President Harry S Truman had a little sign on his desk which said: "The Buck Stops Here!"
In his farewell address, he explained its meaning for anyone who didn't get it: "The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job:"
When I was in second grade in 1948, Sister Mary Margaret passed out a ballot.
We could vote for either Gov. Dewey or President Truman.The president got only two of 30 votes. One was mine. When President Truman won reelection, I felt a whole lot smarter than the Chicago Tribune. Its Nov. 3, 1948 banner headline, proclaimed: "Dewey Defeats Truman!"
But President Truman wasn't always right.
As a young man in 1922, he flirted with the Ku Klux Klan (although he never was initiated, and never attended a meeting). He also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments in his diary.
His 1946 proposal to draft coal miners into the army to end their strike, would cost him the labor vote today and his 1952 order to his secretary of commerce to seize control of the nation's steel mills, meant to insure a steady supply of steel to the armed forces fighting the Korean War, shocked many Americans. including a majority of the United States Supreme Court, which held that absent Congressional authorization, that the president -- though he was Commander in Chief -- lacked Constitutional power to nationalize an industry -- even in time of war.
Mr. Truman became an "accidental president" when FDR died in April of 1945.
From the day that Harry Truman took office, he came face to face with the "buck."
He had a choice.
He could either "pass the buck," or grapple with it. And whether you approve or disapprove of his decisions, he had the guts to do what he thought was right for America.
Barely four months after he took office, he was faced with the biggest decision any president had ever been forced to make. America had the atom bomb. Should he order it to be dropped on Japan? He did. On Aug. 6, 1945, 140,000 died in Hiroshima. On Aug. 9, 80,000 more were killed in Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on Aug. 14, 1945.
Mr. Truman knew the devastation the bombs would cause, but he also knew that if America tried to invade the Japanese home island that there would be as many as a million American casualties. Many have condemned President Truman for dropping the bombs. But Mr. Truman never backed down.
"I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."
Eleanor Roosevelt later said that President Truman had "made the only decision he could." The bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."
But that was only one of Mr. Truman's momentous decisions.
When The Soviet Union threatened to gobble up Greece and Turkey, and perhaps all of war-torn Europe, President Truman announced what has been called the Truman Doctrine: "the policy of the United States to support free people who (were) resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Truman Doctrine changed America's foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from detente to active containment.
Then to give teeth to his policy, Mr. Truman encouraged the U.S. Senate to approve the NATO treaty which said, "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
When economic chaos in postwar era portended a communist takeover of the European democracies, President Truman authorized implementation of the Marshall Plan.
When Russia tried to cut off Berlin from the West, President Truman ordered th the Berlin Airlift to break the Berlin Blockade, even though he could not be sure that Russia would not respond with military action.
In an effort to avoid further wars, President Truman backed the formation of the United Nations.
When Hubert Humphrey demanded a strong civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, Harry Truman embraced it, notwithstanding the fact that Strom Thurmond would bolt the convention, split the Democratic Party and run as a "Dixiecrat."
Then putting his "money were his mouth was," Harry Truman two weeks later, issued Executive Order 9981, which racially integrated the U.S. Armed Services -- knowing this would cost him the support of many in his party.
And then, overcoming his youthful anti-Semitic attitudes, Harry S. Truman, notwithstanding dire warnings of a potential Arab backlash, which might result in loss of access to Middle East oil, recognized the state of Israel in May of 1948 -- 11 minutes after Israel declared itself a nation!
And of course, when General Douglas MacArthur, one of America's greatest heroes, forgot who was commander-in-chief, Harry S Truman fired him, knowing that his decision would be wildly unpopular.
So why do I call myself the "last Truman Democrat?" Because Harry Truman had the guts to try to put the good of the country above partisan politics.
Were he president today, there'd be no sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stopped with George Bush."
Posted Online: Aug. 04, 2011, 10:35 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The IRS: America's Income Redistriction Service!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently said, "we must simplify and streamline our broken tax system ... so everyone pays his or her fair share -- including corporations."
President Obama never tires of calling for "shared sacrifice."
At roughly the same time, Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News reported that "More than half of American households (51 percent) pay no income tax."
His guest, Neal Boortz, added that many of the "poor," rather than paying federal income tax, instead receive checks from the federal government. So, in effect, the government is paying a reverse "tax" to the poor. Is this "shared sacrifice?"
So, what is the fair share that the "rich" should be paying? What is the fair share that corporations should be paying? What is the fair share the "poor" should be paying? But perhaps, more importantly, who gets to say what amounts to a fair share? And who gets to label someone as "rich" or "poor?"
Let's take a simple example. A single man makes $1 million a year on a device that he spent 10 years of his life inventing. What is the fair share he should pay in federal income tax: 20 percent; 40 percent; 60 percent; 90 percent?
And who gets to say so? People with comparable incomes? The 51 percent who pay no federal income tax? Congressmen who are elected by the 51 percent who pay no federal income tax?
Let's take a second simple example. A single man earns $10,000 a year? What is his fair share: 0 percent; 5 percent; 10 percent; 15 percent? And who gets to say so?
At the outset, I don't think it is possible for one who pays no tax to claim he is paying any "share," much less his fair share. When a person "shares" he gives a portion of what he has to another.
Giving your neighbor nothing is not "sharing." It's doing nothing. In Mark's Gospel, we have the story of a poor widow who put two coins worth a few cents into the temple treasury. Christ praised her because she gave from her livelihood, rather than from her surplus. Would He have done so if she had walked by and given nothing? Would that have been "shared sacrifice?"
Is a fair share nothingmore than a percentage? Or, does it take account of the efforts that the wage earner expended to earn his income? Does it take account of the fact that nobody else lifted a finger to help him earn his income? Does it take account of how hard the wage earner worked? His genius in earning the income? What he spent to educate himself to be able to generate the income he has achieved?
What is fair about a married couple earning $250,000 paying 35 percent of their income as federal income tax? Is it more or less fair to say they should pay 50 percent? Where is the line between "fair" and "arbitrary?"
And is it "fair" that someone who earns $10,000 a year, and receives a free public education, medical care and food stamps, should have a right to vote to increase his neighbor's income tax, if he pays no income tax himself. Is it "fair" for someone with "no skin in the game" to have a vote to raise taxes on whoever he labels "rich" without voting to raise his own taxes -- at least a little?
By the way, when does one become "rich?" Or is "rich" like "fair share" in the eye of the beholder?
In a democracy, the majority rules. And that is precisely what bothers me. Since the passage of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes, the courts have never deemed any income tax to be a Fifth Amendment "confiscation of private property for public use," so as to require the government to pay "just compensation" for the "taking" (via taxation).
With the passage of the 16th Amendment, the only "check" upon the government setting income tax rates on the "rich" at 75 percent or even 99 percent, or determining that anyone with an income as small as $25,000 was "rich," has been the fact that everybody paid some tax, and that nobody liked paying more taxes.
Now that 51 percent of "taxpayers" pay no taxes, it is not going to take long before they figure out that it is in their best interest to elect congress and a president who will tax the "rich" at higher and higher rates, and who will insure that those who pay no taxes will be left alone.
The income tax will clearly be shown to be what it is fast becoming: a legal system for plundering your neighbor. As long as everybody is adversely affected by tax increases, there is a practical, if not constitutional, "check" on taxes being raised: self interest. But once 51 percent of the people believe they are unaffected by tax increases on their "wealthy" neighbors, that "check" is gone.
So, as the Internal Revenue Service morphs into the Income Redistribution Service, there is at least some good news:
We will still be able to call the tax collector the IRS.
Posted Online: July 20, 2011, 2:51 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
President Obama never tires of calling for "shared sacrifice."
At roughly the same time, Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News reported that "More than half of American households (51 percent) pay no income tax."
His guest, Neal Boortz, added that many of the "poor," rather than paying federal income tax, instead receive checks from the federal government. So, in effect, the government is paying a reverse "tax" to the poor. Is this "shared sacrifice?"
So, what is the fair share that the "rich" should be paying? What is the fair share that corporations should be paying? What is the fair share the "poor" should be paying? But perhaps, more importantly, who gets to say what amounts to a fair share? And who gets to label someone as "rich" or "poor?"
Let's take a simple example. A single man makes $1 million a year on a device that he spent 10 years of his life inventing. What is the fair share he should pay in federal income tax: 20 percent; 40 percent; 60 percent; 90 percent?
And who gets to say so? People with comparable incomes? The 51 percent who pay no federal income tax? Congressmen who are elected by the 51 percent who pay no federal income tax?
Let's take a second simple example. A single man earns $10,000 a year? What is his fair share: 0 percent; 5 percent; 10 percent; 15 percent? And who gets to say so?
At the outset, I don't think it is possible for one who pays no tax to claim he is paying any "share," much less his fair share. When a person "shares" he gives a portion of what he has to another.
Giving your neighbor nothing is not "sharing." It's doing nothing. In Mark's Gospel, we have the story of a poor widow who put two coins worth a few cents into the temple treasury. Christ praised her because she gave from her livelihood, rather than from her surplus. Would He have done so if she had walked by and given nothing? Would that have been "shared sacrifice?"
Is a fair share nothingmore than a percentage? Or, does it take account of the efforts that the wage earner expended to earn his income? Does it take account of the fact that nobody else lifted a finger to help him earn his income? Does it take account of how hard the wage earner worked? His genius in earning the income? What he spent to educate himself to be able to generate the income he has achieved?
What is fair about a married couple earning $250,000 paying 35 percent of their income as federal income tax? Is it more or less fair to say they should pay 50 percent? Where is the line between "fair" and "arbitrary?"
And is it "fair" that someone who earns $10,000 a year, and receives a free public education, medical care and food stamps, should have a right to vote to increase his neighbor's income tax, if he pays no income tax himself. Is it "fair" for someone with "no skin in the game" to have a vote to raise taxes on whoever he labels "rich" without voting to raise his own taxes -- at least a little?
By the way, when does one become "rich?" Or is "rich" like "fair share" in the eye of the beholder?
In a democracy, the majority rules. And that is precisely what bothers me. Since the passage of the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes, the courts have never deemed any income tax to be a Fifth Amendment "confiscation of private property for public use," so as to require the government to pay "just compensation" for the "taking" (via taxation).
With the passage of the 16th Amendment, the only "check" upon the government setting income tax rates on the "rich" at 75 percent or even 99 percent, or determining that anyone with an income as small as $25,000 was "rich," has been the fact that everybody paid some tax, and that nobody liked paying more taxes.
Now that 51 percent of "taxpayers" pay no taxes, it is not going to take long before they figure out that it is in their best interest to elect congress and a president who will tax the "rich" at higher and higher rates, and who will insure that those who pay no taxes will be left alone.
The income tax will clearly be shown to be what it is fast becoming: a legal system for plundering your neighbor. As long as everybody is adversely affected by tax increases, there is a practical, if not constitutional, "check" on taxes being raised: self interest. But once 51 percent of the people believe they are unaffected by tax increases on their "wealthy" neighbors, that "check" is gone.
So, as the Internal Revenue Service morphs into the Income Redistribution Service, there is at least some good news:
We will still be able to call the tax collector the IRS.
Posted Online: July 20, 2011, 2:51 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, July 7, 2011
How Long Can Illinois Physicians Afford to See Medicaid Patients?
In 2010, Illinois spent $15.5 billion to provide medical care for the poor, according to a recent Associate Press article. (Up from $7.5 billion in 2000.)
The U.S. Census Bureau says that the 2010 Illinois population was 12,830,632. By simple division, the average cost to each resident of Illinois to pay for medical care for the poor is $1,200 per year.
The same said that under the budget passed by the Illinois Legislature, doctors and hospitals have been promised virtually the same fees for services rendered to those on Medicaid that they had received during the prior year. But the amount budgeted to pay for those fees is $1.2 billion short.
The shortfall, however, is only part of the problem. In addition, there are $6 billion of overdue and unpaid medical bills from prior years. Therefore, next year at this time, it appears that there will be $7.2 billion in unpaid medical bills.
Doctors and hospitals will have to wait longer to be paid. A spokesman for the governor suggests a 30-day payment wait might be expected to increase to 120 days.
But is that for "new" bills, or for the bills already six months overdue? In light of this, what can the doctors and the hospitals say other than, "It's better to be paid money eventually, than not to get it at all."
But if doctors and hospitals know they will get paid "eventually," and "eventually" gets 20 percent longer each year, how long will it be before the doctors and the hospitals can no longer wait for "eventually" to happen?
When you buy food from the grocery store and eat it within a few days, it's a little unfair to promise the grocer you will pay him in six months or so. If your grocer is required to pay within 30 days for the meat and potatoes he sells in his store, how is he going to pay his supplier and employees if you don't pay him?
When I was a boy, our family doctor was Dr. Cahill. I don't ever recall going to his office, but I recall him making a house call when I got the chicken pox. But medicine has changed.
Today the practice of medicine is more complex. The doctor is assisted by a clerk/receptionist, an office nurse, a scheduler, an insurance billing assistant, a Medicare billing assistant, etc.
These employees all have to be paid, and the doctor doesn't have the luxury of telling his staff he will pay them in six months or whenever he "eventually" gets paid by the State of Illinois.
When a doctor is forced to wait six months to be paid for seeing Medicaid patients, he had better have a sufficient number of privately insured patients to allow him to meet his employee payroll, to pay for his malpractice insurance, to pay the rent on his office, to pay himself a reasonable salary, etc.
If he doesn't, he won't be in business when "eventually" finally comes. I don't think Dr. Cahill faced these problems.
I think it is fair to say that the state's ability to pay doctors and hospitals isn't going to improve as long as the economy remains in the doldrums, and tax revenues remain low. But then, what happens when Obamacare kicks in?
What happens to those doctors and hospitals who, because of private insurance payments, are now able to wait six months to be paid for services rendered to Medicaid patients?
If doctors' revenues fall sharply, what does that do to their ability to see Medicaid patients, and wait months to be paid? If doctors has to see more non-Medicaid patients (because those patients no longer have private insurance) to keep their revenues at pre-Obamacare levels, does this mean that the doctors and the hospitals will have less time to see Medicaid patients?
I don't know. But if a doctor is used to a certain level of income, and what he can charge patients is reduced, he will need to see more patients to generate the same income. And I suspect, that means, he will be able to see fewer of the poorest patients.
Especially, if the state cuts fees paid, or turns "eventually" into something even longer.
Posted Online: July 6, 2011, 2:53 p. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.
The U.S. Census Bureau says that the 2010 Illinois population was 12,830,632. By simple division, the average cost to each resident of Illinois to pay for medical care for the poor is $1,200 per year.
The same said that under the budget passed by the Illinois Legislature, doctors and hospitals have been promised virtually the same fees for services rendered to those on Medicaid that they had received during the prior year. But the amount budgeted to pay for those fees is $1.2 billion short.
The shortfall, however, is only part of the problem. In addition, there are $6 billion of overdue and unpaid medical bills from prior years. Therefore, next year at this time, it appears that there will be $7.2 billion in unpaid medical bills.
Doctors and hospitals will have to wait longer to be paid. A spokesman for the governor suggests a 30-day payment wait might be expected to increase to 120 days.
But is that for "new" bills, or for the bills already six months overdue? In light of this, what can the doctors and the hospitals say other than, "It's better to be paid money eventually, than not to get it at all."
But if doctors and hospitals know they will get paid "eventually," and "eventually" gets 20 percent longer each year, how long will it be before the doctors and the hospitals can no longer wait for "eventually" to happen?
When you buy food from the grocery store and eat it within a few days, it's a little unfair to promise the grocer you will pay him in six months or so. If your grocer is required to pay within 30 days for the meat and potatoes he sells in his store, how is he going to pay his supplier and employees if you don't pay him?
When I was a boy, our family doctor was Dr. Cahill. I don't ever recall going to his office, but I recall him making a house call when I got the chicken pox. But medicine has changed.
Today the practice of medicine is more complex. The doctor is assisted by a clerk/receptionist, an office nurse, a scheduler, an insurance billing assistant, a Medicare billing assistant, etc.
These employees all have to be paid, and the doctor doesn't have the luxury of telling his staff he will pay them in six months or whenever he "eventually" gets paid by the State of Illinois.
When a doctor is forced to wait six months to be paid for seeing Medicaid patients, he had better have a sufficient number of privately insured patients to allow him to meet his employee payroll, to pay for his malpractice insurance, to pay the rent on his office, to pay himself a reasonable salary, etc.
If he doesn't, he won't be in business when "eventually" finally comes. I don't think Dr. Cahill faced these problems.
I think it is fair to say that the state's ability to pay doctors and hospitals isn't going to improve as long as the economy remains in the doldrums, and tax revenues remain low. But then, what happens when Obamacare kicks in?
What happens to those doctors and hospitals who, because of private insurance payments, are now able to wait six months to be paid for services rendered to Medicaid patients?
If doctors' revenues fall sharply, what does that do to their ability to see Medicaid patients, and wait months to be paid? If doctors has to see more non-Medicaid patients (because those patients no longer have private insurance) to keep their revenues at pre-Obamacare levels, does this mean that the doctors and the hospitals will have less time to see Medicaid patients?
I don't know. But if a doctor is used to a certain level of income, and what he can charge patients is reduced, he will need to see more patients to generate the same income. And I suspect, that means, he will be able to see fewer of the poorest patients.
Especially, if the state cuts fees paid, or turns "eventually" into something even longer.
Posted Online: July 6, 2011, 2:53 p. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
John Donald O'Shea of Moline is a retired circuit court judge.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Does it Matter that a Congressman Is a Liar?
Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., has resigned.
So, what had he done that required him to do so? Sent inappropriate photos of himself to women? Demonstrated deplorable judgment? Lied?
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., himself censured for ethics violations by the House a year ago, purports to be nonplussed at all the fuss. He sees Mr. Weiner's conduct only as something of a sexual nature. Mr. Rangel describes himself as someone who "knows immoral sex when I hear it." Mr. Rangel also sees the bright side of things: "(Mr. Weiner) wasn't going with prostitutes; he wasn't going out with little boys; he wasn't going into men's' rooms." Rangel would have us believe that he doesn't "know why they're selecting Anthony;" and adds "he can be an effective congressman, if the press just gets ... his back." Rangel ostensibly appears to be blissfully unconcerned that Mr. Weiner might have demonstrated deplorable judgment, or that he has now confessed to being a willful liar.
So, is it important for a member of Congress to always act with integrity and good judgment? Fifty-two percent of the people polled in Weiner's district apparently don't think so.
Would they reach the same conclusion if Mr. Weiner were a judge?
Assume "Judge Weiner" enjoyed the best of health, was a brilliant, tireless worker and possessed a saintly judicial temperament. Would they vote for him, if they knew he was a persistent liar with deplorable judgment?
Years ago, a prominent local attorney told me that "a man has no business being a judge if he lacks integrity." I unreservedly agree. And I would also add that the bench is no place for a man with puerile judgment.
Judges with integrity decide cases on their merits. They don't take bribes. They recuse themselves if they feel they can't be fair to both sides. They don't listen to ex parte communications. They don't accept "gifts" from attorneys or litigants, and they don't make rulings calculated to advance their judicial careers. Judges with good judgment don't do things, on or off the bench, that they know will cause embarrassment to themselves, their families or to the judicial system.
Integrity is the public's guarantee that the judge will conscientiously apply the law, and exercise his best judgment to determine the facts so as to make the legally correct ruling.
But what about Congressmen? A judge without integrity harms or improperly benefits only the litigants who appear in his court. A congressman by voting for the passage of a law can harm -- or benefit -- millions.
On June 6, 2011, Weiner faced the press and admitted, "I lied."
Weiner said he panicked when Andrew Breitbart revealed a picture that Weiner had put on the Internet, so he made up a story about his account being hacked.
Only when the noose tightened, did Mr. Weiner admit, , "I have made terrible mistakes. ... I have not been honest. The picture was of me and I sent it... I lied because I was embarrassed."
Supporters argued that his sexual proclivities are private matters (even though the congressman published them on the Internet?). They've told us he's "smart," and suggest his brilliance makes him indispensable.
I'm sorry. I don't buy it. Either a man has integrity, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. Or should we be satisfied with congressmen who lie only 50 percent of the time, or just when it is to his advantage to do so?
Equally bad, is Mr. Weiner's appalling lack of judgment. What he is really saying is that he used terrible judgment by making salacious suggestions online, and in putting pictures of himself on the Internet. Then when it looked like he would be embarrassed by what he did, he used more bad judgment and decided to lie to see if he could get away with it. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying to the press at a press conference. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying from his congressional office. And now he has been forced to admit that by his lies and bad judgment, he brought himself and his office of public trust into disrepute.
Before resigning, Mr. Weiner asked forgiveness. Implicit in that, is that was that he expected us to forget that he is a brazen liar, and a man of reprehensible judgment. But why should we? We had conclusive evidence that he would repeatedly lie to save his skin. We were asked to believe that in other matters he would act with integrity in the future. But why should be believe that a congressman who has demonstrated me-first ethics will put the public welfare first in all matter?
The real question is can the republic survive if we entrust it to politicians who lie and attempt to cover their lies whenever it is to their advantage to do so?
Posted Online: June 28, 2011, 5:00 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
So, what had he done that required him to do so? Sent inappropriate photos of himself to women? Demonstrated deplorable judgment? Lied?
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., himself censured for ethics violations by the House a year ago, purports to be nonplussed at all the fuss. He sees Mr. Weiner's conduct only as something of a sexual nature. Mr. Rangel describes himself as someone who "knows immoral sex when I hear it." Mr. Rangel also sees the bright side of things: "(Mr. Weiner) wasn't going with prostitutes; he wasn't going out with little boys; he wasn't going into men's' rooms." Rangel would have us believe that he doesn't "know why they're selecting Anthony;" and adds "he can be an effective congressman, if the press just gets ... his back." Rangel ostensibly appears to be blissfully unconcerned that Mr. Weiner might have demonstrated deplorable judgment, or that he has now confessed to being a willful liar.
So, is it important for a member of Congress to always act with integrity and good judgment? Fifty-two percent of the people polled in Weiner's district apparently don't think so.
Would they reach the same conclusion if Mr. Weiner were a judge?
Assume "Judge Weiner" enjoyed the best of health, was a brilliant, tireless worker and possessed a saintly judicial temperament. Would they vote for him, if they knew he was a persistent liar with deplorable judgment?
Years ago, a prominent local attorney told me that "a man has no business being a judge if he lacks integrity." I unreservedly agree. And I would also add that the bench is no place for a man with puerile judgment.
Judges with integrity decide cases on their merits. They don't take bribes. They recuse themselves if they feel they can't be fair to both sides. They don't listen to ex parte communications. They don't accept "gifts" from attorneys or litigants, and they don't make rulings calculated to advance their judicial careers. Judges with good judgment don't do things, on or off the bench, that they know will cause embarrassment to themselves, their families or to the judicial system.
Integrity is the public's guarantee that the judge will conscientiously apply the law, and exercise his best judgment to determine the facts so as to make the legally correct ruling.
But what about Congressmen? A judge without integrity harms or improperly benefits only the litigants who appear in his court. A congressman by voting for the passage of a law can harm -- or benefit -- millions.
On June 6, 2011, Weiner faced the press and admitted, "I lied."
Weiner said he panicked when Andrew Breitbart revealed a picture that Weiner had put on the Internet, so he made up a story about his account being hacked.
Only when the noose tightened, did Mr. Weiner admit, , "I have made terrible mistakes. ... I have not been honest. The picture was of me and I sent it... I lied because I was embarrassed."
Supporters argued that his sexual proclivities are private matters (even though the congressman published them on the Internet?). They've told us he's "smart," and suggest his brilliance makes him indispensable.
I'm sorry. I don't buy it. Either a man has integrity, or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. Or should we be satisfied with congressmen who lie only 50 percent of the time, or just when it is to his advantage to do so?
Equally bad, is Mr. Weiner's appalling lack of judgment. What he is really saying is that he used terrible judgment by making salacious suggestions online, and in putting pictures of himself on the Internet. Then when it looked like he would be embarrassed by what he did, he used more bad judgment and decided to lie to see if he could get away with it. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying to the press at a press conference. Then he used even more bad judgment by lying from his congressional office. And now he has been forced to admit that by his lies and bad judgment, he brought himself and his office of public trust into disrepute.
Before resigning, Mr. Weiner asked forgiveness. Implicit in that, is that was that he expected us to forget that he is a brazen liar, and a man of reprehensible judgment. But why should we? We had conclusive evidence that he would repeatedly lie to save his skin. We were asked to believe that in other matters he would act with integrity in the future. But why should be believe that a congressman who has demonstrated me-first ethics will put the public welfare first in all matter?
The real question is can the republic survive if we entrust it to politicians who lie and attempt to cover their lies whenever it is to their advantage to do so?
Posted Online: June 28, 2011, 5:00 a. m. - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Undertaxed? Depends on What You Demand from Washington
The Associated Press tells us that there is a "dirty little secret that most Americans don't want to hear: We're under taxed." AP argues that Americans are under taxed because federal income taxes are less than 18 percent of gross domestic product (the historic average).
So are you under taxed?
Your answer may depend upon whether you are one of the 50 percent who pays federal income tax, or the other 50 percent who doesn't. Of course, it is entirely possible that you believe that only your neighbor should be paying more.
But I would argue whether you are under taxed really depends on what you demand of Washington.
Very few Americans today realize that from 1787 up until the Civil War in 1861, no American paid any federal income tax. In those days, the federal government paid its way with imposts and excises taxes. At least after 1816, if a British manufacturer wanted to sell his manufactured goods in the U. S., he had to pay a duty or an import tax to get them in. Somebody who turned corn into liquor for sale to his fellow Americans, had to pay an excise tax.
The income tax is what is know as a direct tax. A direct tax is a tax on individuals or their property. A direct tax is the opposite of a requisition. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to levy a direct tax. The articles limited Congress to making "requisitions" upon the state governments. Then it was up to the states to levy the tax for the federal government -- which they often failed to do.
This "defect" in the articles, was one major reason why the Founding Fathers created our present Constitution.
But our Founding Fathers were not fools. They gave Congress the power to levy direct taxes, but out of fear that a majority might abuse that power to tax the minority for the majority's benefit, they required that direct taxes had to be in "proportion to the census."
During the Civil War, the courts looked the "other way" when Congress passed a federal income tax to finance the war. But when Congress reinstated the federal income tax after the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as a "direct tax" not in "proportion to the census."
It was not until 1913, that the 16th Amendment was passed that Congress was given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source, without apportionment among the several states.
The point is this: There were many generations of Americans who would have disagreed when the AP claims we're under taxed, and that we should pay more federal income tax. Equally inane is the AP contention that unless the income tax is at least 18 percent of gross domestic product, (the historic average) that we are under taxed.
The difference between Americans of today, and Americans of the period before the Civil War, is this: Americans of today want governmental services and subsidies.
In ante-bellum America, there was sharp disagreement between the New England states and the Western states over whether it was even constitutional to use public revenues to finance public improvements, such as a "national road."
The Erie Canal was built with state, and not federal money. And there was near violent disagreement between the manufacturing states of the North, and the agricultural South over the tariff.
The manufacturers of the North wanted protection against cheap foreign manufacturers. The South wanted to buy imported goods without paying a tax to do so.
In pre-Civil War America, the federal government didn't need to tax the American people at least 18 percent of the gross domestic product because it wasn't in the business of providing all the subsidies and services to the American people that modern Americans demand.
Have you ever heard of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)? According to the General Services Administration, which publishes the catalog, the CFDA is a compendium of federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. It contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the Federal government.
The catalog provides a full listing or all 2,135 federal assistance programs that you fund when you pay your federal taxes, as well as detailed descriptions of those 2,135 programs. According to the CFDA, your tax dollars go to fund programs o :
-- State and local governments;
-- Federally-recognized Indian tribal governments;
-- Territories (and possessions) of the United States;
-- Domestic public, quasi-public organizations;
-- Private profit and nonprofit organizations;
-- Specialized groups; and individuals.
According to the CFDA's May 2 update, when you pay federal taxes you are supporting 427 subsidy programs of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as a plethora of subsidy programs controlled by other agencies, including, 231 subsidy programs of the Department of Agriculture, 220 of the Department of the Interior, 170 of the Department of Education, and 125 out of the Department of Justice.
There was a time when Americans did not have 2,135 federal assistance programs.
If you want 2,135 such programs, then the AP may be right. You deserve to pay higher taxes. There is no free lunch.
Posted Online: May 20, 2011, 2:34 pm - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
So are you under taxed?
Your answer may depend upon whether you are one of the 50 percent who pays federal income tax, or the other 50 percent who doesn't. Of course, it is entirely possible that you believe that only your neighbor should be paying more.
But I would argue whether you are under taxed really depends on what you demand of Washington.
Very few Americans today realize that from 1787 up until the Civil War in 1861, no American paid any federal income tax. In those days, the federal government paid its way with imposts and excises taxes. At least after 1816, if a British manufacturer wanted to sell his manufactured goods in the U. S., he had to pay a duty or an import tax to get them in. Somebody who turned corn into liquor for sale to his fellow Americans, had to pay an excise tax.
The income tax is what is know as a direct tax. A direct tax is a tax on individuals or their property. A direct tax is the opposite of a requisition. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had no power to levy a direct tax. The articles limited Congress to making "requisitions" upon the state governments. Then it was up to the states to levy the tax for the federal government -- which they often failed to do.
This "defect" in the articles, was one major reason why the Founding Fathers created our present Constitution.
But our Founding Fathers were not fools. They gave Congress the power to levy direct taxes, but out of fear that a majority might abuse that power to tax the minority for the majority's benefit, they required that direct taxes had to be in "proportion to the census."
During the Civil War, the courts looked the "other way" when Congress passed a federal income tax to finance the war. But when Congress reinstated the federal income tax after the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down as a "direct tax" not in "proportion to the census."
It was not until 1913, that the 16th Amendment was passed that Congress was given power to collect taxes on incomes from whatever source, without apportionment among the several states.
The point is this: There were many generations of Americans who would have disagreed when the AP claims we're under taxed, and that we should pay more federal income tax. Equally inane is the AP contention that unless the income tax is at least 18 percent of gross domestic product, (the historic average) that we are under taxed.
The difference between Americans of today, and Americans of the period before the Civil War, is this: Americans of today want governmental services and subsidies.
In ante-bellum America, there was sharp disagreement between the New England states and the Western states over whether it was even constitutional to use public revenues to finance public improvements, such as a "national road."
The Erie Canal was built with state, and not federal money. And there was near violent disagreement between the manufacturing states of the North, and the agricultural South over the tariff.
The manufacturers of the North wanted protection against cheap foreign manufacturers. The South wanted to buy imported goods without paying a tax to do so.
In pre-Civil War America, the federal government didn't need to tax the American people at least 18 percent of the gross domestic product because it wasn't in the business of providing all the subsidies and services to the American people that modern Americans demand.
Have you ever heard of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)? According to the General Services Administration, which publishes the catalog, the CFDA is a compendium of federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the American public. It contains financial and nonfinancial assistance programs administered by departments and establishments of the Federal government.
The catalog provides a full listing or all 2,135 federal assistance programs that you fund when you pay your federal taxes, as well as detailed descriptions of those 2,135 programs. According to the CFDA, your tax dollars go to fund programs o :
-- State and local governments;
-- Federally-recognized Indian tribal governments;
-- Territories (and possessions) of the United States;
-- Domestic public, quasi-public organizations;
-- Private profit and nonprofit organizations;
-- Specialized groups; and individuals.
According to the CFDA's May 2 update, when you pay federal taxes you are supporting 427 subsidy programs of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as a plethora of subsidy programs controlled by other agencies, including, 231 subsidy programs of the Department of Agriculture, 220 of the Department of the Interior, 170 of the Department of Education, and 125 out of the Department of Justice.
There was a time when Americans did not have 2,135 federal assistance programs.
If you want 2,135 such programs, then the AP may be right. You deserve to pay higher taxes. There is no free lunch.
Posted Online: May 20, 2011, 2:34 pm - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
Do You Really Know How Much Tax You pay? Does Anyone?
Recently, I opined that how much federal income tax you should pay depends on what benefits you demand of government. Now, I suggest that to answer that question intelligently, you also need know what other taxes you are paying.
Assume you are single executive without dependents and an adjusted gross income of $155,000, with a home assessed at $400,000. On that, you will be paying these very "conspicuous" taxes:
-- Federal income tax: $30,000;
-- Illinois 5 percent income tax: $7,600;
-- Rock Island County real estate tax: $10,900;
-- FICA (6.25 percent on first $106,800 of earnings): $6,675;
-- Medicare (1.45 percent): $2,500;
-- Sales tax (city, 1 percent and State 6.25 percent) $1,500.
That totals roughly $59,000, or about 38 percent of your adjusted gross income. But is that all the taxes you pay? If you think it is, you need a court-appointed guardian. Apart from inflation, there are a plethora of "hidden taxes" you pay -- perhaps unknowingly. Modern government provides a vast range of service for the citizen, as diverse as maintaining an army, paying government pensions and collecting garbage.
Most hidden taxes seem small. But some, like sewer and water, are significant.And they come at your from almost every direction, and in many guises. That quarterly $150 "user fee" you pay for city water and sewer adds up to $600 per year.
The $3.81 you pay each month on your cable bill adds up to an annual tax of $46. The $12.83 "taxes, governmental surcharges and fees" you find each month on your cell phone bill multiplies out to $154 a year. The $2.54 you pay each month for your landline phone adds up to an annual tax of $30. If your electric bill runs $35 per month, over a year you will pay $31 in taxes.
If your natural gas bill runs $150 per month, over 12 months your sundry taxes will run about $102. If you use 12 gallons a gas per week for your car, in addition to general sales taxes, you will pay 37.4 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes, or $233 annually.
And if you buy 600 gallons of gasoline per year at $3.85 per gallon, you will pay a $70 a fuel storage tank tax. That's another $1,400 per year. Hidden federal taxes include:
-- A gasoline tax of about 18.4 cents per gallon;
-- Cigarette tax at $1 per pack;
-- Telecommunication's tax at 3 percent on local calls;
- Air travel tax at 7.5 percent of the price of a domestic airline ticket, plus $3.70 for each segment of the trip;
-- Alcoholic beverages taxed at $13.50 per proof gallon;
-- New truck excise tax at 12 percent of the purchase price;
-- Vaccine tax at 75 cents per dose,
-- Indoor tanning tax, at 10 percent of price;
-- Taxes on sporting goods, fishing equipment, 10 percent tax on price; Archery equipment, 45 cents per shaft and 11 percent of the sales price per quiver; shotguns, rifles and ammo at 11 percent of the sales price, and handguns and ammo at 10 percent of the sales price;
-- Tax on coal mined underground or on surface, 4.4 percent of sales price.
Not to be outdone, Illinois also imposes "hidden taxes." Included are:
-- State gasoline tax at 19 cents per gallon, plus a 3 percent underground storage tanks tax;
-- State cigarette tax at 98 cents per pack;
-- State taxes on alcohol; liquor at $8.55 per gallon, table wine at $1.39 per gallon, beer at 23 cents per gallon;
-- An electricity excise tax at the rate of a third-of-a-cent per kilowatt hour; a gas utility tax at the lower of 5 percent of current charges before taxes or 2.4 cents per therm;
-- Illinois Commerce Commission tax at one tenth-of-a-cent;
-- Telecommunications tax at the rate of 7 percent;
-- A 911 fee at 73 cents per month.
And then there are municipal taxes. In Moline we have:
-- A hotel/motel use Tax of 2 percent of rental charge, a hotel/motel operators' occupation tax at 5 percent of all gross rental receipts and a special service area motel/hotel tax at 1 percent of all gross rental receipts;
-- A 2 percent tax on premiums paid to foreign fire insurance companies;
-- Motor fuel tax of a penny per per gallon;
-- A 1 percent sales tax;
-- An amusement tax of 3 percent of admission for venues over 8,000 seats;
-- A video tax at the rate of 5 percent of gross receipts;
-- A prepared food and liqore tax at 1.5 percent of the sales price;
-- A utility tax of 3 percent of gross receipts which is scheduled to increase to 5 percent;
-- An electrical usage tax of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, which will increase to 36.6 per k/hr on Jan. 12, 2012.
Then, of course, we pay for water at $25 per month, plus $3.80 for each 1,000 gallons used, and for sewer at$20 per month, and $4.08 for each 1,000 gallons of water metered. And if you buy a new car that gets 22 mpg, you will pay a $1,000 "gas guzzler" tax; $7,700 if it gets less than 12.5 mpg.
And the list goes on: building permits, license plates, driver and commercial drivers licenses, court fines and cost, dog licenses, fishing and hunting licenses, marriage licenses, fees to record deeds and mortgages, fees for birth and death certificates, septic tank permits, recreational vehicle taxes, road and bridge tolls, fees to dispose of used motor oil and dead batteries.
So if you are one of those people not content with paying a mere 38 percent of your income in the six "conspicuous" taxes I described, you might want to calculate how much you are paying in "hidden taxes" before you lead the charge to raise income taxes.Or if you are guilt-ridden over your untaxed income, feel free to donate it to the government.
Governments like hidden taxes.
How much do you pay?
Do you know?
Does anyone?
Posted Online: June 16, 2011, 9:09 am - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
Assume you are single executive without dependents and an adjusted gross income of $155,000, with a home assessed at $400,000. On that, you will be paying these very "conspicuous" taxes:
-- Federal income tax: $30,000;
-- Illinois 5 percent income tax: $7,600;
-- Rock Island County real estate tax: $10,900;
-- FICA (6.25 percent on first $106,800 of earnings): $6,675;
-- Medicare (1.45 percent): $2,500;
-- Sales tax (city, 1 percent and State 6.25 percent) $1,500.
That totals roughly $59,000, or about 38 percent of your adjusted gross income. But is that all the taxes you pay? If you think it is, you need a court-appointed guardian. Apart from inflation, there are a plethora of "hidden taxes" you pay -- perhaps unknowingly. Modern government provides a vast range of service for the citizen, as diverse as maintaining an army, paying government pensions and collecting garbage.
Most hidden taxes seem small. But some, like sewer and water, are significant.And they come at your from almost every direction, and in many guises. That quarterly $150 "user fee" you pay for city water and sewer adds up to $600 per year.
The $3.81 you pay each month on your cable bill adds up to an annual tax of $46. The $12.83 "taxes, governmental surcharges and fees" you find each month on your cell phone bill multiplies out to $154 a year. The $2.54 you pay each month for your landline phone adds up to an annual tax of $30. If your electric bill runs $35 per month, over a year you will pay $31 in taxes.
If your natural gas bill runs $150 per month, over 12 months your sundry taxes will run about $102. If you use 12 gallons a gas per week for your car, in addition to general sales taxes, you will pay 37.4 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes, or $233 annually.
And if you buy 600 gallons of gasoline per year at $3.85 per gallon, you will pay a $70 a fuel storage tank tax. That's another $1,400 per year. Hidden federal taxes include:
-- A gasoline tax of about 18.4 cents per gallon;
-- Cigarette tax at $1 per pack;
-- Telecommunication's tax at 3 percent on local calls;
- Air travel tax at 7.5 percent of the price of a domestic airline ticket, plus $3.70 for each segment of the trip;
-- Alcoholic beverages taxed at $13.50 per proof gallon;
-- New truck excise tax at 12 percent of the purchase price;
-- Vaccine tax at 75 cents per dose,
-- Indoor tanning tax, at 10 percent of price;
-- Taxes on sporting goods, fishing equipment, 10 percent tax on price; Archery equipment, 45 cents per shaft and 11 percent of the sales price per quiver; shotguns, rifles and ammo at 11 percent of the sales price, and handguns and ammo at 10 percent of the sales price;
-- Tax on coal mined underground or on surface, 4.4 percent of sales price.
Not to be outdone, Illinois also imposes "hidden taxes." Included are:
-- State gasoline tax at 19 cents per gallon, plus a 3 percent underground storage tanks tax;
-- State cigarette tax at 98 cents per pack;
-- State taxes on alcohol; liquor at $8.55 per gallon, table wine at $1.39 per gallon, beer at 23 cents per gallon;
-- An electricity excise tax at the rate of a third-of-a-cent per kilowatt hour; a gas utility tax at the lower of 5 percent of current charges before taxes or 2.4 cents per therm;
-- Illinois Commerce Commission tax at one tenth-of-a-cent;
-- Telecommunications tax at the rate of 7 percent;
-- A 911 fee at 73 cents per month.
And then there are municipal taxes. In Moline we have:
-- A hotel/motel use Tax of 2 percent of rental charge, a hotel/motel operators' occupation tax at 5 percent of all gross rental receipts and a special service area motel/hotel tax at 1 percent of all gross rental receipts;
-- A 2 percent tax on premiums paid to foreign fire insurance companies;
-- Motor fuel tax of a penny per per gallon;
-- A 1 percent sales tax;
-- An amusement tax of 3 percent of admission for venues over 8,000 seats;
-- A video tax at the rate of 5 percent of gross receipts;
-- A prepared food and liqore tax at 1.5 percent of the sales price;
-- A utility tax of 3 percent of gross receipts which is scheduled to increase to 5 percent;
-- An electrical usage tax of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, which will increase to 36.6 per k/hr on Jan. 12, 2012.
Then, of course, we pay for water at $25 per month, plus $3.80 for each 1,000 gallons used, and for sewer at$20 per month, and $4.08 for each 1,000 gallons of water metered. And if you buy a new car that gets 22 mpg, you will pay a $1,000 "gas guzzler" tax; $7,700 if it gets less than 12.5 mpg.
And the list goes on: building permits, license plates, driver and commercial drivers licenses, court fines and cost, dog licenses, fishing and hunting licenses, marriage licenses, fees to record deeds and mortgages, fees for birth and death certificates, septic tank permits, recreational vehicle taxes, road and bridge tolls, fees to dispose of used motor oil and dead batteries.
So if you are one of those people not content with paying a mere 38 percent of your income in the six "conspicuous" taxes I described, you might want to calculate how much you are paying in "hidden taxes" before you lead the charge to raise income taxes.Or if you are guilt-ridden over your untaxed income, feel free to donate it to the government.
Governments like hidden taxes.
How much do you pay?
Do you know?
Does anyone?
Posted Online: June 16, 2011, 9:09 am - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
Judicial vs. Legislative Ethics: Should Jacobs Have Sponsored Smart Grid?
Is it proper for a member of the Illinois Legislature to sponsor a bill when his father is acting as a paid lobbyist for someone who wants that bill passed?
How would you feel if you appeared in court before a circuit judge whose father was appearing as the attorney for your opponent?
Would the judge have a conflict of interest? Would there at least be an "appearance of impropriety?" Would the fact that the judge announced from the bench that "he was aware that his father was appearing before him, but that he felt he could give both sides a fair trial" put you at ease?
The Illinois Supreme Court's Code of Judicial Conduct makes unmistakably clear that a judge cannot hear a case in which his father appears as an attorney. Rule 63, Canon 3 provides for an absolute disqualification. Indeed, a number of disqualifications.
"(1) A judge shall disqualify himself... in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
"(d) the judge knows that he or ... the judge's ... parent ... has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy ...
"(e) the judge ... or a person within the third degree of relationship to (him) ... (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; ..."
Violations can result in censure, suspension or even removal from office.
Illinois State Sen. Kyle McCarter has accused fellow Sen. Mike Jacobs of "coming to my seat, using profanity, and pointing his finger before he punched me with his clenched fist."
Sen. Jacobs told Fox Chicago News that Sen. McCarter is "full of (deleted) to have implied (that I have) a conflict of interest." I am not dealing with the truth or falsity of McCarter's punching allegations.
What is not in dispute is that Sen. Jacobs sponsored SB1652, and that his father, former senator Denny Jacobs, was a paid disclosed lobbyist in the employ of Illinois' two largest electric utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, which wanted the bill passed.
And Sen. Jacobs took to the Senate floor to urge colleagues to pass a so-called Smart Grid bill which Gov. Pat Quinn said "guarantees increased annual profits for shareholders at the expense of higher rates for Illinois consumers and businesses."
But can Sen. Jacobs ethically sponsor a bill when his father is a lobbyist on behalf of people who have a major financial interest in seeing that bill passed?
Legislator ethics are generally governed by three laws: The Lobbyist Registration Act, the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act., and the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act. Compare Section 3-202 of Illinois Governmental Ethics Act with the Judicial Conduct set out above.
"When a legislator must take official action on a legislative matter as to which he has a conflict situation created by personal or family ... interest, he should consider the possibility of eliminating the interest creating the conflict situation. If that is not feasible he should consider the possibility of abstaining from official action.
"In making his decision as to abstention, the following factors should be considered
"a. whether a substantial threat to his independence of judgment has been created by the conflict situation;
"b. the effect of his participation of the public confidence in the integrity of the legislation;
"c. whether his participation is likely to have any significant effect on disposition of the matter."
Section 3-202, however, is intended only as a guide to legislators, and not as a rule meant to be enforced by disciplinary action. So whether or not Sen. Jacobs had a conflict of interest, or whether his conduct created an appearance of impropriety, is left to his sound discretion -- and public perception.
Sen. Jacobs did more than vote on the matter. His vote may well have been immaterial. But he sponsored the bill and took the floor to urge his colleagues to support a bill that his dad has been paid to lobby through the Legislature.
I have always liked Denny Jacobs. And I don't deny his right to act as a paid lobbyist. But if Denny Jacobs is going to lobby for passage of a bill, Sen. Mike Jacobs should abstain entirely on the matter. Otherwise there is an appearance that if you hire Denny you might also be getting the senator as well. If Mike Jacobs wants to be seen as having integrity, he must avoid the appearances of impropriety. He can't do something which, in the words of The Dispatch/Argus editorial, is "a conflict by nearly everyone's standards." And if this is "a conflict by nearly everyone's standards," is it not time for the Illinois Legislature to pass a Code of Legislative Conduct comparable to the to the Code of Judicial Conduct, with comparable sanctions?
Posted Online: June 06, 2011, 2:11 pm - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
How would you feel if you appeared in court before a circuit judge whose father was appearing as the attorney for your opponent?
Would the judge have a conflict of interest? Would there at least be an "appearance of impropriety?" Would the fact that the judge announced from the bench that "he was aware that his father was appearing before him, but that he felt he could give both sides a fair trial" put you at ease?
The Illinois Supreme Court's Code of Judicial Conduct makes unmistakably clear that a judge cannot hear a case in which his father appears as an attorney. Rule 63, Canon 3 provides for an absolute disqualification. Indeed, a number of disqualifications.
"(1) A judge shall disqualify himself... in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:
"(d) the judge knows that he or ... the judge's ... parent ... has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy ...
"(e) the judge ... or a person within the third degree of relationship to (him) ... (ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; ..."
Violations can result in censure, suspension or even removal from office.
Illinois State Sen. Kyle McCarter has accused fellow Sen. Mike Jacobs of "coming to my seat, using profanity, and pointing his finger before he punched me with his clenched fist."
Sen. Jacobs told Fox Chicago News that Sen. McCarter is "full of (deleted) to have implied (that I have) a conflict of interest." I am not dealing with the truth or falsity of McCarter's punching allegations.
What is not in dispute is that Sen. Jacobs sponsored SB1652, and that his father, former senator Denny Jacobs, was a paid disclosed lobbyist in the employ of Illinois' two largest electric utilities, Commonwealth Edison and Ameren, which wanted the bill passed.
And Sen. Jacobs took to the Senate floor to urge colleagues to pass a so-called Smart Grid bill which Gov. Pat Quinn said "guarantees increased annual profits for shareholders at the expense of higher rates for Illinois consumers and businesses."
But can Sen. Jacobs ethically sponsor a bill when his father is a lobbyist on behalf of people who have a major financial interest in seeing that bill passed?
Legislator ethics are generally governed by three laws: The Lobbyist Registration Act, the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act., and the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act. Compare Section 3-202 of Illinois Governmental Ethics Act with the Judicial Conduct set out above.
"When a legislator must take official action on a legislative matter as to which he has a conflict situation created by personal or family ... interest, he should consider the possibility of eliminating the interest creating the conflict situation. If that is not feasible he should consider the possibility of abstaining from official action.
"In making his decision as to abstention, the following factors should be considered
"a. whether a substantial threat to his independence of judgment has been created by the conflict situation;
"b. the effect of his participation of the public confidence in the integrity of the legislation;
"c. whether his participation is likely to have any significant effect on disposition of the matter."
Section 3-202, however, is intended only as a guide to legislators, and not as a rule meant to be enforced by disciplinary action. So whether or not Sen. Jacobs had a conflict of interest, or whether his conduct created an appearance of impropriety, is left to his sound discretion -- and public perception.
Sen. Jacobs did more than vote on the matter. His vote may well have been immaterial. But he sponsored the bill and took the floor to urge his colleagues to support a bill that his dad has been paid to lobby through the Legislature.
I have always liked Denny Jacobs. And I don't deny his right to act as a paid lobbyist. But if Denny Jacobs is going to lobby for passage of a bill, Sen. Mike Jacobs should abstain entirely on the matter. Otherwise there is an appearance that if you hire Denny you might also be getting the senator as well. If Mike Jacobs wants to be seen as having integrity, he must avoid the appearances of impropriety. He can't do something which, in the words of The Dispatch/Argus editorial, is "a conflict by nearly everyone's standards." And if this is "a conflict by nearly everyone's standards," is it not time for the Illinois Legislature to pass a Code of Legislative Conduct comparable to the to the Code of Judicial Conduct, with comparable sanctions?
Posted Online: June 06, 2011, 2:11 pm - Quad-Cities Online.com
By John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011
John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)