If You're Successful and It Isn't Your Fault, Whose Is It?

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. ... Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something: There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

These remarks come from a speech delivered by President Barrack Obama on July 16 at Roanoke, Va. When I first heard reports of this speech, I was shocked.

I was shocked further when I found the entirety of the speech at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia.

The president is obviously correct when he says roads, bridges, the internet and the American system facilitate American business. But that is like saying no farmer is successful without farmland. You obviously can't farm without farmland, but without the efforts of the farmer you get only weeds, brush and trees. Nor can you raise corn without seed. But if the farmer owns land, and buys seed and leaves the seed in the barn, he isn't going to have a corn crop -- unless somebody else does the work for him.

The same is true of having a good teacher and a road. Imagine a man and his wife opening a Yoga studio in downtown Moline. They won't have a successful business because they had wonderful teachers, ample nearby parking, and a road in front of their business.

The proof is simple. The guy who runs the business next door may be located along the same road, have the same access to parking, and may have had the very same teachers during his school years. But why does the Yoga business thrive after six years, while the business next door goes out of business? The reason is clear. The owners of the Yoga studio worked hard to be successful, and made good business decisions. The owners of the defunct business either didn't work hard enough or made improvident business decisions.

Why has Apple Computer succeeded? Did it build a better computer? A better iPod? A better iPad? A better iPhone? Did they have better ideas? Better execution of their ideas? Or did it have better roads to service its business?

There is no question but that it can be a great help for a business to have the government bury it with subsidies, e.g. Solyndra. But if good teachers, roads, and government subsidies translate to success, Solyndra shouldn't be in bankruptcy.

When the Pilgrims came to America in 1620, there were no roads, schools and government subsidies. They set up their community under the model of the early Christians, as told in the Acts of the Apostles. They worked community farms, and all shared equally in the produce of the land. And they nearly starved to death. It was only after the Pilgrims were allowed to farm individual plots and to keep the produce of those plots, that the community prospered. And of course, some barely got by, while others grew prosperous.

For 70 years the U.S.S.R. was a communist society. The worker derived no benefit if he worked harder than his neighbor. The only people who prospered were top government officials. The citizenry lived in a dull, gray, functional government apartment buildings. After 70 years, the Soviet people had had enough.

And now, President Obama holds them up as a model for us. Not satisfied with equal opportunity (liberty) for all Americans, the president opts to emulate Marxist, communist, and socialist models, and incessantly calls for income redistribution and equality of outcome.

If good teachers are the key to success, why does one student prosper while the next goes to prison? Doesn't individual effort have something to do with success? Why does one student learn to read and play the violin, while the next remains illiterate and does drugs?

Why does one student become a doctor, while the guy at the next desk earns minimum wage all his life? Better roads? Bridges?

Perhaps President Obama thinks the way he does because of his own experience. Politicians only become president because others (media-moguls, money-men and voters) opt to push him to the top of the "greasy pole." But most successful business men do it on their own.

Posted Online:  July 31, 2012, 1:50 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea


 

Al Gore Concession Speech among American History's Finest

Whether or not you approve of the United Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, it effectively resolved the bitterly contested 2000 presidential election.

That being said, the lion's share of the credit for the peaceful transition must be accorded to Mr. Gore, himself. He chose to abide by the the Supreme Court ruling. Had he behaved differently, America could have experienced riots in all its major cities, and perhaps even civil war.

In a concession speech a day after the ruling, Mr. Gore told the American public:

"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States. ... I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we've just passed.

"Almost a century and a half ago, Sen. Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.' Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country. Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

"Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, 'Not under man but under God and law.' That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest, as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

"Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.

"And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends. ....

"This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.

"Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will. Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in a spirit of reconciliation.

"So let it be with us.

"I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country. ...

"The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome. Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

"President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities. I, personally, will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans -- I particularly urge all who stood with us -- to unite behind our next president.

"This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done. And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party; we will stand together behind our new president."

I regard Mr. Gore's concession speech as one of our nation's greatest speeches. It is eloquent both in what was said and in Mr. Gore's commitment to the rule of law. Imagine what he could have said. Envision him having said, "This election was stolen!" Or, "I will not abide a corrupt decision of a corrupt partisan court!" Imagine him demanding "a new election, with international monitors." Or calling for his supporters to "take to the streets to prevent obstruction of the will of the voters." Mr. Gore's speech saved our Republic from chaos and possible civil war.

But as dangerous as the 2000 situation was, imagine a future election scenario with the challenger eeking out the narrowest of wins, with the president calling the decision "a corrupt decision by a out-of-touch partisan court." Imagine further the president refusing to abide by the high court's decision, declaring himself the winner, and stationing troops in the streets to maintain his power. Such a thing has never happened in America, but it could in the future.

This is why Mr. Gore deserves to be greatly respected for what he said and did.

Posted Online: July 19, 2012, 3:19 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

AT WHAT POINT SHOULD A CHURCH ENTER THE POLITICAL THICKET?

   

    The Catholic Church has sued the Obama Administration. Bishop Daniel Jenky

of Peoria explains why:

    'We all know that our religious freedom is under direct attack as articulated

    in the federal government's Health and Human Services Mandate. ... “The

    mandate forces Catholic schools, universities, hospitals, and charitable groups

    to provide insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and
   
    sterilization. This is directly contrary to our Catholic mission and violates our

    religious freedom.''


    But if the Obama Administration is truly directly attacking the “religious freedom”

of Catholics and the Catholic Church, why isn’t the church calling upon its membership

to “dump” President Obama in the fall election. If killing fetuses is truly a grave moral wrong,

why “pussy foot.” Why merely suggest that Catholics should “vote their consciences?” Why not

come right out and call for the President’s defeat? I suggest there are two reason.

   
    Father Michael Schaab of St. Pius Parish in Rock Island gives the first reason:

    “People always are concerned and leery that the church doesn't get into

    situations in which it looks as if they're being told how to vote. But the Bishop

    has been clear that's not the intent,''


    But if the church really believes abortion is tantamount to murder, why isn’t that “the

intent?” What’s the purpose of having a church if it won’t forcefully speak out against

what it perceives to be the equivalent of murder?


    So why doesn’t the church come right out and say, “If you truly believe that

abortion is a grave moral wrong, you can’t vote for President Obama in the fall? Indeed,

prior to 1954 the Churches were not so circumspect.


    On the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website, you will find the following, which I

suspect is the real reason for the church “pulling its punches.”


    “In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to

     prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes ... churches, from engaging

    in any political campaign activity. [O]ver the years, it has in fact strengthened

     the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the

    language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing

    candidates.

    “Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity ...  churches by

    defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in,

    or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),

    any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate

    or public office."

    So, the question is this: Does the church have a realistic fear that if that if it descends into

the “political thicket,” that it will lose its tax exempt status? You decide. That same web site also

states

    “For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS received 237 referrals and

    selected 100 (44 churches, 56 nonchurches) for examination. More
   
    than half of these cases are still under investigation. However, the

    IRS did substantiate improper political activity in 26 cases and issued

    written advisories. So far, there are no revocation recommendations.



   But why does the IRS’s conduct not violate the First Amendment. That amendment

states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...”


    If a President raised a campaign war fund of a billion dollars with the promise he would

repeal the 13th Amendment and re-enslave all blacks, wouldn’t the churches, as a free exercise

of their religion and speech, have a right to denounce him and encourage the election of his

opponent? What if the President called for the extermination of all Jews, Catholics and Baptists,

or the suppression of all religions, wouldn’t the churches have the right to compare him to

Hitler and Stalin, and call upon their congregations to make sure he was not re-elected?


    There is a Constitutional reason that the churches are not taxed. Chief Justice John

Marshall long ago said “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” In 1970, in Walz v. Tax

Commissioner, Mr. Chief Justice Burger wrote

    “The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement

    nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. ...


    “Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an

    indirect economic benefit ..., but yet a lesser involvement than taxing them.


     The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between

    church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal

    relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce

    the desired separation insulating each from the other.”


    For the 2006 election cycle, the IRS investigated 100 churches, and found 26 violations.

It revoked no tax exemptions. Why? Because the IRS has to know that to do so would violate

First Amendment (free exercise of religion and free speech) rights, and would be

unconstitutional. No rule is better settled than that the First Amendment exists first and foremost

to guarantee political speech. Where true political speech is involved, “no law” means “no law.”


    In the much maligned (by liberals) 2009 case of Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm.

the court said bluntly:

        “We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of
   
         political speech, the Government may impose restrictions
   
        on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic
   
        lead us to this conclusion.”


  The “disfavored speakers” who brought the Citizens United case were corporations who wished

to use their “general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech

 (“electioneering communication”) ... expressly advocating the defeat of a candidate.” The Court

stated, “the Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.” Most

churches are corporations. And if under Citizens United, they can expend funds to advocate the

“election or defeat of a candidate, they certainly can engage in pure speech to advocate the

“defeat” of a candidate.


   But even if the churches would have to sacrifice their tax exemptions to condemn grave

moral wrongs, shouldn’t they do so?  If they fail to speak out in the face of who and what they

perceive to grave evil, who needs them?

Posted Online: July 17, 2012, 7:21 a. m.  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

   




  

Alexander Hamilton Wins: Congress Is All-powerful

"Congress may also 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.'" -- Article 1, U.S. Constitution

Chief Justice John Roberts and four liberal justice have written an opinion upholding Obamacare which conclusively demonstrates why the Constitution must be construed consistently with the intent of people who wrote it, but even more importantly, with the intent of the people of the 13 states who voted to adopt it in 1789.

The chief justice begins the majority opinion with a statement of law that nobody who has studied the Constitution could possibly disagree with:

"The Federal Government 'is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.' That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government's powers. ... The Constitution's express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the federal government 'can exercise only the powers granted to it.'"

From there, the chief justice, goes on to write an opinion that gives the U.S. government a power to tax so extensive, that had it been so explained by the "Federalists" to voters prior to its 1789 ratification, the people of the 13 states would have overwhelmingly voted against it.

Indeed, the opinion grants Congress an unlimited power to tax for the "general welfare" -- a power that no American in his right mind would have voted for in 1789.

Here are excepts from the opinion that show just what the five-judge majority said.

"The Government advances two theories that Congress had constitutional authority to enact the individual mandate. First, the Government argues that Congress had the power to enact the mandate under the Commerce Clause. Under that theory, Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce, and could undercut the Affordable Care Act's other reforms. Second, the Government argues that if the commerce power does not support the mandate, we should nonetheless uphold it as an exercise of Congress' power to tax."

The court did not sustain the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" under the power to "regulate commerce."

What it said in reference to the Commerce Clause, was dicta unnecessary to its ultimate holding, "The Constitution grants Congress the power to 'regulate Commerce.'

"... The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. "The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress's actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now."

The majority clearly held that under the Commerce Clause the Framers "gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it."

That much of the opinion was consistent with the the court's earlier statement that government 'is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers." But all that was unnecessary to the ultimate decision.

The five-judge majority rendered its decision relying on the "taxing power" to, in effect, "regulate commerce" to an extent not authorized by the "commerce power" itself:

"There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under 5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act.

"If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something."

So, if the intent of the Framers is important, why isn't the intent of the American people who voted to ratify the Constitution in 1789 even more important? Did they have any inkling in 1789 that in voting to ratify the constitution they were authorizing Congress to impose a tax for not doing something?

Under this holding, Congress has to tax you to "provide for the General Welfare:"

-- If you heat your home with natural gas, or if you don't heat your home with solar panels;

-- If you have children, or if you don't have children

-- If you have too many children or not enough children;

-- If you use contraceptives, or if you don't use contraceptives or if you use too many contraceptives, or not enough contraceptives;

-- If you have an abortion, or if you don't have an abortion;

-- If you eat broccoli, or if you don't eat broccoli.

-- If you are too fat, don't go on a diet

-- If you eat anything the government deems unhealthful;

-- If you breathe, inhale oxygen, or exhale CO2;

-- Or if you die.

Are these the powers Americans in 1789 intended to vest in Congress?

What is the point of creating a government of "enumerated powers," if, by use of the "taxing power," government power is unlimited."

Alexander Hamilton's theory of an unlimited "taxing power" as expressed in his "Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives" has been taken to the extreme by five justices.

The views of Madison, Jefferson, Calhoun and the American people who voted to ratify the Constitution have been relegated to the ash can.

I now see why the figure of justice is always seen wearing a blindfold: it is so she can't see the damage being done to the original intent of our Forefathers by judges writing the opinions.

Posted Online: July 05, 2012, 5:00 a.m. - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

Do Government Dollars Compromise Constitutional Rights?

  Recently, a liberal friend of mine wrote "the public is allowed to set rules ... through its elected representatives and those rules apply to all citizens." In America, that statement is only somewhat true.

Indeed, to insure that it never could be wholly true, our Founding Father adopted the Bill of Rights. But does the statement become true, if the citizen accepts money from the government?

In England, from the time of Henry VIII, often when a new monarch took the throne, the religion of the realm changed. Henry was Protestant. Mary was Catholic. Elizabeth I was Protestant. Charles I favored Catholics. Americans in 1789 wanted nothing to do with changing their religions every time the majority in Congress changed.

The First Amendment was designed to insure that religion was beyond the power of each new majority in Congress to "esRecently, a liberal friend of mine wrote "the public is allowed to set rules ... through its elected representatives and those rules apply to all citizens." In America, that statement is only somewhat true.

Our Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) exists for the primary purpose of putting certain rights that James Madison and his contemporaries deemed essential to a free America beyond the power of the majority and their elected representatives to change. Indeed, those amendments has always denied the federal government power to do any of the following:

-- Designate a "state religion," or specify how Americans should worship. Such a law would run afoul of the "establishment" and "free exercise of religion" clauses of the First Amendment.

-- Prohibit individuals or the press from criticizing the president, Congress or the Supreme Court. This would run afoul of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free press.

-- Abolish the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

-- Order the quartering of troops in private homes in time of peace, as prohibited by the Third Amendment;

-- Authorize the government to conduct indiscriminate searches and seizures in the absence of probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment.

-- Take property for public use without paying just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment;

-- Abolish the right to jury trial, and speedy and public trials in criminal prosecutions, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment

-- Impose cruel and unusual punishments as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Were my friend to give the matter further thought, I'm confident he would concede that the Bill of Rights prevents the majority from changing our rights therein guaranteed. Still, he would probably argue that, "If the church accepts money (from the government) for its quasi-public activities, it must follow whatever rules the elected representatives of the public choose to apply to all citizens."

I think that statement is equally overly broad. By "quasi-public activity," he no doubt means universities, hospitals, and charities that provide adoption services. But hasn't the church for 1,000 years, and for centuries before our Constitution was adopted, considered these as part of its religious mission to love our fellow men and to teach all nations?

So does a church forfeit its First Amendment rights if the church accepts money? If so, how much money may it accept before it surrenders its rights? -- that is, before it must "follow whatever rules the elected representatives of the public choose to apply to all citizens?"

If the University of Notre Dame accepts a nickel from the U.S. government, must it provide to its employees and students insurance that provides coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients?

What if it accepts payments of tuition under a federal loan? What if it accepts tuition for ROTC students paid by the U.S. Navy? What if the university and the state share the cost of construction of a new road to alleviate traffic congestion on football Saturdays? What if it accepts the benefit of having its property tax exempt?

If any of these things result in forfeiture of rights, Notre Dame should have lost its First Amendment rights long ago. That First Amendment provides "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Note there is nothing in the amendment, stating "except if the church accepts money for its quasi-public activities."

By accepting Social Security benefits or a state pension, have I forfeited my right to the "free exercise" of my religion? To free speech? If I don't, why would the church, absent a clear warning that that was the consequence?

There is no question that the government must have the right to legislate to protect the public. But when that power impacts upon the free exercise of religion, that power must be used delicately. That is the rule stated in the U. S. Supreme Court case of Cantwell v Connecticut (1940): "In every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom."

Congress' power to protect the public from cannibalism would certainly trump a church's practice of cannibalism.

A president's desire to make contraception and abortion widely available would seemingly permit far less infringement.

Of course, when it comes to money, Congress can always offer a church a choice:

You can take our money, or refuse it. If you take it, these are the strings!

Posted Online:  June 19, 2012, 2:31 p.m - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

While President's Fiddled, Social Security System Burned

The Roman Emperor, Nero, is reputed to have “fiddled while Rome burned.” Historians may well say something similar of Presidents Bush and Obama.    

 

On May 3, 2001, President Bush called for Social Security reforms. He appointed a 16- man commission (8 Republicans and 8 Democrats) to make to recommendations to insure the solvency of the System. 

 

Though the committee was to be co-chaired by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY. Ret’d), President Bush was instantly assailed for creating a “commission with a "skewed mandate and one-sided membership." In the face of intense vitriolic Democratic criticism, 

 

President Bush “punted.” His successor, rather then fielding the “punt” has not even taken the field. 

 

President Obama, rather than acting to fix Social Security and Medicare, has devoted 

his energies to creating a third huge entitlement: “Obamacare.”

 

In April of 2012, the Trustees issued their 2012 ANNUAL REPORT ... OF THE 

FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY

INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS. To understand the report, you first need to understand 

how Social Security is set up. 

 

 

Social Security has two trust funds:

(1) Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (“OASI.”). This program pays monthly benefits to retired workers, their families, and survivors of deceased workers.

 

(2) Disability Insurance (“DI.”). This program pays monthly benefits to disabled workers and their families.

                        

The two components when taken together are referred to as “OASDI,” or Old-age, 

Survivors and Disability Insurance. 

 

At the end of 2011, the OASDI program was providing benefits to about 55 million people: 

• 38 million retired workers and dependents of retired workers.

• 6 million survivors of deceased workers. 

•11 million disabled workers and dependents of disabled workers.

Total expenditures in 2011 were $736 billion.

Total income in 2011 was $805 billion:

• $691 billion in non-interest income (payroll taxes + general fund transfers). 

• $114 billion in interest earnings.

Social Security also holds assets of $2.7 trillion in special issue U. S. Treasury securities (IOUs). Even if Social Security had no income, those assets would be sufficient to cover current expenditures ($736 billion per year) for just under 4 years. 

            

The 2011 expenditures of $736 billion exceed the non-interest income of $691 billion by $45 billion. That shortfall was occasioned by President Obama’s  “Payroll Tax Holiday” --even though payroll tax reduction law required the General Fund “replicate” the lost payroll taxes - “to the extent possible.”  That “replication” was $45 billion short. 

 

The  trustees report runs 247 pages, with many appendices. Here are key excerpts from TABLE VI.F7 -- Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, in CPI - indexed 2012 Dollars (in Billions), Calendar years 2012 -2090.

 

Intermediate Cost Estimates:

Calendar year           Total Income             Cost                Assets at End of Year

2012                           $846.0                        $788.7            $2,735.2

2016                           $952.8                        $910.2            $2,678.2

2021                           $1,082.5                    $1,088.9        $2,463.4

2025                           $1,146.3                    $1,250.6        $1.950.3

2030                           $1,174.8                    $1,442.7        $724.4

 

Under the Intermediate Cost Estimates the combined fund assets are exhausted in 2033.

 

 

High Cost Estimates:

 

Calendar year           Total Income             Cost                Assets at End of Year

2012                           $837.6                        $791.4            $2,724.1

2016                           $880.7                        $917.4            $2,367.1

2021                           $959.5                        $1,100.1        $1,556.8

2025                           $958.9                        $1,249.2        $460.4

            

Under the High Cost Estimates the combined fund assets are exhausted in 2027.

            

“Total Income” has two components: Non-interest Income and Interest Income. Non-interest income consists of payroll tax contributions, income from taxation of benefits, and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury, if any.

            

“Cost” consists of benefit payments, administrative expenses, financial interchange with the Railroad Retirement program, and payments for vocational rehabilitation services for disabled beneficiaries.

            

To make an estimate - high, intermediate or low - the trustees make numerous actuarial assumptions. Those include, assumptions about levels of fertility, changes in mortality, legal and other immigration levels, changes in the Consumer Price Index, changes in average real wages, unemployment rates, trust fund real yield rates, and disability incidence and recovery rates. 

 

Bluntly, estimating income that will come into the Social Security System 5, 10 and 15 years down the road is at best an “educated guess.” The same can be said of estimating costs, including the benefit payments, that the system will incur down the road. 

 

But one thing is very clear: when the economy is in recession and people don’t have jobs, payroll tax collections will also be down, which means lower income for the System. A longer than anticipated recession means Social Security assets are depleted sooner. 

 

Private businesses generally estimate revenues (or income) conservatively, while 

they generally tend to overestimate costs (or expenses). If the history of our Federal 

and State governments tends to show anything, it’s that the government does things 

backwards. Government tends to overestimate revenues, and underestimate costs. 

 

Look what the Congressional Budget Office is now telling us about Obamacare.  For 

that reason, the trustees’ High Cost Estimate may not be high enough. 

 

By the way, this report was not prepared by Republicans hacks.  The Social Security Act established a Board of six Trustees.  At least three are Democrats: Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor.

 

It must be noted that the fact that the fund’s assets will be exhausted either in 2027 or 2033 doesn’t mean Social Security will quit paying altogether. But if costs exceed total income by, say, 25%, then benefits will have to be reduced by 25% — unless total income is somehow increased, or the the eligibility age is raised. 

 

Procrastination will not make the fix any easier

 

 

 

First Published in the Moline Dispatch, June 13, 2012.

Copyright 2008, John Donald O'Shea

Posted Online:  June 19, 2012, 2:31 p.m - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea 

Be Careful Whose 'Corporate' Constitutional Rights You Abolish!

Congressman James McGovern, D-Mass, recently introduced a proposed 28th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution -- "The People Rights Amendment. "

This amendment (or as I see it, this piece of abject stupidity) according to Rep. McGovern, "marks a major breakthrough in the growing movement across the country to end corporate personhood and restore democracy to the people."

He argues, "Corporations are not people ... they are artificial entities." His amendment would strip corporations of all Constitutional rights and protections.

McGovern was joined in introducing the amendment by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., 26 other Democrats and one Republican. For Rep. Pelosi, this appears to be one more case of "we have to pass the .... bill so that you can find out what's in it."

Rep. McGovern (born 1959) represents Massachusetts' 3rd Congressional District. He has served since 1997. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has been ranked as one of the most liberal members of Congress. His proposed Amendment shows why.

Fortunately, unlike the health care bill, this abomination is only a half page long. Here it is:

"Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

"Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

"Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.''

McGovern's stated purpose in proposing his amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizen's United case, which held that corporations (and labor union) -- like individuals -- have a First Amendment right to free speech.

Since 1791, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech or the press."

In the Citizen United case the Supreme Court read "no law" to mean "no law." Note that the First Amendment doesn't read, "Except in the case of corporations, Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech or the press." But McGovern's Amendment goes beyond that "minor" alteration.

Upon passage of the amendment, "the rights protected by this Constitution (will only) be the rights of natural persons." That would "not include corporations."

So, what corporations would be stripped of the Constitutions Rights?

All of them! General Motors, Deere & Co., Bank of American, Blackhawk Bank and Trust, CNN, Fox News, WHBF-TV, KWQC-TV, WQAD-TV, The Dispatch/Argus, Project Now, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, The ARC of Rock Island County, Bethany Home, the Catholic Church, any other incorporated church, the cities of Rock Island and Moline, Rock Island County, Key Auto Mall, Courtesy Ford, the Quad City Music Guild, Playcrafters Barn Theatre, the Col. Davenport Historical Foundation, The Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Moline High School, etc., etc., etc.

Every corporation -- large or small -- throughout the U.S.!

And if you read carefully, you will quickly see that it would not just abolish a corporation's right of free speech. This amendment would rob every corporation in the land of all their constitutional rights!

It would strip corporations of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process and fair, speedy and public trial, the rights to be able to know the charge, to confront accusers, and to cross examine accusers, as well as the 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

Indeed, Corporations would have no right to just compensation if their property were to be taken for public use. Corporations would no longer be protected from ex post facto laws. Additionally if you are a corporate news organization, you would no longer have freedom of the press. If you are a church corporation, you would no longer have freedom of religion.

And note, the proposed Amendment makes no distinction between business corporation, advocacy corporations, ecclesiastical corporations, or newspaper corporations.

Under this Amendment, the government could shut down any corporate speech or press it did not like. This would include speech by NBC,CNN, Fox News Mediacom or any corporate internet provider. Nor would they, or this newspaper any longer enjoy freedom of the press!

Posted Online:  Posted Online: June 04, 2012, 3:07 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2012, John Donald O'Shea