -- of Christian charity -- we are told that we must accept and care for thousands of children illegally crossing our borders, while at the same time we are killing millions of American babies who are doing nothing at all illegally, and seek only to pass through their mothers' "border" to life. Where is the love for these fetuses? Where is the "Christian charity" toward them? Is it an act of love -- of Christian charity -- to kill them?

There is a grotesque intellectual inconsistency in nurturing thousands of illegal immigrant children while at the same time killing native unborn children by the millions.

Every morning on TV we hear pleas from the Wounded Warriors Project for "$19 per month" to provide funds for our soldiers who incurred horrible wounds defending our liberties and our country. If Christians insist that the government should go into the business of Christian charity, why aren't they insisting that the government do more for our horribly wounded soldiers? Why do illegal alien children have a greater claim to our nation's resources than our disabled soldiers?

We have a VA crisis. Could the dollars being spent on illegal immigrant children be better used to fix the VA? To provide timely and adequate treatment for our veterans?

And how are things going in Chicago, New Orleans and Detroit? Are the kids from Central America in any greater danger of drug violence, gang violence or being shot than the kids on the south side of Chicago? Are there more one-parent families in Central America than in Chicago, Washington or Detroit? Why do the children from Central America have a greater claim to our tax dollars (our Christian charity) than kids living in our inner-cities? Is there any truth to the maxim that "charity begins at home?"

And what about our citizens with mental and physical disabilities? Every dollar spent on an illegal immigrant is a dollar that can't be spend on an American child. The $3.7 billion that President Obama wants to take care of children illegally coming across our border, is $3.7 billion that won't go to organizations that care for Americans with special needs.

Space precludes me from mentioning the needs of our elderly.

There are 7.25 billion people in this world. If America, as a matter of Christian charity, has a duty to provide for 90,000 children who will be shipped/smuggled across our southern border this year, where does that duty stop? There are 1.35 billion people in China. If the government of China decides that it is in their national interest to ship a billion of their citizens here, do we as a matter of Christian charity have a duty to receive them, provide them with housing, schooling, medical care, cellphones and food stamps?

I suggest Congress was given power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization" to "provide for the common defense, and the general welfare" of our nation; not to practice Christian charity to the world. The resources of our nation are finite.

Posted Online:  Aug. 15, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea